They appear to be "on course" ,so like all in this sector,a sound future .
Printable View
Sound future?
"leaky building bills, Sowry said repairs were expected to cost $46.1m"
Interesting point of difference between this and the others. A really substantial number of their villages by value are in Auckland unlike SUM others that are spread throughout N.Z. The net result is that if Auckland property is flat their NPAT (for those that like to use this metric) is hit harder than retirement companies with a much better geographic spread. The average age of their units is also significantly older which is an other interesting point of difference as is their leaky building repair bill. All that said I think its a pretty solid result.
This could be good news for MET, as it might cause the investing public to view MET more favourably than they have done so.
Whichever way it goes I expect that the NZ Super fund will have a big say in the final decision. Can't ignore a 20% shareholder entirely!
Craig’s interview MetLife CEO
https://craigsip.com/insights/overvi...f-005056a36616
Bit sad MET Board thinking of a share buy back to generate a bit more excitment.
Obviously a bit peeved more punters don’t think MET is the bee’s knees of retirement companies.
Maybe it’s the 61 shareholders owning 90% that puts them off.
Will it make much difference?
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/e...are-price.html
My Thoughts.
Remediation work for MET old units with moisture ingress and other issues is almost certain to cost substantially more than MET have already provided in their accounts.
The average age of MET's units is the oldest in the industry so there is probably imbedded deep cycle maintenance issues elsewhere.
The concentration of their villages in the Auckland area is I believe the highest in the industry.
The vast majority of their villages do not offer much other than independent living. They are the diametric opposite of RYM's full continuum of care model which is the security of continuum of care that older folks are really looking for.
You are right Winner that it is sad they are looking at a buyback because its sad that they don't realise that the market is trying to tell them that the product they're offering is substandard to what people really want.
The market is not as stupid as MET directors think it is.