Warren Buffett Investing Secrets.

Warren Buffett Investing Secrets.pdf

Free e-book

The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People

TSM Global (At a Glance)

17.3.2012
TSM Global
Income Statement	9M	9M
	31.10.2011	31.10.2010	Absolute Chg	Change
Revenue	272.46	288.92	-16.46	-5.70%
Gross Profit			0.00	#DIV/0!
Operating Profit	31.194	45.847	-14.65	-31.96%
Financing costs	-0.273	-0.655	0.38	-58.32%
PBT	34.795	52.596	-17.80	-33.84%
PAT	26.279	41.7	-15.42	-36.98%
EPS (basic) sen	12.73	20.73	-8.00	-38.59%
Balance Sheet	31.10.2011	31.1.2011
NCA	91.007	75.462	15.55	20.60%
CA	250.299	176.154	74.15	42.09%
Total Assets	341.306	251.616	89.69	35.65%
Total Equity	284.042	300.543	-16.50	-5.49%
NCL	3.965	2.319	1.65	70.98%
CL	53.3	48.753	4.55	9.33%
Total Liabilities	57.265	51.072	6.19	12.13%
Total Eq + Liab	341.307	351.615	-10.31	-2.93%
Net assets per share	1.370	1.540	-0.17	-11.04%
Short term Investm	41.089	37.869
Cash & Eq	91.433	96.833	-5.40	-5.58%
LT Borrowings	0.316	0.516	-0.20	-38.76%
ST Borrowings	19.002	9.104	9.90	108.72%
Net Cash	113.204	125.082	-11.88	-9.50%
Inventories	54.093	42.26	11.83	28.00%
Trade receivables	63.685	64.693	-1.01	-1.56%
Trade payables	33.918	25.237	8.68	34.40%
Working capital	196.999	127.401	69.60	54.63%
Quick Ratio	3.68	2.75	0.93	34.04%
Current Ratio	4.70	3.61	1.08	29.97%
Cash flow statement	31.10.2011	31.1.2011
PBT	34.795	52.596	-17.80	-33.84%
OPBCWC	71.386	81.839	-10.45	-12.77%
Cash from Operations	87.630	49.731	37.90	76.21%
Net CFO	70.241	34.237	36.00	105.16%
CFI	-58.578	-11.998	-46.58	388.23%
CFF	-2.893	-36.286	33.39	-92.03%
Capex	-23.846	-16.860	-6.99	41.44%
FCF	46.395	17.377	29.02	166.99%
Dividends paid	-6.370	-3.132	-3.24	103.38%
DPS (sen)	5.01	2.46	2.55	103.38%
No of ord shares (m)	127.213	127.213	0.00	0.00%
Financial Ratios
Gross Profit Margin	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	#DIV/0!
Net Profit Margin	9.64%	14.43%	-4.79%	-33.17%
Asset Turnover *	1.06	1.53	-0.47	-30.48%
Financial Leverage	1.20	0.84	0.36	43.53%
*annualised
ROA	10.27%	22.10%	-11.83%	-53.54%
ROC	12.40%	19.55%	-7.15%	-36.56%
ROE	12.34%	18.50%	-6.16%	-33.32%
Valuation	6.3.2012	4.3.2011
Price	1.22	1.65	-0.43	-26.06%
Market cap (m)	155.20	209.90	-54.70	-26.06%
P/E**	5.91	5.03	0.87	17.33%
P/BV	0.55	0.70	-0.15	-21.77%
P/FCF	3.35	12.08	-8.73	-72.31%
P/Div	24.36	67.02	-42.65	-63.65%
DPO ratio	0.24	0.08	0.17	222.73%
EY**	16.93%	19.87%	-2.93%	-14.77%
FCF/P	29.89%	8.28%	21.62%	261.09%
DY	4.10%	1.49%	2.61%	175.07%
Cash per share RM	0.89	0.98	-9.34%	-9.50%
**9M Earnings

TOP GLOVE NET PROFIT SURGED BY 109%

Financial results for the second quarter ended February 29, 2012 (“2QFY12”)

Klang, Thursday, March 15, 2012 –Top Glove Corporation Bhd (Top Glove) today announced sales revenue of RM549.0 million and net profit of RM54.2 million in 2QFY12 for the financial year ending 31 August 2012.

Revenue for 2QFY12 recorded a growth of 13% to RM549.0 million from RM485.2 million in the corresponding quarter last financial year, and net profit surged 109% to RM54.2 million from RM25.9 million.

On a six month cumulative (September to February) comparison between 1HFY12 and 1HFY11, revenue rose 13% to RM1,103.8 million from RM976.7 million and net profit improved 39% to RM86.7 million from RM62.3 million. The improved performance was attributed to an increase in glove demand, improved operational efficiency and a downtrend in latex prices which reduced from an average of RM8.14/kg in 1HFY11 to RM7.58/kg in 1HFY12.

Top Glove’s Group Chairman, Tan Sri Lim Wee Chai commented “The stronger US dollar and lower latex prices gave us better net profit for 2QFY12. We have learnt from past experience on excessive increases in latex prices and shall remain cautious to continue with our planned strategy for a more balanced product mix of latex and nitrile gloves to cater to on-going customer preference.”

Rare Earth Issues

Points of Maximum Financial Risk and Financial Opportunity

 

Nestle - Projecting its future

Nestle					CAGR	CAGR
	15.3.12	31.12.10	31.12.06		2006-2010	2006-2011
	2011	2010	2006		4 Years	5 Years
Market Price $	56.3	43.34	24.8		17.82%	14.98%
Turnover $	4,700,994	4,026,319	3,275,541		7.49%	5.29%
Earnings (sen)	194.58	166.91	112.67		11.55%	10.32%
Div (sen)	180	165	100		12.47%	13.34%
P/E	28.9	26.0	22.0
EY	3.46%	3.85%	4.54%
DY	3.20%	3.81%	4.03%

Projections of Nestle using the following assumptions:
- EPS GR of 8% per year, that is, its earnings double in 9 years from 2011.
- At the end of the 9 year period in 2020, its intrinsic value was at PE of 22x.

	Projections			EPS GR 8%		Projections
	PE 22	15.3.12		CAGR		Using Historical Price
Year	2020	2011				2020
Market Price $	85.6152	56.3		4.77%		56.3
Turnover $		4700994
Earnings (sen)	389.16	194.58		8.01%		389.16
Div (sen)	360	180		8.01%		360
P/E	22.0	28.9				14.5
EY	4.55%	3.46%				6.91%
DY	4.20%	3.20%				6.39%

Using the above 2 CONSERVATIVE assumptions, you can expect a total return per year of about 9.6% if you were to invest into Nestle today.  This return is derived thus:  about 4.77% from capital appreciation and about  4.8% from dividends.

The more enterprising investor may wish to look for investments with a higher return of 15% or more.  Nevertheless, a return of 9.6% is good for many.

Please note that the projections are over a long period of 9 years.  Over the short term, the price of Nestle can be volatile too and your return may even be negative depending on the price you paid to own it.

Graham defined investment thus: An INVESTMENT OPERATION is one which, upon THOROUGH ANALYSIS, promises SAFETY OF PRINCIPAL and a SATISFACTORY RETURN. Operations NOT meeting these requirements are speculative. 

Nestle revisited

In the year 2001, the after tax EPS of Nestle was 87 sen. and its share price was trading between $19.30 to $21.20, with a P/E ranging from 22.2 to 24.4.

For someone who bought Nestle in 2001, where was the margin of safety of this company?

Margin of safety in a company comes from various sources.  Among these are the qualitative factors which are difficult to quantify mathematically.  Nestle has durable competitive advantage and economic moat.  The only assessment for the investor is to "guess intelligently" what its earnings growth will be over the next few years.  

Margin of safety concept can be applied in two ways.  One that is obvious is buying a company at a big discount to its intrinsic value.  Of course, intrinsic value is not easy to determine and does vary widely depending on the assumptions one makes in deriving this value.  Another method that is not obvious, is the margin of safety that exists too when the present price that you are paying is at a discount to its intrinsic value based on its growth projections, conservatively estimated.

Let's look at Nestle.  In 2001, you were paying 22.2 times for $1 of its after tax earnings.  Was this underpriced, fair price or overpriced relative to its intrinsic value, conservatively estimated based on its growth potential?  Growth projections are at best intelligent guesstimates.  Nestle was projected to grow its business profit at 8% per year at that time.  Therefore in 9 years from 2001, it was projected then to have an EPS of 2 x 87 sen = 174 sen.  

Assuming that Nestle in 2010 had the same PE of 22.2, its share price in 2010 should be 22.2 x 174 sen = $.38.63, or CAGR of 8%.  The average DY of Nestle was 4%.  Nestle paid out virtually all its earnings as dividends.  Therefore, its DY in 2001 based on historical cost was 4% but in 2010, its DY based on historical cost was 8% (dividend paid had also doubled).  This was an average dividend yield of about 6% per year for that period.  Should you have reinvested all the dividends back into Nestle, you would probably be able to compound your initial investment at more than 14% per year.

So, in 2001, Nestle's PE was 22.2x.  Yet, knowing its earning growth potential, conservatively estimated, there was margin of safety even buying at this price, with a reasonable degree of probability.  Using a conservative growth estimate in earnings of 8% per year, its earnings was projected to double in 2010.  Based on this EPS projection, its (future) intrinsic value would be higher and herein was the margin of safety demanded by the value investor.  

Such way of investing may not appeal to some investors.  It is too difficult for them to realise that growth creates value.  One should be happy to pay a higher PE to own a stock of higher quality, better earnings growth, lesser risk and greater certainty of a positive sustainable return.

Buying a wonderful company at a fair price has made those who know how, very rewarding and rich indeed.  There is no reason to change something that has worked consistently over 2 decades of investing.  

Nestle

Closing price on 14.3.2012
$56.30

How does an investor hope to profit from investing into a high quality growth company?

He can obtain his returns from:
1.  The dividends distributed by the company.
2.  The share price appreciation that reflects the better earnings of the company over time.
3.  Buying the share at a bargain to its fair or intrinsic price.

The long term investor will derive most of his gains from dividends and the share price appreciation of the above stock.

Let's assume that the investor was poor in his pricing of this stock and bought in 1996 at $24 per share (the highest price for that period), he would still has a lot of gains from the dividends and share appreciation of this stock when he holds this share to today.

If the investor was very good in his pricing of this stock and bought at the lowest price in 1998 at $13 per share, he would have a better return from the dividends and share appreciation of this stock when he holds this share to today.

The "worse" case scenario is not buying into this stock and holding cash, hoping to buy at very steep bargains that never arise.  The opportunity costs for holding cash instead of being invested into this stock over the short and long term can be very costly.

Warrants trading: What you need to know

Structured Warrants – Gearing & Greeks

In this article we will look at gearing factor and sensitivity coefficients – the Greeks which measure change in warrant value via change in other variables. 

Gearing & Effective Gearing: Structured warrants cost only a fraction of their underlying shares. They provide holders with greater exposure to price movements as they generally rise and fall more steeply in percentage terms. If a warrant is priced at RM0.30, and the underlying share is trading at RM1.50, the gearing is 5 times. The price of one warrant offers exposure to 5 shares. In bull markets, warrants will always be among the top risers and the opposite holds true in bear markets.

The definition of gearing is: 
Gearing = Share Price / Warrant Price (adjusted by exercise ratio) 

The following chart plots the relative price movements of a call and put warrant against corresponding movements in the underlying share price. Note the percentage change in the value of the underlying share compared with the value change in the call warrant and the put warrant. During a 3-month period, the underlying share price falls by 10% (at Point A) and increases by 8% (at Point B) - share price varies over an 18% range. In contrast, the call warrant fluctuates within a 75% range, while the put warrant fluctuates within an 80% range but in an opposite direction to the call. 
Gearing decreases as the share price increases. 

Delta & Gamma: Delta refers to the rate of change of warrant price for a given change in the underlying share price. For call warrants, the delta will fall between 0 and 1; for puts it will be between 0 and -1. At 0, the warrant is impartial to any moves on the underlying share. At 1, the warrant is expected to move sen-for-sen with the underlying share. Typically, at-the-money warrants will have a delta of 0.5. As the warrant moves in-the-money, the delta will approach 1. 

The most savvy of traders will aim for medium-delta warrants, in the range of 0.4 to 0.5. Any delta too low will denote an out-of-money warrant with strike too far away. 

The delta is a constantly changing number. The rate of change of delta is known as the gamma. One could visualise delta as the speed of the warrant, and gamma as the acceleration. The gamma simulates the changes on the warrant price for different underlying share price. Any move on the underlying share will move the delta higher, as with the gamma. 

Vega: Vega measures the sensitivity of warrant price to change in volatility. Vega is the highest for at-the-money warrants, and tends to be higher for longer-dated warrants. 

With several issuers issuing warrants on the same shares, the belief is that investors and traders should focus on the warrant with the lowest implied volatility. This is only true if the issuers will buy back their warrants at a proportionate volatility level. An example would be buying a warrant at an implied volatility of 45%, which the issuer buys back at 42% versus buying a warrant at a volatility of 40% that is bought back at a volatility of 30%. 

Theta: Also known as time decay, Theta is expressed in terms of sen or percentage per week (or per day closer to expiry). Eventually, the warrant will need to lose the time value entirely. But theta is not linear to time – it will get proportionately larger as it approaches expiry. 

Rho: Rho measures the sensitivity of warrant prices to changes in interest rates. However, the level of interest rates, as a variable, is likely to influence neither warrant pricing nor trading decision making process. 

Final Thoughts: The Greeks do not help answer which warrant to buy. However, they are reliable forecasting tools on the changes in warrant prices versus the underlying share price movements. 


Related:

Warrants trading: What you need to know  Parameters & Variables of Structured Warrants

http://bursaedge.blogspot.com/2012/02/warrants-education-2.html