AUKUS Treaty NEWS ONLY

Halcyon66 said:
The whole segment is under pressure.

Regards,
Click to expand...

https://simplywall.st/stocks/au/mat...groups-asxbis-five-year-total-shareholder-ret
Stock price up 302% over five years, average annual earnings per share over the period of 25%. You could argue its actually overpriced at the moment with a high P/E ratio but I imagine investors are factoring in future earnings like with most defence stocks at the moment. Share price is down from a peak of around $4.50 over Christmas as you would expect with Trumps tariffs threats negative impact on global prices.

Incidentally Bisalloy signed a contract last year to supply Australian steel for US submarines via the AUKUS agreement.
https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/bisalloy-to-supply-steel-into-us-navy-shipbuilding
 
Last edited:
237.5% over the last 5 yrs and a current PE of a little over 10, that is not a high PE.

Fair value (Earnings Growth Rate x TTM EPS) of the stock is 8.22 AUD.

Tts intrinsic value calculation is 5.70AUD

So, it is not overpriced it is underpriced and therein lies the issue.

Regards,
 
Last edited:
The Intrinsic value was AU$1.93 in spring 2023, AU$2.77 in spring 2024 and your AU$5.70 valuation today seems to rely heavily on an AI generated relative value of 6.70 (That's an industry average not a company comparison) compared to a DCF (based on actual current and projected future corporate earnings) of 4.69 similar to the stock price before Trumps tariffs.
 
Sorry, so initially you said it has a high PE, which it does not ( a little over 10 currently) and was overvalued at its current price.

Now you're saying it is undervalued.

You should defiantly buy some.

Regards,
 
Halcyon66 said:
The whole segment is under pressure.

Regards,
Click to expand...

Yes it is
https://www.fitchratings.com/resear...ue-to-weak-demand-declining-prices-20-09-2024
Halcyon66 said:
So, it is not overpriced it is underpriced and therein lies the issue.
Click to expand...

What are you even attempting to say here, youve been arguing the sector wasnt doing well and that was an issue, now you are saying that the company being undervalued because its performing well and revenues are growing fast is an issue?

You are just posting any negative news story you see without any understanding (like Whyalla having no connection to AUKUS) and then when challenged on that you post stuff that contradict your own narrative. That AI generated company analysis you posted as another example applauds the companies shareholding structure highlighting strong public ownership (over 51%), Hedge funds not having a meaningful share, and high institutional and insider ownership with no single dominant shareholder.
 
Last edited:
If the stock was a good trade, it wouldn't be underpriced.

That is a pretty simple point.

You don't need AI to work that out.

Regards,
 
Right, been in the markets globally for 35 yrs and that is exactly how it works. Retired now If only the gang all knew that years ago, damn.

Yet again nothing stopping you from buying any.

Okay so I posted a link about the demise of Whyalla, with another link to why the Govt is sending billions OS and not focusing on our own steel companies. And of course, now they are bailing out Whyalla with taxpayers' money.

Collapsed twice what could possibly go wrong, third time lucky.

You come back with Bisalloy got an Aukus golden ticket, looked at the stock and it is underperforming and stated that.

Then you tell me I am running some narrative, opinion. Additionally, I have no understanding of what I am writing.

You do realise that the only contract Bisalloy has is to supply steel is for testing nothing more, and the duration is 16 months.

If it passes over 4500 different tests they are then qualified to supply steel, not guaranteed to supply steel.

Regards,
 
The December 2023 contract was for test samples to begin the process of qualifying them as a supplier which will indeed take 16 months, the follow up April 2024 contract is for steel Newport News Shipbuilding will use to train its employees in welding and testing. The Australian government has also awarded them the contract to supply the proofs for steel that will be used for Australian sub construction.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/investors-shouldnt-overlook-bisalloy-steel-033525314.html
 
Last edited:
The simple issue with AUKUS from the beginning was that Australia was paying the US to build subs for the US.

The Australian govt sent 500mil USD to the US a few weeks ago.

The Australian govt is paying the US, which in turn is paying US contractors.

Those US contactors then pay who?

Looks great in the news, yet nothing more than an old shell game.

No one is out of pocket other than Australia.

Regards,

PS. Once again no one is stopping you from loading up on BIS.
 
Either Australia values freedom of navigation or it doesn’t. If it does, allying with the U.S. and contributing to regional defense is a long term security investment.

Also it should be restated for the tenth time that AUKAS is not just about submarines.
 
Either Australia values freedom of navigation or it doesn’t.
Click to expand...

Obviously, it does...............

The People's Liberation Army-Navy Renhai-class guided missile cruiser Zunyi, one of the world's most advanced warships.

Was 150nm off Sydney yesterday

That has to be the biggest middle finger in Australia's military history.

“The Chinese military is not a distant problem; it is a problem right here in our neighbourhood," former senior defence official Michael Shoebridge said, the Sydney Morning Herald reported.
Click to expand...

Regards,
 
Chinese flotilla has conducted an unannounced live fire drill in the Tasman sea forcing civil traffic between Australia and New Zealand to divert.

https://www.twz.com/news-features/chinas-sudden-live-fire-naval-drills-off-australia-rattle-camberra
GkTnpDYXAAARMDx
 
I doubt China was happy with the AUKUS arrangement, though I am not sure what informed the exact timing.
 
The SCS is a lot more confined and much more populated. We all do live fires at sea. Just the where in this case is tone deaf and like you guys say, designed to send a message.

But at least we can collect on whatever they're doing and how. Nothing like some nice juicy live targets for some new aircraft to target.
 
Arjen said:
So now China is giving them another reason to proceed. Smooooth.
Click to expand...

Chinese ‘wolf warrior’ diplomacy (characterized by a lack of diplomacy) has always seemed like a huge own goal to me. I wonder if AUKUS would have even happened without it. Certainly I think the PI could have been won over with the right foreign policy; their relationship with the U.S. is …ambiguous at best. But the PRC seems to be actively promoting their version of the Asian CoProsperity Sphere with them at the center.
 
Josh_TN said:
Chinese ‘wolf warrior’ diplomacy (characterized by a lack of diplomacy) has always seemed like a huge own goal to me. I wonder if AUKUS would have even happened without it. Certainly I think the PI could have been won over with the right foreign policy; their relationship with the U.S. is …ambiguous at best. But the PRC seems to be actively promoting their version of the Asian CoProsperity Sphere with them at the center.
Click to expand...
And with the same level of care for their "partners" as in the historical Asian CoProsperity Sphere.
 
They're pretty big on carrot and stick (which is an internal policy they've used for a long time) but they're too quick on reaching for the stick and then bad at selecting the size stick to wave about.
 
MrPhantomMan said:
The SCS is a lot more confined and much more populated. We all do live fires at sea. Just the where in this case is tone deaf and like you guys say, designed to send a message.

But at least we can collect on whatever they're doing and how. Nothing like some nice juicy live targets for some new aircraft to target.
Click to expand...
I suspect that a longer alert time before starting the live fire, like what happens with RIMPAC, would have soothed a lot of currently ruffled feathers.
 
Seems China has followed standard protocol and notified Australian and NZ authorities of its intention to conduct the live fire exercise. Nothing unusual here, we and other navies do it all the time. Having received the notification the authorities issue a NOTAM (notice to airmen) and an NTM ( notice to mariners) warning aircraft and ships to avoid the area. Every airline receives these as matter of course, even if they are not operating near the area.

What is unusual is conducting an exercise near a commercial flight path. if this is the case then they have deliberately escalated the tension. More information is needed regarding the alleged course changes of the aircraft and whether they were forced as a result of this notification.
 
