Tuesday 20 December 2011

Personal finance should be compulsory in schools, say UK MPs

Personal finance should be compulsory in schools, say MPs
Personal finance lessons should be compulsory in schools because even high-flying Maths students struggle to understand APR and compound interest, MPs say.


Personal finance should be compulsory in schools, say MPs
Personal finance lessons should be compulsory in schools Photo: ALAMY


After an eight-month inquiry, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Financial Education for Young People called on ministers to ensure school-leavers are better equipped to avoid running into money problems.
It published a report today demanding that personal finance education be made compulsory in schools.
This would mean children as young as five being taught the basics of saving.
Financial numeracy should be taught within mathematics and ''subjective aspects'' as part of Personal, Social Health and Economic (PSHE) education, the report said.
The group recommended the appointment of a co-ordinator or ''Champion'' within each school responsible for bringing personal finance education together.
Personal finance teaching is currently ad hoc, with only 45% of teachers responding to a survey by the inquiry saying they had ever taught it.
Today's report comes ahead of a Commons debate about the issue on Thursday, secured after more than 100,000 people signed a petition by money expert Martin Lewis calling for financial education to be made compulsory.
Tory MP Andrew Percy, who chaired the inquiry, said: ''Credit cards, mortgages, hire purchase agreements, mobile phone contracts, tuition fees and even supermarket offers all require us to apply functional maths skills, such as being able to calculate APR, compound interest and percentages, to real-life situations.
''But too many of our school leavers, who can perform complex mathematical equations and algebra, have no idea what basic financial terms like APR and PPI mean - leaving them without the necessary level of financial literacy to make decisions in an increasingly complex financial world.''
He added that financial education would be a long-term solution to irresponsible borrowing and personal insolvency.
''Furthermore, teaching people about budgeting and personal finance will help equip the workforce with the necessary skills to succeed in business and drive forward economic growth,'' he said.
Wendy van den Hende, chief executive of the Personal Finance Education Group (PFEG), said: ''Young people want to learn how to manage their money, and school is an excellent place for this to happen.
''Teachers clearly want it to be part of the curriculum, so that it is taken seriously and has the support it deserves to be taught effectively.''
Mr Lewis, who is behind the MoneySavingExpert.com website, said: ''We need compulsory financial education in our schools.
''Our nation is financially illiterate, for over 20 years we've educated our youth into debt when they go to university, but never about debt.
''Breaking this cycle will mean less mis-selling, fewer bad debts, better consumers and could save the public coffers a fortune.''


-----


Education minister Nick Gibb claims celebrity culture and obsession with wealth is harming children
British children are growing up in an “destructive” society obsessed with the celebrity way of life and need to be taught to live within their means, an education minister has warned.




Nick Gibb blames celebrity culture for giving children unrealistic expectations 
In an attack on contemporary values, Nick Gibb argued that a “got to have it now” culture was breeding unrealistic expectations of wealth in young people.
The schools minister said millions of children were being raised with the wrong priorities and equated wealth with success. He was speaking in a Commons debate about whether children should get a better financial education.
“Young people are growing up in a materialistic world for which they are often not fully prepared,” Mr Gibb said.
“The 'got to have it now’ culture means young people have high aspirations for branded or designer goods, often without the means to pay for them. People have unrealistic expectations about the lifestyle they can afford, fuelled by the glittering trappings of celebrities.”
Mr Gibb also told the Commons that he would like to see schools put a greater emphasis on maths teaching.
“We all have a job to do in moving young people’s aspirations away from this empty and often destructive perception of what success means,” he added.
“Developing children’s intellectual capabilities and interests is a direct antidote to materialism.
“Alongside that, young people must acquire a sense of responsibility. They need to contribute to society as responsible citizens and not take wild risks. They need to learn to live within their means.”
The Commons debate was tabled after more than 100,000 members of the public signed an online petition calling for schools to give lessons in personal finance. The campaign was backed by Martin Lewis, who runs the website MoneySavingExpert.com.
It was brought to Parliament by Justin Tomlinson, a Tory MP, who argued that people were making poor financial decisions “not necessarily through their own fault but because they didn’t have the skills”.
He said some people might have avoided crippling debt if they had been taught about interest rates at school.
Mr Gibb stopped short of backing compulsory financial education for all but pointed out that the Government was reviewing the National Curriculum.
The education minister’s attack on the “got to have it now culture” was made just weeks after Lord Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, criticised the selfishness of the consumer society.
He said the iPad and iPhone products sold by Apple helped contribute to a culture of egotism, because of their emphasis on personal ownership.
“The values of a consumer society really aren’t ones you can live by for terribly long,” the Chief Rabbi said.
“The consumer society was laid down by the late Steve Jobs [the founder of Apple] coming down the mountain with two tablets, iPad one and iPad two, and the result is that we now have a culture of iPod, iPhone, iTune, I, I, I.”


