(NZ) Allan Hubbard

Mark Hubbard's picture
Submitted by Mark Hubbard on Mon, 2010-06-21 07:18

[For the record, Allan Hubbard is no relation. He is also, unfortunately, with his Presbyterian altruism, no poster boy for the revolution the West needs toward personal freedom and away from the evils of Nanny State. But, he has learned a very important lession yesterday - Sunday, 5.00pm, mark it on your calenders for all time - that every Kiwi should take note of. Adapting a rant of mine from elsewhere, though it's not particularly good because I'm just too mad, and have been for such a long time now ...]

Simon Power is power-crazed, (Diplock contemptible). But he has done us a service. He has shown that the State in New Zealand can take control of your entire wealth and your life in a split second, on whim, without consultation

Allan Hubbard's company Aorangi, and seven underlying charitable trusts, would not have needed a prospectus, as Hubbard confirmed on the news tonight, but have regardless become the subject of a SFO probe, and they, along with Allan and his wife, are now under statutory management by the Nanny State. Aorangi never solicited for funds from the public, it was simply Hubbard's business associates and friends who had traveled with him over the last thirty years, most of whom he has made rich men. Unfortunately, it seems to have allowed a snake in, who has turned on him for who knows what personal vendetta, or trying to make up for losses he/she was not prepared to stand (after the event).

As Aorangi did not need a prospectus, these were investment transactions between consenting adults: the government had no right to be involved here: none.

This is an historic day. Not because we drew 1-1 with Italy, but for the first time we have seen that a politician, and a bunch of no-hoper parasite bureaucrats can decide to take, for all extents and purposes, your life according their whim. The richest man in the South Island one second, in the next due to the ruthless intrusion of the State into his freedom to live his life as he wishes, he can't even buy a pie at the local dairy because all of his private bank accounts are frozen.

I would have thought I might only have seen this in Venezuela, China or Stalin's Soviet Union. Think about what has happened here.

I hope Allan Hubbard gets out from under this.

( categories: )

First time I've seen this thread

Brant Gaede's picture

Good reasons to diversify internationally.

The government will rape you and use no protection. Afterwards they won't even say "thank you" and leave you with the reputation as a slut or a bitch-boy.


My current position.

Mark Hubbard's picture

It has become known to me that this thread has gained some ‘uptake’ with the Allan Hubbard support group; I am thus being more circumspect, and moderating the language Eye

I took the position about two weeks ago that we all have to wait now until the full reporting of the Statutory Manager (SM) and the SFO; I further think it’s logical to conclude the SM’s are going to sit on their hands until the SFO reports substantively. Certainly the SM itself won’t be lifted until that time.

Reading the little they have promulgated to date, I still am personally convinced that what I stated in this post http://www.solopassion.com/nod... may well be what comes to pass: that is, legally, Allan Hubbard may not come out of this unscathed, but morally, a blot on his character might by no means be inferred from this.

Libertarians – that term used loosely – and Objectivists know that morality is a code for living, and that code is man qua man; not man qua an all knowing mystical Other making arbitrary rules beyond human reason, and not man qua a Nanny Tyranny State (just look up history for that one). The role of the small state is only to protect the individual from the initiation of force or fraud, vis a vis, a morality which is required for man’s survival qua man as the standard of value.

One set of draconian bureaucratic rules applied across all individuals will often fly in the face of such morality; some individuals will be unjustly caught. That is, in moral terms, is a Bridgecorp related party transaction the same thing as an Allan Hubbard related party transaction? Quite possibly not, as was the subject of my above link.

[Edit: oh dear, Linz, that's not some sort of relativism is it? I would say not because the facts of reality were different: Bridgecorp investors were relying on a prospectus, AH's investors contractual relations to him are known only to them. The prospectus promises were within the context of what it said regarding related party transactions, the investors of Allan Hubbard may well have been looking 'for' the related party transactions. Two very different set of facts, thus differing on a moral level.]

This all raises some really interesting questions for Libertarians: that is, in this specific case what should have happened? A debate on that would be interesting … all visitors to this forum are welcome to put their view down (but lets stick to the issues). By this I’m referring to how should small government in this instance have protected investors from fraud?(Even though no fraud has yet been proven.)

My initial answer is in this instance government shouldn’t be involved yet. This case still turns for me, sitting on the outside of it, with no relationship to Allan Hubbard whatsoever, on did Aorangi publicly solicit for funds? If not, there was no need of a prospectus, thus, the affairs of the consenting individuals involved were set by the contractual obligations between them all. Moreover, and this is where I’m no lawyer, if misrepresentations were made, then in a free, caveat emptor system, it was up to the individual concerned to pursue justice according to those contracts. If fraud was proven from that, then the state should be involved, as criminal activity is in the purview of a state.

But buyer beware, caveat emptor, first, surely. The only alternative to that is a level of regulation that suffocates free enterprise and freedom.

Some final points: SFO have issued the following report this morning:


They are using incredibly careful language this time around – I think they’ve finally realised the level of support Allan Hubbard has, and that a one rule fits all approach may not cover this situation at all. This report is also characterized by the lack of any substance again. The SFO still believes there are grounds to continue their investigation, so we all continue to wait.

But two points:

"We are very aware of the damage that such investigations can have on the reputation of those being investigated," the letter from Mr Feeley said.

That’s an understatement if I saw one. The day Simon Power addressed the media he must have known he was shattering the proud six decade reputation of Allan Hubbard. No matter what comes out of this, such heavy handedness from the State does not sit well with me: there is too much power here with potential for extreme abuse. As a society we’ve gone badly wrong somewhere to get to this point. (Note, Libertarians know where that ‘somewhere’ is Smiling )

"At every milestone of the investigation we have to decide to do one of three things: Discontinue the investigation, continue the investigation and build a case, or lay criminal charges. And; "I am at pains to point out there is a big difference between having grounds to think something may have occurred to thinking you have grounds to charge."

‘To build a case’? This ‘difference’ Feeley speaks of? There’s such a tenuous feeling to this. Given, again, the heavy handedness of the treatment that has been dealt to Allan Hubabrd, the absolute power of the State being enforced, the ultimate initiation of force on the individual, I might have hoped at this stage into the investigation, the evidence would have been such as to have built the case for the SFO – it may be wishful thinking on my part, but does this mean the case is not that strong? That it is going to turn on niggling around the details of the paperwork. Though perhaps not:

"Serious allegations have been made. It is the role of this office to investigate those allegations and to determine, as quickly as possible, whether or not there is any substance to them. It is important we do that objectively. It would be wrong for us to be influenced by a person's standing in the community. … "The Serious Fraud Office Act 1990 imposes strict secrecy obligation on the office. For that reason, and to prevent any potential prejudice to the investigation, we are unable to share the specific reasons for the investigation with you at this time."

And that’s the nub of it. Investors have no choice but wait for the State. That is my approach from this point.
Between now and after Christmas, I’ve got a heap of work to do, so I’m disappearing …

My thoughts on the first

Mark Hubbard's picture

My thoughts on the first Statutory Manager Report into the affairs of Allan Hubbard. I'm short of time these days so it's a direct copy of a post of mine to interest.co.nz, thus was in response to another poster, but I think it stands well enough without the context.

Neither of us knows if AH chose to 'ignore any laws' or not. The initial report is very full of words such as 'may' and 'might', but is more notable for the fact that other than the accusation of 'poor records', there is nothing factual in it that can be considered substantial at all.

And even look at the way they're using 'poor records', and then how the MSM like Bernard twist this with their reckless headlines: what it seems to merely mean is he was using hand written records, as an 80 year old would - he is on record that he doesn't own a computer. (And not quite incidentently, I'm starting to wish some of my clients would chuck the computers and go back to neat, hand written, reconciled cashbooks, because I'm starting to get sick and tired of ledgers which are computerised messes. The way it works is, someone who is organised and studious will keep good paper or computerised ledgers, however, someone who is disorganised and lazy will mess up both, but they have a much better chance to spectacularly muck up the computer ledger due to the ability to put entries on so quickly - especially when they don't understand how the components of their computer accounting system work together: debtors, general ledger, etc). So I am not even going to conclude, at this stage, that there were poor records, just hand-written ones, which tells me nothing.

