Ports Crisis – By the numbers

There are a lot of numbers being bandied about regarding the Ports of Auckland and the Ports of Tauranga, so I took the liberty of collating the pertinent numbers for readers. What you are about to find out will shock you.

It is abundantly clear from the numbers below why the Ports of Auckland must increase the flexibility of its workforce. They, quite simply are no longer competitive and that is mainly because of the actions of the Maritime Union and their left wing buddies in various councils.

Here are the numbers.

Cost of 20% of Ports of Auckland when ARC bought the 20% that was owned by other shareholders on the sharemarket: $170 million (1)

Total value of the Ports of Auckland in 2005 using price ARC paid for the 20% : $850 million(1)

Value of the Ports of Auckland in the Auckland Council transition documents in 2010 : $394 million (2)

Current value of Port of Tauranga: $1.3 billion (3)

Theoretical drop in Ports of Auckland value since Mike Lee had his brainfart: $456 million

Profit of Ports of Tauranga in 2008: $41 million (1)

Profit of Ports of Auckland in year ending June 2004: $57.5 million (1)

Profit of Ports of Auckland in year ending June 2008: $21.1 million (1)

Dividend paid by Ports of Auckland to all shareholders in 2004: $28.8 million

Dividend paid by POAL to it’s ARC masters in 2008:  $22.7 million, or $1.6 million more than it earned in profit!

Growth of Auckland’s container business between 2004 and 2008: 27% (1)

Growth of Tauranga’s container business between 2004 and 2008: 47.6% (1)

Debt of Ports of Auckland in 2004: $146.4 million (1) – this was when they still had all the land assets

Debt of Ports of Auckland in 2008: $355 million (1) – this is after they had $284m of Western Reclamation land handed over to ARC – so poorer and more in debt!<

Debt to equity ratio of Port of Tauranga in 2008: 29% (1)

Debt to equity ratio of Ports of Auckland in 2008: 52% (1)

Cost of labour in 2008 for Ports of Tauranga: $16 million (1)

Cost of labour in 2008 for Ports of Auckland: $54 million (1)

Quote from Mike Lee at the time of the buyback in 2005: “The Ports of Auckland will be a prized legacy for future generations and the wealth generated will be vital for funding Auckland’s infrastructure for years to come.” (1)

(1)http://www.infratil.com/content/view/2472/67/   (repost of Independent Business Weekly 9 October 2008)


(3) http://www.port-tauranga.co.nz/Investors/

Enhanced by Zemanta

THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • notavictim

    What a surprise, a left whinger with no business acumen.

  • FFS. Thanks again Cam, and thanks for providing the numbers well ahead of the MSM which will take 5 life times to report it if at all.

    My patience is out…
    Cr. Mike Lee now has a lot to answer for
    How the hell are you meant to build your City Rail Link or WOs and my big F.off Eastern Highway (or what ever other highway one can think of) if your AHEM our prized effort is worth less and pays less than a 60cent McDonalds Ice cream Councillor?

    No business nous…

  • Guest

    Damning stuff. The info is around 3 years old for the most part, but then we’ve had a global financial crisis since then which will have worsened the Ports of Auckland’s situation. 

  • ConwayCaptain

    Basically what is happening is that POAL is now having to be run on commercial lines by pforfessional managers and not by a load of Pollies with no business nous.

    As the managemnet of the Akl City businesses is now run by boards separated from the Pollies maybe we can see an improvement in the future.

    What is needed is a no holds barred stoush between POAL and Parsloe an Co and the POAL to win.  There will be gnashing of teeth and tearing of garments by the Lefties etc but when you read in todays NZH (at long last) what POAL means to the akl economy it has to be done.

    Then get in Mainfreight to run the container terminal.

    • EX Navy Greg

      Totally agree,I was thinking mainfreight or owens.

      • ConwayCaptain

        Ex Navy Greg

        Bob Owens was an ex Master FG with USSCo and started off in the Tga area and built his empire.

        Maybe Owen Glenn should go in and run POAL.

