On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 16:05:58 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 21:10:59 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:

On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 15:28:31 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:

On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:59:26 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:

On 6/04/2016 5:32 p.m., Gordon wrote:

On 2016-04-06, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Even more really good news.
NZ post to sell 45% of kiwi bank.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/45_of_kiwibank_to_be_sold_by_nz_post_to_govt_funds.html

What's bad news is that they are selling it to existing SOEs. They >>>>>>>>should be
selling it to anyone that wants to invest in it.

Well be patient, you be able to buy the SOEs shortly.

It makes sense for an insurer and a pension fund to buy a bank, they >>>>>>have more in common than a logistics business.

But the shares have just been split between three SOEs.
So Billy can take a dividend off NZ Post and Cullen can take a bonus. >>>>>>
Post have got a lump sum up front. They probably need to use that for >>>>>>some strategic biz like e-commerce fulfilment.

Sadl;y not - we now know that it is really an attempt to get around >>>>>Keys promise not to sell off state assets (which he has already broken >>>>>with selling off houses), and to shore up the government's balance >>>>>sheet by delivering cash to the government.
See >>>>>http://thestandard.org.nz/kiwibank-sale-to-nz-super-acc-privatisation-by-stealth/
for one commentary - and note the likely credit downgrade for Kiwibank >>>>>as a result of this deal . . .

That article is critical of NZ Posts decision but draws several >>>>conclusions that are incorrect:

- KiwiBank is not government-owned - it is a subsidiary of NZ Post >>>>which is government-owned. If The Standard cant get this detail >>>>correct then all the other details they specify are suspect. The >>>>transaction will transfer ownership from one the three
government-owned entities.

If it not government owned then who else owns it?

- The transaction is about ownership - not capital - and therefore >>>>additional capital for Kiwibank is a separate and unrelated issue.

It is very related - when Kiwibank started it was funded through NZ
Post profits. Then later Kiwibank profits funded NZ Post. It is all >>>jam-jar accounting however - both companies are government owned.

The conjecture from the opposition parties (particularly the Greens)
is all about political National-party-bashing (and/or KDS) and nothing >>>>to do with the health and wellbeing of NZ Post, Kiwibank, the ACC and >>>>NZ Super.

The Standard areticle did not come from either the Green Party or the >>>Labour Party.

Perhaps this article will give you something else to think about: >>>http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2016/04/plunder.html

The entire transaction is excellent governance. Even Victor suggested
that. It
allows NZ post to do whatever it wants to do and divest itself of at least >>part
of a subsidiary which is not core business. It also allows Kiwibank to >>benefit
from the expertise of ACC and the Super fund both of which have a strong >>relationship with financial/banking matters. The opposition to this is >>political spin from people who do not give a damn about ordinary New >>Zealanders
which is what ACC, Kiwibank and the Super fund are supposed to do. NZ post >>does
not have that care in it's charter - all the others do. It is not brain >>surgery
and one day I would like to see the whole of Kiwibank go this way. It is >>cash
neutral so why on earth would anybody object to it unless they don't care >>about
the country!
Tony

The investment aims of ACC, the Cullen Fund and Kiwibank differe significantly - I doubt there is much other than general investment
knowledge that can usefully be shared between them - although if that
is not happening there may be benefit in such exchanges. The "cash
neutral" transaction appears to be resulting in the availability of a significant sum for the government - which is not "cash neutral" for
the government at least!

I am interested in your comment about a caring for New Zealanders in
some charters. Do you have a cite?

On 4/8/2016 9:10 PM, Crash wrote:

On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 15:28:31 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:59:26 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:

On 6/04/2016 5:32 p.m., Gordon wrote:

On 2016-04-06, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Even more really good news.
NZ post to sell 45% of kiwi bank.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/45_of_kiwibank_to_be_sold_by_nz_post_to_govt_funds.html

What's bad news is that they are selling it to existing SOEs. They >>>>>> should be
selling it to anyone that wants to invest in it.

Well be patient, you be able to buy the SOEs shortly.

It makes sense for an insurer and a pension fund to buy a bank, they
have more in common than a logistics business.

But the shares have just been split between three SOEs.
So Billy can take a dividend off NZ Post and Cullen can take a bonus.

Post have got a lump sum up front. They probably need to use that for
some strategic biz like e-commerce fulfilment.

Sadl;y not - we now know that it is really an attempt to get around
Keys promise not to sell off state assets (which he has already broken
with selling off houses), and to shore up the government's balance
sheet by delivering cash to the government.
See
http://thestandard.org.nz/kiwibank-sale-to-nz-super-acc-privatisation-by-stealth/
for one commentary - and note the likely credit downgrade for Kiwibank
as a result of this deal . . .

That article is critical of NZ Posts decision but draws several
conclusions that are incorrect:

- KiwiBank is not government-owned - it is a subsidiary of NZ Post
which is government-owned. If The Standard cant get this detail
correct then all the other details they specify are suspect. The
transaction will transfer ownership from one the three
government-owned entities.

- The transaction is about ownership - not capital - and therefore
additional capital for Kiwibank is a separate and unrelated issue.

The conjecture from the opposition parties (particularly the Greens)
is all about political National-party-bashing (and/or KDS) and nothing
to do with the health and wellbeing of NZ Post, Kiwibank, the ACC and
NZ Super.

It's all they have.
Lies and misinformation.
And you'd think by now that their backroom boffins would have acknowledged that those tactics don't work and have found something else to use as an opposition strategy to a successful and popular government

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 17:34:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 16:05:58 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 21:10:59 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:

On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 15:28:31 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:

On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:59:26 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>

On 6/04/2016 5:32 p.m., Gordon wrote:

On 2016-04-06, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Even more really good news.
NZ post to sell 45% of kiwi bank.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/45_of_kiwibank_to_be_sold_by_nz_post_to_govt_funds.html

What's bad news is that they are selling it to existing SOEs. They >>>>>>>>>>>should be
selling it to anyone that wants to invest in it.

Well be patient, you be able to buy the SOEs shortly.

It makes sense for an insurer and a pension fund to buy a bank, they >>>>>>>>>have more in common than a logistics business.

But the shares have just been split between three SOEs.
So Billy can take a dividend off NZ Post and Cullen can take a bonus. >>>>>>>>>
Post have got a lump sum up front. They probably need to use that for >>>>>>>>>some strategic biz like e-commerce fulfilment.

Sadl;y not - we now know that it is really an attempt to get around >>>>>>>>Keys promise not to sell off state assets (which he has already broken >>>>>>>>with selling off houses), and to shore up the government's balance >>>>>>>>sheet by delivering cash to the government.
See >>>>>>>>http://thestandard.org.nz/kiwibank-sale-to-nz-super-acc-privatisation-by-stealth/
for one commentary - and note the likely credit downgrade for Kiwibank >>>>>>>>as a result of this deal . . .

That article is critical of NZ Posts decision but draws several >>>>>>>conclusions that are incorrect:

- KiwiBank is not government-owned - it is a subsidiary of NZ Post >>>>>>>which is government-owned. If The Standard cant get this detail >>>>>>>correct then all the other details they specify are suspect. The >>>>>>>transaction will transfer ownership from one the three >>>>>>>government-owned entities.

If it not government owned then who else owns it?

- The transaction is about ownership - not capital - and therefore >>>>>>>additional capital for Kiwibank is a separate and unrelated issue. >>>>>>

It is very related - when Kiwibank started it was funded through NZ >>>>>>Post profits. Then later Kiwibank profits funded NZ Post. It is all >>>>>>jam-jar accounting however - both companies are government owned.

The conjecture from the opposition parties (particularly the Greens) >>>>>>>is all about political National-party-bashing (and/or KDS) and nothing >>>>>>>to do with the health and wellbeing of NZ Post, Kiwibank, the ACC and >>>>>>>NZ Super.

The Standard areticle did not come from either the Green Party or the >>>>>>Labour Party.

Perhaps this article will give you something else to think about: >>>>>>http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2016/04/plunder.html

The entire transaction is excellent governance. Even Victor suggested that.
It
allows NZ post to do whatever it wants to do and divest itself of at least >>>>>part
of a subsidiary which is not core business. It also allows Kiwibank to >>>>>benefit
from the expertise of ACC and the Super fund both of which have a strong >>>>>relationship with financial/banking matters. The opposition to this is >>>>>political spin from people who do not give a damn about ordinary New >>>>>Zealanders
which is what ACC, Kiwibank and the Super fund are supposed to do. NZ post >>>>>does
not have that care in it's charter - all the others do. It is not brain >>>>>surgery
and one day I would like to see the whole of Kiwibank go this way. It is >>>>>cash
neutral so why on earth would anybody object to it unless they don't care >>>>>about
the country!
Tony

The investment aims of ACC, the Cullen Fund and Kiwibank differe >>>>significantly - I doubt there is much other than general investment >>>>knowledge that can usefully be shared between them - although if that >>>>is not happening there may be benefit in such exchanges.

There is obvious synergy between the three organisations that does not exist >>>in
NZ Post.

The "cash
neutral" transaction appears to be resulting in the availability of a >>>>significant sum for the government - which is not "cash neutral" for >>>>the government at least!

It is cash neutral for the country and therefore the government obviously. >>>>

I am interested in your comment about a caring for New Zealanders in >>>>some charters. Do you have a cite?

No cite needed. The aims of ACC and the Super fund and Kiwibank clearly >>>include
looking after (caring for) New Zealanders in several ways that do not have a >>>profit motive. Labour set up Kiwibank with some of that in mind as you well >>>know. NZ Post are abbusiness pure and simple - there is no community focus in
their mission.

Tony

That certainly was not the case a decade or so ago - Post Offices were
all about assisting communities stay in touch, and providing essential >>services to New Zealanders wherever they lived. A standard fee for
letters an parcels was part of that community focus. Like such >>organisations in othger countries, we have seen the number of post
offices reduce - the original Kiwibank / Kiwipost link was in large
part about sharing retail space, but as post volumes have reduced we
have seen a rise in postal agencies also running other businesses on
the same premises.

That standard rate for post is however still retained - what evidence
do you have for a reduction in community focus?

It certainly was the same a decade ago. NZ Post is a business. Kiwibank whilst >a business was put in place by Labour to provide alternatives, mainly to the >less well off New Zealanders and there is still an element of that. NZ Post has
not been community focussed fro at least ten years.

Tony

That certainly was not the case a decade or so ago - Post Offices were >>>all about assisting communities stay in touch, and providing essential >>>services to New Zealanders wherever they lived. A standard fee for >>>letters an parcels was part of that community focus. Like such >>>organisations in othger countries, we have seen the number of post >>>offices reduce - the original Kiwibank / Kiwipost link was in large
part about sharing retail space, but as post volumes have reduced we
have seen a rise in postal agencies also running other businesses on
the same premises.

That standard rate for post is however still retained - what evidence
do you have for a reduction in community focus?

It certainly was the same a decade ago. NZ Post is a business. Kiwibank whilst
a business was put in place by Labour to provide alternatives, mainly to the >>less well off New Zealanders and there is still an element of that. NZ Post has
not been community focussed fro at least ten years.

Tony

A major focus was providing an alternative to the big Australian
banks, and providing banking alongside postal operations was a way of
being able to justify the cost of provising both facilities. The rise
of electronic banking and the decline of post has reduced the need for >either, but they were both important elements at the time Kiwibank was >formed. The difficulties of setting up a bank account ae now similar
for all banks - possibly as easy as setting up a company or trust
account. The existence of standard postal rates is a clear example of
a community focus by NZ Post - and is an illustration of the shared
view of the importance of supporting remote locations by both major
political parties. Certainly the closing of postal branches / agencies
still involves politicians - considerations include the effect on >communities.

I haven't seen the charters for the various organisations, but I
suspect there are no significant differences regarding consideration
of community interests.

On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:59:26 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:

On 6/04/2016 5:32 p.m., Gordon wrote:

On 2016-04-06, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Even more really good news.
NZ post to sell 45% of kiwi bank.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/45_of_kiwibank_to_be_sold_by_nz_post_to_govt_funds.html

What's bad news is that they are selling it to existing SOEs. They should be
selling it to anyone that wants to invest in it.

Well be patient, you be able to buy the SOEs shortly.

It makes sense for an insurer and a pension fund to buy a bank, they
have more in common than a logistics business.

But the shares have just been split between three SOEs.
So Billy can take a dividend off NZ Post and Cullen can take a bonus.

Post have got a lump sum up front. They probably need to use that for
some strategic biz like e-commerce fulfilment.

Sadl;y not - we now know that it is really an attempt to get around
Keys promise not to sell off state assets (which he has already broken
with selling off houses), and to shore up the government's balance
sheet by delivering cash to the government.
See http://thestandard.org.nz/kiwibank-sale-to-nz-super-acc-privatisation-by-stealth/
for one commentary - and note the likely credit downgrade for Kiwibank
as a result of this deal . . .