Qf Staff Morale
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fliegenmong...
Probably because I like the chance to have a shot at Darth.
Aircraft, as most of us have shown has no idea and is so far out of his depth even a snorkel would be of no help.
He is probably some 15 yeard old from the Young Liberals but as I said he is not the issue,Darth is.
Probably because I like the chance to have a shot at Darth.
Aircraft, as most of us have shown has no idea and is so far out of his depth even a snorkel would be of no help.
He is probably some 15 yeard old from the Young Liberals but as I said he is not the issue,Darth is.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aircraft,any company who has staff working for them who work and feel like they are living as slaves in the middle ages (some not all staff ) is going to make a shxx load of money.its not rocket science! cheers gigs
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: springfield retirement castle
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Continued responses to the village idiot will only encourage him/her to further befoul this forum with more asinine, pig-ignorant musings. Best ignore.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Keeping The Enema Bandit in line
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome back aircraft. Where have you been? How come you've come back? Did one of your kindergarten mates pinch your favourite Tonka toy from the sandpit or something??? 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft,
There is one fact beyond all doubt and that is that, you, who professes so much knowledge about Qantas and Jetstar and the management thereof did not know that Jetstar Asia existed. I'm sorry but you have no place in any debate regarding these topics other than as pure amusement.
There is one fact beyond all doubt and that is that, you, who professes so much knowledge about Qantas and Jetstar and the management thereof did not know that Jetstar Asia existed. I'm sorry but you have no place in any debate regarding these topics other than as pure amusement.
lowerlobe said:
But the share price did not return to the pre bid levels following the failure of the APA bid, so it must be said that this event caused a significant (favourable) revaluation of Qantas. In other words, the market was forced to come to its senses in regard to the Qantas value.
So to who, or what, should that previously unrealised value be attributed? I will give you a hint by reminding you that LBO schemers tend to target undervalued but well managed companies.
It only became "so valuable" when the APA bid was announced. It was not "so valuable" during the time that he was "continually and with almost monotonous regularity talking down the share price". Dixon would always have valued the company above the market but it is not his valuation that counts.
I cannot see how anybody could claim he (and the board) were not acting in the best interests of the shareholders before, during, and after the bid.
Dixon had been at the helm for years and continually talked down the price and all of a sudden now that someone has shown interest in the company the share price skyrockets.
So it had nothing to do with him at all...
So it had nothing to do with him at all...
So to who, or what, should that previously unrealised value be attributed? I will give you a hint by reminding you that LBO schemers tend to target undervalued but well managed companies.
Why did he continually and with almost monotonous regularity talk down the share price when it was so valuable.
I cannot see how anybody could claim he (and the board) were not acting in the best interests of the shareholders before, during, and after the bid.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Endor
Age: 83
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I try and avoid trolls, but this one finally laid enough bait.
This is crap. Companies are undervalued because of bad management such that their return on equity adjusted for risk is below long term interest rates. This is the capital asset pricing model.
Dixon and the Board have continually talked down the value of the company through moaning about business conditions and competition (which is a matter of record) for three reasons.
1. To keep pressure on the Government to maintain the Qantas stranglehold over capacity, and hence load factor and yield.
2. To keep pressure on staff and justify outsourcing and redundancies.
3. To mask the true value of the corporation for reasons I expect the ACCC will eventually investigate. Better commentators than I have remarked on the absence of useful information from the Board that would have helped the shareholders form a better informed opinion about the APA bid. This is also a matter of record.
As we have seen, the market called him on point number three, and have since been proved correct. Dixon is now forced to disgorge his profit improvement plans that were originally for the ears of APA I expect. That is why the share price has risen.
Notwithstanding the share price increase, it is stupid management behaviour in the long or short term not to pay attention to staff morale, since staff behaviour has an immediate and often permanent effect on customer perceptions - and that can be negative as well as positive.
I know of no one in my circle who will willingly fly Qantas if alternatives exist and there appear to be plenty of others who feel the same - you factor that into the share price.
And as a P.S....How stupid would the shareholders feel today, and how smug would the APA bidders feel today, given the tanking U.S. Dollar, if the bid had succeeded?
I will give you a hint by reminding you that LBO schemers tend to target undervalued but well managed companies.
Dixon and the Board have continually talked down the value of the company through moaning about business conditions and competition (which is a matter of record) for three reasons.
1. To keep pressure on the Government to maintain the Qantas stranglehold over capacity, and hence load factor and yield.
