Dear SSLee,

After many many painful lessons I have finally learned not to listen to fund managers and research houses on their recommendations. Their goals and yours are never aligned, so they will trumpet their good calls and hide away their bad investment ideas. No skin in the game in it for them.

As for Jon choivo, as he is using his friends, family and parents skin ( he is to have any important skin of his own to risk) he has slightly higher personal and reputational risk and therefore can be listened to with half an ear.

Just be wary whenever you get prior charging you for information or charging you management fees for stocks you own.

Trust in your own knowledge and learning. If INSAS works out, then it works out. If it doesn't, then you can bring me out for some subang ss15 rojak and I'll be glad to tell you why.

But don't trust anyone, build your own knowledge.

But apologies Stockraider, sslee and Jonathan choi in advance, feeling a bit stressed here after there was a mixup in my flights arrangement from LaGuardia airport. Been stuck here for hours waiting plane resolution to no avail.

Hengyuan going from a 4rm company to 18 in less than a year is not a goreng stock raider? Got margin of safety raider? How come your margin of safety goal post keep changing first say intrinsic value is 45, then now say more than 13 need to sell? You know nothing about investing in margin of safety.

On that thought didn't Jon choivo also do the same thing exactly? Buy low, sell high buy higher then watch as the entire stock collapse because of non existing fundamentals.

I remember a very smart guy named sir Isaac Newton who did the exact same trade with south sea capital.

Charge me for his advice indeed. With his investing acumen. I have fund managers from ta, Maybank, HL and pbb coming over giving me ideas all the time and asking me to give them money for their fund. Even they don't dare to charge upfront but based on performance.

Charge me indeed. Malu lah!

Choivo, your advice is patently wrong. From long experience and data, it is very clear after recession, yes penny stocks and small caps rise up quickly, buy they are also shown to deflate quickly as well. While quality companies go down, but they soon become very sought after for their earnings and dependability ( try explaining why after Malaysia recession and political uncertainty investors jumped into ql and NESTLE in 2017-2018 doubling share price).

I don't know if you have a financial times subscription or if you can read, but this is fact driven information. Here is probably a free look for you.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/f291702a-f244-11da-b78e-0000779e2340

Dear Jon choivo, any advice you give is worthless if not backed with results. As so far your investing period is short, your margin loan returns are unimpressive, and your total portfolio gains are still negative, I would refrain from charging anyone any money. Once your biggest investment call (rcecap) start returning multi baggers in portfolio gains in 3-5 years, then you may start charging.

Fyi, my biggest Investment right now in 2018-2019 at 32% is in NASDAQ:STNE. I did not ask people to invest in pe50 companies or value at all costs. I ask people to invest in quality companies with ql an example.

You seem to not understand the difference. Right now STNE is a pe 22 company. If in 5 years it becomes a pe50 company, please don't tell me I am buying at all costs.

I'm saving this conversation so I can bring it up yearly and start to do 1 year performance comparisons between a rcecap and STNE.

I wouldn't pay you for your advice, but I'll let yearly stock performance do the talking.

But to be perfectly honest, my personal investment life changed after I stopped looking for undervalued cigar butts and decided to look for undervalued premium growth companies.

I can literally say I made millions participating in the long term, compounded performance of good companies.

I will not say if my method is better or Stockraider method is wrong, because that would be silly. To be honest we are both doing the same thing, looking for the margin of safety in a stock.

The difference is where we do the looking.

If Stockraider can look sslee,3iii and me in the eye and say he made millions by investing in his cigar butt way, I will immediately cut a 1 million dollar cheque to a charity of his choice.

That is verbatim.

For those that remember the Asian financial crisis of 97, I was there. Imagine multiple hengyuans being sold at low pe, high nta, big asset base. You were making good money buying basically anything and everything.

And even until the end, aokam perdana had huge nta with 10,000 hectares of timber land. Renong with its plant assets far far more than its bankruptcy price. Etc etc.

My point being high margin of "safety" stocks only seem safe, until it's not.

