Same as any bond anywhere in the world.
Printable View
If you bought these bonds today then capital gains would form a large proportion of your return even if rates stayed unchanged.
The bonds are trading at a discount because prevailing rates are higher than the coupon. The closer you get to maturity, all things equal, that discount will gradually dissipate (i.e. capital gains will accrue).
That's how yield to maturity works.
Correct, you don't "buy a 7.8% interest rate"
You're buying:
i) 2.3% interest rate (i.e. the "coupon"); and
ii) the paper at a discount to its face value (i.e. price of $80.47 compared to face value of $100).
The two together result in a yield to maturity of 7.73% p.a. if you bought today and held to maturity.
Ok they got theirs through ASB securities, depending how many you want you may have to wait. They got 200k worth and took 2 weeks.
Ultimately it's the same as buying shares but less liquidity. I see about 50,000 of the 20's have sold today.
If you want hundreds of thousands worth then maybe a broker can find a seller behind the scenes, but to buy via Jarden or whatever you just put your bids in and wait.
As for the tax doc, that's just a simple DCF model where you solve for the net present value to be zero and thus determine the discount rate.
That discount rate is used to determine the income for the tax year. I wouldn't get to bothered about that, the tax is exactly the same, you just pay it on $1 of income the same way as the next $1.
It's just a simple way of calculating the income by determining a yield.
But yes the bonds are there and available in hundreds of thousands of dollars worth at the quoted rates of return.
Agree with everything except assuming the 39% development margin is a new normal.
39% is a high water mark for development margin.
I mean, there's a chance we see 39% with The Helier etc but based on past performance but I wouldn't bank on it being the 'norm' or a baseline assumption.
Oceania have always guided to the long term 'norm' being more like 20-25%. I'd probably conservatively assume that in any forecast and consider anything more to be potential upside.
To play devils advocate on value, the market isn't concerned anymore about 'underlying profit' and 'development margin'.
These two metrics have been shown to be the emperors clothes with valuation focus in the sector squarely shifting to free cash flow generation.
Any speculation about takeovers etc etc needs to look at value through the free cash flow lens because that's going to be the prime concern of any potential purchaser, especially anyone in the private equity world.
Here we go bull! 79c...
If SP stays 79c....a break through 80c is coming
Well, it has closed today at 80c. So onwards and upwards?
Should be trading around 80-85 till next August update and sales of other properties go through n we will see the gearing down to 30%...then market will automatically rerating OCA
I get the whole story, fundamentals, value, etc, but what's holding me back is buying a weak share that has under-performed others in the sector (like SUM) for literally years.
The funny thing is - you could say the same about SUM. Remember 2015 when Ryman was the star and Summerset the ugly duckling?
True - Summerset turned since then into a beautiful swan ... and Ryman must have got some age related jitters (though well might dart now out of the ashes like a Phoenix).
OCA (as a newer addition to the RV business) still in the cygnet / duckling stage. Are you sure you want to compare a cygnet to a grown up swan and assess their future performance based on their past growth?
Sure - you can, but whether it is a sensible thing to do is a different question.
Crossing the 10 and 20 ema. The last time the weekly 10 and 20 ema crossed was October 2021.
This time will be different..OCR paused.. property market reached the button... gearing will be down after the sales on some assets
Its crossing back up
Wax on, wax off. Don't sweat the technique.
"Don't Sweat the Technique" by Eric B. & Rakim promotes the idea of mastery and originality in art. The song emphasizes the importance of staying true to one's artistic vision and not allowing others to dictate the creative process.
Yeah , I chewed that over for a while too, Jagger. It does indeed seem an extreme number to take as the “ new normal.”
Here's my rationale. Firstly; the sequences of 6 month new apartment margins for the last 5 years since 2018 (%)...
36…31…30…43…36…30…25…25…26…30…32…40
OCA has been clear they get lower margins in the provinces. The lower margins above in the mid twenties are when they sold down Nelson and Christchurch. The higher margins above are firstly from Browns bay and Meadow bank and the last number sets have Eden , so Auckland centric.
