Thursday, 25 October 2012

How Long Will It Take Tesco to Recover?


LONDON -- Top U.K. supermarket Tesco (LSE: TSCO.L  ) shocked the market back in January with its first profit warning in 20 years. The FTSE 100 firm saw almost 5 billion pounds wiped off the value of its shares at a stroke.
Nine months on, and a disappointing set of interim results later -- a double-digit percentage fall in trading profit -- Tesco's shares languish at the same level they dived to immediately following the profit warning.
So, how long will it take Tesco to recover? Let's have a look at three other supermarkets that have issued profit warnings in the past 10 years.
Morrison's meal deal: four years of indigestionIn March 2004, Wm Morrison Supermarkets completed the 3.4 billion pound acquisition of rival chain Safeway. Within six months, it issued a profit warning for its fiscal year 2005 -- the chain's first profit warning in 37 years.
By June 2005, Morrison had issued no less than five profit warnings, extending the fallout from the acquisition into fiscal year 2006. As the table below shows, it would take until 2008 for Morrison's earnings per share to surpass its pre-profit-warning level of 2004.

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Revenue (in billions of pounds)4.912.112.112.513.0
EPS (in pence)12.68.1(9.5)9.320.8
Dividend per share (in pence)3.33.73.74.04.8
Of course, Morrison's bout of severe indigestion from feasting on Safeway is very different to Tesco's current situation.
However, there are perhaps a couple of points worth noting. On the optimistic side, Morrison was able to maintain its dividend despite its difficulties. On the pessimistic side, analysts remained over-optimistic about Morrison's earnings, not only after the first profit warning but also through the following 12 months.
Sainsbury's six years of hurt
J Sainsbury issued three profit warnings for its fiscal year 2005. The company had been chasing higher margins at the expense of the customer experience. Sound familiar?
Sainsbury's directorspeak and actions to remedy the situation in 2004-05 also reverberate in many ways with Tesco's in 2012. Here are some pertinent snippets from Sainsbury:
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the brand. The problem was that we hadn't delivered it well enough in recent years.
Our number one priority … to make things better for our customers as quickly as possible … to "fix the basics."
Recruitment of 3,000 additional colleagues into stores.
131 stores have not received any investment for a number of years … Customers, representing 20 percent of Sainsbury's sales, are not experiencing the best store environment and these stores will be refurbished over the next two years.
Overall, we think we've made a good start, but there's still much left to be done.
As the table below shows, there was indeed much left to be done.

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Revenue (in billions of pounds)18.216.616.117.217.818.920.0
EPS (in pence)20.7-3.03.819.219.116.632.1
Dividend per share (in pence)15.77.88.09.812.013.214.2
Sainsbury had reckoned it would take until fiscal year 2008 to bring about lasting change. As far as earnings performance was concerned, it took until 2010 for EPS to surpass its pre-profit-warning level of 2004. Meanwhile, the dividend, which was slashed in 2005, had yet to regain its former level.
Carrefour on all fours: five years and countingFrench supermarket giant Carrefour has similar revenues to Tesco and, like its U.K. counterpart, is the dominant force in its home territory.
Carrefour issued a profit warning in June 2008 and a second six months later, citing weaker consumer spending, particularly in Europe. An uptick in revenues and earnings in 2010 proved to be a false dawn and the company issued five profit warnings for its fiscal year 2011.
As the table below shows, an improvement is expected in the current year. Nevertheless, the dividend has been cut, and both EPS and dividend per share are forecast to be at around half their pre-profit-warning level of 2007.

2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012 (forecast)
Revenue (in billions of euros)82.187.087.491.580.580.8
EPS (c)267186486456134
Dividend per share (c)10810810810810859
Foolish bottom lineIt took four years for Morrison to get its EPS back to the level before the first profit warning; it took Sainsbury six years; and for Carrefour it's five years and counting.
Tesco may pull a quick-turnaround rabbit out of the hat, but if recent supermarket history is any guide, it could be a longer and rougher ride than I suspect many investors are expecting.
Certainly, Tesco's problems amount to a whole lot more than one period of poor Christmas trading. In the words of the chief executive, the company needs to address "long-standing business issues" in the U.K.
Once on the wrong tack, supermarkets, like supertankers, typically take an age to change course. Tesco's shares may be trading at under 10 times current-year earnings forecasts and offer a prospective yield of 4.8%, but investors need to consider the opportunity cost of a protracted recovery.
One super-investor who is aboard the Tesco supertanker for the long haul is US multi-billionaire Warren Buffett. You can read the full story of Buffet's investment in a free and exclusive Motley Fool report: "The One UK Share Warren Buffett Loves."

