One company is backed by solid property assets whereas on the other hand....
Printable View
I think that's a perfectly reasonable question and one I pondered myself. Some people will say this is a "very convenient" excuse and they'll get no argument from me because I admit it is a little BUT the plain fact of the matter is OCA at its core is a property company and is backed by property assets, (I estimate NAV as at 31/3/2021 at ~ $1.30). I think that puts something of a floor under their price at somewhere about that level. The breakdown below the 100 day MA is concerning but I usually wait 3 trading days for confirmation of that. In any event its been brought about by uncertainty caused by Gasparich selling shareholders down the river for 30 pieces of silver and is not earnings related, in my opinion.
ATM on the other hand has been talking up the value of their I.P. for years and yet all we've seen is their IP protection is ostensibly worthless as the proliferation of other A2 brands continues to gain momentum. That leaves NTA of $1.55 and only earnings to support their price and we've seen what's happened with their earnings forecast which still looks very optimistic.
In summary, its not all about TA but that's definitely a factor and one I have carefully considered in this case. I'm prepared to wear the risk of the TA support breech indicator and see what happens.
Really? Isn't he doing what a reasonable person would - accepting a presumably better employment offer?Quote:
In any event its been brought about by uncertainty caused by Gasparich selling shareholders down the river for 30 pieces of silver and is not earnings related, in my opinion.
Disc: Holding OCA.
TA is more for trading. I hold companies during rough patches as part of a diversified portfolio if I have strong faith in the company to weather any storm and ALSO if I am appropriately positioned and will never become a weak hand or a forced seller.
A lot of people think the way that EQT went about strong-arming a weak and inexperienced MET board, EQT are a bunch of shysters. I suppose if you have no principle's about who you work for... Anyway, the record reflects underlying profit went backwards under his leadership so its time that someone who knows how to drive underlying profit growth took over.
Just how useless Earl was in driving profitability shown below - selling heaps more and making stuff all more profit
But jeez he was a great story teller - telling a great story that was good enough to take the the share price from 79 cents on listing to $1.40.
Big re-rating taken place because of his story telling - share price could be a lot less today
Thanks Earl
That Brent guy been CFO at Oceania for a year now - gone through a year end process and half year reporting
Time enough to weave some of the magic he must have learnt at Jardens to make the results look better
But still they were awful disappointing