Comments on: Even the Cullen Fund has sold its airport shares

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 20:45:51 +0000

Michael Cullen has talked the Auckland Airport shares down with his statements and law changes while the Cullen fund was probably buying shares in Auckland Airport and voting for the Canadian offer and agreed to sell its 77 million shares.

If I was a former shareholder that sold my shares in Auckland Airport or decided not to take up the offer based on Michael Cullen statements I would be very annoyed.

You must wonder if there is a conflict of interest with the government talking the share price down while a NZ government fund is attempting to maximising their profit off statements made by Dr Cullen.

But being a leftie, simple things like that never seems to worry them. Dumbasses!

By: Right of way is Way of Right

Right of way is Way of Right — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 05:37:40 +0000

Anyone ever been to Prestwick Airport in Glasgow? I ask because it is 100% owned by the aviation division of Infratil, a New Zealand company.

By: RossK

RossK — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 22:25:17 +0000

The RBNZ is independent for day to day operational matters. Policy is set by the legislature. That is as it should be.

I didn’t use the word protection to suggest some sort of active government protection rather to suggest that the sructures for the management of the Super Fund were properly set up at least in regard to investment decisions.

By: Dismal Soyanz

Dismal Soyanz — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:24:08 +0000

RossK – I beg to differ. It may well be evidence that the management of the fund is putting the value of the fund ahead of political considerations. It is not evidence of “protection” of the management (presumably by the Government). As an investor in the fund (I pay my taxes and expect to receive super when I retire, if the scheme is still in operation), I would expect nothing less.

You are right, though, that had the Government directed the fund to hold on to its shares, it would have been open to accusations of political interference.

I would be interested to know whether you think independence of the RBNZ is a good thing or not.

By: the deity formerly known as nigel6888

the deity formerly known as nigel6888 — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:55:38 +0000

regrettably the fund is behaving prudently. The Government through a crude politically motivated intervention has destroyed the value of the shareprice. The only prudent course of action is to unload, particularly given the Canadian offer is so much higher than the current and likely future share price.

The lesson here is never invest in anything this Government might want to score political points with. Hmm, that basically means get out of any infrastructure before you have it stolen from you. Toll I see is contemplating just this point.

Govt declares you strategic, your share value tanks, government “bails you out”.

Yes thats the kind of safe long-term public private partnership we are looking for in energy, roads, the new Clark-Tunnel etc. Anyone left wondering now why NZ interest rates are the highest in the developed world?

By: RossK

RossK — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:49:35 +0000

Of course this could be interpreted as evidence of a robust protection of the management of the NZ SuperFund from undesirable political interference.

Presumably if a story had leaked that the government had directed the SuperFund to vote against the Canadian offer you would have gleefully pointed at that as proof of Labour hubris.

By: tim barclay

tim barclay — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:26:00 +0000

Clearly a prudent investor would have to do this with the market price much lower than the offer. Not to sell the shares may place the trustees in breach of their fiduciary obligations. I assume the trustees (guardians of the fund) would have resigned if they came under direction NOT to sell.

By: Fred

Fred — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:21:46 +0000

All the more reason to sell it to someone that will (get it right) and since the local councils could free up some cash maybe they could use the money to build a shuttle to the CBD. My first reaction was “But it’s a strategic international airport, why would anyone using it want to get to the CBD??

By: thehawkreturns

thehawkreturns — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:54:46 +0000

Whenuapai? That will be the airport with the high speed shuttle to the CBD. Probably
calling at the Sir Peter Blake Memorial on the way?

We havn’t even got ONE airport right yet without having 2 disconnected airstrips about the place.

By: Fred

Fred — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 08:34:12 +0000

They are a similar organisation, would probably like to invest in similar assets in other countries and are looking to maintain NZ’s reputation as place to invest in. BTW I’m still trying to understand exactly why an airport can’t be owned by foreigners. If it’s because it’s the only international airport then we should allow another one to be built at Whenuapai, as was recently proposed.

By: Pique Oil

Pique Oil — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 08:02:52 +0000

Perhaps the old saying “Do as I say not as I do” applies here!!

By: Alces

Alces — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 07:05:53 +0000

Fish….bicycles.

Govt …..investment.

Shame we can’t choose our own investment mix like AU.

By: M. Sullen

M. Sullen — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 07:01:32 +0000

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, HA, HA………………………………………………….

By: GNZ

GNZ — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 05:30:04 +0000

I guess the government thinks it knows better about future profits etc.
Fortunately the government made a smart previous decision to not run the super fund as a political weapon.