Airline's New Owner Thought To Be A Front

[george]

Airline's new owner thought to be a front

BANGKOK: -- A consumer advocate and opposition MPs suspect the three-day-old Asia Aviation Co Ltd, new majority owner of Thai AirAsia, of being a front company after they found only empty office space at the firm's address. Rosana Tositrakul, chairwoman of the Federation of Consumer Rights Protection, investigated the company's whereabouts yesterday as stated in the shareholders' legal documents.

The office, on the 15th floor of Phahon Yothin Place building, Phahon Yothin road, was empty with only an ''E.com Internet Work Co Ltd'' sign in front of it.

Phahon 8 Co Ltd, an apartment leasing company which owns the building, said E.com Internet Work Co Ltd had moved out of the office a few months ago and the room had not yet been leased out.

''This only proves that Asia Aviation Co Ltd is a non-existent company and a nominee for possibly Shin Corp and consequently Singapore's Temasek Holdings. The Ministry of Commerce is at fault for letting this slip through its hands,'' said Ms Rosana.

Thai AirAsia, Shin's subsidiary, has come under pressure from the Aviation Department to change its shareholding structure following the acquisition of Shin by Temasek.

Malaysia's AirAsia already holds 49% of Thai AirAsia. Temasek's indirect stake in the Thai carrier via its purchase of Shin has raised the foreign ownership in Thai AirAsia above the statutory limit of 49%.

The low-cost airline, however, escaped having its aviation licence revoked when Shin Corp transferred its 49% stake in the company to the new entity, Asia Aviation Co Ltd, the Thai firm alleged to be a front which was only created on Tuesday.

Sithichai Veerathammanoon emerged as the other shareholder with 51%.

Boonklee Plangsiri, former CEO of Shin Corp before it was sold to Temasek, is also a shareholder in the new firm along with two other former Shin officials who are on the board of directors of the company.

''Mr Boonklee is also a member of the Board of Investment (BoI), which could be seen as a conflict of interest as Thai AirAsia enjoys BoI promotion privileges with extended tax incentives,'' Ms Rosana said. She would petition the Minister of Transport to revoke the company's licence next week.

Democrat party list MP Kiat Sitheeamorn, meanwhile, questioned the legitimacy of Asia Aviation Co Ltd and asked how a company with only five million baht in registered capital could buy into a company such as Thai AirAsia, worth more than 200 million baht.

''Who gave out the loan? No bank in this country would take such a risk.''

Mr Kiat also questioned why Mr Sithichai, with his 51% stake in Asia Aviation Co Ltd and thus a 25% holding in Thai AirAsia, does not have a seat on the board.

Normally someone with a 5% stake in a company would hold a seat on the board of directors, which raised the question of who Mr Sithichai actually is.

Thai AirAsia CEO Tassapon Bijleveld earlier this week said Mr Sithichai was ''wealthy'' and was in the courier business working for DHL.

--Bangkok Post 2006-02-17

[ace]

What's in it for Temasek?

They do a deal with Shin corp, part of which is 49% of Air Asia.

Then they give it back to Shin (in all but name).

Granted, this does allow the company to maintain Thai operations, but how will Temasek profit from this as they now own none of the company?

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable would enlighten?

Confused

Ace

[Thaising]

Not Surprise, all these can be done and approved if you have the money and power. Powers to all our friends and the money will never end. TIT.

[britainmal]

Malaysia's AirAsia already holds 49% of Thai AirAsia. Temasek's indirect stake in the Thai carrier via its purchase of Shin has raised the foreign ownership in Thai AirAsia above the statutory limit of 49%

Are they stupid or what? Shin Corp. is still a Thai Company because the majority share holders are Thai and The Singapore Company with the 49 percent ownership has no say in how Shin corp. is run. These Thai MPS need to stop mixing business and politics because they don't mix. These so-called opponents of Thaksin are just as corrupt as he is.

[Jiu-Jitsu]

britainmal

I hope you are not really British.

Simply put; An airline cannot ply domestic routes in Thailand, unless it is majority Thai owned.

From what I read here; Air Asia is a Malaysian company. In order for them to enter the Thai marketplace they formed an entity with Khun Thaksin..I mean Shin Corp. with was 51% owned by Shin Corp. and 49% owned by Air Asia(Malaysia).

