question for gurus about cash pile ....., page-9

I will address each question separately.........

"...to what extent is the cash holding factored into the share price ?"

No hard and fast answer here. Tui is still in its early days. Some will still try and do an NPV value of oil in the ground at A$40 or so, which I think is pathetic given the current rate it is coming out at and being turned into real cash at current oil prices. Another 2 qtrs like the last qtr and perhaps the cash backing will be more relevant. They could be close to A$90-100M even after paying off their loan, although oil prices are slipping a little at present.

"...suppose only part of it is , then the status of the rest , which after all belongs to shareholders , comes into question , dividend ? , buy back at premium ?"

Absolutely pointless paying a dividend so we can all be taxed on it at our top marginal tax rate. They are better off to do a buyback.

Also a buyback at a premium is wrong in this case because most of us agree that the net cash value of Tui, when produced out, is somewhere between early 30s to 40 cents a share. So a buyback at current prices would be at a discount. The more they buyback and cancel, the more the remaining sh'ers would profit as the NTA goes up when you buy your shares at a discount and cancel them. Is basic mathematics really.

"...is there any regulatory requirement for management to do something with it ? there must be a limit to how long they can just hold on to it without action !"

The mgmt can sit on it forever if they want. Wouldn;t be too good for the share price though if they did.

You also need ASX permission for a buyback and I think 10% is the limit without having to ask the sh'ers. Usually this permission lasts for 12 mths. There are ASX rules which say you cannot be a market maker in your own shares and you cannot force the price up for your own purposes. So very aggressive type buybacks to bolster the price are a no-no. However, they could easily buy back 200-300K a day at current prices without changing too much short term.

"...who is making sure it is safe from malfeasance ( it wouldn't be the first time that a company official 'borrowed' funds and 'lost' these .. viz mercorello , lion energy was it ? lach drummond res was another example ! )"

The Board is responsible for this. The Lion Energy case was an example of very weak corporate governance and a spineless company secretary that allowed this to happen. Chances of this happen in PPP case are extremely slim.