The popular money-saving expert kicks off his new monthly column with a look at tuition fees in UK

Martin Lewis: check the maths before paying tuition fees upfront
The popular money-saving expert kicks off his new monthly column with a look at tuition fees


 Martin Lewis - Money saving expert Martin Lewis: 'What drives me nuts'
Check the maths before paying tuition fees upfront Photo: HEATHCLIFF O'MALLEY
Don't pay your children's tuition fees for them. This isn't a ''let the little blighters pay their own way'' rant, it's a warning to check the maths first. Detaching the noose of student debt may feel laudable, but could leave some throwing away tens of thousands of pounds.
It's now less than a month until UCAS applications for 2012 students close. Yet across the country there are myths and misunderstandings about the new £9,000 annual tuition fees in England. Many parents are scrimping, saving or even borrowing so that their offspring needn't be burdened with them.
Yet while we call it a student loan, it isn't a loan in the traditional sense. It's a hybrid form of finance, nestling half way between traditional borrowing and taxation.
While many parents' understandable reaction is to throw the kitchen sink at rescuing their children from this perceived debt, shelling out may not be the best course of action.
Put simply, many students won't repay even close to what they've borrowed before the debt is wiped clean after 30 years; and if that's the case, paying upfront is a waste. Yet that message isn't getting out there.
A costly role model
Some weeks ago a newspaper called me for a comment: "We've a great story. A girl has saved up nearly £30,000, so her parents won't have to borrow to pay her £9,000 tuition fees – she's a role model." They thought I'd whoop for joy at her savvyness, but while it's a "bravo" for the savings habit, the statement is wrong in so many ways and risked doing damage to her parents' finances.
First, everyone must understand that neither parents nor students pay tuition fees: graduates repay them, but only if they earn enough after they leave. The potential nightmare stems from the implication that this girl's parents had planned to take on commercial borrowing so that she could avoid a student loan. In most circumstances, financially, this would be an aberrant decision.
Unlike normal debts, student loans do not go on credit files, repayments are proportionate to income, which stop if you lose your job, and there are no debt collectors. And while 2012 starters' interest rates are sadly increasing – they're currently at RPI (Retail Prices Index) plus 3 per cent – in the long run they're still far cheaper than credit card and loan deals.
Pay upfront and you could lose £10,000s
Assume the simple scenario of students paying the £9,000 fees each year upfront. Then after they graduate they become low-paid artists, full-time parents ... any scenario where they never earn over the £21,000 salary threshold for paying back the funding. In these scenarios, the £27,000 would have been paid unnecessarily.
While those are extreme cases, the inspiration for this advice came when I first plugged a nerdy calculation into my studentfinancecalc.com tool. I couldn't quite believe what I saw.
Repaying a student loan is not like repaying a loan from the bank. It is linked to how much you earn, rather than how much you borrow.
Graduates only repay 9 per cent of any earnings above the threshold limit of £21,000. So if you earn £22,000 in your first year you repay just £90 of the amount you borrowed to pay for your fees.
If at the end of 30 years the total amount you have repaid fails to cover the total amount you borrowed plus interest accrued, it won't matter as the outstanding amount will be written off.
It is also worth noting that the payment threshold will rise each year, in line with earnings (we don't know how as yet), so if your pay rises do not keep up, your repayments could fall.
Using my online calculator, a new graduate earning £25,000 who took out a student loan for both the tuition fees and the maintenance fees amounting to £46,400 in total, would pay back just £3,400 more over 30 years than if he or she had borrowed only the maintenance fees of £21,500 and paid the £27,000 tuition fees upfront.
However, if a student earned £35,000 in their first year, which then rose at 5 per cent above inflation, paying the tuition fees upfront and using a student loan to pay for the maintenance fees would work out cheaper.
I have calculated that you would repay £49,700 less over the 30 years if you borrowed just the maintenance fees, than you would if you'd used a loan to pay for both tuition and maintenance fees (though you'll have paid £27,000 in tuition fees upfront).
Yet short of employing a crystal ball, how do you know whether an 18-year-old student will be a future high earner? Even those starting higher education destined for medicine, the Bar or the City might change their minds, not get the grades, go into local politics or become full-time parents.

Stash the cash until you know more

The simple strategy is to put spare cash into a top cash Isa or savings account until graduation, when a student will have a better idea of earnings potential.
However, be aware that while studying, the loan interest will be RPI plus 3 per cent, which will not be fully offset by savings interest. So weigh that up against the risk of paying upfront unnecessarily.
A bigger spanner in the works is the Government's ongoing consultation on whether it should introduce early redemption penalties. In my view that would be a perverse decision, as we've been banning it in the private sector for an age. If it did happen, it would shift the risk balance.

Use the money to prevent 'worse' debt

After studying, many go on to buy a house or get a car loan. While personal loans are at far higher rates than 2012 student loans, in the long run mortgages are likely to be roughly on a par. Yet a cash lump sum used as a substantial deposit could enable much cheaper borrowing and decrease the risk of arrears if you had a work break or income fall.
It isn't a sensible strategy to use the cash to avoid a student loan if you'll effectively need to borrow it back from a commercial lender later.
So that's the maths, but of course that isn't the be-all-and-end-all: the moral decision is yours. Many want to discourage debt-averse behaviour. And bear in mind that if you have the cash, but deliberately don't use it as your child will not need to repay the funds in full, it's the Treasury and taxpayer who foots the bill.
Martin Lewis is the creator of www.moneysavingexpert.com and head of the Independent Taskforce on Student Finance Information.


Secrets of the share race

Secrets of the share race
November 20, 2011

IT'S the only race where you can back the winner after it's started, place a new bet in the middle of it or quit losers well before the finish.


That's why Geoff Wilson, one of Australia's best fund managers, loves the sharemarket, though it's a marvel that so many still lose their shirts.

The portfolio of his listed investment company WAM Capital has returned more than 20 per cent a year since it started 13 years ago.

Now we have the inside dope from Matthew Kidman, Wilson's former right-hand man turned financial author. Wilson's racing analogy is in his book Bulls, Bears and a Croupier (published by Wiley, $34.95), which lets us in on the secrets.

One is that they get it wrong half the time.

Kidman says the trick is to cut your losses quickly - if a stock drops 10 per cent ''from the average cost of purchase'' it's sold - though there's no denying the ones they get right must be something else.

The truth is you can be right but wrong at the same time. Or to be more exact, have the right idea but get your timing wrong.

''It doesn't always pay to be right,'' he writes.

Nor does it pay to stay.

''I have come to the conclusion that most companies listed on the sharemarket are rubbish - they just have good periods,'' he writes.

Although blue-chip stocks ''have some fabulous periods'' these are invariably ''followed by long and unexplained lean periods''.

So Kidman says treat the market like a game of snakes and ladders. ''Your job is to jump from ladder to ladder.''

A reader will be struck by how many contacts a professional fund manager has - getting tips from brokers first hand and a foot in the door of chief executive's offices - yet Kidman says it is ordinary investors who have the advantage.

They can be more fleet-footed, can move in and out of cash and can deviate as much as they like from any sharemarket index.

But where to start?

''If I was to select a single financial indicator,'' Kidman says, it would be ''the earnings forecast for the year ahead, simply because the rest of the market is so sensitive to it''.

In fact, he argues ''an investor should never buy shares if a company has recently downgraded its earnings forecasts by more than 10 per cent''.

The other figure to watch is the price-earnings (P/E) ratio, which you can get off the sharemarket list or a broking website.  This tells you whether a stock is cheap (the lower the better) or not, though it's not infallible.

Usually used to compare stocks, for Kidman P/Es are more useful against themselves.

A stock's historic P/E will tell you whether it's a bargain or not. A sudden spike suggests it's on a roll that won't last.

Perversely, cyclical stocks - those that move most closely with household spending such as retailers - will often have a high P/E in bad times and low P/E in good times.

The reason is that when they're at their peak, the market anticipates a correction coming, so marks them down.

Another insight into market logic is the way that analysts can be unanimously wrong about a stock (think ABC Learning Centres).

''Stockbrokers will place price targets for the stock near the current share-price level and when the P/E ratio goes from, say, 10 to a head spinning 20, the analysts will generally follow with their valuations of the business.''

And so everybody gets sucked into the vortex.

But in the end it's the quality of management that makes the difference and it's a hard call.

Don't think chief executives with a decent shareholding will have the same interests as you, either. They have their own agenda and, in any case, are also responsible for employees and customers.

And don't be your own worst enemy by being subjective about your stocks.

Kidman says: ''View your portfolio as if you had inherited it from someone else.''


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/money/secrets-of-the-share-race-20111119-1no0a.html#ixzz1h4jnqX6n

Property investing: cash towers over trusts

Property investing: cash towers over trusts
Carolyn Cummins
December 1, 2011


Melbourne has overtaken Sydney as the number one destination for Australian tourists, according to a survey.
Overseas investors are pouring money into commercial property in Melbourne.
THE virtues of investing directly into property by asset acquisitions or indirectly through real estate investment trusts have been brought to the fore with two reports indicating that bricks and mortar win every time.

But size does matter, with high net-worth investors able and willing to buy directly, while smaller investor err towards the REIT sector.

According to Emerging Trends in Real Estate Asia Pacific 2012, from PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Urban Land Institute, overseas investors are pouring cash into the Sydney and Melbourne commercial property market through acquisition of office blocks and shopping centres.

PwC real estate leader James Dunning said the report indicated Sydney was one of the lowest-risk markets in the Asia Pacific region. ''Sydney has jumped from seventh position to third-most favourable investment destination, behind only Singapore and Shanghai. Melbourne has also improved, moving from ninth to seventh spot.

''Melbourne is also one of the region's most important markets, despite its construction levels cooling. For both cities, prospects over the next year are cautiously optimistic.''

In contrast, the indirect Australian REIT sector's recovery from the global financial crisis continues to be hampered by 
- international economic uncertainty, 
- short-term debt maturity and 
- unsustainable gearing levels.

According to Ed Psaltis, head of property and REIT Group at PKF and author of the REIT Monitor for 2011, these factors continue to affect investor confidence, resulting in many REITs trading at discounts to their net tangible assets, further segmenting the sector.

''Despite considerable efforts … to extend debt maturity and reduce gearing levels, both factors remain far too high,'' he said.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/money/investing/property-investing-cash-towers-over-trusts-20111201-1o87z.html#ixzz1h4iA8mXi

Exodus as investors see no equity in equities (Australia)


Exodus as investors see no equity in equities
Gareth Hutchens
December 20, 2011


 <p></p>
INVESTORS continue to pull their money out of the stockmarket at record rates, ploughing their savings into term deposits in an attempt to escape the turmoil on global markets.

Australian term deposits have swelled by $276 billion since July 2007, growing at an annualised rate of 22.3 per cent.
The local equity market, which was worth $1.4 trillion in mid-2007, lost about $243 billion over the same period. It is now worth about $1.157 trillion.
 (1 trillion = 1 million x 1 million)

Squirrel
Saving for winter: There has been an 'almighty switch' from equities to term deposits.
Charlie Aitken, managing director at Bell Potter Securities, said there has been an ''almighty switch'' from equities to term deposits.

''It appears Australians approaching retirement simply want out of any form of ''volatile'' asset class, even if that means accepting diminishing unfranked yields in the term deposit market,'' Mr Aitken said. ''Cash rates falling sharply in the form of term deposit rates hasn't slowed the capital flow into those unfranked term deposits.''

At the peak of the market in July 2007, the term deposit market was worth $207 billion. That figure has since grown to $438 billion.

Meanwhile, the return on the local equity market declined by 4.4 per cent a year over the same period.

''We all know it, but it's got to the point now where equity yield, when you include the franking credits, commands a record premium in my lifetime to unfranked one-year term deposit rates,'' he added.

Mark Todd, a director at FIIG Securities, said investors were less likely to believe claims that there was value in equity markets. ''Investors wants less volatility and consistent returns,'' he said.

''We're seeing real growth in term deposits and fixed-income assets as people get more familiar with the concept of credit … We've seen this since the global financial crisis, when people took long-term views in the middle of the crisis. The rates they could get from the banks were good so they took two and three-year term deposits. This is just an evolution of that experience. They're familiar with consistent returns.''


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/money/investing/exodus-as-investors-see-no-equity-in-equities-20111220-1p3ec.html#ixzz1h4fbVcEf

Monday 19 December 2011

VALUE STOCKS IN A WEAK MARKET

In the face of so much blood, why are investors not looking for value shares?  One could argue that market psychology drives the fear of more blood yet to come.  Timid investors wait for the bottom.  Value investors look for opportunities and jump in with an eye towards minimising losses.


----


Value investing takes many different forms, but all approaches aim to achieve the same objective - buying something for less than it is worth.


Value Stocks In A Weak Market

By Bob Kohut  19.12.2011
You’ve heard this investing maxim near and dear to the hearts and minds of value investors everywhere – The Time to Buy is when there is blood in the streets.  British Banker Baron Rothschild supposedly made this observation after making a fortune buying in the midst of the panic preceding the Battle of Waterloo.
Today there is certainly blood in the streets, yet trading volumes in share markets everywhere are dwindling as buyers are not stepping in and following Rothschild’s advice.  Just how much blood is enough?
Here is a brief overview of the some recent bloody events:
    The HSBC flash Chinese PMI (Purchasing Manager Index) for November was 48 – the lowest in 32 months.  The October PMI was 51. Values below 50 indicate contraction in the manufacturing sector.
•    The HSBC Flash China Manufacturing Output Index also hit a 32 month low at 46.7, down from 51.4 in October.
•    Share markets in Europe and the US collapsed as investors learned the catastrophic results of a German government bond auction. 
•    The United States may be headed for another credit downgrade as lawmakers failed to reach agreement on a long term deficit reduction plan.  There is already legislation in preparation to reverse some of the automatic cuts to the defense budget agreed on in the August deal.
•    France looks set to be downgraded this week, which will see its coveted AAA rating.
The inconvenient truth here is there is ample opportunity for more blood to be spilt before this is over.  Australians might take heart that of the three most troublesome areas – China, Europe, and the US – China is still in the best position to continue to deliver economic growth.
The unexpected drop in the HSBC indicators is troubling.  As you know, readings below 50 indicate contraction in economic activity.  The world has been expecting a slowdown in the expansion in China, not a contraction. 
However, other numbers provide a measure of comfort.  The Chinese government has been implementing policies to slow growth to help control what they see as a bigger problem – inflation.  In July of this year inflation reached a three year high of 6.5% but figures released in November show annual inflation fell to 5.5%.  This gives the government room to go back to policies to stimulate growth.
Europe is a catastrophe.  Germany is the Eurozone’s strongest economy and in a recent auction, bond investors responded to the government’s attempts to sell 6 billion Euros in ten year notes with a resounding yawn.  Only 60% of bonds up for auction were sold. It's tough to see a way out in the near future with France set to be downgraded, UK unemployment at a 17-year high, and Spanish house prices tumbling for the 14th consecutive quarter while unemployment soared to 23%.  
Perhaps the greatest concern is the possibility of yet another downgrade to the US credit rating.  The rating agencies have warned of this possibility if the US did not come up with a credible long term deficit reduction plan.  Not only did their politicians not do that, there is growing evidence some of the automatic cuts that were to take place in the event of a failure to reach agreement on a broader plan may be scaled back.  With the concern over China’s contraction and the Eurozone debt crisis, this US threat is still under the radar of many investors.
In the face of so much blood, why are investors not looking for value shares?  One could argue that market psychology drives the fear of more blood yet to come.  Timid investors wait for the bottom.  Value investors look for opportunities and jump in with an eye towards minimising losses.
Value investing takes many different forms, but all approaches aim to achieve the same objective – buying something for less than it is worth.  The difficulty with disciplined value investing is determining the true worth of a company, or its intrinsic value.  Many who consider themselves value investors use some shortcuts, including P/E and P/B ratios, dividend yield, ROE, PE/G, and Debt to Equity (Gearing) rather than the more complex discounted cash flow calculations.  
A P/E less than 10 with a P/EG less than .5 would be a potential value share for any value investing methodology.  The P/EG is a ratio popularised by Peter Lynch that expands on the P/E by using estimated future earnings growth in the denominator.  
We searched the ASX for companies with a minimum market cap of 500 million dollars that met those two criteria along with a minimum dividend yield of 2%.  Here are eight value candidates we found:
Company Code P/E P/EG ROE Div Yield Share Price 
Air New ZealandAIZ 7.96 .11 5.4% 9.1% $0.67
Boart Longyear BLY 9.36 .21 8.5% 2.6% $3.03
Emeco Holdings EHL 10.14.46 9.2% 5.7%$1.00 
Fletcher BuildingFBU9.68 .43 9.8% 6.3% $4.61
Henderson Group HGG 8.61.31 20.2% 6.8% $1.59 
Mount Gibson Iron MGX 4.50.11 19.8% 4.9% $1.18
One SteelOST 5.07 .495.3% 10.8% $0.77 
Telecom NZ TEL 11.46.6416.7% 9.7% $1.56

Where do we begin with this mass of numbers?  Some investors forget that each number is a part of a whole and instead gravitate towards their favorite metric.  Dividend yield is a major attraction of value investing as it provides a cushion in difficult markets.  On that measure alone, one might zero in on OST and TEL.
When you look at the whole forest rather than individual trees OST appears to be the most undervalued.  With a P/E of only 4.57 and a book value of $3.77 per share, it is trading at far below its book value with a share price of a meager $.77.
However, we have yet to look at another critical benchmark for value investing – debt.  While always a concern, we are now faced with the possibility of another global credit crunch which will put companies that rely heavily on short term borrowing and excessive long term debt at significant risk.  So let’s take a look at some debt and liquidity measures for our candidate shares:
Quick Ratio Current Ratio Gearing 2011 - (2010) Long Term Debt  ($m) 2011 - (2010) 
AIZ .64 .81 83.4% -- (68.6%) 851.5 - (731.2) 
BLY 1.122.09 23.5% -- (14.5%) 243.5 - (147.7) 
EHL 1.4 2.34 48.8% -- (48.8%) 290.5 - (298.9) 
FBU .92 1.78 54.2% -- (40.3%) 1,442 - (920.5)
HGG .91 1.31 50.5% -- (64.5%) 272 - (325.9) 
MGX.90 3.69 3.9% -- (14.4%) 16.5 - (36.8) 
OST .75 1.89 41.8% -- (23.3%) 1,809 - (715.2) 
TEL .58 .67 90.7% -- (91.2%) 1,312 - (1,736)
   
In better times some value investors might overlook higher debt levels.  Right now that could be a big mistake.  Long term debt is frequently restructured to get better terms.  In the face of a credit freeze, that is not likely to remain a possibility.  High gearing indicates a company is using more of “other people’s money” to operate than its own money.  Liquidity ratios – the quick and the current – represent a company’s ability to convert assets into cash to meet short term liabilities.  Ratios below 1.0 could represent a problem.  If credit availability dries up, liquidity ratios become even more important.
All these indicators must be viewed in the context of the sector in which the company operates.  For example, TEL’s 90.7% gearing seems outrageous until you compare it to Australia’s Telstra, with a gearing ratio of 115.3%.
Another issue with debt and gearing is the trend.  Companies lever up and take on debt for expansion purposes and this is something you need to research.  In our table we showed the year over year difference in gearing and long term debt for each company.  You can see that OST more than doubled its debt and raised it gearing by about 40%.
On other measures, OST seems like it might be a bargain, but the bottom line is they are carrying too much debt.
Now let’s briefly review the other shares and see which ones shake out as potential bargains.
Air New Zealand (AIZ) is the premier air carrier in New Zealand.  Unfortunately, it operates in an industry now dominated by rabid competition and rising fuel costs.  Its debt position is no more than adequate and liquidity ratios under 1.0 could spell trouble.  Compared to some of the other shares in the table, the ROE is nothing to get excited about.  It does have a substantial dividend yield at 9.1%.  Investors interested in AIZ need to check the company’s dividend history and payout ratio.  Remember, yield is based on prior dividends paid with no guarantee of dividends going forward.  In short, there are probably better options.
Boart Longyear (BLY) provides equipment, drilling services, and other consumable products to the mining industry.  As such, they are at risk of a continued drop in commodity prices and a significant slowdown in China which will affect their customers – the miners.  Although their dividend payout ratio is low at 2.8%, dividend payout has been spotty, with no dividend paid for FY2009.  Although they modestly increased debt and gross gearing, they are still low enough to consider their balance sheet as reasonably strong.  BLY is a share that bears watching.
Emeco Holdings (EHL) is another mining services company, specialising in renting heavy earth moving equipment.  They are one of the few companies that actually reduced long term debt year over year although gearing remained the same.  Their 5.7% dividend yield beats most term deposit rates but the most compelling thing about EHL is the share price of $1.02 compared to its book value.  EHL is certainly a candidate for further review.
Fletcher Building (FBU) is a New Zealand based provider of building and construction materials.  Although it has an attractive dividend yield, it has minimal exposure outside New Zealand and Australia.  The company’s dividend payout has been gradually declining since the GFC.  Should the building and construction business deteriorate further, FBU faces significant risk.  There are other shares in our table that appaer to be better candidates.
Henderson Group (HGG) offers investment services in Europe, North America, and Asia.  They are based in London.  This company offers a substantial dividend of 6.8% and a solid ROE of 20%.  Many value investors look for an ROE of 15% minimum to qualify for their consideration.  However, considering the volatility of investment markets and the near certainty (in the opinion of many experts) the volatility will continue, the risks may be too great to look to invest in this company at this time.
Mount Gibson Iron (MGX) is a junior iron ore miner in Western Australia.  Although subject to the same risks from volatile commodity prices and a Chinese slowdown, their numbers are compelling.  The P/E of 4.50 and a P/EG of .11 are substantially better than the sector averages of 11.43 and .53.  An ROE performance of over 19% and a share price very close to book value per share make them a prime bargain bin candidate.  In addition, note they cut their long term debt more than in half and reduced gearing by approximately 70%.  Although the current dividend yield is modest, analysts forecast the dividend to double in FY2012 and FY2013.  MGX deserves a prime spot in the bargain bin.
Telecom NZ (TEL) was once upon a time a state run monopoly offering telecommunication services in New Zealand and parts of Australia.  Although they stand to benefit from the coming broadband explosion, regulatory changes and fierce competition pose significant risks going forward.  Although the dividend yield stands at a stunning 9.7%, dividend payouts have been decreasing over the past few years.  There are better candidates.

Finding value shares is not for the casual investor.  Today more and more investors seem to want someone to “give them a fish”, rather than “learning how to fish.”  Value investing is hard work.  We started with nine shares and boiled down to three – Boart Longyear, Emeco Holdings and Mount Gibson IronDepending on your risk tolerance, you may want to include others.  However, to find real bargains you need to go beyond what we have uncovered here to look deeper into consistency of historical performance of a target share.  The greatest challenge is determining the real or intrinsic value of the company, not just the stated book value per share.  You need to know what goes into the accounting definition of “book.”