Hi Gr8day
First point - ANZ must be showing NET of tax, rather than gross.
The current price is $2.65. Divide by 25.5, and you get 9.62. Near enough to the ANZ figure.
I like to think of dividend yields in gross before tax terms, so you can compare to bonds, term deposits etc.
The second point is open to interpretation depending on your political and technological viewpoints, but I'll give it a go.
This May 2012 article by Brian Gaynor was written when the ComCom issues first became known.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10805262
Since then, the ComCom has reduced the impact of UCLL, but has brought in further draft proposals for unbundled bitstream access (UBA) which are very harsh for the company.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10851600
However, the government has signalled it is not happy and will potentially make changes to the regulatory environment (and to be fair, the ComCom questioned its own methodology when it released the draft, but said it was obliged to release the draft regardless)
http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/key-rea...chorus-pricing
The upshot is this. Having been split out of Telecom as a sop to anti-competitive politicking, and having entered into a public-private partnership with the government, Chorus and investors believed they should face light handed regulation. Instead, the ComCom appears to continue to wield a heavy stick. The consequences of the draft decision is that companies and investors won't invest in infrastructure if they can't make decent profits, and that there is no incentive for people to jump over to fibre if the ComCom forces the price of copper based broadband down to levels where there is artificially created demand for a cheaper, inferior product. The flip side is that Chorus is a very dominant telco lines player (but not quite a monopoly), people want cheaper broadband, and ISPs want to see the cheaper easier to deploy product kept as cheap as possible.
So the irony is this - the state is taxing you to build fibre, the best telecommunications network its believes the country needs, and then another wing of the state is forcing the price of the inferior alternative down to hold back uptake of fibre, for the benefit of other private companies who don't innovate or build anything! As a taxpayer, this should horrify you because the government spent $1.35b of your money to put fibre and ultrafast broadband into your streets.
Hence why the govt is right to step in, sort it out, and provide regulatory certainty.