Air Asia vs. Qantas Essay Example for Free

Air Asia vs. Qantas Essay 1. Overview 1.1 Qantas-Main business and strategies The main business of Qantas airways limited is the transportation of passengers. Their core strategy of Qantas is profitably grows and the longer-term strategy of Qantas is to reorganize its business structure in order to eliminate mounting losses. The strategy that implement by company is to reduce the capital intensity of the business by forging partnerships with carriers in certain sectors that are uneconomical. (Qantas, 2012) Such as cooperate with British Airways. Qantas use two complementary airline brands; these two brands are used to touch different customers. Two brands operating together has occupied 65% market share in Australia, (Qantas, 2012) because, two brands provide flexibility in varying market conditions. Qantas, (2011 pp. 4) On the other hand, these two brands practice some sub-strategies to support its main strategy. These appropriate sub-strategies are the key success for point that lead to Qantas continually expansion in the world. | Qantas| Jetstar| Sub-Strategy| * Premium full service * Maximized profitability| * Cost leadership * Low fare airline| Operational improvement| * Enhanced customer service focus| * Expand locally and into international leisure markets | In statistics of 2012, Qantas has full-employees for 33,584. Flights over 550 airports and passengers carried are 44,456,000, which increase the 5.06% base on the year 2011. (Qantas, 2012) 1.2 Air Asia-Main business and strategies Air Asia is the largest low-cost flyer carrier in the world. It is establishing with the dream of making flying possible for everyone. On the other hand, it is not only focusing on the cost factor, but also safety first. The Air Asia has operated around 11 years, but it’s still keep high grow rate. The Air Asia is the regional carrier with the largest destination network, highest flight frequencies and high aircraft utilization.( Air Asia, 2012) Air Asia was named the 2012 World’s Best Low Cost Airline in the annual World Airline Survey by Skytrax for three consecutive years. There are some actions that support its main strategy in order to make it success. Such as the lost cost model is based on: (Hill, C. W. 1988). * Single passenger class * Flying to cheaper, less congested secondary airports * A single type of airplane in order to reducing training and servicing cost * Point to point flights with no transfers In statistics, Air Asia has full –employees for 4346. Passengers carried are around 22,474,620 in 2012, which increase more than 10% base on the year 2011. Services network over 216 routes covering destinations in and around world. The below picture has shown that air Asia are trying to get more market share in the southwest of Asia, there are more than 143 routes in southwest of Asia out of 216. This is the developing direction of the Air Asia in recent years. (Air Asia, 2012) 2. Industry analysis 2.1 Overview Goble airlines markets PESTLE mode analysis The Lift side is show that, the air travel remains a growth market. This forecast mentions that air traffic will double in the next 15 years, which means, the external environment still keep optimistic. Both of Qantas and Air Asia have same opportunity. (Airbus, 2012) The PESTLE model lists the factors or driver for growth, external environment can be reasonably expected as optimistic. but this chart showed that real GDP 2011-2031 by region, the economic growth is a key driver for air traffic growth, increasing urbanization will also drive economic growth and the propensity to fly. (Airbus, 2012) PESTLE model PESTLE model| Political * Stable political environment * Deregulation| Economic * Global financial crisis * Rising currency * Rising fuel cost| Social * Changing consumer demographics * Increasing travel lifestyle * Changing consumer preferences| Technology * Internet * Surface transport investments * Efficient aircrafts| Legal * Legislation compliance requirements * Allegations of misleading advertising| Environmental * Greenhouse and carbon emissions * Tourism saturation * Shortage of infrastructure capacity| 2.2 Overview Australia airline markets Qantas is the biggest airline operator in Australia, which represent as 75.6% for domestic market, but Qantas still has some competitors in Australia, such as Virgin blue (14.4%), Skywest (1.3%), Tiger (1.0%) and others (6.3%). We should understand it operate environment before we going to depth analysis, because the every company is restricted by external environment. PESTLE model clearly show Qantas operating external environment According to this chart, we can conclude that the overall environment is good and stable, but overall industry still facing some problem, the biggest issues has shown at lift picture, which is purchases, purchases of fuel. (Australia government 2013) 2.3 Qantas SWOT analysis Strength: 1. As one of the biggest Airline in the world, QAN has large quantity of flight customers and business relationships. Large scale could bring more benefits. 