Watkin on Crafar
January 31st, 2012 at 7:00 am by David FarrarTim Watkin has a thoughtful piece at Pundit on the Crafar decision:
Looking at the OIO decision, it’s interesting to note that the deal literally ticks nearly all the boxes; the only fail is its ability to bring new skills and technology to New Zealand. That’s hardly surprising, given our farmers are as good as any in the world.
It’s very clear this was not a marginal call.
The OIO writes it’s also excited by the fact SPGL has “very strong contacts with the supermarket industry” in China, will create two new NZ brands (Nature Pure and Pure 100) and is promising to spend $100m over the next five years promoting New Zealand dairy in Asia.
I actually regard the effective partnership between Landcorp and SPGL as exciting. They have the capital and contacts, and Landcorp has the expertise. This deal could have major opportunities down the road.
What of the OIO’s point about “tacit anti-Chinese bias”, you ask? This sale deserves to be a major news story because of the large amount of land lost to offshore ownership in one go. But let’s be honest, the fact the sale is going to China has ratcheted up the concern and public debate.
Some of that concern is reasonable – we can’t buy land there, China is in the process of buying vast natural resources around the world, and such purchases are made in its national interests, which aren’t necessarily ours. But some of the concern is out-and-out racism.
Last year a German firm got approval to buy 3300 hectares in Southland. Remember the public debate about that deal? No, me neither.
Did anyone complain when Harvard bought our biggest forest? Or when Britons bought up 22,000 hectares of farmland over the past two years?
Of course not all of the opposition to the sale is xenophobic or racist. There are some people who really think that it makes good economic sense to not allow even one hectare of land to be owned by an Australian or Brit. They’re wrong, but they’re consistent.
But the nationality of the buyers was a factor in this case, for many. The examples Tim gives about the German purchase, for example, is a good one.
Labour leader David Shearer in opposing the sale said this week:
“If there is going to be foreign ownership then we have to make sure New Zealanders have a real interest in it and get real value from it. Now I don’t think that this sale here gives us any return.”
The details of this deal make that a hard argument to sustain; there are clearly significant returns to New Zealand. It’s hard to imagine how, under current law, New Zealand could have done better out of this deal. The original New Zealand bidders couldn’t have offered the strategic links into Asia and, I’m sorry, I simply refuse to take seriously a Michael Fay-led anything as a champion of retaining New Zealand assets in local ownership.
The strategic links into Asia are potentially very good for New Zealand.
Having said all that, why am I still uneasy about this sale? Because ownership matters. The owner is boss, keeps the profits, controls the asset. One sale on its own isn’t the end of the world, but added together we’ve sold 170,000ha of farm land in the six years from July 2005 to May 2011, according to this very good piece in Farmers Weekly.
That rises to two percent of our farmland in the past decade, according to RNZ.
If we keep that up over the next century, that’s 20 percent gone.
And I think there is a valid debate about whether there should be some sort of limit on the total amount of land owned by foreign interests. That is preferable to railing against individual deals which in fact make good economic sense.
However I would make the point that any limit should look at more than just sales. Some of the land sold to foreign owners has been resold back to NZ owners. And some of the land sold to foreign owners was already owned by different foreign owners. What would be useful is a time series showing total foreign ownership at annual intervals. I’m not sure though that such data is easily compiled.
Tags: Crafar, foreign, Tim Watkin
January 31st, 2012 at 10:12 am
DPF..
I do not agree.
Anything that Timmy Watkin says is far from “thoughtful”.
It is well known, and established by his published views, that he is to the left of the left.
Question:
How is it that a man of his professed political views is able to produce Q+A for TVNZ?
The man is a fool…an idiot…who should be ignored, or drummed from the media.
Fat chance of that occuring.
Say, what would the wally wonkers from left field be saying if Cam Slater were to be named as Q+A’s producer ?
Actually, I think Whale would do a bloody good job . He would hold all sides to account – including the AGW wallies (that Watkin favours).
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 10:15 am
As long as New Zealanders keep spending more than they earn we will keep selling assets to foreigners.
Where else do you think the money can come from?
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 10:23 am
I think that’s a very smart and objective piece by Tim. One thing I’d point out when Tim says “that’s 20 percent gone,” is that that’s assuming all the land sold stays forever in foreign hands. At the moment we have a register of what’s sold, but not a register of how that land changes hands over time. It’s possible some of the land already sold in the past decade has been sold back to local interests, so it’s not a static issue. If we can get the people of this country a bit wealthier then buying some of it back when volatile times put pressure on overseas owners will be more possible.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 11:14 am
ony Alexander:
“Avoiding being tenants in our own land is an extremely valid goal which, if not satisfied, would take New Zealand completely away from the sort of place people were seeking when they started flocking here in the 19th century.”
The debate about the sale of the Crafar farms sidestepped the fact that during the past five years, the Overseas Investment Office had approved proposals for the sale of 1.1 million hectares of land, of which 117 hectares was approved for China buyers and 939 hectares for buyers from Hong Kong.
Mr Alexander said the question which needed answering was how to best make money out of the land sales New Zealand was already making.
Should land sales lead to the greatest opportunities for extra sales of high value-added products, extra processing in New Zealand and extra capital for additional expansion?
Or should New Zealand instead be thinking in terms of not selling but leasing the land to foreigners, with again the same questions asked? ”
Vote:http://www.odt.co.nz/news/business/195871/economist-warns-against-cargo-cult-mentality
January 31st, 2012 at 11:27 am
I like this part of Tim Watkins post:
“As John Key famously said, “Looking four, five, 10 years into the future, I’d hate to see New Zealanders as tenants in their own country, and that is a risk, I think, if we sell out our entire productive base, so that’s something the Government will have to consider.”
So what’s been considered? Nothing as far as we know. And we don’t know much. We don’t even know how much farmland is in foreign hands already; records weren’t kept before 2002 and no-one’s made the effort to do an historical inventory. How about it Maurice Williamson? Perhaps its worth someone at Land Information spending a few weeks on that task? Or is it a job for the OIO?
And then we can get on with the proper debate, in which we ask ‘what about the long-term, what’s in our national interests generations hence? Where do we draw the line? And what laws should we pass to ensure we remain owners rather than tenants?
Is increased access to Asia in our interests if we don’t control the profits? Is this the right kind of joint venture? And more fundamentally, who are we as New Zealanders if not owners of these few islands?
Politicians need to be answering those questions if they want to earn respect on this issue.”
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 11:38 am
I think Shearer has it over Key:
“However we also believe no overseas purchaser has an automatic right to buy New Zealand land. That is a privilege, and any purchase must provide some added value. In this case, local farmers can add more value than a foreign company with no farming expertise.”
Vote:http://www.interest.co.nz/rural-news/57663/law-change-make-foreign-ownership-nz-lan
January 31st, 2012 at 11:41 am
Which country supports North Korea Germany or the other one?
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 11:45 am
I liked this comment by Frank Macaskey:
“Maurice Williamson is talking out through the top of his head when he claims that no one objected to the sale of land to Shania Twain or Young Nicks Head to American millionaire, John Griffin.
There was, indeed, considerable opposition:
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_national_story_skin/117876
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-09-16/world/newzealand.property_1_public-ac…
I suspect that, having lost the economic argument, John Key and his cronies are resorting to Plan B: label critics as “racist” or “xenophobic”. I doubt New Zealanders will take kindly to these epithets being thrown at them for their legitamate concerns.
Little wonder Key is making noises about “reviewing” laws regarding farm sales. (Which will come to nothing, of course.)
It’s also interesting that Key & Co have insisted that, under the FTA with China, we cannot refuse land sales to them.
Really?
If our sovereignty has been sacrificed on the Alter of Free Tade agreements, then it occurs to me that Parliament is irrelevant; elections are a pointless exercise; and John Key is merely an economic manager of Sub-Branch New Zealand Inc.
It may be time to review these FTAs and what they mean for our economic independence. when we have lost the ability to say “no” to Americans, Germans, Chinese, Swiss, or Uncle Tom Cobbly – then we have lost our nationhood.”
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 12:09 pm
I’m not sure about whether this sale is good.
There is a MAJOR difference between selling to the chinese vs other countries — China is a communist country.
The chinese can hire NZ experts to train chinese staff to operate the farms. Once the IP has been transferred to the chinese, no more Kiwis will be employed. The chinese will run the farms exclusively and pay no tax on worker salaries.
Farm output will be shipped back to china and no NZ taxes will be paid (there is no taxable profit because production and consumption occurs entirely internally within a single communist entity) .
Chinese owned farms will become economic zombie farms. And, the chinese plan on scales of hundreds or thousands of years.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 12:19 pm
@ hj
Frank is an economic illiterate.
He thinks selling farmland to overseas interest will negatively impact on the Balance of Trade.
In short, if you want to push his views be prepared to share the opinion of a fool.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 12:26 pm
This sale has enormous strategic value to nz as we reorientate our economy to Asia and away from Europe.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Wreck1080
You are worrying needlessly. As I understand it, the land remains NZ territory, and will not be an exclave of China! Therefore NZ laws will still apply! I hope that puts your fears to rest.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 1:02 pm
I’m amazed at the outrage people are managing to manufacture.
Personally, I think that North Island land should never be sold to people from the South Island. Can’t be having them coming here with all their funny ideas, and then taking all the profits back to spend on some sort of crazy South Island plot. And actually, whilst I’m on it, I’m very much opposed to people from Wairarapa ever owning land in the Manawatu. It’s well know they’re all beneficiaries and bludgers in the Wairarapa, and once they own land in the Manawatu they’ll start coming into PN, and probably parking up wrecks cars on blocks, and not mowing the lawns. Stuff like that. Really, they’re bringing down the tone of the neighbourhood.
Bottom line here:
1. The land stays in NZ. NZers get to vote, foreigners don’t. If we want, we can just make life unattractive to foreigners. We can pass a law that levies a tax of 98% of assessed profits (assessed by some arcane calculation that NZers invent), and if they don’t like it they need to sell the land. And with a law like that, no foreigner would buy the land. Foreigners buying land never get any leverage.
2. Anyone working the land must follow NZ laws. They must employ people who are lawfully in NZ, who pay NZ taxes, and the company must obey NZ environmental standards. So far as I can recall, the Crafars weren’t so good at this. I reckon the Chinese might be better.
3. Yes, profits probably go offshore. But remember we got $200M for the farms. What did we do with that money? We could buy $200M of farms in another country if we want. Presumably whatever we do with that money will be more productive than running these particular farms – otherwise we’d have bought the farms for $201M and kept the profits. The reality is the farms are worth more to the Chinese than to NZers, because the Chinese can put the farms together with relationships in Asia, and make something worth more money. Whereas perhaps NZers can make more money by starting kiwifruit orchards in California or something. And import the profits from that. As someone else said, the thing that determines all this is the balance of trade, not individual sales. If our balance of trade is negative (as it has been for 30 years or more) then we have to sell assets overseas. That’s the only way we can fund it. If we consume more than we produce, this is the problem we have.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Didn’t the OIO say the deal would create 2 new jobs? Well, how could they say no?
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 1:28 pm
@swan — your answer addresses not a single point that I made.
Are you saying the chinese will be paying full tax on farm output?
If the chinese are paying the same tax as would an NZ tax resident owner then I have no problem selling 100% of our farms to chinese.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 2:10 pm
@wreck1080
Well the Chinese owners will be paying far more tax than the previous owners of the farm did at the end of their time in charge. This is because they were making a loss and would be paying no tax. As the Chinese aren’t planning on running the farm at a loss as far as I am aware then they will pay more in tax than nothing.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 2:42 pm
sopme facts re the sale http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/crafar-farms-some-facts-1/
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 2:44 pm
wreck1080
the statement that Chinese workers would pay no tax is nonsensical
the statement that output sent to China would not attarct tax is silly, as IRD would apply transfer pricing rules to impute profit and thus tax due
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Gosman (275) Says:
January 31st, 2012 at 12:19 pm
@ hj
Frank is an economic illiterate.