The only related thing I can think of that the Chinese may be trying to influence was the New Zealand cabinet received a 15 page ministerial briefing on Oct 31st last year based on intensive defence/industrial workshopping earlier in May that recommended joining AUKUS but the cabinet still hasn't made a decision saying they are taking their time to consider it. At the end of November the Chinese ambassador threatened consequences if they joined. The briefing paper has been publicly released in heavily redacted form:

https://www.defence.govt.nz/assets/publications/AUKUS-Pillar-II-Update-and-Next-Steps.pdf

New Zealand has for the last two decades followed an Indo-Pacific foreign policy strategy, this is simultaneously promote trade with China and security links with the US to counterbalance each other so allowing it to remain neutral and free to focus on promoting South East Asian Island cultural links and pressing issues for the region like climate change. However many of its traditional partners are feeling increasing military pressure from China weakening their independence while India, Australia and other Pacific nations are beginning to take a more overt military defensive posture to try and contain the spread of Chinese military influence. Complicating this has been several Chinese attempts to interfere with New Zealands elections since 2010 as well as hacking Parliament and setting up Chinese police overseas service stations as they have done in other countries targeting members of New Zealand's Chinese community. This is forcing New Zealand to weigh up switching to an Anglosphere aligned foreign policy to presuage the risk of losing its independence versus the affect that would have on its regional aims such as promoting the threat of climate change and its impact on the region.
 
Rickshaw said:
Seems China has followed standard protocol and notified Australian and NZ authorities of its intention to conduct the live fire exercise. Nothing unusual here, we and other navies do it all the time. Having received the notification the authorities issue a NOTAM (notice to airmen) and an NTM ( notice to mariners) warning aircraft and ships to avoid the area. Every airline receives these as matter of course, even if they are not operating near the area.

What is unusual is conducting an exercise near a commercial flight path. if this is the case then they have deliberately escalated the tension. More information is needed regarding the alleged course changes of the aircraft and whether they were forced as a result of this notification.
Click to expand...

The governments weren't pre-notified, the NOTAM was broadcast directly from the Chinese ships to Emirates aircraft UAE3HJ flying from Sydney to Christchurch after the commencement of the exercise. That aircraft then passed this on to the air traffic controllers which warned other aircraft to avoid the area.

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/transcripts/2025-02-21/radio-interview-abc-radio-perth-drive
 
Last edited:
MrPhantomMan said:
They're pretty big on carrot and stick (which is an internal policy they've used for a long time) but they're too quick on reaching for the stick and then bad at selecting the size stick to wave about.
Click to expand...

Not really seeing the carrot part of their foreign policy, personally. I really think most of the west PAC would have welcomed a resurgent PRC with open arms given the right marketing. But the only thing the region hates more than a distant hegemony that barely cares about their internal politics is a local one that absolutely does.
 
Rickshaw said:
Seems China has followed standard protocol and notified Australian and NZ authorities of its intention to conduct the live fire exercise. Nothing unusual here, we and other navies do it all the time. Having received the notification the authorities issue a NOTAM (notice to airmen) and an NTM ( notice to mariners) warning aircraft and ships to avoid the area. Every airline receives these as matter of course, even if they are not operating near the area.

What is unusual is conducting an exercise near a commercial flight path. if this is the case then they have deliberately escalated the tension. More information is needed regarding the alleged course changes of the aircraft and whether they were forced as a result of this notification.
Click to expand...

Nobody has live fire exercise close to someone else’s continent. Has the USN has ever conducted a live fire exercise inside the first island chain? I’m very confident it never did one inside the Baring, Baltic, or Black Seas.
 
Josh_TN said:
Not really seeing the carrot part of their foreign policy, personally. I really think most of the west PAC would have welcomed a resurgent PRC with open arms given the right marketing. But the only thing the region hates more than a distant hegemony that barely cares about their internal politics is a local one that absolutely does.
Click to expand...
The Belt and Road Initiative is the CCP's signature diplomatic carrot, and neither Australia nor New Zealand are members. Australia seems to use carrots on some nations and sticks on others. I'd chalk this up to the failure of CCP officials to watch enough American cop shows, where good-cop-bad-cop diplomacy is elucidated with nuance.
 
China is Australia's biggest trading partner, both counties have profited significantly from the relationship over the last 25 years.

Currently, 14.1 per cent of Australia's agricultural land is foreign owned, and China is the largest foreign owner (2.3 per cent).

China is also the third-largest stakeholder of Australian water behind Canada and the US, owning 604 gigalitres or 1.5 per cent of the total Australian water entitlement.

A number of Australian energy companies, for example, are owned by Chinese firms. Energy Australia, despite its name, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hong Kong-based China Light and Power Co Ltd, while Alinta Energy is owned by Chow Tai Fook Enterprises.

And the list goes on and on in every sector.

So, it already looks like we have sold the farm to China a long time ago.

So why do we have AUKUS? The only reason AUKUS exists is as a beachfront for the US.

Additionally, are we going to get Zelensky'd and have to hand over half our mineral rights?

Regards,
 
Halcyon66 said:
China is Australia's biggest trading partner, both counties have profited significantly from the relationship over the last 25 years.

Currently, 14.1 per cent of Australia's agricultural land is foreign owned, and China is the largest foreign owner (2.3 per cent).

China is also the third-largest stakeholder of Australian water behind Canada and the US, owning 604 gigalitres or 1.5 per cent of the total Australian water entitlement.

A number of Australian energy companies, for example, are owned by Chinese firms. Energy Australia, despite its name, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hong Kong-based China Light and Power Co Ltd, while Alinta Energy is owned by Chow Tai Fook Enterprises.

And the list goes on and on in every sector.

So, it already looks like we have sold the farm to China a long time ago.

So why do we have AUKUS? The only reason AUKUS exists is as a beachfront for the US.

Additionally, are we going to get Zelensky'd and have to hand over half our mineral rights?

Regards,
Click to expand...

Presumably Australia wants to have trade and independence at the same time, and that is why it has defense policy. I am rather doubtful that Australia wants to become a larger remote province of the PRC. Until recently, the PRC was the largest trading partner of the U.S.; that hardly means foreigner domestic policy is subservient to their interests.

Here is a thought experiment: if China didn’t actively claim the nine dashed line and treat the Australian economy like a red headed step child, would Australia really need much a navy in the first place?
 
Interesting reply and good points yet...........

https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2...from-china-trade-row-with-australia/100659480
https://defencehub.live/threads/ame...aled-as-trade-war-with-china-escalates.11039/
https://www.afr.com/politics/federa...ofiting-from-china-trade-bans-20210913-p58rar
Things that make you go hmmmmm?

Australia does not have a defence policy; the US has one for us.

And we don't really have a navy considering our coastline. I think Singapore has more submarines than we do?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/submarines-by-country
Regards,
 
Josh_TN said:
Not really seeing the carrot part of their foreign policy, personally. I really think most of the west PAC would have welcomed a resurgent PRC with open arms given the right marketing. But the only thing the region hates more than a distant hegemony that barely cares about their internal politics is a local one that absolutely does.
Click to expand...

Belt and road, infrastructure investment, training and I'm sure "incentives" for senior leaders.
 
MrPhantomMan said:
Belt and road, infrastructure investment, training and I'm sure "incentives" for senior leaders.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But they do seem to go out of the way to scare everyone else. And even BI seems to have some rather mixed results with the local populations on the ground, even when it is popular with a local ruling government. It would not have taken a major charm offensive to decouple Vietnam and the Philippines from the U.S., and even India would be on the table with enough long term out reach (and a lack of actively picking a fight in the mountains). And if there was seemingly no threat from a militant China, even Au and NZ might be on the table: if the PRC rescinded the 9 dashed line, who would even have a bone to pick with them?

It seems to me given the bad U.S. track record ever since the Iraq invasion, it would have been child’s play to have the whole WestPac eat out of China’s hand, with a modest effort. Their “diplomacy” seems to have intentionally produced the opposite…maybe for domestic reasons? I truly am perplexed. The U.S. could easily have been painted as the bad guy just by doing nothing, IMO.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom