I thought I would take a look at some of the support pages on Facebook for Allan Hubbard. Comments there are largely from supporters who are steadfast in their support for Mr Hubbard and in the main uncritical of him, but very critical of the government and the statutory managers.
However, one item of particular interest I did come across was an item on the following web-site http://www.standbyhubbard.org/
This states, and I reproduce the item in full:-
UPDATE 27th AUGUST 2010
Allan Hubbard commissioned a report by Price Waterhouse Coopers, which was completed one month ago and given to Grant Thornton Statutory Managers.
Grant Thornton Statutory Managers have gagged Allan and Margaret Hubbard, and have refused to acknowledge the findings of the Price Waterhouse Coopers report.
Grant Thornton have made no mention of this report and it’s findings in their own reports.
The Price Waterhouse Coopers report states that HMF is one of the best performing funds they have seen in New Zealand, and it’s view of HMF’s position differs from Grant Thornton’s.
We will be making a futher statement in response to Grant Thornton’s findings about Aorangi Securities, in the very near future.
Allan Hubbard totally refutes Grant Thornton’s findings.
HUBBARD SUPPORT TEAM
On a Facebook page, supporter Paul Carruthers urged investors to remain calm.
“We have significant concerns about the veracity of the statutory manager’s report,” he said.
1.If the PWC report does say what the Hubbard Support Team claims, then it would be very useful to be able to read the report, understand the terms of reference for the PWC engagement and the nature of any evidential verification that PWC undertook and why the PWC view appears to be different from that of Grant Thornton.
2.Furthermore did PWC look only at HMF or at Aorangi as well?
3.If Hubbard is under statutory management a question comes to mind as to just what information did PWC have access to?