Posts by ScottY
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Craig, it's simple. Everything (yes, including the earthquake) is National's fault.
Maybe you need a sturdier desk. Could come in handy to hide under when Bill English causes the next quake.
-
If tickets are in demand, I now have a spare.
As do I. I RSVP'd for two, but the other person ended up getting their own ticket. Communication breakdown.
If anyone wants the other place let me know. Or, Russell, if you want to cancel my +1 and give it to someone else, that's fine too.
-
You have to be careful about the "first ranking" claims often made by finance companies. If you read the fine print you often find first ranking secured deposits are in fact unsecured.
Another thing to look at is the board. If the board is stacked with representatives of the biggest shareholders and lacks independent directors, it may be safer to avoid it.
Most importantly, avoid any business venture promoted by a past or present All Black.
EDIT: Thus comment made sense before Andrew C amended his last comment to delete the list of factors to look for in a company.
-
are there any finance companies that would be worth investing in?
Forget finance companies. Invest in Allied Farmers shares. If I were you I’d invest every cent into that company. In fact, I’d borrow heavily to invest in Allied Farmers.
When the share price is that low, things can only go up, right?
-
The $250 million odd paid by institutions under the scheme is similar to the fiigures I've seen mentioned. I'm not sure what the exact amount currently is.
The $900-odd million is not money they've made from the scheme, but money they've set aside in the accounts to cover liabilities under the scheme. They had already been expecting some liability, so had made an allowance for it in the books some time ago.
-
I would very much like to hear more about the managers who gorged on risky loans after SCF received coverage under the scheme. Who were these people?
I believe the lending practices encouraged by the former CEO, Lachie McLeod, may now be under scrutiny.
-
We're really talking about welfare for National voters here, aren't we.
Yes, I'm sure that's exactly what Mr Cullen's plan was when he set the deposit scheme up.
-
I'm not sure we can blame Government for the fact a big payout is required under the guarantee scheme. Had the scheme excluded finance companies, as some have suggested, it may have led to a number of institutions collapsing overnight as people tried to get their money out. Sure, some of these (including SCF) have collapsed anyway, but it would have been pretty hairy for our economy had they all folded at once.
If we're going to blame politicians, then let's ask them why it has taken decades for us to even begin to talk about proper regulatory oversight of our capital markets. Maybe if our leaders hadn't been quite so obsessed with deregulation we might have seen a better a better organisation and co-ordination of regulatory authorities to catch out some of these rip-off companies and shysters. Some more sensible disclosure rules would also help, so investors get information that actually informs them.
And the sports stars and celebrities who endorsed these failed companies ought to be tarred and feathered...
-
Another difference between ACT and the Greens is that, if you belong to a party that cherishes the natural environment we live in, you’re probably going to actually care about other organisms.
The libertarian emphasis within ACT on the rights of the individual, on the other hand, seems more like a cult of selfishness.
-
Craig, I agree. I haven't read a kind thing anywhere in the press about ACT's handling of the media on this.