Jackson at it again
Registered User **
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft...
This has nothing to do with hindsight and only you are using that as an excuse.
The managers of funds who refused to sell knew,the media seems to know the takeover consortium definitely knew and it seems a lot of investors knew what the true value of the company was but MJ did not?
Well aircraft here is a quote for the best definition of a CEO from a top American firm who specializes in recruiting CEO's.
Aircraft.....Who do you think knows more about the requirements and purpose of a CEO....These guys or you?
So you are still saying that this was not his job?
Who's job exactly is it to maximise returns to the shareholder..The cleaner,the caterer for the AGM?
Look around aircraft and smell the roses because as far as I can see you are the only one defending them.
This has nothing to do with hindsight and only you are using that as an excuse.
The managers of funds who refused to sell knew,the media seems to know the takeover consortium definitely knew and it seems a lot of investors knew what the true value of the company was but MJ did not?
Try again to read just whose job I was saying it wasn't.
"While there are obviously many ways to evaluate a CEO's performance, we believe a company's total return to shareholders is the simplest and purest indicator of value creation,"
So you are still saying that this was not his job?
Who's job exactly is it to maximise returns to the shareholder..The cleaner,the caterer for the AGM?
Look around aircraft and smell the roses because as far as I can see you are the only one defending them.
Careful with this troll (aircraft) don't give Marg an excuse to sue.
By the way aircraft, we have a rule about the behaviour of Directors of public companies called "continuous disclosure". Any information available to APA should also have been available to the rest of the shareholders at exactly the same time.
It would appear that this may not have been the case, at least in the perception of the market, but will ACCC, ASX or ASIC investigate? Nope.
By the way aircraft, we have a rule about the behaviour of Directors of public companies called "continuous disclosure". Any information available to APA should also have been available to the rest of the shareholders at exactly the same time.
It would appear that this may not have been the case, at least in the perception of the market, but will ACCC, ASX or ASIC investigate? Nope.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: airside
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Aircraft:
Your description of Karma is quite mixed up max autobrakes, and reveals you have a weak, possibly nonexistent, grasp of physics! Anybody with a proper understanding of the "for every force..." law would know it has absolutely nothing to do with religion or philosophy and would not be using it in that context.
Don't blame me Aircraft old bean, this was cut and pasted from Wikipedia ,so have a go at them.
PS
FOA
Your description of Karma is quite mixed up max autobrakes, and reveals you have a weak, possibly nonexistent, grasp of physics! Anybody with a proper understanding of the "for every force..." law would know it has absolutely nothing to do with religion or philosophy and would not be using it in that context.
Don't blame me Aircraft old bean, this was cut and pasted from Wikipedia ,so have a go at them.
PS
FOA
Taildragger67 said:
Things don't work that way. Companies don't do valuations on themselves for the purpose of influencing the market value.
Can you imagine a company trying to persuade the share market that its value is actually less than the current share price? I can't. In the opposite case, where the company valuation is greater than the current share price, can you imagine the share market believing a company's claims that the share price should be higher? I can't.
The share market makes it own mind up, independently, on what the share price should be, and that valuation will almost always be different to what the company thinks the price should be.
It is an absolute certainty that the Qantas board and executive valued the company much more highly than the share market at the time of the APA bid. They probably still value it much more highly than the sharemarket.
lowerlobe said:
There is no such thing as "knowing" what the true value is. There are opinions on the value - that is all. The sharemarket had its opinion, whilst APA, via a different valuation methodology, had arrived at a different opinion. As I said above, the opinion of MJ and the board would have been different again, and most probably favouring a value even higher than that of APA.
The opinion of Qantas would not be enough to influence the opinion of the sharemarket, but the opinion expressed by APA, given they were "putting their money where their mouth was" (and that was a very large amount of money), was certainly sufficient to cause the market to reassess its own opinion.
It is worth considering that APA would have spent over a million dollars in the research that brought them to their opinion. The sharemarket, on the other hand, has neither the time nor money to do valuations that way so naturally the valuations would have been different.
Err, this quote doesn't actually say what you think it says. It is not linking CEO to return to shareholders or value creation. I suggest you either post the paragraph that came before this one, or, provide a link to the page from which you lifted this quote.
Sunfish said:
This would have been the case.
max autobrakes,
You should have attributed that quote to Wikipedia. It was plagiarism not to have done so. You did not answer my question on "what the FOG thing is supposed to achieve?". Please answer it.
My point being, if APA were able to 'see' things which meant there was lots of extra value in Qantas, then so should Qantas's management have been able to see this, and communicate it to the market.
Can you imagine a company trying to persuade the share market that its value is actually less than the current share price? I can't. In the opposite case, where the company valuation is greater than the current share price, can you imagine the share market believing a company's claims that the share price should be higher? I can't.
The share market makes it own mind up, independently, on what the share price should be, and that valuation will almost always be different to what the company thinks the price should be.
It is an absolute certainty that the Qantas board and executive valued the company much more highly than the share market at the time of the APA bid. They probably still value it much more highly than the sharemarket.
lowerlobe said:
The managers of funds who refused to sell knew,the media seems to know the takeover consortium definitely knew and it seems a lot of investors knew what the true value of the company was but MJ did not?
The opinion of Qantas would not be enough to influence the opinion of the sharemarket, but the opinion expressed by APA, given they were "putting their money where their mouth was" (and that was a very large amount of money), was certainly sufficient to cause the market to reassess its own opinion.
It is worth considering that APA would have spent over a million dollars in the research that brought them to their opinion. The sharemarket, on the other hand, has neither the time nor money to do valuations that way so naturally the valuations would have been different.
"While there are obviously many ways to evaluate a CEO's performance, we believe a company's total return to shareholders is the simplest and purest indicator of value creation,"
Sunfish said:
Any information available to APA should also have been available to the rest of the shareholders at exactly the same time.
max autobrakes,
You should have attributed that quote to Wikipedia. It was plagiarism not to have done so. You did not answer my question on "what the FOG thing is supposed to achieve?". Please answer it.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Aircraft,
I agree your first point. However with respect to your second, that is why CEOs and Chairs get on the road and go and see investors. I don't doubt that Mr Dixon and Ms Jackson have done that over their tenures; my point is that they clearly did not do as good a job at convincing investors as their counterparts at carriers whose shareprice outperformed that of Qantas in the months before the APA bid.
If the market's valuation differs markedly from the company's own, then it's the job of senior management (possibly devolved to Investor Relations or Corporate Comms) - acting in shareholders' best interests as they are required to - to get in front of people and bring the two closer.
As he is a 'main-board' director of a public company, I suggest that it is. His service contract cannot get him out of his duties as a director.
Maximising share value is the best way to further the interests of the company - bearing in mind that a 'company' is made up of its members, ie. its shareholders.
See s.180 (2)(d), Corporations Act 2001 (C'th) and s.181(1)(a). These are both civil obligations.
S.184(1)(c) is the criminal sanction.
I am not accusing anyone of criminal activity - merely pointing out that a director owes a duty to the company - ie. the members of that company.
Can you imagine a company trying to persuade the share market that its value is actually less than the current share price? I can't. In the opposite case, where the company valuation is greater than the current share price, can you imagine the share market believing a company's claims
that the share price should be higher? I can't.
The share market makes it own mind up, independently, on what the share price should be, and that valuation will almost always be different to what the company thinks the price should be.
that the share price should be higher? I can't.
The share market makes it own mind up, independently, on what the share price should be, and that valuation will almost always be different to what the company thinks the price should be.
If the market's valuation differs markedly from the company's own, then it's the job of senior management (possibly devolved to Investor Relations or Corporate Comms) - acting in shareholders' best interests as they are required to - to get in front of people and bring the two closer.
Geoff Dixon had failed to achieve what is it is that they get paid to do........ and that is maximise share value for the shareholders!!!
That is not Dixon's job
That is not Dixon's job
Maximising share value is the best way to further the interests of the company - bearing in mind that a 'company' is made up of its members, ie. its shareholders.
See s.180 (2)(d), Corporations Act 2001 (C'th) and s.181(1)(a). These are both civil obligations.
S.184(1)(c) is the criminal sanction.
I am not accusing anyone of criminal activity - merely pointing out that a director owes a duty to the company - ie. the members of that company.
Last edited by Taildragger67; 14th Nov 2007 at 08:10. Reason: To correct small typographical errors.
Registered User **
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From aircraft....
aircraft...This is exactly what the quote say's!!!!!!!
I did not edit or alter it in any way and did not post a link because of any posible legal ramifications.
However,you are grasping at straws when you say that that is not the intent of the quote.
What do you think the phrase 'total return to the shareholders' could mean ?
Aircraft said....
Your right in that the share market makes up it's own mind but that valuation is created by PERCEPTION and INFORMATION........and who would have the ability or greatest impact on that perception and information delivery?
Aircraft you are defending the indefensible and I'll give you a hint....Your not winning
"While there are obviously many ways to evaluate a CEO's performance, we believe a company's total return to shareholders is the simplest and purest indicator of value creation,"
Err, this quote doesn't actually say what you think it says.
Err, this quote doesn't actually say what you think it says.
I did not edit or alter it in any way and did not post a link because of any posible legal ramifications.
However,you are grasping at straws when you say that that is not the intent of the quote.
What do you think the phrase 'total return to the shareholders' could mean ?
Aircraft said....
The share market makes it own mind up, independently, on what the share price should be, and that valuation will almost always be different to what the company thinks the price should be.
Aircraft you are defending the indefensible and I'll give you a hint....Your not winning
I don't remember GD ever really promoting the business. All we ever heard for years was times are tough, competition, always the negative, what were investors meant to believe when all the CEO ever did was be the prophet of doom. Never once do I remember hearing him talk up the future. That maybe one reason why it was so undervalued?
Well maybe not the current share price but if you talk about the the real value of the stock then, the cynic in me would say that if you stand to make an absolute mint when the company gets taken over because you have talked down the share price at every opportunity with forecaste for tough times ahead, and yet you have let the potential owners in on the true facts without the doom and gloom spin and not the other investors. Then Yes I can believe it.
Can you imagine a company trying to persuade the share market that its value is actually less than the current share price? I can't.
Registered User **
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish....I know what your saying and I too keep getting the feeling that aircraft is just attempting to bait us simply because his arguments are absurd.
In fact I don't mind at all anyone having a different opinion and look forward to a sensible and rewarding debate but aircraft's posts not only make no sense but contradict themselves.
Here is a perfect example....
as well as this one...
Aircraft.....That certainly may have been the case but ......why then would they recommend to shareholders that they sell their shares for less than they (the board) believed they were worth.
Your arguments are not only flawed but contradictory......
In fact I don't mind at all anyone having a different opinion and look forward to a sensible and rewarding debate but aircraft's posts not only make no sense but contradict themselves.
Here is a perfect example....
There is no such thing as "knowing" what the true value is. There are opinions on the value - that is all. The sharemarket had its opinion, whilst APA, via a different valuation methodology, had arrived at a different opinion. As I said above, the opinion of MJ and the board would have been different again, and most probably favouring a value even higher than that of APA.
It is an absolute certainty that the Qantas board and executive valued the company much more highly than the share market at the time of the APA bid. They probably still value it much more highly than the sharemarket.
Your arguments are not only flawed but contradictory......
Taildragger67 said:
You think those other carriers outperformed Qantas because the managers at those other carriers were more convincing than the Qantas managers? There are numerous other reasons why the other carriers may have outperformed Qantas.
You seem to think that Qantas can bring about adjustments to the share price by "appealling" to the share market. You seem to think that if there is a bit of a descrepancy between the company's and the share market's opinion of the value then a bit of talking to the investors will bring the two closer into line.
I think you will find that events and statutory disclosures have a much bigger bearing on the share price than any "appeals" or "investor briefings". The latter are attempts by the company to persuade the investors, one way or the other, so are usually taken with a pinch of salt.
If you were about to buy a used car, would you allow your valuation of the car to be influenced by the appeals and statements of the dealer? Yes, but only to a very small extent. You would primarily be using performance measures, history, records, etc to form your valuation. The share market is no different to you in that respect.
About this statement from somebody else:
To that, I said "that is not Dixon's job".
To clarify that statement, I will say that, when somebody refers to "Dixon's job" they are referring to his CEO role - they cannot be referring to the job the board does.
Being in the "executive", his job is to "execute", that is, to perform the actual hands-on managing. If he does his job well the financial performance of the company will be good - which will in turn strongly influence the share price.
So, yes, the CEO performance may cause increases to the shareholder value - but it is not actually his job to bring about those increases. The same can be said for pilots, engineers and flight attendants.
lowerlobe said:
You are implying MJ, GD and co. have the greatest impact but that is not true. See my comments above re the used car.
Because the board knows that their opinion of the value is completely irrelevent - refer again to the used car example.
... my point is that they clearly did not do as good a job at convincing investors as their counterparts at carriers whose shareprice outperformed that of Qantas in the months before the APA bid.
You seem to think that Qantas can bring about adjustments to the share price by "appealling" to the share market. You seem to think that if there is a bit of a descrepancy between the company's and the share market's opinion of the value then a bit of talking to the investors will bring the two closer into line.
I think you will find that events and statutory disclosures have a much bigger bearing on the share price than any "appeals" or "investor briefings". The latter are attempts by the company to persuade the investors, one way or the other, so are usually taken with a pinch of salt.
