Forum Archive Index - September 2001

["Phil Boeyen" <pboeyen@sharechat.co.nz>]

I thought TVNZ did a good job in its overview of the Air NZ saga on
Assignment last night, did anyone else catch it?  One thing that doesn't
seem to have come out yet is what kind of legal deal was in place for SIA to
make good on its promise of paying $1.31 for the airline.  Jim Farmer seemed
keen to make the point that he thought they had definitely reneged, although
I am sure any offer would have had a number of conditions attached that SIA
could (and obviously did) use to withdraw that price.

One of the main reasons for the purchase of Ansett that has also been given
is the value of the "feeder routes" for travel to this country, although
with most of Australia's population in centres which are served directly by
Air NZ trans-Tasman routes, I consider this a bit of a red herring.

At issue too is the business premise that bigger is better, which was a main
reason for Air NZ to look across the Tasman in the first place.  Same
concept applies for Telecom and various other companies.  There's a common
train of thought that businesses should either grow or die, but is the
market's constant demand for growth putting pressure on NZ companies to take
much bigger risks than they are either financially, or managerially, capable
of handling?

Phil


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market investors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.shtml.