Jackson at it again

[lowerlobe]

QANTAS chairman Margaret Jackson predicts that the current "purple patch" in the world aviation industry could hit "turbulence" in a year or two.

Speaking on the eve of her retirement after 15 years on the Qantas board, the last eight as chairman, Ms Jackson said her successor, Leigh Clifford, would probably have a year or two before he had to deal with "some speed bumps" in the industry.

She said the arrival of new-generation aircraft such as the Airbus A380 and the Boeing Dreamliners would add significant capacity to the world airline industry over the next few years -- changing the profitability of the industry.

Ms Jackson also expressed her concerns at the potential impact of federal Labor's industrial relations policy on Qantas, warning that it could reduce flexibility in the airline's 34,000-strong workforce.

In an interview in her office in Melbourne this week, she said Qantas had made use of the industrial relations changes brought in under the Howard Government.

She warned that rolling these changes back could have an impact on the airline's staffing levels "down the track".

Ms Jackson also said [SIZE="3"]Qantas shareholders should say a "big thank you" to the private equity consortium that made an unsuccessful $11 billion bid for the airline, as the bid had helped push up the share price.[/
SIZE]

...This from the woman that said you would have to have some mental problems not to accept the deal and sell your shares......

[Wingspar]

"A big thank you" for the consortium in pushing up the share price is one way to describe it!

I see it as a comical failure on the part of the board and management in not promoting the obvious and inherent value of the company for years.

[Pundit]

I guess if Rudd wins, Ms Jacko can forget about being GG for a while

[Redstone]

The Dame has been weighed, measured and found wanting. Mag, talk to the hand love! What you realy understand about the airline industry, besides what you read of mr Creedys', would cover the top of a match box.

[Short_Circuit]

Yes, A big big thank you to the private equity consortium that made my (MJ) share price go up by, how many MILLION of DOLLARS !!!!!!!!!

I would be singing that from sunrise to sunset if I were her to.:yuk:

[aircraft]

Wingspar said:
I see it as a comical failure on the part of the board and management in not promoting the obvious and inherent value of the company for years.
Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing?

The reality is that Dixon was promoting Qantas just as much as Ziggy Switkowski was promoting Telstra. He wasn't very successful, of course, and that frustration came across strongly.

Please don't tell me that Dixon was, all the time, just "talking down" the value of Qantas, because that is utter, utter rubbish. CEOs just don't do that sort of thing. He deliberately kept all his statements as accurate and realistic as possible.

Of course Dixon and the board believed the company was undervalued - they probably still do - but no matter how hard they tried, they just could not get the sharemarket to see that unrealised value.

Margaret Jackson is right, right and right. It took the APA bid to force the correction to the Qantas value. APA performed an invaluable service for the Qantas shareholders.

When are you lot going to realise that what you can see so clearly with hindsight just was not visible in the months prior to the APA bid?

[AEROMEDIC]

Prior to the APA bid,Margaret Jackson and Geoff Dixon had failed to achieve what is it is that they get paid to do........ and that is maximise share value for the shareholders!!! They then spent three months away from their fiduciary duties trying to have the APA bid succeed. The facts are that it was always a bad deal for Qantas when APA would extract $3 billion from accumulated reserves and pay themselves back what they were putting in. The balance was provided by lenders, so the debt/equity ratio changed from 25/75 to 75/25. Qantas would no longer have the cash put away for the "rainy day" when another SARS, 9/11 or other severe circumstances occurred.
And don't tell me that the millions of dollars provided to the board members in bonuses did not sway their decision making.
Dixon and Jackson had played no part in the share price increase as this was stimulated by the APA offer........ not them !!!

[aircraft]

And don't tell me that the millions of dollars provided to the board members in bonuses did not sway their decision making.
None of the board members stood to gain anything if the bid succeeded. It was only Dixon and a couple of others in the executive that stood to gain.

Geoff Dixon had failed to achieve what is it is that they get paid to do........ and that is maximise share value for the shareholders!!!
That is not Dixon's job.

[andrew495]

Aircraft, grow a brain. They both screwed up.

[A. Le Rhone]

aircraft...what planet are you on?

A mere matter of days after the bid collapsed, the QF board came up with their radical new plan (which involved many new destinations, breaking up the airline into individual business units etc).

Given that it was only a few days in the making, the Board should be condemned for making a kneejerk plan as a reaction to the bid failing. What sort of a way is that to plan for the future?

More likely however is that it wasn't a kneejerk plan but one that was always planned to be announced after the buyout proceeded. If that's the case then the board deliberately withheld a vital business plan that was very much material to the bid itself and thus shareholders value. Is that not a serious breach of the Corporations Act (or similar)?

Either way the Board, and Jackson especially (given her hype about the shares freefalling if the bid failed) have a great deal to answer for.

How anybody can prattle on about Ms Jackson being 'right, right, right' is beyond me.

And bloody Dixon (as per data in the AFR Boss magazine) got a 47% payrise this year whilst he fought tooth and nail to erode the benefits of his employees. And Jackson cries about Labour eroding her rights to screw staff.

These people are truly sickening.

[lowerlobe]

That is not Dixon's job

aircraft.....IT IS

IF it is not Dixons and the boards ...WHO'S JOB IS IT THEN?

But this thread is all about MJ.

She said during the takeover bid that you would have to have a mental problem if you did not sell your share's to APA.This basically meant that the shares would not reach the takeover bid price and therefore you would be crazy not to accept that offer.

.....Now she is saying we should be thankful that the bid was made because it raised the share price but who was it that said that if the bid did not go through the share price would plummet ????????

Is it not the board's job to look after the interest's of the shareholder?

and what was MJ's position on that board?

[Sunfish]

Just ignore Aircraft, he is either a complete idiot or a troll.

None of the board members stood to gain anything if the bid succeeded. It was only Dixon and a couple of others in the executive that stood to gain.

There is no way you could know that, and there are many, many ways a Director can benefit perfectly legally without a cent changing hands...

.....I've had to put a stop to one such scenario myself that involved a very nice seat on the investment committee of a Venture Capital fund for me and a very nice Directors position on the Board of a Venture Capital Fund for one of my Directors.

I ignored that very nice carrot and killed the proposal stone dead after analysing their investment portfolio and concluding it was awful. Said Director then went behind my back to try and get a favourable report that would have justified the $10 million investment in the fund....they really wanted that nice little Board seat on their resume.

[aircraft]

A. Le Rhone said,

And bloody Dixon (as per data in the AFR Boss magazine) got a 47% payrise this year whilst he fought tooth and nail to erode the benefits of his employees. And Jackson cries about Labour eroding her rights to screw staff.
Dixon's "increase" was mostly made up of various performance based "bonuses". Jackson and Dixon were both just doing their jobs. They have a certain role, or "job" in this capitalist world. Do you have a problem with people just doing their job?

lowerlobe said:
IF it is not Dixons and the boards ...WHO'S JOB IS IT THEN?
I suggest you reread my post. Try again to read just whose job I was saying it wasn't. If you read closely you will see I did not mention the board.

As for your comments on MJ, I say: Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing?

[DEFCON4]

Recent comments made by MJ are an indication of the vaccuum that these individuals live in.
Totally removed from reality.
Anyone been invited to the "Qantas Family" soiree after the AGM?
Apparently about 100 people who see themselves as Qantas Brothers and Sisters will be attending.

[AEROMEDIC]

Quote: "Dixon's "increase" was mostly made up of various performance based "bonuses". Jackson and Dixon were both just doing their jobs. They have a certain role, or "job" in this capitalist world. Do you have a problem with people just doing their job?"

How ludicrous can you get??? :rolleyes:
Are you telling the rest of us that they were responsible for the share price increase when APA made their offer???? Either they were in cahoots with APA or they had not been doing their job prior to this!!!!:ugh:

OPEN YOUR EYES......

[silvafox]

This is one of THREE retirement parties for her and son of KP! With snouts at the trough and backslapping all round it will be glory days for the Qantas Family (which is what exactly?)
Wonder how much this is all going to cost when we we continue to have major service failures across the board and the punters are the ones at the sharp end along with the staff with the ever threatening AWA and diminishing conditions. Shareholders should be up in arms! Go and ride off into the sunset Madge (or to your Nagano ski resort nicely serviced by Jetstar thankyou) and leave behind one of the most blatant examples of corporate greed to the memory of those most affected - the real Qantas Family- all 30,000 hard working employees.

