Buyer beware

Written By: - Date published: 7:26 am, July 11th, 2012 - 70 comments
Categories: energy, Maori Issues, privatisation, water - Tags:

While the energy companies are profitable for the government to own – thanks to its 3.5% cost of capital – they’re not for ‘mum and dad’ because the dividend return is going to be 4% pre-tax and ‘mum and dad’ have a mortgage, or an overdraft, or credit card debt – and putting their shares savings (if they have any, considering 50% of families have less than $1,700 in the bank) paying off any of those gives a better rate of return, tax-free.

But say you’re foolhardy, or say you believe there’s going to be big equity gain (like 4% per year, every year). Are you still so keen when the company you want to buy, Mighty River, is at risk of losing the rights to its main input, water, or paying unknown fees for its use to the true owners?

If you are, you’re mad.

Nobody is going to be stupid enough to buy shares with the Waitangi water claim hanging over them.

Which means Key will have to delay the sale until the issue is settled.

If Key had been a bit smarter, he would have seen past the opportunity for a bit of racial wedging of the opponents of asset sales. He would have seen that the water issue needs to be settled ASAP or the entire asset sales programme will either be a flop or delayed indefinitely.

Rather than play the race card, he would have played smart – like he would have back before his political instincts deserted him – and played the conciliator. He would have pulled the iwi together and given them some shares or set up a system of fee payments from the dam and geothermal plant owners.

It could all have been sorted with time to spare. But, now, this thing is going to drag on forever. There’ll be court cases, injunctions, appeals, maybe legislation. You can’t sell amongst all that and get a good price.

Oh, and here’s another couple of things prospective buyers need to factor in.

Taupo Council wants Mighty River’s consent for raising the level of Lake Taupo to be reduced or mitigated because its eroding the lakeshore – but an extra metre of lake level is, by my calculation, half a billion extra kilowatt/hours of gravitational potential energy sitting there, worth over $50 million dollars to Mighty River, and it’s ready to be sent down the dams for even greater profits when the spot price spikes. If that gets curtailed, there goes a big chunk of Mighty River’s profits.

And there’s the question of the legality of National’s prospective bonus share issue. There’s no appropriation for that give-away. National may face legal challenges if it tries to give away shares to ‘loyal’ shareholders without getting Parliamentary consent first. More costs, more delays, more risk for the investor.

I’ve got a few grand sitting in the bank right now. Given the choice between leaving it there and punting on Mighty River, I reckon I’ll leave it in the bank.

70 comments on “Buyer beware ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    11 July 2012 at 7:54 am

    Key is the one who has effectively wedged himself on this issue.  His comments about the Government ignoring recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal are starting to hurt big time.

    He is technically correct that the Government can ignore WT recommendations, in the same way that it can ignore the Treaty itself.  The only problem is that the matter then ends up in Court and the Judiciary has shown that they are sympathetic to Treaty claims and insist on the Government acting in good faith.

    Key has effectively trashed any suggestion that the Government are engaging in good faith.

    I agree James that this situation is currently wide open and any investor worth their salt would discount the price severely because of risk.

    A comment I heard on National Radio yesterday really struck a chord.  A Maori chap said that Maori had always considered themselves to be owners of the rivers and water but had been willing for the Crown to use them free of charge.  This decent stance will change however if the country’s power generating assets are partially owned by corporate interests. 

  2. Afewknowthetruth 2
    11 July 2012 at 8:05 am

    I’ve got a few grand sitting in the bank right now. Given the choice between leaving it there and punting on Mighty River, I reckon I’ll leave it in the bank.

    Neither would be a good particularly choice. The enire globalised banksters’ Ponzi scheme is unravelling right now and will go up ‘in a puff of smoke’ over the next few years (or months).

  3. Craig Glen Eden 3
    11 July 2012 at 8:10 am

    This is one of those situations where Key should have said nothing or at least been minimal, but as you have said Mickey even though he is Technically right it was not the right thing to say given his position as PM.

    While I dont for a moment feel sorry for the guy, it is a tough job being a PM, you certainly have to choose your words carefully.

    • ad 3.1
      11 July 2012 at 9:00 am

      All he needed to do was say something graceful like: “You know they’ve put the effort into putting submissions together, let’s all grow up and hear what they have to say.”

      To which a reporter would have gone: “So are you saying you will do what the Waitangi Tribunal wants?”

      “No, I am saying breath through your nose and stop trying to predict the outcome of a process.”

      He just looks like he learnt nothing from Helen Clark’s handling of the Foreshore and Seabed Court ruling. Which in my mind was Cullen’s worst mistake – simply banning the Nelson Maori from taking court action to the next legal level.

      If I were him I would drive over to the Waitangi hearing and just be int he audience to hear some of it. Take the heat and respect the process. Who knows he could learn something.

      • Pete George 3.1.1
        11 July 2012 at 9:07 am

        To an extent I think you’re right, but I also think it’s been blown up by people with an interest in making as big an issue of it as possible.

        Both Pita Sharples (on Firstline) and Donna Hall (on National Radio) seemed to be trying moderating the rhetoric.

        • mickysavage 3.1.1.1
          11 July 2012 at 9:17 am

          You are joking about Pita Sharples arn’t you Petey? This is from Radio New Zealand this morning:

          “The Maori Party says Mr Key is making a mockery of the tribunal and it is seriously considering the future of its support relationship.”

          The link is at http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/110392/ownership-of-water-bigger-than-foreshore-debate-harawira

          If that is “moderating the rhetoric” then I would hate to see the original statements.

          Also you are showing your bias. Calling legitimate Maori concerns “rhetoric” is insulting in the extreme.

          • Pete George 3.1.1.1.1
            11 July 2012 at 9:48 am

            I didn’t call legitimate Maori concerns “rhetoric”. There have been legitimate concerns expressed, and there has over the top rhetoric, and not just from Maori, I’ve seen it as bad from the opposing side as well.

            On Sharples, see Maori Party won’t sever ties over asset sales.
            – I suggest watching video of the whole interview.

            Donna Hall:

            Maori Council lawyer Donna Hall told the programme the Crown agreed in the 1890s that the ownership of water rests with Maori and New Zealand has to face up to this.

            She said the Prime Minister is correct in his interpretation that the Government does not have to take up the recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal.

            But she said the tribunal is an important part of race relations in New Zealand, and the danger is that Maori may start ignoring the Prime Minister.

            http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2524716/maori-council-lawyer-speaks-on-tribunal-case.asx

            I don’t think that’s rhetoric, Hall sounded like she was reasonably stating her views.

            • mickysavage 3.1.1.1.1.1
              11 July 2012 at 10:04 am

              So what are “legitimate Maori concerns” Pete.
               
              You are using a semantic technique to brand the “more extreme” views as “rhetoric” but more “reasonable” concerns as “legitimate” without once touching on the merits of the argument.  This adds exactly, precisely nothing to the discussion. 
               
              And Sharples may not sever ties on the matter but this will mark the beginning of the end for the Maori Party.

              EDIT: You have just put up Donna Hall’s comments. Read them again. She is saying essentially that Key is lying and that water does belong to Maori. It looks like you are agreeing with her by your comment that she “seemed to be moderating the rhetoric”. Good to have you on side Petey. Can you persuade the coiffured one to do the same?

              • Pete George …
                11 July 2012 at 10:44 am

                “She said the Prime Minister is correct in his interpretation” doesn’t sound like accusing him of lying to me.

                You’re the one getting twisted on semantics.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  11 July 2012 at 10:50 am

                  When you said: “I’ve seen it as bad from the opposing side as well.”, where do you see your talk about extortion fitting in?

                  Care to retract that yet?

                • mike e …
                  11 July 2012 at 10:58 am

                  Eddie Dury her ex former judge disagrees with that opinion

                • mickysavage …
                  11 July 2012 at 8:50 pm

                  Um Duh

                  Key said that no one owns water.  Hall said the Crown agreed in the 1890s that the ownership of water rests with Maori and New Zealand has to face up to this.  

