OCA - Oceania Group - retirement villages

[Balance]

That's some extremely serious allegations you're making Balance. Doesn't mean they aren't true but insider trading by our large institutions with all they have on the line... Very interesting.

LOL - just have a look at Ryman is all the evidence you ever need.

Wet bus tickets on the way to the instos!!!!

[SailorRob]

Oca is stuffed.. despite of many holders here believe no CR...but yet fundies are still playing with the fear


Credit where it's due people.

Some of the analytical work done by X-men on OCA thread and the insights they have provided over the last few weeks, I think we should all acknowledge.

Posters with this level of security analysis ability are few and far between and we are, as a group, lucky to have them share with us. Mav is mav and we've all thanked him for his work but I urge you to look back at X-mens posts on this thread and compare to Mavs work.

[SailorRob]

LOL - just have a look at Ryman is all the evidence you ever need.

Wet bus tickets on the way to the instos!!!!


Yes you may be onto something with Ryman, the ingredients are certainly there for this type of insider behavior.

[Balance]

Credit where it's due people.

Some of the analytical work done by X-men on OCA thread and the insights they have provided over the last few weeks, I think we should all acknowledge.

Posters with this level of security analysis ability are few and far between and we are, as a group, lucky to have them share with us. Mav is mav and we've all thanked him for his work but I urge you to look back at X-mens posts on this thread and compare to Mavs work.

Now now - don’t be unkind to x-men. He has just posted priceless information that his insider said no CR.

Big sigh of relief out there?

[Old mate]

You guys need some hobbies.

[Balance]

You guys need some hobbies.

Out comes the first smart arse useless post (this time from old mate who is still stuck with OCA) as expected.

Hope you have some spare funds for a CR!


Now observe the venom forthcoming from some posters soon - they prefer to post abusive tirades at me for having the audacity to explain market dynamics to them!

Rather than learn how market works.

[SailorRob]

You guys need some hobbies.


We've got one.

Making money.

[bull....]

We've got one.

Making money.

looks like a timber moment coming up eh

[SailorRob]

looks like a timber moment coming up eh

What exactly do you mean bull? One of your screens told you something?

[Habits]

What exactly do you mean bull? One of your screens told you something?

Buy at your peril

[Balance]

133,559 to buy at 70c - 48 buyers so average 2,800 shares to buy.

So usual retail buyer and insto selling.

Will the insto decide to move down to 70c today?

[bull....]

What exactly do you mean bull? One of your screens told you something?

conversed with bollinger ... starting to spread her bands

[BlackPeter]

Buy at your peril

Isn't that what any investors and traders does, unless they are a fund manager?

[Rawz]

if there was going to be a CR wouldnt SP shoot up to 90cent range?

Like what happened with RYM. It increased magically 25% in 2 weeks earlier this year then bang CR announcement

Or HGH, wasnt so obvious as RYM raise but last year it reversed a downtrend and worked its way back up to over $2 then bank CR...

[X-men]

Yes correct..it happened to RYM...SP down to $5 then shoot up to $6 ish then bang down to $5 ish range n CR

[bull....]

if there was going to be a CR wouldnt SP shoot up to 90cent range?

Like what happened with RYM. It increased magically 25% in 2 weeks earlier this year then bang CR announcement

Or HGH, wasnt so obvious as RYM raise but last year it reversed a downtrend and worked its way back up to over $2 then bank CR...

only sometimes seen plenty of cap raises with no rise before hand too esp on asx

[winner69]

if there was going to be a CR wouldnt SP shoot up to 90cent range?

Like what happened with RYM. It increased magically 25% in 2 weeks earlier this year then bang CR announcement

Or HGH, wasnt so obvious as RYM raise but last year it reversed a downtrend and worked its way back up to over $2 then bank CR...

Depends whose in the ‘know’ maybe

Didn’t somebody yesterday mention the words already out and those who might have ‘helped’ price up noe waiting or ‘positioning’ for the bargain

[X-men]

The fundies will try hard...with the fear, they are controlling the SP

[Ggcc]

Never try to catch a falling knife is what I have been taught. I must admit the price is very tempting.

My average price is just over $1 and have no interest in selling, but don’t want to average down yet

[Balance]

133,559 to buy at 70c - 48 buyers so average 2,800 shares to buy.

So usual retail buyer and insto selling.

Will the insto decide to move down to 70c today?

And there she goes … 70c offered.

Next stop 65c.

[Curly]

Lot of gloom and doom around still. Didn’t Tomlison back the truck up at double the current share price. Don’t leave it too long. When SP moves it will be quickly. Rather be in than out.

[bull....]

where's sailor ? gone allfully quiet

[Balance]

And there she goes … 70c offered.

Next stop 65c.

And the instos move down to 69c.

CR announcement in the offing soon?

[Rawz]

where's sailor ? gone allfully quiet

He's happy as larry. Lower assets prices go the better. We should all be celebrating we can buy the future cashflows at a lower price than yesterday.

[Balance]

He's happy as larry. Lower assets prices go the better. We should all be celebrating we can buy the future cashflows at a lower price than yesterday.

Yes, those who bought at $1.40 must be in ecstasy then?

[Rawz]

Yes, those who bought at $1.40 must be in ecstasy then?

so what? that's the game we play. have you never paid too much for something before? Or are you perfect and get your timing spot on at the bottom every time?

Can only play what's in front of you. $1.40 is ancient history. No point in crying over spilt milk.

[Balance]

so what? that's the game we play. have you never paid too much for something before? Or are you perfect and get your timing spot on at the bottom every time?

Can only play what's in front of you. $1.40 is ancient history. No point in crying over spilt milk.

I am supporting your post about SailorRob being most happy.

[Rawz]

I am supporting your post about SailorRob being most happy.

oh right i see. well hope they are in esctasy........ or at least not punishing themselves with the drawdown.. im certainly not.

"You’ve got to be prepared when you buy a stock having them down 50 per cent or more and be comfortable with it — as long as you’re comfortable with the holding."
— Warren Buffett

[X-men]

Put it this way...

U own nothing then u will be happier. Borrow hard spend it all...like The Labor....life is too short....lol

[winner69]

OMG — OCA share price went into the 60’s

What’s up …shocker result coming up?

[justakiwi]

Just stop. Please.


OMG — OCA share price went into the 60’s

What’s up …shocker result coming up?

[SailorRob]

If they call me and offer me all those amazing properties for free then I'd be rather happy.

Lots of old folk pay millions for just one apartment. Imagine getting the lot free.

Last time I checked the lower the SP goes the closer it is to that happening.

If the present value of net future cash flows over the next 25 years is materially impaired then different story, but I'm confident thats not the case.

I'm yet to hear any rebuttal to mavericks numbers, where he's got it so wrong that they would need to raise capital at such an inopportune time.

[SailorRob]

If a company does a capital raise and all the current shareholders supply the new capital, isn't the price totally irrelevant?

Isn't what is then important is the subsequent return on the additional capital?

You have the same owners as previously in the same proportion and the company now has more of their money, irrespective of the price. And so the important thing is what happens to that money.

[Rawz]

just checked the sp and it finished $0.71. Those insto's not very good at driving down the price eh

[SailorRob]

Ok this will go so far over the heads of idiot posters on this thread who are scaremongering about a CR that we might run short on stratosphere.

OCA don't not need to do a CR.

But that doesn't mean they shouldn't.

I now hope that OCA do a capital raise with the proviso that I can participate pro rata and that they can generate a decent return on the capital.

The price at which they do it is totally irrelevant to me.

If I want more ownership of the company I can simply buy shares off an idiot, but this just means I am buying a share of the existing capital within the company.

Conversely I can via a CR keep the same ownership proportion of the company but own a larger amount of capital within it which should generate superior returns.

Now if they have opportunities that can generate good returns due to the downturn (buy more development land or whatever) then they should do it.

Ultimately it gives me more avenues to deploy capital, if they raise capital at over intrinsic I can sit it out and benefit from the new capital. If they raise at under then I participate pro rata and it gives them a greater capital base on which to generate returns.

If they do a CR to keep the lights on then while not ideal, if they are doing that using retained earnings that's my capital anyway.

Think through these scenarios as if you owned a private business with one other person. No matter what you each value the business at, if you increase your investment in it by 10% in the same proportion then you both own the same company in the same proportion, that company now has more capital, that's the only difference.

So the critical thing for me is can they generate a return on that capital that I'm happy with, and perhaps the opportunities to do so at the moment are great.

Bring on the capital raise. We should all be keen.

[CD_CHCH]

Very well said SailorRob

[SailorRob]

If the do a CR and still pay a dividend I'll gut them like a pig.

[Rawz]

If the do a CR and still pay a dividend I'll gut them like a pig.

Lol thats what all NZX companies do. And OCA already done it in the past. HGH is the worst offender maybe.

[SailorRob]

Lol thats what all NZX companies do. And OCA already done it in the past. HGH is the worst offender maybe.


Agreed, HGH was criminal wasn't it as you couldn't get pro rata? Shareholders should have fired the lot of them

[Balance]

Lol thats what all NZX companies do. And OCA already done it in the past. HGH is the worst offender maybe.

All the listed banks have been doing it for ages.

[ValueNZ]

Ok this will go so far over the heads of idiot posters on this thread who are scaremongering about a CR that we might run short on stratosphere.

OCA don't not need to do a CR.

But that doesn't mean they shouldn't.

I now hope that OCA do a capital raise with the proviso that I can participate pro rata and that they can generate a decent return on the capital.

The price at which they do it is totally irrelevant to me.

If I want more ownership of the company I can simply buy shares off an idiot, but this just means I am buying a share of the existing capital within the company.

Conversely I can via a CR keep the same ownership proportion of the company but own a larger amount of capital within it which should generate superior returns.

Now if they have opportunities that can generate good returns due to the downturn (buy more development land or whatever) then they should do it.

Ultimately it gives me more avenues to deploy capital, if they raise capital at over intrinsic I can sit it out and benefit from the new capital. If they raise at under then I participate pro rata and it gives them a greater capital base on which to generate returns.

If they do a CR to keep the lights on then while not ideal, if they are doing that using retained earnings that's my capital anyway.

Think through these scenarios as if you owned a private business with one other person. No matter what you each value the business at, if you increase your investment in it by 10% in the same proportion then you both own the same company in the same proportion, that company now has more capital, that's the only difference.

So the critical thing for me is can they generate a return on that capital that I'm happy with, and perhaps the opportunities to do so at the moment are great.

Bring on the capital raise. We should all be keen.
Wouldn't a CR only be in your favour if the capital deployed made a superior return than the return you would make by purchasing shares on the market?

These are only hypothetical numbers but for example would you rather:
Spend x amount of dollars purchasing shares on the market which are possibly ~50% undervalued, earning a 50% return over a set period of time.
Spend x amount of dollars on the capital raise, your % ownership of the company stays the same, earning a 15% return over a set period of time.

Perhaps I've gotten something wrong but for me I'd rather purchase shares of the "idiots" you mentioned, since I believe the return I could earn from purchasing the undervalued shares is greater than the return I could earn if OCA did a CR.

[winner69]

If the do a CR and still pay a dividend I'll gut them like a pig.

Over last few years Oceania have raised about $130m of new capital while paying about $130m in divies

Go figure

[nztx]

Over last few years Oceania have raised about $130m of new capital while paying about $130m in divies

Go figure


Sounds like paying the taxman 33% for the privilege of returning the Capital to where it came from ? :)

[bottomfeeder]

Over last few years Oceania have raised about $130m of new capital while paying about $130m in divies

Go figure

So really deferring dividends for a year is the best CR that they could contemplate for intermediate cash flow plug. I say deferment not cancellation. So double dividend next year. That way the SP will not suffer for too long.

[RTM]

So really deferring dividends for a year is the best CR that they could contemplate for intermediate cash flow plug. I say deferment not cancellation. So double dividend next year. That way the SP will not suffer for too long.

That's of course if they consider that they need to do a Cash Raise.

[Balance]

Sounds like paying the taxman 33% for the privilege of returning the Capital to where it came from ? :)

Must be mindful that there is a large segment of NZ investors who buy and hold shares for dividend yield.

OCA will be mindful of that segment when making capital decisions.

Not saying it is right but I have met many investors like that over the years and while we may scratch our heads, they are part of the mix in the market.

[SCOTTY]

Must be mindful that there is a large segment of NZ investors who buy and hold shares for dividend yield.

OCA will be mindful of that segment when making capital decisions.

Not saying it is right but I have met many investors like that over the years and while we may scratch our heads, they are part of the mix in the market.

Agree Balance. Being retired I certainly rely on dividends for income with largest holdings being HGH and TRA. Especially like full imputation credits which sadly puts the retirement sector at a disadvantage.

[SailorRob]

Must be mindful that there is a large segment of NZ investors who buy and hold shares for dividend yield.

OCA will be mindful of that segment when making capital decisions.

Not saying it is right but I have met many investors like that over the years and while we may scratch our heads, they are part of the mix in the market.


The only job they should be doing is what is in the best interest of the owners.

Not what the owners think is in there best interest.

Doesn't matter if they are part of the mix or not.

If you have investors that are part of the mix that want to see the company give away it's products for free, that should not influence the directors behavior.

What I'm saying is that you don't do what some of your shareholders want, you do what's in their best interest.

