Who wants some Genesis shares?

Written By: - Date published: 7:20 am, November 21st, 2013 - 120 comments
Categories: privatisation - Tags:

So, Mum and Dad Kiwi, you listened to the multi-million dollar ad campaigns and the years of propaganda from National, and you bought shares in one of their asset sales. How are you doing so far?

Don’t listen to English, who claims you haven’t lost anything unless you’ve cashed up – that’s the same as saying your house or your Kiwisaver isn’t worth anything until you sell or draw down, and it’s not how English accounts for the value of shares on the government’s books.

Let’s look at your losses.

Mighty River:

You bought at: $2.50 per share
Average retail purchase: $8,220 (3,288 shares)
Dividends received: 7.2 cents per share, $236 for average retail shareholder
Change in share value: -40 cents per share, $1,315 for average retail shareholder
Net loss: $1,084 for average retail shareholder, $5 each day since listing

Meridian:

You bought at: $1 per installment receipt
Average retail purchase: $16,000 (can’t find exact)
Dividends received: $0
Change in share value: 0 cents
Net loss: $0, $0 each day since listing

Air New Zealand:

You bought at: $1.65
Average retail purchase: Nobody knows
Dividends received: $0
Change in share value: -8.5 cents per share, $510 per $10,000 of shares
Net loss: -$510 per $10,000 of shares, -$510 each day since listing

So, who wants to buy some shares in Genesis?

120 comments on “Who wants some Genesis shares? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. amirite 1
    21 November 2013 at 7:30 am

    Mum and Dad Richwhite can’t get enough of them. They want moar! Because they know who’ll pay for the losses.
    Mum and Dad True Kiwi are just struggling to survive till the next paycheck and watching helplessly as the country is being sold cheaply to the 1%.

  2. chris73 2
    21 November 2013 at 7:32 am

    I’m quite pleased so far, because the dividends I’ve received thus far is more then what I’d receive from the bank in interest so I’m better off

    and I follow Warren Buffets rules on investing which include running from air lines as fast as you can not that you can compare Air NZ to power companies of course (but then you already knew that)

    [chris73… ummm, so you’re saying that you’ve bought Mighty River shares and you feel it’s gone well?

    You say you got more in dividends than you would have from interest in the bank… would you have lost some of your principal investment if you had put the money in the bank? No. You have with MRP.

    Honestly, you cannot just ignore the change in the value of your shares. That’s insane. It’s not how the government or any company or any sane household accounts for their non-cash financial assets. What do you do? Just write off the cash you put into buying the shares and count any money you get when you sell them as a windfall? JH]

    • Lanthanide 2.1
      21 November 2013 at 10:17 am

      “You say you got more in dividends than you would have from interest in the bank… would you have lost some of your principal investment if you had put the money in the bank? No. You have with MRP.”

      Not really. You only lose your principal investment if you sell the shares.

      • Lightly 2.1.1
        21 November 2013 at 11:31 am

        No, that’s moronic. Cash isn’t the only store of money, it’s just the most liquid.

        How much is your house worth? Nothing? That’s what you must believe its worth if you don’t account for the value of your non-cash assets and changes in those values.

        • Lanthanide 2.1.1.1
          21 November 2013 at 2:07 pm

          My house might be worth nothing but I still own it.

          You only lose the investment in your house if you sell it (or it’s destroyed in some manner, I guess).

        • Francis 2.1.1.2
          21 November 2013 at 9:09 pm

          My house provides a roof over my head. Why should I give a crap what some real estate agent promises to give me for it?

          I value having a roof over my head far more than a couple of ones and zeros on some massive server in Australia.

          The sooner people start viewing their homes as places to live in rather than a dollar value, the better…

      • toad 2.1.2
        21 November 2013 at 12:00 pm

        I’m sure the people with properties in red-zoned Christchurch areas really appreciate that argument [/sarcasm]

    • Draco T Bastard 2.2
      21 November 2013 at 3:05 pm

      chris73 is correct, he gets the benefit of being a parasite on the rest of us for the rest of his life. A pretty good deal for him as he now gets an income from not having to work.

    • chris73 2.3
      21 November 2013 at 6:33 pm

      Well yes I can because I havent sold any shares and I won’t be selling any shares in the future so the price of shares is of little interest to me

      Would I like them to go up, sure, but I ain’t bovvered that they’re not

      I know you want to push the line that this is bad for investors and I commend you for that but that truth of the matter is I’m getting more in dividends then I would be with the money in the bank

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.3.1
        21 November 2013 at 6:39 pm

        The “investors” were those who paid to build these utilities. You people are parasites. How does your “investment” add value to the company? Will it increase the number of customers? Or the water in the dams?

        Pfft.

        • BM 2.3.1.1
          21 November 2013 at 6:53 pm

          It frees up money which then can be used in other important projects such as highway construction.

          • Draco T Bastard 2.3.1.1.1
            22 November 2013 at 1:35 pm

            Actually, no it doesn’t. It actually removes money from the government to do those things because it no longer has the ongoing income to do them.

      • rhinocrates 2.3.2
        21 November 2013 at 7:15 pm

        So chris73, how many elderly women have swooned over your penis lately? You like to tell us how much they admire it.

  3. tricledrown 3
    21 November 2013 at 8:19 am

    C73 when the fed slows its printing press you loose even morre.
    Cut off your pinokeynose to spite your face.
    It goes to show how shallow the
    Hollow men are.
    C73 you are a victim of your own ignorance can’t recognise fact from reality get some help before you loose anymore money haven’t you heard the stockmarket is a casino gamblaholics anonamous.
    Next you will be telling us the money you lost at the casino is a good investment because the National party said so.

  4. Peter 4
    21 November 2013 at 8:21 am

    OK, so who can rap this all up in and 10 second TV1 sound bite that brings in the swing voters not the converted?

    • Tat Loo (CV) 4.1
      21 November 2013 at 8:52 am

      “National’s asset sales: a bad deal for NZ, a bad deal for you, a bad deal from John Key.”

  5. wyndham 5
    21 November 2013 at 8:39 am

    On top of all that, didn’t Mum and Dad Kiwi own the assets in the first place ? Before they were ‘sold’ back to themselves ?

    Asset sales will go down in NZ history as one one the biggest political confidence tricks ever perpetrated upon a gullible public. From a snake oil trickster without moral principle.

  6. T 6
    21 November 2013 at 8:43 am

    Based on the numbers above, the average investor in MRP made a 2.9% return on their investment from the dividend. That is around the same as the current term deposit rate. Those investors would make the $1000 loss only if they chose to exit.

    MRP has declared an increased dividend for the past three years, and there is no reason to expect that this will change, so those investors are likely to keep getting a return on their invested funds at a rate higher than in the bank.

    If they were in it for a capital gain, then , I agree they will get stung. But I have been led to believe that capital gains are evil, right?

    • Tat Loo (CV) 6.1
      21 November 2013 at 8:50 am

      “MRP has declared an increased dividend for the past three years, and there is no reason to expect that this will change”

      Never heard of NZ Power, silly billy.

      Anyhow, why do you think that returns similar to a “term deposit rate” are satisfactory, when term deposits have a much lower risk profile than share investing? Same return for more risk…is that your investment philosophy?

      • T 6.1.1
        21 November 2013 at 9:16 am

        In regards to term deposits, that 3% figure based on a TD is a proxy to represent opportunity cost – the minimum forgone opportunity by having funds tied up in one particular use. I make no comment on the risk/return equation, what I am saying is that currently the investment is not losing money compared to a given alternative use.

        In in regard to the dividends I guess you are right. If that the case and NZ Power stops dividends, the majority shareholder is really going to lose some income when the dividends stop coming…. oh wait…

        • Tat Loo (CV) 6.1.1.1
          21 November 2013 at 9:29 am

          So you refuse to comment on the increased risk profile. I presume your politics prefers the Govt extracting lower taxes…so why do you have a problem with the government extracting less profit from the private sector?

        • you_fool 6.1.1.2
          23 November 2013 at 11:37 am

          “In in regard to the dividends I guess you are right. If that the case and NZ Power stops dividends, the majority shareholder is really going to lose some income when the dividends stop coming…. oh wait…”

          Of course that majority shareholder will supplement that lost income from another source, and kiwi mum and dads will have lower costs, which will supplement their loss in income, assuming of course the minority shareholders are all kiwi mum and dad’s, like John Key said they would be….

          Sounds cost neutral to me!

    • Naturesong 6.2
      21 November 2013 at 8:55 am

      You know they are borrowing to pay those dividends right?

    • Lightly 6.3
      21 November 2013 at 9:04 am

      you’re ignoring the loss in the value of the shares.

      Let’s put it in terms you can understand:

      Joe Stoner spends a $1000 buying some plants from his mate. He sells some weed for $29 – a 2.9% return on his investment. Unfortunately, a blight destroys 16% of his plants, so he could only onsell the plants he has left for $840.

      Joe started with $1,000. He now has $840 of plants and $29 cash left. He is down $131.

      At least, that’s the logcal way to look at it.

      The way you want to look at it is: Joe’s $1,000 of wealth disappears into thin air when he buys the plants, the plants have no value (until you sell them) and any cash he makes from selling weed is the only thing he needs to worry about – not the fact that he’s lost 16% of his investment.

