Embattled financier Mark Hotchin has apologised to investors who lost money when Hanover Finance collapsed but strenuously denied he was living a life of luxury in a live television interview this evening.
Hotchin appeared on TV One's Close Up programme in an interview with Mark Sainsbury tonight.
Hotchin, who has been widely criticised for "living the high life" in Australia while former investors are left out of pocket, repeatedly apologised for what happened.
"I felt sorry right the way through," he said. "This was never the plan."
But he vehemently denied living a life of luxury while investors suffered.
We are delighted that Hotchin now feels sorry, but pardon us if we doubt the sincerity of his apology. The measure of that will be his deeds going forward.
In excess of 15,000 people lost money when Hanover collapsed. Many people had trusted Hotchin and Watson with their lives' savings, seduced by the promise of strong returns, and the stentorian tones of former TVNZ newsreader Richard Long (who is reported to have lost $50,ooo himself) in Hanover's slick marketing.
It's comforting that Hotchin now acknowledges that his PDW's (public displays of wealth) in the wake of the Hanover collapse were upsetting to those who had contributed the $500 million that went down the tubes. His apology now is, in our considered opinion, far too little, and far too late.
9 comments:
"seduced by the promise of strong returns... stentorian tones of former TVNZ newsreader Richard Long... in Hanover's slick marketing"
Replace 'Long' with 'Key' and 'stentorian' with 'weakly mangled' and 'Hanover's' with 'National's'. It'd be just as accurate.
I wonder if his vehement protestations of not living the high life pertain to before or after he and 80 chums celebrated his 50th in the most exclusive resort in Fiji?
You sound envious Suz. Do you know all the details of the 50th? Who paid? What was said in the speeches? How late did the party go to? Was the kava good? If not, then best keep quiet. Tall poppy syndrome rearing it's head here...
Sigh..you've seen right through me Anon...my comment sprung merely from deep-seated low self-esteem and jealousy of those wonderful rich folk. Very perceptive of you.
"then best keep quiet"
Is your name Inv? Not really your call then, is it?
Body language suggested that this was an attempt at rehabilitation and nothing more, born out IMO this morning with the interview with Hosking on newstalk zb particularly when Mike H. pinned him re Trusts and benificial status of Hotching in them.
He claimed he was without access to liquid funds, does he think we are all as stupid as the investors he sucked in with Long R.'s assistance.
@Suz, no, but then INV isn't his name either. He's afraid of his own name, all the while laying into Mark Hotchin. Once INV2 comes up with a real name then perhaps he is justified in tearing into others whose identity is out there... the request to keep quiet is a reflection of how repulsive I find gossip. The tone of your wondering out loud is churlish at best, seeking to elicit rumour and innuendo here. Why not email Mark Hotchin instead of playing fast and loose on a conservative blog?
It's nothing to do with tall poppy syndrome Anon. 15,000 people lent money to Hanover to invest on their behalf. $500 million has vanished off the face of the earth, but not before Hotchin and Watson were paid dividends reportedly of around $90 million. Hotchin's response was to flaunt his wealth in the faces of those who had made him wealthy but lost everything.
Poppies have an aesthetic appeal. There has been nothing aesthetic or redeeming about Hotchin's conduct, and his protestations of poverty now that his assets have been frozen; an excellent initiative by the Securities Commission IMHO.
As I have blogged a number of times when commenting about Hotchin I am not an irate Hanover investor, nor to my knowledge is anyone close to me. I simply don't like the way that Hotchin and Watson did business, skimmed their millions off the top, then ran off into the Hawaiian sunset or the Swiss Alps when the shit hit the fan.
And Suz is entitled to her view; you do not control access to or content of this blog.
@Anon/Slim/Mandy which is YOUR real name?
How is Hotchin's sojourn "gossip"? I think you'll find it did actually occur. No need for your sensitive feelings to be bruised then huh?
You find my "wondering aloud" (is that not what comments are) churlish?
My question was merely a before or after one, not that difficult I would have thought.
"playing fast and loose on a conservative blog"..as opposed to you crapping all over it?
By God, you take the cake and the bait. Why do you bother?
Post a Comment