Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Risky business? For government or mining?

By Geoff Carmody - posted Wednesday, 2 June 2010


Who’s responsible for ensuring buyers of government bonds can be repaid? Taxpayers.

If new “riskless” government bonds are being issued to finance inherently risky mining projects that are also subject to the RSPT, how will bond buyers react? This is an empirical question.

We could run the experiment proposed and learn the answer from market experience. Alternatively, we could try to assess likely market reactions before the event if possible. That way, we might avoid learning nasty lessons by having to suffer their effects.

Advertisement

One possible reaction is that government bond buyers and taxpayers will respond like the finance sector. They will “look through” the government bond-backed “riskless” guarantee to the underlying project risk (or, for bond buyers, a mining sector average of those risks) and focus on government capacity to finance RSPT bond issues over time.

Bond buyers might re-rate government bonds, and add a risk margin to what is supposed to be a riskless investment benchmark, because of their deployment in risky mining ventures. Taxpayers might factor in an expectation that, if things turn bad, governments in future will be forced either to cut government spending and/or increase tax rates to cover increased government debt and debt-servicing obligations at a time when government budgets themselves will be shifting into deficit.

Such responses would slow investment, and economic and employment growth more generally.

Shuffling financing arrangements should not alter the inherent riskiness of a project. If a specific mining project has a given risk, all of those who are financing it need to price in that risk. It shouldn’t matter whether private interests or governments (i.e., taxpayers) are the investors.

If it can't, then under the RSPT as it now stands, the government is not shouldering 40 per cent of the risk and, by its own rationale is not entitled to 40 per cent of the rewards.

This issue is worth thinking about a lot more before we proceed with the current RSPT proposal.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

A version of this article was first published in The Australian on May 26, 2010.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

1 post so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Geoff Carmody is Director, Geoff Carmody & Associates, a former co-founder of Access Economics, and before that was a senior officer in the Commonwealth Treasury. He favours a national consumption-based climate policy, preferably using a carbon tax to put a price on carbon. He has prepared papers entitled Effective climate change policy: the seven Cs. Paper #1: Some design principles for evaluating greenhouse gas abatement policies. Paper #2: Implementing design principles for effective climate change policy. Paper #3: ETS or carbon tax?

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Geoff Carmody

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 1 comment
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy