Submission
Which option do you prefer?
Option Two – The alternative option – Keep Aurora Energy
Further comment
A crazy time to sell Aurora, when most of your current profits have been directed towards deferred maintenance (a legacy of past poor governance) and the cost of capital is relatively high at present..giving the effect of suppressing current profit and price..
Indeed, part of the legacy of Aurora's issues is the ill fated move into Queenstown subdivisions around the GFC, by directors who had an undisclosed conflict of interest with funding other land purchases. Effectively Aurora bailed them out, and Aurora has spent the last 15 years recovering their balance sheet; by the temporary suspension of maintenance.
Locally owned business reinvest and/or spend profits locally. Public companies do not do this, and often abuse their monopoly status...at the expense of consumers.
Trustpower in Tauranga had community trust ownership, where local users of electricity got a share of the dividends. This was gamed by the dominant shareholder (in that case, Infratil), who charged the highest electricity prices in New Zealand to locals (only). This effectively funded this dividend requirement to local electricity users; all for the benefit of the dominant shareholder and no benefit to the local consumer. Through a media campaign, the truth around this merry go round was shut down...
Don't trust directors of ratepayers assets or public companies to do the right thing, or for that matter politicians to implement consumer protection or minority shareholder regulation. Its no coincedence directors/politicians of taxpayer/ratepayer owned assets find themselves on boards on the assets they sell off; current DCHL directors included.
Supporting information
No associated documents with this submission.
Submitter
Submission id number: 1045444
Submitter name:
Richard Concerned Ratepayer
Organisation