Auckland International Airport Limited (AIA)

[minimoke]

The answer of course is that although the chance of a terroist attack is slight, the consequences could be catastrophic. You can't ignore a small risk if the costs of an adverse event are very high.

The chance of an in-flight terrorist attack, despite media and movie attention, is pretty much non existent. I'd argue that the consequence of the security changes are more catastophic than any likely attack and AIA and NZ, could do a lot better if we ignored the security requirements - which of course the FAA won't let us.

Take AIA with 13m passenger movements a year. Say the security adds an extra 15 minutes to the time it takes to process a passenger and the cost to that individual is $1 a minute. Thats $195m in lost human productivity out of one airport in one year. Thats about half of AIA's revenue.

[macduffy]

 Thats about half of AIA's revenue. 

But hardly AIA's fault. And not sure what the point is in relating it to AIA's revenue? That theoretical cost doesn't accrue to AIA as revenue.

[minimoke]

[php] And not sure what the point is in relating it to AIA's revenue?

If we didn't have the excessive security measures Snoopys trip would have been more enjoyable and he would be more likely to fly again. Fly again = more revenue to AIA. Furthermore he would be more productive, potentially creating more income which he would be able to spend flying - more income to AIA.

If we didn't have those security measures flights would be cheaper, making air travel even more accesible. AIA wouldn't have to spend money on building concourses to hold passengers milling around waiting for security. More money in the passengers pockets = more flights or more discretionary cash to spend in food halls, which no doubt pay a % of income to AIA,

Security is a significant expence for which there is no corresponding return.

[beacon]

Security is a significant expence for which there is no corresponding return.

... except to the security industry. By now, it should be the fastest growing industry in the world...

[minimoke]

... except to the security industry. By now, it should be the fastest growing industry in the world...

Well, in NZ at least its a good way to recycle retired armed forces / Police personnel.

[PhaedrusFollower]

Just received the Dividend reinvestment offer from AIA. 2.5% discount is on offer...

I'm very interested to hear other sharetradee's thought process which makes them decide to participate or not in a reinvestment plan - to help me make a more informed decision.

So far, my brain says... if you take the dividend, you get to decide if you want to buy more AIA shares at the time or at a later date (perhaps during a dip) - the costs for this decision are: Brokerage and 2.5% of today's share price....

Love to hear your opinions on why you would or wouldn't opt into a dividend reinvestment plan.

Thanks

PF

[peat]

Just received the Dividend reinvestment offer from AIA. 2.5% discount is on offer...

I'm very interested to hear other sharetradee's thought process which makes them decide to participate or not in a reinvestment plan - to help me make a more informed decision.

So far, my brain says... if you take the dividend, you get to decide if you want to buy more AIA shares at the time or at a later date (perhaps during a dip) - the costs for this decision are: Brokerage and 2.5% of today's share price....

Love to hear your opinions on why you would or wouldn't opt into a dividend reinvestment plan.

Thanks

PF

someone did this thread years ago which didnt get too many answers

http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthr...t=reinvestment

I found it using the search feature

[minimoke]

Love to hear your opinions on why you would or wouldn't opt into a dividend reinvestment plan.

If I'm holding then I have faith the co will continue to do well so I generally go for reinvestment when offered. Saves me brokerage fees for a top up and prevents me heading to the wine shop with a dividend cheque.

[macduffy]

It's very much a "personal circumstances" thing, IMO.

A lot of - particularly older - investors rely on the dividend income so will take the cash.

My own approach is to normally take the reinvestment option on the premise that if I'm happy to hold that stock I'm happy to add to it, particularly if there's a discount offered.

A further point is that "odd lots" aren't usually an issue when selling these days - unlike the time when selling an odd number incurred an additional brokerage cost.

[percy]

.


My own approach is to normally take the reinvestment option on the premise that if I'm happy to hold that stock I'm happy to add to it, particularly if there's a discount offered.

A further point is that "odd lots" aren't usually an issue when selling these days - unlike the time when selling an odd number incurred an additional brokerage cost.[/QUOTE]
I allways take div reinvestment,feel like it is compounding my share value,and makes me save rather than spending it.
I would point out it has been very much the wrong thing to do with my NPX and PGC shares,both of which fell away after divie was announced.