OCA - Oceania Healthcare

[Whacc]

"why's he really going"

He's weak & poorly regarded by the investment community.

"She needs to go too"

Yes, this also.

[Poet]

And a bit disingenuous some people suggest she doesn't care about shareholders, when she hold million or more of shares. The other guy even way more. Maybe they do care, enough to get rid of the CEO who only got a few shares by comparison and most (all) of them as incentives and DRP's.

Well she isn't in an information vacuum, she knows all that is going on - it's all the other shareholders she doesn't care about. What excuse does she have for failing to update shareholders in the current situation - just total arrogance as far as I am concerned and she shouldn't be in the position - she should go and asap.

[Perky]

It was interesting he resigned on same day SUM reported..

I reckon the Board had seen RYM shocker report and said to Brett ..if SUM come out with a result that is greater than or equals  X....you will be gone by morning tea!!


SUM released results at 8.30am
OCA released resignation at 9.59am....1 minute before morning tea

Therefore my story must be true 

[Ricky Bobby]

Greg will be grumpy all right... not having a good trot with OCA or HGH

I think his personal market cap is still more than oca lol

And seeka... no divie there either...

[winner (n)]

Maybe the Board should seek out Norah Barlow to takeover as CEO for a few years

She's still involved in the sector and let's not forget that Norah did wonders for Summerset .......got it started to where it is today

She was pretty good eh Basil

And would help out diversity

[Buzz]

Well she isn't in an information vacuum, she knows all that is going on - it's all the other shareholders she doesn't care about. What excuse does she have for failing to update shareholders in the current situation - just total arrogance as far as I am concerned and she shouldn't be in the position - she should go and asap.

All shareholders are equal, we all own the shares. There's no reason I can see why she who holds million+ shares would sacrifice her own shareholding on being arrogant of any other shareholders. Pretty short sighted imo. Let alone considering all the insto's who have massively more shares than she does.

My view is that this signals an important refocus on what is good for shareholders, we've all endured the turnaround strategy and as some have correctly pointed out that has come at a price on EPS. Now is the time to cash in, and show some returns for shareholders patience, of which she herself is a significant shareholder in her own right.

Imo people are far to quick to want to shaft the board or the management, just because the market decided your shares are worth less now than when you bought them. That's not a shareholder who bought into the long game, that's a shareholder who is wanting short term capital gains and has no intention of seeing out the business strategy/plan, and hence, made a poor decision getting involved.

[Whacc]

All shareholders are equal...

Imo people are far to quick to want to shaft the board or the management

I don't buy that sorry.
Just because you have accumulated shares over decades doesn't mean you, by right, should continue on as an independent Board member.

The independents on OCA are almost entirely unchanged since the IPO.

That is not good governance. 
We should have at least had a change in independent Chair as a matter of course already.
People forget Liz Coutts' failings at the Ports of Auckland where she also was quick to throw a CEO under the bus and quietly slipped out the exit while others took the flack.

These independent directors are part of a small generational cabal in this country that sit across almost every Board.
They were given an opportunity at a young age that has not been extended to the next wave of high energy business leaders, it's about time they all moved on and stopped clinging on to dreams of King's Honours for service to themselves.

[Buzz]

I don't buy that sorry.
Just because you have accumulated shares over decades doesn't mean you, by right, should continue on as an independent Board member.

The independents on OCA are almost entirely unchanged since the IPO.

That is not good governance. 
We should have at least had a change in independent Chair as a matter of course already.
People forget Liz Coutts' failings at the Ports of Auckland where she also was quick to throw a CEO under the bus and quietly slipped out the exit while others took the flack.

These independent directors are part of a small generational cabal in this country that sit across almost every Board.
They were given an opportunity at a young age that has not been extended to the next wave of high energy business leaders, it's about time they all moved on and stopped clinging on to dreams of King's Honours for service to themselves.

Bravo, I completely agree, we shareholders should not pillory the Board or management just because the market has decided our shares are less than 50% of the intrinsic value of the company. Especially a Board that has  millions of their own rewards at stake.

Nor can we question the wisdom of the market right now as we cannot change or influence that.

What we can do as shareholders is question our own ambitions for our shareholdings and whether we accepted the risks of upside or downside when we bought into a multi year business transformation strategy, and our timing for doing that, that is just now beginning to show that it is working and has long term promise. Commentators from the outside have little or no influence on my decisions, they have nothing at stake. If they do, and are still confused, they should imo just quit and move on. No point in flogging a dead horse, in their opinion.

Sometimes the conversation becomes confused imo with the ambitions of those who buy the long term future and have patience to ignore the up's and downs of the market, versus those who just want some capital upside ASAP and if they don't see it or get it, then it's all a crock of sh1te.

Nevertheless, all these differing motivations are informative and make for interesting discussion.

[Basil]

What we can do as shareholders is question our own ambitions for our shareholdings and whether we accepted the risks of upside or downside when we bought into a multi year business transformation strategy, and our timing for doing that, that is just now beginning to show that it is working and has long term promise.

Can you please direct me to the metrics you are referring too showing what you are suggesting ?

Nevertheless, all these differing motivations are informative and make for interesting discussion.

That I agree with.

The directors and Earl Gasparich told us at the time of listing nearly 7 years ago we were on a 6-year business transformation journey and about halfway through that we would see the "point of inflection"...that was supposed to be about 3 years ago.   Whatever happened to that magic point of inflection? The last full year reported earnings are little different to the first full years after they listed.  There has been no growth in earnings per share, in fact they have gone backwards over 20% in real inflation adjusted terms.

Brent told shareholders they were on another 6 year business transformation journey.

I am sure the incoming CEO will have another story about how this has so much long term promise.

The only hope I see for OCA is hiring someone with a very tight cost control focus like Julian Cook who would steadfastly endeavor to change the culture of this company from one that's all about care regardless of cost, to one that's about good care at a cost that gives shareholders a decent return on invested funds.  That's never going to happen with regard to Julian Cook because he's gainfully engaged elsewhere now and the woke board would never allow someone with a very tight cost control focus to come on board because at their heart the board believe if you look after the residents well, regardless of cost, you will do well.  How's that working out so far after nearly 7 years ?

Just as well its going to all be different and so much better for shareholders going forward eh 

[Greekwatchdog]

This is from a poster on ST who wrote to Liz Coutts.

I wrote to Liz Coutts and asked her to make an announcement on the financial situation of the company, and whether a CR is being considered, based on the SP being halved over the past year and a half or so, plus the CEO being pushed or moving on. Also confirming no change to expected profitability. No surprises are needed at this time of panic by some silly retail investors.

Make of it as you will

[Whacc]

... whether a CR is being considered, based on the SP being halved over the past year and a half or so

No business should consider a capital raise purely on the basis of their share price halving.  I can't think of a worse catalyst for considering of a capital raise.
I don't know why a falling share price has people talking about raises - if anything a high share price should be a reason for making that call.

Frankly there is zero chance Coutts will answer these questions.

If she believes that she is operating within the continuous disclosure requirements then she would have already said what needs to be said and nothing more.

I don't think panicing retail investors will overly concern her either.
The company will be allaying any concerns from broker analysts and institutional investors. If they manage to do that they won't make any more statements.

[entrep]

whether a CR is being considered, based on the SP being halved over the past year and a half or so, plus the CEO being pushed or moving on. Also confirming no change to expected profitability. No surprises are needed at this time of panic by some silly retail investors.

Refers to a CR based on a lower SP and then refers to silly retail investors? lol

[Basil]

Time to give this thread a bump I reckon.

Economics 101 the laws of supply and demand.  30m plus shares had to be sold on index exit recently so maybe that was the bottom and those investors who understand index exit and entry pricing impacts were canny enough to adopt this abandoned baby right at the bottom in the late 50's ?

Surely nobody would adopt 2 abandoned babies in the same week on some wacky theory that deep value investing often works and even if one of the babies turned out to be horrible the other one might be worth holding and cuddling...nah, nobody in their right mind would go off leash with a crazy theory like that...and if they did they have gone "feral"

So now shareholders have had the proverbial "dead cat bounce", although only a small one, where too from here ?  In their most recent presentation OCA claimed an all up NAV of $1.47 so 63 cents represents a really hefty ~ 57% discount to that.

Have we seen the bottom ?  Will a new CEO make a difference ?  Is it time for a board shake-up ?

Where will the shares go this year ?  https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/OCEANIA-HEALTHCARE-LIMITE-103506268/consensus/
3 BUY's and one hold.  Average analyst price target is 99.25 cps.

Are all the analysts right or is this donkey incapable of performing even with a new jockey and trainer ?

Maybe we have hit the bottom and those that bought in the high 50's lately were as cunning as a hungry Beagle ? 

What do you think ?

[Untamed]

With respect, there is a lot of innuendo in this post Basil. Either you have already bought back in, or you are simply stirring the pot. Which is it?

[winner (n)]

Hey Basil ...good to get your thoughts on OCA

In a lot of ways OCA has a lot going for it and as a 'deep value' play possibly a better bet than HGH

Hmmmm