South Canterbury calls in receivers
South Canterbury Finance announced today that it has been unable to complete a recapitalisation and restructure.
Tuesday, August 31st 2010, 9:39AM 
4 Comments
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.
| « Labour wants to create more savings products | SCF not as big a favourite among advisers as it used to be » |
Comments from our readers
On 31 August 2010 at 1:49 pm DGS said:
There seems to be a few misconceptions on the purpose of the deposit guarantee scheme.
The DGS was introduced primarily to stop a contagion-related run on banks. It was impossible to introduce such a scheme without covering non-bank deposit takers - effectively that would of been the end of such institutions given the prevailing mood of late 2008.
It remains to be seen whether the government (tax payer) ends up making a loss or a gain out of fees collected less calls on the guarantee - but in reality, that is merely consequential to the original purpose: to prevent widespread collaspe of the financial system.
Carry on...
On 31 August 2010 at 2:14 pm Kimble said:
Hey, Independent Observer, after the government guarantee, what was the risk? On 31 August 2010 at 7:29 pm Independent Observer said:
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)
Add your comment:
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
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