OUR wind harnessed to meet OUR consumption, with Samsung playing the middle man?

Any one who thinks this deal that Dalton McGuinty signed with Samsung to give them extra tax incentives to build wind turbine generators in Ontario, is a good idea, had better look at the fine print.

Better yet look at what this deal means in the broadest of terms, as it is simply a case of OUR wind harnessed to meet OUR consumption, with Samsung playing the middle man.

This is no different, conceptually from when the Mike Harris government sold off Highway 407 to foreigners for 50 cents on the dollar (probably more like 10 cents on the dollar today) to make Ontario residents captive to paying massive streams of revenue to foreigners. It’s not as if the technology that Samsung is going to use is propriety, thereby necessitating their involvement as serving as middle man between our wind power and us as consumers, and taking a tolling charge in return for that role./

This is merely “off the shelf” technology. What’s missing here is the opportunity for Ontario Taxpayers to participate in the ownership of this new business and a profit sharing participation in the recurrent and reliable fee stream that it will produce.

This is exactly what income trusts were all about and why they were so popular with the 75% of Canadians without pensions, as the were a form of profit sharing investment that was free from the risks of “reinvestment” that is associated with fixed date maturity bonds, have a large measure of inflation protection determined by the business in question, because a trust is a fractional share of a businesses’ revenue stream, along with a number of other unique investment attributes not found in traditional stocks and bonds.

By killing the income trust market. Something which the McGuinty government had a hand in, Canadians are losing the preferred means by which they could own an economic share in the country they live in, raise their families and pay their taxes in.

What is the conceivable benefit of having Samsung acting as a middle man between Ontario residents as sole owner of wind rights and Ontario residents as consumers of that energy that is produced by harnessing the wind? None whatsoever, except perhaps expedience and lack of vision. What is the possible benefit to Canadians of state owned Abu Dhabi Energy acquiring Prime West Energy Income Trust which has the effect of displacing taxable Canadians investors and replacing them with a state owned oil company who will structure the capital of Prime West in order to pay zero taxes to Canada, apart from producing a massive loss of tax revenue to all Canadians and allowing Abu Dhabi to replace its finite energy reserves?

So what’s nest on the McGuinty auction block? We learned a few weeks ago that the Ontario government had acquired CIBC and Goldman Sachs to evaluate that sale of various prime Ontario assets like the LCBO, the OLG and Hydro One. This so reminds me of when I was the Head of Equity Capital Markets at BMO and we had the multi-billion dollar assignment to sell Hydro One under the Ernie Eves government along with RBC and Goldman Sachs. That’s where I first met Mark Carney, then at Goldman Sachs. You should have seen how totally ballistic Mark Carney and the wrecking crew from Goldman Sachs went, when an outside proposal was made to do the Hydro One IPO by way of an income trust.

Goldman Sachs went berserk. Why? Well for the simple reason that Goldman Sachs and their corporate CEO client base are extremely ill served by such a move in the capital markets away from the institutional driven market place of common shares to the retail driven world of income trusts. Not only would an income trust IPO of Hydro One have maximized the value received by all Ontario taxpayers for this important asset, it would also have allowed for maximum participation by the residents of Ontario in the IPO of Hydro One and in a form that was most advantageous and desirable to them, namely profit sharing income trusts. Bottom line of going that preferred route would have meant no need for Goldman Sachs in such a deal, plus the idea of a multi-billion dollar IPO coming out of Canada and sold into Canada, without the need for Wall Street was just too much for Mark Carney or Goldman Sachs to contemplate.

It would have marked the death knell of Goldman Sachs, this democratization of the capital markets, and the notion that a new form of investment vehicle could make such a large deal possible was too much for the power brokers at Goldman Sachs, so they set about killing the structure with every tool at their disposal while the concept was still in its infancy. Perhaps someone could ask Mark Carney (since I already know) about the role he played at Goldman Sachs to thwart the advent of the income trust success into the US by the US arms of a number of Canadian dealers (ie RBC Dain Rauscher of RBC) and how he succeeded in killing over 10 offerings that had been filed with the SEC for a US version of income trusts called IDS’s, using the accounting profession and the support of Goldman’s large corporate client base (ill-served in their minds by the increased discipline of the trust model over the corporate model) to impose an impossible set of conditions on these companies referred to as the “Ten Commandments”. These 10 offerings that were in the making died a still born death, and prevented the income trust phenomenon from entering the US market, courtesy of Mark Carney and Goldman Sachs.

Here in Canada., Mark Carney’s mission to kill income trusts was made easier as he had installed himself on the “inside”, namely the Department of Finance, and was able to pronounce false edicts like “Tax leakage:” and “leveling the playing”, as false as both of those argument are, and get away with it, and not have to bother with groups like the accounting profession in the US to pull off this heist of his on behalf of the interests of Goldman Sachs and Goldman's client base.

So far that is, as we live in a democracy and Mark Carney is about to find that out in the not too distant future, assuming we have any representation left amongst the three Opposition Parties in Ottawa, and especially given the arrival of the irrefutable win win win solution as the Marshall Plan.

BCE’s hypocritical hysteria over the TV Tax

2009 saw Canadians inundated with a series of TV, print and radio ads funded by BCE (along with their phone and cable company brethren) in an attempt to exploit Canadians as tools to help BCE oppose the onset of a possible TV Tax.

Thanks BCE, but I am intuitively opposed to any new tax that serves a dubious end purpose. I don't need your prodding.

It is for that reason that I am opposed to the TV Tax, since why should consumers have to carry the can of local TV?

It also explains why I am opposed to the HST, which is as dubious of a tax that I can think of, since why should consumers have to carry the can of large corporations and effectively underwrite their businesses through corporate tax breaks? This is where BCE and I differ and where BCE’s total hypocrisy comes in, since BCE is not so consistent in their thinking when it comes to new taxes on consumers like the HST.

You really have to wonder when BCE will learn to be a consumer oriented company more so than a full time corporate lobbying salon. How legitimate is it for BCE to be funding a major multi-million dollar ad campaign to foment Canadians’ opposition to a TV Tax, that might cost consumers as much as $10 a month (if BCE is to be believed), while at the same time BCE is issuing press releases in lock step and syncopated harmony with Jim Flaherty and Dalton McGuinty, that supports their HST, as follows:

"Business groups cheered [the HST announced by Ontario on Monday] because it means firms will pay no sales tax on machinery, equipment and other investment. Indeed, Bell Canada said Monday that, as a result of sales tax harmonization, it would accelerate a $1.5 billion investment it planned to make to upgrade its telecommunications network in Ontario. As has been the experience in other provinces in which Bell operates, savings from a single sales tax structure will accelerate our investment in Ontario. Fewer dollars going toward taxes in 2010 mean more dollars that Bell will reinvest in our networks and service in the province next year," said Bell CEO George Cope.

To decipher what this really means, BCE are simply saying that they more than happy that the HST allows Ontario consumers to be funding BCE’s purchase of new equipment that BCE will own and earn a profit from. You pay. They profit. Nice deal if you can get it. It’s called the HST. Found money for corporations to do with as they please. Pocket the money. Pay higher dividends to shareholders. Bigger bonuses to CEOs. They may even reinvest the money extracted from consumers and handed over to them to make a compound return for themselves. Any way you cut it, Corporations win. Consumers lose. Consumers are now paying for corporations’ ventures in trade, but with no stake to show for it.

The sole purpose of BCE’s much loved HST is to shift the tax burden from corporations, like BCE, onto the backs of consumers. Like you. Everything in Ontario will now be taxed at 13% under BCE’s much loved HST. Things as basic and fundamental as home heating costs will now be subject to an additional 8% tax. As merely an example this will mean I will pay another $320 a year to heat my home and receive nothing in return. It is not me however that I am concernd about, more so the senior citizen on afixed income who is the consumer I am most concerned about. Meanwhile BCE does not share my concern over the effects of HST on the living standards of those on fixed incomes. Instead corporations like BCE and TD Bank who intensely lobbied for this shifting of taxes will benefit. Whereas the 11,410,046 consumers in Ontario will not.

So BCE wants to whip me along with the public into a frenzy of discontent over a new TV Tax that might cost me, what? $120 a year, and meanwhile BCE is saying that they are big supporters on the HST and remain totally oblivious to what that means for Canadians. How can the TV Tax be bad and the HST be good? Illogical and hypocritical of BCE to say the least

When will BCE learn that it is not smart marketing to present two faces to the public in such a stark and hypocritical fashion. Please take your massive TV and radio ad campaign along with all its mock, phony “man on the street” interviews and shove it. We aren’t interested in being exploited as your tools, as you attempt to whip us into a frenzy over one inane tax that might cost us (or is it you?) as much as $120 year, while you slip the knife into our backs by cheer leading for tax that will cost every Ontario resident a vastly larger sum than a mere $120 a year, in perpetuity. All, so that consumers can fund your corporate adventures and misadventures and have nothing whatsoever to show for it, apart from an empty bank account.

Why is BCE not fomenting comsumers' outrage over the HST with a multi-million dollar TV, print and radio campaign opposing the HST as you did with the TV Tax? You wouldn't even have to pay professional actors to create phony man on the street outrage over the HST as you did with your TV tax ad campaign. Think of the money you could save. Imagine how much more credible and real that campaign would be, featuring the live and visceral disgust that consumers feel concerning the HST?

Oh, I forgot, you guys at BCE love the HST.

Meanwhile, we can do math. We can recognize hypocrisy. We are the consumers. You are the phone company. The two faced phone company known as BCE.

Dalton and Dwight: The two Grinches who stole Christmas

What kind of lunatic politician(s) would tax people's heating bills at an additional 8% in the middle of one of the worst recessions ever, in order to give large corporations a tax cut?

Answer: Dalton McGuinty and Dwight Duncan

What kind of a lunatic politician(s) would engage in a massive shifting of tax burden onto consumers from corporations, when they haven't even waited to see the effects of massive cuts in corporate taxes that took place at the federal level?

Answer: Dalton McGuinty and Dwight Duncan

What kind of lunatic politician(s) would create a 13% tax on everything and not expect that tax on everything to be the major driving force for a new huge underground economy that will see, not only these new consumption taxes evaded, but massive amounts of income taxes evaded as well?

Answer: Dalton McGuinty and Dwight Duncan

What kind of lunatic politician(s) would take guidance for the introduction of the HST from Ed Clark, who was the architect of the massively unpopular and politically suicidal National Energy Program (NEP)?

Answer: Dalton McGuinty and Dwight Duncan

McGuinty shoots himself in the foot

This week we learned that Dalton McGuinty retained CIBC and Goldman Sachs to explore the possibility of selling a number of prime Ontario Government holdings to help pay down the province's massive budgetary shortfall. Possible assets on the block include, the LCBO, Hydro One, and the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG). The common feature being that these are all are cash flow rich companies and operate pretty much like the equivalent of toll roads, reaching into the pocjet books of Ontario residents on a daily and weekly basis.

Apart from maximizing the value form the sale of these businesses, Dalton McGuinty should be sensitive to maximizing the opportunity for Ontario residents to participate in these businesses future ownership as well.

It is in both of these senses that Dalton McGuinty has shot himself in the foot. Had Dalton McGuinty not been so quick to jump on Jim Flaherty’s tax leakage bandwagon, as the false rationale for Flaherty’s knee jerk income trust tax, he would have been able to accomplish both of these goals at the same time, through an IPO of these businesses via income trusts. Now that option is gone. Gone for reasons that were completely false and erroneous. Gone through the direct involvement of the McGuinty government

Back in 2001, when I worked at BMO Capital Markets as the head of Equity Capital Markets, I was involved in the aborted sale of Hydro One, attempted by Ernie Eves. BMO was one of three co-leads who were mandated to execute the sale of Hydro One, the other two being RBC and Goldman Sachs. That’s where I first met Mark Carney. You should have seen how ballistic the guys from Goldman went, when there was a move made suggesting Ontario Hydro be sold by way of an income trust. An Income trust of Ontario Hydro would have meant the whole company likely would be sold to residents of Ontario, as there probably wouldn’t have been enough to go around, even with a deal of $2-3 billion in size.

Now that exit option is gone, and so too, the benefits it carries for Ontario in terms of maximizing proceeds and maximizing the ongoing ownership of these businesses by (taxpaying) residents of Ontario. Dalton has only himself to blame.

This is exactly the approach that I advocated within BMO Capital Markets and how we at BMO Capital Markets pitched the IPO of Hydro One to the Ontario Government, all under the banner of an “Ontario First” logo, lapel pins and all. We even produced a 60 second commercial that was ready to be aired at a moments notice. I recall telling the senior people at the Ontario Government at the time that they should not be at all concerned about whether we, as underwriters, could sell Hydro One to investors successfully, but whether they, as the government, could sell the idea of privatizing Hydro One to the voting public. My advice to them in addressing this matter, was for them to tell the public from the very outset in a highly visible way, that Ontario residents would be given a priority option to invest in the Hydro One IPO, hence the Ontario First branding and messaging.

This is not the route the Government chose to adopt, and indeed it was public backlash and backlash from the union that prevented the deal from proceeding. much as I had cautioned them about.

The same dynamic for public backlash exists today, and more than ever, cash flow rich assets like the LCBO, OLG and Hydro One are sought after by investors. But will Ontario residents get a chance to own any of these provincial crown jewels or will groups like Ontario Teachers get a first crack at owning them as they are lobbying for? Meanwhile what possible purpose is served by Goldman Scahs advising the Ontario Government, as they wouldn’t know an Ontario retail investor if they saw one. No doubt the advice coming from Goldman Sachs this time will be no different than the advice rendered by Goldman Sachs the last time, which was for the Ontario Government to turns their back on Ontario residents and make a bee line to Wall Street. Mark Carney’s adverse and self serving reaction to the idea of selling Hydro One via an income trust offering was just a preview of the infamous role he was to play in Ottawa to shut down the income trust concept, except this time across the board.

Shortly after the Hydro One deal went no where, Mark Carney found himself out of a job at Goldman Sachs and wound up in Ottawa. I actually felt some pity for the guy when I learned of his fate, But pity turned to disdain when I learned it was Mark Carney who was the architect of Jim Flaherty’s income trust Halloween Massacre and the incredibly dishonest person in Ottawa responsible for Flaherty’s bogus tax leakage argument, that was completely fictitious, and which formed the fraudulent basis on which Mark Carney, Jim Flaherty, Stephen Harper et al, destroyed $35 billion in Canadian’s investment savings and took from them an essential investment option.

And to think, Flaherty’s income trust prohibition would never have happened without the letters of support sent in from the 10 dutiful Provincial Ministers of Finance, one of whom was Greg Sorbara of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty’s hand picked Minister of Finance. Little did Dalton even know about the falsehood behind tax leakage and little did Dalton realize that he would be shooting himself in the foot some three years later when it came time to sell assets like the LCBO, OLG and Hydro One, in the same way that Ontario was able to sell Teranet.

So I guess this is a case of what goes around, comes around. Dalton McGuinty has seen to it that whatever option he pursues with respect to the sale of the LCBO, OLG or Hydro One, will be options that fall short of what could have been achieved under the income trust option, in terms of maximizing value and maximizing the ongoing ownership of Ontario businesses by Ontario residents.

Maybe Dalton will have now have some inkling what it means to have one’s investment options limited by the tax leakage falsehoods of Jim Flaherty, or to be one of the 1 million Ontario residents who lost $15 billion of their hard earned retirement savings, because of a government policy that whose very foundations were never proven, but just taken for granted. 40% of all income trust investors reside in Ontario and 40% of trust businesses are headquartered in Ontario.

Way to go Dalton! You have only succeeded in shooting yourself in the foot, along with all Ontario taxpayers.