Originally Posted by
Ferg
Using a language with agreed definitions is vital for discourse. Otherwise phrases can be OTM (off the mark) or OTM (on the mark). Sensible discourse is not possible if people are going to just make up definitions for words. I try to be precise with my wording to avoid confusion and mis-communication. However, some peoples brains are wired differently such that mis-commuincation can still occur.
I think what he is trying to say is: "If I look at the cashflow statements on page 49 of the 2024 annual report and deduct $259.6m of 'Payments to suppliers and employees' from $207.9m of 'Receipts from residents for village and care fees' but I will ignore changes in accounts receivable and accounts payable and ignore the P&L which is the internationally accepted method of accounting for profits and losses, and if I also ignore other sources of revenue such as deferred management fees which are funded from the $226.3m of 'Receipts from new occupation right agreements' on a different line in the cashflow statement, but an accrued version of such income is reported in note 2.2 on page 58, and if I ignore the accompanying presentation by OCA reporting 'underlying profit' of $62.1m on page 17 and if I also ignore the segment analysis on page 54 of the annual report, and if I also ignore the reconciliation of profit to cashflows on page 50 of the annual report, then I get a number of negative $50m which I will call 'operating losses' ".
I think that is what he is trying to say.