MRP sale fail numbers

Written By: - Date published: 6:03 am, May 9th, 2013 - 194 comments
Categories: john key, national, Privatisation - Tags: , , ,

Here are the numbers that sum up the MRP sale fail:

113,000 Kiwis actually bought shares. But the government spent between $100 Million and $300 Million on the process ($100 Million to a single Australian bank alone). Let’s be generous to the Nats and call it $1,000 spent per Kiwi investor. What a criminal waste.

113,000 Kiwis actually bought shares. But Treasury predicted and prepared for up to 250,000. In other words – fewer than half the investors they expected showed up.

113,000 Kiwis actually bought shares. But that’s less than 3% of the population. So much for “Mum and Dad” investors.

113,000 Kiwis actually bought shares. But the sell off of Contact Energy in 1999 attracted more than 225,000. Kiwis are obviously wising up.

113,000 Kiwis actually bought shares. But that’s less than a quarter of the 440,000 who registered an interest (by John Key’s “logic” 75% of pre-registrations were fraudulent and the whole process is a rort).

113,000 Kiwis actually bought shares. But there are 292,000 valid signatures (with more to come) on the petition calling for a referendum – almost three times as many opposed to the sales as actually bought in.

The 113,000 bought an average of $8,200 in shares. The typical family has less than $2,000 in the bank. Does that sound like ‘mum and dad’ investors to you?

The MRP sale has probably soaked up much of the interest and spare cash from those likely to buy, making it likely that the uptake from future sales will get progressively worse. Hey Nats – take the hint and quit now. The assets are ours already – they are not yours to sell…

194 comments on “MRP sale fail numbers ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Maui 1
    9 May 2013 at 6:16 am

    This looks like a defeat for John Key.

    What happened to the salesperson from Merrill ?

    What would happen if these results are extrapolated to the next election ?

    Has the sparkle gone ?

    These are all valid questions for the media and others to ponder.

    • Tom Gould 1.1
      9 May 2013 at 8:27 am

      Don’t hold your breath waiting for the ‘big chooks’ to ask such questions, with the likes of Dann and Gower running around like they work for Key’s 9th floor PR department. Mind you, at least Gower comes up with his own lines, whereas Dann simply parrots those given him by his political masters.

      For example, he even went as far, last evening on the 6 o’clock news, to describe the GCSB legislation as a “dog’s breakfast”. Not sure what is so unclear about the following excerpt from the Act to deserve that description?

      “Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.”

      Unless you are Johnny Sparkles and it suits your political purposes to describe it as such, and to have the political editor of the primary daily news show repeat it as fact. And they call it journalism?

      Perhaps it is time for a register of pecuniary interests for the gallery?

    • David H 1.2
      9 May 2013 at 10:01 am

      And now what is needed is all those who opposed the sale, and are MRP customers, to change companies, now that would send a real message to the thieves.

  2. Rich the other 2
    9 May 2013 at 7:22 am

    Looks like the green/labour tactics have worked and deflated the share price .
    The actual effect has been to rob ordinary hard working taxpaying NZers of their wrightful return on the asset that was sold on there behalf.
    Lets hope green/labour stay out of the next sale and a good price is achieved.
    At least its1.8 BILLION we don’t have to borrow and we still own 51%.

    • Paul 2.1
      9 May 2013 at 7:34 am

      You must be be gullible if you repeat all that government spin.

    • mickysavage 2.2
      9 May 2013 at 7:35 am

      Why are all the wingnuts that show up here unable to spell?

      It robs their comments of all moral force and makes you think that they are 12 year olds …

      • Richard 2.2.1
        9 May 2013 at 10:54 am

        “Wrightful return…”
        Was John Wright planning a comeback?

      • Rich 2.2.2
        9 May 2013 at 12:15 pm

        They *are* 12 year olds, in mental age at least. Oh for a tory-free liberal-left site…

        • Rob 2.2.2.1
          9 May 2013 at 12:35 pm

          Yes , lets herd them all together and brand them so we can identify them for later abuse , eh Rich.

          • McFlock 2.2.2.1.1
            9 May 2013 at 1:35 pm

            Boy, that escalated quickly. I mean, that really got out of hand fast!

      • rob 2.2.3
        9 May 2013 at 9:43 pm

        If they could spell or write grammatically they would be able to think for themselves
        This would enable them to show a little insight and question our current
        orthodoxy
        That would make life very hard wouldn’t it?

    • BM 2.3
      9 May 2013 at 7:36 am

      Yep, thanks labour/greens.
      Scoring political points is so much more important than the country getting a good return off the partial asset sales.
      Anyway It’s only money, you can just print some more or raise taxes.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.3.1
        9 May 2013 at 7:38 am

        I vote that we return our property to its rightful owners without compensation: enough is enough. It’s time to get tough on Tory maggots.

      • framu 2.3.2
        9 May 2013 at 8:19 am

        it was never a good return – even treasury thinks it was going to cost us in the long term

      • freedom 2.3.3
        9 May 2013 at 8:22 am

        How is some central private bank pulling notes out of thin air and charging us interest on it better for us, rather than doing it for ourselves at no interest?

        • BM 2.3.3.1
          9 May 2013 at 8:31 am

          Because that’s the way the system works.
          If everyone decided to do it their own way it would be anarchy, the world economy would collapse.

          • freedom 2.3.3.1.1
            9 May 2013 at 8:41 am

            You poor mindwarped shadow of a human being, you really are lost to reality aren’t you?

          • Draco T Bastard 2.3.3.1.2
            9 May 2013 at 10:13 am

            Because that’s the way the system works.

            Except that it doesn’t – work that is as the GFC conclusively proved.

            If everyone decided to do it their own way it would be anarchy, the world economy would collapse.

            From where I’m sitting, that wouldn’t be a bad thing as the world economy has been designed by the rich to benefit the rich leaving everyone else worse off.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.4
      9 May 2013 at 7:36 am

      2.9% of the population. Are the rest of this tiny minority of money-grubbing maggots as illiterate as you are?

    • Te Reo Putake 2.5
      9 May 2013 at 7:37 am

      It wasn’t sold on my behalf and I will get no benefit from the money paid. It will continue to be soaked up by tax cuts for the rich and corporate welfare for, er, the rich. We’ve been robbed.

      • Chrissy 2.5.1
        9 May 2013 at 7:47 am

        Exactly! And not by Robin Hood. We won’t be seeing any monetary gains that they get going to the poor.

        • David H 2.5.1.1
          9 May 2013 at 1:16 pm

          And whats this ‘Future Fund’ it’s going into?? More like a Filcher Fund.

      • Draco T Bastard 2.5.2
        9 May 2013 at 10:17 am

        +1111

        That’s it exactly and that’s why those shares need to be returned with no compensation.

    • Ennui 2.6
      9 May 2013 at 7:43 am

      to rob ordinary hard working taxpaying NZers of their wrightful return wtf did the “w”in rightful come from…I digress.

      The rightful return to tax paying NZers is already there, we collectively own this. Cant idiots like yourself get the mindbogglingly simple concept that “hard working NZers” include those who dont earn enough to purchase what they already own. Those who can afford are being invited to profit more from “rent” at the expense of hard working NZers.

      Those people buying shares are self interested parasitic scum, robbing ordinary NZers.

      • Tim 2.6.1
        9 May 2013 at 8:15 am

        I reckon it’s partly because the word “state” is something they see as not their own. They don’t understand that that state ownership=public (i.e. you&me) ownership.

        That was always part of that neolib ideology going back to the 80s – the othering of the state.

        “State” is a dirty word. The programme was necessarily to associate ‘state’ with any form of totalitarianism that was going.
        I well remember when we had the likes of Ralston referring to TVNZ as “State TV”.

        We should be referring to SOEs as POEs or even NOEs (Nation owned enterprises)

        • Ennui 2.6.1.1
          9 May 2013 at 8:27 am

          Concept of the state Tim, thats very valid…its the enemy.

          • Tim 2.6.1.1.1
            9 May 2013 at 9:16 am

            In a similar vein, just imagine if the GCSB were called the STATE Communications Security Bureau (which is of course is about to become a misnomer under current legislation). It’ll be more correct to name it the “NZ Communications Interception Executive”

            • Ennui 2.6.1.1.1.1
              9 May 2013 at 2:04 pm

              True, interestingly the “state” bit does not matter for the new improved GCSB….their role is all about protecting “property rights” of offshore corporations under the “free trade” agreements our corporatist governments (of both left and right) have signed up to.

    • framu 2.7
      9 May 2013 at 7:47 am

      bullshit with a side order of extra bullshit

      something like 1% actually pulled out after the policy was announced
      the share price is still high
      there was no evidence that all the people who expressed interest were real.

      This was always going to pan out this way – and doesnt the fact that you could express interest without having to prove you were real tell you something here?
      The nats all know its an unpopular policy. The lax sign up system was a deliberate ploy to inflate the reported interest numbers – both to influence opinion leading up to the sale to counter the petition reporting – and as a stick to beat labour with when the final numbers came out.

      If NZ power wasnt announced we would now be hearing that it was the fault of labour and the greens using tax payer $ to scare off investors via the petition.

    • Egalitarian 2.8
      9 May 2013 at 8:26 am

      @Rich the other, I thought National like to promote themselves as the party of ‘self responsibility’? Now that the sales process has failed dismally rather than blaming Labour/Greens should the government not (paraphrasing John Keys comments a few days ago) ‘apologise to New Zealanders and pay back the money’?

      Blaming Labour/Greens for this is shameful and cowardly. National knew it was selling these assets against the will of the majority of New Zealanders. They knew they were willfully doing this before the referendum which they publicly said they would ignore anyway. It does not take a genius to work out that if you implement unpopular policies in a democracy that when the opposition next take office they may reverse it.

      I don’t just want Mighty River Power back. I want the $100 million plus back from National and their Bank and PR firm buddies. This wealth transfer reeks of the rich lining the pockets of the rich at the expense of everyday New Zealanders.

      *PS – Don’t quote me but it was my understanding that National had the option to cancel the sale if it failed to attract a good return/sufficient investors???? The fact that they choose to go ahead and even hail it as a success suggests that they don’t see it as a failure caused by Labour/Greens. In fact if they think that spending $100 million of Tax Payer money to transfer this wealth from 97.5% of us to 2.5% of us is a success it leaves no illusions about what their intentions were.

      • Rich the other 2.8.1
        9 May 2013 at 8:32 am

        Your in denial,
        Election pledge , stage one completed.
        What would voters say if they hadn’t honoured one of there mainstay policies from the last election ?.

        • Egalitarian 2.8.1.1
          9 May 2013 at 8:43 am

          I know what I hope voters say now that the HAVE honoured one of their mainstay policies!

        • framu 2.8.1.2
          9 May 2013 at 8:44 am

          what would voters say?

          “thanks for listening to us”

          • Egalitarian 2.8.1.2.1
            9 May 2013 at 10:32 am

            @framu That might be what the 35.7% of registered voters who actively gave their party vote to National, ACT & United Future in the 2011 election ‘might’ say*.

            Remember only 2.5% of New Zealanders signed up for these shares so even if you translate this into registered National voters you will see that very few National voters took the offer up.

            What National need to fear like the devil himself is the 38.5% of people who actively cast their party vote against them in the last election and the 25.8% who didn’t vote at all. I don’t feel sorry for those who didn’t vote, but it was a historically low turn out and National can’t count on that next time. Yes many of these may have been National voters but international data suggests that it is more often than not the young and economically disadvantaged who are more likely not to vote. The very group who have been the most impacted by this blatant transfer of wealth to the rich.

            If these people take umbrage to National lining the pockets of the Banks, Share Brokers, PR firms with Tax Payer money and selling these valuable assets out from under 97.5% of us then the election of 2014 may show National what kind of ‘mandate’ they really have.

            *These are the figures I have used as the basis of the figures above. I’m no statistician, correct me if I am wrong.

            Source: http://www.electionresults.org.nz – 2011 Election

            Registered Voters: 3,070,847
            Total Party Votes Cast: 2,257,989
            National, ACT & United Future Party Votes: 1,095,968 (Nat 1,058,636, ACT 23,889, UNF 13,443) = 35.7%
            Party Votes for Parties Opposing Asset Sales: 1,183,021 (2,278,989 – 1,095,968) = 38.5%
            Non Voters: 791,858 (3070847 – 2278989) = 25.8%

            • framu 2.8.1.2.1.1
              9 May 2013 at 10:42 am

              yep – i was more meaning that many voted national YET were opposed to sales
              The thinking that they liked most of what the nats proposed, but thought they would back down on sales

        • Shaz 2.8.1.3
          9 May 2013 at 1:03 pm

          The policy of a government whose majority was effected only by gaming the voting system (in Epsom) standing a long-standing National Party member under the name of another party supported by a man whose party (United Future) said that it was against asset sales.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.8.1.4
          9 May 2013 at 2:21 pm

          What RtO is saying is that he provided a service to the National Party and in exchange they promised him our stuff.

      • David H 2.8.2
        9 May 2013 at 10:04 am

        So if you tack in what they have spent on the theft of this asset, they only got about 1.35 Billion. A hell of a lot less than the 1.7 they are crowing about.

    • Draco T Bastard 2.9
      9 May 2013 at 9:48 am

      The actual effect has been to rob ordinary hard working taxpaying NZers of their wrightful return on the asset that was sold on there behalf.

