Posts by Gareth Ward
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The 3 pm news said that Key says National will scrap the 700m fund.
He would use the money to lower taxes apparently.Oh man, really? Did he/Teh News actually say the "lower taxes" bit or is that some slightly cheeky presumption?
Cause if so that's dropped his stock in my books. By quite a bit.
Is "dropped his stock in my books" a terrible butchering of metaphors? -
IP is a fine idea but what indication has Fonterra given that they intend to remain a NZ based company?
I'm not sure I understand your point, but the very legislation that created Fonterra assures that. You have to be a farmer providing milk in NZ to be a shareholder currently, and while they are looking at ways to introduce more flexibility in that structure that may see non-farmers being able to be partial shareholders, that NZ farmer co-op base will always remain...
And I'm not convinced by these "Fonterra has performed awfully calls" - awful compared to what? I don't see that the old structure would have performed any better (substantially worse I should imagine) and can't see particular alternative structures that would have provided much better returns. Sure, there are arguments that Brands should have been ramped up faster etc, but shifting an industry to an FMCG focus like that is a big task.
-
And Good Lord, I had to stop watching that breakfast clip with Paul Henry. Couldn't bear it.
As much as I have bemoaned the lack of media scrutiny of Mr Key's positions, it would be equally as bad if they were to "balance" that out by thse types of shallow, soundbite-driven attacks without anything resembling critical analysis. -
Hmmmm, will be interesting to see who heads the fund and makes those funding decisions. That's entirely what will make the difference in terms of the long-term impact on the economy. And as you alluded to in the original blog RB, hopefully those big impact ideas are there and waiting for funding.
But as I mentioned, the criteria are ones I like - encouraging clustering that, once setup, can be self-generating in terms of innovative ideas in specific fields; internationalisation such that this drives export growth; sustainability for both the marketing message and the long term support of the industry etc etc. Combine that with private investment (further incentivised by taking tax breaks on R&D) and it could be a great underpinning. Hopefully the media maintains a view of those funding decisions over the years and it is strongly monitored.
-
But the smart strategy is to keep the intellectual property here, in New Zealand, because the big dairy company is the closest thing we're likely to have to our own Nokia
Which the industry in general is starting to do really well with regards to South America - taking all that IP generated over decades of being a farming-intensive nation and running farms in good ol cheap-land Chile. Combine that with a strong innovation and marketing-led Brands and you have a pretty successful formula with the scalabilty that NZ-based production can't provide.
-
It's in the Morning Report item, starting at the 3 minute point. She says that the fund will expire in 10 - 15 years which is a bit vague.
Right, thanks. Unfortunately not computer literate enough to get around the firewall-type prompts I get at work when I try and open a windows media file!
So they're basically looking at providing $50-70m a year, topped up with whatever interest they're earning early on in the fund. I imagine that won't be evenly spread though, weighted more towards the end. -
it will actually provide funding from interest and principal
Anyone provide the link to this information? Interested in how long the fund will be around for/how often it will be topped up if it's designed to provide more than it earns...
-
Brilliant initial news - investment economic policy like this is the type of thing I like to hear, especially when clustering, internationalisation and sustainability are all in there.
And while I too would love to hear of current initiatives in the industry that may utilise the funding, I don't think we can be too critical of the lack of these. When establishing a long-term fund like this (note it's not $700m spent, it's a fund whose returns will presumedly fund projects) the Government needs to set the focus areas and funding levels upfront so those setting the detail have a ballpark to play in. But definitely some commentary around the "cool new things" coming up would be interesting - perhaps small start up companies clustering around Ruakura to commercialise some of the research coming out there and take it internationally for example?
-
And I've just realised that I don't think I've disclosed the fact that I'm a very very minor shareholder in AIA on this thread... So there you are.
-
Having said that, I would still prefer KIWISAVER bought 40% of AIA than the Canadian Pension Fund (or Dubai or whomever). And having said that, I'm still foggy on what 'Overseas Investment' brings to the table. Presumably they're just buying existing shares off existing shareholders, it's not like they're issuing new shares to increas capital. It's the existing shareholders who profit, not the actual airport? Or NZ?
I too would prefer a Kiwisaver-based fund bought 40%. And I completely agree that the Canadians or anyone else aren't bringing anything more to the table - except that few million dollars in capital for shareholders that wasn't there before. Although, due to the way they wish to debt structure, there would be quite a lot more money available internally at the airport for growth. That's basically the directors stance too - they're not adding anything to the table, but then neither would anyone in NZ. If the hurdle for holding the biggest stake in AIA is industry expertise, then we still have to look offshore - Dubai airports was the perfect example of that sort of shareholder and we saw where that went.
It's not so much a percentage question - as 40% of the company at least is currently held by foreign firms - as one of control. Hence the wording of Cullen's executive fiat. Yet CPPIB have actually structured their bid to downplay their control - they will have less control than their 40% ownership would normally allow them and as a long-term pension investor will not be gunning for extracting short term money many of the existing foreign shareholders. Hopefully all this will weigh positively in Cullen's eventual decision, but he certainly seems to be giving himself further tools to back him when he turns it down. As most people, I would not have been against general moves like this (with a specific statement of the companies limited under this law by being considered strategic) if they were properly consulted and over time - and not directed at an advanced-stage bid for a company long considered to be of an open register; a trait that made the government a premium when it sold it to that register back in the day.
Oh, and no need for sheepishness on the NZCSD - it proves how murky AIA's shareholding really is.