Time to let the euro die
May 18, 2010 - 7:10PM
The time for tough decisions is here. In the next few months, the members of the euro area will have to make a choice: create a genuine fiscal and political union or let the euro die a slow death.
The European Union now realizes the Greek crisis has revealed some major flaws in the common currency. There's no point trying to fudge it. The euro can only be rescued by a sweeping centralization of control over tax and spending.
There's just one snag: A single economic government for the euro area isn't going to work. The surrender of national sovereignty is too great. The timing is all wrong. And there is still no realistic mechanism for enforcing whatever new rules are made in Frankfurt or Brussels.
With every step that this crisis takes, the euro moves closer and closer to falling apart. In a few years, we'll be talking again about the deutsche mark, the franc and the peseta.
After dithering for too long, policy makers now recognize that the foundations of the euro weren't strong enough.
The Stability and Growth Pact, which limited budget deficits to 3 per cent of gross domestic product, didn't work. Greece was running fiscal gaps far larger than those during the good years, and plenty of other nations were as well once the global economy turned down. It became a massive free lunch.
Countries could spend like crazy and get their neighbors to bail them out. It was hard to see how the system could survive for long if those were the rules. Everyone had an incentive to do the spending. No one had any incentive to do the bailouts.
EU response
''The Commission proposes to reinforce decisively the economic governance in the European Union,'' the EU said in a statement last week. Member states will have to submit their national budgets to the EU for approval.
It isn't hard to see the implications of that.
''The sovereign-debt crisis could be acting as a catalyst for an ever closer union of European countries,'' Morgan Stanley said in a May 11 note to investors. ''The decisions taken this weekend first by European leaders and then by finance ministers mark a big leap towards a fiscal union in the euro area.''
A fiscal union - in which budgets and taxes are decided centrally - would fix the problem. Member states wouldn't be able to run up unaffordable deficits. When they ran into trouble, money could be diverted from the more successful states to the ones that needed help. That's how it works within countries. It is how the euro should work, too. But here's why it probably won't.
Three reasons
First, the surrender of sovereignty is too great. Countries signed up to a single currency. They didn't sign up for a single government. Once you lose control of fiscal policy, you stop being a nation, and you become a district. It is hard to believe that will ever survive referenda or national elections. It is hard enough to persuade taxpayers to subsidize regions in the same country. Persuading electorates to send their taxes to a central authority, without having any control over where it is spent, will prove impossible.
''The budget law is a matter of national parliaments,'' Guido Westerwelle, Germany's foreign minister, said last week. ''The European Commission doesn't determine the budget. That is the job of the German Bundestag, the national parliament.''
Second, the timing is wrong. For the next five years, the only thing governments will be serving up is pain. Deficits are out of control. Spending has to be cut. Creating any kind of fiscal union was going to be tough enough even in the boom years, when you could hand out lots of cash to build new schools and roads. It will be much tougher when spending is being cut. The EU will take control of national budgets at precisely the moment they get slashed. Does that sound popular? Not really.
Third, there still isn't an enforcement mechanism. The latest proposal is that all the national budgets get submitted to Brussels in advance. The EU will approve them, or it won't.
So what happens if a budget is rejected, and local politicians tell the EU to go take a hike? Euro police aren't about to storm member parliaments and cart politicians away in handcuffs. So far, all that has been proposed is a rewrite of the stability pact, but with some more forms to fill in, and a bit of snarling if you break the rules. It didn't work last time, so why should it work now?
The EU has come up with the only realistic solution to the crisis presented by Greece's mountain of debt. But it's still not going to work. And once that becomes clear, there will be only one option left: let the euro die.
(Matthew Lynn is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)
Bloomberg News
Wednesday 19 May 2010
German short-sell ban shocks markets
German short-sell ban shocks markets
May 19, 2010 - 6:59AM
Germany will temporarily ban naked short selling and naked credit-default swaps of euro-area government bonds at midnight after politicians blamed the practice for exacerbating the European debt crisis.
The ban will also apply to naked short selling in shares of 10 banks and insurers that will last until March 31, 2011, German financial regulator BaFin said today in an e-mailed statement. The step was needed because of "exceptional volatility" in euro-area bonds, the regulator said.
The move came as Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition seeks to build momentum on financial-market regulation with lower- house lawmakers due to begin debating a bill tomorrow authorizing Germany's contribution to a $US1 trillion bailout plan to backstop the euro. US stocks fell and the euro dropped to $US1.2231, the lowest level since April 18, 2006, after the announcement.
"You cannot imagine what broke lose here after BaFin's announcement," Johan Kindermann, a capital markets lawyer at Simmons & Simmons in Frankfurt, said in an interview. "This will lead to an uproar in the markets tomorrow. Short-sellers will now, even tonight, try to close their positions at markets where they can still do so - if they find any possibilities left at all now."
Merkel, Sarkozy
Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have called for curbs on speculating with sovereign credit-default swaps. European Union Financial Services Commissioner Michel Barnier this week called for stricter disclosure requirements on the transactions.
Allianz SE, Deutsche Bank AG, Commerzbank AG, Deutsche Boerse AG, Deutsche Postbank AG, Muenchener Rueckversicherungs AG, Hannover Rueckversicherungs AG, Generali Deutschland Holding AG, MLP AG and Aareal Bank AG are covered by the short-selling ban.
"Massive" short-selling was leading to excessive price movements which "could endanger the stability of the entire financial system," BaFin said in the statement.
The European Union last month proposed that the Financial Stability Board, the group set up by the Group of 20 nations to monitor global financial trends, should "closely examine the role" of CDS on sovereign bond spreads. Merkel said earlier today that she will press the Group of 20 to bring in a financial transactions tax.
Merkel's 'Battle'
"In some ways, it's a battle of the politicians against the markets" and "I'm determined to win," Merkel said May 6. "The speculators are our adversaries."
Germany, along with the US and other EU nations, banned short selling of banks and insurance company shares at the height of the global financial crisis in 2008. The country still has rules requiring disclosure of net short positions of 0.2 per cent or more of outstanding shares of 10 separate companies.
The disclosure of the rules drew criticism from lawyers who said that they should have been announced well ahead of time.
"The way it's been announced is very irresponsible, and it's sent many market participants into panic mode," said Darren Fox, a regulator lawyer who advises hedge funds at Simmons & Simmons in London. "We thought regulators had learned their lessons from September 2008. Where is the market emergency that necessitates the introduction of an overnight ban?"
Short-selling is when hedge funds and other investors borrow shares they don't own and sell them in the hope their price will go down. If it does, they buy back the shares at the lower price, return them to their owner and pocket the difference.
Credit-default swaps are derivatives that pay the buyer face value if a borrower -- a country or a company -- defaults. In exchange, the swap seller gets the underlying securities or the cash equivalent. Traders in naked credit-default swaps buy insurance on bonds they don't own.
A basis point on a credit-default swap contract protecting $US10 million of debt from default for five years is equivalent to $US1000 a year.
Bloomberg
May 19, 2010 - 6:59AM
Germany will temporarily ban naked short selling and naked credit-default swaps of euro-area government bonds at midnight after politicians blamed the practice for exacerbating the European debt crisis.
The ban will also apply to naked short selling in shares of 10 banks and insurers that will last until March 31, 2011, German financial regulator BaFin said today in an e-mailed statement. The step was needed because of "exceptional volatility" in euro-area bonds, the regulator said.
The move came as Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition seeks to build momentum on financial-market regulation with lower- house lawmakers due to begin debating a bill tomorrow authorizing Germany's contribution to a $US1 trillion bailout plan to backstop the euro. US stocks fell and the euro dropped to $US1.2231, the lowest level since April 18, 2006, after the announcement.
"You cannot imagine what broke lose here after BaFin's announcement," Johan Kindermann, a capital markets lawyer at Simmons & Simmons in Frankfurt, said in an interview. "This will lead to an uproar in the markets tomorrow. Short-sellers will now, even tonight, try to close their positions at markets where they can still do so - if they find any possibilities left at all now."
Merkel, Sarkozy
Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have called for curbs on speculating with sovereign credit-default swaps. European Union Financial Services Commissioner Michel Barnier this week called for stricter disclosure requirements on the transactions.
Allianz SE, Deutsche Bank AG, Commerzbank AG, Deutsche Boerse AG, Deutsche Postbank AG, Muenchener Rueckversicherungs AG, Hannover Rueckversicherungs AG, Generali Deutschland Holding AG, MLP AG and Aareal Bank AG are covered by the short-selling ban.
"Massive" short-selling was leading to excessive price movements which "could endanger the stability of the entire financial system," BaFin said in the statement.
The European Union last month proposed that the Financial Stability Board, the group set up by the Group of 20 nations to monitor global financial trends, should "closely examine the role" of CDS on sovereign bond spreads. Merkel said earlier today that she will press the Group of 20 to bring in a financial transactions tax.
Merkel's 'Battle'
"In some ways, it's a battle of the politicians against the markets" and "I'm determined to win," Merkel said May 6. "The speculators are our adversaries."
Germany, along with the US and other EU nations, banned short selling of banks and insurance company shares at the height of the global financial crisis in 2008. The country still has rules requiring disclosure of net short positions of 0.2 per cent or more of outstanding shares of 10 separate companies.
The disclosure of the rules drew criticism from lawyers who said that they should have been announced well ahead of time.
"The way it's been announced is very irresponsible, and it's sent many market participants into panic mode," said Darren Fox, a regulator lawyer who advises hedge funds at Simmons & Simmons in London. "We thought regulators had learned their lessons from September 2008. Where is the market emergency that necessitates the introduction of an overnight ban?"
Short-selling is when hedge funds and other investors borrow shares they don't own and sell them in the hope their price will go down. If it does, they buy back the shares at the lower price, return them to their owner and pocket the difference.
Credit-default swaps are derivatives that pay the buyer face value if a borrower -- a country or a company -- defaults. In exchange, the swap seller gets the underlying securities or the cash equivalent. Traders in naked credit-default swaps buy insurance on bonds they don't own.
A basis point on a credit-default swap contract protecting $US10 million of debt from default for five years is equivalent to $US1000 a year.
Bloomberg
New Australian migrant list will hit business
New migrant list will hit business
YUKO NARUSHIMA
May 18, 2010
Restaurant and Catering Australia chief John Hart says the changes will force some restaurants out of business.
THE catering and restaurant industry has hit back at new rules published this week halving the number of skilled migrant places available for chefs and cooks.
Some restaurants would go out of business and others be forced to shorten their trading hours without migrant labour, according to Restaurant and Catering Australia chief executive John Hart.
''It's a nonsense,'' he said. ''Despite every tourism minister in every state calling for chefs to be left on, they took them off. It seems absurd.''
He said the industry was already 3000 cooks short before the federal government halved the number of places for which independent skilled migrants could apply.
Immigration Minister Chris Evans said a trimmed list would draw higher calibre migrants and would stop anyone subverting migration rules by studying ''low-value'' education courses in Australia.
Other jobs dropped were hairdressers, acupuncturists, journalists and naturopaths. Nurses, accountants, teachers and engineers were retained.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said the list struck a balance between the immediate and long-term skills needs of the country. Private educators, however, predicted more college closures, thousands of job losses and a flight of international students to other countries.
Chief executive of the Australian Council for Private Education and Training, Andrew Smith, said international students had been given inadequate advice.
''We have to be absolutely honest about what Australia has done over a number of years now, and that was to link immigration and education,'' he said.
''Students invested tens of thousands of dollars on the basis of a clear government policy. It's unfair to them that the rules have changed during their courses.''
A high Australian dollar and widely publicised attacks on Indian students had already affected international colleges, Mr Smith said. Just a 5 per cent slump in student numbers would lead to more than 6000 job losses and $700 million in lost revenue.
A hairdressing tutor for four years at a private college, Vicki Bartlett, said the changes penalised students who were learning the trade legitimately.
''It will weed out the ferals who are rorting the system,'' she said, but added that international students she knew had already paid fees to salons for the equipment they needed to complete unpaid work-experience hours.
''Some are working so hard and it's unfair to move the goalposts on them,'' she said.
One foreign-owned college she knew of had continued to collect course fees until the moment it collapsed, she said.
''It's appalling how these kids are being treated,'' Ms Bartlett said.
Students in India, who have had visa applications cancelled, have reported difficulty in reclaiming millions of dollars in pre-paid fees.
The body that decided on the new list, Skills Australia, will update the list annually. It is scheduled to publish in coming weeks its rationale for exclusions.
Source: The Age
YUKO NARUSHIMA
May 18, 2010
Restaurant and Catering Australia chief John Hart says the changes will force some restaurants out of business.
THE catering and restaurant industry has hit back at new rules published this week halving the number of skilled migrant places available for chefs and cooks.
Some restaurants would go out of business and others be forced to shorten their trading hours without migrant labour, according to Restaurant and Catering Australia chief executive John Hart.
