God I hate it when people start or get into a discussion, and then after actively engaging in it say "I dont' care/doesn't interest me".
If that's how you feel, then don't discuss it in the first place.
I find such beahviour rude.
BNB - Babcock & Brown
- Thread starter Dakaz
- Start date
-
- Tags
- babcock & brown bnb
If that's how you feel, then don't discuss it in the first place.
I find such beahviour rude.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,621
- Reactions
- 12,739
OK free chill pills being handed out here.
Take two and you'll feel much better.
Onto fundamentals (disclaimer: I am like Sgt Schultz on this topic):
When there is a severe downtrend on a stock with "good" fundamentals, should we suspect that there is something in the fundamental picture that has changed behind the scenes? Ergo, that the fundamental picture available to retail investors is severely lagging?
Will we see vastly different fundamentals in BNB in the next report?
I suspect so.
BWTFDIK
Take two and you'll feel much better.
Onto fundamentals (disclaimer: I am like Sgt Schultz on this topic):
When there is a severe downtrend on a stock with "good" fundamentals, should we suspect that there is something in the fundamental picture that has changed behind the scenes? Ergo, that the fundamental picture available to retail investors is severely lagging?
Will we see vastly different fundamentals in BNB in the next report?
I suspect so.
BWTFDIK
- Joined
- 16 February 2008
- Posts
- 2,906
- Reactions
- 2
Hope those pills worked Mr T
I only responded to the thread as the information being touted was not correct and may mislead some on F/A and how one is meant to use it. Is that rude, to enlighten people?
I said I do not care, because I think some may have thought I was basing my statements on this particular case, which I was not. That is as far as my contribution goes on this thread, take it for what you will.
Wayne makes a good point and is another limitation of doing F/A yourself, then again, the point Wayne made is more relevent to cases like this, which would really make an F/A analyst JUMP, whereas most broker ratings are revised after simple ebb and flow moves of the market, not outright plummets, of which are far too dangerous to touch IMO.
I only responded to the thread as the information being touted was not correct and may mislead some on F/A and how one is meant to use it. Is that rude, to enlighten people?
I said I do not care, because I think some may have thought I was basing my statements on this particular case, which I was not. That is as far as my contribution goes on this thread, take it for what you will.
Wayne makes a good point and is another limitation of doing F/A yourself, then again, the point Wayne made is more relevent to cases like this, which would really make an F/A analyst JUMP, whereas most broker ratings are revised after simple ebb and flow moves of the market, not outright plummets, of which are far too dangerous to touch IMO.
MichaelD
Not fooled by randomness
- Joined
- 7 December 2005
- Posts
- 912
- Reactions
- 2
Hmmm. This tune sounds familiar;
ABS - $8.50 - expensive!
ABS - $7.00 - bargain
ABS - $5.00 - BARGAIN
ABS - $4.00 - BARGAIN!!!
ABS - $1.00 - Those *&^% hedge fund short sellers
BNB - $34 - expensive!
BNB - $25 - bargain
BNB - $17 - BARGAIN
BNB - $15 - BARGAIN!!!
BNB - $5 - Those *&^% hedge fund short sellers
Ahhh. It SO eases the pain of an 85% loss to blame someone else. Luckily, it's not actually a loss until you sell - it's really a good company you know.
ABS - $8.50 - expensive!
ABS - $7.00 - bargain
ABS - $5.00 - BARGAIN
ABS - $4.00 - BARGAIN!!!
ABS - $1.00 - Those *&^% hedge fund short sellers
BNB - $34 - expensive!
BNB - $25 - bargain
BNB - $17 - BARGAIN
BNB - $15 - BARGAIN!!!
BNB - $5 - Those *&^% hedge fund short sellers
Ahhh. It SO eases the pain of an 85% loss to blame someone else. Luckily, it's not actually a loss until you sell - it's really a good company you know.
I got eggs on my face in anticipating a bottom near around 9.0. Thought I'd like to provide some hindsight view. TA wise, the downward projections from the triangle and channel breakouts in my view were still valid up to that point, but the moment BNB revealed they might be facing some kind of margin call for capitalisation that prompted all round panic selling in the last two days, my view is TA and FA will not matter at this point.
TA wise there is no market psychology to talk about as it is preoccupied with panic. FA wise, the company and the financiers have gone into "survival" mode. The business focus has shifted from "normal" profit operation/generation to a serious review and reappraisal of the viability of the business model moving forward in a high cost low leverage business environment. The result of the exercise could be anything but the same old business model that has been operating in the last few years where cheap money was in abundance.
Out of the business reappraisal, a new business model may appear (with totally new or different market pricing), or simply the whole company is let to "die" with the financiers forcing the company into salvaging mode, that is, keeping what is good and throwing out what is bad.
The bottom line is this - the current business model is broken and is not viable and it won't be supported by the financial backers. So it doesn't make sense to try to work the FA numbers which are based on the old model as the on going concern will be very different from the old.
At this point the only sensible thing to do is to get out. There are many examples around if you want to know what will happen next - AFG, MFS - these two are copycats of BNB which is a copycat of MQG. CNP although is not exactly the same as BNB, but it is a proof that business model that builds on high borrowing and cheap money is not a viable going concern regardless if you have tons of good quality assets in your portfolio.
For those who are holding MQG, it's time to start thinking... hard.
jmv.
TA wise there is no market psychology to talk about as it is preoccupied with panic. FA wise, the company and the financiers have gone into "survival" mode. The business focus has shifted from "normal" profit operation/generation to a serious review and reappraisal of the viability of the business model moving forward in a high cost low leverage business environment. The result of the exercise could be anything but the same old business model that has been operating in the last few years where cheap money was in abundance.
Out of the business reappraisal, a new business model may appear (with totally new or different market pricing), or simply the whole company is let to "die" with the financiers forcing the company into salvaging mode, that is, keeping what is good and throwing out what is bad.
The bottom line is this - the current business model is broken and is not viable and it won't be supported by the financial backers. So it doesn't make sense to try to work the FA numbers which are based on the old model as the on going concern will be very different from the old.
At this point the only sensible thing to do is to get out. There are many examples around if you want to know what will happen next - AFG, MFS - these two are copycats of BNB which is a copycat of MQG. CNP although is not exactly the same as BNB, but it is a proof that business model that builds on high borrowing and cheap money is not a viable going concern regardless if you have tons of good quality assets in your portfolio.
For those who are holding MQG, it's time to start thinking... hard.
jmv.
Attachments
I reckon this is just one of events for the B&B group. Just too many bad news came out at the same time together with the uncertainty within the financial sector/inflation issues in the US.
With last nite report from the US showing the inflation was not that bad so I hope our mrkt would be much better on monday including B&B group.
Lets be positive .....
IMHO - DYOR
With last nite report from the US showing the inflation was not that bad so I hope our mrkt would be much better on monday including B&B group.
Lets be positive .....
IMHO - DYOR
- Joined
- 3 March 2007
- Posts
- 274
- Reactions
- 2
Hey Michael - add MFS to your list, i heard loads of people banging on about blaming everyone else accept for themselves, but, especially the shorters..................funny thing is, when they bought them they thought it was a bargain and they could rip a few easy bucks out of the market, how easily the hunter can turn into the hunted.................
Wont be the last time that tune is played
JW
Wont be the last time that tune is played
JW
- Joined
- 16 February 2008
- Posts
- 2,906
- Reactions
- 2
LOL, first the hedge funds and shorters, now the financial journalists. What is next?
DYOR is quoted for a reason.
DYOR is quoted for a reason.
It is the financial journalists responsibility to state things as they are. So when Uncle Phil blames the hedge funds and shorters, Mr & Ms Small Investor can say "what bollocks".
DYOR - part of that is reading the finance press.
- Joined
- 16 February 2008
- Posts
- 2,906
- Reactions
- 2
IMHO, many will disagree, Mr and Ms small investor who have no clue about either T/A or F/A nor care to learn about it, should be searching out the best fund they can to put their money with, not listening to the financial press for 'tips'.
DYOR means tear apart the financial statements and to learn how the company operates (from it's products, to it's growth potential or risk relating to that product, which is dynamic IMO). Not reading the financial press. This can usually be obtained by looking at figures and understanding the company and it's products.
T/A research, does not involve the financial press either.
DYOR, don't let the press do it for you, they are simply looking for a story.
I don't disagree with anything you've said, and I'm not claimng that finance press is the only research one should do. It's ultimately the responsibility of each one of us to research in what we are investing in.
I'm just saying if we had good journalism, that task would be easier.
- Joined
- 10 February 2006
- Posts
- 456
- Reactions
- 153
looking at the larger volatile movements recently in BNB
9.2M traded shares moved the price $3.30 on 16/8/07
4.8M traded shares moved the price $2.43 on 21/1/08
7.3M traded shares moved the price $2.65 on 22/1/08
Would anyone care to comment on why 42M traded shares only moved the share price by a $1.20 and that it finished off its lows?? Surely you could not suggest "mum and dad" investors absorbed the selling pressure...so who put a stop to the rot, and why?? That's $210mill (approx based on $5) that changed hands without pushing the price out of its Average True Range.
I'm not into catching falling knives but was that the perfect capitulation to stronger hands??
9.2M traded shares moved the price $3.30 on 16/8/07
4.8M traded shares moved the price $2.43 on 21/1/08
7.3M traded shares moved the price $2.65 on 22/1/08
Would anyone care to comment on why 42M traded shares only moved the share price by a $1.20 and that it finished off its lows?? Surely you could not suggest "mum and dad" investors absorbed the selling pressure...so who put a stop to the rot, and why?? That's $210mill (approx based on $5) that changed hands without pushing the price out of its Average True Range.
I'm not into catching falling knives but was that the perfect capitulation to stronger hands??
- Joined
- 10 February 2006
- Posts
- 456
- Reactions
- 153
I'm sure the transcript does not include the following..."the media, having reported on troubles in BNB in recent weeks, continued their "abandon all hope ye who enter here" angle because they found the story sold a lot of papers. The fear they stirred up forced all the mums and dads to sell 42million shares on Friday to market makers. When interviewed, the smart money commented "yes, thanks Mum and Dad for coming to the party. We do that whole absorption thing quite a bit actually. CNP, BDG, BNB to name a few...you'd think our tactics would be pretty obvious...I mean BNB barely moved on Friday between open and close given the unprecedented volume, but people get caught up in the frenzy... its all good...sure the stock will be ratsh*t for a couple of years, but we get our stake in at bargain basement prices and we can hold on now for sunnier days. What we'll do now is just wait a few years until the financial sector is kicking ass, and then we'll start to offload to the same Mums and Dads who sold to us at $5".
There is smoke and mirrors and Friday's action is a part of that. I'm not suggesting people buy or hold, and im just an observer...I'm simply re-asking the question - why did someone absorb the supply on Friday if BNB is sliding into oblivion?
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
Re: BNB- Babcock & Brown: WHAT NOW???
That's all I want to say but am adding this sentence in order to comply with the 100 character rule.
No need to be sorry. We simply disagree. That's fine.
That's all I want to say but am adding this sentence in order to comply with the 100 character rule.
I think now, immediate buyback would be the only option for BNB to restore confidence on short-term basis if the administration level still have faith in the business operation. Anyway, accorrding to the last close price, it wouldn't cost them much to take in all the shares short sold to the market. But market's over-reaction could be true. All eyes would be on Monday's talk with its bankers.
Yeah, they have a very good story on it. The model it works under and why it's breaking down are well explained.
http://www.abc.net.au/insidebusiness/content/2007/s2275073.htm
- Joined
- 12 October 2007
- Posts
- 462
- Reactions
- 210
Thanks for the link, Mr T.
A good insight to balance all the media writeup of recent days.
Good luck to all holders.
regards,
Kenny
A good insight to balance all the media writeup of recent days.
Good luck to all holders.
regards,
Kenny
- Joined
- 16 February 2008
- Posts
- 2,906
- Reactions
- 2
Re: BNB- Babcock & Brown: WHAT NOW???
How do you value a company?
So nearly everytime an SP falls, it is based on a change in the fundamental value?
How do you value a company?
So nearly everytime an SP falls, it is based on a change in the fundamental value?
