MET - Metlifecare - one for the fundies?

[bottomfeeder]

Yeah, I said further up that I think we'll be seeing further volatility on this one until we know for sure one way or the other what is happening with the take over. Bit silly really as the fundamentals are still good regardless. Wouldn't be surprised to see it dip back into the $3.something when APVG comes back making the wrong noises. Better keep some powder dry just in case.

Good advice, will wait a bit just in case we have a second crash.

[nztx]

Good advice, will wait a bit just in case we have a second crash.

Good point

Aust must have been down today, going by the Aussie Banks on NZX, but not surprising with
the turmoil around the Virgin Australia heading into Administration..
Things generally down on NZX today a bit, but with exceptions .. NZX tomorrow will be interesting

[Soolaimon]

Got in today at the bottom of the days range. Only 2000 but there were 7 transactions to fill the order. Is this the Sharesies effect and now with lesser volumes they may play more of an effect on the price going forward?

[nztx]

Got in today at the bottom of the days range. Only 2000 but there were 7 transactions to fill the order. Is this the Sharesies effect and now with lesser volumes they may play more of an effect on the price going forward?

probably just a symptom of lack of large Arb parcels being liquidated - as inferred in an earlier posting

[Beagle]

The lowest volume traded that we have seen for weeks - a sure sign the arb funds are holding back and it's just traders playing the stock today?

Up, up and away from tomorrow if the arb funds have stopped selling.

One wonders how they are going to play this now ? The original takeover is potentially still on and there's two other suitors that could come out of the woodwork.

[Beagle]

I wouldn’t bank on the two birds in the bush. They never fronted with an offer the first time round and if they are industry players will no doubt be nursing their wounds and trying to conserve cash.

You could be right mate. I've bought a good stake that I am happy to keep long term. If someone wants to pay me a fair price in due course that's fine but I'm quite relaxed either way.

[nztx]

I wouldn’t bank on the two birds in the bush. They never fronted with an offer the first time round and if they are industry players will no doubt be nursing their wounds and trying to conserve cash.

What wounds ?

As I see it a few inconveniences in comparison to other sectors .. Okay perhaps increased payroll .. more PPE & lockdown expenditure.
Perhaps in medium term perhaps some sales distortions, but underwritten by willing prospective buyers & occupants.
Financing may be a factor & how to value, but presumably if the others are well established operators in the sector, they will be
aware of what they are looking at with MET

[Balance]

What wounds ?

Exactly! Times like this are when PE funds clean up - having sold many of their dogs and puppies in the last 5 years to the booming Stockmarket, they are cashed up and ready for their next forays!

[Baa_Baa]

If one buys with the intent of selling into a better price, albeit caveated on some discussion group with platitudes of 'long hold' which hold no water in the eyes of the tax regulator, then one is a trader by definition.

In such circumstance, one must take into account 33% tax on gains from sales (assuming highest tax bracket), plus losses from the buy and then sell trade fees. For large trades this adds up to large tax/fees exposure, though as a percentage applies to any trader.

That means for a momentum trader, and there are a few very clever ones here, or any trader with intent to sell into a higher share price, one needs to beat their market buy price by 33% + fees, just to break even. That's a high bar to achieve and I think that very few take into account the after effects of taking a trading position that they have a clear intent when buying, of selling for a higher price.

Ignoring this in technical terms is tax evasion, not tax avoidance. The treatments that the IRD have for tax evasion are punitive, including hefty fines and even incarceration.

We don't hear a lot, or anything really, about how the opportunists here mitigate against their trading exposure to tax on capital gains and accounting for trade fees, it's like those two things don't even exist. But they do.

[Cyclical]

If one buys with the intent of selling into a better price, albeit caveated on some discussion group with platitudes of 'long hold' which hold no water in the eyes of the tax regulator, then one is a trader by definition.

In such circumstance, one must take into account 33% tax on gains from sales (assuming highest tax bracket), plus losses from the buy and then sell trade fees. For large trades this adds up to large tax/fees exposure, though as a percentage applies to any trader.

That means for a momentum trader, and there are a few very clever ones here, or any trader with intent to sell into a higher share price, one needs to beat their market buy price by 33% + fees, just to break even. That's a high bar to achieve and I think that very few take into account the after effects of taking a trading position that they have a clear intent when buying, of selling for a higher price.

Ignoring this in technical terms is tax evasion, not tax avoidance. The treatments that the IRD have for tax evasion are punitive, including hefty fines and even incarceration.

We don't hear a lot, or anything really, about how the opportunists here mitigate against their trading exposure to tax on capital gains and accounting for trade fees, it's like those two things don't even exist. But they do.

I'm sure you know this and, apologies, I'm probably misreading what you've put there, but you do only get taxed on the profit, right? So it's not like "...one needs to beat their market buy price by 33% +..."