Tuesday, February 19, 2008

The Owen Glenn story: Singing the same tune but hitting a bum note

The revelations over Owen Glenn and his murky donations to the Labour Party before and after the 2005 election have taken another turn today.

All sides are now saying what was reported in an interview with Glenn last week was a misunderstanding, taken out of context and statements made by Glenn, such as the assertion he made and was very clear about, that he was offered the post of Minister of Transport in a Labour Government by Helen Clark were light hearted comments misunderstood by the journalist.

Clark initially denied any such offer had been made when the proverbial hit the fan last Friday commenting that "...it didn't happen" but yesterday was reported as saying:

"... could not remember discussing the issue with Glenn, but if it had come up, it would not have been a serious conversation".

Typical Helen Clark backtrack stuff.

Followed by Glenn's statement to the Media:

"I was not offered a Cabinet position. My comments on this matter were light-hearted and have been taken out of context," he said.

"It is unfortunate that some comments I made to a journalist last week have been taken out of context and are now being used as a political football".

The blanket agreement now over what really happened seems a little too convenient for this reader.

As to the murkiness over the secret "loan" of $100,000.00 made after the 2005 election the fact that Labour kept it secret seems more than a little disingenuous when the money was gifted during the heady days of the electoral finance bill debate, where the contention by Labour was that political funding "should be transparent" and political parties must be upfront about just who is funding them.

Clearly this didn't apply to themselves.

So far this major controversy hasn't hit the mainstream media, The Herald, their competition and the blogs have picked it up but the TV networks have done their best to avoid it like the plague.

The media saturation over the secrecy of the Brethren donations in 2005 stands in stark contrast.

Parliament sits today Listen to Parliament (only during sitting, Tues-Thurs, 2.00pm , NZ time) and National must seize on this with both hands and take it to Labour.

We have a Government steeped in a very murky funding issue and their assertions over the Electoral Finance Act, that" funding must be transparent" must be given closer scrutiny.


Related Political Animal reading

Labour Party Election funding murky at best



C Political Animal 2008

Monday, February 18, 2008

Softening opposition to Canadian Pension Plan bid for Auckland Airport

The long winded takeover saga that is Auckland International Airport [AIA.NZ] coming up to one year in July, rolls on with a further possible development revealed today.

Links courtesy of NZ Herald


AIA takeover calendar

Early March: Auckland City Council votes on its response to CPPIB offer
March 6: Deadline for Auckland airport board to review its objection
March 13: CPPIB offer deadline for shareholders



According to the AIA board:

"The market has changed significantly since December so we have an obligation to review our recommendation. The board considers that it has a responsibility to whether the reconfirm its recommendation or otherwise."

Its only a suggestion that the board will take into account negative "market conditions" but it is curious to me why the board would waiver on their previous uncompromising stance that they wouldn't support a bid by the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board(CPPIB) for an almost 40% share of the Airport company.

It seems short sighted, to say the least that the AIA board might backtrack on previous statements around the long-term value of the company and now even consider lightly the short term vagaries of global markets.

That idea should be dismissed forthwith and any recommendation to sell or hold should be made by shareholders in the company as to whether they would want to part with this asset.

Both Auckland and Manukau City Councils have said they wouldnt sell their shares but Auckland remains open to supporting the partial takeover on which they will vote on soon.

The outcome still remains up in the air but institutions must be pressuring the likes of the Councils to approve a partial takeover given their partiality to cut and run and take short term profits.

I will stick my neck out and pick it will fail, because the deal seems too complex and local council political egos are involved. Much like the failed merger of Port of Tauranga(POT) and Port of Auckland last year.

We can but wait.


