Campbell Live speaks to Hanover's Mark Hotchin

Email
Print

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 6:45p.m.

Mark Hotchin

Mark Hotchin

Campbell Live has been after an interview with Hanover Finance co-owner Mark Hotchin for over a year.

We've tried and tried, but the answer has always been "no".

Today, we tracked him down at Napier Airport, where he agreed to talk to us.

Currently, Hanover Finance, so persuasively sold to middle New Zealand by a campaign featuring former newsreader Richard Long and some of the most well-known names in New Zealand business, is heading towards receivership.

That's one option for Hanover investors - the other is a debt-for-equity swap with Allied Farmers, which in short, would return Hanover's investors about 78c for every $1 they invested.

Less than a year ago, Hanover was talking of $1 for every $1 in.

Why so much less now?

Campbell Live asked Mr Hotchin – watch the video.
Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

04 Dec 2009 09:31p.m.

Maureen and Glen Mundy wrote:

Thank you John Campbell for pursuing this matter and for allowing our comments. Promised percentage returns mean nothing. Hanover proved this by promising 8-9% just before their failure. How can they possibly expect us to believe their view that Allied may give a better return at 78 cents?
Let them keep paying our % returns of capital until they default twice ( as per our earlier vote) and then the vote automatically allows for the receivers.At least then we are still dealing with Hanover, not another party trying to help themselves.

04 Dec 2009 03:18p.m.

United wrote:

Mark if you really believed that you were doing everything possible for investors why is it that your development companies that are listed as related parties are also shown as defaulting on their loans?

The Allied deal will see you out of the public eye and investors left holding worthless shaes. Lets hope they are not supid enough to accept your directors recommendation a second time.

04 Dec 2009 01:57p.m.

Louise Simpson wrote:

You Mark Hotchem and Eric Watson and your cronies are bleating all the way to the bank whilst unvestors are skimmed. If you want a solution; lets start with selling your houses and giving that money back to those you scammed. You make me sick to my stomach!

04 Dec 2009 12:57a.m.

Ivan Turk wrote:

On your program investors were led to believe that if they excepted the Allied deal, they would get back 78cents in the dollar. They wont, the day the shares list on the stock market they will drop down to next to nothing. It could be years before they increase, if ever. Ask yourselves, who wants to buy shares in a finance company these days. Hotchin and Watson will just sit back and say not our problem anymore. Don't accept this rotten deal, make them pay us back like they said they would.

03 Dec 2009 10:10p.m.

Judy Callingham wrote:

Now this is good interviewing! Tenatious, but courteous. Every question we were prompting, you came up with. Can't have been telepathy - we watched it later on My Sky! Great stuff, John.
Cheers,
Judy and Brian

03 Dec 2009 08:03p.m.

Dennis Maguire and Maureen Mundy wrote:

The printed material and presentation at the Road Shows promised 100% return of our capital invested within 5 years. We agreed to forego the interest, which, for some investors, would have amounted to a significant loss.

Now, not even 12 months into the moratorium, we are expected to be swayed again by another recommendation which will let the directors completely off the hook from accepting any responsibility.

We all know that property values go in cycles so we would expect that within 5 years of putting this offer to us we could expect significant improvement in returns to Hanover, and therefore to their investors.

But the directors have no such confidence.They have admitted that already they know they will be unable to keep to the promises made in the moratorium so why don't we let them default and force the receivership? The receivers do not have to go for a fire sale. They could keep us informed if they believe there is a need for a delay in trying to realise a particular asset until the market improves.

If we are swayed by this threat of immediate reduction in secured depositor returns while we continue with the moratorium, and a "cross their fingers behind their backs" offer of maybe some time in the future the share price with Allied Farmers might pick up, we will allow the Hanover directors to walk away. We will allow them to walk away with their promised 10 million injection not actually injected and their homes and other assets from the good loan book for them to enjoy.

We did not invest with Hanover because we wanted to speculate on the share market.
Many of us do not wish to send our savings to never never land.

Hanover now tells us we may only get 70% of our investment if we stay with them. They say this within less than a year of their promises.
The Hanover Directors are desperate for us to let them walk away from their greedy and deceptive actions.Then they can blame Allied Farmers when we lose even more.

03 Dec 2009 07:40p.m.

richard moon wrote:

as the question of watson about the sale of flying pig : a internet company set up by watson and nick gordon .which as normal watson failed.he them on sold it to Noel Leemings (which he owed)he and gorden got there money back and Leeming then wrote the company off . the rich can get away with but normal people carn't ?