Maybe you could use it as a signature.Quote:
quote:Originally posted by duncan macgregor
YESTERDAYS MAN.[:o)]macdunk
Printable View
Maybe you could use it as a signature.Quote:
quote:Originally posted by duncan macgregor
YESTERDAYS MAN.[:o)]macdunk
There was no hindsight at the time or now or perhaps you have misunderstood my post? They could not afford the combination of Eagle Boys, Real Estate and dividends. It seems only the 10 cent dividend was considered a certainty? Perhaps they had already decided that the dividend was the only factor supporting the share price? Is so, they should have considered the bigger picture of "why"?Quote:
quote:Originally posted by hiawatha
"Hindsight" is obviously a valuable thing. Though property values seem to have increased since the decision to sell and lease back was taken they could not have certain at the time that this would happen. Indeed property values may have fallen. On the eve of launching a risky venture into Australia it was probably good risk management to pass the property risk over to someone else.
There aren't many CEO positions where the honeymoon period would extend beyond 12 months. That Jim Collier couldn't get the company firing is not a good enough reason for Vicky Salmon to also fail. The strategic decisions that have tripped them up like acquisitions and dividends are set at board level in any case, so Vicki Salmon had as much input in this regard as Jim Collier.Quote:
quote:Originally posted by hiawatha
You mention Vicky Salmon "falling on her sword". However Ms Salmon was not CEO at the time these decisions were taken, and the former CEO, Craig whatsisname, has left.
hiawatha
Now RBD find themselves in the position where to get the KFC stores firing, they have to spend $800,000 per unit - the "Radical transformation". The radical transformation doesn't include a rethink of capital management - where dividends must be paid for from the 88 KFC stores, an average of $110,000 after tax ($164,000 pretax) per store per annum. It is not clear to me (nor the market, quite obviously) that they are or will earn a return on this transformation. Higher profits are not enough if the store must be revamped again in 8 years. The profits must exceed the cost and life of investment and be sustainable too. An $800,000 investment doesn't fix fundamental issues like inadequate service and a core product that is 3 decades too late. Numerous competitors have taken advantage of this already as RBD's takeout market share continues on its moribund way.
...although KFC have undoubtedly been under-invested-in over the last few years thanks to low profits and high dividends, why does "radical transformation" cost $800,000? This is an aggregate $70m across the KFC stores. For each $100,000 saved off the cost of "radical transformation", shareholders would be saved $8.8m - close to a whole years dividend. It smacks of the old property developer solution to problems - build your way out of it. I wonder if they tested a less radical $500,000 or $300,000 fix, if results would be materially different?
The problem is to remain current, stores need regular reinvestment. When I was involved in such things, the accepted standard in the USA where this is a science, is typically around 7 years in most FMCG categories (Ranging from Fast Food to Supermarkets). So that $800k needs to be paid back very quickly before its "Yesterday once more".
WELL you better get down there first thing tomorrow and drop all your non shares on the NZX front door step.. [8D]Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Halebop
There was no hindsight at the time or now or perhaps you have misunderstood my post? They could not afford the combination of Eagle Boys, Real Estate and dividends. It seems only the 10 cent dividend was considered a certainty? Perhaps they had already decided that the dividend was the only factor supporting the share price? Is so, they should have considered the bigger picture of "why"?Quote:
quote:Originally posted by hiawatha
"Hindsight" is obviously a valuable thing. Though property values seem to have increased since the decision to sell and lease back was taken they could not have certain at the time that this would happen. Indeed property values may have fallen. On the eve of launching a risky venture into Australia it was probably good risk management to pass the property risk over to someone else.
There aren't many CEO positions where the honeymoon period would extend beyond 12 months. That Jim Collier couldn't get the company firing is not a good enough reason for Vicky Salmon to also fail. The strategic decisions that have tripped them up like acquisitions and dividends are set at board level in any case, so Vicki Salmon had as much input in this regard as Jim Collier.Quote:
quote:Originally posted by hiawatha
You mention Vicky Salmon "falling on her sword". However Ms Salmon was not CEO at the time these decisions were taken, and the former CEO, Craig whatsisname, has left.
hiawatha
Now RBD find themselves in the position where to get the KFC stores firing, they have to spend $800,000 per unit - the "Radical transformation". The radical transformation doesn't include a rethink of capital management - where dividends must be paid for from the 88 KFC stores, an average of $110,000 after tax ($164,000 pretax) per store per annum. It is not clear to me (nor the market, quite obviously) that they are or will earn a return on this transformation. Higher profits are not enough if the store must be revamped again in 8 years. The profits must exceed the cost and life of investment and be sustainable too. An $800,000 investment doesn't fix fundamental issues like inadequate service and a core product that is 3 decades too late. Numerous competitors have taken advantage of this already as RBD's takeout market share continues on its moribund way.
The 'transformed' Kent Tce Wgtn one is really rocking though
There is a song about that one as well. DOWN THE OLD KENT ROAD.[:o)][:o)]:D:D Sorry bricks and HIAWATHA your sense of humour must be at an all time low by now. macdunkQuote:
quote:Originally posted by winner69
The 'transformed' Kent Tce Wgtn one is really rocking though
Isn't OLD KENT RD one of the cheapo sites in Monolopy ...... maybe an omen
Better to ask bricks he would be up on that sort of thing.:D:DmacdunkQuote:
quote:Originally posted by winner69
Isn't OLD KENT RD one of the cheapo sites in Monolopy ...... maybe an omen
Mind you commercial properties in that part of Wellington have gone up 50% plus in the last 2 years
JUST GREAT.. [8D]Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Deev8
Maybe you could use it as a signature.Quote:
quote:Originally posted by duncan macgregor
YESTERDAYS MAN.[:o)]macdrunk