                  One of them is wrong.  I know which one I believe this to be. 

                  • Populuxe1 …
                    11 July 2012 at 10:58 pm

                    “the Crown agreed in the 1890s that the ownership of water rests with Maori and New Zealand”
                    Where in constitutional law does it say that. exactly, chapter and verse?
                    I really hope there’s a better justification for this than taht the Treaty says all taonga belongs to Maori but doesn’t set any limits or distinctions on what taonga can mean. I have my doubts the Crown intended it that way.
                    Basically taonga seems to work like papal infallibility. If the Pope were to say ex cathedra “God is a purple water mellon and I am his blue banana on Earth” it becomes a fact of faith provided it is declared solemnly proposed as dogma to be professed by the whole Church.
                    Taonga is a weasel word in the context of the Treaty, it can mean anything anyone wants it to mean – it is therefore an unrelable justification.

            • marty mars 3.1.1.1.1.2
              11 July 2012 at 11:28 am

              Your quote from Donna Hall says,”the Crown agreed in the 1890s that the ownership of water rests with Maori and New Zealand has to face up to this.” – thats seems pretty straight to me – do you agree with that part of her statement pete or do you still have some facing up to do?

    • Dr Terry 3.2
      11 July 2012 at 11:16 am

      Craig, I agree, except to say that Key thought HE WAS being “minimal” – so much for his self-assessment!

  4. Tom Gould 4
    11 July 2012 at 8:13 am

    Sound advice on paying down debit, but where does the 4% pre-tax come from?

  5. travellerev 5
    11 July 2012 at 8:17 am

    If I was a rich foreigner knowing that I would be protected by the TPP fascist takeover, Hell yeah! Bring it on! Fuck Treaties, local government and if need be a bomb here and there with the predator drones paid for by the local populations brought to their knees with the derivatives they were stupid enough to buy into. What’s to fear?

  6. Jim Nald 6
    11 July 2012 at 8:26 am

    So John Key will go ahead with asset sales regardless of what the Waitangi tribunal finds.
    Well well, this is one of the rare and valuable occasions when John Key reveals his real thoughts and intention that will dictate the ultimate outcome.

    • Pete George 6.1
      11 July 2012 at 9:15 am

      How much should National abide by the recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal?

      How much should the Maori Council abide by the recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal?

      • ad 6.1.1
        11 July 2012 at 9:23 am

        The system does not need to change.

        If there is a case to answer then it will go the High Court and from there probably upwards.

        There is already, and MickeySavage has pointed out, some recent and relevant Supreme Court rulings on this kind of thing.

        The Government should abide by decisions of the Courts, and not abrogate process like (IMHO)Cullen did. Key needs to learn this.

      • mike e 6.1.2
        11 July 2012 at 9:33 am

        Peter’s Groupie How did Maori television come about everybody said Maori didn’t have rights to the air waves but the privy council disagreed .
        You will find the same principal applies with water.
        You give no credence to Maori revival.
        With Maori in charge now we might have some Clear water.
        This might stop Nactuf’s reign poor petey

      • marty mars 6.1.3
        11 July 2012 at 11:36 am

        If the Government had any integrity it would 100% abide by Waitangi Tribunal recommendations – why do you think they make them? They are trying to create a better country for all of us but that won’t happen while dishonor, lies, privilege and racism sit as guests at the Government table.

      • Draco T Bastard 6.1.4
        11 July 2012 at 10:26 pm

        How much NACT arse licking will UF do?

  7. ghostwhowalksnz 7
    11 July 2012 at 8:27 am

    Your discussion of the top metre of the lake level of Taupo is a bit confused.
    The extra energy comes from the volume of water it contains, of course it can only be used when the lake fills to this level, which is not often.
    With the independent power companies maximising their assets MRP is more likely to draw down the lake as often as possible , ie keep the control gates open wider more often than that required for the normal river flow.

  8. prism 8
    11 July 2012 at 9:25 am

    Transferred to Key’s fight with Maori.

  9. Glg 9
    11 July 2012 at 9:35 am

    I am pretty sure Ngati Tuwharetoa in the gifting of Lake Taupo and it’s water gave it for the use and benefit of all New Zealanders (not actual wording). And I think there was an obligation on the Crown to manage the Lake. I think Tuwharetoa would have grounds for action against the Crown just on that basis. If MRP is only half bound by principles of the Treaty, will it only half manage lake levels to benefit the Lake? I cannot believe the Maori Party are still ‘inside the tent’.

    • Dr Terry 9.1
      11 July 2012 at 11:21 am

      Glg, why oh why has it taken the Maori Party so long to discern the truth about this “coalescence”?

      • Rich 9.1.1
        11 July 2012 at 3:56 pm

        If you want to know what National really think of Maori, check this ad out (warning, offensive).

        Only the language has changed.

  10. Sam Hall 10
    11 July 2012 at 9:36 am

    A Riot is at bottom, the language of the unheard.” King.

  11. mike e 11
    11 July 2012 at 11:43 am

    With all this ongoing wrangling the govt will be lucky if it gets any where near what it wants for these assets

  12. Adrian 12
    11 July 2012 at 12:46 pm

    The retention of water behind a dam on a flowing river is a form of ownership of that water, why on earth should that be given to private interests inevitably foriegn to make money denied to NZers?

  13. Fortran 13
    11 July 2012 at 1:14 pm

    This stouch has nothing really to do with water. They could have raised this prior to the last election when the policy was laid out – why wait until now.
    Maori want some of the SOE shares in lieu of of agreement .
    Kiwisaver Managers will still go for all the shares they can as they believe they are a good long term investment for their members, whatever the price.
    In addition according to the Reserve Bank there is $114billion sitting in term deposits with banks in New Zealand giving a very low return (approx 4% gross). Also it should be considered that only 31% of houses in New Zealand (say 700,000) have mortgages so there is surplus money around.
    Some people will still consider moving some of that into the SOEs.

    • GregJ 13.1
      11 July 2012 at 8:14 pm

      Who is the “they” you are referring to? If you mean Iwi/Hapu then why would they – they are not political parties contesting an election? Historic Iwi claims to water rights/usage/guardianship are of long standing (for example there are specific historical claims on rivers filed with the Tribunal going back to the beginning of the claims process in the late 1970’s/early 1980’s).

      If by “they’ you mean the Maori Party – they don’t speak for all Maori, the Maori Council or the Iwi/Hapu (even if they sometimes act like they do) and asset sales were not part of their policy mix at the election so why would they negotiate about something they didn’t campaign for before the result of the election was known? Even subsequently their opposition to the sales has been pretty clear.

      I think you are wrong – it is not just about shares – there are many more long standing issues at play. A competent government would have taken those issues into consideration when formulating its policy, not deciding to ignore it and then getting into a slanging match over it when the stoush they have created by their own incompetence comes back to bite them.

      I think it is pretty clear that there has been a tacit understanding with most of the settlements reached (such as with Tuwharetoa) that as long as kaitiaki is acknowledged Iwi have been content for the state to use these “assets” for the “public good”. However if the “asset” it is going to be subject to use for profit by private commercial concerns (even through partial privatization) Iwi have been pretty consistent that they should receive their fair share of that profit (hence the Fisheries settlement and the essence of the Foreshore and Seabed claim) – based on their historic use, control, guardianship (“ownership”) of the resource.

      Anyway, aside from preferable option of retaining the “asset” in full state ownership, if the sale goes ahead Iwi would be better off having its kaitiaki acknowledged & receiving rights payments/royalties for use of the resource rather than taking shares in a company they will end up having little influence or control over.

      • mickysavage 13.1.1
        11 July 2012 at 8:46 pm

        Thanks GregJ.  Very measured comments based on understanding.  A pleasant surprise.  I hole Fortran and Pete George et all reflect on them.

        I would add Tainui who settled their claim for Waikato and were still happy for MRP to continue to generate power.  I would also prefer Iwi to profit than the corporates. 

