Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

$280 million to build, sold for $60 million. TransACT sale [With poll]

By johnboy - 22 November 2011 22

fibre optic

The SMH has the stark tale of just what TransACT has meant to its investors including the people of the ACT now that the sale has crystalised the investment:

TVG Capital, Motor Trades Association of Australian Super and ACTEW are among investors that will get $60 million from the sale of Canberra broadband provider TransACT to iiNet – an asset that cost them $280 million to build over 10 years.

Could it have ended differently if they’d stuck to the starry eyed plan of ten years ago? Or would it have just been good money after bad?

TransACT looking back

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

[Photo by St_A_Sh CC BY]

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
22 Responses to
$280 million to build, sold for $60 million. TransACT sale [With poll]
1
Sammy 9:41 am
22 Nov 11
#

I guess it depends on whether you’ve ever had the opportunity to access TransACT’s network. I live in a suburb that was never cabled, so therefore it’s a waste of money in my eyes.

Report this comment

2
Classified 9:41 am
22 Nov 11
#

The thing thatg killed them was their approach to wanting residential customers first, at a time when few people even had ADSL. It took ages to build the infrastructure, during which time only a trickle of money was coming in the door.

It’s nice to have grand visions, but success generally comes from having hard-nosed business sense.

Report this comment

3
shadow boxer 9:58 am
22 Nov 11
#

Anyone else see the parralels between this fibre to the home exercise and the NBN ?

Trenches are horrendously expensive, I hope the NBN doesn’t start hanging ugly black cables off power poles.

Report this comment

4
Mysteryman 10:12 am
22 Nov 11
#

Having to pay for the cable in addition to the ISP charges was a problem. It simply wasn’t worth the extra money.

Report this comment

5
dtc 10:16 am
22 Nov 11
#

shadow boxer said :

Anyone else see the parralels between this fibre to the home exercise and the NBN ?

Well, one is a piece of public infrastructure, like a road or a bridge or a sewer (or a bus service), and the other is a private company. So, not really.

Transact crashed, in my view, because it was too expensive. It offered nothing (or very little) that you could not get cheaper from someone else – usually a lot cheaper.

On the other hand, the NBN looks to be price competitive and to offer additional benefits. Plus, of course, when Telstra shuts down its copper wires there wont be any real alternatives.

Report this comment

6
mikal 10:27 am
22 Nov 11
#

This is interesting. I wonder if the value of TransAct’s assets is close to $60 million alone. Perhaps iiNet just bought it for scrap?

Report this comment

7
johnboy 10:33 am
22 Nov 11
#

mikal said :

This is interesting. I wonder if the value of TransAct’s assets is close to $60 million alone. Perhaps iiNet just bought it for scrap?

Dunno Mikal, sadly old computer parts these days have a negative value.

Report this comment

8
harvyk1 10:39 am
22 Nov 11
#

It was certainly worth a try… Transacts big problem however was it over promised and under delivered. In the end they where offering transact over ADSL, all the disadvantages of transact with all the disadvantages of ADSL…

The question needed to then be asked, why not simply sign up to a standard ADSL service?

When transact was first launch it was talking about impressive speeds even for now. Problem was no one ever experienced those impressive speeds. Furthermore these days the average ADSL connection out preforms the average transact connection, and with some of the deals ISP’s have available is it any wonder people don’t want to sign up to a slower more expensive service, where at a minimum you need to deal with 2 companys and have special phone ports installed?

Report this comment

9
Gungahlin Al 10:41 am
22 Nov 11
#

dtc said :

shadow boxer said :

Anyone else see the parralels between this fibre to the home exercise and the NBN ?

Well, one is a piece of public infrastructure, like a road or a bridge or a sewer (or a bus service), and the other is a private company. So, not really.

Transact crashed, in my view, because it was too expensive. It offered nothing (or very little) that you could not get cheaper from someone else – usually a lot cheaper.

On the other hand, the NBN looks to be price competitive and to offer additional benefits. Plus, of course, when Telstra shuts down its copper wires there wont be any real alternatives.

+1

Report this comment

10
Classified 10:45 am
22 Nov 11
#

johnboy said :

mikal said :

This is interesting. I wonder if the value of TransAct’s assets is close to $60 million alone. Perhaps iiNet just bought it for scrap?

Dunno Mikal, sadly old computer parts these days have a negative value.

It would be interesting to see if iiNet put any value on the work doen digging trenches and laying conduit, meaning that when iiNet needs to upgrade cables they don’t need to do much digging. There’d have to be a fair bit of savings there.

Report this comment

11
dpm 11:09 am
22 Nov 11
#

I’m not really concerned about what dividend etc the sahreholders etc were or are getting. I think it will be more interesting to see if iiNet can actually offer services using the TransACT ‘resources’ in a way that benefits more people! Let’s look ahead and hope the deal improves things and not whinge about the past! :-)

Report this comment

12
dungfungus 11:11 am
22 Nov 11
#

Something doesn’t add up here. If TVG invested $29 million in 2000 for a 43% stake in TransACT this means the original paid up capital was $67 million but Actew has invested $60 million and only has an 18% share? At one stage Actew had a 25% share but sold off the difference between that and the current shareholding to an associated company. There was never a public explanation for this but perhaps it was to avoid closer scrutiny of TransACT accounts which were not always audited and Actew’s balance sheet was qualified accordingly by the ACT Government Auditor. Actew also provided a “standby facility” of $25 million to TransACT in recent times and this appeared to have been fully drawn down.
Not surprisingly, one of the Industry Super Funds, who have a lot of “unlisted assets”, has copped a substantial loss.
To top this off, Mark Sullivan from Actew is quoted in the Canberra Times this morning as saying “there will be a small book profit for Actew from the sale”
Legislation is required to stop the ACT Government and its subsidiaries from dabbling in “enthusiast ventures” and sporting sponsorships which are underwritten wholly and soley by the ACT ratepayers. Recent examples of this are Rhodium, the Arboretum, Glassworks, Totalcare etc.

Report this comment

13
Keijidosha 1:09 pm
22 Nov 11
#

Classified said :

It would be interesting to see if iiNet put any value on the work doen digging trenches and laying conduit, meaning that when iiNet needs to upgrade cables they don’t need to do much digging. There’d have to be a fair bit of savings there.

TransACT only approached the low hanging fruit: stringing cables in suburbs with existing power poles (new Gungahlin developments excluded). They avoided trenches in established suburbs like they were afraid of digging up zombie corpses.

Report this comment

14
Ian 1:12 pm
22 Nov 11
#

dungfungus said :

Something doesn’t add up here. If TVG invested $29 million in 2000 for a 43% stake in TransACT this means the original paid up capital was $67 million but Actew has invested $60 million and only has an 18% share? At one stage Actew had a 25% share but sold off the difference between that and the current shareholding to an associated company. There was never a public explanation for this but perhaps it was to avoid closer scrutiny of TransACT accounts which were not always audited and Actew’s balance sheet was qualified accordingly by the ACT Government Auditor. Actew also provided a “standby facility” of $25 million to TransACT in recent times and this appeared to have been fully drawn down.
Not surprisingly, one of the Industry Super Funds, who have a lot of “unlisted assets”, has copped a substantial loss.
To top this off, Mark Sullivan from Actew is quoted in the Canberra Times this morning as saying “there will be a small book profit for Actew from the sale”
Legislation is required to stop the ACT Government and its subsidiaries from dabbling in “enthusiast ventures” and sporting sponsorships which are underwritten wholly and soley by the ACT ratepayers. Recent examples of this are Rhodium, the Arboretum, Glassworks, Totalcare etc.

The only reason ACTEW makes a small profit from the sale is that they have already taken the loss on the investment by writing it down in previous years. By the looks of the SMH story, they invested $60m over the years but have written it down to $4.7m in their balance sheet as of now. Their share of the sale price will be slightly more than $4.7m hence they make a profit on the sale.

It’s a bit like going to the races, dropping $500 on races 1-7 and then winning $50 back on race 8.

Report this comment

15
shadow boxer 1:17 pm
22 Nov 11
#

wow a $55.3 million dollar loss, you would think heads would roll……..too much time spent trying to build soccer kingdoms maybe.

Report this comment

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site