Asset sales

Vrtigo · 30th November 2011, 11:19

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.

A Corpse · 30th November 2011, 11:40

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.

GM · 30th November 2011, 11:54

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.

Savage · 30th November 2011, 13:38

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).

Dazza · 30th November 2011, 15:04

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

fixed_truth · 30th November 2011, 15:06

I too have heard rumors of Iwi & the Cullen Fund buying them.

blynk · 30th November 2011, 23:54

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?

sinner · 8th March 2012, 22:43

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.

Ab · 21st March 2012, 04:05

Jesus christ, someone sub Shearer off, he's getting slaughtered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAWcI...layer_embedded

Golden Teapot · 21st March 2012, 08:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab

Jesus christ, someone sub Shearer off, he's getting slaughtered.

That was superb.

Juju · 21st March 2012, 09:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab

Jesus christ, someone sub Shearer off, he's getting slaughtered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAWcI...layer_embedded

...waiting for the lefties to come in with the $150m cost in fees whinge.

adonis · 21st March 2012, 17:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juju

...waiting for the lefties to come in with the $150m cost in fees whinge.

Actually that's pretty near the bottom of the list as far as criticisms go. Most of the arguments against asset sales have already been put forward, but I would like to say that the rights support of Shearer is looking more and more like a great decision... for the right, not that I think he wouldn't have gotten the job without it. What a pointless waste of time that line of questioning was.

Vrtigo · 21st March 2012, 18:08

almost like he set himself up to fail that one. what the fuck.

blynk · 13th April 2012, 10:05

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

fixed_truth · 13th April 2012, 16:13

Sneaky dishonest cunts.

Jodi · 14th April 2012, 07:38

I am so surprised.

Time to buy me some shares.

Ab · 26th June 2012, 20:29

Quote:

The Mixed Ownership Model bill passed today with 61 votes to 60.

The passing of the legislation will see 49 per cent of Government ownership of Mighty River Power sold by the end of September.

United Future leader Peter Dunne's vote and Act MP John Banks' vote combined with the 59 National votes to form the majority, with 60 dissenting votes from Labour, the Green Party, New Zealand First, the Maori Party and Mana's Hone Harawira.

pxpx · 26th June 2012, 20:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jodi

I am so surprised.

Time to buy me some shares.

doppelgänger of someone · 26th June 2012, 21:21

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.

xor · 26th June 2012, 21:24

meh, National made it loud and clear they were going to sell shit if they got re-elected.

doppelgänger of someone · 26th June 2012, 21:42

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.

CCS · 26th June 2012, 21:48

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.

Golden Teapot · 27th June 2012, 07:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by doppelgänger of someone

So NACT does not have a mandate, because they have <50% voter representational support.

Your personal definition of what a mandate means is irrelevant.

Saladin · 27th June 2012, 08:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by doppelgänger of someone

Peter Dunne is giving supporting for political reasons ("I WANT TO BE A MINISTER!"), not democratic reason.

Anyone who voted for PD yet is surprised by this outcome deserves everything they get.. Have they ignored the last 15+ years of history?

Golden Teapot · 27th June 2012, 08:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saladin

Anyone who voted for PD yet is surprised by this outcome deserves everything they get.

Yes they do. As do National voters. And, the thing is, all of these voters are getting exactly what they expected too.

Ab · 27th June 2012, 14:54

Protest at Parliament

pxpx · 27th June 2012, 15:56

Is Auckland OK?

doppelgänger of someone · 27th June 2012, 20:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

Your personal definition of what a mandate means is irrelevant.

Please. It is true just as YOUR personal definition is irrelevant. At the end of the day, what matters is who has POWER, and National HAS the power to ram through the legislation.

Ab · 27th June 2012, 21:03

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.

doppelgänger of someone · 27th June 2012, 21:52

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.

Golden Teapot · 27th June 2012, 22:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by doppelgänger of someone

So why are you saying that I HAVE a problem with asset sale?

You very clearly do have a "problem" since your arguments selectively ignore counter facts that you surely must be aware of. For example, take another look at what National have publicly said about their polling on the understanding of what these asset sales entail and what it is they're going to do about improving this understanding.

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.

pxpx · 27th June 2012, 23:25

Doppelgänger hates democracy!

doppelgänger of someone · 27th June 2012, 23:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

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.

I don't know about the "bare faced lies" bit because I can't be sure about the intention (if David Cunliffe said those things Labour said I would be sure he lied. He worked for BCG so he couldn't possibly made finance 101 mistakes. Instead n00b David Shearer may just have gotten bad advice.) But good people counter falsehoods with truths. Not say "you are just stupid or wrong, therefore your opinion is worthless or irrelevant".

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.

madmaxii · 27th June 2012, 23:45

Quote:

You keep looking down at people and they will never look up to you.

That's exactly why Helen and her mob got dumped. And National are not making the same mistakes.

CCS · 28th June 2012, 01:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by doppelgänger of someone

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?

If you read the words that he wrote (instead of the words you imagined seeing) you'll note that what he was really getting at was that when you said National rammed the legislation through, they actually didn't. That's your imagination again.

Golden Teapot · 28th June 2012, 08:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by doppelgänger of someone

You keep looking down at people and they will never look up to you.

You're doing the same thing again. In fact I don't look down on anyone - all are equal in my eyes. I'm very aware that this won't be obvious to some but it doesn't change the fact; in just the same way it's a fact that many/most people have an extremely strong opinion on asset sales without knowing enough to sensibly have any opinion at all.

blynk · 28th June 2012, 09:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

in just the same way it's a fact that many/most people have an extremely strong opinion on asset sales without knowing enough to sensibly have any opinion at all.

Well isn't that his point. That National are not explaining it to the people, and are just saying "Labour are wrong"

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.

Brutus · 28th June 2012, 14:28

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."

pxpx · 28th June 2012, 14:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brutus

It would be nice if National/Key did a presentation on why its a good thing and actually ran through things like this

http://www.national.org.nz/mixed-ownership.aspx

Brutus · 28th June 2012, 15:30

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:

Our political opponents need to honestly explain to New Zealanders why it would be better to borrow this $5 billion to $7 billion from overseas lenders

hmmm, so they're challenging Labour to prove its bad. All I've seen from them can basically be summed up as "Asset sales bad, Labour good"
Can I take it then that they're not profitable enough to justify borrowing the money instead?

Quote:

We would rather pay dividends to New Zealanders on shares they own in the energy companies than pay interest to overseas lenders on more borrowing.

This is the best argument I've seen yet for the sales, assuming of course that the majority of the shares do end up in NZ hands.

30th November 2011, 11:19	#1
Vrtigo 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
A Corpse 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... >_<

26th June 2012, 21:48	#22
CCS 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?

30th November 2011, 11:54	#3
GM	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
Savage	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
Dazza	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
fixed_truth	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
blynk	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
sinner	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
Ab 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, 18:08	#13
Vrtigo Marginal Poster	almost like he set himself up to fail that one. what the fuck.

13th April 2012, 10:05	#14
blynk	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
fixed_truth	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
Jodi	I am so surprised. Time to buy me some shares.

26th June 2012, 21:21	#19
doppelgänger of someone	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
xor	meh, National made it loud and clear they were going to sell shit if they got re-elected.

26th June 2012, 21:42	#21
doppelgänger of someone	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.

27th June 2012, 14:54	#26
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	Protest at Parliament

27th June 2012, 21:03	#29
Ab 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
doppelgänger of someone	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.

28th June 2012, 14:28	#38
Brutus	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.