sharetrader
Page 51 of 339 FirstFirst ... 4147484950515253545561101151 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 3387

Thread: IFT - Infratil

  1. #501
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    paraparaumu, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    426

    Default Thanks Toddy

    I guess I'm just a bit disappointed with IFT share price since the share split, and wonder how much more downward pressure the rights issue will put on it.

    PS Toddy is a good name, my son is called Todd too.

  2. #502
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    waikato, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    59

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Toddy View Post
    QOH

    Sit tight. The warrants exercise price will be adjusted for the dilution of the capital raising. The warrants offer good leverage and IFT management are experts at adding value to the company.

    The only downside is that you have to be brave in more volitile times like now.
    Or just astute
    living2

  3. #503
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    london, , United Kingdom.
    Posts
    1,014

    Default

    IFT have invested another AUD $6m into ENE over the last two weeks. Stake holding now 26.85%.
    Toddy

  4. #504
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    182

    Default

    Infratil and Infratil Australia Ltd on the form I see.

    What does that mean? Surely Infratil Australia can't be a child company of IFT? Or am I missing something?

  5. #505
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    london, , United Kingdom.
    Posts
    1,014

    Default

    Now we all know why Air NZ has got the pip. IFT has recognised that budget airlines are going to provide the future growth for the domestic market. So, they included an international target for Air NZ to achieve a 'rebate'. AIR did not like the new target set so IFT removed the rebate.


    In the mean time Air NZ has pocketed the cash and kept it quiet from the public.




    Fees deal revealed in airport charges squabble
    By ROELAND van den BERGH - The Dominion Post | Wednesday, 12 September 2007

    Air New Zealand was refunded up to 20 per cent of its landing fees by Wellington International Airport during the past five years, helped by the demise of Origin Pacific last year, and Qantas reducing services.


    Wellington airport acting chief executive Mike Basher said the refunds were part of a performance-based agreement under which Air New Zealand received a rebate if it exceeded passenger growth targets.

    The five-year agreement expired on June 30 and ran alongside the normal landing charges which were also reviewed every five years.

    The collapse of regional airline Origin Pacific and Qantas pulling out of the Wellington-to-Christchurch route had handed those passengers to Air New Zealand, helping the airline to easily exceed the targets, he said.

    Passenger numbers through the airport increased by 1.74 million in the past five years to 4.64 million. Air New Zealand had also lowered airfares to generate demand during that time and increased its domestic capacity.

    Wellington airport's aeronautical revenue had grown to $41.9 million from $33.6 million in 2003. Air New Zealand was the airport's biggest user.

    The airport tried to talk to Air New Zealand three months before the agreement ended about the possibility of a new contract, Mr Basher said.

    "They did not engage fully in those discussions." Instead, last month the airline filed for a judicial review of the airport's new increased landing fees.

    That made it a lot harder to reach another agreement, Mr Basher said.

    However, Air New Zealand's group general manager of short haul airlines, Norm Thompson, said the airline had told the airport it wanted to roll over the previous agreement, which also helped the airport to meet its targeted weighted average cost of capital.

    But the airport responded with a proposal that required Air New Zealand to start long-haul services from Wellington to gain a rebate on landing fees.

    Wellington airport is pinning its hopes on the new Boeing 787, which technically has the ability to fly from the capital's short runway to Asian destinations like Singapore with a full load of passengers - the first big plane with that ability.

    "At this time, no such long-haul route out of Wellington is financially viable," Mr Thompson said.

    But Air New Zealand had opened new domestic routes serving Wellington, including a direct flight to Invercargill and extending the Queenstown service to year-round.

    Mr Basher denied the airport's proposal was linked to long-haul services.

    Mr Thompson said Air New Zealand was willing to talk to the airport about a new target-based rebate agreement.

    The judicial review in the High Court at Wellington would consider the airport's process for setting the new landing charges, and was unrelated to a rebate agreement.

    Air New Zealand says that the new landing charges were a 34 per cent increase, not the 2.85 per cent a year for the next five years being imposed by the airport.

    But Mr Basher said Air New Zealand was including the loss of its rebate under the passenger growth agreement in its increase.

    Air New Zealand has also sought a judicial review of Auckland International Airport's landing fee increases.

    It has also called for an overhaul of the way airports are able to set landing fees.

    Airports must consult airlines but do not have to gain agreement on new charges.
    Toddy

  6. #506
    Member tobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    451

    Default Chart, and dilution

    Not sure how visible the dilution for the rights issue should be, but looks like we have hit the falling trendline (from late August ). Trendline not broken(?), but friday's 3% increase was on good volume and coincides with MACD & slow stochastic 'buys'.

  7. #507
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,936

    Default Buy Signals?

    These are all good observations, Tobo, but to get an idea as to how reliable they might be we need to look at the history of the current downtrend.

    It's true that Fridays's 3% increase was on good volume, but you can see from the chart that there have been 5 even bigger updays in the course of this downtrend, and they all came to nothing.

    There is indeed an MACD buy signal, but it is the third since May. You wouldn't want to have acted on the others. To my mind this means that the MACD is too active, too sensitive for this downtrend.

    I guess that the Stoch buy signal you speak of is using the "standard" slow stochastic oscillator (10,3,3). I think that this is still too "fast", because this is the 4th "Buy" signal it has given over the course of this downtrend. This is not to say that the latest signal is necessarily "wrong", but it doesn't give you a lot of confidence does it!

    The chart here includes a really slow stochastic of 50 days. This period was chosen such that previous peaks just failed to trigger a buy signal. Same with the 25 day QStick. You can see that neither of these indicators is anywhere near triggering a buy.

    In short, I see no technical reason to buy IFT - yet.


  8. #508
    Member tobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    451

    Default

    Thanks, Phaedrus, another masterly explaination.

  9. #509
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    london, , United Kingdom.
    Posts
    1,014

    Default

    Interesting times. The OBV's were through the roof for the second trading session in a row. I'm not sure who was in control, but the buyers did end up pushing up the closing price after a solid days trading.

    Maybe punters are positioning themselves for the governments long awaited 'environmental carbon emissions trading scheme' to be announced on Thursday.
    Toddy

  10. #510
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    182

    Default

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/...ectid=10464825

    Infratil looks like it would be set to do well under such a scheme, I mean which of their projects produces a lot of pollution?

    Airports? Not really. Buses? Yes but they have those fancy new *clean* ones.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •