<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Foreign Investment in Australia, How Much is Too Much?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/foreign-investment-australia/2008/06/26/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/foreign-investment-australia/2008/06/26/</link>
	<description>An independent perspective on the Australian and global investment markets</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:54:29 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Australia Delays Decision on Sinosteel Bid</title>
		<link>http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/foreign-investment-australia/2008/06/26/comment-page-1/#comment-50131</link>
		<dc:creator>Australia Delays Decision on Sinosteel Bid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:01:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/?p=2876#comment-50131</guid>
		<description>[...] Foreign Investment in Australia, How Much is Too Much   addthis_url = [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Foreign Investment in Australia, How Much is Too Much   addthis_url = [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charles Norville</title>
		<link>http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/foreign-investment-australia/2008/06/26/comment-page-1/#comment-28471</link>
		<dc:creator>Charles Norville</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:47:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/?p=2876#comment-28471</guid>
		<description>It makes legal sense that China corp cannot act against the interest of its share holders but unfortunately in the real world of politics and the diminishment of sovereignty, it is a concern.  I fear Aus will become a province of China, the US will do little if not make deal  to passage such a takeover. 

Of course Aus has the Governor General to complain to her Royal Highness.  Other EU and the remainder nations will welcome us to the new status of a colony of someone else.  

Is the World going to allow a small band of law abiding sun worshippers to be taken over by a more economically and politically (therefore) powerful nation by any means possible,.........you betcha.  Yea, just as long as the price does not include not being able to watch the footy, etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It makes legal sense that China corp cannot act against the interest of its share holders but unfortunately in the real world of politics and the diminishment of sovereignty, it is a concern.  I fear Aus will become a province of China, the US will do little if not make deal  to passage such a takeover. </p>
<p>Of course Aus has the Governor General to complain to her Royal Highness.  Other EU and the remainder nations will welcome us to the new status of a colony of someone else.  </p>
<p>Is the World going to allow a small band of law abiding sun worshippers to be taken over by a more economically and politically (therefore) powerful nation by any means possible,.........you betcha.  Yea, just as long as the price does not include not being able to watch the footy, etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tom</title>
		<link>http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/foreign-investment-australia/2008/06/26/comment-page-1/#comment-28252</link>
		<dc:creator>tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:37:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/?p=2876#comment-28252</guid>
		<description>&quot;Matthew Stevens reports in today&#039;s Australian that the government may set a 49.9% ownership ceiling on how much a foreign entity can own of an Aussie share&quot;

You don&#039;t need to be a net 50.1% stockholder (directly and/or indirectly) to have majority ownership. Companies with a fragmented shareholder base may have board members with far less than the absolute majority threshold being able to exercise controlling influence over their operations because the other non-consolidated constituents have negligible interest to affect financial decision-making. The farcical ownership ceiling is red herring to buy time. 

&quot;The concern is that if state-backed Chinese firms take a controlling interest in Australian mining companies, those companies will no longer be run for the benefit of shareholders, but will be used to deliver raw materials at low prices to industrial consumers in China.&quot;

How can this be a VALID concern? Have we forgotten the Corporations Act which explicitly prohibits management acting against the interests of proprietors? The idea of &#039;corporation&#039; under the Act explicates and emphasizes the staunch precedence of shareholder interests taking priority over everything else, even the public. Regulatory control and governance would ensure due compliance with these fundamental values through statutory prescriptions. That is unless we also auction the government to the Chinamen.

We, the West, are the progenitors of democracy and free market enterprise - too late for second thoughts. If the Panda wants a slice of this pudding, I say let&#039;em have it - for the right price. If they can afford to buy, we should be willing to sell. Business as usual.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>"Matthew Stevens reports in today's Australian that the government may set a 49.9% ownership ceiling on how much a foreign entity can own of an Aussie share"</p>
<p>You don't need to be a net 50.1% stockholder (directly and/or indirectly) to have majority ownership. Companies with a fragmented shareholder base may have board members with far less than the absolute majority threshold being able to exercise controlling influence over their operations because the other non-consolidated constituents have negligible interest to affect financial decision-making. The farcical ownership ceiling is red herring to buy time. </p>
<p>"The concern is that if state-backed Chinese firms take a controlling interest in Australian mining companies, those companies will no longer be run for the benefit of shareholders, but will be used to deliver raw materials at low prices to industrial consumers in China."</p>
<p>How can this be a VALID concern? Have we forgotten the Corporations Act which explicitly prohibits management acting against the interests of proprietors? The idea of 'corporation' under the Act explicates and emphasizes the staunch precedence of shareholder interests taking priority over everything else, even the public. Regulatory control and governance would ensure due compliance with these fundamental values through statutory prescriptions. That is unless we also auction the government to the Chinamen.</p>
<p>We, the West, are the progenitors of democracy and free market enterprise - too late for second thoughts. If the Panda wants a slice of this pudding, I say let'em have it - for the right price. If they can afford to buy, we should be willing to sell. Business as usual.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.227 seconds -->
