The myth of ‘mum and dad’ investors

Written By: - Date published: 9:15 am, May 24th, 2013 - 121 comments
Categories: capitalism, class war, privatisation - Tags:

The myth that National sold Mighty River Power to ‘mum and dads’ is dead. New analysis shows that half the retail shares went to just 12,844 people. A tiny group of 394 people bought 10% of the retail shares. Only 13.4% of the company is owned by what you might call ‘ordinary Kiwis’ – less than the amount owned by foreign investors. But the truth is, ordinary Kiwis are the 98% who bought nothing.

As Russel Norman says, this is what you get when you live in an unequal country. The few who got the most from National’s tax cuts are the same few buying up large in the asset sales.

121 comments on “The myth of ‘mum and dad’ investors ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. paul andersen 1
    24 May 2013 at 9:27 am

    these 394 people should be named on the TV. mum and dad investors indeed!!

    • Rob 1.1
      24 May 2013 at 1:39 pm

      101,000 were mum and dad investors, according to this link, that does not sound like a myth to me at all. I am one and I purchased a set for my family.

      If you are displeased at the 300 odd investors that brought the equivalent of the Ma and Pa’s then maybe you should adddress this title of this post, eh Clint. Rather than pissing a pretty large group of ma & pa’s off. Just saying.

      • BLiP 1.1.1
        24 May 2013 at 1:56 pm

        ‘

        Attempting to out a contributor to The Standard puts you in line for a Darwin Award. Just, sayin’.

        • Rob 1.1.1.1
          24 May 2013 at 2:08 pm

          Hey clint , should I be scared?

          • BLiP 1.1.1.1.1
            24 May 2013 at 2:12 pm

            ‘

            No need to fret, I’m sure it will be painless . . . unlike the John Key led National Ltd™ government’s share swindle it has perpetrated against those it was, ostensibly, elected to represent. That pain will be felt for generations to come. Heh – “generations”, geddit? Just a little jest for you to share with the looters when you head back to lick the hand which beats you.

      • Mike S 1.1.2
        24 May 2013 at 9:00 pm

        Try reading the article again Rob, it’s only a short one.

        the 101,000 only got 13.4% of the shares, less shares than those bought by foreigners. Key said on numerous occasions that Mum and Dad investors would buy the majority of the shares on offer, clearly incorrect and probably a lie in the first place rather than simple ineptitude.

  2. Winston Smith 2
    24 May 2013 at 9:40 am

    Hey James, do you think the scare tactics of the Greens had anything to do with it?

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.1
      24 May 2013 at 9:44 am

      Scare tactics? I think it was more of a promise, actually. But as IrishBill pointed out recently, you can’t dismantle market fundamentalism without breaking a few eggs.

      The tiny tiny minority who benefited from this may have enough money to buy the National Party, but they don’t have enough votes to avoid the inevitable response.

    • burt 2.2
      24 May 2013 at 9:44 am

      Of course it did. Only people who were prepared to view the investment as a gamble rather than a solid investment were prepared to buy. Exactly what the Green party wanted – to create the situation that they think is wrong.

      • mickysavage 2.2.1
        24 May 2013 at 9:48 am

        Yep a gamble that the pillaging of ordinary kiwis by the power companies should continue. Of course this Government prefers that the pillaging of us is protected so that it is a solid investment rather than a gamble.

        • burt 2.2.1.1
          24 May 2013 at 9:56 am

          That’s right mickysavage. The government want no risk in pillaging us – which is why they want a monopoly…

          • mickysavage 2.2.1.1.1
            24 May 2013 at 10:02 am

            So private and corporate pillaging good, Government pillaging (which actually funds Education, Health etc) bad?

            • burt 2.2.1.1.1.1
              24 May 2013 at 10:46 am

              Monopolies are bad mickysavage… I’m not as blinded by ideology as you are so I don’t believe that the government taking more money from us than it needs because it can via a monopoly is good.

              You might think it was OK for Labour to take billions of profit from power generation so it could spent it on pledge cards and electoral advertising – I don’t.

              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                24 May 2013 at 10:50 am

                Then you’ll be happy that they now propose to limit profit taking. Or do you want to try and have it both ways?

                • burt …
                  24 May 2013 at 11:07 am

                  Then you’ll be happy that they now propose to limit profit taking.

                  I prefer to have the choice to change my provider when they start treating me as a cash cow – not possibly every 3 years.

                  You might trust your team – but based on how much profit they took from generation in their last term – you shouldn’t !

                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                    24 May 2013 at 11:16 am

                    You live in another country, then, because all the providers take excessive profits in NZ.

                    • burt …
                      24 May 2013 at 11:20 am

                      You are right – I don’t live in socialist la la land like you do. The government are not here only to make my life better at the expense of rich pricks like they pretend to be in your world.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      24 May 2013 at 11:24 am

                      That’s Burt, 147, Mr. Strawman, 0.

                      Way to go Burt, keep setting him up and knocking him down, champ.

              • Te Reo Putake …
                24 May 2013 at 11:24 am

                “You might think it was OK for Labour to take billions of profit from power generation so it could spent it on pledge cards and electoral advertising – I don’t.”

                Cite needed. Pretty sure there weren’t ‘billions’ spent on pledge cards and electoral spending here on earth. Maybe on Planet Key, though.

                • burt …
                  24 May 2013 at 11:26 am

                  So your only concern is that it wasn’t spent on little red plastic cards with photshopped images – not concerned it was taken when it didn’t need to be.

                  Sure low paid workers funded private schools via electricity pricing – as well as pledge cards. I’m just pissed electricity was used for tax collection – are you OK with that ?

                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                    24 May 2013 at 11:32 am

                    I don’t really mind how the government funds its activities so long as they keep their promises and the country thrives.

                    The whole country. All the people. Not three hundred and ninety-four.

                  • Tim@tarkwined in the toolshed …
                    24 May 2013 at 5:25 pm

                    Ah yes! I remember those pledge cards. I was very cynical about them at the time. I discovered mine about 4 or so years after their issue, and to my horror, I discovered that they’d done exactly what they’d pledged.
                    I’d quite like to see Labour issue some pledge cards right about now in fact!

              • Draco T Bastard …
                24 May 2013 at 12:16 pm

                Monopolies are bad mickysavage…

                Actually, they’re pretty much the same as any other company. They run at the same efficiency and charge the same amount as Steve Keen has modeled.

                In some situations they’re the better option as the monopoly gets far better economies of scale and one of those situations is power generation and distribution. The only real problem with monopolies is the power that they can garner which is why such monopolies need to be state owned and democratically accountable.

                I’m not as blinded by ideology

                You’re so blinded by ideology you can’t see the wood for the trees.

                • TheContrarian …
                  24 May 2013 at 12:21 pm

                  “You’re so blinded by ideology you can’t see the wood for the trees.”

                  Pot/Kettle etc

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    24 May 2013 at 1:42 pm

                    I’m not ideological. My theories are based upon the facts that I’ve read and/or experienced.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      24 May 2013 at 2:04 pm

                      “I’m not ideological.”

                      Riiiiiiight.

                      “My theories are based upon the facts that I’ve read and/or experienced.”

                      Show me the facts that support your claim that anyone supporting National is either stupid and/or sociopathic and that Labour is a right-wing party.

                      I’m not ideological? what utter crap.

                • kiwicommie …
                  24 May 2013 at 12:50 pm

                  Would be better if people didn’t have to pay for power and it was run on a non-for profit model, businesses should still pay for it though.

                  • burt …
                    24 May 2013 at 1:18 pm

                    Yes… like water. No water meters – no power meters !

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      24 May 2013 at 1:37 pm

                      Doesn’t work. In fact, that would result in massive over use and the brown outs that some people swear will happen under NZPower. We actually do need to measure how much we have of a resource and where it’s used and that means meters on water and power.

                      Without that knowledge we cannot make informed decisions.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    24 May 2013 at 1:41 pm

                    Nothing can be supplied for free. It’s more a question of how we define “pay”. In real terms it means that those who work in providing the community with electricity are fully supported by the rest of the community so that they don’t have to provide for themselves as well as working on the power generation and reticulation systems.

