Well, the trading 2day provides some support for my comment that $5 is an unsustainable level for NHF without earnings or some evidence such as yield, PE, outlook, forecasts etc supporting NHF's meteoric SP rise.
You don't think that NHF's 0.7% (at the time of writing) fall in share price is somehow related to 0.6% fall across the broader market?
How r the Agreements "value accretive"? That is ur opinion but what is there to substantiate that?
I susbstantiate based on precedent: that the many agreements and corporate transactions presided over by NHF's board and senior executives have led to the pre-eminent operating and financial performance that the company delivers.
Or do you think that just happens for no real reason?
The S&P ASX 200/ All Ords is not near records at all, about 10% off records. It is by fact currently 5429 having been at 5975.5 on March 20, 2015 pre Brexit pre Trump. The DOW or S&P 500 are totally irrelevant to SUN and/ or NHF. Only perhaps medical insurers listed on the NYSE/NASDAQ may have some impact on sentiment towards MPL and NHF but then u would think that the LSE would be a better place as the English health system is closer to the Australian health system than the American health system.
But Trump and Brexit - the things that you said affected sentiment - occurred well after March 20, 2015. So I'm not sure what the relvance of that date is (unless you are trying to argue that the market already in March 20, 2015 was anticipating Brexit and a Trump election victory some 18 months earlier.)
BUPA is a not-for-profit English based and domiciled health insurer. With the health insurance regulations in Britain needing change post Brexit due to the Conservative Government being now a Government not in Coalition with the Liberal Democrats and able to rule in its own right, the ability of British co-operatives such as BUPA to be in Australia may be curtailed. Authors such as Paul Gosling and Martin from the UOW (see article below) have been resolute on this point see the article below: there r many others that Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt's Department will be considering.
www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/dissent/documents/health/bupa.html
I read the article.
Certainly contains lots of personal ethical opinions and cries of dissent from its un-credentialised author(s), but no mention of whatsoever of BUPA leaving Australia, let alone to support your rather hyperbolic "BUPA is now
more than ever expected to leave the Australian medical insurance landscape".
Seeing as I can't locate it (try as I might) could kindly you cut and paste the relevant section of the tome that talks about BUPA now more than ever expected to leave the Australian industry?
PS. Just one other small little concern I have with the thing you posted: it doesn't seem to be a very current document. Far from it: it seems to be almost a decade old.
The latest date referenced in that entire essay is 2007.
The Australia-specific commentary has articles dated 2002 and 2003 and there is even a section under the Australian section, entitled "
Expanding as an Insurer" (which is diametrically opposed to your still unsubstantiated exiting argument).
Are you sure you didn't post the wrong article?
Or did you just google BUPA Australia and post the first thing you saw?
