Wednesday, 18 August 2010

DOWN TO THE DOCTOR’S: Hubbard, Hickey & Hillbillies [updated]

_richardmcgrath Libertarianz leader Dr Richard McGrath ransacks the newspapers for stories and headlines on issues affecting our freedom.

This week:  Hubbard, Hickey & Hillbillies

1. “Taxpayer may prop up South Canterbury – Yes, South Canterbury Finance may shortly be nationalised, using the money you were thinking of using on home improvements, debt repayment and educating your children, to prop up a company doing well until the jackboots came through the door.
    May as well go the whole hog and just rebrand it South Wellington Finance.
    Soon, this private company, built up over many years by the hard work of Mr Hubbard and his employees, will be run instead by bureaucrats and politicians -– many of whom would have difficulty running a cake stall, and none of whom would dare put their own money at risk. (If they have any they’ve earned honestly.) They now want to play the businessman with Mr Hubbard’s money. And, shortly, yours too.
    Allan Hubbard, the founder and chairman of SCF, who never missed paying shareholders their dividend, is being blackmailed by the government to hand over ownership of the company in return, it’s reported, for not facing any charges “that may arise from a Serious Fraud Office investigation.
    The SFO have had two months to dig up dirt on Mr Hubbard, an 81 year old man with a gammy kidney. Where is this dirt? In the absence of even any mud, it looks they’ve gone instead for extracting a confession.
    If the SFO have a genuine legal stick with which to beat Mr Hubbard, let them produce it, instead of this cowardly threat to grind Mr Hubbard down using the legal system and an endless supply of stolen (taxpayer) money. Our money is being used to persecute a successful and apparently honest businessman, and that’s disgusting.
    If Allan Hubbard’s assets can be taken in this way by John Key’s government, is anyone in this country secure in their property and assets?
   And yes, that question is rhetorical.

2. “Bernard Hickey: The problem with compulsory Kiwisaver – Bernard Hickey—a cheerleader, by the way, for the doing over of Mr Hubbard—insists by inference that no-one in New Zealand should be able to invest overseas. Is Jim Anderton a big fan of yours by any chance, Bernard? Should people living in the North Island be allowed to invest in South Island industries?
    Bernard doesn’t have a problem with New Zealanders being forced to “invest” their money in KiwiSaver schemes rather than being able to pay personal debt off with it, which is what any sensible person would consider doing. Bernard has now firmly jumped the shark and joined the grey ones. He has no problem at all with the coercion (just see how he’s been cheerleading the evisceration of Alan Hubbard) because what really burns poor Mr Hickey is those pesky superannuation fund managers shipping money out to places like China and other parts of Asia, where it might yield a higher return. The bastards.
    Instead of encouraging an environment in which they might wish to keep their money, instead he calls for the opposite—a place in which government takes the big stick to savers to force them to invest where others wouldn’t voluntarily.
    Bernard would no doubt have approved of a labour exchange facility run by the German government in the 1940s – a sort of temping agency that provided workers for the local armament factories. Nothing like keeping investment local, is there, Bernard! They didn’t ship these workers out to Vichy France or other German-occupied territories for the benefit of foreigners. No sir; they kept their staff close to home, where they could be of benefit to the local community. Think global, act local, eh, Bernard?
    Still, the bureaucrat in charge was a little concerned about his ability to accommodate all the state servants employed there; some of them may have found the quarters a bit cramped.

3. Sentence for rustling sheep a joke says farmer – Two Hawkes Bay hillbillies who stole sheep from a farmer have been sentenced to be put up in warm accommodation and fed at our expense for ten months. The other was sentenced to four months on his couch watching Sky TV, only having to get off his arse for about five hours a week to do “Community Work.” As an afterthought, the judge ordered them to pay compensation to the farmers from whom they stole.
    I guess the farmers should really count themselves lucky. Because if the thieves had happened to be employees of the farmers, the Employment Court would probably have found that because they hadn’t been given two verbal and one written warnings not to steal the sheep, and had not gone to mediation and had twenty-four sessions of counselling at the farmers’ expense, the thieves would have been entitled to a massive payout for hurt feelings and emotional harm backdated to 1987, as well as their jobs back.  (Just one small example of why superannuation fund managers can get a higher return in places elsewhere.)
    The lawyer who represented the three vermin caught stealing, one Eric Foster, claims invading a rural property on which a farmer and his family are living and stealing the means by which that family feed themselves is not as bad as burgling the farmer’s house. Eric, if your moral disorientation is representative of others in your “profession”, is it any wonder lawyers have such a bad name? (How many lawyers does it take to screw in a light bulb? Three. One to climb the ladder. One to shake it. And one to sue the ladder company).
    It is only a matter of time before a bit of rural justice is visited upon those who choose to violate the sanctity of private property. Apparently, the police don’t like people defending themselves with firearms; it’s better that people get murdered on their farms. But from what I hear, electric fences are real handy for extracting information from cockroaches who arrive uninvited in the middle of the night!

