OCA - Oceania Group - retirement villages

[hardt]

I will admit to being somewhat baffled by the OCA accounts. I was also baffled by the last FY version and was hoping for a little clarity this time.
Well that did not happen did it!

Somehow the little bits and pieces, a tax adjustment here, a PP&E revaluation (or 2) there, they appear to add up to nothing much at all.

Though to be honest, what most baffles me more is the depth of emotional attachment to this stock being exhibited on this thread.

201 pages of discussion on a stock less than a year old with high single digit projected growth

Where RYMAN (the bloody A1 in retirement) has 240 pages on here after 15years consistently booming in the industry and on the market.

[Baa_Baa]

201 pages of discussion on a stock less than a year old with high single digit projected growth

Where RYMAN (the bloody A1 in retirement) has 240 pages on here after 15years consistently booming in the industry and on the market.

If you subtract the 200 pages of quality analysis and insights from winner, Beagle and Couta, the 1 page left didn't add a lot of value to the discussion, including your post.

There's decent price support between $1.00 - $0.98 so I'd expect a slugfest between here and there over the next wee while, notwithstanding macro effects.

I'm just looking for a lowest price accumulation point, so happy if it goes below that support, even a long way below. Long holds are like that, buy the yield.

[hardt]

If you subtract the 200 pages of quality analysis and insights from winner, Beagle and Couta, the 1 page left didn't add a lot of value to the discussion, including your post.

There's decent price support between $1.00 - $0.98 so I'd expect a slugfest between here and there over the next wee while, notwithstanding macro effects.

I'm just looking for a lowest price accumulation point, so happy if it goes below that support, even a long way below. Long holds are like that, buy the yield.

I doubt a boomers echo chamber is anymore than 20% substance, 30% ad hominem bs and 50% missing the point

[BlackPeter]

I doubt a boomers echo chamber is anymore than 20% substance, 30% ad hominem bs and 50% missing the point

Not quite sure I get your point, but apparantly you think that there is too much discussion on this thread. To be fair - much of the discussion is not about OCA, but about the retirement sector in general (like what cruelties our beloved gummit could do to capital gains, misbehaviour of unrelated Australian retirement providers and similar) but I get that this must be all OCA's fault given that punters choose to discuss it here.

Obviously - you could easily just unsubscribe from this thread, if this is an issue for you.

However - given you are still here, the problem must lie deeper. Do you think that the stock is overvalued? If so - why don't you just say so? How much is it worth to you - and why? It is o.k. if you think that Ryman is the paragon of excellence ... they did well - but some people see them at current as overhyped, as you seem to see OCA.

OK - lets compare:

Forward PE (3 yr average based on analyst consensus):
RYM: 14.6; OCA: 8; OCA wins in this contest hands down, but obviously - analysts can be wrong (as can anybody else );
Backward PE (5 yrs avg, due to older numbers for OCA not availalbe):
RYM: 18.8; OCA: 13.7; OCA wins hands down in this discipline as well;
backward Rev CAGR (RYM 8 yrs, OCA 5 yrs average - sorry, too lazy to recalculate):
RYM: 15.3; OCA: 8.6: So - yes, no doubt - Ryman wins in this discipline
backward EPS CAGR (RYM 8 yrs, OCA 4 yrs, given that 2014 earnings was for them negative which sort of screws up the formula):
RYM: 21.8; OCA: 57.3; OCA wins, but to be fair ... we measured for OCA only a shorter period.

I still see Ryman as the "Rolls Royce" of the retirement sector, but just look at AIR to see what happens if Rolls Royce screws up - and hey, RYM might as well: not unusual for NZ companies to fetch themselves a bloody nose on the other side of the Tasman and leave afterwards with empty pockets.

I see OCA more as the Toyota ... and admittedly with less history - i.e. its o.k. that the markets demand a higher risk premium.

Re the thread length - I guess I sort of agree. Maybe we can ask the retirement sector doomsday preachers to spread their generic doomsday sermons a bit fairer across all NZ retirement stocks instead of dumping it all into the OCA thread. This should help a lot ot keep the OCA thread shorter and more relevant.

[winner69]

Not quite sure I get your point, but apparantly you think that there is too much discussion on this thread. To be fair - much of the discussion is not about OCA, but about the retirement sector in general (like what cruelties our beloved gummit could do to capital gains, misbehaviour of unrelated Australian retirement providers and similar) but I get that this must be all OCA's fault given that punters choose to discuss it here.

Obviously - you could easily just unsubscribe from this thread, if this is an issue for you.

However - given you are still here, the problem must lie deeper. Do you think that the stock is overvalued? If so - why don't you just say so? How much is it worth to you - and why? It is o.k. if you think that Ryman is the paragon of excellence ... they did well - but some people see them at current as overhyped, as you seem to see OCA.

OK - lets compare:

Forward PE (3 yr average based on analyst consensus):
RYM: 14.6; OCA: 8; OCA wins in this contest hands down, but obviously - analysts can be wrong (as can anybody else );
Backward PE (5 yrs avg, due to older numbers for OCA not availalbe):
RYM: 18.8; OCA: 13.7; OCA wins hands down in this discipline as well;
backward Rev CAGR (RYM 8 yrs, OCA 5 yrs average - sorry, too lazy to recalculate):
RYM: 15.3; OCA: 8.6: So - yes, no doubt - Ryman wins in this discipline
backward EPS CAGR (RYM 8 yrs, OCA 4 yrs, given that 2014 earnings was for them negative which sort of screws up the formula):
RYM: 21.8; OCA: 57.3; OCA wins, but to be fair ... we measured for OCA only a shorter period.

I still see Ryman as the "Rolls Royce" of the retirement sector, but just look at AIR to see what happens if Rolls Royce screws up - and hey, RYM might as well: not unusual for NZ companies to fetch themselves a bloody nose on the other side of the Tasman and leave afterwards with empty pockets.

I see OCA more as the Toyota ... and admittedly with less history - i.e. its o.k. that the markets demand a higher risk premium.

Re the thread length - I guess I sort of agree. Maybe we can ask the retirement sector doomsday preachers to spread their generic doomsday sermons a bit fairer across all NZ retirement stocks instead of dumping it all into the OCA thread. This should help a lot ot keep the OCA thread shorter and more relevant.

Good work BP

Just that losing ‘cheap as’ stocks get more air play than than ‘overvalued’ premium stocks

If Oceania was trading at $2 this thread would be quiet as

Something to do with either being comfortable or insecure methinks.

[couta1]

Sorry BP but bull will be back today so another page of scaremongering will be added from your totally trustworty tabloid sources.PS-Perhaps he has decided to take another day off.

[winner69]

My acquaintances at the London School of Economics looking for research material into behavioural finance think this thread is great.

[BlackPeter]

My acquaintances at the London School of Economics looking for research material into behavioural finance think this thread is great.

Is this good or bad?

[Jay]

With Aussie having capital gains tax, how, if at all, does it affect Ryman's model in Australia?? , if a CGT as put in place, then would OCA be affected that same way if we "followed" with something similar.

[winner69]

Is this good or bad?

Just good raw material for them .....they find investor behaviour intriguing .....esp when many perceive the market to be wrong