MET - Metlifecare - one for the fundies?

[Beagle]

Again, why sell? Why not fight for what's right?

The really ugly truth is I don't want to stay being a shareholder at $5.93 with the gross incompetence shown by the board and senior management.

[dabsman]

Why sell all your shares when you can keep a few and vote 'no' out of principle? It's a cop-out to sell, why not try and send a message so it helps next time?

I sold a couple of months ago because the upside potential was close to zero but the downside risk was real. I wasnt happy at $7 to be fair so $6 was infuriating. I also had zero faith in the board to fight for small holders as most of the big boys had capitulated already. I would love to see legal proceedings against these directors and would support that - if I was still a shareholder of course.

I take the mantra with my investing similar to riding my motorbikes - no point being righteous from a wheelchair

[Cyclical]

I take the mantra with my investing similar to riding my motorbikes - no point being righteous from a wheelchair

Sound advice on both counts

[winner69]

When they were ‘negotiating’ the NTA was $7.46

[peat]

When they were ‘negotiating’ the NTA was $7.46

scary fact
but folk havent trusted NTA for a long time.

Discl short

[dibble]

scary fact
but folk havent trusted NTA for a long time.

Yes, and with good reason. Unless you know the underlying assumptions there is plenty of scope for material subjectivity. How independent are the valuers, what variables are used (e.g. if cost of capital is an input), how up to date are all the inputs etc. All that can dug up (perhaps with pain, and you then need to make your own judgement on what you find) but dangerous to use a figure on a website as an incontrovertible fact.

[Germaine]

The really ugly truth is I don't want to stay being a shareholder at $5.93 with the gross incompetence shown by the board and senior management.

No offence, from your posts above you sound like you have a few clues, but that is a lame short termist approach.

[Jonboyz]

Again, why sell? Why not fight for what's right?

Because the Superannuation Fund has decided to support the sale and li'l bit shareholders ain't gonna make much difference to that vote.

[peat]

No offence, from your posts above you sound like you have a few clues, but that is a lame short termist approach.

Germaine, Beagle certainly has a few clues , but will occasionally change his mind , if that is what you mean by short term.

[Beagle]

No offence, from your posts above you sound like you have a few clues, but that is a lame short termist approach.

Poor management and governance is not something that will be changed unless the scheme of implementation happens.
MET recorded a development margin of just 16% for the year. OCA had a development margin of more than double that in the same real estate market.
For me to hold at $5.93 I'd have to be holding based on 13.6 times underlying profit when I have very little respect for management's abilities or the board. There is no reason for me to do this when OCA is trading on about 10.5 times my estimate of FY21 underlying profit and I have full confidence in the board and management.

Maybe you are the one that needs to do some deep introspective thinking ?
Here's some questions to start you off :-
1. Why is it that all the directors apart from the chairman are recommending this deal at $6 given NTA is north of $7 ?
2. Do the directors think the current development model of the company is fundamentally flawed or what other aspect of the current business model is performing so poorly that they think its worth well below NTA ?
3. Is the declining occupancy now down to 96% part of the reason ?
4. What do the directors know about the company that they think its only worth $6 that you don't know ?
5. Before we even heard of Covid and before this proposed scheme of implementation was ever known this was trading at around $4.25 in late 2019 with an asset backing of $7. What does that suggest to you the market thinks of the abilities of management and the directors ?
6. Given 5 above, what might the share price fall too if the scheme implementation agreement is voted down ?
7. Given 5 and 6 above are shareholders on a hiding to nothing voting this down ?

Shooting myself in the foot just so I can make a moral or ethical statement about what's right or wrong does nothing to help me achieve my objective of a long and very comfortable retirement. There's shares on the NZX with much better upside than this from $5.93.

P.S. I corrected part of this post with the correct development margin, apologies for the earlier error. Maybe this post was a little harsh on management as they did produce a resilient result in challenging covid conditions. Myabe I can dig deep and find some fight in me, see my latest post.