Vote:………
The old “this is good for the economy” and “anyone who doesn’t get it is a dummy” argument. I would believe you if the world was a level playing field and population growth was related to the demand for labour at a good wage (in an environment with a high quality of life) rather than a selfish gene.
January 31st, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Adam Smith:
“Yet apparently in mid-2005, there were 12,786 dairy farms, with a total area of 2.1 million hectares. Adam understands that the Crafar farms are some 8,000 hectares max. So this so called strategic asset, about which NRT and others are so concerned is 0.003% of the land in dairy. My god that really, really is strategic NOT
Then the 16 farms represent 0.001% of the number of farms, another hugely significant chunk of farm ownership.NOT”
……
Tim Watkins:
So what’s been considered? Nothing as far as we know. And we don’t know much. We don’t even know how much farmland is in foreign hands already; records weren’t kept before 2002 and no-one’s made the effort to do an historical inventory. How about it Maurice Williamson? Perhaps its worth someone at Land Information spending a few weeks on that task? Or is it a job for the OIO?
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 3:02 pm
@ hj
What are you on?!?
Frank is an economic illiterate because he doesn’t understand the difference between Merchandise Trade flows and Capital flows.
If you are happy to promote the views of someone with such a fundamental lack of knowledge on the subject of economics then more power to you son.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 3:04 pm
What does it matter how much NZ farmland is in foreign ownership. They aren’t running off with it and neither are they failing to abide by NZ laws in the running of it.
Do you want to explain what you object to exactly about NZ farmland being owned by foreigners?
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Bottom line here:
1. The land stays in NZ. NZers get to vote, foreigners don’t. If we want, we can just make life unattractive to foreigners. We can pass a law that levies a tax of 98% of assessed profits (assessed by some arcane calculation that NZers invent), and if they don’t like it they need to sell the land. And with a law like that, no foreigner would buy the land. Foreigners buying land never get any leverage.
………
NZrs don’t get to vote on issues such as loosening rules on foreign ownership, shady officials behind the scenes move levers while no one is watching and vested interests pump funds into the political parties to ensure their chances of re election.
Interesting that immigrants don’t cause house price increases in NZ (although overseas studies show they do); ex-pats, do however and equilibrium analysis reveals that “immigration benefits everyone“? Now if that was AGW just think what opponents might say????
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 3:29 pm
PaulL posted at 1.02:
A bit doctrinaire, Paul.
Foreigners, not being stupid, will buy only our better assets (Yellow Pages excepted). Therefore the profit on these flowing out to these overseas owners will likely contribute to any BOP deficits. Value added operations will take place where labour is cheaper, which in the NZ dairy case, will be China.
One exception torpedoes your argument, but here are two of several possible alternatives to your “only way” to solve the BOP:
First, some government could discourage or further restrict immigration while encouraging the outflow of people to Australia to continue. As a tiny proportion of our population produces exports while the mass consume imports, this should help the balance of payments. Sadly most of our increase in population consists mainly of either underskilled people or well off folk seeking a better (and usually laid back) lifestyle. Thus immigrants sadly contribute little to our export industries. China will contribute little or nothing more than individual dairy farmers would on the Crafar farms, and the Kiwis would not create an outflow of profit to contribute to the BOP deficits.
Second, we could find a trading way of lowering our currency, such as the Swiss are experimenting with. A currency manipulated low, as China does, and as other successful countries have in the past done (eg Germany and Japan), could change our balance of payments by making our exports more competitive and imports dearer. Germany’s current quandary is that the euro helps its exporters. The euro dies, the returned mark will fly and squeeze hell out of German manufacturers.
As the Financial Times has pointed out, theoretically it’s far easier to keep a currency down than to keep it up. The Swiss Central Bank approach at the moment seems to be print more cash. It’s buying everything offered above a set exchange rate, and taking the heat off its watch makers, dairy industry, and many other high-value exporters.
I guess the Swiss theory is the foreign currency you buy relatively cheap will become a nest egg as your currency falls. A problem for the Swiss is they seem to be buying euros, which could become like Tsarist paper. With NZ we would be buying US dollars, Aussie dollars, and yuan for printed kiwis. A currency whiz like Key could run a currency chop like this if anyone could.
One point that is coming up about previous, non-China sales of assets is forestry. In the lead up to the year 2000 a coming Wall of Wood was going to be NZ’s economic salvation. As this proved to be another overhyped bubble, local investors got out (when they could). However, I have a vague recollection that in some, if not in all cases, what was sold to foreigners was the harvesting rights of NZ forests, and perhaps replanting rights, but not the underlying land.
Something similar for our limited arable land would please many of us who question the China purchase of the Crafar farms – and the purchase of farms by other foreign non-farmers.
Paul L also said in his post:
Sorry Paul, the dumbfuck Aussie bankers who lent the Crafars more than this get the $200 million, to offset against what they lost.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 3:36 pm
What does it matter how much NZ farmland is in foreign ownership. They aren’t running off with it and neither are they failing to abide by NZ laws in the running of it.
Do you want to explain what you object to exactly about NZ farmland being owned by foreigners?
…………………….
The old “foreigners don’t take it with them” (- Helen Clark). To use a toilet as an analogy we can’t both use it at the same time and if you take immigration as an example, having had a large influx since 1994 and having seen a great demand for new infrastructure plus house price increases and no improvement in incomes (as we pay for infrastructure out of taxes) we are still gung-ho on immigration. Why should anyone believe the government acts in the interest of ordinary people and not realestate rat-bags?
Unlike the Liberals of the 1890′s [Pre Homonis PR Distortus]
McKenzie’s land policies
As in the past, the state tried to limit the size of landholdings so more people could own land. Under the Land Act 1892 a prospective farmer had three choices:
cash purchase of land, which required the buyer to improve the property to receive a certificate of title
occupation with right of purchase – a 25-year lease with the right to purchase after 10 years
a lease in perpetuity for 999 years – this replaced the earlier perpetual lease.
A leaser or purchaser could hold no more than 640 acres (259 hectares) of first-class land or 2,000 acres (809 hectares) of second-class land.
In these ways McKenzie’s land policy aimed to uphold the ideal of the small, independent farmer.
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/land-ownership/5
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 3:49 pm
When you drive through places like Winton you are taken by the nicely kept houses; someone pointed out that Ashburton has as much spending power as Napier but only 1/3rd the population and that the Chathams Is have the highest spending to population ratio. I’m not sure where the other parts of NZ are where the land isn’t the main source of our wealth and a large population isn’t a disadvantage (other than the realestate and associated sector).
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 3:59 pm
“And I think there is a valid debate about whether there should be some sort of limit on the total amount of land owned by foreign interests. That is preferable to railing against individual deals which in fact make good economic sense.”
David Farrars sentiments mirror the man from Harcourts Shaghai:
“Chinese economy we all know about…
Vote:Chinese government says it’s time to grow offshore…..
Let’s take a good selection of New Zealands “products”* over….
“We’re all New Zealanders, we all love the country so I think it’s healthy for us to have the debate and make the right decisions for our country…. but hey!…. young people coming through see it as “our planet” rather than “our country”*
http://static.radionz.net.nz/assets/audio_item/0011/2385074/mnr-20100824-0842-More_than_800-million_dollars_worth_of_property_on_display-m048.asx
* NZ terra firma for sale
* doesn’t apply to peasants
January 31st, 2012 at 4:00 pm
@gosman- the crafars were liable to pay tax on any profits they made.
@adamsmith —
You are correct IF china were a democracy and operated as market based economy.
Whats to stop the chinese from exporting all product and just giving it away for free to the army for example.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 4:38 pm
He says “Some of that concern is reasonable – we can’t buy land there” which a simple google shows to be incorrect, at least as far as commercial property goes.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 4:39 pm
@ wreck they didn’t make profits at the end. Hence why they went bust Therefore NZ is not losing this nonexistent profit offshore.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 4:43 pm
I am reminded of the tourist boom in the seventies and eighties when Japanese interests bought up wholesale tourist oriented property assets on the Gold Coast. And then the tourist industry crashed – the Japanese sold out at massive losses and retreated back to Japan with their collective tails between their legs. Point one; the land remains in NZ; point 2, the land value is sustained by profitable dairy activity; if the dairy industry falters (it has happened before) Chinese investors are likely to bail. They do not want the land for its own sake (as Maori apparently do) but only if it returns a profit.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 4:55 pm
@ trout.
Exactly. It is something left wing people are seemingly unable to grasp. Investors will only stay around so long as they are getting a good return. When they don’t get that return they tend to bail out. The land therefore becomes available for purchase by NZers yet again.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 4:57 pm
@ wreck.
As for your suggestion about the Chinese owners exporting all the produce and giving it away for free. Why would they waste their money doing that? They would have to spend huge amounts of money to support the production of a farm that they weren’t getting any return from. The Chinese are a little too commercially savvy to do that.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 6:02 pm
Trout posted at 4.43 on China interests buying NZ farms (and was supported in another post by Gosman):
Trout (and Gosman): China is buying up the supply chains everywhere. Mineral resources in Canada and Australia and Africa, for example, as well as dairying in NZ. For example they have tens of new nuclear plants coming on stream, so they are buying into uranium resources for security of supply. Profit is secondary.
To suggest that the Crafar farms are being bought as some sort of speculation to be dropped if the investment proves unprofitable is plain wrong. These folk want specific dairy supply investments, not any old investment that returns X per cent on their outlay.
The Chinese are buying and holding for the long term.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 6:47 pm
In China they transport pigs like sardines. You can see guts squashed out.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 6:49 pm
@ trout
Vote:you are comparing tourism to food security, plus a seismic shift in wealth.
January 31st, 2012 at 9:10 pm
@gosman, even if they give it away for free we don’t care. IRD have the ability to ignore that and assess implied profits based on real market value. People are making up strawman arguments about what the evil Chinese might do, most of which don’t stand up to even the slightest amount of scrutiny. Then arguing that since there are so many strawman arguments, clearly it’s bad. I’ve yet to see any description of what bad thing is going to happen that justifies all this noise.
Vote:February 1st, 2012 at 9:16 am
@gosman – a future revenue stream is lost. The Crafars were poor business people, under good management the farms will have been profitable.
You do not acknowledge the communist way which differs from our capitalist based democracy.
Communism/socialism is not profit driven. The ‘government’ needs milk powder and other resources and secures these resources where possible. China utilises these resources to keep the people and industries churning out cheap TV’s and ipods to finance military expansion and further resource acquisitions.
Profit is irrelevant. Long term goals are all encompassing.
Anyway, i’m not sure that the chinese will operate the farms this way, time will tell.
Vote:February 1st, 2012 at 11:59 am
“I actually regard the effective partnership between Landcorp and SPGL as exciting. They have the capital and contacts, and Landcorp has the expertise. This deal could have major opportunities down the road.”
Dunno why you think the partnership is “exciting”, DPF. Even if the deal does have “major opportunities down the road”, so what? We lose the profits to a bank account in Beijing. Just as the German buyup of farmland in Southland sees profits end up in bank accounts in Berlin. And the Harvard Uni buyup of land sees profits end up in Boston.
What do we get out of it? Let me guess; “trickle down”. Oh yeah, that works.
You’ll forgive me if I don’t share your “excitement” in seeing someone else making profits rather than some Kiwi bloke or blokette.
Vote:February 1st, 2012 at 12:03 pm
Gosman (280) Says:
January 31st, 2012 at 3:04 pm
“What does it matter how much NZ farmland is in foreign ownership. They aren’t running off with it and neither are they failing to abide by NZ laws in the running of it. ”
You got your arse handed to you over the the Standard, Gossy. Back here where it’s safe huh?
Vote:February 1st, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Bollocks Francis. Noone on The Standard got the better of me. All they could do was to try and misrepresent my position and claim I was advocating something that I was never doing.
If you think they did then perhaps you could explain why selling farmland to foreigners is bad but selling TradeMe to foreigners is okay, or are you against foreign ownership of anything full stop?
Vote: