How hypocritical is this group? Mind blowing.

No Tom, the Statutory Managers are paid from Aorangi's funds; that's a definite, I've seen that very point published somewhere reputable. It'd be interesting to see the size of the bills.

@ Tribeless - you really should keep up. The meeting is for Investors. Investors through out NZ have been ignored by the Government and their authorities. Many investors who lost money in Hanover , Bridgecorp etc also have money in Canterbury Finance. Many investors who lost their life savings in Bridgecorp, Bluechip ( and the other 50+ finance companies) are seriously suffering. Many are victims of crime and others just victims of the process of receivership and now Stautory Managment. Some are faced with losing their homes not to mention their will to live.

Anon if you are making derogatory posts about A H without providing us with any facts,would you please at least give us the courtesy of using a pen name in order that we may distinguish you from the other grey ones called anon.
Suzanne,I await developments in regard to Vestar with interest.
The fact that several branches of Forsyth Barr have takeen on former Vestar advisors,with other advisors[if you can call them that] continue on with other hats on.
These people have no shame and no remorse.

Suzanne, between this story as reported, and your two comments here, I'm more than ever confused at your intentions, vis a vis, this meeting, or what you hope to achieve. Please note, I'm not against you necessarily, though I believe in caveat emptor and a free market, rather than the government in my life, but that aside, what does Eufa believe the authorities should be doing in respect of the statutory management of Allan Hubbard?

I note that you cannot treat AH as if in the same basket as the directors of some of the other finance companies; AH has gone out of his way to be honourable to his investors, and may well lose his own shirt trying to do right by them, and it could well be argued that the statutory management, the ultimate in heavy handed regulation, has worsened the prospects for investors of Aorangi short and long term. There is no evidence, 'yet', to say otherwise.

So what does Eufa think the Government should have done in this specific case?

How do you think the statutory managers should be conducting themselves now?

If you were making a submission to government, what would be the detail of it?

I support Allan Hubbard, from the facts I know as of now, I certainly believe him to be an honourable man, and I'm scared Eufa would have us so bound in bureaucracy that what is left of our capitalist system would be stifled completely.

What the collapse of the finance sector has shown is it was the model that was broken, not necessarily all the operators. A model, note, created by Keynesian economics, central banking distorting the true cost of credit, the fractional reserve banking system, and fiat money, which all were responsible for the property bubble that was behind the finance companies initial success: that is, the problem lay with governments interfering with free markets, hoodwinking the public with artificially cheap credit, pumping the money supply, and distorting market signals. It's easy to see that in hindsight; everything is easy in hindsight, but no amount of regulation could have stopped what happened, by which I mean the chain of events. Or what particular regulating does Eufa think could have made a difference?

My ultimate position here is we need much less government, less regulation (with its unintended consequences), and we should never, for example, have had the bailout of the deposit guarantee scheme propping up malainvestment. All this regulation and these bailouts are prolonging the problems our Western economies have and putting recovery more beyond reach. But I suspect I've strayed a little from the topic now...

What is Eufa's actual remedial program?

Very good reply Suzanne to Tribeless' attempt to capture your vote for his Liberty Party come next election.
Tribeless wants less regulation,which is why although he poses as an accountant providing services to the public,he does not belong to the appropriate professional body.
Likewise,he does not believe in any regulations to protect the rights of the consumer,as under his ideology sharks like Vestar can run around without being regulated.
We need entities like EUFA to bring together the stories of those whose lives have been ruined by putting their trust in so called financial planners who have lost substantial portions of individual's investment,and are free to roam around.
Tribeless is a voice in the wilderness in trying to prevent more regulation in this country.
The fact is,post Rogernomics we have created a selfish and greedy society where the strong prey on the weak.
Keep up the good work.

Just who is EUFA. Is this the same group who were struck off the companies register for failing to file a return. The same group who have been lambasting everyone else for unethical behaviour. Is this a case of the “pot calling the kettle black”. It seems to me EUFA sucked in a lot of people, with its “membership” then moved on. Why would a prestigious paper like NBR be associated with them?

The NBR is like all media - investors will always assist if they need information. Investors are better of from the NBRs tireless efforts.