That's fine. My point is more you can't argue OCA doesn't look like crap at the moment, and has for a while.
Printable View
I'd prefer they keep the developments going, but maybe reduce debt funding and fund with a higher proportion of ora. (This might reduce further developments). But i want them to be continuing to get as many ora generating assets as possible behind them as time progresses (keep the divi and plow it into more ora generating assets please).
I'm fairly certain you and most of the negative here are either misguided or stirring for a bit of sport (I have no issue with either by the way provided we are all being relatively respectful to each other). I know this because if a 1.6mil house price dropped to 500k or less, you would snap it up if you had the cash to do so, and stand on the roof tops shouting out about the bargain you got.
And if you were the one who owned the house bought at 1.6mil, the housing market would be a total failure, all and sundry be forewarned about how much of a failure.
If nothing else, this thread certainly highlights the psychological aspect to investing, much like Dremen talks about in his book.
Suggest you look closely at how OCA has not only used all the 'float' but loaded up with debt to the point that it now has to sell assets & stopped paying dividends to pay operating costs and interest.
Fine if OCA has invested all the 'float' and debt in good quality assets in demand by the market but it has not imo.
The float has not only been badly invested by management in ever more expensive and costly developments (resulting in more unsold stock) but management has loaded up with debt and gone on a spending spree as well like a classic boom time amateur developer! hardly surprising that Brent has done a runner.
And what happens with over-leveraged developers left with unsold stock?
Meanwhile, suggest you also look at the amortization of DMF and how that has (imo) resulted in front ended recognition of revenues with costs to be covered later.
Well it's hardly misguided if it's been right, which to date has been the case. And as I said in another post I don't see posters such as Winner or Balance overly bearish, maybe short term. But they do point out the potential risks. They just aren't in the ra ra camp like a Warriors supporter, where nothing can go wrong & even if it does, it's actually a positive.
No doubt about the house but that $1.6M house I would get a return on.
The only return OCA are getting is DMF that basically offsets operational losses.
The rest is new sales or resales.
Their NTA is a share price of $1.60 either, I think it's inflated as well.
I still standby my current valuation of around 90c.
See I'm not a bear.
Suggest you do the same, ValueNZ and retest your value drivers for OCA - there is much for you to learn just as there is for the rest of us too.
OCA is no 'virgin' RV company investing its 'float' in good quality developments and assets but a company loaded up with debt and in a different space altogether.