Same goes for auckland council mate...law into themselves.
Printable View
Same goes for auckland council mate...law into themselves.
I have heard the opposite criticism of the power company floats. We allocate to overseas instos at the expense of NZ instos. Then the overseas instos stag to the NZ instos. But in the Air NZ case, how could the government possibly deliver on the "keep the shares in local hands", if they placed a lot with overseas instos?
What amazes me is that they could unload that many shares so close to the prevailing market price - especially given the track record of the other 2 sales. You have to say it's Gummit 3 Investors 0 so far! If JK has been looking after his mates - they aren't us lot!
Point that STC and Gaynor are making is that they should give the 30m odd shares allocated to overseas investors to just one or two, like Capital Group. Then it's worth their while to build up their stake to say, 5%. Otherwise, they just sell out the 1 or 2m shares allocated to them as Treasury spread the shares too wide.
Agree, STC - no perspective whatsoever of what a dog of an investment Air NZ was for Brierley, SIA and the minority shareholders who lost billions. Pick a time period and most investments can be made to look really good or really bad.
As for comparing Forsyth Barr's investment recommendation track record, three words - Feltex, Credit Sails.
AIR only lost such a huge amount in 2001/2002 year because of Brierley's decision to have AIR invest in Ansett. To say AIR was a dog of an investment for Brierley's when they were in control is total rubbish from you.
You are right there that BIL supported Air NZ in buying Ansett and Air NZ made a dog's breakfast out of Ansett.
But it was still a dog of an investment for them.
If it looks like a dog, bark like a dog and walk like a dog (irrespective of what you feed it), it is a dog!
Brierley did not support AIR in buying Ansett, Brierley's were controlling AIR at the time and had they alone did not do "due diligence" and bought a dog.