$2.49

99 comments on “$2.49 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Mary 1

   20 May 2013 at 7:26 pm

   Great stuff. Long may they fall.
2. Colonial Viper 2

   20 May 2013 at 7:30 pm

   Less another $60 in sharebrokers commission if you want to sell your shares. OUCH
   • Financially literate 2.1

     20 May 2013 at 9:27 pm

     Bullshit.

     https://www.asbsecurities.co.nz/section91.asp

     http://www.anzshareandbondtrading.co.nz/static/ourrates.aspx

     http://www.directbroking.co.nz/directtrade/static/ourrates.aspx
     • Colonial Viper 2.1.1

       20 May 2013 at 9:31 pm

       Ah I stand corrected. You only lose 1c per share and $30 brokerage 🙂
       • David H 2.1.1.1

         20 May 2013 at 9:59 pm

         3000 shares +brokerage would equal 60 bucks, so yes ouch!
         • Financially literate 2.1.1.1.1

           20 May 2013 at 10:12 pm

           Bullshit. Read the links.
           • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.1.1.1

             20 May 2013 at 10:16 pm

             hmmmm time you pull your (calculator) out…
             • Financially literate …

               21 May 2013 at 6:34 am

               Bullshit. It does not need to cost people $60 for brokerage. 3,000 * 2.49 = 7,470 which is less than 10,000 (anz) or 15,000 (direct brokering). At Asb it is also less than 0.3% of 10,000 which is equal to $30. All easily done online with no joining fees.
               • RJL …

                 21 May 2013 at 11:27 am

                 The average sharetrade of MRP at the moment is $50k worth of shares. On the day of launch the average value of a trade was more like $100k.

                 That looks like the profile of big(ish) individuals who are selling (and probably institutions who are buying). Or maybe institutions selling partial holdings.

                 Mythical Mum and Dads with $8k worth of shares don’t seem to be trading at the moment. They are just losing the paper gains that they made last week.
                 • felix …

                   21 May 2013 at 11:34 am

                   The mums and dads can get fucked. They’re marketing dupes. They’ll watch the price stagnate for a while then sell offshore.
                   • SomeSuch …

                     21 May 2013 at 12:01 pm

                     Charming.
                   • Rich …

                     21 May 2013 at 12:35 pm

                     Yup, they got the biggest rooting since they became a mum and dad in the first place.

                     Doubt there’ll be many takers next time.
                   • SomeSuch …

                     21 May 2013 at 12:46 pm

                     Settle down Rich. No ma and pa who preregistered has been ‘rooted’. Each has a margin of safety of up to 10c per share up to 5,000 (loyalty bonus) at the listing price of $2.50. Plenty of water to go under the bridge yet.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     21 May 2013 at 12:51 pm

                     So you have to rely on a government based top up gift in order to make money from this MRP deal? So much for the free market.
                   • SomeSuch …

                     21 May 2013 at 12:56 pm

                     It’s hard to determine whether your stupidity is willful or instinctual. I guess that’s splitting hairs.
                   • RJL …

                     21 May 2013 at 1:05 pm

                     Somesuch,

                     Any Mum and Dads who are selling right now are getting screwed. Largely by themselves. You are quite right that they should just sit tight. And the “loyalty bonus” just makes it even more sensible to just sit.

                     Around 100 small traders ($10k or less) started selling today, when the price nudged back to $2.51. That seems to fit the profile of Mums and Dads who panicked.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     21 May 2013 at 2:45 pm

                     The big institutions are just doing their thing of shaking out the weak hands and collecting a few more cheap shares for their big money boys.
                 • RJL …

                   21 May 2013 at 11:48 am

                   Although having said that in the last 20 minutes, or so, about 30 trades of only $5k have taken place. That would be Mums and Dads panicking and getting screwed.
                 • freedom …

                   21 May 2013 at 2:07 pm

                   you do understand what a mean and a mode average are don’t you RJL?
                   http://thestandard.org.nz/2-49/#comment-635992
3. BM 3

   20 May 2013 at 8:13 pm

   Mighty river power is more about dividend than share price.
   • RedBaronCV 3.1

     20 May 2013 at 8:37 pm

     Spare me BM – there is a linkage between dividend and share price less the nil prospect of a capital gain.
4. Descendant Of Sssmith 4

   20 May 2013 at 8:14 pm

   Wonder if Mr Gaynor will fess up to if he has dumped his shares as per his normal practise of pump and dump.

   Yep got all that short term profit to make.

   Wonder if IRD will tax those who have sold – obviously those that have sold weren’t investing.
   • Jared 4.1

     20 May 2013 at 8:31 pm

     Care to back that statement up that Brian Gaynor and or Milford Asset Management pump and dump?
     • Colonial Viper 4.1.1

       20 May 2013 at 8:34 pm

       Investors in his funds should be able to see how many MRP he has left.

       btw I think Gaynor can do a dump of MRP stocks; but his fund is not big enough to do a significant pump.
     • Descendant Of Sssmith 4.1.2

       20 May 2013 at 9:59 pm

       I’m referring to the fact that he has been encouraging mum and dads to buy the shares thereby increasing demand and price while running a business that does not hold onto shares for the long term.

       Quote:
       Milford adopts a highly active approach to portfolio management in order to attempt to take advantage of changing market conditions and investment opportunities.

       So having encouraged people to buy, without to my knowledge ever prefacing his media comments with the information that he often sells when prices rise, rather than wait for dividends over the long term has he already sold any shares purchased?

       It just seems wrong to me.

       You might have some technical definition of pump and dump that sets a more than the colloquial description that I think of but the phrase seems to describe the notion of talking the price up and selling perfectly to me.

       I’m just really asking whether he did sell when the price went up and is there any conflict in telling others to buy in the way he did?
5. andy (the other one) 5

   20 May 2013 at 8:22 pm

   Institutional investors did not have to pay for shares until the Wednesday after the float (3 days of free money), they have secured their balance sheets at the expense of 80,000 stupid mum and dad first time investors.

   How you feeling now , Mum & Dad. You have been rolled by John Key, the NZX and Banksters Inc…

   Marketing won, we lost…
   • Lanthanide 5.1

     20 May 2013 at 9:05 pm

     I don’t understand this comment. Various financial commentaries I’ve read said it would be/was the institutional investors, both in NZ and foreign, that would be buying up on the first day of listing, to meet their required investment thresholds, and mum & dads that were selling to them.
     • Tamati 5.1.1

       20 May 2013 at 10:08 pm

       You’re correct. A few greedy speculators will always try to “stag” the IPO and cash in early when institutional investors try to increase their portfolio.
     • andy (the other one) 5.1.2

       21 May 2013 at 11:03 am

       Basically the shares were floated at lunch time on Friday and Institutional investors and other large volume buyers were not required to settle until the following Wednesday. The likes of Milford Asset Management, could sell and take profit with little or no risk (Arbitrage).

       Mum & Dad investors had the money taken weeks prior to listing, the game was rigged in favor of the big boys.

       Kiwisaver and Cullen Fund buyers are holding long term so the price fluctuation is not so important vs the dividend stream.
       • Lanthanide 5.1.2.1

         21 May 2013 at 11:08 am

         “Mum & Dad investors had the money taken weeks prior to listing, the game was rigged in favor of the big boys.”

         Ahh, right. I thought you were saying the big boys took advantage of the mum & dad investors directly, rather than just that they had an advantage.
     • RJL 5.1.3

       21 May 2013 at 11:32 am

       The average sharetrade was around $100k on the first day. So that implies it was not Mums and Dads that were selling.
       • freedom 5.1.3.1

         21 May 2013 at 1:27 pm

         I guess when you include the million dollar plus trades (that mums and dads do every day) then yeah the average share trade value is quite high, but that would be the good old mean average so beloved by liars and spin doctors. Not the mode. Like when [people] say the average NZ income is $45-50K (mean) and not the $25-30K (mode) range that the vast majority of kiwis actually earn. It just sounds better doesn’t it? Who wants to be reminded most kiwis earn under 30K a year.

         I recall this TV3 article from the night which plainly stated that small holdings of only a few thousand shares were the most common range traded
         http://www.3news.co.nz/Govt-happy-with-Mighty-River-Power-share-rise/tabid/369/articleID/297324/Default.aspx
         • RJL 5.1.3.1.1

           21 May 2013 at 2:31 pm

           Yes, there is a difference between mean and median, etc.

           However, with share trades (on NZX, at least) there are still only a small number of total trades involved. So the few large trades are in fact most of the market (there is not a vast number of tiny trades).

           For example, right now there have only been 379 trades today of MRP shares for a total of about $20M of shares. Most of the value is in trades >$50k, plus 100-200 or so trades for tiny amounts (<$10k, some for only $100s). The people making money are the large traders. The small traders are just getting screwed on brokerage fees.
           • freedom 5.1.3.1.1.1

             21 May 2013 at 4:00 pm

             “The average share trade was around $100k on the first day. So that implies it was not Mums and Dads that were selling.”
             “there are still only a small number of total trades involved. So the few large trades are in fact most of the market”

             So using an admitted mean average artificially inflated the figure to back up your assertion that it was not mums and dads selling. So transparent, it is embarrassing. You do realise you have admitted this 100K figure was a result of misrepresentation and has little relationship to the reality of trades on the day. Trades which all other data shows were predominately small holdings. Otherwise called Mums and Dads.
             • RJL …

               21 May 2013 at 4:50 pm

               No. The majority of the trade today (and everyday since the MRP float) has been relatively large(ish) volume traders. Who are trading stock packages valued around $50k-$200k. I.e., unlikely to be Mums and Dads.

               There have also been a similar number of tiny volume traders active, who are potentially Mums and Dads. And admitedly, quite a lot of these minnows have been active today — at least since the price went back to $2.50. But these traders represent a tiny proportion of total trades — due to the small numbers involved. And they represent a tiny proportion of the 100,000 or so Mums and Dads that purportedly exist.

               If today’s MRP trade was mostly due to Mums and Dads you would need thousands of Mum and Dad scale traders selling their entire portfolios to make up today’s total volume.

               You can use the interwebs to look at the numbers yourself if you are interested.
               • freedom …

                 21 May 2013 at 5:05 pm

                 “on the first day.”
                 you are one of these people who just cannot simply say, ‘i made a mistake, my bad’ and move on

                 “on the first day.” does not mean any other time but the first day and they were your words and the article i referenced was about the first day and the numbers you gave were about the first day

                 have a good day
             • alwyn …

               21 May 2013 at 5:03 pm

               You are clearly mistaken.
               I remember on the first day of trading hearing Russel Norman explaining what was going on.
               Somehow the genius that he is was able to look at a string of trades that had taken place, and bear in mind they only gave the volume and the price, and determine that all the trades were by small shareholders selling out to large overseas based investors. Clearly he is a genius, and you story must be wrong.
               Incidentally it is impossible to tell whather all trades are by small holdings. You can only tell at best one side of the trade. For example if I buy 100,000 shares it may show up as 20 trades at 5,000 each, if I was buying from people who had that to sell.
               If on the other hand I wanted to sell 100,000 shares it could show up as 20 trades, also at 5,000 each. You cannot distinguish either of those from 20 trades each by a person wanting to buy 5,000 from 20 other people wanting to sell 5,000
               • freedom …

                 21 May 2013 at 5:09 pm

                 I am sure that might happen sometimes but I don’t believe stock holders regularly do twenty small trades on the same day, with the associated multiple fees, rather than the one or two larger trades

                 your explanation screams of desperate spin
                 but then again you are trying to defend stock trades so spin away alwyn, spin away
                 • alwyn …

                   21 May 2013 at 6:24 pm

                   I am afraid that you don’t understand how the sharemarket works.
                   Suppose I want to buy 100,000 MRP shares. I ask my broker to do so.
                   Suppose also that there are 20 small shareholders who are willing to sell 5,000 shares.
                   For the moment ignore the fact that they have to be the ones willing to accept the lowest price and so on. This only determines who I end up buying from.
                   The above scenario would cause 20 transactions to be recorded of 5,000 shares each. Note that I did NOT initiate 20 trades. It was just that they were the size of parcels available.
                   Similarly if I wanted to buy 5,000 shares and I was willing to pay a higher price than anyone in the market, and there was a seller who had 100,000 for sale I would get them from him, even though in total he wanted to sell more. This would show up as a trade of 5,000. His remaining 95,000, if sold, would show up as 1 or more other trades.
                   I am not “desperately spinning” You just don’t understand how the stockmarket works. The whole point about the crap that RN was mouthing was that he hadn’t the faintest idea who was making the trades. He was just spouting bs.
                   • freedom …