                    We’ve forgotten this in our quest for profit.

                    • kiwicommie …
                      24 May 2013 at 10:49 pm

                      Doesn’t work. In fact, that would result in massive over use and the brown outs that some people swear will happen under NZPower.

                      Actually it would, as you would pay for excess power use, businesses would still pay for their use, and the poor and the vulnerable would never have their power cut off. Time to end the extra tax, which is the power bill.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      24 May 2013 at 11:28 pm

                      Actually it would, as you would pay for excess power use…

                      No it wouldn’t. How can you possibly pay for excess power use if it’s not measured? How can you plan for increasing power generation if it’s not measured?

                      Basically, how can you possibly have any idea of WTF you’re doing if you’re not measuring?

                    • kiwicommie …
                      24 May 2013 at 11:45 pm

                      @Draco T Bastard: I never said you shouldn’t meter it, that was burt’s comment.

                • geoff …
                  24 May 2013 at 6:31 pm

                  Actually, they’re pretty much the same as any other company. They run at the same efficiency and charge the same amount as Steve Keen has modeled.

                  In some situations they’re the better option as the monopoly gets far better economies of scale and one of those situations is power generation and distribution. The only real problem with monopolies is the power that they can garner which is why such monopolies need to be state owned and democratically accountable.

                  Nicely put, DTB.

              • Arfamo …
                24 May 2013 at 1:25 pm

                Labour spent billions on pledge cards and electoral advertising? Love to see your evidence for that one.

              • halfcrown …
                24 May 2013 at 2:04 pm

                You might think it was OK for Labour to take billions of profit from power generation so it could spent it on pledge cards and electoral advertising – I don’t.

                Have you got the actual figures? and you reckon you are not blinded by ideology, that’s a laugh.

      • Mike S 2.2.2
        24 May 2013 at 9:05 pm

        Why would the Green party want to “create a situation that they think is wrong”?

        Obviously the big players who bought shares still view it as a solid investment and it is. NZPower is not going to stop MRP from making a profit, it is going to regulate the price paid so that monopolistic price gouging stops. Anyone who pulled out of buying shares because of the NZPower announcement was obviously being greedy to start with, wanting a huge return and pulling out when realising only a good return might occur.

    • Hayden 2.3
      24 May 2013 at 10:06 am

      Maybe they were scared off by the mis-management of Solid Energy.

  3. burt 3
    24 May 2013 at 9:42 am

    As Russel Norman says, this is what you get when you live in an unequal country. The few who got the most from National’s tax cuts are the same few buying up large in the asset sales.

    What BS. The issue is most people in NZ earn so little, have earned so little for such a long time.. The old failure ideology of “nobody earns too much and nobody earns to little” with muppets like Cullen pretending $60K is rich for 9 years… Government debt shrank and personal debt ballooned while high taxes extracted at low income thresholds prevented ordinary working people from accumulating savings – which is what you need to buy shares.

    Thanks Labour – you kept the populace poor long enough to keep them voting Labour so that you could keep them poor to keep them voting Labour….

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 3.1
      24 May 2013 at 9:48 am

      For FUCK’s sake, is there the vaguest chance you could drop the feeble drivel and muster an argument based on reality?

      I refute your assertion by citing changes in New Zealand’s GINI coefficient between 1999 and 2008.

      We need better wingnuts.

      • Anne 3.1.1
        24 May 2013 at 10:22 am

        Do I detect bitterness and sour grapes from burt? Why’s that? Because it looks like the trumpeted asset sell-off isn’t going according to plan? But we knew that was going to happen. When you have 77% of the population against the sales in the first place, what did NAct think was going to happen.

    • Lanthanide 3.2
      24 May 2013 at 12:11 pm

      “with muppets like Cullen pretending $60K is rich for 9 years”

      So how do you feel about National keeping the top threshold at $70,000? And how they repealed the change Labour implemented in the 2008 budget that would have seen the top threshold raise to $80,000?

      Seems to me that National think $70k is “rich”, while Labour think $80k is, using your pathetic logic.

      • felix 3.2.1
        24 May 2013 at 12:25 pm

        burt has been clinging to that logic for well over a decade. It has to be correct.

        It just has to.

    • Mike S 3.3
      24 May 2013 at 9:11 pm

      60k is still pretty well off if you consider around 70+% of workers in NZ earn less than the average wage and the average wage is less than 60k.

      • Colonial Viper 3.3.1
        24 May 2013 at 9:23 pm

        Median wage was around $40k and average wage was around $49k last I looked. However, household figures are usually much higher as often more than one person works in a household.

    • kiwicommie 3.4
      24 May 2013 at 11:01 pm

      I think it is incorrect to say that many, if any were NZ’ers that bought the assets. More likely they were bought up by hedge funds, friends of the government, and corporate money from overseas. Labour kept far too much to the center-right, to the point voters saw little difference between National and Labour; except that they were bored of seeing Helen Clark all the time. NZ’s GDP per capita is comparable to small islands in the Caribbean, when it really should have been comparable to Denmark, Norway, Sweden,etc if the government had reigned in monopolies, funded education a lot more, supported manufacturers, and brought up the minimum wage.

  4. ianmac 4
    24 May 2013 at 10:00 am

    Saddened but not really surprised. Annoyed at the “Mum and Dad investors” myth. May even been close to deliberate misleading or even lying to dampen the anti-asset sales point of view?

    • Draco T Bastard 4.1
      24 May 2013 at 12:20 pm

      May even been close to deliberate misleading or even lying to dampen the anti-asset sales point of view?

      That’s exactly what it was but National does it all the time and a lot of people buy the BS.

      • North 4.1.1
        24 May 2013 at 6:47 pm

        Hasn’t someone got some papers pointing to ShonKey having advice before the event that “Mum and Dad Investors” was a fiction more or less ? Given the whole picture.

        • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1
          24 May 2013 at 11:29 pm

          I think Treasury has such a paper but would have to look. IIRC, they said that the majority of shares would go to offshore investors.

  5. AmaKiwi 5
    24 May 2013 at 10:29 am

    The Greens broke the story, again!

    My local Labour Electorate Committee is taxed a huge sum each month to support a Labour party head office bureaucracy that NEVER has a breaking news story.

    • Enough is Enough 5.1
      24 May 2013 at 10:54 am

      Labour will break it next week.

      First they will have an internal discussion, perhaps run it past a focus group, have a further discussion as to whether they can trust Mumblefuck to deliver the message, then send out a press release about next Wednesday.

      By which stage the Greens will have broken a new story a released a new progressive policy.

      The Labour Party really is a shambles at the moment. Vote Green

      • Colonial Viper 5.1.1
        24 May 2013 at 11:59 am

        Must…not…rock…boat…must…win…next…election…by…2%

      • Lanthanide 5.1.2
        24 May 2013 at 12:13 pm

        I think I’m going to vote Labour at the next election because they best suit me politically and I still don’t entirely trust the Greens.

        Once they form a government together, my vote is up for grabs to whichever party I judge most effective in government. Which frankly, I think will be the Greens.

        • King Kong 5.1.2.1
          24 May 2013 at 12:28 pm

          History says that you will probably be wrong.

          The Greens will find the jump from spouting fantastical promises based on a childishly naive ideology, to the reality of running a $60b a year operation, way beyond them.

          • Colonial Viper 5.1.2.1.1
            24 May 2013 at 12:45 pm

            Childishly naive ideology like…more competition is always better, the private sector magically does things better than the private sector, markets regulate themselves into equilibrium, inflation is the only measure which really matters, the law of supply and demand actually works in practice, etc.

            • King Kong 5.1.2.1.1.1
              24 May 2013 at 12:51 pm

              Sounds more reasonable than “we can all sit around in drum circles, loving each other as equals, sharing kaftans and the other blessings of Gaia’s bounty.

              p.s. The Greens have taken this whole gender neutral thing too far by making Catherine Delahunty grow a moustache.

              [lprent: Are you compensating for your castration and falsetto voice? Perhaps I should modify your handle to “No balls” – that would be “funny” as well. ]

              • Tim …
                24 May 2013 at 5:48 pm

                And of course KK, I bet you look fucking gorgeous.
                Are you as gorgeous as Paul Henry?
                Cameron Slater even?
                Perhaps even that Farrar fella even?

          • SpaceMonkey 5.1.2.1.2
            24 May 2013 at 12:59 pm

            Not quite… but the banksters will quickly let the Greens know what they can and can’t do and the consequences if the banksters are ignored. As such there will be a chasm between what the Greens want to do versus what they realistically can do.

            Labour already knows this, of course, hence why Shearer has been installed as party leader with the rest of the yesterday’s purple mob on the front benches.

            • Draco T Bastard 5.1.2.1.2.1
              24 May 2013 at 1:46 pm

              Labour already knows this

              Yep, which is why their Kiwibuild is nothing but a gift to the banks as more people get encouraged to borrow.

        • felix 5.1.2.2
          24 May 2013 at 12:30 pm

          Finding it a bit hard to unpack what you mean by trust vs expectation.

          You expect the greens to be better, but you trust them less? How does that work?

          • King Kong 5.1.2.2.1
            24 May 2013 at 12:37 pm

            Completely off topic, but I did enjoy your David Brent style usage of “unpack”

            • Tim 5.1.2.2.1.1
              24 May 2013 at 5:52 pm

              Yes – it was Hootenesque what?

            • felix 5.1.2.2.1.2
              25 May 2013 at 3:51 am

              I meant it in the sense that unpacking is, vis a vis understanding, aka professionalism and that’s what I want.

          • Lanthanide 5.1.2.2.2
            24 May 2013 at 8:37 pm

            On evidence thus far I won’t vote for them. Once they’re in a position where they can truly show their mettle, that may change.

        • freedom 5.1.2.3
          24 May 2013 at 12:32 pm

          Q: if you think the Greens will be the more effective party in Government, surely that is based on policies they will enact/support/drive forward? So why not help ensure they get there by voting for them? Change is always scarey but ultimately you grow from the experience. 🙂

          • Lanthanide 5.1.2.3.1
            26 May 2013 at 9:20 pm

            Because I don’t need to vote Greens in order for them to become part of a future government, and Labour fit my political views much better.

            Now if the Greens were wavering around the 5% mark then I would vote for them, assuming Labour would require them as a partner to form a government.

    • Te Reo Putake 5.2
      24 May 2013 at 11:34 am

      Unrelated matters. The sum your LEC pays does not go to fund journalism. The Labour caucus employ media staff via its Parliamentary entitlement; nothing to do with LP head office, which is concerned with running the party and does so pretty efficiently with excellent oversight from Moira and Tim.

      I’ve made the point to many LP MP’s and office holders that the media output is pretty dismal and I’ve even suggested that they look to the Standard to get staff who actually can get our message across.

      Having said that, the LP and Greens have really turned the media agenda around. For the first four years of the Key era, it was totally Nat driven and Key focussed in the press and airwaves. This year, we are setting the MSM agenda with Kiwibuild and NZPower. The Nats are being forced to respond to us. That’s a very, very good thing, so credit where its due.

      • Colonial Viper 5.2.1
        24 May 2013 at 12:55 pm

        The two media examples you list (Kiwibuild and NZPower) were driven by strong news-worthy policy positions, and not so much by good media management and messaging.

        When you leave aside the policy aspects and purely analyse the media performance of Labour around both Kiwibuild and NZPower, there was much left to be desired.

        So yes, it’s excellent that the NATs are being forced to respond to us, but has Labour learnt the simple lesson: that mainly happens when you put out strong, definitive, news-worthy policy alternatives.

    • Murray Olsen 5.3
      24 May 2013 at 3:35 pm

      That’s not fair, AmaKiwi. Hipkins broke a story on how tough they were on non-existent rebellion within the caucus. That made the news.

  6. Andrew 6
    24 May 2013 at 10:58 am

    also from the stuff article:

    “While some were wealthy individuals, they included companies, superannuation funds, trusts, boutique investment firms, funds from deceased estates, sports clubs, small businesses and charities.”

    so “some” were wealthy individuals, there were also businesses, charities, investment funds, doesn’t sound so bad. Also those investment funds most likely bought on behalf of 1000’s of kiwisaver’s, so people in kiwisaver now benefit as well, although non directly.

    • burt 6.1
      24 May 2013 at 11:15 am

      People in KiwiSaver shouldn’t benefit from power profits – Only the government should get the pay day so it can decide how to spend our money for us… Keep up – socialism is about control and command….

      • thatguynz 6.1.1
        24 May 2013 at 11:26 am

        Actually that’s not what socialism is about in its purest form at all Burt. But I will grant you it is certainly true in the form of socialism that the current National government are subjecting us to. Or was that fascism?….

        • Rob 6.1.1.1
          24 May 2013 at 1:30 pm

          So ThatGuyNZ, this idea of socialism in its purest form. Can you outline where it is happening?

      • Draco T Bastard 6.1.2
        24 May 2013 at 12:33 pm

        BS, it’s capitalism that is about control and command. What do you think selling state assets is for? Those people who now own those assets have control over NZ and NZers. Control that we had through our democracy, control that this government just sold for a few beans.

        • Colonial Viper 6.1.2.1
          24 May 2013 at 1:06 pm

          What, you mean that the banking, corporate and financial investment classes of this country are quite fine with losing their command and control over the economy?

          This is news to me…

          • Draco T Bastard 6.1.2.1.1
            24 May 2013 at 1:49 pm

            The banking, corporate and financial investment classes are the ones that are getting control of our assets and thus control of the rest of the population.

            Sorry I was unclear on that.

    • handle 6.2
      24 May 2013 at 8:02 pm

      Nice try Andrew. “Boutique investment firms” are not investment funds like KiwiSaver ones. Those were counted as NZ institutional investors, totally separate from the 113,000 total.

  7. Brett Dale 7
    24 May 2013 at 11:47 am

    James dont believe everything the greens tell you.
    Total value raised by Govt in float – $1.7b

    Number of NZers who bought shares – 113,000
    Number who pre-registered – 440,000
    Average value of shares purchased – $8220

    Percentage of shares staying in NZ hands: 86.5pc – $943m
    Percentage owned by NZ ‘retail investors’ – 26.9pc
    Percentage owned by NZ institutions – 8.6pc – $300m
    Percentage owned by overseas institutions – 13.5pc – $472m
    Applicants without a CSN – (suggesting first time investors) – 68pc

    • Bearded Git 7.1
      24 May 2013 at 12:04 pm

      But Brett you are presumably not disputing that 101,000 “mum and dad” small investors own 13.4%, less than the overseas institutions. Do you think people at the last election voted for this result? I don’t think so!

    • RJL 7.2
      24 May 2013 at 12:05 pm

      If you read the rest of the Herald article, rather than the statistics at the end, you will find that the point is that 10% of those ‘retail investors’ bought half of the 26.9% ‘retail investment’ proportion. Those 10% (which is about 0.3% of the population) actually comprise high net worth individuals and organisations that are not technically ‘financial institutions’.

      So, at best 101,000 “Mums and Dads” (which is still only about 2% of the population) owned (immediately after the float) only about 13% of the shares.

      • veutoviper 7.2.1
        24 May 2013 at 12:30 pm

        Watching the MRP shares this week, the few ordinary Mums and Dads who own shares may be getting nervous.

        The shares opened this morning at $2.51, dropped to $2.50 within an hour and as at 12.10pm were down to $2.49 – a cent below the purchase price when the shares were floated exactly two weeks ago (give or take 10 minutes).

        As at 12.10pm, trades for the day so far totalled 62 – comprising a volume of 3,125,701 shares and a value of $7,830,105.27.

