ARV - Arvida Retirement Villages

[Maverick]

Margins increasing for both resales and new units winner, great stuff. $1.50's is far to cheap for ARV.

Maybe the results today will be enough to silence the dogs?

(The silence on here so far is deafening lol)

The figures are fairly complex TJ, its takes time to go through the facts (especially since they issued 31% more shares buying and intergrating 2 new villages this period). If you are happy going off the exciting headlines alone then good luck to you.

[Beagle]

I dunno Beagle, ARV has worked pretty well for me - and my quick assessment shows a bit more upside in ARV over the long term. Great result.
Together with ATM, today is a very good day for the Cat's portfolio.

I try and target stocks in a sector that will give me meaningful outperformance over time. This usually happens when underlying growth on an eps basis is growing strongly over a long period of time.
Single digit underlying earnings growth on a consistent basis is what ARV have served up due to their rampant stock issuance over the years.
A one off 16% needs to be carefully assessed in terms of whether its repeatable or whether one off factors applied. At first glance they had a very good half for resales. Resales can vary a lot from one half to the next so I wouldn't be betting on double digit underlying earnings growth going forward on this one.

ATM- I have shared my view of fair value in that thread.

[Maverick]

I don`t get how ARV says HY1 EPS is 5cps.
Underlying profit is 23.4m with 542.9m shares on issue. , that`s EPS of 4.3cps.
Even when I refund any tax back into the equation ( to compare it more accurately with its peers who pay negligible tax) I still only come up with 4.5cps.
So by my workings @ $1.55 that`s a PE of 18 (at 4.3 eps) or a PE of 17.2 (at 4.5 eps)
At their eps of 5 cps its a PE of 15.5- surely they must be correct but I just cannot see how they figure that.
Until I can figure out how they came up with 5cps ,for me , ARV should be no more than $1.40. Even with their 5c eps it think its slightly overvalued compared to others in the sector.
If anyone can point out what I`m missing on this I`d appreciate the assistance, otherwise I`ll email ARV

[forest]

I don`t get how ARV says HY1 EPS is 5cps.
Underlying profit is 23.4m with 542.9m shares on issue. , that`s EPS of 4.3cps.
Even when I refund any tax back into the equation ( to compare it more accurately with its peers who pay negligible tax) I still only come up with 4.5cps.
So by my workings @ $1.55 that`s a PE of 18 (at 4.3 eps) or a PE of 17.2 (at 4.5 eps)
At their eps of 5 cps its a PE of 15.5- surely they must be correct but I just cannot see how they figure that.
Until I can figure out how they came up with 5cps ,for me , ARV should be no more than $1.40. Even with their 5c eps it think its slightly overvalued compared to others in the sector.
If anyone can point out what I`m missing on this I`d appreciate the assistance, otherwise I`ll email ARV

Commonly companies are using the weighted averaged numbervof shares for the period. Arv raised share capital in this period so the number of shares increased but the average number of shares they use in the calculation is less than the shares on isdue at present. Hope that makes sense.

[Beagle]

Hi Mav,
They did a massive capital raise during the period so they probably worked eps based on weighted average shares on issue and / or rounded the eps to arrive at 5 cps.
I agree the value is not there at $1.55. Even if as per previous years 2H performance is slightly higher than 1H and underlying earnings are ~ 11 cps at $1.55 that outs them on a forward PE of 14.1, compared to MET at 10.7.
They make a meal of (and t.j. has often made frequent massive meals of) the fact that 72% of their facilities now have the "Gold standard" 4 year accreditation.
Pffffft, humble old MET have 75% at 4 year accreditation and are on a forward PE of just 10.7.

[winner69]

Rather meaningless trying to compare retirement companies PEs, especially using underlying earnings.

One thing is that ARV currently at 1.2 times book value is pretty reasonable value compared to SUMs 1.6 times BV .....and even compared to OCAs 1.1 times BV

[Snow Leopard]

Always interesting this thread with the true believers and heretics pounding out their strongly held (some would say 'dogmatic') beliefs.

But Arvida is doing OK and this result is OK.

[Beagle]

Rather meaningless trying to compare retirement companies PEs, especially using underlying earnings.

One thing is that ARV currently at 1.2 times book value is pretty reasonable value compared to SUMs 1.6 times BV .....and even compared to OCAs 1.1 times BV

Couldn't disagree more. Underlying earnings the recognised comparison methodology used by all professional analysts and something I will stick to with "dogged" determination even if others take a "cat nap" from any meaningful attempt to compare them.

If asset backing was in any way considered to be a primary comparative measure nobody would be buying RYM at ~ 3.5 times book value would they mate

[winner69]

Couldn't disagree more. Underlying earnings the recognised comparison methodology used by all professional analysts and something I will stick to with "dogged" determination even if others take a "cat nap" from any meaningful attempt to compare them.

If asset backing was in any way considered to be a primary comparative measure nobody would be buying RYM at ~ 3.5 times book value would they mate

Yes, ‘professional analysts’ use underlying earnings. Do so mainly as a measure of operational performance and not value ...and because professional analysts are a lazy lot and do things the short way.

Real ‘investment managers’ look at the true value of the company - the hard yards approach and underlying earnings dont usually figure in their thinking.

If underlying earnings were in any way considered to be a primary comparative nobody would be buying RYM at ~31 times underlying earnings would They mate.

[Beagle]

DCF's are simply a discounting model of future cash flows, inextricably tied to earnings so they're all discounting future earning into today's net present value.
RYM has "the name" and critical mass to attract massive overseas institutional interest, others, not so much.
If underlying earnings were not important why is this the very first thing RYM comment on in their presentations ?
We'll get a bit more of a handle on how they're going this year on Thursday but at this stage I am working on them achieving about 50 cps in underlying earnings this year so at $14.10 they're on a forward PE of about 28. Massively overpriced in my opinion and I am happy to own stocks that have been growing underlying earnings on average faster that RYM over the last five years on half, or in the case of MET nearly a third of that forward PE.

In the long run the market is a weighing machine, not a voting machine. Anyone who doesn't understand this is setting themselves up for long term market underperformance, unless they feel they can trade very successfully on market sentiment, (I acknowledge there are many momentum traders out there and some are very successful).