2. To keep pressure on staff and justify outsourcing and redundancies.
3. To mask the true value of the corporation for reasons I expect the ACCC will eventually investigate. Better commentators than I have remarked on the absence of useful information from the Board that would have helped the shareholders form a better informed opinion about the APA bid. This is also a matter of record.
As we have seen, the market called him on point number three, and have since been proved correct. Dixon is now forced to disgorge his profit improvement plans that were originally for the ears of APA I expect. That is why the share price has risen.
Notwithstanding the share price increase, it is stupid management behaviour in the long or short term not to pay attention to staff morale, since staff behaviour has an immediate and often permanent effect on customer perceptions - and that can be negative as well as positive.
I know of no one in my circle who will willingly fly Qantas if alternatives exist and there appear to be plenty of others who feel the same - you factor that into the share price.
And as a P.S....How stupid would the shareholders feel today, and how smug would the APA bidders feel today, given the tanking U.S. Dollar, if the bid had succeeded?
Last edited by YesTAM; 20th Jul 2007 at 00:18.
YesTAM,
I think you mean underperform because of bad management. A company can only be undervalued if the entity making the valuation is sufficiently unaware of aspects of the business, or if the methods used in making the valuation are inappropriate for that particular company/business.
I think you are overestimating the effect of Dixon's statements on the share price, but for the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that he was doing whatever he could to keep the share price down so that the APA bid would succeed.
How would this behaviour not be in the interests of the shareholders, given the returns they stood to gain? Of course, some shareholders would have considered it not to be in their interest but they would still have appreciated the option being available.
Companies are undervalued because of bad management...
I think you are overestimating the effect of Dixon's statements on the share price, but for the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that he was doing whatever he could to keep the share price down so that the APA bid would succeed.
How would this behaviour not be in the interests of the shareholders, given the returns they stood to gain? Of course, some shareholders would have considered it not to be in their interest but they would still have appreciated the option being available.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Endor
Age: 83
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not replying to Aircrafts posts on this subject because I believe this trolling is for the purposes of a defamation lawsuit, or other activity to shut down comment on Qantas by its staff or anyone else.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: REAL WORLD
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
missing
in the debate is APA was very keen on QF 's cash flow and cash at hand. lets not forget that over A$ 2 billion cash were in the kitty (now more likely 3+). add the gearing levels and here is your big carrot.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft and Pass whatever...have diverted the thread.It is about QF morale and if you look at the sheer numbers of disengaged staff there are then there is a significant problem.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... let's assume that he was doing whatever he could to keep the share price down so that the APA bid would succeed.
How would this behaviour not be in the interests of the shareholders, given the returns they stood to gain? Of course, some shareholders would have considered it not to be in their interest but they would still have appreciated the option being available.
How would this behaviour not be in the interests of the shareholders, given the returns they stood to gain? Of course, some shareholders would have considered it not to be in their interest but they would still have appreciated the option being available.
Didn't Mac Bank state shortly after the bid failed that their valuation of Qantas shares was $7.60? That's like a real estate agent you've contracted to sell your house, talking the price down, then selling it to a mate who he knows values it at more than he paid. Oh, and pocketing an exorbitant bonus as well. That sounds like ROBBING the shareholders, rather than maximising their returns.
Dixon has also been bleating for years about the difficulty of raising capital with the low share price. Are you saying it would be in the shareholder's interest that he talk the share price down, placing financial stress on the company, in the hope that the LBO 100 to 1 horse came in? What if it didn't?
Sorry everyone, I know I shouldn't feed the troll. I'm just afraid someone young and impressionable might be reading this forum and actually believe this crap!
... why the deal failed. Either the market thought that the risk or future cashflow predictions for QANTAS had changed compared to those prior to the takeover bid, or they were not soley concerned with their future wealth.
The deal failed because Qantas had been allowed to become the plaything of international hedge funds (outside the foreign cap, I might add), and one of those funds fcuked up! By that stage, no amount of change in shareholder/government/regulatory/public opinion would have changed the outcome.
Cheers
PS Yeah I know, comparing GD to a real estate agent is drawing a long bow. Real estate agents are way more ethical.
PPS I hope the REI don't sue me.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it any wonder that staff morale is low, when you hear your collegues say "I'm not allowed in there, therefore you can't go either" !
Nearly all staff hate each other, and are intensely jealous of what each others perks and benefits are.
Nearly all staff hate each other, and are intensely jealous of what each others perks and benefits are.