Did you think hengyuan at 18 had high margin of safety?

Did you think xingquan with oodles of cash has high margin of safety?

Think about it. If you really wanted to, you could turn numbers around to mean anything you want.

If a company is doing badly and the shares tank, it could mean that it's undervalued. But it can also mean that the business prospects changed and it's going to go bankrupt soon, right?

The problem with Stockraider is he thinks I am a rookie and have never tried his investing methods. Guess where I was in the 90's? Watching and reading security analysis and intelligent investor just like him. Did you know security analysis changed the theories, examples and applications for every edition based on latest data? I know, I've read every edition to try to understand the differences of investing in the the thirties (first edition), the fifties (third edition) and the late eighties ( sixth edition). Now why did I do that?

I was realizing when I tried technical analysis to trade stocks that I found a counter pattern. Each time I tried a new indicator that worked, after a few weeks and months suddenly the trade signals would change on me and I went from making money to losing money again.

Then I realized something. Each time I tried margin of safety value buying, it always seemed I was buying a penny stock. When I set my stock selling at 80% of intrinsic value, the market changed on me at 50%. When I started selling at 50%, things changed on me at 20% intrinsic.

I may have been too blind to realize it, but penny stocks are subject to syndicate behaviour. And obviously they too know exactly what is a cigar butt. They used it every day to make money off idiots like me.

Again SSLee no one is grabbing your hand here asking you to invest in QL or nestle. The entire purpose here is for you to please finalize understand that numbers only will not a good business make.

It is what you do with the understanding of numbers into the business that gives you insight into how the business will perform over time.

Obviously when I bought QL in 2009 it was not pe50. But if you ask me to sell it now I will think you are crazy. It's like asking Warren to sell coca cola.

Anyway, learn to use a bit of business sense.

Just because pe is high does not mean it is a bad business.
Just because pe is low and they have a lot of cash also does not mean it is a good business. I'm looking at you xingquan, xidelang etc.

But if you shut your mind just because pe is high, you will automatically lose out on investing in public Bank, nestle, ql, topglove, hartalega, yinson and all the other premium companies just because you think price is what you pay. Value is what you get.

Hi ppteh,

It's not very difficult to get the graph. You only need to go to financial section of the aeon credit or supermax and click on summary.

It's right next to quarterly and yearly data. Then when you see the chart you can start playing around with the data you want to look at and download.

Cheers

Philip

I would argue that uncertainty is bigger when holding more stocks, not less. Therefore even more risk.

But believe what you will.

Or better yet, read Jon choivo annual letter, he has 28 stocks right? How is his stock performance doing?

Investing and betting is very different thing. Game theory is game theory.

Just because every ball come your way doesn't mean you have to hit everything. If you find one in the right place and hit, sure chun chun win la.

Risk only applies to those who don't know what they are doing.

Betting implies more luck less analysis.

Investing implies more analysis, less luck.

Very simple question which I faced through during 3 financial crisis:

When a crisis happened, which recover faster? Quality companies or cheap ones. And if you know it is quality companies, then my question is if you buy in bulk, you can get a high ratio of quality companies meh?

Average investors get average returns.

As for takaful, have you ever thought deeply on what it does as a business? What does roe of 25% yearly tell you about the business?

Do you use the service? I doubt not. Do you use their general and motor services? Definitely not. If GEICO had such insane roe every year how fast would you think it would have grown? And yet ql grows is revenues faster.

And I personally believe at those roe levels, takaful is simply a scam to take money from uneducated Muslims with sweet sounding words of religion.

You have to understand the quality of the business and the growth opportunities(bigger piece of the pie) to know why ql, topglove and nestle is afforded higher pe,

Takaful will never interest non Muslims, and those who know how insurance works realize that insurers make their money from float and investment funds return.

How will you perform in bursa stock if I tie your hands and say you can only invest in shariah compliant companies? ( Ql is one. Hint.)

Instead of just thinking takaful is undervalued, try going a bit further and try to understand why the investing market is giving takaful a lower pe.

