midastouch017
16 years ago
Elbit Systems revenue jumps to nearly $2 billion
70% of the firm's backlog is for orders outside of Israel.
Globes' correspondent 11 Mar 08 10:09
Military electronics developer Elbit Systems Ltd. (Nasdaq: ESLT; TASE: ESLT) today reported its consolidated results for the fourth quarter and year-ended December 31, 2007.
Fourth quarter revenue increased by 26.5% to $591.1 million in 2007, compared to $467.4 million in the corresponding quarter of 2006.
During the fourth quarter of 2007, the Company had a $10 million financial expense related to the write-off of investments Auction Rate Securities, which were rated AAA or AA when acquired, and which have experienced multiple failed auctions due to a lack of liquidity in the market for these securities.
Elbit's orders backlog as of December 31, 2007 reached $4.62 billion, an increase of 22%, as compared to $3.79 billion at the end of 2006. 70% of the backlog relates to orders outside of Israel. Approximately 70% of the firm's backlog as of December 31, 2007 is scheduled to be performed during 2008 and 2009.
Gross profit for the fourth quarter of 2007 was $156.2 million, as compared to gross profit of $100.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2006, and the gross profit margin in the fourth quarter of 2007 was 26.4%, as compared to 21.4% in the fourth quarter of 2006.
Net profit for the fourth quarter of 2007 increased by 33.2% to $31.9 million, compared to $24 million for the same period of 2006. Diluted earnings per share for the fourth quarter of 2007 was $0.75, as compared to $0.57 for the fourth quarter of 2006.
Consolidated revenue for the full year of 2007 increased by 30% to $1.98 billion, as compared to $1.52 billion in 2006.
Gross profit for the year ended December 31, 2007 was $516.4 million, as compared to gross profit of $373.5 million in 2006, and the gross profit margin in 2007 was 26.1%, as compared to 24.5% in 2006.
One-time charges related to the completion of the acquisition of Tadiran Communications on April 26, 2007, which were charged in the second quarter, impacted full year results. Elbit Systems recorded $27.1 million in expenses in relation to the acquisition, with an in-process research & development (“IPR&D”) write-off of $16.6 million recorded under operating expenses, and restructuring expenses of $10.5 million recorded under cost of goods sold, which negatively affected the gross profit rate by 0.5%.
Net profit for the year ended December 31, 2007 increased by 6.2% to $76.7 million, as compared to $72.2 million in 2006. Diluted earnings per share in 2007 were $1.81, as compared to $1.72 in 2006.
Excluding the above one-time, net charges related to the acquisition of Tadiran Communications, net earnings for the year ended December 31, 2007 were $101 million, and earnings per shares reached $2.39.
Elbit Systems president and CEO Joseph Ackerman commented that "2007 was a banner year in which we continued our top line growth while producing record net profit, EPS, backlog and operating cash flow. We have been very successful in further globalizing our business, with strong growth in Europe, and we now have presence in important and diversified geographic regions, with a cutting edge comprehensive product portfolio for the evolving needs of the markets in which we are active."
Elbit Systems, with its subsidiaries, operates in the areas of aerospace, land and naval systems, command, control, communications, computers, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance ("C4ISR"), unmanned air vehicle (UAV) systems, advanced electro-optics, electro-optic space systems, EW suites, airborne warning systems, ELINT systems, data links and military communications systems and radios.
Published by Globes [online], Israel business news - www.globes-online.com - on March 11, 2008
midastouch017
16 years ago
"We'll maintain two-digit growth"
Elbit Systems CEO Joseph Ackerman assesses his market.
Uri Shuster 15 Nov 07 17:07
The impressive rise seen recently in the stock of Elbit Systems (Nasdaq: ESLT; TASE: ESLT) was probably less to do with anticipation of the exceptionally good third quarter results reported yesterday, and more to do with the realization that anyone who wants to carry on investing in stocks needs to expand the defensive element of the portfolio, a need which the company meets precisely. There was nothing unusual in Elbit Systems' financials, and no unpleasant surprises, which amounts to a privilege these days.
Company president and CEO Joseph Ackerman believes that the two-digit growth will be maintained in the coming years. "Once, if you were to ask me, I would say that the goal was high one-digit growth. Now, I allow myself to say low two-digits," says Ackerman, and explains, "The budgets of armies around the world have been growing at 3-4% annually in the past few years, and we are growing faster than the market, even though it certainly isn't easy. Our business is military electronics, and it makes no difference whether there's peace or war, there's always demand for the products. What's more, today armies buy fewer platforms and more systems, and that's exactly what we do. Therefore I estimate that in the next three to four years we'll maintain a two-digit growth rate. 2008 is more or less clear to us, and it will be better than 2007."
In Elbit Systems' field of activity, size is critical. Although the company is a bulldozer in local terms, as witness its almost unbelievable $4.55 billion orders backlog, it is small in comparison with similar companies overseas.
"The figures are very clear today, the customer seeks a solution from a single supplier, and to provide it we must make acquisitions and expand our range, and thereby also reduce costs, for example marketing costs, which a small company in this area finds hard to meet," Ackerman explains, and adds, "The Israeli scale is deceptive. We're still not even half the average size of defense companies around the world, and so we must persist with a strategy of mergers and acquisitions."
