Sounds logical enough
But in reality why should they all be on similar multiples?
Printable View
On NPAT ...real profits I think respective PEs are -
SUM 7.4 using Dec 18 reported profits
MET 8.0 using 4traders forecast $163m to year ended June 18
OCA 11.2 using IPO profit forecast to May 18
RYM 15.4 using March 18 reported profits
ARV 8.4 using March 18 reported profits
Maybe the market doesn’t price this sector on underlying earnings after all.
More consistently around real profits ...with OCA and RYM most ‘expensive’ for.want of another word
If these shares were priced based on reported profits inclusive of all property revaluations then SUM would be a lot higher than it is today as a PE of 7.4 for a company that's growing earnings at an average rate of 45% per annum for the last 6 years...those sort of numbers never go together...EVER ! Underlying earnings it is and the market slowly starting to do its SUM's on SUM. No worries, $9+ within a year.
Me too and dont forget to tell us when you are selling truckloads, or is that what you really mean now:confused::t_up:
So...on that theory of 1 SUM = 5 OCA and with SUM at $7.50 OCA should be $1.50 !!!!
But I'm not greedy so lets go back 6 months and SUM were $5.25 and OCA were $0.97, extrapolate that 5.41 : 1 ratio out and we get $1.39 fair value for OCA.
Lets split the difference and say OCA should be $1.40 !
I may just sell out at $10 per share until then I stay put
LOL, no this is a great retirement stock in more ways than one. Holding for long term growth and growing dividends too, estimated at 5.5% gross next year.
Some guy on here reckons you should look for companies that can grow dividends over the years and I reckon he's bang on the money.