Martin (and Bernard), given that S&P has given its (A-something) rating based on an implied govt guarantee (without which the WSEs would have a rating just above junk bonds), how does it help to have an off-balance sheet structure and funding?
It's govt-guaranteed debt, no matter what sleight of hand is used to disguise that.
So the stru…
Martin (and Bernard), given that S&P has given its (A-something) rating based on an implied govt guarantee (without which the WSEs would have a rating just above junk bonds), how does it help to have an off-balance sheet structure and funding?
It's govt-guaranteed debt, no matter what sleight of hand is used to disguise that.
So the structure in itself doesn't help gain lower interest rates – it's the govt's implicit backing that does.
Therefore, why not have the govt just fund (voluntarily) amalgamated councils directly (which is what the Three Mayors are suggesting)?
I noticed Ardern was very testy when questioned by Bernard. She couldn't get away from his line of questioning fast enough.
Hi Graham. You're right. "Off-balance sheet" finance will still be backed by the government, especially when a region's water is at stake. We just get to pay more for it, both for the water and the finance. I wish I knew how the financial hucksters sell this stuff.
What's alarming (and depressing) is that none of our media analysts point this out. Once again, we'll have to wait until Mr Cranmer finds the time to analyse it properly!
I have been reading a few of the big law firms' analyses of 3W and they are no better. I am reluctant to jump to the conclusion that they are part of the "financial hucksters" but I am beginning to wonder if a desire to be in line for fat govt contracts (in whatever field) makes them wary of criticising the hand that might generously feed them.
Surely Thomas Cranmer can't be the only legal expert (and citizen journalist) who can see clearly what's going on.
Although that happened, of course, with Enron. All the financial press shared the company's rah-rah story until two WSJ journos, John Emshwiller and Rebecca Smith, started asking pretty obvious questions. The company was in trouble within a month.
Clare Rewcastle Brown had a similar role in single-handedly exposing corruption in the 1MDB scandal in Malaysia and bringing down PM Najib Razak. (She was very helpful to me in writing about foreign trusts in NZ under Key's govt and sharing her knowledge.)
Sometimes, there's only a single journalist / analyst who sees through the murkiness and spin.
Martin (and Bernard), given that S&P has given its (A-something) rating based on an implied govt guarantee (without which the WSEs would have a rating just above junk bonds), how does it help to have an off-balance sheet structure and funding?
It's govt-guaranteed debt, no matter what sleight of hand is used to disguise that.
So the structure in itself doesn't help gain lower interest rates – it's the govt's implicit backing that does.
Therefore, why not have the govt just fund (voluntarily) amalgamated councils directly (which is what the Three Mayors are suggesting)?
I noticed Ardern was very testy when questioned by Bernard. She couldn't get away from his line of questioning fast enough.
Hi Graham. You're right. "Off-balance sheet" finance will still be backed by the government, especially when a region's water is at stake. We just get to pay more for it, both for the water and the finance. I wish I knew how the financial hucksters sell this stuff.
What's alarming (and depressing) is that none of our media analysts point this out. Once again, we'll have to wait until Mr Cranmer finds the time to analyse it properly!
I have been reading a few of the big law firms' analyses of 3W and they are no better. I am reluctant to jump to the conclusion that they are part of the "financial hucksters" but I am beginning to wonder if a desire to be in line for fat govt contracts (in whatever field) makes them wary of criticising the hand that might generously feed them.
Surely Thomas Cranmer can't be the only legal expert (and citizen journalist) who can see clearly what's going on.
Although that happened, of course, with Enron. All the financial press shared the company's rah-rah story until two WSJ journos, John Emshwiller and Rebecca Smith, started asking pretty obvious questions. The company was in trouble within a month.
Clare Rewcastle Brown had a similar role in single-handedly exposing corruption in the 1MDB scandal in Malaysia and bringing down PM Najib Razak. (She was very helpful to me in writing about foreign trusts in NZ under Key's govt and sharing her knowledge.)
Sometimes, there's only a single journalist / analyst who sees through the murkiness and spin.