election 2008

[Know me.]

He declared a conflict of interest and any information he had was public.

[Haydos]

Let's see.

Key making money the same way a majority of stock holders make money by assessing information available to him.

A politician accepting donations for potential political favour.

[Haydos]

But no mistake about it, this is damaging to Key's integrity.

Problem for Labour is, attacking him on it reaks of desperation - it happened five years ago and in the meantime, how many integrity based issues have they had?

[Ab]

EvilLumpy, the reason noone's shouting anything is that this really isn't much to get concerned about. You REALLY REALLY WANTING it to be insider trading and a big cover up doesn't make it so.

[BloodDonor]

it looks bad for key, but thats about it...

[EvilLumpy]

What a bunch of defensive type guys!

So now I've had a look at the articles that have been printed about this it certainly does look dodgy. It may not be insider trading as someone else suggested and I believe it was Dr Cullen who said it wasn't but that it was indeed unethical, which is how I see it.

Needless to say, he didn't accidentally make $28,500 in 30 days over share trading in Tranz Rail after buying shares in it and selling them after utilizing his parliamentary privilege while being the parties transport spokesman.

But of course, lets not let any actual information get in the way.

For the record, Key, Clark, and all the rest are all untrustworthy but heavens forbid someone actually try and RESEARCH who they should vote for, oh no, they're better off just following whoever blindly based on what party name they decide to use or whichever username shouts rabidly enough on a forum.

Honestly, you guys are rabid.

Ab: Cover up?! What the... seriously, where'd you get that shit from? Was it written by a Sharpie on the inside of your bunker?

Know me: He declared a conflict of interest? Where? Seriously, I'm asking because I want to find out and make an informed decision here.

GT: Once upon a time I used to read what you had to say as informative. But these past few months you're just an angry, angry person. Seriously, what has happened to you IRL?

[Ab]

Key's statement:

"- I never personally owned shares in Tranzrail. My family trust did, and initially purchased Tranzrail shares prior to me entering Parliament.

- My broker managed the details of the trust's portfolio, reporting to a solicitor acting as an independent trustee of the family trust, and was able to act without reference to me personally.

- In early June 2003 I saw that Tranzrail was going to be a political issue, and instructed that the shares be sold. The parcel as a whole was sold at a loss.

- My recollection is that I instructed the sale prior to the 11 June select committee meeting. Nevertheless, I now believe I should have instructed their sale earlier.

- I didn't intend to mislead in regards to the number of shares the family trust owned. The trust owned different parcels on different dates, and the focus had been on a 30,000 share parcel which was the subject of a Labour Party allegation.

- I didn't release details of those shareholdings at that time. In hindsight I should have, and I am doing so now.

"We all know why this issue is being raised today, because the Prime Minister has a number of issues she needs to answer, including Winston Peters and other important issues that the country is facing."

[doppelgänger of someone]

The whole thing can have a VERY VERY short ending. If Key got nothing to hide, he can just release paper record of his involvement in the family trust, the instructions given to the broker (buy what share at what price etc.) and the solicitors action in the shares. Any paper record related to the deal, and nothing else. Those records can show it is all just a big accident that his family trust happened to have Tranzrail shares, and there is no insider trading, the whole thing can over very very soon.

My guess is, even if it is just a whole big accident, the record will justify an investigation over whether he breached the insider trading rules.

My understanding of the insider trading provisions is that, it doesn't matter whether the insider gained or lost, as long as s/he has insider information that can have material impact on the price, s/he shouldn't act on it until the information has been made public. (I know more about the details in Australia than in New Zealand, these are all based on insider trading provisions in Corporations Act in AUS, I assume the details in NZ will be similar because they have the same principles and functions.)

The select committee hearing in June 2002 can have material impact on the share price of Tranzrail, because it is considering whether the government will buy back Transzrail shares. John Key was in it, and that made John Key an insider.

The by-the-book action he (or related parties) should have taken is NOT to have sold it earlier, but only sell it AFTER the information in the select committee has been made public. By then everybody would have time to react and the information is not inside any more. He didn't do that. (Selling it earlier makes it even dodgier). THAT is probably enough to warrant an investigation by Securities Commission. (AFAIK there is no statutory of limitation to insider trading).

FX traders like John Key doesn't necessarily know about the exact details of insider trading in share market, these are two very different market in terms of regulations, and the FX trader doesn't have to know share market regulations to do his job. And I believe him when he said the broker acted without consulting him, it is very common the client just leave certain instructions (e.g. buy below $x, sell below $y) and let the broker micromanage (unless the paper records show otherwise). If the broker acted on his own, then the whole thing is an accident and John Key is completely innocent.