Nevertheless, Ackerman reckons that it will take time till the next acquisition. "In the short term we must digest the acquisition of Tadiran Communications and our other acquisitions. So I see 2008 as a year of integration, and not so much of acquisitions. At the same time, we're always on the lookout, and we won't pass up on acquisition opportunities."
Published by Globes [online], Israel business news - www.globes.co.il - on November 15, 2007
midastouch017
17 years ago
Elbit Systems Reports Second Quarter 2007 Results
Tuesday August 14, 3:56 am ET
Backlog of Orders at Record $4.2bn
Revenues Reached Record $468m, Up 36% Year-Over-Year
Cash Flow of $130 Million for First Six Months, Up 24% Year-Over-Year
HAIFA, Israel, August 14 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Elbit Systems Ltd. (the "Company") (NASDAQ: ESLT - News), the international defense company, today reported its consolidated results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2007.
Completion of Acquisition of Tadiran Communications. On April 26, 2007, the Company completed the acquisition of the outstanding shares of Tadiran Communications Ltd. ("Tadiran"). Following the acquisition, the Company fully consolidated the results of Tadiran. On July 12, 2007, the Company reported that it anticipated the acquisition related expenses in the second quarter to be within a range of $25 - 30 million. The Company recorded $27.1 million in expenses in relation to the acquisition as follows: In-Process Research & Development ("IPR&D") write-off of $16.6 million recorded under operating expenses, and restructuring expenses of $10.5 million recorded under cost of good sold.
Backlog of orders as of June 30, 2007 reached a record $4,196 million, compared with $3,786 million as of December 31, 2006. 73% of the backlog is for sales outside Israel, and approximately 61% of the backlog is scheduled to be performed by the end of 2008. The majority of the balance is scheduled to be performed in 2009 and 2010.
Consolidated revenues for the second quarter of 2007 increased by 36% to $468.2 million, from $344.8 million in the second quarter of 2006.
Reported gross profit for the second quarter of 2007 increased by 30% to $116.5 million (24.9% of revenues), as compared with gross profit of $89.6 million (26.0% of revenues) in the second quarter of 2006. Gross profit for the quarter included the $10.5 million restructuring charge relating to the completed acquisition of Tadiran. Excluding this charge, gross profit in the second quarter of 2007 increased by 42% to $127.0 million (27.1% of revenues).
Reported consolidated net loss for the second quarter of 2007, including the $27.1 million ($24.4 million net) in expenses recorded in relation with the completed acquisition of Tadiran, was $0.7 million, compared with a net income of $15.1 million (4.4% of revenues) in the second quarter of 2006. Loss per diluted share for the second quarter of 2007 was $0.02, as compared with earnings per diluted share of $0.36 for the second quarter of 2006. Consolidated net income for the second quarter of 2007, excluding the IPR&D write-off and restructuring expenses was $23.7 million, or $0.56 per diluted share.
Operating Cash flow generated during the first six months of the year reached a record $129.7 million.
The President and CEO of Elbit Systems, Joseph Ackerman, commented: "We are pleased to report another quarter of growth that is highlighted by record backlog and cash flow. I would like to underline our organic growth that amounted to more than 20% and made a substantial contribution to our overall growth of 36% following the acquisition of Tadiran. We have found that Tadiran has highly professional and talented employees, advanced technologies and a strong presence in the worldwide market. We believe the combined company will quickly evolve into a world leader in the areas of ground systems, communications and C4I. Together with our integration of Tadiran, and based upon the Group's highly qualified and dedicated personnel, strong global presence, growing backlog, continued investment in R&D and solid cash flow, we are confident of our continued success for the future".
The Board of Directors declared a dividend of $0.16 per share for the second quarter of 2007. The dividend's record date is August 28, 2007, and the dividend will be paid on September 10, 2007, net of taxes and levies, at the rate of 16.6%.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070814/uktu013.html?.v=101
DewDiligence
17 years ago
Use of UAVs Surges Over Iraq
[See the sidebar at the end of article for a description of the kinds of UAVs in use. ESLT is not mentioned, so I presume that its UAVs are not employed in Iraq. Much of this article is about the silly in-fighting between the branches of the USDoD.]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070705/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/unmanned_warfare
>>
By LOLITA C. BALDOR,
Jul 5, 2007
The use of unmanned aircraft in Iraq has surged by nearly a third since the buildup of U.S. forces began this year, and drones are now racking up more than 14,000 hours a month in the battlefield skies.
The increase in unmanned aircraft — from high-altitude Global Hawks to short-range reconnaissance Ravens that soldiers fling into the air — has fueled a struggle among the military services over who will control their use and the more than $12 billion that will be spent on the programs over the next five years.
The Air Force wants to take over development and purchasing of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), arguing that it would save money and improve technology and communications.
It also wants more centralized command of the drones, saying better coordination could eliminate airspace conflicts that can endanger U.S. troops.
The other military services see a power grab, and they're fighting it.
A little more than a year ago, about 700 unmanned aircraft were operating in Iraq. By last December, according to Army data, that number had grown to about 950, and it's expected to soon hit 1,250.