But I do have a point to make. Cigar butt investing has inherent risk in that when you buy such a stock, you are buying knowing that something is wrong with the company for it to deserve a low valuation.

By that fact alone you will never have the confidence to put more than 15% of your networth in such a stock, because the inherent risk can pull the carpet underneath you.

And if you want to discuss topglove, I put 50% of my networth in it on margin loan in 2010, and went all in.

My question is, how would you have the confidence to do something crazy like that unless you were convinced you were buying a wonderful company at a fair price?

My only opinion is if I don't like owning a cigar butt company like talam for ten minutes, why would I even want to touch the stock in the first place?

And if I like the stock enough, why put in small measly amounts that do nothing in the long run?

Icon, please show me where I have said that my investing method is the one and only way? I believe I have never said such a thing.

However many people including yourself automatically shy away from investing in premium stocks simply because it feels wrong.

I merely show another way of investing that works for me.

Make of that what you will.

Just ask CalvinT when he buy cigar butt talam for 4 cents. Now become 2.5 cents. Sounds cheap? Not when you lose almost 50% net worth.

How to sleep well at night?

Reality is there is a reason why cigar butt thrown on the floor. You never know when your 10% gain become 100% loss...

A key component to growth stock is sometimes counter intuitive.

Fisher argued that numerous studies over the previous 35 years had shown growth stocks—those that reinvested in growth rather than paying dividends—had outperformed stocks that did pay high dividends. Specifically, over a five- or 10-year span, growth stocks had done “spectacularly” better in increasing their capital value. In addition, after a reasonable time, the growth stocks were paying superior dividend returns as well.

And to those who only know bargain hunting, cigar butt searching and low pe, high nta stocks, read this:

https://www.gurufocus.com/news/781497/phil-fisher-growth-stocks-vs-cigarbutt-stocks

Would you have bought amazon at pe50?

This is in no way any shape or form asking the i3 community to suddenly go around hunting for pe50 companies and going hog.

What I am merely trying to imply is that pe is just what the public is paying to get a ride on the boat.

The trick is to identify the boat early and getting on at the right time before it leaves.

How to identify that is more than just numbers on a financial report.

You really need to apply some business sense in understand how a business runs and works.

If you see numbers for numbers you will just end up buying a low(or high) pe company for the wrong reason and feeling stupid about yourself.

Personally what I believe is that crude oil and gas sooner or later will run out. When it runs out, the most efficient form of sustainable fuel in large quantities is palm oil. I wont be foolish enough to guess when, but one day palm oil prices will be hitting RM4000 per ton when demand is more than supply. When that happens, I hope to still own QL. In the meantime, look for other businessses and monitor everything closely.

candlestick never lies. until it does.

Palm oil pricing for me is very simple story. It is the same with oil prices.
Oversupply, lack of consumer confidence, market demand. As long as crude oil prices are low, the number of products that can be converted by palm oil will always be more expensive than using refined oil products. when oil prices were at 10 year high, indonesia, vietnam, SEA had not gone all in planting. natural demand and supply shortage.

You can draw a chart between the price of crude oil and the price of palm CPO increase. It is almost in tandem.

When the number of planters reduce, or the number of uses increase, or the next replacement of crude oil becomes more expensive than palm oil, then the boom cycle will come again.

you huat sp500 go from 2900 drop to 2450, do you know why? or you think you can time the market buy at 2300 and now go up to 2600?

buying s&p500 index can be just as risky, if you don't know what you are doing.

if you buy s&p500, you are just hoping weighted stocks the big 4 FB,APPLE,AMZN, GOOGL can pull up everything forever. But if you dont know your tech industry business well, when crash you also cry... and dont know why.

maybe yes maybe no, do you know how much auric earned in singapore the last 10 years growth? if you do know its a simple of addition and subtraction and estimation. In either case private limited companies dont normally show their P&L to just about anyone,

maybe potential ghost knows how much auric 5 year equity growth is worth and can share the info to i3 community? I'm sure you have read through it extensively right?

