NZX - NZ Exchange

[bull....]

https://www.goodreturns.co.nz/articl...t-for-nzx.html

fund managers raise valid points , cause they and esp mum and dads are gonna get burnt bad thru lack of liquidity when the market has a decent fall. funds will have too sell because of redemptions into a liquidity crunch will make the market in nz crash more i believe.

[Balance]

https://www.goodreturns.co.nz/articl...t-for-nzx.html

All the more reason why the NZX needs to be restructured transformatively - it's too important a part of NZ's economic infrastructure to be left to the current clowns in charge to continue to stuff up.

NZX and its shareholders at that time (especially Milford) were warned about Mark Weldon plucking the feathers off the NZX goose - alas, they not only did not listen, they actually encouraged him to pursue his 'my way or the highway' management style.

[simla]

When something is bad for society we usually find a way to make it harder to do. Yet nobody ever seems to question whether we should make it harder to snap up listed companies.

Yes, that might be difficult to do. But that is different from saying it cannot be done. After all, we just spent 10 years hearing that nobody could stop overseas ownership of our houses and then magically it turned out that it could be done if anybody actually bothered to try.

Where there's a will there's a way. Why is there no will?

[Balance]

When something is bad for society we usually find a way to make it harder to do. Yet nobody ever seems to question whether we should make it harder to snap up listed companies.

Yes, that might be difficult to do. But that is different from saying it cannot be done. After all, we just spent 10 years hearing that nobody could stop overseas ownership of our houses and then magically it turned out that it could be done if anybody actually bothered to try.

Where there's a will there's a way. Why is there no will?

Some points to note :

1. OIO is there and they have stopped some takeovers.

2. What you are suggesting is that NZ closes shop and stop overseas investments into NZ (means zero growth) and NZ companies stop expanding via acquisitions overseas.

3. Why are takeovers bad for society? It is bad for the NZX but that's because the NZX was buggered up by an excessive charging and profiteering regime and grossly mismanaged under Mark Weldon and the sleeping board of directors.

[simla]

No, I merely asked why we do not make it harder. I do not regard it as good that billions of dollars float offshore to the Australian banks every year because they basically own most of the houses in NZ in reality. I do not regard it as good that there are people sleeping on the streets while overseas owners prefer to own empty houses in the same city. Etc.

I merely ask why we have this sacred cow that access to ownership of assets should be a completely wide open and unimpeded to the people who have the biggest bank accounts. Why are we not even prepared to express doubt about that?

As an example, it is claimed that shareholders vote by selling their shares. But we all know that only very large shareholders feel that they will survive voting the wrong way. We could require a separate vote first on whether to sell the company rather than continue the current process whereby the weakest shareholders always get peeled off first because they cannot afford to resist and then pretend that the landslide of capitulation represents the will of the shareholders. In fact, has anyone EVER asked the shareholders what they want as an actual vote? I wouldn't know.

[Balance]

No, I merely asked why we do not make it harder. I do not regard it as good that billions of dollars float offshore to the Australian banks every year because they basically own most of the houses in NZ in reality. I do not regard it as good that there are people sleeping on the streets while overseas owners prefer to own empty houses in the same city. Etc.

I merely ask why we have this sacred cow that access to ownership of assets should be a completely wide open and unimpeded to the people who have the biggest bank accounts. Why are we not even prepared to express doubt about that?

As an example, it is claimed that shareholders vote by selling their shares. But we all know that only very large shareholders feel that they will survive voting the wrong way. We could require a separate vote first on whether to sell the company rather than continue the current process whereby the weakest shareholders always get peeled off first because they cannot afford to resist and then pretend that the landslide of capitulation represents the will of the shareholders. In fact, has anyone EVER asked the shareholders what they want as an actual vote? I wouldn't know.

The reason why NZ is in such a pickle - gross mismanagement, pure and simple.

Sort out the gross mismanagement and everything will be fine.

Notice that Australian companies also get into trouble? And big big trouble - BHP, NAB, WBC and News Corp to name 4.

How do they fix the problems? They bring in foreign expertise and they pay top $$$ to get those expertise.

NZ companies try to fix problems by hiring from within. The rest as they say is history.

[stoploss]

The reason why NZ is in such a pickle - gross mismanagement, pure and simple.

Sort out the gross mismanagement and everything will be fine.

Notice that Australian companies also get into trouble? And big big trouble - BHP, NAB, WBC and News Corp to name 4.

How do they fix the problems? They bring in foreign expertise and they pay top $$$ to get those expertise.

NZ companies try to fix problems by hiring from within. The rest as they say is history.

that "Fix" really worked with Fonterra over the years ......

[Balance]

And FBU.

Remember Ralph Waters?

[Balance]

that "Fix" really worked with Fonterra over the years ......

No independently minded driven CEO will work for an entity like Fonterra. The farmers like it just the way it is, thank you very much.

[Balance]

Yes. An import, from the west island. Very good CEO for sure, but stayed on as a board member and dominated
Jonathan Ling's tenure to the detriment of the company. The beginning of the current decline.......that's a win/lose, from him.

Formica was his undoing. The Board approved it and the market loved it at that time - pushed the sp to a record high, remember?

Acquisitions and expansions overseas - Telecom, Fonterra, Air NZ, Warehouse, Pumpkin Patch, Michael Hill, Tower, Fisher & Paykel, Carter Holt and so on and so forth etc - like the lure of the sirens, the CEOs cannot help themselves.

Damage done to NZ inc? Telecom was $4.5 billion (Southern Cross & AAPT), Fonterra ($1 billion so far and counting), FBU (over $5 billion), Air NZ (over $2 billion) - imagine what could have been done in NZ if the money had been spent on upgrading NZ?

Telecom's debacle in Australia cost NZ the best and fastest UFB in the world. Took Helen Clark (acknowledge her vision for once) to force Telecom into upgrading NZ into UFB! We would still be on copper wires if Theresa Gattung & Rod Deane had their way. As it is , NZ is at least 10 years behind Korea, Japan and Singapore - even Vietnam has better UFB than NZ!