I think you need to think this through more, especially before insulting others as it's your inexperience showing through here.
Many assets can be depreciated for tax purposes far quicker & lower than their actual value. Cars are good example.
Printable View
Net assets per share have increased from 0.74 cps to 1.44cps during that time.
Obviously that much development and acquisitions takes a lot of capital.
I disagree. And ultimately, following the actual cash received and paid out over the years tells a story.
The company operations does not produce enough cash to cover costs. So that shortfall has to come from somewhere.
And it is a big shortfall, especially when you shell out $150M of dividends over the period.
So we either say the money to pay for that shortfall came from the resident loans... or it came from the bank loans.
Take your pick, but neither is good.
Really? Investing for growth with interest free money isn't good? A company must be cashflow positive to be good?
Interesting. I hope they carry on exactly like they have been.
And I am a shareholder not just a sidelined $hit stirrer...
But I guess you are a better investor than I am and know OCA better than I do?
Or. I guess not?