Someone is lying about MRP float

Written By: - Date published: 9:10 am, May 5th, 2013 - 78 comments
Categories: energy, greens, humour, labour, making shit up, spin - Tags: , ,

I’m so confused about the Mighty River Power share float. According to the “market specialists” the loony left have sabotaged it and scared off all the Mums and Dads!…

Opposition power plan stifling MRP share takeup

Markets specialists are predicting the uptake in buying shares in Mighty River Power will be lower than the Government hoped.

It’s thought potential first-time investors have been scared off by political and legal efforts to block the sale – by activists, the Maori Council, and Opposition parties.

Peter Sherwin from Grant Thornton says in particular action by opposition parties who are looking to return the electricity sector to state control will have had an impact…

But according to “investment sources” the Mums and Dads have been flocking in…

‘Heavy’ interest in Mighty River Power shares

Mighty River Power looks set to have the widest shareholding of any New Zealand publicly listed company, surpassing that of Fletcher Building, Contact Energy and Auckland International Airport, once the Government’s partial sale of the power generator and retailer is complete, investment sources said.

No data was available as to the number of applications for shares in the state-owned enterprise lodged by deadline today, but a source close to the transaction said interest had been “heavy”.

Since the “investment sources” are dealing with the actual process it sounds to me like the “market specialists” are telling big fat whopsie lies. But why? Why oh why would they want to tell lies about the effects of the Labour / Green electricity policy? I just can’t work it out…

78 comments on “Someone is lying about MRP float ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. BM 1
    5 May 2013 at 9:28 am

    From what I’ve read, the lefts economic sabotage cost the country $400 million.
    Good work guys.

    • freedom 1.1
      5 May 2013 at 9:39 am

      from what is on public record, the Nat’s economic terrorism has cost this country over sixty billion dollars, sorry, what was your point ?

      • Anne 1.1.1
        5 May 2013 at 9:45 am

        I think he thinks 400 million is more than a mere 60 billion.

      • Gosman 1.1.2
        6 May 2013 at 5:42 am

        60 billion eh. Where did you get figure from other than the obvious location on your person.

        • freedom 1.1.2.1
          6 May 2013 at 10:36 am

          I know they are just the treasury but unless you have a better source of data . . .
          http://www.treasury.govt.nz/downloads/pdfs/fsgnz-year-jun12-1.pdf
          table 17, page 20 (24 of 36)
          this is last year’s data so I projected a little based on the obvious incline of the numbers since 2008. Call it 55 Billion if that makes you feel better
          ( real borrowing though is reportedly closer to 80 billion btw)

          I would like to say your pointless and constantly rebuked bs comments are becoming so very boring gosman. NZ deserves better than bankster apologists defending the greed that is killing our Nation. Try actually thinking about the reality we face sometime. Or does blindingly making stooooopid statements that are easily proven wrong, fulfil you somehow? Does it make you feel important that you made a person waste a few minutes of their life supplying data that has already been widely discussed? You have been party to those discussions also. So that only further proves what a puerile person you really are.

          P.s. from now on, you better practise what you preach brother, all this calling for facts and figures risks making your commentary look even less of a viable argument than it already does

    • ghostwhowalksnz 1.2
      5 May 2013 at 9:42 am

      Cost the country ?
      Since the share issue was previously expected to be heavily oversubscribed, and this out come hasnt changed, the take up at the share price means that the country has lost nothing!

      Do you not know simple arithmetic or is you real name ‘chicken little’

        • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.1
          5 May 2013 at 10:09 am

          Roughan? Another middle aged privileged shill with zero concern whatsoever for the 80% of people who can’t afford to actively invest in MRP.

          • BM 1.2.1.1.1
            5 May 2013 at 10:13 am

            The way I see it, the left better hope for a really good result otherwise National has a mighty big club to smash you round the head with.
            $400 million is a lot of new schools and hip operations.

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.2.1.1.1.1
              5 May 2013 at 10:20 am

              “…National has a mighty big chance to demonstrate that they represent only monied New Zealanders…” but in your feeble-minded myopia you think that’s a “club”.

              Newsflash, Einstein: you fucking thieves have it coming to you. If I were the government you’d be in court for receiving stolen property.

              PS: and for your advocacy of neo-liberal tripe, conspiracy to commit serious fraud.

              • farmboy …
                5 May 2013 at 11:12 am

                maybe you have it coming to you knuckle

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  5 May 2013 at 5:31 pm

                  I think you’ll find a decrease in infant mortality affects infants more than it affects anonymous knuckleheads.

              • Gosman …
                6 May 2013 at 5:44 am

                Written like a true leftist totalitarian.

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  6 May 2013 at 7:53 am

                  Thank Gosman, that’s exactly the look I was going for.

            • AsleepWhileWalking 1.2.1.1.1.2
              5 May 2013 at 10:20 am

              Well if bringing up the fact they are responsible for a very unpopular asset sales policy helps I guess we will just have to live with it.

            • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.1.1.3
              5 May 2013 at 10:57 am

              $400 million is a lot of new schools and hip operations.

              What are you going to sell off to fund new schools and hip operations the year after that? And the year after that one?

            • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.1.1.4
              5 May 2013 at 12:11 pm

              $400 million is a lot of new schools and hip operations.

              Which were easily afforded before National gave the rich a couple of billion in tax cuts which didn’t do as advertised – just as the left said they wouldn’t.

            • mikesh 1.2.1.1.1.5
              5 May 2013 at 1:39 pm

              It is National’s resposibility to decide whether to sell, whatever the price. If the assets are sold at too low a price the ‘sin’ is National’s, nobody else’s. Labour have a right, perhaps even a responsibility, to say what they will do when they come back into power 2014.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                5 May 2013 at 6:11 pm

                Exactly right. I haven’t seen a single rightiee address this point.

                But I’m not surprised by that. There are all sorts of daft things about the MOM policy which righties, if they believe their own stories about how the economy works, should be up in arms about. they don’t talk about them either.

                One of the more glaring ones is that righties like to go on, and on, and on, (and on), about how ‘the government shouldn’t be running businesses’. They’ll tell you that the government just isn’t very good at business and it should stick to its knitting, as it were, and let the private sector do what it does best.

                And what does John Key’s great MOM policy do? What is it they are trumpeting and saying is such a good opportunity for investors, both mum and dad and kiwisaver? Why, it’s companies that will have the government as majority shareholder. And what is happening to the money paid for the shares, I hear you cry.

                Well, the government is getting it.

                What this policy does is takes investment capital out of the private sector and places it into the governments books for the Crown to do what it wants with, in return for the former owners of that capital getting a minority shareholding in a govt controlled business.

                I’ve not seen one, not a single damn one, of the right wing voices that litter this fair nation’s discourse talk about that shit, and it’s only one of the single most common things they have liked to bang on (and on, and on, and on, etc) about.

                Talk about your envy. These pricks are envious of the fact the government can build things that are worth investing in. They want a part of it, they have nothing better to do with their money than give it the government. But will they admit it? Will they fuck.

                • geoff …
                  6 May 2013 at 7:18 am

                  nice one, PB

                • locus …
                  7 May 2013 at 7:09 am

                  actually the self serving swollen heads of the privileged silver spoon set don’t give a flying duck about the revenue. They want a nice cheap bite at a juicy cherry which will net them easy profits when the board asset strips lays off staff avoids tax and increases prices

              • felix …
                6 May 2013 at 3:42 am

                “It is National’s resposibility to decide whether to sell, whatever the price. If the assets are sold at too low a price the ‘sin’ is National’s, nobody else’s.”

                Like Pascal I haven’t seen any righties address this either.

                Except John Key, who said there is no price too low because the only thing that matters is that selling these companies is the right thing to do for nz.

                But he does have some pretty extreme right-wing views our Johnny.

        • Paul 1.2.1.2
          5 May 2013 at 10:21 am

          Who pays John Roughan’s salary?
          Hardly an independent reporter. A repeater for big business, that’s all.

        • ghostwhowalksnz 1.2.1.3
          5 May 2013 at 11:21 am

          So someone has guessed that ‘institutions’ will bid low.

          Easy, they miss out. Or is that not how the ‘market’ works ?

          But of course if the share price rises after the float, the country hasnt ‘missed out’ on the value they could have got.

          And what about the ‘loyalty bonus’ that Key has promised, is that not tax payers money too.

    • Paul 1.3
      5 May 2013 at 9:46 am

      Where did you read this?
      Your sources please.

      • felix 1.3.1
        5 May 2013 at 10:22 am

        “From what I’ve read” is trool code for “I’ve said under another name”. It’s an in joke they think no-one else gets.

        It’s a bit like Fox’s “Some say”.

    • Mike S 1.4
      5 May 2013 at 4:35 pm

      That’s nothing compared to the 49% value that the majority of Kiwis who can’t afford shares will lose in value immediately upon the float, plus their loss of 49% of yearly dividends for the foreseeable future.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.5
      6 May 2013 at 7:49 am

      From what I’ve read, Nationals economic sabotage (tax cuts for the rich) is costing billions per year and this sale of state assets will increase that by another couple of hundred million per year.

    • AmaKiwi 1.6
      6 May 2013 at 4:05 pm

      @ BM

      Pure b.s.

      How can NZPower decrease the shareholders’ value?

      WE, the people, are the shareholders. Those signing up to buy shares are the wannabe owners. WE are the owners today.

      WE have lost nothing. The wannabe owners might lose future value. Great! Then don’t buy.

      Why might they lose future value? Because their monopoly powers might be diminished with NZPower. Neoliberals should cheer. Unbridled competition is supposed to be why neoliberalism is fantastic for all of us.

      Just ask Alice (in Wonderland). Are you smoking the same junk her creator was on?

  2. robertguyton 2
    5 May 2013 at 9:42 am

    BM – try reading something other than Kiwiblog.

  3. irascible 3
    5 May 2013 at 9:49 am

    Perhaps a real shock to the assett stripping advocates would’ve been a policy commitment to take the shares back at the price paid immediately KeY left NZ for his constituency in Hawaii. THAT would’ve have been worth the angst being expressed by the free loaders and back pocket enriching CEOs on tour to hock the country off to “institutional investors” in the USA, China, UK & Oz.

    • locus 3.1
      7 May 2013 at 7:21 am

      No why go to Hawaii when your reward for selling off the family silver is a knighthood and chairmanship of a fortune 100 company. You get far more accolades and doors opened in the US mainland

  4. chris73 4
    5 May 2013 at 10:09 am

    Well I’ve got my shares in so now I can say I truly own a part of the power company

    • QoT 4.1
      5 May 2013 at 11:59 am

      It’s so cute how you wilfully pretend to not understand how public ownership works.

    • Mary 4.2
      5 May 2013 at 7:02 pm

      Oh no! Didn’t you hear about the Greens and Labour’s policy announcement about what they’re going to do to the electricity industry? Hope it’s not too late but you better see if you can back out of those share purchases ASAP because the whole power company sell off’s been sabotaged! Didn’t you hear about it? You need to get out now! Before it’s too late!

      • chris73 4.2.1
        5 May 2013 at 10:15 pm

        What it means is the share prices will be lower than expected meaning I’ll get more even more shares

        So in a way I guess I should really thank the loonies for giving me more shares at no extra cost…

        • felix 4.2.1.1
          6 May 2013 at 3:32 am

          If you guys had thought of that line a couple of weeks ago it might have got some traction. lolz.

          • chris73 4.2.1.1.1
            6 May 2013 at 7:16 am

            More like something about a silver lining springs to mind…

            [lprent: You have been commenting whilst banned. Doubled to another month and added to auto-spam. ]

            • felix 4.2.1.1.1.1
              6 May 2013 at 10:23 am

              So getting more of the stuff you really really want for less money than you expected is a “silver lining”?

