Originally Posted by
James108
SUM is more ‘expensive’ because it has historically grown earnings faster and probably will grow them faster going forward (in the short term). As I mentioned summerset were developing new units at a faster clip (in proportion to current units) than any other operator.
I can understand why there is confusion about the relative growth potential of Oceania vs summerset as the accounts of retirement operators are quite complicated. But I made a detailed model of oca and sum 3 or 4 years ago and it was apparent summerset growth would be far greater.
Does that mean summerset is a better buy at the moment... well no as you pay for that future growth. but compare them solely based on underling p/e at your own peril.