This is indeed a rare case because no one can't 'own' the company at $1 bil when the EV is $1.6 bil.

But all the 5 actively managed funds offered by Pheim Unit Trust Bhd have failed to deliver 10% CAGR since 2002?

To become a full time investor is first to have the ability to accumulate and compound wealth, which means first is to focus on not losing over winning big, on what not to do over what to do. That is - not doing stupid things. Not doing stupid things translate to making good decisions over the long term. That require a huge dose of humility, to acknowledge the limit of ones knowledge, to know what you don't know. In other words, trade less, don't put ego in your position, and don't check the share price everyday. They sound simple, that's why it is call stupid things - because it is hard.

Just saying. I do agree with you on other points so I don't bring them up. Only raise those that is worth mentioning.

Just a few opinions:

1. I agree that one should be realistic with their return instead of taking on excessive risk. But even at 15-20% CAGR can be a risky proposition for most investors.

2. How well Calvin Tan is doing with his investment aside, it has nothing to do with how well asset play is in Bursa. Imagine saying "The 100 years old uncle next door has been smoking his entire life, therefore, smoking is harmless." Calvin Tan's portfolio is nothing but one sample size. The law of small number. Using this inductive reasoning to imply whether an investment strategy i.e asset play is effective is misleading. In addition, if Walter Schloss is still alive and investing today, chances are you are going to see lots of losses in his portfolio 90% of the time. As the name imply, asset play is a game of magnitude. Frequency, you are going to see losses most of the time, but the point of asset play or cigar butt if you want to call it that name is gains from a few stocks in the portfolio should more than enough to make up the losses of the majority. And if a majority people in i3 believe in Icon and start avoiding asset play from today, won't that make asset play more attractive with higher expected value?

3. While I agree there isn't many moat in M'sia compare to US, which is common sense, that is far from saying cyclical play is an 'easy' game for most investors. How many dip their toes in O&G play right before GE13 and get killed when the bust comes? How many people ride the boom on export/furniture stocks died in 2016? And to be frank, export stocks ain't 'cyclical', that's nonsense euphoria build on currency stupidity. Things always look obvious at hindsight. To add further point, most investors are trend followers rather than contrarian, what happens when a trend followers hit on cyclical stocks? That's the quickest way to die.

I think what many people isn't getting is that with the new government drive for more transparency and fair competition, most industries landscape is going to be even more competitive than ever before. Monopolies in certain industries might crumble, inefficient businesses that are previously limping by will go extinct, there will be winners i.e lowest cost manufacturers, efficient-run operators etc, but there will be a lot more losers. Far from saying new gov is bad to the economy. Conversely, it is beneficial to the overall economy because all the efficiencies get pass along to the consumers which improve their spending power. But what benefits the end users will make the business landscape more competitive and stock picking more challenging.

So much pessimism here

David Lim jump ship to Muda

So little hypothesis, let me generate a few more how HY will go up 100%

HY will go up 100% when:

1. Pakatan wins
2. BN wins
3. North Korea war fallout
3. North Korea peace talk success
4. Oil up $200
5. Oil down $30
6. Cryptocurrencies crashes
7. Cryptocurrencies surge
8. Fed raise rates
9. Fed didn't raise rates

Did I miss any local and global macroeconomic news? This is a good warmup. Conclusion: All are irrelevant.

现在是传奇，以后会是神话 - what kind of logic is this? What does a company that has increased it's share price by 75x in the past has anything to do with how well it will perform in the future? True, past track record is an indicator of the quality of the business, but far from saying you should hold it forever because it will always be good.

Take a look at the business. Cash flow from operation at $300 mil p.a for an EV of $9 bil. ROIC has dwindle from 13% 10 years ago to just below 10%. Uncle, before you ask, make sure you ask someone who can explain in logic.

I didn't know a company that rely on the correct political party to ensure its 'stability' is so called a good quality company.

***Advertisement***

Be sure to commune with the dead when you invest - http://musingzebra.com/commune-with-the-dead/

Most stocks with good ROIC are good stocks i.e Aeoncr, Hupseng, LPI.

At least 25 years? That should worth RM90

Welcome back Raider, RM90 soon.

Please buy, intrinsic value at least $90 based on asset alone according to raider.

To me there are actually 5 waves

Wave 1: Shock & Denial
Wave 2: Anger
Wave 3: Depression & Detachment
Wave 4: Dialogue & Barganing
Wave 5: Acceptance

Many went through these wave 1-4 over and over again until they reach the superwave 5, acceptance. In some case, that means death.

Half a year ago, many predicted the the price hitting beyond $20, before realizing themselves swimming naked; last week, many throw in the towel declaring no end in sight for the remaining year, but end up eating their own focking words; today, after swallowing their own words, they came back declaring the resurgence of the trend. Overconfidence fools chasing the markets.

