Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 
6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571


  Reply # 517206 5-Sep-2011 22:59
Send private message

  He was incredibly well thought of, .


So was Bernie Madoff, but he's still alive so no sympathy for him.



17937 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5169

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 517210 5-Sep-2011 23:02
Send private message

Where is the evidence that BM was well thought of?

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571


  Reply # 517220 5-Sep-2011 23:27
Send private message

networkn: Where is the evidence that BM was well thought of?


he was a prominent philanthropisthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff#Philanthropy_and_other_activities


Madoff was a prominent philanthropist,[19][110] who served on boards of nonprofit institutions—many of which entrusted his firm with their endowments.[19][110] The collapse and freeze of his personal assets and those of his firm affected businesses, charities, and foundations around the world, including the Chais Family Foundation,[130] the Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation, the Picower Foundation, and the JEHT Foundation which were forced to close.[19][131] Madoff donated approximately $6 million to lymphoma research after his son Andrew was diagnosed with the disease.[132] He and his wife gave over $230,000 to political causes since 1991, with the bulk going to the Democratic Party.[133]

Madoff served as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Sy Syms School of Business at Yeshiva University, and as Treasurer of its Board of Trustees.[110] He resigned his position at Yeshiva University after his arrest.[131] Madoff also served on the Board of New York City Center, a member of New York City's Cultural Institutions Group (CIG).[134] He served on the executive council of the Wall Street division of the UJA Foundation of New York which declined to invest funds with him because of the conflict of interest.[135]
Madoff undertook charity work for the Gift of Life Bone Marrow Foundation and made philanthropic gifts through The Madoff Family Foundation, a $19 million private foundation, which he managed along with his wife.[19] They donated money to hospitals and theaters.[110] The foundation has also contributed to many educational, cultural, and health charities, including those later forced to close because of Madoff's fraud.[136] After Madoff's arrest, the assets of the Madoff Family Foundation were frozen by a federal court




plus all the people who thought he was making them lots of money thought he was pretty awesome.... right up until the time they realised he was defrauding them and using their money for his own purposes, some of which was philanthropy.  (see a theme emerging here?)


2833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 479


  Reply # 517294 6-Sep-2011 09:09
Send private message

wreck90:
Whether he is a great New Zealander is highly debatable. 

The tax payer bailout of his company is about 1 billion dollars? This is roughly $500 for every tax payer in NZ. That's what I will remember.  I could have put that money into my childrens education fund. 

I concede he was a better character than some of the other finance company bosses who ensured their own pockets were lined before their unsustainable businesses failed. 

A very sad end to a life in many ways. 

 


One fact many over look is that South Canterbury Finance only became unstable and requiring a bailout AFTER the SFO became involved and the statutory management was in place.  Any well run finance company requires new on going deposits to replace those deposits that are maturing and being redeemed.

It would appear that the SFO involvement happened under dubious circumstances, and with the stigma that goes with SFO involvement it is very hard for any company to be able to continue business in a normal fashion.  This is when the investors in South Canterbury Finance lost their money and the bailout was required.  I read yesterday that some investors are planning to sue the Government for the way this whole sorry SFO action has been handled.

While I understand the concerns expressed about the level of the bailout, I don't think it's right or fair to malign Allan Hubbard for this, the finger needs to be pointed elsewhere.




Sony Xperia X running Sailfish
Jolla C
Nokia N1
Dell Inspiron 14z i5




17937 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5169

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 517306 6-Sep-2011 09:26
Send private message

I agree, there are a lot of facts either not reported or not put together in a meaningful way.

I honestly don't feel the guy did anything intentionally wrong, I believe he was guilty of not sticking with the times and stepping down completely earlier, but the suggestions he intentionally stole from people are not accurate.

One of the least impressive things I have seen out of National in it's tenure.


6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571


  Reply # 517307 6-Sep-2011 09:27
Send private message

Technofreak:
wreck90:
Whether he is a great New Zealander is highly debatable. 

The tax payer bailout of his company is about 1 billion dollars? This is roughly $500 for every tax payer in NZ. That's what I will remember.  I could have put that money into my childrens education fund. 

I concede he was a better character than some of the other finance company bosses who ensured their own pockets were lined before their unsustainable businesses failed. 

A very sad end to a life in many ways. 

 


One fact many over look is that South Canterbury Finance only became unstable and requiring a bailout AFTER the SFO became involved and the statutory management was in place.  Any well run finance company requires new on going deposits to replace those deposits that are maturing and being redeemed.



Using deposits to pay returns to previous investors sounds like the very definition of a ponzi scheme.



17937 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5169

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

2833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 479


  Reply # 517315 6-Sep-2011 09:34
Send private message

networkn: I agree, there are a lot of facts either not reported or not put together in a meaningful way.

I honestly don't feel the guy did anything intentionally wrong, I believe he was guilty of not sticking with the times and stepping down completely earlier, but the suggestions he intentionally stole from people are not accurate.

One of the least impressive things I have seen out of National in it's tenure.



Also perhaps for using out dated methods for keeping track of investments.  To a younger person used to computer software programmes his methods probably didn't seem kosher.

I cannot help but wonder that the Minister and the Government were hoodwinked about the whole thing right at the start by someone who was on "a mission".  Now it's a bit hard to back out gracefully, shades of Yes Minister.




Sony Xperia X running Sailfish
Jolla C
Nokia N1
Dell Inspiron 14z i5


1710 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 169

Trusted

  Reply # 517316 6-Sep-2011 09:36
Send private message

Technofreak:
wreck90:
Whether he is a great New Zealander is highly debatable. 