[SailorRob]

Wouldn't a CR only be in your favour if the capital deployed made a superior return than the return you would make by purchasing shares on the market?

These are only hypothetical numbers but for example would you rather:
Spend x amount of dollars purchasing shares on the market which are possibly ~50% undervalued, earning a 50% return over a set period of time.
Spend x amount of dollars on the capital raise, your % ownership of the company stays the same, earning a 15% return over a set period of time.

Perhaps I've gotten something wrong but for me I'd rather purchase shares of the "idiots" you mentioned, since I believe the return I could earn from purchasing the undervalued shares is greater than the return I could earn if OCA did a CR.

Well it's all about what return they can make with the extra capital from a raise. If they can make a good or great return then you will get a double whammy effect as the intrinsic value will be even higher and thus the undervaluation greater.


'Spend x amount of dollars on the capital raise, your % ownership of the company stays the same, earning a 15% return over a set period of time'.

With this example you still get the return from your first example but if the capital leads to increased earnings your same number of shares will increase more in value.

So you either have more of a less valuable company or the same amount of a more valuable company. It all depends on the value created by the additional capital.

[SailorRob]

If the do a CR and still pay a dividend I'll gut them like a pig.


A equity capital raise should be evaluated against raising more debt capital.

If they are raising capital to stay in business and they have been or still are paying a dividend then they need to be publicly hanged, Rymans for example.


If a capital raise is for a large acquisition and or will generate a good return on that capital then a dividend is acceptable but not desirable.

[X-men]

https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/04/20/end-of-housing-market-downturn-may-be-in-sight-corelogic/

[Leemsip]

lol.... long way to run on the housing market downturn... RBNZ still hiking!

Another 20% down into the recession?

[SailorRob]

lol.... long way to run on the housing market downturn... RBNZ still hiking!

Another 20% down into the recession?


That would leave them on PE's of around 50 times and still dramatically overvalued on just about any metric.

(Annual rent / 2) / 8%

That is still expensive and will give you a max 8% return but would mean a 50 to 60% price drop from here which wont be allowed to happen so you'll just get very very low forward returns instead.

If you step on a soft pipe containing water you can squeeze the water into one end of the pipe and pressurise it or step off the pipe and let the water balance but unless you add water too it it's all a wash.

So if there is x cash flow into an asset over 20 years, you can have it now or spread out but not both. Higher current prices are just lower forward returns and vice versa.

[bull....]

bollinger getting excited


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ6zr6kCPj8

[X-men]

Nasty piece of share ...... The management should be sacked....

[X-men]

Take me off from NZX at 20c plz...what a waste!

[SailorRob]

Nasty piece of share ...... The management should be sacked....


I get a lot out of your commentary on this company thanks X-men, a close tie between the quality of work you and Maverick provide.

Would you be able to let us know the top few mistakes the management of this nasty piece of share have made.

Thanks

[ValueNZ]

Take me off from NZX at 20c plz...what a waste!
Perhaps if you're so confident OCA is going to 20c you should short it.

[winner69]

Another down week

Instos / fundies doing their thing as per Balances view of the world

68 cents is pretty low though

[X-men]

Sorry folks..just being funny...can not help it. Sorry, I could see some much frustration here

[Balance]

Another down week

Instos / fundies doing their thing as per Balances view of the world

68 cents is pretty low though

Instos selling and retail punters getting creamed all the way from 78c to 68c as the instos load and reload their selling cent by cent down.

What do they know that retail punters do not?

All will be revealed next month!

[SailorRob]

Deleted.....

[SailorRob]

To the (real) people of OCA thread,

I have just had a message highlighting my seeming lack of respect for Mavericks posts as I compared him to X-men.

Maverick is the only person on sharetrader in my opinion who does proper securities analysis and I hold his posts in higher regard than anyone else and perhaps all other posters together. He is a proper bottoms up analyst and knows OCA better than I ever will. He has done the real work that I have not and we're all better for it.

The other end of the scale is X-men who falls well below Bull in sheer idiocy of posts and lack of anything worthwhile to share at all.

With my extreme sarcasm in comparing X-men with the god like Maverick I thought everyone would know what I was getting at but the person who messaged me I also hold in high regard and respect, so I have messed up.

X-men is the scourge of OCA thread, a true dunce and maverick the king of the thread. By comparing the two I thought it would be obvious I was highlighting how utterly stupid X-men is.

If I met Hipkins in person I would dead pan him and say look you're the only leader of any country that I could compare to Abraham Lincoln, to what do you credit your ability... He would probably not get it either.

[Balance]

Fully in agreement with you, SailorRob.

Well articulated.

[X-men]

Lol ..too many bitter people here

[Baa_Baa]

Lol ..too many bitter people here

If you weren't such a farquit, you might get the point. But you'll probably not get this point either. Not everyone is bitter, some are enjoying the markets devaluation of OCA, and many other stocks.

[Baa_Baa]

Fully in agreement with you, SailorRob.

Well articulated.

Absolutely agree, Maverick is the most selfless contributor and the most deeply researched on OCA, of any of us, he deserves recognition for sharing on an open forum that he otherwise has no obligation to do so. And I thoroughly respect and appreciate that!. It would be very upsetting if Maverick decided to keep his thoughts to himself, just because he wasn't appreciated by a few.

[bull....]

To the (real) people of OCA thread,

I have just had a message highlighting my seeming lack of respect for Mavericks posts as I compared him to X-men.

Maverick is the only person on sharetrader in my opinion who does proper securities analysis and I hold his posts in higher regard than anyone else and perhaps all other posters together. He is a proper bottoms up analyst and knows OCA better than I ever will. He has done the real work that I have not and we're all better for it.

The other end of the scale is X-men who falls well below Bull in sheer idiocy of posts and lack of anything worthwhile to share at all.

With my extreme sarcasm in comparing X-men with the god like Maverick I thought everyone would know what I was getting at but the person who messaged me I also hold in high regard and respect, so I have messed up.

X-men is the scourge of OCA thread, a true dunce and maverick the king of the thread. By comparing the two I thought it would be obvious I was highlighting how utterly stupid X-men is.

If I met Hipkins in person I would dead pan him and say look you're the only leader of any country that I could compare to Abraham Lincoln, to what do you credit your ability... He would probably not get it either.

lol truely you are an idiot as you cannot see it was master bull who was the only one who was able to analysis oca correctly
all the evidence from master bull is on the thread

[nztx]

lol truely you are an idiot as you cannot see it was master bull who was the only one who was able to analysis oca correctly
all the evidence from master bull is on the thread


.. best try not to stir sacred cows .. :)

[SailorRob]

lol truely you are an idiot as you cannot see it was master bull who was the only one who was able to analysis oca correctly
all the evidence from master bull is on the thread


Do you mean you were the only one who was able to analyse OCA? Or did you in fact analysis it?

[winner69]

Oceania shareholders have contributed $705m of capital

The market values that $705m at $490m today

All that effort over many years and no market value added …tough world …must do better.

SUM on other hand has over the years turned $344m into a market value of $1,901m

[SailorRob]

Oceania shareholders have contributed $705m of capital

The market values that $705m at $490m today

All that effort over many years and no market value added …tough world …must do better.

SUM on other hand has over the years turned $344m into a market value of $1,901m


Good points.

So the question we must ask and very carefully analyse or analysis if you're master bull, is have they over those years added any value?

As you say, no 'market value' added.

But if you think there has been value added then perhaps there is an oppertunity.

The other question we must ask is was it dramatically overvalued to begin with, which would be another explanation. In this scenario there could be lots of value added but market value unchanged.

I am comfortable with all of these answers. But maybe I'm wrong.

If I'm wrong, I don't think I get hurt.

[Greekwatchdog]

Oceania shareholders have contributed $705m of capital

The market values that $705m at $490m today

All that effort over many years and no market value added …tough world …must do better.

SUM on other hand has over the years turned $344m into a market value of $1,901m

Come on W69. OCA spent alot of dollars on upgrading facilities in its first 5 years. This is not a Apples with Apples comparison

[Muse]

Oceania shareholders have contributed $705m of capital

The market values that $705m at $490m today

All that effort over many years and no market value added …tough world …must do better.

SUM on other hand has over the years turned $344m into a market value of $1,901m

In related news, a neighborhood child was spotted explaining to others why his playstation was better than his friend's xbox.

[X-men]

Last announced said total assets up to 2.5 billions, unfortunately the market values it differently? Certainly needs more clarification?

[SailorRob]

Last announced said total assets up to 2.5 billions, unfortunately the market values it differently? Certainly needs more clarification?


The total assets of ANZ are 1.1 Trillion dollars.

The market value is 72 Billion.

Does that also need clarification?

If so, why?

[Balance]

Oceania shareholders have contributed $705m of capital

The market values that $705m at $490m today

All that effort over many years and no market value added …tough world …must do better.

SUM on other hand has over the years turned $344m into a market value of $1,901m

You gone back and checked on how much revaluation was done by Macquarie & co as initial shareholders to boost shareholders’ funds before the IPO?

Macquarie is not called the millionaires’ factory for no reason!

[BlackPeter]

lol truely you are an idiot as you cannot see it was master bull who was the only one who was able to analysis oca correctly
all the evidence from master bull is on the thread

and that's not a lot. I think we can put your analysis into one line:

If SP(whatever) < MA200(whatever), Then spread black sludge all over it.

Did I forget anything?

[BlackPeter]

Oceania shareholders have contributed $705m of capital

The market values that $705m at $490m today

All that effort over many years and no market value added …tough world …must do better.

SUM on other hand has over the years turned $344m into a market value of $1,901m

Did you consider in above calculation the dividends paid and consider that both started at different points in time (apples vs oranges?)?

[winner69]

Did you consider in above calculation the dividends paid and consider that both started at different points in time (apples vs oranges?)?

Shareholder contributions from the day both were born ….well before any IPO

Like Greg’s interest in Oceania goes back decades

[Fortunecookie]

I feel like we are missing the obvious.

At one point many companies like Apple, Amazon almost went bankrupt. Guess where they are now. I'm not saying OCA are close to bankruptcy or capital raise.

Imo financials are a paradox. It's backwards looking but we rely on them to a degree to determine future performance. I'm not one to strictly rely on financials.

Trees, forest, horizon. Nothing wrong looking only at trees if that's all you care about.

There is plenty nuances with financials. It is a medium to reflect the state of the company. Is it perfect, far from it. Is there a better way to do. Very unlikely.

[BlackPeter]

I feel like we are missing the obvious.

At one point many companies like Apple, Amazon almost went bankrupt. Guess where they are now. I'm not saying OCA are close to bankruptcy or capital raise.

Imo financials are a paradox. It's backwards looking but we rely on them to a degree to determine future performance. I'm not one to strictly rely on financials.

Trees, forest, horizon. Nothing wrong looking at trees if that's all you care about.

A company is an infinite complex system run by unpredictable beings operating in a chaotic environment where nobody can predict the future.

The only sensible approach to value this complex system is by valuing the future earnings potential of this system. Given however that nobody can predict that (the thing with the future), people tend to build models based on what happened in the past. Sometimes these models happen to deliver outputs which look close enough to describe future periods, and often they don't. Problem is - nobody can predict in advance whether a certain prediction will be useful or not.

Predicting OCA's future based on looking at some selected accounting constructs in the past (which may or may not be meaningful) is as sensible as it was trying to predict Rymans or ATM's or SML's future at the relevant SP peaks, based on their past accounting information.

Obviously - market often disagreed with the presented construct, and no doubt it will continue to disagree with it in future, we just don't know by how much and in which direction :) ;

A selective sample of past number is rarely a good guide into an unknown future.

So, yes, you are absolutely right - none of the issues raised above tell us anything about the future development of OCA, but hey - posters feel much better if they pretend to be in the know, as if they admit that they don't know either.

Discl: I know that I don't know (Socrates ...);

[winner69]

A company is an infinite complex system run by unpredictable beings operating in a chaotic environment where nobody can predict the future.

The only sensible approach to value this complex system is by valuing the future earnings potential of this system. Given however that nobody can predict that (the thing with the future), people tend to build models based on what happened in the past. Sometimes these models happen to deliver outputs which look close enough to describe future periods, and often they don't. Problem is - nobody can predict in advance whether a certain prediction will be useful or not.

Predicting OCA's future based on looking at some selected accounting constructs in the past (which may or may not be meaningful) is as sensible as it was trying to predict Rymans or ATM's or SML's future at the relevant SP peaks, based on their past accounting information.

Obviously - market often disagreed with the presented construct, and no doubt it will continue to disagree with it in future, we just don't know by how much and in which direction :) ;

A selective sample of past number is rarely a good guide into an unknown future.

So, yes, you are absolutely right - none of the issues raised above tell us anything about the future development of OCA, but hey - posters feel much better if they pretend to be in the know, as if they admit that they don't know either.

Discl: I know that I don't know (Socrates ...);

Summarised - are you saying OCA is a dog with an unknown future

[Fortunecookie]

A company is an infinite complex system run by unpredictable beings operating in a chaotic environment where nobody can predict the future.

The only sensible approach to value this complex system is by valuing the future earnings potential of this system. Given however that nobody can predict that (the thing with the future), people tend to build models based on what happened in the past. Sometimes these models happen to deliver outputs which look close enough to describe future periods, and often they don't. Problem is - nobody can predict in advance whether a certain prediction will be useful or not.

Predicting OCA's future based on looking at some selected accounting constructs in the past (which may or may not be meaningful) is as sensible as it was trying to predict Rymans or ATM's or SML's future at the relevant SP peaks, based on their past accounting information.

Obviously - market often disagreed with the presented construct, and no doubt it will continue to disagree with it in future, we just don't know by how much and in which direction :) ;

A selective sample of past number is rarely a good guide into an unknown future.

So, yes, you are absolutely right - none of the issues raised above tell us anything about the future development of OCA, but hey - posters feel much better if they pretend to be in the know, as if they admit that they don't know either.

Discl: I know that I don't know (Socrates ...);

Financials are great to understand the workings of the company. What are the key drivers etc. But it shouldnt be a be all and end all. As you say too many variables.

I follow the approach to try to obtain complete truth and certainty. But that's a paradox in itself because it is impossible to obtain complete information and 100% certainty. But I strive to do the best I can.

I total agree about not knowing the future. I have never been a fan of forecasting. Any change in a assumption affects the trajectory and things happen in a non linear manner. Throw in randomness as well.

I prefer to admit I don't know alot of things then to admit I know something.

It is interesting that you threw in abit of philosophy. It is quite noticeable among the great investors that they have a background in it. And wide ranging too.

[SailorRob]

The only sensible approach to value this complex system is by valuing the future earnings potential of this system.

Great line BlackPeter;

I posted this earlier but it's extremely relevant to your comment above.


ANY company that has an interest free non callable loan that is equal almost to the equity capital of that company (let alone one which grows at 26% per year), all they have to do with their funds is something that isn't stupid and you're going to have a hell of a result over the long term. Then imagine on top of that another dollop of cash equal to nearly half your equity at extremely low rates for a long time as well. You don't have to invest it well to have a hell of a good result.

The other companies like SUM have proven this model and OCA may not get the same results but to get dramatically different results they would have to be much worse at doing the same job.

Let's put this into simple terms.


You have saved up $949,000 and then uncle Ebeneezer of Nigeria has loaned you $817,000 interest free and promised to give you more and more and he can't ask for it back, now you have 1.8 million dollars to invest, well you can just jam it into a term deposit and you're going to do very well. But wait, some other idiot gives you another $380,000 at ridiculously low interest rates (well below the term deposit).


You don't need to do anything special to generate incredible returns on your $949,000. But imagine if you were a decent investor as well and you had a long track record of being able to allocate capital effectively.

Would you then take this 2.2 million dollar investment vehicle and sell it for $490,000? Or if it was offered to you would you happily pay $490,000 for it?

[nztx]

Summarised - are you saying OCA is a dog with an unknown future


The Taxman likes the OCA dividends :)

[mike2020]

I have loved reading the OCA thread, I get a lot of reassurance. From my perspective and it is a simple one, when interest rates dropped and property started to go haywire OCA went on a good run to $1.61. I feel the first hint of an interest rate cut and you will see a flood of money back into the market. If you are after a quick trade and your investment timeframe is under half a trading session you will sit back and watch it bounce around, if you are looking 12 to 24 months with a possible 50%+ gain I think it's a strong possibility.
Buy now and you get a 3% divi in 60 days (6% pa is still competitive vs the banks)

Personally I had hope it might hit the 40s, I have held shares long term that were in the red most of it, I slept fine.

[BlackPeter]

Summarised - are you saying OCA is a dog with an unknown future

I think it is a star in the making but it appears it looks to some people at this stage like a frog. However - many of these people see any company in a downtrend looking like a frog, so it might not be OCA to blame for that. And just remember what happened to the frog in the fairy tale :) ;

What I am saying is that it makes sense to me if a REIT is investing before its harvesting ... and this is what OCA is doing. What exactly is the point to complain about a REIT being cash flow negative during the growth phase? Of course, they are.

I agree however that paying out dividends during this phase might be counterproductive, but hey - we can't understand everything, can we?

[BlackPeter]

Great line BlackPeter;

I posted this earlier but it's extremely relevant to your comment above.


I am glad you like my line - and I happily admit that I was certainly not the first person ever writing it.

You might have however noticed that I used the reminder of my post to explain that given the uncertainty of the future this always can be just a guess based on various working assumptions which may or may not come true. Means - past financials might be interesting if you want to know whether your company works prudently, but just extrapolating past numbers into a different and unknown future is unlikely to give you any sensible information.




ANY company that has an interest free non callable loan that is equal almost to the equity capital of that company (let alone one which grows at 26% per year), all they have to do with their funds is something that isn't stupid and you're going to have a hell of a result over the long term. Then imagine on top of that another dollop of cash equal to nearly half your equity at extremely low rates for a long time as well. You don't have to invest it well to have a hell of a good result.

The other companies like SUM have proven this model and OCA may not get the same results but to get dramatically different results they would have to be much worse at doing the same job.

Let's put this into simple terms.


You have saved up $949,000 and then uncle Ebeneezer of Nigeria has loaned you $817,000 interest free and promised to give you more and more and he can't ask for it back, now you have 1.8 million dollars to invest, well you can just jam it into a term deposit and you're going to do very well. But wait, some other idiot gives you another $380,000 at ridiculously low interest rates (well below the term deposit).


You don't need to do anything special to generate incredible returns on your $949,000. But imagine if you were a decent investor as well and you had a long track record of being able to allocate capital effectively.

Would you then take this 2.2 million dollar investment vehicle and sell it for $490,000? Or if it was offered to you would you happily pay $490,000 for it?

Not quite sure I managed to follow this through ... but I recon the answer (if you want one) is as always: "It depends".

If I am sure this 2.2 million dollar investment vehicle can be liquidated and will return 2.2 m dollar, than - of course I would pay $490k for it.

But hey - there are all these risk and uncertainties, so without due diligence I can't answer your question.

I assume that you are currently talking about the market value of OCA (and - btw - all other REITS), which is lower than their respective NTA, aren't you?

Well, so I guess the market currently thinks that's what the company is worth. However one thing is certain a) the market can't think and b) the market changes its views frequently (with or without changing circumstances). Actually - I made my best deals when I disagreed with the market, and the market changed afterwards its position. Do you really think it is meaningful what the market assigns at a certain point as market value to a company - other than determining your current BUY or SELL price?

As well - did it ever occur to you that the market is influenced by so many other parameters rather just a very narrow view on a specific backward looking accounting model?

At the moment all REITS are in the cellar because they are negatively correlated to interest rates. No accounting acrobatic necessary - a blind man (or woman :) ) can see this with his/her walking stick.

At the moment all NZ shares are (relatively) down, because the world is shivering and many big funds moved from "uncertain" currencies (like the NZ$) to the safe harbour reserve currencies (like USD, EURO). They sold our REITS in droves without any thought about OCA's or any other REITS cash flow.

Any attempt to explain this behaviour with the cash flow of some local company is - with all respect to some of the posters - plain nonsense.

But here is good news: REITS are inversely correlated with interest rates ... and given that most analysts (I know, they can't predict the future either) assume that we are close to peak interest rate, now is a great time to buy REITS.

Ah yes - and big international funds will move back into NZD (as long as our government doesn't totally screw up, which admittedly is a risk) and other exotic currencies as soon as the international troubles ease. I don't know, when this will happen, but I do know that at some stage it will.

Which means - well managed REITS are currently available at bargain prices. I think OCA is a well managed REIT (though admittedly, with some warts - their reporting and paying unimputed dividends). Always a good idea to buy good companies at bargain prices, and hey - there are not many companies around who don't have any wee issues, don't they?

[X-men]

Well summed up Black peter

[winner69]

BP….from that very good situational analysis you just posted I assume ​you predicting that the OCA share price will be heaps more than now in two years time

[SailorRob]

I am glad you like my line - and I happily admit that I was certainly not the first person ever writing it.

You might have however noticed that I used the reminder of my post to explain that given the uncertainty of the future this always can be just a guess based on various working assumptions which may or may not come true. Means - past financials might be interesting if you want to know whether your company works prudently, but just extrapolating past numbers into a different and unknown future is unlikely to give you any sensible information.



Not quite sure I managed to follow this through ... but I recon the answer (if you want one) is as always: "It depends".

If I am sure this 2.2 million dollar investment vehicle can be liquidated and will return 2.2 m dollar, than - of course I would pay $490k for it.

But hey - there are all these risk and uncertainties, so without due diligence I can't answer your question.

I assume that you are currently talking about the market value of OCA (and - btw - all other REITS), which is lower than their respective NTA, aren't you?

Well, so I guess the market currently thinks that's what the company is worth. However one thing is certain a) the market can't think and b) the market changes its views frequently (with or without changing circumstances). Actually - I made my best deals when I disagreed with the market, and the market changed afterwards its position. Do you really think it is meaningful what the market assigns at a certain point as market value to a company - other than determining your current BUY or SELL price?

As well - did it ever occur to you that the market is influenced by so many other parameters rather just a very narrow view on a specific backward looking accounting model?

At the moment all REITS are in the cellar because they are negatively correlated to interest rates. No accounting acrobatic necessary - a blind man (or woman :) ) can see this with his/her walking stick.

At the moment all NZ shares are (relatively) down, because the world is shivering and many big funds moved from "uncertain" currencies (like the NZ$) to the safe harbour reserve currencies (like USD, EURO). They sold our REITS in droves without any thought about OCA's or any other REITS cash flow.

Any attempt to explain this behaviour with the cash flow of some local company is - with all respect to some of the posters - plain nonsense.

But here is good news: REITS are inversely correlated with interest rates ... and given that most analysts (I know, they can't predict the future either) assume that we are close to peak interest rate, now is a great time to buy REITS.

Ah yes - and big international funds will move back into NZD (as long as our government doesn't totally screw up, which admittedly is a risk) and other exotic currencies as soon as the international troubles ease. I don't know, when this will happen, but I do know that at some stage it will.

Which means - well managed REITS are currently available at bargain prices. I think OCA is a well managed REIT (though admittedly, with some warts - their reporting and paying unimputed dividends). Always a good idea to buy good companies at bargain prices, and hey - there are not many companies around who don't have any wee issues, don't they?

You don't understand what I'm highlighting with the balance sheet do you? The source of the funding for their assets.

[Balance]

You don't understand what I'm highlighting with the balance sheet do you? The source of the funding for their assets.

You are assuming that they have spent all the money on good assets at good prices., rather than at inflated prices.

[SailorRob]

You are assuming that they have spent all the money on good assets at good prices., rather than at inflated prices.


Yes the good assets at good prices is determined by what they can return in cash, over a period of time. Remember a lot of it is development which is creating value and they also churn so they get to realise prices rather than just sit and look at them like Blackpeter in Argosy.

There is simply no comparison between OCA and a REIT.

[SailorRob]

14558

This tells you all you need to know.

The market cant tell the difference between the two.

[BlackPeter]

BP….from that very good situational analysis you just posted I assume ​you predicting that the OCA share price will be heaps more than now in two years time

You of all should know my views on predicting the future :p ;

[Balance]

14558

This tells you all you need to know.

The market cant tell the difference between the two.

The recent divergence affirms imo a CR on the way.

[BlackPeter]

You don't understand what I'm highlighting with the balance sheet do you? The source of the funding for their assets.

Yes - so, what is the problem?

Looks to me like quite standard retirement village funding (a mix of interest free loans courtesy to the residents and interest bearing funding - bonds and bank loans). Sure - IF they sent their CFO to the same seminar holiday in the States (was it Hawaii?) the Ryman CFO was on, than they still could have a problem. However - I am not privy to this information and I would think it is less likely, given that they raised (most of) their capital on the NZX.

[SailorRob]

Yes - so, what is the problem?

Looks to me like quite standard retirement village funding (a mix of interest free loans courtesy to the residents and interest bearing funding - bonds and bank loans). Sure - IF they sent their CFO to the same seminar holiday in the States (was it Hawaii?) the Ryman CFO was on, than they still could have a problem. However - I am not privy to this information and I would think it is less likely, given that they raised (most of) their capital on the NZX.


Ok that's good. You didn't mention it once and your comparison to REIT's is way off. Totally different companies.

[Gunner]

A touch of technical analysis wouldnt hurt when investing in this. The weekly charts, 20 and 10 ema crossover should be respected.

[SailorRob]

A touch of technical analysis wouldnt hurt when investing in this. The weekly charts, 20 and 10 ema crossover should be respected.


What kind of track record of success have you had in the past Gunner looking at a chart in order to predict future prices?

If this method is of benefit then you should have been able to use it to produce superior returns to the general market.

There is only one person I know of who has done this and that's Bull, this is a direct quote from him;

'Saler I ave beet d makit i ave coz i sez so dat i hav so der yer fewl'

If a person posting on Sharetrader on a Saturday night has the ability to use past prices on a chart to predict future price moves, then I would imagine a computer would be able to recognise these trends even more precisely and tell us all exactly when to buy and sell? Or is this something that humans are better at?

[Baa_Baa]

A touch of technical analysis wouldnt hurt when investing in this. The weekly charts, 20 and 10 ema crossover should be respected.

Yes, the short term EMA on weekly are working, though there are a few periods since IPO that they were uncertain. Recently they're been very reliable.

The volatility in RV's SP these past few years has proven the EMA crossovers to be effective, but who would've expected any of the RV's SP to be so volatile? Even very conservative TA, the 50/200EMA crossover (https://invst.ly/-u2q0) (daily SP chart) has worked since IPO. This chart doesn't even show the SP, it's just shows the crossovers, green is a buy, red is a sell.

It's not about predicting the future, trading the market is about responding to the 'now' with some assumptions about probability. It assumes one can absorb the trading fees, and potential to be taxed as a trader, and still be profitable, with something else better to do with their capital while they're waiting for the next buy signal, which the chart does not help with.

Disc: not trading OCA, but you can easily see that even the most conservative TA would have been effective and no trader would be holding or buying OCA at the current point in time. They'll be looking for the entry/re-entry, which is possibly why a few traders are so prominent on this thread recently.

[X-men]

I have to say 68c looks so tempting..... considering arvida made the latest update and bounced back from 92c

[RupertBear]

Yes, the short term EMA on weekly are working, though there are a few periods since IPO that they were uncertain. Recently they're been very reliable.

The volatility in RV's SP these past few years has proven the EMA crossovers to be effective, but who would've expected any of the RV's SP to be so volatile? Even very conservative TA, the 50/200EMA crossover (https://invst.ly/-u2q0) (daily SP chart) has worked since IPO. This chart doesn't even show the SP, it's just shows the crossovers, green is a buy, red is a sell.

It's not about predicting the future, trading the market is about responding to the 'now' with some assumptions about probability. It assumes one can absorb the trading fees, and potential to be taxed as a trader, and still be profitable, with something else better to do with their capital while they're waiting for the next buy signal, which the chart does not help with.

Disc: not trading OCA, but you can easily see that even the most conservative TA would have been effective and no trader would be holding or buying OCA at the current point in time. They'll be looking for the entry/re-entry, which is possibly why a few traders are so prominent on this thread recently.

Great chart thanks Baa Baa, extremely helpful :)

[X-men]

Million dollar question, is 68c the button price? If SP touched the button then punters are coming back. Bull is the first one to buy truck load

[Gunner]

What kind of track record of success have you had in the past Gunner looking at a chart in order to predict future prices?

If this method is of benefit then you should have been able to use it to produce superior returns to the general market.

There is only one person I know of who has done this and that's Bull, this is a direct quote from him;

'Saler I ave beet d makit i ave coz i sez so dat i hav so der yer fewl'

If a person posting on Sharetrader on a Saturday night has the ability to use past prices on a chart to predict future price moves, then I would imagine a computer would be able to recognise these trends even more precisely and tell us all exactly when to buy and sell? Or is this something that humans are better at?


I'm sensing cynicism. It about avoiding drawdowns. The natural gravity of equities is up so when the drawdowns occur best be out. There are trends as you'll note the trend on this has been down for over 12 months.

[nztx]

The recent divergence affirms imo a CR on the way.


What do CR's do to the SP ?

A recent example in ARV's CR is interesting :)

[SailorRob]

Yes, the short term EMA on weekly are working, though there are a few periods since IPO that they were uncertain. Recently they're been very reliable.

The volatility in RV's SP these past few years has proven the EMA crossovers to be effective, but who would've expected any of the RV's SP to be so volatile? Even very conservative TA, the 50/200EMA crossover (https://invst.ly/-u2q0) (daily SP chart) has worked since IPO. This chart doesn't even show the SP, it's just shows the crossovers, green is a buy, red is a sell.

It's not about predicting the future, trading the market is about responding to the 'now' with some assumptions about probability. It assumes one can absorb the trading fees, and potential to be taxed as a trader, and still be profitable, with something else better to do with their capital while they're waiting for the next buy signal, which the chart does not help with.

Disc: not trading OCA, but you can easily see that even the most conservative TA would have been effective and no trader would be holding or buying OCA at the current point in time. They'll be looking for the entry/re-entry, which is possibly why a few traders are so prominent on this thread recently.


I'm sensing cynicism. It about avoiding drawdowns. The natural gravity of equities is up so when the drawdowns occur best be out. There are trends as you'll note the trend on this has been down for over 12 months.


Ok fair enough.

Avoiding drawdowns sounds like a good idea to me.

Definitely best to be out when the drawdowns occur. So if we can (roughly) avoid drawdowns on OCA and (roughly) participate in the natural gravity of up and we can (roughly) apply this skill to other stocks if not the overall market, then by definition we can very easily produce market beating returns, if not destroying.

If this is not so, then why not?

Can we not use a computer model to go back through the last hundred years of history across all stocks and show the predictive ability of these 'death crosses'? Or is it just this one in retrospect that has worked?

If one can reliably avoid downside and participate in at least some of the upside, then this ability would soon lead capital to be pushed in the direction of said person and the returns generated would lead to a vast amount of wealth in a pretty short space of time.

What am I missing.

[Fortunecookie]

What kind of track record of success have you had in the past Gunner looking at a chart in order to predict future prices?

If this method is of benefit then you should have been able to use it to produce superior returns to the general market.

There is only one person I know of who has done this and that's Bull, this is a direct quote from him;

'Saler I ave beet d makit i ave coz i sez so dat i hav so der yer fewl'

If a person posting on Sharetrader on a Saturday night has the ability to use past prices on a chart to predict future price moves, then I would imagine a computer would be able to recognise these trends even more precisely and tell us all exactly when to buy and sell? Or is this something that humans are better at?

Bull sounds like he is Dutch. I have a image of goldmember from Austin powers....haha anyway.

You are right SR the objective is to achieve above average or near certain returns. Otherwise why not just leave it in a index fund or term deposit.

The market has many participants. You have some hedge funds that operate on large volume and in nano seconds. What's their edge, they buy alot of data and try to get in front of orders(but be within regulation of course). They apply NASA like mathematics.
Robinhood isnt free for a reason they have been known to use data from FB. I wouldn't be surprised they extract data from sites like seekingalpha and yahoo finance.

Of course you have TA. I have no knowledge in the space. But I see merit because humans do the same things overtime and it is about picking out the repetitive moves.

There's value investing. Some people say it is a lost cause. There is always the ever present argument of value investing Vs EMH. Why not just leave it in a index fund.

In the macro space you have guys like Ray Dalio. Alot of complex modelling and great understanding of global dynamics etc.

Then there other investors where it is difficult to define like Soros. He applies the concept of reflexivity whereby he sees that we are observers but also participants.

The areas will overlap. I only know one successful investor that operates across the board and that is Dr Michael Burry. He applies TA, known as a deep value investor and has a great handle on the macro credit stuff. Yes he is a medical doctor as well. He's a freak!.

I am not saying one approach is better than the other. But like you say SR, the objective should be to achieve above average returns and thats in whatever approach that is being applied.

[SailorRob]

Bull sounds like he is Dutch. I have a image of goldmember from Austin powers....haha anyway.

You are right SR the objective is to achieve above average or certain returns. Otherwise why not just leave it in a index fund or term deposit.

The market has many participants. You have some hedge funds that operate on large volume and in nano seconds. What's their edge, they buy alot of data and try to get in front of orders(but be within regulation of course). They apply NASA like mathematics.
Robinhood isnt free for a reason they have been known to use data from FB. I wouldn't be surprised they extract data from sites like seekingalpha and yahoo finance.

Of course you have TA. I have no knowledge in the space. But I see merit because humans do the same things overtime and it is about picking out the repetitive moves.

There's value investing. Some people say it is a loss cause. There is always the ever present argument of value investing Vs EMH. Why not just leave it in a index fund.

In the macro space you have guys like Ray Dalio. Some high level mathematics would be applied.

Then there other investors where it is difficult to define like Soros. He applies the concept of reflexivity whereby we are observers but also participants.

The areas will overlap. I only know one successful investor that operates across the board and that is Dr Michael Burry. He applies TA, known as a deep value investor and has a great handle on the macro credit stuff. Yes he is a medical doctor as well. He's a freak!.

I am not saying one approach is better than the other. But like you say SR, the objective should be to achieve above average returns and thats in whatever approach that is being applied.


Great post, yes I follow Mr Burry, his blog pre GFC is good reading.

But what have Burrys returns been since his great moment off fame (which came very close to blowing up in his face). Scion Capital is his firm.

Picking repetitive moves using TA - a computer would be analysing all the charts for us.

Yes there is no 'one way' but if anyone has a superior method then they should be able to outperform the wider market over periods of 20 plus years. Almost always those that achieve this use a 'value' approach and by this I don't mean buying low PE stocks or low PB etc. I just mean buying future cash flows at a discounted rate that is higher than the market rate.

[bull....]

Bull sounds like he is Dutch. I have a image of goldmember from Austin powers....haha anyway.

You are right SR the objective is to achieve above average or near certain returns. Otherwise why not just leave it in a index fund or term deposit.

The market has many participants. You have some hedge funds that operate on large volume and in nano seconds. What's their edge, they buy alot of data and try to get in front of orders(but be within regulation of course). They apply NASA like mathematics.
Robinhood isnt free for a reason they have been known to use data from FB. I wouldn't be surprised they extract data from sites like seekingalpha and yahoo finance.

Of course you have TA. I have no knowledge in the space. But I see merit because humans do the same things overtime and it is about picking out the repetitive moves.

There's value investing. Some people say it is a lost cause. There is always the ever present argument of value investing Vs EMH. Why not just leave it in a index fund.

In the macro space you have guys like Ray Dalio. Alot of complex modelling and great understanding of global dynamics etc.

Then there other investors where it is difficult to define like Soros. He applies the concept of reflexivity whereby he sees that we are observers but also participants.

The areas will overlap. I only know one successful investor that operates across the board and that is Dr Michael Burry. He applies TA, known as a deep value investor and has a great handle on the macro credit stuff. Yes he is a medical doctor as well. He's a freak!.

I am not saying one approach is better than the other. But like you say SR, the objective should be to achieve above average returns and thats in whatever approach that is being applied.

the best comment ive seen to date recently
totally agree everyone just needs to find there niche
and for sailor who always seems to forget that Renaissance Technologies used mathematical models perhaps even some t/a to far outperform the market , even buffet in investment period

[SailorRob]

the best comment ive seen to date recently
totally agree everyone just needs to find there niche
and for sailor who always seems to forget that Renaissance Technologies used mathematical models perhaps even some t/a to far outperform the market , even buffet in investment period


*Buffett


I never forget and have acknowledged that in the past as has Mr Buffett. They are ONE example and as far as I'm aware, the only.

And they could only do it with small sums of capital, it was never saleable.

You seem to be forgetting yourself.

[bull....]

*Buffett


I never forget and have acknowledged that in the past as has Mr Buffett. They are ONE example and as far as I'm aware, the only.

And they could only do it with small sums of capital, it was never saleable.

You seem to be forgetting yourself.

yes i forgot too , i agreed he couldnt scale forever
I also agree with your comment about backtesting by computers would pick up any pattern , trend etc etc in regards to t/a and with so many computers available anyone could do that so i guess i would have to admit perhaps pure t/a may not be the road to riches therefore if you have a edge using t/a it must be in combination with some other method

[winner69]

Jimmy Buffett pretty good investor as well ……seems to have a good life

[SailorRob]

yes i forgot too , i agreed he couldnt scale forever
I also agree with your comment about backtesting by computers would pick up any pattern , trend etc etc in regards to t/a and with so many computers available anyone could do that so i guess i would have to admit perhaps pure t/a may not be the road to riches therefore if you have a edge using t/a it must be in combination with some other method


Yeah and not so much a matter of anyone could do it, but the big multibillion dollar firms would develop superior models and cut everyone elses lunch.

[bull....]

anyway back to oca be interesting if any of the oca supporters could explain to us what is oca competitive advantage ie moat ... as buffett said the key is not accessing how much an industry is going to affect society or how much it will grow but rather determining it competitive advantage

[SailorRob]

anyway back to oca be interesting if any of the oca supporters could explain to us what is oca competitive advantage ie moat ... as buffett said the key is not accessing how much an industry is going to affect society or how much it will grow but rather determining it competitive advantage


It doesn't have one. It's that simple.

Very few of the companies I own really do. They are much rarer than most people think and those that do are handicapped by a higher price.

Some could argue that it has small advantages over the others but they would be hard to measure and fleeting at best.

Anyone arguing the continuum of care or any other points of difference, well there is nothing stopping the others offering the same.

They have no pricing power.

[SailorRob]

Anyone else with capital can come along and replicate the business model, just like they did. Some weak advantage in locations and consents etc but not really.

If you can buy a buck for 25 cents you don't need a moat.

[bull....]

It doesn't have one. It's that simple.

Very few of the companies I own really do. They are much rarer than most people think and those that do are handicapped by a higher price.

Some could argue that it has small advantages over the others but they would be hard to measure and fleeting at best.

Anyone arguing the continuum of care or any other points of difference, well there is nothing stopping the others offering the same.

They have no pricing power.

exactly and thats why all RV stocks are tracking each other performance wise. so i would argue that it matters little in the long run which RV stock you invest in as none has an advantage over the other apart from short term stock price blips

[Fortunecookie]

Great post, yes I follow Mr Burry, his blog pre GFC is good reading.

But what have Burrys returns been since his great moment off fame (which came very close to blowing up in his face). Scion Capital is his firm.

