I believe vacancy rates may not always be a true indicator of a...

I believe vacancy rates may not always be a true indicator of a successful child care operator. Obviously if the rate is very low then that is a concerm, however at some level a child care centre operates on break even. Above that level is profit and as an investor to expect (or demand) 100% occupancy is unrealistic. I would expect that if GEM had centres with 100% occupancy then they would be looking to open more centres in those areas. GEM also has overseas exposure which doesn't seem to get much coverage in HC posts.

I have been adding to my holding, as yield, steady growth, increasing dividends, dividends paid quarterly and the tailwind of a growing child care market/demand, for my mind put GEM ahead of many other ASX stocks. Motley Fool continues to have GEM as a BUY recommendation - given July 2015 (reaffirmed in June 2016) when SP was $3.06, however, although the SP has risen since then the BUY recommendation remains.

DYOR as I am not a licensed advisor - just a small time investor - what would I know!