Air Asia(Thailand) was born.

What has occurred now is that Khun Thaksin has sold his share of Shin Corp., to a Singaporean company, effectively transferring his Air Asia(Thailand) shares to Singaporean hands. Voila!

Air Asia(Thailand) is now not majority Thai owned. Air Asia(Malaysia) would be the majority shareholder, therefore making it ineligible to hold a licence for domestic flights in Thailand.

In order for the company to continue to be eligible to ply domestic routes in Thailand, a Thai owned company would have to purchase the shares owned by the Singaporean company.

Miraculously, this is what has occurred. Only, it appears that this company is totally bogus.

It seems that the MPs are highlighting the fact that Khun Thaksin moves the 'goalposts'(if you're British, you'll understand the expression).

Capisce?

[cclub75]

Of course it's a proxy.

Anyway, that's not the point.

All this circus would not happen if Thailand had "normal" business law.

Proxies and nominees are heavily used in Thailand, in all kind of businesses : from the bar, to the super huge company, from the import/export to the telecoms, from the poor farang to the prime minister of thailand...

So you have to wonder : something is not square....

I mean : Ok we have rules, but if NO BODY respect them, then it appears rationnal to change the rules.

This country needs some fresh air. At least, from a capitalist point of view.

[Heng]

Of course it's a proxy.

Anyway, that's not the point.

Spot on.

[GuestHouse]

The office, on the 15th floor of Phahon Yothin Place building, Phahon Yothin road, was empty with only an ''E.com Internet Work Co Ltd'' sign in front of it.

Before we get all self ritous about this news, aren't these similar arangements employed by more than a just a few TV members to secure 'ownership' of the homes in which they have sunk their life's savings?

[sriracha john]

The posh offices of the multi-million baht corporation, Asia Aviation:

Rossana Tositrakul, chairwoman of 30 organisations against corruption, stands outside the empty office said to be the headquarters of Asia Aviation, a new investor in Thai AirAsia.

[penzman]

The man just keeps bringing more and more ammo to the flak guns that are trying to take him down

[Jai Dee]

AirAsia resumes expansion mode

Source: TMCnet (Bangkok Post (Thailand) (KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) Feb. 17

The day after a hasty transaction allowing it to continue operating in Thailand, Thai AirAsia said it would move forward with expansion plans for its domestic and international operations.

"Now that all the shareholding issues have been sorted out, we are looking forward to focusing on operations and want to expand our services to be able to carry three million passengers this year," CEO Tassapon Bijleveld said yesterday.

The local unit of the Malaysian low-cost carrier AirAsia was asked by the Department of Civil Aviation to restructure its shareholdings to comply with Thai law, which states that any carrier operating from Thailand must be majority owned by a Thai national or entity.

Thai AirAsia had been 50 percent held by Shin Corp, with 49 percent held by AirAsia and the remaining 1 percent held by Mr Tassapon.Foreign ownership was an issue when Singapore's Temasek Holdings, bought a 49 percent stake in Shin Corp from the Shinawatra and Damapong families last month.

But on Wednesday the airline announced that investor Sittichai Veerathummnoon was taking a 51 percent stake in the holding firm Asia Aviation Co, with Shin taking the remaining 49 percent.

Mr Tassapon declined to respond to questions about whether Mr Sittichai was a proxy for Shin Corp or AirAsia. He said the new shareholder was a wealthy man who had decided to invest based on the information provided and had done so without due diligence.

"[Mr Sittichai] made the decision to invest based on the information I provided to him, and the whole thing was done in a matter of a few hours," Mr Tassapon said, adding that the main points were sorted out by Mr Sittichai and Boonklee Plangsiri, the director of Shin Corp and Thai AirAsia.

"Nobody is acting as anybody's proxy, he [Mr Sittichai] has the money and he's investing in a business that would yield a better return than cash in the bank," he said.

Mr Tassapon said that even though Temasek was the major shareholder in Shin, and therefore indirectly in Thai AirAsia, the airline was not looking for any kind co-operation with other low-cost carriers such as Jet Star Asia, which also has Temasek as a shareholder.

