QF sale Poll
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack Red
As you said it’s not known if the Airline consortium bought the 110 million shares and I agree that it is likely that the government will give the nod to the takeover.
If that is the case you will get your $5.60 per share.
However if the Capitol group is right and the sale does not get the go ahead you will be lucky to get $2.50 a share.
That’s why it is a gamble,if you are convinced that the takeover will go ahead keep your shares.
As you said it’s not known if the Airline consortium bought the 110 million shares and I agree that it is likely that the government will give the nod to the takeover.
If that is the case you will get your $5.60 per share.
However if the Capitol group is right and the sale does not get the go ahead you will be lucky to get $2.50 a share.
That’s why it is a gamble,if you are convinced that the takeover will go ahead keep your shares.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The cloud
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
doesnt bother me
i voted number 3.
it is all about the management deals and the benifits they recieve which is why the original deal wasnt followed through with. the price hardly changed overall only GD's cut...
If i where in there i know i would open the skies up, qantas are already outsourcing jobs i.e maintenance elsewhere not to mention the ****e service on j*. wouldnt mind some competition for the benefit of the consumer.
mind you i dont have a job in qantas, dont have shares, and am only looking out for my next ticket to L.A to be as cheap and comfortable as possible.
however i think i would hold out on the share front, at this stage 8% profit or 50% loss. i think i will wait to see this 2.50 price drop and snatch me a nest egg.
it is all about the management deals and the benifits they recieve which is why the original deal wasnt followed through with. the price hardly changed overall only GD's cut...
If i where in there i know i would open the skies up, qantas are already outsourcing jobs i.e maintenance elsewhere not to mention the ****e service on j*. wouldnt mind some competition for the benefit of the consumer.
mind you i dont have a job in qantas, dont have shares, and am only looking out for my next ticket to L.A to be as cheap and comfortable as possible.
however i think i would hold out on the share front, at this stage 8% profit or 50% loss. i think i will wait to see this 2.50 price drop and snatch me a nest egg.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Macquarie Bank are involved in the Qantas takeover, which is starting to raise some eyebrows and concerns because another scandal brewing in Western Australia due to a possible conflict of Interests.
Does anyone know if Macqurie Bank and or who advises Qantas management during the current takeover attempt.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...78-643,00.html
Did Macquarie 'cross the line' over Alinta?
Public sensitivity over perceived conflicts of interest has risen greatly, Glenda Korporaal reports
January 20, 2007
IT might have been a deal too far.
Over the past few years, Macquarie Bank has helped transform the former West Australian utility Alinta into a national energy infrastructure company through billion-dollar deals including the purchase of Duke Energy's Australian business and swapping assets with AGL.
But when Macquarie agreed to advise Alinta's top management on their bid to take over the company late last year, the hyper-aggressive investment bank switched sides, bringing a wealth of knowledge about Alinta with it. "They are always fairly close to the line," sniped a rival banker. Indeed, many critics now argue it has crossed the line.
Etc.etc.
Does anyone know if Macqurie Bank and or who advises Qantas management during the current takeover attempt.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...78-643,00.html
Did Macquarie 'cross the line' over Alinta?
Public sensitivity over perceived conflicts of interest has risen greatly, Glenda Korporaal reports
January 20, 2007
IT might have been a deal too far.
Over the past few years, Macquarie Bank has helped transform the former West Australian utility Alinta into a national energy infrastructure company through billion-dollar deals including the purchase of Duke Energy's Australian business and swapping assets with AGL.
But when Macquarie agreed to advise Alinta's top management on their bid to take over the company late last year, the hyper-aggressive investment bank switched sides, bringing a wealth of knowledge about Alinta with it. "They are always fairly close to the line," sniped a rival banker. Indeed, many critics now argue it has crossed the line.
Etc.etc.
Grandpa Aerotart
An interesting quote from a weekly investment news letter I get.
Ring any bells?
Who and what are these private equity investors? And why should we care about them?
They are, simply stated, investors who seek to “take companies private” – i.e. to acquire public companies and then to operate them as private concerns...at least for a while. Back in the 1980s, we referred to these folks as “corporate raiders,” mostly because that’s exactly what they did. They would acquire asset-rich public companies, then implement a variety of tactics and maneuvers to “extract value.” Sometimes they would lay off thousands of employees; sometimes they would sell off assets; and sometimes they would do both.
The private equity game has changed a bit since the 1980s. Today, the raiders of many companies are already on the payroll as overly compensated CEOs and vice-presidents. Meanwhile the private equity investors often become the legitimate champions of shareholder interests.
Nevertheless, the targets of private equity investment have changed very little. Lowly valued, asset-rich companies with very little debt, remain the optimal targets.
They are, simply stated, investors who seek to “take companies private” – i.e. to acquire public companies and then to operate them as private concerns...at least for a while. Back in the 1980s, we referred to these folks as “corporate raiders,” mostly because that’s exactly what they did. They would acquire asset-rich public companies, then implement a variety of tactics and maneuvers to “extract value.” Sometimes they would lay off thousands of employees; sometimes they would sell off assets; and sometimes they would do both.
The private equity game has changed a bit since the 1980s. Today, the raiders of many companies are already on the payroll as overly compensated CEOs and vice-presidents. Meanwhile the private equity investors often become the legitimate champions of shareholder interests.
Nevertheless, the targets of private equity investment have changed very little. Lowly valued, asset-rich companies with very little debt, remain the optimal targets.
"Deed of Undertakings"...
In an article titled "Private equity warned about selling airline on" on p9 of the Financial Review for Thursday 8th March , the obligations in the "deed" are outlined. Most telling to me, and also the least surprising given typical management evasive double-speak, are the final two paragraphs and I quote;
'But lawyers said these last obligations had been drafted in a way which made them virtually unenforceable because they were contained in a clause which specified that they only needed to be "plans and strategies", rather than future facts.
One senior corporate lawyer, who declined to be named because his firm is involved in the deal, said these obligations could be strictly complied with provided that at the time of the deed, Airline Partners honestly believed they were true. But once the deed was signed, Airline Partners would be free to change its plans.'
Ummm. Where have I heard that before?
'But lawyers said these last obligations had been drafted in a way which made them virtually unenforceable because they were contained in a clause which specified that they only needed to be "plans and strategies", rather than future facts.
One senior corporate lawyer, who declined to be named because his firm is involved in the deal, said these obligations could be strictly complied with provided that at the time of the deed, Airline Partners honestly believed they were true. But once the deed was signed, Airline Partners would be free to change its plans.'
Ummm. Where have I heard that before?