      • T 6.3.1
        21 November 2013 at 9:25 am

        Correct, I am ignoring the loss in value of the shares.

        Your analogy is a bit wrong here because the $1000 investment is going into a commodity, where the value is the commodity itself, and can only generate a return if sold. The dak istelf cannot generate a return any other way.

        But if Joe brought a tractor to help him tend to his dak, then the tractor can generate an income on its own (he lends it to his neighbour for a fee). He could sell the tractor (to make a capital gain), but his stoner mate crashed it into a tree and its now a bit bent and only worth half of what he paid. But that doesn’t affect its utility – he can still generate a return off it even though it has a greatly reduced market vale.

        • Naturesong 6.3.1.1
          21 November 2013 at 9:52 am

          In your analagy the stoner mate crashing it into the tree would represent the company value being harvested by reducing maintenance, or stripping assets whicle still demanding the same rental on a reduced service?

          The reduced value of the tractor when you tried to sell it would be the your local farmers (the “market”) knowing that you skimped on maintenance / drove your tractor into ditches occasionally etc …?

          Also, it’s now second hand, and they’re not going to want to pay sticker price.

          Neither of these are good analogies

          • infused 6.3.1.1.1
            21 November 2013 at 9:58 am

            Love how you guys twit everything. Bit like CV. Wonders why no one bothers replying to him.

            This post is stupid and shows how retarded some people are on this site.

        • Lightly 6.3.1.2
          21 November 2013 at 10:35 am

          when you sit down to work out your household accounts (even if you don’t do that, let’s pretend you do), what do you book the value of your shares at?

          The issue price? Maybe just ‘?’?

          Does the same rule of not accounting for changes in share value apply if they go up?

          How can you make rational decisions on the allocation of your investments if you don’t accurately account for the value of those investments?

          • you_fool 6.3.1.2.1
            23 November 2013 at 11:42 am

            Don’t worry, you only not count the value of shares if they went down, if the value had risen then we would be being told how much everyone had made from the purchase of the shares.

            The biggest swindle is the lie that buying the shares at the opening price was a good deal, it is shown to be the worst deal (except for Meridian, since you got a discount and the share price hasn’t changed). Basically anyone who brought MRP or Air NZ shares at opening price is a sucker.

            Basic market play 101 – buy low sell high.

  7. Tat Loo (CV) 7
    21 November 2013 at 8:43 am

    Commission. You lose another $40 or so buying/selling to the ticket clipping broker. Someone add that in to the losses please…

  8. rich the other 8
    21 November 2013 at 8:49 am

    Proof the NAT’S weren’t looking after their mates after all.

    • Tat Loo (CV) 8.1
      21 November 2013 at 8:55 am

      Well actually, who made hundreds of millions from the deals.

      Yes that’s right, the parasitic investment banking and financial markets fraternity.

      • rich the other 8.1.1
        21 November 2013 at 9:03 am

        More likely NZ citizens are the biggest winners, it seems they have been well paid for the minority stake that they have sold in these assets.

        • framu 8.1.1.1
          21 November 2013 at 9:14 am

          We have shares that have rapidly devalued, cost blowouts (which have mostly gone offshore), windfall contracts for finance industry players, patheticly low up take by the mythical “mum and dad investor”, ongoing and deepening negative impacts from the reduced dividend stream, an abandonment of public oversight on the remaining 51% and a financial result way down on the hype

          its not a success for the govt and its not a success (yet) for those who bought shares

          if thats your idea of success then theres really not much more hope for you

        • Naturesong 8.1.1.2
          21 November 2013 at 9:23 am

          And all they’ve given up is the ability to plan and build infrastructure to meet the country’s power needs over the long term.

          They are utilities which are critical to the economic wellbeing of New Zealand.
          The national government has lost every single argument they have put forward in support their position.

          All that’s left now is to make sure they pay for their hubris at the ballot box, and then try to minimise the damage.

      • fappity 8.1.2
        21 November 2013 at 9:51 am

        A bit like Westpac who the Nats and Labour have used as the governments bank of choice for IRD payments etc ?

        Who will labour choose when they get in to do this work for them ?

        • framu 8.1.2.1
          21 November 2013 at 9:56 am

          thats some PR gold for labour – i doubt many people would be that upset if the govt stopped using an aussie bank to do their business

          it has “proud NZ” stamped all over it and the govt contract would likely produce the extra capital kiwibank needs

          its cost neutral and achieves two good aims

          note: i may have the capital raising thing wrong – happy to be corrected there

          • King Kong 8.1.2.1.1
            21 November 2013 at 10:41 am

            Kiwibank can’t handle the business.

            I am pretty sure this has been looked at before and Kiwibank weren’t up to it.

            • framu 8.1.2.1.1.1
              21 November 2013 at 10:45 am

              to be honest – i dont know.

              so happy to be corrected. Anyone out there know for sure?

              • Naturesong …
                21 November 2013 at 10:59 am

                As far as I can tell from the reporting, as they started to define the scope for the tender they realised it was going to turn into an absolute monster. It’s still stuck with MBIE
                No tender document has yet been released

                And yes, in it’s current state, kiwibank is unlikely to have the capacity to handle the volume and complexity. But, thats just a guess. I’m not in the industry.

                edit I see alwyn has the article

        • alwyn 8.1.2.2
          21 November 2013 at 10:50 am

          It won’t be Kiwibank, that’s for sure. They are on record that they could not handle the scale of the operation and that the only banks who could are the four big Aussie owned banks.
          http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8825146/Kiwibank-not-after-Govt-business
          Oh well

    • Lightly 8.2
      21 November 2013 at 9:05 am

      the lawyers and brokers and ad men and Rio Tinto have made $250m off this so far.

  9. ianmac 9
    21 November 2013 at 9:14 am

    To me it is like losing equity on my house. Losing equity on shares seems similar.

    • Naturesong 9.1
      21 November 2013 at 9:29 am

      Except you no longer have control over whether or not you can repair your house should it sustain damage.

      Want to build an addition?
      Sorry, can’t do that anymore, rent return is now the most important thing, not whether it is a secure, safe and warm house.

      • you_fool 9.1.1
        23 November 2013 at 11:54 am

        The do have a say in it, it is just a say that is proportional to the amount they own, and they need to take everybody’s opinion into account if they do want to make changes, and can’t unduly upset anyone by making the changes, and even if they want it is possible the people that are in charge of making the changes will not want to and will do something else anyway

    • you_fool 9.2
      23 November 2013 at 11:49 am

      Actually it is a good analogy, but it is a rental investment not your primary residence. Go ask an accountant how they would value it, though any good financial advice would be to not sell because it would make you worse off, so the people arguing for ignoring the value of the shares are right to an extent, they have made a loss, but for the moment they can live with that if the income stays at least as much as it currently is, if it drops for any reason then it may be time to cut losses.

  10. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 10
    21 November 2013 at 9:22 am

    But I thought they were flogging off valuable assets to their rich mates.

    This makes it sound like they were hoodwinking mum and dads by selling them shit at an undervalue.

    Good assets or bad?

    Wealthy foreigners or poor duped mums and dads?

    • framu 10.1
      21 November 2013 at 9:32 am

      1) this has already been answered
      2) mums and dads werent the main purchasers
      3) the people who worked on the process made a killing
      4) energy producing assets are widely recognised as things that will become of increasing strategic importance

      yes the shares decreased in value – but if you have enough resources to buy a lot both on the initial sale and into the future and hold on to them your probably going to do rather well from the deal

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 10.1.1
        21 November 2013 at 9:43 am

        You better tell James. He thinks people have been ripped off.

        • framu 10.1.1.1
          21 November 2013 at 9:49 am

          you should actually read

          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 10.1.1.1.1
            21 November 2013 at 11:24 am

            I am just trying to get your story straight for you.

            Is this what it is now: National sold the shares so that investment bankers would get rich through the sales process and ripped off New Zealand mum and dad investors in order to do so. As a consequence, the government got more for the assets than they were worth.

            • framu 10.1.1.1.1.1
              21 November 2013 at 11:36 am

              why? theres no need for you to get my story straight for me as ive already made my position pretty damn clear across a number of comments.

              So stop putting words in my mouth and do some bloody reading

              ——————-
              We have shares that have rapidly devalued, cost blowouts (which have mostly gone offshore), windfall contracts for finance industry players, patheticly low up take by the mythical “mum and dad investor”, ongoing and deepening negative impacts from the reduced dividend stream, an abandonment of public oversight on the remaining 51% and a financial result way down on the hype

              its not a success for the govt and its not a success (yet) for those who bought shares
              ———————

              Like i said – you should acutally read

              • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                21 November 2013 at 12:00 pm

                I will read your comments carefully when you learn to punctuate properly.

                We have shares that have rapidly devalued

                So the government sold its shares just in time. Mint.

                patheticly [sic] low up take by the mythical “mum and dad investor”

                The point of James’ post is that mums and dads have been ripped off. Not a problem, you reckon? Or is James concerned that institutional investors have been ripped off? Good luck with that meme.

                ongoing and deepening negative impacts from the reduced dividend stream

                But, the opposition’s plan for these assets is that they generate no return at all. Did I miss your criticism of that? Or are the deep negative impacts of the reduced dividend stream somehow not a problem in that scenario?

                an abandonment of public oversight on the remaining 51%

                What on earth are you on about?

                a financial result way down on the hype

                And what, exactly, would you have been saying if they shares had risen in value after sale? That the crown had been ripped off? The assets sold cheap to the government’s rich mates at an undervalue? Unfortunately for you that’s a better story than the one you’re trying to sell now.

                • framu …
                  21 November 2013 at 2:53 pm

                  “I am just trying to get your story straight for you.”

                  “The point of James’ post”

                  exactly which story are you on about?

                  your going on and on about MY story in one comment then going on and on about JAMES’ story in the next

                  which is it?!

                  Your point by point bit only shows that you have comprehension issues – vast comprehension issues. You cant seem to remember whos saying what, what something refers to or even if two things are related.

                  EG – “a financial result way down on the hype” – i would have thought that seeing as ive already mentioned share value that im talking about the amounts generated by the sale are nowhere close to what the govt claimed they would raise.

                  so the shares were sold at too high a price and even then they still didnt live up to the hype. What a spectacular friken success!
                  From that aspect alone its a tragic failure. And yes, if the share price had gone up that would also be an indication of failure because the whole thing is driven by ideology and not sound economic rationale. Two opposite things can still both be shit

                  my whole point is that when you add ALL the items i mentioned together its not a success, not even a tiny little bit
                  And frankly i will punctuate badly all i damn well please. Your not my mum and last time i checked no one has to listen to the grammar pedants

                  • BM …
                    21 November 2013 at 3:18 pm

                    Face it, you got destroyed.

                    • framu …
                      22 November 2013 at 7:50 am

                      considering ol barrel has failed to answer a single point ive made i dont quite see that

                      could you explain just how i got destroyed?

                      go on, im waiting

                  • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                    21 November 2013 at 3:23 pm

                    You mean: “you’re not my mum.”

                    • framu …
                      22 November 2013 at 7:52 am

                      you mean “i dont have anything else to nit pick over”

                      its telling that your failing to address anything ive put to you and your focusing on an apostrophe instead

                      well done! qaulity effort!

                      OOhh lOOk – pooR puncTuationz! –

    • Tat Loo (CV) 10.2
      21 November 2013 at 9:32 am

      Key’s investment banking mates already made a shit load. And when you go to sell your money losing shares they’ll make off the commission too. See how the parasitic financial sector works?

      • King Kong 10.2.1
        21 November 2013 at 10:37 am

        Just like those guys who peddle alternative healing techniques that don’t work to vulnerable people in real pain.

        Actually your choice of political ideology fits perfectly with your job.

        [lprent: Ok that is pure diversion that has nothing to do with the topic or the comment you are responding to. Looking through your comments today I can see just one that is vaguely on topic. All of the others seem to have been put in purely as a derail.

        Enough with the warnings. Banned permanently. ]

        • framu 10.2.1.1
          21 November 2013 at 10:41 am

          i would say that those peddlers are roundly despised across the board. Its not a left right thing

          so not that good an analogy perhaps?

          • King Kong 10.2.1.1.1
            21 November 2013 at 10:44 am

            I think you may have missed the fact that this is what Tat does as a profession and still has the lack of self awareness to call bankers parasites.

            • framu 10.2.1.1.1.1
              21 November 2013 at 10:47 am

              quite possibly – i have no idea what tat does

              • Naturesong …
                21 November 2013 at 10:53 am

                Chiropractor, hardly “alternative” healing. It’s not homeopathy – apologies to those that believe homeopathy actually works (placebo effect as far as I can see)

                Chiropractors have helped me in the past, and one I used to see in Sydney was a particularly gifted healer.

                These days I see an osteopath, as I’ve met a few chiropractors who really weren’t up to scratch.

                • framu …
                  21 November 2013 at 11:09 am

                  thanks nature – i suspected a case of definition shift might have been in play

                  see – i was thinking of homeopathy when the term alternative healing was used

                • Colonial Viper …
                  21 November 2013 at 9:40 pm

                  Naturesong 🙂

                  Rack, stack, crack, I’m a beef stamper extraordinaire 😀

  11. King Kong 11
    21 November 2013 at 9:45 am

    Did you know that if you had bought Microsoft shares when they listed in May 1986 and looked at their value on October 1, 5 months later, you would have been horrified to find that the stock price was down 18% and of course would have written the float off as an abject failure.

    In comparison to Mighty River, if you had bought $8220 of stock you would have lost about $1480 with Microsoft.

    What I am trying to establish is the absolute dick headishness of picking an arbitrary date on which to announce the float of a company as a success or failure.