''It's a nonsense,'' he said. ''Despite every tourism minister in every state calling for chefs to be left on, they took them off. It seems absurd.''
He said the industry was already 3000 cooks short before the federal government halved the number of places for which independent skilled migrants could apply.
Immigration Minister Chris Evans said a trimmed list would draw higher calibre migrants and would stop anyone subverting migration rules by studying ''low-value'' education courses in Australia.
Other jobs dropped were hairdressers, acupuncturists, journalists and naturopaths. Nurses, accountants, teachers and engineers were retained.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said the list struck a balance between the immediate and long-term skills needs of the country. Private educators, however, predicted more college closures, thousands of job losses and a flight of international students to other countries.
Chief executive of the Australian Council for Private Education and Training, Andrew Smith, said international students had been given inadequate advice.
''We have to be absolutely honest about what Australia has done over a number of years now, and that was to link immigration and education,'' he said.
''Students invested tens of thousands of dollars on the basis of a clear government policy. It's unfair to them that the rules have changed during their courses.''
A high Australian dollar and widely publicised attacks on Indian students had already affected international colleges, Mr Smith said. Just a 5 per cent slump in student numbers would lead to more than 6000 job losses and $700 million in lost revenue.
A hairdressing tutor for four years at a private college, Vicki Bartlett, said the changes penalised students who were learning the trade legitimately.
''It will weed out the ferals who are rorting the system,'' she said, but added that international students she knew had already paid fees to salons for the equipment they needed to complete unpaid work-experience hours.
''Some are working so hard and it's unfair to move the goalposts on them,'' she said.
One foreign-owned college she knew of had continued to collect course fees until the moment it collapsed, she said.
''It's appalling how these kids are being treated,'' Ms Bartlett said.
Students in India, who have had visa applications cancelled, have reported difficulty in reclaiming millions of dollars in pre-paid fees.
The body that decided on the new list, Skills Australia, will update the list annually. It is scheduled to publish in coming weeks its rationale for exclusions.
Source: The Age
Not suitable for work: why businesses fail
Not suitable for work: why businesses fail
DAVID WILSON
May 13, 2010
Many small business owners struggle finding the right staff, says start-up strategist Jack Garson.
Everyone bungles sometimes. If you are lucky, you only make a few trivial mistakes that can easily be fixed, enabling you to regroup fast.
If not, especially in a volatile post-downturn economy, your small business might wind up in the crowded enterprise graveyard. The number that fail is pegged at between 50 and 80 per cent: proof how easy it is to lose direction, if any existed in the first place.
Often, entrepreneurs launch start-ups on a gut instinct basis, without gauging the market. Only after investing, do they realise the gravity of the mistake. Then, if the venture limps on, there are plenty more to make.
Learn about the worst and how to correct them. A cohort of experts sheds some light.
Six critical small business blunders and how to fix them
1. Blind hiring
Misfire: Assuming they are smart enough to delegate in the first place, many small business owners have trouble hiring the right person for the right role, says start-up strategist Jack Garson. Over-confident about their interviewing skills, they are disappointed by the result.
Fix: First, establish what traits beyond experience, training, and enthusiasm the role demands. Also grasp how the applicant will perform in the position - if you like with the help the Predictive Index (www.predictiveresults.com), which Garson claims raises the successful hiring ratio from 33 per cent to over 90 per cent: "a critical improvement for any company - small or large".
2. Fuzzy logic
Misfire: A fuzzy partnership can be disastrous, according to legal analyst Kim Wright (www.cuttingedgelaw.com). Wright has witnessed many entrepreneurs choose partners circumstantially then fail to hammer out an agreement. Both sides invest heavily. Then, pushed by pressure, they focus purely on work. When an issue emerges, stress and resentment kick in: "Both names are on the website and they can't sit in a room together," Wright says.
Fix: Knuckle down - nut out a set of agreements that factors in how conflicts will be resolved.
3. Slack attack
Misfire: The worst mistake is to get comfortable and coast along on cruise control, failing to challenge or continuously analyse each department, says business coach Chris Chapman.
Fix: Recruit web-based tools - for instance social networking platforms like LinkedIn. Free or cheap, they are easy to use with strong return on investment. No MBA or IT department needed.
4. Me me me
Misfire: "By far, the biggest small business mistake I see is that too frequently owners focus on what they do, what they want to do, why they're so great at what they do," says consultant Barry Maher (www.barrymaher.com).
Fix: "The way to fix this is every bit as obvious as the problem," Maher says. Businesses must become "customer-centric", focusing on the customer. "It's not about you. It's about them."
5. Marketing phobia
Misfire: Marketing is the Achilles heel of small businesses, according to business launch expert Karin Abarbanel (www.birthingtheelephant.com). Based on her interviews with entrepreneurs across a range of businesses, Abarbanel concludes that the worst mistake small business owners make is undervaluing marketing. "They take a 'build it and they will come' attitude that can seriously hamper their chances of success."
Fix: The thrust is to redefine marketing. Think of it as sharing your passion rather than selling.
6. Feast or famine
Misfire: Failure to "manage the pipeline" is the cardinal sin, according to project management expert Martin VanDerSchouw - a member of the US President's Business Advisory Council. "Many small business leaders get so wrapped up in trying to keep the business afloat today, they fail to think about tomorrow. In a tight economy, these pressures get even greater."
Fix: Look ahead. Spend an hour a day managing the business three to six months down the track.
Source: theage.com.au
DAVID WILSON
May 13, 2010
Many small business owners struggle finding the right staff, says start-up strategist Jack Garson.
Everyone bungles sometimes. If you are lucky, you only make a few trivial mistakes that can easily be fixed, enabling you to regroup fast.
If not, especially in a volatile post-downturn economy, your small business might wind up in the crowded enterprise graveyard. The number that fail is pegged at between 50 and 80 per cent: proof how easy it is to lose direction, if any existed in the first place.
Often, entrepreneurs launch start-ups on a gut instinct basis, without gauging the market. Only after investing, do they realise the gravity of the mistake. Then, if the venture limps on, there are plenty more to make.
Learn about the worst and how to correct them. A cohort of experts sheds some light.
Six critical small business blunders and how to fix them
1. Blind hiring
Misfire: Assuming they are smart enough to delegate in the first place, many small business owners have trouble hiring the right person for the right role, says start-up strategist Jack Garson. Over-confident about their interviewing skills, they are disappointed by the result.
Fix: First, establish what traits beyond experience, training, and enthusiasm the role demands. Also grasp how the applicant will perform in the position - if you like with the help the Predictive Index (www.predictiveresults.com), which Garson claims raises the successful hiring ratio from 33 per cent to over 90 per cent: "a critical improvement for any company - small or large".
2. Fuzzy logic
Misfire: A fuzzy partnership can be disastrous, according to legal analyst Kim Wright (www.cuttingedgelaw.com). Wright has witnessed many entrepreneurs choose partners circumstantially then fail to hammer out an agreement. Both sides invest heavily. Then, pushed by pressure, they focus purely on work. When an issue emerges, stress and resentment kick in: "Both names are on the website and they can't sit in a room together," Wright says.
Fix: Knuckle down - nut out a set of agreements that factors in how conflicts will be resolved.
3. Slack attack
Misfire: The worst mistake is to get comfortable and coast along on cruise control, failing to challenge or continuously analyse each department, says business coach Chris Chapman.
Fix: Recruit web-based tools - for instance social networking platforms like LinkedIn. Free or cheap, they are easy to use with strong return on investment. No MBA or IT department needed.
4. Me me me
Misfire: "By far, the biggest small business mistake I see is that too frequently owners focus on what they do, what they want to do, why they're so great at what they do," says consultant Barry Maher (www.barrymaher.com).
Fix: "The way to fix this is every bit as obvious as the problem," Maher says. Businesses must become "customer-centric", focusing on the customer. "It's not about you. It's about them."
5. Marketing phobia
Misfire: Marketing is the Achilles heel of small businesses, according to business launch expert Karin Abarbanel (www.birthingtheelephant.com). Based on her interviews with entrepreneurs across a range of businesses, Abarbanel concludes that the worst mistake small business owners make is undervaluing marketing. "They take a 'build it and they will come' attitude that can seriously hamper their chances of success."
Fix: The thrust is to redefine marketing. Think of it as sharing your passion rather than selling.
6. Feast or famine
Misfire: Failure to "manage the pipeline" is the cardinal sin, according to project management expert Martin VanDerSchouw - a member of the US President's Business Advisory Council. "Many small business leaders get so wrapped up in trying to keep the business afloat today, they fail to think about tomorrow. In a tight economy, these pressures get even greater."
Fix: Look ahead. Spend an hour a day managing the business three to six months down the track.
Source: theage.com.au
A quick look at Xidelang (18.5.2010)
A quick look at Xidelang (18.5.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tEtEdBnT28KID_KqaDJqu3g&output=html
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tEtEdBnT28KID_KqaDJqu3g&output=html
Tuesday 18 May 2010
Padini plans to spend RM7.55m on stores this year
Written by Melody Song
Sunday, 16 May 2010 23:28
SHAH ALAM: Fashion retailer PADINI HOLDINGS BHD [] plans to spend about RM7.55 million on existing and new stores by year-end, according to executive director Cheong Chung Yet.
Cheong, who is also Padini's creative director, told The Edge Financial Daily the average capital expenditure (capex) per square foot for its outlets was around RM200, while capex for its Brands Outlet store was around RM100.
"This year our major projects include a flagship Vincci store in Fahrenheit 88 Kuala Lumpur where customers will be able to get bags, shoes and accessories in-store, and a new 15,880-sq ft Brands Outlet store in Sunway Pyramid," he said, adding the company was also undertaking renovations in its Bandar Utama 2 and Pavilion Padini Concept Store (PCS) outlets.
At present, the company has 20 PCS outlets and is also eyeing East Malaysia and regional markets for expansion opportunities, said Cheong.
He also said sales from PCS outlets contributed about 40% of total group turnover in 2009, adding that some 150 new designs were introduced every month across its brands.
Padini has a total of seven primary brands, 197 outlets and consignment counters, and 72 franchise and dealer stores overseas.
"The next level for us would be to bring the company regional and to have more market recognition there," he said, noting that Padini already had some exposure in Asean countries including Thailand, the Philippines and Brunei, with 23 outlets in Saudi Arabia and nine in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
According to the company's financial statements, its export market contributed about 10% of total revenue, which was RM128.4 million in the second quarter ended Feb 25, 2010.
Cheong said most of Padini's expansion plans were funded by internally generated funds.
He said Padini was cautiously optimistic on the outlook for the rest of the year, although the board of directors had not set a sales target.
"We have been maintaining earnings growth of around 18% year-on-year, which is impressive because sustaining this growth is challenging," he said.
On other challenges that lay ahead, Cheong said rising costs of raw material especially cotton yarns and labour costs in China where a large portion of garments and items were sourced from were areas the company was keeping an eye on.
"It is becoming difficult to sustain our retail prices, but we don't really revise our prices upwards," he said, explaining the company preferred to compromise with its suppliers on costs.
Padini was among OSK Research's top 50 Malaysian small-cap companies, which the research house said it liked for its robust return on equity (ROE) which it anticipates would hover above industry average at around 20% for the next two years, consistent earnings growth and strong balance sheet with net cash of RM25 million.
OSK has a neutral call on the stock with a target price of RM4.25. Padini closed five sen lower last Friday at RM3.75 with 6,400 shares done.
http://www.theedgemalaysia.com/business-news/166134-padini-plans-to-spend-rm755m-on-stores-this-year.html
Sunday, 16 May 2010 23:28
SHAH ALAM: Fashion retailer PADINI HOLDINGS BHD [] plans to spend about RM7.55 million on existing and new stores by year-end, according to executive director Cheong Chung Yet.
Cheong, who is also Padini's creative director, told The Edge Financial Daily the average capital expenditure (capex) per square foot for its outlets was around RM200, while capex for its Brands Outlet store was around RM100.
"This year our major projects include a flagship Vincci store in Fahrenheit 88 Kuala Lumpur where customers will be able to get bags, shoes and accessories in-store, and a new 15,880-sq ft Brands Outlet store in Sunway Pyramid," he said, adding the company was also undertaking renovations in its Bandar Utama 2 and Pavilion Padini Concept Store (PCS) outlets.
At present, the company has 20 PCS outlets and is also eyeing East Malaysia and regional markets for expansion opportunities, said Cheong.
He also said sales from PCS outlets contributed about 40% of total group turnover in 2009, adding that some 150 new designs were introduced every month across its brands.
Padini has a total of seven primary brands, 197 outlets and consignment counters, and 72 franchise and dealer stores overseas.
"The next level for us would be to bring the company regional and to have more market recognition there," he said, noting that Padini already had some exposure in Asean countries including Thailand, the Philippines and Brunei, with 23 outlets in Saudi Arabia and nine in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
According to the company's financial statements, its export market contributed about 10% of total revenue, which was RM128.4 million in the second quarter ended Feb 25, 2010.
