Ramsay Health Care Limited's (ASX:RHC) On An Uptrend But Financial Prospects Look Pretty Weak: Is The Stock Overpriced?
ROE or return on equity is a useful tool to assess how effectively a company can generate returns on the investment it received from its shareholders. In simpler terms, it measures the profitability of a company in relation to shareholder's equity.
We've discovered 3 warning signs about Ramsay Health Care. View them for free.
ROE can be calculated by using the formula:
Return on Equity = Net Profit (from continuing operations) ÷ Shareholders' Equity
So, based on the above formula, the ROE for Ramsay Health Care is:
0.5% = AU$29m ÷ AU$5.4b (Based on the trailing twelve months to December 2024).
The 'return' is the profit over the last twelve months. One way to conceptualize this is that for each A$1 of shareholders' capital it has, the company made A$0.01 in profit.
See our latest analysis for Ramsay Health Care
So far, we've learned that ROE is a measure of a company's profitability. We now need to evaluate how much profit the company reinvests or "retains" for future growth which then gives us an idea about the growth potential of the company. Assuming everything else remains unchanged, the higher the ROE and profit retention, the higher the growth rate of a company compared to companies that don't necessarily bear these characteristics.
As you can see, Ramsay Health Care's ROE looks pretty weak. Not just that, even compared to the industry average of 3.0%, the company's ROE is entirely unremarkable. For this reason, Ramsay Health Care's five year net income decline of 17% is not surprising given its lower ROE. We believe that there also might be other aspects that are negatively influencing the company's earnings prospects. For instance, the company has a very high payout ratio, or is faced with competitive pressures.
With the industry earnings declining at a rate of 19% in the same period, we deduce that both the company and the industry are shrinking at the same rate.
Earnings growth is an important metric to consider when valuing a stock. The investor should try to establish if the expected growth or decline in earnings, whichever the case may be, is priced in. This then helps them determine if the stock is placed for a bright or bleak future. Is Ramsay Health Care fairly valued compared to other companies? These 3 valuation measures might help you decide.
Ramsay Health Care's declining earnings is not surprising given how the company is spending most of its profits in paying dividends, judging by its three-year median payout ratio of 85% (or a retention ratio of 15%). With only a little being reinvested into the business, earnings growth would obviously be low or non-existent. Our risks dashboard should have the 3 risks we have identified for Ramsay Health Care.
In addition, Ramsay Health Care has been paying dividends over a period of at least ten years suggesting that keeping up dividend payments is way more important to the management even if it comes at the cost of business growth. Existing analyst estimates suggest that the company's future payout ratio is expected to drop to 63% over the next three years. Accordingly, the expected drop in the payout ratio explains the expected increase in the company's ROE to 7.7%, over the same period.
Overall, we would be extremely cautious before making any decision on Ramsay Health Care. Because the company is not reinvesting much into the business, and given the low ROE, it's not surprising to see the lack or absence of growth in its earnings. Having said that, looking at current analyst estimates, we found that the company's earnings growth rate is expected to see a huge improvement. To know more about the company's future earnings growth forecasts take a look at this free report on analyst forecasts for the company to find out more.
Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) simplywallst.com.This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Business Insider
14 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Bell Potter Remains a Buy on Cosol Limited (COS)
In a report released today, Chris Savage from Bell Potter maintained a Buy rating on Cosol Limited, with a price target of A$0.80. The company's shares closed last Friday at A$0.57. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. According to TipRanks, Savage is a 4-star analyst with an average return of 7.2% and a 50.89% success rate. Savage covers the Technology sector, focusing on stocks such as Life360 Shs Chess Depository Interests Repr 3 Sh, Catapult Group International, and Wisetech Global. In addition to Bell Potter, Cosol Limited also received a Buy from TR | OpenAI – 4o's Mira Patchera in a report issued on July 26. However, on July 30, TR | OpenAI – 4o downgraded Cosol Limited (ASX: COS) to a Hold.


Business Insider
14 minutes ago
- Business Insider
UBS Remains a Buy on GQG Partners, Inc. Shs Chess Depository Interests Repr 1 Sh (GQG)
In a report released today, Shreyas Patel CFA from UBS maintained a Buy rating on GQG Partners, Inc. Shs Chess Depository Interests Repr 1 Sh, with a price target of A$2.65. The company's shares closed last Friday at A$1.73. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. Patel CFA covers the Financial sector, focusing on stocks such as GQG Partners, Inc. Shs Chess Depository Interests Repr 1 Sh, Magellan Financial Group Ltd, and HUB24 Limited. According to TipRanks, Patel CFA has an average return of 11.8% and a 68.09% success rate on recommended stocks. In addition to UBS, GQG Partners, Inc. Shs Chess Depository Interests Repr 1 Sh also received a Buy from Morgan Stanley's Andrei Stadnik in a report issued on July 30. However, on July 29, Morgans downgraded GQG Partners, Inc. Shs Chess Depository Interests Repr 1 Sh (ASX: GQG) to a Hold.


Medscape
36 minutes ago
- Medscape
Rural Parents See More Care Gaps and Delays After Pregnancy
TOPLINE: Parents in the year following birth residing in rural areas experienced more healthcare barriers, including reduced access to obstetric care and increased emergency department visits, than their urban counterparts. While infant care was similar between rural and urban areas, postpartum parents reported delays in medical care compared with their infants in both settings. METHODOLOGY: Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the National Health Interview Survey to examine rural-urban differences in healthcare access in postpartum parents and infants. They included nonpregnant women aged 18-49 years who had infants aged 1 year or younger. A total of 2019 postpartum parents (mean age, 27.1 years) and 2191 infants residing in rural areas, and 12,112 postpartum parents (mean age, 29.2 years) and 13,088 infants residing in urban areas were included in the study. Self-rated health was assessed on a five-point scale ranging from excellent to poor for both postpartum parents and infants. Healthcare utilization was evaluated based on the location where the care was received, the number of office or emergency department visits in the prior year, visits to specific clinicians, and the number of hospitalizations. Barriers to care were categorized into insurance coverage issues (such as gaps in coverage, losing coverage after pregnancy, or changes in care location) and reasons for delayed medical care. TAKEAWAY: Parents residing in rural areas were less likely to see an obstetrician-gynecologist (P = .002), visited the emergency department more frequently (P = .030), and had more hospitalizations (P = .041) than those residing in urban areas. Parents residing in rural areas experienced more disruptions in medical care, gaps in insurance coverage, and loss of Medicaid coverage after pregnancy than their urban counterparts. Delays in medical care were also more prevalent among parents residing in rural vs urban areas (20.3% vs 15.8%; P = .009); this pattern was not observed among infants. Among both rural and urban parent-infant dyads, adults were more likely to experience uninsurance and delayed medical care than their infants. Cost was a more common reason for delayed care among postpartum parents than among infants in the same household, regardless of where they lived. IN PRACTICE: 'Investments in rural health care infrastructure may support rural families,' the authors wrote. 'Integrating and incentivizing care for postpartum parents alongside their infants may address differential use and access to care in this critical period.' SOURCE: The study was led by Sara C. Handley, MD, MSCE, of the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. It was published online on August 3, 2025, in The Journal of Rural Health. LIMITATIONS: The analysis did not include specific weighting to represent the US population of parent-infant dyads. The cross-sectional design did not specify the age of the infant, which could have affected the reported number of visits and limited comments on completeness of the care. DISCLOSURES: The study received support through grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the University of Minnesota Foundation Rural Health Research Center Fund, and the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.