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.
Ecclesiastes 11:2: “Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth.”
Ben Graham - In the short run the market is a voting machine but in the long run the market is a weighing machine
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.
Ecclesiastes 11:2: “Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth.”
Ben Graham - In the short run the market is a voting machine but in the long run the market is a weighing machine
Originally Posted by winner69
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks