Fairfax - no boss zone

[truong]

The point Oracle is making is that the other shareholders are wrong in not letting the largest shareholder have a voice on the board. After all Gina is the one with the most to lose, and a successful Fairfax would be in her best interest.

Looks like the other shareholders have ideological reasons for behaving the way they have, and it’s very hypocritical of them for calling Gina a persona non grata because of her ideological stand.

Disclaimer: I do not agree with many of Gina’s political views.

 

[oracle]

Do you think she should get a board seat in the absence of evidence that it's what the majority of shareholders want? And in the face of the Chairman's statement that it's very likely to not be what the majority of shareholders want? I don't know what point you are trying to make here...

Do you honestly believe the board managed to get the opinion of the majority of shareholders when the previous largest shareholder owned less than 10%. How many shareholder do you think they spoke to to have got anywhere close to 51% which would represent a majority.

What do you think will happen to jobs of the board members and executives who have managed to lose 90% of shareholder value over past 5 years if Gina get's her way? Do you think the directors and executives might fear their jobs and hence are doing everything in their power to stop Gina getting the board seats which will let Gina make some tough decision that might go against the directors/executives?

But yes, at the end of the day if the majority of shareholder oppose Gina's demand for board seats than she shouldn't get it and if she still want's it then she should buy more shares.

Cheers,
Oracle.

 

[dan c]

Who are these majority shareholders?

Care to share a link where the majority shareholder voted against her taking steps she wants to take? Do these majority shareholders believe Gina will do a better or worst job at running this company? These majority shareholders have already seen their equity reduced by 90%.

The shareholders are represented by the board. The board decided on taking the steps it took. I haven't heard one complaint from a major shareholder. Maybe because they think Gina will do a worse job.

We seem to have an issue with the numbers here. Gina owns 18.6%, which means she doesn't own 81.4%. Why should a shareholder with less than 1/5th of the company dictate her views to the rest of the board and shareholders? The board is well within their rights to say, this is our requirement for giving you a board seat. If you don't like it, then too bad. If the shareholders disagree and want Gina, they will elect her at the next AGM, and kick out the current directors.

If she wants to have editorial control, then stump up the $1.2B and make an offer for the rest of the company.

 

[oracle]

The shareholders are represented by the board. The board decided on taking the steps it took. I haven't heard one complaint from a major shareholder. Maybe because they think Gina will do a worse job.

We seem to have an issue with the numbers here. Gina owns 18.6%, which means she doesn't own 81.4%. Why should a shareholder with less than 1/5th of the company dictate her views to the rest of the board and shareholders? The board is well within their rights to say, this is our requirement for giving you a board seat. If you don't like it, then too bad. If the shareholders disagree and want Gina, they will elect her at the next AGM, and kick out the current directors.

If she wants to have editorial control, then stump up the $1.2B and make an offer for the rest of the company.

The same way I read a lot of public voted for Labour but don't agree with all their policies??? Just because the shareholders voted for the board of directors doesn't mean they agree with all the decisions they take.

Secondly, I don't know how the board makes decisions but I would assume it would be done in a democratic way based on some voting. So the board consisting of 8 directors would require atleast 5 to vote one way. If Gina gets the 3 board seats that she want's she is not going to have the majority of the board.

Finally, I have not seen one organisation/group/company who claim to be trying to buy a majority stake in Fairfax to protect it from Gina in order to keep it's editorial independence. I wonder why?

If Gina still holds her stake by the time the next AGM is held..I am sure we will all get answers to what the majority of shareholders truly want.

Cheers,
Oracle.

 

[dan c]

The same way I read a lot of public voted for Labour but don't agree with all their policies??? Just because the shareholders voted for the board of directors doesn't mean they agree with all the decisions they take.

And if they don't they will be voted out at the next AGM. Just like Labor most probably will be voted out at the next election. Because they didn't follow the wishes of the voters.

Secondly, I don't know how the board makes decisions but I would assume it would be done in a democratic way based on some voting. So the board consisting of 8 directors would require atleast 5 to vote one way. If Gina gets the 3 board seats that she want's she is not going to have the majority of the board.

Trus, but it gives her a voting block of 37.5%. She only then needs two of the five to vote with her to get her way. I'm not sure what happens if the board is split 4 votes each.

Finally, I have not seen one organisation/group/company who claim to be trying to buy a majority stake in Fairfax to protect it from Gina in order to keep it's editorial independence. I wonder why?

Because they can't afford it. Not many of us have $250 million to chuck around. Also, because it's not a good business proposition, which makes people question Gina's motives.

If Gina still holds her stake by the time the next AGM is held..I am sure we will all get answers to what the majority of shareholders truly want.

Absolutely.

 

[willair]

Starting to get interesting,when you look at the volume that went through yesterday on this company,and the size of some of the trades,..

 

[oracle]

Rinehart sells portion of Fairfax stake

Starting to get interesting,when you look at the volume that went through yesterday on this company,and the size of some of the trades,..

Mrs Rinehart's mining outfit Hancock Prospecting sold 86.5 million shares worth $50.1 million to an Australian fund manager minutes after the market closed at 1600 AEST on Thursday.

Funds manager Perpetual bought the bulk of the shares sold by Mrs Rinehart, and immediately said it supported Mrs Rinehart's bid for representation on the Fairfax board, according to The Australian.

However, Thursday night a senior Fairfax source reportedly told The Australian that the Fairfax board had no intention of allowing Mrs Rinehart to join the board.

Full article here

Yes...it's starting to get interesting. I think if Gina R stays on as majority shareholder within 3 to 5 years Fairfax would change dramatically. She is not one who is going to muck around if her investments are not going to produce the results.

I read the other day she told the Fairfax CEO, being the major shareholder to take whatever steps are required to boost the share price to 0.87c by the next AGM. CEO said it's too difficult for him to achieve that. I found that funny...even though I know it's the market that decides the share price and is not in the hands of the CEO. But it's good to see executives are being asked to start getting their act together and start working for the benefits of the owners of the company.

Cheers,
Oracle.

 

[willair]

Full article here
But it's good to see executives are being asked to start getting their act together and start working for the benefits of the owners of the company.

Cheers,
Oracle.

Thanks for the link,i think it would be very hard to look within a experienced business mind like that,performance vs accountabilities and people like them set their own rules how they play the game..

 

[Token Funder]

Full article here

Yes...it's starting to get interesting. I think if Gina R stays on as majority shareholder within 3 to 5 years Fairfax would change dramatically. She is not one who is going to muck around if her investments are not going to produce the results.

I read the other day she told the Fairfax CEO, being the major shareholder to take whatever steps are required to boost the share price to 0.87c by the next AGM. CEO said it's too difficult for him to achieve that. I found that funny...even though I know it's the market that decides the share price and is not in the hands of the CEO. But it's good to see executives are being asked to start getting their act together and start working for the benefits of the owners of the company.

Cheers,
Oracle.

If she get's a seat at Fairfax, shareholders can only hope it doesn't follow the trend of Ten Holdings since she joined their board.

 

[b simpson]

RIP fairfax. Your flogging a dead horse trying to keep print media alive.

Print will go the same way as vinyl, beta, cassette tapes and cd's.

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

Ahem... vinyl and cassette tapes are very much alive. Print media, on the other hand, is a geriatric on life support. No matter which way the editors of papers lean politically, it's happening all over the world.

 

[oracle]

If she get's a seat at Fairfax, shareholders can only hope it doesn't follow the trend of Ten Holdings since she joined their board.

In that case shareholders should beg her to become the chairman. Apparently, she is the chairman of another company since 1992 which is doing satisfactorily i reckon under her chairmanship, the name is Hancock Prospecting and has enabled her to become the richest women in Australia

TEN Network has 11 board members of which she is one. Secondly, she is not the largest shareholder, she owns about 10%. The largest shareholder is Consolidated Media which owns about 18% and is jointly shared between James Packer and Lachlan Murdock. Also, Lachlan is the chairman of TEN Networks so it's a bit different to the Fairfax scenario where none of the executives or board members have any meaningful shareholdings in the company. Finally, TEN has recently done a capital raising which certainly didn't help the share price. But I am sure you were aware of all this

Cheers,
Oracle.

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

In that case shareholders should beg her to become the chairman. Apparently, she is the chairman of another company since 1992 which is doing satisfactorily i reckon under her chairmanship, the name is Hancock Prospecting and has enabled her to become the richest women in Australia

She was groomed by her father her entire life in the mining sector. She has done extraordinarily well and I tips me lid to her accomplishments with Hancock Prospecting. However, she knows exactly zero about running a media outlet.

In my view, it is highly doubtful she can turn Fairfax around. In fact, it is highly doubtful anyone can turn Fairfax around. It's a dead duck, like pretty much the majority of print media the world over.

 

[oracle]

In my view, it is highly doubtful she can turn Fairfax around. In fact, it is highly doubtful anyone can turn Fairfax around. It's a dead duck, like pretty much the majority of print media the world over.

I agree,

As Warren Buffett would say:

When a management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for bad economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact.

But since her money is on the line she will not hesitate to make the hard decisions regarding restructuring the business and closing down unprofitable divisions. Might add a few more years to the life of the business.

Cheers,
Oracle.

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

restructuring the business and closing down unprofitable divisions.

By 'unprofitable divisions', do you mean the newspapers? It's all just speculation, but it seems to me that really the only reason for her to want control is to make editorial decisions so she can use the brand as her personal megaphone.

I seriously doubt that she has the best interests of other shareholders in mind. If she wants control, let her make a bid for the company.

 

[b simpson]

I thought the fact she wanted editorial control was obvious.

The only reason she was knocked back was her refusal to sign the editorial charter.

 

[Tuppence]

By 'unprofitable divisions', do you mean the newspapers?

In fact, the newspapers still make money - just not nearly as much as they used to
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-02-23/industries/30724017_1_national-advertising-revenues-executive-appointments-firm

 

[b simpson]

http://www.ifre.com/murdoch’s-last-gift-viable-capital-structure/21027242.article

The film and media has been subsidizing newscorp print for years. Apparently the Australian hasn't made a profit in 48 years..
Print media is a lost cause unless they move into digital media.

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

In fact, the newspapers still make money -

Yes I know, I was being facetious.

I also know why Murdoch wants to split the print media assets off from the rest of Fox. Essentially he doesn't want the rotting corpse of print to continue stinking up his money making rainbow of excellence.

 

[Tuppence]

http://www.ifre.com/murdoch’s-last-gift-viable-capital-structure/21027242.article

The film and media has been subsidizing newscorp print for years. Apparently the Australian hasn't made a profit in 48 years..
Print media is a lost cause unless they move into digital media.

The Oz is Rupert's vanity project - so he can say he has the national newspaper.
And the print media has already moved into digital media - it's working out how to make a quid out of it that is proving to be the big problem.