Virgin Australia shares take off as airline returns to trade on ASX
Virgin's initial public offering (IPO) was priced at $2.90 per share, raising $439 million for the company.
As the company resumed trade on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) on Tuesday afternoon, Virgin shares lifted more than 8 per cent to $3.15 by 12:15pm AEST.
After collapsing into administration at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, Virgin was rescued by US private equity giant Bain Capital and delisted from the stock exchange.
Now the airline has taken off on the ASX once more, with a leaner business model, a new shareholder mix and the financial muscle of Qatar Airways behind it.
At the completion of the IPO, Bain's stake in Virgin was reduced to about 40 per cent, while Qatar Airways retained about 23 per cent, according to the prospectus.
More than five years ago now, Virgin's fall was swift and dramatic. However, it was also entirely predictable if considered the fate of Ansett Australia.
A fierce price war with Qantas had left Virgin financially vulnerable. Then came the global pandemic, grounding fleets and evaporating revenue almost overnight.
"Qantas was worried that Virgin Australia was going to attack its corporate travel market and go after the business market, so we had this brutal price war which left Virgin Australia a little bit weak," aviation analyst Peter Harbison told ABC News.
"And then when it was just starting to recover, COVID came along and it went into administration."
In April 2020, Virgin entered voluntary administration, with its boss blaming its failure to secure a federal government bailout.
Within months, the airline was sold to Bain Capital for $3.5 billion.
Bain Capital grounded budget offering Tiger Airways for good and set about repositioning Virgin as a mid-market offering.
Virgin returned to profitability in 2023. Mr Harbison said Virgin Australia offered fewer inclusions than Qantas but broader appeal than budget airline Jetstar.
"The lounges are more limited. Its product is really very much tailored to the mid-market, which does suggest quite a lot."
As of February, this year Virgin has an additional backer in government-owned Qatar Airways, which bought a 25 per cent stake in the airline and delivers more access to international routes.
"Now with Qatar, they have a very tidy deal which will very much help them in the future," Mr Harbison said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
SBS Australia
11 minutes ago
- SBS Australia
Most Australian houses are designed for bigger families. But that's not who's in them
Sixty-one per cent of households are singles or couples, but housing is dominated by three to four-bedroom homes. Economists propose reforms like land taxes and scrapping stamp duty to encourage downsizing. Older Australians hold much of the larger housing stock, leaving scope to free homes for younger families. Australian households are mostly one or two people, but analysis shows the housing stock is dominated by three-and four-bedroom properties. Couples without kids and people living alone make up 61 per cent of households, raising the question of how well a housing market focused on bigger families is serving real demand. A comparison between the number of people in a household and data on housing by number of bedrooms shows a stark mismatch, according to the latest analysis from property research firm Cotality. Research head Eliza Owen said a potential solution could lie in government housing reform. Governments could make it more expensive to have more housing than needed, and cheaper for those who opt to live in smaller properties. Abolishing taxes such as stamp duty could make it cheaper for those to move across different housing, and the introduction of a broad-based land tax would raise costs for those who own more land. "It's politically unpopular but has broad consensus among economists that it would help us achieve a more efficient housing market," she told the Australian Associated Press. The data also highlights the high number of empty-nest households of people aged 65 and over. "There's a lot of scope for older Australians to leave their homes to free up homes for younger generations," Owen added. "But it's really hard to implement taxes to encourage people to downsize. "Things like broad-based land taxes are an incentive for income-poor but asset-rich Australians to downsize." Strides are already being taken on the supply side to establish well-located apartments in larger cities to accommodate smaller households, but shifting demand through tax reform could help the take-up of these homes. "It's a tough transition to make," Owen said. "But it's also a really hard ask to young families to pay a million dollars to own a house in one of our major cities."
ABC News
11 minutes ago
- ABC News
Healthbridge Capital investors left in the dark after $33 million freeze
When Kassem Chalabi put $700,000 into an investment fund five years ago, he thought his life savings would be safe. He is one of more than 200 people and charities that invested nearly $33 million into Healthbridge Capital, which can no longer access their money. "My future is gone." The 64-year-old father from South Granville said he was promised high returns and was told his money would be invested in discount chemist chain, Pharmacy4Less. "First of the month, we used to get a transfer between 8.5 and 9.5-10 per cent, and for four years, it was perfect," Mr Chalabi said. "Within two to three years, people started to add up to the fund, and you know, everyone was happy." According to the product disclosure statement given to investors, Healthbridge provided "capital finance" and "financial accommodation" to pharmacy franchises under the Pharmacy4Less brand. But earlier this year, the payments stopped. "We started to hear about rumours. Rumours that something [was] wrong," Mr Chalabi said. If you have any information about a story, contact Nabil Al-Nashar Back in February 2024, payments were delayed for the first time, according to multiple investors, before then stopping in February 2025. Hossam Farouk said he had invested $10,000 in the fund. "Maybe my amount [is] not significant like other[s], but you know it is something I have done in my life, I was proud of it, and suddenly I feel it is already gone, so I'm feeling unhappy about that. It is my right," Mr Farouk said. In late March this year, the now-panicked investors received a notice from investment company Cache saying it had bought Healthbridge Capital and frozen all accounts. A spokesperson for Cache said the freezing of the accounts came after the company had "became aware of potential financial irregularities in the fund's portfolio" soon after it took over its management from the previous responsible entity of Quay Fund. Quay Fund told the ABC it was acquired by Cache Group in February last year and was renamed by Cache. "Quay and Cache do not have any common management, employees or shareholders; they are separate businesses," a spokesperson said. According to the product disclosure statement given to investors, they could get their money out within 60 days of putting in a request. Along with at least four other investors, Mr Farouk tried to get his money as far back as March 2024, but despite the 60-day redemption period, they never received their money. Some investors believe they were left in the dark. Others told the ABC they feel everyone who persuaded them to invest their savings in Healthbridge Capital has now washed their hands of it. Stefano Calabretta is the lawyer representing 46 of the investors, and he is preparing to try and get their money back. "The reality is that what this fund was doing was merely advancing money as a lender to these pharmacies or to other organisations in the healthcare space." Mr Chalabi said that in the multiple pitches, it was also claimed that the investment was "sharia compliant". This was an important distinction for investors who wanted to make sure their investments were in accordance with Islamic finance customs. Interest on loans is prohibited in Islamic finance. The product disclosure statement given to investors said the fund avoided "banks and other conventional lenders" where there is a potential for paying or charging interest. Investors who spoke to the ABC said they now doubt the fund was sharia-compliant due to its lending practices. Senior lecturer on religion and law from Western Sydney University Maria Bhatti said if an organisation was purporting to be sharia compliant but was not, it could be considered "misleading and deceptive conduct" and "dealt with according to Australian law". Cache said the fund acquired its sharia compliance certification in February 2025. "Shariah Compliance does not prohibit all lending. The assets were structured in a manner that meets the requirements of [the Financial Shariah Advisory and Consultancy group] — and passed certification," it said. Cache said it was now trying to sell two of the 11 Pharmacy4Less franchises the scheme invested in to recoup some of the money for investors. In addition to freezing the fund in March 2025, it also hired "forensic accountants" to investigate. "Cache recognises that these developments have caused distress for investors, particularly investors who may have been relying on income distributions," the statement said. While it could not reveal figures, the company said "it has already recovered some funds and believes its efforts will ultimately result in a material recovery for investors". After filing a complaint with ASIC in May, the investors received an automated response saying the agency would "register and consider your report," and that it "does not resolve complaints, intervene in disputes, give legal advice or act to get your money back". They've also reached out to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), which said it would now be progressed "to the Case Management Stage". According to AFCA, it could be weeks before a case worker is assigned to the complaint. Mr Chalabi won't be able to retire anymore. "I'm old enough for early retirement. Now I can't, I have to work harder than before," he said. "All this money was my future.
