OCA - Oceania Group - retirement villages

[bull....]

why i see what ferg's saying i dont really agree ferg's underlying p&l should be relied upon solely as the company publishes these statement's on what it believe's are true figures of accounting profit but these figure's can be adjusted as company see's fit to a degree.
might pay to use in comparison with actual statements as PT has said

[Ferg]

In fairness I'm not saying the underlying P&L should be relied upon. I'm not sure where you got that from bull? But yes there are multiple points at which estimates can be used.

From the last annual report:

Resale Gains:

Resale Gain – Underlying Profit
The Directors’ estimate of realised gains on resales of ORA units and care suites (i.e. the difference between the incoming resident’s ORA licence payment and the ORA licence payment previously received from the outgoing resident)....

Development Margin:

Development Margin – Underlying Profit
The Directors’ estimate of realised development margin is calculated as the ORA licence payment received, and receivable, in relation to the first sale of new ORA units and care suites ... {snip} ... less the development costs associated with developing the ORA units and care suites

Also, the determination of underlying profit from NPAT:

Net Profit after Tax:
Remove Change in fair value of investment property
{snip}
Add back Directors’ estimate of realised gains on the resale of units and care suites sold under an ORA
Add back Directors’ estimate of realised development margin on the first sale of new ORA units or care suites
{snip}
= Underlying Profit

[bull....]

back under a buck .... again

maybe on the summerset news. wonder how discounting will effect there cashflow

[winner69]

back under a buck .... again

maybe on the summerset news. wonder how discounting will effect there cashflow

Jeez …market discounting OCA …down to 97 cents

[SailorRob]

After joking with a mate that at this rate OCA would take until 2040 to reach $2, I decided to take a look at what this scenario could look like as an investment.

I was stunned to find that it would be a very decent investment and in all likelihood beat the returns you would get from putting your money with 95% of professional investors over the same 18 year time period. If the shares go to $2 now it will destroy your returns.


From here to $2 in 18 years, the share price would produce a compounded 4.1% return. If dividends kept in lockstep (so the yield remained the same and the dividend also grew at 4.1%) and you paid 25% tax on the dividend and then reinvested into the company at the prevailing share price you would compound your investment at 7.92%.


Now if the share price stayed at 97c for the first 10 years and then grew steadily to $2 by the 18th year, you'd compound at 8.75%, but if the share price stayed at 97c for 17 years before jumping to $2, then you'd compound at a phenomenal 9.5%. This would turn a million into 5.5 million. At the original 7.92% it would be 4.41 million.

Obviously the share price staying static while dividends grow is unlikley, but this shows the effect of having a share price go nowhere. The longer it stays lower the better and you can of course commit external capital.

Given the choice 999 of 1000 investors would want and pray for only $3.46 million and reject the $5.5 million, throwing away 2 million dollars as they prey for the share price to go up NOW which would mean only getting a compound 6.92% return.

[Baa_Baa]

After joking with a mate that at this rate OCA would take until 2040 to reach $2, I decided to take a look at what this scenario could look like as an investment.

I was stunned to find that it would be a very decent investment and in all likelihood beat the returns you would get from putting your money with 95% of professional investors over the same 18 year time period. If the shares go to $2 now it will destroy your returns.


From here to $2 in 18 years, the share price would produce a compounded 4.1% return. If dividends kept in lockstep (so the yield remained the same and the dividend also grew at 4.1%) and you paid 25% tax on the dividend and then reinvested into the company at the prevailing share price you would compound your investment at 7.92%.


Now if the share price stayed at 97c for the first 10 years and then grew steadily to $2 by the 18th year, you'd compound at 8.75%, but if the share price stayed at 97c for 17 years before jumping to $2, then you'd compound at a phenomenal 9.5%. This would turn a million into 5.5 million. At the original 7.92% it would be 4.41 million.

Obviously the share price staying static while dividends grow is unlikley, but this shows the effect of having a share price go nowhere. The longer it stays lower the better and you can of course commit external capital.

Given the choice 999 of 1000 investors would want and pray for only $3.46 million and reject the $5.5 million, throwing away 2 million dollars as they prey for the share price to go up NOW which would mean only getting a compound 6.92% return.

Maths is a brilliant thing, it shows how value investing over time has little to do with what the market prices the company at right now, except what the current SP discount to long term value is. This might not be the only value play in the market, but it is one of them imo. And, I think the market will re-rate the SP (capital value of the company) long before the value investor thesis plays out, which just adds to the attraction through capital gains which the value investors are unlikely to realise as they don't typically buy appreciating SP, or sell for capital gains unless price exceeds time value (or something goes badly wrong with the company). Though a SP boost does dilute the yield on a cap value basis, that assumes you're buying the increased SP, which value investors aren't. Best to accumulate a decent position at the lowest SP's you can get, before the market decides they've been caught out waiting for a rising SP which it seems most here are focused on.

Thanks SailerRob.

[Habits]

Me like a lot of others will be too old by 2040, though I am expecting to live until 2060

[Waltzing]

Chart looks terrible.

The way to turn this around is to open up the airport gates and bring in a few million Ukrainains to help with everything from IT to Farming.

That should put a base or Turbo charge house prices and OCA will hit 2 dollars in no time....

When and if FFFF (Fatty FO FO IA from FIJI) opens up immigration all problems solved.

Might run out of Land...

[clearasmud]

Yes there's plenty of health gurus to coach you on YouTube.

[bull....]

After joking with a mate that at this rate OCA would take until 2040 to reach $2, I decided to take a look at what this scenario could look like as an investment.

I was stunned to find that it would be a very decent investment and in all likelihood beat the returns you would get from putting your money with 95% of professional investors over the same 18 year time period. If the shares go to $2 now it will destroy your returns.


From here to $2 in 18 years, the share price would produce a compounded 4.1% return. If dividends kept in lockstep (so the yield remained the same and the dividend also grew at 4.1%) and you paid 25% tax on the dividend and then reinvested into the company at the prevailing share price you would compound your investment at 7.92%.


Now if the share price stayed at 97c for the first 10 years and then grew steadily to $2 by the 18th year, you'd compound at 8.75%, but if the share price stayed at 97c for 17 years before jumping to $2, then you'd compound at a phenomenal 9.5%. This would turn a million into 5.5 million. At the original 7.92% it would be 4.41 million.

Obviously the share price staying static while dividends grow is unlikley, but this shows the effect of having a share price go nowhere. The longer it stays lower the better and you can of course commit external capital.

Given the choice 999 of 1000 investors would want and pray for only $3.46 million and reject the $5.5 million, throwing away 2 million dollars as they prey for the share price to go up NOW which would mean only getting a compound 6.92% return.

nice if it happened , but i for one cant see oca compounding div,s
OCA is a great trading stock so if I trade it sucessfully , capture all the div's and reinvest the proceeds all the time back in i would actually make a lot more than simply buy and hold.