Concept stock orphan, page-83

"For all we know omn may deliberately have monetisation as a low priority while they build up network effects: They may decide they’d prefer to be cash flow negative for 10 years while they build the network."

I don't consider "network effects" as a determinant of value... for the simple reason that I wouldn't know how to even begin doing so.

Besides, this company is no start-up; it has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars to build out its network, off which already hangs a range of products already-launched, recently-launched and soon-to-be-launched.

So, the only reason that it won't be able to demonstrate sales revenues (and growing revenues, at that) from its products within the next 12 months is because those products are not really all that highly valued by the targeted markets for them.

So if it's the case that OMN is really on a ten-year, cash-less journey journey, I will have sold my shares before long, because by not doing so means I will probably end up being diluted to buggery by owning an under-funded business for years.

Which is why traction in cold hard cash receipts is the only thing on which I will focus.


"Onemarket definitely suits private equity more than as a listed company, but would it be fair for Westfield share holders to have missed out on that opportunity if it does succeed? Maybe that’s why the lowys went down this route because Westfield or URW shares holders would have been pretty aggrieved having owned and started the development, to have missed out on a company that becomes the next Facebook."

Spinning OMN out to shareholders makes no difference whatsoever to the exposure of shareholders to OMN, so I'm not sure what you mean by "missing out on a company that becomes the next Facebook".

And if OMN wasn't spun out, just like they did when they owned Westfield, shareholders would still own have owned OMN (but as a subsidiary of URW, instead of as a subsidiary of WFD).