http://www.singaporeair.com/en_UK/nz...om-wellington/
777 it is
Printable View
Any ideas as to where this rally will top out?
Maybe a few people are in the know of a soon to be announced guidance upgrade.
From 4 Traders, current year PE 7.22, FY18 PE 7.72. http://www.4-traders.com/AIR-NEW-ZEA...07/financials/ Long run 10 year average PE for AIR is 11.
Management seemed confident on last months months conference call that yields looking forward looked set to improve.
Oil is down a bit since that conference call in late February.
QAN currently trading at A$4.00, current year PE 8.12, FY18 PE 7.65
http://www.4-traders.com/QANTAS-AIRW...912/consensus/
What if the Govt are selling their shareholding?. Any negatives there?
LOL You've been reading too many of Marilyn Munroe's posts Joshuatree.
As you know already the Government's majority controlling interest protects Kiwi's national interests and provides a reliable source of new capital if for some unknown reason the airline needed it in the future. Something many people aren't aware of is that Government approval is required before any shareholder can own more than 10% of the airline.
This is purely speculative but in my opinion if for some reason the Govt wanted to remove those safeguards, (not that I think this is a good idea and is counter intuitive to protecting our national interest) you can well imagine a carrier like Singapore Airlines being able to borrow cheaply on the international debt market at 2-3% acquiring the airline at a significant premium to the current market price and based on a PE of say 10 giving an earnings yield of 10% this would be strongly EPS accretive for them from the get-go.
Disclaimer: I am not aware of any speculation in business or Govt circles or in any media channell which might suggest this is even a vague possibility.
Only our dear friend Marilyn Munroe's posts suggest this is the best strategy for the Govt.
Thanks Roger. heres a bit of history re the Govt investment if anyones int.
I guess they will want to sell down at some point.Hey flying within NZ might become more reasonable if they did ehhh:D
The Crown's Investment in Air New Zealand (Part 1) (16 May 2016)
The Crown's Investment in Air New Zealand (Part 2) (18 May 2016)
The Crown's Investment in Air New Zealand (Part 3) (20 May 2016)
You lucky bugger you've got a/the Tardus and have been into the future.Hey who's the winner at Flemington All comers thoroughbred stakes on Feb 8th 2018 on a fast track:)
Those AIR $ could come in handy to cover the lower tax rate National are parroting on about ehhh.
I'm not sure about yours or even if you have one, but in my trading diary (system) I have a tab called 'risks' for every share I own or is on my watch list.
Risks are things that 'might happen', not things that have happened, they can be upside or downside risks.
So making a note of the 'OECD recommendation for the government to sell AIR' is a new risk, whether upside or downside, is just part of my system.
I thought I would try and ask what others here think about why the OECD would say that.
Discounting the risk out of hand by saying "no matter why" suggests a cavalier attitude towards identifying, monitoring and responding to investment risks.
The notion that a Labour government would not entertain any asset sales is slightly helpful, though I would rate that as very low likelihood as it is attached to whether Labour are the government.
In the event that National continue as government, the notion that they might sell AIR based solely on an OECD report in an election year seems highly unlikely, so conversely your suggestion has some merit imo as well.
Taking that a step further, if the National government remain in power past Sept 2017, with their predilection for selling national assets, it seems warranted to maintain at least a moderate risk of them acting on the OECD recommendation (even if not primarily because the OECD recommended it).
My question though is about consequence, not likelihood. It seems to me to be a fair and reasonable question.
If this is all a bit too much for some, maybe they could refrain from flippant off-the-cuff answers. That might give some breathing room for those who might be tempted to post their thoughts, but don't, because this thread is dominated by the fan club who refuse to engage in any existential discussion, beyond financials and moving averages.
The question still stands. "The OECD report specifically recommends that the government sell AIR and gentailers. Why would they say that?"