I wouldn’t even attempt a DCF valuation for Oceania ……..too many variables and unknowns
Any the valuers have essentially done it for me in their property valuations eh
Printable View
It's not that we see things differently that's the problem, I'm all for constructive debate such as Snoopy has been doing. I don't agree with his take on things but at least he constructs a case.
But you just spray outrageous inflammatory & unsubstantiated claims. Feigning innocence doesn't suit you.
All I’m saying is it’s fine to run neg cashflows for any business to a point where the debt to equity ratio is pushed to the max and then it’s time to run positive cash.
I guess as Mav has pointed out the time has now come for OCA and they will be running positive for the next few years (if all that stock is sold down in a timely manner)
superfluous to requirement
Agreed. I wouldn't want to see that debt to equity level slip much further even if they do have $100M of capacity within their debt facilities. I'm sure they are aware they have enough stock on hand at the moment.
There are other RV operators that have stalled further development until they have sold down their current stock. This is a positive overall for the industry.
Het daytr, you getting a bit rough now.
My analysis/tracking of Oceania goes back to IPO days
I’ll share imy master sheet of key metrics …posted below.. I believe the movement in a company’s book value along with cash flows and how they are funded (in case of cash burn) are the best way of assessing things. I like to see most things tracking up over time.
There’s also a section on tracking sales and the average realised gains they make on these to give me an idea of how they are going ….like the average gain on new sales wasn’t that flash in the last period but hopefully it’ll improve next few periods
Here’s what my table looks like for Oceania …..I think it’s rather cool …but not as good as the Summerset one
Useful tool for assessing the value of many companies. I do some every now and again
Yep full of assumptions and of course discount rate sensitive….and good to run it with a rate that meets your expected return rather than a cost of capital number.
Best DCF I did was on A2 when share price was around $20 …..even with the high growth rates the market were touting i still came up with a number under 8 bucks ….and of course growth expectations lot lower now so I’d expect if I updated it it would come in less than 5 bucks.
With the error that I have now corrected in the example as quoted above, our OCA shareholder does get more than if that same money was paid out as an unimputed dividend at 67 cents in the dollar. However I do note that 71.43c in the dollar is still less than the 72c in the dollar a unit holder gets when invested in one of the listed PIE property owning vehicles. However, the difference is in fractions of a cent, which means that 'in effect' the headline rate of return on a property PIE and a float enhanced OCA are the same.
I think you have this backwards. It is the fact that more dollars are able to be earned as village development expands and more villas are completed that increases the asset value of the company. Not the other way around!
But essentially you are correct. Increasing retained earnings and spending that cash on builds will result in the asset value of the company increasing. That increasing value of assets is the missing measure of increasing earnings as time progresses that you seek.
SNOOPY
Agree for 99% of retail investors i reckon a DCF is a waste of time and brain power. Every broker report i see they are constantly changing their DCFs its like they are having a laugh. honestly whats the point when after every company update your old DCF is useless so you create a new one, literally no point.
Best thing you can do is estimate max 3 years out where you think the company will be and put an appropriate multiple on that whether its earnings or cashflow or book value etc then work towards that valuation. People guessing where earnings will be 10 years out is just pie in the sky stuff.