AIR - Air NZ.

[gv1]

Same goes for auckland council mate...law into themselves.

[BIRMANBOY]

Balance is there anyone, anywhere, at any point in time in the last 300 years who, in your opinion, isn't an idiot?

Good to hear from you, STC.

Reaffirms everything about Treasury which I have had experience with and heard about.

Really, Treasury are a bunch of pimpled faced kids let loose with the country's economic destiny and applying an efficient free market 'tried and failed' philosophy on everything.

I still remember one of the top NZ companies locating one of its plants (employing over 200 people) in Australia after Treasury advised the government that NZ government should not match the miserable $15m R&D funding promised by the Queensland government. Instead the idiots in there were busy recommending cutting back on government services and we saw one of the consequences with the Pike River tragedy.

One of the overseas bankers I met some years ago said she was horrified to meet the sort of staff at Treasury who are 'wet behind the ears' making policy decisions.

Arrogant and ignorant - that's how she summed them up.

Dangerous combination!

[J R Ewing]

I have heard the opposite criticism of the power company floats. We allocate to overseas instos at the expense of NZ instos. Then the overseas instos stag to the NZ instos. But in the Air NZ case, how could the government possibly deliver on the "keep the shares in local hands", if they placed a lot with overseas instos?

What amazes me is that they could unload that many shares so close to the prevailing market price - especially given the track record of the other 2 sales. You have to say it's Gummit 3 Investors 0 so far! If JK has been looking after his mates - they aren't us lot!

[Balance]

I have heard the opposite criticism of the power company floats. We allocate to overseas instos at the expense of NZ instos. Then the overseas instos stag to the NZ instos. But in the Air NZ case, how could the government possibly deliver on the "keep the shares in local hands", if they placed a lot with overseas instos?

What amazes me is that they could unload that many shares so close to the prevailing market price - especially given the track record of the other 2 sales. You have to say it's Gummit 3 Investors 0 so far! If JK has been looking after his mates - they aren't us lot!

Point that STC and Gaynor are making is that they should give the 30m odd shares allocated to overseas investors to just one or two, like Capital Group. Then it's worth their while to build up their stake to say, 5%. Otherwise, they just sell out the 1 or 2m shares allocated to them as Treasury spread the shares too wide.

[Harvey Specter]

I have heard the opposite criticism of the power company floats. We allocate to overseas instos at the expense of NZ instos. Then the overseas instos stag to the NZ instos. But in the Air NZ case, how could the government possibly deliver on the "keep the shares in local hands", if they placed a lot with overseas instos?

You give those that stagged the first two nothing and you give those that didn't, most of what they want (assuming the same instos applied for all three). ie. reward your loyal purchasers and punish the others. The amount of shares allocated need not change.

[Balance]

That guy from Forsyth Barr has made a right charlie of himself.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11161521

To suggest that Buffett was wrong about airlines when AirNZ had to be bailed out 10 years by the state to the tune of $900m, and was barely profitable throughout the GFC, is a nonsense.

Buffett is on record as saying his investment holding period is ideally forever. It is a nonsense for The ForBarr Man to suggest Buffett would have cyclically traded an airline stock prior to bailout, in again after the bailout and out again before the GFC with the accuracy inferred by The Forbarr Man.

I would look forward to seeing a comparison of Buffett's investment record with that of the results of The ForBarr man's clients. Presumably they weren't holding any BRK-A or BRK-B.

Agree, STC - no perspective whatsoever of what a dog of an investment Air NZ was for Brierley, SIA and the minority shareholders who lost billions. Pick a time period and most investments can be made to look really good or really bad.

As for comparing Forsyth Barr's investment recommendation track record, three words - Feltex, Credit Sails.

[777]

AIR only lost such a huge amount in 2001/2002 year because of Brierley's decision to have AIR invest in Ansett. To say AIR was a dog of an investment for Brierley's when they were in control is total rubbish from you.

[Balance]

AIR only lost such a huge amount in 2001/2002 year because of Brierley's decision to have AIR invest in Ansett. To say AIR was a dog of an investment for Brierley's when they were in control is total rubbish from you.

You are right there that BIL supported Air NZ in buying Ansett and Air NZ made a dog's breakfast out of Ansett.

But it was still a dog of an investment for them.

If it looks like a dog, bark like a dog and walk like a dog (irrespective of what you feed it), it is a dog!

[777]

Brierley did not support AIR in buying Ansett, Brierley's were controlling AIR at the time and had they alone did not do "due diligence" and bought a dog.

[Balance]

Brierley did not support AIR in buying Ansett, Brierley's were controlling AIR at the time and had they alone did not do "due diligence" and bought a dog.

Your logic is beyond my comprehension today.

BIL did not support Air NZ.

BIL was controlling Air NZ.

They (who?) alone did not do due diligence.

Is it me, the champagne I have just drunk or logic so profound I am lost!