QF shares hit $2.00, discuss
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tigers folks have very deep pockets and Tigers size means that any fare war will cost it a lot less than QF. Tiger has everything to gain! Im afraid when this thing is over we will be looking at a very different QF. They are gonna have to reduce their costs or suffer, the only way is down for QF and the only way is up, or out, for Tiger.
SN
SN
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You gotta love all the buzzwords and cliche's every time a story about Tiger floats to the surface (what kind of cat analogy can we come up with?). Kinda shows the true intellectual level of our ****kicker journo's, methinks 
nt Alan Joyce home with them & flick him out the window when close enough?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 48
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
Tigers size also means it is basically an ant in QF's view so no problem there, I would suggest up is the least likely future, Tiger won't last, give it a few years to die peacefully, Virgin is the real problem at the moment, unless Tiger actually order another 100 jets or so.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Exiled in the Ukraine
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wisdom of rejected deal cold comfort to former Qantas board members
BY: GLENDA KORPORAAL From: The Australian June 07, 2012 12:00AM
FORMER Qantas chairman Margaret Jackson was in hospital in Melbourne five years ago, awaiting an operation on her arm, when she made one last attempt to explain that Qantas shareholders had been offered an almost once-in-a-lifetime price for their airline at $5.60 a share.
With Qantas shares plunging to $1.12 yesterday, the Qantas board's move to recommend the $11 billion bid by Airline Partners Australia in December 2006 looks more sensible by the day, at least from a shareholder point of view.
But it is cold comfort today to those Qantas board members who tried to tell their shareholders at the time that it was a good deal at a price that might never come along again. The bid was a controversial one, with some investors arguing that there was even more upside to come for Qantas shares, while the general public was emotional about the idea of the national airline falling into the hands of private equity investors.
A few months after the initial offer, Ms Jackson and the other members of the Qantas board believed they should try one last time to get the message across to their shareholders that aviation was a risky business that, at the time, was going through a rare purple patch.
"This is an outstanding opportunity for shareholders," Ms Jackson told this reporter in March 2007.
"Our share price has constantly traded between $3 and $4. This is the highest price we have ever been able to put to shareholders."
She also pointed out that many of Qantas's major shareholders at the time had already sold into the market, then trading slightly below the offer price, because they knew it was a "very, very, very good deal".
Ms Jackson also warned shareholders that if the bid did not go ahead Qantas shares might fall, as the hedge funds that had bought into the airline would dump their stock if it didn't go ahead.
In the end the bid failed at the last minute as one of the US-based hedge funds did not accept the offer, but for Qantas shareholders Ms Jackson's comments have proved painfully correct.
Five years later Ms Jackson, criticised at the time for chairing a board that recommended shareholders accept the bid (a board that included then chief executive Geoff Dixon and James Packer), keeps a low profile and does not want to discuss those times in any detail. She chooses her words carefully and resists any temptation to hit out at her then critics.
"The board decided to put the offer to the shareholders at the time because it was deemed to be a good offer," she said yesterday.
"The aviation industry at the time was going through an unusually favourable environment.
"At the time we received the bid, we evaluated it in that environment and we put it to the shareholders.
"They had the opportunity to accept or reject the offer and they chose to reject it."
Asked about the criticism the board faced then for recommending the offer, which was well above the airline's share price at the time, she said: "You have to deal with the issues you are confronted with at the time with the best information you can obtain, the best advice you can obtain.
"You have to act on that with wisdom and judgment, taking all those things into account."
Qantas's finance director at the time, Peter Gregg, who is now finance director at Leighton Holdings, is more outspoken.
"It was a missed opportunity," he told The Australian yesterday.
"It was a great offer for the shareholders and the comments at the time that they would not get a better one have proven to be correct," Mr Gregg said.
He pointed out yesterday that Qantas shares had traded between $2 and $4 a share since its listing and the bid price of $5.60 a share also included a premium for control of the company.
"It was a tremendous offer," Mr Gregg said.
"It was significantly higher than the highest traded price and if we hadn't put it to shareholders we would have been in a fair bit of trouble."
Mr Gregg said he was sure some people might be "running their eyes" over Qantas at the moment, given that its present sharemarket capitalisation of about $2.6 billion was below the $3bn in cash in its coffers.
But he said he had personally "moved on" and was not buying any shares despite the present low price for the airline.
Mr Gregg confirmed that Qantas directors had received legal advice at the time that if they had not allowed shareholders to vote on the offer they could be sued if the share price fell afterwards. That advice has also proven correct.
The Airline Partners bid for Qantas was a top-of-the-market offer launched when finance was easy in the particularly heady days before the global financial crisis. Business was booming, fuel was relatively cheap, Qantas was doing well and some argued that for the airline the sky was the limit.
But anyone with any experience of the airline industry knew that it was a rare period of calm in an industry known for its turbulence.
If the Qantas board had not recommended the offer, it is not hard to believe shareholders would have mounted a class action by now as their share prices have plunged.
Mr Gregg rejects the idea that the APA offer would have been a bad one for Qantas itself.
Conventional wisdom has it that if the bid had gone ahead it would have saddled Qantas with so much debt that it would have collapsed and had to be rescued by the government.
It is hard not to believe that the debt levels involved in the private equity bid would not have weighed on Qantas as it faced more turbulent times.
Mr Gregg pointed out yesterday that the private equity bidders had negotiated a particularly good financing deal at the time.
There were also plans for the airline to sell off assets including Qantas Frequent Flyers to reduce its debts.
"There was an opportunity for a decent return for shareholders and for the company to restructure to help it survive the rigours of the industry," he said.
"There were plans to pay down the debt and leave the company with a good operating position.
"What would have happened if the bid had been successful
is hard to speculate on, as it
didn't happen.
"But clearly management at the time believed it was a good thing for the company."
In the end, the debate about what would have happened to a privatised Qantas is a moot point.
The airline's price today makes its shares a much better deal than it ever was for investors five years ago.
But as Mr Gregg pointed out yesterday, the current price reflects investors' views of the future.
These days the easy financing available at the height of the boom is no longer available for private equity bidders, which are traditionally highly leveraged.
Qantas could well have struggled under the debt load of the private equity bid and many Australians were relieved the takeover bid did not go ahead.
But the airline's board members of the day should at least get some credit for their argument at the time that the offer of $5.60 a share was one that Qantas shareholders wouldn't see again any time soon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, let me get this straight. the APA deal would have destroyed Qantas with massive amounts of debt yet what Margaret Jackson and Peter Gregg are saying is the company is f@#ked now anyway and as shareholders we should of bailed out when we could have with the better price per share when it was offered?
If there was any doubt about the lack of interest in saving this once great company by the past and present execs, there you have it in black and white from the former chairman. Qantas is considered by the execs as nothing more than a traded commodity that has had its day and us as shareholders (and employees) are considered losers that missed the peak opportunity to get out.
Good work Jackson, Gregg, Dixon, Clifford and not to forget Joyce. Your names will be firmly sketched into the Qantas headstone.
While we all join the unemployment queue.
BY: GLENDA KORPORAAL From: The Australian June 07, 2012 12:00AM
FORMER Qantas chairman Margaret Jackson was in hospital in Melbourne five years ago, awaiting an operation on her arm, when she made one last attempt to explain that Qantas shareholders had been offered an almost once-in-a-lifetime price for their airline at $5.60 a share.
With Qantas shares plunging to $1.12 yesterday, the Qantas board's move to recommend the $11 billion bid by Airline Partners Australia in December 2006 looks more sensible by the day, at least from a shareholder point of view.
But it is cold comfort today to those Qantas board members who tried to tell their shareholders at the time that it was a good deal at a price that might never come along again. The bid was a controversial one, with some investors arguing that there was even more upside to come for Qantas shares, while the general public was emotional about the idea of the national airline falling into the hands of private equity investors.
A few months after the initial offer, Ms Jackson and the other members of the Qantas board believed they should try one last time to get the message across to their shareholders that aviation was a risky business that, at the time, was going through a rare purple patch.
"This is an outstanding opportunity for shareholders," Ms Jackson told this reporter in March 2007.
"Our share price has constantly traded between $3 and $4. This is the highest price we have ever been able to put to shareholders."
She also pointed out that many of Qantas's major shareholders at the time had already sold into the market, then trading slightly below the offer price, because they knew it was a "very, very, very good deal".
Ms Jackson also warned shareholders that if the bid did not go ahead Qantas shares might fall, as the hedge funds that had bought into the airline would dump their stock if it didn't go ahead.
In the end the bid failed at the last minute as one of the US-based hedge funds did not accept the offer, but for Qantas shareholders Ms Jackson's comments have proved painfully correct.
Five years later Ms Jackson, criticised at the time for chairing a board that recommended shareholders accept the bid (a board that included then chief executive Geoff Dixon and James Packer), keeps a low profile and does not want to discuss those times in any detail. She chooses her words carefully and resists any temptation to hit out at her then critics.
"The board decided to put the offer to the shareholders at the time because it was deemed to be a good offer," she said yesterday.
"The aviation industry at the time was going through an unusually favourable environment.
"At the time we received the bid, we evaluated it in that environment and we put it to the shareholders.
"They had the opportunity to accept or reject the offer and they chose to reject it."
Asked about the criticism the board faced then for recommending the offer, which was well above the airline's share price at the time, she said: "You have to deal with the issues you are confronted with at the time with the best information you can obtain, the best advice you can obtain.
"You have to act on that with wisdom and judgment, taking all those things into account."
Qantas's finance director at the time, Peter Gregg, who is now finance director at Leighton Holdings, is more outspoken.
"It was a missed opportunity," he told The Australian yesterday.
"It was a great offer for the shareholders and the comments at the time that they would not get a better one have proven to be correct," Mr Gregg said.
He pointed out yesterday that Qantas shares had traded between $2 and $4 a share since its listing and the bid price of $5.60 a share also included a premium for control of the company.
"It was a tremendous offer," Mr Gregg said.
"It was significantly higher than the highest traded price and if we hadn't put it to shareholders we would have been in a fair bit of trouble."
Mr Gregg said he was sure some people might be "running their eyes" over Qantas at the moment, given that its present sharemarket capitalisation of about $2.6 billion was below the $3bn in cash in its coffers.
But he said he had personally "moved on" and was not buying any shares despite the present low price for the airline.
Mr Gregg confirmed that Qantas directors had received legal advice at the time that if they had not allowed shareholders to vote on the offer they could be sued if the share price fell afterwards. That advice has also proven correct.
The Airline Partners bid for Qantas was a top-of-the-market offer launched when finance was easy in the particularly heady days before the global financial crisis. Business was booming, fuel was relatively cheap, Qantas was doing well and some argued that for the airline the sky was the limit.
But anyone with any experience of the airline industry knew that it was a rare period of calm in an industry known for its turbulence.
If the Qantas board had not recommended the offer, it is not hard to believe shareholders would have mounted a class action by now as their share prices have plunged.
Mr Gregg rejects the idea that the APA offer would have been a bad one for Qantas itself.
Conventional wisdom has it that if the bid had gone ahead it would have saddled Qantas with so much debt that it would have collapsed and had to be rescued by the government.
It is hard not to believe that the debt levels involved in the private equity bid would not have weighed on Qantas as it faced more turbulent times.
Mr Gregg pointed out yesterday that the private equity bidders had negotiated a particularly good financing deal at the time.
There were also plans for the airline to sell off assets including Qantas Frequent Flyers to reduce its debts.
"There was an opportunity for a decent return for shareholders and for the company to restructure to help it survive the rigours of the industry," he said.
"There were plans to pay down the debt and leave the company with a good operating position.
"What would have happened if the bid had been successful
is hard to speculate on, as it
didn't happen.
"But clearly management at the time believed it was a good thing for the company."
In the end, the debate about what would have happened to a privatised Qantas is a moot point.
The airline's price today makes its shares a much better deal than it ever was for investors five years ago.
But as Mr Gregg pointed out yesterday, the current price reflects investors' views of the future.
These days the easy financing available at the height of the boom is no longer available for private equity bidders, which are traditionally highly leveraged.
Qantas could well have struggled under the debt load of the private equity bid and many Australians were relieved the takeover bid did not go ahead.
But the airline's board members of the day should at least get some credit for their argument at the time that the offer of $5.60 a share was one that Qantas shareholders wouldn't see again any time soon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, let me get this straight. the APA deal would have destroyed Qantas with massive amounts of debt yet what Margaret Jackson and Peter Gregg are saying is the company is f@#ked now anyway and as shareholders we should of bailed out when we could have with the better price per share when it was offered?
If there was any doubt about the lack of interest in saving this once great company by the past and present execs, there you have it in black and white from the former chairman. Qantas is considered by the execs as nothing more than a traded commodity that has had its day and us as shareholders (and employees) are considered losers that missed the peak opportunity to get out.
Good work Jackson, Gregg, Dixon, Clifford and not to forget Joyce. Your names will be firmly sketched into the Qantas headstone.
While we all join the unemployment queue.
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
Good work Jackson, Gregg, Dixon, Clifford and not to forget Joyce. Your names will be firmly sketched into the Qantas headstone.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zone of no accountability
I reflect on the attitudes of these pages during the failed take over. I wonder how all those super funds with QF shares have gone. Shoulder your load.
Macquaire says this:
Qantas does this:
For those that are still listening, Macquarie’s move to downgrade its rating on Qantas to neutral from outperform could also be exerting fresh pressure on the shares.
“With the share price at a record low we see significant value in Qantas’ underlying business, however with arguably greater earnings risks to the downside remaining we do not expect any near-term rebound,” the broker says
“With the share price at a record low we see significant value in Qantas’ underlying business, however with arguably greater earnings risks to the downside remaining we do not expect any near-term rebound,” the broker says
One of Macquarie Group’s top banking executives in the US was offloaded from a Qantas plane in Los Angeles for alleged disruptive behaviour after refusing to turn off his mobile phone.
Read more: 'Disruptive behaviour' - Qantas offloads Macquarie exec
Read more: 'Disruptive behaviour' - Qantas offloads Macquarie exec
Mr Gregg said
Bull$hit. Who amongst us who watched the last AGM will forget one of the directors being questioned on exactly this subject. His reply was he had a legal obligation to recommend the offer as good for the shareholders even though he privately held the view that ultimately it would not be good for QF.
"But clearly management at the time believed it was a good thing for the company."
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sombrero CA.
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carnage Baby
If you look at the QF share price at 10 minute intervals it drops.
Someone needs to be accountable.Actually a group needs to be accountable:
The Qantas Board.
When will someone take them on?
Someone needs to be accountable.Actually a group needs to be accountable:
The Qantas Board.
When will someone take them on?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
This interview with Leigh Clifford published one year ago.
Outlining the Board & Cliffords full support & endorsement of Alan Joyce's industrial strategy & premium airline based in Asia.
Outlining the pressure on the board with a share price at the time of $2.03 (June 2011).
As a shareholder, it's time to give these clowns the boot.
This interview with Leigh Clifford published one year ago.
Outlining the Board & Cliffords full support & endorsement of Alan Joyce's industrial strategy & premium airline based in Asia.
Outlining the pressure on the board with a share price at the time of $2.03 (June 2011).
As a shareholder, it's time to give these clowns the boot.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever the staff think they are doing to convince the travelling public to support QF by flying QF is clearly not working. Ever considered that there might be a better option? Certainly I haven't seen anything done by any union which would encourage me to fly and support QF.
Consider this and note that this is not the opinion of management or the Board - this is the reality of the world 'out there':
On February 6, this column singled out the Australian brand that combined patriotism, glamour and solidity like no other. That brand was Qantas. We suggested patriotism, prestige and solidity combined may not be enough for Qantas to survive as an international flag carrier within 10 years. In the ensuing four months, the company's share price has slid by a third to a record low as losses in the international division have climbed to $450 million a year.
The numbers show just how reckless and stupid was the union campaign against Qantas last year. Again, technology had transformed the competitive landscape. The internet may have been a boon for the Qantas budget operation, Jetstar, but it has obliterated many advantages once enjoyed by the international division.
No company is safe. No brand is safe. Dominant one decade, irrelevant the next. Adapt or die. And former customers will step over the corpse.
The numbers show just how reckless and stupid was the union campaign against Qantas last year. Again, technology had transformed the competitive landscape. The internet may have been a boon for the Qantas budget operation, Jetstar, but it has obliterated many advantages once enjoyed by the international division.
No company is safe. No brand is safe. Dominant one decade, irrelevant the next. Adapt or die. And former customers will step over the corpse.