SUM - Summerset Group

[couta1]

Interesting to compare Rymans 690mill to Sums 500 mill spend in Auckland,when you compare the size of the companies and market caps this would still put Sum well ahead on an exposure percentage in the Auckland market

[Harvey Specter]

In order to pay the $400k up front I suspect the majority of people going into retirement homes are affording this by selling their existing home. If you don't have a home to sell and therefore the ability to free up that much capital then moving into a home may not be an option. .

In 20 years, people could cash out their Kiwisaver to buy in.

Re target markets, I think they target the wealthiest 30%, while ignoring the wealthiest 5% who have enough cash to do their own thing (probably to the detriment of their social lives)

[Jay]

Kiwisaver can be taken out in a lump sum if you wish, as long as you have been in it 5 years and are over 65.
Or you can take out some now some later, or leave all there

[Harvey Specter]

Good point. I;m not clear on the Kiwisaver rules come retirement. Can you take it out as a lump sum as soon as you hit 65?

Yip - you can pay for that world cruise the day you hit 65 provided you have been in 5 years. You can stay in but you dont benefit from the govt top up from memory.

[winner69]

There is some Treasury / public policy thinking that some time in the future Kiwisaver should be converted into annuities on retirement

[Harvey Specter]

There is some Treasury / public policy thinking that some time in the future Kiwisaver should be converted into annuities on retirement

I actually typed a paragraphon annunities then deleted it. There are currently no (significant) providers in NZ, though this may change as people get access to large lump sums at the correct stage of life.

However, I would be highly disappointed if they changed the rules to require compulsion for annuities. That is the reason I put the minimum amount in.

Back on topic - yes T, lump sum kiwisaver payouts would provide another great way to enter a village. Villages may even change the model to 'prepay' the weekly component such that there is no ongong cost (effectively an annuity as they would be taking on the actuarial risk).

[winner69]

Take the profit before tax (NPBT) deduct the fair value movement of investment property (revaluation gains) and:

FY2013 SUM made a NPBT of $2M0

FY2012 SUM made a NPBT of -$0M7 (loss)

So currently SUM is a de facto non-profit provider of retirement living accommodation and services.
The perceived profit is just the normal increase in the value of property and land.

MET is much the same.

Now RYM is a different beast entirely they made $31M3 NPBT of real money for FY2013 and another $16M4 NPBT for the first half of this year. But that is not particularly a great return on 1.8 billion dollars of property or even 780 million dollars of equity.

So not a lot of profit to cut anywhere.

Best Wishes
Paper Tiger

Disclaimers:
1 - Own MET, SUM & RYM (specified in strictly alphabetical order)

2 - Nothing in this post should be construed as criticism of, or preference for the retirement sector in general or specifically; nor as criticism of, or preference for any particular retirement village operator, listed or unlisted, for-profit or not for profit.

So true PT ....been like that for a while now

SUM profit is essentially realised revaluation gains, on the 'investment propeties"

Good? or bad?

Interesting the revaluations over the last 2 or 3 years have only been about 3% of the value of investment properties. RYM is about 8%

Crude measure but makes me think maybe SUM jacked the price of their properties pre IPO - pure speculation of course.

On the hand if property valuations weaken no profit for SUM

[Bjauck]

finally, should all this be in a new thread, as it relates to ALL village complexes, not simply the best one

I am not in a position to say, as I have holdings in the three listed retirement companies, but do shareholders of one of the companies check the threads of the others?

[Bjauck]

In 20 years, people could cash out their Kiwisaver to buy in

There is not much incentive for people to pay into Kiwisaver more than the the $1000 odd each year in order to get the $500 government credit. Even this becomes less of an enticement as your balance builds up. As balances build up I think more people will take contribution holidays especially after they have already contributed the $1000 odd in a year. Many schemes overseas give tax breaks to their super schemes...i.e. no capital gains or income tax payable on the whole amount invested in the scheme...this is an incentive to build up sizable amounts invested.

For example someone with $400,000 in a retirement scheme with tax relief earning 5% income each year...would get the equivalent of about $6,000 credit from the government (tax foregone). Whereas in NZ kiwisaver you would only get the $500 credit provided you made the minimum annual contribution. We still need action from government in making Kiwisaver a meaningful alternative to the traditional kiwi superannuation of buying a rental property, in my opinion.

I am doubtful whether many in the current kiwisaver scheme (especially those not already in the wealthiest 10-15%) will amass a sufficient investment to use it in order to purchase a retirement village unit in the same way that people currently use their freehold homes.

[artemis]

There is not much incentive for people to pay into Kiwisaver more than the the $1000 odd each year in order to get the $500 government credit. Even this becomes less of an enticement as your balance builds up. As balances build up I think more people will take contribution holidays especially after they have already contributed the $1000 odd in a year. Many schemes overseas give tax breaks to their super schemes...i.e. no capital gains or income tax payable on the whole amount invested in the scheme...this is an incentive to build up sizable amounts invested.

For example someone with $400,000 in a retirement scheme with tax relief earning 5% income each year...would get the equivalent of about $6,000 credit from the government (tax foregone). Whereas in NZ kiwisaver you would only get the $500 credit provided you made the minimum annual contribution. We still need action from government in making Kiwisaver a meaningful alternative to the traditional kiwi superannuation of buying a rental property, in my opinion.

I am doubtful whether many in the current kiwisaver scheme (especially those not already in the wealthiest 10-15%) will amass a sufficient investment to use it in order to purchase a retirement village unit in the same way that people currently use their freehold homes.

What you say applies to the self employed, or not employed. But for the employed, if in the scheme, they get employer contributions as well. And these are likely to rise over time as has happened here to a small extent, and in Australia to a lager extent. Two accounts (for two partners) could end up being very significant. Of course in the future there may be changes to National Superannuation which could offset Kiwisaver balances.