Air Asia vs. Qantas Essay Example for Free

personal credit line Asia vs. Qantas Essay1. Overview1.1 Qantas-Main business and strategiesThe main business of Qantas airways hold is the transportation of passengers. Their core system 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 troupe is to reduce the capital intensity of the business by forging partnerships with carriers in certain sectors that ar uneconomical. (Qantas, 2012) Such as cooperate with British Airways. Qantas workout two complementary air duct brands these two brands ar expenditured to touch different customers. ii brands operate together has occupied 65% market grant in Australia, (Qantas, 2012) because, two brands provide flexibility in varying market conditions.Qantas, (2011 pp. 4)On the another(prenominal) hand, these two brands practice somewhat sub-strategies to contain its main strategy. These capture sub- strategies are the key success for point that lead to Qantas continually expansion in the realism. Qantas JetstarSub-Strategy * Premium just service * Maximized profitability * Cost leadership * small(a) fare airline Ope rational improvement * Enhanced customer service focus * Expand locally and into outside(a) 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 gain the 5.06% base on the grade 2011. (Qantas, 2012)1.2 Air Asia-Main business and strategiesAir Asia is the spectacularst pocket-sized- exist flyer carrier in the world. It is establishing with the dream of making flying affirmable for everyone. On the other hand, it is non only focusing on the cost factor, but also safety first. The Air Asia has operated around 11 years, but its still financial backing highgrow rate. The Air Asia is the regional carrier with the largest destination webwork, highest flight frequ encies and high aircraft utilization.( Air Asia, 2012) Air Asia was named the 2012 Worlds scoop 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 sort out* Flying to cheaper, less congested secondary airports* A single type of airplane in order to reducing training and servicing cost * blame to point flights with no transfersIn statistics, Air Asia has full employees for 4346. Passengers carried are around 22,474,620 in 2012, which append more than 10% base on the year 2011. service 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 digest2.1 Overview Goble airlines markets muller mode abridgment The Lift side is show that, the air travel remains a growth market. This forecast mentions that air traffic will retell in the next 15 years, which means, the external environment still keep optimistic. Both of Qantas and Air Asia have aforementioned(prenominal) opportunity. (Airbus, 2012)The crunch 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 modelPESTLE modelPolitical * Stable political environment * Deregulation Economic * Global financial crisis * Rising currency * Rising fuel cost affable* Changing consumer demographics * increase travel lifestyle * Changing consumer preferences Technology * Intern et * Surface transport investments * Efficient aircrafts Legal * Legislation compliance requirements * Allegations of misleading denote Environmental * Greenhouse and carbon emissions * Tourism saturation * wretchedage of infrastructure capacity2.2 Overview Australia airline marketsQantas is the biggest airline operator in Australia, which represent as 75.6% for house servant 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 chthonianstand it operate environment before we going to sense analysis, because the every confederacy is restricted by external environment. PESTLE model clearly show Qantas operating external environmentAccording to this chart, we can close 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 SW OT analysis effectualness1. 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. and then operation contributes to helping control supplier and aircraft maintenance be. 3. Qantas Airways, Canada airlines, joined Kingdom airline, United States airlines and Cathay Pacific founded a management company called One world Alliance. This centrally is to help separately 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 couldprovide better resources f or its business. WeaknessWithout 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 amongst employees and the company. Besides, QAN Company is too concentrated on Australia side. OpportunitiesAs publishing of absolved 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 raw opportunity of new market and created Jetstar witch is a low budget airline to attract potential large quantities of customers. ThreatWith the result of mergin g 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 matched. Unfortunately, large fluctuation in oil prices, together with orbicular 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 marketsThe 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 AnalysisStrengthAIRASIA has a well-known name and it is famous for its low cost operation. inaccordance 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 tax rose 23%, which helps companies to achieve annual r regularue growth targets Moreover, it has the first-mover advantage of first low cost airline company in Asia. After that, AirAisa has secure 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 exertion, 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, thence minimizing maintenance fees. WeaknessesDue to the report, Aircraft leasing costs increased by 8% since the number of aircraft increased by 8 p er cent while leasing costs and depreciation of the dollar, allo lureg 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 bring low cost, AIRASIA has modified service resources. Thus also is think 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. OpportunityWith 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 cooperatin g 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. ThreatIn nowadays, hemorrhoid of low cost airline companies are appeared such as Jetstar,Virgin, and Southwest. These companies improve that AIRASIAs 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 analysis3.1 Basis of preparation of the financial statementsThe chronicle 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 avocation the IFRS (Qantas, 2012 pp.78). Air Asia prepared thei r 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 upraise comparability of financial reporting between these two companies, but also reducing 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 story policies are similar, the following lists show the similarities of chronicle policies practiced as these two companies3.2 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 summations and liabilities are stated at their fair value * Main revenue recognition-The value of seats sold for which services have not been rendered is included in modern lia bilities as sales in advance * Other revenue-such as fuel surcharge, insurance surcharge, administrative fees, excess baggage and baggage handling fees, are accepted 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 add up cost. * Repair and maintenance expenditure, repair treat as cost, take time off 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 followly 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 managements 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, hard roe, even if these two ratios increase or decrease, it does not necessarily because of changing in the companys 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) Note1Estimates and judgments are continually evaluated by the Directors and are based on historical experience and other factors, including expectations of future events that are belie ved to be reasonable under the circumstances. (Air Asia, 2012 pp. 77)3.3 Main different accounting policies3.3.1 ReceivableQantas and Air Asia receivables contain of trade debtors, other debtors and loans owing from connect parties. Normally, the net receivable is recognized as its original amount less a preparation for uncollectible debts. Qantas make an estimate for doubtful debts when collection of the full amount is nolonger probable. The estimation of purvey 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 strideDiscount rate is the interest rate that used in discounted interchange flow analysis to determine the present value of future cash flows. (Qantas, 2012 pp.101) Changing discount rate will influence the companys subsidy plan. Normally, award is companys 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 bonnie effective interest rate 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 analysis4.1 Return on equity analysisThe ROE changing line of Qantas Airline limited (QAN) has a stabbing 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 framing 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, afterwa rds got to the first top of 35.37% in 2010. After that the concave sprain 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 foreshorten 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 affectFrom 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, AIRAISAs ROE rate is primarily rely on financial leverage, wh ich 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 driversDownsizing of borrowing cost rate gives opportunities to raise ROE ratio. In QAN, from year 2011 the borrowing rates have been unceasingly 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 run profit driversReturn on asset ratio, which could be divided in asset turnover and profit margin directly, affects the performance of ROE. Compared with twocompanies, 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, b etter 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 structureThese 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 swinish 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 expanding 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 analysisThe 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 wecalculate 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. ConclusionAfter 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 seem s to be better in raise ROE ratios, benefiting from its increasing sales and costs controlling. So we can concluded that AIRASIAs performance is better than Qantas.ReferenceQantas, (2012) Qantas Annual Report 2012 Qantas Airways Limited www.qantas.comQantas, (2011) Qantas Group presentation December 2011 Qantas Group www.qantas.com.Air Asia, (2012) Air Asia Annual Report 2012 Air Asia Airways Limited www.airaisa.comAirbus, (2012) Navigating the future Global Market Forecast 2012-2031 www.airbus.comDomestic airline activity, Department of Infrastructure and Transport, Australia government, modify 19 August, 2013 www.bitre.gov.auQantas Customers 2012, by Segment 2012, Statistic, viewed 8 May 2012, QantasSituation 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 enor mousness of reporting incentives pay 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 reading by Canadian firms. Accounting Review, 26-43.Wiene r, H. J.(1995), Pension Plan Strategy A Comprehensive Guide to Retirement Planning for physicians and Other Professionals 7(2), 101-212.AppendixAir Asia summary REFORMULATED BALANCE SHEET 12/31/2012USD 12/31/2011USD 12/31/2010USD 12/31/2009USD 12/31/2008USD in operation(p) Assets Net Receivables 315,898,627 176,713,880 158,421,275 170,371,203 262,514,740 amount of money 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 0Income tax revenuees Payable 1,674,951 0 529,269 2,869,159 0 Dividends Payable 0 0 0 0 0Other 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 0Deferred 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 hard 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 (Asset s) 2,019,819,490 1,788,164,353 2,060,077,509 2,003,991,822 1,889,329,480 Shareholders rectitude 1,930,051,995 1,273,311,356 1,180,788,066 765,484,813 464,027,746 check 0 0 0 0 0REFORMULATED INCOME STATEMENT gross sales 1,617,426,750 1,418,025,552 1,280,394,033 914,982,769 761,470,520 Total be 864,089,928 1,074,545,110 934,371,331 648,407,418 932,758,092 Earnings before raise 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 0gross revenue 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 summary 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 0.00CLEV (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 0.00SPREAD 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 0.00Qantas ANALYSIS REFORMULATED BALANCE SHEET 06/30/2012NZD introductory 06/30/2011NZD 06/30/2010NZDrestated 06/30/2009NZD 06/30/2008NZDOperating 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 Payabl e 661,157,250 639,148,200 506,790,000 506,790,000 482,644,650 Accrued Payroll 0 0 0 0 337,932,100Income Taxes Payable 0 0 0 0 0Dividends Payable 0 0 0 0 4,042,250Other Current Liabilities 5,488,117,700 5,418,306,6004,232,541,150 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 Cu rrent 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 0REFORMULATED 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 NetInterest 254,212,400 187,355,000 102,202,650 102,202,650 111,566,100 Net Income (before Pref Di vidends 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 Liabili ties 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 0Sales 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 -250,112,200 266,579,40097,979,400 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 0.00CLEV (net operating assets / equity) 1.44 1.34 1.30 1.27 1.23 ILEV (operating income / ne t 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 0.00SPREAD 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 0.00Company Return On Equity Per ShareY2008 Return On Equity Per ShareY2009 Return On Equity Per ShareY2010 Return On Equity Per ShareY2011 Return On Equity Per ShareY2012 1 2 -27.03 25.33 33.93 14.46 36.863 6.1 20.38 10.32 -18.51 -27.24 -16.22 6.01Malaysia industry average -10.47% 22.86% 22.13% -6.76% 4.81% 1 17.02 2 1.89 4.09 -4.072 22.45 19.73 18.2 11.46 15.253 11.61 -21.09 2.26 -7.32 2.36Austrilia industry average 17.03% 0.21% 7.45% 2.74% 4.51% Return On Equity Per ShareY2008 Return On Equity Per ShareY2009 Return On Equity Per ShareY2010 Return On Equity Per ShareY2011 Return On Equity Per ShareY2012 1 -37.81 22.91 39.91 17.15 10.292 14.73 1.33 5.13 5.29 4.463 -27.03 25.33 33.93 14.46 36.864 15.02 -1.08 -13.73 4.69 5.275 -19.27 11.89 29.11 9.99 1.626 -76.38 57.88 57.42 19.5 17.287 -70.4 -11.18 23.64 -4.06 0.18 -51.42 4.23 34.87 17.31 8.159 -27.96 -10.48 33.11 0.5 1.3110 19.69 39.08 9.61 13.94 10.6611 -20.6 5.01 30.35 19.6 10.7912 -20.47 -30.29 -21.4 -5.16 -14.4313 -26.05 -3.37 14.11 -9.31 9.8314 6.1 20.38 10.32 -110.51 -27.2415 -0.11 -13.94 9.05 85.17 -13.5216 17.02 2 1.89 4.09 -4.0717 22.45 19.73 18.2 11.46 15.2517 16.21 43.36 56.31 44.68 25.9718 13.1 7.31 1.58 7.88 2.4819 -37.71 14.89 24.31 -14.64 9.4520 -14.02 0.34 17.5 10.69 1.3721 11.61 -21.09 2.26 -7.32 2.36Asia Pacific Region industry average -13.33% 8.37% 18.98% 6.15% 5.19%