2. Qantas operates in a sea of business activities in different sectors. But all of them the support activities of the aviation industry, such as catering, engineering and baggage handling. Thus operation contributes to helping control supplier and aircraft maintenance costs. 3. Qantas Airways, Canada airlines, United Kingdom airline, United States airlines and Cathay Pacific founded a management company called One world Alliance. This centrally is to help each other in non-core business activities, such as marketing and online ticketing, in purpose of reducing costs and thereby cutting ticket prices. Members of the Union may also transfer passengers for connecting flights. 4. As monopolizing in Australian Market, Qantas has a home advantage. Thus its subsidies could provide better resources for its business. Weakness: Without the authorization of the trade union officials, workers in Qantas took an action called Wild Cat Strikes. Qantas was damaged by that action in delaying flights, exploring its issues between employees and the company. Besides, QAN Company is too concentrated on Australia side. Opportunities: As publishing of Open sky police, such as Pricing determined by market forces, Fair and equal opportunity to complete, Cooperative marketing arrangements, QAN could be beneficial from international aviation liberalization and downsizing in government intervention. In addition, more international destinations especially in Asia are developing. Due to Australia Market is less tapped so far, QAN could get a better chance to gain a major market shares than other airline companies. Moreover, QAN found a new opportunity of new market and created Jetstar witch is a low budget airline to attract potential large quantities of customers. Threat: With the result of merging between n United Airlines and Continental, Qantas is under threat because United Airlines- Continental is planning to penetrate into Australian market. One of Qantas most important international routine, between Australia and USA, will be affected. Unfortunately, large fluctuation in oil prices, together with global financial crisis, big airline companies was affected seriously due to rising operation and labor costs. Increasing Australia Airline market completion also will be a threat for QAN developing. 2.4 Overview Southwest of Asia markets The main competitors of Air Asia are Thai airways, Nok air, One Two GO Airline, and Singapore airlines, among of them SIG is the main competitor with Air Aira, in order to compete with Air Asia, SIG introduced 2 budget airlines; Valu Air and Tiger Airways, both of them are practice as the low-cost position. AIRASIA SWOT Analysis: Strength: AIRASIA has a well-known name and it is famous for its low cost operation. in accordance with the 2011-2012 year financial report, the companys non-fuel costs fell 3%, suggesting that companies continue to implement cost control; in 2011-2012, the company plans to non-fuel unit costs to fall by 5%. While ancillary revenue rose 23%, which helps companies to achieve annual revenue growth targets Moreover, it has the first-mover advantage of first low cost airline company in Asia. After that, AirAisa has strong promotional strategies for general promotion and media advertising. In addition, they companying with other service providers, such as hotel) and credit cards create a unique image among customers. Because of its punctual performance, AirAsia was offered honor of five-star service and flashes. AIRASIA has developed a well-established distribution channel in its products and services. Moreover, it is always using single type of airplane, thus minimizing maintenance fees. Weaknesses Due to the report, Aircraft leasing costs increased by 8% since the number of aircraft increased by 8 per cent while leasing costs and depreciation of the dollar, allowing the company to save rental costs. Airport and operating costs increased by 12%, reached 444.34 million dollars. Other expenses have increased by 14%. As the economic condition recovery, how to control the rising costs becomes o one of the most serious challenges faced by AIRASIA. Because of the lower cost, AIRASIA has limited service resources. Thus also is related to being lack of ability of handling irregular situation. Government interference regulates airports. In addition, AIRASIA receives a lot of complaints from customers such flight delays and not able to change flight. When competition is getting intense, good customer service and management is especially important. Opportunity With having first-move advantages, AIRASIA could be more possible to survive and win under the big intense environment such as rising oil price and government regulation. There is another opportunity for AIRASIA is cooperating with other low cost airlines such as Jetstar. The significant action could help tap into their strength and resources. Besides, larger population of customers is willing to choose cheaper flight. Threat In nowadays, lots of low cost airline companies are appeared such as Jetstar, Virgin, and Southwest. These companies improve that AIRASIA’s low cost strategy could not be a strong competitive advantage in the industry. It could be copied easily. Many kinds of expenses such as security fees and landing fees are out of control. Moreover, unstable economic conditions in the world have impacted on airline industry. Thus treat is same with questions facing by Qantas. 3. Accounting policies analysis 3.1 Basis of preparation of the financial statements The accounting policies are the procedures that used by a company to prepare its financial statements. Qantas’ reports basically are prepared in accordance with AASBs, but also following the IFRS (Qantas, 2012 pp.78). Air Asia prepared their reports following the MASBs and also in conformity with IFRS. IFRS is the general guide for these two companies when they prepared their report. It means not only significantly enhance comparability of financial reporting between these two companies, but also decrease our uncertainty, increase the reliability and accurately of analysis. (Burgstahler, D. C., Hail, L., Leuz, C. 2006) These two companies are running same business industry and prepare report in accordance with IFRS, so there are some accounting policies are similar, the following lists show the similarities of accounting policies practiced as these two companies 3.2 Similarities of accounting policies (Qantas, 2012 pp.80, Air Asia, 2012 pp.73) * Reports on the basis of historical costs except in accordance with relevant accounting policies where assets and liabilities are stated at their fair values * Main revenue recognition-The value of seats sold for which services have not been rendered is included in current liabilities as sales in advance * Other revenue-such as fuel surcharge, insurance surcharge, administrative fees, excess baggage and baggage handling fees, are recognized upon the completion of services rendered. * Residual value-the changing estimates are based on historical experience and various other factors that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances * PPE-Depreciation is used the straight-line method * Inventory-The values of inventories are reported as weight average cost. * Repair and maintenance expenditure, repair treat as cost, deduct in the same period. Maintenance, if it changes in the using life of equipment, it will be treat as capitalization. Even these policies are similar, but they still have some flexibility, such as the report can be influenced by changing accounting estimates. The following table has been showed that there are totally different use for life and residual values between these two companies’ assets. These two factors are depended on the judgment and estimate of management. Matsumoto, D. A. (2002) mentions that management’s estimates and judgments involved in the accounting policies which have significant potential impact on their financial statements, because these matters are really uncertainty. Finally, this uncertainty will reflect on the ROA, ROE, even if these two ratios increase or decrease, it does not necessarily because of changing in the company’s profitability. (Lev, B., Li, S., Sougiannis, T. 2010). | Qantas| As Asia| | Use for life(Years)| Residual values| Use for life (Years)| Residual values| Buildings| 10-40| 0%| 28.75-50| 0%| Passenger aircraft and engines| 2.5-20| Up limited 10%| 7-25| Adjusting according to a prospective basis (note1)| Air spare parts| 15-20| Up limited 20%| 10| Adjusting according to a prospective basis (note1)| Note1ï ¼Å¡Estimates and judgments are continually evaluated by the Directors and are based on historical experience and other factors, including expectations of future events that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances. (Air Asia, 2012 pp. 77) 3.3 Main different accounting policies 3.3.1 Receivable Qantas and Air Asia receivables contain of trade debtors, other debtors and loans owing from related parties. Normally, the net receivable is recognized as its original amount less a provision for uncollectible debts. Qantas make an estimate for doubtful debts when collection of the full amount is no longer probable. The estimation of provision of doubtful debt relative to receivable is regularly reviewed. Bad debts are written off as incurred (Qantas, 2012 pp.101). As result, it is a risky way for the company not to assign provision of bad debts according to the percentage of credit sales. In Air Asia, they assign provision of bad debts according to the percentage of credit sale, (Air Asia, 2012 pp. 98) company will operate more stable, less risk then Qantas, but allowance will decrease its operating asset, reflect on the ATO, as result influence ROE. (Davidson Thompson 1962) 3.3.2 Discount Rate Discount rate is the interest rate that used in discounted cash flow analysis to determine the present value of future cash flows. (Qantas, 2012 pp.101) Changing discount rate will influence the company’s pension plan. Normally, pension is company’s liability; it is measured by three factors, PBO, ABO and VBO. Either PBO, ABO, should be discounted before reported. Due to particular category of pension plan, company just reports the different between the pension benefits and pension obligation on the financial report, if the benefits are greater than obligations it will be reported on the assets side, on the opposite, it will be reported on the liabilities side. (Wiener 1995) So the effect will directly reflect on its ROA and ROE. Discount rate of Qantas is based on the risk-free rate for the ten-year Australian Government Bonds adjusted for a risk premium that represented as 10.5% percent per annum (Qantas, 2012 pp.103). Air Asia use weight average effective interest ra te that represent as 10% per annum. The changes in discount rates of Qantas in 2011 to 2012 that lead to decrease in the Workers ’ Compensation provision of $15 million and an increase in the long service leave provision of $45 million. The net effect of these changes was a $30 million increase in provisions as at 30 June 2012. (Qantas, 2012 pp.103) as results, the changing of provision will reflect on the ROE of Qantas, because provision is comprised of liability. Finally, the ratio analysis will lack of comparability. 4. Ratio analysis: 4.1 Return on equity analysis: The ROE changing line of Qantas Airline limited (QAN) has a sharp fluctuation during year 2009, which has reached the top point of almost 60%. Then ROE index declined until 16.89% after the top and maintained about the level figure of 20% from year 2010. Compared with QAN, Aireys Berhad (AIRASIA) has a relative complicated ROE line. AIRASIA started from -50% from end of year 2008, afterwards got to the first top of 35.37% in 2010. After that the concave curve reached the bottom of 14.28%, and was back to the top at point of 37.39%. As personal opinion, AIRASIA has a brighter future than QAN on ROE side due to its growing trend ROE ratio from year 2011 though it had a negative number from the beginning point. In addition, with the research of 5 year average ROE rate, the total airline industry index is 26.9%, which is higher than QAN and lower than AIRAISA (StockCentral, 2013). AIRAISA is doing a better job in using investors’ money and attracting more investing capital. 4.2 Leverage affect From above two graphs, different index reflect different relationships. On QAN side, ROE rates changing are mainly due to changing in return of asset rate. It is indicating that QAN achieved a better effect of asset utilization by increasing revenue and saving asset funds to raise ROE ratio up. Different with QAN, AIRAISA’s ROE rate is primarily rely on financial leverage, which is equal to net financial liabilities / equity. Overwhelming other related facts, higher financial leverage rates mean stronger power of using liabilities to create profit. From this aspect, it is not hard to disclose different profit channels between two companies. 