Posts by 3410
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Michael Cullen
Well, yeah, there is that. But I mean specifically SCF. Can we sue a ratings agency or something?
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
"There is $900 million in the scheme, calculated to be enough to cover all the companies which signed up to it."
(Not to contradict, but to clarify:) Rod Oram says $885m. I can't imagine that the second half of that quote is accurate. For starters, that's not how insurance works. Also, SCF alone looks like it could eat up two-thirds of that.
-
Owhata beautiful morning...
The Siamese notional anthem (from 3:20)
-
What's really starting to piss me off are as the Hubbard supporters who say he can't have done anything wrong because of his "long history of philanthropy".
For me, it's them all saying that he's "done nothing deliberately wrong", as though any negligence would be entirely acceptable.
-
You've mostly switched to what, Recordari?
-
What's the contrary of beans on toast? Shrimps on jelly?
I knew you'd say that. :)