Gunns and the sale of assets

Discussion about the possible reasons for Gunns proposing to sell $170 million of their plantation assets has largely overlooked the fact that $120 million worth of hybrid securities called FORESTS (Frankable Optionally Redeemable Equity Settleable Transferable Securities) which trade on the ASX under the symbol GNSPA need to converted to shares or redeemed by 14 October 2008 or else Gunns may face an increased payment of 2.50% pa to the holders of the securities.

The biggest Ponzi ever

 

This weekend’s Oz contained an article by Bina Brown on MIS schemes in which she disclosed that Great Southern (GTP) in 2005 used some of their own funds to purchase all of the timber from their investors in their 1994 Project. The investors ended up with 3 times the amount they would have received had the contractual arrangements been strictly applied. A face saving exercise perhaps?

Farmers and MIS

I have been surprised by the shrill support for MIS schemes from sections of the farming lobby. There seems to be a widespread misconception that MIS schemes are the only way to attract funds into the farming sector.

Some discussion about whether a MIS structure is an efficient way of granting assistance to farming industries might be helpful.

Plantations: An accountant's view

I’ve never been a fan of MISs, initially because I’ve never seen any investor make a respectable return, but in the last few years because of the associated negative impact on our community. After considerable reflection I think the current proposed arrangements announced at budget time give us a chance to move on.

Consultation on taxation of plantation forestry

I am writing in response to the invitation to comment on the proposed forestry arrangements attached to the press release of the Assistant Treasurer on 9^thMay 2006. (http://archive.treasury.gov.au/contentitem.asp?NavId=037&ContentID=1106 reproduced below).

It’s a little disappointing that the Government didn’t release a copy of the review submitted to Government and referred to in the Minister’s press release. It would make the whole review process a little more transparent if we could see a copy of the review findings. The review was not simply about MIS schemes, it was supposed to cover much wider issues including whether the current tax regime impeded longer rotation sawlog crops. What happened to that part of the review? Or is it covered in the proposed arrangement to develop standards for best practice in forestry, regional planning, land use and natural resource planning? Sounds awfully like a motherhood statement. One can only agree that best practice is a good idea, but are sawlog crops going to be encouraged or will they just have to take pot luck behind the short term aspirations of most MIS plantation investors and hell, why not just let the market sort it out. Maybe that is the best solution, so long as MIS investors aren’t provided with too many tax breaks unavailable to others.

The land grab

Dear Members of Parliament

As you probably know Great Southern Plantations Limited have now joined the land grab by forest operations companies in Tasmania and are now paying $5000 per hectare. Only the prime cropping and dairying properties are outside their grasp at this stage. What happens when milk prices take a dive and/or vegetable growers suffer another blow before they have a chance to get off the canvas? It may be too late to act at that stage.

Taxation of plantation forestry

 

The following is a response to the public invitation to make a submission to the Review of the Taxation of Plantation Forestry. http://archive.treasury.gov.au/contentitem.asp?NavId=037&ContentID=997

It is not intended to be an exhaustive treatise, rather some comments from one who is interested in economic policy issues, is a tax practitioner and who resides in an area that has experienced the impact of tree plantations in recent years. References to the 1936 Act and the 1997 Act are obviously references to the Income tax Assessment Acts of those particular years.