Bond Profits Article
 

Interesting article in the current times....

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandga...ter-firm-bond/

I am glad I am not a Babcock shareholder. To pay £1.6 billion for a company which made £6.5 million before tax in a good year and only has assets and cash of £31 million........

I think the 1.6 Billion will have been for the Avincis Group , not just Bond Offshore Helicopters

Would love to know what the similar results are for the other parts of the business, Inaer (Italy) in particular....

Making 6.5m on revenue of 180m odd is also not a huge amount, maybe hints at some other issues?

Found it, even in June this year they noted that they won contracts but at low margins in Ghana and Moz....

https://www.babcockinternational.com...nal_6.30pm.pdf

Annual report does note their good credit rating meaning better procurement and leasing terms though.

https://www.babcockinternational.com...f_09062015.pdf

Apparently there is a form of Babcock-ism doing the rounds...like all take-overs, it may not be nice for some when the corporate ideology moves in!

Those at Helitech might have picked up the rumour that it seems likely that the Bond name will go soon, already Babcock is a far greater presence than Avencis was.

Those not at Helitech might not have picked up on that .....

Surprising - it looks like the old elements of Avensis are either being sold off or starved to pay for INAER.

Which 'elements' are being sold off (apart from NHS)?

There was only NHS, Bond and INAER to start with. NHS has been sold and Bond AU is shedding jobs.

NHS never won a contract so was loss making from the start. Same with the Bond Australia S92s (hence the job losses on that fleet).

Hardly the 'fire sale' that you allude to. (Unless you know more...)

With regards to the Bond name going as with most takeovers a certain amount is put onto the balance sheet as goodwill, and is shown as a credit, ie how much is the 'brand' worth, therefore the name is often retained for a certain period. Over time it is decreased and naturally phased out. Maybe the Bond name (and its associated loss record) is no longer assumed to be a positive for the new company?