QF shares hit $2.00, discuss
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Senator Xenophon Speach
Xenophon speech
For those who haven't seen it, Senator Xenophon's speech of 23rd Aug is reproduced below.
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (19:37): I rise to speak tonight on an issue that is close to the hearts of many Australians, and that is the future of our national carrier, Qantas. At 90, Qantas is the world's oldest continuously running airline. It is an iconic Australian company. Its story is woven into the story of Australia and Australians have long taken pride in the service and safety standards provided by our national carrier. Who didn't feel a little proud when Dustin Hoffman uttered the immortal line in Rain Man, 'Qantas never crashed'?
While it is true that Qantas never crashes, the sad reality is that Qantas is being deliberately trashed by management in the pursuit of short-term profits and at the expense of its workers and passengers. For a long time, Qantas management has been pushing the line that Qantas international is losing money and that Jetstar is profitable. Tonight, it is imperative to expose those claims for the misinformation they are. The reality is that Qantas has long been used to subsidise Jetstar in order to make Jetstar look profitable and Qantas look like a burden. In a moment, I will provide detailed allegations of cost-shifting that I have sourced from within the Qantas Group, and when you know the facts you quickly see a pattern. When there is a cost to be paid, Qantas pays it, and when there is a profit to be made, Jetstar makes it.
But first we need to ask ourselves: why? Why would management want Qantas to look unprofitable? Why would they want to hide the cost of a competing brand within their group, namely Jetstar, in amongst the costs faced by Qantas?
To understand that, you need to go back to the days when Qantas was being privatised. When Qantas was privatised the Qantas Sale Act 1992 imposed a number of conditions, which in turn created a number of problems for any management group that wanted to flog off parts of the business. Basically, Qantas has to maintain its principal place of operations here in Australia, but that does not stop management selling any subsidiaries, which brings us to Jetstar.
Qantas has systematically built up the low-cost carrier at the expense of the parent company. I have been provided with a significant number of examples where costs which should have been billed back to Jetstar have in fact been paid for by Qantas. These are practices that I believe Qantas and Jetstar management need to explain. For example, when Jetstar took over the Cairns-Darwin-Singapore route, replacing Qantas flights, a deal was struck that required Qantas to provide Jetstar with $6 million a year in revenue. Why? Why would one part of the business give up a profitable route like that and then be asked to pay for the privilege? Then there are other subsidies when it comes to freight. On every sector Jetstar operates an A330, Qantas pays $6,200 to $6,400 for freight space regardless of actual uplift. When you do the calculations, this turns out to be a small fortune. Based on 82 departures a week, that is nearly half-a-million dollars a week or $25˝ million a year.
Then there are the arrangements within the airport gates. In Melbourne, for example, my information from inside the Qantas group is that Jetstar does not pay for any gates, but instead Qantas domestic is charged for the gates. My question for Qantas management is simple: are these arrangements replicated right around Australia and why is Qantas paying Jetstar's bills? Why does Qantas lease five check-in counters at Sydney Terminal 2, only to let Jetstar use one for free? It has been reported to me that there are other areas where Jetstar's costs magically become Qantas's costs. For example, Jetstar does not have a treasury department and has only one person in government affairs. I am told Qantas's legal department also does free work for Jetstar.
Then there is the area of disruption handling where flights are cancelled and people need to be rebooked. Here, insiders tell me, Qantas handles all rebookings and the traffic is all one way. It is extremely rare for a Qantas passenger to be rebooked on a Jetstar flight, but Jetstar passengers are regularly rebooked onto Qantas flights. I am informed that Jetstar never pays Qantas for the cost of those rebooked passengers and yet Jetstar gets to keep the revenue from the original bookings. This, I am told, is worth millions of dollars every year. So Jetstar gets the profit while Qantas bears the costs of carriage. It has also been reported to me that when Qantas provides an aircraft to Jetstar to cover an unserviceable plane, Jetstar does not pay for the use of this plane.
Yet another example relates to the Qantas Club. Jetstar passengers can and do use the Qantas Club but Jetstar does not pay for the cost of any of this. So is Qantas really losing money? Or is it profitable but simply losing money on paper because it is carrying so many costs incurred by Jetstar? We have been told by Qantas management that the changes that will effectively gut Qantas are necessary because Qantas international is losing money but, given the inside information I have just detailed, I would argue those claims need to be reassessed.
Indeed, given these extensive allegations of hidden costs, it would be foolish to take management's word that Qantas international is losing money. So why would Qantas want to make it look like Qantas international is losing money? Remember the failed 2007 private equity bid by the Allco Finance Group. It was rejected by shareholders, and thank goodness it was, for I am told that what we are seeing now is effectively a strategy of private equity sell-off by stealth.
Here is how it works. You have to keep Qantas flying to avoid breaching the Qantas Sale Act but that does not stop you from moving assets out of Qantas and putting them into an airline that you own but that is not controlled by the Qantas Sale Act. Then you work the figures to make it appear as though the international arm of Qantas is losing money. You use this to justify the slashing of jobs, maintenance standards and employment of foreign crews and, ultimately, the creation of an entirely new airlines to be based in Asia and which will not be called Qantas. The end result? Technically Qantas would still exist but it would end up a shell of its former self and the Qantas Group would end up with all these subsidiaries it can base overseas using poorly paid foreign crews with engineering and safety standards that do not match Australian standards. In time, if the Qantas Group wants to make a buck, they can flog these subsidiaries off for a tidy profit. Qantas management could pay the National Boys Choir and the Australian Girls Choir to run to the desert and sing about still calling Australia home, but people would not buy it. It is not just about feeling good about our national carrier—in times of trouble our national carrier plays a key strategic role. In an international emergency, in a time of war, a national carrier is required to freight resources and people around the country and around the world. Qantas also operates Qantas Defence Services, which conducts work for the RAAF. If Qantas is allowed to wither, who will meet these strategic needs?
I pay tribute to the 35,000 employees of the Qantas Group. At the forefront of the fight against the strategy of Qantas management have been the Qantas pilots, to whom millions of Australians have literally entrusted their lives. The Australian and International Pilots Association sees Qantas management strategy as a race to the bottom when it comes to service and safety. On 8 November last year, QF32 experienced a serious malfunction with the explosion of an engine on an A380 aircraft. In the wrong hands, that plane could have crashed. But it did not, in large part because the Qantas flight crew had been trained to exemplary world-class standards and knew how to cope with such a terrifying reality. I am deeply concerned that what is being pursued may well cause training levels to fall and that as a result safety standards in the Qantas Group may fall as well. AIPA pilots and the licensed aircraft engineers are not fighting for themselves; they are fighting for the Australian public. That is why I am deeply concerned about any action Qantas management may be considering taking against pilots who speak out in the public interest.
A lot of claims have been made about the financial state of Qantas international but given the information I have presented tonight, which has come from within the Qantas Group, I believe these claims by management are crying out for further serious forensic investigation. Qantas should not be allowed to face death by a thousand cuts—job cuts, route cuts, quality cuts, engineering cuts, wage cuts. None of this is acceptable and it must all be resisted for the sake of the pilots, the crews, the passengers and ultimately the future of our national carrier.
For those who haven't seen it, Senator Xenophon's speech of 23rd Aug is reproduced below.
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (19:37): I rise to speak tonight on an issue that is close to the hearts of many Australians, and that is the future of our national carrier, Qantas. At 90, Qantas is the world's oldest continuously running airline. It is an iconic Australian company. Its story is woven into the story of Australia and Australians have long taken pride in the service and safety standards provided by our national carrier. Who didn't feel a little proud when Dustin Hoffman uttered the immortal line in Rain Man, 'Qantas never crashed'?
