English: Gov to repay SCF investors swiftly

Print

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 1:00p.m.

Finance Minister Bill English

Finance Minister Bill English

By James Murray

Finance Minister Bill English says the Government is moving swiftly to repay investors, minimise economic damage and reduce taxpayer cost in the light of South Canterbury Finance’s receivership today.

"It’s sad to see a longstanding New Zealand institution in this position," he says. "The Government, like everyone else involved, hoped South Canterbury would be able to work its way through its difficulties, but unfortunately we were advised today that it has been put in receivership.

"As a result of the receivership, the Government is moving swiftly to repay the money owed to South Canterbury depositors under the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee. We are also taking other steps to reduce the cost to taxpayers and minimise disruption to the wider economy.”

  • The Crown has nominated the Trustee as the eligible creditor under the terms of the guarantee and will pay the Trustee $1.6 billion in full today. This will ensure depositors and stockholders are paid promptly without the need to apply to anyone.
  • The Crown has made a loan to the Trustee of $175 million, which allows it to repay all of South Canterbury Finance's prior ranking debts.
  • Once this transaction is completed it will put the Crown in a position of control, as the first-ranked creditor in the receivership, so we can ensure an orderly and well-managed receivership process.

Commenters on the 3 News website were unhappy that taxpayer money was being used to pay out SCF’s investors.

“Please do not use MY tax dollars. I’d rather it go to new hospitals and fire engines. SCF investors took the risk for that ellusive (sic) extra one percent gain. We shouldn’t be forced to pay for their mistake. John Key and South Islanders – you are on notice,” says Chevy Levy on the 3 News Facebook page.

However, business commentator Bernard Hickey says the Government has made the right decision in not supporting a recapitalisation of South Canterbury Finance.

“Sometimes it pays to take some pain now rather than store up more pain later,” he writes in his NZ Herald blog.

“The Government's decision not to support a recapitalisation plan for South Canterbury Finance was the right one. Receivership was the cleanest, simplest and ultimately safest option for both taxpayers and investors.”

Mr English clearly thinks along similar lines.

"Ensuring all depositors in South Canterbury Finance get their deposits back as quickly as possible will ensure a minimum of disruption to the economy,” he says.

"While this will incur an upfront cost, it will ultimately reduce the cost to taxpayers by about $100 million by ensuring the Crown is not liable for interest payments after the date of settlement.

"Furthermore, being in control of the receivership process takes the pressure off the receiver to quickly sell any assets.

"This ensures the Crown can get the best deal for taxpayers. Businesses that owe money, or are owned by South Canterbury, can continue to operate and there will be a minimum of disruption to both the local and national economy.

"The up front cost to the Crown of repaying South Canterbury's depositors is about $1.6 billion, but we would expect to recover the bulk of that as the receiver sells the assets over time.

"The final expected net cost to the Crown is already provided for in the Crown accounts within the overall provision of about $900 million for all companies covered by the scheme."

3 News

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

01 Sep 2010 10:15p.m.

RobertM wrote:

Its all shere politics. The Nats greatest vote was in Sth Canterbury, Oamaru and the old Shipley-Connel electorate. Maybe that vote isn't their anymore but the Nats simply won't wise up, that its vote they shouldn't have gone after. Labour has never learned either. Helen Clark said after the 85 by election that Labour had no business winning Timaru. And then she brought Sutton back an unreconstructed Roger Nome.
This is just the strategy of the brat pack led by english and smith. They want this sort of neathendral vote which they hope they can rely on to support there extreme moral conservatism. Of course SFC depositers were bailed out. Of course CRC and rolled by Smith and the lap dog Bazley put in. Nobody sensible would ever have given dairy water use consents to the unintelligent uneducated unresourced types applying for their consents, but there the type of people who vote for English, Smith and Nats in the provinces.
People who actually believe in freedom, the market, reform, modernisation, reward for talent and a modern NZ based on something more than dairy farming like mass market tourism for under 40's and fishing offshore and in lakes should realise that its the Brat pack that have no business being in the National party. The correct strategy is to ignore the provinces, create more farmland by bulldozing Timaru, Invercargill and Wanganui and quite possibly revert to an equivalent franchise to that of 1832. Restricting the vote and jury service to the intelligent half of the population would certainly be a move forward.

31 Aug 2010 06:32p.m.

Blair wrote:

I think this is great for the families that had money in South Canterbury Finance but why bail this one out and not any of the others. Perhaps the government could look at doing the same to the families affected by Blue Chip a couple of years ago.

31 Aug 2010 06:21p.m.

nevvy wrote:

Great to see a Govt guarantee scheme operating swiftly, hopefully minimising any flow on effects of the receivership on the populace at large.A large feather in Nationals cap imho.

31 Aug 2010 05:03p.m.

Amanda Hugginciss wrote:

What we have learnt from National: Poor beneficiaries = bad. Rich corporate bludgers = good and we should spent over one point four billion dollars of tax payers money bailing them out. Send Hubbard to prison (strike one) for his fraud and misuse of investors funds. Give the $1.4 billion to health, education and social welfare. Can you hear it? The absolute silence from the brown-nosed pro-National rednecks who criticise anything remotely progressive and blame this government's self-created problems on Labour.

31 Aug 2010 04:39p.m.

Hans wrote:

Another reason not to vote National.

31 Aug 2010 04:31p.m.

Peeved wrote:

As an investor and a taxpayer I think it sucks that taxpayer money is being used to save SCF investors... this is rubbish. I absolutely feel for the people who invested. However, anyone how invests money must know that every investment has an element of risk, those who stood to benefit from this should have to wear the loss, not the NZ public. There are low income families who could never even dream of investing who will be paying for this. Would the investors of this finance company have shared their gains with all of NZ had their investments borne fruit? I think not, so why the heck should it swing the other way?

31 Aug 2010 03:26p.m.

Deane wrote:

What we see here is 1.4 billion of tax payers money spent on bailing out SCF due to incompetence of its management.

While we are facing cuts in early childcare, tertiary education and mass redundancies in order to "save the tax payer money". What a con.

SCF is a private company; it returned a dividend to its investors. They were aware of inheriting risks such investments have.
There is no accountability to the public of the company’s director’s incompetent actions. Yet we as the tax payer has to have the debt on our shoulders and receive no reward what so ever. We have to pay for the stuff up of the ETS, increase in GST, increase in ACC levy’s the list goes on.

The government has not bailed out Blue chip investors or Hanover Finance so why SCF?

31 Aug 2010 02:39p.m.

Neil wrote:

How many blind or family trusts of parliamentarians and they families are involved in this speedy bail out of "Mum and Dad" investors?

31 Aug 2010 02:33p.m.

Driver wrote:

I think that in good faith and since taxpayers money is being used, all previous debenture holders from failed companies be repaid. At the end of the day this money will most likely be reinvested or spent back into the communities and its going back to the taxpayers anyway. The government will only otherwise sqaunder this money anyway on their own interests. Why not do something for the taxpayer for a change.

31 Aug 2010 02:11p.m.

Michael Tarry wrote:

I'm a taxpayer, and I very strongly object to my money being used to fix someone else's mistakes. The directors of SCF have proven to be incompetent; don't use MY money to rescue them. Spend it instead on schools or hospitals.