Peter Marshall deserves longer sentence

The sentencing of Peter Marshall, former head of the failed online broker, Access Brokerage, to 3 years jail today surprised me.

I was expecting a far lesser sentence and perhaps even home detention for a fraud Marshall perpetrated on small shareholder/customers, when he was CEO of the brokerage and it collapsed owing millions at the end of 2004.

Marshall's plea for leniency because of "poor health" showed all the hallmarks of fraud cases heard in the US several years ago over accounting fraud and dubious businesses practices but Judge Bruce Davidson wasn't having a bar of it.

Marshall really didn't deserve the courts leniency anyway as he pleaded not guilty and his defence argued his innocence all the way:


The Crown maintained the offending was significant and "took issue" with any suggestion of real remorse, as Marshall maintained he had done nothing wrong. Stuff.co.nz


While I was expecting a lesser sentence, I personally don't think 3 years is long enough. Marshall's lack of remorse clearly shows he hasn't learnt anything from his experience and for this reason alone the sentence should have started at 5 years.

We don't have to look much further than collapsing finance companies, and their advisors and Money Managers advocating their clients to invest in dodgy companies to see that financial markets in New Zealand are still largely the domain of the wild west.

We need a few more sheriffs (and judges) in this town to send the message, and make an example of those who would wish to part you with your hard earned moola in nefarious ways.


Related Share Investor reading

Blue Chip's Mark Bryers at top of shaky pyramid
Money Managers Saga-3 story wrap
Money Manager's First Step gives investors the middle finger

c Share Investor 2008

Be an active investor

Reading the news today about 94 New Zealand Housing Corporation employees ensconced at a luxury resort in Tongariro at taxpayer expense, got me thinking about accountability of management amongst our listed companies and shareholder involvement or lack thereof in the businesses that they have invested in.

Even before investing in a listed company, you would do well, as part of your research to get in touch with the management of the company and have a chat. You maybe surprised who you might get hold of and you could even find yourself talking to the CEO, or the company secretary at the very least. They can only say no. I myself have talked to several leaders of the companies I own a part of and you can glean quite alot from a quick chat.

Of course if you do business or become a paying customer at one of the businesses you have a shareholding in, it doesn't hurt to give your feedback, positive of negative, about your experience. How the employee/manager at the end of the phone or across the desk deals with your feedback can say alot about the company you are invested in.

Shareholders should at the very least tick all the boxes in the forms that they get in the post come annual general meeting time. The form that you get will allow you to vote on remuneration, cast your ballot for directors and vote on any extraordinary decision the board may put to shareholders in a particular year, amongst other things.

These kinds of votes become even more important when your company has a takeover or merger offer made. Don't ignore these requests for your input. They are important, even though you might think you have only one vote, you do have ownership of a part of the company-exercise that ownership.

Go to annual meetings. You don't have to be a Bruce Sheppard, the head of the NZ Share Holders Association, but listening to the other shareholders ask questions, the ability for you to give your point of view on company direction is going to be a benefit to your decision to hold or fold.

Sadly in the 10 years I have held shares I have never been to a meeting, they are always on in the middle of the day when I am busy but that dear readers is another column.

New Zealanders are a passive bunch at the best of times. Foreign shareholders are far more involved and tend to have more say in the company's' that they own.

Remember, it is your money invested and you do have a say in your part share of the listed company that you own. It doesn't have to be a completely hands off experience and getting involved makes that investment a more exciting prospect that a certificate in the top drawer or an electronic company code on your computer screen.


Related Share Investor reading

Research,research,research
Stick to what you know
Investors can learn from my stupidity

From Amazon



The Development of Equity Capital Markets in Transition Economies: Privatization and Shareholders Rights (Contributions to Economics) by Dirk Willer


c Share Investor 2008

The Vietnam apology that rings hollow

When NZ withdrew its troops the trauma for many of us was just beginning. We were brought back on a civilian aircraft in civilian clothes and were told to get off the aircraft and go away. The official word from the army was not to tell anyone you'd been in Vietnam. We were aliens in our own country. A march down Queen Street in Auckland turned into a riot. We were pelted with rotten fruit and vegetables. People were screaming out 'baby killers!' That wasn't much good for the psychological state of the soldiers who had just returned from a war zone. Some returned soldiers suffered physical and psychological injuries. I would think the problems (for vets) have been created out of neglect. Neglect on the part of the government, neglect on the part of society and to some extent neglect on the part of the army."

Rick Thame Victor Five Coy


Helen Clark, Phil Goff and a large number of other Labour Party members are going to "apologise" on behalf of the New Zealand Government this Thursday 29 2008 over Vietnam Veteran's appalling treatment by the government of the time and subsequent administrations. There was no government assistance for soldiers as there was in other wars, no welcome home, no acknowledgment of the bravery shown in battle against the Vietcong and they were told to shut their mouths and not talk about their horror again.

Many Vets committed suicide, became hospitalized with mental problems and have a myriad of health problems. Some of these things also happened to subsequent generations of family members.

They will never forget what happened, during the war and after.

I just have one question.

Will Helen Clark, Phil Goff and her Labour colleagues personally apologise for spitting in the soldiers faces during the Queen Street riots?

It must be election year.

c Political Animal 2008

NZ HERALD: Poll reveals we're still smacking our children

In the wake of the acquittal of Chris Kahui for murdering his 2 young children and not a thing said in the media by Sue Bradford, she is out again today trying to make good parents who give their children a corrective smack criminals and normalise that-Political Animal

5:00AM Monday May 26, 2008
By Angela Gregory

NZ HERALD : Almost half of parents with children under 12 have smacked them in the past year, a survey has found.

The Family First lobby group commissioned a market research company to poll New Zealanders on their attitudes to parental discipline since the anti-smacking law came into effect in June last year.

It found that 48 per cent of respondents with children under 12 had smacked their child after the law change.

The changes to the Crimes Act outlawed the use of parental force against children for purposes of correction.

The issue polarised New Zealanders.

The law change was led by Green MP Sue Bradford, whose private member's bill removed from the Crimes Act the statutory defence of reasonable force to correct a child.

But it was passed only after last-minute changes, approved by a large majority in Parliament, which directed the police not to prosecute inconsequential offences.

Family First's national director, Bob McCoskrie, said he was surprised the polling found so many parents admitting they had flouted the law.

He said 51 per cent of mothers had admitted continuing to smack.

Related reading

Anti Anti-smacking petition a slap in the face for out of touch Politicians
Sign the anti smacking petition
Sacha Cobern's letter to NZ Herald Editor
Cindy Kiro gets violent
Anti-smacking law puts young boy at risk

"For a new law to be ignored by so many people who are willing to risk a police or [Child, Youth and Family] investigation indicates just how out of step with reality this law is."

The nationwide poll surveyed 1018 randomly selected respondents, with a fairly even spread of men and women aged from 18.

About a quarter of the respondents had children under 12.

Mr McCoskrie said the poll followed a similar one done in June last year, just after the new law came into effect.

In that survey, 78 per cent of parents said they would smack their child to correct their behaviour if they believed it was reasonable to do so.

Ms Bradford said yesterday that the new poll indicated an improvement in attitudes, as a year on only 48 per cent admitted having done so.

"We are well on the way; that is a great result," she said.

But Mr McCoskrie said the new poll showed the percentage opposed to the anti-smacking law had risen to 73 per cent from 62 per cent last year.

Men, people aged more than 60 and those from rural areas opposed it most strongly.

He said only 19 per cent strongly or somewhat agreed with the new law despite the police discretion clause, down from 29 per cent last year.

Almost half of those surveyed - 47 per cent - strongly disagreed with the ban on smacking.

Mr McCoskrie said 85 per cent of those polled - up from 82 per cent a year ago - agreed the new law should be changed to state that parents who gave their children a smack that was reasonable and for the purpose of correction were not breaking the law.

He said the polling sent a clear message to political parties seeking support for this year's election.

When asked whether their support for a party would be affected if it promised to change the law, 37 per cent said they would be more likely to vote for that party. This was up from 31 per cent last year.

The number of people whose vote would be unaffected by a policy to change the law fell from 59 per cent last year to 53 per cent this year.

Mr McCoskrie said the results showed New Zealanders had not been fooled by the anti-smacking lobby's claim that smacking was child abuse.

"They haven't been duped by arguments that children are damaged by reasonable smacking, and they have understood that our unacceptable rate of child abuse has far deeper root causes than a loving parent who corrects their child with a smack on the bottom," he said.

Asked if they thought the new law was likely to help reduce child abuse, 79 per cent said it was not at all likely. This figure was up from 77 per cent last year.

Organisers of a petition to reverse the anti-smacking law change have until the end of next month to gain the number of signatures needed to force a non-binding referendum at this year's election.

Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro said yesterday that she had not seen the survey.

But she urged people to move on and learn better parenting skills.

"The key message is, 'For goodness sake, can't we move on?' So much energy has been wasted debating this."

Dr Kiro said people needed to learn and be encouraged in positive parenting.

She believed there was a trend away from physical punishment.* The poll was conducted during the week beginning May 12 and has a margin of error of 3.1 per cent.