He added that Thai AirAsia's aim was to carry three million passengers this year against two million since its inception.

Thai AirAsia, which operates flights domestically and to international destinations such as Macau, Singapore, said it also planned to add another three aircraft to its current fleet of nine this year.

The company also plans to focus heavily on cargo this year, as its flights can carry up to two to three tonnes of cargo to various destinations.

"We aim to have at least 10-15 percent of our revenue derived from non-ticket sales, be it cargo, food or merchandise," Mr Tassapon said.

The airline is expected to launch a new promotion today offering 60,000 seats for travellers between March and May starting at 99 baht each for domestic destinations, and 199 baht for seats to Macau and Phnom Penh.

"Our load factor (passenger seat occupancy) is around 85 percent and this will help increase it going forward," he said.

He added that the airline was studying the possibility of adding more flights to Macau and Singapore.

[Jai Dee]

Take a Low-Priced Tour with Thai AirAsia

Thai AirAsia Airlines, together with the Tourism Authority of Thailand, would like to present a tour package at an economical price, to help boost tourism in the country.

The Chief Executive of Thai AirAsia, Mr. Tassapol Bijleveld (ทัศพล แบเลเว็ล์ด), was the special guest of the Tourism Talk television program of the TATV, and he mentioned about the tour package that his airlines have prepared for tourists at an inexpensive price. He also would like to invite travellers to use the services of Thai AirAsia.

AirAsia is the first airline in Asia that provides low-priced services, to encourage Thai people to travel by airplanes. This airline also has knowledgeable and skilled service personnel, and it has won more than 20 honourable prizes in the low cost carrier category. Clearly, these prizes guarantee its quality. This is an alternative for tourists who want to travel with lesser time and more comfort as well as economical prices, and therefore, its slogan is “anyone can fly”.

The Tourism Talk show which features Mr. Tassapol Bijleveld will be aired on February 22nd between 20.30 and 21.30 hours. For additional information on AirAsia, please call 0-2515-9999, or log on to www.airasia.com.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 18 Febuary 2006

[Johpa]

Of course it's a proxy.

Anyway, that's not the point.

All this circus would not happen if Thailand had "normal" business law.

Proxies and nominees are heavily used in Thailand, in all kind of businesses : from the bar, to the super huge company, from the import/export to the telecoms, from the poor farang to the prime minister of thailand...

Thailand is itself a proxy state for others. They throw out for public consumption the trappings of historical Thai states. They point out cultural artifacts such as elephants and temples. But it is all an empty shell. Thailand is the comfortable home to an elite that is decidedly not Thai, an elite who could care less about elephants or any other aspect of nature. Thailand has become a proxy state for others, And all too often now the others include wealthy ex-pat Farangs making far more money than the average Thai can imagine but living in Thailand in order to have a lifestyle they could not afford back in their home countries.

Thailand is a circus all right, and with more than one ring these days.

Chaiyo!

[raybkk]

Airline's new owner thought to be a front

BANGKOK: -- A consumer advocate and opposition MPs suspect the three-day-old Asia Aviation Co Ltd, new majority owner of Thai AirAsia, of being a front company after they found only empty office space at the firm's address. Rosana Tositrakul, chairwoman of the Federation of Consumer Rights Protection, investigated the company's whereabouts yesterday as stated in the shareholders' legal documents.

The office, on the 15th floor of Phahon Yothin Place building, Phahon Yothin road, was empty with only an ''E.com Internet Work Co Ltd'' sign in front of it.

Phahon 8 Co Ltd, an apartment leasing company which owns the building, said E.com Internet Work Co Ltd had moved out of the office a few months ago and the room had not yet been leased out.

''This only proves that Asia Aviation Co Ltd is a non-existent company and a nominee for possibly Shin Corp and consequently Singapore's Temasek Holdings. The Ministry of Commerce is at fault for letting this slip through its hands,'' said Ms Rosana.

Thai AirAsia, Shin's subsidiary, has come under pressure from the Aviation Department to change its shareholding structure following the acquisition of Shin by Temasek.

Malaysia's AirAsia already holds 49% of Thai AirAsia. Temasek's indirect stake in the Thai carrier via its purchase of Shin has raised the foreign ownership in Thai AirAsia above the statutory limit of 49%.

The low-cost airline, however, escaped having its aviation licence revoked when Shin Corp transferred its 49% stake in the company to the new entity, Asia Aviation Co Ltd, the Thai firm alleged to be a front which was only created on Tuesday.

Sithichai Veerathammanoon emerged as the other shareholder with 51%.

Boonklee Plangsiri, former CEO of Shin Corp before it was sold to Temasek, is also a shareholder in the new firm along with two other former Shin officials who are on the board of directors of the company.

''Mr Boonklee is also a member of the Board of Investment (BoI), which could be seen as a conflict of interest as Thai AirAsia enjoys BoI promotion privileges with extended tax incentives,'' Ms Rosana said. She would petition the Minister of Transport to revoke the company's licence next week.

Democrat party list MP Kiat Sitheeamorn, meanwhile, questioned the legitimacy of Asia Aviation Co Ltd and asked how a company with only five million baht in registered capital could buy into a company such as Thai AirAsia, worth more than 200 million baht.

''Who gave out the loan? No bank in this country would take such a risk.''

Mr Kiat also questioned why Mr Sithichai, with his 51% stake in Asia Aviation Co Ltd and thus a 25% holding in Thai AirAsia, does not have a seat on the board.

Normally someone with a 5% stake in a company would hold a seat on the board of directors, which raised the question of who Mr Sithichai actually is.

Thai AirAsia CEO Tassapon Bijleveld earlier this week said Mr Sithichai was ''wealthy'' and was in the courier business working for DHL.

--Bangkok Post 2006-02-17

New owner signs!

[Ricardo]

AirAsia resumes expansion mode

Source: TMCnet (Bangkok Post (Thailand) (KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) Feb. 17

Mr Tassapon declined to respond to questions about whether Mr Sittichai was a proxy for Shin Corp or AirAsia. He said the new shareholder was a wealthy man who had decided to invest based on the information provided and had done so without due diligence.

"[Mr Sittichai] made the decision to invest based on the information I provided to him, and the whole thing was done in a matter of a few hours," Mr Tassapon said, adding that the main points were sorted out by Mr Sittichai and Boonklee Plangsiri, the director of Shin Corp and Thai AirAsia.

"Nobody is acting as anybody's proxy, he [Mr Sittichai] has the money and he's investing in a business that would yield a better return than cash in the bank," he said.

Wow, investing that sort of money, without any due-diligence, and the decision made in just a couple of hours, with the aviation-industry notoriously loss-making. And no guarantees or interest-free loans - to enable him to do it. Impressive.

Coincidentally, I happen to own a bridge in London & another in Brooklyn, which might return better than cash in a Thai bank. Do you think he might be interested ?

Take a Low-Priced Tour with Thai AirAsia

AirAsia is the first airline in Asia that provides low-priced services, to encourage Thai people to travel by airplanes.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 18 Febuary 2006

Funny, I'm sure that One-Two-Fly/Thai-Orient were already well-established, when Thai Air Asia started trading ? I wonder how they get a government news-agency to issue news-releases for a private company like this ?

[Heng]

While I admire Orient-Thai's entrepreneurial efforts, I think their planes barely qualify as actual aircraft. I have to admit it was nostalgic to ride their L-1011 several years ago on a flight to Macau, but no need to do that again I think.

[thaigene2]

Good for Rosana and her organization. Of course like most of the organizations that pop up in Thailand there's usually some other agenda of Poo-Yai's at work behind the scene. This one is probably run by the Chinese-Thai coalition that is on the wrong side of the Thaksin gravy train..so want him out of power so their families can get back on..

But it raises the important question: Why don't the 'quality' papers in Thailand (Bangkok Post, Nationa, Matichon) investigate the multitude of idiotic consumer scams and rip-off's going on out there?

The only one I can think of recently was the diet pill and skin creme controversy -- and these only received the attention of the mass media because the Govt issued health warnings (amazing in itself).

Where are the consumer reports into things like:

1. Powerded milk rots your baby's teeth, and real cow's milk is healthier?

2. Mother's milk is better for your infant than formula and the act of breast-feeding will help mum return to shape faster

3. Why does King Power have a monopoly for Duty Free, and why did it just get ANOTHER monopoly for the new airport?

4. Skin creme will not make your skin whiter..it's BS.

5. Strapping an electric belt around your waist will not make you lose weight

6. Amway is a pyramid scheme where the person who sells to you tries to get you to sell for them. Giffarin same-same, chai mai krup?

7. Central Group seems to have a stranglehold on retail chains (except for Emporium group)..and the prices are exactly the same in all their differently named stores - e.g., Robinson, Tops (their only competitor seems to be Tesco). Isn't that called price fixing?

8. Despite all the news reports about deep discounts after the tsunami..there weren't any really. And the old trick of pushing up prices to gouge those who went to Phuket to make up for the short-fall was well underway last time I checked.

9. Buying property and condos here (esp condos) is a huge rip-off. Where are the consumer reports into the property market? You won't see any until it crashes.

10. Why not a regular consumer's thread on Thaivisa?

Better stop there..whew..

[britainmal]

From what I read here; Air Asia is a Malaysian company. In order for them to enter the Thai marketplace they formed an entity with Khun Thaksin..I mean Shin Corp. with was 51% owned by Shin Corp. and 49% owned by Air Asia(Malaysia).

Air Asia(Thailand) was born.

What has occurred now is that Khun Thaksin has sold his share of Shin Corp., to a Singaporean company, effectively transferring his Air Asia(Thailand) shares to Singaporean hands. Voila!

Air Asia(Thailand) is now not majority Thai owned. Air Asia(Malaysia) would be the majority shareholder, therefore making it ineligible to hold a licence for domestic flights in Thailand.

First of all , Air Asia(Thailand) domestic flights are not very profitable. Second of all, Air Asia(Thaiand) was not owned by Thaksin directly. It was owned by the Shin Corp. Thaksin did not have personal ownership of the company except for Shin Corp. Air Asia Thailand is an asset of Shin Corp. Thaksin sold 49 percent of Shin Corp. to the Singaporean Company with no voting rights. The Singaporean Company regards Shin Corp. as an "minor investment". Therefore The Singaporean Company does not own 51 percent, but 49 percent because Air Asia is still owned by Shin Corp. Do you understand?

Edited February 19, 2006 by britainmal

[Heng]

Now that it's in bold print, hopefully the anti-PM crowd will be able to see through their crazed blurry haze.

[dan10400]

From what I read here; Air Asia is a Malaysian company. In order for them to enter the Thai marketplace they formed an entity with Khun Thaksin..I mean Shin Corp. with was 51% owned by Shin Corp. and 49% owned by Air Asia(Malaysia).

Air Asia(Thailand) was born.

What has occurred now is that Khun Thaksin has sold his share of Shin Corp., to a Singaporean company, effectively transferring his Air Asia(Thailand) shares to Singaporean hands. Voila!

Air Asia(Thailand) is now not majority Thai owned. Air Asia(Malaysia) would be the majority shareholder, therefore making it ineligible to hold a licence for domestic flights in Thailand.

First of all , Air Asia(Thailand) domestic flights are not very profitable. Second of all, Air Asia(Thaiand) was not owned by Thaksin directly. It was owned by the Shin Corp. Thaksin did not have personal ownership of the company except for Shin Corp. Air Asia Thailand is an asset of Shin Corp. Thaksin sold 49 percent of Shin Corp. to the Singaporean Company with no voting rights. The Singaporean Company regards Shin Corp. as an "minor investment". Therefore The Singaporean Company does not own 51 percent, but 49 percent because Air Asia is still owned by Shin Corp. Do you understand?

it is not clear that you understand. and bold fonts do nothing to clear anything up

(except for K. Heng who appears to be blind to everything around him).

1) it is irrelevant that domestic flights are not very profitable for Air Asia. The right to

fly domestic routes requires >= 51% domestic ownership. the right to fly does not

carry the right for profits.

2) even in thailand, ownership over the 20% threshold is considered to imply 'control' to

treat the investment other than passive - i.e., not a "minor investment". prior to the

acquisition, air asia was 49% malaysian. even by your loose interpretation, the 49% of

shin owned by the singaporean company translates to approximately 25% direct

ownership of air asia (yet effectively 100% of the control the shin shares). so you get

something between 76-100% foreign ownership. not clear how much games were

played with voting vs. non-voting shares - but the thai law seems to specify 'ownership'

only - which of course is quite convenient for getting around the true intent of the laws.

[limbos]

Thaigene 2,

Can you please explain more about this;

1. Powerded milk rots your baby's teeth, and real cow's milk is healthier?

At what age will cow's milk be better and does it have all or more of the ingredients compared to those that powdered milk has? Any back up information on this?

[Heng]

51% control is considered majority control, same as anywhere else. If those within the 51% wanted, they could run the company into the ground with the 49% owners having absolutely no say over it (other than the right to sell out at a loss). Such is control.

They don't add up the %'s of the various companies to increase the % of ownership, but that's quite imaginative of you, Dan.

[dan10400]

51% control is considered majority control, same as anywhere else. If those within the 51% wanted, they could run the company into the ground with the 49% owners having absolutely no say over it (other than the right to sell out at a loss). Such is control.

They don't add up the %'s of the various companies to increase the % of ownership, but that's quite imaginative of you, Dan.

the rule is total % foreign ownership has to be less than 49%. not that any one foreign

stakeholder can not be over 49%. in this case the percentages do add up.

the malays already said they would not give up their 49% stake, so hence the singaporeans

need to come up with yet another front company to look thai to not have to dump their

51% on the open market.

not imaginative at all. just the rules. btw - the 20% guidelines accounting measures

used to determine control in subsidiaries and hence financial reporting requirements.

those are rules also. no imagination used here either.

[britainmal]

1) it is irrelevant that domestic flights are not very profitable for Air Asia. The right to

fly domestic routes requires >= 51% domestic ownership. the right to fly does not

carry the right for profits.

I am simply stating that Air Asia's Thai domestic flights are not important because it is not a money maker. If the xenophobic Thailand gov't wants to make a big deal about it they could just give it up and make Air Asia(Singapore) LTD.

2) even in thailand, ownership over the 20% threshold is considered to imply 'control'

Ownership over over 20 percent does not mean to Imply control because if you only control over 20 percent of the company you would still mean you are a minority share holder, so on the board of shareholder meeting you could not win a decision unless you convince the majority shareholders.

to treat the investment other than passive - i.e., not a "minor investment". prior to the

acquisition, air asia was 49% malaysian. even by your loose interpretation, the 49% of

shin owned by the singaporean company translates to approximately 25% direct

ownership of air asia (yet effectively 100% of the control the shin shares). so you get

something between 76-100% foreign ownership. not clear how much games were

played with voting vs. non-voting shares - but the thai law seems to specify 'ownership'

only - which of course is quite convenient for getting around the true intent of the laws.

You make no sense what you are taking about. To have real control of a company you must be a 100 percent or majority shareholder. Mr. Dan, I know you are not a business men for sure. You have never taken a business course in your life for sure.

the rule is total % foreign ownership has to be less than 49%. not that any one foreign

stakeholder can not be over 49%. in this case the percentages do add up.

Yes, it is. Shin Corp. is still a Thai Company. 51percent Thai-49 percent Singapore.

the malays already said they would not give up their 49% stake, so hence the singaporeans

need to come up with yet another front company to look thai to not have to dump their

51% on the open market. They do not because Shin Corp. is still a Thai Company not a forign Company.

not imaginative at all. just the rules. btw - the 20% guidelines accounting measures

used to determine control in subsidiaries and hence financial reporting requirements.

those are rules also. no imagination used here either.

That has nothing to do with it.

[britainmal]

Mr Thai don't stop keep it coming........

I agree with you 100 percent. I will try to answer these questions for you:

1. Powerded milk rots your baby's teeth, and real cow's milk is healthier?

They don't know that information. They are just ignorant.

2. Mother's milk is better for your infant than formula and the act of breast-feeding will help mum return to shape faster.

They are only thinking about making money and they think it is the same.

3. Why does King Power have a monopoly for Duty Free, and why did it just get ANOTHER monopoly for the new airport?

because the Thai Gov't said it can.

4. Skin creme will not make your skin whiter..it's BS

They are crazy about white skin.

5. Strapping an electric belt around your waist will not make you lose weight.

They think so because its like exercise.

6. Amway is a pyramid scheme where the person who sells to you tries to get you to sell for them. Giffarin same-same, chai mai krup?

That's right!

7. Central Group seems to have a stranglehold on retail chains (except for Emporium group)..and the prices are exactly the same in all their differently named stores - e.g., Robinson, Tops (their only competitor seems to be Tesco). Isn't that called price fixing?

It sure is but the Thai people think it is better for the Thai rich class to dominate the economy then foreign companies. Remember they are xenophobic.

8. Despite all the news reports about deep discounts after the tsunami..there weren't any really. And the old trick of pushing up prices to gouge those who went to Phuket to make up for the short-fall was well underway last time I checked.

That is right.

9. Buying property and condos here (esp condos) is a huge rip-off. Where are the consumer reports into the property market? You won't see any until it crashes.

They don't care about foreigners. They just want money and you have no say in anything.

10. Why not a regular consumer's thread on Thaivisa?

They are too ignorant.

Edited February 20, 2006 by britainmal

[Erwin1011]

If the Shinawatra clan sells its 49% stake in Shin Corp to a foreign entity, then the remainder of the outstanding shares must be held by Thai entities. Is that the case? and if so who are they?

If Shin Corp owns 51% of the shares in Thai Air Asia and the rest is owned by a foreign entity (Malaysia Air), then by the mere fact that a foreign entity owns 49% of a corp that owns 51% in in the airline means that two foreign entities own together more than 49% of the airline. That seems to be against the law on foreign ownership.

[britainmal]

No, because it would be divided up amonst the owners of Shin Corp.( Thai and foreign) The Thai share holders of Shin Corp. would have the majority over the shares of Air Asia.

[dan10400]

1) it is irrelevant that domestic flights are not very profitable for Air Asia. The right to

fly domestic routes requires >= 51% domestic ownership. the right to fly does not

carry the right for profits.

I am simply stating that Air Asia's Thai domestic flights are not important because it is not a money maker. If the xenophobic Thailand gov't wants to make a big deal about it they could just give it up and make Air Asia(Singapore) LTD.

you are simply stating because why? it is irrelevant? why not just give up the routes

if they are worthless?

the rule is total % foreign ownership has to be less than 49%. not that any one foreign

stakeholder can not be over 49%. in this case the percentages do add up.

Yes, it is. Shin Corp. is still a Thai Company. 51percent Thai-49 percent Singapore.

the malays already said they would not give up their 49% stake, so hence the singaporeans

need to come up with yet another front company to look thai to not have to dump their

51% on the open market. They do not because Shin Corp. is still a Thai Company not a forign Company.

then by your logic (i have a hard time using the word 'analysis' with your diatribe), there

would no reason to be even discussing yet another front company as there would be

no violation of domestic ownership rules. duhh.

not imaginative at all. just the rules. btw - the 20% guidelines accounting measures

used to determine control in subsidiaries and hence financial reporting requirements.

those are rules also. no imagination used here either.

That has nothing to do with it.

only because you don't understand reporting requirements and what constitutes

'control' in publicly traded companies.

[Erwin1011]

No, because it would be divided up amonst the owners of Shin Corp.( Thai and foreign) The Thai share holders of Shin Corp. would have the majority over the shares of Air Asia.

Assume Thai Air Asia = 100 shares

Malaysia Air owns 49 % = 49 shares

Shin Corp owns 51% = 51 shares

Temasek owns Shin Corp 49 %, thus it owns 51*49%= 25 hares in Thai Air Asia

Malysia Air 49 shares

Temasek 25 shares

Sum foreign ownership = 74 shares out of 100

[britainmal]

Assume Thai Air Asia = 100 shares

Malaysia Air owns 49 % = 49 shares

Shin Corp owns 51% = 51 shares

Temasek owns Shin Corp 49 %, thus it owns 51*49%= 25 hares in Thai Air Asia

Malysia Air 49 shares

Temasek 25 shares

Sum foreign ownership = 74 shares out of 100

It is divided like this:

Air Asia(thailand)

49 percent-Air Asia(Malaysia)

51 percent-Chin Corp. Thai Company-Temask does not own shares in the Company, But Shin Corp. does, which is owned by Temask at 49 percent.