News
South Canterbury calls in receivers
Tuesday 31st of August 2010
As a result, the Company would have been unable to certify to Trustees Executors, in accordance with the terms of its debenture trust deed with Trustees Executors Limited, that it was compliant with various financial covenants under the debenture trust deed for the financial year ended 30 June 2010.
Accordingly, South Canterbury Finance Limited has requested Trustees Executors Limited to appoint a receiver in respect of the whole of its undertaking and assets, and Trustees Executors Limited has done so. A further announcement will be made by the Company in due course.
Comments (3)
Clayton Coplestone
This outcome should come as no surprise to anyone. The truth about high margin lending is that it carries significantly higher levels of risk – and we just are not in the right environment to reward that risk.
The management of this risk requires acute matching of assets and liabilities – the former reliant upon investor confidence & investor greed.
So – who is to blame for this debacle? Is it the managers for failing to accurately match SCF’s debtors & creditors? Was it the investors for blindly pursuing higher returns – despite the repeated warnings about the commensurate risk? Was it the financial advisors lured by commissions as payment for their referrals? Or was it the Government for providing an unfavorable insurance policy [from a taxpayer’s perspective] for investors?
I guess responses to these questions will come out in the wash… although I can’t help feeling less sympathetic for investors motivated by blind faith and / or greed, and concerned for the financial advisory industry bracing itself for yet another blow of confidence.
As for the road ahead for SCF: you simply can’t operate a financial institution without the confidence of depositors… leaving the receivers with only one real option
0
0
14 years ago
Kevin Kevin
Hey, Independent Observer, after the government guarantee, what was the risk?
0
0
14 years ago
Clayton Coplestone
Yeh Yeh Kimble - you're right. There was no risk to the SCF punter
I guess the risk was off-loaded to taxpayers, who assumed that the government had completed adequate due-diligence on those eligible to recieve the DGS.
Unfortunately I disagree with "DGS's" comments above - the government should have been more discerning with whom they offered the DGS to. Any rationale of financial-system-protection was [admitadly with the benefit of hindsight] really an example of selective protectionsim, that deferred yesterdays problems into tomorrows catastrophe. It has also sent a very strong message to the market that it's OK to fail (as long as you're big)
0
0
14 years ago
3 min read