Last edited by blueloo; 23rd Jul 2007 at 14:29. Reason: Sppellling
'holic said:
Actually, if we look again at the relevent history of the bid (a more calm look) we will see that nobody was robbed, and the shareholders received a pretty good offer. We will continue to use the real estate analogy. Consider the house owner in the analogy - he represents the Qantas shareholders.
For the house price, I will use the Qantas share price multiplied by 100,000. Note that for the 6 months leading up to the bid announcement, the share price averaged about $3.50
One day, Mr house owner receives an offer from a buyer that wishes to purchase his house. The buyer is offering $545,000.
Mr owner is well placed to consider the offer as he has been getting daily valuations of his house. Those valuations, over the previous six months, have averaged about $350,000.
Mr owner thinks about the offer for several months but eventually declines it. After declining it, the potential buyer mentions that he feels the house is really worth $760,000.
Nobody was robbed - a good offer was made and, naturally, the buyer will always try to get the house for less than he thinks it is worth!
In the case of Qantas, everybody seems to be forgetting that the market had valued them at $3.50 leading up to the bid. Many posters seem to be suggesting that their "real value" during that time was much higher and that it was Dixon, through his public comments, that was keeping the price low.
Has it occurred to these posters that they can only say that with hindsight? To have been able to say that at the time required the savvy that seemingly only APA possessed. And, these posters are way overestimating the effect of Dixon's supposedly "talking down" comments - they are suggesting that his comments were suppressing the share price by about 60% !
'holic again:
No, for the purposes of the debate I was only suggesting that hypothetically.
Didn't Mac Bank state shortly after the bid failed that their valuation of Qantas shares was $7.60? That's like a real estate agent you've contracted to sell your house, talking the price down, then selling it to a mate who he knows values it at more than he paid. Oh, and pocketing an exorbitant bonus as well. That sounds like ROBBING the shareholders, rather than maximising their returns.
For the house price, I will use the Qantas share price multiplied by 100,000. Note that for the 6 months leading up to the bid announcement, the share price averaged about $3.50
One day, Mr house owner receives an offer from a buyer that wishes to purchase his house. The buyer is offering $545,000.
Mr owner is well placed to consider the offer as he has been getting daily valuations of his house. Those valuations, over the previous six months, have averaged about $350,000.
Mr owner thinks about the offer for several months but eventually declines it. After declining it, the potential buyer mentions that he feels the house is really worth $760,000.
Nobody was robbed - a good offer was made and, naturally, the buyer will always try to get the house for less than he thinks it is worth!
In the case of Qantas, everybody seems to be forgetting that the market had valued them at $3.50 leading up to the bid. Many posters seem to be suggesting that their "real value" during that time was much higher and that it was Dixon, through his public comments, that was keeping the price low.
Has it occurred to these posters that they can only say that with hindsight? To have been able to say that at the time required the savvy that seemingly only APA possessed. And, these posters are way overestimating the effect of Dixon's supposedly "talking down" comments - they are suggesting that his comments were suppressing the share price by about 60% !
'holic again:
Are you saying it would be in the shareholder's interest that he talk the share price down, placing financial stress on the company ...
blueloo said:
Nearly all? That is some call. How do you know this? Have you done your own survey (or seen the statistics from some other survey)?
lowerlobe said:
What can you tell us about those sheer numbers? This is a genuine question.
Nearly all staff hate each other, and are intensly jealous of what each others perks and benefits are.
lowerlobe said:
... if you look at the sheer numbers of disengaged staff there are then there is a significant problem.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes - I did a survey on all 30000+ employees. Give me a day and I will run the statistical analysis of it for you.
Please, in the meantime, hold your breath - Or better yet, get someone to help you.
Please, in the meantime, hold your breath - Or better yet, get someone to help you.
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
And without getting the thread too much out of tune Aircraft did you get that John Howard Action figure that was mentioned elswhere? It even has the shining bald head and big eyebrows... That will get you excited!!
For info that will be an antique soon as he goes down in a blaze of shame haha! See you man!
For info that will be an antique soon as he goes down in a blaze of shame haha! See you man!
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft,
Your analogy with a real estate deal is deeply flawed but only you seem to be missing the point.
The share market is based on perception and as such relies heavily on information from the board, which is required to disclose such information.
It is a matter of record that one person in particular continually gave the impression that there were always problems on the horizon. We can speculate forever and a day on why this was the case but let’s look at your analogy.