“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny - when the government
fear the people, there is liberty.”
- attributed to Thomas Jefferson


  1. Your comments - and Hubbard's - are pure speculation and rumour.

    SCF applied for the govt (taxpayer) guarantee - if you sup with the devil you need a long spoon.

    I am more concerned about taxpayer capitalisation of Kiwibank at this point - simply because govt caved to racists, bigots, and other xenophobic fools.

    Hopefully Libz will comment about that.

  2. Pro-Capitalist19 Aug 2010, 12:53:00

    Hey Richard, Bernard Hickey should change his name to Bernarke Hickey, because he is acting more like Ben Bernarket these days in his economic views.

    Bernarke Hickey is a fucking joke. Even Labour MPs (Barker) frequently quotes him in Parliament of how correct Hickey's views.

  3. What a stupid and ignorant rant about a man and a commercial empire that you obviously have no clue about!

    Allan Hubbard is not a successful businessman, neither is he apparently honest, given that his business empire was smoke and mirrors at the best of times, and is now in slow motion collapse, and as a result of Companies Office investigation, the Securities Commission recommended he be put into statutory management, along with several of his entities for fraudulent and reckless management and the Serious Fraud Office are investigating him for what they confirmed they believe, based on further evidence, to be a case of serious and complex fraud. You have to be apparently dishonest to get multiple investigation findings as adverse as Mr Hubbard has had.

    I was informed by a source last week that Mr Hubbard was pushed out of SCF directorship and chairmanship because a) he was identified to be the cause of the problems in SCF, and b) he was threatened with exposure of his alleged misdeeds.

    Mr Hubbard did not found SCF, and those dividend payments to preference shareholders are just bleeding SCF of resources that those preference shareholders shold not really be entitled to, as they just decrease the resources left for debenture holders, and increase their prospective loss. He isn't the chairman of SCF, either, BTW.

    Mr Hubbard has not had any money in the last 12 months to help SCF, in fact he's been taking cash from the company to settle obligations elsewhere, while putting all manner of non-cash assets into SCF. Furthermore, the loans from SCF to Southbury Group have been growing, while the assets it has to satisfy those debts have been put into SCF which consumes those resources in further losses. SCF has allowed its largest borrower, Southbury Group (its ultimate parent company) to take its largest assets and put them into SCF and, instead of booking those assets as satisfaction of debts, it leaves the debts there and books the assets as equity. Consequently, those loans to Southbury Group now rest on nothing but SCF's ordinary shares, which in turn are worth, even nominally, only $40m (the loans being over $100m).

    Mr Hubbard will probably not be charged because he is too old and too likely to die before the trial, and too likely to be too ill to stand trial. And because he will be personally bankrupt and unable to do any business for the likely limited time he has left to live. He will probably not be charged even if there is a case to answer because there is little point and little to be gained for anyone.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. Richard McGrath24 Aug 2010, 23:33:00

    @David Hillary:

    David, I am commenting on news items as they appear in the media. Obviously you are better informed than I am on matters pertaining to SCF, you have expertise in the field and are thus better qualified than I to judge.

    As a taxpayer, however, it grates that I am having to help finance this investigation. THAT was the gist of my 'rant'. And remember, Mr Hubbard is still presumed innocent until any allegations are proven.

    According to the Timaru Herald of 25/6/10, Hubbard WAS chairman of SCF until May 2010. I stand corrected, as he is no longer chairman.

    The NZ Herald of 11/8/10 described Hubbard as "SCF founder", contrary to your statement.

    Thanks for sharing the information re the Southbury Group. If Mr Hubbard's behaviour has been fraudulent or dishonest in any way, the SCF shareholders and creditors need to know about it.

  7. Richard McGrath,

    Thanks for your further comments.

    I suggest you save your wrath for spending taxpayers money on more worthy targets than one or two million on investigating and possibly prosecuting Mr Hubbard for fraud.

    With the Deposit Guarantee Scheme, that I've been writing against since 13th oct 2008 (see ) the taxpayer stands to lose about $400m on this man's unsuccessful finance company, and his preference shareholders have lost or stand to lose $120m, and investors in Aorangi Securities perhaps another $100m, this guy appears to have cost society the better part of a billion dollars -- don't you think his alleged frauds are worth a million or two for investigating?

  8. @David Hillary: Yet again David, you cross the threshold of fact and stray into opinion and defamation with your views on Allan Hubbard.

    I note that on the NBR's comment sections yesterday, you were calling this a scandal.

    Hardly consistent, are you?

    You have repeatedly perverted the same course of 'justice'being used to justify the investigations into Hubbard, that you claim is necessary, by accusing him of crimes before the investigation(s) are even concluded.

    If you are a lawyer - I wouldn't touch your advice with a cattle-prod.

    If you are an investment advisor - your agenda sticks out like dog's nuts.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.