Posts by Gareth Ward
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Forcing the fund to invest in NZ isn't about the current crises of course. It's a permanent decision for a very very long term fund to be investing in such a way.
It's a fine line to be running between "make us money to pay for our retirement" and "remove capital roadblocks for local businesses". I'm all for a bit of both, but it will need some incredibly solid rules that are guaranteed to be around beyond the electoral cycle. Putting a minimum Kiwi investment level in there seems the most effective way of doing that but the number in front of that % sign will need to be very carefully thought through.
- Too low and it's pointless
- Too high and you're forcing our Superannuation Fund to invest in underperforming assets just because they're Kiwi.
I'm not convinced that 40% hasn't just been plucked out of thin air...I'm unfortunately of the view that most of the blame for our wealth-creation/ productivity/export/business issues lies with the individuals starting and running (or not) our businesses - Govt sets the environment, sure, but they ain't creating or building the businesses themselves are they...
-
Danielle I don't suppose you know where they did that? Would love to do similar.
Even putting aside the mushy family remembrance, some of the photos themselves were amazing - one in particular of my Aunty in the foreground with Lion Rock looming out of a stormy sky behind here was Magnum-esque!
-
Looks to me as though National are planning to borrow from the fund on order to have their tax cuts, sorry, infrastructure investments
I think that's a little rough. It won't change the accounting of them if the NZSF or SuperMegaChinaInvestmentFund are the ones buying the infrastructure bonds.
The risk is that the investment bonds will not be as rigorous as they'd otherwise be, because they know full well that the NZSF has to invest in them to meet it's 40% criteria... -
Had he done the latter, he would have been kicked out of the venue I would think.
Ha.
"Oh great, thanks pal. That was a lovely '04 Pinot, was quite looking forward to that..." -
I'm a little torn on the forced NZ investment. I'm all for local capital availability, but forcing a fund designed to "pay for our futures" to make investments it doesn't necessarily want could get a little messy.
If NZ businesses put up strong enough models etc then the money should be available.It has interesting impacts for Kiwisaver as well - I've tended to the belief that many of the Kiwisaver funds are smaller and will tend to back a local operation more readily given they understand the market and can face-to-face the people.
-
I met an old Italian gentleman in Hastings who hails from Veneto and in his youth used to travel to Ferrara to swap his wine with bread
I may have misunderstood the sacrament but holy crap you met Jesus in Hastings?
Beautiful writing - on Tuesday night my family found a bunch of slides of my Grandfather's from the late 60's/early 70's. Unbelievable shots of Piha, Mount Maunganui and a very low-rise Auckland from North Head. But most importantly the people in those places - watching my Grandmother see them was almost tear-inducing... -
If that really was the "defining event of this campaign" (as TVNZ's breathless autocue readers were telling us), this democracy needs a massive OD, because it is in a persistent vegetative state.
I believe my 3month old son was yelling in my ear and quite possibly vomiting on my shirt at about the time I had intended to watch the debate. Sounds like I may have been having a more informative political discussion anyway...
-
Re the technology/politico crossover: Obama campaign ads are now appearing in Xbox racing games!
I forget the name of the business that built that technology but it was headed by New Zealanders before being sold for muchos dolleros - they sell billboard space inside the game on an ongoing basis, updated over the web. Tis uber neat.
And re the music industry thing: I tend to agree with I/S re the industry model is broken beyond recognition and always will be. The question is do we give up on the commercialisation of artistic music altogether?And a work colleague of mine just wandered over and said his ISP - Xnet - has already sent him a letter claiming copyright breaches in his download and are going to shut him off. He had to call and explain he has flatmates/wireless isn't necessarily that secure etc before they finally capitulated but told him it was last chance. So it's already underway obviously.
-
But the need remains that if people are going to invest in these artists (including the artists themselves) they need to have a return on it.
I think that dovetails to Che's point - the current model of "$ per person listening" may need a revamp.
My brother for example has played (and is playing) for three bands of very minor commercial but comparatively significant "critical/fan" success for some time now. The removal of the existing industry around music certainly wouldn't stop him playing, it wouldn't stop him performing live, and it wouldn't stop him providing his "output" any way he can. On the flipside, the band he's dedicated himself to know was chosen partly because of possible commercial success, and I've witnessed his good natured financial struggle to make ends meet while providing the world with indie pop and afrobeat =>
A drastic change in the distribution of music, may not, IMHO, change the creation and performance of that music in the way it is sometimes held up. Although, yes - Britney wouldn't stack up.
-
we're doing this to the internet because someone pirated Sione's Wedding and sold DVD in street markets in Auckland
This was my exact thought upon reading Colin Jacksons comments Paul - that film piracy and DVD street vending has very very little to do with internet-based copyright infringement.