The tax payer bailout of his company is about 1 billion dollars? This is roughly $500 for every tax payer in NZ. That's what I will remember.  I could have put that money into my childrens education fund. 

I concede he was a better character than some of the other finance company bosses who ensured their own pockets were lined before their unsustainable businesses failed. 

A very sad end to a life in many ways. 

 


One fact many over look is that South Canterbury Finance only became unstable and requiring a bailout AFTER the SFO became involved and the statutory management was in place.  Any well run finance company requires new on going deposits to replace those deposits that are maturing and being redeemed.

It would appear that the SFO involvement happened under dubious circumstances, and with the stigma that goes with SFO involvement it is very hard for any company to be able to continue business in a normal fashion.  This is when the investors in South Canterbury Finance lost their money and the bailout was required.  I read yesterday that some investors are planning to sue the Government for the way this whole sorry SFO action has been handled.

While I understand the concerns expressed about the level of the bailout, I don't think it's right or fair to malign Allan Hubbard for this, the finger needs to be pointed elsewhere.


That is so not true!!

I live in mid-canterbury and for the few years leading up to the SFO becoming involved Alan Hubbard and SCF were constantly trying to raise money to rejig or refinance existing loans!!! The whole thing fell apart some months prior to the SFO becoming involved when a large American investor wanted their funds back out of one of the dodgy loans/schemes that SCF was running and Hubbard couldn't raise the money elsewhere to cover it all. That was the first card in the house to fall!! That was all well BEFORE the SFO's involvement.

But my understanding from peoples local knowledge of his dealings (and what was printed in out local papers) was that he had a habit in investing in highly marginal ventures, which luckily for him often paid off, but then his luck ran out.


2833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 479


  Reply # 517318 6-Sep-2011 09:37
Send private message

NonprayingMantis:
Technofreak:
wreck90:
Whether he is a great New Zealander is highly debatable. 

The tax payer bailout of his company is about 1 billion dollars? This is roughly $500 for every tax payer in NZ. That's what I will remember.  I could have put that money into my childrens education fund. 

I concede he was a better character than some of the other finance company bosses who ensured their own pockets were lined before their unsustainable businesses failed. 

A very sad end to a life in many ways. 

 


One fact many over look is that South Canterbury Finance only became unstable and requiring a bailout AFTER the SFO became involved and the statutory management was in place.  Any well run finance company requires new on going deposits to replace those deposits that are maturing and being redeemed.



Using deposits to pay returns to previous investors sounds like the very definition of a ponzi scheme.


I don't think you know what you're talking about here. I suggest that you check out any financial organisation to see how they do business.




Sony Xperia X running Sailfish
Jolla C
Nokia N1
Dell Inspiron 14z i5




17937 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5169

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 517320 6-Sep-2011 09:38
Send private message

techno: yes I agree with that as well (both counts).

He would possibly have been found guilty of a much lesser charge of failing to take due care or something, no prison time, no criminal conviction.

The Hubbards would have every reason to feel bitter of their treatment.

I suspect they were made an example of.

780 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user


  Reply # 517321 6-Sep-2011 09:44
Send private message

Technofreak:
One fact many over look is that South Canterbury Finance only became unstable and requiring a bailout AFTER the SFO became involved and the statutory management was in place.  Any well run finance company requires new on going deposits to replace those deposits that are maturing and being redeemed.


It is a Hubbard supporter myth that it was the government caused SFC to fail. SFC could still have managed a fairly orderly exit had investors stopped investing and the loan book was of good quality.

SFC failed because too many businesses they were lending to were defaulting on repayments.  No need to list them, there were so many. But, one example,  lending to bars in Auckland was crazy--that , did not seem to be the Hubbard way. 

I wonder, how much pressure was put on Hubbard by those around him?   

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571


  Reply # 517339 6-Sep-2011 10:02
Send private message

Technofreak:
NonprayingMantis:
Technofreak:
wreck90:
Whether he is a great New Zealander is highly debatable. 

The tax payer bailout of his company is about 1 billion dollars? This is roughly $500 for every tax payer in NZ. That's what I will remember.  I could have put that money into my childrens education fund. 

I concede he was a better character than some of the other finance company bosses who ensured their own pockets were lined before their unsustainable businesses failed. 

A very sad end to a life in many ways. 

 


One fact many over look is that South Canterbury Finance only became unstable and requiring a bailout AFTER the SFO became involved and the statutory management was in place.  Any well run finance company requires new on going deposits to replace those deposits that are maturing and being redeemed.



Using deposits to pay returns to previous investors sounds like the very definition of a ponzi scheme.


I don't think you know what you're talking about here. I suggest that you check out any financial organisation to see how they do business.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors."

2833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 479


  Reply # 517785 6-Sep-2011 21:35
Send private message

I don't see how you can call South Canterbury Finance a Ponzi scheme. The money was lent to SCF this money was then lent by SCF to businesses requiring finance. The profits from these loan transactions was used to pay interest to the investors in SCF. If this is a Ponzi scheme then all of our banks are into Ponzi schemes.

I didn't say newly invested money was being used to payout other investors.

Any financier needs a pool of money to loan out. There are investers redeeming their investments some times reinvesting sometimes not, and there are new investors coming in. This is what I was referring to with money coming in and going out. This is a perfectly normal process and nothing to do with a Ponzi scheme.

As for financiers falling on hard times, didn't our very own BNZ require a goverment bailout a few years ago? I suspect there was more to investigate with the BNZ than there is with SCF. I don't recall any SFO investigations with the BNZ bailout.




Sony Xperia X running Sailfish
Jolla C
Nokia N1
Dell Inspiron 14z i5


1 | 2 
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.