sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Debt and equity stakes in UFB network builder Chorus to go on the block, the government proposes

Technology / news
Debt and equity stakes in UFB network builder Chorus to go on the block, the government proposes

The government today announced that it is exploring selling the debt and equity securities it holds in Chorus, the network infrastructure builder that was awarded the vast majority of areas to construct the Ultrafast Broadband (UFB) initiative created in 2009.

Finance minister Nicola Willis and infrastructure minister Chris Bishop announced the decision to divest the Chorus stake jointly. New Zealand's National Infrastructure Funding and Financing company NIFFCo will now investigate the feasibility of selling the debt and equity securities the government holds in Chorus.

These were purchased as the Crown's contribution to funding the UFB, amounting to $566.9 million and $768.5 million respectively, or $1.34 billion in total. Chorus shares trade at $9.26 each on the New Zealand stock exchange presently, with the company's market capitalisation being $4.05 billion.

If the securities sale to private investors goes ahead, it would take place in early 2026, and done with oversight by the Treasury, Bishop said.

Bishop said the cash would be made available for capital allocations to hospitals, schools and roads in Budget 2026.

Willis said that since the UFB was completed in 2022, there is no reason for the Crown to own the Chorus securities.

“Most New Zealanders were probably not aware the Government owns this investment in Chorus, nor feels any particular benefit from it," Willis said in a statement.

“That’s why it is sensible and prudent to consider the feasibility of divestment to redirect the Government’s capital stored in Chorus into investments that New Zealanders can benefit from."

“The Government is continuously identifying opportunities to support its fiscal strategy and to drive economic growth. Early monetisation of NIFFCo’s Chorus securities is one opportunity that is worth exploring," the finance minister added.

In an announcement to the NZX, Chorus said it will monitor the NIFFCo process.  

"If that process results in any disposal of the securities to a third party we do not anticipate any material change to the terms and conditions on which those securities were issued," the company said.

Speaking at this year's Bloomberg Address, Willis declined to make a prediction how much the government would get from the sale, but said “I want to get as much as possible.”

Willis also denied that the proposed Chorus divestment amounted to asset sales, which the Coalition government has ruled out for the current term.

“I think that debt securities and equities don’t really fit New Zealanders’ idea of an asset,” she said. 

“We don’t own Chorus in any way, and we are essentially a debt lender to it,” Willis added.

“So I don’t think that is a tangible asset in the sense that is meant by the Coalition agreement,” Willis said.

Opposition Labour leader Chris Hipkins viewed the Chorus announcement as an asset sale in an attempt to balance the government books.

“Here we go again. This is the National Party failing to invest in New Zealand’s future. They can’t balance the books so their response to that is to hock off the family silverware,” Hipkins said.

Hipkins attacked the government for borrowing more and investing less, and added that it showed Willis’ tax cuts were unaffordable.

National’s junior coalition partner Act wants more government assets to be “recycled”.

In a press release, Act Party finance spokesperson Todd Stephenson said the announcement was "progress" but should only “be the start” of recycling state-owned assets.

“If it makes sense to free up capital from Chorus, then it makes sense to apply the same logic to $14 billion in energy company shares, a $2 billion farming portfolio, NZ Post, and Quotable Value,” he said. 

“When it’s done properly, asset recycling delivers better roads, schools, and hospitals – faster, without piling on more debt. It’s a chance to build the future New Zealanders have been promised for decades.”

Asset recycling refers to selling state-owned assets and reinvesting all of the money into new public assets. It means the net amount of publicly-owned assets does not decrease.

New Zealand First has long opposed asset sales and would be highly unlikely to allow the energy companies or other assets to be sold under a future coalition deal. 

Securities structure

The securities owned by the Government are not the same as regular shares traded on the stock market. They are largely special non-voting shares which Chorus can buy back from the Crown at their original issue price.

