Dividend to NATS atcos

[saintex2002]

...If it's not breaking a too very high confidential secret...
...From the £2.5m dividend paid to shareholders for the 2005/6 exercise, can you tell me how much per NATS atco ?...

[anotherthing]

No idea, mon petit fromage... but not a lot I can assure you.

[saintex2002]

...Thanks for your answer, petit rosbif, but not very interesting indeed...

[SilentHandover]

£28.04 paid as the full dividend to all members of staff who hold all three tranches of shares.

[rab-k]

Originally Posted by SilentHandover

£28.04 paid as the full dividend to all members of staff who hold all three tranches of shares.

And that was after the tax man had taken two, yes 2, bites out of it. (Be sure to claim the £5 back next tax return y'awl!)

[saintex2002]

...merci rab-k...
...SHr, I send u a PM...

[Courtenay]

I´d guess at 5% as that is the amount that Staff own of NATS (according to the literature, I read prior to interview... how much of that is non ATCO staff, I don´t know... But if I said that about Police I´d get shot, we are all one family! BTW just thought I´d keep typing to see how much I could type into () in one go.. 4 and a bit lines, not bad!!)

2.5m/20 = 125,000GBP divided by staff...

Do NATS offer a share scheme, or just offer them for sale every now and then? Are the shares traded on the open market, if not how do you actually get the cash back? (from what I remember, 5% staff, 49% + golden share govt, and 40-something for airline industry?)

Cheers

James.

[Not Long Now]

And if it's not a silly question, why is a not for profit company paying dividends to it's shareholders instead of re-investing the money in itself?

[rab-k]

Originally Posted by Not Long Now

And if it's not a silly question, why is a not for profit company paying dividends to it's shareholders instead of re-investing the money in itself?

It isn't a "silly" question, in fact it is one that a good few of us asked and have yet to be given a satisfactory answer to.

The only thing that has come close to an explanation that I've heard was that the "not for profit" was not specified in the legislation. Funny that...

[fabrifx]

I don' t know anything about NATS or there internal strategies but studying economy and finances I can tell you that there are many reasons why a company would pay dividends rather than re-investing them in itself.. one reason could be that they are in crisis or they predict a decrease in the price of there shares so they pay out dividends to there shareholders to convince them to stay with them and to dissuade them from investing there money in other companies..as I said, this is just an hypothesis and every single case has to be considered separately..

[Me Me Me Me]

Originally Posted by fabrifx

I don' t know anything about NATS or there internal strategies but studying economy and finances I can tell you that there are many reasons why a company would pay dividends rather than re-investing them in itself.. one reason could be that they are in crisis or they predict a decrease in the price of there shares so they pay out dividends to there shareholders to convince them to stay with them and to dissuade them from investing there money in other companies..as I said, this is just an hypothesis and every single case has to be considered separately..

Not in crisis that's for sure... Just well and truly bullied by their customers.. who also happen to be among their largest shareholders. Cosy isn't it?

this was our second dividend. The first was paid in dividend shares rather than cash. I believe the only reason they paid out cash dividends to staff second time round was due to their not being enough shares left in the pot to cover it.

[Roger That]

Originally Posted by Not Long Now

And if it's not a silly question, why is a not for profit company paying dividends to it's shareholders instead of re-investing the money in itself?

NATS has never been a "not for profit company". 5 years ago the Airline Group bid was on the back of a "not for commercial return" basis (subtley different words, very different emphasis). My understanding at the time was that a commercial return was double digit (10+%) and that dividends to shareholders in NATS was to be considerably less than double digit (hence the non-commercial return) ... that is, when it started to be paid.

The nature of shareholding in any company is that you get an acceptable return on your investment (I do anyway !) so paying a dividend is OK by me provided the bsuines is ona sound financial footing (which I believe NATS is) .... that said, I would have preferred dividend shares instead of cash as I believe NATS has plenty of growth in it, particularly as we look ahead to SES

Just my view and no-doubt different to many colleagues however I thought I'd give it.

[rab-k]

Originally Posted by Roger That

NATS has never been a "not for profit company". 5 years ago the Airline Group bid was on the back of a "not for commercial return" basis (subtley different words, very different emphasis). My understanding at the time was that a commercial return was double digit (10+%) and that dividends to shareholders in NATS was to be considerably less than double digit (hence the non-commercial return) ... that is, when it started to be paid.

At last, an explanation! Cheers

[Not Long Now]

Perhaps I shouldn't worry about an airprox because it's only air collisions that matter....