4.3 Borrowing cost driversï ¼Å¡ Downsizing of borrowing cost rate gives opportunities to raise ROE ratio. In QAN, from year 2011 the borrowing rates have been continuously declining which gave contributions to profit gaining. From AIRASIA side, borrowing cost rate kept on level of 3%-4% in recent two years, which may weaken ROE performance competing with QAN. 4.4 Operating profit drivers Return on asset ratio, which could be divided in asset turnover and profit margin directly, affects the performance of ROE. Compared with two companies, ATO ratio gave more impacts on ROA in past five years in QAN. Relatively much higher ATO ratio of QAN reflects that business higher speed of asset utilization from input to output for the period, better enterprises assets management quality and efficiency. Downsizing in ATO rate will directly influence ROA rate, obviously between year 2008 and 2009. In AIRASIA side, ROA ratio variation mainly affect by PM ration. On whole, PM ratio curve indicates increasing trend in the 5-year period, though a slight drop in year 2011. Higher PM ratio compared with QAN could give evidences that AIRASIA has better ability to recover kinds of expenditures and cost of goods sold, benefiting from the low cost strategy. Low costs give contributions to gaining higher ROA ratio of AIRASIA than QAN in recent year. 4.5 Cost structure These two graphs are drawn on the base of revenue as 100%. According to two graphics, we can easily see that After deduct COGS, Air Asia reported Gross profit around 50% over 5 years, but Qantas just has less than 20% for Gross profit, Air Asia practices cost-lead ship strategy, so COGS and its selling administration expense is significantly lower than Qantas. So the Air Asia control its COGS are better than Qantas. But however, the selling administration expense of Qantas (around 11% of 100% revenue) less then Air Asia (around 26% of 100% revenue), which mean Qantas, is good at management. Thus trend indicates that low-costs of airline industry would be bafflement for increasing profit. Compared with two companies’ gross profit and gross margin ratio curve, Qantas has been suffered drop trend in five-year gross profit due to its downsizing revenue and high cost of goods sold. AIRASIA has optimistic trends both in gross profit and gross margin. The company was engaged in exp anding sales and revenue, improving cost management level and seeking appreciate company strategy at the same time. Higher gross profit and gross margin indicate company could have higher possibilities to gain profit. 4.6 Average industry analysis The first graph shows the ROE of Air Asia in the Malaysia airline industry, after 2009, the ROE of Air Asia is significantly higher than average. The second procure compare the Qantas with Australia airline industry, if we calculate the average ROE of Qantas, the result is a little bit lower than average. The last graph we put two-airline companies in the Asia- pacific region, the graph has shown that Qantas’ operating is lower than the average, after 2009, Air Asia is keeping upward. 5. Conclusion After our analysis, due to applying different policies and strategies, two airline companies did different performance in gaining profits. we think that even though Air Asia just set up around 11years, and its size of the company is quite less than Qantas. But they have been adapted to the turbulent global environment. Its strategy has fitted with external environment, the advantage of small company is easy to change its management control system to response with the turbulent environment and better to keep consistent with its strategy. Finally, the whole company will be easier to achieve the goal. As result, AIRASIA seems to be better in raise ROE ratios, benefiting from its increasing sales and costs controlling. So we can concluded that AIRASIA’s performance is better than Qantas. Reference: Qantas, (2012) â€Å"Qantas Annual Report 2012† Qantas Airways Limited www.qantas.com Qantas, (2011) â€Å"Qantas Group presentation December 2011† Qantas Group www.qantas.com. Air Asia, (2012) â€Å"Air Asia Annual Report 2012† Air Asia Airways Limited www.airaisa.com Airbus, (2012) â€Å"Navigating the future† Global Market Forecast 2012-2031 www.airbus.com â€Å"Domestic airline activity, Department of Infrastructure and Transport†, Australia government, update 19 August, 2013 www.bitre.gov.au Qantas Customers 2012, by Segment 2012, Statistic, viewed 8 May 2012, Qantas’ Situation: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow 2011, The Age, viewed 8 May 2013, Stockcentral (2013), industry averages. Available from: http://www.stockcentral.com/?utm_source=iclubindustryaveragesutm_mdium=link [Accessed: August 17, 2013]. Burgstahler, D. C., Hail, L., Leuz, C. (2006). The importance of reporting incentives: earnings management in European private and public firms. The accounting review, 81(5), 983-1016. Lev, B., Li, S., Sougiannis, T. (2010). The usefulness of accounting estimates for predicting cash flows and earnings. Review of Accounting Studies, 15(4), 779-807. Kotlikoff, L. J., Wise, D. A. (1989). Employee retirement and a firms pension plan. Hill, C. W. (1988). Differentiation versus low cost or differentiation and low cost: a contingency framework. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 401-412. Matsumoto, D. A. (2002). Managements incentives to avoid negative earnings surprises. The Accounting Review, 77(3), 483-514. Cyert, R. M., Davidson, H. J., Thompson, G. L. (1962). Estimation of the allowance for doubtful accounts by Markov chains. Management Science, 8(3), 287-303. Scott, T. W. (1994). Incentives and disincentives for financial disclosure: Voluntary disclosure of defined benefit pension plan information by Canadian firms. Accounting Review, 26-43. Wiener, H. J.(1995), †Pension Plan Strategy† A Comprehensive Guide to Retirement Planning for physicians and Other Professionals 7(2), 101-212. Appendix Air Asia ANALYSIS| 　| 　| 　| 　| 　| 　| REFORMULATED BALANCE SHEET| | 12/31/2012 USD| 12/31/2011 USD| 12/31/2010 USD| 12/31/2009 USD| 12/31/2008 USD| Operating Assets| | | | | | | Net Receivables| | 315,898,627| 176,713,880| 158,421,275| 170,371,203| 262,514,740| Total Inventories| | 7,758,339| 6,223,975| 5,692,557| 6,093,458| 5,978,035| Prepaid Expenses| | 240,199,477| 149,035,647| 105,739,906| 73,305,199| 32,597,110| Other Current Assets| | 0| 198,398,423| 174,299,659| 180,913,551| 212,788,150| Net Property, Plant Equip.| | 3,200,140,615| 2,744,062,776| 3,021,904,005| 2,319,564,252| 1,905,866,763| Other Assets| | 863,519,621| 282,959,621| 106,643,425| 141,351,051| 40,122,254| | | 4,627,516,678| 3,557,394,322| 3,572,700,827| 2,891,598,715| 2,459,867,052| Operating Liabilities| | | | | | | Accounts Payable| | 21,299,542| 25,636,593| 17,245,987| 26,411,507| 31,597,399| Accrued Payroll| | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| Income Taxes Payable| | 1,674,951| 0| 529,269| 2,869,159| 0| Dividends Payable| | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| Other Current Liabilities| | 606,007,521| 479,045,110| 400,453,705| 312,255,549| 322,342,775| Provisions for Risks Charges| | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| Deferred Income| | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| Deferred Taxes| | -118,180,510| -162,807,571| -233,260,905| -219,414,136| -247,430,347| Other Liabilities| | 166,843,689| 154,044,479| 146,867,196| 0| 0| | | 677,645,193| 495,918,612| 331,835,252| 122,122,079| 106,509,827| Net Operating Assets| | 3,949,871,485| 3,061,475,710| 3,240,865,575| 2,769,476,636| 2,353,357,225| | | | | | | | Financial Assets| | | | | | | Cash Short Term Inv.| | 730,127,861| 666,457,098| 487,957,516| 217,964,953| 44,439,884| | | 730,127,861| 666,457,098| 487,957,516| 217,964,953| 44,439,884| Financial Liabilities| | | | | | | Short Term Debt and Current LTD| | 368,264,879| 187,454,574| 179,660,126| 157,788,551| 157,243,353| Long Term Debt| | 2,381,682,472| 2,267,166,877| 2,368,374,899| 2,064,168,224| 1,776,526,012| | | 2,749,947,351| 2,454,621,451| 2,548,035,025| 2,221,956,776| 1,933,769,364| Net Financial Liabilities (Assets)| | 2,019,819,490| 1,788,164,353| 2,060,077,509| 2,003,991,822| 1,889,329,480| Shareholders Equity| | 1,930,051,995| 1,273,311,356| 1,180,788,066| 765,484,813| 464,027,746| check| | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| REFORMULATED INCOME STATEMENT| | | | | | | Sales| | 1,617,426,750| 1,418,025,552| 1,280,394,033| 914,982,769| 761,470,520| Total Costs| | 864,089,928| 1,074,545,110| 934,371,331| 648,407,418| 932,758,092| Earnings before Interest and Taxation (EBIT)| 753,336,821| 343,480,442| 346,022,701| 266,575,350| -171,287,572| Tax| | 56,556,246| 69,934,700| 12,143,668| 33,884,638| -107,697,977| Income after Taxation| | 696,780,576| 273,545,741| 333,879,034| 232,690,713| -63,589,595| Net Interest| | 97,912,688| 98,364,669| -10,343,765| 84,832,360| 79,925,723| Net Income (before Pref Dividends Minority Interests)| 598,867,888| 175,181,073| 344,222,799| 147,858,353| -143,515,318| TAX-SHIELD| | | | | | | Effective Tax Rate| | 7.5%| 20.4%| 3.5%| 12.7%| 62.9%| Net Interest| | 97,912,688| 98,364,669| -10,343,765| 84,832,360| 79,925,723| Tax Shield| | 7,350,728| 20,027,643| -363,014| 10,783,119| 50,253,725| TAX-ADJUSTED OPERATING INCOME| | | | | | | Operating Income (with tax shield)| | 689,429,848| 253,518,098| 334,242,048| 221,907,593| -113,843,321| Net Financing Costs| | 90,561,960| 78,337,026| -9,980,751| 74,049,241| 29,671,997| Net Income| | 598,867,888| 175,181,073| 344,222,799| 147,858,353| -143,515,318| AVERAGED BALANCE SHEEETS| | | | | | | Operating Assets| OA| 4,092,455,500| 3,565,047,574| 3,232,149,771| 2,675,732,883| 1,298,921,526| Operating Liabilities| OL| 586,781,902| 413,876,932| 226,978,666| 114,315,953| 65,446,413| Net Operating Assets| NOA| 3,505,673,597| 3,151,170,642| 3,005,171,105| 2,561,416,930| 1,233,475,113| Financial Assets| FA| 698,292,480| 577,207,307| 352,961,235| 131,202,419| 26,432,942| Financial Liabilities| FL| 2,602,284,401| 2,501,328,238| 2,384,995,900| 2,077,863,070| 991,642,182| Net Financial Liabilities (Assets)| NFL(NFA)| 1,903,991,922| 1,924,120,931| 2,032,034,666| 1,946,660,651| 965,209,240| Shareholders Equity| SE| 1,601,681,676| 1,227,049,711| 973,136,439| 614,756,279| 268,265,873| check| | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| Sales| SA| 1,617,426,750| 1,418,025,552| 1,280,394,033| 914,982,769| 761,470,520| Operating Income (with tax shield)| OI| 689,429,848| 253,518,098| 334,242,048| 221,907,593| -113,843,321| Net Financing Costs| NFC| 90,561,960| 78,337,026| -9,980,751| 74,049,241| 29,671,997| Net Income| NI| 598,867,888| 175,181,073| 344,222,799| 147,858,353| -143,515,318| ROE DECOMPOSITION| | | | | | BASIC ANALYSIS| | | | | | | ATO (sales / net operating assets)| | 0.46| 0.45| 0.43| 0.36| 0.62| PM (operating income / sales)| | 42.63%| 17.88%| 26.10%| 24.25%| -14.95%| ROA (operating income / net operating assets)| 19.67%| 8.05%| 11.12%| 8.66%| -9.23%| check| | 0.00| 0.00| 0.00| 0.00| 0.00| CLEV (net operating assets / equity)| | 2.19| 2.57| 3.09| 4.17| 4.60| ILEV (operating income / net income)| | 1.15| 1.45| 0.97| 1.50| 0.79| ROE ( net income / equity)| | 37.39%| 14.28%| 35.37%| 24.05%| -53.50%| check| | 0.00| 0.00| 0.00| 0.00| 0.00| SPREAD ANALYSIS| | | | | | | ROA| | 19.67%| 8.05%| 11.12%| 8.66%| -9.23%| Borrowing Rate (net financing costs / net financial liabilities)| 4.76%| 4.07%| -0.49%| 3.80%| 3.07%| Spread (ROA financing costs)| | 14.91%| 3.97%| 11.61%| 4.86%| -12.30%| FLEV (net financial liabilities / equity)| | 1.19| 1.57| 2.09| 3.17| 3.60| Leveraged Spread| | 17.72%| 6.23%| 24.25%| 15.39%| -44.27%| ROE| | 37.39%| 14.28%| 35.37%| 24.05%| -53.50%| check| | 0.00| 0.00| 0.00| 0.00| 0.00| Qantas ANALYSIS| 　| 　| 　| 　| 　| 　| REFORMULATED BALANCE SHEET| | 06/30/2012 NZD preliminary| 06/30/2011 NZD| 06/30/2010 NZD restated| 06/30/2009 NZD| 06/30/2008 NZD| Operating Assets| | | | | | | Net Receivables| | 1,138,830,550| 1,099,506,200| 918,979,200| 914,755,950| 955,587,900| Total Inventories| | 385,418,800| 398,263,200| 269,443,350| 269,443,350| 202,112,500| Prepaid Expenses| | 410,020,000| 434,663,600| 326,034,900| 326,034,900| 0| Other Current Assets| | 89,179,350| 23,553,200| 86,154,300| 90,377,550| 287,808,200| Net Property, Plant Equip.| | 14,493,181,950| 14,615,831,200| 10,571,639,400| 10,571,639,400| 9,826,709,750| Other Assets| | 1,618,553,950| 1,675,489,000| 1,319,343,300| 1,319,343,300| 1,558,691,600| | | 18,135,184,600| 18,247,306,400| 13,491,594,450| 13,491,594,450| 12,830,909,950| Operating Liabilities| | | | | | | Accounts Payable| | 661,157,250| 639,148,200| 506,790,000| 506,790,000| 482,644,650| Accrued Payroll| | 0| 0| 0| 0| 337,932,100| Income Taxes Payable| | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| Dividends Payable| | 0| 0| 0| 0| 4,042,250| Other Current Liabilities| | 5,488,117,700| 5,418,306,600| 4,232,541,150| 4,241,832,300| 4,111,776,700| Provisions for Risks Charges| | 755,461,850| 692,678,200| 473,004,000| 473,004,000| 430,903,850| Deferred Income| | 1,164,456,800| 1,189,436,600| 901,241,550| 914,755,950| 1,024,306,150| Deferred Taxes| | 660,132,200| 821,150,200| 603,924,750| 603,924,750| 490,729,150| Other Liabilities| | 229,611,200| 527,805,800| 195,114,150| 195,114,150| 216,664,600| | | 8,958,937,000| 9,288,525,600| 6,912,615,600| 6,935,421,150| 7,098,999,450| Net Operating Assets| | 9,176,247,600| 8,958,780,800| 6,578,978,850| 6,556,173,300| 5,731,910,500| | | | | | | | Financial Assets| | | | | | | Cash Short Term Inv.| | 3,573,324,300| 4,083,268,400| 3,325,387,050| 3,325,387,050| 3,377,704,100| | | 3,573,324,300| 4,083,268,400| 3,325,387,050| 3,325,387,050| 3,377,704,100| Financial Liabilities| | | | | | | Short Term Debt and Current LTD| | 1,147,030,950| 617,736,200| 532,129,500| 522,838,350| 491,537,600| Long Term Debt| | 5,566,021,500| 5,839,052,400| 4,320,384,750| 4,306,870,350| 3,957,362,750| | | 6,713,052,450| 6,456,788,600| 4,852,514,250| 4,829,708,700| 4,448,900,350| Net Financial Liabilities (Assets)| | 3,139,728,150| 2,373,520,200| 1,527,127,200| 1,504,321,650| 1,071,196,250| Shareholders Equity| | 6,036,519,450| 6,585,260,600| 5,051,851,650| 5,051,851,650| 4,660,714,250| check| | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| REFORMULATED INCOME STATEMENT| | | | | | | Sales| | 16,117,886,200| 15,945,516,400| 11,632,519,800| 11,632,519,800| 11,764,564,400| Total Costs| | 16,221,416,250| 15,412,357,600| 11,379,969,450| 11,379,969,450| 11,506,668,850| Earnings before Interest and Taxation (EBIT)| -103,530,050| 533,158,800| 252,550,350| 252,550,350| 257,895,550| Tax| | -107,630,250| 79,224,400| 52,368,300| 52,368,300| 46,890,100| Income