Silver Bird - Could Fundamental Analysis prevent you from investing into this stock?

Unaudited FY 2011 account of Silver Bird

Revenue

2011  612.746m

2010  593.507m

Earnings

2011  4.934m (Diluted EPS 1.24 sen)

2010  3.655m

Total Asset 382.970m

Total Equity 213.424m  (Net Asset per Share RM 0.52) (Accumulated Losses 44.139m)

Net Profit Margin 0.8%

Asset Turnover 1.6x

Financial Leverage 1.79x

ROA 1.28%

ROTC 1.51%

ROE 2,29%  

Cash 34.699m

Bank balances 3.704m

Cash & Equivalent 38.403m 

LT Borrowings ( 24.694m)

ST Borrowings (126.772m)

Net Debt  (113.063m)

CA 169.083m

CL 144.088m

Working capital 24.995m

CA/CL = 1.729m

Inventories  15.016m

Trade receivables 87.459m (2010:  51.168m)

Other receivables 28.204m (2010: 18.467m)

Trade payables 10.411m

Other paybales 6.732m

Net CFO (25.582m)

CFI (6.259m)

CFF 21.125m

Net decrease in cash (10.716m)

Dividend 0

Valuations

Price 20.5 sen

No. of ordinary shares issued and issuable 396.387m

Market Cap 81.23m

P/E 16,5x

P/BV  0.394x

DY 0%

Could fundamental analysis guide you from investing into this stock?


The answer is YES.  The business fundamentals of this company are extremely lousy and there are enough red flags in its accounts to warrant caution or avoidance of this stock.


Please click below to read the post by BENGRAM for a more detailed explanation.
http://www.investlah.com/forum/index.php/topic,39283.msg770490.html#msg770490

Warren Buffett: Leverage is also a way to get very poor.

Unquestionably, some people have become very rich through the use of borrowed money. However, that’s also been a way to get very poor. When leverage works, it magnifies your gains. Your spouse thinks you’re clever, and your neighbors get envious. But leverage is addictive. Once having profited from its wonders, very few people retreat to more conservative practices. 

• And as we all learned in third grade – and some relearned in 2008 – any series of positive numbers, however impressive the numbers may be, evaporates when multiplied by a single zero. 
• History tells us that leverage all too often produces zeroes, even when it is employed by very smart people.

Leverage, of course, can be lethal to businesses as well. Companies with large debts often assume that these obligations can be refinanced as they mature. That assumption is usually valid. Occasionally, though, either because of company-specific problems or a worldwide shortage of credit, maturities must actually be met by payment. For that, only cash will do the job.

Borrowers then learn that credit is like oxygen. When either is abundant, its presence goes unnoticed. When either is missing, that’s all that is noticed.

• Even a short absence of credit can bring a company to its knees. 
• In September 2008, in fact, its overnight disappearance in many sectors of the economy came dangerously close to bringing our entire country to its knees.

By being so cautious in respect to leverage, we penalize our returns by a minor amount. Having loads of liquidity, though, lets us sleep well. 

• Moreover, during the episodes of financial chaos that occasionally erupt in our economy, we will be equipped both financially and emotionally to play offense while others scramble for survival. 
• That’s what allowed us to invest $15.6 billion in 25 days of panic following the Lehman bankruptcy in 2008.

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2010ltr.pdf

Buffett: What students should be learning is how to value a business.

John Kenneth Galbraith once slyly observed that economists were most economical with ideas: They made the ones learned in graduate school last a lifetime. University finance departments often behave similarly. Witness the tenacity with which almost all clung to the theory of efficient markets throughout the 1970s and 1980s, dismissively calling powerful facts that refuted it “anomalies.” (I always love explanations of that kind: The Flat Earth Society probably views a ship’s circling of the globe as an annoying, but inconsequential, anomaly.)

Academics’ current practice of teaching Black-Scholes as revealed truth needs re-examination. For that matter, so does the academic’s inclination to dwell on the valuation of options. You can be highly successful as an investor without having the slightest ability to value an option. What students should be learning is how to value a business. That’s what investing is all about.

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2010ltr.pdf

Buffett: Ownership of commercial "cows" (first class businesses) over any extended period of time will prove to be rewarding and by far the safest.

Our first two categories, namely cash and gold, enjoy maximum popularity at peaks of fear:

• Terror over economic collapse drives individuals to currency-based assets, most particularly U.S. obligations, and fear of currency collapse fosters movement to sterile assets such as gold. 
• We heard “cash is king” in late 2008, just when cash should have been deployed rather than held. 
• Similarly, we heard “cash is trash” in the early 1980s just when fixed-dollar investments were at their most attractive level in memory. 
• On those occasions, investors who required a supportive crowd paid dearly for that comfort.

