Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Tangible and irreplaceable assets

By Dan Denning - posted Thursday, 7 October 2010

Let's talk about the upcoming float of Queensland Rail. It's a great exercise in understanding how to value assets and why the private sector manages better than the public sector. The $7 billion float is the largest privatisation since the T3 float, where the Federal government sold its last chunk of shares in Telstra. And the whole deal raises a number of issues.

The biggest issue is whether it's a good investment. The prospectus doesn't come out until October 10th. That should give you a good look at just what the assets of the company will be. It will also give you an idea of the capital structure, including how much of an equity stake Queensland government will retain and how much debt the new listing will take on at birth.

But let's deal with the assets first. You can't get much more tangible than a railroad. It's a very difficult asset to replace. That alone makes railroads appealing, provided you get them at a good price.


But there's also a pretty good argument to be made that railroad shares are inflation hedges. My colleague Porter Stansberry made this argument late last year with respect to Burlington Northern (more below). Why?

Rail haulers can push up prices when commodity prices rise, passing on costs. If coal and iron prices continue to trend up, so too should the prices for moving them from the mines to the ports. It's a pretty strong competitive position. And when you're investor, that's what you're looking for with any business: does it have a durable competitive advantage?

And that's not even mentioning how high the barriers to entry are to compete with an established railroad company. The quasi-monopolistic nature of the business - the massive capital costs for building a rail network rule out all but a few players - ensures pricing power and an incredibly strong competitive position. How many entrepreneurs do you know that decide to build start up railroads?

All that said, you won't know if Queensland Rail is good value until you have a good look at the balance sheet. There is also the lingering matter of how much of the company will be owned by the state government. It could be anywhere from 25 per cent to 40 per cent, according to Queensland's Treasurer Andrew Fraser.

A prudent investor might worry about having the government as a partner/big brother regulator. Just ask Telstra how that's going. You are constantly at the mercy of meddlesome politicians who want to run your company like a charity.

Of course there will be the usual motley crew of blabber mouths who decry the privatisation of State assets. But let's not confuse two issues. One issue is why the State Government of Queensland is forced to sell off $15 billion of assets. The answer to that is obvious: the government spends too much and can't live within its means so it has to raise cash somehow. This is low hanging fruit. Watch out for rising taxes later.


But a more interesting secondary issue is why the government can't run the railroad business profitably. If it were such a good business, wouldn't it be throwing off gobs of cash to subsidise other government spending? Is it a bad business, or is just run badly?

Our guess - and it's only a guess - is that Queensland Rail is probably an example of other enterprises run poorly by the government. Turn it over to proper custodians of capital who are accountable to shareholders and you'll probably get a better company. By "better" we mean a company that turns a profit because it delivers more efficient services to its customers. That's also a company that can employ people and deliver returns to shareholders too.

For some reason, there is always a cadre of jackasses who view profit as evil or contrary to the public good. But running a large asset like a rail network for a profit is obviously a public good. Profits are reinvested in the network, improving services and keeping people employed and promoting trade and the flow of goods and services. Private owner/operators are generally better asset managers than bureaucrats. And better asset management is better for everyone.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

First published in The Daily Reckoning on October 4, 2010.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

10 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dan Denning is the author of 2005's best-selling The Bull Hunter (John Wiley & Sons). Dan draws on his network of global contacts from his base in Melbourne. Hes the managing editor of resource newsletter Diggers and Drillers and the editor of The Daily Reckoning Australia.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Dan Denning

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 10 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy