Where have finance company execs gone?

There can be no problem with the finance company executives for having been part of a culture that New Zealand (& the world for that matter) thoroughly enjoyed all being a part of.
Because banking licences have been plainly not available in NZ, the finance companies stepped in to fill the resulting void, and most of them did a very good job of providing attractive returns to their investors and also the much-enjoyed funding to the borrowers.

There was never one single complaint from investors for all those happy years, until "bang"...the GFC forced everyone to hit the wall.
Looking backwards, the GFC often now appears to have hit rather quickly, however, the reality is that it was a long time coming, and that is why it must also be a long time going.

So, now that we are pulling out of the GFC, we see human nature rear it's head.

Those investors who had bathed so enjoyably in higher returns with their finance company investments than the banks would provide, have now switched to condemning those same "gods" by blaming them (finance companies, or mainly their 'bosses')for the losses they suffered.

However, the real bloke is supposed to be the one who can take self blame.
Remember the saying "when you point a finger at another, there are THREE fingers pointing back at yourself..!

At the end of the day, ALL finance company investments were made as "unsecured" investments.
That is one big reason why the returns were comparatively higher.

Surely the main big problem must be where any finance company directors 'cleverly' side-stepped literally hundreds of millions of dollars into related party 'tanks'?

It should therefore be the emphasis of any investigations or court proceedings that the actions of each and every director should be scrutinized as to "where the money went" over the years.

Related party transactions should be the main focus.
It is not fair to point the finger without glancing to realise (& accept) how many fingers point back at you.
Greed was the motive for so many years.
Human nature chooses to blame someone else when it goes wrong.

The courts should place highest emphasis on delving into related party transactions, because is that not where most of the money has been "lost" into?
Michael Donovan

Michael - I agree with most of what you say. However; I believe there is a major difference between risky lending and bad administration decisions.
I would be happy to accept a higher return for a higher risk, but only if I knew the investment was for re-investment, and not to line the pockets of an irresponsible or greedy director who was falsifying books just to gain more investment funds. If my funds were not invested in accordance with the Investment Statement (that pretty brochure that got me hooked) I would have every right to be upset and demand the director's testicles on a plate. THAT is pure false advertising and a clear breach of the Securities Act.
They need to pay highly, and example made of them to dissuade anyone else from considering a similar action.

The ramification of the crook directors are huge for the NZ economy - investment in NZ industry has dried up, and is falling back on the government. While this is short term, it has destroyed the retirement plans of many.

Just my view...