I repeat here in verbatim.

Number 2, please.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi. I’m Bob Kline (PH) from Los Angeles.

Pursuing your earlier comments on sigmas from a different angle, the conventional wisdom in the investment world is that an investment risk can be measured by the volatility of the price of the investment in the marketplace.

To me, this approach has it backwards. Since changes in price are determined by the changes in the opinions of investors in the marketplace, why would a rational investor substitute the opinions of the marketplace, as reflected in the volatility of the price, for his own assessment of the risk of the investment?

Consultants take this idea further by tracking the volatility of a portfolio manager’s results in an attempt to measure risk. So could you guys expand on your thoughts on this?

WARREN BUFFETT: Yes. Volatility is not a measure of risk.

And the problem is that the people who have written and taught about volatility do not know how to measure — or, I mean, taught about risk — do not know how to measure risk.

And the nice thing about beta, which is a measure of volatility, is that it’s nice and mathematical and wrong in terms of measuring risk. It’s a measure of volatility, but past volatility does not determine the risk of investing.

I mean, actually, take it with farmland. Here in 1980, or in the early 1980s, farms that sold for $2,000 an acre went to $600 an acre. I bought one of them when the banking and farm crash took place.

And the beta of farms shot way up. And, according to standard economic theory or market theory, I was buying a much more risky asset at $600 an acre than the same farm was at 2,000 an acre.

Now, people, because farmland doesn’t trade often and prices don’t get recorded, you know, they would regard that as nonsense, that my purchase at $600 an acre of the same farm that sold for 2,000 an acre a few years ago was riskier.

But in stocks, because the prices jiggle around every minute, and because it lets the people who teach finance use the mathematics they’ve learned, they have — in effect, they would explain this a way a little more technically — but they have, in effect, translated volatility into all kinds of — past volatility — in terms of all kinds of measures of risk.

And it’s nonsense. Risk comes from the nature of certain kinds of businesses. It can be risky to be in some businesses just by the simple economics of the type of business you’re in, and it comes from not knowing what you’re doing.

And, you know, if you understand the economics of the business in which you are engaged, and you know the people with whom you’re doing business, and you know the price you pay is sensible, you don’t run any real risk.

And I don’t think Charlie and I — certainly Berkshire — I don’t think we’ve ever had a permanent loss in marketable securities that was, what, 1 percent, maybe, half a percent of net worth.

I made a terrible mistake in buying Dexter Shoe, which cost us significantly more than 1 percent of net worth where I bought an entire business then.

But I was wrong about the business. It had nothing to do with the volatility of shoe prices or leather or anything else. It just was wrong.

But in terms of marketable securities, I cannot recall a case where we’ve lost that kind of — I mean, we’ve done a lot of things in things — in securities — that had a very high beta. We’ve dealt with a lot of things in securities that had a low beta.

It’s just the whole development of volatility as a measure of risk, it has really occurred in my lifetime. And it’s been very useful for people who wanted a career in teaching, but it is not — we’ve never found a way for it to be useful to us.

I was reading the transcript of the 2007 afternoon session of Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting. Something interesting came up on the concept of risk. Some considered buying with a margin of safety to be less risky, and securities that were volatile were considered very risky.

Warren had this to say about Beta:

things are only risky if you don't know what you are doing.

In my opinion,if you know all your 20 securities intimately and you know what you are doing exactly in buying them, then it is not risky to hold many stocks.

Problem is, people tend to think in prime concepts: if I diversify, it is safe because if one stock loses at least there are others that will win. This has been proven to be patently untrue.

If you don't know what you are doing in buying your stocks, then there risk, no matter how many stocks you hold.

Maybe I should rephrase my sentence, the majority of stocks in bursa is not rubbish, however majority of them provide average returns. Even if you were to invest 10 million in 20 stocks, if they are average stocks, you get average returns. Compounding will turn average returns into rubbish.

But well put together writing, I enjoyed reading it.

Cheers!

Comparing DKSH with another similar company Harrisons holdings I cant help but realize a few things:

1. both the companies are at a terminal value, the profits and revenues are both stagnating, with no growth triggers in place other than a population growth rate (and inflation rate). Basically, if you look at both companies, if you put inflation, GDP and interest rates into consideration, DKSH and Harrisions have basically been the same company. Stuck.

2. Both companies further exacerbate this by paying a huge amount of their profits as dividends. Your only play in buying these companies is not for the share price increase, but a measly 3.75% and 5.33%, as the money coming out as dividends show that they find no better way to invest in company growth.

3. There is however a silver lining. DKSH made an offer of 480 million for Auric. DKSH is punished by their debt fueled purchase of auric, and the market is punishing them as such. Whether this is unfair punishment, or a brilliant play, remains to be seen. I dont know how profitable the manufacturing of melange can be, or if DKSH can pivot its growth by doing VSS of unnecessary double entry of staff, but definitely doing something is better than doing nothing.

4. Anyone who buys DKSH just for a measly dividend is better off not investing in stock market. Anyone who buys a stock just because it seems lowly priced without understanding the long term effects of auric revenue/earnings generation is just a speculator.

Someone who can understand the logic of a company with a networth of 530 million paying 480 million for its value proposition growth in revenue and earnings in 5-10 years? Now thats called investing.

Yes, selling seafood, chickens, eggs and palm oil.

Basic business.

Wonderful management.

Try to name another competitor to QL in bursa malaysia market? with 10 billion market cap, 1.7 billion equity, 3.6 billion revenue and 200 million earnings and growing. Its paid out 420 million in dividends to its shareholders since 2009, its generated 1.77 billion in cash flows for its shareholders since 2009,

Best of all, it has grown earning at a CAGR rate of 9.7% since 2009.

I sleep well at night, especially knowing there is no other QL behind me, or another QL in front of me to fight with.

PE high estimate is also because of QL fundamentally strong business model with easily scalable economies with low chance of nasty surprises.

Same with Nestle, both businesses are in markets where the major competitors are clear and new upstarts long grounded to dust.

And its not like everyone is going to suddenly stop using palm oil, stop eating seafood, and stop eating chicken and eggs.

You would be surprised how many people are willing to invest heavily in stability.

Just ask EPF, they bought 410K shares in 16th january. Would you want you money to just suddenly disappear in stock market frenzy? Buy a boom/bust cycle like bumi armada?

Ok, can I lari kuat kuat from you? You are pretty toxic keep polluting every thread with your repetitive INSAS ideas. Best is if you move to INSAS thread and post everyday. I surrender, can't beat your long term investment strategy of 2 weeks say insas performance better than QL. Can you stop drowning everyone else with your spam and capslock. I get it, you are master of margin of safety. You have made millions doing your strategy.

Can we move on? I'm tired of listening to old broken record.

Funny how all of these jittery people are those who don't hold any shares. Anyone want to do IDSS? I don't mind lending to you with premium for me to do your speculative shorts.i win either way, if share price drops is cheaper for me to collect more.

Very interesting information probability, I had not anticipated such a requirement in my investing in yinson.

May I humbly ask if it is possible to redirect me to more information on this scrubber thing?

I would like to read further, it is very interesting requirement and would be very damaging to short term earnings of FPSO.

Hi Fabien, for SAM or any other company you need to understand where your growth is coming from, how much revenue they can generate, and most importantly what they will do with that growth. As 50% of their business is aerospace, its a very predictable and easily measured growth ( you can just compare how many planes are in the pipeline from Boeing and Airbus). The growth trigger is what they do with the other 50% of revenue, which is in sam precision and meerkat. I'd monitor my quarterly reports closely on the performance of those business units. If they dont grow well, I'd say you would reach terminal value pretty soon. you can have a pretty clear idea of the growth prospects of the aerospace portion of A320 neo,
the jigs manufacturing part, I dont know.

you can definitely keep you 3% dividend, while your stock price keep dropping. Its definitely a good deal I guess. I prefer long term stock price performance.

To each his own.

whats the difference? if you sell the stock what do you get? dividend and share sales gains.

if you sell insas shares? you get nothing from your so called "profit".

you prefer paper financials or real stock profits?
NESTLE ROE 100%, share price 2009-2019 from RM27 to RM147
QL ROE 11.8%, share price 2009 -2019 from 0.6 to 6.9 (post splits)
INSAS ROE 5.6%, share price 2009 - 2019 from 0.29 to 0.72

I dont care about your paper accounting, or you selling at the top and buying at the low, because we both know it is not possible to time the market.

You can keep your margin of safety and your calculations and your paper value. I want to know real cash values, real business performance, capability of a good management.

Buy and hold is not buy and forget. just because I dont panic sell like you and panic buy when finger itchy doesnt mean I dont know your paper logic.

Its like you telling me hengyuan is a good buy when you bought it at 10, sell at 15, then panic buy at 18, then hold with your paper losses until today. I just choose not to buy speculative companies.

Funny investing.

I buy cheap durable business I can easily understand AFTER it has reached vertical integration, making it much harder to disrupt. You try to disrupt QL business model see? tell me 1 company doing same thing as QL in bursa and doing it better. Or tell me one company similar to QL in bursa with better ROE.

I bought into topglove after it held a 18% share of the WORLD MARKET in gloves.

I bought into PBB after my wife told me so. Always listen to the wife. Oh it also has the best ROE in the market, for big banks.

I bought Yinson fully after it had pivoted from a lousy transportation company into a fully FPSO charter company, now 6th biggest FPSO in the world with 99% utilization rates, unheard of in the fpso market. just ask bumi armada.

For stoneco, I decided to buy it after reading that it has received merchant aquiring institution by the central bank of brazil. I wouldn't expect you to know what it means, except that it is now a full merchant bank entity with all the perks and access to the high table.


All i bought and held since 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013.

And now in 2019, I have 5 stocks in my portfolio. Stoneco is a small portion, around 200K shares done at USD19.

What have you done lately?

Dear Sslee,
I have been trying to tell you how to spot those companies in all my articles. You seem to be making the mistake that I am out to hunt down your beloved INSAS stock. I am not. I dont have any interest in your stock or its shareholders.

For your kind benefit, I am posting up 2 more articles on how to value a new company IPO via business sense (see if you can get the same analysis as me after reading boring prospectus of stoneco brazil), and how to understand a business using ROE and all the traditional metrics.

I hope you learn the lessons and apply them in your beloved stocks. If you still see the same thing (why a company like INSAS with ROE of 5.6% has a PE of 5.3), then I really have nothing further to share with you.

FYI, I bought QL back in 2009 when pe was 25+. But if I told you about it then, you would not be around in the investing world yet.

FFYI, I wouldnt put much stock on high dividend stocks that doesnt know how to grow properly. Hong leong industries is a great company with pe8 and a dividend yield of 5%, but if you bought it in 2009 until now, you would have realized its revenues has stagnated at 2bil range for a very long time, its share price have stagnated at 8+pe forever, and all you have to look forward to is a measly dividend of 5% every year with some share price increase. Amazon never paid a dividend, is it a bad company? it just compounds it better than you can.

>>>Sslee
Dear 3iii,
If everyone invests like you and Mr. Long then they would not be books on investment nor a stock exchange market for the simple reason that your way of investment will not generate any economic activities (No trading volume, no start up and no capital market) and no PE of 50 paying less than 1% dividend yield.

Also note that for financial systems, the system is easily replicable, but the government approvals and funding requirments are not. Best business to be in.

having said that, never ever buy into an IPO. It is still for idiots. It listed for 24 USD, and I bought it at 19. Go figure.

If INSAS is a growth stock, then I will eat my cat.

Ok, at least you have learned something. Which is good for everyone on i3. Good luck Stockraider.