      The sale is what’s robbing most of us of our rightful return from owning these assets. That return will now go to 113,000 parasites.

    • Macro 2.10
      9 May 2013 at 10:35 am

      Did you know “Rich” if you say “Gull i ble” really slowly it sounds like “banana”!

    • mikesh 2.11
      9 May 2013 at 10:45 am

      It was the government who sold thee MRP shares. They didn’t actually have to sell, so if anybody “robbed ordinary taxpayers of their wrightful (sic) return” it was the government.

    • Matt 2.12
      9 May 2013 at 11:00 am

      “Looks like the green/labour tactics have worked and deflated the share price .”

      Huh? Maybe it just means the banksters and 1% paid less for their stakes. JK and his ilk should be celebrating.

  3. Lanthanide 3
    9 May 2013 at 7:43 am

    113,000 Kiwis actually bought shares. But there are 292,000 valid signatures (with more to come) on the petition calling for a referendum – almost three times as many opposed to the sales as actually bought in.

    Once again, this is not true. Signing up to hold a petition does not mean you oppose the asset sales. It means you support a referendum on the topic. That’s it.

    • Te Reo Putake 3.1
      9 May 2013 at 8:03 am

      You are technically correct, Lanth, but my experience was the majority of signers were opposed to the sale. I only had 3 or 4 people who said ‘I voted National, but …’ And good on them for putting the country first, but they were certainly in the minority.

      • Lanthanide 3.1.1
        9 May 2013 at 9:07 am

        Of course, but that doesn’t mean we should go around blindly saying such obvious untruths. All it needs is a realistic temper: “But there are 292,000 valid signatures, the majority of whom would oppose asset sales…”.

        Otherwise we’re no better than National, who are claiming that everyone that voted for them supported asset sales.

        • Rob 3.1.1.1
          9 May 2013 at 12:51 pm

          Also , families (or collective entities) have purchased one share package , as opposed to all individuals of age being able to sign the petition, so I wouldn’t use that one any more either.

  4. Appleboy 4
    9 May 2013 at 7:57 am

    4.4 million people in NZ.

    NZ Stats shows about 25% are children.

    That leaves 3.3 million adults

    113,000 bought shares.

    The government gives a commission higher to brokers selling off shore.

    What a sham. The public have been conned.

    I bet within these figures there’s a significant figures of actual ‘mum and dads’ with a few thousand only, but the vast amount will have gone to the super rich, Key’s real target.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.1
      9 May 2013 at 10:25 am

      I bet within these figures there’s a significant figures of actual ‘mum and dads’ with a few thousand only, but the vast amount will have gone to the super rich, Key’s real target.

      Exactly what I was thinking.

    • freedom 4.2
      9 May 2013 at 12:37 pm

      (roughly speaking)

      113K bought shares
      Nat voters = 1.2 m
      so taking the extreme view that only National voters bought shares:

      Only 10% of National voters bought shares
      so 90% of National voters were against the sale?

      and this is only the first sale . . .
      how can those numbers possibly improve ?

      This con gets worse by the minute

  5. Ross 5
    9 May 2013 at 8:06 am

    It’s strange that there is scaling. Tony Ryall reckons scaling is necessary because of the high demand. That is bogus because Treasury predicted a much higher rate of take-up. So, despite the low number of buyers, some are not going to get what they asked for.

    • freedom 5.1
      9 May 2013 at 8:36 am

      They started at the top of the table I bet, carving the meat generously. Once all the fat orders were filled, a few scraps that had been put aside were dutifully tossed to feed the 2K guarantee and what was left is the soup bone, shared amongst all the hungry mum’s and dad’s.

    • Foreign Waka 5.2
      9 May 2013 at 7:20 pm

      I think they all will get what they are asked for – the government was counting on a lot more money then they got out of it. It will be interesting whether the 15% ceiling of foreign hold shares can be held and controlled- all eyes on that I presume.

  6. ak 6
    9 May 2013 at 8:09 am

    The unbelievable gall and arrogance of the Arrant Gilmore Party.

    Take $300mill off hard-working taxpayers to persuade them to give what they already own to the richest 3% and foreign fatcats who will then continue to pocket more out of every power bill from now on.

    Call anyone who raises objections a mass murderer and spy on them at will.

    Sad, sad day. Don’t rush home kids, the dying farce aint over yet.

    • Rich the other 6.1
      9 May 2013 at 8:26 am

      The govt needs a kick up the ar?.
      If your figure of $300 mill is correct ,they could have gotten much better value from it ,they could have sold it all for the same price.

  7. Te Reo Putake 7
    9 May 2013 at 8:18 am

    Barely a mention of the share sale on the online front page of either Stuff or the Herald. Underwhelming could be the word of the day.

    • Rich the other 7.1
      9 May 2013 at 8:27 am

      A dead issue ,
      it’s what voters voted for.
      Labours biggest issue at the last election , they got hammered.

      • Te Reo Putake 7.1.1
        9 May 2013 at 8:32 am

        It’s what the minority of voters voted for. And, as mentioned elsewhere, a percentage of Tory voters don’t support the sales anyway. A biggish percentage, actually, if the failure to get buy in yesterday proves anything.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 7.1.2
        9 May 2013 at 8:34 am

        A dead issue? You think a tiny 2.9% minority of scum can shit on the rest of us and there won’t be consequences?

        You’re delusional.

      • framu 7.1.3
        9 May 2013 at 8:47 am

        “it’s what voters voted for.”

        really? how does that then match with every poll ever taken by anyone shows a consistant 70-80% opposed to assets sales?

        The two dont equate, and they never will – so could people have voted nats for a variety of reasons?

        • infused 7.1.3.1
          9 May 2013 at 1:18 pm

          It doesn’t matter. I don’t know how you guys are so thick. National campaigned on selling assets, Labour did the opposite. National won.

          Forget the polls, that’s the cold, hard truth.

          • framu 7.1.3.1.1
            9 May 2013 at 2:25 pm

            so how do you explain the disconnect?

            like ive said (and many others have said before me) elections arent single issue decisions

            we dont know why anyone picks a particular party and we never can

            your the one being thick in insisting that every vote had asset sales as the core decision

          • lprent 7.1.3.1.2
            9 May 2013 at 3:20 pm

            If National were confident that was the case, then I’d see them backing a referendum on that one point.

            So looking at the enthusiasm of National MP’s and supported for the referendum….. Duh! They appear to be missing.

            It was one of National’s policies like it was one of Labour’s to oppose it. Apart from morons, people never vote on a single issue. They vote on a package.

            And at best you can say that something like a quarter of the population voted for National’s package, and about a third of the voters. Hardly any kind of a mandate because most people didn’t vote for either the package or the policy. So they get opposition. That is what the nature of democracy is about.