Cheong said most of Padini's expansion plans were funded by internally generated funds.
He said Padini was cautiously optimistic on the outlook for the rest of the year, although the board of directors had not set a sales target.
"We have been maintaining earnings growth of around 18% year-on-year, which is impressive because sustaining this growth is challenging," he said.
On other challenges that lay ahead, Cheong said rising costs of raw material especially cotton yarns and labour costs in China where a large portion of garments and items were sourced from were areas the company was keeping an eye on.
"It is becoming difficult to sustain our retail prices, but we don't really revise our prices upwards," he said, explaining the company preferred to compromise with its suppliers on costs.
Padini was among OSK Research's top 50 Malaysian small-cap companies, which the research house said it liked for its robust return on equity (ROE) which it anticipates would hover above industry average at around 20% for the next two years, consistent earnings growth and strong balance sheet with net cash of RM25 million.
OSK has a neutral call on the stock with a target price of RM4.25. Padini closed five sen lower last Friday at RM3.75 with 6,400 shares done.
http://www.theedgemalaysia.com/business-news/166134-padini-plans-to-spend-rm755m-on-stores-this-year.html
A quick look at Maybulk (18.5.2010)
A quick look at Maybulk (18.5.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=t_FY7rgxhGIW7AtIVKbgRig&output=html
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=t_FY7rgxhGIW7AtIVKbgRig&output=html
A quick look at Dutch Lady (18.5.2010)
A quick look at Dutch Lady (18.5.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tSZUfBh6sqlDuzF6mlZwd1w&output=html
A quick look at JobStreet (18.5.2010)
A quick look at JobStreet (18.5.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=t_gp8dCkSwqnr86sAMKPM8g&output=html
A quick look at United Plantations (18.5.2010)
A quick look at United Plantations (18.5.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tYSv8r0V5jZUslGQTEGKyYQ&output=html
Fed to Blame for Gold Surge, Currency Woes: Ron Pau
Fed to Blame for Gold Surge, Currency Woes: Ron Paul
The Associated Press
| 17 May 2010 | 10:07 AM ET
The Federal Reserve's practice of indiscriminately printing money is the chief culprit that has led to the surge in gold and demise of the euro, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) told CNBC Monday.
As gold hits a succession of all-time highs and the euro struggles for mere survival, Paul said debt overloads at the base of the recent currency trends can be traced directly to the US central bank.
"The Federal Reserve behind the scenes has the power to create money out of thin air. It's very bizarre," Paul said. "They can bail out their friends and let the people they don't like fail, and create a trillion dollars or more out of thin air in order to prop up some companies at the expense of others ... It's absolutely bizarre and, yes, the American people right now I think are waking up to it."
Paul linked the disruptions to the departure in 1971 from the old Bretton Woods global currency system. He said he has been anticipating the surge in gold as confidence in currency wanes, and after the Bretton Woods collapse.
"This is the unwinding of a system," he said. "Until we replace it with something else you're going to continue to see this."
But Paul predicted that the system will be changed as more and more people begin to see its fundamental flaws.
"The gold surge recently has people discovering they're really printing money," Paul said. "They're just kidding themselves and kidding the American people that the Fed can keep doing what they're doing, because the economic laws will bring this to an end and probably in the not-too-distant future."
URL: http://www.cnbc.com/id/37189251/
The Associated Press
| 17 May 2010 | 10:07 AM ET
The Federal Reserve's practice of indiscriminately printing money is the chief culprit that has led to the surge in gold and demise of the euro, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) told CNBC Monday.
As gold hits a succession of all-time highs and the euro struggles for mere survival, Paul said debt overloads at the base of the recent currency trends can be traced directly to the US central bank.
"The Federal Reserve behind the scenes has the power to create money out of thin air. It's very bizarre," Paul said. "They can bail out their friends and let the people they don't like fail, and create a trillion dollars or more out of thin air in order to prop up some companies at the expense of others ... It's absolutely bizarre and, yes, the American people right now I think are waking up to it."
Paul linked the disruptions to the departure in 1971 from the old Bretton Woods global currency system. He said he has been anticipating the surge in gold as confidence in currency wanes, and after the Bretton Woods collapse.
"This is the unwinding of a system," he said. "Until we replace it with something else you're going to continue to see this."
But Paul predicted that the system will be changed as more and more people begin to see its fundamental flaws.
"The gold surge recently has people discovering they're really printing money," Paul said. "They're just kidding themselves and kidding the American people that the Fed can keep doing what they're doing, because the economic laws will bring this to an end and probably in the not-too-distant future."
URL: http://www.cnbc.com/id/37189251/
US faces one of biggest budget crunches in world – IMF
US faces one of biggest budget crunches in world – IMF
By Edmund Conway Business Last updated: May 14th, 2010
98 Comments Comment on this article
Earlier this week, the Bank of England Governor, Mervyn King, irked US authorities by pointing out that even the world’s economic superpower has a major fiscal problem -“even the United States, the world’s largest economy, has a very large fiscal deficit” were his words. They were rather vague, but by happy coincidence the International Monetary Fund has chosen to flesh out the issue today. Unfortunately this is a rather long post with a few chunky tables, but it is worth spending a bit of time with – the IMF analysis is fascinating.
Read the details here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/edmundconway/100005702/us-faces-one-of-biggest-budget-crunches-in-western-world-imf/
So does all of this mean the US is Greece? The answer, you might be surprised to hear, is no. Now, it is true that the US has some similar issues to Greece – the high debt, the need to roll over quite a lot of debt each year, the rising healthcare costs and so on. But it has two secret (or not so secret) weapons.
Finally, some might be tempted at this point to cite the fact that the US has the world’s reserve currency in the dollar as another bonus. I am less sure. There is no doubt that this has made the US a safe haven destination (people buy US bonds when freaked out about more or less anything), and has meant that America has been able to keep borrowing at low levels throughout the crisis. However, the flip side of this is that because it has yet to feel the market strain, the US also has yet to face up properly to the public finance disaster that could befall it if it does not do anything about the problem. America is not Greece, but if it does not start making efforts to cut the deficit within a few years, it will head in that direction. The upshot wouldn’t be an IMF bail-out, but a collapse in the dollar and possible hyperinflation in the US, but it would be horrific all the same. America has time, but not forever.
By Edmund Conway Business Last updated: May 14th, 2010
98 Comments Comment on this article
Earlier this week, the Bank of England Governor, Mervyn King, irked US authorities by pointing out that even the world’s economic superpower has a major fiscal problem -“even the United States, the world’s largest economy, has a very large fiscal deficit” were his words. They were rather vague, but by happy coincidence the International Monetary Fund has chosen to flesh out the issue today. Unfortunately this is a rather long post with a few chunky tables, but it is worth spending a bit of time with – the IMF analysis is fascinating.
Read the details here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/edmundconway/100005702/us-faces-one-of-biggest-budget-crunches-in-western-world-imf/
So does all of this mean the US is Greece? The answer, you might be surprised to hear, is no. Now, it is true that the US has some similar issues to Greece – the high debt, the need to roll over quite a lot of debt each year, the rising healthcare costs and so on. But it has two secret (or not so secret) weapons.
- The first is that unlike Greece it is not trapped in a monetary union. The US, like Britain and Japan, can independently control its monetary policy; it can devalue its currency. These are hardly solutions in and of themselves, but they do help make the adjustment a lot easier and more gradual.
- Second, the US has growth. It remains one of, if not the, world’s most dynamic economies. It is growing at a snappy pace this year (in comparison to other countries). And a few percentage points of GDP make an immense difference, since they make those debts much easier to repay.
Finally, some might be tempted at this point to cite the fact that the US has the world’s reserve currency in the dollar as another bonus. I am less sure. There is no doubt that this has made the US a safe haven destination (people buy US bonds when freaked out about more or less anything), and has meant that America has been able to keep borrowing at low levels throughout the crisis. However, the flip side of this is that because it has yet to feel the market strain, the US also has yet to face up properly to the public finance disaster that could befall it if it does not do anything about the problem. America is not Greece, but if it does not start making efforts to cut the deficit within a few years, it will head in that direction. The upshot wouldn’t be an IMF bail-out, but a collapse in the dollar and possible hyperinflation in the US, but it would be horrific all the same. America has time, but not forever.
UK economy is stuffed – but not as badly as Greece
UK economy is stuffed – but not as badly as Greece
You can hardly blame George Osborne for over-egging the point. Gordon Brown was still trying to blame the Tories for all the ills of the world 13 years after they were swept from power, as if his own mismanagement of the economy in the meantime might not have had a little something to do with it.
By Jeremy Warner, Assistant Editor
Published: 10:22PM BST 17 May 2010
So it seems reasonable enough that still less than a week into office, Mr Osborne should use the opportunity of his first Treasury press conference to blame the last lot for all the pain he's about to inflict. It's what incoming governments do.
But it's rare indeed that an incoming governments gets such manna from the last lot.
"Dear chief secretary, I am afraid to have to tell you the money has run out, yours, Liam." This single-line letter from the outgoing Chief Secretary, Liam Byrne, to his successor at the Treasury, David Laws, was apparently meant as a joke, but it serves equally well as New Labour's final epitaph. Had Mr Byrne said: "we've spent the lot, and frankly, you're stuffed", he could scarcely have been more blunt about the true horror of Labour's legacy.
Things are much worse than you think, Mr Osborne said on Monday in an attempt to soften us up for the blows to come. In an interview, he said: "By the end, the previous government had become completely irresponsible and has left this country with terrible public finances, worse as a proportion of our economy than Greece."
Mr Osborne is hardly the first to say it, and strictly speaking he is right on both counts. I've written myself at length about the pork barrel spending that took place in the run up to the election, with ministers showering money on the regions as if it was confetti. It is also true that the UK has one of the biggest Budget deficits in Europe. But Britain is not yet Greece, and the new Chancellor should take care not to frighten the markets into believing it is.
The public finances are possibly in worse shape than the previous Government was letting on, and obviously there are a whole range of public liabilities that should properly be brought back on balance sheet. Public Finance Initiative liabilities alone have rocketed from £60.5bn in 2000 to £206.8bn (nearly 15 per cent of GDP).
But I would be astonished if Mr Brown had actually lied, a la Greque, about the true state of the books. Much of the smoke and mirrors that took place under Labour were almost childishly transparent. The real problem lies rather in the use of overly optimistic assumptions about growth and tax receipts. These may be unrealistic, but Britain is hardly alone in assuming a possibly unrealistic rebound to above trend growth.
There are a number of reasons why comparisons with Greece are ill-founded and possibly quite dangerous. Greece, too, it will be recalled showed no lack of enthusiasm for tackling the deficit. It was only after the Papandreou government announced its first austerity programme that the real damage to confidence occurred. This was primarily because the markets fast realised that the scale of the consolidation was so extreme that it was likely to condemn the country to years of economic contraction, thus making the medium term debt burden worse, not better. Greece would thus be incapable of repaying its debts without help.
This doesn't have to be the case in Britain, which in any case has a much larger and more robust tax base. What's more, the UK mercifully still has control of its own currency and interest rates, so can counter the fiscal medicine with accommodative monetary policy. The eurozone's reluctance to apply any kind of inflationary counterweight condemns much of the Club Med to extreme deflationary contraction over the years ahead.
Mr Osborne's task is similar to that of applying chemotherapy; in seeking to kill off the cancer of the deficit he must be careful not to lose the confidence of markets and end up killing off the patient too. It's a balancing act between too little and too much. On Monday, he said a little too much.
Even so, the new Chancellor's first day at school was on the whole an encouraging one. The establishment of an Office for Budget Responsibility under Professor Sir Alan Budd is an important innovation which promises to restore credibility, destroyed under Mr Brown, in the Government's handling of the public finances.
Sir Alan is right to view his task as more important than the establishment of the Monetary Policy Committee by the incoming Labour Government in 1997. Inflation was yesterday's enemy by the time Labour came to power. To me, it seems unlikely the Government's judgments on interest rates would have been significantly different from the Bank of England's.
Indeed, the idea that economic policy was somehow safe in the Bank of England's hands lulled everyone into a false sense of security, thereby allowing Mr Brown a degree of leeway on tax and spend he might not otherwise have enjoyed. Rather than pump-priming the feel-good factor with interest rate therapy, the Government did it instead with debt and public spending.
Mr Brown cynically manipulated the "golden rule" to the point of laughable irrelevance. By the end, Britain was running the sort of deficit you would normally expect from a recession, not an economy in the midst of a consumer boom.
Mr Brown was not just judge and jury, he was prosecution and defence too. By calibrating the Government's tax and spending plans against genuinely independent forecasts for growth and the economic cycle, the OBR should do for management of the public finances what the Bank of England did for monetary policy.