[max autobrakes]

KARMA:
"As you sow so shall you reap" This is the Law of Karma. Interestingly, both science and religion recognise this law. In science it is often stated, “For every action there is an equal and opposing reaction.” Its religious counterparts are, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”; and “As you do unto others, it will be done unto you.” Even today’s common knowledge expresses this principle in the saying, “What goes around, comes around.” This is the law of karma, of cause and effect.

If there is such a thing as KARMA then DIXON, The DAME, and a number of the BOARD should be afraid, very afraid!


PS:
FOG

[aircraft]

Your description of Karma is quite mixed up max autobrakes, and reveals you have a weak, possibly nonexistent, grasp of physics! Anybody with a proper understanding of the "for every force..." law would know it has absolutely nothing to do with religion or philosophy and would not be using it in that context.

And the "eye for an eye..." dictum is all about justice but nothing about religion or philosophy.

If there is such a thing as KARMA then DIXON, The DAME, and a number of the BOARD should be afraid, very afraid!
They were just doing their jobs. Get over it.

The "FOG" thing is rather juvenile - what do you think it is achieving (other than making you look much younger than you really are)?

AEROMEDIC said:
Are you telling the rest of us that they were responsible for the share price increase when APA made their offer????
Err, no. I suggest you reread my post.

[Angle of Attack]

Your description of Karma is quite mixed up max autobrakes, and reveals you have a weak, possibly nonexistent, grasp of physics!

You just proved yourself to be a complete fool with that comment! Please advise the mathematical formula of KARMA aircraft if it is a subjuect in physics.... then again your only interested in economics and forgot about lack of skilled people! hehe! fool!

The point is MJ is goooonneee....!!! hehe thats all that matters! we can argue till the roosters come home but she stuffed up!

And next is GD, yes there will be a change just wait! Gooooneeee!

I am sorry Aircraft, but its not an apology! hehe any parrallels? F*** yes!!!

See ya!

OMG I am so happy! And even Aircraft cant make me depressed!

I guess its the impending result of the election harharharhar!!:E

[Taildragger67]

I don't normally bite but this time I find it difficult not to.

Aircraft,

When are you lot going to realise that what you can see so clearly with hindsight just was not visible in the months prior to the APA bid?

These people (MJ, GD et al) are paid large amounts of money and can employ all the gurus they want, to 'see' things. If 'things' were visible to the members of the APA consortium, then (unless there was inside information being passed somewhere - and I'm not making any accusations in that regard) this visibility came from Qantas's publicly available information.

Alternatively, it came from a combination of Qantas's publicly available information and analysis of the market in which it operates - something which Qantas management should be undertaking continuously.

My point being, if APA were able to 'see' things which meant there was lots of extra value in Qantas, then so should Qantas's management have been able to see this, and communicate it to the market. Crikey, the proprietor of Australia's biggest media concern was on the board, you don't get much better help than that!

The fact that other carriers were able to get their point across is what, I would argue, gives fuel to the claims of incompetence (or at least lack of value for money) being made here.

These things were visible. Someone saw them. It just doesn't look like it was the people who were/are being paid (lots) to see them.

[lowerlobe]

Aircraft...

This has nothing to do with hindsight and only you are using that as an excuse.

The managers of funds who refused to sell knew,the media seems to know the takeover consortium definitely knew and it seems a lot of investors knew what the true value of the company was but MJ did not?

Try again to read just whose job I was saying it wasn't.

Well aircraft here is a quote for the best definition of a CEO from a top American firm who specializes in recruiting CEO's.

"While there are obviously many ways to evaluate a CEO's performance, we believe a company's total return to shareholders is the simplest and purest indicator of value creation,"

Aircraft.....Who do you think knows more about the requirements and purpose of a CEO....These guys or you?

So you are still saying that this was not his job?

Who's job exactly is it to maximise returns to the shareholder..The cleaner,the caterer for the AGM?

Look around aircraft and smell the roses because as far as I can see you are the only one defending them.

[Sunfish]

Careful with this troll (aircraft) don't give Marg an excuse to sue.

By the way aircraft, we have a rule about the behaviour of Directors of public companies called "continuous disclosure". Any information available to APA should also have been available to the rest of the shareholders at exactly the same time.

It would appear that this may not have been the case, at least in the perception of the market, but will ACCC, ASX or ASIC investigate? Nope.

[max autobrakes]

From Aircraft:

Your description of Karma is quite mixed up max autobrakes, and reveals you have a weak, possibly nonexistent, grasp of physics! Anybody with a proper understanding of the "for every force..." law would know it has absolutely nothing to do with religion or philosophy and would not be using it in that context.

Don't blame me Aircraft old bean, this was cut and pasted from Wikipedia ,so have a go at them.
PS

FOA

[indamiddle]

could someone phone me when aircraft makes a logical, coherant post
i won't be holding my breath!
happening now...FOM
happening soon..FOG

[aircraft]

Taildragger67 said:
My point being, if APA were able to 'see' things which meant there was lots of extra value in Qantas, then so should Qantas's management have been able to see this, and communicate it to the market.
Things don't work that way. Companies don't do valuations on themselves for the purpose of influencing the market value.

Can you imagine a company trying to persuade the share market that its value is actually less than the current share price? I can't. In the opposite case, where the company valuation is greater than the current share price, can you imagine the share market believing a company's claims that the share price should be higher? I can't.

The share market makes it own mind up, independently, on what the share price should be, and that valuation will almost always be different to what the company thinks the price should be.

It is an absolute certainty that the Qantas board and executive valued the company much more highly than the share market at the time of the APA bid. They probably still value it much more highly than the sharemarket.

lowerlobe said:
The managers of funds who refused to sell knew,the media seems to know the takeover consortium definitely knew and it seems a lot of investors knew what the true value of the company was but MJ did not?
There is no such thing as "knowing" what the true value is. There are opinions on the value - that is all. The sharemarket had its opinion, whilst APA, via a different valuation methodology, had arrived at a different opinion. As I said above, the opinion of MJ and the board would have been different again, and most probably favouring a value even higher than that of APA.

The opinion of Qantas would not be enough to influence the opinion of the sharemarket, but the opinion expressed by APA, given they were "putting their money where their mouth was" (and that was a very large amount of money), was certainly sufficient to cause the market to reassess its own opinion.

It is worth considering that APA would have spent over a million dollars in the research that brought them to their opinion. The sharemarket, on the other hand, has neither the time nor money to do valuations that way so naturally the valuations would have been different.

"While there are obviously many ways to evaluate a CEO's performance, we believe a company's total return to shareholders is the simplest and purest indicator of value creation,"Err, this quote doesn't actually say what you think it says. It is not linking CEO to return to shareholders or value creation. I suggest you either post the paragraph that came before this one, or, provide a link to the page from which you lifted this quote.

Sunfish said:
Any information available to APA should also have been available to the rest of the shareholders at exactly the same time.This would have been the case.

max autobrakes,
You should have attributed that quote to Wikipedia. It was plagiarism not to have done so. You did not answer my question on "what the FOG thing is supposed to achieve?". Please answer it.

[Taildragger67]

Aircraft,

Can you imagine a company trying to persuade the share market that its value is actually less than the current share price? I can't. In the opposite case, where the company valuation is greater than the current share price, can you imagine the share market believing a company's claims
that the share price should be higher? I can't.

The share market makes it own mind up, independently, on what the share price should be, and that valuation will almost always be different to what the company thinks the price should be.

I agree your first point. However with respect to your second, that is why CEOs and Chairs get on the road and go and see investors. I don't doubt that Mr Dixon and Ms Jackson have done that over their tenures; my point is that they clearly did not do as good a job at convincing investors as their counterparts at carriers whose shareprice outperformed that of Qantas in the months before the APA bid.

If the market's valuation differs markedly from the company's own, then it's the job of senior management (possibly devolved to Investor Relations or Corporate Comms) - acting in shareholders' best interests as they are required to - to get in front of people and bring the two closer.

Geoff Dixon had failed to achieve what is it is that they get paid to do........ and that is maximise share value for the shareholders!!!

That is not Dixon's job

As he is a 'main-board' director of a public company, I suggest that it is. His service contract cannot get him out of his duties as a director.

Maximising share value is the best way to further the interests of the company - bearing in mind that a 'company' is made up of its members, ie. its shareholders.

See s.180 (2)(d), Corporations Act 2001 (C'th) (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/previewlodgmentattachments/6AE0F0A5A554AD4BCA25736E000D97D0/$file/Corps2001Vol01_1282_WD02.htm#param234) and s.181(1)(a). These are both civil obligations.

S.184(1)(c) (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/framelodgmentattachments/6AE0F0A5A554AD4BCA25736E000D97D0) is the criminal sanction.

I am not accusing anyone of criminal activity - merely pointing out that a director owes a duty to the company - ie. the members of that company.

[Sunfish]

Aircraft, your last post demonstrates that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and are just plain wrong.

This is going to the moderators.

[lowerlobe]

From aircraft....
"While there are obviously many ways to evaluate a CEO's performance, we believe a company's total return to shareholders is the simplest and purest indicator of value creation,"

Err, this quote doesn't actually say what you think it says.

aircraft...This is exactly what the quote say's!!!!!!!

I did not edit or alter it in any way and did not post a link because of any posible legal ramifications.

However,you are grasping at straws when you say that that is not the intent of the quote.

What do you think the phrase 'total return to the shareholders' could mean ?

Aircraft said....The share market makes it own mind up, independently, on what the share price should be, and that valuation will almost always be different to what the company thinks the price should be.

Your right in that the share market makes up it's own mind but that valuation is created by PERCEPTION and INFORMATION........and who would have the ability or greatest impact on that perception and information delivery?

Aircraft you are defending the indefensible and I'll give you a hint....Your not winning

[Sunfish]

Lobe, don't feed the trolls.

[Capt_SNAFU]

I don't remember GD ever really promoting the business. All we ever heard for years was times are tough, competition, always the negative, what were investors meant to believe when all the CEO ever did was be the prophet of doom. Never once do I remember hearing him talk up the future. That maybe one reason why it was so undervalued?

Can you imagine a company trying to persuade the share market that its value is actually less than the current share price? I can't.

Well maybe not the current share price but if you talk about the the real value of the stock then, the cynic in me would say that if you stand to make an absolute mint when the company gets taken over because you have talked down the share price at every opportunity with forecaste for tough times ahead, and yet you have let the potential owners in on the true facts without the doom and gloom spin and not the other investors. Then Yes I can believe it.

[lowerlobe]

Sunfish....I know what your saying and I too keep getting the feeling that aircraft is just attempting to bait us simply because his arguments are absurd.

In fact I don't mind at all anyone having a different opinion and look forward to a sensible and rewarding debate but aircraft's posts not only make no sense but contradict themselves.

Here is a perfect example....There is no such thing as "knowing" what the true value is. There are opinions on the value - that is all. The sharemarket had its opinion, whilst APA, via a different valuation methodology, had arrived at a different opinion. As I said above, the opinion of MJ and the board would have been different again, and most probably favouring a value even higher than that of APA.

as well as this one...It is an absolute certainty that the Qantas board and executive valued the company much more highly than the share market at the time of the APA bid. They probably still value it much more highly than the sharemarket.

Aircraft.....That certainly may have been the case but ......why then would they recommend to shareholders that they sell their shares for less than they (the board) believed they were worth.

Your arguments are not only flawed but contradictory......

[aircraft]

Taildragger67 said:
... my point is that they clearly did not do as good a job at convincing investors as their counterparts at carriers whose shareprice outperformed that of Qantas in the months before the APA bid.
You think those other carriers outperformed Qantas because the managers at those other carriers were more convincing than the Qantas managers? There are numerous other reasons why the other carriers may have outperformed Qantas.

You seem to think that Qantas can bring about adjustments to the share price by "appealling" to the share market. You seem to think that if there is a bit of a descrepancy between the company's and the share market's opinion of the value then a bit of talking to the investors will bring the two closer into line.

