Screw you
August 14, 2002 5:37 PM Subscribe
Screw you worldcom, enron. In Australia we know how to make a loss. AU$11,962,000,000 in fact. One has to wonder how much of this is a "paper loss" or how much of this is "creative accounting for tax purposes". Or just where the hell did the money go?
Yeah, seriously -- are Oz dollars even remotely comparable? No.
posted by donkeyschlong at 5:50 PM on August 14, 2002
posted by donkeyschlong at 5:50 PM on August 14, 2002
mid-market rates as of 2002.08.15 00:54:28 GMT.
11,962,000,000.00 AUD = 6,451,547,756.45 USD
1 AUD = 0.539337 USD 1 USD = 1.85413 AUD
posted by loukas_c at 5:56 PM on August 14, 2002
11,962,000,000.00 AUD = 6,451,547,756.45 USD
1 AUD = 0.539337 USD 1 USD = 1.85413 AUD
posted by loukas_c at 5:56 PM on August 14, 2002
That's pretty close to the Canadian exchange rate isn't it? Toy money, really. *ducks after brief trolling maneuver*
Oh, and how the hell could News Corp just manage to 'lose' 6 billion dollars?( U.S.) Maybe spending all that money on makeup for Bill O'Reilly to cover up his liver spots?
posted by insomnyuk at 6:01 PM on August 14, 2002
Oh, and how the hell could News Corp just manage to 'lose' 6 billion dollars?( U.S.) Maybe spending all that money on makeup for Bill O'Reilly to cover up his liver spots?
posted by insomnyuk at 6:01 PM on August 14, 2002
Is this a matter of national pride to you folks? Doesn't matter if the aussie dollar is weaker than that of the U.S., unless you think it means it's only .54 times as important for Australian kids to go to college, or eat dinner, et cetera.
posted by Hildago at 6:04 PM on August 14, 2002
posted by Hildago at 6:04 PM on August 14, 2002
11,962,000,000.00 AUD = 6,451,658,054.98 USD. Just a drop in the bucket really :-)
I would almost bet that this is some creative accounting for tax or other purposes. Rupert Murdoch is not known for allowing things to go any way other than his without some serious head-rolling as a result.
posted by dg at 6:10 PM on August 14, 2002
I would almost bet that this is some creative accounting for tax or other purposes. Rupert Murdoch is not known for allowing things to go any way other than his without some serious head-rolling as a result.
posted by dg at 6:10 PM on August 14, 2002
Doesn't matter if the aussie dollar is weaker than that of the U.S., unless you think it means it's only .54 times as important for Australian kids to go to college, or eat dinner, et cetera.
Happily, the cost of living here is about half that of the states, so everything is proportionally equal. It does mean that people from the US who come here find themselves bizarrely well off, and Aussies who travel to the states find everything terribly expensive.
But if you earn AU$50,000 in Oz, or US$50,000 in the USA, you're living pretty much the same lifestyle.
In terms of that, AU$11b is a fucking HUGE loss to an Aussie company. Most of it seems to be writedowns for IT purchases and cornering several cable markets. Murdoch is a smart man - it'll pay off in the long run if the company can recover.
posted by Neale at 6:15 PM on August 14, 2002
Happily, the cost of living here is about half that of the states, so everything is proportionally equal. It does mean that people from the US who come here find themselves bizarrely well off, and Aussies who travel to the states find everything terribly expensive.
But if you earn AU$50,000 in Oz, or US$50,000 in the USA, you're living pretty much the same lifestyle.
In terms of that, AU$11b is a fucking HUGE loss to an Aussie company. Most of it seems to be writedowns for IT purchases and cornering several cable markets. Murdoch is a smart man - it'll pay off in the long run if the company can recover.
posted by Neale at 6:15 PM on August 14, 2002
We do fine with our dollar, thank you Hildago. Working in an industry exporting from Australia, I am glad to see the exchange rate stay the way it is, because that makes us more competitive against our US and UK competitors.
On preview - what Neale said.
posted by dg at 6:17 PM on August 14, 2002
On preview - what Neale said.
posted by dg at 6:17 PM on August 14, 2002
Considering that the relative sizes of the national economies (I know, NewsCorp is operating multi-nationally, but so does every US megacorp), with the US at $9.963 trillion (2000 est.) and the Aussies at $445.8 billion (2000 est.) purchasing power parity, thats a ratio of 1:22 approximately, so multiply the US$6.45b (equivalent compared by dg) by 22 gets ya $140b.
dg 's assessment is otherwise on the money, imho.
If I was Rupie, this bit would worry me most tho..."News Corp's Filmed Entertainment division reported an operating income of $904 million for the year, compared with $487 in the prior corresponding period.!"
Oops!
(",)
posted by dash_slot- at 6:41 PM on August 14, 2002
dg 's assessment is otherwise on the money, imho.
If I was Rupie, this bit would worry me most tho..."News Corp's Filmed Entertainment division reported an operating income of $904 million for the year, compared with $487 in the prior corresponding period.!"
Oops!
(",)
posted by dash_slot- at 6:41 PM on August 14, 2002
Corporate write-downs showing losses are, in fact, what the Enron and Worldcom books-juggling were supposed to hide. Write-downs such as these are basically acknowledgements that a subsidiary will not produce future earnings as they had predicted. It may be a blow to the company's stock, even to an entire sector etc., but it isn't a stock scandal per se, unless there's evidence that the expected earnings were somehow inflated.
posted by dhartung at 6:54 PM on August 14, 2002
posted by dhartung at 6:54 PM on August 14, 2002
My first thought on hearing this was that it was an attempt to cover up years of Enron-style "creative accounting" by declaring losses sufficient to bring the company value back down to something realistic enough to survive an audit.V
posted by sennoma at 7:26 PM on August 14, 2002
posted by sennoma at 7:26 PM on August 14, 2002
dash_slot: Now I'm no economist (just a lowly management student), but as far as I know, Purchasing Power Parity compares the relative costs of goods in 2 areas. For instance, if it costs $2US to buy a banana here and the equivalent of $1US to buy a banana in Australia, they would have a 2:1 purchasing power ratio. The relative sizes of the national economy do not matter.
That's why in Mexico, 10 grand a year can let you live middle class, since Polos sell for $5 and Cokes for $.50.
(of course, this is simplistic; I think true PPP indexes look at CPI's in the various countries, not single items).
posted by Kevs at 12:31 AM on August 15, 2002
That's why in Mexico, 10 grand a year can let you live middle class, since Polos sell for $5 and Cokes for $.50.
(of course, this is simplistic; I think true PPP indexes look at CPI's in the various countries, not single items).
posted by Kevs at 12:31 AM on August 15, 2002
Yeah, seriously -- are Oz dollars even remotely comparable? No.
Yeah, just like the US dollar is totally crappy compared to the British pound.
UK £0.63 = US $1
If only economics were that simple though..
In terms of that, AU$11b is a fucking HUGE loss to an Aussie company.
Maybe, but it's not as if News Corp. operates entirely for an Australian audience or only contributes to the Australian economy. In fact, I'd say News Corp. has a far bigger stature in the UK than Oz, with it owning several of the big dailies, scores of TV channels.. and even the whole of the country's only solvent digital TV system.
posted by wackybrit at 12:56 AM on August 15, 2002
Yeah, just like the US dollar is totally crappy compared to the British pound.
UK £0.63 = US $1
If only economics were that simple though..
In terms of that, AU$11b is a fucking HUGE loss to an Aussie company.
Maybe, but it's not as if News Corp. operates entirely for an Australian audience or only contributes to the Australian economy. In fact, I'd say News Corp. has a far bigger stature in the UK than Oz, with it owning several of the big dailies, scores of TV channels.. and even the whole of the country's only solvent digital TV system.
posted by wackybrit at 12:56 AM on August 15, 2002
If more proof was needed of peoples' confidence in the business acumen of Rupert Murdoch, Newscorp's shares rose 3% immediately following the announcement of record losses.
Murdoch could front on TV and tell everyone that things were looking grim for Newscorp and he would be surprised if they were still trading in a week and the reaction would be "crafty old bugger, he's up to something, better go and buy some more of his shares".
CEOs of corporations whose stock stumbles every time someone give a mere hint of a guess of problems must be green with envy.
posted by dg at 4:31 PM on August 15, 2002
Murdoch could front on TV and tell everyone that things were looking grim for Newscorp and he would be surprised if they were still trading in a week and the reaction would be "crafty old bugger, he's up to something, better go and buy some more of his shares".
CEOs of corporations whose stock stumbles every time someone give a mere hint of a guess of problems must be green with envy.
posted by dg at 4:31 PM on August 15, 2002
Kevs - almost. There are (at least) two ways to compare the value of currency. One is via exchange rate: if you can go to people who trade money and get $2AUS for $1US, the American dollar is worth twice as much. The other is via purchasing power parity: if you can buy a banana for $1US in America and $1AUS in Australia, then the two dollars are equivalent.
The Economist actually has something called The Big Mac Index which illustrates the concept very well.
posted by jaek at 9:27 PM on August 15, 2002
The Economist actually has something called The Big Mac Index which illustrates the concept very well.
posted by jaek at 9:27 PM on August 15, 2002
« Older Princeton Disciplining Staff for Yale Web Site... | E-mail is trespass? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
(and what's that $11 U.S. ;) obvious troll
posted by bitdamaged at 5:40 PM on August 14, 2002