Telstra 'price gap' is no bluff: Ovum

 

Not just a negotiation tactic.

Telstra has warned shareholders of a "significant gap" between how much the telco should be paid to sell its assets to NBN Co and how much the Federal Government is willing to pay.

Telstra made a statement to shareholders this morning, confirming negotiations were ongoing and that it remained "engaged with the Government and NBN Co to achieve a timely outcome that is in the interests of the company and its investors."

"Currently there is a significant gap between Telstra and NBN Co on what each party considers to be an acceptable financial outcome and there are also a range of commercial matters that are yet to be agreed," Telstra said.

"In addition, Telstra is discussing ways in which the gap can be bridged, recognising that the Government has highlighted the national interest benefits of the NBN and reform of the telecommunications industry."

Telecommunications analyst David Kennedy told iTnews that the statement was more than just "tactical bluffing. He said it was "clear there's a distance between [the two parties] in terms of asset valuation."

"Telstra really does have a hard limit to what it can concede there," Kennedy said.

"They'd simply be in breach of their duties to transfer assets at what they consider to be less than the market value.

"Doing so would open them up to shareholder action."

The Competitive Carriers Coalition, however, described Telstra's statement as "little more than an extortion note to the Government."

"It is clear that NBNco has refused to pay an inflated price for Telstra's assets, so Telstra has declared it is going to continue to frustrate good policy unless it is paid-off by taxpayers," the coalition said.

Comment was being sought from the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.


Telstra 'price gap' is no bluff: Ovum
"To Digger, and others who do not understand this situation at all, my first suggestion is to go to the dictionary and look up the meaning of "wrong". Digger seems to make a habit of it. If you ..."
By iflowboy
 
 
 
Comments: 18
ITnovice
Mar 19, 2010 1:21 PM
If Telstra agreed to sell its assets in blocks/packages the government might get a better deal albeit at a slower pace than they want the NBN rollout to proceed. It would give the government time to evaluate cost and more importantly condition of what exactly they were purchasing rather than just buying one big mixed bag/pandora's box and hoping most of what they bought turned out to be worth the money.
BrettWinterford
Mar 19, 2010 2:01 PM
@ITnovice - good call. How would you manage the conflicts in the interim? Lets say Telstra sold off the passive infrastructure to NBN Co first to get the ball rolling, does it then have to rent it back from NBN Co while the rest of the sale is negotiated?
Digger11
Mar 19, 2010 2:26 PM
I think Telstra may have forgotten that NBN does not have to buy any of Telstra'a assets.
It makes sense for this to occur, and will take Telstra away from trying to compete with the NBN, as well as lowering the cost of the total NBN rollout, but it certainly is not mandatory.
Mordd
Mar 19, 2010 2:35 PM
Can someone with expericene regarding respponsibility tpo shareholders clarify exactlty how much truth there is to this statement, and exactly where the line would lie between moral obligation to shareholders and actual legal obligation that could be actionable if it was not in the interest of the shareholders, in relation to this quote from the article:

"They'd simply be in breach of their duties to transfer assets at what they consider to be less than the market value.

"Doing so would open them up to shareholder action."
Mordd
Mar 19, 2010 2:35 PM
*Sorry for the atrocious spelling in that comment above.
iflowboy
Mar 19, 2010 8:30 PM
Mordd,

Can I answer that by saying under the corporations act, Directors have a fiduciary duty to always act with the best interests of shareholders in mind (within the boundaries of law). In this context, that means that if there were to be a reasonable assessment of a company asset (a market assessment considering normal applicable industry market factors) and the board of directors accepted an offer of less value, shareholders could assert the directors acted contrary to their obligations to the shareholders - and sue the directors for compensation and even seek to lobby for legal prosecution with ASIC (by the ASIC).

