There's nothing fruitful about buying shares. The fruitful part only comes when the dividends are recieved and/or the shares are sold for profit.I bought another 100K at 7.2c and it closed 7c. That's fine. It's been a really fruitful day buying at 6.6c, 7.4c and 7.2c. Slowly chipping away at BEPPA and waiting for asset sales by June 30.
They have been highly geared due to fee hungry bankers and a credit boom. Depending on how the bust plays out there is also a real possibility that the assets heavily leveraged REIT's and infrastructure funds finish up in alternative hands at firesale prices with nothing left over for existing shareholders.f) Debt & financing-It is common knowledge that regulated infrastructure assets are highly geared because of their consistent cashflows. I expect this to continue. the banking industry may be tightening money supply now, but in time it has no choice but to lend to earn returns for shereholders. Yes they will be more prudent and cautious, wanting secure cashflows etc to service debt and quality security. The type of cashflow and security offered by blue chip infrastructure assets.
There's nothing fruitful about buying shares. The fruitful part only comes when the dividends are recieved and/or the shares are sold for profit.
I do hope you are not putting too many of your eggs into this speculative stock.
As an observer (and occasional contributer) to this thread though I do wonder why you are so passionate about defending BBI. In the end it's fate will rest not on what is said here but on what happens economically and on decisions taken by BBI itself.I've got a few eggs in BBI/BEPPA.
Why? Because at the price I don't see it as speculative. In fact I see it as the opposite.
From the perspective of diversification that's fine if you have enough eggs to fill every house in the street.
As an observer (and occasional contributer) to this thread though I do wonder why you are so passionate about defending BBI. In the end it's fate will rest not on what is said here but on what happens economically and on decisions taken by BBI itself.
For those that may be interested, I got put in the sin bin for one month over the road. The moderators here are firm but fair..... the way it should be.
BB, you are actually listed as active over there. Here is good though, HardYakka seems to be having a hard time staying over there also... he should know better than to say hello to a moderator.
They have been highly geared due to fee hungry bankers and a credit boom. Depending on how the bust plays out there is also a real possibility that the assets heavily leveraged REIT's and infrastructure funds finish up in alternative hands at firesale prices with nothing left over for existing shareholders.
I think cheap credit and mispricing of risk is one and the same issue and certainly played a massive part in where we are today. At it’s most basic, credit is priced at a base rate such as LIBOR, plus a margin that is derived based on the ‘risk’ the loan represents. This is off topic – feel free to start another thread on this.Cheap credit was not a major contributory factor to the GFC, it was more the mis-pricing of risk. In simple terms yes there was cheap credit, but the risk premium attaching to the borrowers did not reflect their circumstances and business ie the quality of the lending risk.
Is this really fair? Sure, the regulated asset may have an inflation component built into the agreed pricing, but what if people don’t use it? For example, people may take a slower route to the airport or take public transport instead of paying for the use of a toll way. Then there is the issue that you don’t own a share of the asset, but a share in a company or trust that owns/administers an asset.By its very nature a regulated asset is guaranteed a profit, normally by regulation/legislation.
Is this really fair? Sure, the regulated asset may have an inflation component built into the agreed pricing, but what if people don’t use it? For example, people may take a slower route to the airport or take public transport instead of paying for the use of a toll way. Then there is the issue that you don’t own a share of the asset, but a share in a company or trust that owns/administers an asset.
.
Sorry, I was speaking in general terms in response to hardyakka's general comments.BBI's assets are not toll roads, and are not subject to as much descreationary spending as you claim.
their assets are seaports, rail way lines, gas pipelines, electricity and gas distribution etc etc.
I customer may be able to choose which retail gas company they purchase their gas through, but the can't choose which pipline it runs through to get to their house,
If I mining company wants to rail their ore to the port in WA, then they must use west net rail, there is not a selection of railways all competing for business,
same with seaports, how easy would it be for a competiter to buy some coastal land and set up a rival sea port, nearly impossible.
not sure either viva. perhaps BB can shed some light.
but looking at the relevant changes in holding its an increase and not part of a sell off by BNB administrators. also the dates of the changes are quite old so not too releveant to the current situation, infact they overpaid quite a bit per share.
will there be downward pressure when administrators of BNB sell there holding? what is there current holding?
Interest Bearing Liabilities and Deferred Tax Liabilities
I have just commenced reading the investor pack, so excuse me if this has been answered later in the pack.
The calculation of Net Assets on page 12, shows that Net Assets have fallen from $3.09B at 12/07 to $2.36B at 12/08, a decline of $0.73B.
Total Assets have increased by $2.78B in the same period, but Total Liabilities have increased more, by $3.50B.
The two components that have contributed most to the increase in Total Liabilities are Interest Bearing Liabilities, which have increased by $2.26B and Deferred Tax Liabilities, which have increased by $0.67B.
I assume that the Interest Bearing Liabilities refers to the debt that was taken on to purchase the assets that caused the Total Assets to increase, but what are Deferred Tax Liabilities all about.
The decrease in Net Assets of $0.73B is comparable to the increase in Deferred Tax Liabilities of $0.67. Are Deferred Tax Liabilities something that will continue to rise, eroding the value of Net Assets over time?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?