Exactly. Sometimes if one takes the stock out of the equation, they will then understand if the stock is worth bothering....

For me, I always ask the simple question...

How was Airasia able to pay big dividends not too long ago?

Well, they already decided they needed the sales and leaseback. Debts gearing was way too big already. Unsustainable. Esp when you have less than 1 billion cash and carry more than 12 billion bank borrowings. New planes are coming in regularly (that 19us billion plane order). Ticket sales are simply not growing fast enough. So sales and leaseback was needed.

They then created a wholly owned subsidiary to handle the leaseback, called AAC.

So AAC but the planes and leaseback to their parent company, Airasia.

So voila. Airasia became rich by selling own planes and leasing back own planes. How rich? Was it 1 billion?

And they then got some company to buy this leasing company. LMAO!!

So Airasia got millions and millions and millions to give back to shareholder.

They needed the money cause too much bank borrowings. Instead of trying to lower the debts and improve their balance sheet, they gave out millions and millions in dividends.

Wait. The curveball was the previous year(s), Airasia did a cash call but that cash call (private placement of shares) as offered to only Tony and his partner.

Thinking about it. It was genius. Share placement to its big boss. Subsequently big dividend was given out. I think it was genius. You say?
Yes, the brand Airasia is there. Cheap flights are good. Who doesn't love cheap flights? But since there exist so many other stocks why should I bother trading the stock that carries so much questionable issues?

"Not good" is an understatement...

Err..... there's way too much numbers in the rpt.... and it's not easy to get an understanding... in fact much easier to 'hide stuff'... this issue has been brought up b4... which was one of the main point brought by one ang moh...

The planes  they sold to the leasing companies... err... how come it can declared as a non current asset? Sold already ma... can then flip and coin them as 'right of use assets' meh? No under standing...

The hedges.... they had been hedging over a billion... and for me, what's given (the info) is not enough.... and more so... when they are sitting on more than a billion ringgit in hedging losses...

Paper losses more than a billion in hedging...
Burned 900 million cash for the quarter ending March....
huhu... the lockdown period... no income... how?

Die die die die....

And oh ... they still got the capital commitment to buy new planes is now over 115 Billion!!!!

115 Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeelliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiooooooooonnnn !!!!
 

Do you know during the march low down, many established companies in US  were fighting off hostile takeover attempts when their stock price fell drastically?

I am guessing AA's competitors or interested potential big players are looking at this stock with an eye for longer term view...so when is the good time to do the hostile takeover? 

Just my 2 cents, I might be wrong but I always like to apply the scenarios that have taken place in US market especially...

As you mentioned,  worthy or not to do a hostile takeover may be due to brand name and also being  leading Asia LCC market dominance   

Your bearish view is up to 1-2 years, agreeable  with this... after 2 years?  assuming the pent up travel  demands once the pandemic died off

Btw, looking at the momentum now, any traders worth their salt should have earned some fast bucks  now that the share is up  7.++% 
Not asking you to buy but just offering alternative  and  longer term views...