There exists in a suburb a house which is owned by a trust involving a number of people .One day the owner’s were indeed offered $545,000 with the stipulation that there was a time limitation.
The owner’s as most owners do have an idea of the inherent value of the house whether this is accurate or not. This is because something is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it.
Here is where your analogy goes off course.
The owner’s have business and financial advisors that are trying to persuade the owner to accept the deal at $545,000.
The owner’s discover that these advisors stand to make a healthy commission if they accept the offer of $ 545,000 from the buyer within the time frame.
These advisors tell the owner’s that the offer of $545,000 is a good deal and they must have mental problems if they do not accept the offer.
The owner’s believe that these advisors then intend to take over the house with the buyer and make certain changes and then possibly place the property on the market again for a new price.
The owner’s financial and business partners tell them that if they do not accept the offer the market will see this is a problem and the value will plummet. They tell the owners that the offer is far higher than any previous value and represents a great return for the owners.
Some other acquaintances tell the owner’s that the offer is undervalued and they should not accept the offer. After much deliberation the owner’s decide not to sell.
The offer is extended but the owner’s still decline the offer.
After the deadline the buyer mentions that the real value is much higher and is around $760,000…
After the deadline passes the value of the property does not plummet as forecast by the advisors and instead remains higher than the buyers offer and is at $578,000 at this point in time.
This is despite the fact that there are no immediate buyers and the owners understand that if new buyers appear the value would probably increase again.
NOW AIRCRAFT…..
What would you think about your business and financial advisors after that?
I know what I would do.
Your analogy with a real estate deal is deeply flawed but only you seem to be missing the point.
The share market is based on perception and as such relies heavily on information from the board, which is required to disclose such information.
It is a matter of record that one person in particular continually gave the impression that there were always problems on the horizon. We can speculate forever and a day on why this was the case but let’s look at your analogy.
There exists in a suburb a house which is owned by a trust involving a number of people .One day the owner’s were indeed offered $545,000 with the stipulation that there was a time limitation.
The owner’s as most owners do have an idea of the inherent value of the house whether this is accurate or not. This is because something is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it.
Here is where your analogy goes off course.
The owner’s have business and financial advisors that are trying to persuade the owner to accept the deal at $545,000.
The owner’s discover that these advisors stand to make a healthy commission if they accept the offer of $ 545,000 from the buyer within the time frame.
These advisors tell the owner’s that the offer of $545,000 is a good deal and they must have mental problems if they do not accept the offer.
The owner’s believe that these advisors then intend to take over the house with the buyer and make certain changes and then possibly place the property on the market again for a new price.
The owner’s financial and business partners tell them that if they do not accept the offer the market will see this is a problem and the value will plummet. They tell the owners that the offer is far higher than any previous value and represents a great return for the owners.
Some other acquaintances tell the owner’s that the offer is undervalued and they should not accept the offer. After much deliberation the owner’s decide not to sell.
The offer is extended but the owner’s still decline the offer.
After the deadline the buyer mentions that the real value is much higher and is around $760,000…
After the deadline passes the value of the property does not plummet as forecast by the advisors and instead remains higher than the buyers offer and is at $578,000 at this point in time.
This is despite the fact that there are no immediate buyers and the owners understand that if new buyers appear the value would probably increase again.
NOW AIRCRAFT…..
What would you think about your business and financial advisors after that?
I know what I would do.
lowerlobe said:
It's not about them - it is about the shareholders (the house owner). The question has been whether the right thing has been done by the shareholders. If the answer to this question is yes, then Dixon and the board have been doing the right thing.
You completely glossed over the fact that the house was valued at $350,000 at the time the offer was made.
If you owned a house valued at $350K and someone came along offering $545K, would you feel wronged? You didn't have to accept the offer, after all.
You say "I know what I would do". What would you do? Don't forget, this is back in December 2006 and the APA mention of $7.60 hasn't yet occurred, nor the huge (favourable) revaluation. Your house is worth $350K and someone is offering $545K - that is all you know.
What would you think about your business and financial advisors after that?
I know what I would do.
I know what I would do.
You completely glossed over the fact that the house was valued at $350,000 at the time the offer was made.
If you owned a house valued at $350K and someone came along offering $545K, would you feel wronged? You didn't have to accept the offer, after all.
You say "I know what I would do". What would you do? Don't forget, this is back in December 2006 and the APA mention of $7.60 hasn't yet occurred, nor the huge (favourable) revaluation. Your house is worth $350K and someone is offering $545K - that is all you know.