first I must apologise for my bad spelling etc - i hit the send button too early.
>
>her management of tel has been awful.
>
>she bought aapt for cash when you got a over-valued share price that
>subsequently goes from $9 going to $5.
>
>
>she should have used script.
>
>
>She *was* following the script, as to how telecommunications
>companies should behave at the time. Build on a vision of expansion.
as a shareholder, i do not pay her to follow the scipt - she is paid to think and the outcome of her thinking has been patently wrong.
>I wonder if the shareholders of AAPT would have accepted a scrip bid?
i think so - the yanks were in the process of getting out - they obviously believe the scrip was overvalued.
>I think your wisdom, donkeyb1, is coming with the benefit of a lot >of assumptions and hindsight.
there is no hindsight - i have had exactly the same veiw for over four years. the veiw is - technology and cheap capital will drive the commoditisation of data (including voice)and will drive the . the cost of that data is low. the price tel can command for that data will be low due to new entrants.
>When Telecom shares were trading at $9 the market capitalisation of
>Telecom was around $15billion. $2billion is quite a modest >proprtion of that. In the circumstances of the time I don't think >$2billion for Xtra is too far out of line.
i agree xtra may have been worth 12.5% of tel, but it was never worth $2b. apply the porter model to it - its fails almost every test. apply a cashflow model to it and it still fails. the statement was never reasonable and underlines the poor analysis and understanding that tel has of its own business.
>
>
>forgive while i laugh to death. if she
>believed that she cant have ever understood her basic business. the
>strategy in australia depends on there being limited competition for
>second tier customers. but why would everyone stop bidding for
>customers once the top tier are accounted
>
>
>Please rephrase. I cannot understand what you are saying or what
>your point is.
sorry two points here - the first i re-iterated above. the second is the flaw in the aussie strategy. tel have said that they will win a a keystone tenant who essentially pays for the network. tel will then sell the spare capacity to second tier clients. this assumes that the competition for the second teir clients is not as rigorous for the first tier. - which is garbage - all clients will be contested for strongly.
>
>
>the mobile thing is a mess - vodaphone filled them in on basic
>mobile and sms, and now has forced them to develop the 2g services
>market, - so they can switch on their 2g option once the market is
>operational. once again tel is strategically deficient.
>
>
>So you are saying that Telecom should not be a leader in the mobile
>market? It should be a follower?
what i am saying is that tel lost the market leadership thru bad marketing and capital decision making (no roaming, mix of digital and analouge etc). this has put them into a positon where to regain leadership they must develop 2g services market - these are services over and above voice that can be offereed on the gsm network. so noew tel has had to invest money on which it can never expect to earn any "first mover" profit, and has had to throw a lot of fresh money in a tight environment to keep up.
so tel's mistakes led to this value destruction.
>
>
>ruling over this series of f*** ups - is ms Gattung, believing for
>all the world that a womens weekly endorsement is real, while the
>investment world laughs at her.
>
>
>What Woman's Weekly endorsement? I don't recall her ever >mentioning it. And I don't read the Woman's Weekly.
i was being sarky - my point is that the media have run with the $1m woman ceo - and my opinion is that theresa has breathed their exhaust. -sounds as if you are taking this personally - you should relax
>
>
>her response to "why will tel be in 5 years" is the most telling
>...a big laugh (she is a cherry woman) and the answer "i dont have a
>clue"
>
>
>'she is a cherry woman?' What kind of talk is that? Her answer to
>the question "why will tel be in 5 years"(sic) seems about as
>sensible as anyone could come up with.
sorry - cheery, as i said relax. and no that is not a sensible answer. I would have expected some discussion of how the company is being positions to take advantage of the likely outcomes within the telco market. there are several well established likely outcomes ot themes - which incidently were around four years ago - see above.
cheerio
Damian
-----------------------------------------------
Message posted by Harry Tennyson
using Pegasus Mail 2.55
I have Word 97 to read attachments
my comments on tel are consistent with the comments i have always made.
See IRG research reports
