Returns on investments

Written By: - Date published: 9:01 am, October 8th, 2011 - 90 comments
Categories: accountability, assets, class war, john key, leadership, national, tax - Tags:

When John Key was elected to power in 2008, he was estimated to have a personal wealth of about 40-50 million dollars. Since then, he’s collected an annual salary of $400,000 – worth all the more since the tax cuts increased the net figure by an extra $1,000 per week.

And then there are the investments. It’s been a terrible three years for many investors given the state of the national and world economies. But then Key is a clever man when it comes to his own investments, and as Prime Minister he’s been in a uniquely advantageous position to receive the very best market intelligence and, in many cases, have forewarning of significant events that will affect the markets and particular investments. Of course, that knowledge wouldn’t have any impact at all on Key’s share trading, because his investments are apparently all in a blind trust Aldgate. But then again, the mirror trust Whitechapel must make things much easier to manage profitably. Given that, I would have thought that Key’s investments have been doing just fine and returning at least 10%.

Just how much tax has been paid on those profits is anyone’s guess, but I expect Key would have very good advice on how to minimise the contribution.

So my question is how much is John Key worth now?

Your considered estimates would be appreciated.

90 comments on “Returns on investments ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. jpwood 1
    8 October 2011 at 9:17 am

    Cue cries of “the politics of envy” in 5..4..3..2..1

  2. Shona 2
    8 October 2011 at 9:28 am

    Irrespective of how many dollars Key has been able to stash away ( it’s not interesting) he will never be worth anything, not even the smell off a fart.

    • seeker 2.1
      8 October 2011 at 6:15 pm

      Totally agree Shona,especially after his reactions to the possible suicide attempt of a man with severe mental anguish in Parliament of all places on October 5th. One can tell the measure of a man by his actions and in Key’s case as Prime minister of the House he shrank and shrank and shrank and shrank….until he reached his true height, which in units of respect is worth zero, and still counting down.

  3. Lanthanide 3
    8 October 2011 at 9:31 am

    I like how you blithely assume John Key’s investments must have made 10%.

    This really is a bollocks post and complete waste of time. Really you should be asking how much of his salary he’s donated to charity, like he promised he would.

    On the other hand, I wouldn’t mind if releasing tax records of the PM and possibly deputy for the last several years was a feature of NZ politics, as they do in the US with the president.

    Key likes to pretend he’s so principled and above the usual muck and mire of politics, but when it comes to doing something that would really put his money where his mouth is and truly shut up his critics once and for all, he doesn’t do it.

    • Deadly_NZ 3.1
      8 October 2011 at 8:56 pm

      And BOA shares have dropped sommat like 50 bucks a share in the last 4 years Now worth about 6 bucks.

  4. ianmac 4
    8 October 2011 at 9:38 am

    Worth? Depends on how we measure worth. Automatically it is measured by wealth in money terms plus assets. Sir Paul Reeves probably failed in those terms but his worth would be vast.

    It would be so interesting if John Key’s tax payments were made public. Know any malcontent in the IRD?

    • Lanthanide 4.1
      8 October 2011 at 9:58 am

      I’m sure the PM’s financial records will be handled by a select few at any government agency he is involved with and wouldn’t be available to the rank and file of the service. Meaning any leak would be immediately traced.

  5. Wayne91 5
    8 October 2011 at 9:46 am

    Lots of ifs buts and maybes – totally irrelavent

  6. Luva 6
    8 October 2011 at 9:54 am

    What a demented post,

    Who really cares what he is worth? Well you obviously…but why…………..obsessed?

  7. Afewknowthetruth 7
    8 October 2011 at 9:57 am

    He may have a lot more digits in computer systems and bits of paper with fancy writing on than most people but he is spiritually bankrupt, a totally hollow man of no substance whatsoever.

  8. Nick C 8
    8 October 2011 at 10:30 am

    I think the only thing that repulses me more than this pointless post is the people declaring that Key is ‘not worth anything’ as a human being, or things to that effect.

    What the hell? Are you really so adverse to encountering different points of view that you cant even see the people who hold those views with any objectivity? Key wasnt born into privilege, he was born into a state house, in many ways he is a success story of the welfare state. He has what is by all accounts a lovely family and those who actually know him seem to have truck loads of respect for him.

    Get a life.

    • marsman 8.1
      8 October 2011 at 10:34 am

      Then why does he behave like a scumbag?

