Pinewood...more Govt Propaganda

[asitis]

This part of your considered response only adds fuel to the fire imo, we are talking about taxpayers money here and phrases like "getting clear of that old mess" and not having a clue about what it was meant to do is symptomatic of the incompetence and secrecy surrounding this current administration. What was the full benefit ? hard to say ! Ye Gods, if I were an MHK I would want to know unequivocally what the benefits were when I was sanctioning the use of what a total of 50m of other peoples money. No honesty and no accountability sum up the situation.

 

Compare it to other government activities: What's the direct return of a grant to an engineering company to buy new plant equipment? Getting rid of the old mess isn't the current administration, is it?

 

 

 

Yes it is but with different hats on ! Oh and now an ability to bury what has gone before !!

Edited January 1, 2013 by asitis

[Patrick]

14.12.10

Minister Bell

We have had a number of financial successes and artistic successes over the years. We have been very lucky, but what we must not lose sight of, and it has been a fairly static statistic for quite some time, 90% of all British-related independent films lose money. A very, very few films actually make money in their own right. So finding a winner out of the vast array of scripts that pass through Isle of Man Film’s office periodically is an exceptionally difficult thing, and when Mr Karran talks about needing guarantees, there is no such thing as a guarantee in the film industry. It is one of the most volatile, unpredictable industries that you could possibly imagine. We get $100 million films which lose money. You get $½ million dollar films which make hundreds of millions of dollars. (Mr Lowey: Billy Elliot.) It is not an exact science that you can guarantee that you will get results on.

 

Sounds like 'high risk' to even the tangerine emperor

[Andy Onchan]

Film sector is not a new industry Slim - if that is what you are suggesting. A very old one. A new one may be more aligned to home media and games but even these are getting oldish. If you are suggesting the money might have been better spent on a new industry such as, for example, software development and export for 3D printing then I agree with you. Even renewables...

 

Before the MDF, the financing and facilitation of film production wasn't happening on the island. It's a new industry for the island.

 

Slim it lost value, if you take the time to look at the accounts, because the investment managers have continually over-estimated the value of the films they promoted which resulted in write-downs. I understand that at least some of the current managers are the same people who failed in the past. Their track record is not encouraging. Running down the value of a fund because of the value of the products it makes is not a sustainable strategy for groing that sector.

 

You're not even reading my posts are you? I said it depends how you value it. I've seen nothing to say the media *development* fund was supposed to produce direct returns.

 

You were talking specifically about share price Slim so I was commenting on what you said. Until you realise the value by selling any increae in share value is clearly a paper profit. You can only be sure of securing that increase in value by selling. For example what are RBS shares worth now compared with their peak - you have to sell to get the price! How big is the Pinewood dividend since you say it should be included? Is the £2 million you quote gross profit or post tax profit or dividend? We would need to know how much profit is paid as dividends and how much is retained for the business before saying it is a good, bad or indifferent dividend.

 

But that's true of any asset. Why single out the pinewood shares, when the bulk of the reserves, plus the NI and Public Pension pot will also be invested in similar equities?

 

Allan Bell for one. £2 million in 6 months is about 2% of the capital value of the business. Is it pre tax profit you are quoting or after tax? Slim as above how much of these profits have been paid as dividends into the Reserves?

 

Pre-tax of £3m http://www.guardian....s-profitability

 

The dividend will be £250k I guess?

 

Did Allan Bell say high risk? Where? In the link above he said "He also believes the investment is no more high-risk than other investments made by the Manx Government and by other countries.", that isn't saying it's high risk, it's saying it's not more risky than existing investments.

 

 

 

I don't see anything you're saying to back up 'high risk'.

I think the issue Slim is that the track record thus far speaks for itself and I personally don't see that improving because the same people/person are/is still involved.

[Slim]

I think the issue Slim is that the track record thus far speaks for itself and I personally don't see that improving because the same people/person are/is still involved.

 

Sounds like 'high risk' to even the tangerine emperor

 

Both issues which are attempting to be addressed by the new arrangement as I understand it. Pinewood isn't about locally produced films, it's more global and it's about television too. By appointing a company like pinewood to manage the fund rather than the rather odd arrangement with cinemanx they're addressing the first issue.

 

I would have personally not supported the deal and would have preferred the money to be spend on something much more locally focused for the fund. I'm just trying to defend the reasoning vs the manxforums crabby 'its shit because it's the manx government' line of attack. I think many of the criticisms here are unfair.

[Albert Tatlock]

I'm just trying to defend the reasoning vs the manxforums crabby 'its shit because it's the manx government' line of attack. I think many of the criticisms here are unfair.

Most of the criticisms are justified IMO:

 

a) Our government should not be involved in business and playing with taxpayers money in this way.

b) There are other pressing priorities for the same money

c) Basic questions regarding the business case still remain unanswered, in fact, are being avoided

d) The same people that lost money with the development fund are still involved

e) The Oxford Economics report into the benefits of the film industry so far to the Isle of Man, is at best, sheer fantasy

 

etc.

 

Hardly 'crabby' - as you once again shoot off with your often overly-optimistic and over-simplified responses to many financial matters raised on these forums. Might I suggest that if you don't understand at least the basic points listed a) to e) above, then perhaps you should revisit some of the basics on this topic.

[Slim]

Yet my responses to these points go unanswered.

 

a) Our government should not be involved in business and playing with taxpayers money in this way.

 

Explain why this investment is any different from the equities the rest of the reserves are invested in. Do you know what they are? If not, why aren't you bothered about that 400 odd million vs this 12 million?

 

b) There are other pressing priorities for the same money

 

Same applies. This was taken from reserves which is invested in a similar way. Why does this get the attention? I think it's because it's an interesting subject (Movies) vs boring equities.

 

c) Basic questions regarding the business case still remain unanswered, in fact, are being avoided

 

For example?

 

d) The same people that lost money with the development fund are still involved

 

Why don't you expect the other development funds to provide direct returns?

 

e) The Oxford Economics report into the benefits of the film industry so far to the Isle of Man, is at best, sheer fantasy

 

Which this move addresses by not trying to create a stand alone film industry on the isle of man, but share part of the UK's film industry.

 

Hardly 'crabby' - as you once again shoot off with your often overly-optimistic and over-simplified responses to many financial matters raised on these forums. Might I suggest that if you don't understand at least the basic points listed a) to e) above, then perhaps you should revisit some of the basics on this topic.

 

Thanks Albert for once again making me wonder why I bother defending the life I love. Everything is shit, carry on.

[Albert Tatlock]

Thanks Albert for once again making me wonder why I bother defending the life I love. Everything is shit, carry on.

Stick to the facts Danno, because facts don't involve emotions. And maybe think about joining in 'defending' our money. Cos it is mine and yours too.

 

There are teams of actuaries, accountants, risk managers and other financial whizzes that take a view on government investments in equities and other such funds - and advise accordingly. Pinewood has had no such similar treatment.

[Matt Bawden]

Well, I'm having Roast Chicken for lunch.

[Slim]

]Stick to the facts Danno, because facts don't involve emotions. And maybe think about joining in 'defending' our money. Cos it is mine and yours too.

 

I am attempting to stick to the facts, but you've raised the same points over again which I have responded to. You've chosen to ignore them again I see?

 

There are teams of actuaries, accountants, risk managers and other financial whizzes that take a view on government investments in equities and other such funds - and advise accordingly. Pinewood has had no such similar treatment.

 

Are there? Can you provide me an example of that for the rest of the reserves? What actuaries advise on the agriculture development fund?

[Albert Tatlock]

Those same points are fairly basic and needed answering, PRIOR to any investment. IMO you've not addressed these issues anywhere near the mark, other than being overly optimistic.

 

The treasury doesn't just collect taxes, they advise on investment, and have people on post to do just that. But I'll bet not one of them in an advisory capacity, other than Eddie Teare himself, have got their fingerprints on this 'investment' - that's if they have any sense that is.

[manshimajin]

From IOMOnline: Pinewood deal rewards

 

Back to basics...this is a typical Examiner/IOMToday non-article.

 

The heading "Pinewood Deal Rewards" has no numeric facts from Eddie Teare to substantiate that claim. I suspect that he feels very much on the back foot and is trying to spin something out of nothing. The Examiner should have said to him that they are not going to publish froth. If he has the numbers then he needs to come out with them to make people trust his judgement.