    The only people affected by the dip in price is those who entered with an investment strategy of short term speculation and I thought you chaps hated those guys.

    These companies have pretty sound fundamentals and barring the Greens fucking up the market with their school boy plans, they will do pretty well.

    I personally have just scooped up a load of MRP at the low. Cracking buy with 7-9% dividend.

    Lets talk about share prices after the election next year when the chance of Green fuckwits at the helm has been put to bed for another 3 years.

    • framu 11.1
      21 November 2013 at 9:53 am

      the measure of success or failure isnt about the share price in isolation though is it. So while your point about arbitrary dates is correct in and of itself, its woefully simplistic and narrow when looking at the entire scheme and its good or bad effects

      We have shares that have rapidly devalued, cost blowouts (which have mostly gone offshore), windfall contracts for finance industry players, patheticly low up take by the mythical “mum and dad investor”, ongoing and deepening negative impacts from the reduced dividend stream, an abandonment of public oversight on the remaining 51% and a financial result way down on the hype

      do you call that success? – for anyone?

    • Naturesong 11.2
      21 November 2013 at 10:04 am

      Because a volitile tech company trying to create a new market for itself is the same as a utility which gets monopoly rents?

      I don’t think you should give advice on the share market. You clearly have no idea what your talking about.

      Your rise in share value is predicated on power companies being able to fleece the NZ public.

      It’s not a winner politically. Unless you truly belive that the only way to succeed is on the backs of other peoples misery

      The true cost of selling infrastructure that is essential to the economic wellbeing of NZ is not the revenue stream, but the destruction of the ability to plan long term domestic energy policy.

      • King Kong 11.2.1
        21 November 2013 at 10:11 am

        Do you know how I know you are a financial illiterate?

        What about if there is an increase in demand? You know, from things like population and economic growth.

        Now that is a scenario that doesn’t fit your left wing fatalism.

        • Naturesong 11.2.1.1
          21 November 2013 at 10:20 am

          Do you know how I know you are a financial illiterate?

          From someone that thinks a startup tech company is the same as power company?

          Pivate companies, in seeking to make the most efficient use of supply will delay the construction of power generation, and when they do, will seek to create the cheapest power generation.

          So look for brownouts when demand increases to maximum capacity.

          And when they wish to build new generation, watch them lobby for coal fired plants.

          You really have no idea.

          Left or Right wing.
          I’d settle for a government that wasn’t corrupt and incompetent.
          That used science and evidence in creating policy.
          That governed for the betterment of New Zealand people as a whole, not just a small section.

          Btw, I think the shares were sold under value. But some of the companies worth was destroyed when they were placed on the share market; namely, they used to be accountable to a democratically elected body, so good governance should be of prime concern (though you wouldn’t know it having watched English, Ryall and Key run Solid Energy into the ground)

  12. infused 12
    21 November 2013 at 9:53 am

    Maybe, if retards were after short term gains.

    • framu 12.1
      21 November 2013 at 10:02 am

      how much do you want to bet that thats exactly what a lot of the new to the share market mum and dad investors (of which there werent that many) thought exactly that?

      considering that getting these new to the share market types to buy was the big sell and one of the main reasons used to justify the sale the share price argument does carry some weight (even though its a dumb position to take when buying shares)

      • infused 12.1.1
        21 November 2013 at 10:09 am

        Oh bullshit. Don’t be so nieve.

        • framu 12.1.1.1
          21 November 2013 at 10:33 am

          whats bullshit

          1) would you agree that there are some people out there who are staggeringly underinformed on not just financial matters, but the share market specifically?

          2) are you saying that attracting people who had never invested in the share market wasnt one the arguments put forward by national to argue for the sale?

          both of my statements are pretty benign, so quit being being all bitchy about it. Maybe explain yourself instead of chucking one line insults out there

    • Lightly 12.2
      21 November 2013 at 10:08 am

      looks like they’re getting short and long term losses.

    • Tracey 12.3
      21 November 2013 at 10:18 am

      The people who can get in pre-opening sale orders do make good short term gains if the price spikes immediately after opening. Of course these customers have tens of thousands of shares and much lower brokerage to pay. But average shareholders such as “mum and dad” dont have the opportunity or the lower fees.

  13. Tracey 13
    21 November 2013 at 10:08 am

    In my experience people who can only afford a few thousand dollars worth of shares tend to hang onto them for a few years. The brokerage fee means it takes a while for any gain to surpass outlay.

    The people who would already have made money might have bought HUGE lots in the first one and had sells in at opening (which most mums and dads cant achieve) and when the price MRP spiked briefly on day one, they sell them down and take the quick profit.

    I agree that by buying shares you have already lost the use of the money, so provided the shares do actually rise above our original purchase price in due course you have lost nothing but time and the further use of your money.

    As an aside has the government stated where the proceeds for each sale went, to cover their mandate for paying down debt and increasing school and hospital funding?

  14. dv 14
    21 November 2013 at 10:19 am

    Contact has returned about 5-6% pa over 13 years

    About bank rate average.

  15. wtl 15
    21 November 2013 at 10:27 am

    Of course the change in the Government’s books following the MRP and Meridian sales is also pretty dire:

    MRP was independently valued by Macquarie at $3.74B in 2011. The estimated valuation in the year ending June 2012 was $3.91B. The shares were sold at a $2.50, at the mid-low end of indicative range of $2.35-$2.80. The sale of 49% raised $1.72 billion, which is $200M less than the $1.9B they should have sold for given the valuation.

    Meridian was valued at Macquarie at $6.53B in 2011, with the estimate valuation in June 2012 being $6.58B. The shares were sold at $1.50, at the very bottom of the indicative price of $1.50 to $1.80, raising only $1.88B which is a $1.34B less than the $3.22B expected given the valuation. This was even after the government provided investors with interest-free loans to purchase the shares.

    Note that the amounts are BEFORE sale costs are subtracted, and when these are accounted for it looks even worse.

    • Balanced View 15.1
      21 November 2013 at 4:31 pm

      …and the valuations were BEFORE the oppositions NZ Power policy was announced. So very difficult to say what impact the share offer had.
      Of course all of this is arbitrary, any reduction in value is not really relevant in any argument the opposition are making.

  16. Rich 16
    21 November 2013 at 11:01 am

    Also, 1.5% brokerage commission. And dividends are taxable, with capital losses not available for offset (because capital gains aren’t taxable, if you make any).

    • dv 16.1
      21 November 2013 at 11:32 am

      Rich
      (because capital gains aren’t taxable, if you make any).

      Partly wrong.
      Gains and losses are taxable if you trade.

  17. TightyRighty 17
    21 November 2013 at 2:26 pm

    Can’t wait for the inevitable post combining john keys mates got rich when the share price goes up. This post just demonstrates the economic illiteracy of commentators on the left.

    • Arfamo 17.1
      21 November 2013 at 2:31 pm

      Can’t wait for the inevitable post combining john keys mates got rich when the share price goes up.

      Speaking of illiteracy, what does that actually mean?

    • framu 17.2
      21 November 2013 at 3:00 pm

      cant wait for you to actually make an argument

      go on – prove just how economically literate you actually are for a change, instead of slinging poo from the cheap seats

      • TightyRighty 17.2.1
        21 November 2013 at 3:19 pm

        I make plenty of arguments. see below. the mobile version of this site truly sucks however. old version was way better.

        Still waiting for you to talk some sense rather than regurgitating the poo thrown at you by more intelligent people.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 17.2.1.1
          21 November 2013 at 6:26 pm

          Your assertions of the Left’s economic “illiteracy” (sic), aside from the obvious, make me wonder if you live in New Zealand.

          I can recall how the fifth Labour government was the sky falling on your head and everything, but not everyone lives on Planet TightyRighty.

        • framu 17.2.1.2
          22 November 2013 at 7:59 am

          “Still waiting for you to talk some sense”

          seems like im repeating myself

          ———————

          the measure of success or failure isnt about the share price in isolation though is it. So its woefully simplistic and narrow when looking at the entire scheme and its good or bad effects

          We have shares that have rapidly devalued, cost blowouts (which have mostly gone offshore), windfall contracts for finance industry players, patheticly low up take by the mythical “mum and dad investor”, ongoing and deepening negative impacts from the reduced dividend stream, an abandonment of public oversight on the remaining 51% and a financial result way down on the hype

          do you call that success? – for anyone?

          ———————

          does that make enough sense for you? Is it in a format you can understand?

          ooh – your trying to discredit my intelligence. Sure i dont know everything, and im happy to point out the topics where im aware im not fully up to speed. But you mate, make some real clangers so i wouldnt be going around trying to assume some smarter than thou pedastool (yes the misspelling is deliberate)

  18. Tim 18
    21 November 2013 at 2:28 pm

    As soon as I saw this post, I thought if I delve into it – I could expect the presence of the trolls – sure enough ……
    Actually, I want my 4 – point something or other millionth part of my existing ownership back because I didn’t give my duly elected representative to sell them on my behalf.
    They simply made assumptions, and took them.
    I expect them to be moaning like hell (squealing like pigs being stuffed) either in 2014, but if not 2017. OR maybe as soon as an opposition (you know, that thing that supposedly protects any democracy) sorts its shit out.
    Really what it boils down to though is just how hard a ruling junta wants fall.
    Right now I’m thinking they have the brashness and ego of a Mussolini. Worked out just fine and dandy for him and the missus aye!
    But yea but nah

  19. TightyRighty 19
    21 November 2013 at 3:14 pm

    Framu, the lowing sound emanating from you reminds of a cow. Hence I get your nickname.

