Pros and cons of foreign investment
Brian Gaynor has a thoughtful article in today’s Herald about the pros and cons of foreign investment, in light of the bid by Dubai Aerospace Enterprise for Auckland International Airport.
I have raised concerns about the bid because the purchase would: further add to the foreign ownership of the NZ economy which is crippling our current account deficit as profits and dividends are sent overseas; would add to the problem we currently have of many of the decisions about the economy being made overseas; the risks to our tourist industry of having our most important gateway to foreign toursists in the hands of a foreign multinational when the Commerce Commission has no power to force down prices (though this also applies to NZ owners); and the links between DAE and Emirates which could advantage Emirates ahead of Air NZ. I had a phone chat to the head of DAE and he seemed fine, but the concerns remained.
Of course the future profitability of airports is somewhat under a cloud in light of rising oil prices and greenhouse emission concerns but I think the concerns about foreign ownership apply in spite of the question marks that peak oil places over the asset.
Gaynor rightly distinquishes between greenfield foreign investments and purchase of existing assets. He points out that some countries (eg Ireland) encourage greenfield investments but we don’t in the name of the level playing field and so haven’t had much inthe way of greenfield foreign investment. He also points out that some countries protect strategic assets (Australia protects major airports, banks, Qantas, media companies) while we don’t and so our assets have been gobbled up by foreigners and now our sharemarket is the most overseas owned in the western world.
He also points out that it matters whether the companies that buy our strategic assets can, or wish to, run them well. For example NZ Steel was sold to Equitcorp when Equiticorp was close to insolvency; Telecom was sold to US investors who sucked it dry and our telecommunications infrastructure has never recovered from the underinvestment; Air NZ was sold to Brierley who had no idea how to run it, except into the ground; similar experiences with NZ Rail and BNZ.
So he argues that we should be asking not whether DAE is offering a good price, but whether they know anything about running airports. And given that they are in a start up phase and don’t own any airports, it seems that they don’t have much experience running ariports. And we should also be asking what are the risks with DAE - what happens if their is a downturn in UAE?
He concludes that the airport is being manged well now, and there is nothing to suggest that DAE will do a better job.
I think one of the most compelling quotes is from John Stewart, CEO of Nat Aust Bank, owner of BNZ. He says the Australian govt should not allow foreign takeovers of the big four Australian banks because “Australia might end up as a branch economy, not dissimilar to the way New Zealand is now.” We are in the situation where many of the major decisions about the NZ economy are now made in Sydney.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Yes, it’s never just about investment, but what kind of investment and for whose benefit. This seems to have almost no redeeming features - good to see Gaynor addressing the wider issues.
July 29th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Or it could be an opportunity to get some value from the airport now - it may be worth an awful lot less when the unsustainable global aviation industry tanks in the (near?) future.
Without cheap, abundant energy, it’s not exactly in a good location for other useful activities.
Sell the airport and spend the billions on sustainable local transport?
July 30th, 2007 at 9:43 am
From, an capitalist economic point of view, it seems nuts to sell an income earning asset to overseas investors.
From an environmental point of view, selling the airport to people who can’t run it very well, or who over charge passengers, thus slowing the tourist trade, seems an excellent idea.
“we currently have of many of the decisions about the economy being “made overseas”
The NZ economy floats on the shaky edifice of international financial trading in any case, just look at the imI don’t think owning an airport will make a lot of difference. Anyway, I don’t see it makes much difference if a few rich NZers make the decisions, or a few rich non-NZers.
“the risks to our tourist industry”
‘Our’ industry? Who’s this us? Does Russel own or have shares in tourist ventures?
As for advantaging Emirates over Air NZ, so what? If you must fly, Emirates are a better airline.
July 30th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Nice range of points made.
Knowing that peak oil is on us, that we will have a short fall of 1 million barrels a day over the next years, two the next, then 4 million accumulating annual short fall over the following years, seems like a great idea to take the cash and ideally invest in rail, efficiencies and renewables.
But how could we ensure that the money was spent that way…. and not on more consumer goods, like upmarket Japanese cars and plasma screens?
