OCA - Oceania Group - retirement villages

[SailorRob]

A loan is a one sided transaction, not an exchange.

Really, tell us where you get your loans from bud.

[SailorRob]

It's not a free loan, it's an exchange $$$$ for the right to occupy with agreed buyback terms & the buyback terms are the kicker.

It's an exchange $$$ for the right to Occupy yes... But for the love of god Day Trader, the money is paid in advance... Thus a loan and a liability on the balance sheet.... that's why it's not revenue.

Like insurance, money is paid for a service.... But in ADVANCE.....

How many times can we go around in this circle?

[X-men]

Whatever rent U guys talking.... market has spoken...58c

[Baa_Baa]

OK buddy.
So the occupier in exchange for the $$$ paid gets a house rent free for the duration.
Is that an interest (rent) free loan of the asset to the occupier?

Um, not so quick. https://oceaniahealthcare.co.nz/faq/...g-in-a-village Could you call this "rent free"?

3.) The Weekly Fee – This fee covers the ongoing maintenance and overhead costs of running the village. The fee varies from village to village and covers costs such as building maintenance, gardening, roading, outdoor lighting, utilities, community centres, insurance, and the village van costs. This fee is fixed for life – guaranteed and stops when you vacate your unit.

[Baa_Baa]

It's an exchange $$$ for the right to Occupy yes... [snip] Thus a loan and a liability on the balance sheet.... that's why it's not revenue.

And its interest free, non-callable while occupying the asset, and repayable when ORA is sold with revenue from the incoming resident, and in the meantime the $ can be leveraged however the company chooses. Development springs to mind.

I'm not sure why all of this is so confusing, except if one tries to reimagine the business model and reinterpret the financials so as to tell some alternate story about whether the business model is profitable, viable, and sustainable.

[Daytr]

Um, not so quick. https://oceaniahealthcare.co.nz/faq/...g-in-a-village Could you call this "rent free"?

3.) The Weekly Fee – This fee covers the ongoing maintenance and overhead costs of running the village. The fee varies from village to village and covers costs such as building maintenance, gardening, roading, outdoor lighting, utilities, community centres, insurance, and the village van costs. This fee is fixed for life – guaranteed and stops when you vacate your unit.

The weekly fee isn't rent. It's the equivalent of a body corporate fee.

[SailorRob]

And its interest free, non-callable while occupying the asset, and repayable when ORA is sold with revenue from the incoming resident, and in the meantime the $ can be leveraged however the company chooses. Development springs to mind.

I'm not sure why all of this is so confusing, except if one tries to reimagine the business model and reinterpret the financials so as to tell some alternate story about whether the business model is profitable, viable, and sustainable.

It's not confusing at all, cheers Baa_Baa.

[Ferg]

I'm not driving at anything other than the P&L includes the net proceeds from sales & resales as well as the revaluation of the entire portfolio.

Ok - I just re-read this part again and no this is not correct per the reasons outlined in my previous post. Yes resale gains and development margin are there in the underlying P&L but neither realised gains nor the 'net proceeds from sales & resales' are in the standard P&L. The standard P&L contains the unrealised gains as calculated by the independent valuers. The underlying P&L contains the realised gains as calculated by Management. Per the Venn diagram analogy, these data sets may or may not overlap from an output perspective, so the bold part of your statement is incorrect. As Baa_Baa mentioned one can't reimagine or reinterpret the results in ways not presented. I can't explain this any other way.....what is not to understand?