You thought Brent was the man not too long ago. Regarding paying back the wage subsidy, SUM/RYM and MET also paid it back so it would have been a bad look for OCA to have not done so.
Printable View
Come on mate, for goodness sake, all you're doing is seeking clarification of publicly released information on the call. Lets not pretend its a personal insight of private information she's sharing, its simply confirmation and / or clarification of previously released public information... I would have thought you would have been good enough to share that clarification or confirmation but as you wish, believe me, it makes no difference whatsoever to me. I know what I heard on the call, a lot of it wasn't encouraging and I was the one that invested the time to hear it.
You know they were and are egregiously underfunding the care sector and making OCA wear some of the costs of Covid so its seems unreasonable that shareholders funds are used to make a voluntary repayment of a wage subsidy they were legally entitled to claim and retain. Brent obviously had a different view to Mr Gasparich and its part of a slight culture change I am seeing with more emphasis on ESG. You're also well aware with OCA's very care heavy business model they were more deeply affected than others in the sector. In the circumstance's I retain my view repayment was neither legally or morally required but accept that others will have a different view and they're perfectly entitled to that.
I don't mind people being paid a bonus for performance that generates underlying earnings per share growth for shareholders. New information became available on Friday for those that took the time to read the annual report in detail. EBITDA growth at a headline level is not real growth if its inflated by extra shares on issue (the $100m cash issue to acquire Waterford and Pukekohe) and that headline EBITDA figure may have been the basis for the near doubling of his base salary with bonus's. If so that seems excessive. Maybe a good question for the annual meeting is "How come a huge bonus was paid when there was no real underlying earnings per share growth ?
Beagle you said "a wage subsidy they were legally entitled to claim and retain."
Apology if this is really obvious but ... the wage subsidy was if a business had suffered a 30 percent revenue fall. Possibly all the retirement companies revenues do not fluctuate as they seem to go to great lengths to protect that side. So how would OCA be entitled to claim.
I did not claim wage subsidy for my agri-business and my rentals. Agri business continued operating and the rentals were excluded from the scheme. Likewise with OCA??
No need to apologize mate. My understanding of this is that the unit sales side of the business suffered a severe setback while in the first full Covid lockdown so they met the reduction in turnover eligibility criteria.
Anyway that's my full wrap on OCA for this annual report. I fully expect others will have a different view, perhaps very different and they're perfectly entitled to it. I'm entirely comfortable with that.
I am sure some will be very pleased indeed I will be turning my attention to Turners reporting tomorrow ;) Hopefully they will be a breath of very positive fresh air with really strong earnings per share growth and very easy to understand financial statements because my brain is still hurting something fierce from deciphering OCA's financials lol
Yes fair enough... people should have browsed online to buy and sign up remotely, it obviously is not a thing. Another thing that intrigues me about the retirement business is the average length of time a resident would normally live in the ILU independent units. Obviously some would stay longer and that is to their benefit as the DMF runs for only 3 or 4 years and then stops.
Yeap, everyone who I have ever met in a retirement village when asked how much they're enjoying it say they're so happy and wish they'd done it years ago ! There seems to be such a great sense of camaraderie in most good villages I've seen its so much better than being on your own in the suburbs somewhere.
Move into a really good one as soon as you get to the minimum age eligibility criteria is my preference, one I really wish Mrs B shared.
I really like the waterfront homes at SUM's Hobsonville village...maybe if I show her through one of them as soon as we are both 70 she will see my point of view !