PDA

View Full Version : QANTAS Corporate Governance - Questionable?


jakethemuss
9th May 2008, 23:38
Cash and crash: how the flying kangaroo sale failed


Author: Ian Verrender
Publication: Sydney Morning Herald (44,Sat 10 May 2008)
Edition: First
Section: Business



Opinion

THEY hugged, they kissed, they smiled for the cameras.

It was a wonderful day for Qantas, Australia's national carrier, as it prepared to fly off into the bold new world of private equity ownership, and the board and management - especially the management - couldn't have been happier

For those of us observing from the sidelines, it all seemed a little odd. Aren't the board and management supposed to fight for the company, to extract the maximum possible from the bidder? After all, aren't they the employees, hired to work on behalf of the shareholders, the owners of the company?

Normally, yes. But this wasn't normal. Qantas management was being dealt into the future spoils. And the board seemed more than happy to let them go along for the ride. It all ended in tears a year ago this week, when Macquarie Bank failed to secure the minimum number of shares by the deadline.

Margaret Jackson, the chairman, quit the board, her reputation shredded, while chief executive Geoff Dixon and his management team went back to work and pretended that nothing had happened.

Jackson had made a series of blunders during the takeover. Rather than stand up for the owners - as she was employed to do - she became ever more shrill in her condemnation of those who were refusing to sell, with a final outburst that labelled those holding out as "mental".

In the past few months, as the anniversary of the collapse has drawn ever closer, the wounds have been reopened.

Jackson got it right, her supporters have claimed. The Qantas share price is now well below the takeover bid price, so shareholders would have been better off selling. Tut, tut. tut.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

It's a convenient argument for the Margaret Jackson cheer-squad but one with more holes than a sponge.

To begin with, when the bid collapsed, Qantas's share price went through the roof. In fact, it traded well above the offer price for more than six months. And it has taken a global sharemarket meltdown, the worst credit squeeze in history and fuel prices surging way above $US120 a barrel, to bring it down.

Qantas shares now trade around $3.50, well below the $5.45 offer price from the consortium. But after the bid collapsed last May, the share price immediately tracked higher, peaking at $6.06 a fortnight before Christmas. So if shareholders had accepted the offer, they would have denied themselves the opportunity to earn another 50c profit per share.

But there are more serious issues. I'm not sure if anyone has noticed, but Allco Finance, the major partner in the bidding consortium, has all but collapsed.

Even before its high-stakes Qantas gamble, Allco was overloaded with debt and was a disaster waiting to happen. It was bidding $11.5 billion for Qantas: money it didn't have. Allco and its partners were going to borrow the cash and then dump a vast portion of that debt into the flying kangaroo.

Just take a second to think about what has happened in recent months.

There has been a global credit crisis the likes of which hasn't been seen before. Debt is a dirty word and private equity groups have disappeared from the radar. Most are desperately trying to figure out how to survive in a world where banks aren't begging them to take their money.

Allco's collapse would have been more severe if it had pulled off the Qantas deal because of the extra billions it planned to borrow. And the national carrier either would have gone down with it or been severely crippled.

Airlines have a curious place in the national psyche of most countries, especially smaller nations like Australia - and particularly when those airlines are flag-carriers.

There is no way the nation would have stood by and let Qantas collapse. The Government would have been forced to step in with a rescue package, just as the New Zealand Government rescued Air New Zealand a decade ago when Ansett collapsed. As ever, it would have been taxpayers who would have been forced to foot the bill.

The aborted Qantas takeover represented a low point in corporate governance in Australia and the behaviour of boards and management.

The private equity takeover frenzy was nothing but a con. It was a slicker version of the 1980s entrepreneurs boom - which flourished in a similarly easy credit environment - with a twist.

It was slicker because the private equity players, unlike the '80s entrepreneurs, made sure the huge debt they raised didn't bounce back to them. It was all loaded into the companies they were buying.

And the twist was that they made sure they succeeded with low-ball offers for companies by roping in the senior executives, dangling the prospect of huge riches before them.

In the case of Qantas, Geoff Dixon and his senior executives were hopelessly compromised. Qantas's management was involved in a hostile bid for their own company and the board backed them all the way, right to the bitter end.

It's interesting that since the bid collapsed, management has come up with a range of strategies, such as hiving off the frequent-flyer scheme, which will deliver huge profits to Qantas shareholders in the future.

Margaret Jackson should count herself lucky the bid failed.

She may still be smarting from the stinging rebuke she received last May. But better that than be pilloried as the chairman that sent Qantas to the undertaker.
Copyright © Fairfax

Shlonghaul
9th May 2008, 23:50
Love the comment "The private equity takeover frenzy was nothing but a con" ............ never a truer statement has been said!...... Another classic comment "GD and his management team went back to work and pretended that nothing had happened" :rolleyes:

busdriver007
10th May 2008, 03:58
I thought I would quote some Jackson Rhetoric. “I’ve traveled quite a bit and spoken to a lot of staff and all I get is how pleased they are at the price,” she says. “It’s business as usual, management is still there….there has been a lot of change at Qantas and this is another one.” She doesn’t, however, accept that Qantas’s board should necessarily be held accountable for the welfare of employees. “ In the time that I’ve been chairman, the number of employees has increased,” she says. “ We’ve taken account of all the broader things a corporation has to do. But at the end of the day, as a director your responsibility is to the shareholders.”
Let me compare this to Gordon Bethune who in 1998 was faced with a prospective sale of Continental, when he was the CEO. “I always told the employees, ‘I’ll never sell (the company) and you get screwed.’ I have to honour that.” Some contrasting views!:bored:
Please give Qantas a CEO that has been outside the country, and not Ireland! Qantas need to acknowledge the position the Staff have put them in, not the management. It is not about the money, it's about respect.

flyingfox
10th May 2008, 04:30
It is amazing that after a year there is still no action by the corporate regulators to bring the board and management players in this farce to book. Maybe the culprits are to prestigious to be tackled! The new Minister should investigate this unbridled act of self interest to ensure that in future that Boards and Management of all businesses work in favour of the shareholders and not themselves. This takeover (handover?) appeared to be a massive act of insider pillaging!

lowerlobe
11th May 2008, 07:53
Where are the regulators?
Good question indeed...Where are the regulators in a number of industries???

Food...?
Fuel....?

The lights appear to be on and it sounds like there is some movement in the house but in reality it's an illusion and there is no one home when it comes to regulating a number of key area's of our world......

Sunfish
11th May 2008, 12:23
Marg was always held up to us as a shining example of success (and female at that) but she wont be prosecuted because the "girls union" is too strong.

AEROMEDIC
11th May 2008, 13:01
Put her and her mates in Jail............

:ugh::ugh:

neville_nobody
11th May 2008, 15:09
Not to mention the freight collusion scam that has been going on for the past ? years which noone seems to know anything about. The only reason that came out was because other airlines dropped QF in it. Personally I have a hard time believing that senior management had no idea that it was going on. Also begs the question by their ignorance of the situation are they doing their job properly? If they didn't know about that what other major things in Qantas don't they know about?

One has to wonder what you would need to do in this country these days to cause a ASIC inquiry into your operations?

KRUSTY 34
11th May 2008, 21:12
C'mon Nev.

Why on Earth would an employer engage in immoral or illegal activity? Surely that would be counter-productive. Trust in those who know best to see us through.

I've been hearing this sort of crap for decades now. Some may have started with the best intentions, but power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely!

Chimbu chuckles
11th May 2008, 23:39
Allco's collapse would have been more severe if it had pulled off the Qantas deal because of the extra billions it planned to borrow.

I don't agree. Anyone else remember the vast cash reserves QF had at the time, 4 billion from memory?

Those cash reserves would have become the property of Allco and, subsequent to a successful bid, they would have been stripped out of QF and used to bolster what was, it has become all too clear, a company in deep financial doo doo.

Allco must have known they were in a bind and their only saviour was going to be cashflow...that is why they held on and held on and fought to the end, long past what seemed sensible and seemly, to try and get the bid up....because they desperately needed QF's cash reserves and cashflow to prop up their other deals that were mere months from going very sour indeed.

These people may be many things but stupid or short sighted they are not.


And the national carrier either would have gone down with it or been severely crippled.

A cash and asset stripped QF, having given it's all to Allco, loaded with crippling debt would have been a completed gutted corporate entity and, yes, the Govt would have had to step in and save it the way the NZ Govt did.

This is what happened to Ansett at the hands of Murdoch and the Fatman. Neither of them gave a flying **** about Ansett or airlines in general...but both, in my opinion, knew all to well what a cash flow rich industry airlines are and, no doubt, what a asset rich/low debt operation AN was.

They bought it, bled it to provide equity for their own ends and then sold the bones on to ANZ in what would have to be one of the greatest corporate shell games in history.

One then became a US citizen (thus removing himself from Australian jurisdiction) and the other died.

I believe the plan was to do the same with QF.

This journo hasn't even come close to the true evil intent of the Allco 'private equity' bid for QF.

A. Le Rhone
12th May 2008, 06:18
But the biggest concern was (and somebody has raised it here before):

Within 1 week of the deal collapsing Dixon came up with unprecedented and dramatic new plans for the entire group including seeling the whole fleet to a third party and selling the Frequent Flyer scheme.

Within a few days of the collapse!

So at best this was a hastily thought out knee-jerk plan for which the board were trying to deflect their guilt over the Allco stuff-up. What confidence can shareholders have in a board that makes such rapid 'cover-up' decisions. They need to be held accountable for this and replacement board-members installed who take methodical and informed decisions, no sound-bite friendly PR stunts.

At worst (and I suspect the reality of the situation), these plans were already in place before the bid-failed and Dixon chose only to release them after the event in order to deflect criticism and restore some semblance of his control. But this means the board were witholding elements of the takeover that were critical to shareholders decision-making. Such witholding of information must surely attract the attention of ASIC. Is that not a criminal activity?

Unless I'm missing something, I can't see why Dixon, Jackson et al aren't being investigated at all levels of the law for witholding critical shareholder information. What's stopping this? Happy to be corrected on factual errors.