27th February Big Qantas announcement

[Fruitcake]

Yes, probably super/managed investment funds?? Hence reference to fund managers.

That's true but it is unlikely to be "managers at JPMorgan, HSBC, NAB, & Citi" that are interested in applying pressure. Bloomberg uses other public filings and drills down into a bit more detail than the company reports. For example, Franklin Templeton has been building QAN holdings of late, and now owns about 16.4%.

Holder Name			Position ($m)	Filing Date	%	Metro Area		Country
FRANKLIN RESOURCES		$361		25-Feb-14	16.42	San Francisco/San Jose	UNITED STATES
COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTR	$201		31-Aug-13	9.15	Sydney			AUSTRALIA
CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES INC	$144		24-Jan-14	6.57	Los Angeles/Pasadena	UNITED STATES
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LT	$140		20-Nov-13	6.37	Melbourne		AUSTRALIA
UBS AG				$135		5-Dec-13	6.13	Zurich			SWITZERLAND
WESTPAC BANKING CORP		$116		5-Sep-13	5.28	Sydney			AUSTRALIA
AXA SA				$110		11-Dec-13	5	Paris			FRANCE
ALLIANCE BERNSTEIN		$40		31-Dec-13	1.82	New York City/Southe	UNITED STATES
VANGUARD GROUP INC		$39		31-Jan-14	1.8	Philadephia		UNITED STATES
BLACKROCK			$12		4-Mar-14	0.55	New York City/Southe	UNITED STATES
NORGES BANK			$9		31-Dec-12	0.43	Oslo			NORWAY
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA		$9		31-Dec-13	0.39	Unclassified		CANADA
STATE STREET CORP		$5		4-Mar-14	0.21	Boston			UNITED STATES
DIMENSIONAL FUND ADVISORS LP	$4		31-Oct-13	0.2	Unclassified		UNITED STATES
AXA				$4		30-Sep-13	0.18	Paris			FRANCE
JOYCE ALAN JOSEPH		$3		18-Oct-13	0.15	n/a			n/a

 

[ajw373]

I thought this vid was a great watch to show differences in thinking about QF: Sam blamed for Qantas cuts - Sunrise

I cannot believe I am going to say this, but for the first time in my life I am agreeing with bloody Jeff.

 

[Lonely Flyer]

Yes, probably super/managed investment funds?? Hence reference to fund managers.

Doubt that not sort of return they would seek. Certainly some form of equity held. There is no value in the stock per se so what dividends have QF paid in the last several years. Certainly would like to see how shareholding equates to secured loans.

 

[markis10]

That's true but it is unlikely to be "managers at JPMorgan, HSBC, NAB, & Citi" that are interested in applying pressure. Bloomberg uses other public filings and drills down into a bit more detail than the company reports. For example, Franklin Templeton has been building QAN holdings of late, and now owns about 16.4%.

Holder Name            Position ($m)    Filing Date    %    Metro Area        Country
FRANKLIN RESOURCES        $361        25-Feb-14    16.42    San Francisco/San Jose    UNITED STATES
COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTR    $201        31-Aug-13    9.15    Sydney            AUSTRALIA
CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES INC    $144        24-Jan-14    6.57    Los Angeles/Pasadena    UNITED STATES
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LT    $140        20-Nov-13    6.37    Melbourne        AUSTRALIA
UBS AG                $135        5-Dec-13    6.13    Zurich            SWITZERLAND
WESTPAC BANKING CORP        $116        5-Sep-13    5.28    Sydney            AUSTRALIA
AXA SA                $110        11-Dec-13    5    Paris            FRANCE
ALLIANCE BERNSTEIN        $40        31-Dec-13    1.82    New York City/Southe    UNITED STATES
VANGUARD GROUP INC        $39        31-Jan-14    1.8    Philadephia        UNITED STATES
BLACKROCK            $12        4-Mar-14    0.55    New York City/Southe    UNITED STATES
NORGES BANK            $9        31-Dec-12    0.43    Oslo            NORWAY
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA        $9        31-Dec-13    0.39    Unclassified        CANADA
STATE STREET CORP        $5        4-Mar-14    0.21    Boston            UNITED STATES
DIMENSIONAL FUND ADVISORS LP    $4        31-Oct-13    0.2    Unclassified        UNITED STATES
AXA                $4        30-Sep-13    0.18    Paris            FRANCE
JOYCE ALAN JOSEPH        $3        18-Oct-13    0.15    n/a            n/a

Good article in today's SMH on that subject:

Qantas mystery as one shareholder sells, the other buys

 

[Danger]

The Transport Minister has just introduced the Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014 into the House of Representatives which seeks to repeal part III of the original Act.

In the Senate, there are motions to refer matters relating to Qantas to committee for inquiry, one from Senator Sterle (WA Labor) and one from Senator Rhiannon (NSW Greens) and Senator Xenophon (SA Independent). The Senate has also resolved to refer the Bill just introduced into the House to committee for inquiry, once it reaches the Senate.

Back to the House and, pursuant to procedure, following the second reading debate of a Bill, debate is adjourned to a later time. However, the manager of opposition business, Tony Burke, moved a motion by leave to proceed immediately to debate. Minister Truss denied leave saying the opposition had not given the government prior notification that it wished to proceed with debate immediately (as it courtesy). As a result, Burke moved a motion to suspend standing orders to allow the debate to proceed. The manager of government business, Christopher Pyne, moved that the member not longer be heard (a gag motion). The House is currently dividing (voting) on the gag motion, which will obviously pass along party lines.

Essentially, debate on the Bill is very unlikely to proceed through the second reading today, meaning it won't be heard again before Monday 17 March at the earliest.

 

[Danger]

The Transport Minister has just introduced the Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014 into the House of Representatives which seeks to repeal part III of the original Act.

In the Senate, there are motions to refer matters relating to Qantas to committee for inquiry, one from Senator Sterle (WA Labor) and one from Senator Rhiannon (NSW Greens) and Senator Xenophon (SA Independent). The Senate has also resolved to refer the Bill just introduced into the House to committee for inquiry, once it reaches the Senate.

Back to the House and, pursuant to procedure, following the second reading debate of a Bill, debate is adjourned to a later time. However, the manager of opposition business, Tony Burke, moved a motion by leave to proceed immediately to debate. Minister Truss denied leave saying the opposition had not given the government prior notification that it wished to proceed with debate immediately (as it courtesy). As a result, Burke moved a motion to suspend standing orders to allow the debate to proceed. The manager of government business, Christopher Pyne, moved that the member not longer be heard (a gag motion). The House is currently dividing (voting) on the gag motion, which will obviously pass along party lines.

Essentially, debate on the Bill is very unlikely to proceed through the second reading today, meaning it won't be heard again before Monday 17 March at the earliest.

The government has now changed its mind and debate on the Bill is proceeding.

 

[pagingjoan]

The government has now changed its mind and debate on the Bill is proceeding.

Perhaps that should be:
The Government has changed one of its minds.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Reading the comments on the petition scares me. Remember AJ is most likely the front man and not the actual person coming up with these choices. There are CEO's, head of departments and management teams under QF that look after their own companies. AJ doesn't just cruise around like a cowboy firing off bad move after bad move. In most cases he probably never gets involved. Although he's the public face of all public negtivity, others down the food chain are responsible too.

I don't agree with that analysis. As CEO you have the responsibility to oversee everything... and that's where your experience comes in. If a proposal crosses your desk it is your skill and knowledge that will say 'this is not quite right' and you can send it back for further work.

It's not good enough to say you don't have control of your ship.

 

[DaveB]

With all news about the Crimea and Qantas, the QF Board is the modern day cavalry setting off into the valley. Though finding they are heading for the wrong target and on a horse gone lame, they realise it is too late to turn back and are now blindingly charging onwards.

 

[amaroo]

With all news about the Crimea and Qantas, the QF Board is the modern day cavalry setting off into the valley. Though finding they are heading for the wrong target and on a horse gone lame, they realise it is too late to turn back and are now blindingly charging onwards.

Massive u-turn on the carbon tax amongst a few other things quoted in the national rags.

 

[SQ421]

Massive u-turn on the carbon tax amongst a few other things quoted in the national rags.

They've gone from saying the $106m paid due to "carbon tax" wasn't a factor in their current misery to "it remains a factor" yesterday; and in between Alan Joyce discovered that the company remains "extremely healthy" and on track to profitability, while also indicating that the impact of an absence of a debt guarantee would only be in "tens of millions of dollars".

Guess an extremely healthy company doesn't need a Government backed debt guarantee then.

 

[QF WP]

Reading the comments on the petition scares me. Remember AJ is most likely the front man and not the actual person coming up with these choices. There are CEO's, head of departments and management teams under QF that look after their own companies. AJ doesn't just cruise around like a cowboy firing off bad move after bad move. In most cases he probably never gets involved. Although he's the public face of all public negtivity, others down the food chain are responsible too.

I thought this vid was a great watch to show differences in thinking about QF: Sam blamed for Qantas cuts - Sunrise

I don't agree with that analysis. As CEO you have the responsibility to oversee everything... and that's where your experience comes in. If a proposal crosses your desk it is your skill and knowledge that will say 'this is not quite right' and you can send it back for further work.

It's not good enough to say you don't have control of your ship.

My thoughts on this are that proposals for changes to the business will come across AJ's desk from QF Management and he will create some himself (then he puts together dedicated teams to formulate and test the strategies further). He champions those that he feels, as CEO, have the best benefit to the business stakeholders as a whole (staff, customers, suppliers and shareholders). Those are presented to the Board who given their substantial business acumen, then decide which have merit and he is tasked to be responsible for their implementation.

There is no one party that is complicit in the wavering Qantas - he and the Board are however, ultimately responsible for the direction of the company. Time for a new direction me thinks (as we come out of the GFC...slowly).

Will have to watch the video trippin_the_rift. Cuppa in hand

 

[dk4]

Rather than acting in a supervisory capacity, I think that there might also be a lot more top-down direction coming from the chair at Qantas, than is usual in most Australian corporations.

 

[Danger]

The Bill has passed the second reading stage. In an unusual move the government is moving to the third reading debate immediately. The Senate is now expecting to receive the Bill this afternoon and will vary its routine of business to consider the Bill today.

The government is clearly very keen to have this Bill debated in full before the one week recess. There is no indication, of course, that the Bill will pass the Senate but it will allow the government ammunition during the week off next week.

 

[codash1099]

My thoughts on this are that proposals for changes to the business will come across AJ's desk from QF Management and he will create some himself (then he puts together dedicated teams to formulate and test the strategies further). He champions those that he feels, as CEO, have the best benefit to the business stakeholders as a whole (staff, customers, suppliers and shareholders). Those are presented to the Board who given their substantial business acumen, then decide which have merit and he is tasked to be responsible for their implementation.

There is no one party that is complicit in the wavering Qantas - he and the Board are however, ultimately responsible for the direction of the company. Time for a new direction me thinks (as we come out of the GFC...slowly).

Will have to watch the video trippin_the_rift. Cuppa in hand

Either that, or they shoot from the hip and hope. Which of these does it look like?

 

[Danger]

Politics amuck in the House.

The government has moved that the debate move immediately to the third reading stage but the opposition has denied leave. Pyne then moved that standing orders be suspended to allow the debate to proceed to the third reading debate. Shorten then said "It's taken 94 years to build Qantas; it's taken the Abbott government 94 minutes to try and tear it down" before Pyne moved a gag motion to which a division is in progress and will be won by the government (ie. Shorten will be prohibited from speaking).

 

[JohnPhelan]

So the House of Reps should pass the repeal Bill today. Then it's up to the Senate, where the ALP and the Greens have the numbers to decide its fate.

 

[Danger]

Standing orders have been suspended which allows the third reading debate to proceed. Truss has moved that the Bill be read a third time. Pyne has moved that the motion to read a third time be put. A division is occuring, which will be won by the government, and the Bill will be read a third time.

Lots of procedural stuff happening.

 

[Danger]

The Bill has now passed the House but it will not be debated in the Senate today.

 

[eastwest101]

The Bill has now passed the House but it will not be debated in the Senate today.

So what was the point of all that? Just goes to the Senate and will be blocked anyway, unless something surprising or unexpected happens in the Senate it will just be blocked by the ALP, Greens and others in the Senate and the Government will simply add it to the list of things blocked in the senate. So the ALP opposition will continue to argue that the government is doing nothing and the government will reply that their legislation is blocked in the senate. Am I right in the assumption that as long as the ALP and Greens oppose changes to the QF Act then whatever the Coalition/Xenephon/Madigan say is irrelevant?

Just saw trippintherift 's video, my reading of that is that Kennett and Latham are actually not too far apart on what the solutions are, they, and a lot of other people here can identify numerous problems that QF has, most but not all are self-inflicted either by active mismanagement or by lack of action to correct problems, they both broadly agree on the solutions (changing the business & reduce costs) but Mark Latham is simply saying that Alan Joyce has failed to deliver "He should resign on results" and should be removed so that someone who can make the changes has some clear air and oxygen (to do the changes or come up with different changes), as opposed to Jeff Kennett, whom thinks that Alan Joyce is the guy to do it.