Archive for March 2011
If you could not pay your debts would I expect the Government to pay them for you with my tax money?
So why are banks any different?
There was a time when the banks were government owned and the government backed the deposits ,
In 1992 our government bailed out the BNZ to the tune of 380 million using public money to prevent the bank from collapsing.
In 2008 the US government bailed out their banks with $700 billion US . for the Americans it meant that the “ free flowing credit and “market discipline is the best form of regulation” era is over” as quoted by Brian Gaynor
This collapse is reported in an excellent movie called the INSIDE JOB . It is one which everyone should watch.
It is a fascinating and scary Documentary which raises the question, how much more is going on out there that we are not being told about?
The movie starts with the 2008–2010 Icelandic financial crisis.
As the movie shows this debt occurred because banks were lending sums greatly in excess of their actual investments and governments were persuaded by lobby groups not to legislate against this.
There are three factors which have heightened the vulnerability of the banking and corporate sectors .
1. Credit boom -through which we saw lending like never before and the values of our houses escalate disproportionately to income
2. Insufficiently regulated financial markets which saw the collapse of many finance companies, particularly those implicated in fraud.
3. Corporations and banks with large domestic and external debt.
Privatisation and the Global capital markets, pushed poorly regulated domestic financial systems while those who should have protected the public were diverted from this by lobbyists who had their noses firmly in the trough.
Greed was the driver and due diligence was absent, those running round in ties and suits pretended to know it all when really like the rest of us they were just guessing. The only difference they were paid high wages the rest of us stood to lose.
It may be that the Finance Minister saw the movie too because on 11 march he announced a consultation paper on the pre-positioning requirements that banks will be expected to comply with to fully implement the Open Bank Resolution (OBR) policy.
“Open Bank Resolution is a long-standing policy option aimed at resolving a bank failure quickly, in such a way that the bank can be kept open for business, thus minimising stresses on the overall banking and payments system. “
The Structure of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s Creditor Recapitalization (BCR) Project Process is
- Imposition of statutory management and closure of the bank
- Imposition of the haircut on transactions accounts and term deposits
- The failed bank reopens for core transactions business
- Imposition of the haircut and other liabilities
- Decisions on future operations and restructuring path
The Reserve Bank invites submissions on this Consultation Paper by 30 June 2011
I t would appear that the public does not get an input , I would suggest that each of us has to do their own due diligence as to where you put your money make the decision soon or there will not be one to make.
To do your home work you may need to know who owns our banks we have done the research it is presented in this document banks well worth a look
Just as the security commission has sent out a warning about two companies and I put my post on the blog, I receive a letter in my mail from NZ INVESTMENT SECURITIES which is identical in format to the energy securities offer.
I note that on the register of Limited partnerships , which is not searchable by partners name , that the documents filed for NZ INVESTMENT SECURITIES are actually those for NZ CREDIT SECURITIES
Stand by for more undervalued offers from both these companies
2538168 – NZ CREDIT SECURITIES LP registered 13 July 2010
2538169 – NZ INVESTMENT SECURITIES LP registered 13 July 2010
2538188 CARRINGTON SECURITIES LP registered 13-JUL-2010
2543023 ENERGY SECURITIES LP registered 17-DEC-2010
2543060 CARLYLE SECURITIES LP registered 17-DEC-2010
and possibly more be careful out there its a rip off .
What to do if you get and offer
Do not sign anything take a plain piece of paper or a bit of advertising which does not have your name on it and insert it in the pre paid envelope seal it and post it.
This will send a strong message both financial and waste of his resources we have to do as much as we can to make this practice uneconomical.
This morning I received an alert from the securities commission this alert related to two limited partnerships, Carrington Securities and Energy Securities LP of which Bernard WHIMP is general partner.
It appears that Whimp a banned director has found a way round his ban by setting up limited partnerships.
I actually wonder why he did this as Lyne Pryor who pleaded guilty to fraudulently running a business and was banned for 5 years had an exemption in a jiffy and went back to business as usual see Using the court to conceal corruption
But Whimp chose a different path and in doing so makes a mockery of our limited partnership structures .
I am currently writing my first book how to rip people off in New Zealand and get away with it the techniques are not intended for the criminally inclined but for others to see just how our system runs with giant holes in it.- My objectives to make the government look at the need for verification and accountability .
There are now calls to tighten legislation what amuses me is that once again we are driving more ambulances to the bottom of the cliff.. for some people these ambulances will take them on their last ride .
On the one hand we build fences for swimming pools to a degree which in some cases is over the top yet with other things we totally ignore the fence at the top. We don’t need more legislation what we need is processes that work .
People respond to incentives. In this weeks herald there was the article Former ACC property boss escapes jail over bribe This shows just what the worst case scenario is for being caught out with corruption 11 months at home for $160,000 … it is almost an incentive… bearing in mind that he probably got a lot more and $160,000 is all that could be proved.
Whimp has been an old hand at this , In a 2004 article in the press he professes I’m being unfairly picked on , in that article it speaks of $5.4 million raised from investors and lost most of it read more
For at least 7 years Whimp has been ripping off the public he can do this because there is no such thing as corruption in New Zealand and the scary part is that he is not alone.
At least a security warning has been issued but I am sure its not the end of it a similar scam was run by an Australian a few years ago and no doubt some one else will follow in Whimps footsteps with yet another variation of the same plan .