Very high as compared those who loaded ATM 3 years ago, I bought OCA instead. What about SailorRob... slaying obstacles to make $. I still don't understand your logic of cheering a falling shareprice
Printable View
Q - Habits, what have your returns been over the last 5 years.
A Oh they have been great in comparison to what I would have got had I put my money into a pile and set fire to it.
How about just the way most other folk calculate them... Not in comparison to ATM...
Of course you don't understand it... As Buffett says, the first thing he hopes for after buying a stock is that it goes down, NOT up...
If you were to buy your groceries for the rest of your life for a fixed price today, would you want that price to be low or high? If you have already bought, then hell stuff yer face...
There are VERY few people where the logic I am teaching you does not make sense.
And even fewer that understand it.
Can you provide a link to that quote. It doesn't sound like the buffett I know - number 1 rule "never lose money"
So sailor, if you were to buy a new washing mach for your partner would you A. Look around for the best quality for what your budget can afford or B. Pay too much for one you hope will be cheaper the next day
Bob is right mate.
He is still in ‘accumulation mode’ for these shares. So, given he favours the long term prospects of the business, the best thing they could happen for him is that he wakes up to find the SP has halved.
Provided the halving of the SP is nothing to worry about in terms of the intrinsic value of the business, it is wonderful news as he can now buy twice as many shares as he could before.
His portfolio will show a paper loss, but who cares? He is getting shares in what he perceives as a wonderful business for cheap.
And then eventually over the long term, if Bob’s thesis proves our then the SP will rise to intrinsic value (or beyond) and he is away laughing.
It’s not hard to see why Bob does not want the SP to go up any time soon (and would prefer they it goes down in the short to medium term).
Of course I can, but first, money where your mouth is. Bet me I'm wrong if you so confident.
You don't know Buffett at all. Do you really think he's talking about Mr Markets pricing of a stock when he says that??
I have never spoken about paying too much....
If I bought a great machine at a exceptional price, if I then got offered 100 better machines for less then they were worth to a rational buyer I'd take em.
All true, but also doesn't matter whether he is in accumulation mode or not, as the company will accumulate its own shares for him (buy backs).
Berkshire is a massive part of my net worth, my absolute dream is that it goes down by 50% (would say more but unrealistic)
If it goes down 50% I will end up FAR more wealthy than if it just steadily goes up.
Berkshire Hathaway letter to Shareholders 1997;
How We Think About Market Fluctuations A short quiz: If you plan to eat hamburgers throughout your life and are not a cattle producer, should you wish for higher or lower prices for beef? Likewise, if you are going to buy a car from time to time but are not an auto manufacturer, should you prefer higher or lower car prices? These questions, of course, answer themselves.
But now for the final exam: If you expect to be a net saver during the next five years, should you hope for a higher or lower stock market during that period? Many investors get this one wrong. Even though they are going to be net buyers of stocks for many years to come, they are elated when stock prices rise and depressed when they fall. In effect, they rejoice because prices have risen for the "hamburgers" they will soon be buying. This reaction makes no sense. Only those who will be sellers of equities in the near future should be happy at seeing stocks rise. Prospective purchasers should much prefer sinking prices.
For shareholders of Berkshire who do not expect to sell, the choice is even clearer. To begin with, our owners are automatically saving even if they spend every dime they personally earn: Berkshire "saves" for them by retaining all earnings, thereafter using these savings to purchase businesses and securities. Clearly, the more cheaply we make these buys, the more profitable our owners' indirect savings program will be.
Furthermore, through Berkshire you own major positions in companies that consistently repurchase their shares. The benefits that these programs supply us grow as prices fall: When stock prices are low, the funds that an investee spends on repurchases increase our ownership of that company by a greater amount than is the case when prices are higher. For example, the repurchases that Coca-Cola, The Washington Post and Wells Fargo made in past years at very low prices benefitted Berkshire far more than do today's repurchases, made at loftier prices.
At the end of every year, about 97% of Berkshire's shares are held by the same investors who owned them at the start of the year. That makes them savers. They should therefore rejoice when markets decline and allow both us and our investees to deploy funds more advantageously.
So smile when you read a headline that says "Investors lose as market falls." Edit it in your mind to "Disinvestors lose as market falls -- but investors gain." Though writers often forget this truism, there is a buyer for every seller and what hurts one necessarily helps the other. (As they say in golf matches: "Every putt makes someone happy.")
We gained enormously from the low prices placed on many equities and businesses in the 1970s and 1980s. Markets that then were hostile to investment transients were friendly to those taking up permanent residence. In recent years, the actions we took in those decades have been validated, but we have found few new opportunities. In its role as a corporate "saver," Berkshire continually looks for ways to sensibly deploy capital, but it may be some time before we find opportunities that get us truly excited.
Please make a donation to charity on my behalf Habits, I can't keep doing this for you for free.
Must be suffering dementia
How does the improving fundamentals of a stock affect price, all other things being the same. That's a rhetorical question of course.
So why would a stock be falling in price other than its performance is declining or the market is in free-fall. If either or both of those two factors are affecting an individual company stock price negatively, who would be dumb enough to say they are getting richer
"Prospective purchasers should much prefer sinking prices."
That statement holds water, yes. They would or should remain as prospective purchasers and not catch a falling knife
In 1997 the Berkshire sp rose 50 percnt. WB didn't put his money where mouth is and do his job to keep the share affordable. The faithful believers would have been inconsolable at the destruction of wealth
Exactly the opposite of what you did, ramping SKT into the bottom for years, buying all the way down holding a huge paper loss, then when the turnaround actually started happening you panic and sold for a capital loss, missed out on the dividends and the buy back!
Credibility, none, what’s that sucking sound we hear? SailorRob probably doesn’t need your patronising, he can check out your history of very poor investment decisions for himself.
ASM getting closer - Friday this week at 2.00pm at the Park Hyatt in Auckland but also a hybrid meeting accessible via the internet. Although one purpose this meeting is to receive the Annual Report and Financial Statements for FY 31 March 2023 this is the next opportunity for an update from the Chair and CEO of a listed retirement/aged care operator as to how things have tracked subsequently.
Given the property market has been freeing up over recent months, and also that OCA has/is in the process of divesting quite a number of rest home beds which are difficult to operate profitably/achieve a return on capital invested this should be an interesting reveal. So I see this event as likely to be quite telling and perhaps influential so far as OCA's near-term share price is concerned.
I will definitely make the effort to attend. Sometimes after meeting chats on these occasions can aid insight too. So maybe less pointless slagging off on this thread until we are all a bit wiser?
Earl Gasparich doing an awesome job at Metlifecare. Shame he moved on from Oceania
Positive announcement ….not just the results but hardly an moaning about Govt funding, nurses wages blah blah.
http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-websit...943/401173.pdf
Better still, it is good to look at the MET Annual Report and Financial Statements (for Y/e 30 June 2023) also released today, as this is another local business which can provide insights for OCA holders.
It's a bit tricky because MET is no longer equity listed, so you need to go to nzx.com/announcements and then to NZX Debt Market Announcements.
Worth at least a quick read/view in my opinion.
Not much detail on anything really in AGM docs. Just a few chart crimes such as 'doubling of NTA' on slide 9, just not NTA per share. Lots of comparisons to IPO and all the good progress made over time :t_up: Hope we get some interesting questions.
OCA might have some hidden value, but their management sucks. You never get a straight answer and everything just consists of vague, buzz words. It is just shameful and embarrassing. I watched Turners AGM earlier in the week and they gave clear, informed answers- not just scripted garbage. OCA management should sharpen up- they just come across as elitest
crooks.
Liz got a real bad cough …hope she not spreading her bugs around. …..hate a shareholder to say ‘ I went to the Oceania meeting and caught ……’
Quite hard to ask some questions in the online meeting. I submitted four questions during the AGM on their online tool and Liz said afterwards there are no online questions.
They found now out that their system did not work - and she "just" didn't see these questions, I might get an email response to my questions, but still - very disappointing.
I don't understand that lady's position on the Helier? Why be critical of it if you're never going to be a potential customer? She sounds like she's careful with money but has forgotten why.
They also completely ignored my online question about how the sales at the Hellier are going. Very disappointing.
I’ve said it before and nothing seems to have changed …..in Oceania’s eyes you get the impression that shareholders don’t count ….even an unnecessary evil …and only count when we hold out the begging bowl.
A pity you weren't at the meeting as the manager in charge of sales was and may have been able to enlighten you discretely. I sense that both at the meeting and in the media there was/is an undercurrent of envy and disapproval regarding the Hellier concept. When you put that alongside the fact that 25% of OCA's existing facilities, being those where basic rest home beds predominate and which lack any future development potential, are "held for sale" on their balance sheet, together with the other two similar but leasehold facilities that they have been grateful to exit on lease expiry this year, you have clear evidence of an ongoing pivot which many would consider has political ramifications.
Brent didn't say that the two existing facilities on-sold presently have settled yet (end August was anticipated, I thought) and there was no detail offered in regard to the remaining eight except to suggest there are parties being talked to in the marketplace. I suggest actually designating/naming these facilities publicly is clearly a step too far for obvious reasons. He did make the point that the combined value on the balance sheet is around $100m (compared to the value of those not "held for sale" which is $2.5b). So this won't raise much in the way of capital but will mitigate overhead in a more significant way. They will be marginally profitable operations at best while adding complexity and administration cost without an adequate return on investment and without potential to "add value". Of course, that begs the question how you divest them to a third party in that circumstance. We will have to wait and see.
I found Brent very impressive, and of course the Chair is highly credentialed too.
Thanks, I heard that. Would have preferred to get their view on their inflection point comments some years ago, would have preferred to get some sales update on the Helier as well as their view on whether they see the Helier just as a one - off or as the start of a super-luxury market.
But I guess this was probably just too hard for them to answer anyway, so they preferred to just fob of the questions of the shareholders who came in person instead of fobbing off the other questions as well. Ignoring is easier.
Not the impression I got. Sure - Brent conveyed little real information with plenty of words ... and Elizabeth clearly had problems to deal with the complexities of a hybrid meeting. Overplayed it however fabulous by just ignoring the online share holders.
Maybe we need in future a chair able to deal with digital media?
I found them both quite robotic, reading the words in front of them quite poorly at times.
I hope what they lack in personality they make up for in ability.
I hope Liz is OK today …she looked and sounded rather sick yesterday
ASM was so ho hum and no revelations how things are going this financial year so I’m sticking with my forecast of Underlying NPAT in first half of $30m (pcp $27.8m)
Maverick possibly hoping for a bigger number than $30m …….he mentioned a full year of $80m (~11 cents share) with it weighted to the second half.
Only another 4 weeks to go
You possibly have misinterpreted my comment. I didn't enquire about sales at the Hellier. But if information was provided to anyone it would need to be material in a context where almost 500 sales and resales are made annually across all facilities operated by OCA. I did infer from the CEO's remarks that at least some sales had been achieved (despite the ribbon-cutting ceremony having only been the day prior) as you would expect since marketing has been ongoing for a while, and also that some settlements of apartments/suites may in turn be waiting upon settlement of the incoming residents own on-sale. That wouldn't be at all unusual and indeed might be expected with current property market conditions. Brent did mention the lowest priced apartments were offered at $1.75m if I recall correctly, but he wouldn't be drawn on the wider pricing schedule.
But surely anyone expressing interest in applying would find that out upon enquiry, and would also likely be told how many folk are already moved/moving in? So your/our interest doesn't make it material in my view else everything would need to be secret squirrel stuff. There are also commercial sensitivity issues in what is a highly competitive and contested marketplace within the sector to attract new residents/occupiers.
Hey ronaldson …..I ‘read’ into Brent’s speech/comments they haven’t made sales at The Hellier yet …probably talking to a few interested parties is as far as they have got.
What I’ve learnt from listening / reading what Brent says is sussing what he’s not telling us while fluffing around the reality of things. Just my view ….and I wasn’t at meeting in person.
Hi Winner, I was at the AGM and understood that about 6 apartments in the Hellier were sold.
I also talked to a contractor who works at the Hellier and he said that some units looked like they are occupied.
But I agree with others that it is disappointing that we are not getting exact numbers on progress of sales.
'Glossiest back patting self congratulating thing I have ever seen'
A mates take on the OCA annual report.
yep based on all the whinging on this thread 74c might get taken out soon :t_up:
Absolutely agree with your mate!
We seasoned investors shouldn't have to tell a group of seasoned directors that a shareholders meeting should be about - well, um...shareholders.
Oh, the irony of them self-congratulating on their mastery of online communications (as the CEO did) while simultaneously failing to take online questions from their shareholders. And having completely effed that up, how about a statement to the exchange this morning, apologizing and answering those questions in writing.
How about the chair stating that the CEO was going to update sales numbers and then the CEO completely failing to do that. Did the chair even read the CEO report before he read it out at the meeting? Remind me please how much we are paying these clowns to keep us in the dark.
And congratulating themselves on having increased net assets by investing a billion dollars of shareholders' funds - but failing to mention that the market now values that investment at around 60%. No worries though, cut the dividend going forward so they can rinse and repeat and turn another $1b of our funds into an extra $600 million of market cap.
They must be well aware of the speculation in the markets about their balance sheet and the potential need to raise capital - why not even the slightest effort to address this and possibly lay the rumours to rest.
To cap it all, they are still dining out on having issued some bonds - wait for it - three years ago! Jeez if they were so prescient, why didn't they fix a lot more of their debt, why just $225 million? The interest rate that they fixed the bonds at was the prevailing rate at the time, nothing clever in getting 3.3% instead of say 8% was there?
Not happy, not happy at all.
IMO it is not the job of the board to worry about how the market prices the company. It is their job to create as much shareholder value as possible. I think that thus far they have done a great job despite covid, property fluctuations ect.
I do agree their communications have been poor.
Say we're generous and give them credit for creating value despite what market capitalisation shows.
Can the Board & the current management team be credited with any of that value creation?
Or is it perhaps a case that someone else set that value creation in motion and has proven they can also create value elsewhere?
Part of Brent’s incentive scheme is about TSR return relative to NZX50 Group (whatever that means). He seems to have received 33% of that component in F23
And below that they proudly publish this chart ….probably the 33% for effort lol
So Brent (and others) incentivised to help the share price along …….and if part of this is to get profits up he ‘s incentivised to do that as well.
Amongst a raft of different targets is a profit one - for 2023 it seemed “Targets were set with reference to a 10% increase in underlying EBITDA,”
Yep a miserable 10% increase target …actual result was +5% …….and if I read the AR report he got 67% of what he could have for this component …..well deserved not unsubstantial paid.
So Brent and others are incentivised to drive profits and help the share price along …….but not doing an outstanding job but seems well rewarded for trying
Ignoring your "without mention of", market cap is everything to many investors because they're only into it to make a capital profit, preferably sooner than later. Others, albeit it seems only few here, look through that, to an asset that they didn't buy to sell anytime soon or maybe ever, that increases in value over time. OCA is doing a good job of that. Increasing in value. Just look at the asset base and NTA valuation.
As far as the market is concerned though, it's priced at a discount, quite a large discount. This is appealing to a value investor, especially considering we have had a decade or more of no consideration for value as most equities became well overpriced. Recalibrating our thinking towards value, versus market price, is key to understanding whether buying now or buying more now, is a good idea. It won't appeal to a capital sensitive or momentum trader, but a value investor will be very interested.
The confusion between value and price seems to be an ongoing thing. Value investors look at the market price as an opportunity, or a turn-off. The whole RV sector has been caught up in a perception that residential property prices are tightly linked to RV's prices, but we can see that in the main they are not.
Nevertheless, all listed RV's, OCA included are priced by the market, whether that is right or wrong is a matter of valuation judgement. It's imo not a competition between the RV's, they are all underpriced, though OCA is more underpriced than any of them.
And don't forget to look at the liabilities which is in fact their biggest asset.
The more the liabilities grow, the more value is created.
The NTA valuation is a joke, should be adding float to the NTA then you'll see a discount.
Berkshire with 170 billion in insurance liabilities is far more valuable than without these liabilities.
I would honestly say that less than 1 in 1000 OCA investors even understand this.
Hey Sailor you'll have to explain this float idea. Isn't a liability basically a future outflow of economic resources, and by that metric an occupation rights agreement which needs to be repaid in the future is a liability?
A cheap funding source relative to alternatives does have a positive present value, but only insofar as the differential between that and the alternatives, not the entire amount.
Seems to me to be confusing a advantaged funding source with an asset which is going over my head.
On a net basis there has been an inflow of ORA's as Oceania grows and new occupants enter. Even when Oceania stops growing so much, when a occupant leaves and is paid out a new one enters on average so there isn't going to be any net outflow of cash. So essentially you are left with this liability which is never going to be paid off (on a net basis) and costs nothing to service, so you may as well call it an asset as you can earn a return on it.
It is possible for the float to fall if more occupants leave than enter but that seems highly unlikely especially with Oceania being in a growth phase, which would be an outflow of economic resources as you say.
Sailor Rob write out concisely out what you are on about.
SR definitely has described this in detail already - this article describes it well, switch out Insurers for Aged Care Provider and Premiums for ORA's.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2...ns_the_ge.html
Well, yes. Only thing is - we only know afterwards whether the markets behaviour was irrational, or whether the market knew something we didn't.
I am still as well in the boat believing that they are undervalued, but I would prefer to know (vs believe) ... and the problem is that OCA's reporting is consistently best described with a four letter word which the censorship software turns into stars.
Which means - as a minimum do investors have to consider for OCA a higher risk factor than for other comparable companies who are more open and streight forward with their reporting. This (terrible reporting and board arrogance) might well be one of the reasons for the OCA share price being hold back.
Question for holders (like me) is now - do we expect this handbrake for the share price to be stuck forever ... or is there anythig we can do to undo it? Not sure whether the strategy to always just hope for the next reporting season being more transparent proved successful - well, so far it didn't.
Any bets that later today, or tomorrow, we will get an NZX announcement from OCA re settling the sale of two facilities? Wait and see.
A couple of days ago I emailed Brent and the bounce back said he was on leave until 4 September, so that might possibly delay any announcement.
Yes..just have a weekly chat with the broker....he also said that Brent is on leave
I’ve had a feeling for years that OCA share price is a bit like how good the NZ Warriors are ….like “this is our year” if you get what I mean
Come October 1st when Warriors are the NRL champs that “this is our year” will be laid to rest …..and shortly after Oceania will have a great result and the share price will start surging …never to fall back again…and F24 will be ‘this is our year’
The signs are all there. …go the Wahs ….go the OCAers
Or just like your favourite motto...not this year ..maybe next year...n on
Hey bull. ….shareprice bounced off 74 again today …..so 74 is pretty strong support level
74 - 79 range trading until a decisive break either way ... sailor probably filling the wardrobe for his payday in 20yrs
No announcement yet re the two facilities said to be on-sold and due to settle by 31 August. Must be a hitch somewhere. May be the approvals required from Health entity sources?
Are any of the ten facilities "held for sale" on the books actually marketable? How do you realise value for rest home type facilities in the current environment?
I know one for sale elsewhere will likely become apartments. Not OCA. Like anything it's always price dependent.
Shame Anna is going …been there many years ..over 10 years
Whenever I asked her for something I generally got a “can’t tell you that winner” …a nice straight answer and none of the waffle you get from her work mates
I see her profile says she leads the village settlements team ….hmmm…hope she not given heave ho.
Wonder where Anna off to?
Anna gone...but Lana is still around... prefer Lana than Anna...lol
Probably a case of management thinking let’s hang in here until 2026 and hope like anything things come right …..and then we can say yes we did align with the interests of shareholders lol
What’s another 16 million plus options anyway
Sorry about being cynical but ………
.... deleted ....
Hi Winner, I saw the OCA announcement, which included the following sentence.
"Terms or details of the issue (for example: restrictions, escrow arrangements) Options are subject to the Oceania Healthcare Share Option Plan Rules".
However the announcement is light on detail what the criteria is before the options are able to be vested.
We need detail to work out if the hurdles before vesting are indeed a motivation for above average future company results.
This lot seem to be in addition to previously notified Incentive Schemes (STI and LTI) which do have specific hurdles attached to them. …but hurdles don’t seem that onerous as Brent got a sizeable amount this year for OCA share price performance and for ebitda performance even though the 10% hurdle was not achieved.