Comments on Alan Kohler “Telstra's dividend danger”, 16/08/2010, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/telstra-nbn-google-android-apple-pd20100816-8CSYJ?OpenDocument&src=rot
No doubt Telstra has to change its business model altogether. It should move beyond the traditional communication infrastructure provider and focus on how to be a successful service provider.
It could also move to other businesses than communication, as long as it increases its value and profits.
For example, when in the height of the GFC, had Telstra moved to invest in Rio Tinto using its revenue and finance available, what would have been its bottom line now? That would not need too much experience and business acumen!
It should abandon the current rigid thinking, management and operations.
Telstra has been draining shareholders; value for too long.
Its board and management must change their mindsets. They need to be innovative and creative.
They need to combine technical engineering with financial engineering!
Showing posts with label Telstra. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Telstra. Show all posts
2010-08-16
2010-08-13
Telstra's appalling performance
Comments on John Durie “Telstra chief executive David Thodey lowers benchmarks after profit fall”, 13/08/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/telstra-chief-executive-david-thodey-lowers-benchmarks-after-profit-fall/story-e6frg9if-1225904631795
Telstra must change its business culture and management.
It must compete in the market as a small to media communications firms do in terms of pricing and services.
Its current pricing of services is not competitive enough to keep its market share, let alone to increase its share.
Its attitude has been "don't care" to customers must stop immediately.
After all its management structure has to change and be accountable for underlying business performance and profit.
If anyone cannot achieve good results, they should be sacked.
The CEO should specify his/her performance indicators with the total profit and key market shares as the core to be assessed and evaluated.
The company’s performance has been appalling. Even with its monopoly advantage, it could not compete with others which don’t have that and generate at least the same profits as them.
They have lost share holders’ value for too long and that has to stop.
Telstra must change its business culture and management.
It must compete in the market as a small to media communications firms do in terms of pricing and services.
Its current pricing of services is not competitive enough to keep its market share, let alone to increase its share.
Its attitude has been "don't care" to customers must stop immediately.
After all its management structure has to change and be accountable for underlying business performance and profit.
If anyone cannot achieve good results, they should be sacked.
The CEO should specify his/her performance indicators with the total profit and key market shares as the core to be assessed and evaluated.
The company’s performance has been appalling. Even with its monopoly advantage, it could not compete with others which don’t have that and generate at least the same profits as them.
They have lost share holders’ value for too long and that has to stop.
2010-05-07
Telstra's goose: cooked or to be cooked?
Comments on Alan Kohler “Telstra's goose is cooked”, 7/05/2010, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Telstras-goose-is-cooked-pd20100507-57S9U?OpenDocument&src=sph
The first point that I'd like to make is: while silly and temporary monopoly government has the power to do it and could do what the $25 million implementation report suggests in one of the scenarios, is it in the national interest? Or is it creating a good business environment for private businesses to do their businesses and invest in Australia? Or, will other parliamentary parties go along with the temporarily monopoly government in such an approach?
The second point is: while there is a high price tag for the "independent" report, is that reasonable for people including commentators to just assume all the report's views and analyses are correct and assumptions realistic?
In short, it is too early and premature to declare that Telstra should do this or that without deeply analyse the $25m report.
Which approach is prudent, Mr Kohler? It is highly likely that you are jumping too early , and too hastily!
Telstra’s goose still needs to be cooked very carefully!
The first point that I'd like to make is: while silly and temporary monopoly government has the power to do it and could do what the $25 million implementation report suggests in one of the scenarios, is it in the national interest? Or is it creating a good business environment for private businesses to do their businesses and invest in Australia? Or, will other parliamentary parties go along with the temporarily monopoly government in such an approach?
The second point is: while there is a high price tag for the "independent" report, is that reasonable for people including commentators to just assume all the report's views and analyses are correct and assumptions realistic?
In short, it is too early and premature to declare that Telstra should do this or that without deeply analyse the $25m report.
Which approach is prudent, Mr Kohler? It is highly likely that you are jumping too early , and too hastily!
Telstra’s goose still needs to be cooked very carefully!
2009-10-06
This shows how unwise the Rudd/Conroy Telstra policy is
Comments on "DEALS TV: Dead ringers", 6/10/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/DealsTV?ReadForm&vid=1628133&vidkey=08f9b61c9750d8596b57&
From the introduction one immediately realises how the small minded Australian government and its regulatory body the ACCC have done to damage the well beings of Australians by unwisely restrict Telstra's hand and strategies.
The Australian government should catch up with the modern economic and business reality and learn how to live with monopolies and supersized multinational firms, including Australia's own ones. The key is how to regulate their activities and prices and behaviours, as opposed to heir structure from an outdated view in the past.
It is a video doc and its introduction reads as:
Telstra Corp, News Corp, Shanghai Media Group, Telenor, BSNL, Zain, Myer, AIA, Volvo
Media and telco deals in Asia, Europe and the US are a painful reminder of the upside Telstra will miss out on by structurally separating. Elsewhere, Myer, AIA and Volvo are in the news.
From the introduction one immediately realises how the small minded Australian government and its regulatory body the ACCC have done to damage the well beings of Australians by unwisely restrict Telstra's hand and strategies.
The Australian government should catch up with the modern economic and business reality and learn how to live with monopolies and supersized multinational firms, including Australia's own ones. The key is how to regulate their activities and prices and behaviours, as opposed to heir structure from an outdated view in the past.
It is a video doc and its introduction reads as:
Telstra Corp, News Corp, Shanghai Media Group, Telenor, BSNL, Zain, Myer, AIA, Volvo
Media and telco deals in Asia, Europe and the US are a painful reminder of the upside Telstra will miss out on by structurally separating. Elsewhere, Myer, AIA and Volvo are in the news.
2009-09-21
Rudd government has become a special interest group for its flawed NBN
Comments on Glenn Milne “Heavy-handed threat is spooking investors”, 21/09/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26100895-7583,00.html
Conroy's or the government's offer reflects the government is desperate to kill off any potential competition to its flawed and costly NBN.
That is an anti-competition policy or behaviour by the Rudd government. That is an abuse of government power.
Just imagine what would be the case if that was done by a private company.
Of course, the ACCC does not have the power nor the inclination to challenge the government on this because it dislikes Telstra and wishes it to be crushed.
It is a pity for the nation when the government is acting like a special interest group itself.
It will cost the nation dearly. No question about it.
Conroy's or the government's offer reflects the government is desperate to kill off any potential competition to its flawed and costly NBN.
That is an anti-competition policy or behaviour by the Rudd government. That is an abuse of government power.
Just imagine what would be the case if that was done by a private company.
Of course, the ACCC does not have the power nor the inclination to challenge the government on this because it dislikes Telstra and wishes it to be crushed.
It is a pity for the nation when the government is acting like a special interest group itself.
It will cost the nation dearly. No question about it.
2009-09-19
Conroy needs to learn how to live with and regulate a natural monopoly
Comments on Michael Stutchbury "Telstra break-up may stifle innovation", 19/09/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26093486-5017771,00.html
Michael Stutchbury's article touches the problems with Rudd/Conroy's poor approach to NBN and Telstra.
Australia is too small to break up a telco monopoly in some field of the industry. It is not just the competition but also the costs and innovation, investment etc that a government has to consider.
It is all too easy to break a natural monopoly. But that is not necessarily the best public and economic policy.
Government has to learn to balance competition and other economics. It has to learn how to live with and regulate a natural monopoly such as Telstra.
What Conroy announced continues the Rudd government's economic incompetency.
That is unfortunate for Australia and Australians. It will not only disguise the poor economics of the government's proposed $43 billion NBN, but also make the telco industry in Australia less competitive and more costly to consumers.
Michael Stutchbury's article touches the problems with Rudd/Conroy's poor approach to NBN and Telstra.
Australia is too small to break up a telco monopoly in some field of the industry. It is not just the competition but also the costs and innovation, investment etc that a government has to consider.
It is all too easy to break a natural monopoly. But that is not necessarily the best public and economic policy.
Government has to learn to balance competition and other economics. It has to learn how to live with and regulate a natural monopoly such as Telstra.
What Conroy announced continues the Rudd government's economic incompetency.
That is unfortunate for Australia and Australians. It will not only disguise the poor economics of the government's proposed $43 billion NBN, but also make the telco industry in Australia less competitive and more costly to consumers.
2009-09-18
Henry Ergas on NBN and the government proposed bill
An article in the Australian, "Legislated blackmail for NBN monopoly", by Henry Ergas, 18/09/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26088078-5013479,00.html
Henry Ergas has provided advice to Telstra and other international telcos. These are his own views.
Argas is critical of Conroy's bill and approach to NBN.
Henry Ergas has provided advice to Telstra and other international telcos. These are his own views.
Argas is critical of Conroy's bill and approach to NBN.
2009-09-16
Rudd government damages Telstra shareholders
Comments on Peter Swan “Rudd playing Ned Kelly with Telstra”, 16/09/2009, http://wl.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26078850-7583,00.html
I have branded Conroy as an economic terrorist. His action is no different from terrorists' destroying the World Trade Centre twin towers, given its damages to Telstra and so many of its shareholders.
There is no justification for any government or politicians to cause material damages to a company or shareholders.
Telstra and its shareholders are justifiably entitled for appropriate compensation and should nail the government in court.
Telstra also needs to bring the ACCC for its adversary effect on Telstra's profits over the past many years by excessively depressing its prices
I have branded Conroy as an economic terrorist. His action is no different from terrorists' destroying the World Trade Centre twin towers, given its damages to Telstra and so many of its shareholders.
There is no justification for any government or politicians to cause material damages to a company or shareholders.
Telstra and its shareholders are justifiably entitled for appropriate compensation and should nail the government in court.
Telstra also needs to bring the ACCC for its adversary effect on Telstra's profits over the past many years by excessively depressing its prices
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