  14. Bored 14
    11 July 2012 at 1:18 pm

    Back to the premise of the post: dividend return is going to be 4% pre-tax BUT Nobody is going to be stupid enough to buy shares with the Waitangi water claim hanging over them…….

    I suspect the people trying to lay their hands on our assets are far more rational than you might think. Consider that cheap oil is running out and has a finite supply curve, alternative energies dont scale BUT demand will on average exceed supply. We are talking years here, long enough if you sit on the ownership of production to strike a deal with iwi or whoever. And 10 – 20 years down the track you can really coin it. Why wouldn’t you buy?

  15. irascible 15
    11 July 2012 at 2:45 pm

    Key really wants to get the asset stripping underway before the Greek, Spanish and Italian assets get dropped onto the international firesale market. He’s gambling that the asset strippers will prefer to strip NZ before really getting down and dirty in the eurozone. That’s the way he played as a money speculator with Merril Lynch.. rapaciousness at its naked worst.

  16. Treetop 16
    11 July 2012 at 3:11 pm

    Key needs to attend the Waitangi Tribunal and have it explained to him how in Britain the ownership of the water way works. Key then needs to get it that there was no confusion when the treaty was signed, over Maori having claim to the water way.

    Key must be smiling that Maori can no longer go to the Privy Council as I think the sale of energy assets would not go ahead as Key’s government would lose having control over the hydro resorces.

  17. Carol 17
    11 July 2012 at 3:35 pm

    So Mighty River Power and Iwi are likely to be on a collision course over rights to water in the Waikato River…. so what is the Herald headlining online about said river right now?…. a Waikato River travelogue with homage to expensive housing along the banks:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/news/article.cfm?c_id=7&objectid=10818382

    Over by the east bank, the occasional fish leaps clear of the current. It’s so peaceful it’s easy to forget that traffic roars by constantly overhead.

    History lies around every bend of the Waikato River. Stretching for 425km from Mt Ruapehu to Port Waikato, it’s New Zealand’s longest and was a key source of food for early Maori.

    Today it’s more commonly used as a playground for water skiers, anglers, swimmers brave enough to tackle the strong current, and rowers.

    A couple of boats pass on their way upstream, their occupants no doubt practising for one of Hamilton’s many river events.

    Stately homes begin to appear as we near St Andrews. All are immaculately kept with stunning gardens. Strategically placed public benches offer good views of these gardens and the river.

    There’s no need for a guide on this walk. Take your time, stop as often as you like to feed ducks, marvel at the city’s bridges and imposing homes, do a spot of birdwatching or enjoy a picnic lunch.

    Compare that with some of Turia’s recent statements:

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Iwi-should-claim-ownership-of-riverbeds–Turia/tabid/1607/articleID/259865/Default.aspx

    The water from them is critical to the power companies that the Government is putting up for sale, and Ms Turia says Maori should particularly consider claiming ownership of the riverbed along the Waikato and Whanganui Rivers.

    A major disconnect by Granny? Or is it just part of an attitude of some Pakeha, that they can’t conceive that their comfortable lifestyle has been built on the back of Iwi dislocation from their ancestral lands?

    • joe90 17.1
      11 July 2012 at 3:44 pm

      Ilya Yefimovich Repin: Burlaki

    • prism 17.2
      11 July 2012 at 3:57 pm

      ” some Pakeha, that they can’t conceive that their comfortable lifestyle has been built on the back of Iwi dislocation from their ancestral lands?”

      Actually some pakeha can’t conceive that their comfortable lifestyle should be threatened by any sort of uncomfortable questions of rightness or fairness from any contender.

  18. Robert Atack 18
    11 July 2012 at 5:14 pm

    What about all the land owners with pylons on their properties? ‘We’ tolerate the ‘trespass’ while the electricity is flowing for the public good etc, but should ‘we’ allow people who do not live in NZ to make money out of our tolerance?
    I think fed farmers are looking into this? The fee for transporting electricity could wipe out the 4% profit?

  19. Snadfly 19
    11 July 2012 at 5:29 pm

    Aren’t geothermal plants a mining operation?
    I wonder what the life of that resource is?

