Be an active investor

Reading the news today about 94 New Zealand Housing Corporation employees ensconced at a luxury resort in Tongariro at taxpayer expense, got me thinking about accountability of management amongst our listed companies and shareholder involvement or lack thereof in the businesses that they have invested in.

Even before investing in a listed company, you would do well, as part of your research to get in touch with the management of the company and have a chat. You maybe surprised who you might get hold of and you could even find yourself talking to the CEO, or the company secretary at the very least. They can only say no. I myself have talked to several leaders of the companies I own a part of and you can glean quite alot from a quick chat.

Of course if you do business or become a paying customer at one of the businesses you have a shareholding in, it doesn't hurt to give your feedback, positive of negative, about your experience. How the employee/manager at the end of the phone or across the desk deals with your feedback can say alot about the company you are invested in.

Shareholders should at the very least tick all the boxes in the forms that they get in the post come annual general meeting time. The form that you get will allow you to vote on remuneration, cast your ballot for directors and vote on any extraordinary decision the board may put to shareholders in a particular year, amongst other things.

These kinds of votes become even more important when your company has a takeover or merger offer made. Don't ignore these requests for your input. They are important, even though you might think you have only one vote, you do have ownership of a part of the company-exercise that ownership.

Go to annual meetings. You don't have to be a Bruce Sheppard, the head of the NZ Share Holders Association, but listening to the other shareholders ask questions, the ability for you to give your point of view on company direction is going to be a benefit to your decision to hold or fold.

Sadly in the 10 years I have held shares I have never been to a meeting, they are always on in the middle of the day when I am busy but that dear readers is another column.

New Zealanders are a passive bunch at the best of times. Foreign shareholders are far more involved and tend to have more say in the company's' that they own.

Remember, it is your money invested and you do have a say in your part share of the listed company that you own. It doesn't have to be a completely hands off experience and getting involved makes that investment a more exciting prospect that a certificate in the top drawer or an electronic company code on your computer screen.


Related Share Investor reading

Research,research,research
Stick to what you know
Investors can learn from my stupidity

From Amazon



The Development of Equity Capital Markets in Transition Economies: Privatization and Shareholders Rights (Contributions to Economics) by Dirk Willer


c Share Investor 2008

The Vietnam apology that rings hollow

When NZ withdrew its troops the trauma for many of us was just beginning. We were brought back on a civilian aircraft in civilian clothes and were told to get off the aircraft and go away. The official word from the army was not to tell anyone you'd been in Vietnam. We were aliens in our own country. A march down Queen Street in Auckland turned into a riot. We were pelted with rotten fruit and vegetables. People were screaming out 'baby killers!' That wasn't much good for the psychological state of the soldiers who had just returned from a war zone. Some returned soldiers suffered physical and psychological injuries. I would think the problems (for vets) have been created out of neglect. Neglect on the part of the government, neglect on the part of society and to some extent neglect on the part of the army."

Rick Thame Victor Five Coy


Helen Clark, Phil Goff and a large number of other Labour Party members are going to "apologise" on behalf of the New Zealand Government this Thursday 29 2008 over Vietnam Veteran's appalling treatment by the government of the time and subsequent administrations. There was no government assistance for soldiers as there was in other wars, no welcome home, no acknowledgment of the bravery shown in battle against the Vietcong and they were told to shut their mouths and not talk about their horror again.

Many Vets committed suicide, became hospitalized with mental problems and have a myriad of health problems. Some of these things also happened to subsequent generations of family members.

They will never forget what happened, during the war and after.

I just have one question.

Will Helen Clark, Phil Goff and her Labour colleagues personally apologise for spitting in the soldiers faces during the Queen Street riots?

It must be election year.

c Political Animal 2008

NZ HERALD: Poll reveals we're still smacking our children

In the wake of the acquittal of Chris Kahui for murdering his 2 young children and not a thing said in the media by Sue Bradford, she is out again today trying to make good parents who give their children a corrective smack criminals and normalise that-Political Animal

5:00AM Monday May 26, 2008
By Angela Gregory

NZ HERALD : Almost half of parents with children under 12 have smacked them in the past year, a survey has found.

The Family First lobby group commissioned a market research company to poll New Zealanders on their attitudes to parental discipline since the anti-smacking law came into effect in June last year.

It found that 48 per cent of respondents with children under 12 had smacked their child after the law change.

The changes to the Crimes Act outlawed the use of parental force against children for purposes of correction.

The issue polarised New Zealanders.

The law change was led by Green MP Sue Bradford, whose private member's bill removed from the Crimes Act the statutory defence of reasonable force to correct a child.

But it was passed only after last-minute changes, approved by a large majority in Parliament, which directed the police not to prosecute inconsequential offences.

Family First's national director, Bob McCoskrie, said he was surprised the polling found so many parents admitting they had flouted the law.

He said 51 per cent of mothers had admitted continuing to smack.

Related reading

Anti Anti-smacking petition a slap in the face for out of touch Politicians
Sign the anti smacking petition
Sacha Cobern's letter to NZ Herald Editor
Cindy Kiro gets violent
Anti-smacking law puts young boy at risk

"For a new law to be ignored by so many people who are willing to risk a police or [Child, Youth and Family] investigation indicates just how out of step with reality this law is."

The nationwide poll surveyed 1018 randomly selected respondents, with a fairly even spread of men and women aged from 18.

About a quarter of the respondents had children under 12.

Mr McCoskrie said the poll followed a similar one done in June last year, just after the new law came into effect.

In that survey, 78 per cent of parents said they would smack their child to correct their behaviour if they believed it was reasonable to do so.

Ms Bradford said yesterday that the new poll indicated an improvement in attitudes, as a year on only 48 per cent admitted having done so.

"We are well on the way; that is a great result," she said.

But Mr McCoskrie said the new poll showed the percentage opposed to the anti-smacking law had risen to 73 per cent from 62 per cent last year.

Men, people aged more than 60 and those from rural areas opposed it most strongly.

He said only 19 per cent strongly or somewhat agreed with the new law despite the police discretion clause, down from 29 per cent last year.

Almost half of those surveyed - 47 per cent - strongly disagreed with the ban on smacking.

Mr McCoskrie said 85 per cent of those polled - up from 82 per cent a year ago - agreed the new law should be changed to state that parents who gave their children a smack that was reasonable and for the purpose of correction were not breaking the law.

He said the polling sent a clear message to political parties seeking support for this year's election.

When asked whether their support for a party would be affected if it promised to change the law, 37 per cent said they would be more likely to vote for that party. This was up from 31 per cent last year.

The number of people whose vote would be unaffected by a policy to change the law fell from 59 per cent last year to 53 per cent this year.

Mr McCoskrie said the results showed New Zealanders had not been fooled by the anti-smacking lobby's claim that smacking was child abuse.

"They haven't been duped by arguments that children are damaged by reasonable smacking, and they have understood that our unacceptable rate of child abuse has far deeper root causes than a loving parent who corrects their child with a smack on the bottom," he said.

Asked if they thought the new law was likely to help reduce child abuse, 79 per cent said it was not at all likely. This figure was up from 77 per cent last year.

Organisers of a petition to reverse the anti-smacking law change have until the end of next month to gain the number of signatures needed to force a non-binding referendum at this year's election.

Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro said yesterday that she had not seen the survey.

But she urged people to move on and learn better parenting skills.

"The key message is, 'For goodness sake, can't we move on?' So much energy has been wasted debating this."

Dr Kiro said people needed to learn and be encouraged in positive parenting.

She believed there was a trend away from physical punishment.* The poll was conducted during the week beginning May 12 and has a margin of error of 3.1 per cent.

Labour and their Last Crusade

“We just don't believe in tax cuts - it's against our fundamental philosophy - after all we are socialists and proud of it.”

— Dr Michael Cullen


No wonder Dr Cullen found it difficult to announce his meager tax cuts in this weeks 2008 budget announcement, because his party simply does not fundamentally believe that personal tax cuts are deserved by the working people of this country.

Cullen of course believes that he knows best and that he should hold on to most of your money because he knows best how to spend it. He has done that for 9 years now and simply because it is election year he is giving your money back at an average $16 per week. The price of a ticket to the latest Indiana Jones movie.

We all know that tax cuts do stimulate economies but this is far too little and far too late. Costs imposed on individuals and business by Labour put us way behind where we were in 1999 and most workers would require $200-300 to have them back at status quo.


Related Political Animal reading

Michael Cullen's history on tax cuts comes back to haunt him
Pointing fingers in the playground
At least Robin Hood was honest
The black economy makes sense
Labours State Control out of control

We can exclude so-called "working for families" from the tax equation because it is welfare and we are talking about tax cuts here and not handouts.

The focus of this budget on yet more welfare, through working for families, higher student allowances and unemployment benefits and higher profligate spending on embassies, Governor General house renovations and train set purchases just shows where Labour's priorities lie. The extra spending on these u necessaries far outweighs their meagre cuts in taxes and in these dire economic times you cut back on spending, you don't spend more on luxuries.

That is where the wriggle room for National comes in promising more money going back to those who earn't it in the first place.

A far better tax cut regime would have been the first NZ$10000.00 tax free and a progressive rise to around 20% tax rate to $30,000 of income then a tapering off to 10% after that as incomes go higher-an incentive to work harder/smarter, instead of the current disincentive as the tax rates go higher the more you earn. That ain't going to happen under National either but one can dream nonetheless!

If this was a budget to help pout those in need because of the current blow out in oil, food and service prices then the October 1 cuts would have been brought forward to June 1 but there will be an election not long after Oct 1 and as Michael Cullen rightly says:

My view is that tax cuts are largely offered as a political bribe, not because of beneficial economic or social effects.

— Dr Michael Cullen

Cullen's maxim doesn't not apply to National as they have always been consistent on personal tax cuts. They believe in them, they always have and it has always been one of that party's main economic tenants-that is, kiwis know best how to spend their own money, not the government.

A chorus that has been sung by Labour since our economy went pear shaped and reiterated in the budget is that "global economic conditions" have affected our economy. Sure they have, but the largest negative affect by far has been Labour's mis-management of the economy for the last 9 years. Hard work by our businesses and middle classes (those that provide the bulk of taxes) provided the best economic conditions in generations but the good times were squandered by Labour. High taxes, regulation and reckless government spending have led to a doubling of mortgage rates, higher food and energy prices and inflation. These things happed before any global slowdown and it is simply a lie to say otherwise.

What was needed in the 2008 budget was a vision for its people. That is, a strong focus on hard work and personal responsibility and incentives to enable that. What we got was more of the same. Energies channeled on State involvement in our lives and a tax and spend policy that would extend into a Labour 4th term should we all be unlucky enough to have them foisted upon us again for another 3 years.

We will leave the second to last word(because I always get the upper hand over her) to our Aunty Helen:

Tax cuts are a path to inequality. They are the promises of a vision-less and intellectually bankrupt people.— Helen Clark, speech to 2000 labour Party Conference

Tax cuts are actually the path to fairness, equity and personal responsibility, the intellectually bankrupt tag goes to those who disagree or would cut personal taxes weeks before an election.




c Political Animal 2008