If you were about to buy a used car, would you allow your valuation of the car to be influenced by the appeals and statements of the dealer? Yes, but only to a very small extent. You would primarily be using performance measures, history, records, etc to form your valuation. The share market is no different to you in that respect.
About this statement from somebody else:
Geoff Dixon had failed to achieve what is it is that they get paid to do........ and that is maximise share value for the shareholders!!!
To clarify that statement, I will say that, when somebody refers to "Dixon's job" they are referring to his CEO role - they cannot be referring to the job the board does.
Being in the "executive", his job is to "execute", that is, to perform the actual hands-on managing. If he does his job well the financial performance of the company will be good - which will in turn strongly influence the share price.
So, yes, the CEO performance may cause increases to the shareholder value - but it is not actually his job to bring about those increases. The same can be said for pilots, engineers and flight attendants.
lowerlobe said:
Your right in that the share market makes up it's own mind but that valuation is created by PERCEPTION and INFORMATION........and who would have the ability or greatest impact on that perception and information delivery?
......why then would they recommend to shareholders that they sell their shares for less than they (the board) believed they were worth.
Registered User **
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aircraft..........
I showed you a quote from a very respected firm that specialises in the placement of CEO's.It's obvious that they would have a better idea than you of what constitutes a good CEO.
If you walk into any used car yard ,the prices in that yard are set by the dealer.If they are too high then he won't sell any cars will he?
I made no such implication regarding anyone in particular.That is an assumption on your part.
I said that the market is interpreted and influenced by Perception and Information.Now where do you think the greatest source of information regarding the past,present and future peformance of the company that creates the perception will come from?
Who has that data?
I asked aircraft.....
This referred to any board anywhere and aircraft replied.....
Absolute rubbish aircraft......Who do investors and shareholders listen to if not the board?.......
It's apparent that you would not make a very good used car dealer or even a used car buyer so I would forget that analogy if I were you......
I showed you a quote from a very respected firm that specialises in the placement of CEO's.It's obvious that they would have a better idea than you of what constitutes a good CEO.
If you were about to buy a used car, would you allow your valuation of the car to be influenced by the appeals and statements of the dealer? Yes, but only to a very small extent. You would primarily be using performance measures, history, records, etc to form your valuation. The share market is no different to you in that respect.
You are implying MJ, GD and co. have the greatest impact but that is not true.
I said that the market is interpreted and influenced by Perception and Information.Now where do you think the greatest source of information regarding the past,present and future peformance of the company that creates the perception will come from?
Who has that data?
I asked aircraft.....
.why then would they recommend to shareholders that they sell their shares for less than they (the board) believed they were worth.
Because the board knows that their opinion of the value is completely irrelevent
It's apparent that you would not make a very good used car dealer or even a used car buyer so I would forget that analogy if I were you......
Lobe, don't feed the trolls. Aircraft has no idea whatsoever about what he is trying to talk about.
For the record, a great deal of money and expense has been spent by regulators and the judicial system to make sharemarkets as transparent as possible, and to punish anyone who tries to rig the valuations of companies.
Telstra, for example, has just agreed to pay about $5 million to certain investors after it gave a confidential briefing to the Howard Government without disclosing the existence of this briefing or its contents to the market.
Any information that would affect the value of the company that was made available to APA also has to made available to any other investor - continuously.
For the record, a great deal of money and expense has been spent by regulators and the judicial system to make sharemarkets as transparent as possible, and to punish anyone who tries to rig the valuations of companies.
Telstra, for example, has just agreed to pay about $5 million to certain investors after it gave a confidential briefing to the Howard Government without disclosing the existence of this briefing or its contents to the market.
Any information that would affect the value of the company that was made available to APA also has to made available to any other investor - continuously.
Nunc est bibendum
LL, you need to do a bit of a search of aircraft's posts. Just about every one of them is contr-intuitive on every issue. He's the quintessential internet troll. Not so obvious at first glance and engaging enough to keep you wasting your time.
Does PPRUNE have an 'ignore' button?
Does PPRUNE have an 'ignore' button?
lowerlobe,
I have been pondering for days the answer to this question you asked. My curiousity has finally gotten the better the me. Please reveal the answer.
I have been pondering for days the answer to this question you asked. My curiousity has finally gotten the better the me. Please reveal the answer.
I said that the market is interpreted and influenced by Perception and Information.Now where do you think the greatest source of information regarding the past,present and future peformance of the company that creates the perception will come from?