This means the Crown doesn’t control the company and doesn’t benefit directly from increases in its market valuation, although it is eligible for dividend payments while those shares are still outstanding.

This is why Willis doesn’t consider Chorus to be a state-owned asset and told Bloomberg the securities were effectively a type of loan — not an equity stake. 

Another tranche of the securities are structured as interest-free debt, which Chorus repays at face value according to a pre-arranged schedule. The total repayments of both debt and special equity over the next ten years will be $1.3 billion, plus dividends.

This reliable stream of revenue may be attractive to a commercial investor at the right price, allowing the Government to put the capital to work elsewhere. 

However, selling the securities could be difficult as they were not designed to be tradable. 

NIFFCo will have to work out a commercial valuation, test market appetite, then find the optimal way to sell these unusual assets.

Additional reporting Dan Brunskill


 

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

28 Comments

Just when you think they cant get any dumber....

Up
8

Whether or not it makes sense to sell, I doubt its a vote winner. 

Up
0

nor feels any particular benefit from it," Willis said

 

Apart from the share price tripling since acquisition, the dividends, the interest on the debt, and control of an infrastructure provider

Up
6

But the money can be invested back into hospitals, schools and roads. And by that Bishop means mainly just roads! (They've got such a massive gap in funding to support all of those Roads of National Significance that make no business sense but will cost billions upon billions)

There's no place for logic on this one.

Up
6

Unless you are a cashed up property investor looking for somewhere safer to place your funds.....before on selling to an offshore pension fund.

No logic if you are governing for the benefit of NZ Inc however.

Up
2

The Government doesn't own (regular) shares, has no voting control, and the debt doesn't earn interest. There is some financial upside to the investment but it is not like owning a stake in the company. The special equity instruments entitle the government to dividends until 2036 but the debt bits will be paid back interest-free at nominal face value.
 

Up
3

Thanks Dan.  Not sure who would buy the debt then, other than at a discount. The article says the Govt's stake would be valued at $2.47bn, that  sounds like owning a stake in the company.

 

Up
1

"The Government doesn't own (regular) shares, has no voting control, and the debt doesn't earn interest."

Currently, but may well do at transition, depending upon the choice of Chorus if I understand the arrangement correctly.

And if the Gov determine to sell that non interest bearing debt it will be at a discount  and for what?....earlier access to a currency they issue?

Meanwhile we lose control over what the Chorus Board determine to arrange with any new holder of those debt securities.

Up
1

It worked out well with the electricity market

Up
2

I believe Chorus works quite differently - as a natural monopoly their prices are essentially set by the government. Similar to airports - every few years they negotiation what price rises they will be allowed to implement in the coming years, with lots of back-and-forth arguments about what is an appropriate comparison, rate of return on capital etc. 

May also be the case for the lines companies, but not for the electricity generators or retailers. 

Up
1

Our broadband roll out under the current arrangements has to my mind been a spectacular regulatory success - in other words a great investment from the government on behalf of NZ taxpayers.

We all know how privatization works out. 

Surely they'd be better taking whatever income/dividends they get and use it for scholarships for medical doctors and GP specialisations.

They need to learn to think more laterally.

Up
0

The electricity generators are refusing to add capacity because it lowers their margins. Selling Chorus would ultimately lead to the same flavour of BS outcome for New Zealanders. Privately owned businesses charge the most the market to bear and work for their shareholders. 

Up
4

My point is, Chorus cannot charge what the market can bear. They charge what the government allows them to charge, and I wouldn't expect this to change if the government disposes of their stake. They are highly regulated as a natural monopoly, in a way the gentailers are not.

Think of Chorus as Transpower and Spark, One NZ etc as the electricity companies if you want an analogy. 

Up
2

Ah thanks. V. helpful

Up
0

", and I wouldn't expect this to change if the government disposes of their stake"

Why not?...it was a condition of the agreement...which they are looking to offload (needlessly and foolishly)....at a loss I would suggest.

Up
1

Why would you expect that to change? Neither  the government or Chorus is talking about a regulatory change here.

Chorus prices are regulated by Comcom.

https://www.comcom.govt.nz/regulated-industries/fibre/fibre-price-quali…

Up
0

Why...because that is a time limited (currently from 2024)...there are requirements in the existing funding contract which will be open to modification upon divestment....especially to enable a sale.

Think about it...why would anybody invest millions if they were not anticipating a return.

How that return will be generated matters not because ultimately it will be paid by consumers....whereas the state has funded the risk and only expects to receive its original investment back ...either in cash or shares.

It is a dumb idea and totally unnecessary...which begs the question what is the motivation?...or is it simply ideology?

Up
0

The current pricing agreement runs to 2028, when there will be another agreement. I haven't seen anything stating this would be disregarded if the government sells their debt but happy to be educated if you can point me in the right direction. 

There will obviously be a return. My understanding is the government has a large loan to Chorus and it wants to money now. Whoever buys the debt will do so at a discount rate that makes it worthwhile. Hopefully it will be sufficiently competitive that the government doesn't make too much of a loss, and it's conceivable that X dollars today could be put to better use than waiting for X+Y dollars paid over the next decade. 

Obviously if the details change and it opens the door for higher prices, I would change my position. But at the moment it doesn't seem like a big deal to me. I mean, I'm considering selling some bonds as well, even though it means I'll sell it for less than the future income stream. But I have other places to use the money which I think will be more profitable.

Up
0

"But I have other places to use the money which I think will be more profitable."

You are not a sovereign issuer of currency....the Gov does not need to sell assets to invest.

 

Up
1

Well that's quite a different argument. If I've made any errors in the rest of what I've said let me know, I'm happy to learn. 

Up
0

No, it is part of the same argument. 

Up
0

No it's not. The discussion was on whether there is a risk that the government divesting will mean higher prices from Chorus. I don't think that's the case based on what I know of the regulation of Chorus, but could be missing some clause in the contacts. You stated otherwise but haven't actually shown any evidence which I'm keen to see.

Now you've swerved onto whether the government needs to divest - I don't have strong feelings on that. 

Up
0

"The Commerce Commission has issued an Open Letter initiating a programme of work looking at the evolution of the regulatory regime for fibre broadband services.

Telecommunications Commissioner, Tristan Gilbertson, says the new fibre regime is working well, but needs to keep pace with market developments."

https://m.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU2503/S00446/commission-seeks-views-on-e…

"Mr Gilbertson says the Commission would then move on to look at other aspects of the fibre regime, which are subject to review, including:

Deregulation – whether there is a case for winding back regulation of certain services;

Form of control – whether a revenue cap on Chorus remains the best way of allocating risk and producing effectively competitive outcomes;"

Who would have thought....

"Why...because that is a time limited (currently from 2024)...there are requirements in the existing funding contract which will be open to modification upon divestment....especially to enable a sale."

by Let me be Frank | 10th Oct 25, 7:32pm

 

Up
0

Ok, looks like this all flows from the requirements in the telecommunications act to review, and pre-dates the government wanting to divest. Not sure this really changes my thought process.

Definitely worth being on the lookout for any relaxation if the regime when/if the bond sale goes through, but I don't see any evidence for it yet.

Up
0

".... and pre-dates the government wanting to divest."

Certainly predates the announcement but not necessarily the thought.

Up
0

They've gotta cover this:

The Reserve Bank’s new Auckland offices will cost the central bank more than triple the rent it previously paid for premises in the city.

The 10-year lease will cost a minimum of $32 million, the bank’s annual report disclosed.

In addition, the bank (RBNZ) has allocated $14.5m to fit out the space.

Up
0

$3.2 mil a year is pocket change. About $0.03 a week per taxpayer. 

Up
0

So they have finished building it.  But they still run it.

There is every reason to keep control over a strategic and nationwide piece of infrastructure.

Up
1