Picking repetitive moves using TA - a computer would be analysing all the charts for us.

Yes there is no 'one way' but if anyone has a superior method then they should be able to outperform the wider market over periods of 20 plus years. Almost always those that achieve this use a 'value' approach and by this I don't mean buying low PE stocks or low PB etc. I just mean buying future cash flows at a discounted rate that is higher than the market rate.

I have read his earlier stuff as well and follow his posts on twitter. It is difficult to say what his post GFC performance has been like. The only thing I can find is on Datarama. But only that is a best guess what his entry price is and it is only his US holdings. I have to say I am more interested in the rationale in his pick of stocks. On occasion I will try to assess the company he's picked.

I think he has been right in alot of cases but never exactly right on the timing. More recent examples are his Tesla and Cathy Woods shorts.

I do see merit in the principle in that as humans we display repetitive behaviour. In terms of the impact of computers on TA. l can't really say because I have no knowledge in this space. In saying this I read the book, the front office. Which is a great read about the world of hedge funds. I vaguely recall that the impact of TA now is very different to a decade or two ago. That is quite possibly due to the use of computers. I guess how quickly do those opportunities close up.

I can only speculate that hedge funds have yet to setup shop on the NZX. Based on observation there is certainly less volatility when comparing the movements of some individuals shares on NZX to the likes of US.

I couldn't agree with you more. My interest is aligned with value investing. I think it suits me in alot of ways. I think in some areas we have an edge over institutions i.e level of capital deployed, time horizon, investing mandates just to name a few. There's the relationship that institutions have with the clients. In a paradoxical way that can limit the returns that can be achieved. Fortunately we don't have to deal with that.

Personally I try to look at things where is considered unpopular. Potentially buy at a 25% to 30% discount depending on the company and the likelihood. You are right low P/E and PB shouldn't be the only reasons. Payback period is important too.

[SailorRob]

I have read his earlier stuff as well and follow his posts on twitter. It is difficult to say what his post GFC performance has been like. The only thing I can find is on Datarama. But only that is a best guess what his entry price is and it is only his US holdings. I have to say I am more interested in the rationale in his pick of stocks. On occasion I will try to assess the company he's picked.

I think he has been right in alot of cases but never exactly right on the timing. More recent examples are his Tesla and Cathy Woods shorts.

I do see merit in the principle in that as humans we display repetitive behaviour. In terms of the impact of computers on TA. l can't really say because I have no knowledge in this space. In saying this I read the book, the front office. Which is a great read about the world of hedge funds. I vaguely recall that the impact of TA now is very different to a decade or two ago. That is quite possibly due to the use of computers. I guess how quickly do those opportunities close up.

I can only speculate that hedge funds have yet to setup shop on the NZX. Based on observation there is certainly less volatility when comparing the movements of some individuals shares on NZX to the likes of US.

I couldn't agree with you more. My interest is aligned with value investing. I think it suits me in alot of ways. I think in some areas we have an edge over institutions i.e level of capital deployed, time horizon, investing mandates just to name a few. There's the relationship that institutions have with the clients. In a paradoxical way that can limit the returns that can be achieved. Fortunately we don't have to deal with that.

Personally I try to look at things where is considered unpopular. Potentially buy at a 25% to 30% discount depending on the company and the likelihood. You are right low P/E and PB shouldn't be the only reasons. Payback period is important too.


Did you follow his 'SELL' tweet!

And then see his 'I was wrong to say SELL tweet'

I'm a fan but man some of his tweets have gone south and west.

[SailorRob]

exactly and thats why all RV stocks are tracking each other performance wise. so i would argue that it matters little in the long run which RV stock you invest in as none has an advantage over the other apart from short term stock price blips


It's which one is at the biggest discount to future cash generation.

Which has the runway for growth and the most 'float' to equity capital and the highest CAGR of float going forward.

There are differentiations to OCA model as many highlighted but that's not a moat and can be easily replicated.

However it may mean they're more successful.

Look at Ryman recently, absolutely awful management and capital decisions...

Maybe over the next 20 years you're right.

[SailorRob]

exactly and thats why all RV stocks are tracking each other performance wise. so i would argue that it matters little in the long run which RV stock you invest in as none has an advantage over the other apart from short term stock price blips


Well how do you then explain the RV stocks tracking the rubbish like Argosy?

Totally different model but caught up in the same malaise.

One has few capital, the other does not.

[Fortunecookie]

Did you follow his 'SELL' tweet!

And then see his 'I was wrong to say SELL tweet'

I'm a fan but man some of his tweets have gone south and west.

I did see but I didn't pay too much attention on that occasion. It wouldn't interesting to see what his recent performance has been like.

[X-men]

Come bull...you won...time to buy in 68c is a great re-entry price....what could go wrong!!!

[nztx]

Come bull...you won...time to buy in 68c is a great re-entry price....what could go wrong!!!


What will a CR do to the price ? ;)

[SailorRob]

What will a CR do to the price ? ;)


Hopefully demolish it and keep it in the gutter for the next 17 years.

Posted the below a while ago, the returns are MUCH better now.

Just the CAGR alone would be 6.55% with dividends reinvested at a low share price, you're going to do maybe 15% CAGR.

Or turn a million into nearly 13 million.

After joking with a mate that at this rate OCA would take until 2040 to reach $2, I decided to take a look at what this scenario could look like as an investment.

I was stunned to find that it would be a very decent investment and in all likelihood beat the returns you would get from putting your money with 95% of professional investors over the same 18 year time period. If the shares go to $2 now it will destroy your returns.


From here to $2 in 18 years, the share price would produce a compounded 4.1% return. If dividends kept in lockstep (so the yield remained the same and the dividend also grew at 4.1%) and you paid 25% tax on the dividend and then reinvested into the company at the prevailing share price you would compound your investment at 7.92%.


Now if the share price stayed at 97c for the first 10 years and then grew steadily to $2 by the 18th year, you'd compound at 8.75%, but if the share price stayed at 97c for 17 years before jumping to $2, then you'd compound at a phenomenal 9.5%. This would turn a million into 5.5 million. At the original 7.92% it would be 4.41 million.

Obviously the share price staying static while dividends grow is unlikley, but this shows the effect of having a share price go nowhere. The longer it stays lower the better and you can of course commit external capital.

Given the choice 999 of 1000 investors would want and pray for only $3.46 million and reject the $5.5 million, throwing away 2 million dollars as they prey for the share price to go up NOW which would mean only getting a compound 6.92% return.

[X-men]

Arvida no CR....a lot of ST members believe no CR. Recent insider said no CR

[BlackPeter]

Ok that's good. You didn't mention it once and your comparison to REIT's is way off. Totally different companies.

You don't seam to understand that the market treats retirement villages like REITS based on their main source of income, but sure - you think you are right and the market is wrong, I get it. You are not the only one :) ;

Still - I prefer to apply the well known Swedish army rule: If the terrain is different from you map, than trust the terrain.

Maybe you should review your map :p ;

[SailorRob]

You don't seam to understand that the market treats retirement villages like REITS based on their main source of income, but sure - you think you are right and the market is wrong, I get it. You are not the only one :) ;

Still - I prefer to apply the well known Swedish army rule: If the terrain is different from you map, than trust the terrain.

Maybe you should review your map :p ;

Maybe, just maybe BlackPeter you should learn how to read a balance sheet.

It's nothing to do with income sport. It's funding.

Returns on shareholders capital.

Spend the day looking into it.

[SailorRob]

You don't seam to understand that the market treats retirement villages like REITS based on their main source of income, but sure - you think you are right and the market is wrong, I get it. You are not the only one :) ;

Still - I prefer to apply the well known Swedish army rule: If the terrain is different from you map, than trust the terrain.

Maybe you should review your map :p ;


If the terrain is different to your map you're looking at the wrong map bro.

That's what you're doing here.

[BlackPeter]

anyway back to oca be interesting if any of the oca supporters could explain to us what is oca competitive advantage ie moat ... as buffett said the key is not accessing how much an industry is going to affect society or how much it will grow but rather determining it competitive advantage

Two quite obvious differences:

OCA started with lots of crappy old people homes in outstanding locations and are turning them into top quality developments. In Real Estate Speak: Buy the cheapest house in the dearest street"- this is what they did.

Most of the others (except ARV) started with greenfield development - more straight forward and no additional pain for juggling exiting residents and building activities, but obviously they need to pay more to get for pristine sites (if they get them at all).

Which of the both groups will win the race - I think the jury is still out, though some of the traders around here seem to have made up their mind already. I think they are calling the race too early ... but maybe traders just have a too short attention span?

My vote is for top sites at low cost, even if it takes a bit longer to get it all churning.

The other major difference is obviously OCA's focus on care: Clearly - higher cost, but as well higher turnover. As well - their services are need based, i.e. clients have less options to choose whether they want to move in. If you need care, you need care.

My vote is for need based services - much more reliable than offering "nice to have's" like SUM (and to a degree) RYM.

Again - time will tell.

[SailorRob]

You don't seam to understand that the market treats retirement villages like REITS based on their main source of income, but sure - you think you are right and the market is wrong, I get it. You are not the only one :) ;

Still - I prefer to apply the well known Swedish army rule: If the terrain is different from you map, than trust the terrain.

Maybe you should review your map :p ;


As I feel sorry for you a simple explanation that you should be able to understand if you take some time with it.

Take two IDENTICAL REIT's. They own virtually the same assets producing the same income.

Now REIT A is funded entirely with 50/50 Equity and debt capital.

REIT B is funded by 50/50 Equity and interest free non recourse capital.

Which will produce massively superior returns for the owners?

What if one could then increase the interest free capital at a CAGR of 26% while the other had to borrow?

[bull....]

Well how do you then explain the RV stocks tracking the rubbish like Argosy?

Totally different model but caught up in the same malaise.

One has few capital, the other does not.

there not , property stocks are actually performance wise doing better at this point in time , but they could very well catch up when cap rates are adjusted with time. maybe to do with rv sales being more regular than property co's sales for the basis of valuations

[BlackPeter]

It doesn't have one. It's that simple.

Very few of the companies I own really do. They are much rarer than most people think and those that do are handicapped by a higher price.

Some could argue that it has small advantages over the others but they would be hard to measure and fleeting at best.

Anyone arguing the continuum of care or any other points of difference, well there is nothing stopping the others offering the same.

They have no pricing power.

I think you are missing an important point: OCA still in the process of completing their moat. Sure - everybody else could do that as well, but it will take as much time as it takes OCA to turn crappy old people homes into pristine and flash units offering continuity of care. As you easily can see from the howling of detractors on this threat, short sighted traders don't want to invest money in building a moat. That's the reason, they never will buy into a company with a moat while it is still cheap - and if it isn't anymore, they will complain its too dear.

[BlackPeter]

Well how do you then explain the RV stocks tracking the rubbish like Argosy?

Totally different model but caught up in the same malaise.

One has few capital, the other does not.

Maybe you should test the REIT model instead of rubbishing it. If the map is different to the terrain ... trust the terrain :) ;

[BlackPeter]

Maybe, just maybe BlackPeter you should learn how to read a balance sheet.

It's nothing to do with income sport. It's funding.

Returns on shareholders capital.

Spend the day looking into it.

I can read a balance sheet. It appears though, that you don't seem to be able to look at the big picture :p ;

[justakiwi]

Well said. This is precisely what so many people simply fail to understand about OCA, or about aged care in general. I have tried to offer my perspective as someone who works in the sector and has a basic understanding of the needs of the elderly. Many here, and some who have gone elsewhere, have used "care" as a reason to continuously bash OCA. In their eyes OCA's focus on continuity of care, makes them the dog of the sector. For those of us who "get it" - it makes them the smartest.




The other major difference is obviously OCA's focus on care: Clearly - higher cost, but as well higher turnover. As well - their services are need based, i.e. clients have less options to choose whether they want to move in. If you need care, you need care.

My vote is for need based services - much more reliable than offering "nice to have's" like SUM (and to a degree) RYM.

Again - time will tell.

[SailorRob]

Maybe you should test the REIT model instead of rubbishing it. If the map is different to the terrain ... trust the terrain :) ;

I trust a decade of cash flow statements more than anything else.

That's where I've made all my money.

[Gunner]

I trust a decade of cash flow statements more than anything else.

That's where I've made all my money.

What have you made on OCA?

[SailorRob]

What have you made on OCA?

I'd have to have a look, I lucked it by buying basically the bottom tick during Covid, 41c from memory and sold that lot near 90c, have had a few dividends and this time think average is 86c from memory. I'd say it would be close to a wash here as I own more shares than when I bought during Covid.

The lower the price goes now and the longer it stays down the more I'll make.

I'n terms of actual cash, it's all relative to the size of investment as well obviously.

[SailorRob]

My only income it's worth noting, comes from investing my capital.

As I'm decades away from retirement age I have to be careful.

[ValueNZ]

Subtle flex SailorRob. What did you do prior to retiring? Has your investing style changed at all since then?

[Gunner]

I'd have to have a look, I lucked it by buying basically the bottom tick during Covid, 41c from memory and sold that lot near 90c, have had a few dividends and this time think average is 86c from memory. I'd say it would be close to a wash here as I own more shares than when I bought during Covid.

The lower the price goes now and the longer it stays down the more I'll make.

I'n terms of actual cash, it's all relative to the size of investment as well obviously.

Do you make more when its lower?

Yes subtle flex 😀. If its online it must be true

[SailorRob]

Do you make more when its lower?

Yes subtle flex . If its online it must be true

Yes you make more when it's lower. You save more when supermarket prices are lower too. Investing returns are always a factor of price paid.

When I started buying ARLP I was paying $10 a share. It's when it fell to $2.80 that I made my money, reinvested all dividends and now 3 years later my annual dividend is a 100% return on what I bought most of the stock for. Search ARLP on sharetrader and you'll see I was highlighting it to anyone who would listen.

If It had stayed at $2.80 for longer while I bought more with my dividends then I would be making far more money.

Regarding the other question, no subtle flex intended. It's more a function of what's in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYC0EaUMn1U&t=20s

Jokes aside though it's about what your expenses are at least as much as the other end of the equation.

I wouldn't say 'retired' I would say 'fired'. Lost my job when the Refinery shut down. Everything I have is from my wage only, no second income or inheritance just lived way below my means for a long time. Girlfriend hasn't worked a paid job for 5 years, lived on a boat for 13 years, not in a marina either, drove a $1800 caldina which I only just upgraded to a $7k car after stalking one for 3 years. And have been bloody lucky investing, Covid fear was a big opportunity for me. I knew my job was gone well before the fact and knuckled down even more for a few years.

If I was forced to I could live off my ARLP dividend alone and have a better life than most everyone else (sailing round living cheap).

I spend a hell of a lot of time on investing, close to a full time job sometimes more. Having around 20 positions (60% in top 3 before anyone starts), that's 100 reports a year plus 20 call transcripts just to keep up with the very basics let alone investigate anything new. 40 fund letters I read each quarter, I'm currently investigating a potential new 2% position and that will take me 40 hours alone. I'm not one of these guys who can make money off charts so unfortunately have to do it the hard way.

I read 3 to 4 books a Month, learning to fly. Have two yachts, one I'm prepping to sell and the other prepping to sail around NZ this year and a bunch of other stuff, so not retired by any means just don't have time for a paid job. And the other thing worth noting is the tax I would pay from a job is just insane as overseas investments are taxed differently, so my first dollar of wage earnings I'm already paying high rates on.

Investing style hasn't changed at all, one thing that would have me back to work is a real bear market so I could deploy more funds into the abyss.

Most people have all their capital tied up in a house which they think is an investment but is actually a consumption item, then a couple of flash cars, swimming pool, bills and you're Whangarei'd up the Puhoi.

Anyone - particularly a couple, can be financially independent in 15 years without any particular special knowledge. Pretty sure everyone was pretty happy in to 70's and if we live like they did then for a while you don't need to spend much.

[Gunner]

Yes you make more when it's lower. You save more when supermarket prices are lower too. Investing returns are always a factor of price paid.

When I started buying ARLP I was paying $10 a share. It's when it fell to $2.80 that I made my money, reinvested all dividends and now 3 years later my annual dividend is a 100% return on what I bought most of the stock for. Search ARLP on sharetrader and you'll see I was highlighting it to anyone who would listen.

If It had stayed at $2.80 for longer while I bought more with my dividends then I would be making far more money.

Regarding the other question, no subtle flex intended. It's more a function of what's in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYC0EaUMn1U&t=20s

Jokes aside though it's about what your expenses are at least as much as the other end of the equation.

I wouldn't say 'retired' I would say 'fired'. Lost my job when the Refinery shut down. Everything I have is from my wage only, no second income or inheritance just lived way below my means for a long time. Girlfriend hasn't worked a paid job for 5 years, lived on a boat for 13 years, not in a marina either, drove a $1800 caldina which I only just upgraded to a $7k car after stalking one for 3 years. And have been bloody lucky investing, Covid fear was a big opportunity for me. I knew my job was gone well before the fact and knuckled down even more for a few years.

If I was forced to I could live off my ARLP dividend alone and have a better life than most everyone else (sailing round living cheap).

I spend a hell of a lot of time on investing, close to a full time job sometimes more. Having around 20 positions (60% in top 3 before anyone starts), that's 100 reports a year plus 20 call transcripts just to keep up with the very basics let alone investigate anything new. 40 fund letters I read each quarter, I'm currently investigating a potential new 2% position and that will take me 40 hours alone. I'm not one of these guys who can make money off charts so unfortunately have to do it the hard way.

I read 3 to 4 books a Month, learning to fly. Have two yachts, one I'm prepping to sell and the other prepping to sail around NZ this year and a bunch of other stuff, so not retired by any means just don't have time for a paid job. And the other thing worth noting is the tax I would pay from a job is just insane as overseas investments are taxed differently, so my first dollar of wage earnings I'm already paying high rates on.

Investing style hasn't changed at all, one thing that would have me back to work is a real bear market so I could deploy more funds into the abyss.

Most people have all their capital tied up in a house which they think is an investment but is actually a consumption item, then a couple of flash cars, swimming pool, bills and you're Whangarei'd up the Puhoi.

Anyone - particularly a couple, can be financially independent in 15 years without any particular special knowledge. Pretty sure everyone was pretty happy in to 70's and if we live like they did then for a while you don't need to spend much.

You dont invest in the hope it goes lower. You may want it to go lower to buy more but this is a different question.

[Gunner]

This is a good explanation of the EMA I use. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cGd2FPyhacI&pp=ygUQZmluYW5jaWFsIHdpc2RvbQ%3D%3D

[SailorRob]

You dont invest in the hope it goes lower. You may want it to go lower to buy more but this is a different question.


As Warren Buffett does, I always invest in the hope that it goes lower.

[SailorRob]

This is a good explanation of the EMA I use. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cGd2FPyhacI&pp=ygUQZmluYW5jaWFsIHdpc2RvbQ%3D%3D

Linked video title;
Achieve Consistent Profits: Harness the Power of the 10/20 EMA Crossover - Eliminate Drawdown!Thanks Gunner, this will enable me to massively reduce the workload I've been putting in. I wish I had known this trick earlier and by watching an 11 minute video been able to gain a massive edge over other market participants.

You have changed my life and I thank you for it.

11 minutes vs thousands of hours. A no brainer.

[Gunner]

As Warren Buffett does, I always invest in the hope that it goes lower.

Because you want to buy more. Your capital is not 100% deployed.

[Gunner]

Why not use both. Be humble and be open to ideas

[SailorRob]

Because you want to buy more. Your capital is not 100% deployed.


My capital is well over 100% deployed.

Look at the painstaking math that I posted earlier today regarding OCA taking until 2040 to reach $2.

Also with many of my companies - most notably Berkshire, lower prices are far more value creative with buybacks.

[Gunner]

My capital is well over 100% deployed.


Look at the painstaking math that I posted earlier today regarding OCA taking until 2040 to reach $2.

Also with many of my companies - most notably Berkshire, lower prices are far more value creative with buybacks.

Ok, a lower stock price is not a good

[SailorRob]

Why not use both. Be humble and be open to ideas


I'm certainly open to any ideas that after careful consideration and examination of the evidence I think can enhance my returns.

Why not use both?

Well with that logic I should be using the techniques highlighted in every 11 minute youtube video.

How do I know which ones to use? I'd be using thousands.

If you can show me, giving specific examples (and proof) over a long period of time how you have used these techniques to avoid drawdowns and then get in and profit from subsequent rises and obviously handily beaten the market by doing this, I'll give you $100,000.

But you wouldn't need it as that would be chicken feed compared to what you'd be making trading.

[SailorRob]

Ok, a lower stock price is not a good


Is not a good? What does that even mean?

Not a good, or do you just mean a lower stock price is not good?

Can you explain why a lower stock price is not good please, I'd like to understand.

[BlackPeter]

I trust a decade of cash flow statements more than anything else.

That's where I've made all my money.

Good for you, and as usual - there a many ways to skin a cat.

Looking at the big picture works for me :) ;

[Balance]

Pass the word around - holders of ATM are making more money today with the sp at $6.30 compared to $20.00.

And they will be making even more money if it’s so falls to $2.50.

[Gunner]

Is not a good? What does that even mean?



Investors usually invest to make more money.

Apply the video to OCA from IPO and see if they're better.


Not a good, or do you just mean a lower stock price is not good?

Can you explain why a lower stock price is not good please, I'd like to understand.

Investors usually invest to make more money.

Apply the video to OCA from IPO and see if they're better.

[Gunner]

Pass the word around - holders of ATM are making more money today with the sp at $6.30 compared to $20.00.

And they will be making even more money if the do falls to $2.50.

Interesting concept lol

[X-men]

Thank u Gunner....very useful video. I am ready with all my cash to re-enter the market

[BlackPeter]

Pass the word around - holders of ATM are making more money today with the sp at $6.30 compared to $20.00.

And they will be making even more money if the do falls to $2.50.

Yes, I was wondering that as well. And think about the owners of e.g. CDL or WYN shares (to name just a couple), they must make zillions!

Amazing what one can learn from sailors on the OCA thread, but maybe we should just go back to OCA ...

[SailorRob]

Yes, I was wondering that as well. And think about the owners of e.g. CDL or WYN shares (to name just a couple), they must make zillions!

Amazing what one can learn from sailors on the OCA thread, but maybe we should just go back to OCA ...


Maybe you should go back to your job as you're going to need it.

Will go way over your head, but I have a large portion of my net worth invested in Berkshire. Current share price is $325. If the price drops down to $100, I will make many millions more dollars than if it goes directly up to $400. Without me investing another Dollar into the company.

[SailorRob]

Pass the word around - holders of ATM are making more money today with the sp at $6.30 compared to $20.00.

And they will be making even more money if it’s so falls to $2.50.


Balance, you won't get your money back mate. You screwed up.

[Sideshow Bob]

55 posts on OCA today (so far).

Anyone care to tell me what I've missed......:sleep:

[X-men]

Nah...back the truck tomorrow...time to load it up

[mistaTea]

Maybe you should go back to your job as you're going to need it.

Will go way over your head, but I have a large portion of my net worth invested in Berkshire. Current share price is $325. If the price drops down to $100, I will make many millions more dollars than if it goes directly up to $400. Without me investing another Dollar into the company.

Are there any major tax implications buying BRK.B if you are nz based?

I’ve never actually bought shares on any other stock exchange other than NZX/ASX.

I believe ASB securities can facilitate trades of stocks on other exchanges, but not something I have done yet.

[Fortunecookie]

Hopefully demolish it and keep it in the gutter for the next 17 years.

Posted the below a while ago, the returns are MUCH better now.

Just the CAGR alone would be 6.55% with dividends reinvested at a low share price, you're going to do maybe 15% CAGR.

Or turn a million into nearly 13 million.

After joking with a mate that at this rate OCA would take until 2040 to reach $2, I decided to take a look at what this scenario could look like as an investment.

I was stunned to find that it would be a very decent investment and in all likelihood beat the returns you would get from putting your money with 95% of professional investors over the same 18 year time period. If the shares go to $2 now it will destroy your returns.


From here to $2 in 18 years, the share price would produce a compounded 4.1% return. If dividends kept in lockstep (so the yield remained the same and the dividend also grew at 4.1%) and you paid 25% tax on the dividend and then reinvested into the company at the prevailing share price you would compound your investment at 7.92%.


Now if the share price stayed at 97c for the first 10 years and then grew steadily to $2 by the 18th year, you'd compound at 8.75%, but if the share price stayed at 97c for 17 years before jumping to $2, then you'd compound at a phenomenal 9.5%. This would turn a million into 5.5 million. At the original 7.92% it would be 4.41 million.

Obviously the share price staying static while dividends grow is unlikley, but this shows the effect of having a share price go nowhere. The longer it stays lower the better and you can of course commit external capital.

Given the choice 999 of 1000 investors would want and pray for only $3.46 million and reject the $5.5 million, throwing away 2 million dollars as they prey for the share price to go up NOW which would mean only getting a compound 6.92% return.

I think I understand what you mean. So just to confirm it's based on the original investment and no further contribution apart from the dividend reinvestment. So you making the point that if dividends are reinvested at a low price that essentially grows the principal amount which would benefit a great deal when the SP price doubles. Which is the different when the dividend is reinvested as the SP gradually goes up. I don't have an spreadsheet to confirm exact numbers but did abit of sanity check to support.

[SailorRob]

I think I understand what you mean. So just to confirm it's based on the original investment and no further contribution apart from the dividend reinvestment. So you making the point that if dividends are reinvested at a low price that essentially grows the principal amount which would benefit a great deal when the SP price doubles. Which is the different when the dividend is reinvested as the SP gradually goes up. I don't have an spreadsheet to confirm exact numbers but did abit of sanity check to support.


Correct, I strongly suggest you all make a spreadsheet so you can see with your own eyes the powerful effect. If people want me to, I can do it, maybe I have it somewhere.

And if the share price doesn't double or go up as the company continues to execute your dividend will grow and grow eventually forcing it to.

With the Berkshire example, it's buybacks. Buffett would deploy 100 billion cash back in if it fell to those levels and that would change the game so much it would be truly incredible. Just buying in 5% of the company at 30% below intrinsic has already added huge amounts to what I will make.

[Gunner]

I think I understand what you mean. So just to confirm it's based on the original investment and no further contribution apart from the dividend reinvestment. So you making the point that if dividends are reinvested at a low price that essentially grows the principal amount which would benefit a great deal when the SP price doubles. Which is the different when the dividend is reinvested as the SP gradually goes up. I don't have an spreadsheet to confirm exact numbers but did abit of sanity check to support.

Sounds great in theory but it is not realistic. Price always follows fundamentals eventually and if the stock is $2 in 20 years time, you can be sure there is something fundamentally wrong with the company. Name one great company that has a had a stagnated stock price over 20 years. Yeah me neither

[SailorRob]

Are there any major tax implications buying BRK.B if you are nz based?

I’ve never actually bought shares on any other stock exchange other than NZX/ASX.

I believe ASB securities can facilitate trades of stocks on other exchanges, but not something I have done yet.


Don't use ASB securities, PM me if you want more detail.

Tax implications are different for below and above 50k at time of purchase.

If below 50k then it's effectively tax free as no dividend. If above 50k you pay your personal tax rate on 5% of the opening value of your holdings.

So if you own 100k NZD worth of BRK on April 01st, you will pay tax on $5000 of 'earnings'. So at 33% that would be $1650. Or 1.65% of the value of your portfolio.

[Gunner]

Don't use ASB securities, PM me if you want more detail.

Tax implications are different for below and above 50k at time of purchase.

If below 50k then it's effectively tax free as no dividend. If above 50k you pay your personal tax rate on 5% of the opening value of your holdings.

So if you own 100k NZD worth of BRK on April 01st, you will pay tax on $5000 of 'earnings'. So at 33% that would be $1650. Or 1.65% of the value of your portfolio.

FIF method of tax bettter than nz invested tax if you're classed as a trader.

[Gunner]

Are there any major tax implications buying BRK.B if you are nz based?

I’ve never actually bought shares on any other stock exchange other than NZX/ASX.

I believe ASB securities can facilitate trades of stocks on other exchanges, but not something I have done yet.

Hatch is good. Low transaction costs

[SailorRob]

Sounds great in theory but it is not realistic. Price always follows fundamentals eventually and if the stock is $2 in 20 years time, you can be sure there is something fundamentally wrong with the company. Name one great company that has a had a stagnated stock price over 20 years. Yeah me neither


Agreed with your thinking, my example is extreme, but any less extreme version of it still works. And this happens all the time.

Also always run calculations before posting. For OCA to reach $2 by 2040 that would be a 6.55% CAGR, PLUS dividends. Say dividends are 3%... This will very likely be a very good return in comparison to the general market.

Instead of naming one great company that has stagnated for 20 years, how about I name entire countries stock markets that have?

New Zealand

United Kingdom

USA

Japan

Every country in Europe

(I can comninue)

[SailorRob]

Hatch is good. Low transaction costs

Hatch is great if you're a teenage Girl.

[Gunner]

Hatch is great if you're a teenage Girl.

Does the job and is low cost.

[SailorRob]

Sounds great in theory but it is not realistic. Price always follows fundamentals eventually and if the stock is $2 in 20 years time, you can be sure there is something fundamentally wrong with the company. Name one great company that has a had a stagnated stock price over 20 years. Yeah me neither


Microsoft, and Apple both have had 0% returns for periods over 15 years, many many other great companies have stagnated well over 15 years.

[Gunner]

Agreed with your thinking, my example is extreme, but any less extreme version of it still works. And this happens all the time.

Also always run calculations before posting. For OCA to reach $2 by 2040 that would be a 6.55% CAGR, PLUS dividends. Say dividends are 3%... This will very likely be a very good return in comparison to the general market.

Instead of naming one great company that has stagnated for 20 years, how about I name entire countries stock markets that have?

New Zealand

United Kingdom

USA

Japan

Every country in Europe

(I can comninue)

Perhaps you should recheck what stagnated means. A quick check will show you the S&P has not been stagnant from 20 years to now.

[SailorRob]

Does the job and is low cost.


Yep it's ok. Low cost compared to NZ alternatives.

I can change $160,000 NZD to USD for $3.22 at spot. Hatch would be about $480

[SailorRob]

Perhaps you should recheck what stagnated means. A quick check will show you the S&P has not been stagnant from 20 years to now.


My dear, you said stagnated over 20 years.

Not the last 20 years.

SP500 has stagnated for up to 60 years before inflation adjusted, maybe 70 actually.

[SailorRob]

Perhaps you should recheck what stagnated means. A quick check will show you the S&P has not been stagnant from 20 years to now.


And the S&P stagnated for 12 years from 00 to 2012...

[Gunner]

Yep it's ok. Low cost compared to NZ alternatives.

I can change $160,000 NZD to USD for $3.22 at spot. Hatch would be about $480

I wouldnt worry about 0.3%

[Gunner]

My dear, you said stagnated over 20 years.

Not the last 20 years.

SP500 has stagnated for up to 60 years before inflation adjusted, maybe 70 actually.

You're an idiot. Over the last 20 years and from 20 years is the same. You're dancing on semantics trying to be clever.

[Fortunecookie]

Correct, I strongly suggest you all make a spreadsheet so you can see with your own eyes the powerful effect. If people want me to, I can do it, maybe I have it somewhere.

And if the share price doesn't double or go up as the company continues to execute your dividend will grow and grow eventually forcing it to.

With the Berkshire example, it's buybacks. Buffett would deploy 100 billion cash back in if it fell to those levels and that would change the game so much it would be truly incredible. Just buying in 5% of the company at 30% below intrinsic has already added huge amounts to what I will make.

Nah I get it. I am abit lazy to use the laptop so just on the phone. Thanks for the example. It really emphasises the importance of compounding.

[Gunner]

Nah I get it. I am abit lazy to use the laptop so just on the phone. Thanks for the example. It really emphasises the importance of compounding.

Compounding is a wonder but this guy is clearly all BS. His examples are not realistic.

[SailorRob]

Sounds great in theory but it is not realistic. Price always follows fundamentals eventually and if the stock is $2 in 20 years time, you can be sure there is something fundamentally wrong with the company. Name one great company that has a had a stagnated stock price over 20 years. Yeah me neither

Dude....

Over 20 years.... That's any 20 year period.

US market 75 years from 1906.

[SailorRob]

I wouldnt worry about 0.3%


I would and I do.

0.3% is massive compounded over 50 years.

Lower transaction costs will be of huge benefit over long periods of time.

[SailorRob]

Compounding is a wonder but this guy is clearly all BS. His examples are not realistic.


What about my ARLP example where my returns are 300% per year? Dividend cash return 100%

[Fortunecookie]

Compounding is a wonder but this guy is clearly all BS. His examples are not realistic.

Is it possible, the difficult part is predicting which SP and when. I saw a couple of SPs that went 60% to 100% in the last year. And it's a bear market. One of them was ATM.

The example emphasises the important message of buying SP below intrinsic value. Same idea.

[SailorRob]

Is it possible, the difficult part is predicting which SP and when. I saw a couple of SPs that went 60% to 100% in the last year. And it's a bear market. One of them was ATM.

The example emphasises the important message of buying SP below intrinsic value. Same idea.


Correct, that's all that matters. Buying ATM at $20... price drops you're dead.

[bull....]

Hopefully demolish it and keep it in the gutter for the next 17 years.

Posted the below a while ago, the returns are MUCH better now.

Just the CAGR alone would be 6.55% with dividends reinvested at a low share price, you're going to do maybe 15% CAGR.

Or turn a million into nearly 13 million.

After joking with a mate that at this rate OCA would take until 2040 to reach $2, I decided to take a look at what this scenario could look like as an investment.

I was stunned to find that it would be a very decent investment and in all likelihood beat the returns you would get from putting your money with 95% of professional investors over the same 18 year time period. If the shares go to $2 now it will destroy your returns.


From here to $2 in 18 years, the share price would produce a compounded 4.1% return. If dividends kept in lockstep (so the yield remained the same and the dividend also grew at 4.1%) and you paid 25% tax on the dividend and then reinvested into the company at the prevailing share price you would compound your investment at 7.92%.


Now if the share price stayed at 97c for the first 10 years and then grew steadily to $2 by the 18th year, you'd compound at 8.75%, but if the share price stayed at 97c for 17 years before jumping to $2, then you'd compound at a phenomenal 9.5%. This would turn a million into 5.5 million. At the original 7.92% it would be 4.41 million.

Obviously the share price staying static while dividends grow is unlikley, but this shows the effect of having a share price go nowhere. The longer it stays lower the better and you can of course commit external capital.

Given the choice 999 of 1000 investors would want and pray for only $3.46 million and reject the $5.5 million, throwing away 2 million dollars as they prey for the share price to go up NOW which would mean only getting a compound 6.92% return.

of course the downside to this perfect example is the company does not perform as expected which would mean instead of significant riches you end up with significant losses. there are no free lunches

[BlackPeter]

deleted ... no point in answering a question 4 pages back - and hey, we are anyway far away from the thread title, aren't we?

Maybe somebody could rename this thread "sailors investment dreams" and somebody could start an OCA thread where we can undisturbed discuss OCA?

[Fortunecookie]

Correct, that's all that matters. Buying ATM at $20... price drops you're dead.

I should clarify my previous comment regarding ATM. The up movement in pricing was I believe due to the re-opening of the Chinese borders. Personally there was too much optimism baked into the price once it did open.

I actually held ATM for a brief period and then sold out. My thesis was if the borders reopened probably in the next couple of years this would act as a catalyst. It also it doesn't hurt when they had $700mil in the bank so it's not like they would go out of business. I sold out for a small profit, because I saw better opportunity. But also that I should have taken the declining birth more seriously. Based on some rough calculations to maintain their current sales they will need to gain more of the market share each year, essentially walk again the tide. In addition the US market was burning cash.

So I didn't buy it thinking it was below intrinsic value but I was looking at the potential catalyst.

But I'm still a form believer that trying to finding companies below intrinsic. Unless there are other reasons to support.

[SailorRob]

of course the downside to this perfect example is the company does not perform as expected which would mean instead of significant riches you end up with significant losses. there are no free lunches


Absolutely right, which is why I am attracted to crashing share prices without a crash in business performance.

Sometimes the market will foresee downturn in business fundamentals prior.

[SailorRob]

deleted ... no point in answering a question 4 pages back - and hey, we are anyway far away from the thread title, aren't we?

Maybe somebody could rename this thread "sailors investment dreams" and somebody could start an OCA thread where we can undisturbed discuss OCA?


Losers give up on their dreams and then it back and become critics of people that win. Don't give up on your dreams.

You're brainwashed by our economic system until you end up in a tomb beneath a pyramid of time payments, mortgages, preposterous gadgetry, playthings that divert our attention for the sheer idiocy of the charade.

The years thunder by, The dreams of youth grow dim where they lie caked in dust on the shelves of patience. Before we know it, the tomb is sealed.

[Fortunecookie]

Losers give up on their dreams and then it back and become critics of people that win. Don't give up on your dreams.

You're brainwashed by our economic system until you end up in a tomb beneath a pyramid of time payments, mortgages, preposterous gadgetry, playthings that divert our attention for the sheer idiocy of the charade.

The years thunder by, The dreams of youth grow dim where they lie caked in dust on the shelves of patience. Before we know it, the tomb is sealed.

I totally agree with you. The system it's a bit of con. The irony is as investors we try to game it (we want to reap the benefits from the consumers).

[Balance]

It's often useful to look back a year on a stock stuck in a downtrend as OCA has been :

https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?9856-OCA-Oceania-Group-retirement-villages/page1234

The big picture matters a lot more than the financials imo from reading through some of the postings from both the bulls and the bears.

So what's the big picture story from here to 2024?

[SailorRob]

It's often useful to look back a year on a stock stuck in a downtrend as OCA has been :

https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?9856-OCA-Oceania-Group-retirement-villages/page1234

The big picture matters a lot more than the financials imo from reading through some of the postings from both the bulls and the bears.

So what's the big picture story from here to 2024?


The big picture must by definition be shown in the financials. Over a long period of time of course.

The big picture is that a mediocre return on equity capital even if well sub market, can be enhanced with an absolutely pittance return on the massive float capital and then even a 2% spread on the debt capital will all combine for one hell of a result.

All of this is far better with OCA, but I'm just showing how if you have nearly a billion in free money and are growing that at rates that boggle the mind, you don't need to make much on it to enhance equity returns.

I beg you all - DO NOT focus on the scoreboard. Focus on the playing field intently.

If you can look at whats happening on the field you will be blown away.

[bull....]

The big picture must by definition be shown in the financials. Over a long period of time of course.

The big picture is that a mediocre return on equity capital even if well sub market, can be enhanced with an absolutely pittance return on the massive float capital and then even a 2% spread on the debt capital will all combine for one hell of a result.

All of this is far better with OCA, but I'm just showing how if you have nearly a billion in free money and are growing that at rates that boggle the mind, you don't need to make much on it to enhance equity returns.

I beg you all - DO NOT focus on the scoreboard. Focus on the playing field intently.

If you can look at whats happening on the field you will be blown away.

you remind me off of a certain other poster that used to post on this forum lol ... cant remember the dog's name but was always so positive on this stock until

[Balance]

Going back a year, W69’s post about OCA funding its cashflow deficits and dividends with ever increasing debt and a capital raising imo is the most pertinent in terms of why market perception of OCA has been negative and what OCA needs to do next.

Let’s see what the company has to say about that in May.

The institutional market would most certainly support the cessation of dividends but many of the retail shareholders will react with shock and dismay.

So will OCA bite the bullet and do the right thing?

[BlackPeter]

Going back a year, W69’s post about OCA funding its cashflow deficit and dividends with debt and a capital raising imo is the most pertinent in terms of what OCA needs to do next.

Let’s see what the company has to say about that in May.

The institutional market would most certainly support the cessation of dividends but many of the retail shareholders will react with shock and dismay.

So will OCA bite the bullet and do the right thing?

Good question. Maybe however the shock and dismay you talk about is already baked into todays price?

Paying taxes for a return of my capital always occurred to me as a dumb idea ... so, for me stopping unimputed dividends would increase the share value.

[SailorRob]

you remind me off of a certain other poster that used to post on this forum lol ... cant remember the dog's name but was always so positive on this stock until


Until what? Things became dramatically more positive?

Or is a much lower price more risk?

[SailorRob]

Going back a year, W69’s post about OCA funding its cashflow deficits and dividends with ever increasing debt and a capital raising imo is the most pertinent in terms of why market perception of OCA has been negative and what OCA needs to do next.

Let’s see what the company has to say about that in May.

The institutional market would most certainly support the cessation of dividends but many of the retail shareholders will react with shock and dismay.

So will OCA bite the bullet and do the right thing?


is 400 mill a lot of debt against 2.5 billion total assets?

In the context of it being locked in at 5000 year lows, I'd counter it's not nearly enough.

[Balance]

Good question. Maybe however the shock and dismay you talk about is already baked into todays price?

Paying taxes for a return of my capital always occurred to me as a dumb idea ... so, for me stopping unimputed dividends would increase the share value.

Retail investors have been the buyers vs instos who have been selling - I doubt that retail investors have been pricing in a dividend cut if it happens.

[SailorRob]

Retail investors have been the buyers vs instos who have been selling - I doubt that retail investors have been pricing in a dividend cut if it happens.


Yes but he did say increase the share value. Not the share price.

I agree with him.

[BlackPeter]

Retail investors have been the buyers vs instos who have been selling - I doubt that retail investors have been pricing in a dividend cut if it happens.

Generalisations are always wrong. I am a retail investor and an unimputed dividend does not even appear on the list of my decision criteria. EPS, Earnings CAGR and NTA/SP (as long as I believe them) however do.

[SailorRob]

Generalisations are always wrong. I am a retail investor and an unimputed dividend does not even appear on the list of my decision criteria. EPS, Earnings CAGR and NTA/SP (as long as I believe them) however do.


Seconded with the addition that the dividend will appear on my list as a negative as I'd rather the business compound the capital for me.

[SailorRob]

Look, another point everyone should consider is that even the biggest OCA bear would never think that it could take until 2040 for the share price to reach $2.

But if that's what happens you're going to have one hell of a result, CAGR of over 10% for 17 years is not to be sniffed at and will make you very wealthy if you can get some capital in now.

The only risk is bankruptcy or buy out and I haven't heard even the biggest bear talk about bankruptcy.

There will be those who paid $1.50 thinking how does this apply to them, well in exactly the same way...

Average house value say 800k, sell, invest at 10% (after tax), add 25k per year from saving, come out with well over 5 million.

Keep house, come out with house, less all accumulated expenses.

[winner69]

Bugger ….OCA share price near top of NZX leaderboard this morning

This is not going to plan …….Lower the better I’m told

[ValueNZ]

Well I'm planning on buying some more today... So yes I'm hoping for the SP to fall some more.

[Entrep]

Well I'm planning on buying some more today... So yes I'm hoping for the SP to fall some more.

The classic Hotcopper strategy

[Entrep]

Look, another point everyone should consider is that even the biggest OCA bear would never think that it could take until 2040 for the share price to reach $2.

Pretty sure the biggest OCA bear would say that the price target is $0.

I am not sure how it's become a 100% certainty that the price will be a minimum of $2 at some point in the future. That's utterly absurd.

[Balance]

Bugger ….OCA share price near top of NZX leaderboard this morning

This is not going to plan …….Lower the better I’m told

But of course!

Note how the sp always get a shove up on small volumes in the mornings until the big boys from OZ come out to play?

[Balance]

The classic Hotcopper strategy

Yup - saw a lot of that a year ago when the sp was hovering around $1.00.

Wonder how many helped themselves to ever cheaper shares!

[ValueNZ]

I might regret asking, but what is the Hotcopper strategy

[bull....]

Pretty sure the biggest OCA bear would say that the price target is $0.

I am not sure how it's become a 100% certainty that the price will be a minimum of $2 at some point in the future. That's utterly absurd.

yep sailor and his compound calculator must be clairvoyant

[SailorRob]

Bugger ….OCA share price near top of NZX leaderboard this morning

This is not going to plan …….Lower the better I’m told


It has taken me some great effort, but worth it if people are learning.

[SailorRob]

Pretty sure the biggest OCA bear would say that the price target is $0.

I am not sure how it's become a 100% certainty that the price will be a minimum of $2 at some point in the future. That's utterly absurd.


That's my point, nobody on this thread has highlighted a case for bankruptcy.

It's not 100% certain, just saying that nobody has presented a credible argument how it will not.

[Entrep]

I might regret asking, but what is the Hotcopper strategy

It when shares that are popular on Hotcopper (and usually in a downtrend, or have a lot of HC posters already well under-water) are defended by bag holders saying that they hope the price goes down more so that they can buy more.

[bull....]

more selling of oca to move to arv ?

[Balance]

But of course!

Note how the sp always get a shove up on small volumes in the mornings until the big boys from OZ come out to play?

20 bidders on the bid at 68c vs insto sellers taking turns loading up on the offer side.

There is honour amongst instos?

[ValueNZ]

One of them is me Balance

[Entrep]

Knowing nothing about the fundamentals, the price action screams bad news ahead/cap raise. Conversely, the SP is often pumped prior to a raise so I dunno...

Long term it seems a reasonable investment. I guess it's all about other opportunities/getting more shares for less money at the moment.

[X-men]

Yeah..me too bidding at 68cents...

[traineeinvestor]

That's my point, nobody on this thread has highlighted a case for bankruptcy.

It's not 100% certain, just saying that nobody has presented a credible argument how it will not.

FWIW, at 7.3% and 7.46% the yields on OCA's retail bonds due 2027 and 2028 are priced about the same as ARV's and 0.8-1.0% (very very roughly) higher than Ryman's and Somerset's bonds. Maturity dates are a bit different in some cases but it gives an indication of how credit markets view the four companies. Also looking at some of the other bonds listed on NZX with similar yields (including NZX), this suggests that credit markets are pricing, at most, a very, very low risk of OCA insolvency.

As a side note, OCA management gets a pat on the back for locking in $125 million at 2.3% pa until October 2027 and $100 million at 3.3% pa until September 2028 (assuming no reset features - I haven't checked this). Not sure what they are paying on their other facilities.

[Balance]

One of them is me Balance

Looks like you got them?

[X-men]

Got 4000 shares..will double down if SP down to 20c.... 😂

[SailorRob]

Nasty piece of share ...... The management should be sacked....


Take me off from NZX at 20c plz...what a waste!


Oca is stuffed.. despite of many holders here believe no CR...but yet fundies are still playing with the fear


Arvida, rayman, OCA ..need to be delisted....what a waste...


Got 4000 shares..will double down if SP down to 20c.... 


Interesting...

[X-men]

Oh man..why u got so much time digging all my posts...u ruin the fun

[Baa_Baa]

Interesting...

Another far quit best on ignore. Not interesting, at all.

[SailorRob]

Another far quit best on ignore. Not interesting, at all.


Pretty hard to argue with that!

[justakiwi]

Yep. Just another cockroach crawling out of the woodwork to play games and contribute zero of value.


Another far quit best on ignore. Not interesting, at all.

[X-men]

Very strong words...

I am feeling u all ...u all should exit when sp was $1.30

[ValueNZ]

Yep. Just another cockroach crawling out of the woodwork to play games and contribute zero of value.
I will say SailorRob has posted a lot of information on this thread that I have found extremely valuable, such as OCA's billion dollar float and the benefit he sees in a falling share price. If people cannot take criticism on an online forum perhaps they should choose not to be online at all.

edit: My apologies, thought you and baa baa talking about SailorRob rather than x-men

[SailorRob]

I will say SailorRob has posted a lot of information on this thread that I have found extremely valuable, such as OCA's billion dollar float and the benefit he sees in a falling share price. If people cannot take criticism on an online forum perhaps they should choose not to be online at all.


Thanks ValueNZ, JAK wasn't talking about me though, it was about X-men. (they were both talking about X-men)

[X-men]

Yeah u right ... people should not be online public forum if could not see the SP keep falling. It is painful

[mike2020]

Yeah u right ... people should not be online public forum if could not see the SP keep falling. It is painful

It's only painful if you were thinking of selling, otherwise it's an opportunity. $1.30 wasn't the peak $1.61 was, currently better than 50% off, better than a Briscoes sale but not as often.

[X-men]

On that note .. let's buy more

[winner69]

On that note .. let's buy more

Discount might get better mate ……clearance sale coming up

[X-men]

If there is a CR...the SP will go up suddenly

[Balance]

Yep. Just another cockroach crawling out of the woodwork to play games and contribute zero of value.

Most unlike you, JAK.

Remember our dearly beloved exPM Cindy’s exhortation of ‘Be Kind’!

Poor Cindy will be so gutted that her ‘be kind’ message is so soon forgotten after she left the stage.

You trying to get her to stage a comeback so she can spread her brand of leadership again?

Transparency, kindness and one slice of truth! How we miss her.

[SailorRob]

Discount might get better mate Â…Â…clearance sale coming up

Instead of this nonsensical idiocy, why don't we do very basic big picture analysis.

So we have (all rough round numbers) $2,500 million in total assets. These assets are virtually all tangible (who cares). Let's assume this was all equity for the moment. If we can generate 3% on average on these assets (remember all equity no interest payments) this would be pretty crap.

But lets stick with this crap return, and then look at it with the actual balance sheet we have. So 3% on that 2.5 billion equity is 75 million, again not great considering the assets at work. Now we swap 500 million equity for debt and pay 2% on that (remember the interest payments reduce the tax as well, I'm not sure what the tax adjusted blended rate would be but wont be far off) Around 10 million...

So we have a 3.25% return on the leftover capital. Not great. But we have only stumped up half of it (rest provided by customers). So the return now attributable to us is suddenly 6.5%

God awful I hear you say and I agree (these are hypothetical deliberately terrible numbers)

I would not buy capital that was making a return of 6.5% without the hope of making more.

Unless...

Unless I could buy that capital for a discount.

Now if I could buy capital making a 6.5% return at half price, the return to me would be 13%. So I have turned a very suboptimal return on assets of 3% into a return to me of 13%. Which is perfectly adequate for me considering the huge margin of safety.

So while we don't know if 'discount might be getting better mate' or not, we can be fairly certain of the case highlighted above.

Also worth noting that instead of thinking like this, you can just watch the 11 minute video posted earlier in this thread and learn a technique that (as the video highlighted) could have avoided both the DOT.com crash and the GFC, while allowing you to participate in all of the upside as well. Thus doubling the market return over that time period and turning you into one of the very best investors in the world.

[Balance]

Plenty of advertising all over the place for St Helier.

Whatever happened to the pent up demand and huge wait list for the units in this super luxurious retirement village?

[SailorRob]

Plenty of advertising all over the place for St Helier.

Whatever happened to the pent up demand and huge wait list for the units in this super luxurious retirement village?


They will sell them.

And then sell them again.

And again.

Maybe it's difficult to sell them all right now. But this is a moment in time.

[Balance]

Meanwhile, the debt that they have accumulated to pay dividends and buy ever more expensive land needs to be serviced.

Wonder if they need to raise $130m to carry St Helier and all those cashflow sapping care units?

[X-men]

U forgot one universe rule balance.... people will get old and die. If I had a chance, I would buy a funeral home.

[justakiwi]

If I had the chance, I'd ban you from this entire forum. Why are you even here?


If I had a chance, I would buy a funeral home.

[X-men]

This is a public forum...I don't even attack or saying harsh things about u....why u like that?

Be kind.... lesson from Our beloved Jacinda

[Balance]

If I had the chance, I'd ban you from this entire forum. Why are you even here?

Chill, JAK, you are desecrating the legacy of Clueless Cindy to be kind. Remember that she is the one source of truth. But for the fact that Cindy renounced her Mormon faith, she would be called a saint today.

[Gunner]

Also worth noting that instead of thinking like this, you can just watch the 11 minute video posted earlier in this thread and learn a technique that (as the video highlighted) could have avoided both the DOT.com crash and the GFC, while allowing you to participate in all of the upside as well. Thus doubling the market return over that time period and turning you into one of the very best investors in the world.[/QUOTE]

Replace the word instead and use aswell and you'll do better.

[SailorRob]

This is a public forum...I don't even attack or saying harsh things about u....why u like that?

Be kind.... lesson from Our beloved Jacinda


I'm not convinced JAK is being unkind, JAK is asking a pertinent question.