Sir Alan was a key player at the birth of independent inflation targeting. He rightly regards his latest task as an altogether bigger challenge. The scale of it is laid bare in the International Monetary Fund's latest "Fiscal Monitor". Across advanced economies there needs to be an adjustment amounting to 8.75pc of GDP on average to primary Budget balances to get overall debt down to pre-crisis levels of around 60pc.
More work still needs to be done to deal with projected increases of 4 to 5pc of GDP in health and pensions spending over the next 20 years. Those countries that fail to achieve fiscal sustainability will see their growth potential permanently and seriously impaired.
But Mr Osborne shouldn't be too downhearted. Things could be worse. The ruinous deflation that Britain might be facing now if it were in the euro hardly bears thinking about. On this level at least, comparisons with Greece are justified. Whatever Mr Byrne says, we are not as badly stuffed as they are.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7734494/UK-economy-is-stuffed-but-not-as-badly-as-Greece.html
You can hardly blame George Osborne for over-egging the point. Gordon Brown was still trying to blame the Tories for all the ills of the world 13 years after they were swept from power, as if his own mismanagement of the economy in the meantime might not have had a little something to do with it.
By Jeremy Warner, Assistant Editor
Published: 10:22PM BST 17 May 2010
So it seems reasonable enough that still less than a week into office, Mr Osborne should use the opportunity of his first Treasury press conference to blame the last lot for all the pain he's about to inflict. It's what incoming governments do.
But it's rare indeed that an incoming governments gets such manna from the last lot.
"Dear chief secretary, I am afraid to have to tell you the money has run out, yours, Liam." This single-line letter from the outgoing Chief Secretary, Liam Byrne, to his successor at the Treasury, David Laws, was apparently meant as a joke, but it serves equally well as New Labour's final epitaph. Had Mr Byrne said: "we've spent the lot, and frankly, you're stuffed", he could scarcely have been more blunt about the true horror of Labour's legacy.
Things are much worse than you think, Mr Osborne said on Monday in an attempt to soften us up for the blows to come. In an interview, he said: "By the end, the previous government had become completely irresponsible and has left this country with terrible public finances, worse as a proportion of our economy than Greece."
Mr Osborne is hardly the first to say it, and strictly speaking he is right on both counts. I've written myself at length about the pork barrel spending that took place in the run up to the election, with ministers showering money on the regions as if it was confetti. It is also true that the UK has one of the biggest Budget deficits in Europe. But Britain is not yet Greece, and the new Chancellor should take care not to frighten the markets into believing it is.
The public finances are possibly in worse shape than the previous Government was letting on, and obviously there are a whole range of public liabilities that should properly be brought back on balance sheet. Public Finance Initiative liabilities alone have rocketed from £60.5bn in 2000 to £206.8bn (nearly 15 per cent of GDP).
But I would be astonished if Mr Brown had actually lied, a la Greque, about the true state of the books. Much of the smoke and mirrors that took place under Labour were almost childishly transparent. The real problem lies rather in the use of overly optimistic assumptions about growth and tax receipts. These may be unrealistic, but Britain is hardly alone in assuming a possibly unrealistic rebound to above trend growth.
There are a number of reasons why comparisons with Greece are ill-founded and possibly quite dangerous. Greece, too, it will be recalled showed no lack of enthusiasm for tackling the deficit. It was only after the Papandreou government announced its first austerity programme that the real damage to confidence occurred. This was primarily because the markets fast realised that the scale of the consolidation was so extreme that it was likely to condemn the country to years of economic contraction, thus making the medium term debt burden worse, not better. Greece would thus be incapable of repaying its debts without help.
This doesn't have to be the case in Britain, which in any case has a much larger and more robust tax base. What's more, the UK mercifully still has control of its own currency and interest rates, so can counter the fiscal medicine with accommodative monetary policy. The eurozone's reluctance to apply any kind of inflationary counterweight condemns much of the Club Med to extreme deflationary contraction over the years ahead.
Mr Osborne's task is similar to that of applying chemotherapy; in seeking to kill off the cancer of the deficit he must be careful not to lose the confidence of markets and end up killing off the patient too. It's a balancing act between too little and too much. On Monday, he said a little too much.
Even so, the new Chancellor's first day at school was on the whole an encouraging one. The establishment of an Office for Budget Responsibility under Professor Sir Alan Budd is an important innovation which promises to restore credibility, destroyed under Mr Brown, in the Government's handling of the public finances.
Sir Alan is right to view his task as more important than the establishment of the Monetary Policy Committee by the incoming Labour Government in 1997. Inflation was yesterday's enemy by the time Labour came to power. To me, it seems unlikely the Government's judgments on interest rates would have been significantly different from the Bank of England's.
Indeed, the idea that economic policy was somehow safe in the Bank of England's hands lulled everyone into a false sense of security, thereby allowing Mr Brown a degree of leeway on tax and spend he might not otherwise have enjoyed. Rather than pump-priming the feel-good factor with interest rate therapy, the Government did it instead with debt and public spending.
Mr Brown cynically manipulated the "golden rule" to the point of laughable irrelevance. By the end, Britain was running the sort of deficit you would normally expect from a recession, not an economy in the midst of a consumer boom.
Mr Brown was not just judge and jury, he was prosecution and defence too. By calibrating the Government's tax and spending plans against genuinely independent forecasts for growth and the economic cycle, the OBR should do for management of the public finances what the Bank of England did for monetary policy.
Sir Alan was a key player at the birth of independent inflation targeting. He rightly regards his latest task as an altogether bigger challenge. The scale of it is laid bare in the International Monetary Fund's latest "Fiscal Monitor". Across advanced economies there needs to be an adjustment amounting to 8.75pc of GDP on average to primary Budget balances to get overall debt down to pre-crisis levels of around 60pc.
More work still needs to be done to deal with projected increases of 4 to 5pc of GDP in health and pensions spending over the next 20 years. Those countries that fail to achieve fiscal sustainability will see their growth potential permanently and seriously impaired.
But Mr Osborne shouldn't be too downhearted. Things could be worse. The ruinous deflation that Britain might be facing now if it were in the euro hardly bears thinking about. On this level at least, comparisons with Greece are justified. Whatever Mr Byrne says, we are not as badly stuffed as they are.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7734494/UK-economy-is-stuffed-but-not-as-badly-as-Greece.html
Defend your investments from the eurocrisis
Defend your investments from the eurocrisis
Most investors couldn't be blamed for feeling nervous. We consult the experts on where they should turn.
By Emma Wall
Published: 12:30PM BST 14 May 2010
Investors needed nerves of steel over the past week. Uncertainty over who would take over at No 10 and a euro crisis have given the British and global stock markets the jitters.
The FTSE 100 lost more than 10pc of its value, down to 5,123 last Friday, only to pile the points back on again on Monday morning, even though many expected shares to fall in value.
Markets continued to hold steady, but fund managers are warning investors not to be complacent in light of the coalition Government – uncertainty prevails in Europe and a sovereignty crisis looms, and that's where danger lies.
The European Central Bank is steadying itself for further contagion effects of the Greek crash, Italy's banks are looking unstable and Germany is suffering a crisis of confidence as a recent regional vote undermined Angela Merkel's government.
"Eurozone uncertainty is having a much greater impact on the markets than British politics," said Tom Ewing, manager of Fidelity's UK Growth fund.
To avoid the ramifications of the Eurozone difficulties you do not have to flee the country for opportunities overseas – simply pick domestic stocks or British funds with global exposure.
"The UK market is a global market," Mr Ewing said. "Two thirds of the FTSE 100's earnings come from outside of the UK and the 20 biggest companies, the megacaps, have the minority of their business here.
"Very few of these larger-cap companies are UK focused, Tesco and Centrica remain Britain-centric but the FTSE is not UK plc"
Public perception may be influenced by the businesses that we are aware of in our everyday lives, such as Punch Taverns and M & S, but many British businesses generate the lion's share of their earnings from outside the country.
What's more, the prospect for dividend growth on British companies is looking brighter. According to Capita Registrars, more companies are paying out. Some 186 companies paid a dividend between January and March, up from 161 a year ago. Furthermore, the number of companies increasing payouts outnumbered those who cut. While 56 companies cut or cancelled their dividends, 30 held them unchanged and 102 increased or reinstated their payments.
Cash is doing nothing and gilts are paying 1pc or 2pc, but traditionally defensive stocks, such as Vodafone, Imperial Tobacco and BP are paying at least 5pc.
As you can see from our graphic, only 13pc of Vodafone's 2009 revenue came from Britain. British American Tobacco gained 23pc of its earnings from the Asia-Pacific region, nearly half of AstraZeneca's earnings are from North America and 100pc of Antofagasta's revenue is from three mines in Chile.
The FTSE megacaps seem to offer the best of both worlds. Mr Ewing said: "I am bearish on the UK, but UK stocks offer better corporate governance, better accounting and I can more easily engage with the management. At the same time I can easily tilt my UK stock picks to get exposure to China, India and the rest of Asia."
The British market has shown significant recovery from the low of 3,460 in March last year. Despite setbacks recently and in February this year, we are now nearly 2,000 points higher a year on.
Nigel Thomas, the UK Select Opportunities manager at AXA Framlington, believes this has been an industrial recovery, rather than a consumer one.
"The recovery in the market is due to urbanisation, the introduction of infrastructure and developments in the transport and energy sectors. The VAT increase was helped too, but I don't think consumers are spending over here."
In emerging markets, however, both phenomenons are occurring. As the middle classes expand, consumers are buying more – white goods, electricals and branded food and drinks. GlaxoSmithKline, for example, has moved its focus from the Western world to the developing one, selling toothbrushes, vaccines and Lucozade to India, China and Brazil.
Mr Thomas cites Andrew Whittington, at Glaxo, as prominent in this move and also notes competitor Unilever is doing the same.
There are some areas to avoid when picking megacap stocks. Commodities, in particular, draw criticism from Mr Ewing. "I would stay out of commodities, they are very volatile," he said.
Utilities come under scrutiny from Mr Thomas – he fears that Bank Rate might soon start to tick up and is concerned about the consequences.
"If interest rates go up, utilities, which are linked to gilts, will be hit," he said. "The sector is heavily regulated and, apart from National Grid and maybe some water companies, I would give them a wide berth for a while."
Of course, individual stock picking is always tricky unless you are a hardened day trader. Rather than building up a portfolio of megacaps yourself, why not leave it to the experts? There are plenty of funds that specialise in this sector – both for British and US companies that draw earnings from less-developed economies, and they spread the risk within their holdings, so you don't have to.
Brian Dennehy, of independent advisers DWC, said: "The UK economy and most developed economies have some years of pain ahead as sovereign debt and persistent deficits are tackled. The obvious call to avoid this is to focus on funds invested into UK companies with the bulk of earnings overseas, Newton Higher Income and Psigma Income both have this kind of focus."
Mick Gilligan, of Killik & Co, tips Invesco Perpetual Income, which holds Tesco, Imperial Tobacco, and AstraZeneca, among others. He also highlights Mr Thomas's Axa Framlington UK Select Opportunities fund and Artemis Income, which has stakes in HSBC, Vodafone and GlaxoSmithKline. BlackRock UK Dynamic is also on his list, with holdings in Compass Group, British American Tobacco, and Rio Tinto.
If there are particular stocks you want exposure to, check funds' holdings lists. A fund's fact sheet showing its 10 largest holdings is available from websites such as www.trustnet.co.uk and www.citywire.co.uk
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/shares-and-stock-tips/7722489/Defend-your-investments-from
Most investors couldn't be blamed for feeling nervous. We consult the experts on where they should turn.
By Emma Wall
Published: 12:30PM BST 14 May 2010
Investors needed nerves of steel over the past week. Uncertainty over who would take over at No 10 and a euro crisis have given the British and global stock markets the jitters.
The FTSE 100 lost more than 10pc of its value, down to 5,123 last Friday, only to pile the points back on again on Monday morning, even though many expected shares to fall in value.
Markets continued to hold steady, but fund managers are warning investors not to be complacent in light of the coalition Government – uncertainty prevails in Europe and a sovereignty crisis looms, and that's where danger lies.
The European Central Bank is steadying itself for further contagion effects of the Greek crash, Italy's banks are looking unstable and Germany is suffering a crisis of confidence as a recent regional vote undermined Angela Merkel's government.
"Eurozone uncertainty is having a much greater impact on the markets than British politics," said Tom Ewing, manager of Fidelity's UK Growth fund.
To avoid the ramifications of the Eurozone difficulties you do not have to flee the country for opportunities overseas – simply pick domestic stocks or British funds with global exposure.
"The UK market is a global market," Mr Ewing said. "Two thirds of the FTSE 100's earnings come from outside of the UK and the 20 biggest companies, the megacaps, have the minority of their business here.
"Very few of these larger-cap companies are UK focused, Tesco and Centrica remain Britain-centric but the FTSE is not UK plc"
Public perception may be influenced by the businesses that we are aware of in our everyday lives, such as Punch Taverns and M & S, but many British businesses generate the lion's share of their earnings from outside the country.
