Posted by kcchongnz > 2013-03-17 19:10 | Report Abuse
I will start with the first one, Kumpulan Fima
Yardstick 1: ROE
Kumpulan reported an earnings of 81m, or EPS 30.5 sen for the year ended 31/3/2012. With its net asset backing per share of 2.07, ROE is about 15.5%, good.
Yardstick 2: Cash flow and free cash flow
The cash flow from operations (CFFO) is 131m. This is 110% of its earnings of 116.5m. This shows its good quality of the earnings. After spending 26.4m in capital expenses, there is a free cash flow (FCF) of 105m left which Kfima used to reduce debts, pay dividends etc. This FCF is very high at 22% (>>5%) of its revenue. In fact this magnitude of FCF has been consistent in the last few years.
Yardstick 3: PER
Kfima is trading at 1.85 at the close of 15/3/2013. With EPS of 30.5 sen, the PE ratio is only about 6. Is this PE high or low, bearing in mind of its good quality earnings as reflected in its cash flow?
Yardstick 4: Dividend yield
Kfima paid a dividend of 8 sen for the last financial year, or a dividend yield of 4.4%, higher than the FD rate. This dividend is paid through the FCF, not from borrowings or additional share issues. And what do you think of its likely future dividend in view of its abundant FCF, higher or lower?
Yardstick 5: NTA
The net asset backing per share of Kfima is 2.07 compared to its price of 1.85. Half of its assets, or about RM1.00 is hard cash. Don’t you think Kfima has quality asset backing?
Kfima seems to meet all the criteria of Cold Eye as an investment. Isn’t it hard to find such a company in Bursa. No wonder Cold Eye said below when somebody asked him about kfima on 16/3/2013 in his presentation.
KFIMA 千万别卖(看清楚,不是“买”)
Posted by chieng8182 > 2013-03-17 19:34 | Report Abuse
mean kfima canot buuy now? wat the reason? wait after pru?
Posted by chieng8182 > 2013-03-17 19:58 | Report Abuse
kfima 是一家很好的公司
要买一家公司
需要的是足够的safety margin(也就是market value<intrinsic value)
kfima目前市值5亿
total equity:8亿
share capital :2.67亿
share premium:0.16亿
other reseve:0.87亿
retained earning:2.2亿
non controlling interest:2.15亿
在这里丐帮特别强调non controlling interest
如果excluded non controlling interest
kfima的equtiy只有5.94亿
market capitalization是5亿
total equity excluded (non controlling interest)是5.84亿
assume that我们估计kfima的intrinsic value是5.84亿
那么是否以市值5亿的价格买入是否有足够的safety margin吗?
如果included non controlling interest
kfima的intrinsic value大约8亿
non controlling interest会导致consolidated statement变得很漂亮
从而误导投资者
所以在分析年报,要特别小心,留意每个字眼
共勉之
by丐帮小子
Posted by chieng8182 > 2013-03-17 19:59 | Report Abuse
i copy and paste from 丐帮小子. is it non controlling interest important?
Posted by ccs999 > 2013-03-17 20:18 | Report Abuse
KFIMA 千万别卖 = Please dont sell KFIMA = HOLDING.....
This should be the good sign right?
Posted by kcchongnz > 2013-03-18 02:55 | Report Abuse
hw0706 or anyone, want to try using the 5 yardsticks to evaluate DHSH as an investment? We can discuss about it.
Posted by kcchongnz > 2013-03-18 14:15 | Report Abuse
ECS ITC. Does this meet the 5 yardsticks of Cold Eye as an investment?
Yardstick 1: ROE
ECS reported an earnings of 29m, or EPS 16.6 sen for the year ended 31/3/2012. With its net asset backing per share of 1.04, ROE is 15.9%. this is substantially more than 10%, good.
Yardstick 2: Cash flow and free cash flow
The cash flow from operations (CFFO) is 22.2m. This is 74% of its earnings of 29.9m. This shows the quality of the earnings not so good. After spending 2.1m in capital expenses, there is a free cash flow (FCF) of 20.1m left which ECS used pay dividends of 15m. This FCF is at 1.6% (<5%) of its revenue. The nature of this business, especially in trading of technology products is low in margin and in FCF relative to revenue. Overall cash flow and free cash flow is not that satisfactory.
Yardstick 3: PER
ECS is trading at 1.04 at the close of this morning’s trading. With EPS of 16.6 sen, the PE ratio is only 6.3. this is a reasonably low PE and hence good price to buy.
