Really, tell us where you get your loans from bud.
Printable View
It's an exchange $$$ for the right to Occupy yes... But for the love of god Day Trader, the money is paid in advance... Thus a loan and a liability on the balance sheet.... that's why it's not revenue.
Like insurance, money is paid for a service.... But in ADVANCE.....
How many times can we go around in this circle?
Whatever rent U guys talking.... market has spoken...58c
Um, not so quick. https://oceaniahealthcare.co.nz/faq/...g-in-a-village Could you call this "rent free"?
3.) The Weekly Fee – This fee covers the ongoing maintenance and overhead costs of running the village. The fee varies from village to village and covers costs such as building maintenance, gardening, roading, outdoor lighting, utilities, community centres, insurance, and the village van costs. This fee is fixed for life – guaranteed and stops when you vacate your unit.
And its interest free, non-callable while occupying the asset, and repayable when ORA is sold with revenue from the incoming resident, and in the meantime the $ can be leveraged however the company chooses. Development springs to mind.
I'm not sure why all of this is so confusing, except if one tries to reimagine the business model and reinterpret the financials so as to tell some alternate story about whether the business model is profitable, viable, and sustainable.
Ok - I just re-read this part again and no this is not correct per the reasons outlined in my previous post. Yes resale gains and development margin are there in the underlying P&L but neither realised gains nor the 'net proceeds from sales & resales' are in the standard P&L. The standard P&L contains the unrealised gains as calculated by the independent valuers. The underlying P&L contains the realised gains as calculated by Management. Per the Venn diagram analogy, these data sets may or may not overlap from an output perspective, so the bold part of your statement is incorrect. As Baa_Baa mentioned one can't reimagine or reinterpret the results in ways not presented. I can't explain this any other way.....what is not to understand?
Nothing about what either you are saying is complicated. I just don't agree with that it's free money or a loan.
If OCA instead of selling an apartment they rented it out on average 7 years. The rental income would be something like $300K. But OCA can't do that as they have swapped the villa for cash. The rental income not received is the cost of the 'loan'.
Currently someone buys an apartment for $850K they are getting 70% back at the end or $595K the difference being $255k. So they are getting back more than SailorRob pays in rent & the DMF has disappeared.
I prefer to keep things simple. The occupier is paying OCA for the value of the villa up front in exchange for occupation for as long as it takes, could be 20 years (that 'rent' is getting mighty cheap by then) and have agreed to sell it back at 70% of the original price.
Both parties are making an exchange of commensurate value and not being charged interest or rent on either side so one nullifies the other.
I really don't know why I do this. I seriously cannot believe we are having this discussion and I place a high probability on the fact that Day Trader is messing with us all very cleverly as it's the only explanation that makes sense.
How many landlords out there with a portfolio of 1000 houses would like to receive the next 7 years of rent in advance for all those houses.
How would this be economically different to receiving rent for them week by week?
What could/would you do with the tens of millions?