Told ya..hookers, beer and NTL.
Printable View
The answer to that depends on if you believe in efficient market theory I guess. Property market down turn is a highlighted risk, I guess the question for the individual becomes do you believe the market has the correct price built in for that risk, and how long does it last and what are the long term implications.
The misunderstanding I was talking about earlier was academic, we are here trying to learn and improve our craft as investors, and we (me included) are pretty slack on the basic 101 stuff like reading the available documentation. We do really need to do better.
Some 101 stuff cupsy
AR says Profit before Tax was $28.4m which included $66.1m of realised gains from ORA sales
Does this mean that day to day operations ran at $37.7m loss?
If so the the current discount to NTA the shares are trading at could be because the market (efficient) expects these to continue and to be the equivalent to NPV of future losses.
Oceania deduct the float when they calculate the Embedded Value
Embedded Value is about 71 cents prt share
Nice! What's that, like a 25-30% return in 2 months? EMH is a joke.
I won't be asking my professor that, I decided part way through last year that I wasn't going to argue/debate with teachers about topics they were teaching. It never goes anywhere productive. My economics teacher was a green party voting socialist so that was difficult for me haha.
Deleted as duped
That Oceania shares are not a derivative, there is no "out of the money". There isn't a strike price, or an expiration date.
If you bought shares at 80c and a year later the market values them at 52c, who gives a shít, you're not betting on some price movement to make a profit.
I was confused by this term of phrase, "out of the money" because it applies to derivatives, not equities, stock or shares.
ChatGPT gave this answer to the question:
Can an equity, stock, or share, be "out of the money"?
(after explaining what a call and put option was), it said ...
Summary
- Options can be "out of the money" based on the relationship between the strike price and the current market price of the underlying asset.
- Equities (stocks or shares) cannot be "out of the money" because they are not derivatives and do not have strike prices.
In summary, the term "out of the money" is relevant to options trading and not applicable to regular stock ownership.
Yeah, because there's no five year olds here, even though some act like it.
Thing is, most people seem to focus on the share price, hoping to buy low, then sell high. Fair enough, but most of them don't know what low or high is, because they don't know or think they know, what the company is worth (value) now, or into the future and rely on the market to tell them. And the market imo is a terrible indicator of current or future company value. Nevertheless, the market does 'price' it. We can use that to our advantage in the right situations, or we can freak out and kill our capital.
For the market price followers, it's all about making a capital gain, preferably quickly, on the share price, they're all hovering around seeing this share price sh1t itself wondering, is this the low, no wait, it might go higher and miss a few cents, no wait, it might go lower and lose a few cents, no wait I haven't any idea what the heck is happening. All because they don't know, or don't have the skills or inclination to try and figure out what a company is actually worth, like what is its value now and what will it's value be in the future. It's like flying blind, informed only by the share price which is notoriously unreliable.
Value investors on the other hand spend most of their investing lives waiting for opportunity, because they put in the effort to decide what the company is actually worth now and into the future, and whether the asset they're buying now is a decent risk reward, and whether the market has completely mispriced it, giving an outstanding long term investment return. Of course they're vilified and ridiculed because, essentially they're contrary investors, they see something others don't and buy what appears to be a dog because the share price has been gutted, but in fact will (or most likely will) pay off handsomely for them in the future.
We the value investors and the traders, are here right now because of the same thing, the share price is ridiculously low compared to embedded and future value. We only differ as to our rationale as to when to get some, or some more.
Warriors had awesome 42-12 win over the Cowboys yesterday. Fans really excited now and saying we always do better in the 2nd half of the season so finals footie is almost a certainty now and gettin even more confident of this being ‘our year’ UP THE WAHS
Oceania share price had a bad week and down 3 cents 5% to end at 52 cents. If anything it’s made the fandom even more convinced it’s a good thing. One of the chief fans canvassed the fandom and found that nearly all are keeping the faith ..and that a few new fans might join in. However they might not be saying ‘this is the year’ for Oceania share price to get to $1 but definitely next year or the year after that or maybe 2040even. GO OCEANIA YOU BEAUTIFUL THING
A casual observer possibly sees ‘this is our year’ not happening for either …. But plenty of action at the TAB and NZX betting on it short term
Oh dear.
All the amateurs come out to play.
Out of the money means exactly that, it's not worth what you paid for it.
Yes the term probably originated from options, but is widely used in finance circles for anything that's.... out of the money.
And can be applied to anything.
You could be otm on a house purchase, as many have been recently.
For shares the 'strike price' is simply the share price.
Fx forward hedge books which are not options are quite often termed in the money,.or .... let's see.... oh yeah out of the money.
It's pretty basic stuff guys, and pretty embarrassing how you all pile in with the huge amount of experience you all have. 🤣
Obviously Chat GPT still has a long way to go on the vanacular.
Interesting that the same people that piled in with their cluelessness are the biggest OCA fans.
I know the Wahs cleaned up last night, but sorry guys it's still not their year.
Really???
I mean really?
I'm sure you must have meant something else other than what you wrote above.
I hope that's not what you have been trying to debate with your lecturers.
Look at it this way, every purchase or sale you make you are literally taking an option, an option over not to buy or sell, an option to be invested in anything else but what you have selected.
I really don't care what ChatGPT or any other thing you need to look up says. The fact that you have to look these things up says it all.
I know, because it was a common phrase used during my career for anything that's was, like it describes, was out of the money.
Thanks for personal digs and insults though. You just can't help yourself, especially when you don't have a leg to stand on, of well at least you will make a good pirate.
Writing in the third person says it all.
Of course you back him up... deep value & all that. 🤣
Have a good one, I'll let the ignorant masses keep squabbling over what they know nothing about as it really displays the OCA Fandom qualities, which are quite entertaining.
Really! Wow I never knew that. 🙄
Mate I was there, for over 20 years, worked on some of the biggest trading floors in the world.
But you rely on ChatGPT. 🤣🤣🤣
I think I will now constantly refer to your OCA position as OTM, just to wind you up, well until of course the share price turns by 2040 & you are ATM or even ITM. Good luck on the latter.
No use arguing with fools.
Have a productive day.
If you buy an asset for $1 and the market values it at $0.80, then in my mind, you are definitely out of the money. Seems really simple to me.
I also know about options and they are out of the money if the strike price has not been met by the head share. This is possibly a more common use of the vernacular.
However if my mate buys Tesla for $400 a share he is currently well OTM!! :)
The fact that you have never heard it, says it all. 🤣
It's probably not a term you would get in a report or newsletter, but no reason why not either.
It's how traders talk.
You don't learn everything in a book, in fact real world experience is the best teacher of all, well that's if you learn from it.
You have heard of mark to market right?
Well that tells you if it's OTM, ATM or ITM (not the hardware store for you peasants 🤣).
See there you go, you have had a productive day already and learned something. 😉
Underwater is a good term …esp if talking about about stocks with a float that are ‘sinking’
Seeing you ask if you take fotal sales $ less total buy $ over the years and divide that by current number of shares held the answer is $5.25 (is profitable)...was a bit higher at beginning of year. You could say the market has paid me to hold the shares I have at the moment (not really that many in big picture of things)
Not bitter at all Value …as previous post OCA has been kind to me over the years
I have this morbid fascination with how Oceania performs .. operationally and financially and how the market has reacted over time. My database is probably just as big and meaningful as Mavericks. Over the years we have shared many of our workings and thoughts. Shame he’s apparently given up posting on Sharetrader.
If I come across as ‘bitter’ it’s mainly because the financials and the company hype don’t reconcile ….and they disappoint the market. Maybe things will change.
No doubt my morbid fascination with Oceania will continue ….as it will with some other companies. Besides being fascinating I find it educational as well.
Hey Winner, what do you think OCA would need to deliver an after company tax divi of 52c?
(Without any further capital raises etc)
I reckon at least $10Bln - $14Bln depending on the percentage.
I wonder what their day to day operating loss will be by then? It doubled in the last year from $20M to $40M, does ot keep doubling 😉 or go up by $20M per year? Whats that $360M per year by 2040?
Flesh wound, what's wrong with ya. 😅
Really is that right, who knew.... Gawd you are desperate to score points you will literally say anything no matter how ridiculous it makes you look.. :) But continue to fail again & again.
Be like a Wahs fan, try harder.
How's that OTM position you have, you know the one you don't recognize as OTM. :)
Do you want to refer to ChatGTP? 🤣
See if you were as smart as you think you are, you would understand that's not what I was saying.
Market cap is a reflection of earnings... x a multiple.. ergo... I'm sure you know the rest, its relatively simple...
Up the OCAs doesn't really work, so we will have to think of something new for the OCA core fans...
It will be interesting where he think this OCA $40m comes from, though either way it pales in comparison with RYM's measly $4m NPAT and whopping $246m comprehensive LOSS, a -171% from 2023, $39m LOSS in total equity, from total assets of $13b. Which he thinks is a better 'investment'.
That is a cashflow statement, not a P&L. In accounting parlance an "operating loss" is equivalent to a negative operating profit. Losses and profits are reported in the P&L, not the cashflow statement as pointed out by SR. Either change your numbers or change your terminology because I'm seeing no such "operating loss" in the cashflow statement on p49. I recommend change your terminology because right now the words you are using are not correct for the numbers you are quoting.
Yikes. It is Certainly a lesson not to rely on AI or ChatGTP just yet. My average purchase price for my OCA ordinary shares is about 75c each. I am definitely “out of the money” or “underwater” with my investment. I have heard for decades both terms used interchangeably by people to refer informally to many types of currently underperforming investments.
ChatGTP is biased to American English usage for a start.
Daytr is not concerned about "words" or their meaning, he makes stuff up that no analyst would agree on, by obfuscating standard accounting and financial terminology and practices. And doesn't seem particularly astute at reading or interpreting financial statements, albeit for most mortals they are pretty complicated.
Today was another example, arguing strongly that OTM is a generic term to mean a holder at their average price is "OTM" if the share price is lower than their average buy price today. Which of course is nonsense, it's a fabricated perversion of standard financial terminology as it applies only to options and at no time ever has it ever applied in general discourse to equities.
What a load of nonsense. At no time ever has anyone made reference to OTM in terms of OCA equities, that I'm aware of. The fact that you disclose that you are about 33% into a paper loss is not surprising as you have no inkling of when to buy, or probably sell, but to suggest that you have decades (like literally 10's of years) experience of the terms used interchangeably, is laughable. Credibility, none.
Gawd you guys love pointing out the obvious.
I have aleady explained this, so go back through my posts, other than to state the obvious.
Are they getting enough in fees to cover the day to day operating costs of the villages?
Answer: No & its a big over $50M no.
So things like DMF, resales, sales are subsidizing the day to day operation.
That cashflow gap has more than doubled in the last year. What's it going to do this year?
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.
The OCA thread is a modern day classic! Posters disagree; that is expected, but are the angry personalised attacks from some really necessary? I understand “out of the money” has a particular meaning with respect to options. However as an informal term it has also referred to any investment with a book loss.
Collins online dictionary: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...%20the%20money.
Ferg, I think I was pretty clear in what I said and actually if you had read the original posts I was also clear what I was referring to, nothing more, nothing less.
You might want to think accounts receivable/ payable as well considering residents fees are payable in advance.
I dont like to weigh in on things like this, but this is just not a credible response to what ferg has posted imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferg View Post
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.
What you have posted is not 'operating losses' by any definition. The first and last bits of my interpretation of what you are trying to say is true, and the rest are your unstated assumptions. Do we agree on this?
Also, as Baa_Baa has already pointed out eons ago, why are you ignoring other sources of revenue? We don't do that for any other business.
Consequently, your definition of 'operating losses' is nonsensical. Hence, I go back to my earlier post and suggest you change your terminology because it is a) misleading to the uninformed and b) incorrect.
What a mixed up world we live in. DT thinks a cashflow is a P&L, and my stating a cashflow is not a P&L is "irrelevant". Oh dear. As you were.....keep shouting into the void.
.pointless post.
“It is damn hard to win an argument or debate against a wise person. It is impossible to win an argument or debate against a fool.”
Apply as appropriate.
OMG …Mike did a huge rave this morning in Mikes Minute on the radio. He was super excited and told hundreds of thousands of listeners how great the Warriors are and now team back to full strength and in the groove and got momentum that they are definitely heading to a. ‘This is our year’ season. UP THE WAHS
Forbar did a rave last week and said OCA will be $1 soon. But Forbar are light weights really. What Oceania need is for Rob to use his wide network of gurus and get somebody like this guy Gill and do a Roaring Kitty to get the market excited ….would go well past a buck if he got social media in a frenzy. GO OCEANIA YOU BEAUTIFUL THING
However will fandom win out at the end of the day …that’s still the big question
That's most disingenuous, but nice try.
All I have pointed out is fees aren't covering the day to day operation of the villages and by some margin and the deficit has grown significantly.
This deficit needs to be covered by other income.
On P58 as you point out its being covered by the DMF. So the DMF that the likes of Sailorboy & his first mate rave about as the golden goose is basically being chewed up by funding the day to day operations.
DMF only increased by $2M, fees by $ 11M
Payments to suppliers & employees however increased by $30M.
Rather than put downs which is the go to defence on this thread.
Please explain why this deficit shouldn't be a concern to shareholders?
Ferg?
Cupsy?
If the cashflow statement I referred to displayed a surplus of $50M rather than a $50M deficit what impact would that have had on the P&L?
You can't act like this deficit does not impact the PL substantially.
What would the share price be if the resident fees covered the day to day cost of the villages?
$1.20ish?
Real Gem ...applies here to many many convos going on...Believers like OCA with total disregard to Mr Market's musings over a long period now ...so cant be temporary lack of concentration types ...also nah sayers keep rambling to no avail ...argument is still as strong as it was 6 months ago ...maybe thats the fun ..un winnable debate ...but are there any un winnable debates when money is concerned ...either u make money or u loose ...so as per that standard believers are loosing and nah sayers winning currently .
But it's always fun to enjoy reading both sides ....I have learnt to my peril many times ignoring Mr Market never ends well ...SML !!
Everyone who invests in OCA will eventually win. And good for them investing, for whatever reason.
And the fact that they are in here debating, learning etc puts everyone well ahead of the pack.
I could show you plenty of examples of people who drink their weekends away socialising, yapping on about how much money they make, their golf handy cap etc but squander it all away.
So as far as I'm concerned, if we all participate and learn, then we can all become better investors together.
Amen brother.
Some really good points from both ‘sides’.
Those buying now will do just fine. Those who bought at 70/80c will also do just fine I am sure if they sit on their arse doing nothing.
Whether or not OCA is undervalued now or fair value but with good growth prospects is academic at this point.
If you like the business, buy and hold long term and you will do just fine I am sure.
Cheers Winner.
But apparently cashflow doesn't impact the PL.. 🤣
Fees received & DMF increased by $13M
Expenses to employees & suppliers increased by $30.5M, but apparently there's nothing to see here as it's not the PL. 🤣
Ignore cashflow statements at your peril.
I assure you & I'm sure you know anyway, it's a big deal for banks & analysts.
Exactly, as mentioned in one of my earlier posts.
Run a mark to market over your portfolio, that will tell you if you are ITM, ATM or OTM.
My share investment account just refers to it as a loss. Much harsher term, I would prefer OTM, suggests I still have a chance. 🤣
Seriously?
ORAs increased by $48M & yet total net cashflow increased by only $15M.
Thanks for underlining my point.
You really need to think before you post.
You tried disingenuously suggest for mental health reasons I should take a break.
That's disgraceful way to try and shut someone up just so the spruikers get their way.
I don't own stock, not looking to own stock in the at the moment and there is nothing wrong with promoting stock, but spruiking absolute fantasy land by some posters on here to lure investors in is disgusting and they need to be challenged. The fact they constantly use personal attacks & put downs as a constant form of defence, should ring alarm bells.
That goes for the question you asked Winner as well. It just displaying your lack of understanding.
Remember Cupsy I am actually positive overall on the stock, but that's not to say there aren't 'challenges' that need to be highlighted.
The ipo document talks about them moving the care part of the business towards an ORA and DMF model of funding, meaning as the company has been growing (costs being a portion of that), you would assume to see more of the costs being covered by DMF.
This additionally increases the risk in the event of a property downturn imo, but you can read the risks section of the AR or IPO doc you judge for your self.
DMF get consumed by costs over their duration …all spent, nothing left at end of the day
And it seems other income (along with accrued DMF) don’t cover costs ……hence ‘operating loss’
Again seriously? The IPO document?
Both are sales pitches.
Either way, yep costs are rising much quicker than fee revenue so the drivers of the lofty expectations for the share price of Sailorboy etc are being whittled away by subsidizing operating costs.
RYM are recognizing this and looking to change their fee & DMF structure. Perhaps the new CEO of OCA will look to do similar.
Anyway, beautiful day here, I'm off to enjoy it.
I am invested in OCA for the long term, despite having bought at higher prices than today’s.
Good sentiments. Unfortunately there are some posters who expect other posters not to be able to learn, but to have the advanced analytical skills they think they themselves already have. They unleash their bile on those whom they think are irrelevant, disagree with, or those they consider to have inferior skills. How many keen learner posters or amateur investors have they already repulsed or frightened away?
I was referring to the ongoing argument you appear to have with Rob and others, the intent wasn't so much around mental health but life enjoyment in general (as in like you said earlier about it being too nicer day to be on here). But granted the two are very closely linked, so you are right, regardless of intention I should have thought about it a bit more and considered how it might be percieved. I have No problem apologising and removing the post if it upsets you, just let me know (i appologise).
Hey Daytr, I recommend taking some time off ST, not for your mental health but to learn about accural accounting and option trading basics.
Quick question. If you buy a out of the money call option, and immediately the underlying asset increases in price but not enough to reach the strike price, resulting in a higher market price for the call option, do you have a call option that is simultaneously in the money and out of the money? :lol: Schrodinger's option perhaps.
Might spend an hour or so listening to Buffett …Jimmy that is
Full of wisdom and pretty cool
SailorRob's been banned again.
A real shame given he is clearly well read, knows his way around the commercial impacts of financial statements, and understands long cycle trends. I would much rather read what he has to say than someone who doesn't know the difference between a cashflow statement and P&L, and makes up his own definitions. It's no wonder this thread is trash - and it's no wonder Maverick doesn't post. I respect that given there is nothing to be learned from the contributions to this thread by the argumentative uninformed financially illiterate loudmouth.