There are some who are unfortunately no longer here, we'll miss their insights, that have tended to go on an on about OCA's exposure to nursing/carer costs, based on a perception that the word 'care' in their portfolio of accomodation means a linear amount of care workers, ergo costs, for each 'unit' that has care services. That isn't the case at all.
At the old age and end of life high needs end of the spectrum is hospital care, it has the highest proportion of carers to residents. That proportion reduces as the spectrum of care reduces to resident (rest home) care, ILU care, apartments, villas care and so forth. There is not a linear relationship of carer cost to all dwellings that include 'care services' in their name.
The 'continuum of care' is a major selling point for OCA, where residents can buy into apartments and ILU's at one end of the spectrum can progress through to old age at the other end, with proportionate care available to them.
Many sites actually have no onsite continuum of care across the whole spectrum, they are just ILU's, villas and apartments. Here's a good place to learn more about the OCA portfolio, you'll see many have high quality accomodation with care services available, but are not continuum through to elder rest home, hospital or end of life care. Correspondingly, the ratio of carers and nurses, and costs, are lower than the words 'care services' might imply.
https://www.villageguide.co.nz/operator/oceania
It's best imo not to generalise that carer expenses are some linear proportion to all 'units' that have care services in their name, or that all OCA facilities that say 'care' are in fact catering solely to care, as they are not. Moreover it is access to care as required that many facilities are offering, not guaranteed onsite high cost dedicated carers per population of residents.
These things are not and cannot be found in financial reports which focus only on numbers and history. If one DYODD, which some have done here to great lengths, they can be discovered elsewhere, usually hiding in plain sight. If you're looking in the right places.
OCA is still the highest dividend percentage payer of the sector which speaks to the sector, or the risk proportionment, all of which are frankly awful dividend payers considering their excess cash flows and profits. Care is nothing really, except a rounding error on the overall business. Any which way you look at it, care expenses really are just a cost of doing business, for all of them. The business is property.
The very safe margin all RV's apply in valuing their properties, and the infrequent revaluations (which determine NTA) means there is a very high degree of wiggle room across all of them. The market valuation is another thing altogether, which only matters if you care about capital market value (which means you want to sell higher than the mug you bought off).
Reflect imho on the tailwinds in the RV sector and the historical success of all the listed RV's and you'll see that opportunity presents itself only occasionally, to accumulate quality equity assets at depressed market prices. These are those times. It is upon us now.
Don't waste a good recession.