Hard News: Meaning well with the money of others
195 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
And the applicable Scientists are?
Here is a list...
We can't use these...
Statistician, not a science.
Economist, not a science.
Feel free to expand this list. -
Statistician, not a science.
Since when is statistics not a science?
-
And the applicable Scientists are?
Here is a list...
We can't use these...
Statistician, not a science.
Economist, not a science.
Feel free to expand this list.There is science to everything
-
Stats are great, those pioneering statisticians are the Hendrixes of maths.
-
If there's one good thing to come out of this financial mess, it's a potential shift away from the speculation economy that has effectively cartellised NZ's housing market, and possibly even the affluenza pandemic.
-
3410,
Congratulations, everyone. You all just gave $150 each to SCF investors.
Govt pays $1.7bn to Sth Canterbury Finance
The Government this morning paid out $1.7 billion to cover investor losses - about $150 million more than it was required to - as New Zealand's largest locally owned finance company South Canterbury Finance was placed in receivership.
...While the Government has paid out $1.7 billion this morning its net loss after the company's assets are sold are likely to be about $600 million Prime Minister John Key said yesterday.
-
Thank fuck. I thought we were being lined up to gift several hundred dollars a head to farmers, property spivs and an overseas billionaire.
Instead we're gifting several hundred dollars a head to gamblers too stupid to understand that high interest = high risk. Its no different from guaranteeing people's TAB losses.
-
3410,
Instead we're gifting several hundred dollars a head to gamblers too stupid to understand that high interest = high risk.
Except that in this case, apparently high interest = no risk at all.
-
Except that in this case, apparently high interest = no risk at all.
Indeed. The RDGS turns risky financial investments into a one-way bet.
-
The RDGS turns risky financial investments into a one-way bet.
It'd be interesting to know what advice the government has recieved from Treasury regarding the RDGS, and SCFs eligibilty for it. I suspect they've been too busy urging the government to sell KiwiBank to pay it much attention.
-
Yes, there is science to everything and what is a science and what isn't can be quite confusing. Take a peek at Nash's game theory as applied to economics and I will show you how close to custard science can get.
-
Instead we're gifting several hundred dollars a head to gamblers too stupid to understand that high interest = high risk.
That's not quite true - we also gave money to people who invested in SCF after the guarantee came into place, knowing that they had nothing to lose.
Bastards.
-
In the US after the '29 crash and the great depression Roosevelt passed a bunch of laws limiting what banks and other financial could do, at the same time providing limited deposit insurance - ever since Reagan, and on through the various Bushes (and even Clinton) US financial institutions have chipped away at those laws - the result is the currently world economic instability
We should do what Roosevelt did - create a safe, stable corner of the financial marketplace to build our economy on - require companies that want to step outside that space to be overly public about their intentions and the risks involved but not ban them (because having people take those risks and getting the associated returns is valuable).
What we shouldn't do is deregulate our financial system to be more competitive on world markets if the companies we're trying to compete with are those same ones that keep going belly up - great for people make short term investments but not good for the sorts of long term investments that help grow economies
-
As, no doubt, you have all seen
"Now the receivers and liquidators can get under the hood of the South Canterbury empire and work out what Allan Hubbard was really up to."
It is not what he was up to that is the problem, the problem is that it was allowed to happen at all, where is the oversight?.
Now we should just flick off the bad debt to Australian Banks and roll the rest up into KiwiBank. KiwiSaver and the "Cullen Fund". Now is the wrong time to play market speculators, which is what I bet JK & English are gagging to do. Maybe that could cut our overseas borrowing to an acceptable level. -
3410,
The RDGS turns risky financial investments into a one-way bet.
I'm certainly no financial expert, but it strikes me that the scheme, far from encouraging stability in the sector, actually encourages only the appearance of stability, and in fact at the cost of some actual stability.
Any word yet on who's to blame for allowing SCF into the scheme in the first place? It's looking more and more that they had no business being accepted for cover.
Bastards.
Careful. That's "mum and dad investors"™ you're talking about. ;)
-
We should do what Roosevelt did - create a safe, stable corner of the financial marketplace to build our economy on - require companies that want to step outside that space to be overly public about their intentions and the risks involved but not ban them (because having people take those risks and getting the associated returns is valuable).
First I must apologise to Steve for not having taken all the degrees on offer at University. Roosevelt saw the economy as a means of accumulating steady community wealth not a rat race.
Why? Because he was a lovely guy? Or he saw how best to run such a wild machine.
-
The Government this morning paid out $1.7 billion to cover investor losses - about $150 million more than it was required to
Anyone know more about that last bit?
-
I use to love the hanover tv ads when they likened themselves to a 40 year old shed, like a 40 year old shed was anything to give a fuck about.
-
First I must apologise to Steve for not having taken all the degrees on offer at University.
Accepted, slacker.
;-) -
3410,
about $150 million more than it was required to
Anyone know more about that last bit?
This, I think (from Stuff):
* The Crown has made a loan to the reciever of $175 million, which allows it to repay all of South Canterbury Finance's prior ranking debts. Once this transaction is completed it will put the Crown in a position of control, as the first-ranked creditor in the receivership, so we can ensure an orderly and well-managed receivership process.
Though why you'd want to lend $175m to an institution that is already $600m underwater is beyond me.
-
Any word yet on who's to blame for allowing SCF into the scheme in the first place? It's looking more and more that they had no business being accepted for cover.
Michael Cullen. We should all send him the bill.
-
Wasn't the deposit scheme financed partly by a levy on financial institutions and banks?
Yes. The government has collected $74 million, and has budgeted to pay out $900 million (it's government maths! Like normal maths, but different!). So, we are paying for this. Not the banks, but ordinary taxpayers.
-
3410,
Michael Cullen
Well, yeah, there is that. But I mean specifically SCF. Can we sue a ratings agency or something?
-
Michael Cullen. We should all send him the bill.
And you declared him an "arsehole" on Twitter today for his troubles.
It would perhaps be more sensible to put away the bad words for once and take a break from pointlessly personalising the issue.
It wasn't just "Michael Cullen" -- the scheme had cross-party support because there was a real risk of a ruinous loss of confidence in the banking system.
Most developed economies did something similar -- and, indeed, Cullen had to hurry up and make his announcement because the Australian government wanted to announce its scheme as soon as possible.
You can certainly ask whether SCF should have been covered, but there was little or no complaint at the time. It's easy to complain about moral hazard after the fact, as the Tea Partiers have endlessly demonstrated in the US, but there was great potential risk to the economy at the time the decision was made.
-
the scheme had cross-party support because there was a real risk of a ruinous loss of confidence in the banking system.
Given the global context, I doubt the response would have been any different no matter who was in government - and didn't they explicitly work together on it anyway?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.