      • KJT 8.1.1
        8 October 2011 at 11:43 am

        I would not be surprised if Key himself does not click that he has been manipulated into being the front for thieves.

        Some very intelligent people have bought into the Neo-liberal meme.

        As we know, if you repeat something often enough it becomes accepted, even by people who should know better.

        Being a successful gambler and thief does not mean that a great deal of general knowledge, self awareness or judgement is there.
        I am sure Brash believes he is right for instance.

        Showing how insidious lies are. The National “cutie” was repeating the idea that the GFC started in NZ before it did elsewhere and some other outright lies, I am sure she believes are true, in the broadsides column in the Herald.

        On a personal level I am prepared to believe both may be nice, caring people, with the best of intentions. Just not deep thinkers!

        But maybe I am being too kind, also noting that psychopaths often are very good at imitating real people.

        It will be interesting to see if Key, when he gets paid his millions for selling us out, becomes a philanthropist.

    • felix 8.2
      8 October 2011 at 10:35 am

      How can you be “repulsed” by a “pointless post”?

      • Nick C 8.2.1
        8 October 2011 at 11:11 am

        Because of what it says about the author. Why does he/she care what Key’s net worth is? And what the hell is the point of inviting uninformed speculation on the matter? The point of the post is to get all the looneys here to basically just launch into personal attacks on Key, its the sort of thing you occasionally accuse DPF of doing through ‘dog whistles’. You do it blatantly.

        Its actually sad and probably reflects an unhealthy obsession. If this launching these sort of attacks is the reason some of the commentators here like to blog then I feel sorry for them.

        • Lanthanide 8.2.1.1
          8 October 2011 at 11:20 am

          I agree.

        • felix 8.2.1.2
          8 October 2011 at 11:27 am

          So you don’t think it’s pointless then, you think “The point of the post is to get all the looneys here to basically just launch into personal attacks on Key”

          I disagree, but I do agree that it has a point. I think it raises a number of interesting questions about how well Key can represent us.

          p.s. I didn’t write it so I’m not sure who you’re calling “you”.

          • the sprout 8.2.1.2.1
            8 October 2011 at 11:38 am

            My interest is in the effects of Key’s rule on Key’s personal fortune – for comparison with the effects of Key’s policy on most New Zealanders’ personal ‘fortunes’.

            Tell me – how is that not relevant to considerations of his worthiness for re-election?

            • The Baron 8.2.1.2.1.1
              9 October 2011 at 2:48 am

              But you know nothing about is fortune to base this supposedly objective assessment on. All you have is an initial estimate that varies by 25% and a guesstimate (based on what, I can’t tell) of 10% return.
              This seems a pretty pointless yardstick to measure a man with, Sprout. Or we can all just recognise that evidently the oh so successful “attack Key on his wealth” strategy from 2008 is back on the cards.
              Why the left is playing this election the same way as last time is beyond me.

              • Colonial Viper …
                9 October 2011 at 10:41 am

                How can you be legitimately called a “success” if you’ve achieved it by being an unproductive mercantile scum bag?

        • lprent 8.2.1.3
          8 October 2011 at 12:00 pm

          Umm, when I was reading the comments here yesterday there was mention of posts from the right blogs on speculation on someone else’s income. It was about John Key’s cleaner at parliament.

          I can’t see you complaining about that. Or any of the rather disgusting income scapegoating that has gone on over the last couple of years whenever anyone dares to stand up to the government.

          Tell me why there is any difference between the two? Explain what appears to me to be your rather selective stance…

          • Nick C 8.2.1.3.1
            8 October 2011 at 12:25 pm

            There are clear differences between the two:

            1) Key’s cleaner started a political argument based directly on her income (i.e. she thought she wasn’t paid enough). Her argument attacked the economic system, and tried to establish that it was unfair because it didnt give a person in her circumstances enough to live. A big part of her case was that she was responsible for 4 children and 4 grandchildren. In order to have a proper argument and decide whether we think the economic system doesn’t give her, or a person is her circumstances, enough income to live, we need to work out what a person in her circumstances take home pay actually is.

            In this respect the argument was never really about her. It was about whether single parents with children on low wages are adequetly supported by the economic system, but she made her personal circumstances the example to evaluate.

            I dont have a problem with you invoking the gap between rich and poor, but this post just unnessesarily brings John Key’s personal circumstances into the debate, and thus guarentees we will see more personal attacks than discussion. If Key got up and said: “Our government is awsome, here is my net worth as an example of this” then it would be legitimate. But Key almost never talks about his personal wealth.

            2) We can work out what the cleaners income is based on the information she gave us (her hourly rate plus the amount she would be entitled to under WFF), so we can actually get somewhere. This post just invites uninformed speculation.

    • Afewknowthetruth 8.3
      8 October 2011 at 11:00 am

      There are only two ways to acquire wealth: exploit other people; exploit the environment (or both).

      When one person ends up with a lot bigger share of the cake that everyone else that means he has effectively stolen it from other people.

      Why anyone would admire such a person utterly baffles me!

      Shonkey has been stealing from his own children since he entered politics -pursuing policies that will result in complete collapse of the environment!.

      But one does need to have some knowledge of energy and the envrionemnt to understand that -knowledge most people who comment he do not have, unfortunaetley. Not only that, but they also strong resist becoming informed about all the important issues and spend all their time commenting on trivia, which is the main reason the next generation is faced with such a dismal future.

      What is particuarly ironic about Shonkey is that (if the narrative of the poor boy form a state house is true) he was greatly assisted by the very kind of society he is in the process of demolishing.

      It’s really all a bit academic really, since Peak Oil is in the process of demolishing all current economic and social arrangments, and it will all be pretty much over by 2015.

      The main point about Shokey and the clowns and crimnals that constitute his government is that they have ensured that NO PREPARTIONS WHATSOEVER have been put in place to cope with the meltdown that is underway, or the mayhen we are headed straight into. That rather suggests they intend to profit from the meltdown and the mayhem at the expense of wider society.

      Some people admire such sociopathic behaviour.

    • felix 8.4
      8 October 2011 at 11:07 am

      “Key wasnt born into privilege, he was born into a state house, in many ways he is a success story of the welfare state.”

      Nah, a success story of the welfare state would be that all the kids born in his situation were able to have a decent standard of living and participate in society meaningfully.

      Not that one individual kid should become very wealthy and the rest get fucked.

    • the pink postman 8.5
      8 October 2011 at 3:37 pm

      Well N/C I can assure you I for one am not a bit envious of over rich uncaring Right-Wingers. For a large part of my working life I was employed by very wealthy people including aristocrats and royalty . With only a couple of exceptions they were the meanest ,miserable lot of toads ever. They pay the mininum wages and have the worst recods for work conditions. Im sure I have enjoyed my life a lot more than most of those snotty nosed lot. Now you say Key never had a priviledged life ,well i would very much doubt that.

    • seeker 8.6
      8 October 2011 at 7:31 pm

      @ Nick C 10.30 am.

      “I think the only thing that repulses me more than this pointless post is the people declaring that Key is ‘not worth anything’ as a human being, or things to that effect.”

      It does seem a bit harsh I know especially as we were once told by a really famous person to love our enemies and turn the other cheek , and all that. However in Key’s case you have to realise that many people are repulsed by him – his lack of principle , his changes of spin so one can never trust him, his unkind and inappropriate jokes(Tuhoe), his behaviour in Parliament especially the throat slashing gesture to innocent people, his unaccountability, his incompetence , his treatment of the poor and hungry etc.etc. If he were to have remained as a private person he would not appear “worthless”, but he became Prime Minister. He put himself up for this job, no one else, and as a prime or first minister he is empty and horrendous, and to me, after last Wednesday, repulsive, and to some one else – worthless.

      As humans Nick C, all of us have some worth I believe, but you have to try harder to find it in some than others. At the moment I am finding it very hard to think of John Key at all, without feeling repulsed.

      PS Of course I would cross to the other side of the road to help Key if I saw him in trouble. I wouldn’t want to ,but I would have to as he is almost a fellow human. I would do this in spite of the fact that neither he nor many of his Nact cohorts would do the same for me, thanks to their inhuman neo liberal ideology.

      This ideology is what has made many of this persuasion less than human. They have ‘hardened their hearts’ and worshipped money and profit and put themselves first before thinking of their fellow man. In fact they have so hardened their hearts as to be able to say “fellow man ” doesn’t exist -there is no such thing as society. So if you feel “repulsed” at people thinking Key “is not worth anything ” as a human being you, only have the neo liberal ideology that I think you espouse to, to thank for this.

      It has successfully dismantled much of society, and it’s “trickle down” effect has allowed people to think of their neo liberal thinking leaders as worthless humans; just as those leaders and espousers of the ideology like Thatcher, Joseph, Reagan, Douglas, Prebble, Richardson, Brash etc.did of the people they came to govern. They then went on to extinguish them by economically quantifying them and denying their humanity and creativity and basic needs. In fact denying their worth at all.

      You only have yourselves to blame for having taught people to think of Key as worthess.

      • Jum 8.6.1
        8 October 2011 at 7:37 pm

        True words, including ‘no one can ever trust him’.

      • the sprout 8.6.2
        8 October 2011 at 8:13 pm

        well put seeker

      • Colonial Viper 8.6.3
        9 October 2011 at 10:53 am

        PS Of course I would cross to the other side of the road to help Key if I saw him in trouble. I wouldn’t want to ,but I would have to as he is almost a fellow human.

        Well that’s good of you but chances are that you would get a broken arm for your troubles as his multiple DPS officers tackled you to the ground.

        PS I give you a 50/50 chance of him stopping his driven limo and asking someone to help you out on the street if he saw you in trouble,

    • pollywog 8.7
      8 October 2011 at 9:12 pm

      Key wasnt born into privilege, he was born into a state house…

      oh chur…cos there was absolutely no privilege in being a white male born in an era where people of colour were naturally second class, considered inherently inferior and were biased against by most public institutions.

      and of course being of jewish stock probably wouldn’t have helped in the least to climb the banking and financial ladder of success

      reckon he would have achieved as much if he were Pasifikan born into a state house…eh ?

  9. renderer 9
    8 October 2011 at 10:40 am

    Never seen such unadulterared rubbish as this post

  10. Paul Carruthers 10
    8 October 2011 at 11:01 am

    Phwoar – that’s a hard one – but I will have a crack at it…

    I’m picking he has picked up at least half as much again, making it around $75m now, but you never know – it could be triple.

    Debt is incredibly profitable!

    Ask the people running his blind trust(s). You know, the blind people. The one’s who live in padded cells with no communication equipment and no contact with the outside world (just to ensure integrity is maintained by being unable to access information about the likely economic consequences of decisions he makes).

    Those people.

    Ask them…

    They will know.

    For sure.

  11. Penny Bright 11
    8 October 2011 at 11:29 am

    More importantly – surely – is whose interests are being served by John Key, former Foreign Exchange Advisor from Merrill Lynch on the New York Federal Reserve?

    When NZ Prime Minister John Key goes to the USA and meets with his old Wall Street BANKSTER mates, whose interests is he serving?

    His interests?

    (John Key is still a shareholder in the Bank of America, according to the 2011 NZ MP’s Register of Financial Interests)

    The interests of his Wall Street bankster mates?

    Or OUR interests – as members of the NZ public majority?

    Check the FACTS for yourself!

    http://www.newyorkfed.org/fxc/members/members_past.html

    Part A:
    The FXC Members… Past and Present…A Yearbook (listings based on FIRST membership year)

    2000
    John Carter, Lehman
    James Kemp, Citigroup
    John Key, Merrill Lynch
    Adam Kreysar, UBS Warburg

    http://www.newyorkfed.org/FXC/

    The Foreign Exchange Committee is an industry group that has been providing guidance and leadership to the global foreign exchange market since its founding in 1978.

    The FXC includes representatives of major financial institutions engaged in foreign currency trading in the United States and is sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Aware of the strong integration of the global foreign exchange market, the FXC is also an active partner to other foreign exchange committees and industry associations worldwide.

    The FXC’s objectives include:

    serving as a forum for the discussion of good practices and technical issues in the FX market,
    fostering improvements in risk management in the FX market by offering recommendations and guidelines, and supporting actions that facilitate greater contractual certainties for all parties active in foreign exchange.

    The FX market, which operates 24 hours a day, is the largest and most liquid marketplace in the global economy. According to the 2004 Triennial Survey by the Bank for International Settlements, daily turnover averages $1.9 trillion in the foreign exchange market, including $1.3 trillion in the over-the-counter foreign exchange derivatives market.

    The liquidity of the market gives businesses access to international markets for goods and services by providing the foreign currency needed to make transactions worldwide.

    The FX market serves commercial and investment banks, foreign exchange dealers and brokerage companies, corporations, money managers (including pension, mutual fund, and commodity pool managers), commodity trading advisors, insurance companies, governments, and central banks.”

    Penny Bright
    Independent ‘Public Watchdog’
    Candidate for Epsom
    Campaigning against ‘White Collar’ CRIME, CORRUPTION (and its root cause – PRIVATISATION) and CORPORATE WELFARE.

    • Pete 11.1
      8 October 2011 at 11:43 am

      Bank of America wouldn’t be such a good investment – its share price has declined from around US$55 five years ago to US$5.90 today

      • Penny Bright 11.1.1
        8 October 2011 at 11:53 am

        True Pete –

        “Bank of America wouldn’t be such a good investment – its share price has declined from around US$55 five years ago to US$5.90 today”

        So – given that John Key’s personal wealth is thus directly affected – because he is a shareholder in the Bank of America – the serving of whose interests are arguably going to be foremost in his mind?

        That’s a fair question isn’t it?

        In my considered opinion, MPs, and particularly Ministers, should not be allowed to directly own shares – END OF STORY.

        Penny Bright
        Independent ‘Public Watchdog’
        Candidate for Epsom
        Campaigning against ‘White Collar’ CRIME, CORRUPTION (and its root cause – PRIVATISATION) and CORPORATE WELFARE.

        • Lanthanide 11.1.1.1
          8 October 2011 at 1:13 pm

          “In my considered opinion, MPs, and particularly Ministers, should not be allowed to directly own shares – END OF STORY.”

          I’m curious about this. What are they supposed to do with their money if they don’t put it in shares? Put it all into housing? Or are you suggesting that it’s ok if they own shares, but they must be at arms reach and administered by someone else? That’s probably fine for someone like JK who has pots of money, but other ministers are not so well off and it seems kind of unfair that they can have money invested in something but no way to actually control how it’s administered – they could end up losing a lot of money because the independent managers make a different decision than the MP themselves would have made if they were given the opportunity to make the decision.

          • KJT 11.1.1.1.1
            8 October 2011 at 1:19 pm

            In the real world, Ministers are going to have private interests, investments, bank accounts, business interests just like everyone else.

            The best means of dealing with this is that they publicly declare interests each year. The public can judge if self interest has affected their judgement.

            Of course this would not matter so much if we had a democracy and did not have to rely totally on the honesty of 120 politicians.

  12. felix 12
    8 October 2011 at 11:33 am

    To the John Key Fanclub:

    Can we just take it as read that you think it’s disgusting and amoral to discuss someone else’s money, accept that as your opinion and move the discussion forward from there?

    Thanks.

    • the sprout 12.1
      8 October 2011 at 11:44 am

      well said felix, although i doubt they mind discussing the incomes of beneficiaries.

      but back to the quesion. for those not overcome with mock-outrage at my asking such vile relevancies – your considered estimates of Key’s wealth would be welcomed.

      Paul C, thanks for your considering the question as it is intended

      • The Baron 12.1.1
        9 October 2011 at 2:04 pm

        Oh for pete’s sake Sprout – this whole “hate him cos he is rich” strategy didn’t work in ’08 and won’t work in ’11 either. this whole masquerade of “I wonder what he is worth is as pathetic as it is transparent.

        There is one massive difference between the cleaner and the PM that you’ve failed to mention as well – one is asking everyone else to give her more money (despite already receiving massive welfare); whereas the other has kept his promise to give all of his away. And yet more bile and hatred from the noble warriors of the left.

        Hey, does anyone else remember when Jeanette Fitzsimons was sprung with her shares in wind tech, while also campaigning for more wind power? Or what about saint helen’s four residential properties while she bemoaned the lot of the young aspiring home owner?

        It isn’t mock outrage at all, Sprout – though I am sure you’ll continue to delude yourself that it is. it’s a sense of fucking despair, at least from me, at the hypocrisy and juvenility of this entire thread.

        As for an estimate – well, as has been pointed out by those that have an ounce of financial nous, Key’s BoA holding has taken a hammering (but the conspiracy continues anyway, right Eve/Penny? Seems like a smart conspiracy to me, losing a crapload of money and all…). And if he has managed to average 10% during the worst financial crisis since the 30s, then the man deserves the treasury benches cos he is a certifiable genius.

  13. Brett Dale 13
    8 October 2011 at 12:10 pm

    How much is John Key Worth???

    I judge him by his policies not by his bank account.

  14. Penny Bright 14
    8 October 2011 at 12:19 pm

    If John Key was the Prime Minister of Australia – would he be allowed to own shares in the Bank of America?

    NO.

    Australian Federal Government MPs have an enforceable ‘Code of Conduct’ (Standards of Ministerial Ethics) – which New Zealand MPs DO NOT.

    So – how come NZ is ‘perceived’ to be the ‘least corrupt country in the world’ (along with Denmark and Singapore – according to Transparency International’s 2010 ‘Corruption perception Index’?

    http://www.dpmc.gov.au/guidelines/docs/ministerial_ethics.pdf

    Shareholdings

    2.9. In recognition of the collective responsibility that Ministers bear in relation to Cabinet decisions, these Standards require that Ministers divest themselves of investments and other interests in any public or private company or business, other than public superannuation funds or publicly listed managed funds or trust arrangements where:

    • the investments are broadly diversified and the Minister has no influence over investment decisions of the fund or trust; and

    • the fund or trust does not invest to any significant extent in a business sector that could give rise to a conflict of interest with the Minister’s public duty.

    2.10. If a Minister becomes aware that a fund or trust has invested in a company that might give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest, the Minister should inform the Prime Minister immediately and liquidate the investment in the fund or trust if required to do so.

    2.11. If a Minister is required by these Standards to dispose of an interest of any kind, the transfer of the interest to a family member or to a nominee or private trust is not an acceptable form of divestment.
    Family members

    2.12. Ministers must have regard to the pecuniary and other private interests of members of their immediate families, to the extent known to them, as well as their own interests, in considering whether a conflict or apparent conflict between private interests and official duty arises.

    2.13. Ministers should encourage family members to dispose of, or not to invest in, shares in companies which operate in their area of responsibility. Where a Minister is aware of the nature of investments of family members from which they derive a beneficial interest and which might give rise to a perception of a conflict of interests, those interests should be structured so that the Minister exercises no control over the investment.”

    Penny Bright
    Independent ‘Public Watchdog’
    Candidate for Epsom
    Campaigning against ‘White Collar’ CRIME, CORRUPTION (and its root cause – PRIVATISATION) and CORPORATE WELFARE.

    • Jum 14.1
      8 October 2011 at 3:23 pm

      Sorry, Penny. We’re dealing with John Key here. Quoting ethical financial behaviour and John Key in the same sentence will never work.

  15. ak 15
    8 October 2011 at 12:35 pm

    The accumulation of vast individual wealth at a time when others are starving to death for want of pennies is the core obscenity of humanity. At the global table, the rich parents feed one child to obesity and watch the others starve in agony.

    Those who accumulate know this full well, but lack the courage to act: so they rationalise their weakness in the further obscenity of blame-the-victim (“politics of envy”) rhetoric. And act on that rhetoric when they have power over others.

    Wealth in itself is neutral: but its accumulation beyond need can provoke evil from weak individuals. Or weak nations.

    Johnny Key was undoubtedly a pleasant and harmless young paper-shuffler. If unable to accumulate vast sums, he would probably have lived and died just another pleasant and harmless chap.

    But now, as a result of his wealth, he leads a nation. When he says that thousands of women are “breeding for a business”, that “bugger-all would die” if we cut all support to the poorest, and when he leads a party that arose from the dead solely on racist hatemongering, he’s a scumbag.

    Not because he’s rich. Because he’s weak. And because like all his tory ilk, he tries to hide that weakness by attacking the most vulnerable.

    Envy them? You’re joking. We should pity them, but their many victims are more deserving.

  16. Richard Down South 16
    8 October 2011 at 12:51 pm

    By simply knowing ahead that the NZD is expected to devalue, or increase value, by a margin of say 5 cents, is enough to make a couple hundred thousand dollars profit from short term currency trading if you have the cash.

    Thats not even considering foreign/domestic investments, based on knowledge one would gain from being PM… (one would expect that if one knew when sales of SOE’s were due to happen, you’d have cash freed up to invest in profitable ones (power generation companies returning 10%~ PA) so one could make investments

  17. felix 17
    8 October 2011 at 1:28 pm

    I seem to remember some speculation a while back that with Key’s wealth being so tied up in Wall st stocks he’d taken a bit of a bath in the crash.

    I even seem to remember hearing him saying this was true but not being drawn on how cold the bath was.

    Some speculated at the time that his fortune might have been slashed in half almost overnight.

  18. Penny Bright 18
    8 October 2011 at 1:34 pm

    Seen this?

    http://www.seafoodconference.co.nz/co-speakers

    2011 Conference Speaker Profiles

    John Key, Prime Minister of New Zealand
    Opening Address

    Prime Minister John Key graduated with a Bachelor of Commerce from Canterbury University. He launched his investment banking career in New Zealand in the mid-1980s, and went on to work in Singapore, London, and Sydney for Merrill Lynch,

    becoming head of global foreign exchange and European bond and derivative trading.