      • http://wp.me/p266na-2F
        Saves me repeating myself
        Well then Mainfreight might as well buy the port for the price of a McDonalds cone and get that place running.
        Or to really put the shits up a few, build a brand spanking new port and turn the (what would be now old ) POAL into some nice waterfront development (land owned by Mainfreight still) and watch the income roll in while Auckland Council misses the golden egg cause someone played Tom, Dick and Harry – Blackadder style.
        And I have a possible location for a new Port of Auckland :-)

      • Politically Unstable

        Don’t be surprised if an overseas port operator is not looking at it. The OIO would be the only hurdle. Even if they come in and manage under contract.

      • EX Navy Greg

        Bob Owens was a good bugger from way back,R.I.P.
        I was thinking Owen Glenn.
        Thanks for the link Ben , awesome.

  • Scanner

    As has been said before, by the time Parsehole and his thug mates have finished there won’t be any jobs left at $91k PA.

    Eventually one of the placard carrying sheep will wake up to the fact they are being used and are going to get fucked over, big time.

    The other item of interest is the total lack of comment from any of the other unions, apart from the usual “Solidarity Brother” comments that will come out as the union goes down the shitter, perhaps they have enough brains to work out a lame duck when they see it.

    What a fucking winner, he may just struggle to get an invite to this years xmas BBQ.

    • Gazzaw

      Yes I agree. I am very surprised that with Parsloe being the NZ boss that he hasn’t had support from union members in other NZ ports by refusing to handle diverted ships. No such union solidarity though so presumably MUNZ members in Tauranga, Napier etc have told him to fuck off and keep the issue localised to Auckland.  N o interest either from the Aussie unions who are always ready for a stoush with the bosses.

  • Ploughman

    Many Thanks for this fascinating stuff which gives us very valuable insight.  As I have said before, sell off management rights.   Get governance out of the hands of incompetent politicians and their friends.  

    • Willsomers101

      Board of POAL- no politicians
      Owner of POAl is ACIL- no politicians/councillors on board of 5

      Your point is ?

      • Read the comment again?
        And ACIL is vested on behalf of the true owner, every single ratepayer in Auckland…

        Note to self, another Kosh in the making

      • Willsomers101

        Where do the politicians have any governance role?
        Just making it up    are you ?

  • Your welcome Greg.
    Facebook is also running white hot today with POAL debates with Cr. George Wood making his views known.

    2013, cant come fast enough, and time for me to do some research

  • ConwayCaptain

    It would be interesting to compare container rates per/hr between TGA and POAL

  • Anonymous

    No doubt this is one of those “assets of National Value, Shearer and the other Labour Liars told us about so recently. I despair of them ever finding the difference between assets and liabilities! Thanks for the research Cameron, one would have rotted in Hell waiting for the Herald to evem find where the books were!

  • Crusadercol

    Cam this is really great analysis. I wonder what redundancy conditions the MU have negotiated.

    Also, as I live in bumpy old Christchurch, can you do an analysis of Local Government CEOs (used to be called Town Clerks) as Tony Marryatt, CEO of Christchurch (but who still lives in Hamilton) is refusing to reject a 14.4% wage increase that Mayor Bob gave him.

    • Gazzaw

      I’m surprised to hear that he is still resident in Hamilton. For that position and especially in the current conditions I would have expectations that not only Marryatt but also his family would be required to reside in Ch’ch. The Ch’ch CEO is a highly visible position right now with the need to be available 24/7 & accessible to local organisations. I am not aware of Marryatt’s domestic situation but if married then his wife/partner should be accessible to support voluntary organisations.

      I am ambivalent about his pay rise & have no problem with it IF HE IS WORTH IT & that means more than a weekly commute from Hamilton. This job is all about total commitment.


  • Paulus

    As a Shareholder in Port of Tauranga I hope the Maritimer Union keep up their momentum.
    First Maersk, now Fonterra – who next ?

  • Rat


    You have confused the Market Capitalisation Value of the Ports of Auckland in your first line with the Equity (Book Value) in the Port in line Three, as the Port is delisted, then we cannot use your first line as we are not comparing apples with apples.

    Also you have failed to account for changes in Reporting Standards, moving from FRS to IAS/NZIFRS prior to 2009 resulting in a material change in the Accounts .

    We would have to restate the figures in 2005 using the Accounting Policies of 2010  to get a more believable figure

    • EX Navy Greg

      That’s what I thought, could you crunch the numbers for us and give us an update?