Для отъездающих в Канаду - а страну-то уже распродали))

[Ася]

Выделенные кусочки прошу отметить
Is Canada for Sale? Besides taxation, another perennial policy concern has been Canada’s relatively high degree of foreign ownership. On one side are economic nationalists who believe that foreign ownership undermines sovereignty and removes control over a country’s economic destiny. They endorse ownership restrictions.
On the other side of the debate are capitalists who say that sovereignty is about laws, not ownership, that capital has no passport and that Canadians cannot be free to invest elsewhere unless they offer others the opportunity to buy Canadian assets.
But ownership does matter. Head offices employ more people, use more local suppliers and contribute more to national charities than do branch plants. They also require more skilled employees and put Canada first in terms of both their attention and their investment focus. A nation’s global “champions” are ambassadors and rainmakers for their native countries. And only big, successful entities have sufficient scale to fully take advantage of world-class talent and technology in order to enhance productivity.
The foreign-takeover debate reached a crescendo in 2006 and 2007 after a rash of massive buyouts picked off some of Canada’s greatest and biggest corporations and resource companies. In the summer of 2007, Abu Dhabi became the straw that broke the camel’s back. One of its holding companies had bought three oil companies for US$7.5 billion and announced it was on the prowl for another US$12.5 billion of energy assets in Canada.
The idea of the Arabs bidding for Canada’s energy business forced the federal government to wade in. It also signalled that the gigantic petrodollar funds generated in Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia could lead to the takeover of Alberta’s oil industry in short order. So Ottawa’s industry minister cobbled together an announcement that new restrictions would become law in 2008.This imposed an immediate chill.
The new rules may beef up the “national interest” definition for Investment Canada, probably similar to what the Americans used to repel China’s bid to buy Unocal Oil or to stop Dubai’s bid for port operations in New York City and other cities. Then again, they may not, and a committee will study the issue in 2008.
The situation in 2006 and 2007 involved different “predators” than those in the 1970s that led to the restrictive Foreign Investment Review Agency. These were not big American multinationals but were often from developing countries, either arms of their governments or their countries’ favoured, subsidized global champions. The possibility that they may harbour hidden political agendas was, and should be, worrisome to open economies like Canada’s.
There was also the issue of investment reciprocity, which I pointed out in my Financial Post columns in 2007. Abu Dhabi companies could buy out Canadian ones, but Canadians could not invest in Abu Dhabi enterprises, nor could they even buy oil lands to drill there. Another issue that disturbed me was that these foreigners were sometimes subsidized, which meant that they had unfair advantages over their Canadian investment rivals in terms of bidding for assets.
Before Ottawa or anyone knew what hit them, every one of Canada’s steelmakers had been bought by different foreign groups. The same cherry-picking happened in nickel and then aluminum mining. Falconbridge and Inco (Canada’s 36th- and 70th-largest corporations were snapped up within weeks by foreigners. So were Alcan and Novelis (Canada’s 7th- and 30th-largest companies).
In July 2007, the country’s sixth-largest corporation, autoparts global champion Magna Corporation, succumbed. Half of its control block was sold to a Russian oligarch who confirmed, in U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings, that one day his Magna stock may be owned by Moscow if the Kremlin so requests.
All these deals upset the business community more than they did the public or politicians. All had different reasons for concern. Some blamed sleepy managements for losing takeover fights. Others blamed coddled managements for not becoming global consolidators themselves, for huddling here only to be picked off by smarter, more aggressive players from abroad.
“Xstrata [the British-Swiss consolidator that bought Falconbridge] didn’t exist six years ago,” said Peter Munk, who built the world’s largest gold-mining company. “Now look what they’ve got. It requires balls, it requires guts, it requires vision. And those are not qualities that come to [our] senior corporate managers in Canada.”
Canadian global consolidator Dominic D’Alessandro, CEO of Manulife Financial Corp., wrote in the press and argued for restrictions: “I believe ownership matters a lot. It matters not only for economic reasons but, more importantly, for our sense of self esteem and pride in our country.”
Ned Goodman disagreed that foreign buyouts were problematic. “I don’t care who owns what,” he said. “We have laws in Canada, and these have to be abided [by] whether the owners are from China, South Carolina or Toronto. Canadians have the ability to change these laws and, to me, a good corporate citizen is a good corporate citizen. However, I’m against making it easy or cheap to buy a Canadian company.”
Norman Keevil Jr., whose Teck Cominco tried to buy Inco, was upset at being outbid by Brazil’s CVRD but added that he believed such takeovers were not disastrous for Canada or the mining industry. “Inco and Noranda have been taken over, and their head offices have disappeared, but how many new mines were they really responsible for anyway? Old names [of companies] in Australia have disappeared too, but that doesn’t make Australia any less of a mining country. New players will come along, as Teck did. There may even be more room for them, particularly amongst investors, without the old names dominating the scene. The belated nationalistic musings of some populist businessmen and media types notwithstanding, Canada and Australia are going to be key players in mining, along with Brazil, China and London, for the foreseeable future,” he said.
But he blamed poor managements in Canada for being eaten instead of being the eaters: “After all, Inco was run by executives who exercised their stock options at $20 a share, and just months later CVRD paid $68 a share.”
As for the loss of head offices, he said, “Head offices disappearing? The same investment bankers and lawyers who negotiated these takeover deals are the major losers when head offices disappear, and that’s fine with me. Investment bankers shouldn’t have flogged Inco to CVRD.”
Mining magnate Robert Friedland agreed: “This is not a national tragedy. There are still mines in Sudbury, and the sale of Inco and Falconbridge means that fund managers and mining company shareholders can finance a new generation of companies that are in the $4-billion range and will eventually become worth $40 billion. But why didn’t a Canadian company bid the most? The others understood the very large cycle in metals and were very aggressive. They paid more. They understood China better. They were playing in a more sophisticated market, in London, where they could raise more money. He who has the most access to capital and information wins,” he added.
But some free-traders believe that Canada should somehow encourage Canadian players to become global champions. Hartley Richardson, chairman of his family’s many holdings, lost a takeover bid in 2007 to Americans for a huge agribusiness in Canada. He said protectionism was not an option but that Canadian governments must do something to encourage home-grown enterprises.
“Canada has to decide what it’s going to be good at. It has to look at what other countries have done to support their core businesses without shutting out or putting up walls. Governments, through tax and other policies, must encourage Canadians to truly become global. Business will always adapt, but if rules keep changing and are not favourable to growing businesses, people will take their capital and go elsewhere. I hope we’ll continue to be a strong Canadian business. We have been for five generations, and I would be disappointed to think we would have to go elsewhere,” he said.
CanWest Media Inc. CEO Leonard Asper, with profitable assets in Australia, the U.S., Turkey and Britain, said that foreign ownership restrictions would be a mistake, and were unnecessary except to ban purchases by state-owned or state-supported resource acquisitors: “This hollowing-out-of-Canada business is dumb, it is nonsense. Canada is creating lots of new companies, and we have a very healthy economy with a culture of entrepreneurship. But I have a concern about foreign governments owning our resources, because they may have different foreign-policy goals. Gazprom [the largest company in Russia] should not be able to buy Petro-Canada. Sometimes these government-owned enterprises are subsidized, and that is unfair too.”
Former Reform Party leader and Alberta free-enterpriser Preston Manning put his concerns about resource buyouts another way in a newspaper interview: “If you don’t want Osama Bin Laden fiddling with Quebec hydro lines or Beijing controlling the oil patch, there should be national-security provisions in the approval process to protect our values and objectives.”

[hopper]

Сообщение от Ася

But he blamed poor managements in Canada for being eaten instead of being the eaters

Бгы-гы-гы Вот он, звериный оскал капитализма

[Ася]

Сообщение от hopper

Бгы-гы-гы Вот он, звериный оскал капитализма

ну да, звериные законы рынка))) клювом не щелкай

[Katana]

А можно коротко по-русски?

[Ася]

Сообщение от Katana

А можно коротко по-русски?

Да, в целом смысл такой - иностранцы раскупают канадские бизнесы. Например, Магна (шестой по величине бизнес), продан русскому бизнесмену. И они пишут, что если она принадлежит русскому, то не исключено, что скоро ей будет владеть Кремль))). Петро-Кэнаду собирается купить Газпром. Я выделила жирным только то, что касается России. В статье написано и про другие страны.

[Кенга Ру]

ну не знаю, в России это называется "привлекать иностранных инвесторов" и считается благом для страны.