Stockraider, do you think hengyuan can export the refined oil to Singapore, Vietnam and Thailand? If you can't send the oil out you can only sell to Malaysians. Do you think Malaysians will have explosive growth of fuel usage? Obviously not right. Then why do you think hengyuan price can go to 45?

But please understand one important thing, refining business is inverse of crude oil prices. It is their raw materials, therefore if oil prices go up, hengyuan will not be doing well. And if crude oil price stays low, hengyuan will do well.

Now ask yourself, now that crude oil is so low, in the future of next 5 years will the price of crude oil go down or up? Logic definitely states it will go up.

Do you buy?

After comparing all the refining stocks, I think hengyuan will do ok. The value will probably be more clear after all the plant work is done, but for now I think petronm is the better trading pick. But not for the reasons Stockraider is promoting.

If he thinks the definition of a bagger is simply a stock rising up 6 times in 6 months and crashing down to earth. That is not a bagger, that is speculation. You are looking for growth, which is far different.

Using historical and comparative analysis, and not some mumbo jumbo speculative crack spread calculation like stockraider, in Malaysia if you look at shell businesses you are expecting to see terminal value of 4.0 - 4.7 billion max sales per quarter after plant upgrade, with a earnings of 200 million per quarter, we are looking around earnings per share of around rm3 in the long run.

My general estimates within 5 years of situation revert to mean hengyuan Malaysia will be worth around rm12, although if hengyuan starts to find new business units or growth triggers appears, things will definitely change.

This is such a joke company. Anyone who buys the shares in this company deserves whatever is coming to them. You only need to visit xingquan to ask yourself a very simple question:

Why is a company whose revenues are in China, whose profits and cash is in China, whose products and systems you can't verify are in China, whose management can't even speak English or Malay want to IPO in Malaysia?

You can't find any information on their games their products in Malaysia. All they will do is keep cheating Malaysian investors by asking for warrants, share dilution, and close up shop when the scrutiny and music ends.

Investors beware, previous management learned from xidelang.

Everyone seems to forget terminal value when valuing a business. They seem to think business will grow forever.

But the truth is, if you read enough financial reports, you will realize trend,

A) companies just starting out and have high growth prospects, low earnings high pe
B) companies in mature growth stage with a piece of the market pie medium pe
C) companies slowing down, in risky time, or in sunset industries, low pe

The trick is to be able to understand how big the pie is and how much of it is feasible.

Banks in Malaysia are like b) hard to grow further, but huge moat and stable business

Companies like ql and yinson which were able to identify new business units and expanded organically with great success.

And finally companies like insas,leonhuat and johotin who have hit the maximum growth potential in their market, and not being able to pivot or expand new businesses successfully, end up stagnating.

As for comparison to johotin,
It was easy to see. Johotin was a one trick pony that has subpar management even from early on and just took advantage of market pricing on raw materials to make a profit. If it had branched out to property development back then like scientex, I might have given them benefit of doubt. If it had done vertical integration into final product retail, I would have been impressed. If it had expanded into Indonesia, Thailand or Philippines instead of Mexico, I would have been hopeful. Instead, what I saw was weak management decisions in growing their business. If you compare that to the actions gone by ql management, you would see they have similar starts, but you can guess the end results from their m&a activities.

Sometimes revenue and profit don't mean a thing, unless you have a plan for the long run.

Was ql expansion from feedmill into poultry into marine into palm oil into family Mart masterful? Yes and each time a big success. Will it be able to replicate its business overseas long term? Definitely. I can see a plan for ql to do 10 billion in ten years and 1 billion in profits.

What did johotin do to give anyone any confidence in its ability to grow its business long term? How much growth can you expect from johotin?

>>>
take a look at Johotin lah

In 2009, its revenue was RM100 mil. In 2018, its revenue RM400 mil. A 300% increase !!!

In 2009, its net profit was RM5 mil. In 2018, its net profit was RM25 mil. A 400% increase !!!

Did the market give it 50 times PER ? Nope, 14 times PER (which I think is fair)