ABC News
11 minutes ago
- ABC News
Monto residents anxious about potential QCoal mine's impacts
A patchwork of lush green fields, tilled red soil and swaying crops stretch over the horizon of a rural piece of regional Queensland. It is hard to imagine this fertile land, dotted with old dairy sheds, being used for anything other than farming. But the tiny towns of Monto and Mulgildie in the North Burnett, almost 500 kilometres north of Brisbane, have faced decades of uncertainty about the landscape they love being transformed into an open-cut coal mine. The Monto Coal Mine, owned by subsidiaries of QCoal, was first approved in part 20 years ago without the need for an environmental impact study (EIS). If built, the mine could produce about 1.2 million tonnes of thermal coal each year, which is burned to make electricity. The Queensland Environment Department said in a statement mineral licences were "rigorously" assessed for the greenfield site, which spanned up to 648 hectares of cropping and grazing land. QCoal declined to discuss the Monto project, or its future, when approached by the ABC. The state government under Labor's Peter Beattie first granted a mining lease covering more than 470 hectares in 2005. The company applied for another lease over an extra 178 hectares nearby in 2011, which is yet to be approved. For now, the land remains untouched. Maree Kimber's property borders the potential mine site. She is concerned about what the development would do to the small community's water supply and health. "The thought of [the mine] always hangs over, that never disappears," Ms Kimber said. "It never dissipates, it's always there." Having bought her property in 2016, Ms Kimber knew it was beside a mining lease, but said she underestimated amount of anxiety that would come with the uncertainty. "How you go about where you spend your money, and how you go about improving [the property's] infrastructure, you think, 'Well, if this mine goes ahead, what is that going to look like for my farm going forward?'" she said. Ms Kimber said a lack of transparency also added to the worry. "I have only ever received two updates, two letters, just generic letters … nothing directly on the plans for the mine. "Knowledge would give you a better idea of exactly what's coming our way." In July, new state planning laws came into effect, making wind and solar farms subject to public notification and requiring companies to show how their renewable projects benefited the community. But the proposed open-cut coal mine in Monto escaped the same stringent conditions. Monto community advocate Paul Stephenson has been fighting to stop the mine being extended in the Land and Environment Court. He said he wanted historical coal mines included in the new rules covering renewable projects. "If you're going to require EISs for wind farms and solar farms, then of course you should be requiring [one] for an open-cut coal mine on prime agricultural land," Mr Stephenson said. Andrew Kwan from Queensland's Environmental Defenders Office said Qcoal and others would only have to get an EIS if they wanted to extract more coal. "A major factor may be that the Monto Coal Mine's proposed 1.2 million tonnes [annual extraction] is below that EIS trigger threshold of two million [tonnes]," Mr Kwan said. He said keeping coal volumes under that threshold meant mining companies could avoid environmental assessments. Minister for Natural Resources and Mines, Dale Last, said the state's mining industry operated under a strict regulatory framework that balanced the rights of landholders and the environment. The department said approvals required the site to be rehabilitated once mining was complete. Gilbert Louttit's beef grazing property is also close to the proposed mining lease. He said he was not convinced the land could again be farmed if coal was ever mined on the site. "I'm a third-generation farmer and there's some pretty valuable ecosystems there," Mr Louttit said. "It's not going to be the same farmland as it was so I'm concerned that mining will really degrade the land. "As well as they might try to rehabilitate it, it will never be good for farming again." His wife Emma Scragg was also concerned about how a mine would change the community. "The rural nature of this area is what makes this town what it is, and this region what it is, and I think [a mine] would just change the culture," she said. Gooreng Gooreng man Douglas Graham was concerned about flow-on effects to country and sacred sites. "When you're destroying cultural heritage areas, natural wildlife habitats and ruining the environment and taking copious amounts of water from the aquifer, it has an effect on other areas," Mr Graham said, speaking on behalf of western Gooreng Gooreng elders. The Australia Institute research director and economist, Rod Campbell, said stalled projects like the Monto Coal Mine were financially and environmentally unviable. "That's kind of bad for companies, but it's also terrible for the community that has to live around the project with the uncertainty of this kind of zombie project." Mr Campbell said state governments needed the courage to intervene. "Instead, they've left it to the mining companies and community groups to fight it out and see who wins," he said.
