Is the present time that bad for share investment in infrastructure?

I redirected some on my share portfolio into infrastructure after the gfc on the grounds that it is not a discretionary spend.
This strategy has done me very well over the last 4 years The demand by ma and pa kiwis as well as the institutional investors will guarantee a successful float.

Investment advisers are a bunch of losers
Mostly of your money. How many have been scorched badly by investment advisers selling high risk rubbish to those that should know better yet where greedy for a few paltry points over the bank rates. Few managed fund pay better than passive when you add in the fees.

I agree with your views on Kiwisaver. Perhaps this is the way ordinary NZers can have a direct investment in the SOE sell-off without having to fork out lump sums for share parcels. This remains to be seen.

Certainly, I also have “my share” of the national debt, but I never claimed otherwise so I think you’re probably skirting around the point and/or have misunderstood my definition of public ownership and *indirect* benefit.

If my “my share” of the SOEs could be “measured”, as they are today, and put against the national debt, new public assets, education, health-care, whatever I would be (and I am) completely happy. This is what *indirectly* happens today.

I was never implying that I would like financial benefits for “my share”. This is not my definition of ownership, or benefit.

The question is of future profits. If the SOEs are profitable over many years, who’s to say that 50% of that profit disappearing into the hands of a few is not going to more than the injection of captial raised by those few? And that 50% profit could be of large benefit to *all* of NZ- not just those who could afford to put in at the time. When I say benefit in this sentence, again I am talking of indirect benefit – reducing national debt, raising health care and education etc.

The only situation in which this would not be true is if the SOEs were going concerns and the capital was required to “keep them running”. Which I don’t believe they are, given, for example, rising electricity prices!

If you were an investor in a profitable company, would you sell off 50% of your shares at a crux time? Would an investment advisor advise you to do the same? Probably not.

Mediators don’t attack anyone. Mediators rarely make any comment on the merits of the case and definitely not in public. You are getting confused with the adjudicators process involving the Employment Relations Authority rather than the Mediation Service of the Department of Labour.

On point 1), I can agree with the bare facts that you postulate, but that’s not the whole point, is it? While shares themselves are “assets”, just as the entire operating business is an “asset”, there are those with an entirely partisan political agenda who are able to use that conjunction of meanings to mislead the wider public. Accordingly, “Why are we selling assets?” can readily be taken by those with limited understanding (and in my view is usually intended to be taken) as alluding to sales of entire SOEs rather than to sales of a maximum of 49% of their shares. Language has been carefully chosen by political opponents of the government, and used repeatedly for over a year, to create confusion and misconceptions about the government’s real intentions.

You were the one yesterday morning who was intent on using a specific definition (“A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption”) to make a point. I trust therefore, that you yourself will always be particular in specifying the difference between the two distinctive asset groupings – a minority proportion of shares in an SOE and the operating SOE itself.

On points 2) – 6), you are mistaken. Taking into consideration the points I’ve set out immediately above, my points 2-6 were directed to showing that the relevant question is indeed loaded. It is loaded because it ignores or wilfully camouflages important beneficial effects of the government’s policy. The loaded question feeds into a widespread and carefully-nurtured public perception that “asset sales” (ill-defined) are entirely to the detriment of individual NZers. My points 2) – 6) are designed to provide a more balanced picture. I happen to believe that people arrive at better personal conclusions when they have a broader understanding of issues, rather than a selective view consciously-orchestrated by political types.

“I don’t have an agenda and I am not particularly swayed one way or the other on this issue.” Maybe that’s so, but it has been far from totally transparent in your contributions on this thread. Perhaps I made an “unjustified assumption” of my own in relation to your apparent political persuasions on this issue. Shame on me.

calendar girl (846) Says:
January 24th, 2013 at 3:25 pm
eszett @ 10:12 – “A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption. Just how is “why are we selling assets?” a loaded question?”

1. Because it deliberately distorts a well-known fact. The nominated “assets” themselves (e.g. power generators) are not being sold. Sales of shares in the ownership companies will occur, limited to a maximum of 49% of all the shares on issue.

2. Because is has become a misleading catch-cry of the lefties (sometimes accompanied by completely untrue expressions like “Key selling our assets to his rich mates…”) that deliberately mask the counter-factual benefits, i.e. the use of capital derived from the 49% sell-downs to purchase other needed assets, or to reduce expensive and ultimately strangling public debt.

3. Because the benefits of the sell-downs are significant and (I would be among those who contend) necessary economically. Debt is the curse of governments in today’s faltering global economy. When public debt is increasing – as NZ’s is to pay for excessive public welfare schemes and ever-demanded services – the costs of servicing that debt increase inexorably, both in gross dollar terms and on a unit-cost basis. Ultimately that reflects adversely on the nation’s international credit rating, and debt-servicing costs spiral higher while availability of capital reduces.

4. Because as international lenders become increasingly wary of NZ’s declining credit-worthiness, the country gradually and increasingly loses its national sovereignty – namely the right to govern itself as it chooses democratically to do. In other words, the (overseas) piper gets to call the NZ tune.

5. Because NZ needs to have more – not less – investment of capital in an expanded base of assets, many of which will be publicly-owned (roads and other means of transportation, water, minerals extraction, health, data transmission, education, research & development, and so on). To the extent that NZ fails to invest adequately in productive capital assets, so will its economy and international competitiveness contract in relative terms.

6. Because most NZers do not want to live in a country that goes down this kind of disastrous economic and (as a result) social track – following Greece, Italy, Spain and other indebted nations that are learning at first hand the harsh realities described. Hence, in 2011 the NZ electorate accepted Key’s “middle-way” solution of a partial sell-down of nominated state-owned operating companies to free up an amount of capital for alternative investments. That process is now being implemented.

(Satisfied? No, I thought not. You won’t listen to any of this, or even give it the time of day, because you have a specific agenda. Your question at 10:12 was purely rhetorical.)

CC, while elaborate, you seem to miss the mark.

On Point 1) the shares themselves are considered assets and the that they are not selling all of them just 49% still makes it a sale of assets.

On points 2-6 you are actually answering the question, not explaining why it is a loaded question.

I don’t have an agenda and I am not particularly swayed one way or the other on this issue. However it is perfectly legitimate to ask the question “Why are we selling assets?” and it certainly isn’t a loaded question by any stretch of imagination.

The only assumption in the question is that there is an intention to sell assets, which is not in dispute. It doesn’t preclude an answer in one direction or the other.

In fact it is a question you would expect to be asked.

Your response criticising the sell-downs of shares in publicly owned companies is a popular theme in politics and the media, but it disregards an important fact that I have endeavoured to bring into the discussion. You intimate that your personal 100% ownership interest in, say, a power company is being halved. But the other side of that coin is that you will enjoy a corresponding benefit from the proceeds of sale, either:
- through a reduction in “your share” of the national debt; or
- through gaining “your share” in the alternative public assets created / acquired with the capital raised.

I think that your perspective is a little selective if you believe you have an ownership share in SOEs but that you don’t have a shared obligation in the national debt or in the need for additional public infrastructure.

No, I will not be investing as I just don’t have “a few thousand” to spare. Come to think of it, nobody I know – all of whom are the supposed target market – do.

This is what I disagree with – al of those people are currently, indirectly, benefiting from 100% ownership of the SOE. That is being halved and that half handed to those that can afford. I suspect I would feel the same even if I could.afford it.

Your answer regarding investment by ordinary folks seems to suggest you are in favour of Kiwisaver?

Employment Law that makes an employer subject extortion by lieing,scheming, dishonest employees who then use the system of hopless mediators to attack the business when it all turns to custard.

Apprentice was nearly electrocuted by immigrant who faked work references
In one of the incidents an apprentice asked Mr Gostmann if cables had been isolated when they had not. The cables short-circuited when the apprentice went to move them and he narrowly avoided electrocution.

When asked if he misrepresented himself in the pre-employment stage or in fact had 15 years’ experience, he said: “It’s difficult for me to explain these things because I’m working in a different country and I see things differently. Lining up fridges, which is what I did in South Africa, is also a technician’s responsibilities.”

When Mr Gostmann was interviewed for the senior position early last year, he told Mr Faber he was a refrigeration engineer with 15 years’ experience in South Africa.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10861284

There ya go Simon.

Not that I expect any results other than the situation to get worse.

The sad thing about it is that so many stupid Kiwis will be taken in by it.

Do you mean like the little boy’s parents?

The sad thing about it is that so many stupid Kiwis will be taken in by it.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/8220978/Guildford-lights-up-cancer-sufferer-s-life

To the first question: No. Just a few facts of economic life which, to our friend eszett, are a scarce commodity.

To the second question: Maybe. Maybe not. I’m wary of share floats that are accompanied by a great deal of glamorous and emotive advertising aimed at the retail (i.e. amateur) investment sector. The earnings outlook and operating framework of the relevant industry should be the most powerful influences on investment decision-making. There are certainly better equity investments around, in my view, than the ones proposed. However, I might seek a modest holding in one of the power generating companies – but not more than one company.

As a final comment from me, I do think that the partial share sell-downs will be a strategically sound move in our type of economy. They will encourage more individual investors to invest in shares for the first time. I hope that the floats are successful from an investment perspective, and that investors earn a solid gross return (dividends plus capital appreciation) over the critical first couple of years. The more that we have ordinary NZ investors seeking to invest their own money (not tax dollars) in NZ operational infrastructure, the better it will be for (a) our economy in general, (b) the personal self-sufficiency of individual investors, and (c) the ultimate strength of NZ’s national sovereignty.

So, itstricky, can I ask if you too will be purchasing a few shares under the sell-down schemes?

I’m not nasty like them, but I do know the dick is meant to be underneath.

But I am advocating the ceasing of common beneficary bashing by angry people who’ve nothing better to do with their time. After all, it’s a long jump from your experience to all beneficaries being tarred with the drug taking scum brush that’s being applied. And that’s where liberty is being taken.

I don’t think this law will help, seems to be some large gaps and just a honey trap to grab this anger against a labelled group and use it for political gain.

Bloody good article.

Or she was a good girl and didn’t give them a ride or couldn’t keep a straight face at the size of it.

I gave you an up for your 8:19 plea for a down!

Why would anyone do that Griff? It’s not as if what we type has any real world effect except when we indulge in passing data we think someone might be interested in but the rest has no physical impact bar possibly inciting a reaction.

The God war is circular, two absolutes =?

what would we be left with ?

Fuck all.

Even worse than fuck all, just Viking 2 or SPC.

Then we would need to rely on Reid,
How sad, how fukin sad.

Hey, Kath and Kim is on soon.

I misread that comment once. I substituted “abuse” for “mastery”!

Must work. I’m still alive!