 

The history of this sector over the past few years has included Anne Craine saying that there has been a huge loss in film investment (I think she was saying about £106 million), Allan Bell saying it had contributed £75 million to the economy, Mr Christian saying it had contributed £250 million, the government accounts saying the MDF had lost £15 million in 3 years, Mr Teare saying it had lost £22 million and various articles about how much has been lost in promoting specific films.

 

As Slim quite correctly said above it may not be the most critical investment being made through the Reserves. However it is one that has gained a lot of public attention and a degree of notoriety because even the government ministers don't seem to know if its made money or lost money - and not on a small scale either. It is therefore IMO no wonder that people who have a bit of interest in the way things happen here focus on the inconsistencies that have been floating around government circles.

 

If Mr Teare has facts and figures he should come out with them in a clear and factual statement. Until such time as he does I suspect that vague statements of the "trust me it is generating rewards but I can't quantify them" sort on the IOMToday link just make things worse not better. Why does he want to communicate when he cannot quantify the "rewards"?

[Albert Tatlock]

From IOMOnline: Pinewood deal rewards

 

Back to basics...this is a typical Examiner/IOMToday non-article.

 

The heading "Pinewood Deal Rewards" has no numeric facts from Eddie Teare to substantiate that claim. I suspect that he feels very much on the back foot and is trying to spin something out of nothing. The Examiner should have said to him that they are not going to publish froth. If he has the numbers then he needs to come out with them to make people trust his judgement.

 

The history of this sector over the past few years has included Anne Craine saying that there has been a huge loss in film investment (I think she was saying about £106 million), Allan Bell saying it had contributed £75 million to the economy, Mr Christian saying it had contributed £250 million, the government accounts saying the MDF had lost £15 million in 3 years, Mr Teare saying it had lost £22 million and various articles about how much has been lost in promoting specific films.

 

As Slim quite correctly said above it may not be the most critical investment being made through the Reserves. However it is one that has gained a lot of public attention and a degree of notoriety because even the government ministers don't seem to know if its made money or lost money - and not on a small scale either. It is therefore IMO no wonder that people who have a bit of interest in the way things happen here focus on the inconsistencies that have been floating around government circles.

 

If Mr Teare has facts and figures he should come out with them in a clear and factual statement. Until such time as he does I suspect that vague statements of the "trust me it is generating rewards but I can't quantify them" sort on the IOMToday link just make things worse not better. Why does he want to communicate when he cannot quantify the "rewards"?

I would agree with that, but placing £35M in a reliable bank as an investment is wholly different to the risk of investing the same money in something so precarious that it could go either way or even be lost overnight if things were to really go awry in a highly competitive business environment. Especially at a time when front line cuts are being made, all at the expense of paying the likes of Jude Law for something that may or may not make any money.

 

It has gained a great deal of public attention simply because the money has not gone through the same level of analysis and diligence that a usual investment of that size would undergo.

[manshimajin]

It has gained a great deal of public attention simply because the money has not gone through the same level of analysis and diligence that a usual investment of that size would undergo.

The problem is compounded if someone says 'it has lost £106 million', another says that some people have 'benefitted to the amount of £250 million', another says 'it is not technically taxpayers' money being invested', another says if people ask questions they are 'naysayers' and in IOMToday there is an article "CinemaNX films have yet to make us a profit" http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/cinemanx-films-have-yet-to-make-us-a-profit-1-5144389.

[manshimajin]

I don't see anything you're saying to back up 'high risk'.

 

I think Mr Bell, quoted by Asits, speaking in Tynwald makes the point about risk eloquently:

 

It is one of the most volatile, unpredictable industries that you could possibly imagine. We get $100 million films which lose money. You get $½ million dollar films which make hundreds of millions of dollars. (Mr Lowey: Billy Elliot.) It is not an exact science that you can guarantee that you will get results on.

 

Mr Bell seems to agree with what I said earlier on the thread - the film sector can be very successful or it can bomb. It would be a good description of betting at the Roulette Table too.

[Slim]

Those same points are fairly basic and needed answering, PRIOR to any investment. IMO you've not addressed these issues anywhere near the mark, other than being overly optimistic.

 

The treasury doesn't just collect taxes, they advise on investment, and have people on post to do just that. But I'll bet not one of them in an advisory capacity, other than Eddie Teare himself, have got their fingerprints on this 'investment' - that's if they have any sense that is.

 

You don't know though do you? You're just making the assumption that this is how it occured and you have the cheek to call my points simplistic.