ACC profit

[Bounce001]

My partner came home on Friday telling me that ACC had just released the news that they had made 14.5 million profit in investments in the last 5 months.

I have been trying to find the info for this but cant seem to.

Does anyone know about this?

[Waxxa]

:no: those profits must be inaccurate...NZ Oil and Gas shares plummeted last week something like .25c a share.

[mashman]

:no: those profits must be inaccurate...NZ Oil and Gas shares plummeted last week something like .25c a share.

But if you bought the shares, at say 10 bucks each and they're now at 10.50 (having fallen from 10.75), then technically you're still in profit?

[p.dath]

My partner came home on Friday telling me that ACC had just released the news that they had made 14.5 million profit in investments in the last 5 months.

I have been trying to find the info for this but cant seem to.

Does anyone know about this?

That figure is to low. The profit should be much higher. They sometimes make billions in a single year from their investments. I could believe they made a profit of $14.5m in one week.

[oldrider]

My partner came home on Friday telling me that ACC had just released the news that they had made 14.5 million profit in investments in the last 5 months.

I have been trying to find the info for this but cant seem to.

Does anyone know about this?

ACC is not "broke" as has been suggested by Smith and cronies, it is being "broken" by those same critics!

Owen Woodhouse mentioned five critical principals required for successful ACC "welfare" to succeed.

1) Community responsibility.
2) Comprehensive entitlement.
3) Complete rehabilitation.
4) Real compensation.
5) Administration efficiency.

Keep your eye on actions and announcements by ACC and check whether any or all of those five principals are being compromised by that action!

For instance:

Recent news items on ACC activities, such as purchasing all the old redundant "radar detectors" and placing them in strategic positions to give off false radar signals to thwart motorists using radar detectors! (WTF?)

Is that "core" ACC business? Or is it ACC playing at "vigilante police" games?

When citizens do that, the police totally discourage such practices but we have heard nothing from them on this!

How does an organisation that is strapped for cash afford to purchase redundant radar detectors from another government department to do the job that "police" are supposed to be doing?

Which of Owen Woodhouse's five principals justifies behaviour like that? :Oi: Get your act together ACC!

[crazyhorse]

Of course they would make a profit ................ they are still a government department, and they do make profit. :crazy:

[avgas]

But if you bought the shares, at say 10 bucks each and they're now at 10.50 (having fallen from 10.75), then technically you're still in profit?

Not unless you sold them.
Profit is based on revenue not assets.

[avgas]

That figure is to low. The profit should be much higher. They sometimes make billions in a single year from their investments. I could believe they made a profit of $14.5m in one week.

No I think that figure is accurate. They have expenses you know - so while they make billions, 10% profit is not unreasonable.
Was it gross or net is the real question

[mashman]

Not unless you sold them.
Profit is based on revenue not assets.

or a dividend has been issued.

[avgas]

When citizens do that, the police totally discourage such practices but we have heard nothing from them on this!
Construction industry has been doing this for years. New signs with radars on them to 'warn' of hazards ahead.
Also there is nothing against you putting a radar out the window of your house to scare traffic. Provided it does not exceed certain power limits.

[avgas]

or a dividend has been issued.
Very true. but contrary to most beliefs dividends don't have to be issued according to share price. Many firms pump the divdends out when the price is dropping to maintain their shareholder base. They will even take out extended loans to do so.
However I think ACC's shareholding is a bit more than that - it looks really bad when a govt department has 200m in the bank lol
Likewise NZ super and their offshore investments.

[mashman]

Very true. but contrary to most beliefs dividends don't have to be issued according to share price. Many firms pump the divdends out when the price is dropping to maintain their shareholder base. They will even take out extended loans to do so.
However I think ACC's shareholding is a bit more than that - it looks really bad when a govt department has 200m in the bank lol
Likewise NZ super and their offshore investments.

That doesn't surprise me. Sounds like a sensible business practice for the money makers to me. Nothing in the money market surprises me these days. It's so fuckin flakey that i'm surprised ACC still has a positive portfolio... obviously not left to JJ and his cronies to manage...

[oldrider]

Construction industry has been doing this for years. New signs with radars on them to 'warn' of hazards ahead.
Also there is nothing against you putting a radar out the window of your house to scare traffic. Provided it does not exceed certain power limits.

What then is the difference between "radar jamming" and "radar flooding" and what has either got to do with ACC? That is my point!

[Pedrostt500]

I have no problem with ACC making a profit, it is when the profit gets paid into the Governments General fund is when I start having a problem. The Governments catch cry at the moment is to say," it is broken". Then set out to prove it is broken, by playing the old ilusion trick of wich cup is the bean under, and geuss that its not under one that is on the table in front of us.

[swbarnett]

I have no problem with ACC making a profit,
I have a HUGE problem with ANY govenment department making a profit (as opposed to building a buffer for times of high demand). They are a public service and, as such, should be providing that service and the lowest cost possible. If ACC is making a profit year-on-year then the levies are too high.

[mashman]

I have a HUGE problem with ANY govenment department making a profit (as opposed to building a buffer for times of high demand). They are a public service and, as such, should be providing that service and the lowest cost possible. If ACC is making a profit year-on-year then the levies are too high.

Unfortunately they call it planning ahead. Perfectly sound business principle is forecasting. Best way to generate money, "safely" is to put it into the stock market... But when it's wrong, or when there's "something going on" poof, we all pay!

[Skyryder]

What then is the difference between "radar jamming" and "radar flooding" and what has either got to do with ACC? That is my point!

Old Rider has a valid point. I'd like to know if ACC are guilty of impersonating a police Officer. Ye I know silly question................but indulge me on this one.

Perhaps we as bikers should try a citizens arrest on Nick Smith. Street theartre at it's best. Sure to get the medias attention and on this issue the media have forgotton about us.


Skyryder

[avgas]

Old Rider has a valid point. I'd like to know if ACC are guilty of impersonating a police Officer. Ye I know silly question................but indulge me on this one.
That unfortunately is illegal.
However many years ago - ACC did no advertise, did not tell you to slow down......they simply fixed broken bits.
But then that wasn't making them any money - turns out, if their members didn't get hurt, they got to keep the money we paid them.
First there were adverts, then big signs on the side of the road, then violent tv adverts, then 'booze-busses'.....now they have made a "scarecrow" for all the speeders with radar detectors.
Fact of the matter is they are simply trying to decrease injury expenses - sometimes that requires investment elsewhere as marketing prevention. Pretty much the whole purchase of radar's can be considered as only a marketing strategy. They don't care if you speed - but stat speaking if you speed, more likely to crash, more likely to claim.

[freedom-wedge]

originally posted by oldrider
1) Community responsibility.
2) Comprehensive entitlement.
3) Complete rehabilitation.
4) Real compensation.
5) Administration efficiency.
--------------------------------------

I dont think they have honoured or upheld these principles for years,