Effort is always admirable. But the question always goes to - does accuracy of quarterly EPS estimation dictate high long-term return?

@sunztzhe is there such things as 'flush out weak hands'?

Fact: Share market volatility turn people into gamblers

When one didn't learn the lesson for the first time, that's forgivable; if not for the 2nd time, that's a fool.

Now everyone takes the fact that HY will 100% go up today. Illustrate the illusion of control and certainty. Worse, that speculative behaviour. This is how investors die. They can't control their emotion, but let emotion controls them. All it takes is for the wind to pick up, they will turn from depressive to euphoria, before long, back to depress again. This cycle will repeat until they 'die'

Someone confused between psychology and psychic reading, jesus

leslie you say that since the peak, so no doubt you will be proven right one day. Just as someone calling bear or bull for 10 years, eventually he will be right.

If you manage to read most of KYY articles on HY you will know facts and figures don't tell a shit. Fact and figures doesn't speak, it has to be presented by the person in the way that align with his own interest.

Half a year ago, when HY was roaring, KYY and many others will present you with positive facts i.e high crack spread, low P/E, high growth, earnings growing, and even comparing it to Nestle to emphasis the case.

Half a year later, with HY in a dramatically 'opposite' situation, KYY present you with the facts that earnings this year will not be as good, no growth prospect, low P/E is the past not future etc. So much for the facts that change in 6 months.

Get this. The facts (objective truth) rarely change in the span of 6 months. It is how the person choose to sing the tune. All of these facts are correct, there is no contradiction, future is inherently uncertain, it is just a matter which facts get presented. What has changed is the subjective confidence, not the objective truth. 6 months ago, everyone is hyped up by the share price, hence rosy stories are the way to justify it (human seek certainty). Today, it's the opposite. People sing different tune base on the movement of the share price. Therefore, breaking the rule: When calculating value to challenge the stock price, beware of using price in the calculation (by Stephen Penman). Share price can be a source of influence or a source of information. It has been a source of influence back then as it is right now.

Has the fundamental changed in 6 months? Perhaps, but I would say barely. But the sentiment certainly does, in 180 degrees. This goes back to something I stress about - you can have the all the facts and figures at the back of your hand, but it won't matter if you can't use what's between your ears. Learn how to think well will help you filter out many useless things and focus on what really matters.

@probability don't misunderstand. I never naysay HY. I only express my skepticism when someone tout RM90 valuation. There's a difference between those 2 things. If I naysay HY regardless of the price, then clearly, I am one of those dumb, that naysay for the sake of naysay, but I am not.

Now, there seems to be some concern that when someone doesn't hold any HY shares (someone like me), it stands to ask why is this person doing in HY forum? (HY forum never restricted non-HY shareholders to come in btw). But the concern lingers, why is he spending so much time here? What is his motive? Since, why waste the time here when there's better things to do? This suspicion is valid. But isn't the suspicion is just as applicable to the other side? Why is this HY holder keep talking about rosy future? Has he considered the risk? Did he conceal any potential downside that might impact the return? What are the facts he didn't tell me?

So there is a double standard. We don't question someone that has the same interest as us, only those that are standing on the opposite side of the fence. Whether a person hold HY shares or not is just a rule of thumb, just as P/E is a rule of thumb: it tells you nothing. Not holding HY share doesn't immediately qualifying that person as having bad motive. Truth be told, there are non-HY people here that talk in an objective way and some talk in a nonsense way. Same for HY shareholders, there are those that are objective while there are those that have no idea what they are talking about.

Good decision comes from knowing what to listen and what not to, stay open minded and not being an ignorant. You need opposing view as much as you need supporting view.

Back from Easter, did I miss anything?

"I will hard pressed them to make a commitment of better dividend in the future and meanwhile reward us the minority shareholders immediately with share split, bonus share, and free warrant?" - Again, all of these doesn't change the dynamic and add value at all.

IBs are the imaginary enemy. The biggest enemy is yourself.

A good article on growth and maintenance capex - http://csinvesting.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/A-Thorough-Discussion-of-MCX_Case-Study-and-Capital-Theory.pdf

@michaelwong, as far as my understanding about fundamental, it is something that ignore whether it is bull or bear (as if you can predict). Fundamentals is not designed to suit market sentiments, it is there as a defence against sentiments

Those that says 'this stock can't go below x price or above x price' are obviously has a lack of imagination, overconfidence, lack of fear or a combination of all. Those that are frequently surprised are the one that get kills first.

You can have great name, and a young WB as your profile pic, but you just can't buy temperament.

So from the looks of it, only a small portion of the 800mil is indeed maintenance, this is more for growth than maintenance. In that case, you can't say after spending 800m, there will way less than 200m capex in subsequent few years

major upgrade at 800mil posted some interesting question. Since for the past 10 years, the company never had such a big capex, does that mean Shell has been delaying maintenance hence required such a big upgrade now? Possibly but unlikely. If that isn't the case, does this 800m is anyway related to the assets already in place. Upgrade can really mean 'adding things' on top of existing assets, which is more of a growth capex than maintenance capex.

That would depends what that 800m is used for. If it is anything other than normal maintenance, 200m will still run every year and gets higher.

Hengyuan depreciation is sitting at RM200 mil a year, is that amount for capex ridiculous?

Economic moat tied to the location of the asset is considered as asset based moat. Example, if you setup a site near the quarry, you have a 'monopoly' in that location, because the quarry 500km is not going to be able to compete with you by stealing the business nearby. Limestone is heavy. But calling it moat will be misleading, at best, perhaps, competitive advantage.

For oil refining, to turn that into a location based advantage, there must be some form of lower cost that no one has access elsewhere. Lower cost can come along anywhere on the value chain. But is there really a moat? Far from it. Advantage? Maybe. I don't know.

If you can see a 'confirmed' downtrend, you should be able to see it end of last year before everything happens, rewind your memory, did you see one? If you didn't, how do you confirm now is a downtrend or more precisely, how big is it going to be? In Ubiquity, Mark Buchanan wrote the stock market follows the power law. Like a sand pile effect, there's no way to telling which grain can create a collapse and no one can know how big the effect can be. Same as stock market. It is always under a critical state. IF you think you can call a up or downtrend so easily, then that is no different from 'confidently with blind faith' either.

@noplayball - like I said, it comes down to your strategy. What I said doesn't suits anyone.

Let's break this down. What is a 'confirm' market downtrend? Can you see one coming? 2014 there was a brief so-called Bursa downtrend, if you sell in 2014 and wait for so-called uptrend, can you catch the market timing perfectly? Not many can. So I rather not play that game.

You are right, blind faith and hope is dangerous. But all stocks have risks. The risk is already there before you even enter the market. The risk is there even when you exit the market. Changing your action changes the risk itself. Do you really think 100% cash is risk free? There is risk too. Risk is not what happened to the market; it is how you respond to it that create risk.

So it is best you do your own research if you are looking for 7% yield. I can recommend you Lafarge, but you would think I'm insane.

You equate volatility as risky, that's why you got confused in the first place. Volatility is never a risk, unless you are trading.

I never said he is the smartest in the world, but in term of intrinsic value, I've a good accuracy as to what I need to believe. Thanks.

Your reply is precisely why you are confused about WB. WB got to where it is because he use the same method when he is a small investor like you.

@noplayball I think you are confused by WB's rule. He is risk averse not risk avoidance.

So the advice is time the market, good luck

Well you have the right to disagree what you don't believe, just as no one will always agree with you. Take volatility, I don't care one bit of it.

You are right, the ability to withstand pain is only half true, first the investor has to get his assessment of the stock correct. Same as stop loss for traders. If your strategy is unsound, no amount of stop loss will save you because you'll just keep getting yourself into unwise decisions. But when everything is done right, holding power matters a lot.

Well I can't talk for them. They have their own way of doing things, no right or wrong, but investors learning 2nd level thinking is the only way to go.

This is the misconception of IV. IV is not a precise number. While many does put it in the form of exact dollar and cents, it should be a range. Why should it be a range? Because we are forecasting, we are dealing with uncertain future; we are dealing with luck and so on. The bigger the range of possible outcome of a company, in this case, young company or startup, the bigger the range of IV should be. That doesn't mean IV is useless. It is just reality.

If you ask me to guess the age of a stranger and to me, he looks like in his 40s, I can say im fairly certain (90%) he is within 40-49 years old. I cannot be precisely because I can be wrong, but that doesn't make my estimation invalid.

Similarly, if you ask me to guess the age of a giraffe, I would be fairly certain (90%) the giraffe is between 1-100 years old. I need that big range to be 90% certain because I know nothing about giraffe. IF I were to guess the giraffe to be 10-20 years old, my confidence will be below 10%, because I'll be wrong most of the time.

Same thing with stocks. The more stable the company is, based on the nature of business, industry dynamic, operation etc; the more you know about the company, the range of IV will be small. In contrast, a stock you are not familiar with, that is young will no track record, operating in a competitive industry, will need a very wide range of IV to accommodate the uncertainty of its nature. That's just how it should be.

IV shouldn't be used as an tool to fool ourselves by being ignorant, it is a tool that says "I know I can be wrong, that's why there it is a range, and that's my confidence interval'