    If ma and pa decided to invest in the stock exchange, and their shares go down, their book value is lower. But that is how the market perceives the value of the shares. Likewise if the market perceives them to be undervalued and starts purchasing them, the value value of the shares increases. The government beat the market in the share valuation at that point in time. Clever government.

    Basically, if you can’t afford to lose, you don’t invest. I don’t like fixed assett companies, so I didn’t invest. But I did just throw $30k into another company that yesterday dropped .81% in value. I’m not crying about it, I bought the shares as I expect them to appreciate in value. Small losses on a day don’t matter. Anyone who bought shares expecting a guaranteed return is an idiot.

    Though I suspect the book value of the mighty river shares when you factor in the present value of the bonus shares is quite different to what James managed to calculate. Intentional or illiterate. Probably a bit of both

    • TightyRighty 19.1
      21 November 2013 at 3:17 pm

      the end of the second paragraph should read

      “small losses on a day don’t matter, it’s the long term that counts if you aren’t actively trading on a day to day basis. It’s a gamble however, anyone who bought shares expecting a guaranteed return is an idiot, it’s always a gamble.”

      • framu 19.1.1
        22 November 2013 at 7:55 am

        but did you notice that im talking about the whole picture and not just the share value in isolation?

        So yeah – try again

  20. Treetop 20
    21 November 2013 at 3:58 pm

    Who’d want some Genesis shares?

  21. Ad 21
    21 November 2013 at 4:39 pm

    My wife and I spent a while humming and harrrring about whether to buy and what to buy of the floats, with amongst others a nationalist filter.

    In the end we didn’t . What we did was change banks to Kiwibank, and got an offset mortgage in which the savings keep building but they are offset against the mortgage. The deal is we pay no mortgage interest, and we don’t get much interest either.

    We worked out in short that even with spare savings, our savings money worked hardest when it paid off our mortgage faster.

    Won’t work for all circumstances, but it worked for ours, and we get to enjoy the schednfreude.

  22. Old Tony 22
    21 November 2013 at 4:59 pm

    You people are sooooo confused. How can it be a fire sale to the 1% when the shares are now worth less than floated? The Government has done fine by the 99% by getting more for the shares than they are worth.

    Are you not impressed by this given you despise the 1% so much? Should you not be celebrating?

    • McFlock 22.1
      21 November 2013 at 5:45 pm

      Pyrrhic victory, at best.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 22.2
      21 November 2013 at 6:00 pm

      The Left hates the 1% so much they always get wealthier under Labour governments. Yes they do, which just goes to show that Old Tony may be long in the tooth but, in keeping with the ongoing intellectual degradation of the Right, he’s short on the facts.

      The Left’s goal of a lower GINI benefits everyone, even those who are so poor they can only measure their wealth in money.

  23. National Party MP 23
    21 November 2013 at 7:37 pm

    OK Here is my cock sucking fucking wanking cums stain CV for some cum satin wankin FuCKING JOb.

    What you want me to do for your company.

    Yeah sure I can do that.

    Wank on your face

    Sweet.

    Kick you in the head?

    No problem

    Drink your Piss?

    Sweet?

    Punch you until you give me your money then lock you at your work and leave?

    COOL

    Can do?

    Your a cock sucker for even reading this CV so suck my cock.

    Best skill sets,

    wanking.

    5 years of wank study under a wanker

    2 years waking behind a door.

    INterests listning to cock suckin Politicans suck my cock and wwacking on their head.

    Music.

    Fuck off you cock

    Wages wanted shit loads. I will just write a number down each week and you pay it and say sorry for not een paying it yet.

    [lprent: Don’t know who this is or how it got through first time moderation. But there are quite a number of reply comments on it. As karol says leave it as an example of what usually doesn’t make it through first time moderation. In the meantime I’ll auto-spam the author (whoever you are). ]

  24. Ian 24
    21 November 2013 at 8:23 pm

    I like a good bet and am now the proud owner of a very small part of Mighty River Power and Meridian energy. I am totally unconcerned about the current share price of both companies as I’m a long term investor and I am fully aware of the negative influence of the Labour /Green movement and how their scaremongering is pushing down the share price. When John Key Gets elected for his 3 rd term as the prime minister of NZ,those shares will jump by at least 20 % . But seriously ,I like the fact that both companies produce sustainable,renewable energy and actually owning part of a hydro and geothermal electricity company makes me feel so green.