Dividend paid to the Owners of Cathay Pacific
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dividend paid to the Owners of Cathay Pacific
Guys,
If there was someone here that attended one of the staff briefings, was an explanation giving for how the 61% decrease in profits resulted in a 123% INCREASE in the dividend paid to owners of Cathay Pacific?
Apologies if this has already been covered but I am interested to know if it was mentioned, as well as the justification for such a payment considering our profit share decreased by around 97%!!!
PP
If there was someone here that attended one of the staff briefings, was an explanation giving for how the 61% decrease in profits resulted in a 123% INCREASE in the dividend paid to owners of Cathay Pacific?
Apologies if this has already been covered but I am interested to know if it was mentioned, as well as the justification for such a payment considering our profit share decreased by around 97%!!!
PP
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Commrade Pile,
I couldn't make it to the staff briefings, but I will take a wild guess that most pilots are bright enough to not ask such a dumb question.
They realize that we live in a capitalist society, where those who risk their own money in an investment can expect a return commensurate with that rsk. This is not immoral, but an accepted and healthy part of our society. Moreover, they are aware the shareholders need to be rewarded to maintain their continued support and investment/ capital stream to ensure that the airline continues to grow.
Given they own the company, it is their property and not yours, and therefore they don't have to justify their dividend policy to you, or indeed anyone else.
I imagine you will not like this post. In that case you have 2 options;
1. Risk a few billion of your own dollars and buy an airline and then you can decide how you set your dividends, or
2. Move to Cuba,- that well known example of a successful communist command economy.
Up the workers!
I couldn't make it to the staff briefings, but I will take a wild guess that most pilots are bright enough to not ask such a dumb question.
They realize that we live in a capitalist society, where those who risk their own money in an investment can expect a return commensurate with that rsk. This is not immoral, but an accepted and healthy part of our society. Moreover, they are aware the shareholders need to be rewarded to maintain their continued support and investment/ capital stream to ensure that the airline continues to grow.
Given they own the company, it is their property and not yours, and therefore they don't have to justify their dividend policy to you, or indeed anyone else.
I imagine you will not like this post. In that case you have 2 options;
1. Risk a few billion of your own dollars and buy an airline and then you can decide how you set your dividends, or
2. Move to Cuba,- that well known example of a successful communist command economy.
Up the workers!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LG,
When you call someone dumb it pays to RTFQ!!! I asked if the increased dividend payout to the owners was covered in the the briefing... not why a company's owners want to pay themselves more than anyone else!!! That would be dumb...
Profits, as well as earnings & dividends per share all decreased on 2010, whilst the owners' payout increased considerably. CX usually have an excuse so I was in search of some amusement... same team sharing the pain and all that c**p.
Frogman... you might be right! Now that would've been amusing to hear!!!
PP Out
When you call someone dumb it pays to RTFQ!!! I asked if the increased dividend payout to the owners was covered in the the briefing... not why a company's owners want to pay themselves more than anyone else!!! That would be dumb...
Profits, as well as earnings & dividends per share all decreased on 2010, whilst the owners' payout increased considerably. CX usually have an excuse so I was in search of some amusement... same team sharing the pain and all that c**p.
Frogman... you might be right! Now that would've been amusing to hear!!!
PP Out
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pile
I did RTFQ. The second paragraph of your opening post lead me to believe that your question was loaded. It wasn't a genuine question at all, but a whinge that the directors had increased the payout to the shareholders at the expense of the employees.
I suspect that had someone been dumb enough to ask the questions you proposed, they would have been told to firstly RTF2011AR and secondly, RTFprofitshareformula.
The 2011 Annual Results, announced this month, show that in 2010 dividends of HK$4,367M were paid, whereas in 2011 dividends paid were HK$2,046m. Doesn't sound like much of an increase to me.....
I am guessing that your contract says something like you are entitled to profit share as determined by the company. It's not negotiated. They have published a formula, numbers go in the front, answer comes out the back. If you don't like the answer, tough....
Like I said, dumb question. But if you see John Slosar in the street, go for it!
However, nothing posted above means that Frogman is not correct. Debt going up, major independent supply companies being sold to Swires, increased cross shareholding with Air China.........
I suspect that had someone been dumb enough to ask the questions you proposed, they would have been told to firstly RTF2011AR and secondly, RTFprofitshareformula.
The 2011 Annual Results, announced this month, show that in 2010 dividends of HK$4,367M were paid, whereas in 2011 dividends paid were HK$2,046m. Doesn't sound like much of an increase to me.....
I am guessing that your contract says something like you are entitled to profit share as determined by the company. It's not negotiated. They have published a formula, numbers go in the front, answer comes out the back. If you don't like the answer, tough....
Like I said, dumb question. But if you see John Slosar in the street, go for it!
However, nothing posted above means that Frogman is not correct. Debt going up, major independent supply companies being sold to Swires, increased cross shareholding with Air China.........
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a wild guess that most pilots are bright enough to not ask such a dumb question
They realize that we live in a capitalist society, where those who risk their own money in an investment
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: PECAN
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems like Flap10 is trying to draw a parallel between the bailing out of those financial institutions deemed 'too big to fail' in the GFC and people who have put their hard earned cyril ash into Cathay equity. A bit of a stretch there lil buddy 
.
For the record what happened in America was not Capitalism but Corporatism - but we don't live in America do we sport
.
If the company's balance sheet is in order then why not give a return to shareholders? Agree with Liam, move to Cuba if you don't like it.
. For the record what happened in America was not Capitalism but Corporatism - but we don't live in America do we sport
. If the company's balance sheet is in order then why not give a return to shareholders? Agree with Liam, move to Cuba if you don't like it.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the record what happened in America was not Capitalism but Corporatism - but we don't live in America do we sport
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LG,
Seriously, are you having trouble reading!? I said...
It was the DIVIDEND PAID TO THE OWNERS THAT HAS MORE THAN DOUBLED!!! The clue was in the title...
PP
Seriously, are you having trouble reading!? I said...
Profits, as well as earnings & dividends per share all decreased on 2010, whilst the owners' payout increased considerably.
PP
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pile
Yep, I am having trouble reading, despite your most excellent use of the Caps Lock button.
The Cathay Pacific 2011 Annual Results quite clearly show a drop in the amount paid to the owners from HK $4,367m in 2010 to $HK2,046 in 2011.
Throw me a lifeline, how is that drop in payment to the owners, somehow morphed into a 123% increase?
Ps You do know that John Slosar is not the owner of Cathay? Companies are owned by shareholders, in this case various Swire Companies and Air China, being the bigggest and most dominant. The smallest are Mum and Dad investors who could be the people standing next to you on the MTR. Sorry to insult you if you already know this most basic fact, but upon reviewing your posts, I am beginning to wonder if you are missing some basic and fundamental information.
The Cathay Pacific 2011 Annual Results quite clearly show a drop in the amount paid to the owners from HK $4,367m in 2010 to $HK2,046 in 2011.
Throw me a lifeline, how is that drop in payment to the owners, somehow morphed into a 123% increase?
Ps You do know that John Slosar is not the owner of Cathay? Companies are owned by shareholders, in this case various Swire Companies and Air China, being the bigggest and most dominant. The smallest are Mum and Dad investors who could be the people standing next to you on the MTR. Sorry to insult you if you already know this most basic fact, but upon reviewing your posts, I am beginning to wonder if you are missing some basic and fundamental information.
Last edited by Liam Gallagher; 27th Mar 2012 at 12:10.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LG,
Please refer to the "2011 Annual Results Staff Briefing Presentation"!!!
Then, scroll down to the cash flow table on page 7 and read the following figures on the "Dividend paid to owners of Cathay Pacific" line:
2011 --- 2010
HK$'M - HK$'M
(3,777)(1,691)
Now, correct me if I'm wrong but the last time I checked 3,777 was a higher number than 1,691. In fact, take 3,777/1,691 x 100 = 223% (or a 123% increase!) Hence, based on the the CX figures I have quoted all along, I stand by my original statement.
I'm not the sort to try to make someone look or feel stupid but judging by your first post it would seem that you get a kick out of it... so, I guess I should thank you for doing it for me...
(P.S. You don't work in CX finance do you???)
PP
Please refer to the "2011 Annual Results Staff Briefing Presentation"!!!
Then, scroll down to the cash flow table on page 7 and read the following figures on the "Dividend paid to owners of Cathay Pacific" line:
2011 --- 2010
HK$'M - HK$'M
(3,777)(1,691)
Now, correct me if I'm wrong but the last time I checked 3,777 was a higher number than 1,691. In fact, take 3,777/1,691 x 100 = 223% (or a 123% increase!) Hence, based on the the CX figures I have quoted all along, I stand by my original statement.
I'm not the sort to try to make someone look or feel stupid but judging by your first post it would seem that you get a kick out of it... so, I guess I should thank you for doing it for me...
(P.S. You don't work in CX finance do you???
)PP
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: PECAN
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the record what happened in America was not Capitalism but Corporatism - but we don't live in America do we sport
Flap10, last time I checked European sovereign debt issues hadn't come to a head in 2008, cupcake
. How does a company's dividend policy have anything to do with a sovereign debt crisis? You must have one up on everyone here
. Private Pile, have a look at the statement of changes in equity for the 6 months ended June 30th 2011. In the Retained Profit column, you will see a figure well exceeding HKD36,000M (this is where the Directors can decide to pay shareholders a dividend from, if you were unaware). Even though the profit decreased doesn't mean that there isn't enough cash to pay a dividend. Seems like the company has plenty and the Directors have done the right thing by the shareholders.
Last edited by BNEHKG9; 27th Mar 2012 at 14:13.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flap10, last time I checked European sovereign debt issues hadn't come to a head in 2008, cupcake
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even though the profit decreased doesn't mean that there isn't enough cash to pay a dividend.
Cheers,
PP
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pile
Does the phrase, "Ready, fire, aim" mean anything to you?
Back to your original post, the answer to your first question still remains, the Directors did not increase the Dividend payment: they decreased it. The second question still remains irrelevant, if not mildly offensive.
You seem unwilling, or incapable, of referring to the 2011 Annual Results and have erronously honed in on the Cash Flow Statement, presumably to suit your agenda. It is shame that in your rush to page 7 of the Staff Briefing, you missed page 1. Page 1 clearly states that the Dividend decreased 53.2% from 111 cents to 52 cents.
You have focused on the Cash Flow Table, which to quote you "the clue is in title", in that it shows cash flows for the years in question. In similar fashion to Profit Share, dividends are generally declared following the Interim and Annual Accounts and are paid some weeks later. So following the bumper year of 2010, the Annual Accounts were published in Apr 2011 and a bumper dividend was announced and paid during 2011. This is why the 2011 Cash Flow for dividends was higher than for 2010. To illustrate further, your cash flow from Profit Share was higher in 2011 than 2010, despite 2010 being the more profitable year. It all relates to the timing of the payment. The Profit Share payment in 2011, relates to 2010 Profits.
Best to hang slack on joining the Occupy Cathay City Movement, but no need to be shy in pitching your tent on Brokeback Mountain with Flaps10
Back to your original post, the answer to your first question still remains, the Directors did not increase the Dividend payment: they decreased it. The second question still remains irrelevant, if not mildly offensive.
You seem unwilling, or incapable, of referring to the 2011 Annual Results and have erronously honed in on the Cash Flow Statement, presumably to suit your agenda. It is shame that in your rush to page 7 of the Staff Briefing, you missed page 1. Page 1 clearly states that the Dividend decreased 53.2% from 111 cents to 52 cents.
You have focused on the Cash Flow Table, which to quote you "the clue is in title", in that it shows cash flows for the years in question. In similar fashion to Profit Share, dividends are generally declared following the Interim and Annual Accounts and are paid some weeks later. So following the bumper year of 2010, the Annual Accounts were published in Apr 2011 and a bumper dividend was announced and paid during 2011. This is why the 2011 Cash Flow for dividends was higher than for 2010. To illustrate further, your cash flow from Profit Share was higher in 2011 than 2010, despite 2010 being the more profitable year. It all relates to the timing of the payment. The Profit Share payment in 2011, relates to 2010 Profits.
Best to hang slack on joining the Occupy Cathay City Movement, but no need to be shy in pitching your tent on Brokeback Mountain with Flaps10
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Liam you crack me up, oh where oh where do you get that witty sense of humour, sooooo original......NOT......Another fu@#!ng loser that thinks highly of himself, as if we didn't have enough of these pennyless self proclaimed financial gurus at Cathay
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm much more interested in how much the execs and directors are raking in the form of bonuses. I'm guessing a heck of a lot more than our pittance of a profit share, obviously. I don't suppose it would be reasonable to ask them to take the same haircut we took this year.
Back on topic, isn't the relevant number to this discussion the percentage of profits paid as dividends? Was the percentage more, less, or the same as last year?
Back on topic, isn't the relevant number to this discussion the percentage of profits paid as dividends? Was the percentage more, less, or the same as last year?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: PECAN
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Liam you crack me up, oh where oh where do you get that witty sense of humour, sooooo original......NOT......Another fu@#!ng loser that thinks highly of himself, as if we didn't have enough of these pennyless self proclaimed financial gurus at Cathay
Better than someone with an infantile intellect who thinks the dividend policy of an airline in HK is related to GFC mkI or mkII. At least he knows what he's talking about. Looking at you Flap10, smarty pants
PP, because a dividend has been declared doesn't mean a dividend has been paid, hence perhaps the lag in the cash outflows. Cash Flow Statement can be a little misleading like that.
Edit: Bonuses will be in the annual report, as I'm sure you are well aware.