Perhaps my question would have been better phrased had I written: how does the IRU commitment impact on VOC's valuation. As far as I can tell, VOC's IRU commitment is really merely the rent that it pays for the capacity on the cable that it then on-sells. At that same time, VOC's business is precisely this renting and on-selling of capacity to end-users like Vodaphone. In that context, it is not really a balance sheet liability capable of giving rise to a liquidity event like bank debt is - and that was the context in which this issue first arose. My original point was simply that VOC is a stronger company now because it has no bank debt than it was when it was trading at over $3.00.
If investors were prepared to own VOC at over $3.00 last April, are VOC's business fundamentals and prospects any less favourable now that it's trading on a P/E of 11.5, reported a 66% half year rise in NPAT, has no bank debt, has a top management team and its future prospects for growth have improved even further than they were back in April? Of course not. The investment case for VOC's worth at $3 last April remains just as valid then as it is now that it is trading at $1.93. In fact, it is more so.
Of course, that is not to say that I would have bought VOC at $3.00. At that level, it didn't then and doesn't now offer any margin of safety. Still, if I had, I am reasonably confident that, providing I held on to it, I wouldn't lose money.
... The IRU's are a fixed commitment and could indeed lead to a liquidity event if VOC’s revenue drops. Interestingly the same can be said about any lease and there are a lot of companies with significant lease commitments that never see anything more then a brief mention in an obscure note.
That's fairy specious reasoning. If I follow your argument, the value of anything is what someone else is willing to pay for it. It seems as though you're confusing price with value.
But isn't that precisely the point? Woolworths' has significant lease commitments but the prospect that they might become liabilities capable of triggering a liquidity event is probably pretty remote, to say the least.
Price is what you pay and value is what you get. No, I appreciate the distinction. I didn't mean to imply that VOC is worth over $3.00 because people were once prepared to pay that much for it. I meant that VOC IS worth $3.00 on a valuation basis which encompasses some of characteristics that I referred to earlier. That's my call, at any rate. Only time will tell if I am right.
Yeah but Woolworths doesn't have a single customer who accounts for 25% of their revenues. Apples and oranges to compare the two really.
Maybe. But don't confuse the wood for the trees - to mix metaphors. The point is whether VOC's IRUs constitute a real business risk. The fact is that if you're still in the stock at a time when its IRUs look like posing a liquidity event, you've already been in the stock longer than you should.
You could make that argument about any liability.
I don't think the IRU's pose an imminent risk, even if there was sme loss of custom but I wouldn't dismiss it as not posing a liquidity risk at all.
hey I'm new to this stock and have two (quite dumb) questions - what will the effect of the recent slump in the AUD to USD have on VOC's IRU? And why is the NBN not a threat to VOC?
Thanks in advance!
hey I'm new to this stock and have two (quite dumb) questions - what will the effect of the recent slump in the AUD to USD have on VOC's IRU? And why is the NBN not a threat to VOC?
Thanks in advance!
Telstra have sold NZ operations to Vodafone, VOC have the data contract with Vodafone, I wonder if this will change.
Sorry could you explain this in more depth?
Good point - I suppose it would. If Vodafone (including Telstra NZ) has increased demand for Vocus' services, it would make sense they service this using Vocus. Depending of course on what Telstra NZ was doing before it was sold...?
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?