Originally posted by Pioupiou
To add to your comment, I think that too many investors focus too much on CCP's purchase of PDLs. CCP has a fair bit of flexibility that allows it to slowdown Australian PDL purchases if their prices are toppy. It can for a while shift focus on collecting on old debt - it can buy USA PDLs - it can extend the Loan Book. These three avenues of cash deployment would have well considered numetric models that factor in risk differences to put management in a position to deploy funds optimally.
As for skin in the game, the founding directors no doubt gave themselves significant holdings, but the new directors who rescued the company would have had to buy in. Often in cases where I have lost significant money on shares, it has been where one or more founding directors held a large slice of the company - Brierty, Coote Industries, Van der Meer spring to memory. Also, when Collection House had its founding directors leave the company, they did not leave it in the good shape that prior profit puffery may have induced other shareholders to believe was the case. It is very easy to manipulate profits in this PDL-related sector - one simply over values the stock of PDLs by using a lower PDL amortisation percentage of collections.
You didn't add that they haven't done the classic trick of "gifting" themselves chunks of shares as I can see it. Often after a decade, you find that management has a lot of skin in the game because they have had a free ride.
Nice to see you here... Breity also caught me out ...
(20min delay)