Sime Darby's proposed Low-Cost Terminal -Musa Hitam And The Board Have Much To Explain

Malaysian plantation-to-property conglomerate Sime Darby (SIME.KL: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) said on Monday it had obtained the government's approval to build a private low-cost carrier terminal (LCCT).

The terminal will be built on Sime Darby's land in the southern state of Negeri Sembilan.

"The proposed LCCT project is an integral part of the company's development plan for its Negeri Sembilan Vision City," Sime Darby said in a filing to the stock exchange
(http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSKLR37928920090105)

The terminal will service AirAsia only:

The key thing is that we cannot slow down our growth because we have bought aircraft and we need a bigger terminal. We are building for 30 million passengers and we should be supported,” he said.

By having a dedicated terminal, (Tony) Fernandes said the airline could bring down its cost by 20% and this would be translated to lower fares.

Asked if other airlines would be able to use the KLIA East airport, Fernandes said “the idea is not to go into (the) airport business but to serve our business.’’
(http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/1/9/business/2976639&sec=business)

So, in short Sime Darby is going to build an airport for AirAsia.
Now, how would Sime Darby make money out of this?

First and foremost, airport operators/owners make money on landing charges. Hence the need to entice as many airlines as possible to use one’s airport. Here however, that is not to be the case. Sime Darby will wholly and solely rely on AirAsia as it source of revenue.


This raises a basic question (not an imponderable, like Sime chairman Tun Musa Hitam) , ie how does any business justify spending billions of dollars on the promise of an income stream form just one customer?

Airport operators also seek revenue from the rental of retail space and parking and the provision of services to incoming and outbound passengers . However the question here for anyone wanting to provide any sort of service (including Sime ) is again ; would anyone want to risk capital on a business dependent on one customer? Put another way, why bet your shop on customers from just AirAsia, when you could set-up shop at KLIA and rely on passengers from many different airlines?

There is of course the usual “plopety develepment” (Malaysian slang for property development) argument. But honestly, why would anyone want to live under a flight path? Is an airport really the best way to attract people to any property development?

Then, one comes to the numbers.
Sime’s return on average assets for in 2008 was 10.85% , while Malaysian Airport’s return on average assets for the same period was only 6.58%
Sime return on equity for the same period was 18%, while Malaysian Airport’s was only 9.94%.
(See http://finance.google.com/finance?q=KUL:SIME AND http://finance.google.com/finance?q=KUL:AIRPORT)

So how does Sime justify entering a business that is likely to see its returns dragged down?

Readers should note here that given the far greater risk of running a single customer business, Sime will have to show a return in excess of MAHB’s 6.58% if it is to justify getting into the airport ownership and management business. Note also that AirAsia has indicated that it will manage the airport, thus depriving Sime of that revenue stream , or alternatively adding to the ongoing cost of the investment.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ben Robert-Smith : How was Justice Anthony Besanko of the Federal Court able to find that the crime of murder has a civil twin, which can be determined on a balance of probabilities

Image
 by Ganesh Sahathevam                                                                                                                  The Hon Justice Anthony Besanko Media reports about the Ben Robert-Smith defamation matter  have at least given the impression, if not asserted,  that Justice Anthony Besanko of the Federal Court found  that Robert-Smith had committed murder. Most if not all reports have been at pains to stress that the finding was based on a balance of probabilities, and not beyond a reasonable doubt, for the matter was a civil and not criminal matter.  However,  reading his summary one can immediately see that Justice Besanko  found not that Roberts-Smith had committed murder but that the " respondents had, (on  a balance of probabilities) established the substantial truth"  that  Roberts-Smith had committed murder.  However, murder is a  crime and a finding of murder in a criminal court (which is the court in which crimes like murder can be determined!) inv
Read more

Who authorised former NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller to say anything about the Berejiklian era quarantine fee and why? Fuller's notice confirms suspicion that NSW Berejiklian government had no basis to impose the quarantine fee, nor quarantine persons who were COVID negative 

Image
 by Ganesh Sahathevan      Premier Gladys Berejiklian with NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller and Brigadier Mick             Garraway Who authorised former  NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller  to say anything about the  Berejiklian era  quarantine fee and why? Fuller's issuance of his  COVID  quarantine notice, and subsequent silence, would seem to confirm suspicions raised on this blog that NSW's Berejiklian government had no basis to impose its quarantine fee. Fuller's conduct also adds to suspicion that the Berejiklian government did not have the authority, even under its COVID emergency powers, to quarantine persons who were COVID negative. International arrivals had to test negative for COVID before boarding their flights to Sydney, and tests had to be administered within 72 hours of departure. Quarantine on arrival of those who exhibited no COVID symptoms was quite likely unnecessary. It did, of course help bolster Gladys Berejiklian's approval ratings. TO BE RE
Read more

Revenue NSW COVID Quarantine Fee payment demand notices suggest that Police Commissioner Mick Fuller breached the law with his demand for quarantine fees

Image
 By Ganesh Sahathevan  Anyone who has received a Revenue NSW Quarantine Fee demand for payment notice  will be familiar with these words that are contained in the notice: What is the quarantine service fee? A mandatory quarantine service fee applies to all travellers arriving in New South Wales (NSW) who are required to quarantine as part of the public health order. Mandatory quarantine is needed to stop the spread. of COVID-19 in NSW The qurantine fee has been charged pursuant to Section 70 of  the NSW Health Act. However, as previously reported, that section does not permit any imposition of mandatory fees.  However, in apparent defiance of Section 70 of the Health Act, Fuller issued a notice   in which he said  that Revenue NSW " will be charging a mandatory quarantine fee". TOE BE READ WITH  Former NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller said in his notice that Revenue NSW " will be charging a mandatory quarantine fee" - Former NSW Ministers Hazzard, Tudehope insis
Read more