My own preference – and you knew this was coming – is our third category: investment in productive assets, whether businesses, farms, or real estate. Ideally, these assets should have the ability in inflationary times

-  to deliver output that will retain its purchasing-power value 
- while requiring a minimum of new capital investment. 

• Farms, real estate, and many businesses such as Coca-Cola, IBM and our own See’s Candy meet that double-barreled test.
• Certain other companies – think of our regulated utilities, for example – fail it because inflation places heavy capital requirements on them. To earn more, their owners must invest more.
• Even so, these investments will remain superior to nonproductive or currency-based assets.

Whether the currency a century from now is based on gold, seashells, shark teeth, or a piece of paper (as today), people will be willing to exchange a couple of minutes of their daily labor for a Coca-Cola or some See’s peanut brittle. In the future the U.S. population will move more goods, consume more food, and require more living space than it does now. People will forever exchange what they produce for what others produce.

Our country’s businesses will continue to efficiently deliver goods and services wanted by our citizens. Metaphorically, these commercial “cows” will live for centuries and give ever greater quantities of “milk” to boot. 

• Their value will be determined not by the medium of exchange but rather by their capacity to deliver milk. 
• Proceeds from the sale of the milk will compound for the owners of the cows, just as they did during the 20th century when the Dow increased from 66 to 11,497 (and paid loads of dividends as well). 

Berkshire’s goal will be to increase its ownership of first-class businesses.

• Our first choice will be to own them in their entirety – but we will also be owners by way of holding sizable amounts of marketable stocks.
•  I believe that over any extended period of time this category of investing will prove to be the runaway winner among the three we’ve examined. 
• More important, it will be by far the safest.

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2011ltr.pdf

Gold: Bubbles blown large enough inevitably pop. “What the wise man does in the beginning, the fool does in the end.”

The second major category of investments involves assets that will never produce anything, but that are purchased in the buyer’s hope that someone else – who also knows that the assets will be forever unproductive – will pay more for them in the future. Tulips, of all things, briefly became a favorite of such buyers in the 17th century.

This type of investment requires an expanding pool of buyers, who, in turn, are enticed because they believe the buying pool will expand still further. Owners are not inspired by what the asset itself can produce – it will remain lifeless forever – but rather by the belief that others will desire it even more avidly in the future.

The major asset in this category is gold, currently a huge favorite of investors who fear almost all other assets, especially paper money (of whose value, as noted, they are right to be fearful). Gold, however, has two significant shortcomings, being neither of much use nor procreative.

• True, gold has some industrial and decorative utility, but the demand for these purposes is both limited and incapable of soaking up new production. 
• Meanwhile, if you own one ounce of gold for an eternity, you will still own one ounce at its end.

What motivates most gold purchasers is their belief that the ranks of the fearful will grow. During the past decade that belief has proved correct.

• Beyond that, the rising price has on its own generated additional buying enthusiasm, attracting purchasers who see the rise as validating an investment thesis. 
• As “bandwagon” investors join any party, they create their own truth – for a while.

Over the past 15 years, both Internet stocks and houses have demonstrated the extraordinary excesses that can be created by combining an initially sensible thesis with well-publicized rising prices. 

• In these bubbles, an army of originally skeptical investors succumbed to the “proof” delivered by the market, and the pool of buyers – for a time – expanded sufficiently to keep the bandwagon rolling. 
• But bubbles blown large enough inevitably pop. 
• And then the old proverb is confirmed once again: “What the wise man does in the beginning, the fool does in the end.”

Today the world’s gold stock is about 170,000 metric tons.

• If all of this gold were melded together, it would form a cube of about 68 feet per side. (Picture it fitting comfortably within a baseball infield.) 
• At $1,750 per ounce – gold’s price as I write this – its value would be $9.6 trillion. Call this cube pile A.

Let’s now create a pile B costing an equal amount.

• For that, we could buy all U.S. cropland (400 million acres with output of about $200 billion annually), plus 16 Exxon Mobils (the world’s most profitable company, one earning more than $40 billion annually). 
• After these purchases, we would have about $1 trillion left over for walking-around money (no sense feeling strapped after this buying binge). 

Can you imagine an investor with $9.6 trillion selecting pile A over pile B?

Beyond the staggering valuation given the existing stock of gold, current prices make today’s annual production of gold command about $160 billion. 

• Buyers – whether jewelry and industrial users, frightened individuals, or speculators – must continually absorb this additional supply to merely maintain an equilibrium at present prices.

A century from now

• the 400 million acres of farmland will have produced staggering amounts of corn, wheat, cotton, and other crops – and will continue to produce that valuable bounty, whatever the currency may be. 
• Exxon Mobil will probably have delivered trillions of dollars in dividends to its owners and will also hold assets worth many more trillions (and, remember, you get 16 Exxons). 
• The 170,000 tons of gold will be unchanged in size and still incapable of producing anything. You can fondle the cube, but it will not respond.

Admittedly, when people a century from now are fearful, it’s likely many will still rush to gold. I’m confident, however, that the $9.6 trillion current valuation of pile A will compound over the century at a rate far inferior to that achieved by pile B.

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2011ltr.pdf

Cash and related currency assets: Their beta may be zero, but their risk is huge.

Investments that are denominated in a given currency include money-market funds, bonds, mortgages, bank deposits, and other instruments. Most of these currency-based investments are thought of as “safe.”  In truth they are among the most dangerous of assets.

• Their beta may be zero, but their risk is huge. 
• Over the past century these instruments have destroyed the purchasing power of investors in many countries, even as the holders continued to receive timely payments of interest and principal. 
• This ugly result, moreover, will forever recur. 
• Governments determine the ultimate value of money, and systemic forces will sometimes cause them to gravitate to policies that produce inflation. From time to time such policies spin out of control.

Even in the U.S., where the wish for a stable currency is strong, the dollar has fallen a staggering 86% in value since 1965, when I took over management of Berkshire.

• It takes no less than $7 today to buy what $1 did at that time.
• Consequently, a tax-free institution would have needed 4.3% interest annually from bond investments over that period to simply maintain its purchasing power. 
• Its managers would have been kidding themselves if they thought of any portion of that interest as “income.”

For tax-paying investors like you and me, the picture has been far worse. During the same 47-year period, continuous rolling of U.S. Treasury bills produced 5.7% annually. That sounds satisfactory.

• But if an individual investor paid personal income taxes at a rate averaging 25%, this 5.7% return would have yielded nothing in the way of real income. 
• This investor’s visible income tax would have stripped him of 1.4 points of the stated yield, and 
• the invisible inflation tax would have devoured the remaining 4.3 points.
• It’s noteworthy that the implicit inflation “tax” was more than triple the explicit income tax that our investor probably thought of as his main burden. 
• “In God We Trust” may be imprinted on our currency, but the hand that activates our government’s printing press has been all too human.

High interest rates, of course, can compensate purchasers for the inflation risk they face with currency-based investments – and indeed, rates in the early 1980s did that job nicely. 

• Current rates, however, do not come close to offsetting the purchasing-power risk that investors assume. 
• Right now bonds should come with a warning label.

Under today’s conditions, therefore, I do not like currency-based investments. Even so, Berkshire holds significant amounts of them, primarily of the short-term variety.

• At Berkshire the need for ample liquidity occupies center stage and will never be slighted, however inadequate rates may be.  
• Accommodating this need, we primarily hold U.S. Treasury bills, the only investment that can be counted on for liquidity under the most chaotic of economic conditions. 
• Our working level for liquidity is $20 billion; $10 billion is our absolute minimum.

Beyond the requirements that liquidity and regulators impose on us, we will purchase currency-related securities only if they offer the possibility of unusual gain – either

• because a particular credit is mispriced, as can occur in periodic junk-bond debacles, or
• because rates rise to a level that offers the possibility of realizing substantial capital gains on high-grade bonds when rates fall. 

Though we’ve exploited both opportunities in the past – and may do so again – we are now 180 degrees removed from such prospects. Today, a wry comment that Wall Streeter Shelby Cullom Davis made long ago seems apt: “Bonds promoted as offering risk-free returns are now priced to deliver return-free risk.”


http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2011ltr.pdf

Volatility is not risk. Risk is the reasoned probability of that investment causing it's owner a loss of purchasing power over his contemplated holding period.

Investing is often described as the process of laying out money now in the expectation of receiving more money in the future.

At Berkshire we take a more demanding approach, defining investing as

•  the transfer to others of purchasing power now with the reasoned expectation of receiving more purchasing power – after taxes have been paid on nominal gains – in the future. 
• More succinctly, investing is forgoing consumption now in order to have the ability to consume more at a later date.

From our definition there flows an important corollary: The riskiness of an investment is not measured by beta (a Wall Street term encompassing volatility and often used in measuring risk) but rather by the probability – the reasoned probability – of that investment causing its owner a loss of purchasing-power over his contemplated holding period. 

• Assets can fluctuate greatly in price and not be risky as long as they are reasonably certain to deliver increased purchasing power over their holding period. 
• And as we will see, a non-fluctuating asset can be laden with risk.

Investment possibilities are both many and varied.



http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2011ltr.pdf

Interesting to Note that this is a development that hurts Berkshire Hathaway during 2011

-  Three large and very attractive fixed-income investments were called away from us by their issuers in 2011. Swiss Re, Goldman Sachs and General Electric paid us an aggregate of $12.8 billion to redeem securities that were producing about $1.2 billion of pre-tax earnings for Berkshire. That’s a lot of income to replace, though our Lubrizol purchase did offset most of it.

