sharetrader
Page 89 of 1942 FirstFirst ... 3979858687888990919293991391895891089 ... LastLast
Results 881 to 890 of 19415
  1. #881
    Senior Member hardt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    In a bubble
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by winner69 View Post
    Maybe the gist of the discussion on the Are NZ equities too expensive thread points to a yes.

    Analyst DCF valuations probably give a better idea of ‘value’ rather than some random ‘multiple’ of profit or something.....even with perceived dodgy assumptions.

    Three different analysts come up with much the same answer as to what the present value of future cash flows is. Maybe they are about right and the market is a bit ahead of itself.
    It has been said before, this one is currently trading more or less in line with the sectors ( excl RYM ) multiples.

  2. #882
    Guru
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hardt View Post
    It has been said before, this one is currently trading more or less in line with the sectors ( excl RYM ) multiples.
    I don't think so... I believe it is actually trading lower than all the others... at least on a forward underlying profit to earnings ratio at least
    Yes, even cheaper than the already cheap Arvidia
    Last edited by trader_jackson; 30-01-2018 at 07:02 PM.

  3. #883
    Speedy Az winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    37,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trader_jackson View Post
    I don't think so... I believe it is actually trading lower than all the others... at least on a forward underlying profit to earnings ratio at least
    Yes, even cheaper than the already cheap Arvidia
    SUM at about 12 and OCA about 11 (on forward underlying earnings ...which have to be guessed eh.....so not much in it is there

    Whose that Arvida you talk about
    “ At the top of every bubble, everyone is convinced it's not yet a bubble.”

  4. #884
    Senior Member hardt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    In a bubble
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trader_jackson View Post
    I don't think so... I believe it is actually trading lower than all the others... at least on a forward underlying profit to earnings ratio at least
    Yes, even cheaper than the already cheap Arvidia
    As winner stated above... more or less the same for FY18.

    Looking at FY19 - Lower stock and fewer developments have it almost flat at 10-11x earnings again there.

    As the sector is mostly trading at 9-12x FY19 earnings... OCA is no different in the range of 90-120.

    That FY20 looks like the year to be really excited about OCA.
    Last edited by hardt; 30-01-2018 at 07:57 PM.

  5. #885
    ShareTrader Legend Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    21,362

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by winner69 View Post
    Reported NTA was 81 cents

    The $1.01 is a thing Oceania invented called ‘net adjusted value per share’
    Page 27 I will leave this as something for people to judge for themselves. http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-websit...390/273470.pdf
    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

  6. #886
    Speedy Az winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    37,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beagle View Post
    Page 27 I will leave this as something for people to judge for themselves. http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-websit...390/273470.pdf
    Was just pointing out the difference between NTA as reported and this net adjusted value thing.

    Just thought that most on here know about and understand NTA (and you quoted the wrong number).

    Doubt if most on here would understand what this net adjusted value means anyway. For those interested in learning the right hand chart on Slide 24 sort of explains where the extra $60m adjustmentscome from.

    Question - Why do you think they exclude the present value of net development cashflows and earnings at both current and future developments (including The Sands and Meadowbank Stage 4 which are under construction) when calculate this net adjusted value — would make the $1.01 higher eh
    Last edited by winner69; 31-01-2018 at 09:56 AM.
    “ At the top of every bubble, everyone is convinced it's not yet a bubble.”

  7. #887
    ShareTrader Legend Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    21,362

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by winner69 View Post
    Was just pointing out the difference between NTA as reported and this net adjusted value thing.

    Just thought that most on here know about and understand NTA (and you quoted the wrong number).

    Doubt if most on here would understand what this net adjusted value means anyway. For those interested in learning the right hand chart on Slide 24 sort of explains where the extra $60m adjustmentscome from.

    Question - Why do you think they exclude the present value of net development cashflows and earnings at both current and future developments (including The Sands and Meadowbank Stage 4 which are under construction) when calculate this net adjusted value — would make the $1.01 higher eh
    Fair enough mate. To be honest there's whole books been written on accounting for development and construction contracts and valuation thereof so its far from a simple subject. To opine with any clarity on the subject I'd have to wrap my head around the whole process of what they're doing which is more than likely to make my head hurt so I'm not sure I want to go there to be perfectly honest about it. I think my preference is to simply accept that they have probably used generally accepted accounting methodologies to arrive at that value, their accountants probably exceed my pay grade and probably far more current with the latest accounting standards for construction contracts.

    For what its worth, (which I freely admit isn't much as I haven't studied their methodology in any real detail) I think its clearly right that they exclude future developments as they're not currently in progress and the gain from that future development should be recognized in the period of its completion. One should not overlook the number of developments they have consented however as this is a key business risk that's been removed from future cash flows...(ask Julian about the business risk of getting consents at the next SUM annual meeting regarding the Boulcott site).
    Its probably worth noting at this point that the cost of getting a consented development can run well into seven figures and I would imagine those costs have been capitalized and included as part of their land valuation.
    Regarding current projects in process. From memory the generally accepted process is to use a "percentage of completion assessment process" to determine carrying value and one can't account for gains on the cost of construction until a practical completion certificate of the units has been obtained and an unconditional sale contract has been executed. They might however account for gains on completed units held but unsold at balance date based on independent valuation. Probably throw this into the embedded value formula somewhere or other.

    Worth noting that the intangible asset carrying value in the balance sheet is very low and the company is starting to build a credible track record of completing developments on time and on budget, let me assure you this is no easy feat in the Auckland construction market in particular. There's also no value in the balance sheet recorded for their excellent reputation in the care sector, a reputation that nobody builds easily or quickly.

    At $1.00 cum a 2.1 cent dividend, a theoretical ex divvy price of 97.9 cps and a forecast underlying profit of 8.42 cps, (directors confirmed guidance as you know) that's a current year PE of just 11.6.
    Seems very reasonable indeed to me, all things considered. I think the analysts are being pretty tough on OCA...how good are they really when they were saying on average AIR was only worth $2.10 this time last year ? Analysts have been known to revise valuations dramatically and just try ever getting an apology from one for being wrong lol.

    If the market gets a "little silly" to the downside in the days and weeks ahead I might open my shoulders a fair bit more with this one as people are always going to get old and need care aren't they !
    Last edited by Beagle; 31-01-2018 at 10:49 AM.
    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

  8. #888
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    120

    Default sell --- I'll buy

    Quote Originally Posted by winner69 View Post
    Was just pointing out the difference between NTA as reported and this net adjusted value thing.

    Just thought that most on here know about and understand NTA (and you quoted the wrong number).

    Doubt if most on here would understand what this net adjusted value means anyway. For those interested in learning the right hand chart on Slide 24 sort of explains where the extra $60m adjustmentscome from.

    Question - Why do you think they exclude the present value of net development cashflows and earnings at both current and future developments (including The Sands and Meadowbank Stage 4 which are under construction) when calculate this net adjusted value — would make the $1.01 higher eh
    Hello chaps
    I'm 100% with Mr Beagle on this one (OCA being an amazing start up venture having exceeded every projection in their IPO)
    Do I read it right --42 million profit far exceeding IPO projections?
    Big % of income (Aged Care) streaming in from a stable NZ Government every 2 weeks (geeeeez I've waited 6 months for big public companies to pay).
    Some really nice building projects coming along. I have visited 2 of them.
    A wonderful reputation (goodwill).
    And an approaching tidal wave of customers
    Mr Winner69 just sell and I'll add to my considerable holding as I am very very confident here on this 1.
    Last edited by warren; 31-01-2018 at 11:40 AM.

  9. #889
    ShareTrader Legend Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    21,362

    Default

    I don't think he's thinking of selling mate. Knowing Winner a little I think he likes to play devil's advocate and debate both sides of the argument.
    Last edited by Beagle; 31-01-2018 at 11:50 AM.
    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

  10. #890
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    355

    Default

    Director continues to buy on market, a good sign of confidence.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •