| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 122029 | 2011-11-26 09:08:00 | So, who's buying which State asset? | KarameaDave (15222) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1245564 | 2011-11-26 22:59:00 | I see Don Brash has resigned!! How Act could have been silly enough to sign him up as leader I will never know. When he first decided to be leader of Act he wasn't even a member. A bit like Hitler who had to hurriedly become a citizen of Germany. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 1245565 | 2011-11-26 23:00:00 | We are in the toughest times since 1929, sell the lot just like a company has to do thru tough times. and those that sell their best assets end up going down the gurgler. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 1245566 | 2011-11-26 23:16:00 | and those that sell their best assets end up going down the gurgler.:clap Nicely put. | wainuitech (129) | ||
| 1245567 | 2011-11-27 00:20:00 | You're not thinking this through properly. The ultimate current owner of the assets at the moment is overseas banks who hold NZ government bonds. Ipso facto, not owned by New Zealanders, but still under the control of the NZ government provided they continue to honour the terms of their debt. The overseas bondholders are also the parties to whom the interest on that debt is paid. If shares in those assets are purchased by New Zealand individuals or organisations, then they become locally owned, unless that individual or organisation is using foreign debt to pay for those shares (which none of the organisations listed in my example would be doing). Which part of that is "buying back what they already own"? Can't help but think you have slightly rose tinted glasses. There you are lumping all Govt. debt onto the power companies and that any money bought in from the partial sale will go towards offsetting that debt which National have not said they would do. Can you show me what the debt levels are for the power companies? Going back to the last great fire sale of state assets most of the public debt just became private. We as a country ended up in far greater debt after the 1984 Labour Govt than before but we ended up without those assets even though I agreed with some of them being sold. It was mainly the execution of the sale of those assets that went wrong. As you know what allows you to borrow money is the assets you have so if that money is not going towards offsetting the debt we risk further down grading of our credit rating. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 1245568 | 2011-11-27 01:14:00 | I remember as a kid, many of my blue collar uncles toiled on building dams, forestry, gas lines, etc. Small towns and villages were built for them. It was a great asset then, and should remain so in their entirety, if at least for their monetary value and borrowing potential as noted by MB above. | kahawai chaser (3545) | ||
| 1245569 | 2011-11-27 01:40:00 | The result is actually more money in the economy, because currently almost all of the interest on the debt required to hold those assets goes overseas. Any local shareholding, no matter how small, results in more money staying in NZ than the current status quo. Dividends paid locally benefit New Zealand much more than interest paid overseas. It should also be pointed out that there is significant local interest in buying shares in those assets, notably from iwi, ACC, KiwiSaver funds etc. All of those investors will be in it for the long haul too. Sure, some will go overseas, but it's unlikely to be much. As an example, look at where most Air New Zealand shares are held - Air New Zealand is partially floated in the same way as National proposes for the assets you're concerned about.No, the debt NZ has is not the result of holding onto the assets, the assets themselves run at a profit, they are contributing millions to the NZ economy through profit and jobs. While there may be some local interest, I think you will find over time most shares will go offshore as has happened to all/most of the other Govt assest sold off. |
Iantech (16386) | ||
| 1245570 | 2011-11-27 01:48:00 | Can't help but think you have slightly rose tinted glasses.Possibly, but my glasses are logical, and if you can logically prove my current view wrong I'll happily change it. There you are lumping all Govt. debt onto the power companies and that any money bought in from the partial sale will go towards offsetting that debt which National have not said they would do.What they have said is that they will use the money gained from partial sales of assets to pay for capital expenditure, rather than borrowing to pay for same. Using capital gained from asset sales to finance further capital spending *is* offsetting it against government debt. I freely admit to assigning general debt to those assets specifically, in order to make explaining the benefits easier - it saved a lot of typing, and makes no fiscal difference in the context of the discussion - but if that method of explaining didn't make sense to you, I'm quite happy to approach it from another direction. Can you show me what the debt levels are for the power companies?Overviews of those figures are available here (www.comu.govt.nz). Going back to the last great fire sale of state assets most of the public debt just became private. We as a country ended up in far greater debt after the 1984 Labour Govt than before but we ended up without those assets even though I agreed with some of them being sold. It was mainly the execution of the sale of those assets that went wrong.Agreed; complete sales of many of those was a mistake. I'm much happier with the current approach of a partial float, and that also means that the government can reacquire those shares in the future, should it wish to do so. As you know what allows you to borrow money is the assets you have...That's *part* of what allows you to borrow money, and depends on the mechanism. Most government debt is via the issuing of bonds, it's not directly secured by assets. ...so if that money is not going towards offsetting the debt we risk further down grading of our credit rating.It *is* going towards offsetting debt. That's the whole point. No, the debt NZ has is not the result of holding onto the assets, the assets themselves run at a profit, they are contributing millions to the NZ economy through profit and jobs.Not directly, no - I was assigning the debt to those companies in my earlier post to save explaining a whole lot of irrelevant details, but I can expand on those if you like. While there may be some local interest, I think you will find over time most shares will go offshore as has happened to all/most of the other Govt assest sold off.What do you base that assumption on? The local interest is the kind which holds shares in such assets over the long-term; they're not going to be selling them again for a quick buck. |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 1245571 | 2011-11-27 02:50:00 | I can't afford to buy shares in anything. I suspect most of the people in NZ will feel the same way. Therefore the shares will ( mostly ) go offshore! x2 China will probably buy the lot. And we know how much they care about anyone else! |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1245572 | 2011-11-27 03:44:00 | :clap Nicely put. +1 |
KarameaDave (15222) | ||
| 1245573 | 2011-11-27 03:45:00 | The profit from the assets are subsidising your taxes, if you sell 49%, do you think the Govt is going to do 49% less spending?? Nope, so guess what, joe public is going to have to be taxed more to make ends meet so either expect more assest sales to cover that once this round of dollars has been blown or expect a serious tax increase. Whats worse is that much of that 49% of profit will be going off-shore and not reinvested back in the country. The result is less money in the economy and higher unemployment. We may be in tough times, but its more due to bad management and selling what makes you money is not the answer, thats just more bad management. Brilliant! |
KarameaDave (15222) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | |||||