There's only one thing for it - ban the offering of non-investment rated debt to private investors who do not meet a high net worth test. That would mean that Watson, Hotchin and their ilk would have to raise funds via institutions, who are likely to be in a better position to ask the right questions. The likelihood of of Dalziell agreeing to my proposal is about as high as her chances of being in government in December this year.

should not united finance debit be Watson&Hotchens proublum and not Hanovers

This is the problem - HANOVER is such a complicated shell game nobody really knows how much debt there is, who HANOVER in fact has lent money to.

Hanover was supposed to make investments not loans - the idea that investor money was used by Watson and Hotchin to lend out to their pet projects leaves me thinking the worst. The NZ Securities Commission rightly says that finance companies have an obligation to let investors know who these related parties are and whether their funds are being used

Not likely! There is not one investment commentator out there who is willing to back Watson and Hotchin - they do not have the savvy to make money at this point - no way will they be able to make any more than what the receivers can get us now. If they were stepping aside and letting unbiased independent people in to run the show - ok I'd vote for a moratorium but there's no chance of that is there?

As I said somewhere else, this is the toughest decision my wife and I have faced for a long time. What do we do - trust these guys to make good? or get out what we can? Can we have some dialogue in here rather than just random comments?

With so much controversy over related party loans why doesn't Hanover come clean once and for all? Why don't they just list the loans individually? A lump sum party loan figure tells the investors little and allows Hanover the latitude to disguise their related party loan activity. If they've nothing to hide they would have been up front and clear, but they haven't been, why is that?