You’re jumping the gun there a bit. Until they tell us otherwise, we have zero reason to believe they are planning a CR. In the meantime, it’s pretty pointless speculating.
Printable View
Yes that's right, general statement with OCA being one specific example seeing as this is the OCA thread.
Basically the entire retail offer was paid out in the same financial year as a dividend.
So they took in 20 million in the year ended March 22 in the retail offer and paid out $19.418 million in dividends that same year.
Of the total 100 million they took in (which cost 2.5 million to raise the money) they will pay out 70% of all that money between 2020 and this year. But told us it was for acquisitions.
Of the 100 million, so far since it was raised 25% has gone out as a dividend.
Madness.
What investors say when stocks are going up:
"I would love to buy more of what I own lower."
When stocks actually go lower: "No, I'm good."
Everyone loves a bargain until it's staring them in the face.
Yes, yes.
That wasn't the point though.
Point was people saying they would love to buy more at lower prices as the price rises, but when it falls they do nothing.
In your examples this behavior would have saved them.
So telling that to the shareholders you mentioned would be pointless as they already knew what to do which was the correct action.
Not true as you can see from the ATM thread - many jumped in and bought more (including one big player who admitted his health suffered due to the huge exposure he built up in ATM even as the sp kept falling).
https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showth...mited/page1805
In fact, those of us who dared to post warnings were roundly condemned and abused for having the audacity to question the credibility of the management and fundamentals of ATM.
Jury is obviously out on OCA and the RV stocks but I will make one observation about the credibility of the NTAs behind their valuations :
- NZ property market has fallen very sharply in the last 18 months but the RVs believe they are immune from valuation falls as seen with their reported results. Simply does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny.
I agree wholeheartedly however with you on this point - if the directors and management genuinely believe in their valuations and in creating shareholders' value, they must defer any new developments, stop paying dividends and use all available funds to buy back their shares.
Will they?
Yes understood, you're quite right.
I agree that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny and NTA's have never had any credibility in my view. I know I often post about discount to NTA but the reality is that I look at the value of the assets as being directly related to the CASH they can generate and WHEN they can generate it. I also look to replacement cost as a secondary (as who cares what it costs to build assets that can't produce cash).
So we are not disagreeing on anything really.
The value of NZ property has changed very little, the price has changed a lot.
Any property in NZ (or any asset at all) that is used to generate cash through rental income can easily be valued (annual rent/2) / 8%. So for a rental stream of $1000 a week you can only pay $325,000 anything else is Bull*&^%, unless you lever it up with very low cost funds.
But OCA doesn't generate cash this way and doesn't fund the assets with equity.
The Jury is not out, the business model is phenomenal. Just finished reading up a report on a French company in the same sector - totally different model, no float. No good.
Without the float I would not touch OCA though it would still be an ok business.