Show me the money
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents,
a balance sheet is always manipulated, at any company in any given year. This is not a problem, firstly because analysts can see thru it, secondly because it actually might make good sense from a companies point of view to shift profit/loss into the previous or next year ( tax, finance, fool employees etc). In the end it is a zero sum game however,over a few years these manipulations equalize each other.
It is not possible however to "secretely" turn losses into profits elsewhere, not legally at least. Imagine all the hundreds of people who look in detail at the balance sheets of Cathay Pacific. Do you think they can be fooled that easily? CX is a public company, there are rules, plus all the shareholders like Air China, a very long list of people who have to be deceived, professional and trained accountants, journalists, insiders, etc.
To claim the hedging loss is a scam is clearly in conspiracy theory territory. Sadly, it was just a foolish bet, and we all have to pay for it now. Think of it as a family with the man of the house suffering from a betting addiction. No toys for the kids this christmas..
Is management trying to deflect public interest from the hedging disaster? You bet.
But what is the point of this discussion in the end? Does it really matter if the loss is due to hedging or due to competion/ currency movements/ cargo weakness etc?
The only argument I could find is:
we know hedging will be gone at some point. Bur mind you, fuel could be up in price by 2018 again, there could be another crisis we don't expect right know, middle east war, you name it.
The golden rule in a cyclical business like aviation is and always will be:
Make hay while the sun shines.
I hope you remember this next time the company is in the mood to offer a payrise.
a balance sheet is always manipulated, at any company in any given year. This is not a problem, firstly because analysts can see thru it, secondly because it actually might make good sense from a companies point of view to shift profit/loss into the previous or next year ( tax, finance, fool employees etc). In the end it is a zero sum game however,over a few years these manipulations equalize each other.
It is not possible however to "secretely" turn losses into profits elsewhere, not legally at least. Imagine all the hundreds of people who look in detail at the balance sheets of Cathay Pacific. Do you think they can be fooled that easily? CX is a public company, there are rules, plus all the shareholders like Air China, a very long list of people who have to be deceived, professional and trained accountants, journalists, insiders, etc.
To claim the hedging loss is a scam is clearly in conspiracy theory territory. Sadly, it was just a foolish bet, and we all have to pay for it now. Think of it as a family with the man of the house suffering from a betting addiction. No toys for the kids this christmas..
Is management trying to deflect public interest from the hedging disaster? You bet.
But what is the point of this discussion in the end? Does it really matter if the loss is due to hedging or due to competion/ currency movements/ cargo weakness etc?
The only argument I could find is:
we know hedging will be gone at some point. Bur mind you, fuel could be up in price by 2018 again, there could be another crisis we don't expect right know, middle east war, you name it.
The golden rule in a cyclical business like aviation is and always will be:
Make hay while the sun shines.
I hope you remember this next time the company is in the mood to offer a payrise.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Cesspit
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Though I'd agree CX's situation is not as dire as it claims, this is far from the truth. CX reports their P/L as a whole Cathay Pacific group which includes HAECO, Catheting, vogue etc. The money made by these associates have been included in the final results.
If you look at its core business (I.e. Flying) the loss is even greater. Of coz mostly because of the fuel hedging .
If you look at its core business (I.e. Flying) the loss is even greater. Of coz mostly because of the fuel hedging .
Wrong.
CX no longer ownes any HAECO shares. It's now majority Swire owned. Another entity through which Swire management shuffle other people's money into Swire hands.
The "core business" (i.e. Flying) lost 3.5B on the back of an 8B hedge, making 4.5B if the bean counters hadn't got involved. A healthy return of about 4 percent which is better than average over the past 20 years.
Look at the numbers, not the spin.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please, everybody stop listening to the manipulative drivel being spewed out by our management. Simply put, if they had an ounce of common sense in their hedging strategy, they would have made BILLIONS in profit the past two years. As far as things pertains to the employees (you know, the people that actually make an airline business possible), strip out any effect of hedging. Whatever the resulting number is, THAT is the one you relate to how you reward your employees. Not a single one of us should suffer for the epic foolishness of a few unaccountable, arrogant and stupid managers who squandered billions. CX/Swire has many times that in reserve, and they can treat their employees accordingly.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Far East
Age: 36
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrong.
CX no longer ownes any HAECO shares. It's now majority Swire owned. Another entity through which Swire management shuffle other people's money into Swire hands.
The "core business" (i.e. Flying) lost 3.5B on the back of an 8B hedge, making 4.5B if the bean counters hadn't got involved. A healthy return of about 4 percent which is better than average over the past 20 years.
Look at the numbers, not the spin.
CX no longer ownes any HAECO shares. It's now majority Swire owned. Another entity through which Swire management shuffle other people's money into Swire hands.
The "core business" (i.e. Flying) lost 3.5B on the back of an 8B hedge, making 4.5B if the bean counters hadn't got involved. A healthy return of about 4 percent which is better than average over the past 20 years.
Look at the numbers, not the spin.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Far East
Age: 36
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please, everybody stop listening to the manipulative drivel being spewed out by our management. Simply put, if they had an ounce of common sense in their hedging strategy, they would have made BILLIONS in profit the past two years. As far as things pertains to the employees (you know, the people that actually make an airline business possible), strip out any effect of hedging. Whatever the resulting number is, THAT is the one you relate to how you reward your employees. Not a single one of us should suffer for the epic foolishness of a few unaccountable, arrogant and stupid managers who squandered billions. CX/Swire has many times that in reserve, and they can treat their employees accordingly.
Was disappointed not seeing the union posting any strong counter to the company's spin. The company attributes the drop of revenue and yield to strong competition etc, which is total BS.
The drop was mainly due to the cancellation of fuel surcharge, which effects should be offset by a falling fuel price. Yet I saw no one mentioning it or even understanding it! Dafuq?!