            From what I have seen recently, there are a lot of right wingers whining about a policy. If Labour/Greens get government next election and implement it (as I suspect they will do), I presume that you’re going to be your usual inconsistent self, and will whine that they don’t have a mandate? I bet you do.

            You really are kind of stupid. But I guess that is just the nature of the right. Self-interested, self-involved, and kind of dumb when it comes to thinking about anyone else apart from themselves.

          • Foreign Waka 7.1.3.1.3
            9 May 2013 at 7:28 pm

            Not quite, Labour was unfortunately in the process of changing leader and defining itself again. Because of that they were too slow off the bat to get a coherent response together. The Greens had not yet done any homework either. So be the time some opposition was voiced, the election was way over. Of cause National knew this and build their campaign on that tread. It was clever, but also deceitful on many levels. It also showed the true character of the main party members – and it ain’t pretty.

      • Hayden 7.1.4
        9 May 2013 at 9:27 am

        it’s what voters voted for.

        Unfounded assertion. It might have been Labour’s biggest issue, but unless they have some sort of mind control device it doesn’t make it the biggest issue for voters.

        they got hammered

        Parties other than Nat/UF/ACT actually got a majority. NZ almost never votes out a first-term government, so 47% with none of its coalition partners making the 5% threshold isn’t that impressive.

        And in 2002 (which is the most valid comparison, being National’s last election as a first-term opposition) the nation voted for Bill English to fuck off, (21%, anyone?) yet here he is still stinking up the joint.

  8. vto 8
    9 May 2013 at 8:20 am

    So more people don’t want to sell than people want to buy.

    About 3,900,000 people now don’t own MRP as it was. That is slack. I thought Key said one of the purposes was to increase NZ ownership, but in fact the obvious was always gong to happen and now has. Less kiwis now own MRP.

    Talk about shit for brains.

  9. Nick K 9
    9 May 2013 at 8:22 am

    Invested $100 million which returned $1.8 Billion. That’s impressive.

    • Hayden 9.1
      9 May 2013 at 8:34 am

      What’s more impressive is that at 8.22 am you’ve made what is probably the stupidest comment of the day.

      • Nick K 9.1.1
        9 May 2013 at 8:46 am

        It’s the truth. Does that hurt you? They spent $100million and got $1.8 Billion from the sale for schools and hospitals. Why do you hate money being spent on children and sick people?

        • framu 9.1.1.1
          9 May 2013 at 8:48 am

          how much dividend (over time) have the also lost Nick? – your maths is sub par

          • Nick K 9.1.1.1.1
            9 May 2013 at 8:50 am

            That’s hypothetical as it is subject to many many variables. No one knows the answer to that. But I do know that the Crown account today is better off to the tune of $1.7 Billion.

            • framu 9.1.1.1.1.1
              9 May 2013 at 8:52 am

              but you cant leave it out, it still part of the equation isnt it – i hope you dont do the household budget

            • thatguynz 9.1.1.1.1.2
              9 May 2013 at 11:04 am

              You complete twat.. The asset side of the govt balance sheet has also diminished by somewhere in the vicinity of $1.7B… The dividend is also not a hypothetical – future dividends may be but the historical dividends are in fact very real and very quantifiable..

              Accountancy 101…

            • freedom 9.1.1.1.1.3
              9 May 2013 at 3:54 pm

              great to hear Nick, so our international liabilities are only 150 billion dollars !
              what are we all so worried about

        • Te Reo Putake 9.1.1.2
          9 May 2013 at 8:52 am

          It’s not going to be spent on the sick and the young it’s going to be wasted on the rich. Wake up, fool.

          • BM 9.1.1.2.1
            9 May 2013 at 8:57 am

            More cake and caviar for me, Bwhahahahahahahaha.
            None for you though.

            • felix 9.1.1.2.1.1
              9 May 2013 at 9:06 am

              You’re breaking character BM. Maybe time to focus on one of your other handles and give this one a rest, eh?

              • freedom …
                9 May 2013 at 3:57 pm

                he certainly performs better in the tweed
                dinner jackets just don’t suit his lumbar curl
                I think it’s the way his cuffs catch the undergrowth

        • Hayden 9.1.1.3
          9 May 2013 at 8:56 am

          They’ve sold $1.8 billion worth of assets (more or less, who would know?) for $1.8 billion (what happened to $1.7b as of yesterday) and paid $100 million for the pleasure. They haven’t “invested” shit. It’s as if I’ve “invested” $59 to sell a $40k caravan on TradeMe and claimed that the $40k is a return on the original investment, when in reality my nett position hasn’t changed.

          • Hayden 9.1.1.3.1
            9 May 2013 at 9:08 am

            And by the way, if it is $1.8 billion for $100 million in fees, that’s 5.56% (rounded) of the value of the shares spent selling them.

            Put another way, it’s $110 per $2000 block. You could have put each $2000 block on TradeMe, and paid $89 ($79.50 + 1.9% of amount over $1500). And yes, I know that’s a silly comparison.

        • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.4
          9 May 2013 at 10:34 am

          Money that could easily have been spent if the government hadn’t given tax cuts to the rich while leaving us with our assets.

        • Foreign Waka 9.1.1.5
          9 May 2013 at 7:34 pm

          Nick, firstly the assets belong to all NZlanders. If it had to be sold, every taxpayer should have at least a number of shares assigned. Now that would have been fair and reasonable. Imagine, it would have been a win win. Still can if so few have taken up the offer. To keep the cap of 15% on foreign ownership, then this would be a prudent way that benefits all.

      • lprent 9.1.2
        9 May 2013 at 9:02 am

        He is talented that way..

  10. Winston Smith 10
    9 May 2013 at 8:32 am

    So as of this moment National have:

    Secured 86% NZ owned
    1.8 billion in extra cash
    Still getting dividends

    Whereas Greens/Labour (and yeah that is the correct order)

    Would have 100% NZ owned
    No extra cash
    No dividends
    $6 a month savings on power bills

    Points decision to National on this one

    • Hayden 10.1
      9 May 2013 at 8:38 am

      Still getting dividends

      Well, 51% of dividends.

      No dividends

      Not true, probably lowered, but certainly not zero.

      $6 a month savings on power bills

      In the first year. Power companies seem to add a cent or so to each unit every year with little justification, extrapolate 10 years and it will be a lot more (assuming generation and transmission costs aren’t increasing 5% per annum).

      • felix 10.1.1
        9 May 2013 at 9:12 am

        Nope, that’s $6 a week in the first year. Never trust trool numbers.

      • Winston Smith 10.1.2
        9 May 2013 at 9:25 am

        Thats why I think its a points decision as opposed to a knockout. Still its not a bad decision overall for NZ.

        A win-win in other words

        • Draco T Bastard 10.1.2.1
          9 May 2013 at 10:37 am

          No, it’s a win – loss. A win for rich people and a loss for everyone else.

          • Enough is Enough 10.1.2.1.1
            9 May 2013 at 11:17 am

            Exactly Draco, a win for National and their backers.

            A loss for the rest of us!!!

            • Rob 10.1.2.1.1.1
              9 May 2013 at 12:56 pm

              How exactly are you affected by this, please explain?

              • Draco T Bastard …
                9 May 2013 at 1:06 pm

                Upwards redistribution

                Although I doubt if you’ll understand it the reality is that 97% of NZers just got poorer so that a few thousand bludgers can get richer.

                • Rob …
                  9 May 2013 at 1:13 pm

                  Mate you point me to some other blog. How have I got poorer as my family are certainly in a 97 percentile of this population.

                  • freedom …
                    9 May 2013 at 2:41 pm

                    49% of the dividends no longer go to our nation’s coffers you fool

                    • Rob …
                      9 May 2013 at 3:28 pm

                      Freedom, obviously your need to insult people is due to your anger. Try and control it , as most people have recognised that angry people calling other people fools are just telegraphing their own intelligence level.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    9 May 2013 at 3:10 pm

                    This government has just sold our assets that were making a return to us for less than they were worth (That’s they only way such assets can be sold BTW as they’re too expensive for private owners to pay for them). On top of that we lose the return and we lose the ability to govern ourselves (that latter is what happens as we become ever more serfs to the ownership class).

                    So, yep, you just got poorer courtesy of this government.

                  • freedom …
                    9 May 2013 at 4:03 pm

                    dear Rob,
                    damn right I am angry, want the list?

                    but get real mate, calling someone a fool is indicitive of nothing
                    other than suggesting that someone is a fool

                    49% of hundreds of millions of dollars every year, year after year, gone.
                    does that compute?

    • framu 10.2
      9 May 2013 at 8:51 am

      “Secured 86% NZ owned”

      no, theyve reduced ownerhip from 100% to 86% and theyve halved the dividend

      with an expected and deepening loss as time goes on

      • Hayden 10.2.1
        9 May 2013 at 8:59 am

        Plus that 86% isn’t guaranteed beyond the first minute the shares are on the open market.

      • Winston Smith 10.2.2
        9 May 2013 at 9:26 am

        Labour were prepared to have no dividend payouts so halved payouts is better than none.

        • framu 10.2.2.1
          9 May 2013 at 9:51 am

          doesnt make you claim any more truthy though winston.

          where did labour say they wanted no dividend? – reduced dividend – of course. But the plan was to reduce profit, not remove it. Whose the shareholder in SOEs again?

          also the expected and deepening loss as time goes on is going to really bite. Potentially ending up at even worse reductions in revenue than NZ power would have incurred

        • Draco T Bastard 10.2.2.2
          9 May 2013 at 12:19 pm

          And I still say that power should be run as a government service rather than a profit making enterprise. It would cost us less and be more responsive.

      • infused 10.2.3
        9 May 2013 at 1:22 pm

        As opposed to Labours option of virtually 0 dividend. Because that’s not important.

    • felix 10.3
      9 May 2013 at 9:09 am

      Hi Winston. How did you come up with “$6 a month savings”?

      Everyone else is talking about $25 a month or so for an average household.

      • Hayden 10.3.1
        9 May 2013 at 9:12 am

        And I quoted it without noticing… 🙁

      • Nick K 10.3.2
        9 May 2013 at 9:16 am

        $25 a month! Man….that’s…..$300 a year!! Or, .82c a day. Flippin hell – 82c. I’m voting Green!

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 10.3.2.1
          9 May 2013 at 9:21 am

          How lucky for you that it means so little to you. That’s all it is by the way: luck. You probably delude yourself that riches are related to merit, or intelligence, or hard work, but if that were the case nurses and academics would all be rich instead of maggots like you.

          • Nick K 10.3.2.1.1
            9 May 2013 at 9:24 am

            Maggot? Nice to see you’ve lost the argument already and have reverted to name-calling.

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 10.3.2.1.1.1
              9 May 2013 at 10:17 am

              What “argument”? You haven’t articulated one – just a bunch of empty rhetoric. No wonder they say stupidity predicts for conservatism.

          • donmcdazzle 10.3.2.1.2
            9 May 2013 at 10:48 am

            Are you being serious? So nurses and academics (of all people why the hell would you choose academics) should be at the top of the pile? What do you put that down to?

            ‘Academics’ are so undeserving it isn’t funny. Reading books and coming up with theories is something almost anybody could do, but unfortunately we are out producing things to contribute. ‘Academics’ contribute nothing other than idealistic theories.

            Nurses do a great and admirable job. Unfortunately they don’t create any profit for anyone so value isn’t placed on them.. that is something I agree is an issue. Highest pay goes to the people who create the most profit. In some cases this is down to luck, in an equal number of cases it is down to hard work and merit. Nepotism does exist but so does a meritocracy. In a bank trading dept for example it doesn’t matter who your dad is just how much money you make the bank, so I strongly disagree with your luck theory.

            I do however agree with the issue of pretty important jobs like nurses or carers not being valued because they don’t create profit.. How do we remedy that though? It certainly isn’t getting angry at the people who do create profit. And academics don’t belong in the same group.

            • framu 10.3.2.1.2.1
              9 May 2013 at 11:56 am

              “‘Academics’ are so undeserving it isn’t funny”

              go off and stand in the corner with the other anti-intellectuals

              that you think academics have nothing to offer is a bit sad – the results of academic pursuits arent as easily visible – but they play a vital part in developing our society in the long term (scientifically, culturally, politically and economically

              • donmcdazzle …
                9 May 2013 at 12:43 pm

                “Anti-intellectuals” – what does that even mean? I’m not against people being intellectuals at all and agree that academic pursuits are hugely beneficial. Maybe I should clarify my meaning, I did word it rather poorly. I’m meaning ‘academics’ in the sense of the types who read books, write theses and theories on the issues of society etc.. not scientists or the like actually working on tangible things.

                If you can give me examples of tangible things ‘academics’ (as I have framed them, you may well have a different interpretation of what that word means to you) have done to further society in a meaningful way then I will happily accept it and change my position on the matter. I am of the opinion that these types don’t contribute much at all, and we would be far better off if they used their intellect in a more meaningful manner.

                • ghostrider888 …
                  9 May 2013 at 1:27 pm

                  really

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  9 May 2013 at 2:03 pm

                  Academics provide an example of how intelligence doesn’t lead to riches. Nurses demonstrate that it isn’t hard work or merit either.