HOWEVER it is possible the Securities Commission will investigate the insider trading charge if they got more evidence, it could be a long and drawn out process, and what happened to Winston Peters can happen to John Key. I think this is NOT what the National Party wants.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger of someone

The whole thing can have a VERY VERY short ending. If Key got nothing to hide, he can just release paper record of his involvement in the family trust, the instructions given to the broker (buy what share at what price etc.) and the solicitors action in the shares.

You mean like this and like this?

[doppelgänger of someone]

Interesting documents (John Key uses UBS) but not enough. The requirement documents will show WHY those shares are bought/sold. For example, an investment mandate approved by John Key saying that UBS can do whatever it pleases with his money, as long as the trust get, say, 15% return pa.

The question is, did John Key authorised the buy/sell order, and did those dates related to the select committee hearings that discuss Tranzrail? If the answer is yes, he MAY be guilty of insider trading.

However, if the investment mandate John Key gave to UBS says it is acting COMPLETELY autonomously from John Key, then there is nothing to answer.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by EvilLumpy

GT

When people are expecting a situation to arise they tend to be on the lookout for cues to confirm things are on track, and when they see something (or anything) they attribute it to what they were looking for.

You imagine seeing a change in a period of stasis, and undoubtedly there is a reason for this. Care to share what it is?

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by BloodDonor

it looks bad for key, but thats about it...

Well, it looks bad to some people. Or, should I say, this looks really good to most people who are desperate to find a serious problem and themselves aren't very clever.

There are a few on the edge who are serious about making an informed choice but who also don't quite understand what is going on, and that think this is important. This is fine - some people take a bit longer than others. This doesn't make them stupid - one just needs to be patient.

[Hory]

Oh right, how stupid of me.
So this whole affair has been good for John Key's image?

[Haydos]

In effect, John Key's final statement won't be made until probably today or tomorrow outlining the documents he's made available and further re-iterating that he did not personally oversee the management of those shares.

It hasn't been "good" for Key because it took a bit of heat off of Helen over Winston, but come next week, there will be no issue with Key - it will squarely be back on Winston and Labour.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by EvilLumpy

What a bunch of defensive type guys!

So now I've had a look at the articles that have been printed about this it certainly does look dodgy. It may not be insider trading as someone else suggested and I believe it was Dr Cullen who said it wasn't but that it was indeed unethical, which is how I see it.

Needless to say, he didn't accidentally make $28,500 in 30 days over share trading in Tranz Rail after buying shares in it and selling them after utilizing his parliamentary privilege while being the parties transport spokesman.

Who cares about how you see it? This especially when you have actually made no argument for your position other than "He made $28,500 buying Tranz Rail shares while he was a parliamentarian and while he was the Nats' transport spokesman".

Here are your problems:

(1) It wasn't "he" who bought the shares. Do you understand the concepts of a family trust and an independent trustee?
(2) Whilst the existence of a family trust and that of a (seemingly) independent trustee doesn't of itself PROVE that John Key knew nothing of the share transactions, it is at least consistent with, or to put it another way, does not on the face of things contradict what he says.
(3) To assert that Key has been acting unethically in the context that you have used the word, you need to show either that (1) he has deliberately told lies or witheld relevant facts from the public or (2) that he has used his public positions for personal gain deliberately.

Now what evidence have you got to support what was outlined under (3)? Nothing. Thought so. Had enough of making a fool of yourself yet?

[Farmer Joe]

^^^ Don't forget that most high income earners keep their money in a family trust these days because they pay at least 3% less tax by doing so.

[Haydos]

Wasn't a well established fact that Helen had a family trust which had ownership of something stupid like 14-15 properties?

[Sp0nge]

Evillumpy...great post by you.

problem is all these posters who have been bagging winnie and labour for their integrity,
are not showing much integrity themselves...

If it was helen instead of key in that share situation,
theyd be jumping up and down like frogs on a hotplate.

if you think about it,
all these posters are not serious about integrity
but were just jumping on the winnie bandwagon
probably because they are national supporters
or not voting labour.

i dont know if you saw the interview with Key on Breakfast TV this morning,
but even right-wing Paul Henry got into him for not being honest,
and only telling the truth because he got caught out.
Paul even told Key he's not a good politician, lol

btw, i am stronly left-wing biased
but at least i know it

[FaTBoB]

Key is good at hiding his tracks, just like back in 1987, doesn't it make you wonder why the US federal reserve picked him, groomed him, then he leaves a 5 million/yr job to follow political ambitions, he's working for the CIA, always has always will, he has never come clean on his relationship with Andrew Krieger and his role in collapsing the Nz dollar, he wont reveal his family trust records because he gets payed through them, just like back when the CIA tried to oust Labour over the "No Nukes" .

IF National wants my vote( and I'm still on the fence) hook Key up to a lie detector machine and ask some questions.

Is Key a puppet of the US?

[Haydos]

Holy Conspiracy Theories, Batman.

[funnel web]

Originally Posted by Haydos

Holy Conspiracy Theories, Batman.

[Cyberbob]

Red light special on Tin Foil Hats in isle 1

[Juju]

Nicky Hager in the houssse.

[FaTBoB]

I've got more, think I'm getting the hang of this now

While I'm ranting, Owen Glenn is a convicted Fraudster, he has tax havens assotiated with merrill lynch (easily confirmed)and made a deal with the Cia to help change his mind and give evidence agains winston, winston fucked himself tough luck, but bet you a pint that Owen glenn also donated to National, covered his bets and did it in exactly the same way through a trust, waitamata or the other one, open the record and you'll see.

##It's only logical, openly donate to a party(labour) that is in the lead to garner favour once they are in, but also donate on the quiet to the opposition to be safe,

But it's all good because a rich man acting in self interest is admirable and justifies wantabees acting the same, dulls the guilt. Nasty socialists making you feel bad.

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by FaTBoB

and made a deal with the Cia to help change his mind and give evidence agains winston

Source?
link to press release please?

[Saladin]

You fools, John Key is a jew and a member of the zionist banking cabal!

[BadNova]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

sauce?

I think so...

[Ab]

Originally Posted by FaTBoB

Key is good at hiding his tracks, just like back in 1987, doesn't it make you wonder why the US federal reserve picked him, groomed him, then he leaves a 5 million/yr job to follow political ambitions, he's working for the CIA, always has always will, he has never come clean on his relationship with Andrew Krieger and his role in collapsing the Nz dollar, he wont reveal his family trust records because he gets payed through them, just like back when the CIA tried to oust Labour over the "No Nukes" .

IF National wants my vote( and I'm still on the fence) hook Key up to a lie detector machine and ask some questions.

Is Key a puppet of the US?

Post of the year.

[StN]

Hey FaTBoB - want to buy some Citibank floppies?

[SID|DensitY]

Originally Posted by FaTBoB

Key is good at hiding his tracks, just like back in 1987, doesn't it make you wonder why the US federal reserve picked him, groomed him, then he leaves a 5 million/yr job to follow political ambitions, he's working for the CIA, always has always will, he has never come clean on his relationship with Andrew Krieger and his role in collapsing the Nz dollar, he wont reveal his family trust records because he gets payed through them, just like back when the CIA tried to oust Labour over the "No Nukes" .

IF National wants my vote( and I'm still on the fence) hook Key up to a lie detector machine and ask some questions.

Is Key a puppet of the US?

Now I know where my tin-hat I ordered from trademe disappeared too.. package thief!

[Ajax]

Ahahaha.

Yeah, Key is actually a triple agent and his primary allegiance is to the Russians, or to be more specific, Putin and the old KGB stalwarts who are still running the country. Key's real source of wealth? money trail leads back to Cayman Islands shell companies owned by Russian agencies. Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? A young Key was the first on the ground in '79, and is rumoured to be the man who executed Hafizullah Amin. Chechen war? much of the initial planning was orchestrated by Key, and he led the push for the carpet bombing of civilians. I could go on and on.

[CCS]

The craziest thing about it all is that he is not really even John Key - that is simply the identity given to the vessel referred to as his body...

There is a little man, a wee tiny man inside his head, manipulating the brain stem of the husk we know as John Key.

[Sp0nge]

btw, Key is really a woman in disguise
...you can tell, because he cant make up his mind on anything:
"I am wearing the blue panties, no hang on I am wearing the pink panties, yip, thats right, it was the pink panties all along"

[SID|DensitY]

he's just not very good with numbers

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Sp0nge

btw, Key is really a woman in disguise

hmmm, he does have quite a high-pitched voice...

[Sp0nge]

...as can be seen on this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Umyd4Zh75tQ

[doppelgänger of someone]

That interview was extremely poor. Paul Henry acted like a twat, just like John Campbell did with Winston Peters in that TV3 interview last night. They were not interested in what the other guy has to say, those 'journalists' just have a point and wanted to ram it home.

[SID|DensitY]

Both were poor interviews.. Paul henry spent 10 minutes belittling Keys instead of trying to get answers, and drilled him if he did answer in a way he didn't like. its been a common theme with journalists with all parties of late.

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Sp0nge

...as can be seen on this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Umyd4Zh75tQ

Politics training 101?

[crocos]

btw, Helen Clarke is really a man in disguise.
Wait a minute! What disguise??!?