Auckland International Airport Limited (AIA)

[redzone]

doesnt matter who sold it....once it was sold it wasnt theirs to butt in ....I agree with Fran OS.....the government should know list what companies it considers not for overseas ownership....then watch those companies struggle to raise funds ...their SPs would collapse...their dykes cant even sing

[Yossarian]

you raise a very valid point redzone... there are virtually no NZ buyers of these assets, so therefore they become virtually unsellable. Graeme Hart and the Super Fund are about the only true NZ "persons" with any real dosh (i.e. in the billions)... and both are unlikely for different reasone.

surely an asset is only worth what you can sell it for?

[Deev8]

And which party do you think it was that sold it in the first place, Deev8?

Whichever party had been elected to office by the public of New Zealand - but party is irrelevant. The shares were sold without attached conditions on overseas ownership (although it would have been reasonable to attach such conditions at the time of sale).

Attaching conditions to the ownership of those shares years later, and part way though a bid for the company, only harms the reputation of the New Zealand market.

By the way, I voted against the offer proceeding. I didn't think that would be to the long-term benefit of shareholders. But the ends didn't justify the means.

[Deev8]

surely an asset is only worth what you can sell it for?

You can look at it another way - an asset is worth the income it can generate for you in the future. In the case of the airport that's a significant sum.

[Toddy]

you raise a very valid point redzone... there are virtually no NZ buyers of these assets, so therefore they become virtually unsellable. Graeme Hart and the Super Fund are about the only true NZ "persons" with any real dosh (i.e. in the billions)... and both are unlikely for different reasone.

surely an asset is only worth what you can sell it for?

Remember that the strategic asset list is something that Helen and Cullen imposed overnight. Common sense will prevail after the general election. In the mean time we just need to stay calm and sit it out.

[Deev8]

Fran O'Sullivan's article in todays Herald is worth a read - Time to list strategic assets

[777]

A $12.5 million parcel went though this morning at $2.26 a share.

Would be interesting to know who are on each end of this transaction.

[mondograss]

The problem with having a list is that it then proves too limiting and would need to be constantly maintained. Far better to have criteria that can be applied to each individual instance. Questions such as: "Is the asset a company in a monopoly position?" "What options exist to mitigate the effect of the monopoly?" etc. The OIO criteria would appear to be a bit subjective and would probably benefit from having guidelines about what constitutes a "substantial benefit to NZ".

The political party of the day is entirely relevant to this, as Labour and National have ideologically different views of how asset sales and foreign investment benefit the country. We lack big companies and big state assets for exactly this reason. Muldoon took apart Norman Kirks retirement savings scheme which would have built up capital locally. Then he blew the bank on "Think Big". Then the rogernomes of Labour started the fire sale of state assets which National cheerfully continued through to '98. All of this brings us back to today, starting from scratch with the retirement savings again etc.

I'm sure we are a laughing stock internationally, but not for the reasons that many here are suggesting. We have sold everything, failed to build up capital, opened our markets and industries to full competition without expecting the same of our competitors and now we are desperate to cling on to what little we have left.

[Zaphod]

The problem with having a list is that it then proves too limiting and would need to be constantly maintained. Far better to have criteria that can be applied to each individual instance. Questions such as: "Is the asset a company in a monopoly position?" "What options exist to mitigate the effect of the monopoly?" etc. The OIO criteria would appear to be a bit subjective and would probably benefit from having guidelines about what constitutes a "substantial benefit to NZ".

The political party of the day is entirely relevant to this, as Labour and National have ideologically different views of how asset sales and foreign investment benefit the country. We lack big companies and big state assets for exactly this reason. Muldoon took apart Norman Kirks retirement savings scheme which would have built up capital locally. Then he blew the bank on "Think Big". Then the rogernomes of Labour started the fire sale of state assets which National cheerfully continued through to '98. All of this brings us back to today, starting from scratch with the retirement savings again etc.

I'm sure we are a laughing stock internationally, but not for the reasons that many here are suggesting. We have sold everything, failed to build up capital, opened our markets and industries to full competition without expecting the same of our competitors and now we are desperate to cling on to what little we have left.

I think it is entirely possible and appropriate to draw up a list of assets that the Government of the day deems to be strategic. You've already presented a list that could (with some additions) be used as criteria to evaluate all assets against, in order to derive a definitive list.

Kiwisaver has been billed the solution to the problem that does not exist, and I have to say that I agree with that statement. New Zealanders do not have a problem with saving per se, they have a problem with the vehicle in which they choose to save these funds, which for the majority of New Zealanders is property. New Zealanders have for one reason or another shied away from the stock market for both direct and indirect investment cases, in greater proportions than other western economies. But this is a whole other argument that is best discussed away from the AIA thread!

[macduffy]

Good points, Z.
As you say, subject best pursued on another thread, except that AIA experience is one of the reasons why Kiwis are disinterested in the sharemarket.