It beggars belief: why do PM Luxon & Minister Bishop's 100 foreign investors "visiting" NZ next week comprise 50 local Auckland firms?

This Blog does genuinely try to be non-partisan, making it neither a friend of National, nor Labour. We're doing what State Broadcasters Radio NZ & One News should be doing, but are not, since they became a front for Labour, Greens & Te Pāti Māori. On that note, its quite an accusation, and maybe something is wonky with my sources, but it looks like the PM & Infrastructure Minister may have not told the truth about their Investment Conference, held next week in Auckland. I'd like to believe I'm wrong. Here goes. The Beehive has formally announced: "Going for growth: International investment summit to boost infrastructure & jobs: About 100 of the world’s high-profile investors, business leaders & construction companies are expected to visit NZ in March for a global investment summit." The statement is signed by PM Luxon & Minister Bishop. What's the problem? Today the NZ Herald says, "Revealed: The international businesses invited to Auckland investment summit". Look at their list of 100 international businesses who are "visiting" Auckland (in the words of the Beehive). By my count, fully one half of them are local Auckland businesses.

How can one make that extraordinary claim? The Guest List, in terms of Auckland law firms alone, reads: Bell Gully (where Finance Minister Willis' father was a partner), Buddle Finlay, Minter Ellison Rudd Watts, Simpson Grierson & Russell McVeigh. Jeepers. On top of them the Big Auckland Accounting Firms KPMG and BDO have piled in. As well as Big Monopoly Banks ANZ, ASB, BNZ and Westpac. What boggles belief is that the folks most responsible for exporting investment capital out of (not into) NZ in the form of our local asset managers (who buy stocks in places like the US, using Kiwi Saver and other funds) fill out the Guest List like flies on rotting meat. They include Craig's Investments, First Cape (it owns JB Were), Simplicity, Jarden, Milford Asset Management & NZ Super Fund. Why has Big Monopoly Fletcher Building been invited? Isn't one point of the conference to increase competition Will its CEO tell potential foreign investors NZ is a terrible place to invest so he can get the work? The companies we've named above make up nearly 20% of the attendees. Where is (Solar Panels) Blackrock? The United Arab Emirates? It is so bizarre, it can't be true. Surely the list in the Herald is the wrong one?

From an economist's point of view, this doesn't look like a conference where overseas firms will be sizing up Foreign Direct Investments in NZ, which, by definition, means taking stakes with significant control of projects. It looks more like Auckland fund managers trying to get money from bigger funds for their funds so they can slice off commissions. It looks like Big Auckland Law Firms touting for work. Why were they given official state entry, whereas smaller law firms were not? Does Finance Minister, Nicola Willis, who is attending, like how her Dad's law firm, Bell Gully, is also attending, whereas smaller firms like TGT, one of NZ's finest, are not? Did Willis invite Bell Gully? Foreign investors shouldn't be told what lawyer to hire. Will the PM tell them, "And Nicola can put you in touch with a good one" ? Why invite any? Inviting Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (NZ) is odd. Its Chairman is Don Brash, former National Party Leader. Doesn't he already know about opportunities in NZ? One doesn't want to pour cold water on things, but can National please become the real deal, rather than trying to pull off marketing & PR stunts like Ardern? The Beehive writes that 100 overseas firms are "visiting" NZ to discuss investments. No they are not. The PM says his conference is about Foreign Direct Investment, not short term portfolio investments, which NZ already has no problem attracting. The Kiwi $ is one of the world's most traded. But we're not after that kind of "hot money". New Zealand is after long term investments that bring technical expertise with them. By my count, fully one half of the 100 attendees are local firms, most of them middle-men on-commissions. What's going on? I must be wrong.

Who should NOT be next Governor of the Reserve Bank.

Its official. Soon-to-be former Governor Orr of the Reserve Bank of NZ has gone into hiding. Meanwhile the media, both national and international, are speculating as to who the next Governor, will, or should, be. So here is who the next Governor should not be, with brief reasons. Note that each one of these names has been touted either in the Herald, or by Bloomberg News, or the likes of Business Desk, or National Business Review:

= Treasury Chief Economist Dominick Stevens. Why not? He was Westpac Chief Economist for a decade. The idea of a former Big Monopoly Bank Economist becoming Governor who cuts capital requirements, which the NZ Initiative, Business Groups, and the Big Banks are lobbying for, so they can make bigger profits, only to be bailed out again, is morally wrong.

= Assistant RBNZ Governor Karen Silk. Why not? She's a former "senior executive" from - you guessed it - Big Monopoly Bank Westpac, and to top it off, she has no economics qualifications. Former Governor Orr hired her. Say no more.

= Acting Governor Hawkesby. Why not? He's the preferred choice of former Governor Orr, which rules him out before we get started. Like Silk, Orr hired him. Not worth discussing as a contender.

= RBNZ Board Chair Neil Quigley. Why not? Quigley is a mate of Steven Joyce and Vice Chancellor of Waikato University. He's the one who caused the omni-shambles that has now become the Reserve Bank. How come? He hired (former) Governor Orr in the first place, and pushed for the renewal of his contract just over one year ago. He sits as the ultimate architect, along with Orr, of the high inflation, and now stagnation NZ is experiencing. He should resign.

= Current Westpac Chief Economist Kelly Eckhold. Why not? Amazingly the NZ Herald's economic correspondent, Liam Dann, touted him for the job of Governor. Dann says, "Prior to joining Westpac, Eckhold spent 12 years at the International Monetary Fund, working on monetary policy, foreign exchange, and financial stability issues. Would he be interested in the job? “I think it sounds like a great job,” Eckhold replied. Again, the idea of a Big Monopoly Bank Economist becoming Governor, when he is is currently designing ways to make even bigger monopoly profits for that industry is too outrageous to even contemplate.

= Another Big Bank Economist, like ASB Chief Economist Nick Tuffley, or Kiwi Bank Chief Economist Jarod Kerr. Why not? The Herald's Liam Dann likes these chaps - he's always interviewing them. Again, letting Big Bank Monopoly foxes inside the chicken coup is a non-starter.

There is a world of talent out there. But the best profile is emerging: someone who knows their stuff by virtue of having a high-level mix of qualifications in economics, as well as experience in Central Banking, and is not seeking to use the job to become a Kardashian-style influencer. Humility and modesty would be a nice change. And someone who is not associated with wildly pushing either a strongly leftist or strongly rightist agenda. And since international factors are so important these days, someone with that background, who has proved they can cut-the-mustard overseas, but also has the best interests of NZ at heart.