Well said, agree
Printable View
Well said, agree
Seriously, you think that's why he has been banned?
And it certainly wasn't down to me.
He shut down so much discourse with various posters with his insults etc I would suggest that was his undoing.
I agree he could have added value if he had stuck to the debate but he seldom did.
No surprises. He attacked anyone who didn’t agree with him.
Damn it.
SR is his own worst enemy with the insults etc, for sure.
He really does know his stuff though, and it is a shame he couldn’t get the balance right.
Do we know how long he is banned for this time?
As much as I really dislike some of the posts he makes, I am eternally grateful to the sailor for helping me get set up on IBKR etc. He does really nice things for people too.
It is a real pity and I don’t feel good that he is banned again (even though I have been on the receiving end of his wrath many times lol).
SO a few days trading at 52/3c and the patent pending buyitGPT - AI rates it as 'bargepole' but has 55c, 57c & 63c as prices it would get increasingly more enthusiatic about the stock, tomorrow it will dream up different prices.
Fundamentaly? Well they seem to be a going concern :mellow:
By the way Ferg, don't hold back on how you feel. It makes me laugh how upset people get over semantics or just because they aren't aware of something, so it can't be true if I don't know it.🤣 Discussion should be held with agreed definitions or whatever. 🤣 Who are you, the Collins dictionary? Oh no that's right if you were you would actually know.
How many times was it SailorBoy was banned? Once? Twice? Thrice?
And what's the definition of trying the same thing again & again and expecting a different outcome?
I've seen it many times, it's usually down to big fish small pond syndrome. And when the ignorance is exposed they double down etc. The extent of the obvious bitterness, anger if you will, gives away the underlying motive. And I'll admit I can be terse & that can evoke a reaction.
Its amazing you never pulled up SailorBoy on some of his very interesting, to say the least, definitions. Is that because he was spruiking and you are long and wrong?
Or as we would say in the trading floor, OTM.
Cashflow, hmmm nothing to see here...
Please don't highlight that otherwise shareholders might really get to understand what's going on. But hey what's a $52.6M deficit between friends.
I hope Mav does post again as we had some good discussions & without the insults & slanging match. Or perhaps he has folded like ThaiJohn. Who knows.
The Wahs have a tough match this week against Melbourne. Although the recent string of wins hasn't been reflected in the OCA SP.
Perhaps OCA is breaking the relationship.
The die hard fans won't stop believing though, as it's their year.
And I hope it is.
I've worked with my fair share of people in banking over the years who were too intelligent for their own good. That's what drove me away from it.
SailorRob acted the same way.
It well and good to understand what's under the hood of a F1 engine. But it takes good management decisions, sound finance, the right driver, and some luck etc to come out on top.
My point being, I could debate the accounting theory all day long with regard to valuations etc. (the F1engine) with SailorRob. But chose not too, because it's an argument that you could never win.
I like others, got his point, but did not appreciate it being rammed down my throat like I was some employee working at the Bank.
Im sure that he will be back under some other user name soon enough.
No Toddy last time he was gone no one filled the unmistakable gap. You cannot hide an opinion that strong. It is a loss, Mav and SR both add value to the forum.
I hold the record for the longest period of not commenting on Sharetrader between 2008 and 2023.
That's one record that won't be under threat from SailorRob.
I don't think he is on the other channel. Maybe like Mav he will give up now and keep his insights to himself.
haha this is the greatest thread over the yrs ......... for proving how gullible people are from basil & co to mav to sailor lol
Yeah I mean who is going to scroll through members old posts from three years ago?
Or lambast anyone that apparently was involved in SKY TV, a constant for him. Such illuminating stuff.
Toddy, imo he wouldn't cut it at a bank, his strategy certainly wouldn't as it goes against every risk management policy written.
And banks wouldn't buy into his accounting lunacy either.
He more reminded me of one of those preachers that rove the Bible belt looking for a gullible audience that he can perform his 'miracles' on and brother, did he find the faithful. Yes sir indeed Amen.
I didn't see once the likes of Ferg, Baa_Baa or others question anything he put it out.
Because you don't question the lord. Or maybe it's you just don't question what you want to believe.
Hallelujah
Anyway onward & upward, well hopefully for OCA. US equity markets hovering around record highs. NZ market still in the doldrums & the retirement sector one if the biggest laggards.
The sector has been quite a drag on the NZ bourse overall. If it does rebound it will be interesting to see what impact it has on the NZX50 etc.
wrong thread
I certainly hope Maverick hasn't gone for good.
His opinions I value highly, not just from the numbers, but his well-rounded perspective of the whole operation.
And he never got into mud-slinging, which is so unnecessary and childish.
Come back Maverick!
Yes it is the petty stuff that is his undoing in the end. The insults, the bringing up old posts or referencing other investments that didn’t work out as a way to discredit etc.
And a damn shame because I do like the way he views investments, and he does know a lot about it. Lots of good stuff with the sailor but ultimately you end up having to tune him out when he becomes too manic.
Anyway, we box on. Onwards and upwards.
if people like float's they should have been in TWR not OCA
Cash flow is just that. Receipt of sales monies would be after sale agreement.
A timing difference. Given sales of $267m versus receipts of $226m, If the cash flow receipts at the beginning of the period were for sales signed towards the end of the previous period, then sales at the end of the reporting period would have been quite a bit higher than the end of the previous year. So cash flow receipts would have got a good boost at the beginning of the current period. Have I interpreted that correctly?
Thought of that but working through F22, F23 and F24 the differences have been $14m, $$33m and then the $41m
If we assume that the F22 $14m was sales made in F22 and not paid until F23 then the F23 difference is $47m (22% of sales outstanding at balance date) ……assume this paid in F24 then the difference between F24 report sales and cash collected in F24 is now $88m (33% of sales) …probably higher as the starting F22 difference doesn’t include a carry over from F21
Must be using wrong logic/methodology as the 33% carried over can’t be the case but then they show $93.8m as still receivable from licence agreements so it might be right after all.
My gut feel is they’ve changed how they report sales …assuming the Cash Flow Statement doesn’t lie.
Not wishing to stray too much off topic, but a poster now banned had asked ChatGPT what was the meaning of the expression “out of the money”. They posted the result on this thread.
I asked the question of ChatGPT “what does ‘out of the money’ mean in every sense?” It came up with an answer that was quite different from the original poster’s result. The answer I got included four definitions for 1. Options trading 2. Betting and gambling 3. Investment and business and 4.Metaphorical usage.
My conclusion is that currently ChatGPT is a useful tool. However much can depend on the wording of a question. So caution is needed before definitively relying on responses.
GIGO.
In the context of Sharetrader, there is really only one answer which is :
The phrase "out of the money" is specifically used in the context of options trading rather than directly describing share values. It refers to the relationship between an option's strike price and the current market price of the underlying asset, not the share value itself.
I asked my mate “Greg”: Tell me all the ways the term ‘out of the money’ is used.
Greg answered:
The term "out of the money" (OTM) is primarily used in the context of options trading, but it can also be referenced in other financial instruments and contexts. Here are the key ways it is used:
1. **Options Trading**:
- **Call Options**: A call option is considered out of the money if the current price of the underlying asset is below the strike price of the option. For example, if a call option has a strike price of $50 and the underlying stock is trading at $45, the call option is out of the money.
- **Put Options**: A put option is considered out of the money if the current price of the underlying asset is above the strike price of the option. For example, if a put option has a strike price of $50 and the underlying stock is trading at $55, the put option is out of the money.
2. **Structured Products**:
- In the context of structured products like equity-linked notes or similar instruments, "out of the money" can refer to the condition where the embedded option (either call or put) within the structured product is not beneficial to exercise because the strike price is unfavourable relative to the current market price.
3. **Derivatives Markets**:
- In derivatives markets, "out of the money" is often used to describe options or other derivative contracts that currently do not have intrinsic value. This term helps traders and investors quickly assess the potential profitability or risk of these contracts.
4. **Financial Analysis and Reporting**:
- In financial analysis, particularly when evaluating the performance or risk profile of a portfolio containing options, "out of the money" options are considered in scenarios where potential losses or lack of gains are analysed. For example, an investor may calculate the potential impact of holding a large number of OTM options in various market conditions.
5. **Risk Management**:
- For risk management purposes, especially in hedging strategies, "out of the money" options may be used as part of a strategy to protect against adverse price movements. Though they have lower premiums, they can still offer protection in extreme market moves.
Understanding these different contexts is crucial for anyone involved in trading, investing, or managing financial instruments that involve options or other derivatives.
*****
I then asked Greg: Is it ever used for stocks?
His answer:
The term "out of the money" (OTM) is not typically used to describe stocks themselves. Instead, it is primarily associated with options and other derivatives. Stocks do not have a strike price or an intrinsic value based on a contract, which are key elements in defining whether an option is in or out of the money.
However, there are a few contexts where the concept might tangentially relate to stocks:
1. **Warrants**: Warrants are similar to options and can be issued by companies. Like options, warrants can be "out of the money" if the exercise price of the warrant is higher than the current stock price (for call warrants) or lower than the current stock price (for put warrants).
2. **Convertible Securities**: Convertible bonds or convertible preferred shares have an option-like feature. They can be considered "out of the money" if the conversion price (the price at which the bond or preferred share can be converted into common stock) is above the current stock price.
3. **Employee Stock Options**: Employee stock options (ESOs) are a form of options given to employees as part of their compensation package. These can be "out of the money" if the strike price of the ESO is above the current market price of the company's stock.
In summary, while "out of the money" is not a term used for stocks directly, it can apply to financial instruments related to stocks, such as warrants, convertible securities, and employee stock options.
superfluous to requirement
On this thread, we discuss OCA shares - not options, not warrants, not convertibles. But if someone can point us towards where one can trade options on OCA, that would be appreciated!
Hence, use of OTM here for OCA shares is inherently wrong and inappropriate.
superfluous to requirement
Mav certainly has my utmost respect as well, a truely selfless contributor who probably knows more about the company Oceania Healthcare than any other member here, I'll miss his posts.
That said, OCA doesn't have your money, unless you bought all or some of your shares through the IPO or cap raises. More likely is some other punter has your money, the ones you bought the shares from.
It might seem a trivial distinction but the market where we buy and sell shares has no benefit to OCA. Like you'll see people say "I support the company, and buy shares", well sadly that's not support at all unless it's a cap raise, on market it's just our funds going to someone else who is selling, or visa versa.
The current share price, on market, is quite confounding for holders looking for some upside. It show no TA signs of capitulation despite its lowly SP. The volume of shares traded is only about average, there's no capitulation event evident there. The RSI actually ticked up on a one cent gain and is not oversold by technical standards.
It's encouraging for holders that in the immediate short term there is a bounce off the low trend line at .52 (nice move SR), but I wouldn't bank that as a turnaround, yet. At 67% below ATH and 62.5% below NTA, the SP is pretty much fecked against any other fundamental valuations. Whether this is a trigger for investment depression or a trigger for 'let the dogs out', is upto the individual.
It's confounding only because the TA is defying the FA. The market is saying OCA is worth feck all, but the FA is saying whoa, hang on a minute we've got billions in assets, a future development pipeline, heaps of revenue, manageable debt, making a profit, but you the market think we're doomed! Go figure, it won't change what we do at OCA.
Like someone said, hypothetically if you owned the whole company yourself, and you were not listed on the share market, what would you consider the company to be worth, or its value now? I think you'd probably think it's doing pretty well, it would be good if more of the backlog got sold down, and if they can close the gap between care specific costs and care revenue, that would be good too.
The regulatory risk is minor as we're already doing most of that. Government care subsidies are ridiculously low, but the pressure is building to change that. Demographics are obvious, a stark reality staring at us that the government must address aged care funding that is now and coming.
But as a listed RV company, clearly, like all of the others, the whole sector is currently screwed, OCA included. None of them are doing well, even the bellweather SUM is sideways soft, RYM is hurting, ARV are panicking. OCA is teasing capitulation.
Is there not a better time to get some, get some more, or ... give up and gift us your shares? Either way, Oceania won't benefit from it, it's just the market, not the company that will benefit from it.
What’s the odds of a cap raise within 12 months?
This is one of those fallacies up there with 'float' and OCA liabilities are really an asset.
Ask this simple question: If OCA buy the share back who do they pay, he who first bought them or whoever owns them now?
Stay tuned to this channel folks there is more to come...
Spot on.
When reading Baa_Baa's post I was thinking where do they get this stuff?
And the confidence to explain in detail a fallacy.
It reminds me of Sailorboy always arguing that there can't be more buyers than sellers or visa versa, it's such a myopic view.
I look at the equity as a company liability or debt, and no matter who that liability is passed to, the liability remains directly with the company.
When you say more to come? Do you mean more fallacies or more straight to the point logic from you?
You have misunderstood me.
I'm not talking about company valuation, balance sheet accounts etc.
I'm talking about in the situation Snow Leopard pointed out.
If you want to buy the equity of a company i.e the shares you have to pay the shareholder.
If the company wanted to privatize, again they would have to pay the shareholder.
In this instance equity is the same as debt, something that would have to be paid back.
Understand the garbage now?
Yep and that shareholder being the company. It doesn't matter where the money comes from, its just a transfer of the liability. Shares in a sense a similar to a promissory note.
Ok, lets put it another way. The company goes broke and after all liabilities are paid, there is enough to pay shareholders 1c in the dollar.
Where does the money come from?
to all muppetts on this thread this is all that matters
New Zealand house prices plummet in May, Trade Me says
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/money...e-me-says.html
OCA near top of NZX leaderboard just now
That’s good
All priced in muppet, bottoms in :)
You are dreaming.
In that situation all secured creditors who become the clients of the liquidator care about is getting their money back.
Even with 150% value paid I.e the debt, the shareholders get nothing.
What did Branson pay for the channel tunnel? 1 pound.
Edit: sorry to be brutal but that is the reality in that situation, not that I think it will come to that.
Looks like a price prediction to me, but hey it's less than your other prediction of $2.50 or whatever it was.
SailorBoy wanted a timeframe on anyone else's prediction, although he mentioned several lofty price targets including what he thought it was worth now, which is instantly a lot higher that it is currently.
I've done the same, with my current price target of 90c. And I'm happy to wrap a time frame around that of 15 months or so.
Have you got a source for that? I thought he was just interested in operating a competing train service to Eurostar. I thought the actual infrastructure (the tunnel itself) was the subject of a concession granted by The UK and French governments. That concession until 2086 is operated by Getlink, listed on the Paris Bourse. I may have missed something.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2540104.html
I can see references to the deal in 1996, but it doesn't state the price. It was strapped with around 12Bln pounds of debt when it only cost 9Bln to build, so from memory one of his companies paid 1 pound & took over the debt.
I remember the headlines in the UK papers back then.
To be honest I can't remember if it was for the Chunnel itself, the train service or all of it. It was 28 years ago.
The Euro Tunnel had a shocking start with all sorts of issues. I was on it in 1995 and a trip that was supposed to take 3 hours ended up taking about 8!
Since you guys are talking about Branson.
He would walk away after about a minute over the discussions over valuations.
He loves basic cashflow statements.
He would just ask, will OCA be a dollar in two years time. If the answer is yes, then let's not waste anymore time talking about this.
If no, then sell.
As far as I can tell.
It is a fascinating story of huge construction projects (of international significance in this case) and the involvement of private finance. Thatcher who was a free marketer and all for privatisation was UK PM at the time it was it being planned. It seems Eurotunnel (now called Getlink) has the long running Tunnel concession. With Branson having had a stake in the train operator Eurostar through being a large minority shareholder of a company that bought Eurostar.
It is a tale of cost overruns, fires, and falling passenger volumes. Eurotunnel itself had a twenty year period of no dividends but is currently paying them. Oceania has a bit of catching up!
”The headaches started with the UK’s insistence that the Channel Tunnel and (initially) its connection to the rest of the UK railway network should be built with private finance”
https://eu.boell.org/en/2024/03/06/t...channel-tunnel (Opens a PDF)
Open kimono by Ryman's Chairman on what happened - lots of smoke and mirrors in the past and finally reality.
Arvida has joined Ryman in facing reality (to a certain extent - still more downside yet).
Oceania is waiting for a new CEO to do a big and necessary clean up. How big a mess is there to be revealed!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=de...e8Ju2JRICXmEuz
I think it's the first time I have seen the OCA thread off the front page!
Just goes to show once the chief spruiker is gone, there is little to say at this juncture other than up is up, down is down...
Tough match up this week for the Wahs against Melbourne, although the TAB has them at evens.