Yardstick 4: Dividend yield
ECS paid a dividend of 8.3 sen for last year, or a dividend yield of 7.7%, about twice the FD rate. Very good indeed.
Yardstick 5: NTA
The net asset backing per share of ECS is 1.04. Hence at a share price of 1.04, the price-to-book value is 1. It is inexpensive. 40% of its assets is hard cash.
ECS meets 4 or the 5 criteria of Cold Eye as an investment. Hence it is a good investment as recommended by Cold Eye.
Posted by Desmond Liew > 2013-03-18 14:18 | Report Abuse
how many rules of trading are there by TA??
Posted by gark > 2013-03-18 15:21 | Report Abuse
How come no one look at future growth? That should be a major consideration as well isn't it? Should look at historical growth and possible future growth.
Graham prefer companywhich at least double in PBT every 7 years...
Fong Siling left this one out?
Posted by kcchongnz > 2013-03-18 15:47 | Report Abuse
Yes, Cold Eye did not take into account the important aspect of growth. Philip Fisher has placed great emphasis on this. I guess Cold Eye could have viewed the forecast of future growth is not an easy task to do as past records showed that even professional analysts had failed miserably in this. The other thing which I consider very import is the credibility of the management; are they truthful and honest? Are they fulfilling their fiduciary duty of protecting the interest of the shareholders. One more thing is whether the company has a record of consistency in operating history in its earnings and cash flow.
Posted by gark > 2013-03-18 16:03 | Report Abuse
If we do not even look at growth, we could be stuck in a value trap, where the business is stagnant or declining, while you wait and wait for the next catalyst that may never come. Can see but cannot touch...
Yes it is futile to predict future growth, but even WB and Graham concedes that an investment must have potential future growth to be eligible for investment.
Posted by kcchongnz > 2013-03-18 16:25 | Report Abuse
One of Warren Buffet's 12 tenets is:
"Does the business have a long-term prospect?"
My opinion is that you can construe this as a growth prospect, or just simply that this business can sustain long-term without real growth.
Say for example a consumer produce company which has its market only in Malaysia and its product is well accepted by the consumers here, and it will continue to do so, except that real growth is stagnant; ie it only grows according to the rate of inflation. It earns 10 sen a share and distributes all its earnings as dividend. It is selling at 50 sen now, hence a PE of 5. No growth, low PE, would you consider the stock is a value trap?
Posted by gark > 2013-03-18 16:44 | Report Abuse
There are two types of growth...
Organic growth means growth in company either due to more people using the product or cost efficiency which creates growth. There is growth, but at a slow and steady rate as consumption increase. This is what WB means by long term prospect.
External growth means using external elements (new business, take over, merger etc) to generate growth. These can be fast growth but usually is not steady.
If a business is making 10 cent/share now and in 10 years time will also make 10 cents/share. Do you think, although at PE 5, the price will go up? More like the price will be relative stagnant, and your returns get eaten by inflation. 10 cents now and 10 cents 10 year later does not have the same buying power. This is a classic value trap.
Posted by gark > 2013-03-18 16:48 | Report Abuse
Definition of Value trap...
A stock that appears to be cheap because the stock has been trading at low multiples of earnings, cash flow or book value for an extended time period. Stock traps attract investors who are looking for a bargain because these stocks are inexpensive. The trap springs when investors buy into the company at low prices and the stock never improves. Trading that occurs at low multiples of earnings, cash flow or book value for long periods of time might indicate that the company or the entire sector is in trouble, and that stock prices may not move higher.
Posted by iafx > 2013-03-18 17:09 | Report Abuse
u r assuming same group of ppl using same method to select & trade a stock in the entire market - then maybe u r right. but in reality, (esp as cross border trading emerge) the scenario: "business is making 10 cent/share now and in 10 years time will also make 10 cents/share. Do you think, although at PE 5," will means different things according to the trader's portfolio (e.g. Aberdeen won't bother but low risk unit trust probably like it). For instance, there r ppl who see no liquidity counter in msia as "safe" & "potential", but the same perception will fall wrong in fast moving market
any view drawn fr papers r juz assumption, that's for sure :)
Posted by kcchongnz > 2013-03-18 17:10 | Report Abuse
Actually I was talking about real growth. When real growth is zero, it means the earnings grows according to the rate of inflation. The 10 sen dividends i assume is also growing at the rate of inflation, no "real" growth. But never mind, I just take your example of a stock makes 10 sen nominal earnings (not real earnings) for the next 10 years. It distributes all its earnings as dividend each year. It is selling at 50 sen now and also I take your word that the price will stay at 50 sen 10 years later when you sell it. Further assume that the inflation rate is 5%. all earnings eaten up by inflation? A classic value trap?
Try using your financial calculator or excel spreadsheet to find what is the present value of these cash flows with the data provided above. Is it more than the 50 sen you pay? Actually the annual compounded return is 15%, much much higher than the inflation rate or the long-term return of the stock market. Can it be eaten up by inflation? Really a value trap?
Posted by iafx > 2013-03-18 17:18 | Report Abuse
this is simple npv & irr u r talking about, no need to be so "mystery". there is a common flaw in yr statement, which can b solved by mirr (on paper)
Posted by kcchongnz > 2013-03-18 17:31 | Report Abuse
iafx, r u sure you know what am I talking about? I was talking about present value and not npv and irr. You know what's the difference or not? Eh, want to have a marathon "discussion" on npv, irr, mirr or not? Eh, don't cabut again like last time, "put char" woh!
Posted by kcchongnz > 2013-03-18 17:43 | Report Abuse
Posted by iafx > Mar 18, 2013 05:09 PM | Report Abuse
u r assuming same group of ppl using same method to select & trade a stock in the entire market - then maybe u r right. but in reality, (esp as cross border trading emerge) the scenario: "business is making 10 cent/share now and in 10 years time will also make 10 cents/share. Do you think, although at PE 5," will means different things according to the trader's portfolio (e.g. Aberdeen won't bother but low risk unit trust probably like it). For instance, there r ppl who see no liquidity counter in msia as "safe" & "potential", but the same perception will fall wrong in fast moving market
any view drawn fr papers r juz assumption, that's for sure :)
Eh, we are talking about fundamental way of investing, Here we just pick Cold Eye's way and discuss about them. Who are talking about punting and trading woh? Yeah, I know you won't understand what we are talking about one, knowing you so well. Nut don't bring other things here. Trader's portfolio? Aberdeen? You know about these meh? No liquidity again? How many times you ridiculed me on this already? Haven;t I show you that stocks with no liquidity can also earn extra-ordinary return. Want me to show you more? But you haven't show me anything yet woh! How?
Posted by kcchongnz > 2013-03-18 19:05 | Report Abuse
iayah iafx ah, I know you "put char" one lah. You only bark, use all kinds of degrading terms on me many times; Bullshit lah, tau-fu lah, copy and paste lah, stupid lah, flaw lah etc etc, but you never substantiate anything. Each time I confront you, you cabut and became an MIA. I challenged you a few times to discuss about finance and investment, and without fail, you cabut again? Do you really have any substance or not despite you repeatedly ridicule me? Wah this time talk about npv, irr, some more mirr woh. But I challenged you again to discuss about these, you also gone missing again. Why ah? You really know anything or not like how you ridicule others? Not only me. Ok lah I know you have no balls to discuss with me online on npv, irr, or mirr or any other finance and investment stuff. Let discuss what you seem to know best; no liquidity of stock. These are the stocks I hold. You can check that in i3investor. They are all not liquid. I am not saying that they are the best stocks, of even the upper quartile of good stocks. Now tell me which one is so bad. There are if you know how to find and evaluate. Nobody can have 100% stocks which make money. Of course we have to talk about short-term and long-term.
1. Kumpulan Fima
2. Pintaras Jaya
3. ECS ICT
4. Plenitude
5. Jobstreet
6. Pantech
7. SKPRes
8. NTPM
9. Kimlun
10. Prestariang
I will start with an example, Pintaras which you have been criticizing like a broken record before. Here is its performance. Tell me if it is so bad like you said. Hint to you in case you don't know how to interpret, compare it with a bench mark.
Pintaras 2.92
Period 2-week 6-month 1 year 2-year 3 year 4 year 5 year
Price 2.85 3.01 2.58 2.01 1.60 1.02 1.30
Return of stock 2.5% -3.0% 13.2% 45.3% 82.5% 186.3% 124.6%
CAR 88% -5.9% 13.2% 20.5% 22.2% 30.1% 17.6%
CAR means compounded annual growth rate. If you don't understand this term, I can explain to you, no problem.
Now your turn. Hey don't cabut again and again ah! Chose few from my list and hantam.
Posted by iafx > 2013-03-18 19:50 | Report Abuse
ladies & gentlemen, see the true faces of kcchongnz above, very constructive, very gentleman, undisputable of cos :D cold eye didn't take into account of growth aspect?? omg!
never buy on tips, these con men wrote long story to cover their trace, use wonderful technical word copied fr books/www, so they can sell high to u!
pls don't change acct to attack me, am not a pity petty boy like u ;D
Posted by choolooi > 2013-03-18 22:27 | Report Abuse
Buy Pantech at 71 sen , can have some cash for nasi kandar
Posted by houseofordos > 2013-03-19 00:21 | Report Abuse
kcchongz, what is your opinion on CSCSteel ? Steel stocks are in a downtrend now and this company seems to be the most financially stable one among all the steel counters. At current price of RM1.2, no debts with cash/share of RM0.62. Margins have been squeezed in recent years due to influx steel from China.
This stock meets criteria 4 and 5 set by author of this thread.
Posted by kcchongnz > 2013-03-19 04:09 | Report Abuse
Posted by iafx > Mar 18, 2013 07:50 PM | Report Abuse
ladies & gentlemen, see the true faces of kcchongnz above, very constructive, very gentleman, undisputable of cos :D cold eye didn't take into account of growth aspect?? omg!
ME; aRE MY COMMENTS IN I3INVESTOR MORE CONSTRUCTIVE OR YOURS ARE MORE CONSTRUCTIVE? WHO USED DEGRADING WORDS LIKE BULLSHIT, COPY FROM BOOKS, INTERNET, CONMAN ETC (STILL USING IT HER?) BY COULDN'T SUBSTANTIATE A THING OF WHAT HE ACCUSED? SO WHO IS MORE 'UNGENTLEMAN' THEN? YOU COMMENT ON COLD EYE FOR NOT CONSIDERING GROWTH ASPECT, USING THE WORD OMG? WELL WELTH WISE I DON'T KNOW AND DON'T CARE, BUT KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE YOU CAN'T EVEN SMELL HIS FART. WHO ARE YOU TO CRITICIZE HIM?
never buy on tips, these con men wrote long story to cover their trace, use wonderful technical word copied fr books/www, so they can sell high to u!
ME: THE LIST I GAVE IS REALLY NOTHING. IN FACT ONE TIME I ASKED FOR INVESTMENT RETURN FROM FORUMERS IN I3 HERE, MANY HAVE DONE MUCH BETTER THAN MY STOCKS. IT IS TRUE. I POSTED MY ANALYSIS ON SOME OF THEM, YOU ACCUSED EM AGAIN, SAME THING, LONG STORY TO COVER THE TRACE, WONDERFUL TECHNICAL TERM WORDS COPIED FROM BOOKS ETC. COULD YOU SUBSTANTIATE IT? i AM STILL WAITING, MONTHS ALREADY FOR YOUR SUBSTANTIATION, WHERE I COPIED FROM ETC. SO HOW AH? TRYING TO SELL HIGH TO YOU, OR TO I3 FORUMERS HERE? I TOLD YOU I RARELY TALK ABOUT SHARE PRICE BUT JUST FUNDAMENTALS. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS FORUM HERE? CAN'T TALK ABOUT FUNDAMENTALS? MUST TALK LIKE YOU DO? CAN SOMEBODY BELIEVE TALKING ABOUT THE FUNDAMENTALS OF STOCK WILL ENTICE PEOPLE HERE TO BUY BIG AND JACK UP THE SHARE PRICE?
pls don't change acct to attack me, am not a pity petty boy like u ;D
ME; I CHANGE ACCOUNT, USE MULTIPLE ACCOUNT TO ATTACK YOU? SUBSTANTIATE YOU ACCUSATIONS. LET OTHERS YOU ACCUSED OF KNOW ABOUT IT. AGAIN YOU FAIL ON THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN. DO I REALLY ATTACK PEOPLE BESIDES DEFENDING MYSELF FROM MALICE ACCUSATIONS?
Posted by Ooi Teik Bee > 2013-03-19 07:43 | Report Abuse
KCchongnz is very good in FA, no question about it. I am not that good but I am smart to learn from him.
Please do not upset and pass uncalled remarks on him. Let us learn from him to be a better investor. The main purpose here is to make money, make full use of his resources and learn good knowledge from him will surely be able to make good return from our investment.
Thank you for your understanding. I want to learn from him.
Posted by Ooi Teik Bee > 2013-03-19 07:48 | Report Abuse
I also agree growth is the most important criteria in selection of stock, I will not buy this stock if there is no growth for next few years even the PE is low.
Stock market is talking growth and growth, future growth is the most important criteria to select a stock.
Posted by pathew > 2013-03-19 08:54 | Report Abuse
I don't know about others, but kcchongnz's comments are always insightful! I have learnt alot from him and he is not stingy on info. Definitely have benefitted from his analysis.
