Wednesday, 1 September 2010

Ordinary Malaysians shun stock market amid stalling recovery

September 01, 2010
Individual investors began fleeing the local market in 1997, and have yet to return. — Reuters pic

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 1 — Individual investors continue to shun the Malaysian stock market as public confidence remains shaky due to fears that the market’s recovery following the 2007 US sub-prime mortgage crisis may not be real.

Economists and analysts said that a slowdown in foreign investments, poor enforcement against unscrupulous activities and overseas competition for local funds also contributed to the lack of interest among ordinary Malaysians in investing in the local share market.

Kenanga Investment Bank economist Wan Suhaimie Wan Saidie said most investors were tired of the Malaysian stock market, which was not as competitive as other bourses in the region, and added that participation was also muted due to the lack of foreign direct investment (FDI).

“There is a correlation between retail participants and foreign investment flows,” he said, referencing the massive 81.1 per cent drop in foreign direct investment (FDI) Malaysia experienced last year.

“If foreign investment flows are not forthcoming individual investors are more likely to shun the local market.”
He said there was a possibility that investors might “go back to hibernation” until they saw signs of a firm recovery, but cautioned that the flow information both locally and abroad did not suggest that things were getting any better.

Until then, however, investors still had many other options to buy both locally and abroad or put their money into properties and commodities, he explained.

The Kuala Lumpur Composite Index’s 45 per cent gain last year lagged behind Southeast Asian neighbours even after the government announced stimulus plans totalling RM67 billion to help pull the region’s third-largest economy out of a recession.

The slump in trading by individuals coincided with an exodus by foreigners from Asean’s second-biggest stock market, leaving Bursa Malaysia more reliant on domestic institutional funds.

Overseas investors have sold a net RM1.36 billion of Malaysia’s equities this year, adding to RM8.57 billion withdrawn in 2009 and RM38.6 billion that flowed out in 2008, paring their share of local stocks down to 20.6 per cent at the end of April from 27.5 per cent in April 2007.

Wan Suhaimie was critical of the level of participation in the market by statutory funds such as Employees Provident Fund (EPF), which he said distorted the market as they focused only on index-linked stocks.
On March 30, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak revealed that the state-controlled EPF accounted for 50 per cent of daily trading volume in the equity and bond markets. Additionally, more than half of the RM417.1 billion market value in the benchmark stock index is owned by government-linked funds, according to calculations by Bloomberg.

“It doesn’t really reflect the real overall performance of the stock market. Most of the information and research is skewed towards big cap stocks,” he said, adding that it was possible that investors might miss out on smaller companies that have better growth potential because of this.

A Hwang-DBS remisier who wanted to be identified only as Kok explained that, during good times, retail investors make up 60 to 70 per cent of trading value in a normal market.

However, according to a Bloomberg report, trading by individuals have fallen to as low as 20 percent of trading value from more than half before the start of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, when the KLCI slumped by a record 52 per cent.

Kok said the battering individual investors took in 1997 and the recent sub-prime crisis led many to put their money in safer alternatives like unit trusts or sukuks (Islamic bonds), adding that many were also still holding onto stocks that had yet to recover.

“With the market in such a lacklustre mode, you can’t make money punting,” he said. “The market is just drifting. The main market movers are just blue chip index counters... Most retail investors are still on the sidelines nursing their wounds.”

“Any spare money they’ll probably keep in interest-bearing accounts or, if they have more money, they’ll probably just park it with a fund manager.”

Most individual savings started shifting to mutual funds and unit trusts since Malaysia’s economy went into a recession in 1998 but have not returned to stock trading even as the economy expanded at an annual average of five percent over the past decade and the benchmark index more than doubled, Bursa Malaysia CEO Yusli Mohamed Yusoff said in June.

In order to boost retail investors’ share of trading to closer to one-third and tap into Southeast Asia’s second-highest savings rate, Bursa is currently working with brokerages and banks to encourage investors to open up accounts and pursue online trading.

However, Kok said he felt that investors were still wary of trading on the market because they were not convinced that Malaysia’s economic recovery was real.

“When you talk about six or seven per cent (GDP) growth, I suppose you and I don’t see it,” he said.
A broker with a local investment bank who declined to be named was similarly sceptical of the strength of the market’s recovery, pointing out that the KLCI, which is used as a bellwether for the Malaysian stock market, focused only on selected blue chip stocks.

“It is very obvious that the index, targeting only 30 counters, is not a true reflection of the overall market. A lot of the companies are actually really going down,” she said.

“Because the downtrend from ‘07, until today, in terms of all those general stocks that people buy and sell, a lot of them are still very much at the bottom.”

She added that retail investors have also been “very quiet” partly because they had lost confidence in market regulators, citing the recent case of furniture make Kenmark Industrial Co Bhd.

Kenmark’s troubles began in late May when its Taiwanese managing director James Hwang disappeared mysteriously — leading to a plunge in share price and plant closures in Port Klang and Vietnam — only to resurface nearly a week later, claiming his absence was due to illness.

During Hwang’s absence, Datuk Ishak Ismail entered the market and amassed shares amounting to a 32.36 per cent stake in the company over 10 days at prices of between 5.8 sen and 6.0 sen, claiming he had done so to help out his friend Hwang and offer re-employment to the company’s workers.

However, Ishak later sold his direct and indirect stake in Kenmark between June 9 and June 11 at between 14 sen and 16 sen after failing to convince Hwang to return to the company.

The Securities Commission finally stepped in on June 16 when it obtained a High Court order to stop Ishak from using or dealing with the RM10.16 million proceeds from the sale of shares in Kenmark as part of a move to probe possible insider trading.

Kenmark’s share price plummeted from a high of RM0.85 to just RM0.07.

“Stocks can drop from a dollar to penny stocks... These sorts of events happen in the Malaysian market, yet the authorities are not taking action,” the remisier said.

“A company doesn’t just fold up within a month. I can understand how those investors feel.”

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/business/article/ordinary-malaysians-shun-stock-market-amid-stalling-recovery/

Free Cash Flow - FCF


What Does It Mean?




What Does Free Cash Flow - FCF Mean?
A measure of financial performance calculated as operating cash flow minus capital expenditures. Free cash flow (FCF) represents the cash that a company is able to generate after laying out the money required to maintain or expand its asset base. Free cash flow is important because it allows a company to pursue opportunities that enhance shareholder value. Without cash, it's tough to develop new products, make acquisitions, pay dividends and reduce debt. FCF is calculated as:


Free Cash Flow (FCF)


It can also be calculated by taking operating cash flow and subtracting capital expenditures.
Investopedia Says





Investopedia explains Free Cash Flow - FCF
Some believe that Wall Street focuses myopically on earnings while ignoring the "real" cash that a firm generates. Earnings can often be clouded by accounting gimmicks, but it's tougher to fake cash flow. For this reason, some investors believe that FCF gives a much clearer view of the ability to generate cash (and thus profits).

It is important to note that negative free cash flow is not bad in itself. If free cash flow is negative, it could be a sign that a company is making large investments. If these investments earn a high return, the strategy has the potential to pay off in the long run.

Related Terms
Related Links:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freecashflow.asp

What is Free Cash Flow?

FCF, or free cash flow, is net income earned from a business venture along with any depreciation or amortization that is relevant to the company. The amount of free cash flow does allow for any changes in the amount of working capital on hand as well as any shifts in capital expenditures for the period under consideration. It is free cash flow that is used by the company to honor its obligations to stockholders and others who hold debt or equity in the corporation. While not free cash in the sense that the funds can be used for anything, the cash flow is free in that it is not required to maintain the basic production functions of the company.

Calculating this cash minus expenditures involves knowing such important line items as current depreciation on property, the value of intangible assets after allowing for amortization, any interest or investment income received, returns from the sale of stocks, and any monies collected as a result of selling property. Taking all these factors into consideration makes it possible to arrive at what is known as the headline operating profit. This figure serves as the starting point for determining the amount of FCF that is currently on hand and can be used to issue payments to stockholders and others who hold debt or equity instruments issued by the company.

Under the best circumstances, any company should have a healthy free cash flow at the end of each financial period. Not only is the flow of profits necessary to allow the company to honor all its financial obligations, it also provides the foundation for future expansion. That expansion may come in the form of improving existing facilities, developing and marketing new products, or creating new facilities in new locations. The presence of the free cash flow means the company is in a good position to grow and become even more profitable.
 

Stockholders are always happy when a company posts a positive free cash flow. The presence of a cash flow that is free and in the black rather than in the red means there will be no problems in receiving dividend payments and may possibly be an indicator that the company may find it feasible to issue additional shares in the near future. It also means the company is managing expenses in an efficient manner, which helps to maximize the chances for the stock holdings to continue to earn dividends in the future.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-free-cash-flow.htm

What is EBITDA?

Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization or, to give it its acronym, EBITDA, is a measure of a company's cash flow before certain deductions. It allows investors to see how much money a company is making before taxes, depreciation and amortization have been deducted. Basically, when investors place money in a company, they will want to know how much money the company has been making since their money was invested. EBITDA gives the investor an idea of how much money the company has made before its deductions. It is especially useful for a new company who has just started business and has not yet been hit with taxes, payments to creditors, and so on.

If the EBITDA figure seems to have a good growth rate, then some investors may use this figure instead of the overall net figure. It can show them that the company has a future for potential growth and that they will get a return on their investment. Investors call this looking at the EBITDA margin rather than the net margin.

There are potential problems in using the EDITDA figure. The EBITDA leaves out of lot of expenses in the final figure, so it may not be a realistic view of a company’s profitability. It also does not measure the actual cash that is flowing into the company because of the figures that it leaves out.

There are a few factors that the EBITDA neglects. These include the money required for working capital, fixed expenses and other debt payments and capital expenditures. In every business, capital expenditures are a crucial, ongoing expense. However, this is not factored into the EBITDA figure, so investors need to be wary when using the EBITDA figure as a basis for a profit margin.

There are more reliable ways for investors to calculate a company's cash income. They can use the Free Cash Flow (FCF) system. The FCF is calculated by simply deducting capital expenditures from the business cash flow figure. This takes into account at least three of the factors that the EBITDA leaves out: inventory, receivables and capital expenditures such as property and equipment.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-ebitda.htm

How to Calculate EBITDA

EBITDA stands for earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. It is a measure to gauge the profitability of a corporation or business. A person need not have an MBA to understand financial calculations. EBITDA is not as complicated to calculate as the lengthy acronym would suggest.

Instructions

  1. Calculate net income. To calculate net income obtain total income and subtract total expenses. Total income is defined as the amount of money obtained for services, labor or the sale of goods. Total expenses is defined as when a corporation uses up an asset or incurs a liability.
  2. Determine income taxes. Income taxes are the total amount of taxes paid to federal, state and local governments.
  3. Compute interest charges. Interest is the fee paid to companies or individuals that reimburses the individual or companies for the use of credit or currency.
  4. Establish the cost of depreciation. Depreciation is the term used to define a cash (machines or property) or non-cash asset (a copyright, a trademark or brand name recognition) that loses value over time whether through aging, wear and tear or the assets becoming obsolete. There are two methods of depreciation: straight line and accelerated.
  5. Ascertain the cost of amortization. Amortization is a method of decreasing the amounts of financial instruments over time including interest other finance charges.
  6. Add all previously defined components. EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) equals amortization plus depreciation plus interest plus net income plus income taxes. The resulting figure is then subtracted from total expense. This final figure is then subtracted from total revenue to arrive at EBITDA.

Read more: How to Calculate EBITDA | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_2060379_calculate-ebitda.html#ixzz0yEIhiJ2i

Tips & Warnings

  • EBITDA is a financial calculation that is NOT regulated by GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) and therefore can be manipulated to a company's own ends.

EBITDA: Challenging The Calculation

by Lisa Smith 
EBITDA has a bad rap in the financial world, but does this financial measure really deserve the investor distaste? EBITDA, an acronym for "earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization," is an often-used measure of the value of a business. But critics of this value often point out that it is a dangerous and misleading number, due to the fact that it is often confused with cash flow. In this article we'll show you how this number can actually help investors create an apples-to-apples comparison, without leaving a bitter aftertaste.
The Calculation

EBITDA is calculated by taking operating income and adding depreciation and amortization expenses back to it. EBITDA is used to analyze a company's operating profitability before non-operating expenses (such as interest and "other" non-core expenses) and non-cash charges (depreciation and amortization). So, why is this simple figure continually reviled in the financial industry?
The Critics

Factoring out interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization can make even completely unprofitable firms appear to be fiscally healthy. A look back at the dotcoms provides countless examples of firms that had no hope, no future and certainly no earnings, but became the darlings of the investment world. The use of EBITDA as measure of financial health made these firms look attractive.
Likewise, EBITDA numbers are easy to manipulate. If fraudulent accounting techniques are used to inflate revenues and interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization are factored out of the equation, almost any company will look great. Of course, when the truth comes out about the sales figures, the house of cards will tumble and investors will be in trouble.
Operating cash flow is a better measure of how much cash a company is generating because it adds non-cash charges (depreciation and amortization) back to net income and includes the changes in working capital that also use or provide cash (such as changes in receivables, payables and inventories). These working capital factors are the key to determining how much cash a company is generating. If investors do not include changes in working capital in their analysis and rely solely on EBITDA, they will miss clues that indicate whether a company is losing money because it isn't making any sales. (To learn more about cash flow, see The Essentials Of Cash Flow and Analyze Cash Flow The Easy Way.)


The Cheerleaders

Despite the critics, there are many who favor this handy equation. Several facts are lost in all the complaining about EBITDA, but they are open promoted by the value's cheerleaders.


  1. The first factor to consider is that EBITDA can be used as a shortcut to estimate the cash flow available to pay debt on long-term assets, such as equipment and other items with a lifespan measured in decades rather than years. Dividing EBITDA by the amount of required debt payments yields a debt coverage ratio. Factoring out the "ITDA" of EBITDA was designed to account for the cost of the long-term assets and provide a look at the profits that would be left after the cost of these tools was taken into consideration. This is the pre-1980s use of EBIDTA, and is a perfectly legitimate calculation.
  2. Another factor that is often overlooked is that for an EBITDA estimate to be reasonably accurate, the company under evaluation must have legitimate profitability. Using EBITDA to evaluate old-line industrial firms is likely to produce useful results. This idea was lost during the 1980s, when leveraged buyouts were fashionable, and EBITDA began to be used as a proxy for cash flow. This evolved into the more recent practice of using EBITDA to evaluate unprofitable dotcoms as well as firms such as telecoms, where technology upgrades are a constant expense.
  3. EBITDA can also be used to compare companies against each other and against industry averages.
  4. In addition, EBITDA is a good measure of core profit trends because it eliminates some of the extraneous factors and allows a more "apples-to-apples" comparison.
Ultimately, EBITDA should not replace the measure of cash flow, which includes the significant factor of changes in working capital. Remember "cash is king" because it shows "true" profitability and a company's ability to continue operations.

Example - EBITDA Analysis
The experience of the W.T. Grant Company provides a good illustration of the importance of cash generation over EBITDA. Grant was a general retailer in the time before commercial malls and was a blue chip stock of its day. Unfortunately, management made several mistakes. Inventory levels increased, and the company needed to borrow heavily to keep its doors open. Because of the heavy debt load, Grant eventually went out of business, and the top analysts of the day that focused only on EBITDA missed the negative cash flows. Many of the missed calls of the end of the dotcom era mirror the recommendations Wall Street once made for Grant. In this case, the old cliché is right: history does tend repeat itself. Investors should heed this warning.

The Caution

In both cases No.1 and No.2 listed above, EBITDA is likely to produce misleading results. Debt on long-term assets is easy to predict and plan for, while short-term debt is not. Lack of profitability isn't a good sign of business health regardless of EBITDA. In these cases, rather than using EBITDA to determine a company's health and put a valuation on the firm, it should be used to determine how long the firm can continue to service its debt without additional financing.
A good analyst understands these facts and uses the calculations accordingly in addition to his or her other proprietary and individual estimates.

The Conclusion

EBITDA doesn't exist in a vacuum. The measure's bad reputation is more a result of overexposure and improper use than anything else. Just as a shovel is effective for digging holes, but wouldn't be the best tool for tightening screws or inflating tires, so EBITDA shouldn't be used as a one-size-fits-all, stand-alone tool for evaluating corporate profitability. This is a particularly valid point when one considers that EBITDA calculations do not conform to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAPs).
Like any other measure, EBITDA is only a single indicator. To develop a full picture of the health of any given firm, a multitude of measures must be taken into consideration. If identifying great companies was as simple a checking a single number, everybody would be checking that number and professional analysts would cease to exist. (For more insight on EBITDA, read A Clear Look At EBITDA.)


by Lisa Smith
 

Value investing is, on average, successful in the long run.

Value investing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Value investing is an investment paradigm that derives from the ideas on investment and speculation that Ben Graham & David Dodd began teaching at Columbia Business School in 1928 and subsequently developed in their 1934 text Security Analysis. Although value investing has taken many forms since its inception, it generally involves buying securities whose shares appear underpriced by some form(s) of fundamental analysis.[1] As examples, such securities may be stock in public companies that trade at discounts to book value or tangible book value, have high dividend yields, have low price-to-earning multiples or have low price-to-book ratios.

High-profile proponents of value investing, including Berkshire Hathaway chairman Warren Buffett, have argued that the essence of value investing is buying stocks at less than their intrinsic value.[2] The discount of the market price to the intrinsic value is what Benjamin Graham called the "margin of safety". The intrinsic value is the discounted value of all future distributions.

However, the future distributions and the appropriate discount rate can only be assumptions. For the last 25 years, Warren Buffett has taken the value investing concept even further with a focus on "finding an outstanding company at a sensible price" rather than generic companies at a bargain price.

 

Contents


History

Benjamin Graham

Value investing was established by Benjamin Graham and David Dodd, both professors at Columbia Business School and teachers of many famous investors. In Graham's book The Intelligent Investor, he advocated the important concept of margin of safety — first introduced in Security Analysis, a 1934 book he co-authored with David Dodd — which calls for a cautious approach to investing. In terms of picking stocks, he recommended defensive investment in stocks trading below their tangible book value as a safeguard to adverse future developments often encountered in the stock market.

 

Further evolution

However, the concept of value (as well as "book value") has evolved significantly since the 1970s. Book value is most useful in industries where most assets are tangible. Intangible assets such as patents, software, brands, or goodwill are difficult to quantify, and may not survive the break-up of a company. When an industry is going through fast technological advancements, the value of its assets is not easily estimated. Sometimes, the production power of an asset can be significantly reduced due to competitive disruptive innovation and therefore its value can suffer permanent impairment. One good example of decreasing asset value is a personal computer. An example of where book value does not mean much is the service and retail sectors. One modern model of calculating value is the discounted cash flow model (DCF). The value of an asset is the sum of its future cash flows, discounted back to the present.

 

Value investing performance

Performance, value strategies

Value investing has proven to be a successful investment strategy. There are several ways to evaluate its success. One way is to examine the performance of simple value strategies, such as buying low PE ratio stocks, low price-to-cash-flow ratio stocks, or low price-to-book ratio stocks. Numerous academics have published studies investigating the effects of buying value stocks. These studies have consistently found that value stocks outperform growth stocks and the market as a whole.[3][4][5]

Performance, value investors

Another way to examine the performance of value investing strategies is to examine the investing performance of well-known value investors. Simply examining the performance of the best known value investors would not be instructive, because investors do not become well known unless they are successful. This introduces a selection bias. A better way to investigate the performance of a group of value investors was suggested by Warren Buffett, in his May 17, 1984 speech that was published as The Superinvestors of Graham-and-Doddsville. In this speech, Buffett examined the performance of those investors who worked at Graham-Newman Corporation and were thus most influenced by Benjamin Graham. Buffett's conclusion is identical to that of the academic research on simple value investing strategies--value investing is, on average, successful in the long run.

During about a 25-year period (1965-90), published research and articles in leading journals of the value ilk were few. Warren Buffett once commented, "You couldn't advance in a finance department in this country unless you taught that the world was flat."[6]

 

Well-known value investors

Benjamin Graham is regarded by many to be the father of value investing. Along with David Dodd, he wrote Security Analysis, first published in 1934. The most lasting contribution of this book to the field of security analysis was to emphasize the quantifiable aspects of security analysis (such as the evaluations of earnings and book value) while minimizing the importance of more qualitative factors such as the quality of a company's management. Graham later wrote The Intelligent Investor, a book that brought value investing to individual investors. Aside from Buffett, many of Graham's other students, such as William J. Ruane, Irving Kahn and Charles Brandes have gone on to become successful investors in their own right.

Graham's most famous student, however, is Warren Buffett, who ran successful investing partnerships before closing them in 1969 to focus on running Berkshire Hathaway. Charlie Munger joined Buffett at Berkshire Hathaway in the 1970s and has since worked as Vice Chairman of the company. Buffett has credited Munger with encouraging him to focus on long-term sustainable growth rather than on simply the valuation of current cash flows or assets.[7] Columbia Business School has played a significant role in shaping the principles of the Value Investor, with professors and students making their mark on history and on each other. Ben Graham’s book, The Intelligent Investor, was Warren Buffett’s bible and he referred to it as "the greatest book on investing ever written.” A young Warren Buffett studied under Prof. Ben Graham, took his course and worked for his small investment firm, Graham Newman, from 1954 to 1956. Twenty years after Ben Graham, Prof. Roger Murray arrived and taught value investing to a young student named Mario Gabelli. About a decade or so later, Prof. Bruce Greenwald arrived and produced his own protégés, including Mr. Paul Sonkin—just as Ben Graham had Mr. Buffett as a protégé, and Roger Murray had Mr. Gabelli.

Mutual Series has a well known reputation of producing top value managers and analysts in this modern era. This tradition stems from two individuals: the late great value mind Max Heine, founder of the well regarded value investment firm Mutual Shares fund in 1949 and his protégé legendary value investor Michael F. Price. Mutual Series was sold to Franklin Templeton in 1996. The disciples of Heine and Price quietly practice value investing at some of the most successful investment firms in the country.

Seth Klarman is a Mutual Series alum and the founder and president of The Baupost Group, a Boston-based private investment partnership, authored Margin of Safety, Risk Averse Investing Strategies for the Thoughtful Investor, which since has become a value investing classic. Now out of print, Margin of Safety has sold on Amazon for $1,200 and eBay for $2,000.[8] Another famous value investor is John Templeton. He first achieved investing success by buying shares of a number of companies in the aftermath of the stock market crash of 1929.

Martin J. Whitman is another well-regarded value investor. His approach is called safe-and-cheap, which was hitherto referred to as financial-integrity approach. Martin Whitman focuses on acquiring common shares of companies with extremely strong financial position at a price reflecting meaningful discount to the estimated NAV of the company concerned. Martin Whitman believes it is ill-advised for investors to pay much attention to the trend of macro-factors (like employment, movement of interest rate, GDP, etc.) because they are not as important and attempts to predict their movement are almost always futile. Martin Whitman's letters to shareholders of his Third Avenue Value Fund (TAVF) are considered valuable resources "for investors to pirate good ideas" by another famous investor Joel Greenblatt in his book on special-situation investment You Can Be a Stock Market Genius (ISBN 0-684-84007-3, pp 247).

Joel Greenblatt achieved annual returns at the hedge fund Gotham Capital of over 50% per year for 10 years from 1985 to 1995 before closing the fund and returning his investors' money. He is known for investing in special situations such as spin-offs, mergers, and divestitures.

Charles de Vaulx and Jean-Marie Eveillard are well known global value managers. For a time, these two were paired up at the First Eagle Funds, compiling an enviable track record of risk-adjusted outperformance. For example, Morningstar designated them the 2001 "International Stock Manager of the Year" and de Vaulx earned second place from Morningstar for 2006. Eveillard is known for his Bloomberg appearances where he insists that securities investors never use margin or leverage. The point made is that margin should be considered the anathema of value investing, since a negative price move could prematurely force a sale. In contrast, a value investor must be able and willing to be patient for the rest of the market to recognize and correct whatever pricing issue created the momentary value. Eveillard correctly labels the use of margin or leverage as speculation, the opposite of value investing.

Christopher H. Browne of Tweedy, Browne was well known for value investing. According to the Wall Street Journal, Tweedy, Browne was the favorite brokerage firm of Benjamin Graham during his lifetime; also, the Tweedy, Browne Value Fund and Global Value Fund have both beat market averages since their inception in 1993.[2] In 2006, Christopher H. Browne wrote The Little Book of Value Investing in order to teach ordinary investors how to value invest.[3]

 

Criticism

An issue with buying shares in a bear market is that despite appearing undervalued at one time, prices can still drop along with the market.[9] Conversely, an issue with not buying shares in a bull market is that despite appearing overvalued at one time, prices can still rise along with the market.

Another issue is the method of calculating the "intrinsic value". Two investors can analyze the same information and reach different conclusions regarding the intrinsic value of the company. There is no systematic or standard way to value a stock.[10]

 

Value investing books and resources

 

See also

 

Value Investors at Wikiquote

 

References

  1. ^ Graham, Benjamin (1934). Security Analysis New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 4. ISBN 0-07-144820-9.
  2. ^ Graham (1949). The Intelligent Investor New York: Collins, Ch.20. ISBN 0-06-055566-1.
  3. ^ The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns, by Fama & French, 1992, Journal of Finance
  4. ^ Firm Size, Book-to-Market Ratio, and Security Returns: A Holdout Sample of Financial Firms, by Lyon & Barber, 1997, Journal of Finance
  5. ^ Overreaction, Underreaction, and the Low-P/E Effect, by Dreman & Berry, 1995, Financial Analysts Journal
  6. ^ Joseph Nocera, The Heresy That Made Them Rich, The New York Times, October 29, 2005
  7. ^ Warren Buffett's 1989 letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders
  8. ^ The $700 Used Book. (2006, Aug. 7). BusinessWeek, Personal Finance section. Accessed 11-11-2008.
  9. ^ When Value Investing Doesn't Work
  10. ^ [1]
  11. ^ Graham and Dodd. 1934. Security Analysis: Principles and Technique, 1E. New York and London: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.
  12. ^ Graham and Dodd. 1940. Security Analysis: Principles and Technique, 2E. New York and London: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.
  13. ^ Graham et al. 1951. Security Analysis: Principles and Technique, 3E. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc.
  14. ^ Graham et al. 1962. Security Analysis: Principles and Technique, 4E. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.
  15. ^ Graham and Dodd. 1988. Security Analysis: Principles and Technique, 5E. McGraw-Hill Professional
  16. ^ Graham and Dodd. 2008. Security Analysis: Principles and Technique, 6E. McGraw-Hill Professional


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_investing

Profit (accounting)

In accounting, profit is the difference between price and the costs of bringing to market whatever it is that is accounted as an enterprise (whether by harvest, extraction, manufacture, or purchase) in terms of the component costs of delivered goods and/or services and any operating or other expenses.

Definition

There are several important profit measures in common use which will be explained in the following. Note that the words earnings, profit and income are used as substitutes in some of these terms (also depending on US vs. UK usage), thus inflating the number of profit measures.

Gross profit equals sales revenue less Cost of Goods Sold (COGS), thus removing only the part of expenses that can be traced directly to the production of the goods. Gross profit still includes general (overhead) expenses like R&D, S&M, G&A, also interest expense, taxes and extraordinary items.

Operating profit equals gross profit less all operating expenses. This is the surplus generated by operations. It is also known as Earnings Before Interest and Taxes EBIT, Operating Profit Before Interest and Taxes OPBIT or simply Profit Before Interest and Taxes PBIT.

(Net) Profit Before Tax PBT equals operating profit less interest expense (but before taxes). It is also known as Earnings Before Tax EBT, Net operating income before taxes or simply Pretax Income.

Net profit equals Profit After Tax (unless some distinction about the treatment of extraordinary expenses is made). In the US the term Net Income is commonly used. Income before extraordinary expenses represents the same but before adjusting for extroardinary items.

Net income less dividends becomes retained earnings.

There are several additional important profit measures, notably EBITDA and NOPAT.

To accountants, economic profit, or EP, is a single-period metric to determine the value created by a company in one period - usually a year. It is the net profit after tax less the equity charge, a risk-weighted cost of capital. This is almost identical to the economist's definition of economic profit.

There are commentators who see benefit in making adjustments to economic profit such as eliminating the effect of amortized goodwill or capitalizing expenditure on brand advertising to show its value over multiple accounting periods. The underlying concept was first introduced by Schmalenbach, but the commercial application of the concept of adjusted economic profit was by Stern Stewart & Co. which has trade-marked their adjusted economic profit as EVA or Economic Value Added.

Some economists define further types of profit:
Optimum Profit - This is the "right amount" of profit a business can achieve. In business, this figure takes account of marketing strategy, market position, and other methods of increasing returns above the competitive rate.

Accounting profits should include economic profits, which are also called economic rents. For instance, a monopoly can have very high economic profits, and those profits might include a rent on some natural resource that firm owns, where that resource cannot be easily duplicated by other firms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_profit

Earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT)

In accounting and finance, earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) or operating income is a measure of a firm's profitability that excludes interest and income tax expenses.


EBIT = Operating RevenueOperating Expenses (OPEX) + Non-operating Income

Operating Income = Operating Revenue – Operating Expenses

Operating income is the difference between operating revenues and operating expenses, but it is also sometimes used as a synonym for EBIT and operating profit. This is true if the firm has no non-operating income.

A professional investor contemplating a change to the capital structure of a firm (e.g., through a leveraged buyout) first evaluates a firm's fundamental earnings potential (reflected by Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization EBITDA and EBIT), and then determines the optimal use of debt vs. equity.

To calculate EBIT, expenses (e.g., the cost of goods sold, selling and administrative expenses) are subtracted from revenues.[3] Profit is later obtained by subtracting interest and taxes from the result.


Statement of Income — Example
(figures in millions)
Operating Revenue
     Sales Revenue $20,438
Operating Expenses
     Cost of goods sold $7,943
     Selling, general and administrative expenses $8,172
     Depreciation and amortization $960
     Other expenses $138
         Total operating expenses $17,213
Operating income $3,225
     Non-operating income $130
Earnings before Interest and Taxes (EBIT) $3,355
     Net interest expense/income $145
Earnings before income taxes $3,210
     Income taxes $1,027
Net Income $2,183

(Table info source: Bodie, Z., Kane, A. and Marcus, A. J. Essentials of Investments, McGraw Hill Irwin, 2004, p. 452.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnings_before_interest_and_taxes

Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA)

EBITDA «ee-bit-dah» is the initialism for earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. It is a non-GAAP metric that is measured exactly as stated. All interest, tax, depreciation and amortization entries in the income statement are reversed out from the bottom-line net income. It purports to measure cash earnings without accrual accounting, canceling tax-jurisdiction effects, and canceling the effects of different capital structures.

EBITDA differs from the operating cash flow in a cash flow statement primarily by excluding payments for taxes or interest as well as changes in working capital. EBITDA also differs from free cash flow because it excludes cash requirements for replacing capital assets (capex).

EBITDA Margin refers to EBITDA divided by total revenue. EBITDA margin measures the extent to which cash operating expenses use up revenue.

Contents
* 1 Use by private equity investors
* 2 Use by debtholders
* 3 Use by shareholders
* 4 Unprofitable businesses


Use by private equity investors


In the process of purchase, long-life assets will be revalued to market values. Their depreciation and amortization will necessarily be changed. Control of the business allows the purchaser to move it to a new tax jurisdiction and to refinance its debt.


Use by debtholders

EBITDA is widely used in loan covenants. The theory is that it measures the cash earnings that can be used to pay interest and repay the principal. Since interest is paid before income tax is calculated, the debtholder can ignore taxes. They are not interested in whether the business can replace its assets when they wear out,therefore can ignore capital amortization and depreciation.

There are two EBITDA metrics used.

1. The measure of a debt's pay-back period is Debt/EBITDA. The longer the payback period, the greater the risk. The metric presumes that the business has stopped making interest payments (because interest is added back). But it is argued that once that happens the debtholder is unlikely to wait around (say) three years to recover their principal while the business continues to operate in default. So does the metric measure anything? There is also the problem of adding back taxes. This metric ignores all tax expenses even though a good portion are cash payments, and the government gets paid first. Principal repayments are not tax-deductible.

2. One interest coverage ratio (EBITDA /Interest Expense) is used to determine a firm's ability to pay interest on outstanding debt. The greater the multiple of cash available for interest payments, the less risk to the lender. The greater the year-to-year variance in EBITDA, the greater the risk. Because interest is tax-deductible it is appropriate to back out the tax effects of the interest, but this metric ignores all taxes.

The ratios can be customized by reducing Debt by any cash on the balance sheet or by deducting maintenance CapEx from EBITDA to form a measure closer to free cash flow.

Use by shareholders


Public investors' use of EBITDA arose from their perception that accountants' measure of profits, using accrual accounting was manipulated, that a measure of cash earnings would be more reliable.

It is true that PE can use this metric. And it is true the professional analysts using detailed discounted cash flow models should replace non-cash expenses with projected time-weighted payments. But none of that applies to retail investors' reality.

EBITDA does NOT measure cash earnings because it omits all the tax expenses even though a good portion are cash payments. It also fails to correct for other non-cash expenses, e.g. warranty expense, bad debt allowance, inventory write-down, stock options granted.

It does not include the cash flows from changes in working capital. Suppose a business sells all its opening inventory in a year and replaces the same number of units but at a higher price because of inflation. The profits of a company using FIFO inventory valuation will not include that extra cash cost. Suppose the business is expanding and need to stock a larger number of units. That additional cash cost is not in anyone's EBITDA measure.

When using this metric to replace accountant's earnings it presumes to measure an economic profit. But any economic profit must include the cost of capital and the degradation of long-life assets. This metric simply ignores both. Warren Buffett famously asked, "Does management think the tooth fairy pays for capital expenditures?" Depreciation may not be exact but it is the most practical method available. It succeeds in equating the positions of companies using three different ways to finance long-life assets. It can be interpreted as:

1. the allocation of the original cost, at a later date, when the asset was used to generate revenue. The time-value-of-money (same argument used above) means that depreciation may understate the cost.
2. the amount of cash required to be retained in order to finance the eventual replacement asset. Since inflation is the basis for time-value-of-money, the amounts set aside today must be invested and grow in value in order to pay the inflated price in the future.
3. the decrease in value of the balance sheet asset since the last reporting period. Assets wear out with use, and will eventually have to be replaced.

Unprofitable businesses

When comparing businesses with non profits, their potential to make profit is more important than their Net Loss. Since taxes on losses will be misleading in this context, taxes can be ignored. Capital expenditures and their related debt result in fixed costs. These are of less importance than the variable costs that can be expected to grow with increasing sales volume, in order to cover the fixed costs. So depreciation and interest costs are of less importance. It is likely that an unprofitable business is burning cash (has a negative cash flow), so investors are most concerned with "how long the cash will last before the business must get more financing" (resulting in debt or equity dilution).

EBITDA is not used as a valuation metric in these circumstances. It is a starting point on which future growth is applied and future profitability discounted back to the present. Equity owners only benefit from net profits, after all the expenses are paid.

During the dot com bubble companies promoted their stock by emphasising either EBITDA or pro forma earnings in their financial reports, and explaining away the (often poor) "income" number. This would involve ignoring one-time write-offs, asset impairments and other costs deemed to be non-recurring. Because EBITDA (and its variations) are not measures generally accepted under U.S. GAAP, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission requires that companies registering securities with it (and when filing its periodic reports) reconcile EBITDA to net income in order to avoid misleading investors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnings_before_interest,_taxes,_depreciation_and_amortization


EV/EBITDA
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


EV/EBITDA is a valuation multiple that is often used in parallel with, or as an alternative to, the P/E ratio.

An advantage of this multiple is that it is capital structure-neutral. Therefore, this multiple can be used for direct cross-companies application.

Often, an industry average EV/EBITDA multiple is calculated on a sample of listed companies to benchmark against. An index now exists providing an average EV/EBITDA multiple on a wide sample of transactions on private companies in the Eurozone (Argos Soditic index).

The reciprocate multiple EBITDA/EV is used as a cash return on investment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EV/EBITDA

Is QL Resources in for more M&As?

Monday August 30, 2010

Is QL Resources in for more M&As?

By LEE KIAN SEONG
lks@thestar.com.my

Market is concerned about firm’s financial capability, the prospects of its local and regional expansion

QL Resources Bhd, which announced its merger and acquisition (M&A) exercise last Monday, has been in the spotlight as there is wide speculation going around that the company might be pursuing more M&As going forward.

QL managing director Chia Song Kun said last Tuesday that the company would look into more M&As if there was something in the market that could benefit the company.

However, the questions are: Is the company able to pursue further M&As with its current financial capability and what are the earnings prospects going forward given its aggressive expansion plans locally and regionally?

According to Bloomberg data, the company’s market capitalisation stands at RM1.81bil. Its share prices have risen 40.3% to RM4.56 year-to-date.

The company announced its acquisition of a 23.29% stake in rival company Lay Hong Bhd for total consideration of RM11.6mil last Monday.

Lay Hong is mainly involved in the production of eggs, broiler farming and feedmill activities. It has also ventured into retail business in Sabah and currently operates eight supermarkets under the trade name G*MART.

Meanwhile, QL is a diversified resource and agricultural-based group with three core principal activities marine products, manufacturing, integrated livestock farming and crude palm oil milling.

The acquisition of Lay Hong, which is in similar businesses, will enable QL and Lay Hong to achieve synergies from feed raw material sourcing arrangements, supply chain networks and operations efficiency.

Kenanga Research is factoring seven months of contribution from the new associate or RM1.7mil for the financial year ending March 31, 2011 (FY11) and another RM2.8mil for FY12 in its forecast.

QL has set aside RM400mil over the next two years to expand its poultry, fishing and oil palm planting businesses.

The company is expanding its business in Vietnam and Indonesia, with investment of US$10mil and US$20mil respectively. It is also investing about RM25mil to build biogas and biomass plants at its Sabah palm oil mill to turn waste into green energy.

It will also spend US$15mil to install a mill for its East Kalimantan oil palm estates.

It was reported last year that the company aimed to triple its profit contribution from palm oil operations by 2015 as it was bullish about the long-term growth outlook for the commodity.

Despite the high capital expenditure going forward, the company said it would continue to pay out 25% to 30% of the group profits as dividends. The market is concerned whether QL can really maintain this policy with such expansion plans.

An analyst from a local brokerage said QL’s management had shown its interest in M&A and always kept its options open.

However, it is hard to judge whether the company would undertake M&A activities soon.

“It would probably acquire layer farms rather than listed entities. With its net profit of over RM100mil a year, the acquisition of layer farms, is possible and the company has been doing that for many years,” she said.

She said given the gearing level of about 0.6 times with a large portion of it for feed trading business, the company still had plenty of room to take up more loans.

“QL has very strong free cashflow generation and I don’t see a problem for it to finance their acquisition. It also has good track record in getting loans,” she said.

According to QL’s annual report, its cash and cash equivalents as at the end of FY10 stood at RM106.1mil, compared with RM68.3mil a year ago. Its loans and borrowings stood at RM215.4mil in FY10, compared with RM163.1mil in FY09.

Another analyst from a local research house said she did not expect QL to conduct further M&A activities in the near-term as the company was now actively expanding its businesses.

“If it is looking for M&A, it might be in the Phase II expansion in its Surabaya plant. It might want to explore opportunities for value-added products and look for acquisition in this area or start a greenfield project.

“However, it would not happen in the near term,” she said.

She said the company would have banks lined up for its expansion or acquisition funding.

On its earnings prospects, Kenanga Research raised QL’s FY11 net profit forecast by 6.3% and 6.6% for FY12 to account for the stronger surimi prices, crude palm oil prices and new earnings stream supported by improving economic conditions.

OSK Research said the construction of QL’s Surabaya surimi plant and day-old chick breeder farm as well as Vietnam livestock farm had begun and the units were expected to start contributing in FY12.

“We are somewhat positive on the expansion in Indonesia and Vietnam as they will boost revenue of its marine products manufacturing segment and Vietnam layer farm by 16.5% and 3.1% respectively, taking into account the time taken to ramp up capacity and production,” the research house said.

OSK likes QL’s resilient business as well as strong management team, which will continue to drive growth in all its three core segments.

It reiterates its “buy call” on QL, given the 13% price upside on the stock.

QL posted slightly higher net profit of RM26.8mil in the first quarter ended June 30, compared with RM22.3mil in the same period last year.

Its revenue was lower at RM356.34mil, compared with RM364.49mil previously.

For FY10, QL registered a net profit of RM115.1mil, 19% higher than RM96.7mil in FY09. Its revenue rose 5.7% to RM1.48bil.

http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/8/30/business/6926466&sec=business