|
30th November 2011, 11:19 | #1 |
Marginal Poster
|
Asset sales
Discuss.
Im in two minds on this one. Im aware that the state will retain majority ownership (barely), and this is good. Also, NZ investors will get priority over foreign interests, this is also good. It will raise much needed capital which SHOULD be spent bettering our position - if this is the case, this is also great. But National is leaping up and down promising that share ownership will remain in NZ, but this is unlikely to be the case once the initial buy up is over - you cant stop people from flogging their newly obtained shares off, and the government will have no control over it. So we have the potential for 49% of shares (and profits) to indirectly move offshore to foreign companies/states, leaving only a bare sliver of protection from complete domination of some of our most important services. We also have Nationals word that 1% safety net will remain for all time. I dont know if Im happy with all of this. Not unhappy, just not sure. |
30th November 2011, 11:40 | #2 |
talkative lurker
|
Except, they won't use the money raised to pay off debt. They'll just throw it into the bucket and spend it.
I could probably be convinced it's a good thing if it were purely going to paying off our staggering debt. But it won't, so I can't.
__________________
Broke my addiction! Bye bye Eve, hello Minecraft. Wait... >_< |
30th November 2011, 11:54 | #3 |
|
Forget the debt, the smart thing to do would be to reinvest the cash in future electricity infrastructure that is more efficient and sustainable than the current generation, by doing so we create jobs and develop world leading tech while also creating competition and keeping prices down. Regulation through aggressive research and development.
|
30th November 2011, 13:38 | #4 |
|
I was just stoked to see a number of Iwi already talking about buying up heavily when the sales take place (no links for this sorry - just recall reading about it in several different places).
|
30th November 2011, 15:04 | #5 |
|
I would much rather see most of it go into the hands of Iwi than any other group if asset sales go thru. At least that will keep it out of the hands of foreign ownership and remain with those that have vested interested in the welfare of New Zealand
|
30th November 2011, 15:06 | #6 |
|
I too have heard rumors of Iwi & the Cullen Fund buying them.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
30th November 2011, 23:54 | #7 |
|
Yeah, I believe the Maori party (or maybe just Iwi) oppose the asset sales, but seen as they are going to happen, they want priority to shares.
Then theres the Cullen Fund, and shit like that. So I do believe that most of it will end up in NZ. But I thought part of the reason to sell was to also inject some capital into the assets. But I don't get how this will happen? Unless more shares are created and sold later? |
8th March 2012, 22:43 | #8 |
|
fuck it
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...es-by-one-vote
fuck the politicians! fuck the greedy capitalist wankers! Like fuck we'll retain control over the assets. what a bunch of cunts. |
21st March 2012, 04:05 | #9 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Jesus christ, someone sub Shearer off, he's getting slaughtered.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAWcI...layer_embedded |
21st March 2012, 08:54 | #10 | |
Love, Actuary
|
Quote:
|
|
21st March 2012, 09:43 | #11 | |
get to da choppa
|
Quote:
...waiting for the lefties to come in with the $150m cost in fees whinge. |
|
21st March 2012, 17:53 | #12 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
21st March 2012, 18:08 | #13 |
Marginal Poster
|
almost like he set himself up to fail that one. what the fuck.
|
13th April 2012, 10:05 | #14 |
|
So, the government will allow more that 49% of shares to be sold in these companies. Its just that the extra shares have no voting rights, so the government will still be in control
So they could only hold 1% of shares, and therefore only get 1% of dividends. But thats ok, because they still have control of the Company. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...e-of-over-49pc FFS National, Fucking up NZ since 1936 Last edited by blynk : 13th April 2012 at 10:06. |
13th April 2012, 16:13 | #15 |
|
Sneaky dishonest cunts.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
14th April 2012, 07:38 | #16 |
|
I am so surprised.
Time to buy me some shares. |
26th June 2012, 20:29 | #17 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
|
|
26th June 2012, 20:58 | #18 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
26th June 2012, 21:21 | #19 |
|
I don't have a problem with asset sale in principle, as long as the price is right. Money going back to taxpayers etc. However, right now or in the near future seems like the worst time to get a good price, because of the financial crisis in Eurozone.
Oh yeah, even if we do maths the John Key way, only National and ACT campaigned with asset sale in mind, and they only got 60 out of 121 seats in total. THAT is not a majority. Peter Dunne is giving supporting for political reasons ("I WANT TO BE A MINISTER!"), not democratic reason. If we don't do maths the John Key way and look at the polls on this specific issue, National doesn't have a leg to stand on. |
26th June 2012, 21:24 | #20 |
|
meh, National made it loud and clear they were going to sell shit if they got re-elected.
|
26th June 2012, 21:42 | #21 |
|
That's my point. Even if they (NACT) campaigned on this issue, they only got 49.6% of the seats in the House. So NACT does not have a mandate, because they have <50% voter representational support.
|
26th June 2012, 21:48 | #22 |
Stunt Pants
|
They don't need more than 50%. They have the numbers on their side. That's all they need. All this other shit means nothing.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
27th June 2012, 07:40 | #23 | |
Love, Actuary
|
Quote:
|
|
27th June 2012, 08:38 | #24 | |
Nothing to See Here!
|
Quote:
|
|
27th June 2012, 08:39 | #25 | |
Love, Actuary
|
Quote:
|
|
27th June 2012, 14:54 | #26 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Protest at Parliament
|
27th June 2012, 15:56 | #27 |
|
Is Auckland OK?
|
27th June 2012, 20:51 | #28 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
27th June 2012, 21:03 | #29 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
It's hardly "ramming through" when the policy was openly part of National's election campaign, one which got it and its coalition partners enough seats at the election to form a government and pass legislation, and the law implementing the policy was passed without urgency.
Sheeyit, just because you don't like it that doesn't make it some evil conspiracy. |
27th June 2012, 21:52 | #30 |
|
Hi Ab! How are you?
I've already said I have no problem with asset sale in principle. So why are you saying that I HAVE a problem with asset sale? My beef is with National's attitude. When a lot of other people have problem with it, National just dismiss it out of hand. Trivialising it even. THAT'S my beef. I think most of criticisms from Labour and the Greens are just factually wrong (Two words: DCF), but National never bother to correct them, and by extension never bother to explain to 60%+ dissenting ordinary NZers why asset sale is not necessarily evil. THAT is not inclusive politics. THAT'S my beef. |
27th June 2012, 22:05 | #31 | |
Love, Actuary
|
Quote:
Given most people don't know what is for sale, how much will be sold, how it will be sold, to whom it will be sold, who is left in control, and what will be done with the money, it may well be the case that ill informed general opinions aren't yet all that useful? More so given that some opposition parties have been very deliberately planting bare faced lies in the heads of the vulnerable members of their supporters. |
|
27th June 2012, 23:25 | #32 |
|
Doppelgänger hates democracy!
|
27th June 2012, 23:40 | #33 | |
|
Quote:
You keep looking down at people and they will never look up to you. That is what National is doing. The truth is at most the power companies will look like Air NZ right now, floated on the sharemarket but the government has majority control. Pretty innocent. Now how often did John Key repeat that to get the truth out? Most of the time John Key is delivering zingers against Labour. |
|
27th June 2012, 23:45 | #34 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Carpe Diem |
|
28th June 2012, 01:53 | #35 | |
Stunt Pants
|
Quote:
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
|
28th June 2012, 08:29 | #36 | |
Love, Actuary
|
Quote:
|
|
28th June 2012, 09:58 | #37 | |
|
Quote:
I can only assume that JK only wanted 2 terms in office, with the only thing that could help is that it is so early in the term, that everyone has forgotten all this at the end. |
|
28th June 2012, 14:28 | #38 |
|
Ditto, I don't know really know enough to comment on if these sales are good or bad.
... Quick Google later, I've found the interim financial report for Mighty River. Skimming it they've posted an interim Dividend for the 6 months of 74.8 Mil. So we can reasonably expect 150Mil for the year. Govt is expecting to raise 1.7-1.8 Billion from the sale, so book value around 3.5Bil? So ROI of around 4% That seems pretty decent ROI to me, probably more than what the Govt is paying to service debt? so selling doesn't make that much sense as they could borrow the 1.7 Billion and use the 'profit' to pay the interest on it. Unless they've done unusually well this year and thats a much larger dividend than they normally pay out? Guess I'm still fence sitting on the issue as I still need more info. It would be nice if National/Key did a presentation on why its a good thing and actually ran through things like this, rather than the "lol we told you we were going to sell them, you elected us now we're doing it."
__________________
Some people are like slinkies. Not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs. |
28th June 2012, 14:37 | #39 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
28th June 2012, 15:30 | #40 | ||
|
Yeah, nah, still doesn't cover what I want to know. Which is why its better to sell the assets rather than borrow the same amount? Assuming they're actually profitable enough to cover the repayments?
Quote:
Can I take it then that they're not profitable enough to justify borrowing the money instead? Quote:
__________________
Some people are like slinkies. Not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs. |
||