Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
28 January 2010
11:5339018Might as well start one up as this subject is going to run and run for a bit...
As you know I am in favour but will not repeat the reasons right now having expressed them elsewhere. I must say that it feels somewhat odd to me to be supporting the Labour Government against my own Conservative partiamentary candidate.... hey ho.....
Having looked more closely at what Gordon Brown & Co have been up to, I found the Government Parliamentary Statement from Monday that paves the way for the privatisation of our port. See
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100125/wmstext/100125m0002.htm#1001256000023
The idea there is a "high bar" is a lot of nonsense. It's clear they can't wait to sell off our port. These conditions are easy to meet. There are two important things missing: the effect on our national security and the views of our community. Now, why might that be?
What's clear to me is that Gordon Brown doesn't rate Gwynfor and has written off Dover.
What we need out of this is a good deal for Dover.
We need a 'golden share' for the Port employees, for the Port Pensioners (plus other guarantees), for other Port related employers and their employees as well as for the local community as a whole. What we dont want is for the Port just to be sold off to the highest bidder.
Would it not be wonderful if the Port were to really become largely owned, through the purchase of shares, mainly by us who live and work here in Dover and East Kent?
I would like Gwyn and Charlie to be exerting their efforts in that direction instead of a doomed fight against this move.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
28 January 2010
13:0239019barry
i agree with most of what you say regarding any benefits of privatisation going to the residents of dover and the employees at the port.
i still share the concerns of chas on this though, would a buyer be prepared to shoulder the burden of the pension fund and would that same buyer have concerns for our national security?
i doubt that, taking into account the present credit crunch and the general wage level in this area, that enough shares would be sold locally to ensure that there is much local control.
anyway, the debate is now open, let us hear more views.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
28 January 2010
14:0639020No need to think in terms of 'a buyer' that is not what we need.
Instead a flotation of the present Board with no 'buyer' involved, no change in management either. The flotation can take place with a 'golden share' as I mentioned above with the balance of shares be opened up to purchase by institutions such as pension funds.
This is how we can avoid a wholesale sell out to an individual buyer such as a foreign concern and keep it a British institution. The more shares we buy up locally the better and the more widely spread the others are the better too....
As for the pension fund. I am afraid that the facts of life are that final salary pensions such as the DHB one are on their last gasps. I do not even expect them to be available to the Civil Service, NHS and other State employees much longer either. This is why we need a deal to be negotiated to protect existing pensioners and members as much as is reasonable.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
28 January 2010
14:3439021I cannot really see a difference with airports being owned by BAA. They are privately owned by 'foreigners' and their security is a lot better than that at the ports....
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 673- Registered: 16 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,388
28 January 2010
16:0439022The security issue does indeed appear to be a total red herring, can see no reason why it should be affected by privatisation.
QUOTE FROM BARRY: Would it not be wonderful if the Port were to really become largely owned, through the purchase of shares, mainly by us who live and work here in Dover and East Kent? UNQUOTE
It certainly would be wonderful, not to say extraordinary. As our financial expert, can you explain how this is remotely achievable?
Some figures from the DDC website:
Based on the 2001 Census the population of the District is 104,566. The population of the Dover urban area is 32,598 and that of Deal is 28,768. Of these, a total of 21,459 are disabled. Of the remainder, there are a higher than average number of elderly. Three of the wards in urban Dover are listed as economically deprived. Census information shows that there are 47,653 economically active people in the District. Of these, 39% of people are in full time employment, 13% in part time and 8% are self employed. There were 2,435 registered as unemployed in December 2009. The number of households is 44,314 of which 7,125 are claiming housing benefit, 9,219 claiming council tax benefit, and 2,283 are living in fuel poverty.
On this basis, there would appear to be about 40,000 full time equivalent economically active people in the district. Of these, what proportion would we say would be interested in investing in shares in the Port of Dover and would have the wherewithal to do so? Would one in four be a realistic guess? How much disposable income would we say they had that they wished to invest in shares? Would £1,000 each be realistic? This would make 10,000 people investing £1,000 each for a total of £10,000,000.
The estimated value of the Port of Dover is £500,000,000. If the people of Dover and District were to buy £10,000,000 worth of shares, then they would therefore own 2% of the port.
If we are to visualise the port being "largely owned" by the people of Dover and East Kent as Barry says, then we are looking at say 80% being owned, or forty times the figure quoted above. This would entail one in four of the population of Dover and District investing £40,000 each, marginally less in the event that investors from the rest of East Kent were included. Given that the average wage in Dover and District is below the national average and is quoted as £455.70 per week, is this in any way realistic?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
28 January 2010
16:2239023Ed....
I said Dover and East Kent for starters as you correctly quoted.
I also said there should be shares reserved for purchase by the employees of DHB, the DHB pensioners, the Port related Companies, including the shipping companies and their employees plus the local population, not necessarily just Dover but, as I said East Kent.
Yes, many people may well only be able to buy £1,000 worth of shares (some maybe less)but a lot of others may well buy more, particularly those businesses related to the port. Largely owned does not mean fully owned or even mostly owned of course. The remaining shares would be snapped up by pension funds OIEC and Unit Trust managers and so we would also end up owning more of an interest in the Port indirectly.
As I said the wider the ownership the better.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
28 January 2010
18:0539024barryw,cant see the point of this non sell off sale of dovers gem.
Guest 673- Registered: 16 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,388
28 January 2010
19:1139029Barry:
On that basis, I think we can agree that your original aspiration that the port might be largely owned mainly by us who live and work here in Dover and East Kent is sadly a complete non-starter, total pie in the sky.
You mention the employees of DHB, the DHB pensioners, the shipping company employees and the remainder of the local population, some of whom may want to invest more and some less than my example. Taken together, they would seem to be encompassed in the 2% figure which I postulated.
The port related companies, such as Hammonds, would be hard put to make much of a dent in the £500 million asking price. Let us say they chip in another 3%.
Would you agree that we are therefore looking optimistically at around 5% of the port being owned by those of us who live and work here in East Kent?
You state that the shipping companies might be interested. The ferry companies, cruise ship companies and cargoship companies which use Dover are, as I am sure you are aware, without exception foreign owned. I was under the impression that you were surmising that the port would remain largely in British hands.
Now we come to the real potential owners. As you rightly say "The remaining shares would be snapped up by pension funds OIEC and Unit Trust managers" (for the benefit of others, I have looked up OIEC and this is defined as "An OEIC Open Ended Investment Company - pronounced oik - is a pooled collective investment vehicle in company form".
This is exactly what has happened to the British ports which have already been privatised. For example, the twentyone ports which used to be nationally owned under the British Transport Docks Board were privatised as Associated British Ports and include Southampton, the Humber ports, South Wales etc, handling a quarter of the country's seaborne trade.
ABP is now owned by the following infrastructure funds: GIC of Singapore (33.3%), Borealis of Canada (33.3%), Goldman Sachs Infrastructure Partners of the USA (23.3%) and Infracapital Partners LP, part of the Prudential Group (10%). ABP is registered in Jersey and pay no corporation tax.
You are no doubt uncomfortably aware of what happened to all the ports and ferries owned by British Rail when they were privatised by the Major government. I shall return to these later but that will do to be getting on with.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
28 January 2010
19:2339030I disagree with the thrust of what you are saying Ed, totally.
DHB shares would be what we would call a 'value' share rather than a 'growth' share and would attract investment from the managers of funds like Artemis Income, Invesco Perpetual Income and High Income Funds, Neptune Income and so on as well as broader based UK Equity Funds. Uk insurance companies would also be snapping them up. Yes some are likely to be bought by overseas funds as well and thats fair enough. Like I said the broader the ownership the better. What I want though is a 'golden share' for the local community as well as employees and all the others I mentioned. Yes some of the port user companies are foreign owned and I really do not see a problem with that. this is a global economy. What I dont want to see is the Port just sold off to an overseas (or UK based) conglomerate wholesale, that would be the worse of all worlds.
You have to face facts Ed. The Port will be sold off whatever we think locally and whatever Prosser thinks. He can bluster around but it is his Government that has paved the way for this. We just have to get the best possible deal for Dover and the workforce.
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
28 January 2010
20:5539035Barry
I think your grasp of the investment is far greater than mine, and I believe your posts take advantage of that. Baffle 'em with bull**it, eh?
Without having the ability to argue, I wonder why both Conservative and local Labour parties are opposed to this sale. What do you know that your own people don't?
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
28 January 2010
21:1239037I have a different view that is all Andy.
Guest 673- Registered: 16 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,388
Have bumped this one back up to the top as the figures I have quoted above are all relevant to the new "People's Port" thread and I can't be bothered to go through it all again.