What's more, the prospect for dividend growth on British companies is looking brighter. According to Capita Registrars, more companies are paying out. Some 186 companies paid a dividend between January and March, up from 161 a year ago. Furthermore, the number of companies increasing payouts outnumbered those who cut. While 56 companies cut or cancelled their dividends, 30 held them unchanged and 102 increased or reinstated their payments.
Cash is doing nothing and gilts are paying 1pc or 2pc, but traditionally defensive stocks, such as Vodafone, Imperial Tobacco and BP are paying at least 5pc.
As you can see from our graphic, only 13pc of Vodafone's 2009 revenue came from Britain. British American Tobacco gained 23pc of its earnings from the Asia-Pacific region, nearly half of AstraZeneca's earnings are from North America and 100pc of Antofagasta's revenue is from three mines in Chile.
The FTSE megacaps seem to offer the best of both worlds. Mr Ewing said: "I am bearish on the UK, but UK stocks offer better corporate governance, better accounting and I can more easily engage with the management. At the same time I can easily tilt my UK stock picks to get exposure to China, India and the rest of Asia."
The British market has shown significant recovery from the low of 3,460 in March last year. Despite setbacks recently and in February this year, we are now nearly 2,000 points higher a year on.
Nigel Thomas, the UK Select Opportunities manager at AXA Framlington, believes this has been an industrial recovery, rather than a consumer one.
"The recovery in the market is due to urbanisation, the introduction of infrastructure and developments in the transport and energy sectors. The VAT increase was helped too, but I don't think consumers are spending over here."
In emerging markets, however, both phenomenons are occurring. As the middle classes expand, consumers are buying more – white goods, electricals and branded food and drinks. GlaxoSmithKline, for example, has moved its focus from the Western world to the developing one, selling toothbrushes, vaccines and Lucozade to India, China and Brazil.
Mr Thomas cites Andrew Whittington, at Glaxo, as prominent in this move and also notes competitor Unilever is doing the same.
There are some areas to avoid when picking megacap stocks. Commodities, in particular, draw criticism from Mr Ewing. "I would stay out of commodities, they are very volatile," he said.
Utilities come under scrutiny from Mr Thomas – he fears that Bank Rate might soon start to tick up and is concerned about the consequences.
"If interest rates go up, utilities, which are linked to gilts, will be hit," he said. "The sector is heavily regulated and, apart from National Grid and maybe some water companies, I would give them a wide berth for a while."
Of course, individual stock picking is always tricky unless you are a hardened day trader. Rather than building up a portfolio of megacaps yourself, why not leave it to the experts? There are plenty of funds that specialise in this sector – both for British and US companies that draw earnings from less-developed economies, and they spread the risk within their holdings, so you don't have to.
Brian Dennehy, of independent advisers DWC, said: "The UK economy and most developed economies have some years of pain ahead as sovereign debt and persistent deficits are tackled. The obvious call to avoid this is to focus on funds invested into UK companies with the bulk of earnings overseas, Newton Higher Income and Psigma Income both have this kind of focus."
Mick Gilligan, of Killik & Co, tips Invesco Perpetual Income, which holds Tesco, Imperial Tobacco, and AstraZeneca, among others. He also highlights Mr Thomas's Axa Framlington UK Select Opportunities fund and Artemis Income, which has stakes in HSBC, Vodafone and GlaxoSmithKline. BlackRock UK Dynamic is also on his list, with holdings in Compass Group, British American Tobacco, and Rio Tinto.
If there are particular stocks you want exposure to, check funds' holdings lists. A fund's fact sheet showing its 10 largest holdings is available from websites such as www.trustnet.co.uk and www.citywire.co.uk
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/shares-and-stock-tips/7722489/Defend-your-investments-from
But the original problem - too much debt - hasn't gone away. It has just been transferred to government balance sheets.
Time to give up debt addiction
GREG HOFFMAN
May 17, 2010 - 2:12PM
The first week of May's panicked trading on world financial markets was eerily reminiscent of the post-Lehman chaos of September 2008. Equity markets plummeted, debt markets froze and inter-bank lending rates skyrocketed.
The question is not whether Greece can or cannot pay its debts (without dramatic cuts to government spending, it looks nigh on impossible), but which country is next.
With Spain, Portugal and Ireland in the firing line, it's no wonder banks are reluctant to lend to each other. It's also no surprise that the European Union (EU) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) have orchestrated a 750 billion euros ($1 trillion) rescue package.
The Europeans, being European, took their time. But, not surprisingly for students of human nature or politics, they've taken the easy option and kicked the can down the road. For now, another crisis has been avoided.
In hock
For more than a decade, Western consumers borrowed too much money, ably assisted by financial institutions creating financial products they themselves didn't understand. When the consumers couldn't pay and the banks were about to collapse, governments bailed them out. Remember the calls for a "global stimulus package"'?
Well, it worked in as far as we're not looking down the barrel of another Great Depression. Amongst the recent chaos, statisticians announced that the US economy generated an astonishing 290,000 jobs in April.
But the original problem - too much debt - hasn't gone away. It has just been transferred to government balance sheets. Now, one of those governments can't meet its obligations. So what do we do? We just transfer the problem onto bigger balance sheets. In this case, they're the ones owned by the EU and the IMF.
The buck, however, can't get passed any further. Europe and the US are not too big to fail, but they are too big to bail. It is going to hurt but eventually, eventually, the Western world needs to reduce the overall leverage in the system. And what form might that take?
How to deleverage
McKinsey and Co, a consulting company, recently produced an insightful analysis of 45 prior episodes of deleveraging, 32 of which followed financial crises. The authors conclude that there are four ways to deleverage an economy, and only two of those options are available to the West today.
The two options are inflation and "belt tightening". The latter has been the most common tonic to a bout of indebtedness (16 of the 32 post-crisis deleveraging episodes).
This means cutting back on government spending in order to bring spiralling foreign debt balances under control and the result, in all cases, was a substantial reduction in economic growth.
Inflation might seem like a far more palatable solution and, for creditors, there's no doubt it is. Perhaps best described as "default by stealth", inflation erodes the value of debts and, if you're the supposed recipient of those debts, the value of your assets.
Inflation also reduces the value of all other assets in an economy, creates substantial frictional costs and destroys a country's ability to borrow in its own currency again.
It might be the most palatable option for a leveraged electorate, but for the owners of capital, inflation is a disaster. And once the inflation genie is out of the bottle it can be very difficult to get it back in.
As investors, we should be preparing for one or both of these factors to have a substantial impact on our portfolios over the coming decade. In many ways, however, we should welcome it. It's in everyone's interests to unwind imbalances in global trade and fiscal budgets and so begin the process of Western deleveraging. Otherwise we run the risk of a crisis so big it might portend another Great Depression. From my perspective, the sooner the better.
This article contains general investment advice only (under AFSL 282288).
Greg Hoffman is research director of The Intelligent Investor
http://www.smh.com.au/business/time-to-give-up-debt-addiction-20100517-v84t.html
GREG HOFFMAN
May 17, 2010 - 2:12PM
The first week of May's panicked trading on world financial markets was eerily reminiscent of the post-Lehman chaos of September 2008. Equity markets plummeted, debt markets froze and inter-bank lending rates skyrocketed.
The question is not whether Greece can or cannot pay its debts (without dramatic cuts to government spending, it looks nigh on impossible), but which country is next.
With Spain, Portugal and Ireland in the firing line, it's no wonder banks are reluctant to lend to each other. It's also no surprise that the European Union (EU) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) have orchestrated a 750 billion euros ($1 trillion) rescue package.
The Europeans, being European, took their time. But, not surprisingly for students of human nature or politics, they've taken the easy option and kicked the can down the road. For now, another crisis has been avoided.
In hock
For more than a decade, Western consumers borrowed too much money, ably assisted by financial institutions creating financial products they themselves didn't understand. When the consumers couldn't pay and the banks were about to collapse, governments bailed them out. Remember the calls for a "global stimulus package"'?
Well, it worked in as far as we're not looking down the barrel of another Great Depression. Amongst the recent chaos, statisticians announced that the US economy generated an astonishing 290,000 jobs in April.
But the original problem - too much debt - hasn't gone away. It has just been transferred to government balance sheets. Now, one of those governments can't meet its obligations. So what do we do? We just transfer the problem onto bigger balance sheets. In this case, they're the ones owned by the EU and the IMF.
The buck, however, can't get passed any further. Europe and the US are not too big to fail, but they are too big to bail. It is going to hurt but eventually, eventually, the Western world needs to reduce the overall leverage in the system. And what form might that take?
How to deleverage
McKinsey and Co, a consulting company, recently produced an insightful analysis of 45 prior episodes of deleveraging, 32 of which followed financial crises. The authors conclude that there are four ways to deleverage an economy, and only two of those options are available to the West today.
The two options are inflation and "belt tightening". The latter has been the most common tonic to a bout of indebtedness (16 of the 32 post-crisis deleveraging episodes).
This means cutting back on government spending in order to bring spiralling foreign debt balances under control and the result, in all cases, was a substantial reduction in economic growth.
Inflation might seem like a far more palatable solution and, for creditors, there's no doubt it is. Perhaps best described as "default by stealth", inflation erodes the value of debts and, if you're the supposed recipient of those debts, the value of your assets.
Inflation also reduces the value of all other assets in an economy, creates substantial frictional costs and destroys a country's ability to borrow in its own currency again.
It might be the most palatable option for a leveraged electorate, but for the owners of capital, inflation is a disaster. And once the inflation genie is out of the bottle it can be very difficult to get it back in.
As investors, we should be preparing for one or both of these factors to have a substantial impact on our portfolios over the coming decade. In many ways, however, we should welcome it. It's in everyone's interests to unwind imbalances in global trade and fiscal budgets and so begin the process of Western deleveraging. Otherwise we run the risk of a crisis so big it might portend another Great Depression. From my perspective, the sooner the better.
This article contains general investment advice only (under AFSL 282288).
Greg Hoffman is research director of The Intelligent Investor
http://www.smh.com.au/business/time-to-give-up-debt-addiction-20100517-v84t.html
Financial success? Debt-free
Many Americans have redefined the meaning of financial success in the post recession era, to be debt-free.
Big returns come from small caps
Big returns come from small caps
John Collett asks the experts for their top investment tips among our smaller companies.
The accounts of our biggest listed companies are pored over endlessly by an army of analysts, which makes it unlikely that investors are going to come across hidden value among these giants.
Smaller medium-sized companies, on the other hand, are usually less visible so they provide potential to uncover hidden value and big capital gains. For investors who are patient and prepared to invest over the long term, smaller companies can add some zing to share portfolios.
Money asked leading small-cap fund managers and analysts for their tips from among those market minnows with well-established track records and a history of paying reliable dividends. Like any sharemarket investments, there are always risks. And smaller companies come with more risks than large companies. Their earnings tend to be the most responsive to economic conditions - both good and bad.
Shares should never be held in isolation but in a diversified portfolio. Many investors may find a better way to get exposure to smaller companies is to invest with a specialist smaller companies fund manager. Professional fund managers run portfolios holding dozens of smaller companies, providing small investors with instant diversification.
The stocks nominated by fund managers and analysts cover the spectrum of the Australian economy - retailers, financial services, technology - but there are no resources stocks. Smaller resources stocks may be terrific investments but are too speculative for novice investors.
TURNAROUND STORY
The managing director of Perennial Value Management, John Murray, nominates OrotonGroup, which designs and makes luxury handbags, leather goods and accessories. Murray is a fan of the managing director, Sally Macdonald, who since her appointment in 2006 has turned the struggling retailer around. The company has expanded product lines and refocused on key brands including Polo Ralph Lauren and Oroton. Murray still has the Oroton briefcase he bought in 1991 and says the brand is "classic value fashion" - quality fashion that is not too expensive.
"We are believers in Oroton and growth will be driven by new stores and product lines like lingerie and menswear," Murray says. Perennial first bought Oroton shares for $3 each in 2007. The shares are now trading at about $7. As a luxury fashion retailer, the company's sales are vulnerable to down-turns in the economy. A little over a year ago, towards the tail-end of the GFC, Oroton shares dipped to $2.80 and in the year since, Oroton's share price has increased 250 per cent.
Before it will invest, Perennial has to be convinced of the strength of a company's balance sheet. And Oroton has good financial strength with low debt, Murray says. On a share price-to-earnings multiple of 11 times, Oroton shares are not cheap but they are still reasonable value, he says.
PIPING HOT
Reece Australia, a plumbing supplier, has many of the attributes the small companies fund manager and chief investment officer of Celeste Funds Management, Frank Villante, likes to see. House prices are rising and spending on renovation is healthy, which means Reece is "fantastically positioned" to take advantage of the trend.