More likely the recipients of the money will take it and run…
July 30th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
what go on with yous fwwog,
Airport is National asett,
no discussion,
not for sale,
not now,not ever, Airport belong to Nation
July 31st, 2007 at 9:39 am
PQ - Again I agree with you, and the strategy selling it off so that some furriner takes the hit as peak oil smacks down air travel is fraught with risk.
All: The CORRECT usage of fraught thank you, NZ common usage grates my nerves.
respectfully
BJ
July 31st, 2007 at 10:08 am
paul Says:
July 30th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Knowing that peak oil is on us, that we will have a short fall of 1 million barrels a day over the next years, two the next, then 4 million
………………………………….
What is your source for that???
jh
July 31st, 2007 at 2:04 pm
All: The CORRECT usages of fraught…
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fraught
cf. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000
July 31st, 2007 at 10:27 pm
“Telecom was sold to US investors who sucked it dry and our telecommunications infrastructure has never recovered from the underinvestment; Air NZ was sold to Brierley who had no idea how to run it, except into the ground”
At least get your facts straight. Telecom was sold to two large US companies, which then downsold their shareholdings by half through a public float. It was hardly sucked dry!! What complete nonsense, the PSTN of NZ had significant investment in it, as did mobile, international connections (Southern Cross cable). Compare that to the Post Office which couldn’t respond to the growth in central Auckland in the mid 1980s because it couldn’t get cabinet approval for capex into a new exchange.
Brierley had no idea how to run Air NZ?? As opposed to the government which sent it nearly bankrupt in the early 1980s, and then prevented the sale of 49% to Singapore Airlines which would have saved it. Yes it paid too much for Ansett, but it was a strategic gamble that government would approve Singapore Airlines injecting substantial capital into a large Air NZ which would be Qantas sized and be able to share in the Australia/Pacific market. Now Air NZ is a minnow, and remains so. It’s fleet of foot but still not an investor grade airline.
August 1st, 2007 at 7:38 am
Hang on a bit Liberty… are you saying that Telecom did not underinvest in NZ infrastructure?
”
Of the 42 high-income countries tracked by the ITU, only Kuwait has invested less in telecommunications - which includes phone lines, mobile networks and internet.
New Zealand ranks 41st and has invested US$66.80 an inhabitant, according to the latest figures available, compared to leader Norway, at US$568.70. Australia has spent US$240.50 an inhabitant. “
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10366808
http://www.internetnz.net.nz/media/archived/2006-05-29-research-report
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/author/story.cfm?a_id=36&objectid=10422894
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/author/story.cfm?a_id=36&objectid=10428808
That looks like what happens when “investors” get hold of an asset like Telecom, possessed of a monopoly. THEY want the money, and have no interest in long term investment in this country or its people.
It isn’t capitalism at all…. in some distorted way it is, but it isn’t anything Adam Smith would’ve approved of.
The rest of your post is well enough afaik. I like Air NZ smaller and more agile. We need to have our OWN airline imho, but I’d be hard pressed to justify that sentiment/instinct except that we should not be at the mercy of commercial entities that could in theory pull services and leave us without. The idea is far-fetched when stated that way, but I and possibly others here will instinctively recoil from dependence on the goodwill of foreign corporations when the peak-oil noose tightens still further.
Private and Public both have their problems. Trusting people is a problem.
respectfully
BJ
August 1st, 2007 at 8:14 am
bjchip
“It isn’t capitalism at all…. in some distorted way it is, but it isn’t anything Adam Smith would’ve approved of.”
Yeah. Its J.P. Morgan “Robber Baron”, style capitalism. He would have loved the 1980s and early to mid 1990s. Especially with the then, incompetent government. Getting the guys who were bidding for assets to advise you on their value! I don’t even think that would have happended even in the Reagan era or even during the corrupt administration of Ulyssus S. Grant. lol. I’m a history buff.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:44 am
You mean like this?
“Anything that ain’t nailed down is mine, and anything I can pry up ain’t nailed down”
Not sure it was Morgan that said that, but it was one of them.
ciao
BJ
August 1st, 2007 at 11:19 am
bjchip
Yep.
Original incarnation of the Business Round Table?
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/all-both.html
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:43 pm
BJ and yous people must be absolute,
there must be no more asset sales,
concentrate, group together, gain 6%,
i keep telling yous ,
who care who the caretaker PM is,
take power now,
6% power 6% direction for NZ,
August 5th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
- “the purchase would further add to the foreign ownership of the NZ economy which is crippling our current account deficit as profits and dividends are sent overseas”
A current account deficit is of course also known as a capital account surplus and is more likely to be a sign of economic success than indicate any sort of problem. Having foreigners invest their money in NZ is a great thing, it means that wealth is being created here as opposed to over there. No debt-creation is implied and most of that newly-created wealth stays in NZ; only a small fraction (after all the costs and local and national taxes have been paid out) is paid back to the investors. Obviously you resent even that small payout to those people who have risked their own money to make these investments, but try to live with it. They are human beings too, even if their skin or passports are a different colour to yours.
Moreover, your “analysis” is completely one-sided as it completely neglects the billions of dollars that will be paid to the current owners of the airport. Neither you nor I have any idea how those dollars will be re-invested, so for you to claim that the deal will automatically lead to a “crippling of our current account deficit” (whatever that means) is complete nonsense. For all you know the money received in payment for the airport will be re-invested overseas and lead to net inflows of dividend payments. It’s just opportunistic, anti-foreigner rabble-rousing on your part.
- “[Gaynor] argues that we should be asking not whether DAE is offering a good price, but whether they know anything about running airports.”
How many of the existing shareholder know anything at all about running an airport? Absolutely nothing, most of them. It’s the *management* that has to know about the operation, and the new owners can easily employ knowledgeable management. What do you think they are going to do, turn up at their new airport and start manning the desks themselves? sheesh.
- ” He also points out that some countries protect strategic assets (Australia protects major airports, banks, Qantas, media companies) while we don’t and so our assets have been gobbled up by foreigners and now our sharemarket is the most overseas owned in the western world”
Whats this about “our” assets being gobbled up? That’s like me referring to the place where you live as “our” house. The sheer arrogance of it.
Unless you’re an investor you don’t *have* any such assets and have no right to say who should own them or how they should be run. We are not serfs to be dictated to by people like you.
Moreover, banks, airlines and media companies are not “strategic” assets; they are just things that politicians like to control. Big difference. In truth, the nationality of asset owners makes not one jot of difference.
The only political concern should be how to ensure a competitive marketplace (which benefits consumers, not producers). Of course, as one would expect, the state largely fails in this basic task. Union paymasters are rewarded with increased worker “protection” legislation (which benefits unions, not workers) etc - a regulatory burden which prevents new startups from entering the market. So politicians, big businesses and labour cartels shaft the workers yet again in the name of “protecting” us from a free market.
- “…would add to the problem we currently have of many of the decisions about the economy being made overseas; the risks to our tourist industry of having our most important gateway to foreign toursists in the hands of a foreign multinational when the Commerce Commission has no power to force down prices.”
The solution is not for the state to interfere and directly control even more or the economy. Such thuggery belongs in the last century. The answer is for the Green party to declare that it would not stand in the way of the development of a second privately-owned Auckland airport to compete with the existing one. This competition will ensure that the operations are efficiently run and prices kept to a minimum.
I fully realize how, for many politicians, this is no solution at all. To be considered a solution an idea has to involve an expansion of state power and further invasion of our freedoms.
August 5th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
I over heard someone talking to the stewardess about the internet etc in japan, (during takeoff)… He said too much payout was going to overseas shareholders (Telecom), and in fact there wasn’t enough investment in infrastructure. The point was I think that some entity’s would be better owned by locals.???
“GB is now admitting the privatisation of rail was a mistake… so things aren’t so black and white.??
Mouldwarp write indignantly>
Whats this about “ourâ€? assets being gobbled up? That’s like me referring to the place where you live as “ourâ€? house. The sheer arrogance of it.”
How about massive immigration. Don’t Mr and Mrs Te Kiwi have a say in how many people use the public toilets?
jh