View Poll Results: Will QF Takeover succeed
Yes
33
24.81%
No
100
75.19%
Voters: 133. This poll is closed
Poll : Do you Think The Qantas APA Bid Will Be Succesful?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney , Australia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poll : Do you Think The Qantas APA Bid Will Be Succesful?
Well since the closing date is just about upon on us ( if APA don't move it again 
) , what are your opinions,
Is the Bid going to Succeed or not?
I think it would not be successful..
What are your Opinions ?
What do you think will be the impact of the failed bid on the Qantas Group?
Lets see what everyone thinks
) , what are your opinions, Is the Bid going to Succeed or not?
I think it would not be successful..
What are your Opinions ?
What do you think will be the impact of the failed bid on the Qantas Group?
Lets see what everyone thinks
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must confess I have'nt been following the story that well. But I hope the deal doesn't go ahead. APA sure whipped Continental into shape back in the 90's but they have a track record of a) taking to new aquisitions with sharpened machettes and as a result b) have been accused of cutting corners with regard to safety.
Either way, not a good mix I reackon.
Apparently APA need to aquire 50% shareholder approval, as of today thay had 23%, though dont be fooled; with the strong Australian dollar many hedge funds (who constitues about 40% of the total shareholdings) will be looking to offload and proffit take before any announcement. Expect a late sell off at about midday friday todays Telegraph said.
I personally hope the shareholders reject the offer.
As I said tough, I haven't been following it that much and im sure there are a lot of arguments for and against that I haven't considered.
Hence... Anyone else?
Either way, not a good mix I reackon.
Apparently APA need to aquire 50% shareholder approval, as of today thay had 23%, though dont be fooled; with the strong Australian dollar many hedge funds (who constitues about 40% of the total shareholdings) will be looking to offload and proffit take before any announcement. Expect a late sell off at about midday friday todays Telegraph said.
I personally hope the shareholders reject the offer.
As I said tough, I haven't been following it that much and im sure there are a lot of arguments for and against that I haven't considered.
Hence... Anyone else?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney , Australia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well i read the same article today in the telegraph and they said it could come down to the wire ..the shareholders have till 7pm on Friday to accept according to the paper
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the lack of transparency from the board and the lack of info from the consortium as to where they will strip the 4 billion from the company in the first 12 months I don't believe it is in the best interests of anyone with the exception of the consortium and the board.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I think it needs to be set up by mods.
I expect that at some stage APA take over will get up, perhaps just not in its present form...
I expect that at some stage APA take over will get up, perhaps just not in its present form...
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Where I'm not alarmed
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope and pray that it doesn't succeed and burns those who set out to rape a great institution. I also hope that those on the Qantas Board and in the top management team also get reamed for not looking after the interests of their shareholders (and staff) who deserve better. After all, they are supposed to be representing shareholders' interests rather than their own. (OK, I know this is idealistic but it has to be said.)
Now that the true worth of the airline is known, perhaps the barbarians from APA and like organisations will get the not-so subtle message before they try to pillage again.
Now that the true worth of the airline is known, perhaps the barbarians from APA and like organisations will get the not-so subtle message before they try to pillage again.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: sydney
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The con!
I can't believe anyone with any ethics is backing these white collar criminals
What is it about sucking the guts out of a company that people do not understand. Throwing the carcus back to the conned public utilising the fact I the Government will not be allowed to let it fail.
This is wrong and Joe Public will end up wearing it whilst the sleazy shisters will be long gone. On ya Dicko and the Dame
and the leeches supporting this charade.
What is it about sucking the guts out of a company that people do not understand. Throwing the carcus back to the conned public utilising the fact I the Government will not be allowed to let it fail.
This is wrong and Joe Public will end up wearing it whilst the sleazy shisters will be long gone. On ya Dicko and the Dame
and the leeches supporting this charade.
I think it will fail.
At first i thought it was a great idea: lots of long term retail shareholders doubling their money in the last month, a leaner organisational group geared up for future growth, bit of a blowtorch to mainline... but overall a cracking share price, more capital therefore more aircraft, more jobs and better services.
The gloss was taken off a bit when the proposed 1% management rort surfaced... Seems like a conflict of interest...?? Could almost be construed as insider trading...???
However once you take $4billion dividend out on top its a lot harder to justify benefits to any other parties besides shareholders.
The market appears to be working efficiently, the recalcitrant hedge funds may be heroes and stop the bid in the end, but i reckon it's management who will have a lot to answer for regardless of the outcome.
At first i thought it was a great idea: lots of long term retail shareholders doubling their money in the last month, a leaner organisational group geared up for future growth, bit of a blowtorch to mainline... but overall a cracking share price, more capital therefore more aircraft, more jobs and better services.
The gloss was taken off a bit when the proposed 1% management rort surfaced... Seems like a conflict of interest...?? Could almost be construed as insider trading...???
However once you take $4billion dividend out on top its a lot harder to justify benefits to any other parties besides shareholders.
The market appears to be working efficiently, the recalcitrant hedge funds may be heroes and stop the bid in the end, but i reckon it's management who will have a lot to answer for regardless of the outcome.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The results are interesting so far, but I suspect people are voting more along the lines of "do you want the bid to be succesful", more than the actual question of "will the bid be succesful".
I personally think there should be a third option, "Yes, but not in it's present form".
Cheers, HH.
I personally think there should be a third option, "Yes, but not in it's present form".
Cheers, HH.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH:
Exactly. I voted yes, because I think the hedge funds will sell.