Reece is a conservatively managed company, owned by the same family since the 1930s, and family interests own about 70 per cent of Reece shares. Australian corporate history is littered with examples of majority owners treating minority shareholders shabbily. However Villante says the Reece family has a long history of treating such investors well.
The company has a market capitalisation of about $2.5 billion, which puts it just inside top-100 companies. The company owns about $250 million of land and buildings and Reece's management takes the view that property in the right areas can be an attractive long-term investment. Reece is No.1 in terms of revenue, number of stores and on just about every measure Villante can find. Reece has no debt on its balance sheet; it is carrying about $60 million in cash. Villante is expecting earnings to grow at more than 15 per cent a year between 2011 and 2014.
WEB WONDER
The co-founder of Smallco Investment Manager, Rob Hopkins, is excited about the prospects of the internet sector.
Hopkins particularly likes the well-established internet employment website, Seek, which he says has a "very impressive" management team led by the Bassat brothers who, together with Matthew Rockman, founded Seek in 1997. Rockman left the company in 2006.
Seek expanded into New Zealand and has investments in employment websites in China, Brazil and Malaysia. It owns more than 40 per cent in Zhaopin, one of China's three leading online employment sites.
Seek shares have had a big run. A couple of years ago the stock was $2; it is now $8 and is on a price-to-earnings multiple of 23 times, which is expensive, Hopkins says. With a market capitalisation of $2.8 billion, it is not a market minnow and is just inside the top-100 companies but still has plenty of growth potential. "We expect earnings-per-share growth of more than 40 per cent over the next year," Hopkins says. In internet commerce there is not much room for No.2 and No.3 players. "People looking for a job go to a site where they know all of the jobs are advertised," Hopkins says, adding that the internet sector has plenty of examples where the No.1 player makes very good returns, while the No.2 player is just profitable and the third-placed player loses money.
GRIM REAPER
Fortune favours the grave with InvoCare Limited, which provides funeral homes, burial services, cemeteries and crematoria around Australia and in Singapore. Invocare operates two national brands, White Lady Funerals and Simplicity, and is the only funeral services provider that has a national reach.
InvoCare listed in 2003, having been built up during the 1990s under the ownership of a US funeral services operator and private equity investors that have since sold their shares in the company.
"It's amazing, what we call the death-care industry," says Brian Eley, co-founder of Eley Griffiths Group.
"The number of deaths is rising as the population increases and ages. You have that demographic trend, which is positive for the stock."
InvoCare has been a very good performer, Eley says: The stock is not "super cheap" and it never will be because people know that it's such as good business. The fragmented nature of the market presents plenty of opportunities for the company to grow through acquisitions, he says.
As people become wealthier they tend to spend more on their relatives' funerals, Eley says, and a growing part of the business is pre-paid funerals. He also says the funeral care industry has a lot of pricing power, which means the industry can increase prices by a bit more than inflation with little resistance from customers.
InvoCare has prices that are in the mid-range, which benefits the company as the mid-range is where most of the market is, Eley says.
TICKET CLIPPER
Funds management is a wonderful business because it is so scalable. Taking a percentage of funds under management - clipping the ticket, as it is known - has been the source of riches for banks and insurances.
IOOF, a funds management and investment platform administrator, is a very well-managed company, says Steve Black, a fund manager at Pengana Capital. It has a market capitalisation of about $1.3 billion, which puts it at the larger end of the small-cap companies. It pays out about 80 per cent of its profits as dividends and is yielding about 5.5 per cent, fully franked. "It has done very well but we still see very strong upside in it," Black says. "It is a stock that has not been well understood by analysts, which is why it is starting to perform now as more analysts start to recognise that these guys are delivering really good results."
IOOF, led by managing director Chris Kelaher, is one of the big-five platform providers. These are the administration platforms used by financial planners, which provide their clients with consolidated reports on portfolio performances and taxes and enable easy switching between investments. The platform owner levies a fee that is a percentage based on the assets. IOOF has been acquiring platforms and has its own financial planning network. IOOF is considered a possible takeover target by one of the big banks or insurers.
HEALTHY PERFORMER
Blackmores, the natural health remedies company, has very high returns on equity, which analysts say is a good thing because it shows a company is making good use of shareholder funds.
Whether it's arthritis, joint, bone and muscle pain or "brain health", Blackmores, which was started in 1938 by Maurice Blackmore, has a pill for everything.
Greg Canavan, a sharemarket analyst and editor of Sound Money. Sound Investments, a weekly report on the sharemarket, says Blackmores is a "nice little smaller cap" that is tapping into a growing market for natural remedies. It has a strong business in Australia and has established a presence in Thailand and Malaysia. The company distributes its products mainly through pharmacies and supermarkets.
Canavan says $23 a share is a little expensive and would prefer to buy at $20. "In 10 years' time, I think Blackmores will be a lot bigger company than it is now," he says.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/money/investment/big-returns-come-from-small-caps/2010/05/11/1273343328362.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
John Collett asks the experts for their top investment tips among our smaller companies.
The accounts of our biggest listed companies are pored over endlessly by an army of analysts, which makes it unlikely that investors are going to come across hidden value among these giants.
Smaller medium-sized companies, on the other hand, are usually less visible so they provide potential to uncover hidden value and big capital gains. For investors who are patient and prepared to invest over the long term, smaller companies can add some zing to share portfolios.
Money asked leading small-cap fund managers and analysts for their tips from among those market minnows with well-established track records and a history of paying reliable dividends. Like any sharemarket investments, there are always risks. And smaller companies come with more risks than large companies. Their earnings tend to be the most responsive to economic conditions - both good and bad.
Shares should never be held in isolation but in a diversified portfolio. Many investors may find a better way to get exposure to smaller companies is to invest with a specialist smaller companies fund manager. Professional fund managers run portfolios holding dozens of smaller companies, providing small investors with instant diversification.
The stocks nominated by fund managers and analysts cover the spectrum of the Australian economy - retailers, financial services, technology - but there are no resources stocks. Smaller resources stocks may be terrific investments but are too speculative for novice investors.
TURNAROUND STORY
The managing director of Perennial Value Management, John Murray, nominates OrotonGroup, which designs and makes luxury handbags, leather goods and accessories. Murray is a fan of the managing director, Sally Macdonald, who since her appointment in 2006 has turned the struggling retailer around. The company has expanded product lines and refocused on key brands including Polo Ralph Lauren and Oroton. Murray still has the Oroton briefcase he bought in 1991 and says the brand is "classic value fashion" - quality fashion that is not too expensive.
"We are believers in Oroton and growth will be driven by new stores and product lines like lingerie and menswear," Murray says. Perennial first bought Oroton shares for $3 each in 2007. The shares are now trading at about $7. As a luxury fashion retailer, the company's sales are vulnerable to down-turns in the economy. A little over a year ago, towards the tail-end of the GFC, Oroton shares dipped to $2.80 and in the year since, Oroton's share price has increased 250 per cent.
Before it will invest, Perennial has to be convinced of the strength of a company's balance sheet. And Oroton has good financial strength with low debt, Murray says. On a share price-to-earnings multiple of 11 times, Oroton shares are not cheap but they are still reasonable value, he says.
PIPING HOT
Reece Australia, a plumbing supplier, has many of the attributes the small companies fund manager and chief investment officer of Celeste Funds Management, Frank Villante, likes to see. House prices are rising and spending on renovation is healthy, which means Reece is "fantastically positioned" to take advantage of the trend.
Reece is a conservatively managed company, owned by the same family since the 1930s, and family interests own about 70 per cent of Reece shares. Australian corporate history is littered with examples of majority owners treating minority shareholders shabbily. However Villante says the Reece family has a long history of treating such investors well.
The company has a market capitalisation of about $2.5 billion, which puts it just inside top-100 companies. The company owns about $250 million of land and buildings and Reece's management takes the view that property in the right areas can be an attractive long-term investment. Reece is No.1 in terms of revenue, number of stores and on just about every measure Villante can find. Reece has no debt on its balance sheet; it is carrying about $60 million in cash. Villante is expecting earnings to grow at more than 15 per cent a year between 2011 and 2014.
WEB WONDER
The co-founder of Smallco Investment Manager, Rob Hopkins, is excited about the prospects of the internet sector.
Hopkins particularly likes the well-established internet employment website, Seek, which he says has a "very impressive" management team led by the Bassat brothers who, together with Matthew Rockman, founded Seek in 1997. Rockman left the company in 2006.
Seek expanded into New Zealand and has investments in employment websites in China, Brazil and Malaysia. It owns more than 40 per cent in Zhaopin, one of China's three leading online employment sites.
Seek shares have had a big run. A couple of years ago the stock was $2; it is now $8 and is on a price-to-earnings multiple of 23 times, which is expensive, Hopkins says. With a market capitalisation of $2.8 billion, it is not a market minnow and is just inside the top-100 companies but still has plenty of growth potential. "We expect earnings-per-share growth of more than 40 per cent over the next year," Hopkins says. In internet commerce there is not much room for No.2 and No.3 players. "People looking for a job go to a site where they know all of the jobs are advertised," Hopkins says, adding that the internet sector has plenty of examples where the No.1 player makes very good returns, while the No.2 player is just profitable and the third-placed player loses money.
GRIM REAPER
Fortune favours the grave with InvoCare Limited, which provides funeral homes, burial services, cemeteries and crematoria around Australia and in Singapore. Invocare operates two national brands, White Lady Funerals and Simplicity, and is the only funeral services provider that has a national reach.
InvoCare listed in 2003, having been built up during the 1990s under the ownership of a US funeral services operator and private equity investors that have since sold their shares in the company.
"It's amazing, what we call the death-care industry," says Brian Eley, co-founder of Eley Griffiths Group.
"The number of deaths is rising as the population increases and ages. You have that demographic trend, which is positive for the stock."
InvoCare has been a very good performer, Eley says: The stock is not "super cheap" and it never will be because people know that it's such as good business. The fragmented nature of the market presents plenty of opportunities for the company to grow through acquisitions, he says.
As people become wealthier they tend to spend more on their relatives' funerals, Eley says, and a growing part of the business is pre-paid funerals. He also says the funeral care industry has a lot of pricing power, which means the industry can increase prices by a bit more than inflation with little resistance from customers.
InvoCare has prices that are in the mid-range, which benefits the company as the mid-range is where most of the market is, Eley says.
TICKET CLIPPER
Funds management is a wonderful business because it is so scalable. Taking a percentage of funds under management - clipping the ticket, as it is known - has been the source of riches for banks and insurances.
IOOF, a funds management and investment platform administrator, is a very well-managed company, says Steve Black, a fund manager at Pengana Capital. It has a market capitalisation of about $1.3 billion, which puts it at the larger end of the small-cap companies. It pays out about 80 per cent of its profits as dividends and is yielding about 5.5 per cent, fully franked. "It has done very well but we still see very strong upside in it," Black says. "It is a stock that has not been well understood by analysts, which is why it is starting to perform now as more analysts start to recognise that these guys are delivering really good results."
IOOF, led by managing director Chris Kelaher, is one of the big-five platform providers. These are the administration platforms used by financial planners, which provide their clients with consolidated reports on portfolio performances and taxes and enable easy switching between investments. The platform owner levies a fee that is a percentage based on the assets. IOOF has been acquiring platforms and has its own financial planning network. IOOF is considered a possible takeover target by one of the big banks or insurers.
HEALTHY PERFORMER
Blackmores, the natural health remedies company, has very high returns on equity, which analysts say is a good thing because it shows a company is making good use of shareholder funds.
Whether it's arthritis, joint, bone and muscle pain or "brain health", Blackmores, which was started in 1938 by Maurice Blackmore, has a pill for everything.
Greg Canavan, a sharemarket analyst and editor of Sound Money. Sound Investments, a weekly report on the sharemarket, says Blackmores is a "nice little smaller cap" that is tapping into a growing market for natural remedies. It has a strong business in Australia and has established a presence in Thailand and Malaysia. The company distributes its products mainly through pharmacies and supermarkets.
Canavan says $23 a share is a little expensive and would prefer to buy at $20. "In 10 years' time, I think Blackmores will be a lot bigger company than it is now," he says.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/money/investment/big-returns-come-from-small-caps/2010/05/11/1273343328362.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Credit Suisse says HLB's offer price for EON Cap too low
Tuesday May 18, 2010
Credit Suisse says HLB's offer price for EON Cap too low
By RISEN JAYASEELAN
PETALING JAYA: Credit Suisse Securities (M) Sdn Bhd has deemed Hong Leong Bank Bhd's (HLB) offer price for the assets and liabilities of EON Capital Bhd (EON Cap) too low.
This has put the board of directors of EON Cap in a quandary, sources said. EON Cap's board met yesterday to discuss Credit Suisse's opinion on the offer.
The board had requested for its shares to be suspended from trading, pending an announcement related to the offer.
EON Cap said late yesterday evening that its board meeting had been adjourned “pending further clarification from independent financial adviser Credit Suisse.”
