Today is the busiest day of the corporate reporting season, with CommSec listing 20 ASX300 companies that are releasing their results, including big fish such as Telstra, Newcrest Mining, Goodman Group, South32, Magellan, Origin Energy, AMP and ASX itself.
The beauty of the twice-yearly results briefing is that the brass subject themselves to an online grilling from analysts, such as this fascinating 83-minute session with CommBank CEO Matt Comyn yesterday when 12 blokes (yes, they were all blokes) lobbed about 30 detailed questions.
The bigger companies also invite journalists along or convene a separate media conference, and it was at the Fortescue Metals all-in conference call yesterday that a simmering feud between Perth billionaires Andrew Forrest and Kerry Stokes came to light.
The issues — including Forrest’s allegations of The West Australian‘s coverage as “biased” and “inaccurate” — have been well summarised in this Nine newspaper piece. It is a fascinating insight into the realities of climate transitioning, along with the vested interests of media moguls.
In a nutshell, it looks like Fortescue has dumped Stokes’ Caterpillar from a major equipment contract because parent company Seven Group Holdings has failed to get with the climate program, unlike rival German equipment manufacturer Liebherr, which Fortescue has contracted to supply it with 120 hydrogen-powered haul trucks.
Unlike the Murdochs, Stokes has a history of being subtler when it comes to using media power to advance business interests, attack enemies or deny oxygen to causes of people he doesn’t like. However, it does happen. I’ve given up on agreeing to do news grabs for Seven’s 6pm slot after three separate experiences when management intervened to cut me from a story after it had been filed. The feedback was that Stokes critics aren’t welcome on Seven News.
Stokes was also quite brazen in deploying his media assets to get an employee, Basil Zempilas, elected lord mayor of Perth in 2020, as Crikey and Media Watch pointed out at the time.
Stokes has controlled The West Australian since he succeeded in a board coup that was completed on December 11 2008, when he took over as chairman.
Back then, Fortescue shares were trading below $2 and Forrest had only recently become a paper billionaire. These days, the stock is at $22 and Forrest’s net wealth is estimated to be about $30 billion, making him about five times richer than Stokes.
The West Australian has been very good to Forrest under Stokes’ control, along with the broader resources industry, which is no surprise given the most lucrative element of the Stokes empire remains the Caterpillar franchise in WA, which makes billions supplying big yellow trucks to the mining industry.
The whole situation is actually a screaming conflict of interest, not unlike casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson owning the Las Vegas Review Journal, the biggest-selling daily newspaper in Nevada.
After Russia, Australia arguably has more influential billionaire oligarchs exercising corporate and political power than any other top-20 country, and it is true that The West Australian’s coverage of Fortescue has become unusually critical in recent times.
Billionaires don’t often front the media or earnings calls, which is what made Forrest’s blustering performance on yesterday’s call so unusual.
The journalist in question, Danielle Le Messurier, was hardly coming off the long run when, based on this 17-page transcript, she asked this at the end of the call:
Good morning, Andrew and Mark. I was just hoping to ask about operating expenses and investment at FFI [Fortescue Future Industries]. I saw the report showed operating expenses were up pretty significantly to US$283 million while investments fell to US$49 million. I was just wondering what the cause of that was? Just a second question. I see Fortescue is now providing further transparency on FFI’s financial results in the notes to the financial statements. I was just wondering if that new disclosure is partly due to pressure from investors and analysts. Thanks.
The full Forrest response was as follows:
Look, I think you’re an excellent journalist and they’re great questions. I would really think carefully about not cooperating with your particular outlet. I don’t know if you’re under a lot of pressure or not but we’ve had some really salacious misreporting, inaccurate, trying to put fear into the Western Australian community, give the Western Australian community the poor impression of this company. That hasn’t worked at all. We have been barraged with support from all over our state, and Perth. I’m particularly sensitive about answering questions from The West; we’d normally not cooperate but these are excellent questions so Hutch, I’d like you or Andy to respond. I don’t think we’re under any pressure from our investors. Our investors absolutely love us. I think you know, Danielle, we’re one of the 16 highest if not the highest-performing value-accreting companies which Australia or this state has ever seen, so we’re not having any investors complaining when they’re making fortunes, mate. Over to you, Andy.
As the largest billionaire public company predator in Australia over the past couple of years, who has been snapping up stakes in companies here there and everywhere, there’s a very simple solution. Forrest should step into the market and snap up a hostile 10% stake in Seven West Media and then lodge a takeover offer. The market currently values the whole company at just $854 million (including $186 million in debt) and it hasn’t paid a dividend for 11 halves. Throw in a takeover premium and the whole show could be his for less than $1.5 billion. Then he could dictate stories to compliant journalists and sack anyone who didn’t toe the line.
Sorry, Mr Forrest, but media scrutiny is a good thing and you’re being way too sensitive on this one. However, it’s always healthier when billionaires fight rather than collaborate so keep it up, especially when it comes to moving the dial on carbon emissions.