Also, he doesn't make recommendations that is not substantiated with facts. Please don't flame good people, we are all here to learn from each other.
Thank you for your kind understanding
Posted by Peter Lee > 2013-03-19 10:43 | Report Abuse
learn a lot from kcchongzs,a trustable guy,tq
Posted by kcchongnz > 2013-03-19 12:54 | Report Abuse
Posted by houseofordos > Mar 19, 2013 12:21 AM | Report Abuse
kcchongz, what is your opinion on CSCSteel ? Steel stocks are in a downtrend now and this company seems to be the most financially stable one among all the steel counters. At current price of RM1.2, no debts with cash/share of RM0.62. Margins have been squeezed in recent years due to influx steel from China.
This stock meets criteria 4 and 5 set by author of this thread.
If CSC meets 4 out of the 5 yardsticks of Cold Eye, my opinion is this company would not bring you to Holland. I owned this stock before 3-4 years ago. I bought it because the company gave very high dividend, closed to 10% dividend yield at that time. Luckily I sold it off. If you look at its long and short term return as shown below, CSC did very poorly.
CSC 1.21
Period 2-week 6-month 1 year 2-year 3 year 4 year 5 year
Price 1.19 1.22 1.40 1.65 1.50 1.70 1.12
Return of stock 1.7% -0.8% -13.6% -26.7% -19.3% -28.8% 8.0%
CAR 54% -1.6% -13.6% -14.4% -6.9% -8.1% 1.6%
You can see now that high dividend yield stock doesn't mean it will give you good total return on investment. Quite the contrary in this particular case. I personally don't like this industry. Earnings is volatile. Demand of steel is cyclic. It requires high capital expenses. Yeah yeah yeah, it is also no growth industry.
Posted by Steve Jub > 2013-03-19 13:30 | Report Abuse
Hi kcchong, what do u think of some stock which is extremely high ROE, example BAT, DLADY, DIGI and Maxis. Although their Dividend yield might be so high but their ROE is extremely high. Some counters has very high dividend yield but ROE normal only. Which one will you focus? Higher ROE or higher dividend yield?
Posted by kcchongnz > 2013-03-19 15:08 | Report Abuse
steve, I just talked about high dividend yield doesn't necessary provide you with high total return as shown in the above post about CSC. Remember, total return of share investment includes dividend and share price appreciation. Just figure this way, if a company gives up most of its cash from operations as dividend and spend little money in capital investment, how do you expect the company to grow its business? Tell me, what do you do with the dividend given to you? Consume it now? Have a nice holiday? Keep it in bank deposit and what is the interest does the bank give you? Yes I prefer high ROE. If the company retain more money for its business instead of distribute out as dividend, and the increment amount of money retained also earn a high return of equity, say at 15% or more. Isn't it better to reinvest in the company rather than take the dividend and deposit in bank and earns just 4%? If the return of equity of the business is say 3%, why would I want to reinvest my my money and earn that miserable return?
Take the example of BAT you mentioned. ROE is 165%, damn high isn't it? Some business makes money not just from the physical assets it has, but from other things like moat of barrier of entry, brand name, the human assets not shown in the balance sheet etc. That is how BAT got such high ROE as the "equity" is light in relation to its revenue and earnings. Besides it also cleverly use leverage to amplify its ROE. Same as Dutch Lady, Berjaya Toto and others.
Why does BAT pays out all its earnings or free cash flow as dividend. Since it has high ROE? Why not reinvest the cash into the business. They can't. There is no more scope to use its money to expand its business. It can't provide you with the same 165% return of equity on the new money you want to put in. Hence they distribute all its earnings to shareholders. so this type of company typically has high ROE and high DY. Companies with high dividend yield but normal ROE shows that the management does the right thing. Since they can't earn you good with your equity, might as well distribute out most of the money to you as dividend and you can decide on what better way to invest your money. Make sense?
Posted by iafx > 2013-03-19 15:16 | Report Abuse
non-sense! cigarette a controlled product in m'sia, bat roe is juz paper value, does not reflect the actual OPERATING CONTEXT of such industry in msia. do u know where does bat source tobacco in msia, for instance, how much sin tax given to gov.
