Iberia propone que sus pilotos se reduzcan el sueldo hasta el 47%

CRISTINA GALINDO

El Consejo de Administración de la aerolínea se baja el salario el 25%

La compañía quiere rebajar los salarios de los pilotos al nivel de Vueling

Iberia quiere que los salarios de los pilotos que operan vuelos nacionales y europeos se sitúen en línea con lo marcado en el convenio de la aerolínea de bajo coste Vueling, lo que podría implicar rebajas de la remuneración de hasta el 47%. Esta es una de las propuestas que presentará a los sindicatos que representan a los trabajadores (UGT, CC OO y Sepla) a partir de la semana próxima para negociar el plan de ajuste que acaba de presentar y que incluye el despido de 4.500 personas, un 23% de la plantilla.

Sede central de Iberia en Madrid. / CHEMA MOYA (EFE)

La aplicación del convenio de Vueling, empresa controlada por Iberia, supondrá una rebaja sustancial de los salarios de los pilotos de corto y medio radio: ahora su sueldo medio ronda los 194.000 euros anuales, frente a la media de 102.000 en vigor en la low cost, según los datos proporcionados este lunes por Iberia. Mientras tanto, la remuneración de un tripulante de cabina de Iberia asciende de media a 64.000 euros, frente a los 27.000 de Vueling, un 58% menos. “Hay que transformar el corto y medio radio y propondremos el convenio de Vueling, que es competitivo y, además, fue aprobado en su día por el Sepla [el sindicato de pilotos]”, avanzó este lunes el consejero delegado de Iberia, Rafael Sánchez-Lozano, en un encuentro con periodistas.

“Si hay acuerdo en este tema estamos dispuestos a estancar el crecimiento de Iberia Express”, añadió. La creación de esta línea de bajo coste en marzo fue la desencadenante del último conflicto que enfrentó a Iberia y los pilotos y que todavía no ha sido resuelto. Iberia Express, donde las remuneraciones son inferiores a las de Vueling, tiene ahora 14 aviones.

La dirección de Iberia tiene previsto reunirse con la ministra de Fomento, Ana Pastor, para explicar los detalles del plan de ajuste

Iberia, integrada en el holding IAG tras su fusión con British Airways en 2011, presentó la semana pasada uno de los ajustes laborales más duros de la historia de España. La aerolínea quiere suprimir 4.500 puestos de trabajo, de un total de 19.437, y quiere hacerlo aprovechando la reforma laboral con indemnizaciones máximas de un año de salario. También plantea rebajas de sueldo del 25% al 35% para la plantilla que siga en la compañía y un recorte del 15% de los vuelos en 2013 para centrarse en las rutas más rentables. Si no hay un acuerdo con los sindicatos antes del 31 de enero, la empresa ha advertido que tendrá que tomar medidas más drásticas. “Todo es negociable, pero si no hay acuerdo vía salarios, se hará con más ajustes de plantilla”, dijo el consejero delegado ayer.

Con estas medidas, Iberia espera detener el deterioro de caja a mediados de 2013 (destrucción de 468 millones en lo que va de año) y mejorar sus resultados operativos en 600 millones de aquí a 2015. La rebaja salarial también afectará a la cúpula de Iberia. Según dijo Sánchez-Lozano, el Consejo de Administración aprobó la semana pasada una rebaja de su salario fijo del 25% efectiva desde ya mismo, mientras los directivos no cobrarán en 2013 la remuneración variable ligada a objetivos conseguidos durante este ejercicio. “En ningún caso, el plan de ajuste figura como un objetivo a tener en cuenta en la remuneración”, aseguró el consejero delegado.

La dirección de Iberia tiene previsto reunirse este martes con la ministra de Fomento, Ana Pastor, para explicar los detalles del plan de ajuste de la aerolínea. Preguntado por la posibilidad de que el Gobierno interfiera en sus planes, Sánchez-Lozano se mostró convencido de que esto no será así. “Ni al Gobierno, ni a la empresa, ni a los empleados nos interesa que la compañía vaya mal; todos estamos del mismo lado”, dijo. Este lunes, el titular de Industria, José Manuel Soria, pidió “responsabilidad” a la aerolínea para alcanzar los acuerdos necesarios que permitan a la compañía continuar siendo “útil” para el sector turístico español.

http://economia.elpais.com/economia/2012/11/12/actualidad/1352750041_081800.html

Protect Your Financial Plan: Transfer The Risk

Oran A. Hall, Contributor
 November 11, 2012



Love is the only kind of fire which is never covered by insurance -- Kin Hubbard

A fire can destroy a financial plan. But so can water, earthquake, hurricane Sandy and other perils for the individual who chooses not to transfer risk by insuring his assets.

Would you say that a plan that excludes insurance is a complete financial plan? Risk management is a critical part of any personal financial plan; insurance - life, health, critical illness, disability and property - is a great risk management tool.

Instead of taking all of the risk, the asset owner effectively uses insurance to transfer the risk to the insurer, who is in a stronger financial position to pay for the loss.

Even for the person who has the financial resources to replace an asset that has been destroyed or damaged, there is still a serious cost which inevitably damages the personal financial plan.

Consider what the money used to replace or repair the asset could have been used for. Consider also what would happen if there are insufficient funds to replace or repair the asset destroyed or damaged. Would other assets have to be sold or would a debt have to be incurred?

It is true that there are individuals who, quite fortunately, get by without suffering loss from any peril but there is no guarantee that such good fortune will continue indefinitely. It is the uncertainty associated with perils that makes it imperative for measures to be taken to protect the owner of property of any kind.

There is wisdom in insuring major assets such as a home, which is the most valuable asset of many persons.

A standard homeowner's policy provides financial protection against a wide range of perils.

Property damage

It generally includes coverage of the structure of the home itself including extensions and attachments such as garages, liability protection, that is, coverage for legal responsibility for bodily injury or property damage the insured or family members cause to other persons, including cost of defence and court awards to the limit of the policy, and reasonable expenses if the owners are unable to live in the house due to fire and other perils.

A homeowner's policy may cover building only, building and contents, or building, contents and all risk items such as electronic items.

It is advisable to insure property for its full replacement cost - not its original cost or current market value.

Considering the level of inflation we have experienced over the years and the consequent increases in the cost of assets, every effort should be made to have insurance at a level that will enable the owner to replace the assets or restore them to their condition before the damage.

Under a homeowner's policy, a building is considered to be underinsured if the sum insured at the time of loss or damage is less than 85 per cent of its current replacement cost.

Thus, if a building having a replacement cost of J$20 million is insured for J$17 million and is totally destroyed, the insured is paid J$20 million less any applicable excess.

If it is insured for J$15 million and is totally destroyed, the insured is paid J$15 million less any applicable excess.

If it is insured for J$15 million and is partially destroyed, the insured is paid 75 per cent of the value of the loss less any applicable excess, so if the loss is J$10 million, the insured is paid J$7.50 million less any applicable excess.

Coverage is for one year at a time and the policy should be upgraded to reflect any increase in the value of the property due to enhancements made or appreciation due to inflation or the market.

It is important to shop around for the best deal. A better alternative is to have a broker do that for you. Determine what you are being offered for each premium dollar before signing the contract.

Do not risk derailing your personal financial plan. Get appropriate and adequate insurance.

Oran A. Hall, a member of the Caribbean Financial Planning Association and principal author of 'The Handbook of Personal Financial Planning', offers free counsel and advice on personal financial planning.

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20121111/business/business4.html

La banca refinancia la constructora familiar de Fátima Báñez con 20 millones “por ser de quien es”

Por Noelia Ávila

Juan de Robles S.A., la empresa de la familia de Fátima Báñez, ha llegado a un acuerdo con el sector bancario a pesar de su mala situación, aunque “si no llega a ser de quien es, no se habría firmado en la vida”.

Fátima Báñez, ministra de Empleo

La constructora de la familia Báñez ha logrado firmar con la banca una refinanciación de su deuda por más de 20 millones de euros. Reestructura su endeudamiento y trata de aplazar los pagos de principal e interés.

La empresa se dedica al sector inmobiliario y a la construcción y, como tantas otras del sector, se encontraba en una situación complicada por la crisis del ladrillo. Pero la diferencia entre unas y otras radica en el nombre de sus propietarios: como afirmó uno de los representantes de las entidades financieras que habían hecho posible la operación, “si la empresa no llega a ser de quien es, esa refinanciación no se habría firmado en la vida y menos en estos tiempos. No hay por dónde cogerla”, según publica Voz Pópuli.

Pero no es la primera vez que Juan de Robles S.A. se convierte en tema de actualidad. El pasado verano fue investigada por una operación de venta de suelo de Mercasevilla junto con otras empresas. La juez Alaya, que instruyó el caso, sospechaba que la compañía había presentado una “oferta fantasma” por los terrenos para beneficiar a terceros.

http://www.diarioelaguijon.com/noticia/8234/ECONOM%C3%8DA-Y-EMPRESAS/banca-refinancia-constructora-familiar-f%C3%A1tima-b%C3%A1%C3%B1ez-20-millones-%E2%80%9Cpor-es%E2%80%9D.html

Business Chiefs Step Gingerly Into a Thorny Budget Fight

By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ and DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI

As Democratic and Republican leaders stake out their positions in the coming fiscal showdown in Washington, corporate executives are starting a political campaign of their own.

The chief executives taking part in two separate advertising blitzes that are set to begin on Monday and Tuesday are walking a delicate balance. They plan to press Congress to act quickly, even as they publicly steer clear of the political firefight surrounding the details of any far-reaching deal to cut the federal budget deficit.

Behind the scenes, however, the effort by business leaders could play a crucial role in shaping decisions on tax policy, including whether corporate tax rates go down even as individuals pay more.

By framing the issue as an attempt to balance the federal budget, the plan also offers some political cover to Congressional Republicans wary that voting for a tax increase could make them targets of the party’s powerful fiscal conservatives.

But a question remains over just how far the business groups will go. In the past, corporations have joined the call for fiscal responsibility, only to resist giving up specific perks and programs that benefit their businesses or offering other specific suggestions for deficit reduction.

The Campaign to Fix the Debt, a new group with a $40 million budget whose backers include Jeffrey R. Immelt of General Electric and David M. Cote of Honeywell, will run more than a million dollars’ worth of advertisements. The spots take their cue from well-known ads by the likes of Nike and Dunkin’ Donuts and feature slogans like “Just Fix It” and “Time to Fix the Debt.”

