OCA - Oceania Group - retirement villages

[Baa_Baa]

... deleted, need more thought.

[mistaTea]

A claim like that should be substantiated.

Winner, please tell us exactly what is obfuscated.

Brent Pattison's responses in the investor call exhibit signs of evasiveness, particularly in how he addresses specific questions with broad, non-committal answers and deflects to general market conditions or future expectations. Here's a detailed assessment:

1. **Apartment Sale Prices (Slide 12):**
- **Evasiveness:** Brent attributes the decline in apartment sale prices to a "mix" issue, referencing the influence of The Helier's sales and other products without providing concrete details on why this mix specifically caused the decline.
- **Lack of Specificity:** He mentions selling through products in Hamilton and other locations but does not detail how these impacted the overall price.

2. **Sales and Applications for The Helier:**
- **Evasiveness:** When asked about the percentage of apartments sold, Brent provides numbers but mixes them with under-application figures, potentially causing confusion about the actual sold units.
- **Clarity Issues:** His explanation includes different statuses (sold, under application) without clearly differentiating them.

3. **Impact of the Residential Property Market:**
- **Evasiveness:** Brent deflects from discussing any direct price reductions or incentives by focusing on market confidence and the broader economic environment.
- **Ambiguity:** His explanation is more about the overall sentiment rather than addressing whether specific measures like price reductions were taken.

4. **Marketing Spend:**
- **Evasiveness:** Kathryn, responding for Brent, doesn't provide specific numbers for future marketing spend but talks broadly about the impact and direction of marketing efforts.
- **Generalization:** The response is vague about future expenditure, indicating a continuation without clear financial specifics.

5. **Development Pipeline:**
- **Evasiveness:** Brent discusses the broader strategy and market conditions affecting development decisions without committing to specific projects or numbers.
- **Avoidance:** He emphasizes the flexibility and scenario planning without detailing immediate or concrete actions.

6. **CapEx and Future Development:**
- **Evasiveness:** When asked about the specific CapEx remaining for ongoing projects, Kathryn provides a general figure and mentions the control over the timing of future expenditures.
- **Non-committal:** The response does not break down costs by project or provide a clear forecast.

7. **Debt and Facility Use:**
- **Evasiveness:** Brent and Kathryn discuss the use of facilities and headroom but avoid providing detailed explanations of the increased core debt and its future trajectory.
- **Deflection:** Brent mentions general strategic decisions and market conditions without addressing the specific financial adjustments.

8. **Divestment Impact on EBITDA:**
- **Evasiveness:** Kathryn's response indicates a need to revert with specific numbers, suggesting unpreparedness or avoidance of detailed impact disclosure.
- **Lack of Detail:** The response lacks immediate, precise figures, implying a degree of evasiveness.

In conclusion, Brent Pattison's responses often reflect a tendency to provide broad, non-specific answers, focusing on general market conditions and future expectations rather than addressing direct queries with precise data or commitments. This approach can be interpreted as evasive, potentially to avoid highlighting unfavorable details or uncertainties.

[peat]

The quote is from 18 months ago when price was in low 70's - sad but panned out that way. As per my other posts around that time I wont be backing up the truck but may buy a few more as am working still (in the insurance industry, yes we have the Zespri claim, though I dont deal with such large stuff myself). Possibly also increase my diversification by getting some SUM


For OCA , technically the March - April rise was still corrective, ie not bullish , mid April - mid May downturn impulsive bearish. so we are still in a bear market with the new low on 14 May. That daily candle was a hammer though, so could be a bottom, but too soon to tell with only 8 days trading since then. Its nice to see RSI staying above 30 even during the down phase.

Chart OCA.JPG


.

55c is the 88.6 % retracement of 40c - 160c the price range during post covid era. .
usually the 78.6% retracement (which would be 66c) would hold but I think it will overshoot based on a strong trend

of course this is all just tea leaves as we all know with any future projection.
but that is the basis for my comment so that it can be critiqued, or ridiculed as per your bent.

[Baa_Baa]

From Annual Report Total Comprehensive Income by segment -

Care. $18.6m
Villages $73.1m
Other $21.2m LOSS

Other is admin and support costs …probably HQ

So there we have it - Care and Villages are profitable …profitable enough to subsidise the fat cats in HQ

It's only profitable because the 'Total comprehensive income' is skewed by +$60.7m Village Operations "change in fair value of investment property", and a +41.2m Care Operations "gain on revaluation of property, plant etc". Neither of these are 'real income' so if they were taken out, the +$70.5 total falls to a -$31.5m 'Comprehensive loss'.

So the questions I have are: a) is it plausible that combined property has achieved a revaluation upwards of +$102m, esp in the current property market?, and b) should these revaluations be included in an income statement at all?

[Balance]

Brent Pattison's responses in the investor call exhibit signs of evasiveness, particularly in how he addresses specific questions with broad, non-committal answers and deflects to general market conditions or future expectations. Here's a detailed assessment:

In conclusion, Brent Pattison's responses often reflect a tendency to provide broad, non-specific answers, focusing on general market conditions and future expectations rather than addressing direct queries with precise data or commitments. This approach can be interpreted as evasive, potentially to avoid highlighting unfavorable details or uncertainties.

If that's how Brent had been handling queries & visits from institutional shareholders and brokers/analysts, hardly a wonder that the stock has been struggling to find support!

For those who are unaware, most of the institutional investors these days will not invest in a company until their analysts have visited a company and/or have a good discussion with the management of the company. If they find that the management are evasive and non-specific when they are asked specific questions, those are red flags which mean they avoid the stock.

[SailorRob]

It's only profitable because the 'Total comprehensive income' is skewed by +$60.7m Village Operations "change in fair value of investment property", and a +41.2m Care Operations "gain on revaluation of property, plant etc". Neither of these are 'real income' so if they were taken out, the +$70.5 total falls to a -$31.5m 'Comprehensive loss'.

So the questions I have are: a) is it plausible that combined property has achieved a revaluation upwards of +$102m, esp in the current property market?, and b) should these revaluations be included in an income statement at all?

Baa_Baa, have a look at how these Revaluations work, it's all detailed in there.

I'm the biggest skeptic, but honestly have a look.

[winner69]

It's only profitable because the 'Total comprehensive income' is skewed by +$60.7m Village Operations "change in fair value of investment property", and a +41.2m Care Operations "gain on revaluation of property, plant etc". Neither of these are 'real income' so if they were taken out, the +$70.5 total falls to a -$31.5m 'Comprehensive loss'.

So the questions I have are: a) is it plausible that combined property has achieved a revaluation upwards of +$102m, esp in the current property market?, and b) should these revaluations be included in an income statement at all?

BaaBaa ..a very good question (as Brent would say)

Oceania have classified most of their care suites as Property, Plant and Equipment and account for revaluations in a Revaluation Reserve and shows up in Other Comprehensive Income.

And yes total revaluations (property and care units were over $100m in F24. The combined does boost the Balance Sheet as it a component of Shareholder Equity….the ‘value’ of the company.

Oceania seems to highlight Total Comprehensive Income as the profit they made …rather than just the reported NPAT

They went great lengths in educating the market why the Total Comprehensive Income is the real profit figure …below is what they used a few years ago as to how it works

Clear as mud eh

[Snow Leopard]

It's only profitable because the 'Total comprehensive income' is skewed by +$60.7m Village Operations "change in fair value of investment property", and a +41.2m Care Operations "gain on revaluation of property, plant etc". Neither of these are 'real income' so if they were taken out, the +$70.5 total falls to a -$31.5m 'Comprehensive loss'.

So the questions I have are: a) is it plausible that combined property has achieved a revaluation upwards of +$102m, esp in the current property market?, and b) should these revaluations be included in an income statement at all?

IF you are taking out those revalutions you may also want to reverse out the depreciation and impairments as well, which would make things less worse.

You can play the game of what you wish to adjust for when forming your 'true' picture of how the company is doing....
But I have to say that my analyses of the accounts shows that this is poorest performance in the last four years!

[winner69]

IF you are taking out those revalutions you may also want to reverse out the depreciation and impairments as well, which would make things less worse.

You can play the game of what you wish to adjust for when forming your 'true' picture of how the company is doing....
But I have to say that my analyses of the accounts shows that this is poorest performance in the last four years!

I’ll second that …not one of their better years

[Baa_Baa]

Baa_Baa, have a look at how these Revaluations work, it's all detailed in there.

I'm the biggest skeptic, but honestly have a look.

Where do I look? Thanks.

@Snow Leopard & @Winner69, thanks for your replies. I was wondering whether they are genuine 'revaluations' anyway, or if it's a co-incidence that the total assets have gone up by about the same amount, which could be a revaluation of existing assets, but could also be new property coming on the books from completed developments?

As @Winner69 says, "clear as mud".