Posted by Steve Jub > 2013-03-19 15:20 | Report Abuse
@kcchong, wow, okay, thanks for your thoughts and insights :)
Posted by millionaire > 2013-03-19 15:26 | Report Abuse
well said gark and iafx, thanks
Posted by kcchongnz > 2013-03-19 15:46 | Report Abuse
No woh, how many times I have clarified that I am just a armchair investor who doesn't know all. All questions here should be directed to iafx, the knowledgeable person here in investment. My humble opinion nonsense meh? You tell me why nonsense because I don't know what are you trying to say in your posting. "How much sin tax BAT pays?" Well I only know they pay 257m tax last year. After the tax they have 798m net profit. So the ROE is still 165%. Yeah of course this value is on paper, so what are you trying to say?
Posted by kcchongnz > 2013-03-19 17:51 | Report Abuse
The power of arbitrage
[Gark: If a business is making 10 cent/share now and in 10 years time will also make 10 cents/share. Do you think, although at PE 5, the price will go up? More like the price will be relative stagnant, and your returns get eaten by inflation. 10 cents now and 10 cents 10 year later does not have the same buying power. This is a classic value trap.]
The stock above (S) earns 10 sen every year and sells at 50 sen, a PE ratio of 5. It still earns 10 sen a share 10 years later, no growth, not even grow with inflation. Will the share price of S goes up? Or rather it is a value trap? That is the question.
If there is such a stock (S) exists, I will borrow RM500,000 from bank to buy 1,000,000 shares of S. Say the interest rate is 5% and hence annual interest payment is RM25,000. I get a dividend of 10 sen per share a year as the company pays out all its earnings, leaving no money for growth. So I get a dividend of RM100,000 each year. I use one quarter of the dividend, i.e. RM25,000 to pay the interest to the bank . I pocket RM75,000, “kon lou”, meaning earning RM75,000 net a year, every year. At the end of 10 years, I sell off S and get a proceed of RM500,000 (The share still sell at 50 sen, or a PE of 5). I use this proceed to pay back all my debt to the bank.
So I come out with no money, just borrow from bank. Each year I earn RM75,000 for 10 years. Do you think this stock S will be a value trap? Do you really think the stock price will stay at 50 sen?
The thing is whether to buy a stock or not is not whether it has high growth or not; it is the price of growth. Many people pay too high a price for growth but it has been proven statistically that the expected high growth does not materialized. On the other hand, if there is no growth for a stock, but if you can get it at a high margin of safety, you make extra-ordinary return.
Posted by kcchongnz > 2013-03-20 10:16 | Report Abuse
Cold Eye’s yardsticks for APM Financial year ended 31/12/2013
Yardstick 1: ROE
APM reported an earnings of 113.6m for the common shareholders, or EPS 56.4 sen for the year ended 31/12/2012. With its net asset backing per share of 4.40, ROE is 12.8%. Not bad at all if we take into consideration that the ROE was achieved with no debts.
Yardstick 2: Cash flow and free cash flow
The cash flow from operations (CFFO) is 142m. This is 114% of its earnings of 125.2m. This shows the quality of the earnings is good. After spending 48m in capital expenses, there is a free cash flow (FCF) of 94.2m left which APM has already announced that they are going to pay dividends of 64.5m, or 32 sen per share. This FCF is at 8% (<5%) of its revenue which is good. Overall APM’s cash flow and free cash flow are excellent.
Yardstick 3: PER
APM is trading at 4.96 today. With EPS of 56.4 sen, the PE ratio is only 8.8 (<10). This is a reasonably low PE and considering that it is a debt free company and hence low risk.
Yardstick 4: Dividend yield
APM announced that it is going to pay a dividend of 32 sen for last financial year, or a dividend yield of 6.5%, close to twice the FD rate. Very good indeed.
Yardstick 5: NTA
The net asset backing per share of APM is 4.40. Hence at a share price of 4.96, the price-to-book value is 1.1 (<1.5). It is inexpensive. 43% of its assets is hard cash.
APM meets all criteria of Cold Eye as an investment grade stock. For those who is going to harp on its ill-liquidity, the table below shows its long and short-term return from 2 weeks to 5 years.
APM 4.96 20/03/2013
Period 2-week 6-month 1 year 2-year 3 year 4 year 5 year
Price 5.00 4.96 4.40 4.85 3.00 1.50 2.00
Return of stock -0.8% 0.0% 12.7% 2.3% 65.3% 230.7% 148.0%
CAR -19% 0.0% 12.7% 1.1% 18.2% 34.8% 19.9%
Dividend 0 2.5% 4.3% 3.1% 3.3% 8.0% 5.0%
Stock price appreciation -19% -2.5% 8.4% -2.0% 14.9% 26.8% 14.9%
If one has held this share for 5 years, his return on investment is 148%, or of a compounded annual return of 20%, double that of the return of the market. Revenue and earnings has grown from 7% and 16% respectively from 5 years ago.
Oh I just bought this stock not long ago, but I am not asking anyone to buy so that I can sell him high.
Posted by gark > 2013-03-20 10:26 | Report Abuse
kcchong,
You of all people should know to avoid leverage. Leverage cuts both ways, if things is rosy of course your returns will be extraordinary. But if there is a 'black swan' event, you will lose it all. There is no 100% risk free investment, but you can only minimize the risk.
Look at this way, what if the company that we have been discussing at low PE, gives high dividend and have some reasonable growth. Won't that be a much better prospect? These stocks do exist but less recognized by the market until a catalyst comes along.
I don't advocate chasing growth stocks, but a fisher/graham method in which margin of safety + growth will produce tremendous results.
Posted by gark > 2013-03-20 10:32 | Report Abuse
Oh and the stocks you have listed, you do have margin of safety stocks with growth attached.. but not all of it. I won't mention those stocks since I have some of it as well.
Commenting on APM, the last 3 quarters shows declining margin and EPS. Sales have been stagnant for the past 2 years or so. Although it is compelling, i see more risk forward than reward.
For the share price appreciation the biggest growth is in year 2009-2010 where they increase the EPS (growth) at a very fast paced rate.
Posted by gark > 2013-03-20 10:41 | Report Abuse
Don't get me wrong, kcchongnz, i value your analysis, but each of our brains works differently, hence we might have different opinion. Since this is a discussion board, we will put in our views as well.
But I agree that personal attacks are not warranted.
Posted by kcchongnz > 2013-03-20 10:53 | Report Abuse
gark: [Look at this way, what if the company that we have been discussing at low PE, gives high dividend and have some reasonable growth. Won't that be a much better prospect? These stocks do exist but less recognized by the market until a catalyst comes along.
I don't advocate chasing growth stocks, but a fisher/graham method in which margin of safety + growth will produce tremendous results.]
gark, don't misunderstand me. I agree with your above statement 100%. If you do read my analysis and valuation of companies so far, you will notice that I used a growth assumption (I always use conservative assumption) to find the intrinsic value of the company, and growth is a major assumption which drives the value of a company. I also agree with you that these kind of stocks do exist. I always try to find these type of stocks and they are normally not covered by analysis, low liquidity, few people talk about. But it is really hard to find.
The example of the hypothetical stock, S, we are discussing about we both assume that "The stock earns 10 sen every year and sells at 50 sen, a PE ratio of 5. It still earns 10 sen a share 10 years later, no growth, not even grow with inflation." is straight forward. It assumes the cash flow is fixed, no uncertainty, for example a consumer product everybody uses and not expected future competition. It is also like a bond giving you the future cash flow. Looking at my posting of "The power of arbitrage", don't you also want to put as much money as possible and earn the risk-free high return? We assume the cash flow is fixed, no uncertainty etc, remember. If the cash flow is uncertain, then it is another story.
Leverage is a double-edge sword, no doubt about it. Do you notice that most public listed companies borrow money,or leverage, to do business? Why don't they use all equity then? In the low interest rate environment now, debt is cheap (5-6%) where as the required return of equity holders are higher. I would want a minimum return of 10%-12% to invest in stock. Leverage amplifies return to equity holders if the business has a record of producing good earnings and cash flow. Have you ever wonder those companies with good cash flow like BAT, Maxis, BerjayaToto, YTL Power etc borrow so much money? But of course there is a limit to leverage, too high leverage makes the company risky, especially for those companies with not much cash flow, free cash flow in particular.
Posted by kcchongnz > 2013-03-20 11:00 | Report Abuse
gark, we are the very few who are looking at fundamentals of companies. That makes us of the same "gang". Yes, we have different opinion. I don't know how many times I have said I like constructive criticisms and I am always looking forward for them. Yours are some of the few. I appreciate them. That would curb my cognitive bias of over-confidence which is not good for me in investing in the stock market. Hope we can exchange knowledge more often.
Posted by oldman > 2013-03-20 11:10 | Report Abuse
Results speak for itself. Thank you guys.
Posted by oldman > 2013-03-20 11:11 | Report Abuse
I will buy Kfima and keep for 5 years. Time will tell. Of course. At own risk.
Posted by gark > 2013-03-20 11:13 | Report Abuse
Moderate leverage in a company is beneficial and is required to expand the business. I would tend to ovoid over leveraged companies with extremely high debt. Little or no debt companies have very good potential as they are able to raise funds quickly if a opportunity presents itself.
