The next charter school

With the newly announced ability to setup charter schools - how upset would anyone in New Zealand be to have one of these replace their local?

Not often I agree with Labour

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10620043

But I'm behind this one 100%!!

"We are generally dumber, sicker, poorer, more pissed, drugged and pregnant than any other group of people in New Zealand. We know the problem, but what's the solution? Well let's repeal the Foreshore and Seabed and put the F&S into Maori title. We can be dumber, sicker, poorer, more pissed, drugged and pregnant at the beach. That'll make all the difference." (Labour MP Kelvin Davis)

Break Fees and Lawyers

Of course the one set of parties that has remained (incriminatingly) silent on most of this debate is the law society and the lawyers;

They could at least have helped clear up the confusion around the legal obligations of the banks preventing them doing what most are currently accusing them of;

However perhaps it is because ultimately it was their responsibility to their client to properly explain those clauses in the contract they were collecting their fees for?

The Break Fee Debate

ITs good to see the banks are hanging tough on break fees - although I'm disappointed in Bill English's proposed pressure on KiwiBank to potentially lower these.

Lets be clear here as there has been a huge amount of morons commenting on this subject when they have no actual concept:

The banks are not making money out of this - there is no margin in the break fee, it is genuine costs relating to the fact that people are wanting to intentionally breach contracts.

In fact the CCCFA (Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003) both means it is illegal for them to make money on the break fee - and (to put another misinformation to bed) sets out how they should calculate the fee.  

There is ambiguity in the law as to which rate the lender should use as their relending rate - If your original contract was for 5 years fixed rate, you are now 2 years in the lender may be relending at the variable, the 5 year or the 3 year rate? However while this is unclear in the law which must be used, it is stipulated in the contract.

Which in the end is much of the point here - how are people legitimately thinking they should be able to walk out of a legally binding contract without paying the other parties costs?  These pillocks are effectively arguing that when the rates were rising the banks should have been able to give the homeowner (EG) $4000 and then say "sorry, but you're back on the variable (3% higher) variable rate now".  Because the fix works both ways.

In the end the risk is 2 ways - if the rates had spiked rather than dropped would you still be complaining about being on a fixed rate?  Furtermore is it the bank that has dropped the OCR? (or raised it initially)?

The only way around it is to either align the term of the fixed rate to the term of the mortgage or go completely variable rate - but I don't see these plonkers actually going for either of these options.  Unfortunatly the nanny state seems to haev won in its efforts to create a nation of whiners that not only thinks they can have their cake and eat it too - but actually have someone else bake it for free in the first place.

 

KiwiBank - the safest haven. Tui Ad in the making

I have been intrigued by the rumors being floated recently - mainly seeming to originate from the political left about how Kiwibank is the one safe bank at the moment; especially in this time of sub prime debt.

However putting aside the point that the only registered bank to have previously become bankrupt in New Zealand was the BNZ while it was a Labour Government controlled SOE, I decided to do a bit more digging.

And find that according to the Reserve Banks own data Kiwibank actually has the worst without exception level of capital reserves. Kiwibank only hold 7.2% of Tier 1 assets and 9.5% of Tier 2; in comparison to 14.94% and 15.58% for RaboBank and a huge 17.66% for both Tier 1 and 2 held by the TSB.

Going even further Kiwibank doesn't even have a provision for impaired assets - so despite the current marketing downturn they are providing for no losses due to -ve equity. This is comparison to the smallest provision by any other bank being the ASB at over 3% of profit; with most banks allowing for between 5 - 8%. Personally the bank I would see as most susceptible to housing loan shocks would be the one making absolutely no allowance nor financial planning for it whatsoever...

Also of curiosity has to be the 5.3% of Kiwibanks credit exposure that is across only 13 people?

So really one has to question how the least profitable, lowest profit on assets, lowest capital reserves, no provisions bank is the safe one? But when it comes to political left and KiwiBank it seems logic isn't really necessary - hence why we have the white elephant in the first place.