    In 1999 Mr Key was invited to join the Foreign Exchange Committee of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. In 2001, Mr Key returned to New Zealand. He was elected MP for Helensville in 2002, becoming National Party Leader in November 2006, and then Prime Minister following the 2008 General Election.”

    Penny Bright
    Independent ‘Public Watchdog’
    Candidate for Epsom
    Campaigning against ‘White Collar’ CRIME, CORRUPTION (and its root cause – PRIVATISATION) and CORPORATE WELFARE.

  19. Penny Bright 19
    8 October 2011 at 2:08 pm

    John Key worked for Merrill Lynch,’becoming head of global foreign exchange and European bond and derivative trading’. So – what role did John Key play internationally in helping to push ‘derivative trading’? What ‘adivice’ on ‘derivative trading’ did John key provide to the New York Federal Reserve when he was one of their Foreign Exchange Advisors? Anyone got any copies of the ‘advice’ John Key provided the New York Federal Reserve on ‘derivative trading’?

    Penny Bright
    Independent ‘Public Watchdog’
    Candidate for Epsom
    Campaigning against ‘White Collar’ CRIME, CORRUPTION (and its root cause – PRIVATISATION) and CORPORATE WELFARE.

    • Jum 19.1
      8 October 2011 at 3:38 pm

      Penny Bright,

      This guy at that function might be even more interesting:

      ‘Cameron Bagrie, Chief Economist, ANZ
      Presentation: Economic Overview – Predictions for the next decade

      Cameron is the Chief Economist of ANZ New Zealand. Cameron has worked as an economist in New Zealand for the past 15 years. As Chief Economist, Cameron leads a team of economists and strategists working in ANZ’s financial markets operation. The responsibilities of the team include the forecasting of the New Zealand economy, analysis of New Zealand monetary policy as well as the forecasting and strategy work associated with fixed income research. On top of this, he provides considerable strategic input to clients and the bank.

      Cameron travels extensively providing economic and financial advice to ANZ’s customers in New Zealand as well as overseas. He appears regularly in the media. He is a member of ANZ Private Bank’s Regional Investment Committee.

      Cameron has previously held posts at The National Bank of New Zealand and New Zealand Treasury. ‘

      Given that ‘He is a member of ANZ Private Bank’s Regional Investment Committee’ and has worked in the Treasury and any tv appearances of his have always been on the side of rightwing government, is he one of the movers and shakers of the giant sell-off of New Zealand assets to banking customers, along with Mark Weldon, conveniently leaving his stock exchange job along with, how conveniently, Simon Power turning down SOE minister as being a conflict of interest and now as a lawyer looking to organise the giant sell-off?

      Way too convenient.

      • seeker 19.1.1
        8 October 2011 at 7:55 pm

        Well said Jum – this has to be watched. Simon Power’s resignation intuitively set alarm bells ringing- and now Mark Weldon. Horrible. And I can’t believe how many strange places Jenny Shipley has turned up – she was a two year trained junior teacher was she not? It’s all too often not what you know or how competent you are in business it seems- it’s who you know.

  20. gingercrush 20
    8 October 2011 at 2:35 pm

    Well my guess it that Helen Clark’s worth must have at least doubled by the time she left in 2008 as being the owner of three or four rentals and some of the highest housing inflation in years would have done wonders to her own wealth.

    • Jum 20.1
      8 October 2011 at 3:48 pm

      LOL gingercrush,

      You righties really do have it bad for Helen Clark, don’t you.

      And how you can possibly equate her owning houses and renting them out as being anywhere near the income of John Key from his ever increasing shares in SOEs that once belonged to all of us is quite frankly, highly amusing to me.

      I can’t wait to get Phil Goff and his team back in Parliament this year to get back integrity from the corrupt criminals that you are devoted to.

      Anything to stop greedy, selfish scavengers from the right having a feeding frenzy on our New Zealand owned asset treasure trove.

      $220 billion worth of wholly New Zealander-owned assets. I’ll repeat that.
      $220 billion worth of wholly New Zealander-owned assets.

      will be sold off if we allow the monkeys of the right back in to pay off their American corporate masters.

      $220 billion. The difference between our country’s sovereignty and our country’s servitude. What’s your choice ladies and gentlemen?

      How hard are you willing to fight to get rid of Key and the international/domestic business rotundtable? Get rid of the TPPA of American corporates circling our shores?

      This year really is your very last chance.

  21. SBW 21
    8 October 2011 at 3:16 pm

    John Key donates a large majority of his PM salary to charity.

    Unlike Labour, politics is a passion, not a job, for National MPs.

    • felix 21.1
      8 October 2011 at 3:45 pm

      Another kiwiblog lie.

      Show a quote or reference for this assertion please.

    • Jum 21.2
      8 October 2011 at 4:01 pm

      SBW,

      Whatever he does with the money he gets from smiling and talking about cats on radio stations he and his PR monkey have loaned New Zealanders’ money to, means little to me.

      You and I know that he wouldn’t dream of doing that if that was the only income he was receiving.

      In fact, because he is doing that, he is shoving the knowledge of his wealth down the throats of those who live on $13.50 per hour ‘gross’ (on so many levels). Shame on Mr Kut-throat.

      Go and visit your local food parcel mission and donate some money to them; in so many cases it will be the rich returning money they hadn’t earned ethically in the first place.

    • Dv 21.3
      8 October 2011 at 4:10 pm

      Urban myth SBW.

    • fender 21.4
      8 October 2011 at 4:53 pm

      If implimenting policies that ensure your wealth skyrockets is a passion you must be right there SBW (stupid big wanker)?. Key might look like hes having a good time but i think this is getting him down having to endure the house cos he only went there to make the changes to improve the WEALTH and POWER of himself and his cronies. ITS TIME TO REMOVE THE KEY TINTED GLASSES SBW AND ALL YOU OTHER NACT DINOSAURS.

  22. happynz 22
    8 October 2011 at 3:32 pm

    John Key donates a large majority of his PM salary to charity.

    I’ve read this assertion in various blogs and whatnot, but never have I seen any evidence to back up this claim. Any links or citations to affirm this charity giving?

    • felix 22.1
      8 October 2011 at 3:46 pm

      I’ve been asking them for a quote or reference for 3 years and so far no one has come up with anything.

      • The Baron 22.1.1
        9 October 2011 at 2:15 pm

        Fair cop Felix – a quick google shows heaps of times that that promise has been made, but very little proof of it actually happening. And nowhere does Key claim that it will be the lot either.

        Mea culpa with regard to my comment above.

  23. randal 23
    8 October 2011 at 4:39 pm

    Look; there goes a flying pig. and its towing a kiwiblog lie.

  24. Penny Bright 24
    8 October 2011 at 4:45 pm

    What’s National and ACT’s policy on TAX AVOIDANCE / TAX EVASION?

    Anyone know?

    Where’s the law that allows ‘surveillance’ of ‘white collar’ criminals?

    Bank accounts, trust accounts, tax havens and the like?

    How come ‘tax havens’ aren’t unlawful – END OF STORY?

    Wonder how much TAX John Key pays on all his income?

    Fair question – isn’t it?

    Penny Bright
    Independent ‘Public Watchdog’
    Candidate for Epsom
    Campaigning against ‘White Collar’ CRIME, CORRUPTION (and its root cause – PRIVATISATION) and CORPORATE WELFARE.

    • fender 24.1
      8 October 2011 at 5:32 pm

      I wish you well Penny, the house would be much improved with your input.

    • The Baron 24.2
      9 October 2011 at 2:20 pm

      Tax havens aren’t illegal because one country can’t dictate the economic policies of another, Penny.

      Are you suggesting that we somehow force the Cook Islands, for example, to follow our law? How imperialist.

      Thanks largely to Roger Douglas, we have one of the most stringent regimes in the world on these matters. But good luck convincing the voters of Epsom that they need you to clean it up further thanks Penny.

  25. Dave 25
    8 October 2011 at 9:48 pm

    “It’s been a terrible three years for many investors”: Actually it’s been pretty good for equities investors since late 2008. The NZX50 is up about 30%, FTSE100 37%, DOW 38%. If Key’s funds were only doing as well as an index tracker he will have done OK.

    • The Baron 25.1
      9 October 2011 at 2:25 pm

      … But horrible if you include mid 2008. Since most investors are unlikely to have predicted and waited out the meltdown, most probably took a big bath first.

      Or more simply put, you can make anything sound awesome if you ignore the bad shit that happened just moments before.