                  I note that you are expressing your opinion on a computer that would not exist without academia. Perhaps you think DNA was discovered by an investment banker or something.

                  Oh, I see, you just don’t like the types who read books, write theses and theories on the issues of society

                  Like Charles Darwin for example.

                  • ghostrider888 …
                    9 May 2013 at 2:13 pm

                    just sigh, shake your head and rattle on OAKY, that’s what I do with commercials.

                  • donmcdazzle …
                    9 May 2013 at 2:51 pm

                    You’re missing my meaning. You are trying to tell me that the discoverer of DNA or the inventor of the computer wasn’t financially well off? I’d say that they very much would be. I thought you were talking about the BA in women’s studies type ‘academics’ who wouldn’t be rich at all, and my point was that they don’t deserve to be as they don’t add anything of value. Charles Darwin was certainly wealthy, so obviously isn’t the sort of academic you were referring to in the first place.

                    Nurses do a great and admirable job, but they don’t necesarrily work any harder than any other profession. It isn’t hard to become a nurse so how much of a meritocracy is the profession?

                    • framu …
                      9 May 2013 at 4:34 pm

                      i think your extremely confused about a great many things here.

                      its not meant as an insult – its just a lot of your terminology is a bit jumbled so its hard to make much sense of what your getting at.

                      eg: of course darwin was wealthy – but thats not a very good example of a modern day academic, and his wealth has little bearing on his academic contributions

                      also – people doing their BA arent really academics – theyre more at the beginning of their journey to becoming an academic. Every great phd or what have you was doing a BA at some point

                      “Anti-intellectuals” – what does that even mean”
                      Anti-intellectualism is hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits, usually expressed as the derision of education, philosophy, literature, art, and science, as impractical and contemptible.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      10 May 2013 at 11:27 am

                      Oh, so what you meant was you don’t like the sort of academics you are prejudiced against, with a side order of thinly veiled misogyny, and you’d like to nitpick rather than acknowledge that wealth is delivered by chance, not hard work or intelligence or merit.

                      So your crowing about the lack of value (to you) of $25 reveals little other than the boasts of a boorish self-aggrandising braggart.

                    • donmcdazzle …
                      10 May 2013 at 11:54 am

                      No not at all. I was referring to your post about academics not being financially rewarded. My point is that those academics who aren’t financially well off do not deserve to be. The ones who do valid things for society (like the ones you mentioned – discoverer of DNA, inventor of the computer) would indeed by well paid and I agree they should be. I’m asking for you to please tell me why those who aren’t financially valued deserve to be?

                      Like I mentioned, wealth is not delivered by chance in all cases. My father left school at 14 to work as he had 8 younger siblings he needed to help his parents support. He did manual labour most of his life, saved, made good decisions, invested wisely and is now pretty well off and owns his own business. Is that luck or hard work? The great thing about NZ is the ability to make something of yourself no matter your background (as my father has done). Some may have to work harder and go further than others sure, but it is very possible. I guess it is easier to give up and say it is too hard, and that those who have made something of themselves are just lucky.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      10 May 2013 at 7:11 pm

                      It’s luck, since (as has already been pointed out to you why do we need to go over this again? Are you a bit cognitively challenged or something?) plenty of people work hard but are not similarly fortunate.

                      Please note that there’s nothing wrong with getting lucky, but there’s nothing admirable about it either.

                      Your opinion of academics is worthless. Who the fuck do you think you are trying to define validity?

            • Murray Olsen 10.3.2.1.2.2
              10 May 2013 at 1:30 am

              Get off the internet that was made by academics. Throw away your computer that was invented by academics. Get a merchant banker to design you a new one. Bye.

        • Hayden 10.3.2.2
          9 May 2013 at 9:36 am

          That could be running a 2kW heater for 2 extra hours a day, which would probably make a difference to some people. Not you apparently, which is nice.

          • freedom 10.3.2.2.1
            9 May 2013 at 2:45 pm

            i miss my heater,
            i miss being warm
            i miss being employed,
            i miss having an income,
            i miss being treated as a person

        • felix 10.3.2.3
          9 May 2013 at 9:39 am

          For most people, 25 bucks off a powerbill is significant. Your comment only shows how out of touch you are.

          • Rob 10.3.2.3.1
            9 May 2013 at 3:59 pm

            Yes just like $25 off a tax bill.

            • Colonial Viper 10.3.2.3.1.1
              9 May 2013 at 4:02 pm

              Silly billy, you might save $25 off your tax bill, but then your kids end up with $25 less health care and education.

              • McFlock …
                9 May 2013 at 5:08 pm

                Actually, you lose more than $25 in healthcare and education. More customers in the private sector boosts the price and also limits economies of scale.

                That’s why dentists are so cheap these days /sarc

      • Winston Smith 10.3.3
        9 May 2013 at 9:23 am

        My bad, I meant $6 a week.

    • Egalitarian 10.4
      9 May 2013 at 10:47 am

      @Winston Smith “So as of this moment National have” – I love the way you prefaced your comment with the caveat “as of this moment”. It suggests you are well aware of what has historically happened to NZ ownership of privatised shares over the long term.

  11. jcuknz 11
    9 May 2013 at 9:08 am

    I pulled out because I prefered not to gamble and the return on shares when you consider the price paid for them is not that wonderful in most cases. If I was going to get the shares at face value it might have been worth the gamble but at <40% sorry no thanks. Then there was the hairbrained GreLab idea of saving consumers money to add to my doubts.

  12. Santi 12
    9 May 2013 at 9:22 am

    I’m voting for Norman, I mean Shearer, I mean Robertson.

    • BM 12.1
      9 May 2013 at 9:38 am

      Actually, you’re voting Little.
      If by some miracle, Greenbour manages to get over the line at the next election, expect to see Shearer get Bolgered within the year and replaced by Little.

      • Te Reo Putake 12.1.1
        9 May 2013 at 9:44 am

        As far as I can tell, that’d be fine by just about everyone here, BM. Do try and keep up.

    • felix 12.2
      9 May 2013 at 9:43 am

      The irony is that even though you’re being facetious and funny, when you vote Key in 2014 you actually have no idea who will take his place come 2015.

      National are way better at keeping the lid on though, I’ll give you that.

      • Te Reo Putake 12.2.1
        9 May 2013 at 9:47 am

        If there is an opportunity to vote for Key in 2014! I’d say a snap election this year or Key’s resignation in the face of a humiliating defeat are just as likely possibilities.

      • BM 12.2.2
        9 May 2013 at 9:51 am

        Yes I do, it will be Judith Collins.
        NZ’s version of Maggie Thatcher, she will build on the great economic platform created by Key propelling NZ to even greater heights.
        She will also launch a successful assault on Norfolk island bringing the island under the NZ banner, where it rightfully belongs.