Vote early and Vote Now

An interesting little meme going on at the moment at Jimungo;
Sign up now at http://pulse.jimungo.com/ and vote in the New Zealand Virtual Election.
Should be a little bit more interesting than the rest of the polls about to swamp us heading into the election; although I doubt any more accurate :D

Connected or No?

At a press conference in Auckland, he has told media that the stories published this week about undeclared donations are "unsubstantiated rubbish" and his party has acted legally at all times.

But if we connect the dots between this funding scandal and the parliamentary funding scandal then his party has only acted legally in a retrospective manner...

Again if we start to look at the chain of behavior it becomes even harder to believe Peters version of events...

"Rich Prick" Prime Minister?

The NZ Herald today reports on John Keys inclusion in the NBR Rich list at a net worth of $50 million. Certainly makes one wonder if the "Rich Prick" can survive this story and the inevitable political scrutiny this will entail - especially in New Zealand's infamous tall poppy environment.

For mime; I certainly hope so. For those that cling to the envious politics of the left - I really have to ask; who is better qualified to show us the way to prosperity - an economics teacher with less reported assets than me? Or the guy going from State House to $50 million with no lotto ticket in sight?

To compare the PM role; the guy who for all intensive purposes has retired and can do this because he wants to for the betterment of others, or the shrew who has had no other career and must desperately cling to power to earn the only living she has ever known?

Which I will admit highlights my main enduring distaste for the politicians of the left (I have different issues with the politics...); is the wonder how those whose endeavors have been confined to the ivory towers of academia and politics can ever relate and actually understand those of us without?

Will Labour still take responsibility for pay rate changes?

(Hattip: NZHerald)

"A new survey of pay rates shows a dramatic deterioration for those at the bottom of the heap, while rates for skilled workers are outpacing rampant inflation."

Historically as New Zealand was undergoing the best ever commodity prices we have experienced, the dairy boom and unprecedented growth Labour was quick to take responsibility for every survey showing an increase in wage rates - especially where this was in the lower income bands.

Why am I not surprised there is deafening silence from them regarding the fact that the predicted issues with their stewardship are being exposed now that the bubble has popped?

Mallard admits Labour is completely incompetent

Hattip: NZ Herald

Some experts have said that total remuneration is fair. However, Mr Mallard said the Government didn't expect to see differences in take-home pay.

So Labour didn't even look across as far as Australia when designing KiwiSaver?
I guess we have seen this before when they have made bold statements that they think they are doing a good job - but sorry this is the height of incompetence and ignorance to which Mallard is admitting.

Also I hope he doesn't believe his line that the Government is reimbursing employers fully for the contribution? I know I predicted that would be the Government line when they put in the phased approach such that before the election the employer contribution had only reached 1% and the tax kickback would match that. But unfortunately despite what Labour thinks of employers we actually do plan to retain our employees for as long as possible and so we do have to think of the 2% next year, the 3% the following year et al.

Just because Labour is too stupid to look ahead and read consequences doesn't mean everyone else is.

So was the truckers protest in violation of the EFA?

Just out of contrariness this morning I'd like to know whether the truckers were in contravention of the EFA? Especially given the number of explicitly anti-Annette King banners that were hanging off various rigs et al; and the number of references from the various spokespeople towards the upcoming election; one would find it hard not to draw the conclusion that they were attempting to influence general opinion against the kinds of party that would tax without warning...

And I certainly didn't see any references to authorised financial agents - but I'll bet running that many trucks about wasn't especially cheap in terms of spending thresholds either? (By definition given what the protest was about).


However on the point of the object of the protest itself: Even worse than Labour's willingness to arbitrarily raise the Road User Charges without warning - has to have been their absolute lack of comprehension as to why they were being challenged over it. Their blustering on about it needing to be done etc shows a complete disconnect from what people were saying - especially about the lack of warning. And of course Annette Kings attempts to obfuscate by asking whether people wanted less roads and maintenance: sorry honey you can leave the road user charges where they are and still give us the same amount of roads and maintenance. But that's not a point that any Labour minister seems to get now is it?

And as an (unfortunate) answer to her rhetorical question she should look at the results from the transit survey in Auckland regarding bringing forward the Western ring road through tolls; the answer to that was (again unfortunately) a resounding NO - and that was when people were feeling a whole lot more secure in their jobs and interest and inflation hadn't yet started to bite. But again - since when does what the public want actually matter to Labour?

How disconnected can you get?

I felt a sense of bewilderment and amazement this morning as I read through the headlines related to the Government, its actions and the populaces reactions.

How can you be that disconnected that while you are hiking road user charges to the point the Truckies revolt ala France (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10519878)
and creating legislation to hike petrol prices yet again (by city councils) (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10519903)

you can still have the level of cognitive dissonance to turn around and say the Reserve Bank is failing to contain inflation pressures and needs new tools (without coming up with any suggestions mind you)... (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10519838)

How long does it take this Government to realize that the only tool the Reserve Bank needs is a finance minister with more clues than a history teacher? One that can draw the conclusion hiking petrol and transport costs = higher inflation. On this point the history teacher even seems to be failing his own subject - it's not even predictions that are needed for that conclusion.

So there's still no energy crisis - right?

hattip: NZ Herald

"Lake Hawea, near Wanaka, could reach its minimum 338m level within days, prompting a warning by residents about the environmental cost if more water is taken.

Contact Energy operates the dams and can take another 2m of water, to 336m, if the tight power supply situation continues."

Cool - so in 2 metres time one of our major Hydro stations stops operating. And to be specific 2 meters without rain is a couple of days production.

But don't worry guys; there's no possibility of a crisis - because Labour says so.

And if the weather does decide to grace us with some water and save us (even though the storms so far keep missing...) - don't confuse being saved by chance with actually making the right call. The banks made huge profits off low doc loans until the end...

Of mice and men

We have been testing out a new mousetrap (incidentally known as "the better mousetrap") at home for a few days now. Certainly have to attest to its efficacy (using molasses or peanut butter - this whole cheese thing is a dud...), given that we have been averaging a dead mouse each day.

However the more disturbing side of this is that it turns out that as much as mice like peanut butter it would appear that rats like mice - so rather than disposing of a mouse each day, we're disposing as much of a mouse as was encased in the trap (typically a head or tail only). Of course I'm only hoping it's the rats - because the thought of it being other mice is even more disturbing.

Couldn't help but think of the Labour party as I was disposing of the latest head however - and wondering how long until they do the same; and show who are the men, mice and rats. Given previous form my bet is mainly on the latter.

Labour's economic management success

This past week we are starting to see the successes of Labour's economic management in helping the lower and middle class of New Zealand get ahead:

Other data collected by property experts shows mortgagee sales nationally rising almost 20 per cent in the past week as banks foreclose on families and property investors hit by crippling interest rates and the rising cost of living.

Labour - creating equality through bankruptcy

Perks

DPF has raised some interesting points around whether all of MP's perks are really just expenses - and therefore whether they should be subject to public scrutiny.
While I can empathize with his sentiments that there is a difference between a true business related expense and a perk - I cannot relate that this makes either classification any less worthy of disclosure. While any employer will generally "pay for your accommodation, if your job requires you to stay overnight away from home"; this is still something that the employer (which is in this case the public) will have visibility of - and does still form part of the package of being an MP.

Just as my meal expenses when away on business are just expense reimbursement - but are still a perk of the job.

Of course where I completely disagree in terms of his classifications used to determine expense / perk is around the travel reimbursements for spouse / family. Where one MP is able to make an expense claim on the basis of family status and another is not - this is a perk.