Posts by Gareth Ward
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
HThe Top 20 investors own 71% of AIA and of those 20 the Govt and 2 councils own 53% with the other 17 (of the Top 20) owning 18%
The Govt? Sorry, where did you calculate that from? The New Zealand Central Securities Depository is not the Govt, if that's what you're saying. It's a clearing house - the beneficial owners of AIA are listed below that and mainly made up of foreign funds (e.g. National Nominees is a National Bank of Australia fund and between their direct holding and the NZCSD holding own more than Auckland City Council)
-
But it's dishonest of the Herald to be wringing its hands over the loss of benefits which don't actually exist.
Sorry, I'm not sure I follow the lost benefits they have alluded to?
We also have to remember that NZ companies require capital to grow; that capital is not available locally - so even when offshore investors simply provide capital and repatriate profits they still do some service to the NZ economy by letting our companies grow as opposed to staying as small minnows making no impact. Not saying they're all fantastic but the provision of capital can be worthwhile in it's own right. -
A NZ-based investor at the least is more likely to keep some of the dividend stream here.
For sure, but what does that have to do with restricting control?
And like I said, 40% is already offshore owned by short-term money-plays who were keen to sell into the offer so no change.AIA was well and truly already a private company with significant offshore holdings. This play is going to make zero difference to that but with the lovely side effect of screwing with our risk profile internationally...
I'm all for local ownership of NZ assets (hell, I'm all for NZ ownership of foreign assets!) and like the Super Fund and Kiwisaver primarily for the benefits it will eventually bring in this area - but if you want to start to bring already offshore owned assets "back into the fold" this doesn't help.
-
I don't see any reason at all why an Eric Watson or whoever would be any more or less likely to invest appropriately than a Canadian pension fund.
It's a monopoly. It needs regulation, whoever owns it. Suggesting that a Kiwi investor would be more inclined to run it in the public interest than a foreigner is wishful thinking at best and racism at worst.
Precisely. Once an asset is privately owned, that elusive "rational" investor is going to do the same thing regardless of nationality.
And let's not forget - 40% of AIA is already owned offshore, mainly by hedge-funds who were on the whole looking to sell into this, i.e at worst we would have transferred ownership from short-term focussed foreign hedge funds, to a long-term focussed foreign pension fund.
Way for the save there =| -
Blech?! Should read:
As I said, I'm no intent-of-Wiki guru, but the link to their policy on biographies of living people provided earlier in the thread does specifically state that "citation needed" is not acceptable in these cases.
If Bill English's Parliamentary speeches specifically state the link between his political policy stances and his religion then it would seem acceptable to have that info in his article with that reference. Regardless, I think his policy positions and voting records should be included and cited.Of course I'm coming at this from a more general media perspective than Wiki specifically and understand that some people have defined and well-thought-through definitions of what should and shouldn't be included there and how it differs...
-
Yes Gareth, it's Wikipedia policy to encourage deleting anything unsourced and potentially contentious from articles about living people. A good Wikipedia biography (for example George W. Bush) has citations for just about everything.
It would be more common to tag unsourced material with ["citation needed"]. There are citations available for the assertions on English's position, at least in so far as his voting record and Parliamentary speeches go. So it's not exactly libellous.
As I said, I'm no intent-of-Wiki guru, but the link to their policy on biographies of living people provided earlier in the thread does specifically state that "citation needed" is not acceptable in these cases.
If Bill English's Parliamentary speeches specifically state the link between his political policy stances and his religion then it would seem acceptable to have that info in his articlre general media perspective than Wiki specifically and understand that some people have defined and well-thought-through definitions of what should and shouldn't be included there and how it differs...e with that reference. Regardless, I think his policy positions and voting records should be included and cited.Of course I'm coming at this from a mo
-
I willingly bow to the greater knowledge and experience of the intent of Wikipedia, and if it is really viewed as a repository of all known items about an individual then so be it. Also, I'm far from a practising devout of any religion and am wary of religious doctrine making it's way into supposedly secular policy - but only because I'm worried about that policy, not the religion.
When statements regarding religious-focussed policy are placed there by individuals unassociated with (and in some ways opposed to) the politician involved, I have no problem with someone else removing those statements if they are not deemed accurate or providing a balanced view over the entire article.
At the very least they should surely have citations? As in an article or policy statement whereby Bill English has specifically stated his positions and how they are influenced by his belief? -
Removal of that second paragraph is entirely acceptable to me - and in fact I think it's the original addition of it by an author who likely holds contrary political views that is far more questionable (political opponents passive aggressively commenting on MPs family members generally sits badly with me).
The removal of the first paragraph, particularly the parts around his policy views as influenced by his religion is a little more questionable - but I have no issue with a politician choosing how to present those policy issues themselves (although I do note that there is nothing close to policy or views on his page anymore).
If you question prostitution reform, the fact that it derives from a religious morality (or a family upbringing, or a scientific belief, or whatever) is of lesser importance than the opposition itself. Certainly you would generally want to provide a justification for your position (although not necessarily on a Wiki list of your policy positions), but that original line in the article was coming at it from entirely the other direction.
Hundreds of different factors go into anybody's political views - religion is simply one of them - and they are certainly not listed ad nauseum on Wikipedia. -
The Herald is getting a bit of a roasting in its Your Views section already. I think there are people talking about Press Council complaints.
I, for one, have quietly emailed the journalist to suggest he ask his sub-editors to change the headline at least. Given it doesn't hold true to his story or the study, it seems particularly cavalier when dealing with mental health topics (not that people suffering depression aren't just as likely to see through it, but for anyone skim-reading to get that impression is not exactly a positive thing in what remains a somewhat contentious area)
-
BTW and this is dreadfully off topic, can anyone tell me how the Phoenix Foundation/Lawrence Arabia show at the Zoo went a couple of weeks back?
Rather 4th hand (my brother's, whose band in London will be supporting Lawrence Arabia's UK tour, heard from a friend locally) but I hear twas excellent