steveintoronto
Superstar
Really? Gosh...who woulda thunk? The point was investors pulling their money out, to the tune of $Billions. I guess they're just going to stuff it under their mattress like you do. The money, that is.
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
kEiThZ
Superstar
I'd argue, that it hasn't moved that much. There's been population growth. But it's not substantial enough to change the business case. And speaking of the latter, the massive inflation in the construction sector has actually resulted in cost appreciation outstripping population and economic growth. We're probably a tad worse off if anything.
Politicians can impose whatever conditions they like. Whether investors are willing to pay for those conditions is another matter altogether. If you were an investor and the above imposition worsened your business case, how would you react?
I wish I could share your optimism. I honestly do. But I suspect the government will do the absolute bare minimum that is politically palatable. And it's debatable if they are willing to invest in VIA. They've shown no serious inclination so far. And I'm not convinced that private sector capital is the panacea some think it will be. Mainly because I don't trust the government to allow deployment of private sector capital without political meddling. What happens when there's inevitable conflict between investors objectives and political objectives (say, for example maintaining service at the smaller stops)?
I'll be more optimistic, when I see more than nice words from this government.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Don't hedge funds just fund landscaping projects?
Lol. Like pension funds build retirement homes.
kEiThZ
Superstar
You clearly don't get how finance works. And you think that investors pulling out of hedge funds will pad public pension funds, of all things. More proof that you think all pools of money are the same.
And you doubled down on the condescension. Welcome to my ignore list. Few less long screed of posts to read for me. You're the first, in all my years here. Nice knowing ya.
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
There is undoubtedly a role to play for large pools like CPPIB, Caisse, Teacher's, etc. But my skepticism is based on several doubts:
1) Is is truly a better deal for the taxpayer than simply resorting to debt financing?
2) What conditions will they require as investors, which may impede political outcomes or inflate the costs?
3) Why would they only finance the railroad and not insist on profit sharing?
The last one in particular is a nagging question for me. If I had a massive capital pool that you wanted access to, and I knew that you were desperate to access that pot of money, why would I, as an investor, not seek to maximise my return?
1) Is is truly a better deal for the taxpayer than simply resorting to debt financing?
2) What conditions will they require as investors, which may impede political outcomes or inflate the costs?
3) Why would they only finance the railroad and not insist on profit sharing?
The last one in particular is a nagging question for me. If I had a massive capital pool that you wanted access to, and I knew that you were desperate to access that pot of money, why would I, as an investor, not seek to maximise my return?
steveintoronto
Superstar
They do, a lot of them. All you had to do was Google before posting, but hey...
From the now disappeared post from TOAreaFan:
About the RIA The Responsible Investment Association (RIA) is Canada’s leader on responsible investment (RI). RI refers to the integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria into investment selection and management. We are a national, membership-based organization composed of financial institutions, mutual fund companies, investment firms, financial advisors, and various organizations and individuals who practice and support responsible investing. The RIA and its members strongly believe that RI is a valuable investment tool to enhance returns, reduce risk, and catalyze positive social change.
https://riacanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Green-Bonds-fact-sheet.pdf
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
Well...you might want to talk to your dealer on that. It's called "risk".
TOareaFan
Superstar
My post has not disappeared...it is right there on page 63.
a) can you make it bit clearer that the second quotation above is not from my post...because
b) in a discussion about Ontario bonds, where I was responding to your suggestion that Ontario bonds were asset backed, what do we care how "most" Green bonds are done.....Ontario has issued $1.25B of Green Bonds and on their own web page they state/acknowledge that these are bonds exactly like all the other bonds they have issued.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Most Green Bonds are *asset backed* or otherwise secured.
Where's your link? Every source I've looked at by Googling your 'quote' states they are mostly asset backed. So supply a link so the context can be examined.
http://www.ofina.on.ca/pdf/green_bond_qa.pdf
So how, exactly, does that "increase debt"?
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
Thankfully don't have to read quote walls of text anymore. This thread is so much cleaner....
In any event, my understanding of the Ontario Green Bond program was that it was quite frankly greenwashing of provincial debt. They simply issued new debt raised for ostensibly "green" projects as Green Bonds. They are not asset backed. The are not linked to any project revenue. There's really nothing green or special about them at all. It's just a label for debt raised to pay for environmentally friendly infrastructure.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Perhaps you could get a job advising the funds, Keith? Sounds like they really need to be straightened out.
http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKCN0XJ1TN
Bloomberg and many others now reporting on this.
TOareaFan
Superstar
http://www.ofina.on.ca/pdf/green_bond_qa.pdf
This was the link in my first post about Ontario Green bonds....then you show the same link and ask me for my link? I am not sure what game you are playing.
Read #8.....you can either read it by clicking the link that I gave...and you repeated....or you can read it from the quote box in my post on page 63?
kEiThZ has it right when he says:
This was the link in my first post about Ontario Green bonds....then you show the same link and ask me for my link? I am not sure what game you are playing.
Read #8.....you can either read it by clicking the link that I gave...and you repeated....or you can read it from the quote box in my post on page 63?
kEiThZ has it right when he says:
mdrejhon
Senior Member
About the ultrahighfrequency Montreal commuter rail initiative:
Reuters are calling it a "light rail transit system".
Globe & Mail is calling it "automated".
But this appears to be a heavy-rail corridor.
Sounds a lot like a RER system involving Euro-standard strength lighter weight trains (not FRA-standard) running in a CBTC-controlled mainline corridor, no?
Reuters are calling it a "light rail transit system".
Globe & Mail is calling it "automated".
But this appears to be a heavy-rail corridor.
Sounds a lot like a RER system involving Euro-standard strength lighter weight trains (not FRA-standard) running in a CBTC-controlled mainline corridor, no?
kEiThZ
Superstar
The Montreal rail line is essentially a light Metro system. Financed by Caisse. But dependent on Quebec and federal funds to fully implement. I'd argue that might only happen in a place like Quebec, where the government can direct its pension funds to pitch in. I doubt CPPIB and Teacher's would take kindly to such "suggestion". Moreover is it even in our (broader national) interest to do the same for VIA?
http://business.financialpost.com/n...astructure-were-looking-for-projects-of-scale
I'm sure the pension funds want in. I still question whether it's in the taxpayer's interest (see 407...). All because there's no political appetite to simply plop down the $4 billion out of the next few budgets? This government is projecting $130 billion in deficits over 5 years and that's with over a trillion in total spending. It's laughable to think they need the private sector to fund $4 billion in rail construction. If they really wanted to, they could put $1 billion per year and have this done substantially by the next election.
But who knows. Maybe the Trudeau government is happy to pay hundreds of millions more in interest to avoid $4 billion debt....
ps. The Montreal deal also goes with other caveats..... For example, sole source rolling stock contract to.....
http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/manufacturing/caisse-buys-30ision-for-1-5b-157959/
http://business.financialpost.com/n...astructure-were-looking-for-projects-of-scale
I'm sure the pension funds want in. I still question whether it's in the taxpayer's interest (see 407...). All because there's no political appetite to simply plop down the $4 billion out of the next few budgets? This government is projecting $130 billion in deficits over 5 years and that's with over a trillion in total spending. It's laughable to think they need the private sector to fund $4 billion in rail construction. If they really wanted to, they could put $1 billion per year and have this done substantially by the next election.
But who knows. Maybe the Trudeau government is happy to pay hundreds of millions more in interest to avoid $4 billion debt....
ps. The Montreal deal also goes with other caveats..... For example, sole source rolling stock contract to.....
http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/manufacturing/caisse-buys-30ision-for-1-5b-157959/
Last edited: