there is plenty of consumer surplus above the equilibrium
Printable View
there is plenty of consumer surplus above the equilibrium
at the moment but we are talking in like 10yrs time .... sailor rob could use his calculator to see how inflation robs your wealth and how many people will sit above that line with inflation running at say 5% per yr and you not achieving that level or more of investment returns
Bit of a worry that this Brent guy is so adored ….almost like a celestial being …godlike status.
Maybe its just the view of an investor vs the view of a short term trader?
They say in Palestine: when apricots are cheap, plant apricot trees.
The reason? Nobody is looking after orchards when the fruit are too cheap, farmers will tear the trees out and change to other crops. Guess what happens with the price of apricots when your new trees are mature?
Maybe there is something retirement units and apricots have in common?
As I have said in the past, you do not fully understand OCA, and this comment proves that. Brent stated in yesterdays webinar that OCA will always provide some level of standard care beds, because they want all New Zealanders to have access to standard, affordable care should they need it. There was also a comment made about the Waterford site - they will be introducing some care beds (can't remember the exact wording here) and their current residents are already expressing excitement about that. Which confirms my comments that people want to have the option of care provided on site so they can have continuity of care throughout the rest of their life should they, or their spouse, need it.
You're such an interesting poster to follow Bull! You don't present a balanced perspective of the facts, which suggests you may be more interested in appearing 'correct' than actually being correct. Implicit bias can ruin an investor!
In terms of Fletcher's village - quite the interesting update. Have you considered whether sharing capital gains may actually be reasonable in this context, Bull? Are there any distinguishing features to the traditional retirement village?
If we look at the article, we see the shared capital gains approach is (likely) only possible because the village operates on a 'low cost' model. We need to consider whether sharing capital gains would continue to be sustainable if it offered traditional retirement amenities.
Further, the article states these villages are designed to 'plug the hole' between home ownership and a traditional retirement home. This means your target client will need to spend a large sum of money when they finally do move into a traditional retirement home. It will be very hard to convince that person to use your service if you are going to take all the capital gains, as they risk not being able to afford the retirement village when the time comes.
Finally, the village does not offer care, does not offer any ancillary services, and does not offer any amenities. When considering all of these factors, the 'village' appear to be more in line with traditional home ownership than an actual retirement village. In that context Bull, it would almost be unreasonable not to share capital gains with the resident? Otherwise, you are effectively saying: use our service, which is basically like owning a home, but you don't get any of the benefits of owning a home. The article states itself: the Fletcher's village is designed to operate as a 'downsize' option similar to home ownership.
Next, you have implied that this is a nail in the coffin for the retirement sector. Further, you posted this on an Oceania thread, implying this is a threat to Oceania. Have you considered whether these services are actually operating in the same corner of the market, Bull?
Let's examine. Oceania offers a full care, full amenity, high quality premium offering. By contrast, Fletchers village offers no care, no amenities, very few ancillary services and certainly not a premium offering. Do you realistically consider that a potential client of Oceania will actually consider this village as an alternative? Oceania clients use its service because they consider they will eventually require care and want an upmarket service. Fletcher does not offer any of those elements. You could argue that Fletcher could offer these services down the track, but we know they cannot. They have rabbit holed themselves into a low-cost model.
Bull, I notice your post does not consider any of these aspects (regardless of whether they are correct or not). Did you potentially just post it without actually applying any critical thought? Very curious to hear your opinion - always looking for alternative evidence to test my investment thesis.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot…hold on to your hats..we got 2 Bulls in the ring..