after Taxation| | 4,100,200| 453,934,400| 200,182,050| 200,182,050| 211,005,450| Net Interest| | 254,212,400| 187,355,000| 102,202,650| 102,202,650| 111,566,100| Net Income (before Pref Dividends Minority Interests)| -250,112,200| 266,579,400| 97,979,400| 97,979,400| 99,439,350| TAX-SHIELD| | | | | | | Effective Tax Rate| | 104.0%| 14.9%| 20.7%| 20.7%| 18.2%| Net Interest| | 254,212,400| 187,355,000| 102,202,650| 102,202,650| 111,566,100| Tax Shield| | 264,280,218| 27,839,900| 21,192,523| 21,192,523| 20,284,745| TAX-ADJUSTED OPERATING INCOME| | | | | | | Operating Income (with tax shield)| | -260,180,018| 426,094,500| 178,989,527| 178,989,527| 190,720,705| Net Financing Costs| | -10,067,818| 159,515,100| 81,010,127| 81,010,127| 91,281,355| Net Income| | -250,112,200| 266,579,400| 97,979,400| 97,979,400| 99,439,350| AVERAGED BALANCE SHEEETS| | | | | | | Operating Assets| OA| 18,191,245,500| 15,869,450,425| 13,491,594,450| 13,161,252,200| 6,415,454,975| Operating Liabilities| OL| 9,123,731,300| 8,100,570,600| 6,924,018,375| 7,017,210,300| 3,549,499,725| Net Operating Assets| NOA| 9,067,514,200| 7,768,879,825| 6,567,576,075| 6,144,041,900| 2,865,955,250| Financial Assets| FA| 3,828,296,350| 3,704,327,725| 3,325,387,050| 3,351,545,575| 1,688,852,050| Financial Liabilities| FL| 6,584,920,525| 5,654,651,425| 4,841,111,475| 4,639,304,525| 2,224,450,175| Net Financial Liabilities (Assets)| NFL(NFA)| 2,756,624,175| 1,950,323,700| 1,515,724,425| 1,287,758,950| 535,598,125| Shareholders Equity| SE| 6,310,890,025| 5,818,556,125| 5,051,851,650| 4,856,282,950| 2,330,357,125| check| | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| Sales| SA| 16,117,886,200| 15,945,516,400| 11,632,519,800| 11,632,519,800| 11,764,564,400| Operating Income (with tax shield)| OI| -260,180,018| 426,094,500| 178,989,527| 178,989,527| 190,720,705| Net Financing Costs| NFC| -10,067,818| 159,515,100| 81,010,127| 81,010,127| 91,281,355| Net Income| NI| -250,112,200| 266,579,400| 97,979,400| 97,979,400| 99,439,350| ROE DECOMPOSITION| | | | | | BASIC ANALYSIS| | | | | | | ATO (sales / net operating assets)| | 1.78| 2.05| 1.77| 1.89| 4.10| PM (operating income / sales)| | -1.61%| 2.67%| 1.54%| 1.54%| 1.62%| ROA (operating income / net operating assets)| -2.87%| 5.48%| 2.73%| 2.91%| 6.65%| check| | 0.00| 0.00| 0.00| 0.00| 0.00| CLEV (net operating assets / equity)| | 1.44| 1.34| 1.30| 1.27| 1.23| ILEV (operating income / net income)| | 1.04| 1.60| 1.83| 1.83| 1.92| ROE ( net income / equity)| | -3.96%| 4.58%| 1.94%| 2.02%| 4.27%| check| | 0.00| 0.00| 0.00| 0.00| 0.00| SPREAD ANALYSIS| | | | | | | ROA| | -2.87%| 5.48%| 2.73%| 2.91%| 6.65%| Borrowing Rate (net financing costs / net financial liabilities)| -0.37%| 8.18%| 5.34%| 6.29%| 17.04%| Spread (ROA financing costs)| | -2.50%| -2.69%| -2.62%| -3.38%| -10.39%| FLEV (net financial liabilities / equity)| | 0.44| 0.34| 0.30| 0.27| 0.23| Leveraged Spread| | -1.09%| -0.90%| -0.79%| -0.90%| -2.39%| ROE| | -3.96%| 4.58%| 1.94%| 2.02%| 4.27%| check| | 0.00| 0.00| 0.00| 0.00| 0.00| Company | Return On Equity Per Share[Y2008]| Return On Equity Per Share[Y2009]| Return On Equity Per Share[Y2010]| Return On Equity Per Share[Y2011]| Return On Equity Per Share[Y2012]| 1| 　| 　| 　| 　| 　| 2| -27.03| 25.33| 33.93| 14.46| 36.86| 3| 6.1| 20.38| 10.32| -18.51| -27.24| | 　| 　| 　| -16.22| 6.01| Malaysia industry average| -10.47%| 22.86%| 22.13%| -6.76%| 4.81%| | | | | | | 1| 17.02| 2| 1.89| 4.09| -4.07| 2| 22.45| 19.73| 18.2| 11.46| 15.25| 3| 11.61| -21.09| 2.26| -7.32| 2.36| Austrilia industry average| 17.03%| 0.21%| 7.45%| 2.74%| 4.51%| | | | | | | | 　| 　| 　| 　| 　| | Return On Equity Per Share[Y2008]| Return On Equity Per Share[Y2009]| Return On Equity Per Share[Y2010]| Return On Equity Per Share[Y2011]| Return On Equity Per Share[Y2012]| 1| -37.81| 22.91| 39.91| 17.15| 10.29| 2| 14.73| 1.33| 5.13| 5.29| 4.46| 3| -27.03| 25.33| 33.93| 14.46| 36.86| 4| 15.02| -1.08| -13.73| 4.69| 5.27| 5| -19.27| 11.89| 29.11| 9.99| 1.62| 6| -76.38| 57.88| 57.42| 19.5| 17.28| 7| -70.4| -11.18| 23.64| -4.06| 0.1| 8| -51.42| 4.23| 34.87| 17.31| 8.15| 9| -27.96| -10.48| 33.11| 0.5| 1.31| 10| 19.69| 39.08| 9.61| 13.94| 10.66| 11| -20.6| 5.01| 30.35| 19.6| 10.79| 12| -20.47| -30.29| -21.4| -5.16| -14.43| 13| -26.05| -3.37| 14.11| -9.31| 9.83| 14| 6.1| 20.38| 10.32| -110.51| -27.24| 15| -0.11| -13.94| 9.05| 85.17| -13.52| 16| 17.02| 2| 1.89| 4.09| -4.07| 17| 22.45| 19.73| 18.2| 11.46| 15.25| 17| 16.21| 43.36| 56.31| 44.68| 25.97| 18| 13.1| 7.31| 1.58| 7.88| 2.48| 19| -37.71| 14.89| 24.31| -14.64| 9.45| 20| -14.02| 0.34| 17.5| 10.69| 1.37| 21| 11.61| -21.09| 2.26| -7.32| 2.36| Asia Pacific Region industry average| -13.33%| 8.37%| 18.98%| 6.15%| 5.19%|