OCA - Oceania Group - retirement villages

[winner69]

Hello winner. Warren is my name. Well I'm not really talking about anything but I did go to the NZSX website and visit OCA and clicked on "Performance" then "Analysis" and this was the 1st line I saw

"Highlights"
- Reported net profit after tax increased by $20.5m (93%) compared with the prior corresponding period (pcp) to $42.5m due to strong uplift in valuation of investment properties, higher resale margins and sale of new retirement village units

Kind regards.

Thanks for clarifying what I thought you were referrig to )bit confusing Oceania numbers because they several different versions with different profits)

I'll give you a bit of help with your ramping

That $42.5m NPAT is only for a half year - wow - double that and a bit more for growth and lets say full year NPAT will be $100m

Summerset will probably only make $200m NPAT this year (we'll know next month). Chances are it will less but lets stick to round numbers eh. They'll be making twice what OCA will be making

So the story is even better than you make out

Your OCA at $1 gives you $100m profit (as well as that $1 billion assets)

My SUM at $5 odd gives me $200m profit

Yes old chap - I have obviously backed the wrong horse and you mate are on the winner with this cheap as share

[Beagle]

LOL Winner.
I think SUM people need to have a look at the concept of underlying profit. Read SUM annual reports Warren and do some more homework.
Try and get a handle on what underlying profit is and what embedded value is
https://www.summerset.co.nz/investor...presentations/

[winner69]

LOL Winner.

No laughing matter - seems winner is a loser

[Beagle]

No laughing matter - seems winner is a loser

I know you're on too a winner. I suppose at some stage I might have no other alternative but to explain yet again for the umpteenth time the different profit measurement bases and what they mean and how to interpret the data. I tried to do this the other day and got half way through a very lengthy post and to be perfectly honest I nearly lost the will to live so just deleted it and moved on. Much, much easier to simply let people believe what they want to believe isn't it mate.

Its all been explained before at enormous length in the SUM and RYM threads so I think rather than impose any sort of implied moral obligation upon this bean counter to explain it all yet again its incumbent upon newbies around here to do the background reading for themselves. I suggest SUM people read the entire contents of the SUM and RYM thread back to early 2014 and all will become perfectly plain and clear who made the right calls on which retirement stocks and what the really important profit basis is.

I think this company is slowly building the basis for a good future in its market niche and its a defensible and resilient business model in a downturn. On a forward underlying PE of about 12 for a recent listing which is showing some promise it seems good value but without a proven track record of growth is somewhat more risky than the proven performers. I hold a pretty reasonable sized holding.

On the other hand SUM has built a proven six year track record of growing underlying earnings at a CAGR of in excess of 45% and is trading on a forward PE of about 14. I have a larger holding in SUM than OCA.

[scottwalshnz]

I know you're on too a winner. I suppose at some stage I might have no other alternative but to explain yet again for the umpteenth time the different profit measurement bases and what they mean and how to interpret the data. I tried to do this the other day and got half way through a very lengthy post and to be perfectly honest I nearly lost the will to live so just deleted it and moved on. Much, much easier to simply let people believe what they want to believe isn't it mate.

Its all been explained before at enormous length in the SUM and RYM threads so I think rather than impose any sort of implied moral obligation upon this bean counter to explain it all yet again its incumbent upon newbies around here to do the background reading for themselves. I suggest SUM people read the entire contents of the SUM and RYM thread back to early 2014 and all will become perfectly plain and clear who made the right calls on which retirement stocks and what the really important profit basis is.

I was going to say, if you ever feel like rewriting that post, I'd be keen to read it.

I'll do my homework instead and read the threads as per your edit.

[couta1]

All the newbies need to know is that SUM is worth roughly half of the RYM share price and OCA is worth about one tenth of the RYM price, the rest is academic.

[Beagle]

I was going to say, if you ever feel like rewriting that post, I'd be keen to read it.

I'll do my homework instead and read the threads as per your edit.

Okay seeing as you put it nicely I'll try and find some enthusiasm to explain it again seeing as there's more than just one new poster interested. Sometime in the next week when I have the time but those thread s are well worth a read in the meantime

[Beagle]

All the newbies need to know is that SUM is worth roughly half of the RYM share price and OCA is worth about one tenth of the RYM price, the rest is academic.

You crack me up mate. Underlying earnings don't matter folks, the Couta1 reversion theory that's stood the test of time trumps all other considerations.

[winner69]

All the newbies need to know is that SUM is worth roughly half of the RYM share price and OCA is worth about one tenth of the RYM price, the rest is academic.

You're onto it couta

Will stand the test of time I reckon that 'rule' ...might be small variances up and down over time but at the end of the day that 10.5.1 ratio will win outr

[trader_jackson]

Forsyth reckon in 12 months or less OCA will be $1.07 (aka their target price)... PE wise it is the cheapest, by a fair way, at just 12.1 for FY18 estimated PE for fy18 that is