主题：加拿大信托基金：黎明前的曙光 -- 倥偬飞人
from former supporters:
walter clare from Merrickville, Ontario, Canada writes: I believe that this is the first time a G&M thread on the income trust subject has had this much posting without one of the conservative apologists showing up here trying to spin the information in a positive light for the government.
I think even their most ardent supporters, which would have included me not that long ago, have become disgusted by their cavalier attitude and indifference toward everyday Canadians. I am kind of proud of the way Canadians have stood tough against the calculated arrogance of this failed government. It is time for them to go.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070123.wtrustssy0123/CommentStory/Business/home
早上看了一部分live播出。显然保守党的财长没有什么新的东西要说的，而所用的所谓"tax leakage"计算方法简单得可笑，简单比较一个信托基金和一个普通公司的公司税方面的差别，就说有500million的税收流失，完全没有计算个人收入税方面的差别 - 难怪先前不肯拿出来给记者看。需要澄清的是：虽然信托基金在公司税上获得减免，但是派发的红利到了个人手上是要交税的，有的虽然是放在RRSP户口，但是并没有免税，而只是推迟到到老年时，取出钱来用一样要打税。至于CAPITAL LOSS部分给国家税收和个人财产带来的损失，就无言以对，无非是转移对象，大力攻击反对党如何如何。独立专家的证词，显然也对保守党不利，因为计算各方面的因素，自保守党宣布要征税以后，国家和个人财富也损失170亿加元，这和保守党声称要挽回的税收损失区区5个亿完全不成比例，更可笑的是，即使是这5个亿所谓TAX LEAKAGE也未必站的住脚，也有专家认为，信托基金不但没有造成整体上的税收损失，反而是增加的。
除了保守党和新民主党，自由党和魁人政团以及独立的专家都是反对保守党的新税法。保守党和新民主党这种右和左的结合，真是所谓同床异梦，strange bed-fellows。
如果担心其他大型公司转成信托基金，完全没有必要对现有基金下如此重手，直接叫停新的基金就行了。保守党这种做法，就是给感冒的人截肢，真是愚蠢之极。既然是少数党政府，而且新法案还没有通过，大选有可能在预算案不通过时触发，前景只会向好的方面转变。
The Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors has raised a number of questions, the answers to which could make Flaherty’s the “Tax Fairness? Plan”:
What are the policy reasons behind this year's subtle and yet profound change that will permit Canada's largest pension plans to own the economic equivalent of Income Trusts in their private equity portfolios and not be subject to the same double taxation that would be paid by average Canadians in their individual [Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP), the equivalent of the US IRA] under your tax proposal?
How is something that is being denied the average Canadian saving for retirement, on the basis of its presumed negative effect on Ottawa's tax base, be allowed to persist for the exclusive benefit of those in the public civil service and others so advantaged?
Do you agree with the 2005 Consultation Paper which revealed that businesses under the corporate model paid, on average, taxes at the rate of 6.3 percent in 2004?
Is it fair to say that if these same earnings were paid out from an income trust to Canadian individual investors, then taxes would be paid to Ottawa at the higher rate of personal taxation, which the study indicates is 38 percent on average?
On this intuitive level, how can income trusts cause tax leakage?
Has the Department of Finance come to a determination yet as to the cause behind the unexplained surge in personal taxes reported on October 27, 2006 (immediately prior to your Halloween announcement) in an article by Steve Chase of the Globe and Mail entitled “Tax cash floods in, leaving experts at a loss.” Which starts by saying: "There's a mystery bedeviling the Finance Department: Canadians are sending far more personal income taxes to Ottawa than expected--and nobody knows exactly why. Personal income taxes collected--the single biggest source of Ottawa's revenue--are up nearly 11 per cent in the first five months of this fiscal year compared with last year.”
“The puzzle also appears to play a role in the massive CD6.7 billion budget surplus Ottawa posted for the five months of this fiscal year--CD2 billion ahead of where finances stood at the same time last year.”
Given that the five assertions of the Ways and Means Motion, which is the enabling legislation, are based on readily quantifiable concepts, when do you intend to provide Parliament, and in turn Canadians, with any of the supporting studies and analyses that provide the justification for these far reaching measures? The methodologies and assumptions behind this body of work are as important, if not more important, than the numbers themselves. To date no such information has been provided.
What is the specific section of the Access to Information Act you are relying upon and the underlying reasons the government is invoking to justify the denial of access to information by Gordon Tait who was seeking full disclosure of your tax leakage analysis, to the extent such studies even exist?
Is the NDP [New Democratic Party], which to date has supported you in this policy to double tax income trusts in RRSPs, been provided with any more information on your assertion of tax leakage than you have made available to the public at large? Have they at any time requested any such additional information?
