(STRICT) OCA - Oceania Healthcare

Started by Benji, Jun 24, 2022, 03:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Untamed

Well this is really disappointing. If cutting care hours is Suzanne's answer to improving care revenue, I am not impressed.
Lady Allum Retirement Village in Milford.

NZNO members and supporters took action for safe staffing in response to proposed roster changes made by Oceania. The proposed roster changes will affect caregiver hours at the facility which will reduce take home pay for caregivers and may negatively affect residents.

BlackPeter

Quote from: Untamed on Jan 31, 2025, 12:33 PMWell this is really disappointing. If cutting care hours is Suzanne's answer to improving care revenue, I am not impressed.
Lady Allum Retirement Village in Milford.

NZNO members and supporters took action for safe staffing in response to proposed roster changes made by Oceania. The proposed roster changes will affect caregiver hours at the facility which will reduce take home pay for caregivers and may negatively affect residents.

So - if you would sit in Suzanne's chair, what would you do?

Clearly - the care business is loss making. So, the only options she has to improve the situation are either to increase the fees for residents (no matter, which) or to reduce the cost to the business.

To reduce the cost she either can reduce the wages (though there are obviously contracts to consider) - or she can reduce the hours (and hope she can increase efficiency to make up for that).

Do you see any other option without squaring the circle?

I am sure she would be more than pleased to learn about an option allowing her to turn the business from loss maker into earning at least some profits - and at the same time keep everybody not just employed, but continue to keep rising their wages.

Untamed

#1652
Quote from: BlackPeter on Jan 31, 2025, 01:52 PMSo - if you would sit in Suzanne's chair, what would you do?

I am not your "normal" OCA investor, because I chose this company specifically because it was (at the time) the RV that appeared to be more aligned with my own passion for "care." I would never have invested in the company if it had not been. Having said that, if I were sitting in Suzanne's chair, I would have to ask myself (and the board) - does that focus still apply? If the answer is yes, then I would have to find better ways to increase care profitability, because reducing care hours, absolutely will reduce the time caregivers spend with residents. They will become task focussed, not people focussed, and that is where the whole concept of "quality care" will start to go downhill.

QuoteClearly - the care business is loss making. So, the only options she has to improve the situation are either to increase the fees for residents (no matter, which) or to reduce the cost to the business.

To reduce the cost she either can reduce the wages (though there are obviously contracts to consider) - or she can reduce the hours (and hope she can increase efficiency to make up for that).

Do you see any other option without squaring the circle?

I don't have enough inside information to answer this. I would be looking at reducing costs in the area of back office staff, re-negotiating contracts for supplies such as continence products (assuming OCA meets that cost, not the resident. Standard rest homes meet that cost, and it is the second highest cost, after wages), cleaning supplies, laundry supplies etc. Staffing will always be the biggest cost with care, and there is no getting around that, without lowering your standard of care.

QuoteI am sure she would be more than pleased to learn about an option allowing her to turn the business from loss maker into earning at least some profits - and at the same time keep everybody not just employed, but continue to keep rising their wages.

I know this was sarcasm, but I doubt Suzanne would be even remotely interested in anything we, as investors have to say. My recent interaction with whoever he was, demonstrated that much. OCA should keep in mind that in the event of a capital raise down the track, should it become necessary, we are the ones she will come to for that money. I don't have any money, so she won't get it from me, but even if I did, right now I still wouldn't contribute. I am losing faith in the company, and I can't believe I am saying this, but if someone offered me $1.40 - I'd more than likely sell. I was willing, and happy enough to give Suzanne a chance to turn things around, without compromising on their care focus. But I am feeling pretty damned disappointed now.

None of this has really answered your questions, but I'm not the one paid huge money to solve these issues. Suzanne and the board are. But if reducing care hours (or RN hours) is going to be their solution, they are no longer a company I am interested in supporting. If that is the case, I will be "out" as soon as it is financially viable for me to do so.

BlackPeter

#1653
Quote from: Untamed on Jan 31, 2025, 02:13 PMI am not your "normal" OCA investor, because I chose this company specifically because it was (at the time) the RV that appeared to be more aligned with my own passion for "care." I would never have invested in the company if it had not been. Having said that, if I were sitting in Suzanne's chair, I would have to ask myself (and the board) - does that focus still apply? If the answer is yes, then I would have to find better ways to increase care profitability, because reducing care hours, absolutely will reduce the time caregivers spend with residents. They will become task focussed, not people focussed, and that is where the whole concept of "quality care" will start to go downhill.

I don't have enough inside information to answer this. I would be looking at reducing costs in the area of back office staff, re-negotiating contracts for supplies such as continence products (assuming OCA meets that cost, not the resident. Standard rest homes meet that cost, and it is the second highest cost, after wages), cleaning supplies, laundry supplies etc. Staffing will always be the biggest cost with care, and there is no getting around that, without lowering your standard of care.

I know this was sarcasm, but I doubt Suzanne would be even remotely interested in anything we, as investors have to say. My recent interaction with whoever he was, demonstrated that much. OCA should keep in mind that in the event of a capital raise down the track, should it become necessary, we are the ones she will come to for that money. I don't have any money, so she won't get it from me, but even if I did, right now I still wouldn't contribute. I am losing faith in the company, and I can't believe I am saying this, but if someone offered me $1.40 - I'd more than likely sell. I was willing, and happy enough to give Suzanne a chance to turn things around, without compromising on their care focus. But I am feeling pretty damned disappointed now.

None of this has really answered your questions, but I'm not the one paid huge money to solve these issues. Suzanne and the board are. But if reducing care hours (or RN hours) is going to be their solution, they are no longer a company I am interested in supporting. If that is the case, I will be "out" as soon as it is financially viable for me to do so.

Fair enough and I do understand your view, even if I don't share it.

BTW - my last paragraph was not sarcasm, but sure - a dose of irony was certainly added. I don't think that any individual CEO will be able to square this circle ... our society has a problem. We do have limited resources and we can't eat our cake and have it, too.

No country with a mediocre income and performance can afford to build the best free health system, the best education system, the best age care system, the best care for anybody impaired and for how long it takes, a defense force which allows to to navigate between dangerous autocratic sharks - and pay everybody top rates. One does not be a rocket scientist to see this does not fit - and at this stage NZ has neither of above, but I think we pay already too much for the social stuff. It will kill us.

We are at the limits of what our society is able to pay- and whether we found so far the best compromise to spread the crumbs, I doubt.

OK - but this is clearly for a different thread. Just wanted to say - while I don't know, whether Suzanne is the best CEO (or just good enough, or just another dud) - I do see her problem. She could however communicate better, this is something she could manage and she does it not well.

BlackPeter

... and I guess just to make sure this discussion does not turn too dark, as an investor I do like the current TA, which I suppose means the markets seem to like what's happening in the company. SP passed the Golden Cross in September - and despite some wobbly plateauing since then it never dropped back below the MA200. Nice uptrend in January, and now the SP is above all relevant MA's with MA100 as well as MA50 above the MA200.

Another stock not effected by Dumps trade war?

winner (n)

With all those MAs as they are I suppose you could say OCA share price is in an uptrend eh Peter

Takeover on way?

BlackPeter

Quote from: winner (n) on Feb 03, 2025, 10:15 AMWith all those MAs as they are I suppose you could say OCA share price is in an uptrend eh Peter

Takeover on way?

Good point. Seems to be the time for low ball offers. Investors better place their chips.

Basil

#1657
Beagle getting some stick in the other place for the timing of his OCA manouvers which made me laugh as he's possibly the only investor in N.Z. sitting on realised profits of over $100,000 which have been reinvested and now worth more than double that!

ValueNZ

Quote from: Basil on Feb 05, 2025, 03:47 PMBeagle getting some stick in the other place for the timing of his OCA manouvers which made me laugh as he's possibly the only investor in N.Z. sitting on realised profits of over $100,000 which have been reinvested and now worth more than double that!

Nominal dollar figures really don't tell you much about an investors ability to allocate capital at high rates of return...

What would be more interesting to know would be your portfolio's CAGR over the last 5 years.

Untamed

#1659
Most people in your position, would not have posted this. They would have simply read those posts, smiled to themself, then moved on with their day, without feeling the need to skite about it.

Just saying.

Quote from: Basil on Feb 05, 2025, 03:47 PMBeagle getting some stick in the other place for the timing of his OCA manouvers which made me laugh as he's possibly the only investor in N.Z. sitting on realised profits of over $100,000 which have been reinvested and now worth more than double that!

Basil

Just putting the record straight that's all.  You'll note I haven't answered ValueNZ's question and there are good reasons for that which I won't expand on. You have a lovely day.

ValueNZ

Quote from: Basil on Feb 07, 2025, 11:54 AMJust putting the record straight that's all.  You'll note I haven't answered ValueNZ's question and there are good reasons for that which I won't expand on. You have a lovely day.

I mean that's my point, you haven't set the record straight at all. Jumping in and out of positions may have worked in this one particular case, but has it worked in aggregate?

Basil

Untamed just told me off for skiting.
I can't please everyone so I'm going to leave it at that.

Untamed

#1663
Just received a second reply from OCA, in response to my follow up email at the end of January.

Hi Carren,

Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your continued investment and involvement in Oceania.

For clarity, there has been no widespread fee structure amendments other than the regular indexing and upward review of weekly service fees, which is done annually. Changes to management fees on a portfolio basis would be regarded as material information that would be captured under our continuous disclosure obligations. Similarly, if the unit pricing had materially changed across the portfolio, we would update our investor base.

The work that was completed (which we signalled was underway in November) was a review of individual unit pricing across key development sites, and in aggregate there are no material changes. Specific pricing of our units is not public information and our customer base would not be able to quantify the pricing changes unless they had enquired on a specific unit last year and reignited interest this year.

The only additional information I can give you is that given the rule of averages, there was some revision in unit pricing down and some revision of pricing up which has supported our inhouse view on portfolio pricing. We are confident in our offering and that the portfolio is appropriately priced, and we will continue our strategic efforts to sell down stock using the tools available to us.

Please let me know if I can be of more assistance.

Kind regards,
Ryan

RYAN BIDDULPH, Corporate Finance Manager



Basil

#1664
Great they are confident with their pricing but if you don't mind me observing, we've heard that song before from them many times over.

At least the share price is holding at 80 cents just 1 cent above the IPO price 8 years ago. I suppose that's something. Probably best not to think about the last 8 years inflation and not wonder what the share price should be just to hold it's value in real inflation adjusted terms,(no return whatsoever, just hold it's value), or what it should be taking into account the capital raise years ago at $1.30 not forgetting no dividends for quite some time now and very modest unimputed ones before that.  Not forgetting too, the opportunity cost of investing in OCA, what you could have made investing in SUM much better company.

Hard to belive loyal holders still think this company will generate great levels of wealth for them in the future when all that's been demonstrated in the last 8 years is this company is a capital destruction machine. Looks to me, all they are doing is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Stockholm syndrome is alive and well on the NZX, no finer example of proof than this company.
Just as well the WAHS are going to win the NRL this year and everything going forward for OCA will be brilliant, or so some say...