Economic research firm BERL has suggested the government borrow domestically to finance infrastructure spending set to be paid for by revenue from the government's asset sales policy.
The Green Party commissioned BERL to look at the government's policy to sell up to 49% stakes in Mighty River Power, Meridian Energy, Solid Energy and Genesis Energy, as well as selling its 74% stake in Air New Zealand down to no less than 51%. The Government is hoping to raise between NZ$5-7 billion over the next five years from the sell-down, which will be used to pay for new capital spending such as school upgrades and irrigation schemes.
BERL economist Ganesh Nana said the 'mixed-ownership model' (MoM) policy, as it stood, would worsen the Government's deficit in the short term compared to a no-changes baseline scenario. That was because the Government would lose some of the dividend stream it received from the assets partially sold.
It would then take a number of years for new assets such as schools or broadband infrastructure to affect the Government's tax take positively enough to cover that lost dividend stream.
In the long-term the Government's annual deficit would return to the baseline scenario, but the Government's net worth, total assets and debt ratio would be worse than the baseline, Nana said.
He suggested an alternative option where the Government borrowed from the domestic private sector to finance its investment in the new assets to be paid for by the MoM proceeds.
This would initially increase the Government's interest bill on its borrowings, increasing the Government's deficit in the short-term compared with the baseline no changes scenario.
However, the deficit would not be as bad as the scenario of selling assets to finance new investment, Nana said. This was because of an assumption the interest cost on the debt would be less than the dividend yield the Government received on the mixed-ownership assets (which BERL assumed to be a yield of 8%).
"Why sell them an equity stake on assets, why not just sell them a debt instrument. Why not get some of them to lend to government," Nana said of 'mum and dad' investors with billions of dollars worth of cash in bank term deposits.
The Government would likely have to raise the yield on its debt to compete with term deposit rates to attract the investment. The scenario would be better off up until the point the return on the bonds was the same as the Government's return received from dividends from the mixed-ownership companies.
107 Comments
This is a great idea. The NZ Government should borrow from NZers rather than from overseas. A lot of Overseas money is funny money(printed money). Why should NZ help overseas financial interests earn a profit? Any profits on Govt borrowed money should be earned by fellow NZers, especially when at the moment there is a surplus of NZ money looking for a home.
Owning shares has over time turned into a very speculative process and lots of NZers are not
happy with owning shares as they don't like the stress and like having a good nights sleep.
The Fed with its 0% interest rates is warping the global financial system. Introduce some capital controls so NZ savers can get a decent interest rate.
I am totally opposed to selling the family silver. I invest in New Zealand and am happy to continue to do so. It is too much of a short term view if the present government sells off OUR goods. They have no mandate to do so. The same applies to Christchurch where I live. I am one of the relatively lucky ones. I am glad to read the our mayor does not want to sell off city assets. That is the best statement he has made since he became mayor!
I am totally opposed to selling the family silver. I invest in New Zealand and am happy to continue to do so. It is too much of a short term view if the present government sells off OUR goods. They have no mandate to do so. The same applies to Christchurch where I live. I am one of the relatively lucky ones. I am glad to read the our mayor does not want to sell off city assets. That is the best statement he has made since he became mayor!
hehehe....somewhat bold a statement....sadly I think un-realistic is terms of length of time....I heard some ppl say the reason they wanted Labour out was to give someone else a go....kind of a wierd way of voting to me. Now if a govn could only do that well in terms of getting it right....for that length of time.....sure JK for 15 years....no biggee.
regards
uh no....not unless you are off the extreme right end and centralists are now the loony left.....oh wait.....
Selling a profit generating asset makes no sense unless you can use the money to do something more profitable, not spend it on one off opex fixing something that shouldnt need fixing.
Indeed I thnk the Govn has been insisting that the dividends from the SOE's are higher than is reasonable and indeed higher that the Govn can borrow at?
If this is the case then it would make the most sense to offer a bond backed by the SOE's income stream. So if say the Govn wants the SOE's to return 6%? off a bond at 6% that way at the end we still have an asset and get the capital up front, a win-win for NZ.
Then of course that would be an idealogical burp the rabid right cant get past....
regards
But the SOEs up for sale have been earning 3.5% in dividends for the last five years, and interest is higher than that.
Secondly, the govt gets a third of the profits (in tax) whether they own the companies, or even if they're 100% privately owned.
And they still get 100% of the GST.
And 100% of the PAYE.
So if they sell half, they lose just half of the 3.5% dividend (1.75%), but claim back a third of this (just over 0.5%) in tax. So in reality, they can sell half the company, and lose just a fraction over 1%.
never trust an economist... that could be taken as sexist!!
But back to the point:
Key has been completely inept and useless - entirely unable to transform the economy and indeed leaving it in a worse state than if he'd stayed at Merrill Lynch (obviously failure follows Key!).
National has abandoned it's true supporters opting for the continuation of the inept bureaucrat bungling of the past. He has shown a complete lack of leadership and has left ChCh in a state of ruin without leadership or vision, where he has allowed division to overcome unity.
He is a failure as a Prime Minister and he will soon go unless a transformation occurs.
If we consider the critical areas that affect people in NZ, such as employment, standard of living and education - there is nothing positive which has been acheived.
A lack of vision and a lack of ideas are his failure.
GFC has also occurred, what the hell can a country of 4M people do in reality?
Australia weathered the storm well by digging, this is coming to an end as China slows. Useless wankers in this country won't allow this but still want the WFF, free loans etc. We need to decide if we are to prosper (do what Greens do not want ->generate tangible wealth) or rob Peter to pay Paul, tax rich pricks. Things like tourism is a low wage economy end game.
If I was Key I would tell the left to get fucked, we are cutting WFF etc and go on a mission to do things like mining and things that generate tangibles we can trade.
GFC, nothing we could have done except have little Public debt (which we did, good on labour) and savings for a rainy day (which we didnt bad on Labour and Brash)...Instead we chose to get tax cuts/WFF that we speculated with on property.....that was our [poor] choice...
If by tangible you mean digging, well that is a one off...so like the UK, once the coal and oil are gone whats next? financial mayhem? that the so called rich generate? no thanks I can see that in front of me and my children.
Also NZers chose not to live in a cesspit like the USA but have a quality of life...
Yep lets tax the rich pricks at 70% there is little to indicate they benefit NZ anyway, I mean we've tried not taxing them and its made things worse.....
"left" I think you mean left of you, which would seem to be 70~80% of NZ, JK sits on the centre for a reason, that is where the votes are...
We can trade lots of things that take intelect like software. Mining on the other hand is like tourism and farming poorly paid and you employ not very brights....but at least the last two are repeatables...
regards
Interesting that the UK lost its world empire status around the time of the first world war. Funny thing is they hit peak coal at that same time, 1913. Yep lets strip the country of minerals and send them offshore unimproved for a nice one off fix. Might last all of 2 minutes.
And they found something to replace the coal with!!!
Funny thing that we'll do exactly the same and find something to replace oil with too.
Maybe solar, wind, geothermal or gravitational - there's plenty of sources and an INFINITE supply. Yes for all intents and purposes INFINITE - every piece of matter is energy and so long as there is matter there is energy so we'll be fine.
The flat earther Malthusian Luddites can move along...
So why did they lose the empire? Why has the rate of population growth stalled and gone into reverse? The North Sea oil did not make up the short fall from coal, it is called EROI. I thought you were good at maths Chris? These are the facts that undermine your fantasy world.
As I posted in the weekend to Hugh. Every year that the world population growth is less than the previous year is a year that your INFINITE supply hasn't yet been found. Fifty years this has been going on, how long do you want before you are proven wrong?
Move along scarfie! As Hugh says: Confusers are losers! (sic)
Population growth slowed for social reasons (need I say more!). The end of the British Empire was for social and political reasons (untenable to hold countries as subservient) as well as economic ones (holding power cost more than the countries earned in revenue).
Absolutely nothing to do with energy or coal. If it was they wouldn't have given up resource rich territories.
Yes we do produce energy from those sources.
Gravity (hydro) produces over 56% of NZ's electricity. Geothermal provides over 10%. Solar is not just photovoltaics but also the growth of trees and plants and wood provides an energy supply for a good number of homes as well.
Solutions are already out there as is the hysteria (that the Malthusian Luddites love to display).
If you could spell, I might ignore your insults.
As you and your ilk can't, I won't be attempting to ingratiate myself with such energy loons!
Personally I suspect you don't even know what electricity is at all!!
Electricity is not something that can be stored, it's not a form of energy - it's the rate of transmission of energy. Electric potential energy can be stored in an electric field (say inside a capacitor) but this is not how energy is primarily stored as leakage makes it impossible for anything but short term storage.
All energy must be stored in another form whether that be chemical potential energy (in a battery cell, a pile of coal or wood), gravitational potential energy (in a hydro lake), or electric or magnetic potential energy (a particle in an electric/magnetic field) or nuclear potential energy (in all matter).
There's always solutions, heck we could all drive charcoal powered steam cars (circa early 1900s) if we had no oil!
I would suggest that the language of maths is more important than perfection in an illogical language such as english. Like Ive said before ignoring someone's message because you dont like it and use the "poor" english as the reason makes you a fool but to yourself.
Electrical power isnt he immediate issue/concern....transport fuel/energy is....if you really think we could run our society as we do now on charcol powered steam cars you are more deluded than I thought possible even from DavidB.
regards
I have seen people overseas who have a electric motorbike which is charged from a solar panel and car battery storage setup at their house. Very simple and cheap to fit out and run. In some countries the peak oil type senario has already happened, a litre of petrol worth half a days wage etc. But their economies can be some of the fastest growing. Just have to be smarter with what we have me thinks.
What are these solutions to a liquid fuel crisis? Can they be scaled up to allow us to continue our way of life? Are they thermodynamically viable?
I'm genuinely curious Chris, I come from a scientific background but fail to see any viable solutions currently to these problems. Your constant slandering of people who are concerned about what will be a genuine problem in the years to come is childish and suggests you lack the mental capacity to think about this issue. Please enlighten us of these potential solutions.
If you can't do that, then maybe you should stop mouthing off on topics (like Hugh) which are obviously well out of your depth and just stick to property speculation.
I'm genuinely curious Chris, I come from a scientific background but fail to see any viable solutions currently to these problems.
Well if you can't see or know what those solutions are, then you must come from a pretty crummy scientific background. And no, I' not going to tell you what they are, go educate yourself. Your magnificent professorialship should have no difficulty in doing so with your outstanding 'scientific background'.
Well of course you can't tell me David, you are not a scientist and probably have no clue either. The fact is that the scientific community has no answer yet. The best we can say is that we will probably have less energy available per person, and that thus will probably translate into us having to change our current way of living. Expensive energy will make a lot of things we take for granted today somewhat prohibitive.
The problem I have is people like you mouthing off on an issue that people have justifiable rights to be concerned about. The fact that it is people from scientific backgrounds who are the most concerned should give an idea of how serious this issue actually is. I don't care whether you suscribe to ethanol, algae based biofuels, natural gas, breeder reactors, fusion etc.. The challenge will be scaling these up and their lack of utility when compared against our conventional fossil fuels, namely conventional oil.
If you have any relevant information how about posting it and then engaging in a proper discussion, if you can't do this then this suggests what I suspect most people already know, you offer nothing more than opinion.
You can drop the us and we, thank you very much. How arrogant and pompous of you! You don't speak for the scientific community. Boy, you have a very high opinion of yourself, don’t you? Next thing you’ll be telling me all those scientists who actually are working in alternative energy aren't real scientists either because if they were, they wouldn’t be doing it. Idiot! Quick, stop the presses at Nature. There’s an urgent communication that must be got out. The hundreds, no the thousands of scientists all around the world who are working in alternative energies, stop your work immediately because plutocracy says you’re all wrong and don’t know what you’re talking about!
You're no scientist, plutocracy, I can tell by the way you write and the way you shape and communicate your arguments. What were you, a kindergarten science teacher?
Seeing as Plutocracy directed his criticism at me, I think David B is spot on with his comments.
There is no difficulty finding alternatives to liquid fuel, it's just a matter of getting the right alternatives that can be mass produced.
Engines that work on biofuels, fuel cells, batteries, solid fuels (pellets), compressed air etc etc could all be feasible solutions. Some innovation will occur in the medium term and energy concerns will fade.
Think of 25 years ago: the innovations that seemed like dreamland then are now common place: portable cordless phones that you can take anywhere in the world, a network of computers that you can communicate instantly with anyone in the world, video telephones etc etc
There are some pretty big fundimental issues with alternatives,
1) The biggest EROEI, this needs to be in excess of 8 to 1. ie for every 1 unit of energy consumed in the process there must be an output of 8+. I know of no biofuel today that gets even above 6 to 1 let alone 8 to 1 and actually I cant even think of one that gets past 2 to 1...
2) Mass produced...think about that...for fossil fuel we dont produce it, we pump it out of the ground and refine it....80million barrels per day....the cost of keeping that production figure up at that level comes to many billions of dollars....per year, just to break even ie find and extract about 4~7mbpd more to meet the decline.
3) Biofuels compete with the demand for food...that is I suspect going to be quite a nasty issue moving forward.
Mentioning compressed air as a soluton just tells me you know nothing about thermodynamics what so ever. Even under-graduates in a typical energy centric engineering course should be able to tell you the losses in compressing air and then expanding it make no sense in efficiency terms what so ever, its just awful, battery tech is way better.
25 years ago our population was what? you see its not just we are using up more resources per person per year that are finite but that there are more of us and more of us.
You might, indeed seem to know a lot about housing, fair enough its your field of expertese......engineering no......that is plainly obvious.
regards
"The biggest EROEI, this needs to be in excess of 8 to 1. ie for every 1 unit of energy consumed in the process there must be an output of 8+. I know of no biofuel today that gets even above 6 to 1 let alone 8 to 1 and actually I cant even think of one that gets past 2 to 1..."
What are you trying say here 8/1 or 6/1 or 2/1 is the best EROEI . As a matter of fact I have seen an extraction bio-fuel process in the past month EROEI in excess of 5:1 seems you have incomplete information.
I agree with you that we will adopt many of the things you suggested above but I disagree with the assertion that finding alternatives (which work on a practical scale) will be simple. My main concern has always been the low energy densities of the current substitutes, and the limitations when compared with conventional energy sources such as use of productive land, low EROEI, low energy density, temperature dependent etc.. Energy is a very real limit and all of those technologies you described yeild less energy per unit than our fossil fuels. This is where I struggle to see how people can expect never-ending economic growth, there is only so much energy available per capita and if this starts declining then it's hard to envision more growth.
I agree with you that we will have to find a way to get work with these alternative sources as well as probably reducing our energy use per person and striving to increase efficiency as much as possible. I'm open to the idea of game-changing technologies but I think it is foolish to put all our eggs in that basket, especially when dealing with the real world: aka physics (remember we were all meant to have nuclear powered flying cars by now!).
While I don't quite share your faith in technology, there are certainly some interesting areas of research at the moment such as artificial photosynthesis, LENR, and photovoltaics. Improvement in battery technology could also provide a great help. Hopefully we will figure something out in the end but it is certainly not a 'sure thing', and the blase attitude of some people is very concerning as energy could well be one of the more, if not the most, pertinent issues of the coming decade(s).
Anyway, I appreciate your reply and while we may disagree on a few of these issues it is nice to hear the rationale for your view.
Wonder if his royal highnesses of alternative energy, David & Chris, will respond to that?
Did you mention that all the metals used in batteries have about a generation of reserves left at current rates of production. After that, no more batteries! http://www.usgs.gov/
I think I recall David B stating his profession was science and he taught such at tertiary level. If I recall it was in relation to a discussion about whether or not this government was hostile toward academia. He said they were not - backing it up with his experience when in the tertiary education sector. His posts of late on this topic have bewildered me .. to the point that I actually wondered whether his login had been hijacked - as even an attempt at the use of rational logic/reason has gone right out of his postings.
That's because trying to have a rational debate on these issues with most here is a waste of time. The degree of dogma and defended illiteracy among the Greens is so strong that it rules out a meaningful debate. Besides which, none here are the actual authors of these Malthusian ideas, just the readers of them and who regurgitate them here in an unthinking rote-learnt fashion. There is nothing illuminating here. There is nothing new here, nothing to be learnt. This is science discourse at the level of a bachelors degree. If I was wanting to have a debate about these ideas, I'll have them with the authors who came up with them, and who will, no doubt, be far more informed and rational about these issues than those know-it-alls here.
Ive seen nothing what so ever to indicate maths and science from him....the little I recall is he seems to be "qualified" in communications / pr spin. Certainly his posts are empty devoid of anything but spin, propaganda or attacks on ppl who either dont hold hid political views or are not 5th+ generational NZers.
NB you are right on "gone right out"
;]
regards
The red book says its unlikely to be conventional nuclear power ie fission so PWRs / BWRs dont have long to exist, as is maybe 30 years. Thorium on the other hand hopefully is a good way forward and you woud just buy a sealed unit shipped "here" and hook it up.....not that hard I suspect.
The big problem is of course it isnt a transport fuel and in NZ at least we have adequate, simpler and hence cheaper technologies for electrical power.
NZ will I think prove to be THE lucky country moving forward.
regards
I dont think its lack of capacity, I think its some sort of fear....or denial....
"solutions" in 7 years of looking ive seen none. No one in here has ever been able to post or discuss anything that is thermodynamically viable, but we can move on from that. We have developers here who should be familiar with project management and the costs and time to do such projects...and then also economists and financial types who should be able to do simple models on the size of costs...no one answers even those two....why? because when you start to answer them the costs are huge and that has to be met somehow and the only viable pool of $ is taxation...and the right whingers dont want that....so......silence....
Which means we ignore it, which means in business terms a huge impact.......which also gets ignored by [financial] journalists because the next Q is what investment and lifestyle isnt going to collapse when faced with such huge costs.......
Like I said I think its some sort of fear....or denial....too big for ppl to cope with....
regards
Oh I agree, there are a few things that are pretty easy...Im wood paneling my house slowly so its off with the gib and in with R3.0 insulation....bamboo planks then get put back up....quick to install, lovely finish.
Double glazing, not impressed with its payback, but again my windows are so bad (poor design) that you can see daylight so they leak air badly...I am making my own repalcements out of H4/3.2 and I will secondary glaze or double glaze as I need new glass anyway.
Solar hot water is still about 50% too much imho but its dropping in price and improving in reliability, i will look again in two years....
In the USA there are some great LED lights, my american friends were showing them off in their new kitchen....cant get them here yet...they couldnt get over how backward we were / are for new technology, yet its cheap for them......
Cooking, Im eyeing a Kent wood wetback that has a top you can cook on.....great as a standby unit. Suspect I will store it until the building consent process has gome bye bye....to hard today...
Solar panels, well the ex-factory cost is probably way down on the retail cost so worthwhile...also are those chinese panels being fitted to chinese plants in china? in which case their grid is known to be a bit dodgy....so maybe it measn they dont need a generator with the associated probs of getting fuel...
I can undserstand what you are driving at particualy with Greece which would seem to be a basket case on so many levels....VAT dodging, waste...lazy etc....NZ is actually far more efficient....but yes there were signs that it was tipping that way, hence changing to National is on balance probably a good thing.
Its a pity in that regard that Natioanl are not more like the Old Maggie Thatcher's of this world. While right wing she recognised she had a duty to the future...sadly I see litle sign of that today from the right, or even the left.
regards
IMO heat pumps are a waste for space heating, should be combined with thermal mass. In fact I wonder of the thermal mass/solar collection is a better soluction than insulation if the same $ are spent. Harder as a retrofit though, but I have solutions to that.
You are right on the pollution caused by fires, but solving that problem consumes my day to day activity at the moment. With some positive independent laboratory results (30% +)there is better to come, but bureaucrats are a thorn in my side.
My wood invention is delivering real world results to my customers don't worry. Everyone sold means about $5000 gain to the economy up front, the 30-50% savings in fuel, plus the downstreams savings like the transport as you outlined. There will also be savings in respiratory disease and the associated health costs. The lab testing is to try and satisfy the bureaucrats, an impossible task it seems at times. My customers know it works so that is what counts for now:-)
I am someone that thinks outside the square and I have another couple of inventions behind me as well. So while sometimes it is theory, I usually have something worked out in my head pretty well before it gets built & I have a track history of delivering. 3D thinking if you like, with a true photographic memory (not text but images). Part designer, part inventor.
With the thermal mass, who said it has to be a part of your house :-) It is simply collection and storage, which can be done anywhere and transferred to your living spaces. I haven't actually crunched the numbers but work out how much the insulation and double glazing has cost, then see how much thermal mass that would have bought. It may not work out however if a little shrewd about getting the thermal mass then I would say it stands a good chance.
1st para, yes, hence the best is a hvy floor or wall inside the space IMHO....thickness depending on the time delay...I looked at thought on quite a few things and have some plans for the future but really Im aiming for the lowest hanging fruit to start with and then work up...payback is important, simple wall insualtion as i upgrade seems to be it. So my main big plan is a conservatory with a mass floor for less robust food possibilities...trap water etc....the thing is to have the best NET effect on money ...that might be say grow cash crops and sell them......
Insulation is 24/7, mass is really a delay mechanism...and to get the most, yes a fridge plant is probably the best way....however passive is for me THE way ie KISS keep it simple and stupid.
In terms of dropping or raising the temp it depends how far, the refrigerant chosen will be the one for the temperature range expected, move outside of that and the kit may not last long....
regards
The best way to think of thermal mass is really a time delay IMHO. If you occupy the space 24/7 its not so good. Its ideal for say a business space where you cool the mass of the building overnight with the cold air and then that mass acts as a radiant heat sink during the day, classic passive cooling. Of course that means workers have to be quite spread out or such a techique starts to become inadequate, I think the practical limits are about 40watts/m2 so you need 2 sqm for the person....4 to 6sqm for a pc etc. Or say heat a hvy wall in your lounge during the day keeping the worst of the heat away as it absorbs it and then it radiates back to keep the space warm into the evening.....but no good at 2am....or even 8am for say 60mins.......horses for courses....
regards
I am doing no heat transfer internally at present we just electric spot heat the rooms we are in.
The problem with say heat pumps is you waste (or can) energy by heating the whole envelope....even if for 23 hours a day much of it is un-used.....makes no sense to me.
The lounge corner is NW facing with a big window on each side so get a lot of heat gain in the cooler months, lovely to sit in ....then retreat into the smaller computer/sitting room as the sun sets.......
regards
I think we are talking about an individual with low self esteem Steven. The need to publicise his wealth and relate this to his self worth, then the constant need to troll and belittle others instead of actually debating the issue. I know you have been accused of spam, but at least you have some content, whereas Chris just likes the sound of his own voice, so to speak. He constantly side steps, which gives him another opportunity to post. Probably some personality issues there also. Almost everything he posts is completely self centred, when suggestions for improvement in areas are offered this would always result in his ability to profit from investing on property. Thing is I don't see all this in Hugh.
Poor old scarfie crawled out from under his rock again!
If you weren't such a complete loon I might bother replying graciously but instead I will take pleasure in belittling and ignoring you (as you suggest)!
BTW my suggestions are not about personal gain, they're about getting NZ moving forward (note that I argue for ways to save the Govt money and reduce the cost of new housing). When posting, I generally make the point that others here are unrealistic and make silly comments that will take NZ backwards, not forwards (like you scarfie).
The fact is I'm not wealthy or particularly smart by any stretch of the imagination. I illustrated my academic background and financial success just to show that I'm not as stupid and useless as scarfie and others would portray me.
Zuckerberg is wealthy. I couldn't even afford Mark Hotchin's mansion if it was a quarter the price!!
You have been on here all evening yet it has taken you 7 hours to think up a response to my post. Looks like it is you that is familiar with the underside of a rock.
What is it with this need you have when you attempt to put others down to make yourself look big? Didn't your mummy cuddle you as a child?
The best status... seems to be on the defensive and resorted to being a potty mouth!
Yes we have had a global crisis but there was one of those in 1998 (Asian Crisis), in 2001 (9/11 and dot com bust) then of course 2008.
NZ was actually hurt much more by the 1987 property and stockmarket crash than by 2008 so JK can't use that old excuse.
There are lots of simple things Key could have done to stimulate the economy.
- He could have started a 10 year plan to sell and replace state houses particularly in Central Auckland. This would have boosted construction while the building industry was in despair and also would have provided more housing for renovation or redevelopment in central areas (limiting house price inflation a little). This would have actually created a net surplus from the sales of existing housing assets.
- He could have reduced council fees and costs on development so supply was not artificially constrained and the building industry didn't grind to a halt.
- He could have managed Chritchurch infinitely better.
- He could have directed consolidation of government departments to locations outside Auckland and Wellington instead of the reverse, boosting the regional economies.
- He could have sold assets to the NZ Super Fund with a non-onsale proviso which would have reduced Govt debt, prevented further losses and risk and keep strategic assets and their income in NZ hands.
- He could have printed money (and used it to repay debt - no it's not blasphemy!) to reduce the value of the NZ dollar and help exporters while the US and UK printed and spent.
- He could have found ways to entice manufacturers into NZ
- He could have found plenty of other things to do as well...
mist42nz, it seems that you can only find problems and not solutions. I guess that you don't achieve much with that attitude.
Even Bernard agrees the Govt could print and pay debt. Given major economies are printing and spending it's not the blasphemy it sounds like - if the dollar is high, going through with a threat to print would devalue the currency slightly and keep things in check.
There is no problem having the NZ Super Fund own those assets as they return strong dividends and could be returned to State ownership at a later date if finances allowed.
As for having backroom government functions located in smaller centres like Invercargill and Whangarei etc with modern communications there is absolutely no need for centralisation (for all you know I could be writing this from Molesworth or Mumbai!)
Thanks for that mist42 NZ.......thoughtful and sincere ...now they are truly scarce values in the rat pile that is the hub bub and flourish of the species.
I know of the road you spoke of, and I, like you and your parents concluded I could not eat my values, could not accept the responsibility to care for the interests (well being)of another with my philosophy......and so decided to use those cerebral pulses to build the foundations that would hopefully withstand the periods your parents feared.
No, my sentiment was not a critique of your post but an observation from all that I see about me....I truly do believe your best asset lives on top of your shoulders...your second best the worthiness of the vehicle that carries it around......beyond that ,it takes resolve of both mind and body to commit and follow a reasoned course to security.
There are no guarantees,.....nobody promised us tomorrow...and occassionally the values that seperate us from the rats will be our undoing......but we resolve to push on.
Enjoyed your thoughts..thanks again.
Funny how Kiwis got so easily suckered in by finance companies , and lost billions , or were bailed out by innocent taxpayers ......
...... but mention lending to the government , and the knee-jerk reaction is that it's a bad thing .... as if that's riskier than lending to Watson / Petreivec / Hotchins / & their ilk !
A better Q might be what are Govn war bonds......Such could be offered again, indeed I suspect such things will make a come back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_bond
"War bonds are debt securities issued by a government for the purpose of financing military operations during times of war. War bonds generate capital for the government and make civilians feel involved in their national militaries. This system is also useful as a means of controlling inflation in such an overstimulated economy by removing money from circulation until hopefully after the war is concluded. At that point, the funds could be liquidated and serve as a stimulus to encourage consumer spending for the economy transitioning to peacetime activity."
If like me you see meeting the challenge of post Peak Oil as needing funding on the scale of ww2 then "non-war" bonds seem to be a strong possibility.
regards
I agree, a little bit of inflation would do the NZ economy a world of good. This is going to have to come from government initiative, because the private sector is not going to do it, regardless how fervently NZ prays to the austerity gods.
Unfortunately with the way the financial system is presently organised, once there is a recovery then the financial system will go right back to creating money and driving inflation on the back of asset speculation again. A sensible government would take measures to combat this.
Clueless Key needs a business lesson.
Why sell these strong dividend streams while they are earning so little from the superannuation fund and money is so cheap to borrow for relatively long terms? (10yr about 3.5%)
Selling AirNZ is the only sensible move, energy companies are not the things to sell. Look a Telecom, the huge revenue stream lost and the lack of investment in new infrastructure prove the case.
Agree 100% .....and yes Air NZ will collapses again expensive oil and recessions will be its undoing.
I continue to be gob smacked, I can but assume there are "unknowns" for instance key was given the hard word that if he didnt sell he wouldnt be able to borrow as cheaply as he can now......there has to be some reason for this behaviour....does it really come down to dogma? and the refusal to change course? I hope not....
The old Post office that is now Telecom I think was blatently monopolistic, in-efficient and archaic. Good that it was sold, took far too long of course to achieve benefits for NZers such as modern comms & broadband......interesting how sareholders seem to whine about loss of dividends as Telecom slid...yet as its slid other businesses got ahead.
The crazy thing is the Govn could offer a 10 year bond at say 5% (tax free?) backed by the SOE's revenue stream....as the other assets come on line they can help pay that bond back....NZers get to keep both assets and get a good income stream.
regards
PO, agree.
AirNZ is considered "strategic" but there is a saying I like, "only fight a battle if you have to and if you can win" From the little Ive read jet fuel in the $120USD+ range makes no airline economic and that is the nrom going forward. Since peak oil that when we are not in recession is the "norm" when we are in recession yes sure the A1 price drops but then there are not the "bums on seats" to cover the other costs.....Also one of the biggest issues is financing the new planes? Yeah Ok there is no fuel cost on the ground but all the overheads still apply.
Alternative fuels, yes but none of them do a EROEI of 8 to 1 plus in fact they all seem to be about 1 to 1 so an arbitrage. So to make biofuels we have to make choices ie rob peter to pay paul...which is food (and exports) v jet a1....hence I think AirNZ is bye bye....its the only SOE sale I totally agree with........Right now I think its in the "phoney war" period, no one yet has to make really hard choices....
regards
I'd forgotten that the reason given for selling the assets was for rebuilding schools...
I thought at the time that wasn't the top priority.....especially when some little misbegotten hoodlums can continue their weekend/holiday arson attacks and poooofff! that's another one gone.
And anyway, too many graduates of our schools cannot even read or write after their secondary schooling is completed, so expensive classrooms are no guarantee of a sound, basic education.
Its not all about schools, Anne. Its also about building expensive irrigation systems, which in their turn add incredible value to farms in Canterbury, all so that farmers can sell up as rich as Croesus, all free of any capital gains tax, and all courtesy of the long-suffering Kiwi taxpayer.
If you want a definition for institutional corruption, you'll find it there.
can we do more with less? I notice in Chistchurch schools doubled up and had different shifts. This coupled with high speed net and online learning must be an oppurtunity to make btter use of our education resources. Primary schools have a 39 week year...and operates from about 9 to 3.00 ....thats one heck of a lot of idle time.
This Govt needs to get creative....
Teachers are already not well paid and under huge stress. While kids are in school, Ok parents can work, and 2 incomes these days is essential pretty much. Uh primary shool children on the internet unsupervised? and un-controlled? Im not sure what you are driving at in terms of a solution.....I see none on the face of it.
regards
Yes Rastus, I agree with you, there are far too many school buildings and playing fields sit empty during school holidays and after 3pm. They should have shifts and use the buildings more efficiently. What is the point of selling income producing power stations and then waste the money on building more schools.
What planet are BERL on?
For their report they assume the SOEs will return an 8% dividend forever when over the last 5 years it's only been 3.5%.
For their report they assume interests rates will stay at 4% for 15 years.
For their report they assume the $6 billion the government receives for the sale will not have a single dollars benefit to anyone for 5 years.
Who would pay for a report based on such nonsense assumptions?
Oh, a political party.
Their assumptions are there to provide a guidence as to why they say what they say.
lets look at your claims,
Ok lay out what %s you see and what effect that has on the calculation(s)
for instance, 4% v 8%,
"In its Leading Energy report, PwC finds that across the board in the energy sector returns on equity have fallen from 6.3 per cent in 2009 to 5.2 per cent this financial year."
or
Genesis Energy's return on equity has fallen to 4 per cent, but listed TrustPower has maintained its return on equity at 8 per cent or more for the past three years."
or
"Mighty River had a dividend yield of 8.3 per cent and a total shareholder return of 7.5 per cent last year."
Also 5years would cover post GFC, and a recession, hardly fair...4% for 15 years....what would you like to take? what does that do to the calc?
Their assumptions are complete nonsense.
They take record low interest rate of 4% and assume it will be stay at that rate for the next 15 years (when the average long term interest rate over the last few decades is 7.5% - nearly double)
We KNOW the actual dividend rates for the SOEs for the last 5 years - under 4%. But instead of using the dividend rate that the SOEs ACTUALLY earn, they assume a rate over DOUBLE the real world earnings.
And the assumption that the govt can take $6 billion off debt or spend it on infrastructure without there being a single dollars benefit to anybody for five years is bizarre.
It looks very much like they used nonsensical figures in desperation to get an outcome that their client would be happy with.
Recent government bond yields have been 3.6%, so 4% does not seem unrealistic, even with a slight premium to get Mums and Dads to invest. I personally would go a step further and follow the Swiss, UK, US and Europe, and print the money to loan to MRP, giving a cost of funds of 0%. Neverless the 4% seems okay.
The return from the companies should not just be the dividend stream but profit stream; assuming there is reinvestment, and I really believe should be EBITDA, which is almost certainly double digits.
One of my main overall objections to the sales; and I believe the point the Greens and Labour are making, is that the government should look at the effect of the sales on New Zealand, and not just the government's books. If they do sell to New Zealanders exclusively, then at best the net effect for New Zealand is zero. It will be though a transfer of wealth from poorer New Zealanders to wealthier ones (of which, as it happens I am one, in case you think I argue from self interest)
If there is leakage out of NZ, and we all know there will be, then the dollar will go up as a result, which will hurt exporters and import substituters in the time honoured fashion, until we have blown whatever proportion of the $6 billion that comes from overseas, probably 2-3 months later at current rates. As well the new owners will use the monopoly power and unique assets to increase prices to NZers, so a double whammy.
The government need to get past schoolboy economics. Unfortunately the consequences are tragic in my view, until they do, or they are replaced..
I should add that most would consider the $100 million pavable to the snouts in the trough to manage this exercise, to be a non trivial amount. Its hard to see English or Key as competent managers of New Zealand's finances given this saga.
Nearly all the money to the snouts will be to foreign owned companies, with I think Goldman Sachs lining up for the biggest share.
Complete nonsense, no.....maybe marginal, well lets see the replies. I just posted that Mighty river for one made well in excess of 4%....so "KNOW' I dont see how you have arrived at <4%, please explain. Also the long term 10 year bond rate is I think 3.5%, so borrowing for 10 years at 3.5% v selling an asset that pays above that in a dividend just does not make sense on the face of it.
Also looking at long terms rates you cant take historic numbers and necessarily use it going forward. You are assuming a recovery....actually its looking like exceptionally low rates out for a decade maybe 2 aka japan ie stagnation.....
But I will be interested in seeing some proper detailed rebuttals....I cant see National letting this go...
regards
Steven - have you considered that perhaps what Key is attempting to do is keep the debt levels down so that the Govt can continue to fund at 3.5%, and as a consequence, mortgage holders have a better chance of continue to fund at 5.5% for some time longer. Extropolating the current situation into the future is nonsensical - we won't need to get debt to GDP levels to anything like the big countries, the minute we arent seen to be doing the job, forget 3.5% bond rates as other are finding out for themselves now.
This is probably John Keys motivation, basically he has a requirement to pander to rating agencies, though I can't fathom why as its anti democratic. The problem is the same ratings agencies direction has been crap, they have an atrocious record in terms of debt ratings. The only clear thing is, if your economy is in trouble and you follow the advice of the ratings agencies, your economy is going to be in more trouble in the near future.
Obviously none of them can tell good from bad debt. The ratings they provide are meaningless generic indicators, mostly they are based on disasterous economic theory. Yet for some bizare reason the governments around the world first follow the prognosis of the maddest people in the nut house. Go figure.
You may be right in terms of Key's motivation, although as per the Berl report, assuming the rating agencies include a half decent economist on their staff, the sales should make our ratings worse. Giving up 8% to save 4% is not good maths.
And given we are losing say $15 billion a year in the Current Account, the government need to do something to address that if they really want to pander to the ratings agencies.
Selling off power companies is the worst thing to do if you wanted to address the current account.
Grant, yes....however the sums are not large and there are alternatives. For me selling a profitable arm that is well run and giving a good return just makes no sense....unless there are indeed significant external factors. The problem is right now it strikes me that this could well be nothing more than political dogma. Or maybe the "opportunties" this offers foreign investors to get their hands on a govn monopoly is seeing greed at play....
Lets take away the guessing and have some real info, then we can start to make some sounder judgements...
The alternative that springs to mind is a "war" bond sold to NZers backed by the SOE income stream. There is right now a hugh amount of money sitting in bank deposits getting at most 4% return....So there would seem to be some leeway in offering such a bond.
I can agree that we dont have the latitude that other countries do, however thats because I think others are way over the limits....rather then we are being over-scrutinised...
regards
hmm context, fit the message to suit the situation....going off on an energy tangent, however valid would get them blown away IMHO....so yes its a point solution.....if they achieve not selling the energy SOE's doesnt that address the energy issues somewhat better? I would suggest so....
regards
What is worrying me about the Green's is their non-focus on key issues of population and energy, too busy worrying about short term social issues. Which is the problem I have with the "contamination of being Green from the left"
....so really maybe a D overall.....simply not good enough, the rest well U for unclassified...
regards
I have been thinking for a while now, if you are concerned about the rate of CO2 emissions then these conservative economic measures are doing a damn fine job of cutting back emissions. Unfetered international austerity is going to do a even better job. Not the sort of message a politician can support, but its hard for the Greens to be too critical of this aspect.
A full blown global depression would be still more effective. If those pesky democrats had not gotten a minimal stimulus package through in the states we would probably be there now. Austerity has certainly been more effective than anything to come out of Copenhagen.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.