Roughan says investors should thank Greens and Labour

May 4th, 2013 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

writes in NZ Herald:

Investors in should send the champagne next wnment!eek to Russel Norman, Green Party, Parliament Buildings, Wellington.

The stock looked a good buy even before he talked the Labour Party into threatening price control on electricity. It looks an even better one now.

Yep I reckon they saved me $600 or so.

Brokers and fund managers expect the bids from institutions to be at the bottom or even below the range the Government considers fair value. Taxpayers should send the Greens’ financial larrikin something else – a bill.

Brian Gaynor has estimated the likely cost to the public purse at $400 million.

And that’s just what they managed in opposition. Think what they can do in Government!

Shearer is a sensible man. To enact Norman’s scheme or Labour’s version of it, he would need to ignore all the economic advice available to him.

Electricity is the prime fuel of every modern economy. It is hard to think of a more important price.

The elaborate market that established a price every 30 minutes at numerous different points on the grid might not be perfect – none are – but it is bound to be better at matching supply and demand than a panel of public servants in Wellington.

That is they key point. California with its rolling black outs is an example of what happens when supply and demand get out of sync.

Incredibly – and I mean that – this omniscient agency would pay generating companies different prices based on what it reckoned their costs of production to be. That would leave the companies no reason to contain their costs and every reason to increase them.

Having the Government set the price of power will not lead to it being cheaper, just more expensive in the long run. And that’s not just my view – but the view of Labour’s David Parker when he was Minister of Energy!

Tags: , ,

70 Responses to “Roughan says investors should thank Greens and Labour”

  1. Alan Wilkinson (1,890 comments) says:

    People who bet on political outcomes are gamblers, not investors. Labour and the redGreens have reduced electricity company shareholders to that and therefore I am not buying MRP.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. hj (7,066 comments) says:

    The Greens Labour and NZ First want everybody to share in MRP. As they did when they (the people) built it.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 1 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. jims_whare (404 comments) says:

    Mt missus & I bought/put in for our $4K of shares on the first day the IPO opened. We aren’t share market folks at all but this looked a good buy.

    My only worry at the time was that the public hype would get so crazy that demand for the shares would be nuts and the intial price set would be relatively high.

    But no – now thanks to the leftie nutters it will likely be set low and over the coming months the value should appreciate nicely.

    (Especially if the polls start heading back in National’s favour.)

    It will be interesting to see if the MRP share price becomes a defacto poll leading up to the 2014 election – price up or down depending on political fortunes of the various parties – unless labour/greens renounce their lunatic policy which I can’t see happening.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. pq (728 comments) says:

    I was thinking aloud to myself, and wondering if we ever had a buy back of previously sold assets. And we did sort of, with Kiwi Rail. Cullen bought some of it back didn’t he ? Can any body tell me how that worked out. I got the feeling we pay for the tracks and Toll Australia takes the profit, but I am not sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Keeping Stock (10,436 comments) says:

    @ pq – The buy-back of Kiwirail from Toll was such a good deal (for Toll) that one of its senior executives is reported to have said “You only get one Helen Clark in your lifetime”. It was a cynical political ploy by Clark and Cullen to spend the last of the government’s cash before an election that Labour knew it couldn’t win, and it was an unforgiveable piece of economic sabotage.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Griff (8,199 comments) says:

    What amazes me is the fact the greens are focused not on the environmental aim: to lead us to a sustainable future, but to subsidize electricity and hamper the industry’s ability to build capacity for the resulting increase in demand or towards any carbon free future.
    Nether of these plans are sustainable.

    In this case reddy is right.

    The far left of the green movement are more interested in socialism’s vote buying than environmental crusades.
    The greens did not manage the transition from the seventies dance around the world* inspired movement to a more realist main stream position instead it has been captured by far left Marxism.

    *

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Ross12 (1,456 comments) says:

    I think energy policy / security will become a major political “plaything” worldwide in the next few years. Just look at the UKIP gains in the UK council elections –essentially over energy and how the EU is dictating to the UK. Next on the block will the Australian elections.
    In NZ the Greens/Labour perk to the voter will be wiped out by ETS increases ( should they be the next Govt.) but I would be happy to “pay” $300 Greens/ Labour to keep them out.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. pq (728 comments) says:

    hj (3,703) Says:
    May 4th, 2013 at 1:17 pm
    The Greens Labour and NZ First want everybody to share in MRP. As they did when they (the people) built it.

    pq says
    hj you do have a good point , and we would all wish it would come true.,, but government run projects and institutions go wrong always.,, we have to accept the fundamental nature of mankind to look after himself .
    This is truly stealing from all the people to sell back to some people .
    All pigs are equal but some are more equal.
    And the pigs that are more equal make a profit
    That is the way it is. Socialism has failed and greed is the creed.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Ross12 (1,456 comments) says:

    Griff , for once I agree with you.

    In my own mind I make a clear distinction between the Greens and Environmentalists. ( NB. I put Greenpeace and WWF in the same camp as the Greens)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Alan Wilkinson (1,890 comments) says:

    @hj, in a nutshell, Labour and the Greens want other people to pay for their power. They won’t, so there will be shortages. And the bureaucracy will create extra costs and inefficiencies so the real costs will rise and be borne by taxpayers.

    Then they will expand the ETS to raise prices further and pretend alternative energy sources are competitive. Meanwhile investors will have fled and businesses will have been made uneconomic.

    The road to hell is truly paved with good intentions.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Griff (8,199 comments) says:

    Alan Wilkinson
    You may enjoy the economic ignorance displayed in this: Also note totally ignoring that their Nemesis hydro is the best option for energy.
    http://blog.greens.org.nz/2013/04/18/farrar-wrong-on-renewables/

    The comments are startlingly stupid on economic reality’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Johnboy (17,007 comments) says:

    AussieGinga & ForgotMeAccount.

    The investors friends.

    Who’d have thunk it! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. pq (728 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock (8,744) Says:
    May 4th, 2013 at 1:37 pm
    @ pq – The buy-back of Kiwirail from Toll was such a good deal (for Toll) that one of its senior executives is reported to have said “You only get one Helen Clark in your lifetime”. It was a cynical political ploy by Clark and Cullen to spend the last of the government’s cash before an election that Labour knew it couldn’t win, and it was an unforgiveable piece of economic sabotage.

    pq says :,… its almost what I thought it was, I am not saying there is no good reason for NZ to retain assets , but once sold it is a very costly asset to buy back. Face me here Winston Peters. Sell me how we can advantage New Zealanders with a buy back. Face me here Winston, answer here

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Johnboy (17,007 comments) says:

    “Shearer is a sensible man.”!!!!!!

    I used to think Roughan was a sensible man till I read that! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. burt (8,321 comments) says:

    pq

    I wouldn’t talk to Winston about buying back assets till he buys back his credibility, dignity and his soul repaying the $158,000 he stole in 2005. Don’t think about how much you would be paying in penalties for $158,000 of tax payers money over 8 years… He’s special and only needs to repay the capital – when or if he feels like doing so.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Thank Labour and the Greens? You ungrateful sods! Give the govt some credit – it’s worked very hard to achieve this example of applied Christianity in the form of “he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.”

    Mr Key’s gone to a great deal of time and trouble to privatise a portion of the public assets, ensuring that you who hath can be given something, and those who hath not shall lose by it. The full credit for your ability to profit at the taxpayer’s expense is owed to him and to his party, so it’s decidedly ungracious of you and that professional idiot Roughan to try and divert that credit to undeserving bystanders like Labour and the Greens.

    Their role in this has been to do nothing more than point out the obvious – future govts will also feel free to fuck with things as they see fit, so anyone buying into this opportunity to shaft the country’s proletariat yet again would do well to keep that in mind. If there were some fat-walleted but intellectually handicapped types out there who hadn’t grasped this point before Shearer and Norman drew their attention to it, too bad.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Johnboy (17,007 comments) says:

    Twas of course the two Judas’s who lowered the price down to bargain basement levels PM.

    Don’t let reality stand in the way of your bible lesson for today of course!! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. burt (8,321 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt

    What a crock of shit. The last government ran ridiculous profits via electricity pricing. Hey wake up ya dip shit … Low earners really feel high power prices and rich pricks don’t give a shit. Thant the red team for spreading the burden of generating state revenue onto low income earners via inflated prices for essential goods and services. Then having witnessed the government repay state debt while household debt ballooned … Then twisted half thinking followers of a failed ideology like yourself blame National for low income families not being able to save and invest … While your precious red team spends their union subs telling us how much better off they quid be voting Labour … Your a twat.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Alan Wilkinson (1,890 comments) says:

    @PM, considering the massive escalation of electricity prices under the late, unlamented, socialist adminstration and public ownership it’s decidedly ungracious of you to protest that private ownership will shaft your entirely worthy and deserving proletariat.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. wat dabney (3,809 comments) says:

    The Greens Labour and NZ First want everybody to share in MRP. As they did when they (the people) built it.

    And when exactly did this epiphany happen? When in power they ran it as an abusive monopoly.

    Selling it means Labour and the Greens can’t hurt the people like that again.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. pq (728 comments) says:

    I wish I can flip the coin, you are here now beside me and I have flipped the coin and I am the Master,
    I voted for Winston even though I was not so sure, I flip the coin, and I give you back New Zealand ,
    it will not be as easy as we think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. duggledog (1,589 comments) says:

    I agree with Griff, too.

    It seems to me that the Green ideology is essentially and ironically unnatural. They seem to want to stifle man’s primal urge to better oneself and use new technology to move forward and evolve. Natural selection is fine in the environment… but not amongst humans!

    Your typical Greenie would donate money to a charity helping poor people in overcrowded third world countries, whilst at the same time donating money to the wildlife in that country that is being decimated because of habitat loss.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Johnboy (17,007 comments) says:

    “Your typical Greenie would donate money to a charity helping poor people”

    You forgot to insert “your” between “donate” and “money” duggledog! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. duggledog (1,589 comments) says:

    Nice

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. seanmaitland (501 comments) says:

    @DPF “Yep I reckon they saved me $600 or so.”

    Explicitly they did, but there is an indirect cost that could be far greater than that. If this tips them into parliament next year, it will be more than $600 that you need to recoup.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Johnboy (17,007 comments) says:

    Folk with cash in reserve ride out these little turbulent periods.

    Only the peasantry suffer from believing what their hero’s tell them! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. trout (944 comments) says:

    Does it not occur to the myopic left that the Government does not have unlimited funds; if a choice is made to sell off some assets because funds are needed for capital purchases elsewhere then the ‘people’ do not lose – it is a zero sum game. More borrowing to spend cannot be the answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Alan Wilkinson (1,890 comments) says:

    @trout, nope, logic like that is utterly and entirely over their heads. They still believe money grows on Government trees.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. wat dabney (3,809 comments) says:

    It’s not over their heads in the slightest, it’s just that they would bankrupt the country in an instant if it will see them into power.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Keeping Stock (10,436 comments) says:

    The Greens are living, breathing proof of Margaret Thatcher’s immortal line that “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money to spend”

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. muggins (3,811 comments) says:

    Alan Wilkinson (1,498) Says:

    May 4th, 2013 at 1:08 pm
    People who bet on political outcomes are gamblers, not investors. Labour and the redGreens have reduced electricity company shareholders to that and therefore I am not buying MRP.