But a party familiar with the deal said with Credit Suisse telling the board that the offer was too low, the board has been put in a tough spot as to what to tell shareholders.
“The board had already said it was going to present the offer to shareholders. Does it now also tell shareholders not to accept the offer?” Sources say the situation is tenuous because HLB has no intention of raising its bid.
From its due diligence of EON Cap, HLB may be inclined to ask EON Cap to make some additional provisioning as a condition to the deal, stemming from what it (HLB) deems as unrecoverable loans.
This could mean that the price HLB is willing to pay for EON Cap may be lower than the RM7.20 per share it last made.
EON Cap is said to be disappointed that HLB has not recognised certain deferred tax assets in its valuation of the former, sources say.
HLB's offer is also priced at around 1.4 times the book value of EON Bank, which some analysts deem as low in light of other banking merger and acquisitions done at higher multiples.
The bottom line is that at present, HLB's offer is the only one on the table for EON Cap's shareholders.
Current market conditions are likely to make it difficult for other bidders, such as Affin Bank Bhd, to raise funds to acquire EON Cap.
If this deal falls through, the next bidder for EON Cap may no longer have the luxury of having a lower threshold of shareholder approval for the deal to go through.
http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/5/18/business/6282935&sec=business
Related:
Comparative analysis of Malaysian Banking Stocks (16.5.2010)
Credit Suisse says HLB's offer price for EON Cap too low
By RISEN JAYASEELAN
PETALING JAYA: Credit Suisse Securities (M) Sdn Bhd has deemed Hong Leong Bank Bhd's (HLB) offer price for the assets and liabilities of EON Capital Bhd (EON Cap) too low.
This has put the board of directors of EON Cap in a quandary, sources said. EON Cap's board met yesterday to discuss Credit Suisse's opinion on the offer.
The board had requested for its shares to be suspended from trading, pending an announcement related to the offer.
EON Cap said late yesterday evening that its board meeting had been adjourned “pending further clarification from independent financial adviser Credit Suisse.”
But a party familiar with the deal said with Credit Suisse telling the board that the offer was too low, the board has been put in a tough spot as to what to tell shareholders.
“The board had already said it was going to present the offer to shareholders. Does it now also tell shareholders not to accept the offer?” Sources say the situation is tenuous because HLB has no intention of raising its bid.
From its due diligence of EON Cap, HLB may be inclined to ask EON Cap to make some additional provisioning as a condition to the deal, stemming from what it (HLB) deems as unrecoverable loans.
This could mean that the price HLB is willing to pay for EON Cap may be lower than the RM7.20 per share it last made.
EON Cap is said to be disappointed that HLB has not recognised certain deferred tax assets in its valuation of the former, sources say.
HLB's offer is also priced at around 1.4 times the book value of EON Bank, which some analysts deem as low in light of other banking merger and acquisitions done at higher multiples.
The bottom line is that at present, HLB's offer is the only one on the table for EON Cap's shareholders.
Current market conditions are likely to make it difficult for other bidders, such as Affin Bank Bhd, to raise funds to acquire EON Cap.
If this deal falls through, the next bidder for EON Cap may no longer have the luxury of having a lower threshold of shareholder approval for the deal to go through.
http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/5/18/business/6282935&sec=business
Related:
Comparative analysis of Malaysian Banking Stocks (16.5.2010)
Monday 17 May 2010
Comparative Industry and Company Financial Ratios
Just looking at a single ratio does not really tell you much about a company. You also need a standard of comparison, a benchmark. There are three principal benchmarks used in ratio analysis.
Financial ratios can be compared to the:
1. Historical comparison.
The first useful benchmark is history.
2. Competitor comparison.
The second useful ratio benchmark is comparing a specific company ratio with that of a competitor.
3. Industry comparison.
The third type of benchmark is an industry-wide comparison.
Note that there can be large differences in ratio values between industries and companies.
Review the chart. What do the ratios tell us about companies and industries?
Financial ratios can be compared to the:
- ratios of the company in prior years,
- ratios of another company, and
- industry average ratios.
1. Historical comparison.
The first useful benchmark is history.
- How has the ratio changed over time?
- Are things getting better or worse for the company?
- Is gross margin going down, indicating that costs are rising faster than prices can be increased?
- Are receivable days lengthening, indicating there are payment problems?
2. Competitor comparison.
The second useful ratio benchmark is comparing a specific company ratio with that of a competitor.
- For example, if a company has a significantly higher return on assets than a competitor, it strongly suggests that the company manages its resources better.
3. Industry comparison.
The third type of benchmark is an industry-wide comparison.
- Industry-wide average ratios are published and can give an analyst a good starting point in assessing a particular company's financial performance. Click here for a chart showing various ratios for a variety of companies in different industries:
Note that there can be large differences in ratio values between industries and companies.
Review the chart. What do the ratios tell us about companies and industries?
Comparative analysis of Malaysian Banking Stocks (16.5.2010)
Comparative analysis of Malaysian Banking Stocks
A quick look at Malaysian Banking Stocks (16.5.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=t3v2VY0rD9DcGSjmVkAV-gQ&output=html
A quick look at Malaysian Banking Stocks (16.5.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=t3v2VY0rD9DcGSjmVkAV-gQ&output=html
Sunday 16 May 2010
A quick look at BIMB (15.5.2010)
A quick look at BIMB (15.5.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=t3svj1f7qc6pJcqKn-FNG6A&output=html
A quick look at Affin Holdings (15.5.2010)
A quick look at Affin Holdings (15.5.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=thaNOxyHlsOChhginG8Bq2Q&output=html
A quick look at Alliance Financial Group (15.5.2010)
A quick look at Alliance Financial Group (15.5.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=txT0pF1TSK-OQtTDi3QdDdw&output=html
A quick look at Hong Leong Bank (15.5.2010)
A quick look at Hong Leong Bank (15.5.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tycFD1BTkA-RNW-zclpXrIw&output=html
Investor's Checklist: Banks
1. The business model of banks can be summed up as the management of three types of risk:
3. Different components of banks' income statements can show volatile swings depending on a number of factors such as the interest rate and credit environment. However, well-run banks should generally show steady net income growth through varying environments. Investors are well served to seek out firms with a good track record.
4. Well-run banks focus heavily on matching the duration of assets with the duration of liabilities. For instance, banks should fund long-term loans with liabilities such as long-term debt or deposits, not short-term funding. Avoid lenders that don't.
5. Banks have numerous competitive advantages. They can borrow money at rates lower than even the federal government. There are large economies of scale in this business derived from having an established distribution network. The capital-intensive nature of banking deters new competitors. Customer-switching costs are high, and there are limited barriers to exit money-losing endeavors.
6. Investors should seek out banks with
The Five Rules for Successful Stock Investing
by Pat Dorsey
- credit,
- liquidity and
- interest rate.
3. Different components of banks' income statements can show volatile swings depending on a number of factors such as the interest rate and credit environment. However, well-run banks should generally show steady net income growth through varying environments. Investors are well served to seek out firms with a good track record.
4. Well-run banks focus heavily on matching the duration of assets with the duration of liabilities. For instance, banks should fund long-term loans with liabilities such as long-term debt or deposits, not short-term funding. Avoid lenders that don't.
5. Banks have numerous competitive advantages. They can borrow money at rates lower than even the federal government. There are large economies of scale in this business derived from having an established distribution network. The capital-intensive nature of banking deters new competitors. Customer-switching costs are high, and there are limited barriers to exit money-losing endeavors.
6. Investors should seek out banks with
- a strong equity base,
- consistently solid ROEs and ROAs, and
- an ability to grow revenues at a steady pace.
The Five Rules for Successful Stock Investing
by Pat Dorsey
Market status of countries 'fall' into three categories: Frontier, Emerging and Developed
Received this interesting globe map in my email. TQ
What we are interested in and would like to discover for ourselves are the Frontier Markets. Vietnam, Sri Lanka and Croatia to name a few. Let's discover Vietnam!
If we let the market status of countries 'fall' into three categories i.e. Frontier, Emerging and Developed, it would look exactly like the one on the left. According to FTSE Group a provider of economic and financial data, this is done on the basis of their economic size, wealth, quality of markets, depth and breadth of markets.
What we are interested in and would like to discover for ourselves are the Frontier Markets. Vietnam, Sri Lanka and Croatia to name a few. Let's discover Vietnam!
A quick look at Eon Capital (15.5.2010)
A quick look at Eon Capital (15.5.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tSgfLNvcIzSMhLmOD_nYDcQ&output=html
Saturday 15 May 2010
Understanding Leverage
Leverage is easily expressed as a ratio: assets/equity
Most banks equity:asset ratio is around 8% to 9%. Thus, the average bank has a leverage ratio in the range of 12 to 1 or so, compared to 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 for the average company.
Given the size of the average bank's asset base relative to equity, it's not difficult to imagine a doomsday scenario.
Leverage isn't evil. It can enhance returns, but there are inherent dangers.
For example, if you buy a $100,000 home with $8,000 down, your equity is 8%. In other words, you're leveraged 12.5 to 1, which is pretty typical for a bank. Now, if something atypical happens and the value of your home suddenly drops to $90,000 (just 10%), your equity is gone. You still owe the lender $92,000 but the house isn't worth that much. You could walk away from the house $8,000 poorer and still owe $2,000. Highly leveraged businesses put themselves in a similar situation.
This doesn't mean all leverage is bad. As a rule, the more liquid a company's balance sheet, the more the company can be leveraged because its assets can be quickly converted to cash at a fair price.
Most banks equity:asset ratio is around 8% to 9%. Thus, the average bank has a leverage ratio in the range of 12 to 1 or so, compared to 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 for the average company.
Given the size of the average bank's asset base relative to equity, it's not difficult to imagine a doomsday scenario.
- Earnings serve as the first layer of protection against credit losses.
- If losses in a given period exceed earnings, a reserve account on the balance sheet serves as a second layer of protection. Banks must have a pool of reserves to protect shareholders, who hold only a small stake in the company because of the leverage employed.
- If losses in a period exceed reserves, the difference comes directly from shareholders' equity. When losses at a bank start destroying equity, turn out the lights.
Leverage isn't evil. It can enhance returns, but there are inherent dangers.
For example, if you buy a $100,000 home with $8,000 down, your equity is 8%. In other words, you're leveraged 12.5 to 1, which is pretty typical for a bank. Now, if something atypical happens and the value of your home suddenly drops to $90,000 (just 10%), your equity is gone. You still owe the lender $92,000 but the house isn't worth that much. You could walk away from the house $8,000 poorer and still owe $2,000. Highly leveraged businesses put themselves in a similar situation.
This doesn't mean all leverage is bad. As a rule, the more liquid a company's balance sheet, the more the company can be leveraged because its assets can be quickly converted to cash at a fair price.
What should investors look for when investing in banks and other financiers?
What should investors look for when investing in banks and other financiers?
Because their entire business - their strengths and their opportunities - is built on risk, it's a good idea to focus on conservatively managed institutions that consistently deliver solid - but not knockout - profits. Here's a list of some major metrics to consider.
Strong Capital Base
A strong capital base is the number one issue to consider before investing in a lender. Investors can look at several metrics.
These ratios vary depending on the type of lending an institution does, as well as the point of the business cycle in which they are taken.
Return on Equity and Return on Assets
These metrics are the de facto standards for gauging bank profitability.
Investors should look for banks that can consistently generate mid- to high- teen returns on equity.
Ironically, investors should be concerned if a bank earns a level not only too far below this industry benchmark, but also too far above it. After all, many fast-growing lenders have thrown off 30% or more ROEs, just by provisioning too little for loan losses. Remember, it can be very easy to boost bank's earnings in the short term by under-provisioning or leveraging up the balance sheet, but this can be unduly risky over the long term. For this reason, it's good to see a high level of return on assets, as well.
For banks, a top ROA would be in the 1.2 % to 1.4% range.
Efficiency Ratios
The efficiency ratio measures non-interest expense, or operating costs, as a percentage of net revenues.
Basically, it tells you how efficiently the bank is managed. Many good banks have efficiency ratios under 55% (lower is better).
Look for banks with strong efficiency ratios as evidence that costs are being kept in check.
Net Interest Margins
Net interest margin looks at net interest income as a percentage of average earning assets.
Virtually all banks report net interest margins because it measures lending profitability.
You'll see a wide variety of net interest margins depending on the type of lending a bank engages in, but most banks' margins fall into the 3% to 4% range.
Track margins over time to get a feel for the trend - if margins are rising, check to see what's been happening with interest rates. (Falling rates generally push up net interest margins.)
In addition, examine the bank's loan categories to see whether the bank has been moving into different lending areas. For example, credit card loans typically carry much higher interest rates than residential mortgages, but credit card lending is also riskier than lending money secured by a house.
Strong Revenues
Historically, many of the best-performing bank investments have been those that have proven capable of above-average revenue growth. Wide margins have generally been elusive in a commodity industry that competes on service quality. But, some of the most successful banks have been able to cross-sell new services, which adds to fee income, or pay a slightly lower rate on deposits and charge a slightly higher rate on loans.
