there it is: doctors whack vgh where it hurts, page-6

Manjapra, this is excellent debate, much preferred to seeking to understand daily shifts in market pricing for the chance of an uncertain quick buck.

Supply of new doctors is the issue the goes right to the heart of the problem with this company; if you can crack it with an outcome in shareholders' favour, you've found the solution to $150+ million in (destroyed) market value. The existing 40 doctors preferred you didn't and the Board is too conflicted and lazy to care.

To advance it futher, perhaps the points you raise can be addressed by the capable CEO Geoff Thompson, as in his 4 August 2010 ASX release he outlines doctor (generic growth) recruitment being in the "6+" month timetable for his strategy roll-out, where one can verify directly with him whether his plans include recruitment of overseas trained doctors? One can bet that it does, and therefore why if it is meant to be all too hard?

That is, it forms a key part of the company's publicly announced revised strategic plan (hopefully no further misleading statements here); problem is, between now and then, as announced by Geoff Thompson, the company will be sold for crumbs to a private equity group or some other player, and so none of the the value will accrue to current shareholders, again.

Further, it is a known fact the company has actually successfully recruited doctors from UK in the past (easily checked directly with the company - their profiles and photos are listed on the company's website and phone numbers attached: "Our doctors"); the issue has been for several recruited from South Africa. In total, several (eg from UK) have been recruited and successfully deployed across the network.

Again, one can ask industry experts whether they all need $900,000 a year to get them to work here. The difference of a couple hundred thousand is all the difference in underlying market value for this stock: 40 doctors at a average pay of $700,000, rather than $900,000 saves $8 million in EBIT, which allows you to partly claw back the forecast collapse in EBIT from $26 million normalised in 2010 to $10 million in 2013. As you'd know, $8m in EBIT at say 7 times, can represent around $60 million in market value. We are talking "average" pay here, which allows the potential for +$1 million pay to the more talented doctors in the network, or the sub-specialists who are known to command more pay.

Note - it is understood and likely there are several general opthalmologists currently employed who are known "not" to be earnings accretive for the company ie, to put it crudely, it is perhaps best to even kick them out as they don't make any money for the company as it is.

Perhaps in can even help restore some of shareholders' dividends which are now nil per year, from 13 cents per year in 2009.