SIA CEO Goh Choon Phong

It all started when Singapore Airlines (SIA) shareholder Lim Seng Hoo posted his analysis of SIA’s fuel hedging “bets” over the past 14 years on his Facebook page.

Mr Lim even raised his concerns of SIA’s fuel-hedging losses to PM Lee after fruitless attempts of voicing out the matter to SIA CEO Goh Choon Phong. Mr Lim is concerned that no one in SIA is taking responsibility of the company’s continual hedging losses.

“These hedging losses are recognized in ‘fuel costs’, hence would be missed out by the average reader. They are only fully revealed in the footnotes (in annual reports) under what are charged/(credited) before arriving at the profit figure,” noted Mr Lim.

He said that SIA “went big” on fuel hedging after the surge in oil prices at the end of 2007 and also during the Lehman Brothers crisis in 2008.

According to Mr Lim’s analysis, in the past 14 financial years from 2007 to 2020, SIA suffered 8 years of hedging losses vs 6 years of gains. However, cumulatively, the losses far outweighed the gains in the 14 years – losses of $3,885.1 million vs gains of $876.7 million, resulting in a net loss of $3,008.4 million ($3 billion).

The airline is currently in a “very deep problem” which stemmed from its fuel hedging practice, said Mr Lim.

Shareholder’s plea fell on deaf ears

As far back as 2015, Mr Lim said he already wrote to SIA warning about the airline’s fuel hedging practices. When in 2016, the accumulated hedging losses hit $2.5 billion, he wrote to SIA again.

Subsequently, Mr Lim had a chance to meet two vice presidents of SIA, where he explained to them on “why their reading of the oil market was flawed” and the “secondary dangers” of fuel hedging.

“I also attended the 2010 AGM and pleaded there that this practice [should] be ended before more huge losses arise,” he recalled.

“Then Chairman Mr Stephen Lee, fielded my question… and he said he did not see these losses in the accounts, and the hedges are in some years profitable, while in others unprofitable; to which I looked at everyone looking at me, and said, ‘The Chairman does not know’, and respectfully sat down.”

Mr Lim reiterated that SIA’s core competence is not in fuel trading but airline services. But no one in SIA, certainly not its CEO Goh, took him seriously.

Meanwhile, Mr Lim implored SIA not to hide all these fuel hedging troubles under the “cloud cover of COVID-19”. He also expressed disappointment with the management and direction of SIA, noting that the “sacrifice of all hardworking SIA staff over the years” will be wasted due to “one strategic blunder”.

Mr Lim added that the fuel hedging practices of SIA must be deeply curtailed if not entirely stopped. He estimated that when all the other non-utilizable hedges mature, SIA cumulative net losses from its fuel bets since 2007 would even be closer to $5 billion.

ST questions SIA’s fuel hedging policy

Today, in a commentary piece, Strait Times’ senior transport correspondent Christopher Tan wrote that SIA should start to review its fuel hedging policy (‘SIA should review its fuel hedging policy‘, 26 Sep).

Mr Tan noted that the Facebook post made by Mr Lim has been making rounds on social media, “Charting a performance over a 14-year period from 2007 to 2020, culled from the airline’s own financial reports, Mr Lim Seng Hoo said SIA had lost more than it gained from hedging activities.”

Supporting Mr Lim’s analysis, Mr Tan said, “Its (SIA’s) 2007-2020 fuel-hedging performance brings into question the very practice of hedging.”

Fuel hedging is not necessary wrong. It’s a way of providing protection against fuel price variations by locking in prices for the longer term, so that there would be certainty in the airline’s operation cost.

However, the collapse in oil prices has left companies “over-hedged,” effectively meaning they have bought more insurance than they need. Buying oil from the open market now is even cheaper. But since these airlines have already entered into “future” contracts with sellers, they must pay at the agreed higher oil prices at settlements. So, with or without passengers, airlines which bet on oil futures must honor the forward contracts they signed with sellers.

In better times, hedging losses for SIA was “covered up” by larger operation profits. However, the hedging losses become more “glaring” when SIA began to lose money. In the financial year ending 31 Mar, SIA suffered its first annual loss in its nearly half a century of history. This was due in part to the US$638 million in charges on failed oil hedges.

According to a Wall Street Journal’s (WSJ) article in Mar, U.S. carriers have in general cut back on these financial bets after being wrong-footed by an earlier plunge in oil prices about five years ago. Many airlines instead use customer fuel surcharges as a way to adapt to changing oil prices.

But SIA continues to use oil hedging strategy. Not only that, SIA uses an “unusually farsighted approach” to manage its fuel costs, said WSJ. SIA has hedged some of its fuel costs up to five years out, while other airlines will generally go with a 1 to 2-year horizon. Of the 33 listed global airlines with fuel-hedging policies, SIA was by far the longest, according to Morgan Stanley research last year.

In fact in Jan this year, SIA said it had hedged the bulk of its expected fuel costs out to March 2025. For the four years from April 2021, it had hedged more than half of its fuel needs based on Brent crude at US$58 to US$62 a barrel.

Though Brent crude prices have recovered somewhat but it is still way below US$50. If COVID-19 continues on with oil prices languishing, SIA will surely continue to suffer more losses over its fuel bets, perhaps all the way to 2024, the year indicated by IATA that travel industry will recover from the pandemic.

Oil hedging: Betting against experts

Like Mr Lim, industry observers have also pointed out that hedging is highly speculative. Many commented that having long hedging contracts for an airline runs counter to the basic principle of fuel hedging. It locks in the airline’s fuel position for an extended period, preventing it from beneficial cost manoeuvres.

In a Wall Street Journal article, its chief executive Scott Kirby said, “Hedging is a rigged game that enriches Wall Street.”

Rod Eddington, former CEO of British Airways, once said, “When you hedge, all you do is bet against the experts in the oil market and pay the middleman… You can run from high fuel prices briefly through hedging but you can’t run for very long.”

But obviously, SIA CEO Goh thinks otherwise.

“So, should SIA review its fuel hedging policy?” asked ST correspondent Tan. “In a word, yes. At the very least, it should rethink its five-year hedge.”

Despite SIA’s hedging troubles, Mr Lim said he refuses to sell his SIA shares which he bought when the company first went public in 1985.

“I wish for Singapore, to have the best airline, best airport, and on our roads, a world-class transportation system; and I believe we can achieve all of these! This is why I haven’t sold my shares, and also picked up all my rights, albeit painfully. They were savings for the education of my 5 children,” he said.

But if SIA CEO Goh continues his betting thrill in oil futures, based on his betting performance in the last 14 years, it’s not known if there would be any education savings left for Mr Lim’s children.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
26 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

建议立法打假消息  政府接受特委会报告

研究网络假消息问题的国会特选委员会,于本月19日将涵盖22建议、厚达300页的报告提呈国会,其中阐明蓄意散播网络假消息对新加坡构成的威胁,并建议多管齐下应对问题。 政府原则上接受这些建议,并考虑立法制裁散播假消息者,并建立有公信力的信息求证联盟,及时推翻假消息。 特委会主席张有福表示,特委会有10名委员,一致同意报告内容。 切断散播假消息者收入来源 特委会理解,针对严重且普及的课题,没有单一解决方案,必须有一系列的应对措施,其中包括立法管制,对蓄意散播网络假消息者,展开刑事制裁,并切断他们收入来源。 特委会成员、通讯及新闻部兼交通部高级政务部长普杰立医生: “特委会从陈情书及听证会中搜集到的证据显示,蓄意散播网络假信息现象对于我国而言是“切实且严峻的问题”,威胁国家安全。 蓄意散播网络假信息者“占据上风”,因为相较于事实,这类信息传播得更远更快,且较难根除。 需力度相当的措施,来对抗这种不对称现象。我们也研究了英法等国的做法,尽管各国想法不尽相同,但大家原则上都同意,今时今日的法律必须更新,以适应数码时代。”   法律不是万灵丹 但特委会也强调,法律既不是万灵丹,也不可采取一刀切的做法,将所有假信息的散播列为刑事罪。…

詹时中卸下人民党领导职务 中委添年轻新面孔

人民党在昨晚(16日)召开两年一度的党大会暨中委改选。人民党秘书长暨前波东巴西议员詹时中,未参与昨日的中委改选,这意味着已担任人民党秘书长长达23年的他,将卸下党职务。 根据人民党今日在脸书发的贴文,向詹时中致意,感谢他长期以来为该党和新加坡做出的贡献。 不过,这也意味着人民党领导层可能趋向年轻化。在昨日选出的12位中委,就有四位是新人。 根据人民党公开在脸书的12位中委名单包括:前主席罗文丽、乔立盟、谢镜丰、Ariffin Sha、Eman Lim、Williiamson Lee、Kathleen Cheong、Ong Ming Hui、杨善发(Yong Seng Fatt)、Shahir…

Clubs and affiliates of Singapore Athletics call into question the governance of the Singapore Masters Athletics, appealed for realignment

At least 11 clubs and affiliates of Singapore Athletics (SA) have filed…

社企处处收费小贩开销重 食评家致函部长抱不平

早前,环境与水源部高级政务部长许连碹博士,在国会指出,环境局将要求社会企业运营小贩中心,成本和收费需透明化,任何额外收费也需获得环境局批准,确保小贩中心的租金可负担得起。 对此,本地知名食评家司徒国辉再次于“食尊”网站,致部长许连碹公开信,呼吁国家环境局接管小贩中心,以维持小贩低营运成本,才能让消费者享用价格廉宜美食。 (转载自”食尊”网站) 致部长许连碹博士的公开信 请维护公共小贩中心 感谢您着手探讨社会企业小贩中心所施行的不公平措施,要求这些社企把附加费用透明化和非强制收费。不过请容许我分享我的意见,此事不仅关乎收费透明化,公共小贩中心总体运营开销过高更应关注。 您说社企小贩中心的租金和开销媲美其他私人食阁,但我认为,如果再拿百余家环境局小贩中心和咖啡店(其中有好些已由职总富食客营运)相对比,差异九十分明显。作为私营企业,私人食阁有权征收他们认为适合的收费。 原本我以为东部地区的小贩遇到的合约条款是最糟的,直到有位来自社企小贩中心的小贩,和我分享他们的困境,那才是糟糕透顶。 直到下个租户签约为止,租金照付 这小贩在一家本地知名连锁食阁管理的社企小贩中心,经营面谈。一年后,由于客流量走下坡生意难以维续,这名小贩决定放弃每月4千元营销(包括基本租金和比租金超过一倍的服务费)的面摊。 令我惊异的是,他们还得继续付还最低两千元的租金至合约期限终止,或者直到新租户接手。(管理层的条款参考下图) 这位小贩较后转移到位于住宅区的私人咖啡店经营,租金和运营费相同,但是却又较高客流量。但与此同时,他们还得缴付先前社企小贩中心的违约“惩罚”租金。…