As stated, the Managers first report is typified more by it's lack of substance than anything else.

And as for your sentence; "if it was all okay to borrow money from 'friends' and loan it to other 'friends', (unsecured & millions at a time) the government might as well give up trying to prevent fraud."

Why do you look to Nanny State like this to excuse your laziness. If 'friends' get together to invest money as you say, then yes, Nanny State has no right to be involved whatsoever. So long as there is no solicitation of the public in general, the State should bugger off. Those friends should most certainly cover themselves wtih written contracts they can hold each other too, or to ultimately prove fraud, then a worthy subject for the courts, but they may stupidly choose not to do so either: free markets equal buyer beware. The State has no right to stick its nose into the transactions of consenting friends going about their business, none at all. And the principle doesn't change whether it's $1 or $1 million.

Meanwhile, Allan and Jean Hubbard are being given $1,000 of their own money by the manager a week to live on. Because this is more than they've ever taken form their business on a weekly basis, it's more than they know what to do with, so they are apparently giving it to some of the elderly investors of Aorangi who are having a hard time making ends meet because the manager has not paid the quarterly July interest payment (the first time a payment has been missed by this company in 30 years of operation); the manager has also stated principle and interest payments will now remain frozen for the foreseeable future. Of course, matters such as this also can become self-fulfilling prophesies: as this drags on, confidence is being lost in the 'fog of war' - and that's what this is - so statutory management of AH's empire may of itself be the end of it. I hope not.

Edit. I've just got the following response to my above email - freedom really doesn't stand a chance anymore:

Posted by Danny.

But if the venture that the friends are involved in collapses and that negatively impacts the community in which they live - because no one is that isolated - then what? Just collapse the community so the liberty of the friends is not compromised?

My further response.

Danny, do you realise the reasoning you just put up has been responsible for the murder of hundreds of millions of free people under totalitarian regimes, for that is always the cry of the tyrant; 'for the good of the many'. Please go read history.

And this vague 'community' you talk of, were they paying AH fees out of happiness in the good times for the way he was lifting them all up?

Damn, I meant to post this under the Allan Hubbard and related parties transactions post: http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

No argument on the typo, or

Mark Hubbard's picture

No argument on the typo, or the point. Yes, democracy is certainly the problem.


Richard Goode's picture

Ah. I stand corrected. Though that should be 'too'.

No, I meant that your sentence should be, "Next election we have to make sure we throw out the National Socialists."

The National Socialists aren't the problem, it's democracy.

Ah. I stand corrected. Though

Mark Hubbard's picture

Ah. I stand corrected. Though that should be 'too'.

(Though this lot are becoming so authoritarian I'm at risk of soon feeling nostalgic about Aunty Helen and Papa Micheal.)


Richard Goode's picture

In the context given, why is it disquieting Richard?

It's disquieting because, not so very long ago, I was told that next election we have to make sure we throw out the Labour Socialists.

It's doubly disquieting because you left out the word 'to', and I only just noticed.

In the context given, why is

Mark Hubbard's picture

In the context given, why is it disquieting Richard?


Richard Goode's picture

Next election we have make sure we throw out the National Socialists.

I find this disquieting.


Sam Pierson's picture

Yep, the state's rolled its tanks in against an old couple in Timaru but they've committed themselves without an exit strategy and the pressure mounts on them to come up with the goods. The conflict of interest case already gives this an odd look. I don't think Ms Dyson's going to take up your plan Mark, but people are paying attention. Even Tribeless is on the case. Smiling We gotta await the facts.

Yep, the Nat Socialists do seem on course to lose the South Island & rural NZ, and for good reason.

I'm afraid it's looking worse

Mark Hubbard's picture

I'm afraid it's looking worse and worse for Mr Hubbard this morning. (That is, he will be hung out to dry.)

However, I'm wondering if Ruth Dyson may be reassessing her values.

... relating to Ruth Dyson who is reported in today's Press to be coming to Mr Hubbard's defence at the way the State has publicly shamed him and, quote, 'surely a man is innocent until proven guilty', then is Ms Dyson planning to:

a) Offer a public apology to the individuals of NZ for the immense shock and awe powers governments that she has belonged to have given government departments, including the decidedly dysfunctional Securities Commission?

b) Thus devote the rest of her political career to taking the brutalising teeth from these same departments, and so give individuals their freedoms back from State persecution?

I'd just like to quote the

Mark Hubbard's picture

I'd just like to quote the last two posts from that 'Tribeless' guy over at NBR. I'm warming to him ...

As I have said on another thread.

SecCom concerns itself with disclosure to investors. Yet it is on disclosure that SecCom itself seems wholly inadequate. Don't they have the simplest of systems in place to catch such conflicts, such as a register members have to sign on any 'potential' conflicts on any decision they may be making? That's where investigative journalism should now be looking.

SecCom seems to be dysfunctional. Mind you, in the way all government departments will always be dysfunctional. None of these departments should have to the power to be able to destroy someone like Allan Hubbard, or any of us, on the word of a man who has been minister for five minutes.

We need to slash Nanny State down to a minarchy, and claim our individual freedoms back, because we are currently, with no written consititution and an out of control, huge, bureaucracy, closer to tyranny.


Addendum to above.

I don't believe Key had any idea of the rotten political apple he was biting into with this brutal action on Allan Hubbard - the politicians and bureaucrats have demonstrated very poor judgement in their handling of this.

Further, with his idiot in command of the Revenue, Peter the Persecutor posting media releases like this one:


Positively crowing at all the taxpayer money he has appropriated to further persecute taxpayers with, it appears, Godwin aside, this lot in power at the moment are far closer to National Socialists than they are to National Libertarians.

I reckon via the Hubbard action, and the heavy handed actions of the current Cabinet, including the ETS from next Thursday, National will be shedding a lot of its business and rural support, especially through Mid/South Canterbury and Southland. And good riddance to them - pity with ACT having misstepped somewhere badly on the dance floor, there is no credible party in Parliament that freedom lovers can vote for. We need to be reassessing the big questions, starting with the nature of our democracies.

Sam, one would say that the

Mark Hubbard's picture

Sam, one would say that the State has a vested interest in making 'something' stick, given brokerage firms are issuing media statements saying if there's nothing wrong other than the paper work, for which a man of integrity has been destroyed by the State, then they expect many bureaucrats to be falling on their swords.

There was a great clip on the six o'clock news last night, the interview with Jean Hubbard's sister lamenting how shocking it was that Mr and Mrs Hubbard didn't even have a credit card they could buy food on anymore. That's not on the below clip, but you'll start to understand the support this couple has:


I reckon ShonKey had no idea of the bad political apple him and his National Socialists were biting into with this brutal act of State. And from such things as these the revolution needed in the mind of each individual has been fanned a little bit in Mid/South Canterbury and Southland.

Regarding the conflict of interest within SecCom, this is what I've put up elsewhere:

Allan Hubbard aside, the Botherway issue points to something a lot more troublesome.

Diplock, who only learned of Botherway's 'conflict of interest' five days after the momentous decision was made for the statutory management, is now on record as saying she does not believe this to be a conflict. (Well, what else can she say. It's too late now).

Given Allan Hubbard's standing, and the reputational damage he is suffering through this course of action, surely Diplock should have had the good judgement to realise the Securities Commission would have to be seen to be absolutely squeaky clean over this issue: in this context, her not seeing this for the conflict of interest it surely is, brings into question her judgement.

And more. It's looking as if the Securities Commission is dysfunctional from bottom to top. How could members of the Commission, including the chairwoman, not have known of this connection: shock, horror, don't they have systems in place to catch this? Surely the members have to sign some sort of register disclosing any relationship at all before being allowed part of decisions such as the ones made here. Don't they have 1,000 page instruction manuals like the rest of us have to (guess not when your insurer is the taxpayer).

[What a pity such a dysfunctional department has the power to completely destroy an individual with a proud reputation spanning six decades.]

Perhaps someone should be interviewing Securities Commission spokesman Roger Marwick, and asking him just what systems they do have in place to ensure conflicts of interest cannot happen, and thus ensuring the awesome power of this department of the Nanny State cannot be abused.

And then why did those systems, if they exist, fail in this instance?


.. this particular issue concerns the fact that at bottom line the Securities Commission is about correct disclosure, the very thing they seem here to have been found very much wanting in.

So any lecturing of Mr Hubbard, whom I believe to be an honest man of the highest integrity - compared to say, Mr Botherway, in this instance - is going to be the working definition of hypocrisy.

The State has too much power: give me laissez faire please.

And outside all of this, in the US last night, the Obamamessiah just stabbed the biggest knife into free markets since the 1930's, with his new financial regulations, adding layer after pointless layer of bureaucracy to what the slaves can do in what is left of their markets there. And at the G20 he is now the only leader recommending big government deficit spending to keep the 'recovery' (yeah right) going. Of course the Europeans would love to, but the reality of being broke is ruining utterly the Statists party for them - out of this in Europe will either come freer nations because the size of the State 'has' to be cut back, or will come tyrannies ... I wouldn't like to hesitate a guess at which.

Cameron from the UK is saying the right things economically though.

Very interesting Mark.

Sam Pierson's picture

Very interesting Mark.

Why did this chap not come forward prior to the action? Why now? Hmmmm. It smells.

Any bets as to whether we'll see them back down within the next week? Or has the die been cast?

Starting to get very

Mark Hubbard's picture

Starting to get very interesting now. With the abuse of power there is always the sniff of corruption. The State had to be absolutely squeaky clean on this one, but of course it wasn't, given the whole action taken without a charge laid, and was an abuse of power anyway.



A member of the Securities Commission, which recommended that Allan and Jean Hubbard be placed in statutory management, is also the brother of a businessman whose company was placed into receivership by South Canterbury Finance (SCF) last year.

Allan and Jean Hubbard, their firm Aorangi Securities and seven charitable trusts were placed into statutory management by Commerce Minister Simon Power on Sunday after a recommendation from the Securities Commission.

Mr Hubbard is president for life of SCF, its chief financial backer, and was chairman of the company until last month.

Securities Commission member Simon Botherway yesterday declared that he had a "potential conflict of interest" in the Hubbard case as the brother of businessman Jonathan Botherway.

Jonathan Botherway's hospitality empire collapsed in July 2009 after SCF, which was then owed $7.8 million, put his company into receivership.

The Commerce Minister last night would not comment on whether he knew about the Securities Commission member's potential conflict of interest.

"I'm satisfied with the advice provided by the Securities Commission," he said.

Simon Botherway would not comment yesterday and instead referred questions to the Securities Commission.

Securities Commission spokesman Roger Marwick said chairwoman Jane Diplock was made aware of the connection yesterday, five days after the recommendation was made to the minister to put Mr Hubbard's business interests into statutory management, but did not believe there was a conflict of interest.

No Jane. Um, if you can't identify a conflict of interest of this size, then how did you get your job again?

It's starting to look like the Securities Commission is dysfunctional from bottom to top. How could members of the Commission, including the boss, not have known of this connection: shock, horror, don't they have systems in place to catch this? Don't they have 1,000 page instruction manuals like the rest of us (guess not when your insurer is the taxpayer).

A pity such a dysfunctional department has the power to completely destroy an individual with a proud reputation spanning six decades.

Great to see the support for

Sam Pierson's picture

Great to see the support for him. It's enjoyable to see someone so highly respected, even in this situation, especially a businessman.

Yes, Power /Diplock /Key will not be sleeping easy. Nor should they. Key has made it clear he supports the move against Hubbard. I guess we await facts. They're going to have to be very, very good. A large portion of the country is paying attention.

As well as the half page

Mark Hubbard's picture

As well as the half page adverts in the major dailies today in support of Allan Hubbard, and a $1 million fighting fund set up, there's a street march tomorrow in Timaru in support of Allan Hubbard, including members of the charities he's given $200 million to. If I was close I'd join it.

With all this support, and the securities industry openly issuing ultimatums to the bureaucrats, I reckon Power, Key and Diplock won't be sleeping well just now - nor should they. The public nature of this is an appalling mis-judgement.

But Allan Hubbard aside, my point is this finally has shown all the supporters of Allan Hubbard, just how powerful and brutal rule by the totalitarian State is - and with these huge powers to ruin Hubbard, what is this if not that - and may make some people think, at last, about the importance of personal freedom in the pursuit of happiness, and why we are now so far from it.

Interesting thread Mark

gregster's picture

I will be overjoyed if Key goes the way of Rudd.


Mark Hubbard's picture



Heads should roll at the Securities Commission if the severity of its action relating to South Canterbury Finance founder Allan Hubbard proves to be unwarranted, says John Kidd, the head of research at broking firm McDouall Stuart.

"If investigations identify little more than oversight or laxness by Hubbard, the Commission will face intense pressure to justify the severity of its recommended course of action," said Kidd in a note to clients that lamented the impact of losing the Hubbard empire's activities as an active investor in both NZX-listed stocks and the rural economy.

And both Simon Power and John Key should resign from office for this shambolic, shameful abuse of the brutal might of government. New Zealand voters must send a strong signal in the 2011 election that we do not want to live under National Socialism.

Re the Hubbard Affair

Rosie's picture

I had a job interview today with a top notch investment company.

One of the questions asked was, "What were my views when legislation or a document (for example a trust deed) required numerous, time consuming compliance procedures and I saw a loophole to avoid this. Would I use the loophole?"

My answer was that I would have to assess the risk in each individual case. In most cases, the consequences of taking the risk would outweigh the "nuisance value" of the legal requirements. The apparant "loophole" would have to be put through rigorous examination before I would touch it. My only experience of a successful loophole was one used to provide tax advantages to a group of people who, by the nature of their occupations - professionals in partnerships rather than employees of companies - otherwise missed out. It was to receive tax deductions on their pension scheme contributions by placing a company in between the partnership and the partners in respect of non legal work and paying the partners as employees for their non legal work through the company and then paying contributions to the pension scheme from the company as employer and the partners in their capacity as employees. This was challenged by the IRD and tested in court by the IRD. The IRD lost I am happy to say. I also used as an example this Hubbard case - although I am not sure that any loophole was employed as we haven't been given enough facts. Although, on the face of it, it seems right that adults with money to invest ought to be able to choose where to invest it or with whom as they see fit and where that decision was an informed decision via conversation with the person making the investments, the law requires a prospectus. To not put out a prospectus (and comply with it) runs the risk of putting your business into statutory management. The consequence of the risk, therefore, far outweighs the compliance with the law. My advice in his case would have been to create/print a prospectus and comply with it.

Mr Hubbard is one of many rich and financially astute New Zealanders of his generation who have trusts and funds where they invest others' money very well. They abide by the old school notions of ethical practice and honour in their dealings and do not therefore see the need for contractual or other legal obligations in every instance. I had $200,000 invested with a friend of my parents who did the same sort of thing as Mr Hubbard. He called it his widows and single women's fund. It gave a guaranteed interest rate of 10% per annum which was 5% more than other funds and banks offered at the time and he took only a very small fee for his efforts. There was no paperwork involved and it was a relationship of trust. Because of the number of crooks whose businesses have gone under and investors' funds lost, all these compliance and securities procedures have crept into the legislation in an effort to protect the investor. It is unfortunate indeed that Mr Hubbard has fallen between the cracks of all this and been singled out (it would seem). I say "it would seem" because I am surprised that it has gone to the SFO and is being investigated under Part II of the Act, which makes me suspect there is something more to this than the public has been informed about.


Rosie's picture

And I've GOT to find something different to do with my life.

I'm wondering if my lovely wife and I should sell everything and buy a winery. There're a few going cheap. Drink all the profit and claim hardship when the tax men come round.

Hunker down and wait for the revolution.

If your passion is so strong, Mark, don't hunker down and wait for the revolution - begin it!

Talking about the inadequacies you see in the existing law and its practice is well and good at one level but it wastes the passion you feel about it. That emotion can be better employed putting it into action. Put your creative juices to work and DO SOMETHING!

Both TS Elliot and Einstein (for example) had humble jobs while they used their passions in productive ways to write and make their mark in the things they felt strongly about. This led to a change in their humble jobs and fame and fortune as spin offs to the different ways they influenced the world. If you want to change the government to one of more libertarian views then start spreading your ideas to those people who may not even know about these things. Last year, just as a small example, I had an elderly Maori client. She had come to me because she needed to get guardianship of her granddaughter. The child's mother had gone to jail. The father was recorded on the birth certificate as an Indian guy but who was not actually the true father. In short, there were a whole field of complexities which made getting guardianship a tricky business because of requirements for notification of the father and it was taking longer than it ought to have in less complicated circumstances. She wanted to go to Australia where she had a job waiting for her but could not take the child or get a passport without obtaining guardianship if she were to bring the child with her. She was bemoaning the red tape. I asked her if she had heard of the Libertarian Party. She had not. I explained a little bit about it and in particular how it provided freedom for individuals to do what they wanted to do provided there was no initiation of force involved, and removed legislative red tape in order for these individuals to get on with it etc. She was SO enthusiastic about it. In case I had misrepresented things so that it only seemed to be to her advantage, I said that it did not approve of benefits or social welfare but believed in the power of the individual to create his or her own wealth and job. There would be no handouts. I wondered if this would put her off. Answer: NO!!!! She saw the sense in it and TOTALLY AGREED!!!! She said that she would be voting for LIBZ in the next election.

My overwhelming conclusion from this is that there may be many people "out there" who not only do not know about this party and its philosophy but the people who one might imagine would NOT be in favour of it can see the sense in it and LIKE the idea of a party that empowers them rather than strips them of their dignity and provides easy ways to allow them to just sit back, get taken care of at a subsistence level and not be the proud, independent, creative and self-supporting people they are capable of being.

So what can YOU do?

This is...

Olivia's picture

truly disgraceful. How much those snotty little bureaucrats like to take down a tall poppy.
The amazing support Mr. Hubbard is getting from his countrymen and those who know him says a lot.
Imagine being barred from your own offices because of one complaint and no proof?!

"What we anticipate is ensuring that he and his wife can live with dignity."

Oh, well, thank you very much Mr. Thornton... how very decent of you to be so concerned about their dignity whilst the Hubbard name is smeared and their earnings confiscated!

What a prick.

Leonid there's a long history

Mark Hubbard's picture

Leonid there's a long history and I've not got the time at the moment, but I'll try over the weekend. Suffice to say though Hubbard is the richest man in the South Island, and in last years rich list was 'thought' to be about the 9th richest man in NZ. He's got a big following in South Canterbury, his base, andhas been operating for six decades: no one has lost their capital with him to date (other than, presumably, natural/honest losses of the markets).

Further developments today:

Allan Hubbard has now been banned from his offices, which he'll take very badly.

Today's front page Timaru Herald report is interesting:


It includes this, quote:

Prof Henaghan said he did not believe the statutory order was personal to Mr Hubbard, but was taken because of the troubles that had hit other finance companies.

"They are taking it as a precautionary action. They don't want to take any risks, just in case."

Mr Power said he made the order of statutory management on the recommendation of the Securities Commission.

It was made on the basis of one complaint about Aorangi Securities, which has 400 investors.

If Power and Diplock have actually done this on a 'maybe', then they're going to have a real vested interest in finding something that sticks.

The State simply shouldn't have these huge powers - of which this act is an abuse (even outside the philosophical basis, if you assumed these powers were in some way 'legitimate'.) Aorangi didn't need a prospectus, it was not soliciting the public for money, and I don't understand how the authorities get around that fact.

It's as interesting as it is alarming (and sick).

Atlas: while I understand the logic behind the gold, I still have a large emotive pull toward the wine Eye


Leonid's picture

As a courtesy to the people who are not living in NZ could you please explain the Allan Hubbard's affair and also who the hell is Simon Power?

Buy gold with cash

atlascott's picture

Convert business profits, if any, into cash and buy gold with it. Gold coins, what ever you can get.

If this sort of thing is happening over there, it is not going to be long. Store value where you can.

And god damn those bastards.

And I've GOT to find

Mark Hubbard's picture

And I've GOT to find something different to do with my life.

I'm wondering if my lovely wife and I should sell everything and buy a winery. There're a few going cheap. Drink all the profit and claim hardship when the tax men come round.

Hunker down and wait for the revolution.

Yes Sam, I don't fancy his

Mark Hubbard's picture

Yes Sam, I don't fancy his (or Jean's) chances at all. Simon Power and Diplock will be fighting for their portfolio/job if they are seen to come up empty on something as momentous as they have done, and the SFO sorely need a success also.

