OCA - Oceania Healthcare

[Untamed]

If someone chose to sell their RV villa or apartment - to move to a "standard" care bed - I guess so. But it is highly unlikely anyone in that financial position would choose that care option. They would choose a Care Suite, which is another ORA contract. I don't believe any ORA option for care, qualifies for the government subsidy. But I could be wrong.

This is getting complicated.

The home purchased at an OCA RV, is that not seen the same for these calculations as the home they just sold?

[Azz]

I don't understand what you are asking sorry.

How is it (the RV home) calculated as an asset for the subsidy?

[Azz]

They would choose a Care Suite, which is another ORA contract. I don't believe any ORA option for care, qualifies for the government subsidy. But I could be wrong.

This might answer my question. Maybe... :-)

[Azz]

Untamed and co, I have a pretty good understanding of Artificial Intelligence and Quantum Computing, but the financial side of a Retirement Village company is nearly unfathomable.

[ValueNZ]

Untamed and co, I have a pretty good understanding of Artificial Intelligence and Quantum Computing, but the financial side of a Retirement Village company is nearly unfathomable.

I'll use a probability: in my opinion, there is a 99.999% chance that OCA stock will never ten-bag or more (I'm not saying OCA stock won't be successful in some manner).

* The stock -- I arrived at five probabilities, one of which will dominate for the next two years or so (and possibly much longer): 90% chance share price will continue to drift sideways; 5% chance of a low-ball offer; 2% chance share price falls substantially; 2% chance share price increases in value by between 67% and 99%; 1% chance share price increases in value by 100% or more.

No comment

[Breezy]

If someone chose to sell their RV villa or apartment - to move to a "standard" care bed - I guess so. But it is highly unlikely anyone in that financial position would choose that care option. They would choose a Care Suite, which is another ORA contract. I don't believe any ORA option for care, qualifies for the government subsidy. But I could be wrong.

Actually if the price of the care suite is under the Govt subsidy threshold then you can get the subsidy and this has occurred at OCA and other RV operators.

[Untamed]

Thanks Breezy. I didn't know that. I am actually really surprised that this is the case.

Actually if the price of the care suite is under the Govt subsidy threshold then you can get the subsidy and this has occurred at OCA and other RV operators.

[Azz]

The statistics are very clear, those who take a Graham-Newman approach to investing are the only ones who can consistently beat the market over decades.

I'm intrigued in your obviously very rigorous investment style, for example your "the lower the share price the better" idea combined with your "OCA will be a ten-bagger" idea - and I'll be the first to congratulate you when those two things marry up. (Interestingly, if a stock that listed at, say, 79 cents, dropped to 7 cents, and then went back up to 79 cents, it would be a ten-bagger for those who went all-in at the bottom.)

The P/E fanatics that you follow make all sorts of claims, yet have no explanation as to why they miss massive gainers such as Nvidia. I can explain why: because the P/E stat is backward looking and stock investments are, due to the way time works, forward looking. The other issue for their predictions is in regards to what I'll call, for want of a better term, "real world events". You haven't really touched on the OCA CEO working under a very short-term contract, for example - what's your take on this (sincere apologies if I've missed your assessment)?

[ValueNZ]

I'm intrigued in your obviously very rigorous investment style, for example your "the lower the share price the better" idea combined with your "OCA will be a ten-bagger" idea - and I'll be the first to congratulate you when those two things marry up. (Interestingly, if a stock that listed at, say, 79 cents, dropped to 7 cents, and then went back up to 79 cents, it would be a ten-bagger for those who went all-in at the bottom.)

Because the greater the discount to intrinsic value, the better my buying becomes (It's better to be able to buy a dollar for 50c than not). I would hope for a lower share price in ten years whilst the business increases its value, but realistically at some point between now and then the share price will appreciate to fair value.

The P/E fanatics that you follow make all sorts of claims, yet have no explanation as to why they miss massive gainers such as Nvidia. I can explain why: because the P/E stat is backward looking and stock investments are, due to the way time works, forward looking. The other issue for their predictions is in regards to what I'll call, for want of a better term, "real world events". You haven't really touched on the OCA CEO working under a very short-term contract, for example - what's your take on this (sincere apologies if I've missed your assessment)?

What P/E fanatics do I follow? P/E is certainly an important metric, but it's just a quick and dirty approach, what's important is the discounted cash flows in the future. You try and calculate that for Nvidia and you'll find that without extremely optimistic assumptions there's just no way you can justify its current valuation. There's nothing to discuss about the CEO of OCA, I have no take.

[Azz]

Because the greater the discount to intrinsic value, the better my buying becomes (It's better to be able to buy a dollar for 50c than not). I would hope for a lower share price in ten years whilst the business increases its value, but realistically at some point between now and then the share price will appreciate to fair value.

"the share price WILL appreciate"

So it's an absolute certainty. You can see the future.

What P/E fanatics do I follow?

