[Alberta's Child]

It's important to note that leasing a highway in the U.S. may actually be a bad investment in the long run -- which is why I suspect U.S. firms generally have no interest in these ventures. It's far more lucrative for U.S. firms to underwrite the bonds used to finance these transactions than to actually go out and be a party to the deal.

I believe most companies that pursue these leases tend to be foreign-owned companies with a lot of cash to invest, looking for something relatively stable in the U.S. This enables them to take advantage of a weak U.S. dollar today that will rise and fall over the course of the lease (thereby offering opportunities to engage in different types of transactions depending on whether the U.S. dollar is strong or weak at any given time). The tax laws in the home countries of these foreign firms may be favorable to this kind of arrangement, too.

[stevie_d_64]

I believe you are correct in the tieing of the feduciary aspects of these deals to the long-term profit and influence these companies gain when they enter into deals like this...

But for all of the good that “may” come from something like this, it doesn’t mean squat if it puts at risk the population and other infrastructure if you do not address the security and soveriegnty issues...

To this point none of this has been seriously addressed...