        If my calculations are correct that gives an average volume of 50,414,5 shares per trade and an average value of $126,292 per trade.

        • Colonial Viper 7.2.1.1
          24 May 2013 at 1:07 pm

          The big international players will be depressing that share price in order to shake out the weak hands and acquire a few cheaper shares for their own portfolios.

          And…a global sharemarket crash is very very likely…

      • Rob 7.2.2
        24 May 2013 at 2:00 pm

        The ma & pa’s got severly burnt by investing in non banking finance business that were allowed to run riot under the previous govt. The pockets are not quite as deep as they once were, you might have heard about it.

        • Colonial Viper 7.2.2.1
          24 May 2013 at 2:04 pm

          So after getting burnt these “ma and pa investors” (lol) are now going to risk even more of their hard earned money on the sharemarkets? They must be stupid to do so.

        • veutoviper 7.2.2.2
          24 May 2013 at 2:26 pm

          I know about it from personal experience. And, while I am following the MRP shares closely, I do not own any or any other shares these days.

    • Lightly 7.3
      24 May 2013 at 12:30 pm

      you’re confusing the retail shares with the total shares. You fucken muppet.

      This is about the 26.9% that went to ‘retail investors’. It turns out half of those went to just 13,000 people and 10% to just 400 people.

    • freedom 7.4
      24 May 2013 at 12:51 pm

      thanks for the figures Brett, but it’s been bugging me and I cannot figure it out
      what am I missing here?

      we can only have either NZ buyers or overseas buyers

      Of shares sold, your figures state:
      NZ bought (86.5%) $943 million + overseas bought (13.5%) $472 million = $1415 million
      Sale reportedly collected $1700 million
      taking away the $1415 million total of NZ and foreign ownership, leaves $285 million ?

      where did this unattributed $285m come from?

      • RJL 7.4.1
        24 May 2013 at 1:27 pm

        Freedom,

        Brett has just copied a mis-aligned table from the Herald website.

        The $943M is only the amount bought by ‘NZ retail investors’, that plus the $300M bought by ‘NZ institutional investors’, plus the $472M bought by ‘Overseas institutional investors’, gives the $1.7B total

        • freedom 7.4.1.1
          24 May 2013 at 1:49 pm

          86.5%+13.5% = 100% Yes or NO ?

          • RJL 7.4.1.1.1
            24 May 2013 at 3:00 pm

            Yes, 86.5% + 13.5% = 100%, but Brett’s figures are wrong, because of a misplaced entry in the table that he copied from the Herald site. And also because “% of what” keeps changing in the entries.

            51% of MRP was retained by the government (i.e. NZ).
            26.9% = $943M was sold to NZ ‘retail investors’.
            8.6% = $300M was sold to NZ ‘institutional investors’
            13.5% = $472M was sold to ‘overseas investors’

            51+26.9 +8.6 = 86.5% = ‘NZ’ owned proportion

            The total sales value was $943M + $300M + $472M = $1.7B

            • freedom 7.4.1.1.1.1
              24 May 2013 at 3:21 pm

              exactly! which is what Brett should have realised, and defended or corrected himself.

              I should not have responded to your comment regarding the % represented in his figures as it took away the opportunity for Brett to do the right thing and now we will never know if he would have owned the mistake. Bit pissed off at myself now.

              (but perhaps you should have directed your comment to Brett, as that is where the error was and where my question was directed. Instead it looks like you are defending Brett Dale and that is a head scratcher).

    • ghostrider888 7.5
      24 May 2013 at 1:02 pm

      The message to the man in the street;
      -113,000 purchasers.
      -13,000 spent on average, 35K, buying half of the shares on offer.
      -400 spent approx 250,000 each, buying 10%
      -“retail investors” (ma and pa) aquired (temporarily) 13% of the company.

      Get the message!

    • Murray Olsen 7.6
      24 May 2013 at 3:43 pm

      Your figures look a bit suspicious there, Comrade Dale. How can 86.5% be worth $943m, but half of that only be 13.5%. Your percentages also add to more than 100%. Please do better, or you won’t be invited to the next meeting of the collective.

      I see others have already picked it up. nvm

    • georgecom 7.7
      24 May 2013 at 9:53 pm

      So what you are saying Brett is that a big slice of the wealth or MRP went to a thin slice of the population. Once again collective wealth that every kiwi owns has been transferred to a small minority ot Kiwis, more trickle up theory in action huh.

      You have also confirmed that almost 15% has gone off shore, for a start. That’ll be 15% of the profits dissappearing overseas and a bigger current accounts deficit.

      Really, you have confirmed what the critics of the asset sales have been saying. The wealth goes to a small fraction of kiwis and off shore.

      Funny then that all we heard from Key was ‘mum and dad’ investors, ‘mum and dad’ investors. As Norman stated, what a con.

      A bad deal for NZ, a good deal for the kiwi 2% and overseas coprorate ‘mum and dad’ investors

  8. peter 8
    24 May 2013 at 12:10 pm

    These low numbers should be featured in the Heralds Infographic page. NACT are a superb example of how you can get away with anything providing you have enough smokescreens.

  9. tarkwin 9
    24 May 2013 at 12:14 pm

    Greens one Labour nil yet again.

  10. Brett Dale 10
    24 May 2013 at 12:56 pm

    89% of kiwis dont vote for the greens.

    • RJL 10.1
      24 May 2013 at 1:07 pm

      No, 94% of kiwis didn’t vote for the Greens.

      And 76% of kiwis didn’t vote for National.

      Your point is?

      • tarkwin 10.1.1
        24 May 2013 at 1:25 pm

        Shearer should be getting more press time. Why is it every time there is an anouncement from the left we keep seeing Norman pop up. Where are Labour? They are supposed to be the senior party.

        • Rob 10.1.1.1
          24 May 2013 at 1:31 pm

          Wow, how many didnt vote for Labour?

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 10.1.1.2
          24 May 2013 at 1:33 pm

          Tee hee you’re so clever, pretending to be concerned about this, and everyone admires you for it, truly.

        • ghostrider888 10.1.1.3
          24 May 2013 at 1:34 pm

          btw, you made balanced comments re. Northland and Kaikoke.

        • RJL 10.1.1.4
          24 May 2013 at 1:36 pm

          Greens and Labour are both parties of the left (more or less, and certainly by contrast with NACT), but there is no supposition of seniority on the left. The left is not a monolith.

          If Labour is underexposed in the media on certain issues, which I doubt is actually true, then it is because Labour wants to be.

        • BM 10.1.1.5
          24 May 2013 at 7:39 pm

          Yep, it’s all loop and no fruit.

          • felix 10.1.1.5.1
            25 May 2013 at 11:29 am

            Weird expression with no roots or much meaning in this part of the world. Kind of thing Key would say.

  11. Ennui 11
    24 May 2013 at 4:14 pm

    Candide was told that the English occasionally shoot an Admiral to encourage the others….394 NZ “mas and pas” might be a good start.

  12. xtasy 12
    24 May 2013 at 10:56 pm

    Yep, as soon as I heard the catch phrase “mum and dad investor”, I knew already then, this is fairy tale crap stuff. I am amazed, well not really, about the MSM selling the spin for the government. But that is what they bloody well did, they “sold” the advertising for Key and Co, to get their shareholders.

    And no surprises there, none at all, I would have been surprised if there had been 113 thousand genuine “mums and dads” buying Mighty River Power shares. Few if any have the spare cash, that is “ordinary” mums and dads, that is!

    A con job well-done, and it never ceases to amaze me, that there are so many fools, falling for dishonest deals, like at the doors done to old ladies day in and out.

    Stop crime, I would say, and have the deal declared illegal, as that is what it is, damned illegal, due to misrepresentation and misleading the buyers.

  13. Ed 13
    25 May 2013 at 9:27 am

    Of those “new investors”, we do not know how many are multiples of a single decision to subscribe. After one subscription each for mummy and sir, for the family trust, and smaller parcels for Julian and Miranda, that may be 5 purchasers but only one “investor”.

Links to post