While it is true that Qantas never crashes, the sad reality is that Qantas is being deliberately trashed by management in the pursuit of short-term profits and at the expense of its workers and passengers. For a long time, Qantas management has been pushing the line that Qantas international is losing money and that Jetstar is profitable. Tonight, it is imperative to expose those claims for the misinformation they are. The reality is that Qantas has long been used to subsidise Jetstar in order to make Jetstar look profitable and Qantas look like a burden. In a moment, I will provide detailed allegations of cost-shifting that I have sourced from within the Qantas Group, and when you know the facts you quickly see a pattern. When there is a cost to be paid, Qantas pays it, and when there is a profit to be made, Jetstar makes it.
But first we need to ask ourselves: why? Why would management want Qantas to look unprofitable? Why would they want to hide the cost of a competing brand within their group, namely Jetstar, in amongst the costs faced by Qantas?
To understand that, you need to go back to the days when Qantas was being privatised. When Qantas was privatised the Qantas Sale Act 1992 imposed a number of conditions, which in turn created a number of problems for any management group that wanted to flog off parts of the business. Basically, Qantas has to maintain its principal place of operations here in Australia, but that does not stop management selling any subsidiaries, which brings us to Jetstar.
Qantas has systematically built up the low-cost carrier at the expense of the parent company. I have been provided with a significant number of examples where costs which should have been billed back to Jetstar have in fact been paid for by Qantas. These are practices that I believe Qantas and Jetstar management need to explain. For example, when Jetstar took over the Cairns-Darwin-Singapore route, replacing Qantas flights, a deal was struck that required Qantas to provide Jetstar with $6 million a year in revenue. Why? Why would one part of the business give up a profitable route like that and then be asked to pay for the privilege? Then there are other subsidies when it comes to freight. On every sector Jetstar operates an A330, Qantas pays $6,200 to $6,400 for freight space regardless of actual uplift. When you do the calculations, this turns out to be a small fortune. Based on 82 departures a week, that is nearly half-a-million dollars a week or $25˝ million a year.
Then there are the arrangements within the airport gates. In Melbourne, for example, my information from inside the Qantas group is that Jetstar does not pay for any gates, but instead Qantas domestic is charged for the gates. My question for Qantas management is simple: are these arrangements replicated right around Australia and why is Qantas paying Jetstar's bills? Why does Qantas lease five check-in counters at Sydney Terminal 2, only to let Jetstar use one for free? It has been reported to me that there are other areas where Jetstar's costs magically become Qantas's costs. For example, Jetstar does not have a treasury department and has only one person in government affairs. I am told Qantas's legal department also does free work for Jetstar.
Then there is the area of disruption handling where flights are cancelled and people need to be rebooked. Here, insiders tell me, Qantas handles all rebookings and the traffic is all one way. It is extremely rare for a Qantas passenger to be rebooked on a Jetstar flight, but Jetstar passengers are regularly rebooked onto Qantas flights. I am informed that Jetstar never pays Qantas for the cost of those rebooked passengers and yet Jetstar gets to keep the revenue from the original bookings. This, I am told, is worth millions of dollars every year. So Jetstar gets the profit while Qantas bears the costs of carriage. It has also been reported to me that when Qantas provides an aircraft to Jetstar to cover an unserviceable plane, Jetstar does not pay for the use of this plane.
Yet another example relates to the Qantas Club. Jetstar passengers can and do use the Qantas Club but Jetstar does not pay for the cost of any of this. So is Qantas really losing money? Or is it profitable but simply losing money on paper because it is carrying so many costs incurred by Jetstar? We have been told by Qantas management that the changes that will effectively gut Qantas are necessary because Qantas international is losing money but, given the inside information I have just detailed, I would argue those claims need to be reassessed.
Indeed, given these extensive allegations of hidden costs, it would be foolish to take management's word that Qantas international is losing money. So why would Qantas want to make it look like Qantas international is losing money? Remember the failed 2007 private equity bid by the Allco Finance Group. It was rejected by shareholders, and thank goodness it was, for I am told that what we are seeing now is effectively a strategy of private equity sell-off by stealth.
Here is how it works. You have to keep Qantas flying to avoid breaching the Qantas Sale Act but that does not stop you from moving assets out of Qantas and putting them into an airline that you own but that is not controlled by the Qantas Sale Act. Then you work the figures to make it appear as though the international arm of Qantas is losing money. You use this to justify the slashing of jobs, maintenance standards and employment of foreign crews and, ultimately, the creation of an entirely new airlines to be based in Asia and which will not be called Qantas. The end result? Technically Qantas would still exist but it would end up a shell of its former self and the Qantas Group would end up with all these subsidiaries it can base overseas using poorly paid foreign crews with engineering and safety standards that do not match Australian standards. In time, if the Qantas Group wants to make a buck, they can flog these subsidiaries off for a tidy profit. Qantas management could pay the National Boys Choir and the Australian Girls Choir to run to the desert and sing about still calling Australia home, but people would not buy it. It is not just about feeling good about our national carrier—in times of trouble our national carrier plays a key strategic role. In an international emergency, in a time of war, a national carrier is required to freight resources and people around the country and around the world. Qantas also operates Qantas Defence Services, which conducts work for the RAAF. If Qantas is allowed to wither, who will meet these strategic needs?
I pay tribute to the 35,000 employees of the Qantas Group. At the forefront of the fight against the strategy of Qantas management have been the Qantas pilots, to whom millions of Australians have literally entrusted their lives. The Australian and International Pilots Association sees Qantas management strategy as a race to the bottom when it comes to service and safety. On 8 November last year, QF32 experienced a serious malfunction with the explosion of an engine on an A380 aircraft. In the wrong hands, that plane could have crashed. But it did not, in large part because the Qantas flight crew had been trained to exemplary world-class standards and knew how to cope with such a terrifying reality. I am deeply concerned that what is being pursued may well cause training levels to fall and that as a result safety standards in the Qantas Group may fall as well. AIPA pilots and the licensed aircraft engineers are not fighting for themselves; they are fighting for the Australian public. That is why I am deeply concerned about any action Qantas management may be considering taking against pilots who speak out in the public interest.
A lot of claims have been made about the financial state of Qantas international but given the information I have presented tonight, which has come from within the Qantas Group, I believe these claims by management are crying out for further serious forensic investigation. Qantas should not be allowed to face death by a thousand cuts—job cuts, route cuts, quality cuts, engineering cuts, wage cuts. None of this is acceptable and it must all be resisted for the sake of the pilots, the crews, the passengers and ultimately the future of our national carrier.
To quote the great Marcus Padley; "Short covering is an excuse analysts use when they don't understand why a stock went up."
I am beginning to think that there is not One but Two predators stalking Qantas.
I am beginning to think that there is not One but Two predators stalking Qantas.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
back to here again... market average +1.09% Q up +4.3% ......weird
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Netherlands
Age: 67
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strategic buying….ie,a blocking stake using nominee accounts,
and
opportunistic buyers….betting on a buyout attempt at these low prices…
and
……a stalker??? Perhaps….that's the gamble of the second option!!
Let's hope a rat doesn't get to buy the rat !!
and
opportunistic buyers….betting on a buyout attempt at these low prices…
and
……a stalker??? Perhaps….that's the gamble of the second option!!
Let's hope a rat doesn't get to buy the rat !!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
Not that many short on QAN anyway. I know an excellent technical trader who alerted me to it being a technical buy a few days ago.
http://www.asx.net.au/data/shortsell.txt
http://www.asx.net.au/data/shortsell.txt
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Up left - Down right
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QAN share price has disappeared off all the news programs tickers, did AJ pay to have it removed, if so did QF International pay, or is it that QAN is off the top 100.... list....
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standard & Poor's upgrades Qantas outlook on plans for Asian carriers | The Australian
Amazing, AJ and co talk down the brand for months and they get an upgrade...
THE Qantas decision last month to set up two new carriers in Asia has led ratings agency Standard and Poor's to upgrade its outlook on the airline's debt to stable, from negative, allowing the carrier to hold its coveted investment-grade credit rating. Qantas is one of few airlines anywhere with an investment-grade rating from the major ratings houses.