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2011ltr.pdf


Comment:  Buffett emphasizes increasing the aggregate pre-tax earnings and incomes.  He reinvests into or replaces companies, to achieve growth in aggregate pre-tax earnings and incomes.   This is very sound strategy to follow.

Buffett: In my early days I, too, rejoiced when the market rose. Now, low prices became my friend.

Buffett highlights the irrational reaction of many investors to changes in stock prices.


Today, IBM has 1.16 billion shares outstanding, of which we own about 63.9 million or 5.5%.  Naturally, what happens to the company’s earnings over the next five years is of enormous importance to us.  Beyond that, the company will likely spend $50 billion or so in those years to repurchase shares. Our quiz for the day: What should a long-term shareholder, such as Berkshire, cheer for during that period?

I won’t keep you in suspense. We should wish for IBM’s stock price to languish throughout the five years.

----



The logic is simple: If you are going to be a net buyer of stocks in the future, either directly with your own money or indirectly (through your ownership of a company that is repurchasing shares), you are hurt when stocks rise. You benefit when stocks swoon. Emotions, however, too often complicate the matter:

• Most people, including those who will be net buyers in the future, take comfort in seeing stock prices advance. 
• These shareholders resemble a commuter who rejoices after the price of gas increases, simply because his tank contains a day’s supply.

Charlie and I don’t expect to win many of you over to our way of thinking – we’ve observed enough human behavior to know the futility of that – but we do want you to be aware of our personal calculus. And here
a confession is in order: In my early days I, too, rejoiced when the market rose. Then I read Chapter Eight of Ben Graham’s The Intelligent Investor, the chapter dealing with how investors should view fluctuations in stock prices. Immediately the scales fell from my eyes, and low prices became my friend. Picking up that book was one of the luckiest moments in my life.

In the end, the success of our IBM investment will be determined primarily by its future earnings. But an important secondary factor will be how many shares the company purchases with the substantial sums it is likely to devote to this activity. And if repurchases ever reduce the IBM shares outstanding to 63.9 million,  I will abandon my famed frugality and give Berkshire employees a paid holiday. 

-----


When Berkshire buys stock in a company that is repurchasing shares, we hope for two events:

• First, we have the normal hope that earnings of the business will increase at a good clip for a long time to come; and 
• second, we also hope that the stock underperforms in the market for a long time as well. A corollary to this second point: “Talking our book” about a stock we own – were that to be effective – would actually be harmful to Berkshire, not helpful as commentators customarily assume.

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2011ltr.pdf

Share Buybacks: Mixed Emotions evoked when Berkshire shares sell well below Intrinsic Value

Share Repurchases


Last September, we announced that Berkshire would repurchase its shares at a price of up to 110% of book value. We were in the market for only a few days – buying $67 million of stock – before the price advanced beyond our limit. Nonetheless, the general importance of share repurchases suggests I should focus for a bit on the subject.

Charlie and I favor repurchases when two conditions are met: 

• first, a company has ample funds to take care of the operational and liquidity needs of its business; 
• second, its stock is selling at a material discount to the company’s intrinsic business value, conservatively calculated. 

We have witnessed many bouts of repurchasing that failed our second test. Sometimes, of course, infractions – even serious ones – are innocent; many CEOs never stop believing their stock is cheap. In other instances, a less benign conclusion seems warranted.

• It doesn’t suffice to say that repurchases are being made to offset the dilution from stock issuances or simply because a company has excess cash. 
• Continuing shareholders are hurt unless shares are purchased below intrinsic value. 

The first law of capital allocation – whether the money is slated for acquisitions or share repurchases – is that what is smart at one price is dumb at another. (One CEO who always stresses the price/value factor in repurchase decisions is Jamie Dimon at J.P. Morgan; I recommend that you read his annual letter.)

Charlie and I have mixed emotions when Berkshire shares sell well below intrinsic value. We like making money for continuing shareholders, and there is no surer way to do that than by buying an asset – our
own stock – that we know to be worth at least x for less than that – for .9x, .8x or even lower. (As one of our directors says, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel, after the barrel has been drained and the fish have quit flopping.)

Nevertheless, we don’t enjoy cashing out partners at a discount, even though our doing so may give the selling shareholders a slightly higher price than they would receive if our bid was absent. 

• When we are buying, therefore, we want those exiting partners to be fully informed about the value of the assets they are selling. 
• At our limit price of 110% of book value, repurchases clearly increase Berkshire’s per-share intrinsic value. 
• And the more and the cheaper we buy, the greater the gain for continuing shareholders. 

Therefore, if given the opportunity, we will likely repurchase stock aggressively at our price limit or lower.

You should know, however, that

• we have no interest in supporting the stock and that our bids will fade in particularly weak markets.
• Nor will we buy shares if our cash-equivalent holdings are below $20 billion. At Berkshire, financial strength that is unquestionable takes precedence over all else.

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2011ltr.pdf