    Never a truer word spoken. Before the Labour/Greens came up with their policy at least one could have expected that MRP shares would slowly increase in value and the dividends would be around 6 to 7%. Now we don’t know . The dividends for the next year will probably be around 7% if the shares are priced at say, $2.30. But after that who knows? If National gets back in the price will probably go up but if Labour/Greens get in the price will almost certainly go down, and so will the dividends.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Still whining about this? Ontario has a functioning power monopsony. Works just fine with stable service, and blackouts really matter in Canada, since you’ll start to freeze to death without heat in a Canadian winter (cf. the great Montreal ice storm).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    …but don’t by any means let the facts get in the way of your gnashing of teeth and rending of garments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. muggins (3,811 comments) says:

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/business/255415/last-minute-rush-mrp-shares
    Going to be an interesting week for investors in MRP.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Alan Wilkinson (1,890 comments) says:

    @wat dabney, I make a distinction between the politicians and those who vote for them. Some of the politicians are as cynical as you say, but the rest, and probably most of those who vote for them, are simply too thick and ignorant to know better. In evidence, I give you Tom …

    @Tom, another triumph for your favourite political bureaucracy: it just cost Ontario $585M not to build two power plants.
    http://www.torontosun.com/2013/04/30/gas-plant-cancellations-cost-585-million-ontario-power-authority

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Johnboy (17,007 comments) says:

    How much MRP have you bought AW? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Alan Wilkinson (1,890 comments) says:

    @Johnboy, none – as I said above. I registered interest for $20K but canned it after the morons decided to make it a political football.

    @Tom, and Ontario has pretty much the most expensive power in Canada – almost double the cost in BC and Quebec. What a triumph:
    http://www.hydro.mb.ca/regulatory_affairs/energy_rates/electricity/utility_rate_comp.shtml

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Milt, what you wrote was almost complete gibberish. Are you really saying that all that Labour and the Greens did was to remind people investing in a company that the government has the power to steal their money later on through nationalisation?

    You anti-market guys seem to basing your opposition to assets sales on a willfull ignorance of the concept of exchange. “The People” aren’t getting nothing for their assets. They are being paid cash. They wont receive the cash directly, of course. Just like they didnt receive the dividends and didn’t have any individual claim of ownership of the asset.

    You lot seem to be arguing price more than anything. But if you REALLY cared about that, you would be lambasting Labour and The Greens for distorting the price to the detriment of the people.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Alan Wilkinson (1,890 comments) says:

    @Kimble, Milt is asymptotically approaching the achievement of complete gibberish so I’m not sure if he will be encouraged or discouraged by your critique.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    People who bet on political outcomes are gamblers, not investors.

    What? Investors are gamblers and gamblers are investors.

    You take all the possible outcomes, multiply their respective pay-offs by their probabilities and sum it all to get the expected value. If the expected value is positive enough to overcome your non-monetary costs and exceeds your opportunity cost, then you proceed.

    So does that describe gambling or investing?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Alan Wilkinson (1,890 comments) says:

    It doesn’t describe my investing. I invest on the basis of liking the people and the enterprise.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. duggledog (1,589 comments) says:

    I agree with Kimble. The assets belong to the Crown

    I am down scaling the amount I am prepared to put into MRP, to zero. Even though the numbers are looking better for the Nats, they are not good enough for me. It appears a good 50% of my fellow countrymen are either thick as shit or don’t care. The hairy constitution creep gives me the shits too.

    As they say on Dragon’s Den, for those reasons I’m out.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    It doesn’t describe my investing. I invest on the basis of liking the people and the enterprise.

    So you would be fine investing in a business that was guaranteed to lose a lot of money if you liked the people involved?

    No. Even if you don’t crunch the numbers, you still do the factoring. You reckon your investment will make money, just like a gambler reckons their bet will make them money. It just means, given what you know, you think your bet is good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Johnboy (17,007 comments) says:

    I’m happy investing in companies that supply essential services to the populace and return good dividends, even if the board and management are complete arseholes.

    Alan Wilkinson and I obviously have totally different investment phillosophies! :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    @Kimble,

    You ascribe too much rationality to gamblers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Alan Wilkinson (1,890 comments) says:

    No, a gambler bets strictly on the odds and wouldn’t care anything about the people or the enterprise involved.