Mr. Immelt and Mr. Cote also feature prominently in a more traditional campaign by the Business Roundtable, which represents Fortune 500 companies and is one of Washington’s most powerful lobbying groups.

The Business Roundtable’s effort, set to begin on Tuesday, has a budget of close to half a million dollars, and is focused on news media in the Washington area, including outlets like Politico as well as conservative talk radio shows.

“America’s C.E.O.’s have a message for Washington: don’t take our country over the fiscal cliff,” warns a Business Roundtable commercial, referring to the package of tax increases and automatic spending cuts set to go into effect in January if Congress and President Obama cannot agree on deficit reduction plan.

Experts say that combination would equal a half-trillion-dollar blow to the economy that could cause a recession in the first half of 2013 — a threat the Business Roundtable has made the centerpiece of its campaign. “If Congress does not act, growth will stall, jobs will be lost and our nation’s credit will be harmed,” the radio ad says.

The debut of the ads in Washington coincides with the return of Congress on Tuesday for a lame-duck session that will take up the fiscal issue.

John Engler, the Business Roundtable’s president and a former Republican governor from Michigan, said that whatever solution emerges, “the tax code changes have to be permanent and the budget cuts have to be real.”

“Even the president has said the corporate tax rate is too high and needs to come down,” Mr. Engler said. “We’re in the position of saying everything is on the table.”

The new campaign ups the ante in the fight over fiscal policy, which is set to dominate the agenda in Washington through the end of the year, and comes during an increase in lobbying by chief executives on Capitol Hill.

“My sense is that their primary motivation is avoiding recession,” said Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and a former economic adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “But I think the key to whether they are serious or just posturing is the question of taxes, and if they’re truly willing to support raising more revenues.”

Still, big business has plenty to gain if some elements of what the groups are pushing for were to become law.

The Fix the Debt campaign was created by Erskine B. Bowles and Alan K. Simpson, who were chairmen of a presidential commission charged with developing a blueprint for fiscal change and deficit reduction in 2010, and the group backs many of their recommendations.

Both the Business Roundtable and the Fix the Debt campaign suggest they could pay for the corporate rate reduction by “broadening the base,” closing loopholes and eliminating many deductions. Some critics say they doubt that would bring in enough revenue to pay for reducing taxes on corporations, eventually shifting some of the burden to smaller businesses and individuals.

Advocates for low-income and older Americans have also been harsh critics of the Simpson-Bowles plan, saying it would keep tax rates on businesses and wealthy Americans at levels below the historical average, and underwrite that by sharply cutting Social Security andMedicare.

Fix the Debt is also backed by Peter G. Peterson, a longtime deficit hawk who has advocated cutting Social Security and other elements of the safety net to pay for debt reduction. Other corporate backers include Mark T. Bertolini, the chief executive of Aetna, and Gregory Q. Brown, the chief executive of Motorola.

Maya MacGuineas, the head of the campaign, played down the suggestion that the Fix the Debt campaign had a particular agenda.

“We’re not advocating specific solutions,” she said. The executives backing the campaign, she said, want to “put in place a debt deal. I see this as people who are focused on what they see as a real threat to their businesses and employees.”

With the start of the ad campaigns, chief executives will soon find themselves in the middle of one of Washington’s toughest political battles in years.

Politicians from across the spectrum say they want to avoid the threat posed by the looming tax increases and budget reductions, but the thorniest issue is likely to be making changes in tax policy. Indeed, even as votes from last Tuesday’s presidential race were still being tallied in some states, President Obama and Congressional Republicans began signaling their positions.

The president favors extending Bush-era tax cuts for all but the top 2 percent of earners. House Speaker John A. Boehner said last week that the election was not a mandate for a tax increase, and he has insisted that tax cuts be extended for everyone.

Those positions are so far apart, and so deeply entrenched, that most in Washington expect some short-term extension of the Bush-era cuts to be passed, giving Congress and the White House more time to overhaul the tax system and take on the issue of spending cuts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/business/business-chiefs-step-gingerly-into-the-federal-budget-fight.html?pagewanted=1&ref=business

A rare interview with Morningstar's Fund Manager of the Decade. Great Investor Bruce Berkowitz discusses The Fairholme Fund's controversial concentration in financial stocks and other unloved securities.

¿Así gana dinero Inditex?

Reportaje de investigación de Cash investigation emitido en el canal público France 2 el 18 de mayo de 2012. Inditex y las subcontratas de sus proveedores a partir de un informe de la empresa del 2009.

Iberdrola gana 2.401 millones hasta septiembre, un 12% más

Iberdrola registró un beneficio neto de 2.401 millones de euos en los nueve primeros meses del año, lo que supone un aumento del 12% respecto al mismo periodo del ejercicio anterior, pese a la caída del 36% del resultado en España, según ha informado la eléctrica este miércoles a la Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores (CNMV).

La compañía ha achacado el retroceso del resultado en España, que apenas alcanza los 616 millones y representa solamente el 25% del total, al recorte en la retribución de las redes aprobada por el Gobierno el pasado mes de marzo y no tiene en cuenta aún el impacto de las nuevas medidas fiscales sobre la actividad de generación, cuya entrada en vigor está pendiente.

Por su parte, el beneficio neto del negocio internacional creció un 52% entre enero y septiembre, hasta 1.784 millones de euros, cerca del 75% del resultado total, lo que ha compensado el descenso de las ganancias en España.

Supera las previsiones

El resultado bruto de explotación (EBITDA) alcanzó los 5.777,8 millones de euos, un 3,4% superior al de un año antes, con un crecimiento "significativo" en el negocio de renovables, con un alza del 16,4%, hasta 1.181,8 millones de euros. Por su parte, el negocio de redes situó su EBITDA en 2.899,8 millones (+2,1%) y el de generación y comercial, en 1.681,5 millones (-1,7%).

Los analistas consultados por Reuters esperaban un resultado neto de 2.268 millones de euros y un EBITDA de 5.748 millones.

En España, el EBITDA alcanzó los 2.735 millones de euros, un 5,6% menos, por las medidas regulatorias, la baja producción y el ajuste de personal, mientras que en el área internacional creció un 13,1%, hasta los 3.042 millones de euros.

De este importe, un 64% proviene del negocio de redes, que experimentó un crecimiento del 15% y un 20% del renovable, que mejoró un 13,7%.

Las ventas del grupo alcanzaron los 25.000 millones de euros, con un incremento del 8%, al tiempo que el margen bruto aumentó también un 5,3% hasta 9.291,6 millones, beneficiado por la internacionalización, la aportación de Elektro y el tipo de cambio.

Descienden las inversiones

Por su parte, las inversiones descendieron un 67%, hasta los 2.083 millones, y las desinversiones alcanzan ya cerca de 300 millones con el fin de fortalecer la posición financiera del grupo.

De los 2.083 millones invertidos hasta septiembre, la eléctrica ha destinado un 67% al negocio de redes (+32%), un 19% a renovables (-43%) y un 14% al área de generación y comercial (-2%).

En los nueve primeros meses del año, Iberdrola ha continuado centrando su gestión en mantener un balance "sólido y fuerte". Así, la compañía acumula una liquidez superior a los 11.000 millones de euros, cantidad suficiente para cubrir las necesidades financieras de los próximos 36 meses.

La deuda neta ajustada del grupo, sin incluir los 3.022 millones ? pendientes de cobro correspondientes al déficit de tarifa, se sitúa al cierre de septiembre en 28.838 millones de euros. El apalancamiento, por su parte, se sitúa en el 45,9% ex déficit y en el 48,4% incluyendo la deuda tarifaria.

El vencimiento medio de la deuda se mantiene en 6,2 años y su coste medio desciende cinco puntos básicos hasta situarse en el 4,49%.

http://www.eleconomista.es/interstitial/volver/ing_19jul2012/empresas-finanzas/noticias/4346256/10/12/Iberdrola-gana-2401-millones-hasta-septiembre-un-12-mas-pese-a-caer-un-36-su-negocio-en-Espana-.html

El Oráculo apuesta por la vivienda: Buffett quiere crear la mayor inmobiliaria de EEUU

El multimillonario inversor Warren Buffett apuesta por la recuperación inmobiliaria de EEUU. Berkshire Hathaway, el vehículo inversor del Oráculo de Omaha, ha anunciado un acuerdo con Brookfield Asset Management para intentar aprovechar un rebote del mercado creando una nueva inmobiliaria. Y lo hace con ambición: quiere que sea la más valiosa del mercado.

HomeServices of America, filial de Berkshire, será el principal accionista de la nueva empresa conjunta, que gestionará la red inmobilia residencial de ambas compañías. HomeServices opera como intermediario entre compradores y vendedores de viviendas, y ofrece servicios financieros como gestión de hipotecas y seguros.

La nueva empresa funcionará bajo el paraguas de una nueva franquica, Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices, que empezará a funcionar el año que viene. Hasta ahora, Brookfield habiá operado hasta ahora bajo las marcas Prudential Real Estate y Real Living Real Estate.

"Con la visión de convertirse en la compañía inmobiliaria más valiosa del mercado, esta poderosa nueva red ejemplificará la reputación de Berkshire Hathaway", explica en su web.

No se trata de la primera apuesta de Buffett sobre el mercado inmobiliaria. La compañia ha comprado en los últimos tiempos un fabricante de ladrillos, ha ganado en subasta la cartera hipotecaria del quebrado Residential Capital y ha constituido su filial HomeServices absorbien inmobiliarias en estados como Oregon y Connecticut. el propio Buffett ha asegurado en varias ocasiones que espera un repunte del mercado de la vivienda.

"Vemos una escasez de inventarios a lo largo del país" y los precios han caído, explicó a Bloomberg el consejero delegado de HomeServices, Ron Peltier. "Cuando unes las piezas con unos tipos de interás bajos, vemos un mercado de la vivienda que continuará mejorando".

La nueva compañía tendrá una red combinada de más de 53.000 agentes en alrededor de 1.700 ciudades y que en conjunto generaron 72.000 millones de dólares en ventas en 2011. HomeServices estará presente en mercados tan importantes como Nueva York, Boston o California.

"Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices es una nueva franquicia construido en base a la fortaleza financiera y liderazgo de Brookfield y HomServices", aseguró en un comunicado Buffett. "Estoy seguro de que estos socios aportaran valor a la industria inmobiliaria residencial".

http://www.eleconomista.es/vivienda/noticias/4366457/10/12/El-Oraculo-apuesta-por-la-vivienda-Buffett-quiere-crear-la-mayor-inmobiliaria-de-EEUU.html

Marc Faber: "Los inversores deben proteger sus activos con ametralladoras, hemos manipulado el mercado"

elEconomista/ Nueva York

8/11/2012

El inversor Marc Faber, autor del informe 'Gloom, Boom & Doom, ha pintado un panorama bastante apocalíptico tras conocer el resultado de las elecciones presidenciales en EEUU. Durante una entrevista con la cadena Bloomberg, Faber aseguró que los inversores deben proteger sus activos "con ametralladoras, de hecho yo voy a comprarme un tanque", dijo al predecir que la renta variable se desplomará entre un 20 y un 50 por ciento.

"Hemos manipulado los mercados. Cada vez que manipulamos los mercados, obtendremos consecuencias no deseadas. Creo que la reelección es una consecuencia no intencionada de la impresión de dinero", aseguró.

Faber puso de manifiesto que ha sido fácil para los demócratas "atacar a los gatos gordos de Wall Street, la élite, y los privilegiados a los que retratan como unos especuladores del sistema", explicó. Sin embargo matizó que esta actitud no es personal sino que ha estado impulsada po Bernanke, "que les ha permitido ser aprovechados".

En los próximos cinco años, el inversor pronostica que los bancos centrales continuarán imprimiendo dinero y el nivel de vida de las personas en el mundo occidental, no sólo en Estados Unidos, seguirá disminuyendo debido al aumento del coste de vida, que superará al de los ingresos. Dicho cose también crecerá porque todos los tipos de impuestos seguirán subiendo.

"Estoy sorprendido con la reelección de Obama. El S&P sólo ha caído alrededor de 30 puntos pero creo que el mercado todavía podría caer por lo menos un 50 por ciento", reconoció. "Obama es un desastre para los negocios y un desastre para Estados Unidos. No es que Romney hubiera sido mucho mejor, pero es cierto que los republicanos entienden el problema de la deuda excesiva mejor que Obama", aclaró.

http://www.eleconomista.es/interstitial/volver/orange_3oct12/mercados-cotizaciones/noticias/4381723/11/12/Marc-Faber-Los-inversores-debe-proteger-sus-activos-con-ametralladoras-hemos-manipulado-el-mercado.html

IAG lanza una opa con una prima del 28% para hacerse con el 100% de Vueling

MIGUEL JIMÉNEZ Madrid 8 NOV 2012 

Las acciones se disparan cerca del precio de la oferta, de 7 euros por acción

Iberia ya controla un 45,85% del capital de la compañía, que vale en Bolsa 163,6 millones

IAG mantendrá Vueling como empresa independiente separada de Iberia Express

Varios pasajeros suben a un Airbus A320 de Vueling. / EFE

International Consolidated Airlines Group (IAG), el grupo fruto de la fusión de Iberia y British Airways, ha comunicado hoy a la Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores (CNMV) que va a lanzar una oferta pública de adquisición sobre el 100% del capital social de Vueling a un precio de 7 euros por acción, lo que implica una prima del 27,97% sobre el precio de mercado previo al anuncio. Como IAG ya controla un 46% de Vueling a través de Iberia, en la práctica se dirige al restante 54%, por el que ofrece 113 millones de euros. IAG espera completar la oferta en la primavera de 2013.

 IAG ha dejado claro que pretende “mantener la gestión de Vueling como sociedad operadora independiente con un modelo de negocio distinto al del resto de sociedades operadoras del grupo”, saliendo así al paso de los rumores que circulaban ayer que apuntaban a una fusión con Iberia Express. Más bien, lo que quiere la compañía es tener una plataforma alternativa con la que crecer en vuelos de bajo coste.

“Con su posición de liderazgo en Barcelona, la estrategia de crecimiento europea, y su baja estructura de costes, Vueling tiene mucho que ofrecer a IAG. Ha aumentado capacidad de manera significativa, a la vez que sigue siendo rentable, a pesar de la ralentización económica de España, y además ya tiene importantes contratos comerciales con Iberia. Tenemos intención de mantener el actual equipo directivo de Vueling”, señaló Willie Walsh, consejero delegado de IAG, en un comunicado.

La oferta se produce en un momento en que Iberia prepara un duro plan de ajuste que prevé comunicar hoy mismo a los sindicatos. Además, llega después de que los tribunales hayan anulado el laudo arbitral entre la compañía española y sus pilotos por la creación de Iberia Express.

Vueling, fundada en mayo de 2004, salió a Bolsa en noviembre de 2006 a un precio de 30 euros por acción. La compañía se estrenó con subidas en su primera etapa en el mercado, pero después de que los fondos de capital riesgo vendiesen el grueso de su participación, la empresa anunció que no iba a cumplir su plan de negocio y su cotización se desplomó. Siguió hundiéndose hasta 2008, cuando llegó a cotizar en un mínimo de 3 euros por acción. Ese año, pactó fusionarse con Clickair, en una operación que convertía a Iberia en su socio industrial de referencia. Tras dispararse en Bolsa en 2009, la compañía volvió a hundirse en 2010 y 2011. Este año había empezado a remontar el vuelo en Bolsa gracias a la mejora de sus resultados. Ayer, se disparó un 25%, hasta 6,85 euros, tras conocerse las condiciones de la oferta. Aun así, el precio de la opa es menos de la cuarta parte del de colocación en Bolsa.

La oferta está condicionada a lograr más del 90% del capital, lo que permitirá a IAG hacerse con el 100% al excluir a la compañía de Bolsa. La compañía encargará una valoración a un experto independiente con los criterios de las opas de exclusión, pero es difícil que eso se traduzca en una mejora de la oferta.

Puesto que Vueling ya está controlada por el grupo, IAG considera que no tiene obligación de obtener autorización de las autoridades de Competencia para llevar a cabo la operación.

IAG atenderá al pago de la contraprestación de la oferta confinanciación interna del grupo. La compañía espera que la operación refuerce la diversificación geográfica del grupo, alcanzando una posición de liderazgo en Barcelona y de crecimiento en el resto de Europa; que le permita contar con una plataforma de bajo coste; que genere posibles sinergias en costes de aprovisionamiento y financiación, si bien se espera que no sean significativas, y que redunde en un aumento del beneficio neto consolidado del grupo desde el primer año de la integración, según el comunicado remitido a la CNMV.

“Deberían ser buenas noticias para Vueling, ya que la operación ofrece muchas ventajas para esta aerolínea. Se beneficiará de la fortaleza financiera de un mayor grupo de aerolíneas, situándola en mejor posición para competir e invertir en nuevos productos y servicios. La aerolínea será capaz además de generar sinergias de ingresos y de costes como parte de IAG”, añadió Walsh, primer ejecutivo del grupo IAG.

http://economia.elpais.com/economia/2012/11/07/actualidad/1352316337_073327.html

José María Gay,el economista indignado

"Éste es un pais de chorizos, lo digo con todo el respeto... y el pueblo tiene que decir ¡basta! El Gobierno está propiciando el fraude fiscal. Son unos ineptos. Ni la patronal ni los sindicatos son independientes, están todos comprados con subvenciones. La gente de más de 45 años que éste en el paro no volverá a trabajar nunca más. Nuestros universitarios se van de este pais, en los centros estamos preparándolos para que se vayan a trabajar a Alemania y Estados Unidos. Yo, seguramente, me iré, porque un pais que no tiene capacidad de reacción, que no hay sentido de la revolución como tiene que ser... ¡Venga a desaparecer las empresas, venga a subir los impuestos, venga el IVA! Bueno, bueno, don Mariano, un momento..." Cinco minutos de la intervención del economista catalán José Maria Gay durante la mesa debate que tuvo lugar en Elche (Alicante), a finales de septiembre, como cierre de la celebración de las XIX Jornadas Tributarias de la Comunidad Valenciana. En el canal de youtube de la Asociación Profesional de Asesores Fiscales de la Comunidad Valenciana se puede ver todo el debate, la participación de los ponentes, las intervenciones de Gay y Francisco Álvarez, del presidente de Cepyme, Cristóbal Navarro, del profesor de la UMH de Elche José María Gras, del profesor Luis Muñiz de la Universidad de Alicante, los representantes de la entidad convocante, asi como el resto del contenido de las jornadas.

Land of the corporate giants

Economies of scale run out at a certain point. The largest firms in America may be beyond it

Some things only get bigger. From boats and planes to skyscrapers and shopping malls, size records are routinely broken. Companies are operating at record scale, too. But if the trend towards growing ever larger is clear, the economics of bigness are far murkier. In some cases, like boats, greater size still promises greater efficiency, as fixed costs are spread over higher output. In others, like buildings, the gains from scale may be running out. Where do firms lie on this spectrum?

Container ships provide a good example of economies of scale in action. Introduced in the late 1950s, the first ships could carry 480 twenty-foot equivalent (TEU) containers. By 2006 the biggest could shift 15,000 TEUs. Cost factors explain the rise: transport adds nothing to the final value of a good so cost minimisation is all-important. Since the shipping cost per container keeps on falling as ship size rises, container ships are set to keep growing. A new range of 18,000 TEU ships is due to launch in 2013. Per container they will be the most efficient yet.

But it is possible to exhaust the savings that come with size. Between 1931 and 2007 the record for the world’s tallest building rose from 381 to 828 metres. At first, as buildings get taller, the fixed cost of land per square metre of office space falls. But other height-related changes offset this saving. The wind force on a building rises exponentially with height, meaning design becomes more complex and costly. A recent study* by Steve Watts and Neal Kalita of Davis Langdon, a consultancy, shows that construction costs per square metre rise as a building gets taller. In addition, the useable space per extra floor starts to fall as the central “core” of the building gets bigger. Most very tall buildings are at an inefficient scale, propelled skyward for reasons of prestige rather than efficiency. If developers were focused on cost alone, they would opt for clusters of mid-rise buildings.

Businesses have also been getting bigger. A snapshot of the American economy shows huge dispersion in firm size: around a third of American workers are employed by one of the 6m small firms with fewer than 100 workers, and another third are employed by one of the 980 large firms that have over 10,000 workers. But the long-run trend seems to be towards bigger companies. In a 1978 paper Robert Lucas of the University of Chicago documented how average firm size in America had increased over a 70-year period (see left-hand chart).

And at the very top end of the scale, the world’s biggest firms keep on getting bigger. This can happen gradually, as firms outdo their rivals, or suddenly as firms merge. Indeed, mergers are particularly important in explaining gigantism. In the past 15 years the assets of the top 50 American companies have risen from around 70% of American GDP to around 130% (see right-hand chart). All of the top ten American firms have been involved in at least one large merger or acquisition over the past 25 years.

So are businesses like boats or buildings: are they seeking out economies of scale, or are they too big to be efficient?One way to answer this question is to estimate how output levels influence the costs of production in a competitive industry. This relationship—known as a “cost function”—can be tricky to establish because firms often have multiple inputs and outputs. Take farming. Estimating a cost function requires complex information on how each farm’s outputs (milk, meat and crops) and inputs (labour, energy, feed, capital) interact.

But once the cost function has been pinned down, it can be used to identify scale economies. If average costs fall as a firm of a given size grows bigger, this suggests economies of scale exist for firms of that size. Results vary by industry. American dairy farms, for example, have been getting bigger but a recent paper shows there are still economies of scale to exploit, especially at those many farms with fewer than 200 cattle. By contrast, rail-industry studies show dwindling economies of scale over time as companies have grown. Overall, estimated cost functions suggest the limits of scale may have been reached for some very large firms.

Merger studies support this. The “winner’s curse” describes the phenomenon of mergers destroying value for the shareholders of an acquiring firm. Research by McKinsey, a consultancy, provides one explanation: close to two-thirds of managers overestimate the economies of scale a merger will deliver, often overegging the benefits by more than 25%. Size can even drive costs up, if firms get too big to manage efficiently.

Top dogs and fat cats

If size does not keep driving down costs, why do big firms keep expanding? One possibility is that they are seeking to boost profits not by driving down costs but by raising prices. Buying up rivals softens competition and enables firms to charge more. American antitrust regulators recently looked back at past health-care mergers, and found that prices rose significantly after some deals. Another view is that mergers are driven by something other than profit. The “empire-building” theory holds that managers are out to increase the scale of their business whatever the cost in terms of creeping inefficiencies.

State safety nets can distort incentives, too. America’s leading three car manufacturers have all grown through mergers: each of them employs over 50,000 workers, and the government balked at letting them fail during the crisis. Some firms may be growing not to lower costs but to receive the comfort of implicit state support. A 2011 paper by Federal Reserve staff supports this conclusion, suggesting banks pay a premium to merge if the tie-up gives them “too-big-to-fail” status. None of these reasons for operating at a vast size is benign. All suggest that antitrust authorities should be much more sceptical about mergers that claim to be justified because of economies of scale.

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21565609-economies-scale-run-out-certain-point-largest-firms-america-may-be

Deutsche Telekom Tops Estimates Amid $9.4 Billion U.S. Writedown

Cornelius Rahn

Deutsche Telekom AG reported operating profit and sales that topped analysts’ estimates, while a 7.4 billion-euro ($9.4 billion) writedown on its T- Mobile USA unit sank the German former phone monopoly into its biggest quarterly net loss in a decade.

Adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization slipped 2.6 percent to 4.78 billion euros, beating analysts’ 4.69 billion-euro average estimate compiled by Bloomberg, as the Bonn-based company slowed a decline in revenue in European markets from Germany to Hungary. While T-Mobile USA continued to lose contract customers, prepaid cards helped the business exceed profit estimates.

Chief Executive Officer Rene Obermann is trying to halt a decline in voice-call revenue and speed up services like mobile payments and music streaming. His efforts to dampen the impact of the debt crisis in Europe through cost reductions may be starting to pay off, while U.S. profit may help his move to narrow T-Mobile USA’s gap with larger carriers after last month’s agreement to merge with MetroPCS Communications Inc.

“They are actively tackling the U.S., and while Europe is very macro-driven, the company is managing the situation well,” said Ulrich Rathe, an analyst at Jefferies International Ltd. who recommends holding Deutsche Telekom shares. “Taking the U.S. writedown is the right thing to do even if it hurts.”

The shares added 0.7 percent to 8.54 euros at 9:22 a.m. in Frankfurt. They had fallen 4.2 percent this year through yesterday, compared with a 9.7 percent decline by the 23-company Bloomberg Europe Telecommunication Services Index.

U.S. Writedown

Third-quarter revenue slipped 0.1 percent to 14.7 billion euros, beating the 14.6 billion-euro average estimate compiled by Bloomberg.

The net loss was 6.9 billion euros, or 1.61 euros a share, compared with a profit of 1.07 billion euros, or 25 cents, a year earlier, Deutsche Telekom said today.

The 7.4 billion-euro after-tax impairment charge to reflect T-Mobile USA’s value was triggered by the MetroPCS transaction, which would create a listed company in which Deutsche Telekom would own a 74 percent stake and give T-Mobile USA greater scale to compete with AT&T Inc., Verizon Wireless and Sprint Nextel Corp.

A decade ago, under former CEO Kai-Uwe Ricke, Deutsche Telekom wrote down the value of the U.S. business and its mobile-phone licenses by 18 billion euros in the third quarter, leading to the biggest full-year loss in Europe’s corporate history at the time.

Romania, Netherlands

T-Mobile USA lost 492,000 contract customers, which generally pay higher monthly fees. That compares with losses of 450,000 clients estimated by JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc. analysts. The U.S. division’s adjusted Ebitda slipped 3 percent to 994 million euros, compared with analyst projections of 961 million euros.

The European unit’s adjusted Ebitda of 1.33 billion euros beat an estimate of 1.26 billion euros as profit in Romania and the Netherlands surged.

In Germany, Deutsche Telekom is battling Vodafone Group Plc for the top spot among wireless companies while trying to keep cable companies such as Liberty Global Inc.’s Unitymedia KabelBW from snatching away its fixed-line customers. German revenue from mobile services fell more slowly than in previous quarters.

Forecasts Confirmed

Deutsche Telekom confirmed its forecasts and its plan to pay a dividend of at least 70 cents per share for 2012. The company had pledged shareholders remuneration of 3.4 billion euros per year from 2010 to 2012, including share buybacks totaling as much as 1.2 billion euros over the three years.

France Telecom SA last month became the latest among Europe’s former phone monopolies to slash its dividend, following similar moves by Telefonica SA and Royal KPN NV. Analysts estimate that Deutsche Telekom will trim its dividend to 60 cents for each of 2013 and 2014, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Deutsche Telekom has scheduled a two-day event for investors in Bonn starting Dec. 6 to explain its strategic plans, including its finance planning, the deployment of faster networks and the U.S. business.

http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-MD4KW76JTSEB01-1N1KIHKIDIR4DTD31N9GDTC6AF

The three questions bond investors are asking about the US election

"The polling is very close," says Michael Pond, a bond strategist in New York at Barclays. "We're all hoping we come in on Wednesday and have a definitive answer on who the president is."

As Obama and Romney make a final, frantic push for votes over the next 48 hours, bond and foreign-exchange markets are nervously watching. Photo: AP

By Richard Blackden

Bond and foreign-exchange traders love to place bets before big events and few loom larger on the calendar than a US presidential election.

The competitiveness of this race - national opinion polls still havePresident Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney in a dead heat - has made that tougher than usual.

The 2012 race does not have the terrifying backdrop of a banking crisis that the 2008 contest did. However, the outcome arguably carries more importance for the dollar and US government bonds - a currency and a financial asset that remain at the heart of the world's financial system - than last time around.

As Obama and Romney make a final, frantic push for votes over the next 48 hours, bond and foreign-exchange markets are nervously watching three things.

The most pressing is the way in which Tuesday's result in both the presidential and Congressional polls determines how the US confronts the 'fiscal cliff' the economy is facing. It is the alarming nickname for $607bn (417bn pounds) of spending cuts and tax rises that are due to take effect in early January.

The Congressional Budget Office, a respected independent forecaster in the US, believes that if politicians fail to reach a compromise that either delays or reverses some of the measures then the world's largest economy will be forced back into recession.

With the UK economy barely growing and most of Europe in a downturn, it is a prospect that would likely see investors race for the perceived safety of US government bonds.

A Romney victory alongside the Republicans keeping control of the House of Representatives - and possibly capturing the Senate - is seen by most in the markets as the surest way of avoiding the worst of what the fiscal cliff threatens. The spending cuts would stay but the tax rises would not.

By contrast, the re-election of Obama with Republicans controlling Congress is perceived as the combination with the highest chance of failing to reach a deal that skirts the cliff. Although each sides blame the other, it was the same combination that took the US to the brink of default last summer during the debt ceiling negotiations.

If the fiscal cliff is the most urgent concern, what the election could mean for the direction of interest rates in the world's biggest economy over the next four years is seen as just as important.

Under chairman Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve has pledged to keep interest rates at record low levels until 2015 and aggressively pursued $2.3trillion worth of quantitative easing (QE), or printing money.

Should Obama get over the line on Tuesday, then Bernanke is likely to get a third term when his current one ends in early 2014 or someone with a similarly aggressive approach will take over. The big question for bond and currency investors is what Romney would do.

During his fight to become the Republican nominee, the former governor of Massachusetts was up against opponents who profoundly disagreed with QE or, in the case of Ron Paul, wanted to abolish the Fed altogether. Then, Romney voiced his concerns about Fed policy, but it remains unclear what approach he will take.

"The jury is out on how hardline or ideological he would be," on monetary policy, said Shahab Jalinoos, a currency analyst at UBS.

Priya Misra, a bond expert at Bank of America, says that whatever Romney claimed trying to win the Republican nomination, no president will want to upset the bond markets early on in office. "Romney is ultimately a pragmatist," she explains. "No one wants to come in as president and appoint a Fed chairman that the markets don't like. You'll get a moderate Fed chairman."

In practice, she says, that will translate into a similar commitment to keep interest rates low and possibly extend QE. Even if Misra is right, a Romney victory would inject real uncertainty into monetary policy for the first time since the financial crisis began.

The third and, arguably, most important question bond markets will be trying to answer on Wednesday morning is whether after the election it is more likely the US will be able to deliver a major agreement that reduces its $16trillion of debt without hurting a recovery that the rest of the world is still looking to help power the global economy next year.

It is an agreement that has eluded Obama and Congress over the last three years. Unlike Britain and some countries in the eurozone, the US has not come under any pressure from bond investors to address its deficit and has continued to be able to fund it cheaply. The yield on the benchmark ten-year US bond touched a record low earlier this year and closed at 1.72pc on Friday.

That compares with 1.86pc for 10-year government bonds in the UK, where the government is tackling the national debt. The lack of pressure is unlikely to last for another four years. "The president that takes power is the one who will have to do something for the long-term on America's budget," says Misra.

Starting on Wednesday, financial markets will begin to get clues as to whether the US will be capable of delivering such a debt deal over the next four years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9654138/The-three-questions-bond-investors-are-asking-about-the-US-election.html