If the poll said "do you think the deal (in its present form) SHOULD go through?"
then I think the result would be 100% no.
SW
Exactly. I voted yes, because I think the hedge funds will sell.
If the poll said "do you think the deal (in its present form) SHOULD go through?"
then I think the result would be 100% no.
SW
Nunc est bibendum
Someone on either PPRUNE or Qrewroom the other day made a point that went something along the lines of this:
Can you imagine the uproar if the unions put together an equity bid for QF, committed to dragging out $4 billion in value for the company to pay for it. On top of that we mustn't forget to pay $400 million to the employees in 'consultancy fees' plus another $100 million that was supposed to go to the powers that be in bonuses. Don't forget the other $30 million that goes in 'sign on' fees. That works out to be about $20K for each and every employee in the first year. Of course don't forget that as well as the ongoing bonuses (about $3K each per annum at least) the employee's then get at least $20K equity in the airline when it re-sells on the market in a few years.
Can you imagine the uproar if the unions put together an equity bid for QF, committed to dragging out $4 billion in value for the company to pay for it. On top of that we mustn't forget to pay $400 million to the employees in 'consultancy fees' plus another $100 million that was supposed to go to the powers that be in bonuses. Don't forget the other $30 million that goes in 'sign on' fees. That works out to be about $20K for each and every employee in the first year. Of course don't forget that as well as the ongoing bonuses (about $3K each per annum at least) the employee's then get at least $20K equity in the airline when it re-sells on the market in a few years.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 49
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
Lol Keg, yes Gold, but you are using common sense that's not allowed in current Workchoices rules! Naughty!!
Whether anyone wants it or not the fact is it has faced so many hurdles so far the 90% was a complete failure and I believe this 70% is marginal, Common Sense says this deal at the present form is going down, pure and simple. Damn you dont have to be a rocket scientist to see this its not even a decision. Anyone thinking otherwise has gotta be a pilot! lol! Cause they always lose their money!
Whether anyone wants it or not the fact is it has faced so many hurdles so far the 90% was a complete failure and I believe this 70% is marginal, Common Sense says this deal at the present form is going down, pure and simple. Damn you dont have to be a rocket scientist to see this its not even a decision. Anyone thinking otherwise has gotta be a pilot! lol! Cause they always lose their money!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Endor
Age: 83
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it will fail......and then the institutions who hold the largest shareholdings will go after Dixon & Co. with blunt and rusty knives, because my impression (unskilled as it is) is that while the Board has no doubt acted within the letter of the law, they do not appear to have maximised the value of the business to existing shareholders.
In other words, there is a disconnect over what we are hearing.
The APA reckons Qantas is a gold mine from which they are going to pull 4-5 billion dollars and load up the company with debt.
The Board says that Qantas is a risky "legacy" business under threat from vicious competitors and tells us to sell.
Yet APA says it is going to keep the current Board and management and stuff their mouths with gold.
Question: Why can't the Board adopt the same strategy as APA is proposing? I know of no prudential requirements that would stop a public company adopting such a strategy. who needs APA???? There must be plenty of competent airline managers around the world that could execute an APA-like strategy, whats so special about APA?
Rip out the 4-5 billion and give it back to the shareholders either through a share buyback scheme or a special one-off dividend. Ruthlessly apply AWA's and casualise and outsource the workforce as much as possible. The Boards links to both major political parties will ensure that the national icon is not going to be allowed to go down the gurgler if it gets itself into trouble. No Federal Government can afford to see the demise of Qantas - even if on defence grounds only.
Load up the company with debt. I'm sure that it is just as feasible. The returns to shareholders in terms of return on shareholders equity will then look quite spectatcular, boosting the share price, albeit if there is a traffic downturn the losses will be equally spectacular.
I cannot for the life of me understand why the Board is so glowingly in favor of the bid, when it could do what APA proposes to do all by itself.
What "magic elixir" makes APA so attractive to the Board, when everybody else in the financial community seems to think that the deal stinks?????
In other words, there is a disconnect over what we are hearing.
The APA reckons Qantas is a gold mine from which they are going to pull 4-5 billion dollars and load up the company with debt.
The Board says that Qantas is a risky "legacy" business under threat from vicious competitors and tells us to sell.
Yet APA says it is going to keep the current Board and management and stuff their mouths with gold.
Question: Why can't the Board adopt the same strategy as APA is proposing? I know of no prudential requirements that would stop a public company adopting such a strategy. who needs APA???? There must be plenty of competent airline managers around the world that could execute an APA-like strategy, whats so special about APA?
Rip out the 4-5 billion and give it back to the shareholders either through a share buyback scheme or a special one-off dividend. Ruthlessly apply AWA's and casualise and outsource the workforce as much as possible. The Boards links to both major political parties will ensure that the national icon is not going to be allowed to go down the gurgler if it gets itself into trouble. No Federal Government can afford to see the demise of Qantas - even if on defence grounds only.
Load up the company with debt. I'm sure that it is just as feasible. The returns to shareholders in terms of return on shareholders equity will then look quite spectatcular, boosting the share price, albeit if there is a traffic downturn the losses will be equally spectacular.
I cannot for the life of me understand why the Board is so glowingly in favor of the bid, when it could do what APA proposes to do all by itself.
What "magic elixir" makes APA so attractive to the Board, when everybody else in the financial community seems to think that the deal stinks?????
What "magic elixir" makes APA so attractive to the Board, when everybody else in the financial community seems to think that the deal stinks?????