                     22 May 2013 at 8:19 am

                     I get that, I do. Who was selling the shares is what was being discussed. It comes down to the most likely scenario and if people are selling small blocks on the first day they were more likely small stockholders, ie ‘mums and dads’. If it was a larger stockholder why would they bother selling piecemeal packets of their master of the universe folios.

                     p.s. alwyn, My spin comment was a bit out of line, apologies for that.
                   • alwyn …

                     22 May 2013 at 9:35 am

                     My point was that you can’t tell, from the material that Russel Norman was talking about, whether it was a small seller, in which case your supposition is correct or whether it was a small buyer wanting to round up his initial allocation and a large seller whose offering was being taken up by a number of small buyers. They could have received a decent lot but not enough to really satisfy them and they may have decided to drop out completely.
                     That is why there is the alternative interpretation that it was large sellers, and small buyers. I don’t know which it was, neither do you and neither does Russel Norman. That is why I think he was just spouting any bs that suited him.
                     I wasn’t trying to “spin” it but I think that RN certainly was.
                     Thank you for the last comment. It is very easy, particularly when one is annonymous to get a little extreme, such as my comment “You just don’t etc”. Consider that withdrawn.
                   • RJL …

                     22 May 2013 at 1:01 pm

                     You are quite right that lots of small trades could mean either a small number of big sellers selling small packages or many smaller traders each selling small amounts.

                     However, the NZX tells you the volume of individual trades as they happen (possibly with a time lag depending on how you access the data). So, it is easy to identify that most of the value of MRP share trade is occuring in packages that are typically too big to be Mums and Dads.

                     A little trade can be either a big trader or a Mum and Dad, but big trades can only be made by big traders. With the proviso that “big” merely means in excess of $10k, which is well above the mythic Mum and Dad holding size.
6. RedBaronCV 6

   20 May 2013 at 8:35 pm

   I’m thinking it might be time to buy a few and give them to the Green’s and David Cunliffe’s electoral committe as a donation. Good use of money and would enliven the AGM.
7. Suitably Clueless 7

   20 May 2013 at 9:06 pm

   I am utterly illiterate economically when it comes to the share market, it may as well be sorcery. As far as this mixed ownership model goes, why would or should I buy shares to own a utility that is feasibly in my share as a taxpaying citizen? I sincerely hope that these ‘mum & dad’ investors hold on to their shares for as long as it takes to get them back. Leave the big boy games to the big boys.
   • Tamati 7.1

     20 May 2013 at 10:10 pm

     Because any dividends and capital gains you receive from shares you own privately, are yours to spend as you wish.
     • Colonial Viper 7.1.1

       21 May 2013 at 1:32 pm

       While depriving the government treasury of funds with which to provide services to NZers with, and increasing the nation’s dependence on foreign financiers and debt.
   • MrSmith 7.2

     21 May 2013 at 5:56 pm

     There’s not a-lot to understand, basically it’s like a casino where Mum’s and Dad’s get shafted and the company owners and those in the know make off like thief’s, the dealers (share brokers) are also paid well.
8. JK 8

   20 May 2013 at 9:09 pm

   “They’re not interested in actually making money out of this sale. They’re interested in shrinking government and transfering wealth”.

   I reckon you’ve got it right, Irish Bill. This govt is only interested in transferring NZ wealth and assets to their overseas rich corporate mates. They don’t care about NZ – DonKey certainly doesn’t – he’s more interested in helping his overseas mates (who may/or may not have helped him into his current position !)
   • North 8.1

     20 May 2013 at 9:42 pm

     Really does seem to be the way. Stuff of a novel.
     • Colonial Viper 8.1.1

       20 May 2013 at 9:47 pm

       This novel to be precise.

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man
       • North 8.1.1.1

         20 May 2013 at 10:01 pm

         Jesus ! The dots connect more and more.

         Thanks for the link CV
         • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1.1

           20 May 2013 at 10:23 pm

           The guy has done a couple of interviews as well.

           Here’s one he did with RT. Scary shit…but you can see the pattern over and over again.
       • Aotearoean 8.1.1.2

         21 May 2013 at 5:40 am

         Am glad my son advised me not to invest.
   • felix 8.2

     21 May 2013 at 1:08 am

     “They’re not interested in actually making money out of this sale. They’re interested in shrinking government and transfering wealth”.

     Yep, and John Key said as much in parliament.

     When asked “Is there a bottom line below which he would not sell our profitable assets; and if so, what is that bottom line?”,

     he answered “The bottom line is that it has got to be the right thing for New Zealand, and it is.”

     There you have it: No financial bottom line; just an ideological one.
     • Colonial Viper 8.2.1

       21 May 2013 at 1:13 am

       Thank goodness there’s at least one party left which stays true to its political economic ideology. Just sucks they’re the Tories.
9. Jimmie 9

   20 May 2013 at 9:58 pm

   10 days? Well hopefully most of the investors take a slightly longer outlook than 10 days when they purchased the shares.

   Look back in 6 months or 1 years time and you will be able to decide if it was good buy or not – also dividend announcements in August.
   • Tamati 9.1

     20 May 2013 at 10:11 pm

     +1
     • Colonial Viper 9.1.1

       20 May 2013 at 10:25 pm

       Gambling on the gamed markets while depleting the wealth of the nation.
       • infused 9.1.1.1

         20 May 2013 at 10:57 pm

         I’m sure you an automated bot

         If ($newpost == $true)
         {
         $quote = readquote(random_leftwing_quote.txt)
         post-thread($quote)
         }
         • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1.1

           20 May 2013 at 11:08 pm

           Not a single step back!
         • toad 9.1.1.1.2

           20 May 2013 at 11:09 pm

           Nah, but Judith Collins appears to be

           Failed the Voight-Kampff Test.
   • IrishBill 9.2

     21 May 2013 at 6:27 am

     As a right winger you will believe that the market prices dividend and future value into the cost of the share.

     And the market has decided these shares are worth less than they were ten days ago. In fact if you take the closing value on float day into account as the first clear market price they are worth considerably less than they wore ten days ago.

     That means the market has decided the future growth and dividend stream isn’t good enough to see the share increase. It’s close to a perfect market. Which means price is nearly perfectly correlated to value. And the price has fallen.
     • King Kong 9.2.1

       21 May 2013 at 9:17 am

       Irish makes an excellent point on how well Key and the National government have done in getting, what appears to be, a top of the market price for their shares in MRP.

       What am outstanding outcome for the country.
       • Lanthanide 9.2.1.1

         21 May 2013 at 10:58 am

         Minus the $100m+ cost of sale and the price per share they achieved is probably more like $2.30-40.

         Sorry.
     • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 9.2.2

       21 May 2013 at 11:54 am

       If MRP is worth less than it was before, the government is onto a winner, isn’t it? They have exchanged shares on the way down for cash. The State has won out over the capitalists. You should be celebrating that, IB.
10. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 10

    21 May 2013 at 9:13 am

    Irishbill’s onto a winner here. If the price drops, the public have been sold a pup. If it rises, the Nats have ripped the people off. He cannot lose.
    • Colonial Viper 10.1

      21 May 2013 at 9:14 am

      More like the people of NZ cannot win. Just the 1% who collect banksters fees and brokerage commissions.
    • burt 10.2

      21 May 2013 at 10:58 am

      Irish is supporting blind opposition – no need to think – just parrot Labour = good, National = bad.
      • Colonial Viper 10.2.1

        21 May 2013 at 12:52 pm

        When did you suddenly become a fan of thinking and independent thought?
11. Augustus 11

    21 May 2013 at 11:34 am

    And now the people of Christchurch are told that selling some of their assets they built up could be flogged of to pay for that nice Convention Centre they’ve been hanging out for since the earthquake. The people I saw on Campbell Live last night will be delighted to know that they’ve been heard by Key.
    • Lanthanide 11.1

      21 May 2013 at 12:30 pm

      If the decision is ultimately up to the council, then they won’t sell the assets, because the people of CHCH won’t let them.

      CCC has the lowest debt out of any council in the country, precisely because they didn’t sell off their assets as was the vogue back in the 90’s.
      • tracey 11.1.1

        21 May 2013 at 12:40 pm

        …and dont have the leaky home liability of Auckland, shitloads is being outlaid paying for that mess.
12. Wayne (a different one) 12

    21 May 2013 at 12:07 pm

    Congratulations Labour, you have been very successful in wiping considerable value of a New Zealand asset.

    I just can’t wait for the economic package the left are going to roll out for the election campaign. I’m sure it will make rivetting reading – not!
    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 12.1

      21 May 2013 at 12:11 pm

      Have they damaged the dams? Or stopped the flow of wind and water?

      You really need to learn the difference between your wallet and the country.
    • Arfamo 12.2

      21 May 2013 at 12:13 pm

      Congratulations Labour, you have been very successful in wiping considerable value of a New Zealand asset.

      How do you figure that? The value to everyone was greater before the Natsys decided to put it on the market. The Natsys devalued it.
    • tracey 12.3

      21 May 2013 at 12:39 pm

      The market has done that. You forget some people just made a BIG profit in a few days. Those who bought at issue price, sold when it went high, pocketed the profit and will probably buy back in near the current price. They can do that because unlike the mums and dads (fictional) with $2000 worth of shares the $60 brokerage fee meant doing the same thing was of no benefit to them. Funny how it favoured the people from the PM’s former “profession”.

      Interestingly, no release from the Government as to how many oft he expressions of interest were fictional names…
13. Mr Interest 13

    21 May 2013 at 12:28 pm

    ENERGY SECURITY

    NZ Sells off renewable energy producing Assets and makes more roads (i.e. oil dependent)

    cf

    America invests heavily in developing an Energy Security Trust (go the yanks….)

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/03/15/what-you-need-know-about-energy-security-trust

    Quote:

    “America’s scientists are a national treasure. Every day, idea by idea, innovation by innovation, they are developing new technology that will help secure our energy future. If we want to keep moving forward, we need scientists to keep inventing and innovating, to keep unlocking new solutions and pushing new breakthroughs.

    In his 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama called on Congress to create an Energy Security Trust Fund, which would free American families and business from painful spikes in gas prices. The President’s plan builds on an idea that has bipartisan support from experts including retired admirals and generals and leading CEOs, and it focuses on one goal: shifting America’s cars and trucks off oil entirely.

    So how does it work? The Energy Security Trust will invest in research that will make future technologies cheaper and better – it will fund the advances that will allow us to run cars and trucks on electricity or homegrown fuels, and on the technology that will enable us to drive from coast-to-coast without a drop of oil.”

    So we as a small nation flog off our best energy producing assets…. an opportunity lost….. (we can leverage off the future technology from the above research). Oh no that’s right…. some investor will.

    The game is changings
14. Wayne (a different one) 14

    21 May 2013 at 12:40 pm

    And what of the 1 million plus people who have invested their ‘hard earned’ money in Kiwisaver – so you say to them – ‘tough’, your investment has just gone backwards.

    All courtesay of some mis-guided Labour loonies.

    And to you knucklehead – you just have no grasp economics, but then thats pretty typical of the left.

    In fact, you’re a bloody economic tragic, given you’re comments.
    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 14.1

      21 May 2013 at 12:51 pm

      Coming from a right whinger that’s a compliment.

      Hysterical abuse where an argument belongs – “loonies” – is pretty typical of the right.

      I note that Contact Energy shares (after an initial gain) went down before they went up. Was that Labour’s fault too?

      PS: If the Green/Labour policy announcement put the fear into the maggots as you assert, I hope there’s more where that came from, because you people have spent thirty years too many pushing your incompetent tripe.

      Two words: Thomas Herndon.
    • Colonial Viper 14.2

      21 May 2013 at 12:53 pm

      Wayne – this should teach people to put their hard earned money in the hands of grubby little financiers and profiteers.
    • Arfamo 14.3

      21 May 2013 at 12:53 pm

      The situation wouldn’t even exist if National hadn’t created it. Stop crying.
    • RJL 14.4

      21 May 2013 at 12:56 pm

      …who have invested their ‘hard earned’ money in Kiwisaver…

      That would be a decision made by the fund managers of the various Kiwisaver schemes.

      A large fund could have made a high risk investment for short-term gain, in which case they’ve probably been and gone and already dumped their stock when the prices was around $2.60 (or higher).

      Alternatively, a large fund could be investing for the long haul, for dividend pay-back (and possibly long-term stock price growth). In which case the stock price right now is largely irrelevant — and it is in fact better to be lower, so that the fund can buy more shares now.

      In either case, the fund managers would have done their numbers and managed their risk appropriately. If the fund managers are competent, there should not be any significant disasters.
    • tracey 14.5

      21 May 2013 at 1:08 pm

      They didnt have to buy, remember they paid for their shares AFTER Labour and the Greens indicated they might change the legislation if elected. It was good they gave people a “heads up”.

      Did you think investing int he stock market was a bubble free of any influences Wayne? This grasp of economics you speak of Wayne, is it the economics that leads to banks being bailed out or stockmarkets crashing?

      Panicking about a short term fluctuation in stock prices exposes your economic ignorance Wayne.
15. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 15

    21 May 2013 at 3:22 pm

    If the price is tanking, maybe we should sell the rest of the shares.
    • freedom 15.1

      21 May 2013 at 4:04 pm

      OleOle, to almost any other commenter, I would suggest you forgot the sarc tag
      sadly you are being as straight as you know how
      and would like nothing more than the final traces of public ownership to be donated to the troughers
16. Binders full of viper- women 16

    21 May 2013 at 4:45 pm

    Holy shit.. that makes me down a whole 400 cents… gotta hurt a RWNJ/ asset thief.
17. Mark Fletcher 17

    21 May 2013 at 5:20 pm

    Probably pointless making this comment but here goes.
    Closed today at $2.51 above their issue price in one more day!
    Posting hysterical posts “about a short term fluctuation in stock prices exposes your economic ignorance” Tracey.
18. Mark Fletcher 18

    21 May 2013 at 5:30 pm

    You say “They’re interested in shrinking government” what could possibly be wrong with that?
    Or do you want the government to interfere in all aspects of your lives?
    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 18.1

      21 May 2013 at 5:55 pm

      Deep down, I think you know the answer to that, Mark.
    • IrishBill 18.2

      22 May 2013 at 8:22 am

      That’s a false binary. I, like most non-ideologues, want a mixed economy in which the government owns and runs essential services that are strategic, have high entry barriers, and tend toward monopoly or cartel behaviour. Electricity is very much in that basket.

      It seems to me you’re quite happy to have private interests interfering in your life but I’m more of a fan of economic sovereignty and democratic accountability.

      And Ole, for your own sake, please don’t immediately suck around the ankles of any new rightie that turns up spouting roarkian drivel – it’s undignified.
      • Saccharomyces 18.2.1

        22 May 2013 at 8:54 am

        “want a mixed economy in which the government owns and runs essential services that are strategic, have high entry barriers, and tend toward monopoly or cartel behaviour. Electricity is very much in that basket.”

        And what about the mixed ownership model in place for MRP contradicts this statement? Government still has majority shareholding, and retains control.
        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 18.2.1.1

          22 May 2013 at 10:02 am

          “…retains control…”

          Link to the last time this ignorant garbage was debunked.

          We need better wingnuts.
          • Saccharomyces 18.2.1.1.1

            22 May 2013 at 10:09 am

            Thanks for that!

            Shit, might as well sell them off completely then!
            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 18.2.1.1.1.1

              22 May 2013 at 10:18 am

              See IrishBill’s comment above. The one you claimed meant the govt. “retains control”. The key words are “essential” and “strategic”.

              “Essential” means you must have it.

              “Strategic” means it is part of a big plan.

              I hope that makes it easier for you to grasp.
        • Colonial Viper 18.2.1.2

          22 May 2013 at 10:07 am

          And what about the mixed ownership model in place for MRP contradicts this statement? Government still has majority shareholding, and retains control.

          Because its just shifted control and ownership of even more core economic infrastructure to the private sector.

          Guess it’ll just have to be shifted back over time.
        • prism 18.2.1.3

          22 May 2013 at 11:31 am

          IB 😀
      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 18.2.2

        22 May 2013 at 9:00 am

        ..and I’m all about the dignity.
19. SomeSuch 19

    22 May 2013 at 11:34 am

    “And if the billions are there, where are they coming from?”

    Collectively NZ households have $115b in deposits with registered banks. In total they collectively have $240b in financial assets, with a net $48b of financial wealth. On top of this financial wealth, NZers have around $442b in net housing equity. Household disposable income is approximately $132b p.a. In other words NZ households have billions that could be allocated to purchasing equities in M.O.M should the investments stack up against other alternative uses.

    http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/monfin/c18/download.html

Links to post

1. The Daily Blog Watch Monday 20 May « The Daily Blog: posted on 21 May 2013 at 6:28 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS