Originally posted by Fishinnick
I don't like smoke if im investing, i don't like an outfit that doesn't keep its websites up to date and accurate, i don't like them saying they use patented software when they don't, things like this don't give me confidence with what im being told is true and also makes me wonder about character.
They are also a lot more profitable than one would expect when making a comparison.
The Proffessor uses extra language when not needed. - like "
At least on this point EY is right and VGI is wrong "
You have to look at the 20 + red flags as a whole not seperately.
CTD also continues to engage EY - if theres no worries why the need?
I'm no qualified analist but do always have an inherent skeptical bias, thats just how ive been taught and i find it leads me to less losses so i'm happy to be that way. I like to try and work out what they are doing from what they are saying or don't say, i like to know what they be up to, sometimes i can, sometimes i can't and here i need more time but you know where my bias is.
Here, like always, time will tell.
Fish.
Okay a few comments
"They are also a lot more profitable than one would expect when making a comparison"
Okay, so you don't understand travel business models. Thats great. Maybe do some research instead of relying on others to spoon feed you. Helloworld and FCTG have a retail footprint to pay for and majority of business is leisure (i.e commission based).
Corporate has no store footprint, is fee based on transaction and is highly automated with little need for itinerary generation or hand holding for each customer. Likewise, it's margins are protected as they do not rely on front end commissions which has been declining for leisure travel operators (look at flight centre...). The margins are due to it being the right model, for the right market, at the right time. Literally, they disclose their revenue model every year.
"The Proffessor uses extra language when not needed. - like "
At least on this point EY is right and VGI is wrong ""
He made this comment because he refuses to wade into the impairment argument or any other points EY made and wanted to comment on the WACC used; which he agrees with in methodology and principal. This is a nothing statement. Shows you don't work in finance.
"CTD also continues to engage EY - if theres no worries why the need?"
Because ~$1bn of shareholder value was whipped out and CTD have institutional funds (which are invested, including now bennelong as of this morning) to care about. Given the recent shareholder and shorting activism such as the likes of bluesky, protecting your reputation is everything. So, if a $50k engagement from EY is needed to provide credence and to support any further attacks from VGI, personally as a shareholder I am happy for that. And actively encourage it because management don't have to dick around defending their share price.
"You have to look at the 20 + red flags as a whole not seperately."
Straight up incorrect. Most material red flag was the impact on earnings from impairment as well as accounting standards change. Both of these were categorically incorrect. Valuation is based on FME. So, including these two points, there are about what? 6 red flags left about office locations as well as technology patent. Office locations do not concern me as they are an online transacting businesses and definitely have small offices for relationship management on larger accounts so who really care. Patent rights is worrying, however as long as it's a secured contract what's the issue? Does it imagine earnings? no. Will it impact earnings? Only if they lose rights; which they wont.
I can tell you don't understand financials or investing. Please keep your ignorance to yourself.
(20min delay)