Trembling Hand
Can be found on the bid
- Joined
- 10 June 2007
- Posts
- 8,852
- Reactions
- 205
If that was the case then you would of course know that the board had already signed off on the project recently. Just in December.
This post is just bait for the habitual emotional ranters who never study the detail or read the fine print, but just love to whinge and make a lot of noise about whatever is the flavor of the month.:
The Xstrata example smells quite a bit of political oppertunism in a similar vein to Clive Palmers now political art form. Isn't the canned extension of their near depleted open cut copper project, to underground operations, with what I've heard one analyst say is about lower production rates and about double the overheads of open cut, much more about the fundamental viability of the project than anything else?
If that was the case then you would of course know that the board had already signed off on the project recently. Just in December.
Disagree about the political opportunism bit. Xstrata is a global investor looking for projects with the lowest after tax IRR. Decision is as simple as that. As TH noted, the copper project had been board approved pre RSPT.
Agree that Clive Palmer has not added much to the debate.
The RSPT will get up at some stage (much like the GST). It just wont be in its 'pure' form mainly because the government has bastardised this pure economic model by:
1. expecting the mining companies to raise the finance for their 40% ownership stake @ the government bond rate rather than stumping up the cash themselves; and
2. applying it retrospectively to depreciated assets.
Also, mate, it is good to be passionate and emotional about things in life. Otherwise it is all a bit Gordon Gekko is it not?
Whisker you have to be kidding
You think the board of the Xstrata looks at the chart of the last 3 month of copper and pulls a 6 bil project? Just LOFrigginL
Whiskers you are lost....... again! prices are about the same. full stop.
Either your trying to push BS or you're just an idiot.
You think the board of the Xstrata looks at the chart of the last 3 month of copper and pulls a 6 bil project?
You're full of it. you said the AUD was going to fall and the shares would go up.Nah, you tried to tell me the AUD was not in a down trend, rather was quite bullish because it had spiked up to near record highs, not long ago. But I was proved right again.:
You're full of it. you said the AUD was going to fall and the shares would go up.
hahahahh how did that work out for you
I said risk currencies , commods, & equities are correlated. I was right your, again, so wrong.
Mining tax has 'significant flaws': Future Fund chief
June 4, 2010 - 4:38PM
Australia's sovereign wealth fund called for the government's planned resources tax to be amended or scrapped, saying it risks eroding the country's appeal to investors.
''There are several significant flaws,'' Future Fund Chairman David Murray said in an interview posted on the Business Spectator's website. ''The tax has to be changed or abandoned.''
The tax shouldn't be applied to existing resources projects, Mr Murray said. Mining royalties could alternatively be directed into a wealth fund, he said.
Criticism from the Future Fund, a government-owned entity with $68 billion of assets, increases pressure on Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as Australian miners ratchet up their campaign against the planned 40 per cent tax on so-called super profits. Mr Murray said he'd be ``extremely concerned'' as a mining company.
''If we can't achieve a design that does not penalize existing projects, that's a sovereign risk issue,'' Murray said in the interview. ``If there's a change, there has to be some process of putting aside returns from resources depletion for the longer term. Unless we do that, we'll be directing resources taxes of one sort or another to recurrent spending of government, which will cause significant problems later.''
Bloomberg News
you said the AUD was going to fall and the shares would go up.
I said risk currencies , commods, & equities are correlated.
But not a direct correlation as my charts of the XAO and AUD in the XAO thread showed. There are periods of substantial and prolonged divergance.
Why?
If anything the 'big money' is more honest. They are supposed to be in business to make money, and should rightly be able to defend their means of doing so when the government is attempting to land them with a totally unreasonable, retrospective tax.
It is a tax grab because the tax is retrospective. Also, the retrospectivity means that 40% of these existing long-life mines will be nationalised. That, more than anything else, is preposterous! If they are fair dinkum about this tax, then they would value all retropsective mines at current market value and issue an upfront government bond (indexed at the long-term bond rate) at 40% of this value.
Julia,
A retrospective tax would have the companies paying the tax on last years profits. I do not believe this to be the case. If it is because the miners developed the mines thinking one regime of tax was going to stay forever, then they were/are dreaming. Governments change the tax arrangements of all types of industries all the time that affect the companies involved.
It is not called a retrospective tax unless it taxes previous arrangements (ie last years income)
brty
It is retrospective in the sense that it picks up exisiting long-life mines which are unable to benefit from the 40% capital rebate.
The RSPT will get up at some stage (much like the GST). It just wont be in its 'pure' form mainly because the government has bastardised this pure economic model by:
1. expecting the mining companies to raise the finance for their 40% ownership stake @ the government bond rate rather than stumping up the cash themselves; and
2. applying it retrospectively to depreciated assets.
Mr Murray agreed with the miners' claims that applying the tax to existing projects would deter investment, and that it would be better to put some of the revenue into a wealth fund.
"My view is that the tax has to be changed or abandoned," Mr Murray said.
"The worst thing that can happen is that the resources run down, we're still spending on welfare and we still have a current account deficit. That would be, for future generations, a seriously bad outcome.
"You've got to have a sensible collection of taxes and royalties when returns are strong, but you can't apply these retrospectively because you won't get investment."
Mr Murray said as a former banker he would have concerns about lending money for investment based on the government's proposed guarantee of 40 per cent of losses for a failed project.
lol whiskers you are a first class peanut. Please go and learn what a correlation is. Untill then you are a waste of bits & bytes.
Over and out.
Brty, David Murray's remarks yesterday also referred to the tax as retrospective, so perhaps the term now has a different meaning from that which you suggested?
I think the new resources tax is a good idea and it is good to see that the miners' will be paying us the aust people for the use of our resources.
Its alright for them to make $$s from mining, but maybe they have not been paying the aust people enough up until now is regards to mining our finite resources.
I also like Kevin, and am thankful that he is PM and not speedo Tony or honest John.
steve
I think the new resources tax is a good idea and it is good to see that the miners' will be paying us the aust people for the use of our resources.
Its alright for them to make $$s from mining, but maybe they have not been paying the aust people enough up until now is regards to mining our finite resources.
I also like Kevin, and am thankful that he is PM and not speedo Tony or honest John.
steve
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?