We understand that NDP MPs have, during the past few days, written to their concerned constituents, in what appears to be form-type correspondence, stating: “I am confident that government estimates of future tax leakage are solid.”
What is the basis for their confidence, since it could only have come from your office? Have other elected representatives either within your own party or from other parties sought or received such publicly undisclosed information?
Do you believe the comments of the Governor of the Bank of Canada on income trusts that were made in October 2006 that were prefaced by the words, "limited evidence suggests" are more or less authoritative than the work of a major accounting firm whose study of December 7, 2006, is based on an exhaustive study of all 250 income trusts and evaluates their contribution to the Canadian economy?
We note that the CEO of Manulife Financial has been called as a witness. Is this witness representing the interests of a multibillion Canadian "corporation" proper or as the marketer of products which it sells as principle and which have to compete directly with Income Trusts for market "shelf space"? Products such as life annuities and the heavily promoted and advertised proprietary product known as "Income Plus," again sold by Manulife Financial as principle rather than as agent. Income trusts are issued by issuing Canadian businesses to fund their business activities and are purchased by Canadians through agents without promotional advertisement.
These are just some of the unanswered questions that Canadians who are affected by your policy have at this point in time on the "debate" on income trusts. We thank the committee members in advance for asking them on behalf of these negatively affected Canadians.
Total Equity 439.54
Total Common Shares Outstanding 43.97
-------SOURCE OF THIS INFO: 2006 BALANCE SHEET IN GOOGLE FINANCE
THEN NET ASSETS PER SHARE= 9.99
I REMEMBER FLYINGMAN SAID ITS NET ASSETS/SHARE IS ABOUT 5.5, AM I WRONG?
The numbers could both be right, but referring to different trusts: US$9.9 for AAV, and C$5.5 for THY.UN. I mentioned these two in my previous posts.
Schedule 1:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thunder Energy Trust
2006 - T3 Information for Canadian Residents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taxable Tax Deferred
Total Amount Amount (Box 42)
Distribution (Box 26) Other Return of
Record Date Payment Date Paid Income Capital Amount
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 23, 2006 Feb 15, 2006 0.15 0.13335 0.01665
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 22, 2006 Mar 15, 2006 0.15 0.13335 0.01665
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar 22, 2006 Apr 17, 2006 0.15 0.13335 0.01665
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr 24, 2006 May 15, 2006 0.15 0.13335 0.01665
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 23, 2006 Jun 15, 2006 0.12 0.10668 0.01332
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun 22, 2006 Jul 17, 2006 0.12 0.10668 0.01332
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul 24, 2006 Aug 15, 2006 0.12 0.10668 0.01332
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 22, 2006 Sep 15, 2006 0.12 0.10668 0.01332
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sep 22, 2006 Oct 16, 2006 0.12 0.10668 0.01332
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 23, 2006 Nov 15, 2006 0.12 0.10668 0.01332
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 22, 2006 Dec 15, 2006 0.12 0.10668 0.01332
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 29, 2006 Jan 15, 2007 0.12 0.10668 0.01332
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Per Unit 1.56 1.38684 0.17316
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
现在的价格是5.6左右，算来一年的回报率（税前）在27%了。比激进的MUTUAL FUND都要好啊。
飞人兄好推荐啊。
买回去睡大觉，每个月收红利，不用担心它没了，因为石油和天然气在地低下
如果真的没了，那就是被收购了，价格也低不了。
只可惜俺的子弹太少了，
保守党多个方向都受到大多数加拿大人的批评，包括环保、反恐战争等等，前景不妙。
自由党还在继续活动，听证会还将继续进行下去。到目前听证会至少显示：加拿大一般公司的实际税率只有6.5%, 还比不上信托基金相关的税率高。而对石油/天然气类基金免除新税以及延长新税征收的时间还是有空间讨论的。自由党希望借此机会打击保守党，而同时就会担负修改新税提案的义务。
这下面是我收到的免费news letter中的内容，觉得可以说清楚income trust的来龙去脉，供有兴趣的朋友参考参考：
Remember when investors could retire and live well on a modest nest egg? Remember when taxes were only 15% a year, and when you didn’t have to worry about losing your shirt before the closing bell?
That way of life has gradually been taken from you. But this letter is going to bring it all back, courtesy of the Canadian government. They've invented a whole new kind of investment, one that's pulling hundreds of billions of US dollars across the border into Canada today.
In a nutshell, Canadian Income Trusts are a brilliant structure that allows a business to avoid taxes--all taxes. That’s one pretty obvious reason they’re so popular.
The other big reason is that by Canadian law, nearly all the earnings from a trust business must flow right through to its investors, which in this case means you. You no longer have to settle for the bread crumbs we call “dividends” here in the South 50!
Here’s how trusts work up North: A trust uses what it receives from its product sales to pay general expenses and service any debt, and it also sets aside a little bit for exploration or development. Trusts are very careful to set aside no more than 15% of their gross profits, so at least 85% normally goes directly to your mailbox every month. In other words, you usually get a check for about 85% of the true earnings. Sometimes it’s near 100%!
Life doesn’t get any smoother than that. Canadian income trusts aren't structured for the benefit of their CEOs, but their shareholders. What a concept!
Canadian Income Trusts: A Screaming "BUY" Opportunity
On Halloween day, Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty decided that no more companies should be allowed to convert into trusts and that virtually all existing trusts should lose their tax-exemption starting in 2011.
We’ve seen this tax-grab before. The previous Labor government proposed taxing income trusts a year earlier, but ran into such heavy opposition that it was forced to shelve the idea.
Will this latest scare simply be a repeat of 2005’s false alarm? I can’t promise you anything, but we certainly have plenty of reasons not to panic.
First of all, the proposed legislation still needs to be approved by Parliament. All the minister has done so far is to file a notice of intent to table a bill in Parliament. There are no details on when this will happen.
Second, since the proposal provides a four-year grace period before existing trusts are taxed, current trusts will continue to pay their fat distributions.
Third, the proposed law as currently written might never see the light of day. Four years is an eternity in politics. It gives Canadian authorities plenty of time to allow certain businesses back into the income trust fold. (I’m convinced that what they really want is to restrict the format to the natural resource companies it was intended for--not to kill the trust format altogether.)
A year from now, I bet we’ll barely remember this Halloween scare.
And look on the bright side: It’s hard to lose if you buy in now. Trust prices have fallen in the face of uncertainty, giving you a great entry point and super-sized yields. Trusts that were yielding 10% the day before Halloween are now paying 12%. The actual businesses underlying these trusts haven’t changed a bit. Conservatively run, high-quality income trusts are as solid as ever, and I have no doubt they'll prevail for years to come.
Remember, the current yields still hold until 2011. So the owners of Precision Drilling, just to pick one of my favorites, will still receive 13.2% on their capital for the next four years.
And even if they're taxed four years from now, these companies will still be paying yields that dwarf your options in the Dow and S&P. Dozens of trusts now yield more than 10%, some as high as 21%.
Bottom line: There are still plenty of trusts worth buying and holding for the long haul as their businesses grow.
欢迎大家到Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors的网站去看看：
保守党公布的数据有很多的误导，这里有真正的事实：
可能有的朋友会说我是不是深度套牢在income trust里面？其实我一大半都是在市场恐慌抛售之后买入的。
自由党最新出台的建议是将新税限制在10%，而不是保守党提议的31%。如果自由党能够重新执政，新税将大幅减少，重而使得信托基金可以挽回2/3的市值损失。
大选对信托基金的upside影响可能非常大。众所周知，自由党和魁人政团都是主张给信托基金新税松绑的，而保守党和新民主党则相反，支持新税案。大选的结果如果是前者执政，新税案不会通过，或者要做大幅修改才可以通过，这个修改应该是有利于信托基金的；如果是后者执政，那就是新税案可能会通过并实施。
李嘉诚说过，作投资99%的时间要考虑风险，剩下的1%考虑回报。所以让我们先看看风险所在：现在市场早已经消化了新税案这个负面消息，大多跌到净资产（注意不含油气资源储藏量的价值）附近的水平，派息也在油价和天然气价格稳定的情况下可以维持相对的稳定性。即使大选有利于保守党，新税案获得通过，那也没有什么大不了的，现在的价格水平也跌不到哪儿去，每个月收红利就是了。
保守党目前的支持率已经落后于自由党，但是都不到40%，而新民主党和魁人政团差距不大，整体上客观地来讲还没有那一边都没有很清楚的优势，这种情况下大选，可能还是产生一个少数党政府。如果自由党票数领先，那有可能和新民主党或者魁人达成合作，掌握政权。从整体的政治目标来看，保守党和其他三个党的差距是最大的，尤其是环保和阿富汗问题。所以自由党大选后组成少数党政府的机会，高于保守党。这也可能就是为什么保守党着急，频频采用揭短抹黑的电视广告打击自由党的原因，可惜效果并不想他们希望的那样。
所以从政治层面上来讲，大选之前保守党恐怕无法三读通过新税案，而大选之后的结果，新税案的前景并不好，所以这对信托基金来讲，还是一个相对有利的前景。既然没有多少下跌的空间，自然就不必担心，而上涨的前景还是依然看好的。