OCA (13)
Question
by: vincent_sylvia2 (M/Switzerland) 09/01/05 02:55 am
Msg: 37606 of 37781
"Look at what the 3 million has already done to your viewpoint."
It seems I have an other expirience then you (but first hand as well).
Sometimes it happens that a CEO is believing in his company. Sometimes they are emotionally connected with a company. Sometimes they are to proud to give up.
However in the case of OCA the following points did influence my opinion:
I believe this company is in a liquidity crisis. I hope we agree on that?
I learnd from the last SEC filing that they try to refinance themself. I hope we agree on that as well?
It seems without reporting it is difficult to lend new money? Got this impression by watching the banks.
Some of the new lenders are experts in refinancing companies in truble. So they maybe can refinance OCA in the near future.
If the company is illiquid then they have to file C11/BK.
The CEO is able to give OCA some liquidity to come over this time until they can refinance.
He made his desision.
I guess I regard OCA rather from the finacial side. For me it looks you regard OCA rather from the legal side. And I agree with you there are risks on both side.
I believe the motivation of the CEO to lend money to OCA is rather a business motivation then a legal motivation.
Response
by: chfriend03 09/01/05 03:13 am
Msg: 37607 of 37781
OCA was making good cash flow up until the last filing (Q3, 2004). (Yes, they probably overinflated the account receivable or "intangible" or like, but not on amount of debt on credit line).
The CEO is only legally responsible for OCA's financials up til that point.
If a lot more doctors' exodus occured after Q3, 2004 as to make OCA's survival questionable, then I do not think the CEO is legally responsible for anything (because the company did not file anything for the period after Q3, 2004).
So the shorts' argument is not reasonable.
The CEO might be emotionally attached to the company. But, even that, putting $3 million of one's own money (even though he is rich) into a falling company is rare. I bet he's having confidence in the company. At least, in the CEO's view, the affiliates' exodus is not serious enough as to threaten OCA's survival.
by: vincent_sylvia2 (M/Switzerland) 09/01/05 02:55 am
Msg: 37606 of 37781
"Look at what the 3 million has already done to your viewpoint."
It seems I have an other expirience then you (but first hand as well).
Sometimes it happens that a CEO is believing in his company. Sometimes they are emotionally connected with a company. Sometimes they are to proud to give up.
However in the case of OCA the following points did influence my opinion:
I believe this company is in a liquidity crisis. I hope we agree on that?
I learnd from the last SEC filing that they try to refinance themself. I hope we agree on that as well?
It seems without reporting it is difficult to lend new money? Got this impression by watching the banks.
Some of the new lenders are experts in refinancing companies in truble. So they maybe can refinance OCA in the near future.
If the company is illiquid then they have to file C11/BK.
The CEO is able to give OCA some liquidity to come over this time until they can refinance.
He made his desision.
I guess I regard OCA rather from the finacial side. For me it looks you regard OCA rather from the legal side. And I agree with you there are risks on both side.
I believe the motivation of the CEO to lend money to OCA is rather a business motivation then a legal motivation.
Response
by: chfriend03 09/01/05 03:13 am
Msg: 37607 of 37781
OCA was making good cash flow up until the last filing (Q3, 2004). (Yes, they probably overinflated the account receivable or "intangible" or like, but not on amount of debt on credit line).
The CEO is only legally responsible for OCA's financials up til that point.
If a lot more doctors' exodus occured after Q3, 2004 as to make OCA's survival questionable, then I do not think the CEO is legally responsible for anything (because the company did not file anything for the period after Q3, 2004).
So the shorts' argument is not reasonable.
The CEO might be emotionally attached to the company. But, even that, putting $3 million of one's own money (even though he is rich) into a falling company is rare. I bet he's having confidence in the company. At least, in the CEO's view, the affiliates' exodus is not serious enough as to threaten OCA's survival.
posted by jajabin at 3:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home