Mr Sainsbury said larger scale and greater diversity would make a company more relevant on a global scale.
He also warned that Australia risks losing relevance because of the limited large-cap opportunities in Australia and the implementation of the Rudd government’s resources super-profits tax.
Australia has only three companies with a value of greater than $US10 billion compared to seven in the UK, four in the USA, six in Canada and four in South Africa.
“The UK has the largest proportion of large miners which offers strong diversity,” the report said.
“We believe that this is partly the reason why the plc lines of BHP and Rio trade at such a discount to their Ltd lines as UK investors are spoilt for choice, but Australian investors need to own BHP and Rio.”
It cannot relate to exactly the same thing, otherwise there would be a massive arbitrage opportunity that would be closed by institutions faster than you could let out a decent fart.
I don't know the answer, but there must be some difference in the share.
It cannot relate to exactly the same thing, otherwise there would be a massive arbitrage opportunity that would be closed by institutions faster than you could let out a decent fart.
I don't know the answer, but there must be some difference in the share.
The reason why the price spread has not been
eliminated by investors is presumably related to the lack of fungibility (or
exchangeability) between the scrips.
BHP B Ltd and BHP PLC are technically different companies, although PLC share and LTD share has the same % of the merged BHP-billiton.
The paper suggests that over time the "twins" should become more equal in value. So long term investors in BHPBilliton should favour the PLC stck over the LTD stock.