Disclosure: I own AIA shares


Auckland International Airport @ Share Investor

Latest Airport coverage
Cullen's move on Auckland Airport has far reaching effects
Cullen's move on AIA tax plan Anti-Business
AIA profit stays grounded
Softening opposition to CPPIB bid for AIA
Directors of AIA bribe brokers not to sell
What is Auckland Airport worth to you?
Second bite at AIA by CPPIB might just fly
AIA new directors must focus on shareholders
Auckland Airport merger deal nosedives
The Canadians have landed
AIA incentive scheme must fly out the window
Government market manipulation over AIA/DAE deal
DAE move on AIA: Will it fly?


Related Links

AIA Financial Data


Related Amazon Reading

Mergers, Acquisitions, and Corporate Restructurings

Mergers, Acquisitions, and Corporate Restructurings by Patrick A. Gaughan
Buy new: $47.25 / Used from: $41.94
Usually ships in 24 hours


c Share Investor 2008

The Joneses Real Estate business fails to keep up with market conditions

The prospect of the only float this year, so far, to kick off, certainly piqued my interest and following in The Joneses, a cut price, flat rate real estate agent that planned a back door listing on the NZAX early this year.

c Fox Corp 2007

According to the Real Estate Institute, The Joneses real estate business model
was flawed and it led the their liquidation. The business case is no Bart Simpson
fly by night though, the Joneses simply undercapitalised and were unable to function
in the current property and stockmarket downturn.


Its business model differed from the run of the mill Real Estate agents like Barfoot and Thompson, Century 21 and Harcourts, who all charge much larger selling fees on a sliding scale, tapering off as the price they might get for your house gets higher-no incentive here to get a better price for the seller.

Unfortunately the Joneses were not able to keep up with the market uncertainties surrounding them.

In the face of a marked and welcome (in my opinion) downturn in Real estate sales and property prices the IPO was bound to have “done a Burger Fuel” and tanked because the appetite for real estate and sharemarkets in combination was a recipe for disaster.

Joneses management say the business model was sound and I would agree with that. Their problem was that they needed volume of sales for this business model (just like most businesses) and their cash flows simply ran out before they reached critical mass.

The Real Estate Institute came out today and trumpeted their old fashioned model as the only one that could be a success and clearly they were rubbing hands together as their competition bit the dust but they shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss the likes of other cut-price real estate companies that operate successfully.

This sector works well overseas and here but is expensive initially to set up.

Increasingly these days, individuals have become savvier when selling property. Negotiating fees with the full price brokers and as the internet and businesses associated with the net matured, to allow that media to process house and property sales, websites like Trademe have taken business off the big boys.

Contrary to popular belief the best person to sell your property is you. You know better than anyone else, you know your suburb like the back of your hand and the incentive really is there for you to get the best price.

It is human nature for us to be lazy and that is where these Real Estate agents see the gap and try to fill it. We “just don’t have the time”, or “we don’t have the expertise” to sell our house, quite frankly that is bullshit. It ain’t hard.

The laziness also extends to the agents, their “incentive” to get you a better price just isn’t there. When their fee slides downwards as the sale price of your house goes up then one can see they just aren’t living in the real world or working for you or the buyer. They are in it for themselves.

How much extra time do you have to spend at work to pay the $15,000.00 or more these companies charge?

But I digress.

Given better market conditions the Joneses IPO would have been a success. As with most things financial, timing can be 80% of your success. The Joneses management were just not able to time the market to make this thing a goer.

Having said that, clearly the capital to help make this business float wasn’t there from the beginning and the IPO would have allowed them cash to develop the company in a sustainable way.

It would have been wise for Joneses management to have got extra capital from the get go, make the business profitable for a number of years, then list.

The stockmarket is better off without the likes of the Joneses in its present guise and one can see a return of such a company to the market when financial stability returns to the global equities and the real estate sectors.


Related Share Investor reading

Can the Joneses keep up with the market?
IPO quality indicative of poor economy


New From Fishpond.co.nz


Hubbard: A Biography of Allan Hubbard

Fishpond


c Share Investor 2008




Restaurant Brand's Pizza Hut faces further increase in competition

A very interesting article in the New Zealand Herald yesterday(see below my preamble) about the cut throat pizza business in New Zealand.

I have been ranting and raving about this for years, in respect to Restaurant Brands(RBD) and their badly run Pizza Hut brand.

More competition from the likes of great fast food companies like Hell and Dominos Pizza are continuing to make the going for Pizza Hut as hard as the crust on their flat crust dough and it is only going to get worse because management at RBD continue to flounder.

Hell and Dominos are rapidly expanding while the Pizza Hut business falls away.

The next profit announcement for RBD will be sometime in May and sales figures should be out for their 3 different Brands: KFC, Starbucks and the aforementioned Pizza Hut, soon.

Profit is likely to be better this year because of a slightly recovering KFC but Pizza Hut is likely to drag on overall profit, again.


Restaurant Brands @ Share Investor


Finger Lick'n Good Management
Chart of the Week: Restaurant Brands Ltd
Long Term View: Restaurant Brands Ltd
Stock of Week: Restaurant Brands Ltd
Restaurant Brands: Buy or Sell ?
Pizza Hut sell-off provide opportunities all-round
Danny Diab & Restaurant Brands
2008-2009 KFC sales figures mislead investors
KFC Finally Flying
Starbuck's New Zealand Cup doesn't runneth over
RBD gives KFC a push
McDonald's playing chicken with KFC
Restaurant Brand's Pizza Hut faces increasing competition
RBD sales analysis
RBD saga continues: CEO leaves
The secret recipe is out
2007 FY profit analysis
Delivering increased profit in October 2007
No reason for optimism in latest sales figures

Discuss RBD @ Share Investor Forum

Download RBD company reports



c Share Investor 2008








Pizza war to enter next battle

5:00AM Sunday February 17, 2008
By Chris Daniels
The cut-throat pizza business in New Zealand is gearing up for a new round of hostility, as market heavyweight Domino's and Hell try to hold on to slipping profit margins in a world of soaring cheese.

Domino's - which pitches itself as the "value" end of the market - is tomorrow launching a new, healthier pizza, hoping its fat-free crust will attract punters watching the kilos as well as sport on the TV.

It is also staging a push into the "premium" side of the market, where it will find itself in a more direct fight for customers from local pizza heroes, Hell Pizza. A new push to online ordering is also under way, with Domino's this month rolling out its new internet ordering process.

Statistics New Zealand last week reported a 14.7 per cent jump in butter and cheddar cheese prices - prices difficult to pass on to pizza buyers taking advantage of fierce competition between Hell, Domino's and once-dominant Pizza Hut.

Pizza Hut used to command the biggest slice of the market but has been in steady decline for a few years, slugged on one side by the popular iconoclastic Hell brand and on the other by the cheaper Domino's.

"Pizza Hut continued to experience tight trading conditions in a competitive market, which had meant a continuing short-term sales decline," said the stock exchange-listed owner Restaurant Brands in December.

Total sales for the quarter were down 13.4 per cent, with same store sales falling by less than 9 per cent. Year-to-date sales of $56.5 million were down 9.7 per cent, and down 6.6 per cent on a same-store basis.

"Marketing strategy changes, which started to be implemented towards the end of the quarter, were expected to deliver better sales in the last quarter of the year," the company said.

Pizza Hut store numbers fell from 105 in the third quarter last year to 98. Restaurant Brands is progressively closing its "red-roofed" restaurants as leases expire or the "opportunity arose to exit a store".

Despite sales heading through the floor at its Pizza Hut rival, the fast-food industry is in good shape, says Colin Mellar, general manager of Hell in New Zealand. Hell enjoyed some huge sales increases in a record two weeks over Christmas, he says. "That was a bit out of the bag. We were ready, not so much to 'batten down the hatches', but expected the Christmas period to be patchy. But we got a couple of nice surprises."

Domino's is now increasingly looking to "come and play a little in their market", says Mellar.
"They are the cheaper end. We are not of a mind to play too much in that market, but sometimes it's interesting to have a look over the fence.

"We need to continue to grow. We need to grow top lines. We can't just sit in the niche market all the time. Our marketing itself is going through some changes."

Growth last year was reasonable, says Mellar, with a period of "checking the foundations later in the year. But over the Christmas period, same-store sales were up by 15-17 per cent.

What about its rivals, particularly with Domino's moving this week to more healthier fare? Is Hell concerned more health-conscious consumers may start looking elsewhere?
"At the end of the day of the day, pizza has got cheese on it generally, and people want cheese," says Mellar.

"We do have a healthier pizza, but trying to pretend we are lettuce and tomato is, I believe, a joke. We serve good food, but we will never pretend to be a healthy option."
Domino's, says Mellar, will end up seeing that the pizza is the main thing, not the healthier food options. And in the true style of a business rival, Mellar suggests a less benevolent reason for Domino's new-look healthy image.

"If anything this may distract them from their main strategy," he says.
"But I think their main strategy isn't working any more - because [of] their margins. Margins get tight, we know that commodity prices have gone through the roof. The price of cheese is ridiculous - walk into the supermarket and it's nine bucks for a small block.

"Because they are charging so little for their pizzas, they have to look for an alternative, because their franchisees will be screaming at them - saying, 'we're getting no margin with this current pricing strategy'."

The failure of fast-food chain Georgie Pie in the 1990s showed this, says Mellar. Georgie Pie sold pies for $1 each - but the price of inputs went up "and it kills them".

"This is probably a more desperate move by Domino's rather than one of proactivity," says Mellar.

Margins in the business are coming under real pressure, with fuel, commodity and labour prices all going up.

Peter Jones, Domino's New Zealand general manager, backs up the reports of rising pizza sales coming from his rivals at Hell Pizza.

"We have had a really good last 12 months, in fact the best 12 months in our short history over here."

Domino's arrived in New Zealand in mid-2003 and now has 67 stores, with plans for eight more.

This week it's launching what it calls the "superlite thin pizza", a push into healthier food. It's served on a "Lebanese style bread", which has no sugar and is 98 per cent fat free.
But it hasn't gone all health store on the customer. Salads, available in its Australian operation, are yet to appear on this side of the Tasman.

Jones says: "Realistically the message we're giving is that 'we don't condone you should eat any sort of food, let alone pizza, seven days a week'. You should combine it with healthy meals, a good balanced diet and exercise, and pizza should be a treat.

"We really can't go out on a limb and say we stand for a complete healthy food.

"However, we do look for a balance. We should never be arrogant about the fact the world is becoming more focused on eating healthy."

So is Domino's trying to move into better profit territory by selling more premium products?

"We have talked about this, but not just for the dollars either, because the more time goes on, we are seeing our consumers getting more mature in their palate as well," says Jones.

"While we'll never niche ourselves as gourmet pizza, we are examining pizza such as 'seven meats' and about to come out with a range of pizzas called the 'big taste', which is a premium product.

"We don't deliberately try to gain market share as such. What we're trying to do is build same-store sales for all of our franchisees."

The company has also just launched a full online ordering system, which it hopes will make things easier for customers and franchise owners, with more accurate orders and less hassle phoning a noisy store during busy periods.

Domino's biggest rival is probably fish and chips, says Jones, because like pizza, it is a shared meal. Burgers, by comparison, are more individual.

"But having said that, whenever someone is buying a burger or fish and chips or even a pizza from a rival, they're not buying a pizza from us.

"Domino's is a value alternative. It doesn't mean we're cheap and nasty. It means you're getting a good pizza for a good price."

Regardless of whether Domino's is moving up the value chain, its presence in New Zealand has increased the pizza slice of the fast-food sector.

Jones says Domino's research in 2003 showed an average US consumer ate pizza once every 11 or 12 days, an Australian every 29 days, while New Zealanders only once every 50 days. "There's no doubt that has changed."