tmmonline.nz  |   landlords.co.nz        About Good Returns  |  Advertise  |  Contact Us  |  Terms & Conditions  |  RSS Feeds

NZ's Financial Adviser News Centre

GR Logo
Last Article Uploaded: Sunday, August 14th, 5:29PM

People

rss
People

Where have finance company execs gone?

Where have the senior people in now defunct finance companies ended up? We've started a search to find out where these people now work.

Thursday, April 12th 2012, 11:00AM 2 Comments

One of the more unusual finance company stories was the decision by the Spencer family to wind up Equitable.

Equitable's chief executive , Peter Thomas, has returned to his bank roots and now runs BNZ's commercial section.

He is responsible for leading the property finance function for the BNZ, and more specifically leading the service proposition across BNZ Partners. He is also a member of the BNZ Partners leadership team.

Prior to joining Equitable Thomas was in the corporate and institutional part of ANZ National bank and before that was with BNZ Partners.

Another well-known Equitable executive, Andrew Mexted-Bragg moved to another finance company, Broadlands, but that too ended up being wound up.

He is now with ANZ working as its product manager with cash PIE funds.

Meanwhile Broadlands' lending manager, Grant Hetherington, has now a commercial real estate agent with Barfoot & Thompson doing sales and leasing of commercial properties.

Do you know the whereabouts of other ex finance company executives, or want to know where someone has gone? If so email editor@goodreturns.co.nz

« TNP's association adds board memberSimon Fisher takes on CEO role »

Special Offers

Comments from our readers

On 13 April 2012 at 8:49 pm Michael Donovan said:
There can be no problem with the finance company executives for having been part of a culture that New Zealand (& the world for that matter) thoroughly enjoyed all being a part of.
Because banking licences have been plainly not available in NZ, the finance companies stepped in to fill the resulting void, and most of them did a very good job of providing attractive returns to their investors and also the much-enjoyed funding to the borrowers.

There was never one single complaint from investors for all those happy years, until "bang"...the GFC forced everyone to hit the wall.
Looking backwards, the GFC often now appears to have hit rather quickly, however, the reality is that it was a long time coming, and that is why it must also be a long time going.

So, now that we are pulling out of the GFC, we see human nature rear it's head.

Those investors who had bathed so enjoyably in higher returns with their finance company investments than the banks would provide, have now switched to condemning those same "gods" by blaming them (finance companies, or mainly their 'bosses')for the losses they suffered.

However, the real bloke is supposed to be the one who can take self blame.
Remember the saying "when you point a finger at another, there are THREE fingers pointing back at yourself..!

At the end of the day, ALL finance company investments were made as "unsecured" investments.
That is one big reason why the returns were comparatively higher.

Surely the main big problem must be where any finance company directors 'cleverly' side-stepped literally hundreds of millions of dollars into related party 'tanks'?

It should therefore be the emphasis of any investigations or court proceedings that the actions of each and every director should be scrutinized as to "where the money went" over the years.

Related party transactions should be the main focus.
It is not fair to point the finger without glancing to realise (& accept) how many fingers point back at you.
Greed was the motive for so many years.
Human nature chooses to blame someone else when it goes wrong.

The courts should place highest emphasis on delving into related party transactions, because is that not where most of the money has been "lost" into?
Michael Donovan
On 10 May 2012 at 10:48 am Andy said:
Michael - I agree with most of what you say. However; I believe there is a major difference between risky lending and bad administration decisions.
I would be happy to accept a higher return for a higher risk, but only if I knew the investment was for re-investment, and not to line the pockets of an irresponsible or greedy director who was falsifying books just to gain more investment funds. If my funds were not invested in accordance with the Investment Statement (that pretty brochure that got me hooked) I would have every right to be upset and demand the director's testicles on a plate. THAT is pure false advertising and a clear breach of the Securities Act.
They need to pay highly, and example made of them to dissuade anyone else from considering a similar action.

The ramification of the crook directors are huge for the NZ economy - investment in NZ industry has dried up, and is falling back on the government. While this is short term, it has destroyed the retirement plans of many.

Just my view...
Commenting is closed

 

print

Printable version  

print

Email to a friend
Slideshow

Monday, August 15th 2022
The monster’s back in town
Northland

Monday, August 15th 2022
The anatomy of a deal
Northland

Wednesday, August 17th 2022
RBNZ Monetary Policy Statement (MPS)
Nationwide

Thursday, August 18th 2022
The monster’s back in town
Auckland

Thursday, August 18th 2022
The anatomy of a deal
Auckland

Tuesday, August 23rd 2022
The monster’s back in town
Southland

Tuesday, August 23rd 2022
The anatomy of a deal
Southland

Wednesday, August 24th 2022
SiFA Annual Confernece
Otago

Wednesday, August 24th 2022
The monster’s back in town
Otago

Wednesday, August 24th 2022
The anatomy of a deal
Otago

MORE»

News Bites
About Us  |  Advertise  |  Contact Us  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy  |  RSS Feeds  |  Letters  |  Archive  |  Toolbox  |  Disclaimer
 
Site by Web Developer and eyelovedesign.com