Okay. I'll have a go at .... but please note that I'm posting under a name that reflects my qualifications to express an opinion (or lack thereof).

My criteria are based on the idea that if I have to lock up a large (for me) amount of money for 10 years, I should be more concerned with controlling downside risk than searching for the largest amount of potential upside. Like Mark Twain, I am more concerned with the return of my money than the return on my money.

Relevant factors:

1. the risk of disruption through new competition, technological change, environmental factors or regulations
2. the existence of some kind of defensive moat
3. a good track record in delivering for shareholders – in particular an expectation that dividends will grow enough to at least offset inflation
4. acceptable valuation - particularly bearing in mind the importance of compounding dividends over a ten year period – I would like a starting net dividend yield above the current rate of inflation
5. I would prefer a company that is unlikely to need to raise further capital from shareholders - companies which raise money through placings damage shareholder value in the process and, as a non-resident, most NZ companies will not let me participate in rights issues
6. leverage should be low given expectations of rising interest rates

There are some very good to excellent companies which have track records in delivering value to shareholders and which (quite rightly) get a lot of attention on this board: MFT, RYM, SUM, IFT, ATM, POT, FRE and AIA among others

For my purposes, I have eliminated the retirement sector from consideration because of (in some cases) high valuations which assume a lot of future growth, because of vulnerability to regulatory "reform" and because of the potential for new competition to enter the market.

I have eliminated MFT and ATM on valuation grounds.

I have eliminated anything involving biological products for obvious reasons.

I have eliminated the electricity companies because of the potential for technological disruption and regulatory change. IFT is excluded for the same reason (although the diversification makes it tempting).

SKC was eliminated because of its debt levels.

Finance companies and consumer discretionary are too boom/bust for the purposes of this exercise. This takes out HBL, TNR and MCK.

I'm left with four companies which have at least partial monopolies: AIA, POT, SPN and MMH. AIA and POT are very expensive. SPN has no volume. So I am left with MMH which offers a trailing yield of 2.9% net/4.1% gross, trades on a trailing PE of 21 (a bit high but I will take it) and offers a coherent growth strategy (benefitting from the limitations of Port of Auckland, the growth in international trade (Trump notwithstanding), population growth in and north of Auckland and the use of the land bank adjacent to their existing operations. I'm assuming current political tailwinds are a short term thing and not relying on them.

The only problem: the shares are thinly traded so it could take several weeks to invest the full $1 million.

For me, a plan B would involving buying shares in WBC or ANZ which are listed on NZ and immediately transferring them from the NZ to the Australian share register where the Australian franking credits would eliminate NRWT I would have deducted if I left them on the NZ register. Compounding a 6.5-7.0% dividend yield (more if there is a discount on the DRP???) for 10 years should handily beat inflation. (And, yes, I am aware that this contradicts what I said above about not choosing a finance company.)

Looking forward to seeing what others come up with.