              Bollocks. Where’s your sense of enlightened self-interest?

  5. AsleepWhileWalking 5
    5 May 2013 at 10:15 am

    I signed up on the website when it first came out but never got any documents in the mail. Not sure why.

    In any case you can’t trust the media on anything to do with markets or much else. They describe the property/rental market the same way with the market good for sellers one day, then a day or so later good for buyers and property is a slow moving market.

    • Shona 5.1
      5 May 2013 at 12:13 pm

      my partner never signed up and got the full pack of Mighty River documents in the mail. Cross referencing with the IRD for income profiles I reckon.

  6. Dv 6
    5 May 2013 at 10:33 am

    How about the billion to south canterbury finance!!!!!!

    • BM 6.1
      5 May 2013 at 10:37 am

      Yes thanks Michael Cullen.
      Guaranteeing the returns as well, what a hospital pass that was.

      • Colonial Viper 6.1.1
        5 May 2013 at 10:58 am

        What? Blame English for resigning SCF into the scheme when they clearly did not qualify.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 6.1.2
        5 May 2013 at 11:25 am

        Cullens temporary guarantee lapsed. When they went unde,r English has renewed it – twice- with no checks and balances.
        And to add insult to injury, Key and English paid out the non guaranteed investors in full – at a cost of $150- $200 mill.

        Is that not economic sabotage when the smart money crowd are rewarded with taxpayers borrowed money

      • Dv 6.1.3
        5 May 2013 at 11:36 am

        NOPE it was the Nacts that renewed the guaratee for scf against advice.

      • Draco T Bastard 6.1.4
        5 May 2013 at 12:15 pm

        That was Blinglish as he extended the guarantee knowing that SCF didn’t meet the conditions for the scheme and was going to fail.

      • Foreign Waka 6.1.5
        5 May 2013 at 5:55 pm

        Sir Michael Cullen to you, he was and still is one of the most capable finance ministers this country has ever seen. If he would choose to stand again I would vote for any party he is with, – any party.

  7. Poission 7
    5 May 2013 at 11:13 am

    The most significant economic damage to NZ has been the implementation of peculiar policy. Here the implementation of the 90 day rule for employees has increased the difficulty to hire both skilled staff and unskilled staff.

    The problem is an ill posed inverse problem ( inequalities in the equation) is whilst it enables employers to get rid of staff without reason,it acts on a constraint for employees to change jobs.The tradeoff fro security of tenure and uncertainty during a financial crisis.

    The skilled difficulty has increased to -33 and the unskilled difficulty is remarkable moving from 2 to -14 in 5 quarters.

    A significant constraint on growth,

    • DH 7.1
      5 May 2013 at 1:25 pm

      That’s a good point, was my own assumption when the 90day bill was extended to cover larger businesses. A business under management doesn’t have many problems with newly hired staff. Professional managers are trained in people managment, labour laws etc, and labour problems really only crop up when employers don’t follow due process.

      Their biggest & costliest employment headache by far is job churn; losing experienced staff & having to find replacements. The 90day bill is an effective means of stopping many leaving for another job, makes jumping ship a high risk affair that will put many people off.

      I figured it would bring significant changes to the job market & that looks to be the case. It could be a result of unintended consequences or it could have been the intention all along.

      • Colonial Viper 7.1.1
        5 May 2013 at 2:10 pm

        The problem though is that you end up with clockwatchers on the job whose motivation to be at that workplace left long ago, even though they stayed on. It’s corrosive and damaging to both performance and morale.

      • Poission 7.1.2
        5 May 2013 at 10:04 pm

        ” it could have been the intention all along.’

        No they have little understanding of risk in their forward modelling,as it does not exist or is removed from policy initiatives to make the sell easier for the ‘marketeers”

  9. Mary 9
    5 May 2013 at 4:04 pm

    “Why oh why would they want to tell lies about the effects of the Labour / Green electricity policy? I just can’t work it out…’

    The answer’s in the money pages of any main NZ newspaper, every day.