Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 124814	2012-05-21 04:19:00	Asset sales will leave Govt worse off	1101 (13337)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1276566	2012-05-23 00:48:00	When telecom was still the post office and government owned it was probably overstaffed and inefficient but that means it was employing more people and it did still make a profit. I believe during the replacement of the old electromechanical telephone exchanges with the current ones which cost in the order of a few billion dollars over several years the post office still posted a profit of more than 200 million. All these years later and the telephone network is still using the same equipment it was at the time it was sold. A government owned company can make choices based on what offers the best service for it's customers while still making a profit, a private or public company is a lot more focussed on profit over service. The pros and cons of asset sales seem a bit complicated to me but like a lot of other people I can't see how selling off a source of income helps the situation, unless of course it reduces debt repayments by more than it reduces income.	dugimodo (138)
1276567	2012-05-23 00:59:00	Wellington city had it's own municipal electricity department > Capital Power > a succession of private owners. " So our local electricity network has been sold four times in the past 16 years, and each sale has brought windfall profits for its mostly foreign owners. The problem is that as the value of the network has been inflated with each sale, the amount we pay for line charges has risen steeply as well. " " And while the network appears to be running efficiently, there is no evidence that it is being run more efficiently than it was in council ownership,. And contrary to arguments at the time, there has been little obvious investment in the network, other than standard maintenance. " www.stuff.co.nz	PaulD (232)
1276568	2012-05-23 01:08:00	The pros and cons of asset sales seem a bit complicated to me but like a lot of other people I can't see how selling off a source of income helps the situation, unless of course it reduces debt repayments by more than it reduces income. If a business keeps selling off its best assets what sort of business is it going to have? None. As well as that NZ can borrow money now because of those assets it has and if they are sold without paying off debt we will be less likely to be looked on favourably as a good loan risk. Most of the family silver is already gone. This is more about pathetic dogma than good business decisions.	mikebartnz (21)
1276569	2012-05-23 01:42:00	The pros and cons of asset sales seem a bit complicated to me but like a lot of other people I can't see how selling off a source of income helps the situation, unless of course it reduces debt repayments by more than it reduces income. That's precisely what I'm wondering. 303 million net profit a year. How much is the business worth, and how much has the government borrowed in order to fund it? Because I would hazard a guess that the Govt will be repaying the loan for it, not Meridian themselves. If a business keeps selling off its best assets what sort of business is it going to have? None. As well as that NZ can borrow money now because of those assets it has and if they are sold without paying off debt we will be less likely to be looked on favourably as a good loan risk. Most of the family silver is already gone. This is more about pathetic dogma than good business decisions. "Best assets"? That's what I'm trying to establish, is just how good these supposed "Best assets" are, because to be frank that's a term that Labour dreamed up during the election and I'm very keen to know how much weight it actually holds. How good are these assets? How much do we have borrowed in order to keep them afloat and how much are they bringing in? Are they bringing in $300mil a year net profit, yet we've got $2billion borrowed? Have we got nothing borrowed? By selling off half and bringing in some up-front capital, while still retaining 51% for both voting power of veto as well as dividends, how much are we going to be missing out on annually, going back in to the government (And therefore New Zealand as a whole) coffers?	Chilling_Silence (9)
1276570	2012-05-23 01:50:00	Worst recession since 1929, going to get worse when the PIIGS bail out of the Euro. If you dont think problems in Europe will affect this country you are numbnuts. Time to cash in the assets and any one that tries to stop asset sales should be dealt with by the SIS. :)	prefect (6291)
1276571	2012-05-23 01:52:00	Time to save the assets and any one that tries to sell assets should be shot, or hung, drawn and quartered. I agree :badpc:	gary67 (56)
1276572	2012-05-23 02:12:00	+1 ... but Prefect seems a little confused ... judging by his last comment and the one Gary just quoted... talk about a picket ar$e ... he's got a dollar each way and he doesn't realise he's not betting on a winner ... :lol:	SP8's (9836)
1276573	2012-05-23 02:13:00	"Best assets"? That's what I'm trying to establish, is just how good these supposed "Best assets" are, because to be frank that's a term that Labour dreamed up during the election and I'm very keen to know how much weight it actually holds. How good are these assets? How much do we have borrowed in order to keep them afloat and how much are they bringing in? Are they bringing in $300mil a year net profit, yet we've got $2billion borrowed? Have we got nothing borrowed? By selling off half and bringing in some up-front capital, while still retaining 51% for both voting power of veto as well as dividends, how much are we going to be missing out on annually, going back in to the government (And therefore New Zealand as a whole) coffers? Unless everyone starts generating their own power it is very much a captive market. While it would be good to know the actual figures as to what loans etc, there has been very little in the way of major new generation and yet power prices have risen dramatically so I can't see it being anything but a good assets and if you factor in dividends going overseas to overseas investor it can't be anything but bad for NZ selling them.	mikebartnz (21)
1276574	2012-05-23 02:20:00	I agree :badpc: I am more of a shooting person, HDQ a bit barbaric	prefect (6291)
1276575	2012-05-23 02:55:00	Unless everyone starts generating their own power it is very much a captive market. While it would be good to know the actual figures as to what loans etc, there has been very little in the way of major new generation and yet power prices have risen dramatically so I can't see it being anything but a good assets and if you factor in dividends going overseas to overseas investor it can't be anything but bad for NZ selling them. I tend to agree. However there is a real-world example which suggests power companies aren't the piggy banks you'd expect. Contact Energy was formed by the NZ govt and sold to mum and dad investors in 1997. The price was $3.15/share. Contact's share price today is $4.87. That is very low growth - you'd have been better putting your money in the bank. I simply do not understand this myself: all I'm saying is electricity generating companies can lapse into the doldrums.	Winston001 (3612)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9