Great Southern entered administration in 2009 after debt rose to A$820m
Great Southern Group · Agribusiness managed investment schemes (timber)
The case in brief
Visible before detection
Checks that could have surfaced it, on hindsight
Unit economics & burn
Would have shown that plantation yields could not support scheme returns and loan repayments.
Can mislead when: Cost allocation is a judgement call. Kubr shows its assumptions and lets the user change them.
Operating-metric verification
Would have tested reported harvest and price assumptions against actual yields.
Can mislead when: Contract staff do not appear in EPFO. Vahan access needs licensed APIs. Some businesses have no physical trace.
Third-party confirmation
Would have confirmed debt and facility terms with lenders directly.
Can mislead when: Counterparties can collude or ignore requests. A non-response is logged as a gap, never as a pass.
Where Kubr services would have helped
Valuation context
Offered in India- C9 Would have shown that plantation yields could not support scheme returns and loan repayments.
Financial diligence
Offered in India- C9 Would have shown that plantation yields could not support scheme returns and loan repayments.
- C10 Would have tested reported harvest and price assumptions against actual yields.
Model check
Offered in India- C9 Would have shown that plantation yields could not support scheme returns and loan repayments.
- C10 Would have tested reported harvest and price assumptions against actual yields.
Portfolio monitor
Offered in India- C10 Would have tested reported harvest and price assumptions against actual yields.
Mapped from the checks each service runs. A hindsight reading of public records, not a promise that the failure would have been found.
Same pattern
A summary of public documents. It reports what the sources say. It is not Kubr's finding and not a statement of guilt.