        • framu 12.2.2.1
          9 May 2013 at 9:57 am

          best joke of the day that. – oh wait…. your being serious arent you

        • thatguynz 12.2.2.2
          9 May 2013 at 11:08 am

          I’d suggest a change of medication. It would seem the synthetic marijuana doesn’t agree with you. I can’t actually pick out which part of your comment is the most ridiculous…

        • ghostrider888 12.2.2.3
          9 May 2013 at 1:29 pm

          pit cairn

      • Rob 12.2.3
        9 May 2013 at 1:15 pm

        Just like what happened with people who voted for Goff. Wonder if any of them even thought they were going to end up with Shearer.

        • felix 12.2.3.1
          9 May 2013 at 7:50 pm

          Eh? If Labour had formed a govt, Goff would still be leading now.

          It’s a given that Key is out of here if he loses – he said so himself. I’m saying they’ll pull the old switcheroo if he wins.

  13. Hayden 13
    9 May 2013 at 9:40 am

    I predict there’s going to be a lot of “schools and hospitals! SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS!” today, which apparently is the new spin line. Perhaps we should be asking, “Which schools? And which hospitals?”. I mean, obviously this plan is so well thought-out that these facts should be readily available. And if they mean charter schools, they can just fuck right off.

    We might as well be hearing “puppies and rainbows… Why do you hate PUPPIES AND RAINBOWS?!”

    • framu 13.1
      9 May 2013 at 9:55 am

      well rainbows ARE gay 🙂

    • Foreign Waka 13.2
      9 May 2013 at 7:47 pm

      Is that the same hospital where a 82 year old was waiting with a bleeding bladder for 7 or more hours only to be taken home by his kin without treatment? I can see what the next savings platform will be, kill all the old people by ignoring their need. What a great society, so caring….

  14. Brett Dale 14
    9 May 2013 at 10:15 am

    113 thousand kiwis bought shares, lets hope for 113 thousand kiwis the share price goes up.

    It would’ve been more kiwis buying them, but the Greens decided to play politics.

    They will pay come the next election.

    • framu 14.1
      9 May 2013 at 10:18 am

      what should a political party play brett? tiddlywinks?

      “It would’ve been more” – there is no evidence to support this claim

      • Brett Dale 14.1.1
        9 May 2013 at 10:54 am

        Of course there is evidence, you dont think the greens and labour doing what they did, stopped people from buying shares? Hell before they announced it, the reason I didnt buy shares, because I knew labour would try and interfere like they did with Auckland airport.

        • framu 14.1.1.1
          9 May 2013 at 11:51 am

          well… where is it brett? – put up or shut up

          • infused 14.1.1.1.1
            9 May 2013 at 1:26 pm

            Try listening to Talkback this morning. It was all positive from people, and many who didn’t buy shares (pulled out) specifically because of Labour.

            People are not stupid, they saw this for exactly what it is, Labour/Greens being retarded as usual.

            • Paul 14.1.1.1.1.1
              9 May 2013 at 1:46 pm

              Are the people who ring right wing talk back shows representative of the population?

              • Arfamo …
                9 May 2013 at 2:33 pm

                Why would people pull out if they thought National will continue to govern? Obviously they think the writing is on the wall for the Natsy rorters at the next election.

                • felix …
                  9 May 2013 at 7:55 pm

                  Exactly. As I’ve been saying for ages and Dr Norman pointed out in Parliament today, blaming Labour and the Greens for the sad take-up of the share offer only makes sense if you accept that the market expects Labour and the Greens to form the next govt.

            • framu 14.1.1.1.1.2
              9 May 2013 at 2:27 pm

              ooh talk back is evidence now? – and just up thread you called people thick

              well… where is it infused? – put up or shut up

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 14.2
      9 May 2013 at 10:19 am

      Or alternatively (more likely too), the Greens will increase their share of the vote as more evidence of how irrelevant you are.

      • Brett Dale 14.2.1
        9 May 2013 at 10:56 am

        The greens wont increase their share of the vote, sure they may poll between 13-15% before the election and heck some polls may have them as high as 20%, come election day they will get around 9-10% in the next election.

        Rena helped them last time, because it got people thinking about the environment.

        • Colonial Viper 14.2.1.1
          9 May 2013 at 11:01 am

          You really think there won’t be another environmental or conversation disaster between now and next election? I’ll give you a clue: National are enacting a tonne of anti-conservation moves which are going to help the Greens very nicely thank you.

          • Brett Dale 14.2.1.1.1
            9 May 2013 at 11:59 am

            The odds are there wont be another one just before the election, like last time, the Rena must of given the greens at least another 2% in the party vote.

            Again they will poll between 13-20%, the actual election they will get just over 10%

            • fender 14.2.1.1.1.1
              9 May 2013 at 12:54 pm

              How lucky it is we have such a wise person like you with your ability to see into the future. Since your 10:56am prediction of 9-10% and your 11:59am of ‘just over’ 10% there’s been an almost 1% increase, that good for only 1 hour, please come back in a few hours and give another update.

              Some may see your name and say ‘oh no not Bread Stale’, but not me, I know a genuine clairvoyant when I see one.

          • Rob 14.2.1.1.2
            9 May 2013 at 1:05 pm

            There may well be, odds on its probably very likely. However we now realise that the green rhetoric is as empty and based on grandstanding as everyone elses. So what new policy actually came out of the Rena disaster, how did they use it to influence NZ in a postive way. All we saw was major of flapping of hands as it was pronounced that this was NZ worst eclogical disaster and would leave a stain on BOP for decades. So what is the update on supposedly NZ’s worst ecological disaster.

        • Rich the other 14.2.1.2
          9 May 2013 at 3:39 pm

          Greens won’t get even 9%, people are waking up to there desire to stop almost any development.

          Beware ,they have a new cowardly tactic , this to oppose new developments under a different name as demonstrated by the appeal against the kapiti/Levin freeway, its actually the greens in disguise.

          The same tactic is being used on the west coast in an appeal against a mining venture,

          • framu 14.2.1.2.1
            9 May 2013 at 4:36 pm

            you havent actually bothered to read any green policy have you – the whole anti development thing proves it. Its the calling card of the ignorant

        • felix 14.2.1.3
          9 May 2013 at 7:59 pm

          Hey Brett, what were you predicting for the Greens last election? 7% wasn’t it?

          And how’d they do? 14% wasn’t it?

          This new prediction of yours is very exciting…

  15. Dv 15
    9 May 2013 at 10:33 am

    Another way to look at the numbers
    1million? on advertising attracted 73,000 ‘new’ investors (although I dont really know how they got that number)
    OR
    $140 per investor.

    • Colonial Viper 15.1
      9 May 2013 at 10:51 am

      What are you talking about? $1M spend? Dream on – the marketing campaign alone cost roughly 30x that.

      • Rob 15.1.1
        9 May 2013 at 1:09 pm

        You do realise that $1M media spend in a tight timeframe is actually quite a lot CV and gives a lot of TARP’s.

  16. Dv 16
    9 May 2013 at 10:54 am

    I thought the tv/new was 1m
    If it is 30m, that is $4200 per new investor!!!!
    Yikes.

    • Chris 16.1
      9 May 2013 at 3:27 pm

      You might want to check your maths in both places you’ve done it.

      $30m over 73,000 investors is $411 per investor.

      Also the new investors figure would have come from the number of purchasers who needed an investor number or whatever they are called.

  17. Enough is Enough 17
    9 May 2013 at 11:09 am

    r0b

    You have a habit of testing National’s success and failures against your beliefs and morals.

    Guess what National don’t really give a shit about the low price or low amount of kiwis took up the offer.

    Their goal was to sell our assets to their mates. Big tick. They have suceeded, and we have failed.

    There will be champagne bottles being popped in the glass towers of Auckland today and at Nat HQ in Wellington.

    They have managed to do what they were put in government to do. They have stood strong to huge opposition and pushed this through.

    We can learn a lot from the way they stick to their principles.

    The bastards

    • Colonial Viper 17.1
      9 May 2013 at 11:12 am

      You make some good points.

      John Key’s mates will be well pleased that the share price is relatively low, and that they got a larger proportion of the shares than expected because there were so few Kiwi investors.

      So agreed…hardly a “failure” for the National Party constituency.

    • Murray Olsen 17.2
      10 May 2013 at 1:38 am

      Half the Labour caucus also do their best to stick to National’s principles. They should just join up and get out of the road.

  18. Saarbo 18
    9 May 2013 at 11:30 am

    I’m sure National expected over 300k people to purchase MRP shares. This is a major fail. MRP is the jewel in the New Zealands power generators, it has a good mixture of hydro/geo thermal generators and has exciting developments in wind and overseas investments. This float should have had a lot more investors than Contact. This is a major FAIL and will be beautiful fodder for the Greens and Labour when things settle down.

    I reckon as far as what the Left needs to do is we have to get the 16500 signatures, I guess we have to be a bit more discerning and careful when signing up because when I collected signatures I had the uncomfortable feeling that there were MRP sale supporters entering bogus details to derail, easily fixed this time, we just need to ask for a drivers license to make sure we get the details correct. I’ve already got a lot of signatures , in fact it seems even easier now as anyone who hasn’t purchased shares are pretty keen (97.5% of New Zealander’s).

    I reckon that National hoped to get most of their supporters buying, I imagine that they expected numbers well in excess of 300k investors. This was their policy that was going to change everything for them, they were relying on this. FAIL. Quite funny really.

    • ianmac 18.1
      9 May 2013 at 12:11 pm

      I had made a modest collection from family and friends. Acknowledged.
      What happens if we reapply?
      And if the Parliamentary Services just did sampling how would we know:
      1. Whether we had been discounted.
      2. That they know if my new submission was a duplicate or not?

      • Saarbo 18.1.1
        9 May 2013 at 2:22 pm

        Well I think 16500 new signatures cant be that hard to find, even if we stop Genesis then we have held some more strategic assets with in government. All signatures have to be new to the petition.

    • infused 18.2
      9 May 2013 at 1:29 pm

      The referendum is pretty much lost now. If it had stacked up 1st time round, I think it would have had quite a huge affect, but now it’s a fizzer.

    • Rich the other 18.3
      9 May 2013 at 6:48 pm

      sarbo ,
      the real FAIL is the petition and just to be helpful , 23000 is the target.
      .

      What’s more by the time the sales are complete the govt will have about $5 billion to play with, that’s $5 billion they don’t have to borrow.

      But wait there’s more , unemployment down
      .
      The left are about to start panicking.

      • Colonial Viper 18.3.1
        9 May 2013 at 6:53 pm

        Fascinating ideas.

        However, MRP represents the absolute high tide mark for the asset sale programme. It’s all down hill from here.

        • Colonial Viper 18.3.1.1
          9 May 2013 at 7:02 pm

          I’ll add – I’m expecting a massive global equities crash before the end of the year. World stock markets have been hyperinflated well beyond how the real global economy is doing.

    • ianmac 19.1
      9 May 2013 at 3:44 pm

      I watched fibre optic ultra fast broadband being connected free to my neighbor courtesy of Telecom. I contacted my new provider Vodapone (ex Telstra) who knew nothing about it “but when it became available in our street they would let me know.”
      “But it is here! I can see it.”
      “No. We will let you know when it arrives.”
      (I can’t afford it anyway.)

  20. peggity gwes 20
    9 May 2013 at 1:42 pm

    Renationalise on day 2 of the next green/labour government.. we need one day to celebrate before getting down to business.

    • Colonial Viper 20.1
      9 May 2013 at 4:04 pm

      Labour won’t renationalise; or if they do it will be in a way which provides massive profits to the private sector.

  21. aerobubble 21
    9 May 2013 at 5:20 pm

    Drunk on power, Key impressively rewards those at the top who have left a global wasteland of debt and near disaster, feed them more, when we should be right royally condemning their works.

  22. Prove It 22
    9 May 2013 at 6:47 pm

    Can you provide evidence to support the $100m to $300m cost assertion – other than links to unsubstantiated claims?

    Hint: Read page 238 of the Prospectus.

    [Bill English admitted today that the cost of selling Mighty River alone was $100m. Nice try though. Eddie]

    • Prove It 22.1
      9 May 2013 at 7:29 pm

      Fair enough, thank you for the link (although technically the question/answer seems to relate to costs across the process so far, so not just MRP).

      …

      …

      So, the $300 million cost assertion in this post is therefore wrong?

      And, the $100 million asserted payment to Lazard must therefore be wrong too (unless all other Government advisers have been working for free)?

      • Prove It 22.1.1
        9 May 2013 at 7:49 pm

        Just watched a bit more of the video you posted Eddie – you are right – it seems the $100m figure in context may relate just to MRP.

        However, RN does seem to be factoring in $25m of “loyalty bonus shares” into his $100m – which is not a “cost” in terms of cash out the door, so lets say $75 million.

        $75m in costs = what, $250 per Kiwi … OP going to be corrected?

        • Te Reo Putake 22.1.1.1
          9 May 2013 at 8:26 pm

          Which bit of the post do you think needs correcting? If you are talking about the cost per investor, then, on your figures, its $750 per investor. I heard one pundit suggest a $110 mil spend already (ie bugger all left for the other floats). If that figure’s correct it’s near as damn to the thousand dollar figure in the post.

Links to post