At least 500 are the smaller Ravens that are used by the Army. The rest include Hunters and Shadows — the Army's medium-altitude aircraft that can carry weapons — as well as the Air Force Predators, which are also armed. Larger Global Hawks are used for high-tech surveillance.
The boost has been caused in part by the military buildup ordered by President Bush to help secure Baghdad and the Anbar province. U.S. forces in Iraq have grown by nearly 30,000, to a total of 157,000.
The Air Force argument for more central control over how and where the larger, medium-to-high-altitude drones are used would affect aircraft flown generally above 3,500 feet.
The Army is opposing the plan. Army officials say unit commanders need to be able to quickly deploy drones, and any additional bureaucracy could cause risky delays.
To illustrate, Brig. Gen. Stephen Mundt, the Army's aviation director, turns to a dark, middle-of-the night video taken in May by an Army drone over northern Iraq.
Two armed men can be seen apparently planting roadside bombs. As the unmanned aircraft tracks them, U.S. commanders dispatch an attack helicopter team. Just 16 minutes after the drone first observed the activity, the helicopter's 30 millimeter canon fires, taking out the insurgents.
"This is all going on in real time. You can't plan this in advance. And this is not the only event going on, we've got hundreds of these going on all day," said Mundt.
If the Air Force plan is adopted, he said, it could delay access to drones and compromise the unit's response.
Not so, says the Air Force, arguing that lack of central control can endanger U.S. troops, too.
Drones would still be available for commanders who need them, but it's important that priorities be set by a joint air command, said Air Force Brig. Gen. Jan-Marc Jouas, vice commander of the Air Intelligence Agency.
According to a November study, he said, there have been many cases where U.S. forces could not respond immediately to mortar attacks because a drone had been launched in the area, triggering air space restrictions. He did not provide additional details on the incidents.
"I think there has been some confusion as to what it is the Air Force means," said Jouas. It's about giving the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines "a better product to support them in the fight. It's not about taking UAVs away from the soldier or the Marine."
Air Force officials say their proposal will save millions of dollars, improve the systems and ensure the aircraft have compatible communications systems.
The funding change is critical, Jouas added, as a way to save money.
As an example, he said that instead of awarding a new contract for the Army's Sky Warrior program, the Pentagon could have worked with the existing, and similar, Predator program. Doing that, he said, could have saved between $400 million and $600 million.
The Army's Mundt, however, said his service had a competitive bidding process and the Sky Warrior was selected.
Pentagon leaders, including Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, are pressing the services to hammer out a compromise. And Navy Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani Jr., vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, met last week with other top brass to review the Air Force plan, including England's June directive that the services work together more on the Army's new Sky Warrior program and the Air Force's long-standing Predator program.
But finding common ground has proven difficult.
The Pentagon's 2008 budget calls for spending nearly $900 million for five pricey Global Hawks, almost $70 million on 300 Ravens, and close to $700 million on research, development and procurement of two dozen Predators, four Reapers and a dozen Sky Warriors.
The Air Force's central control plan would involve the larger drones and not affect the small, shoulder-launched Ravens, which soldiers can send into the air for shorter range, lower altitude surveillance and reconnaissance.
All four military services are pursuing plans to buy more unmanned aircraft. The Army and Marine Corps are looking at buying the new Sky Warrior, which is touted as being more lethal than the Predator. It could carry four Hellfire missiles, while the existing Predators generally carry two. The two aircraft are built by the same company, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, based in California.
The Navy is looking into a new helicopter-like drone that can take off and land vertically on ships.
The Air Force, meanwhile, is investing $13 billion to buy 241 drones, including Predators, Global Hawks and Reapers, over the next five years.
Gen. Michael Moseley, the Air Force chief of staff, said one goal is to set up 21 orbits of continuous unmanned aircraft coverage in the Central Command region, which includes Iraq. Currently, he said there are about 10.
[Sidebar]
Unmanned Aircraft of the U.S. Military
The U.S. military is increasing its use of drones in Iraq. Some of the systems include:
• Global Hawk: The military's prime eye-in-the-sky provides high-altitude, high-resolution intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance in near real-time. Once programmed, it can taxi, take off, fly, capture images and return on its own, while ground-based operators monitor its progress or, if needed, change its course. It has a wingspan of about 116 feet, and can fly at altitudes of up to 65,000 feet. The prime contractor is Northrop Grumman's Ryan Aeronautical Center in California, and the proposed 2008 federal budget would spend $876.3 million on research, development and the purchase of five aircraft.
• Predator: Currently, the military's main hunter-killer system, the Predator is equipped with cameras, sensors and radar that can capture video and still images. It also has a targeting system and can carry two laser-guided Hellfire missiles. It is about 27 feet long, weighs more than 1,100 pounds, and can fly at altitudes up to 25,000 feet. The prime contractor is General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. [#msg-18794055], and the proposed 2008 budget includes about $375 million for research, development and the purchase of 24 aircraft.
• Shadow: It's used by Army brigades on the battlefield for reconnaissance. The Shadow is smaller than the Global Hawk and Predator, with a wingspan of 12.3 feet, and it generally flies at altitudes between 6,000 and 10,000 feet. The contractor is AAI Corp., based in Maryland, and the proposed 2008 budget includes about $48 million for development.
• Raven: Weighing a little more than four pounds, the Raven has become a critical reconnaissance tool for smaller Army units, such as companies and battalions. It has a 5-foot wingspan, is a bit more than 3 feet long. Soldiers can fling them into the air by hand, though it also has an electric motor. It is often used to locate roadside bombs or let soldiers know what lies around the next corner or over the hill. The contractor is California-based AeroVironment Inc.[#msg-16439285], and the proposed 2008 budget includes nearly $23 million for research, development and the purchase of 300 aircraft.
<<
genisi
17 years ago
Press Release Source: Elbit Systems Ltd
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070515/uktu011.html?.v=101&printer=1
Elbit Systems Reports First Quarter 2007 Results
Tuesday May 15, 3:40 am ET
Continued Record Revenues and Backlog of Orders
Revenues Increased by 20.7% Year Over Year to $403.6 Million
Net Profit Increased by 32.0% Year Over Year to $19.1 Million
HAIFA, Israel, May 15 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Elbit Systems Ltd. (the "Company") (NASDAQ: ESLT - News) the international defense company, today reported its consolidated results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2007.
The Company's backlog of orders as of March 31, 2007 totaled $3,796 million, as compared with $3,786 million as of December 31, 2006. The backlog amount reflects a reduction of approximately $70 million due to a cessation settlement of the Bulgarian helicopter program. Approximately 71% of the backlog relates to orders outside of Israel. Approximately 70% of the Company's backlog as of March 31, 2007 is scheduled to be performed during the upcoming three quarters of 2007 and during 2008.
Consolidated revenues for the first quarter of 2007 increased by 20.7% to $403.6 million, from $334.4 million in the first quarter of 2006.
Gross profit for the first quarter of 2007 increased by 18.3% to $103.5 million (25.7% of revenues), as compared with gross profit of $87.5 million (26.2% of revenues) in the first quarter of 2006. The gross profit margin in the first quarter of 2007 was affected mainly by the impact of the weakening U.S. Dollar against the New Israeli Shekel ("NIS"), which increased the effective labor costs in Israel.
Consolidated net income for the first quarter of 2007 increased by 32.0% to $19.1 million (4.7% of revenues), as compared with $14.5 million (4.3% of revenues) in the first quarter of 2006. Diluted earnings per share for the first quarter of 2007 were $0.45, as compared with $0.35 for the first quarter of 2006.
Operating Cash flow during the first quarter of 2007 reached a record $86.8 million.
The President and CEO of Elbit Systems, Joseph Ackerman, commented: "The continued revenue and profit growth trend we reported is especially impressive due to the organic growth we have recorded in the first quarter of 2007. This growth of approximately 20% is the result of our long-term strategy of expanding our operations to additional target markets and a continued investment in the R&D of advanced technologies and cutting edge products. This strategy enables us to win prestigious and important contracts and to further enhance our network of customers and business partners. It is a long-term strategy that will continue guiding us in the future."
Mr. Ackerman added "After the end of this report period we completed the acquisition of Tadiran Communications' shares and are in the process of realizing the new synergies within the Group's companies. We have also prepared an action plan for Elisra, however, it requires cooperation from the employees and their representatives."
The Board of Directors declared a dividend of $0.16 per share for the first quarter of 2007. The dividend's record date is May 29, 2007, and the dividend will be paid on June 11, 2007, net of taxes and levies, at the rate of 18.15%.
Conference Call
The Company will also be hosting a conference call today, Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at 10:00 am EDT. On the call, management will review and discuss its first quarter 2007 results and will be available to answer questions.
To participate, please call one of the following teleconferencing numbers. Please begin placing your calls at least 10 minutes before the conference call commences. If you are unable to connect using the toll-free numbers, please try the international dial-in number.
US Dial-in Numbers: 1-888-407-2553
UK Dial-in Number: 0-800-917-9141
ISRAEL Dial-in Number: 03-918-0609
INTERNATIONAL Dial-in Number: +972-3-918-0609
at:
10:00 am Eastern Time
7:00 am Pacific Time
3:00 pm UK Time
5:00 pm Israel Time
This call will be broadcast live on Elbit Systems' web-site at http://www.elbitsystems.com. An online replay will be available from 24 hours after the call ends.
Alternatively, for two days following the end of the call, investors will be able to dial a replay number to listen to the call. The dial-in number is either: 1-877-456-0009 (US) 0-800-917-4613 (UK) or +972-3-925-5942 (Israel and International).
About Elbit Systems Ltd.:
Elbit Systems Ltd. is an international defense electronics company engaged in a wide range of defense-related programs throughout the world. The Elbit Systems Group, which includes the company and its subsidiaries, operates in the areas of aerospace, land and naval systems, command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance ("C4ISR"), advanced electro-optic and space technologies, EW suites, airborne warning systems, ELINT systems, data links and military communications systems and equipment. The Group also focuses on the upgrading of existing military platforms and developing new technologies for defense and homeland security applications.
STATEMENTS IN THIS PRESS RELEASE WHICH ARE NOT HISTORICAL DATA ARE FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS WHICH INVOLVE KNOWN AND UNKNOWN RISKS, UNCERTAINTIES OR OTHER FACTORS NOT UNDER THE COMPANY'S CONTROL, WHICH MAY CAUSE ACTUAL RESULTS, PERFORMANCE OR ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE COMPANY TO BE MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE RESULTS, PERFORMANCE OR OTHER EXPECTATIONS IMPLIED BY THESE FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS. THESE FACTORS INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, THOSE DETAILED IN THE COMPANY'S PERIODIC FILINGS WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.
(FINANCIAL TABLES TO FOLLOW)
ELBIT SYSTEMS LTD.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(In thousand of US Dollars)
March 31 December 31
2007 2006
Unaudited Audited
Assets
Current Assets:
Cash and short term deposits 155,822 85,400
Trade receivable and others 427,289 465,428
Inventories, net of advances 395,015 371,962
Total current assets 978,126 922,790
Affiliated Companies & other Investments 231,941 235,723
Long-term receivables & others 191,443 189,236
Fixed Assets, net 294,090 294,628
Other assets, net 126,656 128,995
1,822,256 1,771,372
Liabilities and Shareholder's Equity
Current liabilities 827,435 810,885
Long-term liabilities 485,118 460,032
Minority Interest 8,380 6,871
Shareholder's equity 501.323 493,584
1,822,256 1,771,372
ELBIT SYSTEMS LTD.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(In thousand of US Dollars, except for per share amounts)
Three Months Ended Year Ended
March 31 December 31
2007 2006 2006
Unaudited Audited
Revenues 403,600 334,370 1,523,243
Cost of revenues 300,062 246,830 1,149,768
Gross Profit 103,538 87,540 373,475
Research and development, net 24,093 21,438 92,232
Marketing and selling 32,371 26,248 111,880
General and administrative 20,318 19,007 77,505
Total operating expenses 76,782 66,693 281,617
Operating income 26,756 20,847 91,858
Financial expenses, net (2,928) (4,241) (21,456)
Other income (expenses), net 113 908 1,814
Income before income taxes 23,941 17,514 72,216
Provisions for income taxes 6,733 4,604 20,694
17,208 12,910 51,522
Equity in net earnings (losses) of
affiliated companies and partnership
3,400 2,267 14,743
Minority rights (1,509) (709) 5,977
Net income 19,099 14,468 72,242
Earnings per share
Basic net earnings per share 0.45 0.35 1.75
Diluted net earnings per share 0.45 0.35 1.72
midastouch017
17 years ago
Struggle over Tadiran: Investors vs Elbit
15.4.07 | 11:02 By Ora Coren
Last Thursday, the Tadiran Communications (TASE: TDCM) board of directors convened for a what was supposed to be a routine meeting on technical matters. The result was a bust-up that might cost the company's controlling shareholder - Elbit Systems (Nasdaq: ESLT) dearly.
The issue at stake was whether Elbit Systems should sweeten its tender offer, released a month ago, to buy all outstanding shares in Tadiran.
Elbit Systems, controlled by Mickey Federmann and managed by Yossi Ackerman, wants to delist Tadiran in order to facilitate the merger of the two companies, and to lower costs. Also, Tadiran is sitting on $310 million cash, which would do nicely (from Elbit's view) to finance the stock repurchase.
The law requires the board of the acquired company to state whether the directors really think the tender offer is in the company's best interests, and that of its shareholders. Then the directors shape their recommendation.
In other words, the directors have to decide whether to accept the offer and sell all the company's shares to the buyer, or to reject it, possibly in anticipation of a higher price, or to deflect the offer entirely.
The board can decide not to have an opinion, though, which is what the Tadiran board did.
"Given the complexity of what the company does and the period of time set in law, the board cannot solicit an external, comprehensive economic opinion including pricing appraisals by the deadline," the Tadiran board explained.
But the board didn't abandon the issue: it demanded that Elbit Systems reveal two deals Tadiran has brewing, which the Elbit Systems owners knew about when publishing their offer, but about which investors had no information.
The two deals were big ones, amounting to some $200 million, at the very least.
No rubber stamps
The Tadiran external directors spelled it out: they would not be faceless rubber stamps. Evidently they thought Elbit Systems was offering too little.
After the meeting, capital market sources speculated that Elbit Systems would have to seriously sweeten its offer, from NIS 186 per Tadiran share to NIS 230 (24%). Or, it could step away and abandon the whole idea.
Ackerman and two other directors at Tadiran who also work at Elbit Systems did not take part in the meeting.
Elbit Systems bought the controlling interest in Tadiran a year and a half ago. It owns 42.8% of the company's shares. Institutional investors and households own the rest. A full tender offer for all outstanding shares would cost NIS 1.3 billion at the share price of NIS 186. If the price is raised to NIS 230, it will cost Elbit Systems NIS 1.65 billion, or, an extra NIS 350 million for the minority shareholders in Tadiran.
The deadline for the shareholders to accept the tender offer is this weekend.
One project for which Tadiran awaits final approval is a joint deal with Siemens, to make fast trains for China. It is a vast deal that could bring the Israeli company (via subsidiaries Telefunken Racoms) 50-60 million euros, at first, and another 30-40 million euros at a second stage. Telefunken Racoms would be responsible for the fast train's monitoring and control systems.
Then there's a 60-70 million euro deal to supply military communications equipment to a western European country. The customers approval is expected within weeks. Sources at the company are more confident about the Chinese deal than this one.
Tadiran is considered to be one of Israel's most successful military-industry companies. It develops cutting-edge technology and is also sitting on a pile of cash, turning it into a highly attractive target for investors. So is Elbit Systems offering enough?
"Even now its share price is trading at NIS 190," points out a financial market source. "Investors voted with their feet and showed Elbit Systems what they thought of its offer. The market expects Elbit Systems to significantly lift its offer, to NIS 230 per share, or to withdraw from the whole thing."
An Elbit Systems spokesperson firmly denied that the company had even mulled the notion of hiding the two transactions. The spokesmen said they were deals that didn't need to be reported during the regular course of business, and that the board members unanimously decided to reveal them because of the tender offer.
The spokesperson added that Elbit Systems' representatives on the Tadiran board had not taken part in said meeting, which, insofar as they know, was conducted amicably and with full consensus.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ArticleContent.jhtml?itemNo=848561
DewDiligence
17 years ago
The Pilotless Plane That Looks Like Child’s Play
[A profile of one of the competitors in the UAV arena: a private company called General Atomics.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/business/yourmoney/15atomics.html
>>
By CHARLES DUHIGG
April 15, 2007
If you’re the type of shopper who spends billions of dollars on lethal military gadgets, and you’re ever invited to visit General Atomics Aeronautical Systems — the small, privately held San Diego company that has quickly become one of the military industry’s most celebrated businesses — take a bit of advice: accept a ride on the corporate jet.
The plane isn’t fancy. The cabin is cramped and the seats a little threadbare. (Want a beverage? Open the cooler, help yourself and quit whining about the heat.) Still, such bare-bones accoutrements haven’t stopped a parade of top military officials and politicians from clamoring for their own seats on General Atomics flights.
If you’re lucky, after the jet lands at the company’s airstrip in the high desert east of Los Angeles, you’ll tour one of the room-sized shipping containers clustered near the runway. Inside is a video-game addict’s idea of a cockpit, with joysticks, gauges and high-tech screens sprouting everywhere and a cushy chair that has improbably become one of the sexiest seats in the military. From that perch you can guide an unmanned airplane, known as the Predator, that is potentially thousands of miles away and can hover over suspected enemies for dozens of hours before raining down missiles.
For years, such planes — known as U.A.V.’s, for unmanned aerial vehicles — were pariahs within the military industry, scorned by commanders who saw them as threats to the status quo. But during the last several years, U.A.V.’s have amassed unusual political firepower. “For a long time, the only thing most generals could agree on was that they didn’t want any unmanned vehicles,” says Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Now everyone wants as many as they can get.”
In fact, only a decade ago, crucial Air Force commanders were lobbying to prevent battlefield deployment of U.A.V.’s, according to Congressional staff members. By 2005, however, John P. Jumper, then the Air Force chief of staff, had sufficiently about-faced to tell Congress that “we’re going to tell General Atomics to build every Predator they can possibly build.”
This transformation is, in many ways, a reflection of how the military’s priorities and goals have changed over the last decade. It is also a testament to how much clout General Atomics has amassed in a short period of time.
All of which raises another bit of advice if you’re visiting General Atomics: Don’t be late.
More than one official has learned the hard way that when the pilot of the General Atomics corporate jet says he’s flying back at noon, he means it. And that pilot is likely to be Thomas J. Cassidy Jr., a 34-year Navy veteran, former rear admiral, onetime commander of the station where the “Top Gun” flight school is based and now the president of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems. Mr. Cassidy’s belly may hang a bit over his belt now, but he’s so authentic that when the producers of the film “Top Gun” needed someone for a bit part who oozed power, they cast him.
Which is only fitting, for while General Atomics boasts elaborate technological gizmos and martial splendor, its authority also derives from its political savvy. In the last decade, the company has outgunned some of the nation’s biggest corporate heavyweights in the battle for prized military contracts. Soon, analysts say, Americans may rely on a host of General Atomics military devices, including magnetic cannons that use pulses of electricity to drop ammunition on distant targets, radar systems that can see through even the densest clouds and guns that shoot laser beams.
“Everyone talks about how the world has changed,” Mr. Cassidy says. “We’re building the technology for where it’s going.”
…the Predator and General Atomics reflect the military’s transformation from conflicts built around manned armor to strategies organized around surveillance. U.A.V.’s embody the potential for quick, relatively effortless wars fought by drones controlled from great distances, and thus have become lightning rods for battles over the military’s direction.
General Atomics, the progenitor of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, started life in 1955 when a major military contractor, General Dynamics, feared that the military hardware market might dry up. It began exploring peacetime uses of atomic energy, but abandoned the effort when cold-war military spending took off. General Atomics eventually passed through the hands of a number of energy companies before landing in the lap of two Denver real estate moguls, Neal and Linden Blue, who bought it in 1986 for about $50 million.
…Soon after the brothers gained control of General Atomics in 1986, they unleashed their passion for advanced aviation by turning the company into a leading pioneer in drone warfare.
Military efforts to develop unmanned planes had existed for decades, but unreliable technology and shifting priorities had killed most of the programs. The Blues, however, were convinced that technological advances in microprocessing and global positioning systems had made it possible to build inexpensive, technologically reliable and ultralight unmanned airplanes that could stay aloft for days. They poured tens of millions of dollars into the project, eventually establishing a separate company, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Neal Blue said.
At the time, the Defense Department was less enthusiastic.
“The military can react to new threats and new enemies very quickly, but there is a very high bar to shifting how forces are deployed, because a mistake can be catastrophic to national security,” said Andrew L. Ross, a professor of political science at the University of New Mexico. “Commanders are skeptical about machines that remove soldiers from the field.”
The Predator itself has offered critics some ammunition. One analyst estimates that 20 percent of all Predators sold to the United States military have crashed, because of errors by pilots controlling them from the ground. Another analyst, who has flown the aircraft but asked not to be identified to maintain his relationship with General Atomics, says they offer significantly less maneuverability than manned jets.
Another analyst who has studied the history of U.A.V.’s says the Predator has failed at some crucial tests.
“It has never done everything the military originally wanted it to do,” said Tom P. Ehrhard, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonpartisan research organization. “It still fails on flight reliability, flight worthiness, the camera’s accuracy, the ability to fly through clouds. There are a whole series of operational limitations that normally would prevent a device like this from getting military adoption.”
Officials at General Atomics declined to discuss those and other criticisms in detail. An Air Force spokesman said that the number of Predator crashes had declined, and that the plane’s limitations had not prevented its combat use.
Another obstacle to military adoption of U.A.V.’s, say the Blues and others, is a dynamic even older than the panzerdivizion: resistance to innovations that threaten entrenched power structures.
“There is a very strong tendency to reward commanders for figuring out how to win the last war,” says Neal Blue. “The fiefdoms within the Department of Defense were built upon putting more people into airplanes or into the battlefield. Technologies that didn’t include cockpit pilots or moving soldiers were seen as unattractive.”
For its part, the Air Force disputes that turf wars ever impeded the Predator’s deployment. “It is hard to name any other aircraft that has accomplished so much in so little time, or that has had such an immediate impact on how we conduct combat operations,” it said in a statement. “It was the Air Force that gave birth to the concept that Predator could both find and attack fleeting targets, a concept that has paid huge dividends.”
Nonetheless, the Blues’ early attempts to find military supporters of U.A.V.’s during the 1980s and early ’90s met with little success.
“No fighter pilot is ever going to pick up a girl at a bar by saying he flies a U.A.V.,” says Andrew F. Krepinevich, a former Defense Department analyst who is executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “When defense contractors initially talked about U.A.V.’s, they advertised them as replacements for fighter pilots. Fighter pilots don’t want to be replaced.”
But, ultimately, fighter pilots don’t run the military. Politicians do. And when Bill Clinton entered the White House in 1993, there was already a sense among some elected officials that the military was stuck in cold-war thinking, according to members of Congress at the time.
Those politicians, however, were increasingly butting heads with Pentagon officials. And the military industry, which collected billions of dollars a year selling expensive jets and submarines, was in no rush to tell customers that they needed smaller, cheaper equipment.
So the politicians used stealth tactics. In 1993, John M. Deutch, a deputy defense secretary under President Clinton, invited Neal Blue to the Pentagon under the pretense of discussing fusion reactors. Mr. Blue said in an interview that when he walked in, he discovered an array of high-ranking officials waiting to hear about the Predator. Mr. Deutch asked how long it would take to deliver a flight-ready aircraft. Six months, Mr. Blue promised.
“We were looking for technologies that were sufficiently path-breaking that they offered justification for changing military doctrine,” Mr. Deutch recalled.
Flashy images helped, too. The live video feeds from cameras attached to Predators were transmitted to commanders and politicians back home.
“There was a lot of work to make sure that G.A.’s product made it to the battlefield before the bureaucracy could stop it,” said Representative Duncan L. Hunter of California, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee. “We knew that once we sent all those pictures to Washington, D.C., the debate would be over.”
After the Predators’ deployment in the Balkans conflict in the 1990s, the military’s support for them began to grow. Although many analysts were already suggesting that Predators could easily carry weapons — cruise missiles use similar technologies — General Atomics avoided even mentioning such possibilities until clients requested them.
“There was an unspoken deal. It was obvious the technology existed to make the Predator into more than just a surveillance platform,” said Daniel Goure, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, a military policy research group in northern Virginia. “But fighter pilots shoot the missiles, and fighter pilots have a lot of power within the Air Force. So G.A. made it clear pilots didn’t have to worry about Predators doing something they hadn’t asked for.”
(In the late 1990s, armed Predators were rolling off the assembly line two months after they were requested by Air Force commanders, according to company executives.)
After taking office in 2001, President George W. Bush gave his defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, a mandate to remake the military into a more technologically advanced organization, and U.A.V.’s became a top priority, say former department officials. The Sept. 11 attacks and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan heightened the push.
By the time a Predator-launched missile killed a suspected Al Qaeda leader in 2002, even the public was accustomed to hearing about unmanned planes’ successes. Voicing enthusiasm for U.A.V.’s became an easy way for the military brass to show that it had signed on to Mr. Rumsfeld’s program.
“Predators became emblematic of what Rumsfeld wanted,” said Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute. “Suddenly, everyone was saying they were ordering Predators, whether they actually wanted them or not.”
That shift has been profitable for General Atomics Aeronautical Systems. The company, which remains privately held, refuses to disclose its revenue or profits. But it now employs more than 2,400 workers and has sold more than 200 unmanned planes since 1993, according to a spokesman.
In 2005, the Air Force announced that it was ordering enough Predators to equip 15 squadrons over five years, at a price of $5.7 billion. The Department of Homeland Security has bought two Predators for border control, and Italy and Turkey have also bought planes.
A research firm, the Teal Group, predicts that the handful of U.A.V. manufacturers will collect about $55 billion worldwide over the next 10 years. General Atomics is expected to dominate a large portion of that market, said Philip Finnegan, an analyst at Teal.
When Mr. Rumsfeld stepped down last year, one of the mandates that had bolstered the Predator for so long also disappeared.
“Transformation is dead as a political idea,” Mr. Thompson said. “Rumsfeld was discredited by Iraq, and when he left, his priorities left with him.”
That presents a challenge for General Atomics, which is also confronting a flurry of competition. The major military contractors, including Northrop Grumman, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, have all jumped into the U.A.V. game. With billions of dollars at their disposal and deep military relationships, those companies can outspend smaller rivals.
“This is an exploding marketplace, and we intend to claim a larger market share as it grows bigger and bigger,” said Gemma Loochkartt, a spokeswoman for Northrop Grumman. “Being a leader in this sector is important to maintaining leadership within the defense industry.”
So General Atomics is aggressively building on its existing clout. Unlike many other military contractors, which wait for a guaranteed contract to build new products, General Atomics has set aside what some analysts estimate at $50 million to build the next generation of Predators.
“We can move faster because we’re smaller, and we make sure people know that,” says Mr. Blue, who, at 72, still actively guides the company’s strategic direction. General Atomics has upgraded its manufacturing with a diverse range of automated and laser-guided tools that allow it to quickly change design specifications and produce custom-built planes, a flexibility that analysts say is almost unrivaled within the military industry.
Despite a demand for its products that far outpaces supply, the company has kept the Predator relatively cheap — about $19.2 million a plane, according to a study that the Government Accountability Office released last year. “For the military, $19 million is almost an impulse buy,” said John E. Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense research firm in Washington.
Yet however much General Atomics competes on price, some of its most dexterous strategies have involved overtly political tactics.
In 2006, a study conducted by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity and other watchdog groups said that General Atomics had spent $660,000, more than any other company, sending Congressional staff members on trips. Company executives said the jaunts allowed staffers to help educate foreign governments about the Predator’s successes, although they acknowledge that they also improved the company’s relationships in Washington.
“Everyone else was doing it, so we did, too,” says Mr. Cassidy at General Atomics. After the study was released, General Atomics decided to sponsor less than $10,000 worth of Congressional trips a year.
General Atomics has also hired scores of former military commanders and has partnered with Lockheed Martin to pursue a $2 billion Navy program, one of its first such joint projects.
Equally important, the company has begun whispering to lawmakers about the importance of diversifying the military marketplace, say lobbyists who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the company. In part to preserve that selling point, General Atomics has spurned acquisition offers from major military contractors, Mr. Blue says.
Analysts say the trends that have kept General Atomics’ fortunes aloft are likely to persist for decades.
“It took 30 years for the world’s militaries to completely absorb and implement the technologies that started with panzerdivizions,” says Mr. Goure, the defense analyst. Although military strategists talk about organizing war-making around information and intelligence, the truth is that it will take decades for that transformation to be complete. In the meantime, leaders are likely to latch onto emblems of transformation — like the Predator — as symbols of progress.
“Once you prove that something works, a flurry of activity starts that builds the infrastructure for more innovations, and fights over who controls the new technologies emerge,” Mr. Goure says. “That’s when things become permanent.”
Such fights have already broken out over Predators. This year, the Air Force told Congress that it, rather than other branches of the military, should control the deployment of unmanned planes. Commanders in other military branches have voiced disagreement.
“The Predator has become a very durable and powerful symbol in a very short time,” says Mr. Thompson, the defense analyst.
That transition is even more impressive, considering what the Predator cannot do.
“It is unclear if this plane will ever meet some of the key suitability tests the Air Force applies to most aircraft,” said Mr. Ehrhard, the military analyst. “But no one seems to care that much.”
Which brings us to a final bit of advice for visiting General Atomics: Don’t count on leisurely send-offs. When its corporate jet lands back in San Diego, the company’s president is likely to bound out, make a dash for his BMW — the one with the license plate reading “UAV S”) — and shout out a hasty goodbye.
“I gotta run,” said Mr. Cassidy, the pilot and executive, after a recent flight. “We’ve got planes to sell.”
<<
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
Monksdream
2 months ago
$Pistol Pete$
8 years ago
BorisB
9 years ago
Biowatch
17 years ago
Hot Features
Premium
