Daytr … 28.3m realised gains (ie profit from ORA sales) ….balance is unrealised valuation gains on portfolio
Printable View
Deciphering Oceania’s accounts seems to be like being an augur reading the entrails of a dead chicken.
I'm not buying that Rawz. OCA is a very complex beast that is dynamics at different stages of reinventing itself. Not like a SUM that operates one model and just scales up on that same pattern.
Totally understandable though, why so many throw their hands up.
It would be a red flag to me if they didn`t offer as much detail as they do.
For example. It bugs me that they have tried to simplify things (as per what the public want ) and now report sales as an amalgamated price with new and resales. This simplification attempt muddies things to the extend that a new $5m Helier sale is in the same pot as an original $600k apartment resale. See what I mean? how can you really know what prices are when you get that distortion ?
So the more info the better I say.
BTW, Ferg and Baabaa, I have been really appreciating your posts. Some really good opinion and work gone in those.
I would as others might appreciate your explanation of what it does include?
I'm not disputing ot agreeing to Winner's number, but from I read from note 2.1 it does include the net proceeds from sales & resales.
Do you disagree and if so what do you think this number is derived from?
Cheers Daytr
Im going through the SUM thread from 2011, some bloody sophisticated but simple analysis.
All this crap we argue about was all spelled out crystal clear back then in a far more concise and professional manner.
Anyone remember 'Sauce' last posted in 2014, seemed pretty switched on.
A quote from them here;
'As an investor you are buying an ongoing development business - not just a retirement village portfolio - you are concerned with their expansion, build rate and the cashflows from future villages, not just the cashflows from existing villages'.