OldMan said:
Actually Singtel grossly overpaid for Optus. That the company is successful is almost irrelevant, you have to compare the discounted future earnings to the price paid. The point you seem to be missing is that an income stream from any company, including Telstra, has a present value. If someone wants to pay above this value, the government would be better off financially selling no matter how successful the company is.
Depends on how you determine present value. The value of a countries telecommunications infrustructure cannot be measured in just the revenues derived from current charges. It now effects the earning capacity of all other industries. Now if the government were just a shareholder in Telstra this wouldn't be a concern, but they are responsible for the interests of all Australian industry - not just what's best for Telstra shareholders.
Whether Singtel overpaid or not is irrelevant.
Telstra missed the significance of the internet (and other technologies). What makes you think they now have a good handle of the telecomuunications market in 10 years time (let alone now)? I wouldn't trust the government or Telstra to make ancurate assesment on it's worth. But if you sell it now, it will be the market that determines it's value. The very same market that had valued dot coms as a buy @ $250, then in a matter of months to be quoting less than a buck as a sell.
The point you seem to be missing is that Singtel are one of the best performed telecommunications companies while remaining governement owned. They aren't even 100% government owned. They make a mockery of Howard's 'half-pregnant' analogy.