Keep an eye on three major metrics:
(1) net interest margin,
(2) fee income as a percent of total revenues, and
(3) fee income growth.
The net interest margin can vary widely depending on economic factors, the interest rate environment, and the type of business the lender focuses on, so it's best to compare the bank you're interested in to other similar institutions. Fee income made up 42% of bank industry revenue in 2001 and has grown at an 11.6% compound annual rate over the past two decades. As always, examine the number over a period of time to get a sense of the trend.
Price to Book
Because banks' balance sheets consist mostly of financial assets with varying degrees of liquidity, book value is a good proxy for the value of a banking stock.
Typically, big banks have traded in the two or three times book range over the past decade; regionals have often traded for less than that.
A solid bank trading at less than two times book value is often worth a closer look. Remember, there is almost always a reason the bank is selling at a discount, so be sure you understand the risks. On the other hand, some banks are worth three times book value or more, but we would exercise caution before paying that much.
The Five Rules for Successful Stock Investing
by Pat Dorsey
Summary:
Equity to assets ratio (capital ratio): 8% to 9% or greater
Loan loss reserve: High level of loan loss reserve relative to nonperforming assets.
ROE: mid- to high- teen ROE
ROA: 1.2% to 1.4% or higher
Efficiency ratios = (noninterest expense or operating costs)/(net revenues): < 55% (lower is better)
Net Interest Margins = net interest income / average earning assets: 3% to 4% range
Strong above-average Revenue growth: Look at net interest margin + fee income as percentage of total revenue + fee income growth
Price-to-Book: Big banks often trade at P/B 2 x to 3 x range.
Because their entire business - their strengths and their opportunities - is built on risk, it's a good idea to focus on conservatively managed institutions that consistently deliver solid - but not knockout - profits. Here's a list of some major metrics to consider.
Strong Capital Base
A strong capital base is the number one issue to consider before investing in a lender. Investors can look at several metrics.
- The simplest is the equity to assets ratio; the higher, the better. The level of capital should vary with each institution based on a number of factors including the riskiness of its loans. Most of the bigger banks have capital ratios in the 8% to 9% range.
- Also look for a high level of loan loss reserve relative to nonperforming assets.
These ratios vary depending on the type of lending an institution does, as well as the point of the business cycle in which they are taken.
Return on Equity and Return on Assets
These metrics are the de facto standards for gauging bank profitability.
Investors should look for banks that can consistently generate mid- to high- teen returns on equity.
Ironically, investors should be concerned if a bank earns a level not only too far below this industry benchmark, but also too far above it. After all, many fast-growing lenders have thrown off 30% or more ROEs, just by provisioning too little for loan losses. Remember, it can be very easy to boost bank's earnings in the short term by under-provisioning or leveraging up the balance sheet, but this can be unduly risky over the long term. For this reason, it's good to see a high level of return on assets, as well.
For banks, a top ROA would be in the 1.2 % to 1.4% range.
Efficiency Ratios
The efficiency ratio measures non-interest expense, or operating costs, as a percentage of net revenues.
Basically, it tells you how efficiently the bank is managed. Many good banks have efficiency ratios under 55% (lower is better).
Look for banks with strong efficiency ratios as evidence that costs are being kept in check.
Net Interest Margins
Net interest margin looks at net interest income as a percentage of average earning assets.
Virtually all banks report net interest margins because it measures lending profitability.
You'll see a wide variety of net interest margins depending on the type of lending a bank engages in, but most banks' margins fall into the 3% to 4% range.
Track margins over time to get a feel for the trend - if margins are rising, check to see what's been happening with interest rates. (Falling rates generally push up net interest margins.)
In addition, examine the bank's loan categories to see whether the bank has been moving into different lending areas. For example, credit card loans typically carry much higher interest rates than residential mortgages, but credit card lending is also riskier than lending money secured by a house.
Strong Revenues
Historically, many of the best-performing bank investments have been those that have proven capable of above-average revenue growth. Wide margins have generally been elusive in a commodity industry that competes on service quality. But, some of the most successful banks have been able to cross-sell new services, which adds to fee income, or pay a slightly lower rate on deposits and charge a slightly higher rate on loans.
Keep an eye on three major metrics:
(1) net interest margin,
(2) fee income as a percent of total revenues, and
(3) fee income growth.
The net interest margin can vary widely depending on economic factors, the interest rate environment, and the type of business the lender focuses on, so it's best to compare the bank you're interested in to other similar institutions. Fee income made up 42% of bank industry revenue in 2001 and has grown at an 11.6% compound annual rate over the past two decades. As always, examine the number over a period of time to get a sense of the trend.
Price to Book
Because banks' balance sheets consist mostly of financial assets with varying degrees of liquidity, book value is a good proxy for the value of a banking stock.
Typically, big banks have traded in the two or three times book range over the past decade; regionals have often traded for less than that.
A solid bank trading at less than two times book value is often worth a closer look. Remember, there is almost always a reason the bank is selling at a discount, so be sure you understand the risks. On the other hand, some banks are worth three times book value or more, but we would exercise caution before paying that much.
The Five Rules for Successful Stock Investing
by Pat Dorsey
Summary:
Equity to assets ratio (capital ratio): 8% to 9% or greater
Loan loss reserve: High level of loan loss reserve relative to nonperforming assets.
ROE: mid- to high- teen ROE
ROA: 1.2% to 1.4% or higher
Efficiency ratios = (noninterest expense or operating costs)/(net revenues): < 55% (lower is better)
Net Interest Margins = net interest income / average earning assets: 3% to 4% range
Strong above-average Revenue growth: Look at net interest margin + fee income as percentage of total revenue + fee income growth
Price-to-Book: Big banks often trade at P/B 2 x to 3 x range.
Book value is a good proxy for the value of a banking stock.
Because banks' balance sheets consist mostly of financial assets with varying degrees of liquidity, book value is a good proxy for the value of a banking stock. Assuming the assets and liabilities closely approximate their reported value, the base value for a bank should be book value.
A solid bank trading at less than two times book value is often worth a closer look.
These metrics should serve as a starting point for seeking out quality bank stocks. Overall, we think the best defense for investors who want to pick their own financial services stocks is
Build a paper portfolio of core companies that look promising and learn the businesses over time. Get a feel for
- For any premium above the book value, investors are paying for future growth and excess earnings.
- Seldom do banks trade for less than book, but if they do, the bank's assets could be distressed.
- Typically, big banks have traded in the two or three times book range over the past decades; regionals have often traded for less than that.
A solid bank trading at less than two times book value is often worth a closer look.
- Remember, there is almost always a reason the bank is selling at a discount, so be sure you understand the risks.
- On the other hand, some banks are worth three times book value or more, but we would exercise caution before paying that much.
These metrics should serve as a starting point for seeking out quality bank stocks. Overall, we think the best defense for investors who want to pick their own financial services stocks is
- patience and
- a healthy sense of skepticism.
Build a paper portfolio of core companies that look promising and learn the businesses over time. Get a feel for
- the kind of lending they do,
- the way that risk is managed,
- the quality of management, and
- the amount of equity capital the bank holds.
A quick look at CIMB (15.5.2010)
A quick look at CIMB (15.5.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tKdR1ezq71j9tVJQn-ldfKw&output=html
A quick look at Public Bank Berhad (15.5.2010)
A quick look at Public Bank Berhad (15.5.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=t9xRo-1yCJCfmo6KL-IIg3Q&output=html
Friday 14 May 2010
A quick look at AMMB (14.5.2010)
A quick look at AMMB (14.5.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tXOX1kGVsK5WyU4E0z2xZdg&output=html
A quick look at IOI Corp (14.5.2010)
A quick look at IOI Corp (14.5.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tb5g_wc85QNAyl7rEqUx7Ng&output=html
Investor's Checklist: Hard-Asset-Based Businesses
Companies in the hard asset based subsector depend on big investments in fixed assets to grow their businesses. Airlines, waste haulers and expedited delivery companies all fall into this subsector. In general, these companies aren't as attractive as technology-based businesses, but investors can still find some wide-moat stocks and good investments in this area.
Industry Structure
Growth for hard asset based businesses inevitably requires large incremental outlays for fixed assets. After all, once an airline is flying full planes, the only way to get more passengers from point A to point B is to acquire an additional aircraft, which can cost US $35 million or more.
Because the incremental fixed investment occurs before asset deployment, companies in this sector generally finance their growth with external funding. Debt can be used to finance almost all of the asset's cost, so lenders generally require the asset to provide collateral against the loan. With this model, high leverage is not necessarily a bad thing, provided that the company can make enough money deploying the asset to cover the cost of debt financing and earn a reasonable return for shareholders.
Subsector: Airlines
(With this in mind, airlines are generally the least attractive investment of all the companies in this subsector. Airlines must bear enormous fixed costs to maintain their fleets and meet the demands of expensive labour contracts, yet they sell a commodity service that's difficult to differentiate. As a result, price competition is intense, profit margins are razor-thin - and often non-existent - and operating leverage is so high that the firms can swing from being wildly profitable to nearly bankrupt in a short time. If you don't think this sounds like a recipe for good long-term investments, you're right - airlines have lost a collective $11 billion (excluding the impact of recent government handouts) between deregulation in 1978 and 2002. Over the same time period, 125 airlines had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and 12 of them filed for Chapter 7 liquidation.)
Hallmarks of Success for Hard-Asset-Based Businesses
Cost leadership: Because hard-asset based companies have large fixed costs, those that deliver their products most efficiently have a strong advantage and can achieve superior financial performance, such as Southwest in the airline industry. To get an idea about how efficiently a company operates, look at its fixed asset turnover, operating margins and ROIC - and compare its numbers to industry peers.
Prudent financing: Remember, having a load of debt is not itself a bad thing. Having a load of debt that cannot be easily financed by the cash flow of the business is a recipe for disaster. When analysing companies with high debt, always be sure that the debt can be serviced from free cash flow, even under a downside scenario.
Investor's Checklist: Hard-Asset-Based Businesses
Industry Structure
Growth for hard asset based businesses inevitably requires large incremental outlays for fixed assets. After all, once an airline is flying full planes, the only way to get more passengers from point A to point B is to acquire an additional aircraft, which can cost US $35 million or more.
Because the incremental fixed investment occurs before asset deployment, companies in this sector generally finance their growth with external funding. Debt can be used to finance almost all of the asset's cost, so lenders generally require the asset to provide collateral against the loan. With this model, high leverage is not necessarily a bad thing, provided that the company can make enough money deploying the asset to cover the cost of debt financing and earn a reasonable return for shareholders.
Subsector: Airlines
(With this in mind, airlines are generally the least attractive investment of all the companies in this subsector. Airlines must bear enormous fixed costs to maintain their fleets and meet the demands of expensive labour contracts, yet they sell a commodity service that's difficult to differentiate. As a result, price competition is intense, profit margins are razor-thin - and often non-existent - and operating leverage is so high that the firms can swing from being wildly profitable to nearly bankrupt in a short time. If you don't think this sounds like a recipe for good long-term investments, you're right - airlines have lost a collective $11 billion (excluding the impact of recent government handouts) between deregulation in 1978 and 2002. Over the same time period, 125 airlines had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and 12 of them filed for Chapter 7 liquidation.)
Hallmarks of Success for Hard-Asset-Based Businesses
Cost leadership: Because hard-asset based companies have large fixed costs, those that deliver their products most efficiently have a strong advantage and can achieve superior financial performance, such as Southwest in the airline industry. To get an idea about how efficiently a company operates, look at its fixed asset turnover, operating margins and ROIC - and compare its numbers to industry peers.
Prudent financing: Remember, having a load of debt is not itself a bad thing. Having a load of debt that cannot be easily financed by the cash flow of the business is a recipe for disaster. When analysing companies with high debt, always be sure that the debt can be serviced from free cash flow, even under a downside scenario.
Investor's Checklist: Hard-Asset-Based Businesses
- Understand the business model. Knowing a company leverages on hard assets will provide insight as to the kind of financial results the company may produce.
- Look for scale and operating leverage. These characteristics can provide significant barriers to entry and lead to impressive financial performance.
- Look for recurring revenue. Long-term customer contracts can guarantee certain levels of revenue for years into the future. This can provide a degree of stability in financial results.
- Focus on cash flow. Investors ultimately earn returns based on a company's cash-generating ability. Avoid investments that aren't expected to generate adequate cash flow.
- Size the market opportunity. Industries with big, untapped market opportunities provide an attractive environment for high growth. In addition, companies chasing markets perceived to be big enough to accommodate growth for all industry participants are less likely to compete on price alone.
- Examine growth expectations. Understand what kind of growth rates are incorporated into the share price. If the rates of growth are unrealistic, avoid the stock.
The Five Rules for Successful Stock Investing
by Pat Dorsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)