Sort of putss this statement in its place

“Predictions that shareholders would accept the offer to spite the Government after it intervened to tighten the law protecting strategic assets from foreign control last week have been proven wrong. Ordinary kiwi shareholders along with the Manukau and Auckland city councils (the two biggest shareholders) do not want our prime assets falling under foreign control and are happy with the good dividends the Airport has returned.”

Looks like ordinary kiwi shareholders don;t really share your national pride in airport ownership if the price is right. Can’t say you weren’t warned

You appear to be valuing a range of emotional intangibles that aren’t reflected in the share price. I think they are highly speculative and hard to quantify.

Of course it is a monopoly and attractive at a certain price. But I doubt at any price and nOw Banks is saying it has been underperforming in dividends – which is supported by the high offer price by CPF.

The weakness in your gouging argument is that it is already a monopoly and already exploits that in its prices. There are also laws that prevent monopolies abusing market power as well as competition from overseas airports which provide a benchmark price. International airlines don’t have to use Auckland. They could switch to Melbourne or Sydney or Chch if the prices in Auckland got too high, and the airlines are not slow in complaining about airport pricing as Air NZ has demonstrated.

my position is that AIA is of considerable value both in and of itself, and to the broader NZ economy; while selling it would not only result in yet more profits being extracted offshore, it would also reduce control over a strategic portal for our national economy; CPF see it as the monopoly it is and willing to do almost anything it seems to get a piece of that action, after all control of a strategic assett that is also a monopoly operator is carte blanch for gouging.

i can’t see that owners who have absolutely no interest in the broader impacts of AIA’s operation would ever moderate their profit extraction in order to serve those broader interests.

Brilliant. Let’s chuck away heaps of money now on the possibility we might be able to make it another way, even though that is not certain.

You have also missed the Mayor of Auckland saying the board hasn’t been aggressive enough in paying high dividends and he wants more. He wouldn’t be suggesting asset stripping would he because Steve the economic oracle doesn’t beleive you can get more out of it any other way…

funny when even arch capitalist darlecks like John Banks thinks selling is a bad idea.

Looks like they are getting closer! Must have got my forms…

Brett Dale points out the truth and the obvious position and is called a fascist.

Unbelievable.

Guess what?, Auckland International Airport doesn’t belong to the people, it doesn’t belong to Little Jimmy or Little Sarah, it doesn’t belong to a Local dairy farmer, or the person who cuts your hair, it doesn’t belong to the little people or the big people.

IT BELONGS TO THE SHAREHOLDERS, WE ARE THE ONES WHO INVESTED IN IT, THAT IS THE MANNER OF BUSINESS.

Are you a fascist?

I’m guessing one of these days, you are going to need a very good Lawyer.

perhaps that’ll be National’s groundbreaking new policy for any remaining SOEs it can’t sell off – own the majority but surrender all control to offshore corporations?

Not a sacred cow to me, open up hobsonville as a second airport and the Canadians can have AIA….

Some times monopolies do not serve thier customers so well, so its best in my mind that those monopoly rents are at least kept in NZ, this also forces reinvestment in NZ.

Telecom
NZ Rail, two good examples of monopoly rents being sent overseas to the detriment of customers and reinvestment in production efficiency.

The Canadians hoped to extract these so called hyper dividends by taking advantage of a well known tax loophole.

This is the loophole that Cullen and Dunne shut down nearly 2 weeks ago. So the hyper dividend debate is dead. That’s why O’Sullivan says in her article the Canadians WON’T be getting this benefit.

Despite this the Canadians decided to plug on which forced Cullen to then change the overseas investment rules last week.

Where’ve you been?