A buoyant domestic travel market is keeping it in the black, offsetting its underperforming international flights business, which in the year to June 30 posted a $200 million loss. (Can't be too many IPADS left in stock back at the Q PR department..
)
A buoyant domestic travel market is keeping it in the black, offsetting its underperforming international flights business, which in the year to June 30 posted a $200 million loss. (Can't be too many IPADS left in stock back at the Q PR department..
)
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standard and Poor's
What I just emailed to May Zhong from Standard & Poor's:
Dear Ms Zhong,
I am a current Qantas shareholder and just read of your recent upgrade from negative to stable.
A quote from you, in part: '"We expect a gradual improvement in the group's overall performance, in particular its international operation, as a result of these new international strategies," S&P credit analyst May Zhong said.'
From someone that has the ability to move share prices based on your opinion and that of your company, I am alarmed that you are clearly not aware of the facts. I do understand that you grade many companies/businesses/countries etc, but based on your company's recent decision, I must comment.
With all due respect, these "new International strategies" will, if realised, guarantee the destruction of Qantas, leaving a share price of precisely zero, with the corresponding grief resounding with shareholders and staff.
Ms Zhong, here are the facts. Since the beginning of this century and the birth of Qantas' little baby Jetstar, not one single cent has been directed towards Qantas International, other than a few A380's. No investment whatsoever in what they really need (i.e. many B777's) to expand this airline, and to compete with our major competitors (Cathay, Singapore, Emirates etc....) on their own turf, expanding Qantas International. Instead, all capital and effort has been granted/gifted to Jetstar. Whilst at the time many believed this two airline policy a good one, it is now quite clear it's not.
Ok, so lets look at the facts: Jetstar Pacific has, and will continue to be nothing short of a complete financial and regulatory disaster, continuing to drain money from the Qantas coffers; Jetstar Asia has yet to return its cost of capital, many years since it's inception; Jetstar Australia claims great returns, but at who's expense? Meanwhile Qantas Domestic is doing very well.
And what of the core business? It has continued to shrink, slowly dying, being bled dry by its younger offspring.
CEO Alan Joyce recently announced his resolution to the Qantas International problem: Sell 4 ageing B747's and stop flying from Bangkok and Hong Kong to London (just prior to the Olympics!!!!), instead pushing Qantas passengers onto British Airways after a 6 hour transit in these ports; Severely delay (read: will never see) the arrival of the final 6 A380's; And the big one. Qantas will purchase 110 A320's, to start two new airlines in Asia, one called Jetstar Japan (discount carrier) and another yet to be announced "Premium Airline" somewhere else in Asia.
In other words, Managements resolution is to shrink Qantas International even more, make it almost impossible for our existing passengers to fly anywhere globally on QANTAS, but instead under a code share arrangement that cannot possibly work, 110 new short range aircraft that will not have the name Qantas anywhere near them.
Ms Zhong, the point is Qantas IS the brand. Not Jetstar, or anything else they chose to call it. One that has been around longer than any other. Why? Because it is QANTAS. This Management are not investing in QANTAS.
Instead of deploying the 9 billion cost of these 110 new short range aircraft into risky (at best) new endeavours in Asia, it should be deployed into QANTAS.
The facts are the recent announcement to restructure Qantas International have absolutely nothing to do with Qantas International. This division in a few short years will cease to exist if this current plan succeeds, make no mistake. And as Qantas is the backbone of the Qantas Group, all other entitities both Asian and Australian will also fail.
Viewed by many in the business world, this is arguably the most inept and overwhelmed management Australia has ever seen. To increase Qantas' rating from your agency or anyone else's, implies a severe lack of knowledge or understanding of the facts.
To remind you of one of your company's other poor decisions:
"In September 2008, the day before Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, S&P rated them “A”. Two weeks later, even though Lehman had already gone bankrupt, S&P still didn’t get it and defended their rating:
“In our view, Lehman had a strong franchise across its core investment banking, trading, and investment management business,” S&P stated. “It had adequate liquidity relative to reasonably severe and foreseeable temporary stresses.”
Do not let this be another one,
Regards,
Dixons.
Dear Ms Zhong,
I am a current Qantas shareholder and just read of your recent upgrade from negative to stable.
A quote from you, in part: '"We expect a gradual improvement in the group's overall performance, in particular its international operation, as a result of these new international strategies," S&P credit analyst May Zhong said.'
From someone that has the ability to move share prices based on your opinion and that of your company, I am alarmed that you are clearly not aware of the facts. I do understand that you grade many companies/businesses/countries etc, but based on your company's recent decision, I must comment.
With all due respect, these "new International strategies" will, if realised, guarantee the destruction of Qantas, leaving a share price of precisely zero, with the corresponding grief resounding with shareholders and staff.
Ms Zhong, here are the facts. Since the beginning of this century and the birth of Qantas' little baby Jetstar, not one single cent has been directed towards Qantas International, other than a few A380's. No investment whatsoever in what they really need (i.e. many B777's) to expand this airline, and to compete with our major competitors (Cathay, Singapore, Emirates etc....) on their own turf, expanding Qantas International. Instead, all capital and effort has been granted/gifted to Jetstar. Whilst at the time many believed this two airline policy a good one, it is now quite clear it's not.
Ok, so lets look at the facts: Jetstar Pacific has, and will continue to be nothing short of a complete financial and regulatory disaster, continuing to drain money from the Qantas coffers; Jetstar Asia has yet to return its cost of capital, many years since it's inception; Jetstar Australia claims great returns, but at who's expense? Meanwhile Qantas Domestic is doing very well.
And what of the core business? It has continued to shrink, slowly dying, being bled dry by its younger offspring.
CEO Alan Joyce recently announced his resolution to the Qantas International problem: Sell 4 ageing B747's and stop flying from Bangkok and Hong Kong to London (just prior to the Olympics!!!!), instead pushing Qantas passengers onto British Airways after a 6 hour transit in these ports; Severely delay (read: will never see) the arrival of the final 6 A380's; And the big one. Qantas will purchase 110 A320's, to start two new airlines in Asia, one called Jetstar Japan (discount carrier) and another yet to be announced "Premium Airline" somewhere else in Asia.
In other words, Managements resolution is to shrink Qantas International even more, make it almost impossible for our existing passengers to fly anywhere globally on QANTAS, but instead under a code share arrangement that cannot possibly work, 110 new short range aircraft that will not have the name Qantas anywhere near them.
Ms Zhong, the point is Qantas IS the brand. Not Jetstar, or anything else they chose to call it. One that has been around longer than any other. Why? Because it is QANTAS. This Management are not investing in QANTAS.
Instead of deploying the 9 billion cost of these 110 new short range aircraft into risky (at best) new endeavours in Asia, it should be deployed into QANTAS.
The facts are the recent announcement to restructure Qantas International have absolutely nothing to do with Qantas International. This division in a few short years will cease to exist if this current plan succeeds, make no mistake. And as Qantas is the backbone of the Qantas Group, all other entitities both Asian and Australian will also fail.
Viewed by many in the business world, this is arguably the most inept and overwhelmed management Australia has ever seen. To increase Qantas' rating from your agency or anyone else's, implies a severe lack of knowledge or understanding of the facts.
To remind you of one of your company's other poor decisions:
"In September 2008, the day before Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, S&P rated them “A”. Two weeks later, even though Lehman had already gone bankrupt, S&P still didn’t get it and defended their rating:
“In our view, Lehman had a strong franchise across its core investment banking, trading, and investment management business,” S&P stated. “It had adequate liquidity relative to reasonably severe and foreseeable temporary stresses.”
Do not let this be another one,
Regards,
Dixons.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the point is Qantas IS the brand. Not Jetstar, or anything else they chose to call it. One that has been around longer than any other. Why? Because it is QANTAS. This Management are not investing in QANTAS.
The thought did cross my mind, is it possible Ms Zhong knows someone on the Q board with a banking history? It did mystify me with the latest board appointment,
Corinne Namblard was appointed to the Qantas Board in June 2011. Ms Namblard has more than 30 years international experience in Finance, Infrastructure and related industries.Most recently, Ms Namblard spent 10 years as CEO of Luxembourg-based Galaxy Fund, a transport equity fund. Prior to that, she held an executive committee level Business Development role with French engineering firm, Egis Group.
Earlier, Ms Namblard spent 19 years with Banque Nationale de Paris, holding roles in foreign exchange, debt and equity capital markets, mergers and acquisitions, and project finance. my bold
Earlier, Ms Namblard spent 19 years with Banque Nationale de Paris, holding roles in foreign exchange, debt and equity capital markets, mergers and acquisitions, and project finance. my bold
As a sideline, Qantas is noted as the longest continuous airline name to use LHR.
I noted yesterdays Q share price dropped 2 cents after Standard & Poor's upgrade media release..
Dixon, I am at the very limits of what little competency I have here. I don't believe an employee buyout would work unless you had the support of at least one of the institutional shareholders or a major bank.
You would need a team of absolutely top flight corporate lawyers to put together a structure and execute the bid or buying - and it would all have to be executed very fast and in absolute secrecy, or the other major shareholders hiding behind the nominee companies will get wind and either drive the price up or put a legal stake through your plans.
Among the issues you would have to understand is conflict of interest - the Director(s) you appointed would have to be at arms length - you aren't going to get visibility into corporate confidential data any more than any other shareholder.
To me, and I am not a lawyer, you would need to create a corporate vehicle to buy and hold the Qantas shares on behalf of employees who wanted to be part of such a scheme. Qantas employees would then buy shares in the corporate vehicle, maybe these could be partly paid shares if you could find someone who could finance a major purchase on reasonable terms.
Then comes the big bet on whether Qantas really is being run into the ground - or not. Bear in mind that your Director has to operate for the benefit of ALL shareholders, not just the employees, so the company can't be just turned into a sheltered workshop.
Then there are the tax implications, and ASX rules and,,, my head hurts.
You would need a team of absolutely top flight corporate lawyers to put together a structure and execute the bid or buying - and it would all have to be executed very fast and in absolute secrecy, or the other major shareholders hiding behind the nominee companies will get wind and either drive the price up or put a legal stake through your plans.
Among the issues you would have to understand is conflict of interest - the Director(s) you appointed would have to be at arms length - you aren't going to get visibility into corporate confidential data any more than any other shareholder.
To me, and I am not a lawyer, you would need to create a corporate vehicle to buy and hold the Qantas shares on behalf of employees who wanted to be part of such a scheme. Qantas employees would then buy shares in the corporate vehicle, maybe these could be partly paid shares if you could find someone who could finance a major purchase on reasonable terms.
Then comes the big bet on whether Qantas really is being run into the ground - or not. Bear in mind that your Director has to operate for the benefit of ALL shareholders, not just the employees, so the company can't be just turned into a sheltered workshop.
Then there are the tax implications, and ASX rules and,,, my head hurts.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah up a bit this week, but nothing startling plus they need to get through this (story below) next Monday on the back of this news from the US....
Wall St slumps on weak jobs report | The Australian
INVESTORS dumped stocks and sent Treasury yields to record lows this morning as a dismal US jobs report renewed fears of a recession. The Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbled 253.31 points, or 2.20 per cent, to 11,240.26, falling by triple digits for a second-straight day.
JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs declined 4.6 per cent each after reports the US Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is preparing to sue some of the nation's largest banks over soured mortgage bonds in a bid to recoup billions of dollars in losses from the failed investments.
JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs declined 4.6 per cent each after reports the US Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is preparing to sue some of the nation's largest banks over soured mortgage bonds in a bid to recoup billions of dollars in losses from the failed investments.
less jobs = less people flying and the job figures always run two months behind the press reports. I think Australia's job figures come out this week according to my friend who is a broker.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah up a bit this week, but nothing startling plus they need to get through this (story below) next Monday on the back of this news from the US....
A bit of jitter again in Europe too, the entire monetary system is hanging by a nylon thread..