    When I bought Mainfreight at $1.50 because I had worked with and liked some of the people I had no idea they would hit $11.50 within a few years. Likewise when we started our own companies. Sometimes they work out great and sometimes not, but if you base your investments on your own values you won’t have any big regrets.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Alan Wilkinson (1,890 comments) says:

    @johnboy, yes, and your principles are completely justifiable too – but I think you have to be more cautious about the numbers because in a way your margins are lower.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Johnboy (17,007 comments) says:

    I wondered who came up with those dreadful slogans on the back of Mainfreight trucks.

    I once thought that they had an MD with delusions of poetisim.

    Now I suspect it was AW! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Paulus (2,668 comments) says:

    Don’t fret about Shearer – he will be long gone to the UN before the election from a backbench position. Then watch the vultures fight over Mt Albert – but Helen will sort that out.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    @Tom, and Ontario has pretty much the most expensive power in Canada – almost double the cost in BC and Quebec. What a triumph

    You might wish to look up the BC and Quebec systems.

    Hydro Quebec is wholly government owned, BC Hydro is government owned and the BCUC regulates supply to ensure fair prices.

    The difference likely has more to do with geography and government priorities. BC is mostly Hydro. Quebec is well to the left of the other provinces when it comes to governance.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Johnboy (17,007 comments) says:

    Quebec is full of Froggie arseholes. The rest of Canada would be better to cut the turds loose! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    And the racists are out…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Alan Wilkinson (1,890 comments) says:

    @Tom, yes, it’s always worth checking out how those government owned monopolies are going:

    http://www.masterresource.org/2013/02/bc-hydro-billion-climate-bill/

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    Having first opposed the ‘share float,’ when it became obvious it was going ahead I registered to buy. Whatever I think now about what I have called ‘sabotage’ by Labour-Greens against the float, I’m glad I knew in advance and was therefore able to change my mind. As this whole situation distills it becomes apparent that the Labour-Green’s position on nationalising power supply needed to be ‘upfront’ of the float and that’s what they did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. hj (7,066 comments) says:

    “British Columbia, Canada’s westernmost province, is blessed with an abundant and almost unlimited capacity to generate hydroelectric power. This capacity is the result of the farsighted policies of past BC provincial governments that invested in, or encouraged investment in, a series of hydroelectric mega-projects in the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s. British Columbia has enjoyed the benefits of inexpensive, clean electricity ever since.

    Apart from stints of economic contraction that, coincidentally, accompany BC’s infrequent brushes with the government’s socialist New Democratic Party (NDP), BC’s economy has generally boomed in large part as a direct result of our hydro electric capacity.

    Canada has a history of creating public utilities to generate and transmit energy, which for British Columbia is BC Hydro. BC Hydro is highly regulated with respect to rates and operations and traditionally operated as an independent, apolitical entity.

    That changed when politicians from all parties, driven by the media and statist intellectuals, recognized the increased revenue potential from surcharges and “green” taxes based on the notion of CO2-induced climate change. BC Hydro became an instrument for public policy, and a new way for government indirectly to fund green energy initiatives.
    http://www.masterresource.org/2013/02/bc-hydro-billion-climate-bill/
    ………………….
    so whose position does that support?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Alan Wilkinson (1,890 comments) says:

    @hj, those who say politicians will always screw up businesses they “own” and resources they monopolise.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. hj (7,066 comments) says:

    I’ve got to say that I’m deeply suspicious of the notion that government run institutions always get things wrong. I think we could troll through examples and find that there are times when collective action is necessary and outcomes succeed on peoples acumen and motivation (Jenny Shipley overlooking CERA on $1000/day is not a good look- but seems typical of prevailing attitudes in National, Labour and the public service generally).

    Take housing in Singapore:
    The HDB is generally credited with clearing up the squatters and slums of the 1960s and resettling residents into low-cost government-built housing. About 80-90% of Singapore’s population are currently living in HDB flats. Costing between S$110,000 to S$800,000, these units are the most common form of accommodation for locals in Singapore. Thus, in Singapore’s context, HDB flatas or the public housing is not considered a sign of poverty or a lower standard of living; as compared to public housing in other developed countries.

    http://propertyhousing.blogspot.co.nz/2009/12/hdb-biggest-landlord-developer-of.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. hmmokrightitis (1,595 comments) says:

    Well, thanks to labour and the greens, we bought, and we upped what we were going to spend. As DPF notes, those two bunch of idiots just gave me an early Christmas present. But then they also cost the taxpayer a small fortune.

    Like thats ever worried them before – or will in the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. hj (7,066 comments) says:

    Alan Wilkinson (1,506) Says:
    May 4th, 2013 at 8:26 pm

    @hj, those who say politicians will always screw up businesses they “own” and resources they monopolise.
    ……….
    so what’s your opinion of Jenny Shipley’s role overseeing Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Authority on $1000/day?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. hj (7,066 comments) says:

    Now I thought there were well run companies and badly run companies?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    I’ve obviously missed what the share price was fixed at, and benefits there would be in selling off straight away, say before Xmas compared to medium term when the government might change. I guess I forgot to count my chickens before they hatched.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (895 comments) says:

    MRP or not, share or not, policy or not – due to the very nature of MMP, nobody can deny a Labour-Green-NZ First-Mana government in 2014. Once you all come out of the denial mode and start accepting this fact grudgingly, then you can move on plan how to survive the nine years after that i.e. from 2014-2023. So start planning from now on and start to gather your emergency kit folks. Don’t blame me later that I didn’t warn you.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. 3 (1 comment) says:

    Just remember which country was the first in the world to go into recession and who, on the back of some very good economic times, sent us there !!! No one in their wildest dreams would want them to do it again, even some of you half witted greenies must see that Norman’s printing press will rob us all as inflation takes a hold.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    @Tom, yes, it’s always worth checking out how those government owned monopolies are going:

    And you’re moving the goalposts again. Your original point was that power was cheaper in BC and Quebec as some sort of proof that Ontario’s monopsony was a failure. You were mistaken because both those provinces have even more statist energy policies than Ontario’s. The reasons power is cheaper in BC and Quebec are geographical and political. Almost all power in both provinces is hydroelectric, which is very cheap. Both provinces tend to the left on the Canadian political spectrum and are more interventionist. Ontario generates only about a quarter of is power through water. The rest is nuclear, thermal, etc, which cost more. Add to that, that Ontario is well to the right of the others and its no surprise that electricity costs more in Ontario. None of this tells us anything about the effects of Ontario’s power monopsony.

    So you were wrong, and tried to change the subject to hide it. Now you’re trying to hold up BC as being bad, where it was supposed to be better than Ontario before. Make your mind up. The fact that the BC provincial government has odd policies tells us nothing about the New Zealand situation, and nor does some derper’s blog.

    If you want to criticize the Labour/Green policy, go ahead. Just deal with the actual policy and not peripheral issues which reflect political choices that a NZ government isn’t compelled to make just because it institutes a power monopsony.

    But then you’d have to engage with the actual policy, and I know you’ve got nothing, because you never have anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Alan Wilkinson (1,890 comments) says:

    @Tom, no, my original point was that Ontario just wasted half a billion dollars on power stations for absolutely no production. My second point is that Ontario’s power is far dearer than its neighbours. Why? Both BC and Quebec export power to the US. If, for example, BC can generate power for 2c/kwh and has a vast supply excess, why are Ontario consumers paying 17c/kwh, double what BC and Quebec residents pay?

    So much for your effective monopsony which you held up Ontario as a poster boy for.

    @hj, I’ve given my opinion on the rebuild policy before but here it is again. The Govt should have focused on making sure people got paid their insurance money promptly, that our mad building bureaucracy was forced to allow people to get on with the rebuild quickly and easily and that the necessary infrastructure was restored. Instead the empire builders triumphed and idiot bureaucracy, including the inexcusable and farcical elevation of Ngai Tahu to overseers, has been put in charge.

    @hj: “I thought there were well run companies and badly run companies?” Exactly. But badly run private companies go broke or get taken over. The public ones just continue on fleecing the public.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Lloyd (125 comments) says:

    Those who believe in Monopsony players in any market should bear in mind that the decisions by the Clark Government to buy 105 LAVs for the NZ Army and to accept (with the advice of Chris Hipkins and other Ministry advisors) the bid by Talent2 to supply Novopay were an excellent example of monopsony power at work.
    A monopsonist in a power market will make similarly stupid choices, due to its lack of market dynamic informing it. And we, including the consumers Aussie Norman and the forgettable former UN-guy pledge to help, will pay higher prices as a result.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    @Tom, no, my original point was that Ontario just wasted half a billion dollars on power stations for absolutely no production.

    Yes, and if you’d bothered to find out why, you would have discovered that it is other taxpayers who are to blame, since this was a blatant case of NIMBYism. It has nothing at all to do with the electricity monopsony. The same sort of thing can and does happen to private companies.

    My second point is that Ontario’s power is far dearer than its neighbours. Why?

    I explained this to you already. All but about 15% of BC’s generation is hydro, and almost all Quebec’s. Hydro is one of the cheapest ways to generate electricity. Ontario has only about a quarter of it’s generation from hydro, with the rest coming from nuclear, thermal, etc. In addition, Quebec and BC are the most left wing provinces in Canada, and so have sweeter deals for consumers.

    Both BC and Quebec export power to the US. If, for example, BC can generate power for 2c/kwh and has a vast supply excess, why are Ontario consumers paying 17c/kwh, double what BC and Quebec residents pay?

    BC is on a distinct grid.

    Quebec doesn’t have nearly enough power to supply all of Ontario’s needs. Ontario has to source the bulk of its power from its own sources, which, as I explained above, are more expensive. That means even if Ontario imports electricity, it’s still going to be more expensive. Believe me, there is no way that the government of Quebec is going to put the interests of an English province above its own people.

    So much for your effective monopsony which you held up Ontario as a poster boy for.

    Given that the other two are far more statist than Ontario is, your arguments are worthless. Want to make NZ’s power sector like Quebec’s? The Greens would take that in a minute.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Alan Wilkinson (1,890 comments) says:

    @Tom, nope, the cancellation was exactly what happens when politicians run services and manipulate them to suit their constituencies. It is exactly the behaviour that the Labour/redGreens are exhibiting and which will be facilitated further by their proposed structure as it was by Ontario’s.

    In a free market the cost of power across Canada would be affected only by transmission costs. Your leftist bureaucracies cause the wastage and inefficiencies Canada is demonstrating so clearly. Please keep giving us examples of your socialist systems since they all demonstrate the splendid insanity they constitute.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. rouppe (983 comments) says:

    The stock looked a good buy even before he talked the Labour Party into threatening price control on electricity.

    Really? At the lowest end of the price range the P/E ratio was 35. The dividend yield of 7% is achieved by paying 177% of profits. It would be around 3.5% if they paid a more reasonable 80-90% of profit.

    It may well be that the price will stay at around issue, or may even rise. But when you pay out that much retained profit, you retain nothing with which to build new or maintain the existing infrastructure.

    I was dead keen to buy, but I want to buy as a long term proposition, not in the hope of making a quick buck if the price goes up 25c in the following few weeks…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. rouppe (983 comments) says:

    @Lloyd

    Ah yes, the LAV’s… Aren’t they the ones with the gearbox problems…?

    And I believe the same people decided on the supplier for the Navy’s replacement frigates and patrol boats. There have been quite a number of serious engineering problems with those too, right…?

    And they also decided to buy the Steyr if I remember. That’s the one the Australians had to advise their soldiers to not shoot so much because it overheated. Bummer if you’re in a firefight.

    Didn’t they approve the SeaSprite helicopters, which had to have screens put over the air intake to prevent loose litter being sucked into the engine? Which decreased performance so much they can’t be used at high altitudes.

    Hmmmm…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote