7 people like this.

28 comment(s). Last comment by Orlando 2021-01-15 09:24

supersaiyan3

3,126 posts

Posted by supersaiyan3 > 2021-01-13 10:44 | Report Abuse

You are absolutely right, looking at their working can expose how they try to avoid giving high target price.

wkc5657

285 posts

Posted by wkc5657 > 2021-01-13 11:06 | Report Abuse

supervisor didn't review...hahaha.....

approve publish je...

Ben Tan

456 posts

Posted by Ben Tan > 2021-01-13 11:08 | Report Abuse

supersaiyan3, thank you for your comment.

This is actually one of the lowest quality analyst reports I have read. There are many problems with it beyond the seemingly random figures for profits they have given, including utilisation rates, exchange rate assumptions, and (what appear to be) ever-rising raw material prices until 2023! Really poor work.

Ben Tan

456 posts

Posted by Ben Tan > 2021-01-13 11:10 | Report Abuse

wkc5657, I would have hoped so, but this is not the case. The same report, with the same inputs, was released in December.

SteadyT

318 posts

Posted by SteadyT > 2021-01-13 11:41 | Report Abuse

Any idea what's the name of the analyst? A newbie?

Ben Tan

456 posts

Posted by Ben Tan > 2021-01-13 11:44 | Report Abuse

SteadyT, thank you for your comment.

I don't want to call out names (although the name is given in the report). I can only say that this analyst is not a newbie. I have seen reports of his dating back a few years.

GLNT

549 posts

Posted by GLNT > 2021-01-13 13:47 | Report Abuse

Few years experience is still a newbie. Aim for 10 years or more

Ben Tan

456 posts

Posted by Ben Tan > 2021-01-13 14:03 | Report Abuse

GLNT, thank you for your comment.

I will not argue on the definition of "newbie", but in my humble opinion someone with a few years of experience should not be allowed to make this amount of mistakes (if they were indeed mistakes).

Posted by BALANCE_VIEW > 2021-01-13 14:29 | Report Abuse

Ben, thank you for your effort to elaborate in detail.

I makes one wonder whether it is a genuine mistake or with malicious intention as the discrepancies are so so glaring !

gongkia

212 posts

Posted by gongkia > 2021-01-13 14:38 | Report Abuse

who cares about what they say :)

Ben Tan

456 posts

Posted by Ben Tan > 2021-01-13 14:44 | Report Abuse

BALANCE_VIEW and gongkia, thank you for your comments.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to know if it was done intentionally. Let's hope that as wkc5657 mentioned above, it might have been an oversight on the supervisor's side to approve the report for publication.

LaoTzeAhSir

1,304 posts

Posted by LaoTzeAhSir > 2021-01-13 14:44 | Report Abuse

Ambank, ptuih! shame on your analysts

Ben Tan

456 posts

Posted by Ben Tan > 2021-01-13 18:19 | Report Abuse

LaoTzeAhSir and GillianTan78, thank you for your comments.

GillianTan78, I assume your comment is related to my other article from today: https://klse.i3investor.com/blogs/bursainvestments/2021-01-13-story-h1539320832-Who_Is_the_Mysterious_Gloves_Short_Seller.jsp

I didn't want to comment on the actual notes from the report, because I hadn't seen the actual report. However, it does seem like JP Morgan have done their best to selectively present only bits and pieces of information that fit their narrative.

sikusiku

57 posts

Posted by sikusiku > 2021-01-13 19:25 | Report Abuse

Ben, it looks like AM Invest issued a revised edition of the report correcting the RM2.9 billion error for Top Glove.

https://klse.i3investor.com/blogs/AmInvestResearch/2021-01-13-story-h1539321796-Glove_Earnings_will_peak_in_1H2021.jsp

Funnily the updated report makes no mention of that error.

Up_again

949 posts

Posted by Up_again > 2021-01-13 19:27 | Report Abuse

Boycott their bank saja, senang

Ben Tan

456 posts

Posted by Ben Tan > 2021-01-13 19:35 | Report Abuse

sikusiku and Up_again, thank you for your comments.

sikusiku, I updated the article earlier to reflect that change. However, the change is minimal and doesn't explain the rest of the inconsistencies.

pjseow

2,264 posts

Posted by pjseow > 2021-01-13 20:51 | Report Abuse

Ben Tan , you ate right . Q1 2021 margin is already 50 %. With incressing ASP in Q2 and Q3 , the net margin should be higher than 50%. If the estimated revenue for 2021 is rm.25.6 billion , its net profit should be at least 12.8 billion assuming net margin of 50 %. Its prediction of 7.9 billion net profit is way off.

Andre Kua

420 posts

Posted by Andre Kua > 2021-01-14 08:34 | Report Abuse

Although I'm not a fan of gloves right now, if TG really failed to deliver >10b this year, I think the shares will tank.

>10b should be easy for TG unless vaccination reached 50% around the world by June.

The real challenge should be 2022 forward with the massive over capacity around the world.

Ben Tan

456 posts

Posted by Ben Tan > 2021-01-14 09:04 | Report Abuse

pjseow and Andre Kua, thank you for your comments.

pjseow, that is indeed the case, and that is what appears to be significantly off with the report of AmInvest. There is no explanation or justification as to why the profit margin is given at 30% instead of 50%. On the contrary, according to the report the profit margins are not expected to suffer (at least for this year).

Andre Kua, supply is expected to be running behind demand at least until year-end 2023, according to reports by Margma. Of course beyond that point there is little visibility. However, setting up of a glove manufacturing facility with a working production chain is a major undertaking, which has proven over the years to not be achievable for everyone. New entrants have significant disadvantages to established players.

Revenue for FY22 (ending August 2022 for Top Glove) is mostly locked in with delivery times stretching 560 days from now for nitrile gloves (the highest revenue segment).

dusti

2,404 posts

Posted by dusti > 2021-01-14 09:55 | Report Abuse

IF A REPORT IS SO FLAWED WHY BOTHER TO READ IT?

Ben Tan

456 posts

Posted by Ben Tan > 2021-01-14 10:34 | Report Abuse

dusti, thank you for your comment, but your logic escapes me. In order for me to know that the report is flawed, I would need to first read it.

dusti

2,404 posts

Posted by dusti > 2021-01-14 11:05 | Report Abuse

Ben , you know the author, intended assignment, 3 quarters year, entertaining comments most with spent arguments [only Gillian’s comments is relevant to me]. I hope you are not trying to save a flawed report. Really i would ask the author to remove the report, pronto!
Cheers stay safe and HAPPY

Ben Tan

456 posts

Posted by Ben Tan > 2021-01-14 11:07 | Report Abuse

dusti, thank you once again for your comment. I understand what you mean now. Unfortunately, the report has not been withdrawn, and I doubt it will be withdrawn. Hope is it will get edited soon.

paperplane

21,609 posts

Posted by paperplane > 2021-01-14 12:27 | Report Abuse

hehe

greenland

378 posts

Posted by greenland > 2021-01-14 16:58 | Report Abuse

Such a poor quality analysis without substance. Louzy

Posted by MonkeySeeMonekyDo > 2021-01-14 19:07 | Report Abuse

Start avoiding analyst!

VenFx

14,784 posts

Posted by VenFx > 2021-01-14 22:27 | Report Abuse

The bigger scam is , shud be by nominated SO CALL 'vaccine developers '
who knows its just glucose liquid in that small cylinders to ask huge block of monies from every countries.

All that monies flushed by G... at their rakyat s expenses.

Anal-ytic article its just the tip of the iceberg lah !

Orlando

4,828 posts

Posted by Orlando > 2021-01-15 09:24 | Report Abuse

Complain d bugger n IB to BURSA n SC for absent of duty of care n professionalism n maybe even something more sinister

Post a Comment
Market Buzz