Posts by Andrew C

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First

  • Hard News: Meaning well with the money…,

    Well, that doesn't count. But is there something inherently wrong with the business model that finance companies adhere to?

    Again, I'm not personally interested, I'm just wondering if this can be done right?

    I would be interested to hear ideas around what to look for also.

    Brian Gaynor said this morn that he doesn't believe the industry is dead, just that it will stop looking for its finances from Mum and Dad investors.

    Auckland • Since May 2008 • 169 posts Report

  • Hard News: Meaning well with the money…,

    Are there any good ones? And how would I be able to tell if they are any good?

    Well, there are many still covered by the govt guarantee, so from a purely financial perspective you can easily find safe havens for your $$

    Auckland • Since May 2008 • 169 posts Report

  • Hard News: Meaning well with the money…,

    Some late replies to earlier entries

    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?

    Recently a firm called Torchlite had arranged the injection of some capital into SCF to keep it going, but as a condition it required first dibs on up to ~175m before any other claims could be made [fairly normal when you are a risky enterprise asking to be propped up].

    The concern was that Torchlite, as the priority creditor, could force the firesale of assets at bargain basement prices simply to recover enough to get its monies owed - as long as it got 175m it wouldnt care how much value it was throwing away.

    Clearing them out of the way tidies things up and improves our chances of extracting maximum value from the assets.


    Mixing some threads:

    This debacle also shows what a dumb idea it was to extend the RDGS to finance companies. It is one thing to protect customers, who are innocent third parties. It is quite another to protect investors. What next? The government will guarantee people against gambling losses?
    ...
    The idea was to prevent a run on the Finance Companies, followed by a tidal wave of collapses and then foreclosures and forced sales across the country as they all went under at once. So it worked pretty well in that respect.
    ...
    With the proviso that we'll never know whether it would in fact have happened, yes.

    Some numbers. When Lehman Brothers was allowed to collapse in the USA it was the trigger for the biggest shitstorm financial disaster seen in the world since the Great Depression. Lehman Bros represented 0.5% of US GDP.

    SCF represents 0.8% of NZ GDP. So we were definitely in the same ballpark of figures that have a recent precedent for financial major epic fail.

    We now have SCF collapsing in a fairly orderly and tidy fashion. While not having any collapses would have been the ideal outcome, avoiding a catestrophic meltdown which reverberated across all sectors was the next best thing. The USA has had wealth destroyed many many times over and above the face value of the collapsed investments themselves, the DGS is (hopefully) acting as baffels in the way of similar shockwaves.

    Auckland • Since May 2008 • 169 posts Report

  • Hard News: The big #spill,

    Gutted I missed the Maori game, trawled some of the rugby newsgroups and Twitter later in the evening and realised I'd missed a classic.

    Hunt down the haka, it was totally aws! At one stage during it the maoris suddenly marched forward 3-4 paces in unison, tv camera was perfectly lined up in front at ground level showing what the English would see. Freekin terrifying..

    Auckland • Since May 2008 • 169 posts Report

  • Hard News: The Disingenuous Press,

    Read somewhere, he is off to Metro. or I am completely wrong. :)

    You are correct

    Plunket confirmed at the weekend that he had reached an agreement with RNZ and his first political column would appear in next month's Metro magazine, the Herald on Sunday reported.

    Auckland • Since May 2008 • 169 posts Report

  • Hard News: The Disingenuous Press,

    In the end, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

    There was a guy at my old work who bought his lunch from a cafe whenever he was in the office. Whenever he was out of the office doing work, he bought his lunch from a cafe but charged it to the company.

    This always rankled with me, being in or out of the office made no difference to what his lunch was, it would always be a bought from cafe fare. It was not like he would like it to have been homemade soups but was unable to do so as he was out of the office.

    And, as you can guess, over time the number of 'company' charged lunches increased until they were regularly from the cafes at the bottom of our office tower, which is where he would buy his lunches when working in the office.

    Both the above were not OK to me. And both seem to be applicable in Len Brown's case based on what I have seen/heard so far (early days of the data/info/bullshit extraction so far of course).

    Auckland • Since May 2008 • 169 posts Report

  • Hard News: The Disingenuous Press,

    this time, swallowing whole the contention from right-wing opponents (but one left-wing Councillor agrees so that's OK then) that the Mayor is gypping Manukau's impoverished ratepayers by claiming sub-$20 cafe meals as expenses - including many at the nearest cafe to his Council building.

    On National this morning Len Brown confirmed that he does do this, and basically that he feels it is OK for rate payers to pay for his lunch if he is out and about doing mayor-type stuff.

    I dont agree that this is OK.

    This was distinct from paying for food/coffee when at, say, a lunch meeting or similar.

    Auckland • Since May 2008 • 169 posts Report

  • Hard News: Everyone's a critic,

    I've had several incredibly good meals at The Engine Room.

    Ive never quite understood if its me or if we've always just had bad luck in our dish selection there. Despite all the props that place gets I have not once had a meal there that lived up to its reputation.*

    Then again, perhaps it is just me - to approxi-quote Peter Calder in his review of the place "it must be good as they can cook a steak nearly as good as I can".

    *exception: the choc donut desert, a sundae glass filled with small fresh choc donuts that you proceed to pour hot chocolate sauce with cream over.

    Auckland • Since May 2008 • 169 posts Report

  • Hard News: Everyone's a critic,

    I suppose I might as well say that the restaurant I had a harsh tweet for was Clooney,

    Had a similar experience there Russell, and after questioning pals later they too had had similar outcomes. Looks like they have trouble handling the volumes they get.

    Enjoy the Grove, it definitely makes it into our list of top restaurants we have eaten at. If you have the time and budget their degestation is worth consideration. Quick tip: in our experience their wine suggestions seem to lean towards whatever it is they happen to have open... I would suggest asking for a taster first, which they are quite happy to do, before accepting their recommendation.

    Auckland • Since May 2008 • 169 posts Report

  • Cracker: "It says 'Let's b friends', and…,

    I also note that Mikey's tardiness has had an effect on others on the b. John Key doesn't show up at all sometimes for his weekly update. ;)

    Yes, the irony of Mikey getting wound up by others not being punctual burned soooo bad. He's a real rough diamond that Havoc.

    Auckland • Since May 2008 • 169 posts Report

Last ←Newer Page 1 11 12 13 14 15 17 Older→ First