- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
It sounds to me like now that they have proven their ability in the loan-sharking business they want to move to a securitised business model, which should be good for shareholders; less working capital.
Thanks for that.
So would I be correct in thinking that another positive is that by freeing up capital to make more loans they are essentially growing the brand name/quickly gaining more customers and eventually down the track won't have to keep securitising because as the business matures the cashflow from operations is more than sufficient to self-fund the loanbooks..?
Thanks for that.
So would I be correct in thinking that another positive is that by freeing up capital to make more loans they are essentially growing the brand name/quickly gaining more customers and eventually down the track won't have to keep securitising because as the business matures the cashflow from operations is more than sufficient to self-fund the loanbooks..?
- Loans currently sitting on CCV's balance sheet are packaged into loan securities (hence the term "securitise") and sold to investors. Let's call them LOWR (Loan of Welfare Recipients) Premium Income notes.
- CCV sold the future income associated with these loans (so it income reduces), but it frees up its balance sheet from the LOWR sale proceeds to make further loans. It also no longer bears the credit risk on those loans.
- The benefit is that they are able to essentially work their capital harder by recycling them. For potential negatives see some of the causes of the subprime crisis.
It will be interested to see if buyers will come for them. I presonally wouldn't touch them especially after the GFC example.
It will be interested to see if buyers will come for them. I presonally wouldn't touch them especially after the GFC example.
View attachment 49774
Had this on my watchlist - what's with the huge dump just prior to a trading halt for capital raising? Smells very fishy to me! Does ASIC ever investigate this type of action? I'm speculating that one large sale may have been enough to set off a lot of stop-losses at 0.90c or thereabouts - I'd be fuming if I'd recently bought some.
Why did this stock drop 6% today?
Director sold a few.
I know the ex div date is tomorrow, and expected a drop then, but I missed out on the dividend because the down spike today (only just) triggered my stop loss before the price rebounded. If it's true the director sold off in order to shake off the div hunters, is this illegal? As well as missing out on the div, I lost $ 2K from this "shonky" practice. I'm pissed!
Seems at least you were onto it... What would you do if you were me, maybe buy back in while it's cheap??
As far as CCV is concerned I am happy to sit on it for a while longer in my SMSF until it stalls or reverses
I'm a short term trader but I liked the setup on this one so I bought yesterday.
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?