Corporate Bludgers sell out


More corporate welfare bludgers have sold out offshore despite millions in taxpayer cash which off shore owners will now benefit from. How come there is outrage from The Greens and Labour over some clapped out rubbish farms in the Central North Island being sold to off shore owners but nary a squeak about corporate welfare beneficiaries selling to offshore interests?

Selling companies to Americans is fine but farms to the Chinee is outrage?

What perplexes me is why these corporate tech “entrepreneurs prefer to risk taxpayers money rather than their own as they expand their businesses, and then they have the cheek to pocket the coin lie they are genius investors.

Telephony software maker Zeacom has been sold to Canada’s Enghouse Systems for $US30 million

Zeacom says its fiscal 2012 revenue was $US29million.

Founder and CEO Miles Valentine would not give specific numbers, but Friday afternoon he told NBR ONLINE the company, which he founded in 1994, “Is nicely profitable and has been for years.”

A sale to offshore buyers can mean disappearing local jobs, whatever promises are initially made (Navman’s consumer business being a classic example).

Offshore investment can help a New Zealand-founded company expand globally and increase the number of local jobs.

But the annoying thing here is that, again, we’re looking at a company that’s received millions in government grants – which a North American owner will now benefit from.

Right Hemisphere, which received an interest-free loan of more than $10 million among other government backing, is another prime example. It is now owned by Germany’s SAP.


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.

  • BJ

    Are we a bunch of suckers or what?  In the very least one could expect the tax payer funded grant to at least come back as a percentage of growth (value) of the company, at the time of sale, wouldn’t you think – seeing as we have invested in them but had no say?

  • Jax

    Well given Accident Compensation Corp was a 1/3rd owner of the business through its investments,  in a way the Gov,  did get a return of sorts. 

  • Adolf Fiinkensein

    Have you stopped jumping up and down long enough to ask what new business ventures might be started in NZ with the sale proceeds?

    • Well a good pointas to why asset sales are a good thing…however…I simply note that there is no screaming and yelling about this asset like there was about the Crafar farms.

      I do however object to providing subsidies, grants or whatever to “entrepreneurs” so they can line their pockets.

      My point is that if something is a good idea it is worth doing without the government input.

  • Trev

    Well you sold out too Camslat. For a sandwich and a smoothie. Now you Habitual Fix’s tame blogger. Meow.

  • Rooboy1

    When I worked for FRST (as it was back then) one of the best things that we did was put in a clause that if they did sell overseas, they had to repay the money they received as a grant (I think it was 18 months). Not sure if they have been asked yet

    • Ross

      That’s good to hear Rooboy1. I think that is totally reasonable and it allows the Govt. to recycle those funds to another struggling small business.