Current stocks are weighted towards Auckland with obviously The Helier “wagging the dog” and probably a few left at Eden.
The thing that makes this absurd margin reality (for now) is that apartment building construction also always has 3-5 years of capital gains baked in at the sell down phase. OCA has also been clear to tell us that until now all construction contracts have been held at rates before the rampant construction price rises of the last few years. So we are getting new retail sales prices now on stuff built at 2019 build prices. And we know how significant building cost increases have been the last 2 years.
What has been the achilles heel of OCAs slow highrise building programme is now currently a boon. Villas of course all happen in a flash from foundation to handover hence about 15% margin or so Arv generally get.
So given the factors above I have concluded it is fair to assume these 35-40% margins, although almost unbelievable, will hold another 1-2 years before settling back to your 25-30% .
That's my thinking but I have given you my workings in the earlier post so you are right to use whatever margin you think is more appropriate. Im curious if you think 39% is still a bit too optimistic Jagger?
Your attempt at technical analysis sucks, please go away and after studying Oceania's business model then make a post about what you think about it. What I say might be controversial on this forum but, making posts about moving averages add very little to these threads (other than being entertaining to pull apart their argument). There is no real conclusion you can draw from price trends about the future price a stock may be.
Ask yourself the question, even if there were small market inefficiencies where paying attention to moving averages gave you an advantage who do you think would win? Large firms with millions of dollars worth of research and development into algorithms which has been trained to find any trend and place thousands of orders before you can blink, or you on your computer (some have even claimed to day trade on their phone on Sharetrader). Any firm competing with you would definitely be able to place their buy/sell order way quicker than you could thus removing any competitive advantage you could theoretically have.
Not the point, but actually that is a wonderful thing for shareholders looking to pick shares up at a discount. Horrific if you bought at $1.40 and sold at $0.80.
The point is you implied that paying attention to moving averages allows you to avoid future drawdowns. Plain and simple that is utter rubbish.
I do ....when everyone sell...I sell...when everyone buy...I buy
I have enough knowledge that when ever I see the techniques used in technical analysis, I can explain why that provides you with little information on whether you use it to inform your buying/selling decisions. Always happy to have my mind changed, my beliefs are hardly stuck in stone. A convincing enough argument needs to be presented however and I have yet to come across one that I am unable to rebut.
I am happy to say I have no personal experience with technical analysis. I have always steered clear.
Sure I could. However, the burden of proof lies on you to prove that the stock price going from $1.40 to 80c is a result of the weekly 10 and 20 ema crossing. Can you do that?
In the same way if I made the claim that there is a teapot orbiting Mars, the burden of proof lies on me.
And here I was thinking that a 10/20 crossing was a good sign ……bullish …….just like BlackPeter’s Golden Crosses
Stupid me
I stubbed my toe yesterday and OCA rose 2.5% by market close. Next time I stub my toe I'll make sure to purchase some OCA right away!
See the problem with the statement above? It's correlation vs causation. Now, the two events happened to correlate. But does that mean they are in anyway related to each other? Of course not.
Now the 10/20 ema crossing occurred, and then the stock price fell from $1.40 to 0.80c. The events happened to correlate, are they in anyway related to each other? Maybe, but that's for you to prove since it's your claim. I have no reason to believe they are related events until proven otherwise.
Post after post of pointless debate that is of zero value whatsoever.
Oh man I missed the whole show.
ValueNZ destroyed you all, should be ashamed of yourselves.
ValueNZ so far ahead of you all it's not even funny, or if it is, the jokes on you.
BaaBaa went in for a shot and is hiding somewhere back country with tail between the legs as VNZ would be like the most efficient sheep dog you ever seen in herding you home.
The 10 crossing the 20 is bullish. You are a fool if you believe anything otherwise. Of course it’s one of hundreds / thousands of factors to consider.
I was out getting dinner, lol. So I missed the ignorants arguing the negative. If you don't know anything about something, sometimes it's better not to just rubbish it and make yourself look foolish, before deeply exploring it, using, testing it and decide then whether it has any value.
