If the terrain is different to your map you're looking at the wrong map bro.
That's what you're doing here.
Printable View
Two quite obvious differences:
OCA started with lots of crappy old people homes in outstanding locations and are turning them into top quality developments. In Real Estate Speak: Buy the cheapest house in the dearest street"- this is what they did.
Most of the others (except ARV) started with greenfield development - more straight forward and no additional pain for juggling exiting residents and building activities, but obviously they need to pay more to get for pristine sites (if they get them at all).
Which of the both groups will win the race - I think the jury is still out, though some of the traders around here seem to have made up their mind already. I think they are calling the race too early ... but maybe traders just have a too short attention span?
My vote is for top sites at low cost, even if it takes a bit longer to get it all churning.
The other major difference is obviously OCA's focus on care: Clearly - higher cost, but as well higher turnover. As well - their services are need based, i.e. clients have less options to choose whether they want to move in. If you need care, you need care.
My vote is for need based services - much more reliable than offering "nice to have's" like SUM (and to a degree) RYM.
Again - time will tell.
As I feel sorry for you a simple explanation that you should be able to understand if you take some time with it.
Take two IDENTICAL REIT's. They own virtually the same assets producing the same income.
Now REIT A is funded entirely with 50/50 Equity and debt capital.
REIT B is funded by 50/50 Equity and interest free non recourse capital.
Which will produce massively superior returns for the owners?
What if one could then increase the interest free capital at a CAGR of 26% while the other had to borrow?
there not , property stocks are actually performance wise doing better at this point in time , but they could very well catch up when cap rates are adjusted with time. maybe to do with rv sales being more regular than property co's sales for the basis of valuations
I think you are missing an important point: OCA still in the process of completing their moat. Sure - everybody else could do that as well, but it will take as much time as it takes OCA to turn crappy old people homes into pristine and flash units offering continuity of care. As you easily can see from the howling of detractors on this threat, short sighted traders don't want to invest money in building a moat. That's the reason, they never will buy into a company with a moat while it is still cheap - and if it isn't anymore, they will complain its too dear.
Well said. This is precisely what so many people simply fail to understand about OCA, or about aged care in general. I have tried to offer my perspective as someone who works in the sector and has a basic understanding of the needs of the elderly. Many here, and some who have gone elsewhere, have used "care" as a reason to continuously bash OCA. In their eyes OCA's focus on continuity of care, makes them the dog of the sector. For those of us who "get it" - it makes them the smartest.