  20. phil 20
    11 July 2012 at 6:59 pm

    Wonder if the OP will back his analysis and short sell…? (all profits going to charity to cancel any ‘evil banker’ rep gained).

    • jsrret 20.1
      12 July 2012 at 12:15 am

      suspect OP would be completely unaware of the concept of short selling… he even seems to be unaware of the concept of retained profits… and just by the way, his calculation of the gravitational potential energy of the extra water in lake taupo went horribly wrong somewhere…

      • Colonial Viper 20.1.1
        12 July 2012 at 12:24 am

        I wouldn’t short this; a short squeeze is quite likely soon after going public and margin calls are a bitch.

        • jsrret 20.1.1.1
          12 July 2012 at 12:50 am

          you think your “short squeeze” would be enough to generate a margin call? either way if he’s right then he can just meet the margin requirement and then take his profits after the shares fall… point is, would he put his money where his mouth is?… this lot were all going on about what a great asset these companies were for the government, and that they must not be sold since all the massive future profits would go out of nz… then right after the asset sales bill passed they all say these companies aren’t worth holding after all… starting to wonder if these guys actually believe what they say anymore

          • Colonial Viper 20.1.1.1.1
            12 July 2012 at 1:08 am

            Margin calls are a bitch. Why put good money in and increase both your risk and your leverage, unnecessarily? That is not the hallmark of professional investing mate, and you are pretending to be a professional, right?

            And you’re sorta missing the big picture here.

            If you want to leverage short the markets, you wouldn’t do it with these power company shares.

            You’d pick the Euro, Japanese government bonds, financial sector shares or any number of better opportunities.

            • jsrret 20.1.1.1.1.1
              12 July 2012 at 1:30 am

              i’m a labourer… i have no interest in playing with money for a living and not pretending to be a professional anything… btw i think when you said “increase both your risk and your leverage” you misunderstand the effect of making a margin payment.. it will decrease your leverage and have no effect on risk… thanks for showing us your “big picture” anyway… amazing how you lefties are able to predict the future but are always too principled to make profits by trading on their knowledge of future events

  21. marcus 21
    11 July 2012 at 7:25 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/best-of-business-analysis/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501241&objectid=10679838

    This is news from a company whom the PM John Key owned/owns shares in.Kinda speaks for itself really as to his real intentions.The water will become privatised and owned by the rich few who own the power companies.And to think this is what messrs Key,Luxton,Creech & the Talley family think this is where NZ should be heading.
    Shame on you all

  22. marcus 22
    11 July 2012 at 7:27 pm

    as per my previoius post it came from the dairy investment fund website.

  23. Populuxe1 23
    11 July 2012 at 10:41 pm

    Nobody is going to be stupid enough to buy shares with the Waitangi water claim hanging over them.

    Nobody would be stupid enough to drill for oil in war zones either… Oh wait!

    • Colonial Viper 23.1
      11 July 2012 at 11:28 pm

      Crude oil extraction out of a country like Iraq or Libya is worth 500x the financial returns, and 1000x the strategic returns, when compared to hydrodams stuck in situ in faraway NZ.

      • Populuxe1 23.1.1
        12 July 2012 at 1:08 am

        Yes, but one might also say that it would be foolish to make a movie in New Zealand given all the difficulties involved and the complexities of the employment law…
        Oh wait.
        Never underestimate the cunning of a parliament of whores – we have one, and the likely purchasers know it.

        • Colonial Viper 23.1.1.1
          12 July 2012 at 1:12 am

          Yes, but one might also say that it would be foolish to make a movie in New Zealand given all the difficulties involved and the complexities of the employment law…

          I daresay that half a billion dollars worth of profit is worth weathering a few “difficulties” and “complexities”.

          • Populuxe1 23.1.1.1.1
            12 July 2012 at 1:49 am

            Except that they didn’t have to because the Government intervened, as they will almost certainly do reassure potential buyers that Waitangi claims will not impact their investment. Another Foreshore and Seabed Act would probably suffice.

  24. Bob 24
    11 July 2012 at 10:53 pm

    “While the energy companies are profitable for the government to own – thanks to its 3.5% cost of capital – they’re not for ‘mum and dad’ because the dividend return is going to be 4% pre-tax and ‘mum and dad’ have a mortgage, or an overdraft, or credit card debt – and putting their shares savings (if they have any, considering 50% of families have less than $1,700 in the bank) paying off any of those gives a better rate of return, tax-free”

    Haha, nice work James, in the opening sentence of your blog you have effectively said the Government should sell 100% of Mighty River Power and invest this money in alternative higher rate investments, and that NZ in effect already has a CGT for the sharemarket. Talk about blowing the entire arguement of the ‘Left’ out of the water on two seperate topics in one hit!

    I bet Eddie can’t even look at you right now after such a ‘Right Wing’ statement of fact.

    Thank you James, for having an open view on the situation. It’s quite refreshing from The Standard.

    • Colonial Viper 24.1
      12 July 2012 at 12:27 am

      Wow the usual useless financialised outlook on the real economy.

      One which completely overlooks the strategic nature of power generation to NZ.

      Also, how the fuck do you expect to convince investors to want to invest in “low earning” NZ power generators, if you are right, Bob??? Eh?

    • JH 24.2
      12 July 2012 at 8:15 am

      No, I didn’t say the govt should sell all of MRP. Because it is already a profitable investment for the Crown plus we get indirect benefits from public ownership that are worth a lot.

      I’m saying that, for them to be profitable for private investors, you need a higher rate of return – ie a lower sale price or higher power prices.

      You pay tax on dividends, not on capital gain from shares.

  25. robertguyton 25
    12 July 2012 at 8:06 am

    “I hope I’ve established that Infratil are the type of company that will invest in the sale of assets under the MOM Act. So how much money do Infratil expect to make?

    What blows the 4% suggestion out of the water is the first sentence in the About Us section of the Infratil website. They are quite explicit in saying:

    Infratil’s primary goal is to provide its shareholders with a consistent return of 20% per annum over the long term.

    20%. OMG, that’s massive.
    Trustpower customers are paying enough for Infratil to return 20% to its investors. 20%! Does that mean their prices could be reduced by 20%? And why shouldn’t we expect the privatised electricity generators to do pretty much the same?

    Which only leaves the question of how the 20% will be achieved. The usual suspects are price rises, deferring maintenance and asset stripping. I’m picking a mix of all three will occur.”

    Armchair Critic @ Every Tiny Straw makes an excellent observation.

    http://everytinystraw.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/never-enough.html

  26. Anon 26
    12 July 2012 at 11:57 am

    The dividend return on investment depends upon future profitability and the dividend policy set by the Board set against the share price. None of those three factors has yet been established which means that to claim a 4% return is pure speculation.

    No doubt much of the demand for these shares will be based on the assumption of an immediate capital gain – the Govt. will want to avoid a Facebook-type fiasco and so will sell at an undervalue to ensure that all shares are ‘snapped up’ without recriminations.

    Even money in the bank is hardly safe today. Insolvent banks in Spain have been twisting depositor’s arms to covert their deposits into bonds which pay a higher rate, but allow for involuntary conversion into equity in a few years. If the banks go under under the new EU banking scheme, there goes their money – a small fact hidden in the small print if there at all.

    And of course MFGlobal has been found to have been using – and losing – depositor’s money for its gambling in breach of all the rules. Given the stench of corruption and cavalier disregard for the rules now issuing from Barclays et al it’s probably only a matter of time before it is discovered that traders have been using the hard-earned savings of customers to gamble on the future price of pig’s bellys.

    • Colonial Viper 26.1
      12 July 2012 at 12:00 pm

      Exactly. We are approaching the time when money is going to be worthless. Real resources, land and energy is going to be the gold of the future.

      • Kotahi Tane Huna 26.1.1
        12 July 2012 at 12:04 pm

        I note there have been several previous occasions in various countries where money has indeed become virtually worthless. Curiously, money can still be found in use in these countries.