"Graham-Newman"

P/E is certainly an important metric, but it's just a quick and dirty approach, what's important is the discounted cash flows in the future. You try and calculate that for Nvidia and you'll find that without extremely optimistic assumptions there's just no way you can justify its current valuation.

On another channel, on 29 September 2023, you made the following statement about Nvidia.

"if I can stop just one person buying into this company it will have been worth it"

Since then, Nvidia stock has gone up by 108% (from $434.99 to $903.63). How many people did you stop buying it? The reason this is important, is that everything you say and obviously believe - when it's tested it fails. At what point do you admit to yourself that you're wrong?

There's nothing to discuss about the CEO of OCA, I have no take.

The leadership of the company, their abilities, and their comings and goings, is irrelevant to you. My view is that the CEO departing is a significant event.

[Untamed]

I guess it depends what you consider to be a "significant event." At this point none of really have any idea why Brent has resigned, so all we have is supposition. Which is never particularly helpful.

It may be that he was head hunted. It may be that he saw an opportunity elsewhere that he couldn't resist. It may be that his decision is based on family or personal reasons. There is even a slim chance that he has perhaps realised he is not the man for the job, so is stepping aside for the good of the company? Yep, that one is extremely unlikely, but who knows?

One thing I do know right now, is that two emails I have sent to Brent (via the generic company email link) have gone unanswered. Whoever clears that mailbox has not even had the decency to acknowledge my emails. Which, is unacceptable to me as an investor. That doesn't mean I am about to "get out" but it does mean I am watching very closely, and will be conveying my dissatisfaction via other channels, until somebody has the decency to respond. I am kind of glad Brent is going to be honest. I want a CEO who values shareholders and has the balls to communicate with them, either publicly or privately. Let us hope the new CEO is someone who will do that.

Good company. Great prospects. Shit communication.

My view is that the CEO departing is a significant event.

[Azz]

I guess it depends what you consider to be a "significant event." At this point none of really have any idea why Brent has resigned, so all we have is supposition. Which is never particularly helpful.

It may be that he was head hunted. It may be that he saw an opportunity elsewhere that he couldn't resist. It may be that his decision is based on family or personal reasons. There is even a slim chance that he has perhaps realised he is not the man for the job, so is stepping aside for the good of the company? Yep, that one is extremely unlikely, but who knows?

One thing I do know right now, is that two emails I have sent to Brent (via the generic company email link) have gone unanswered. Whoever clears that mailbox has not even had the decency to acknowledge my emails. Which, is unacceptable to me as an investor. That doesn't mean I am about to "get out" but it does mean I am watching very closely, and will be conveying my dissatisfaction via other channels, until somebody has the decency to respond. I am kind of glad Brent is going to be honest. I want a CEO who values shareholders and has the balls to communicate with them, either publicly or privately. Let us hope the new CEO is someone who will do that.

Good company. Great prospects. Shit communication.

Great post, great assessment of the situation.

[BlackPeter]

I guess it depends what you consider to be a "significant event." At this point none of really have any idea why Brent has resigned, so all we have is supposition. Which is never particularly helpful.

It may be that he was head hunted. It may be that he saw an opportunity elsewhere that he couldn't resist. It may be that his decision is based on family or personal reasons. There is even a slim chance that he has perhaps realised he is not the man for the job, so is stepping aside for the good of the company? Yep, that one is extremely unlikely, but who knows?

One thing I do know right now, is that two emails I have sent to Brent (via the generic company email link) have gone unanswered. Whoever clears that mailbox has not even had the decency to acknowledge my emails. Which, is unacceptable to me as an investor. That doesn't mean I am about to "get out" but it does mean I am watching very closely, and will be conveying my dissatisfaction via other channels, until somebody has the decency to respond. I am kind of glad Brent is going to be honest. I want a CEO who values shareholders and has the balls to communicate with them, either publicly or privately. Let us hope the new CEO is someone who will do that.

Good company. Great prospects. Shit communication.

Good points. If it helps - you are not alone (re not getting email confirmations from OCA staff). I don't think I ever got any acknowledgement of my emails from any OCA staff I tried to contact with questions.

And yes, while they might not be the only company happy to ignore shareholder questions, they are clearly one of the worst.

[Basil]

Earl Gasparich was a good bloke.  Enjoyed a few chats with him over the years and he answered my emails.  He doubled his salary when he left for Metlifecare. Had high hopes with Brent coming on board, (given his background as former director of investment banking at Jarden), there would be a sharp focus on driving earnings per share growth but alas, the only time eps was ever mentioned was when the begging bowl was handed around for a capital raise at which point the magic words of eps accretive were used liberally.  I think rather than Brent changing the culture at OCA, the culture there changed him.

[winner (n)]

1 queried some numbers that didn't make sense on WHS report last week by email

Got a detailed response from Finance Manager within a few hours

Over several years sent several emails to Oceania. Not all acknowledged but must say Anna Thorburn did respond to a few queries albeit in the 'can't say' way. Anna seen light if dayband no longer there ...maybe git told off for communicating with stakeholders