To answer Digger's wayward statement - I think the general public are starting to realise two things. The first is the enormity of the project the governments NBN Co initiative really is. The second is that, given the enormity, the pragmatism; both financially and sensibly, of seeking to access Telstra's infrastructure in some way.
From Telstra's perspective, it does not need NBN Co. It should also be noted that the same institution (the Federal Government) forfeited its right to direct/influence or gain ready access to Telstra infrastructure when it decided to privatise the corporation and then sell it's remaining substantial shareholding (via the Commonwealth Future Fund) and I think fair commentary & extreme scrutiny should be directed towards the Federal Government - and indeed any government seeking to do the same with any other pivotal public asset going forward. Road toll anybody???????

Much was the advice, 16 years ago, about the best model of dealing with the telecommunications industry by doing the things floated over the last 12 months. However the bird has flown the coupe as the Howard Government sought to hang its "financial competence of managing our economy" on our country in a time of global prosperity and the realisation of the massive funds from the sale of Telstra - and other public assets.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Of course the Federal Government will seek to do so by effectively blackmailling Telstra with respect to access to spectrum licences soon to be open to tender, which will invariably impact you and I as users utlimately. Aren't these wonderful games played by these so called "public servants"???

iflowboy
Cham
Mar 19, 2010 9:23 PM
Heres the funny thing to me. Telecom was a nice little govt entity, so all of its infrastructure pre-privatisation (which even though it's been 16 years and we've seen leaps and bounds in technology, would still be a fair chunk) was bought with taxpayer money, so at that point, we the people owned it, indirectly, through the govt.
Then they got privatised. At which point a whole bunch of people, who had probably been paying taxes (and been paying Telecom customers) bought it all over again in the form of shares.
And now it's time to buy it again.

As for Telstra getting in trouble for selling too low, that's never going to happen. At this point they probably haven't commissioned an "expert" to evaluate their infrastructure, they're probably using the equivalent of old receipts and having the accountants adjust the figures into todays money to come up with a valuation. If/when they do sell, at that point they will get in a whole team of "experts" to say that what they're being paid is exactly what it is worth. Failing that, if you have a market of exactly 1 buyer, then whatever that buyer says they want to pay is a market assessment.
FLashy
Mar 20, 2010 3:57 AM
Why can't Conroy just buy a direct connection from Telstra just like any other customer?
Why does it need "Dark Fibres" for it's own use.
Telstra provides fibre links for all customers that never connect to Telstra's equipment.
Perhaps Conroy doesn't want to pay the overhead price we all pay? The overhead is the continuing maintenance and restoration when someone with a backhoe rips up the Optic cable.
Telstra has teams which do this 24/7.
Just seems strange that Conroy wants everything for free.
sydneyla
Mar 20, 2010 7:39 AM
The absolute hypocrisy of the Competitive Carriers Coalition is beyond sensible comprehension. To claim that Telstra is extorting the Government is absolute lies and shows the depths that these people will stoop to gain unfair advantage over Telstra.

It is the Government that wishes to purchase assets from Telstra, therefore as in any exchange of assets negotiation must conclude in agreement by both Parties. If not, no deal. Australians have seen the Rudd Government, by blackmail and threat that would be unacceptable in any other business area, threaten to destroy Telstra.

If this unacceptable dictatorial blackmail continues I hope Telstra fights to defend the assets of all Australians and I am sure that when Telstra, by a media campaign, educates Australians as to the truth of what is occurring, all Australians will agree that the campaign to remove Telstra from competing with Rudd's NBN and the Competitive Carriers Coalition is revolting and unacceptable to every Australian.

btone
Mar 20, 2010 10:06 AM
HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA.....Sydney Lawrence returns from burritos and pina collada land. What happened Syd, Sol send you packing when the gravy train derailed?
anonymous
Mar 20, 2010 10:47 AM

Telstra has form in using "blackmail and threats" over many years to maintain its monopolistic position, and given the resulting dominance of the incumbent, the current govt is the first one to have the nous and the guts to stand up to the company on behalf of all endusers.
sydneyla
Mar 20, 2010 5:38 PM
btone and anonymous is that all you've got. Childish name calling and infantile rubbish. No wonder you can't compete with Telstra without grovelling to Government for handouts and vile blackmail of your competitor, Telstra.
anonymous
Mar 20, 2010 5:47 PM

Here, troll, troll. . .
sydneyla
Mar 20, 2010 8:57 PM
If I had your intelligence I'd call myself anonymous too.
Ace
Mar 22, 2010 9:56 AM
So, it wasn't a threat when Telstra told the Govt that Mobilenet and Telstra could not exist as a business if the Govt let competitive phone companies into Australia? Maybe it was just greed, lack of vision, or just sheer stupidity?
Ace
Mar 22, 2010 9:58 AM
...and on a side-note @syd, "If I had your intelligence I'd call myself anonymous too" is not "Childish name calling and infantile rubbish"? Pot calling the kettle black?
Digger11
Mar 22, 2010 10:56 AM
@iflowboy - I fail to see how the general public have any idea or even care about "the pragmatism; both financially and sensibly, of seeking to access Telstra's infrastructure in some way."

The "general public" I talk to are sick and tired of Telstra's antics in not providing adequate service to Australians (let's not go into why or how, as this has been proven many many times on this and other forums).

All the general public want is to buy a high quality, fast, value for money telco services. Telstra had been unwilling to provide this since deregulation and has spent far too much of its (read shareholders) money on legal gumph and stupid Sol Trujilo type tactics. This is where the shareholders money went.

Telstra's attempt to bring the NBN negotiations into the media is just a 100% publicity stunt.

Like I said previously - NBN does not need Telstra nor their assets.
This puts NBN in a very strong negotiating position. Let's hope that politics does not get in the way of a good outcome for all Australians (and isn't that what the NBN is all about ?).
iflowboy
Mar 22, 2010 8:15 PM
To Digger, and others who do not understand this situation at all, my first suggestion is to go to the dictionary and look up the meaning of "wrong". Digger seems to make a habit of it.
If you understood the situation, you would appreciate the accuracy of my comments. The NBN does need Telstra. If you doubt that go and talk to a fibre company and ask them to install one fibre from your house to your local exchange - then imagine covering every single house in Australia and the myriad of links between every town and city to interconnect and then the core switching to allow them to connect, and then the cost of managing, monitoring that network. Then appreciate how much of that Fibre Telstra has already rolled out.
Then go and look up what capabilities are emerging over copper infrastructure and the relative cost saving of utilising the millions of kilometres already laid - by Telstra.
Now imagine how long it would take the NBN to duplicate that infrastructure.
Next, please understand that Telstra have a legal duty, under the corporations act, as a publicly listed enterprise, to inform their shareholders of all matters that may impact their business, especially their share price. They sent out such advice and the media have grabbed it. Telstra did not release a statement to the media - so please brush up on your reading comprehension skills.
Service - Would you say that you have never had a problem with anything you have ever bought in your life??? Would you also say that, with 7 million customers, having less than 1% complain is a good stat or demonstrative of poor service. Rsearch has proven that a person will tell a bad service story to over 20 people, but a good service story to only 5-6 people. How often do the media report good stories on Telstra (or anything for that matter)?? Doesn't sell much advertising like bad news does, for some macabre reason - or insight into the human psyche.
Finally, the carrier coalition. Imagine a dead carcass - and vultures all around it pecking at it to get what they can out of it after somebody else did the work to catch the food in the first place - and you have yourself a perfect analogy for what these guys are about and after.
The whole point of my comment was this :-
1. To illustrate the waste of public money that the NBN really represents. The Government should have structurally separated Telstra back in 1993, instead of introducing the ridiculous competitive telecommunications regime we got. But greed and political expediency ruled the dayr structurally seThese guys are only missing the masks and the guns to ride into town, shoot it up to try and bully there way into something that isn;t there
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Vito Forte: A CIO for tough times
Fortescue Metals CIO talks vendor management and innovation.
 
Telstra shifts BigPond email to Windows Live
All data to be migrated to Microsoft cloud.
 
Vodafone Australia churn nears half a million for 2011
British joint owners 'not pleased'.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Would you be concerned about your business' email data being hosted offshore?

   |   View results
Yes
  84%
 
No
  16%
TOTAL VOTES: 243

Vote