I think you will find that events and statutory disclosures have a much bigger bearing on the share price than any "appeals" or "investor briefings". The latter are attempts by the company to persuade the investors, one way or the other, so are usually taken with a pinch of salt.

If you were about to buy a used car, would you allow your valuation of the car to be influenced by the appeals and statements of the dealer? Yes, but only to a very small extent. You would primarily be using performance measures, history, records, etc to form your valuation. The share market is no different to you in that respect.

About this statement from somebody else:
Geoff Dixon had failed to achieve what is it is that they get paid to do........ and that is maximise share value for the shareholders!!!To that, I said "that is not Dixon's job".

To clarify that statement, I will say that, when somebody refers to "Dixon's job" they are referring to his CEO role - they cannot be referring to the job the board does.

Being in the "executive", his job is to "execute", that is, to perform the actual hands-on managing. If he does his job well the financial performance of the company will be good - which will in turn strongly influence the share price.

So, yes, the CEO performance may cause increases to the shareholder value - but it is not actually his job to bring about those increases. The same can be said for pilots, engineers and flight attendants.

lowerlobe said:
Your right in that the share market makes up it's own mind but that valuation is created by PERCEPTION and INFORMATION........and who would have the ability or greatest impact on that perception and information delivery?
You are implying MJ, GD and co. have the greatest impact but that is not true. See my comments above re the used car.

......why then would they recommend to shareholders that they sell their shares for less than they (the board) believed they were worth.
Because the board knows that their opinion of the value is completely irrelevent - refer again to the used car example.

[lowerlobe]

aircraft..........

I showed you a quote from a very respected firm that specialises in the placement of CEO's.It's obvious that they would have a better idea than you of what constitutes a good CEO.

If you were about to buy a used car, would you allow your valuation of the car to be influenced by the appeals and statements of the dealer? Yes, but only to a very small extent. You would primarily be using performance measures, history, records, etc to form your valuation. The share market is no different to you in that respect.


If you walk into any used car yard ,the prices in that yard are set by the dealer.If they are too high then he won't sell any cars will he?

You are implying MJ, GD and co. have the greatest impact but that is not true.

I made no such implication regarding anyone in particular.That is an assumption on your part.

I said that the market is interpreted and influenced by Perception and Information.Now where do you think the greatest source of information regarding the past,present and future peformance of the company that creates the perception will come from?

Who has that data?

I asked aircraft......why then would they recommend to shareholders that they sell their shares for less than they (the board) believed they were worth.

This referred to any board anywhere and aircraft replied.....

Because the board knows that their opinion of the value is completely irrelevent

Absolute rubbish aircraft......Who do investors and shareholders listen to if not the board?.......

It's apparent that you would not make a very good used car dealer or even a used car buyer so I would forget that analogy if I were you......

[Sunfish]

Lobe, don't feed the trolls. Aircraft has no idea whatsoever about what he is trying to talk about.

For the record, a great deal of money and expense has been spent by regulators and the judicial system to make sharemarkets as transparent as possible, and to punish anyone who tries to rig the valuations of companies.

Telstra, for example, has just agreed to pay about $5 million to certain investors after it gave a confidential briefing to the Howard Government without disclosing the existence of this briefing or its contents to the market.

Any information that would affect the value of the company that was made available to APA also has to made available to any other investor - continuously.

[Keg]

LL, you need to do a bit of a search of aircraft's posts. Just about every one of them is contr-intuitive on every issue. He's the quintessential internet troll. Not so obvious at first glance and engaging enough to keep you wasting your time.

Does PPRUNE have an 'ignore' button?

[AEROMEDIC]

I suggest YOU re-read mine, but this time with your brain C/B in. :rolleyes:

[ABX]

PS

FOA

That gave me a good belly laugh to end the day on.:ok:

[aircraft]

lowerlobe,

I have been pondering for days the answer to this question you asked. My curiousity has finally gotten the better the me. Please reveal the answer.

I said that the market is interpreted and influenced by Perception and Information.Now where do you think the greatest source of information regarding the past,present and future peformance of the company that creates the perception will come from?

[Sunfish]

Aircraft, you show your complete and abject ignorance once again and at a level that beggars belief. Go and troll somewhere else.

[aircraft]

Sunfish,

I would prefer to hear the answer from lowerlobe, but you are welcome to answer it.

[Skystar320]

aircraft

This has been told time and time again but you dont realise what is being said so I'll try to do something that will get you to notice it.

GET LOST!

Any takers?

[aircraft]

My question was to lowerlobe.

[Skystar320]

Though my statement was to you

[aircraft]

lowerlobe asked me this question.

I said that the market is interpreted and influenced by Perception and Information.Now where do you think the greatest source of information regarding the past,present and future peformance of the company that creates the perception will come from?

When I answered "the board and executive" he effectively said that I was wrong. So, who could it be? It can't be the sharemarket itself!

I would like to hear lowerlobe's answer, but if anybody else knows, please tell!

[Skystar320]

aircraft please revert to post 41

[virgindriver]

I have added aircraft to my ignore list.

I never see any of his silly posts anymore so his stirring has no effect.

:)

[lowerlobe]

Aircraft......

Sunfish and others are right.You are not here for any constructive purpose as your arguments are nonsensical at best.

Your only apparent raison d'être on PPrune is Fishing.

This is easily shown with some of your quotes.

This is a question I put to you.......

Your right in that the share market makes up it's own mind but that valuation is created by PERCEPTION and INFORMATION........and who would have the ability or greatest impact on that perception and information delivery?

To which you initially replied.....

You are implying MJ, GD and co. have the greatest impact but that is not true.

I then posted that I made no such implication and that any such inference was an assumption on your part.

When you reiterated your need for an answer,you posted this...

When I answered "the board and executive" he effectively said that I was wrong. So, who could it be? It can't be the sharemarket itself!

As you can see I made no such claim that you were wrong only that you made an assumption totally on your part.This means that I was referring to any board and not one in particular.

So on one hand you said it cannot be the board ( but that is not true) and then later said it must be the board because it can't be the sharemarket (he effectively said that I was wrong. So, who could it be?).

You are not here for any answer's as you contradict yourself and as a result you are here to fish and other nefarious reasons known to yourself therefore deserve no further attention....

[aircraft]

lowerlobe,

Amazing, just amazing.

Your statements and the way you conduct debate is notably childish. This is not the first time I have thought this.

So that other posters can more fully appreciate the lunancy of lowerlobe's debating, I will reproduce here the relevent exchanges between he and I. To simplify the subject matter, I will use the September 11, 2001 hijacking instead of the original.

To see for themselves that I have stuck closely to the original exchanges, readers should refer to his post (#31) where he asked the original question, my post (#32) where I answered, then his lunatic response post to my answer (#33).

lowerlobe: A plane was hijacked by some terrorists and crashed into a building. Now who would those terrorists have been?

aircraft: You are implying Mohammed Atta and co.

lowerlobe: I made no such implication regarding anyone in particular.That is an assumption on your part. A plane was hijacked and crashed into a building. Now, who was in a position to be able to do that? Who had control of that plane?

[lowerlobe]

Aircraft......

You cannot even get your references right!

It was post # 28 not post #31 in which I quoted you as saying ....

The share market makes it own mind up, independently, on what the share price should be, and that valuation will almost always be different to what the company thinks the price should be.

Note that you said 'Share market'....and 'Company'....

To which I replied.....

Your right in that the share market makes up it's own mind but that valuation is created by PERCEPTION and INFORMATION........and who would have the ability or greatest impact on that perception and information delivery?

You then said I was implying a certain board and it's members...

I'm not sure about you as are most others who post on PPrune but i was referring generically to 'a board' just as I was referring to 'a sharemarket' and not to any board or sharemarket in particular.

Your only purpose here is to have someone post a litigous comment for your own purposes.

Your 9/11 analogy is so weak,bizarre and irrelevant that you deserve no further attention.

I suggest that you try fishing somewhere else.....

[Keg]

Big thank you to virgindriver. I was sure there was an ignore list somewhere but hadn't found it. Your comments allowed me to find the right place. Now I don't have to read any of aircraft's dribblings! :ok: