No one has to bet on one or the other. It’s quite OK to own them both.
Printable View
Had another look at FY17 results presentation and it would appear my memory is not especially sharp. Was a different narrative and although units were delivered towards the end of the second half it wasn't anything like as tight as what is suggested this time with the 133 units and therefore I take a less jaundiced view on said 133 units. Would still be good to see a cracking good Q1 sales result though to confirm sales are on track for a really good FY19. We've certainly had ripper weather this summer which should be helpful with progress both with construction and sales activities.Quote:
We've seen this movie before and if I remember correctly there were about 70 that were delivered late in 2017 that were tagged with the same (delivered too late in the year to be sold) line. So were these 70 actually sold, well yes and no.
For mine: SUM and OCA have quite different business models. I see them as good complimentary holdings. 1H FY19 result for OCA was a little on the disappointing side and FY18 SUM result easily surpassed my revised expectations.
I'm sure almost all get it but there's certainly a lot of merit and interest in comparing the business model's and nuances of each operation.
I think one cannot overlook the fact that SUM's track record is arguably the finest of any company listed on the NZX, (underlying earnings have grown at a compound annual average rate of 43% since listing just over 7 years ago). Who else has achieved anything like that ? Certainly RYM didn't in their early years.
No secret I am a numbers man and the numbers with this one are really impressive. Track record counts for a LOT in my book.
OCA have the overhang of Maquarie and have a track record of just on 2 years. Time will tell how they go but certainly their business model is a very good one and the directors have a lot of skin in the game. Whether Earl Gasparich has the mettle to control costs tightly I am not quite so sure. A nice guy but I kind of like the tougher more commercial side of Julian Cook too.
Disc: I have now moved to a roughly equal investment position in each. Slightly more capital in SUM.
http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-websit...494/296247.pdf
Well regarded Harbour Asset Management adding SUM more.
Quote:
During the past four months, as part of normal on-market trading activity Harbour Asset
Management Limited purchased a total of 1,947,811 SUM ordinary shares for $12,220,886
and sold a total of 599,201 SUM ordinary shares for $3,800,782. In addition, as part of
normal on-market trading, First NZ Capital Securities Limited has borrowed 30,760 SUM
ordinary shares as at the date of this relevant event.
You are right - they just managed to go on Tuesday over the 1% threshold which triggered the report.
Interesting to see that SUM was moving over the last 4 months in a channel with quite strong support at $6 and resistance somewhat above $6.50 - and yes, they accumulated the last 4 months. So, that's what they see as bargain price.
Just one other snippet from the announement - can anybody make sense out of the roughly 31k shares FCNZ is disclosing to have borrowed? I guess one hand (Harbour) supporting the stock and the other hand (FCNZ) shorting it does not seem to be at facevalue such a flash strategy ... and 31k shares is as well a pretty minute amount to make any significant impact on the market - or is it possible that FCNZ was shorting SUM (with more shares, which they returned by now, i.e. didn't had to disclose) to drive the price down and allow Harbour to buy on the cheap?
Would it be thinkable Harbour and FCNZ working in harmony for one entity to benefit from the downwaves (by shorting) and the other entity to buy at rock bottom ... and bringing the pice up for the next short cycle to start?
Not saying they did that - but would it be thinkable?
Attachment 10369
Confused ... :confused:
I'm in awe of your computer skills BP,Do you have a teenager helping you?
i don't wish to stunt any insightful conspiracy comments on your graph but on a slightly different matter I just can't reconcile why RYM has a slightly forward Pe of 24 (profit only officially indicated at this stage) while SUM has an actual Pe of 14. Go figure?
yes yes , rym has loads of history and it's graphs are all super smooth growth dream charts ,so that Pe is perhaps warrented ( maybe in a different country or market mood.) However SUM have also build up a similar set of constant ,silky smooth , growth charts. They have a lot of years under their belt now too.
I would never expect such a yawning PE gap between to similar companies producing the same goods and results. Therefore either RYM has to come down , SUM has to be rerated up , or we just have ourselves a Toyota over a Ferrari (when they both have the same job of taking the kids to school)