Though I still feel as this company didn't need a prospectus, it'll be interesting to see how they do it (not changing the fact they will).

My last post to NotPC:

This all boils down, it would appear, to Allan Hubbard not investing a single investors money 'according to instructions'. I question that in respect of this particular company.

What instructions? There was no prospectus - to give any such instructions - because there didn't need to be a prospectus. This company was either publicly soliciting for funds or it was not, and why would it? That's what SCF was for.

Though it's all over. Mr Hubbard, an honourable man used to doing business on a handshake, is going to get utterly brutalised by the bureaucrats for not doing things 'their way', and being loose with the paperwork.

All this from the complaint of single investor across 407 investors, and thirty years.

It's a day of shame for the country, and a day of fear that the State has this shock and awe power to run roughshod over transactions between so many hundreds of consenting adults going about their business without the initiation of force or fraud.

There's such a huge irony at work here. Allan Hubbard is truly the man of integrity, doing business on his word and I'd put money on it that there is not one individual who can show where he has ever broken his word. But bureaucrats work on paper trails, and that in some situations may well not be great, here, so the State will be able to fill the gaps with guilt.

In terms of showing how our State is completely out of control in the power it has (and look at my Peter The Persecutor Dunne thread in here), this 'sacrifice' of Allen Hubbard will stand out as the 'event of the decade' in terms of the indicator that NZ is far closer to Stalin's Russia than a free society. All we need now is Allen Hubbard's show trial.

I'm starting to really hate living in NZ. And I've GOT to find something different to do with my life.

Patronising prick

Sam Pierson's picture

You've said it all Mark. Thornton is a patronising prick... paid to say such crap in front of the SFO suits.

You think Mr Hubbard will be undone by this? The facts have yet to come out.

Well I suspect it's a sad end

Mark Hubbard's picture

Well I suspect it's a sad end for Allan Hubbard. A man used to closing a deal with a handshake and just getting things done - no doubt creating enemies in many government departments - is about to have his life brutalised by suited city bureaucrats for not doing things their way. This all has arisen from the complaint of single disgruntled investor out of 407 investors and across the 30 year life of Aorangi.

As reported in the Press:

Margaret Hubbard said the statutory management was completely unnecessary and contrived. ... It will take a while as people come down from Auckland who won't know anything and will have to work it all out, but at the end there will be no spectacular result.

Allan Hubbard said he had operated Aorangi ... for more than 30 years. The interest had been paid quarterly and clients had never suffered loss of capital. Aorangi had $40 million surplus that belonged to 'myself and my family', and all our equity has been subordinated to client interests; ie, the Hubbard family stands any loss before clients do.'

And then we get this:

Government appointed statutory manger Trevor Thornton said ...the couple would not go without. "What we anticipate is ensuring that he and his wife can live with dignity." ... He would not comment on how much Hubbard and his wife would need to live with dignity. "I have no idea what their needs are."

For them to have dignity Trevor, they need you and Simon Power out of their life. Someone should really ring Trevor and explain to him what dignity is.

So, Allan Hubbard, who has been working 70 hour weeks since his teens, has taken risk and seen the reward of having a net worth of $550 million (it is immaterial he has given much of this to charity and made many other individuals and families wealthy along with him), now, at the age of 82, fully compos mentis, has to suffer the ultimate indignity of living his life totally at the call of Nanny State, reliant on a bit of pocket money doled out each week by the nasty old callous bitch. And it gets worse for him and Mrs Hubbard from here no doubt.

There's no word for it really, other than this is very, very sick.

Cheers for the heads up Sam.

Mark Hubbard's picture

Cheers for the heads up Sam. (I'm sure I checked the number of l's with interest.co.nz, I must be seeing things.

It'll be interesting to see how this case pans out. I wonder how many of us knew, though, the State had 'that' much power.


Sam Pierson's picture

Appalling. That capital is in real jeopardy now I'd say. Know-nothing idiots. Yes, good luck to Mr Hubbard. May he rise again and take his business elsewhere.

btw Mark: it's Allan Hubbard.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.