OCA - Oceania Group - retirement villages

[peat]

https://www.odt.co.nz/business/newly...eats-forecasts

so its all consistent having a

• $45million, (ebitda)
  
• and npat of $44.9million

??

[winner69]

so its all consistent having a

• $45million, (ebitda)
  
• and npat of $44.9million

??

??? mean what peat

[peat]

doesnt this imply that interest tax and depn and amortisation total only $0.1M

[winner69]

doesnt this imply that interest tax and depn and amortisation total only $0.1M

Maybe Page 14 of this presentation will help ....esp the bits around listed company structure

https://www.nzx.com/files/attachments/262295.pdf

[Beagle]

so its all consistent having a

• $45million, (ebitda)
  
• and npat of $44.9million

??

Without digging into the IPO documentation again, (hey its the weekend) I think the confusion is highly likely to stem from the accounting standards.
International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) requires property investment companies, (which is what retirement companies basically are) to include revaluations of their property portfolio each year, as well as all other realised profits into earnings under the generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). These are then included in the figure reported as Net Profit before tax but the revaluations are of course exempt for tax under N.Z. tax law so are excluded for tax purposes. So all clear as mud so far ?

EBITDA on the other hand is the figure that will exclude the above annual portfolio revaluation but include gains actually realised during the year (i.e.realised development gains on new units sold and realised gains on resale's of old occupation licenses.

One measure includes all unrealized and realised gains, the other just realised gains.

Underlying profit, (which is my favourite measure) is EDITDA less of course interest, depreciation and amortization.

So all crystal clear then Probably pure coincidence that the two figures are much the same. Let me know if you'd like me to look into this a bit more next week to ensure its just a coincidence the two figures are very similar. Page 14 useful as Winner has suggested but I completely understand most people's eyes will simply glaze over and I don't blame them to be honest.

The key figure to concentrate on and the one all the analysts use for comparison purposes is underlying profit. Underlying profit is forecast at 8.42 cps for FY18.
Now what's the right PE ?, that the debate. Provided they do what they say they will do I see it at 14-15 ($1.18 - $1.26) in 12 months time + 4.7% dividend yield but then I am also hopeful that SUM will be on a 17-18 PE by then which would see them close to $6.

The caveat here however is that if Winston Peter's is the kingmaker and he wants to smash immigration out of the park with the consequent effect on the property market, all bets are off !

[DarkHorse]

Thanks for your insightful posts Beagle. I agree with you re IPOs.
I know little about OCA but recent result and posts have piqued my interest.
I'm invested in SUM and would be interested to know what you see as being key differences between them (apart from the obvious SUM track record and OCA lower valuation).
cheers DH

[Snow Leopard]

With regard to the EBITDA/NPAT debate, the answer is, as always to read the friggin accounts!

Proper accountin:' EBITDA was $75M3 where NPAT was $44M9.

Pro Forma Underlying: EBITDA was $45M0 wherwhere NPAT was $34M0.

Take special note of note 3.3.

Wishes, Best of
Paper Tiger

[hardt]

OCA NZX	2017A	2018F
OPERATING REVENUES	171,883
OPERATING EXPENSES LESS OTHER	133,093
GROSS OPERATING PROFIT	38,790
DEBT INTEREST INCURRED	20,146	3000>*
UNDERLYING NPAT	13,422
UNDERLYING EPS	2.196cps	6.0cps<*
UNDERLYING PE @$1	45.54	16.7>*
Anyone have an idea of what this will look like next year? [ terms we see in 2.1 and not PFI* ]

[Beagle]

Thanks for your insightful posts Beagle. I agree with you re IPOs.
I know little about OCA but recent result and posts have piqued my interest.
I'm invested in SUM and would be interested to know what you see as being key differences between them (apart from the obvious SUM track record and OCA lower valuation).
cheers DH

You're welcome. Oceania more of a care focus http://www.oceaniahealthcare.co.nz/ but watch for SUM to morph their business model more that way too
http://www.summerset.co.nz/

[Benny1]

Thanks Mr Beagle and others for your recent posts on OCA. They certainly help someone like me to make sense of all the info one finds out there!
I didn't realise I was such an astute investor to wait for a good uptrend to emerge before I jumped i :-).
One thing I do notice with both OCA and ARV is they both don't have any villages south of CHC?