If National wins ...

[Daytr]

National is looking to further privatize social services. This is very dangerous territory imo and should be done slowly and piece meal to see if it actually has merit. However with National's track record, no doubt they will charge in like the proverbial bull in a china shop. The restructure they did to DOC some 18 months ago a prime example and now realizing their 'partnerships' model is not working and splitting DOC in two was a mistake and much of the restructure is being reversed. At what cost?
Their social bond experiment with mental health is fraught with risk to some of the most vulnerable in society. Perhaps this is a good model? However I have my doubts and its experimental at least. So why not use it to try and tackle a looming problem for NZers like diabetes? Give these companies targets to reverse the very serious increase in diabetes in NZ, something that is going to be a massive cost in the years to come if not addressed. Instead National choose a group of people that don't have a strong voice to speak out and defend themselves. Its very similar to what the government is doing in the disability sector. Another group of vulnerable people that National have chosen to change funding models and its now particularly difficult for adults with disabilities or those coming out of 'child' status to 'adult' with a lot of uncertainty for people who in a lot of cases are extremely dependent and vulnerable.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/n...ectid=11468828

[Daytr]

Hmmm I can't see National openly at least interfering with Fonterra. I understand its reasonably easy for Farmers to change milk company and about 7-8% have done that in the last 5-7 years or so as independent milk processors have popped up. I assume if a lot decided to do it, it would get a lot harder due to capacity issues of other providers as Fonterra is so dominant with around 82% of the milk supply as I understand it. (happy to be corrected on that number)
Also as far as I know Fonterra doesn't have large amounts of debt or is in financial trouble, its just paying a hell of a lot less to its coop members. I have always found it difficult to understand how they can be a coop and a listed company. A bit of a conflict of interests I would have thought.
National may look to make emergency funding available to farmers or something along those lines as there is precedent for that.
I know someone who worked in Fonterra's office in Auckland in middle management and he wasn't impressed at all with the culture or the general capability of the staff.

I wouldn't be surprised to see all these GDP numbers and things all 'revised' upwards sometime in the future.

The cynic in me says Wheeler and Government engineering a 'bail out' for Fonterra and keeping their mates with interests in the Auckland property market sweet.

[winner69]

Hmmm I can't see National openly at least interfering with Fonterra. I understand its reasonably easy for Farmers to change milk company and about 7-8% have done that in the last 5-7 years or so as independent milk processors have popped up. I assume if a lot decided to do it, it would get a lot harder due to capacity issues of other providers as Fonterra is so dominant with around 82% of the milk supply as I understand it. (happy to be corrected on that number)
Also as far as I know Fonterra doesn't have large amounts of debt or is in financial trouble, its just paying a hell of a lot less to its coop members. I have always found it difficult to understand how they can be a coop and a listed company. A bit of a conflict of interests I would have thought.
National may look to make emergency funding available to farmers or something along those lines as there is precedent for that.
I know someone who worked in Fonterra's office in Auckland in middle management and he wasn't impressed at all with the culture or the general capability of the staff.

Fonterra debt $7.5 billion v equity just over $6 billion

[BlackPeter]

Fonterra debt $7.5 billion v equity just over $6 billion

Hi winner, maybe you should re-read their balance sheet again. It says net equity 6.4b ... this is the equity after deducting all liabilities (including the debt you are mentioning). Isn't it amazing how easy it is to make up a new rumour ?

[BlackPeter]

Hi winner, maybe you should re-read their balance sheet again. It says net equity 6.4b ... this is the equity after deducting all liabilities (including the debt you are mentioning). Isn't it amazing how easy it is to make up a new rumour ?

For you convenience - here is the balance sheet: https://view.publitas.com/fonterra/f...015/page/38-39

[winner69]

Hi winner, maybe you should re-read their balance sheet again. It says net equity 6.4b ... this is the equity after deducting all liabilities (including the debt you are mentioning). Isn't it amazing how easy it is to make up a new rumour ?

What's the issue BP ......what i said is correct ...don't understand what you on about at all

Total debt is $7.5 billion ....could take off the cash to make it slightly less

Yes (net) equity is as I say just over $6 billion ( as you say it is $6.4 billion)

One could say total invested capital (debt plus equity) is just under $14 billion of which more than half is debt. That's a pretty high level of indebtedness, esp for a cooperative.

Tell me where I am wrong, I don't get your point at all

Ps, I was only responding to daytr who mentioned Fonterra debt. No rumour mo gearing here ...but you seemed to get pretty grumpy with me

[BlackPeter]

What's the issue BP ......what i said is correct ...don't understand what you on about at all

Total debt is $7.5 billion ....could take off the cash to make it slightly less

Yes (net) equity is as I say just over $6 billion ( as you say it is $6.4 billion)

One could say total invested capital (debt plus equity) is just under $14 billion of which more than half is debt. That's a pretty high level of indebtedness, esp for a cooperative.

Tell me where I am wrong, I don't get your point at all

Ps, I was only responding to daytr who mentioned Fonterra debt. No rumour mo gearing here ...but you seemed to get pretty grumpy with me

Hi winner - no stress ... your original post could easily construed as them having negative equity (but yes, it depends how you read it). I agree, their debts are higher than their net equity (i.e. liabilities to assets roughly 66%), which is quite standard for this industry (SML - 62%, PGW - 58%).

However - now that we clarified that, we probably can go back to the original purpose of this thread (which I think is to give EZ a platform to praise Labour ... ).

[elZorro]

Hi winner - no stress ... your original post could easily construed as them having negative equity (but yes, it depends how you read it). I agree, their debts are higher than their net equity (i.e. liabilities to assets roughly 66%), which is quite standard for this industry (SML - 62%, PGW - 58%).

However - now that we clarified that, we probably can go back to the original purpose of this thread (which I think is to give EZ a platform to praise Labour ... ).

Not my problem if the National/Act cohort can't find any National policies impressive enough to talk about, BP.

I'm sure it'll come right. In about three years or less.

An opinion piece from Tuesday last week (WT, Tom O'Connor) about dairying, fairly down to it.

http://www.pressreader.com/new-zeala...75770/TextView

[winner69]

so 95,000 voters wasted their vote on a party led by a sleazy dude who seemed to have the hots for his press secretary and maybe paid her off for her silence (maybe) ..... all from a man who stood for family values and all that

EZ, where will those voters go now - nearly 4% up for grabs

[elZorro]

so 95,000 voters wasted their vote on a party led by a sleazy dude who seemed to have the hots for his press secretary and maybe paid her off for her silence (maybe) ..... all from a man who stood for family values and all that

EZ, where will those voters go now - nearly 4% up for grabs

I missed the news tonight, cheers. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6960...priate-conduct

I know where the votes should go, the "Not National" side. Although some on this thread who were poking the borax at Labour before the election, seemed to be keen on the Conservatives. This has been part of the problem for Labour. They still have good policies, good ideas, good leaders, but the perception of voters has been moved away from their brand with even better marketing, and not necessarily to National, but to the Greens or NZFirst (the Not-National vote). All through this, National achieved party votes in proportion to their campaign spend each election year. Yes, they found that they could buy votes. Colin Craig didn't manage to, that's because he doesn't have the full package. And he's not using Crosby-Textor either.