If it piques your interest as to why every single fund manager, forex trader, futures and options trader, commodities trader etc etc uses TA, as well as FA, then you might want to explore why and what it actually is that they do,
Ok, I'm not here to justify TA, or defend it, I don't care whether you use it or not. As far as I'm concerned genuine TA, actual analysis of the price, trends and patterns is just one useful tool amongst others, like FA etc. It is just another tool in the toolkit for managing my equities, particularly timing buys and sometimes sells.
If I was to simplify it, FA informs me of whether the company is a sound investment. TA informs me of the market sentiment towards the price of that equity, whether it's under or over priced, which in turn informs timing for buying or selling. After all, we are forced to buy or sell in the market, the chart is a visual representation of the whole of market sentiment towards pricing that equity. It is insightful and helpful as to what the market thinks about the equity, ergo the price, its price trend, when that trend changes, etc.
TA, actual price analysis, is helpful imo, giving insights into market sentiment over differing timescales, and whether now is a good time to buy or sell. It does not forecast the future, it is not causal, it does inform probabilities of future market sentiment.
To OCA, TA has been very useful, as surprisingly for a boring RV, OCA is a volatile equity in the market with massive price swings over the past few years. The market price only very rarely actually reflects the 'value', as it over shoots up above, and down below. Volatile equity prices are perfect for TA, it indicates market price sentiment on the low side, the high side, when that is changing, and informs long term investing purchase or sales decisions, and in particular momentum trading.
If you don't want to put the time and effort into even exploring TA, let alone testing and using it, then your opinions about it are worth nothing as you are ignorant and uninformed. If however you did what Sailrob says about company FA, deeply study TA, learn how to use it, backtest proven strategies on your equities, and develop your own strategies, apply them, and then decide whether it was a useful tool, or not, then you would be qualified to pass learned opinion.
Instead of bagging some dude who simply pointed out a weekly MA crossover to the upside.
Does this person believe, as he isn't a fool, that any stock that does this 10 crossing the 20, will more likely go up than down?
And that anyone that does not believe this is a 'fool'
Has this person then considered all they need to do is look for stocks meeting this requirement and buy them, even with a tiny edge of 51/49 this would make them extremely rich very quickly?
But no, they are not...
They instead seem to have an uncanny ability to lose money instead of using their technique that gives them a slight advantage...
I have done, spent many years studying them and read 45 fund letters a quarter.
Almost all get destroyed by a simple index fund.
The ones I follow who have a 15 year plus record of beating the market have never mentioned TA once.
If what you say is true, how can you think a human can do it better than a computer.
Cant say it better than this;
'Ask yourself the question, even if there were small market inefficiencies where paying attention to moving averages gave you an advantage who do you think would win? Large firms with millions of dollars worth of research and development into algorithms which has been trained to find any trend and place thousands of orders before you can blink, or you on your computer (some have even claimed to day trade on their phone on Sharetrader). Any firm competing with you would definitely be able to place their buy/sell order way quicker than you could thus removing any competitive advantage you could theoretically have'.
I don't want to put in the time or effort into exploring dancing naked around a fire to heal my sick friend either, this does not mean my opinions about it are worth nothing or that I'm ignorant as I'm using other principles to determine that I'm not interested, don't need to try myself to know someone is full of S*&^
'it does inform probabilities
Ok, so then it provides some kind of statistical edge in making a purchase or sale?? Can we agree that's what you're saying?
Go on, say it. I'm getting the cannon of destruction ready.
I would have thought a computer could go back over a 100 years of hundreds of thousands of charts and easily determine if any patterns had a statistically significant meaning as the the probability of what happened next?
Afterall wall street spends billions of this type of stuff, analysing looking, for anything at all that could give a slight edge.
So surely that data is out there??
'Hey a stock doing this criss cross of Gunners has shown historically that then the chances of up next are better than 50/50... We have the data to prove it'...
We don't need to experiment ourselves, the data is there, the price history is there...
So, show me?
SailorRob,
You are not qualified to have a discussion on the value of technical analysis, you don't know anything about it and keep reverting to funds underperformance and algo's beating the average Joe. It's irrelevant, it's just your perception. Your bagging of TA and anyone who mentions it is, not helpful. You too ValueNZ.
FA is excellent for identifying investments and monitoring their performance. No one I know doubts that, but surprisingly few have the analytical financial skills to do it.
TA is useful for determining whether now is a good to do buy or sell, in the market, it is the market price sentiment that you are forced to buy within, or sell within. It can be down to the minute, 5 minutes, 15 minutes, an hour, a day, a week, a month, quarter, or year. It is just timing, and just probability. Algo's are irrelevant, a buy signal or sell signal could be day, week, months or even years apart. It's about following the money, up or down. It's about the market price and insight into it. It has nothing to do with the value of the company.
TA has been particularly useful for OCA buys and sells over the past few years, it is a very volitile priced equity (surprisingly).
Anyway, I think that's enough from me, you can have the last word on this. 30 years of people bagging TA and then funnily enough coming around to realising it has some value that compliments their decision making.
Well said. To be fair I used to be in the ta is a load of bs camp. It is easy to dismiss because its includes alot of nonsense
You can tell sa doesnt know much about it because he mentions algos as if ta is always day trading. It may be but may not be. Fa with a light touch of ta is the way to go.
Oca clearly has trends. Jan 2020 to current day shows this on the weekly.
Many crossovers on the rainbow MA chart
If charts are an indication of investor/market sentiment one would have to say OCA still sucks
BaaBaa,
You are much smarter than this, and you have the ability to form much stronger arguments.
All you need to do is consider what I have said and you will see the light. For your thesis to be correct we just need to choose the method you rate the highest and look at historic charts to see if it had any ability to have a slight probability of making a slightly better buy sell decision. How can that be wrong?
Seeing as you both can use TA so well, lets use it to get $100,000 to a charity of your choice.
Over the next 12 Months you and Gunner can use your TA wizard skills on 100 different companies to predict a probability on a buy/sell decision and if you can show any statistically significant advantage I will donate 100k to a charity of your choice, super easy to do, let's go.
Where is the evidence??
In a more than likely, futile attempt to get this thread back on track:
Jarden’s contribution to the media “debate:”
https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/300925334/are-retirement-villages-really-superprofiters
(cross posted)
Perhaps the "fool" call was harsh, apologies for that.
But, if you consider what fundamentally the 10 crossing over the 20 means, the recent price action (PA) has been higher than the longer term PA. That is bullish, FULL STOP.
Whether it means the trend will continue, it will be higher tomorrow, is another matter.
Of course, any MA number you want to make up and use can be bullish/bearish. The 3005 MA crossing over the 10,344, for example.
But my original statement stands. The 10 crossing the 20 is bullish. That it maths and cannot be disputed.
Whatever the price did a few years back when this same thing occurred has ZERO bearing on whether it is a bullish signal right now.
Always good to call a spade a spade ... but anyway, I think the problem of the resident troll is that he does not understand maths or specifically statistics and it appears he tries to compensate that with arrogance and aggression.
Anybody else understands that certain signals point (with a defined likelihood) to a certain outcome.
"The trend is your friend" is one of these examples: If you have an established trend, it is more likely that the next data point continues this trend. Does not mean though, that the trend can't change.
But unless the likelihood is 100% (which it won't be for any future looking indicator), individual events mean absolutely nothing, you need a statistical relevant sample to measure the correlation.
But trying to explain this to a troll is like throwing pearls to the sows. Better spare your pearls for more worthy recipients and put the sows on ignore. So much more relaxing.
It appears that only SailorRob and I actually understand the math behind what it means to say "If you have an established trend, it is more likely that the next data point continues this trend." Just for fun I decided to throw some numbers around in a spreadsheet.
Let's say for example that 10 crossing over the 20 means that there is a 50% probability that a stock will go up 10% in a week when you sell it, and there is a 50% probability that a stock will go down 9% in a week when you sell it. That's an expected value of 1.005 per trade, a tiny statistical edge. Lets say you can only manage 10 trades per week (there are tens of thousands of publicly traded companies in the world you could easily screen for). Your average return in a year therefore becomes 1.005^(10*52), an average return of 1238% p.a.
Don't like the numbers I've used? Fine, change them yourself but understand these tiny statistical edges give you massive returns due to the nature of compounding. I am aware I haven't accounted for the distribution of the returns the figure is just an average to show a point.
I asked nicely the first time, but FFS! Take this argument elsewhere!!!! :mad ;:
I enjoy SB’s stinging rebukes.
I am yet to see anyone actually take apart any of his arguments.
And nobody seems to rush in to accept his various wagers…
You can’t really dictate what people wish to discuss sweetheart.
They seem to mostly tie it back to OCA (eventually) anyway.
Direct Broking have this Top Buys (and Sells) weekly list. The top share in the BUY list is there because the BUY value traded in that stock exceeded the SELL value traded in that stock by the largest degree, last week.
Well OCA was amongst the top buys last week
And SUM and ARV were amongst the top sells
Maybe (don’t ask me to prove that it lol) punters are moving out of SUM and ARV and moving into OCA.
Maybe they’ve finally seen the light of day and backingba winner
Oh.. whatever U guys debating about...I don't get it...all I know is SP is hitting 80c and the trend is bullish...
Kiaora!!! Happy Matariki.....
I think it's in the nature of these threads that they get sidetracked, but eventually when someone makes an actual post about OCA everyone is quickly eager to discuss it. Who cares about the interim between the actual OCA posts. The posts are almost always enjoyable to read and respond to. Don't like it? Skim past the posts and don't let it bother you.
Just my fuzzy logic. But it went to 84 not long ago, psychology would dictate that it will get there again and then there will be resistance to go higher for a bit. Mind you that was cum dividend of 1.5 cents. However I don't think most investors are that mathematically rational.
I am genuinely sorry for my part in upsetting JAK, seriously, why is she so wound up?
Is it not easy to just ignore the thread for a couple of days and then next time you look at it, simply scroll past all the BS and jump back in where it's interesting to you again?
Come on, not that hard, just don't read the posts that are obviously about a topic that annoys you.
Not the end of the world.
Cheers MistaTea, you're right nobody seems to be able to actually provide any evidence against what I'm saying.
Even if BaaBaa has had success with this BS it could be down to luck, no way does he know that it's statistically significant what he claims to be able to do.
BlackPeter has really put their foot in it, by claiming that the last data point predicts the next in some statistically significant way. BaaBaa is smart enough not to go that far even though I asked him to. But ultimately he said the same thing, that prior data points lead to probability for future ones to be statistically related to them.
BaaBaa then messed up by claiming I'm not qualified to speak on the topic, meaning because I haven't tried this rubbish. No logic whatsoever in that claim.
My bets are genuine, happy to type them up into a formal document and use the same online format Buffett used to destroy the hedge funds.
All these gurus need to do is select 100 different companies chart patterns and tell us with each respective one, what comes next.
I'd have to do some work to see whats required for it to be statistically significant, but I know it won't even come down to that close a debate.
They will be destroyed well before that and they know it.
Frustrating thing is I know BaaBaa is smarter than this, the rest I know are not.
And yet $1.40 to 0.80. You can see for yourself if you backtest. You wont but that's ok. I do not feel the need to insult.
People who insult on an anyomous forum usually are projecting their insecurities on to anonymous people they have no knowledge of. There are all types of characters in society. Some good and some bad.
Be good/helpful when we get some more OCA related data to consider.
Not too far away.
https://www.nzx.com/announcements/413972
PS: I quite enjoy the banter. As long as it doesn’t get nasty. There is no need.
Yes I can see that clearly Gunner.
Very good providing me with one example, what I want is 'prove' that this method is statistically significant.
I refuse to even consider that you could be so clueless to thing one example is a back test 'prove'
Yes I am extremely insecure, what of it?
So my fellow 'Gunner' if I can provide one example for you to back test that shows the opposite happening, the cross then a move which is opposite to your theory... WHAT THEN????
I would argue that it was a typo, whereas most of the things I mock stem from a limited proficiency in the English language.
Prove instead of proof is not a typo, there instead of their etc..
If my general command of the language was even 1/10 as bad as you're then I'd admit I waz a hippocrit