The leverage I was talking about is personal leverage, especially used to buy stocks, in which the stocks will be used as collateral. If due to an unfortunate market downturn, your stocks will be facing margin calls. This is why I would avoid leveraged purchase of stocks as it does not allow you to buy and hold for long term and ride out the downs of the market.
Posted by kcchongnz > 2013-03-20 11:13 | Report Abuse
gark, your comments on my posting on APM is appropriate and I also agree. Anyway my original posting on this is based on what Cold Eye talked about its 5 yardsticks. You are right to let other know about its other considerations and performance.
Posted by kcchongnz > 2013-03-20 11:16 | Report Abuse
gark, if you read careful about my posting on "The power of arbitrage" on stock S, I was talking about risk-less arbitrage. Whether it is personal or corporate, risk-less arbitrage like what I was talking about has three outcomes; win, win and win.
Posted by gark > 2013-03-20 11:19 | Report Abuse
Look at the great example of LTCM, which kept on buying Russian Bond because their Phd calculations shows that the bonds are severely undervalued.
Even though they are right in the end, but market forces prevailed and sold down those bonds, facing margin calls LTCM kept selling and the price went down further and then even more margin calls.
Before the bonds can realize their true value, LTCM declared bankruptcy. If LTCM can hang on for a couple more months they would have reap billions of dollars in profits. That is leverage working against you.
No result.
1
2
save malaysia!
3
4
6
7
Good Articles to Share
Renowned Taiwanese writer Chiung Yao's death turns spotlight on elderly support
8
Good Articles to Share
#
Stock
Score
Stock Name
Last
Change
Volume
Stock Name
Last
Change
Volume
Stock Name
Last
Change
Volume
Stock
Time
Signal
Duration
Stock
Time
Signal
Duration
CS Tan
4.9 / 5.0
This book is the result of the author's many years of experience and observation throughout his 26 years in the stockbroking industry. It was written for general public to learn to invest based on facts and not on fantasies or hearsay....
Posted by kcchongnz > 2013-03-17 18:37 | Report Abuse
Cold Eye冷眼’s 5 yardsticks for investment Cold Eye, during his talk on 16/3/2013, listed 5 important criteria for investing in a stock as below: 1. Return on equity, ROE, 2. Cash flow from operations and free cash flow, 3. PE ratio, 4. Dividend yield and 5. Net tangible asset backing per share, NTA If you invest RM100,000 in a business, you would want to have a reasonable return from the capital, or equity you put in. A business is risky and probably you may want a minimum return of say 25%. For investing in the share market, you may want a minimum return say 10%, 6% above the return you get from bank deposit? If the business only returns you 4%, why would you want to invest in it when you can get that rate from FD without having any worries at all? In your business, you would expect that all your debtors pay you promptly and that you don’t have to stock up a lot of inventories which will tied up your capital. Otherwise you would have to put in more capital each year even though you make money. I would expect the hard cash I can received must be about the earnings I make each year. My business would also require capital expenses each year to keep it going, better growing bigger so that I would earn more in the future. This I would need to buy more and replenish the equipment , buy or open more shops etc. It would be ideal if these expenses can be met with the cash I receive each year and not having to come up with more of my own money or borrow from bank. After that, I would be happy if there is still money left for me to draw out (as dividend), or the company can have extra money to invest in other lucrative business. This money available after all the capital expenses is termed as free cash flow, or FCF. If the above business make a lot of money, say 30000 a year, or 30%, would you buy it if the asking price is 1 million, or a PE of 33? This will give you a earnings yield of only 3%. Hence a good business does not mean it is a good investment if the price is too high. How nice it would be if the business earns enough for me to draw down 10,000 a year consistently. For my dividend yield would be 10%, 2.5 times that of FD rate. Besides my business is still growing. Well if at the end if I want to exit from the business, if the net tangible asset of my assets worth more than what I put in, or more, I can recoup my initial investment. These assets must of course the more valuable the better, for example hard cash, property and land etc, rather than some money which I have been arguing with the debtors whether they are going to pay me or not, or some inventories which are outdated. Hence NTA is important too although in some businesses, example the service industry where the important assets are its people, its technology or brand name rather than hard assets. Do you have any good stocks meeting the majority of the above criteria as given by Cold Eye to share? Or any lemon you may know which you want to tell others to be careful about? This discussions here is for sharing of knowledge and information and should not be construed as a forum for hard selling or condemning others of their stocks without giving justifications. Kcchongnz 17/3/2013