OCA - Oceania Healthcare

[Greekwatchdog]

For Bar been buying. https://www.nzx.com/announcements/428992

Next big announcement for me for the sector will be ARV's Investor update. Normally out early/mid April

[Azz]

I suspect this is the reality for many folk contemplating a move to an RV (or any other aged care option in fact). I also suspect that the vast majority of complaints about RV costs etc, have been initiated by families, not the person considering the move. I have seen more than a few posts on various platforms by family members, making the usual "ripping Mum/Dad off" rants. When you read their posts closely, nine times out of ten you very quickly get the feeling that their concerns are not actually about their parent, but about their inheritance, or should I say, lack of one.

I wish all families supported their loved one's desire to make this change, as you did with your Dad. At the end of the day, all that matters is that he is safe, cared for, and happy, and has peace of mind. Worth every dollar.

If you take "retiree" out of the equation (and instead use, say, "people in their 50s who want to live in a village community"), who would sign up for one of these deals? That's how a lot of people see it - and they can't get past it.

[Azz]

I've wondered about this scenario: Say there's a married couple (a man 75 years old, and a woman 65 years old), they both move into one of these RVs. He dies, a few years later. Is she still locked into the ORA? If so, she might find another partner, who doesn't want to live there - but she'll lose a stack of money exiting.

[Untamed]

If you take "retiree" out of the equation (and instead use, say, "people in their 50s who want to live in a village community"), who would sign up for one of these deals? That's how a lot of people see it - and they can't get past it.

Ryman and Summerset both have a minimum age restriction of 70 years. I can't find anything re this on the OCA website, but I expect it will be the same. So there will be no 50 year olds in any of those villages. I imagine there might be some leeway for couples, as long as one of them is 70+ - but that is just a guess on my part. Besides which, these are Retirement Villages, so clearly the expectation is that occupants will be retirees.

I've wondered about this scenario: Say there's a married couple (a man 75 years old, and a woman 65 years old), they both move into one of these RVs. He dies, a few years later. Is she still locked into the ORA? If so, she might find another partner who doesn't want to live there - but she'll lose a stack of money exiting.

As far as this scenario goes, chances are high, that if the widow, does find another partner in the future, it will be someone she meets in the village. If not, she will now be (depending on how old her husband was when he died) closer to 70, and I seriously doubt she would want to leave her "home." The new partner would more than likely move in with her, or they would go with a companionship type relationship, and not live together.

I don't see it being a common situation to be honest.

Can I ask you - why are you so focussed and concerned about occupants spending their capital? Are you looking at this from the perspective of you, as a family member of someone who might choose to move to an RV? Or are you "imagining" not wanting to lose your own capital down the track, if you are the one considering RV living?

[Azz]

Ryman and Summerset both have a minimum age restriction of 70 years. I can't find anything re this on the OCA website, but I expect it will be the same. So there will be no 50 year olds in any of those villages. I imagine there might be some leeway for couples, as long as one of them is 70+ - but that is just a guess on my part. Besides which, these are Retirement Villages, so clearly the expectation is that occupants will be retirees.

Thanks for writing that up. But it is a concept I'm providing. People really think like that. They don't literally want to move into a village in their 50s. They're weighing an RV up (say for a family member who has asked about it) and cannot get past the management fee situation. They relate it to their own experience.

[Azz]

As far as this scenario goes, chances are high, that if the widow, does find another partner in the future, it will be someone she meets in the village. If not, she will now be (depending on how old her husband was when he died) closer to 70, and I seriously doubt she would want to leave her "home." The new partner would more than likely move in with her, or they would go with a companionship type relationship, and not live together.

I don't see it being a common situation to be honest.

I think it might be more common than you think. A remaining partner locked into an ORA agreement but with "newfound freedom".

Can I ask you - why are you so focussed and concerned about occupants spending their capital? Are you looking at this from the perspective of you, as a family member of someone who might choose to move to an RV? Or are you "imagining" not wanting to lose your own capital down the track, if you are the one considering RV living?

I won't quote the exact views of family members, both young and old, but I'll give you the general gist: not very positive. I see the management fee, and also not handing out capital gains, as huge weaknesses: for perception of the industry, potential competition, and possible regulation.

[Untamed]

Well they need to stop doing that.

It is not their experience and it is not their decision. Family members need to put their own feelings about RVs aside, and support their loved one(s) to make the best decision, based on what they want, not what the family members want.

We need to throw this outdated "we must leave our kids an inheritance" BS, out the door! Our parents owe us nothing, and we, as their adult children, need to encourage them to spend their money however they wish. You really need to go visit some of these villages and have a chat to some residents. I know the rest home I work in, is not an RV, but I can tell you this. In the six years I have worked there, the only resident that ever wished she had not moved in, was a lady in her mid 60s with terminal cancer. She was an outdoorsy, farmer type and fiercely independent. But she literally had no choice but to move to a rest home, as she could no longer live on her own. So no, she didn't want to be there, or anywhere else. It wouldn't have mattered which rest home or which care suite or whatever, she went to - she didn't want to leave her home. Which is completely understandable, and we all had a huge amount of empathy for her. Fortunately for her, she wasn't with us for long before she died, and she died peacefully, knowing we cared and she accepted that it was the only viable option for her.

Apart from this lady (who by the way, for those who know me well, told me many times I was fucked in the head  ), not one other resident regrets selling their house, and paying for their care until their cash assets were low enough to receive the government subsidy. It is their home and they will tell you they are very happy, and love being part of our rest home "family."

Anyway, the point I am trying to make, but getting sidetracked as usual, is ... family need to put their loved one first. Forget about their damned inheritance. Like KW said, just help them make the decision because once they have made it, the money doesn't matter anymore. What matters is they are happy in their new home, with their new friends, and feel safe and cared for.

Thanks for writing that up. But it is a concept I'm providing. People really think like that. They don't literally want to move into a village in their 50s. They're weighing an RV up (say for a family member who has asked about it) and cannot get past the management fee situation. They relate it to their own experience.

[Breezy]

OCA is 70 entry age like the other 2.

[Buzz]

I won't quote the exact views of family members, both young and old, but I'll give you the general gist: not very positive. I see the management fee, and also not handing out capital gains, as huge weaknesses: for perception of the industry, potential competition, and possible regulation.

There are options of RV's that do share the capital gains, and have lower fees, albeit lower 'quality' amenities etc, perhaps you/your family should consider them?

I was wondering given you other investing interests, why you're attracted to conversing on OCA specifically? Most of what you have brought up would be well placed on the generic RV thread, as it applies to all listed RV's.

[Azz]

potential competition

Already at least one company is paying some or all of a capital gain (I don't recall which company, nor how much). Surely OCA needs to respond to this?

[Azz]

Most of what you have brought up would be well placed on the generic RV thread, as it applies to all listed RV's.

That's true; OCA seems to get it from everyone when it's more the industry. But this competition bit is specific to OCA, I'm wondering what's going to happen for them in regards to matching the competition.

[Untamed]

I think it might be more common than you think. A remaining partner locked into an ORA agreement but with "newfound freedom".

I won't quote the exact views of family members, both young and old, but I'll give you the general gist: not very positive. I see the management fee, and also not handing out capital gains, as huge weaknesses: for perception of the industry, potential competition, and possible regulation.

How old are you, and do you have a partner?

Most people who have had a partner/spouse die, rarely see that situation as "newfound freedom." Just saying.

[Azz]

perhaps you/your family should consider them?

My family will not consider any of them. I'm here because of the stock and how, out of all the RV companies, it has this massive following. It intrigues me, maybe I'm missing something for the stock? I just can't see it, but you can I think - good on ya!

[Azz]

How old are you, and do you have a partner?

Most people who have had a partner/spouse die, rarely see that situation as "newfound freedom." Just saying.

Well maybe we move in different circles. :-)

[Azz]

Let me try and explain my thinking another way. If the industry could understand better how they are perceived, and, via competition, change the charging structure (ie, make it a little less "obvious" lol, I don't really mean obvious, but that's the situation right now: "you wanna leave?, you lose 30%") then sales would be much easier.