I must admit I know little about the insurance industry but with IAG taking control they will have a 40% market share. I don't need to be a rock scientist to realise this is a very powerful position to hold in NZ. And continuing the trend of making NZ a branch of Australia, does this not raise any questions. I mean yes open the door to foreign ownership but to give total control to Australian banks and Australian Insurance companies it just doesn't sit right. We lose an opportunity to create a large NZ business that has head office function in NZ, where strategic growth is determined in NZ. Foreign ownership will hinder growth force the focus on cost savings and margin improvements its just a rather low value business operation. I have no problem with for ownership just why sell it all have 2 Aussie banks here not 4 for example.

Ah, at last some objective perspective on who are the foreigners really seizing control of NZ assets and businesses.

Now, where's the outcry from the resident posters who are so anti foreign acquisitions of NZ assets?

I forgot - it's okay if it's white folks buying.

I think this is a great opportunity for IAG NZ and AMIs customers! IAG is a stable business and i have full trust that they will make ami very profitable.

That's a good price.

AMI staff will be very disappointed to have been bought by their main competitor. It will also, one would think, see a large Christchurch head office move to Auckland (who in turn report to Sydney).

Well if you go broke undercutting your competitors and have to be bailed out, it's pretty common that your business is either taken off you by your compeitors, or bought out cheaply. The annoying thing is that this Cantabrian company has , with our govts. agreement been backed up with tax payers money to the tune of up to $200 million. Yet again, this time by people buying cheap insurance getting the rest of us to pick up the real cost. But its 'loose change' compared to the $1.7 billion taxpayers paid out to a small number of kiwi depositors in Sth Canterbury finance who chased high interest income. Oh wow, there's that word 'Canterbury' again. I thouight it was Auckland that had a monopoy on incompetance and or shady practice !

Mr Thompson,

Just because I was astute and brought an Audi A4, rather than a more expensive BMW 5 series. Although on paper mine has the same specs and should some idiot cut the centre line and had a head on with me through no fault of my own and i get killed would you think that I deserved to have died because i was astute with how i spend my money. Well apply that analogy towards your ranting and take some heart for what everyone in chch has been through.

Hi Brad,No of course not. Does your scenario also apply to the govt bailing out people who rushed to deposit money with Sth Canty Finance, where a small number got $1.7billion of taxpayers money plus high risk interest rates?
I also know a person who changed their insurance to AMI after the govt gave its guarantee) as it was both cheaper and govt guaranteed. Same happened big time with Sth Canty depositers...they rushed to take advantage..... Are they all faultlessas I actually was when last June I was hit head on by the driver of a stolen car on my side of the road !
It was well known that AMI was cheap. Their competitors had said so for years and cast doubts to on their being over 'risked' in Canterbury.They were. Unfortunately most of their customers didn't know that. If its cheap. ask questions doesn't get the attention it deserves. In your ecample you investigated the merits of the audi and the BMW and chose the best value overall. that's smart and i agree that makes sense when we invest our money, buy insurance etc.
My point was neither personal nor mocking of the people who have sufferred losses. In truth I am happy that they have been bailed out. I also hope that discussion like this makes more people aware of their own responsibilities.'Anonymous' above your comment doesn't like free speech & discussion so resorts to telling me to get a life etc. He/she will never learn lessons if they stubbornly remain in denial.
My point was 'caveat emptor' or let every failed business and person who consequently looses money, customers and all, be bailed out by taxpayers. Ridiculous. Where does personal responsibility begin, or does it have no beginning?

A bunch of good points...but cant help feeling that despite the true sorrow I have for the victims, we 'taxpayers' are being equally shafted over this matter. The only good I see from this is that another kiwi icon..."choke" (joke more like)..becomes a sub branch of Aussie inc. That is NZ's future...that is where our kids will prosper and we will rely on in our old age for sufficient dosh to live on. Sooner the better as far as I am concerned. Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie !

Am with AMI. Well I guess I'll move my insurance to Tower. I like to shop local.

Agreed... and so does Joseph Stiglitz.

I am pretty sure the insurance policyholders will be grateful that their day-to-day interactions with the company will not be affected as yet. Acquisitions like this can get rather messy, and it is common that policyholders get confused during the transition period if no clear communication is directed at them.

Chris - visitors insurance