KLSE Market PE is 17.7 (20.10.2012)

KLCI 19.10.12
Index Stock M.Cap Earnings Dividends
Stock Name Price (RM m) PE DY NTA (RM m) (RM m)
AMBANK 6.44 19411.3 12.7 3.1 3.70 1528.4 601.8
AXIATA 6.68 56828.1 23.9 2.8 2.28 2377.7 1591.2
BAT 64.00 18273.9 25.4 4.3 1.51 719.4 785.8
CIMB 7.62 56637.7 14.1 2.9 3.49 4016.9 1642.5
DIGI 5.48 42607.0 34.0 3.2 0.18 1253.1 1363.4
GAMUDA 3.43 7139.1 13.0 3.5 1.95 549.2 249.9
GENM 3.59 21315.5 14.2 2.4 2.11 1501.1 511.6
GENTING 8.75 32545.5 11.3 0.9 4.77 2880.1 292.9
HLBANK 14.20 26694.7 14.3 2.7 1.23 1866.8 720.8
HLFG 12.84 13517.5 11.6 1.9 8.07 1165.3 256.8
IOICORP 5.06 32530.5 18.2 3.1 1.73 1787.4 1008.4
KLK 21.42 22865.9 14.5 4.0 6.64 1577.0 914.6
MAXIS 6.87 51528.5 20.4 5.8 1.08 2525.9 2988.7
MAYBANK 9.09 75142.9 13.2 4.0 4.38 5692.6 3005.7
MHB 4.74 7584.0 36.7 2.1 1.52 206.6 159.3
MISC 4.23 18881.8 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.0 0.0
MMCCORP 2.70 8221.7 24.6 1.5 2.04 334.2 123.3
PBBANK 14.88 52555.0 15.0 3.2 4.24 3503.7 1681.8
PCHEM 6.56 52480.0 19.9 2.4 2.51 2637.2 1259.5
PETDAG 22.24 22094.4 33.7 3.6 4.81 655.6 795.4
PETGAS 19.70 38981.0 36.1 2.0 4.48 1079.8 779.6
PPB 12.60 14937.3 15.2 1.8 11.86 982.7 268.9
RHBCAP 7.48 16723.5 10.9 3.4 5.19 1534.3 568.6
SIME 9.79 58832.6 14.2 3.6 4.33 4143.1 2118.0
TENAGA 6.96 38348.4 76.0 0.6 5.53 504.6 230.1
TM 6.05 21643.3 18.2 3.2 1.95 1189.2 692.6
UMW 10.08 11776.4 23.4 3.1 3.65 503.3 365.1
YTL 1.79 19033.9 15.2 1.1 1.25 1252.2 209.4
YTLPOWR 1.63 11956.2 9.6 2.9 1.30 1245.4 346.7
TOTAL 871087.6 49213.0 25532.2









Market PE 17.7
Market DY 2.9%

KLCI  1,666.35
19.10.2012



Adopted from the Star Newspaper 20.10.2012

What is Investing?


Graham, Chapter 1: 
Graham lays out his definition of investing right from the start of this chapter. His description is "an investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis promises safety of principal and an adequate return" (p. 18). He labels anything not meeting these standards as speculation. 
Graham then describes two different approaches to investing: defensive and aggressive. 
Obviously, safety is a big concern for the defensive investor, and that shows in his example of putting half of your money in stocks and half in bonds. He lists other approaches of defensive investing, like investing only in well established companies, and dollar-cost averaging. 
Graham's take on aggressive investing isn't as kind. The three types of the aggressive approach (trading the market, short-term selectivity, and long-term selectivity) are all considered to have less profitability. This is explained by the possibility of the aggressive investor being wrong on his or her market timing.

The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham

Related:

The Intelligent Investor: The Defensive Investor and Common Stocks


The Intelligent Investor: General Portfolio Policy for the Defensive Investor


The Intelligent Investor: The Positive Side to Portfolio Policy for the Enterprising Investor




Using Market Fluctuations as a guide to making Investment Decisions*


Graham, Chapter 8:
In chapter eight of Graham's book, he brings up the subject of market fluctuation. I think he makes an important point to those people who are monitoring their retirement portfolios almost on a daily basis. 
He states that "the investor with a portfolio of sound stocks should expect their prices to fluctuate and should neither be concerned by sizable declines nor become excited by sizable advances" (p. 206). 
With this in mind, he suggests using these fluctuations in the market as a guide to making investment decisions. 
More precisely, he suggests using the dips in the market as points to acquire more of a quality stock along with finding new opportunities for suitable investments.

The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham

Benjamin Graham: Mutual Funds


Graham, Chapter 9:
Mutual funds are the subject of the ninth chapter of The Intelligent Investor. Fund performance and the different types of funds available to the investor are covered. 
One of those types of funds is the performance fund, which seeks to outperform the Dow Jones Industrial Average in this case, so they are the more aggressive of the funds. 
Another type, the closed-end fund only offers a specific number of shares at one time, instead of continuously, and is the most illiquid of the bunch. 
The last mutual fund type Graham mentions in this chapter is the balanced fund. These types of funds contain a certain percentage of bond holdings. Even the conservatively investing Graham suggests you would be better off investing in bonds by themselves, rather than mixed in a fund with stocks.


The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham

Buying Good Quality Stock versus Buying Poor Quality Stock

Graham, Chapter 20:

Chapter 20 is entitled "Margin of Safety as the Central Concept of Investment" (p. 512). I think this chapter sums up Graham's investing philosophy. 
He not only covers the risk of buying a good quality stock at a high price, but buying a poor quality stock at a high price during an up-trending market. The latter is one of the riskier moves you can do with your money in the context of the margin-of-safety. On the other hand, purchasing stock in a good quality company, even if it's at a high price, will ultimately end up being the better choice.
One other important point in this chapter is the mention of diversification as a tool of safety, not perfection. While he doesn't go into specific methods of diversification, Graham does point out that even if one stock tanks, diversifying your portfolio "guarantees only that (you) have a better chance for profit than for loss - not that loss is impossible" (p. 518).



Intelligent Investor 
by Benjamin Graham


Main lesson:  

Buying a poor quality stock at a high price during an up-trending market is one of the riskier moves you can do with your money in the context of the margin of safety.   AVOID.  AVOID.  AVOID.

The Day Ahead: The Perils of Bottom-Fishing



By choice, I will stitch together earnings-season notes and play in Excel from the comfy confines of a space no bigger than a restroom in a one-bedroom apartment. To some this would appear akin to self-torture, but to me if offers a physical bubble around any harmful toxins that want to enter the analyses I'm conducting. Stupidly, I allowed a toxin to cross through to the other side on Monday evening, and its name was "Bottom Toxin." After the Dow gagged Friday, we've heard that the world's economic growth rate is now bottoming, and we must quickly welcome an array of earnings-season violators into the portfolio -- or, if you are me, onto the client watch list.
Snauseges? I comprehend that everyone in the #FinServices sphere wants to be the next rock star, that person of perfection who predicts that a market or a stock will likely head higher or lower by 10%. Sure, my dudes, we have to justify fees, be they for execution (research is an add-on, the ultimate "intellectual capital") or some other business being promoted through Google'sGOOG search algorithms.
But as a person who has been trained to first-smash a company's fundamentals into small pieces and then be the pitchman for or against exposure to the stock, I have to ask this simple question: Do the masses truly grasp the characteristics of a "bottom" in a company's performance or in country's economy? Further, for those identifying bottoms all over the place, I fancy there should at least be more than a few data points to support the brick-laying that are alleged to have brought us to financial spoils.
I took a momentary trip to the "bottom," and this is what I learned.
A Bottom, Deconstructed
● Pricing power is hard to come by, as companies become promotional to maintain market share. If Company A is ramping promotions, best believe that Company B and Company C will promote. Inside of that, it's hard to tell which company is winning and with what detriment to margins. Specific to this earnings season, the chatter was that third-quarter profit estimates would be eclipsed with ease. Guess what? That isn't happening, and it's starting on the top line. Are you willing to model for an  expansion in the price-to-earnings multiple in this scenario?
● There are excess goods sitting in end markets. This leads to a mouse-eats-snake development as goods bulge in factories and stockrooms. In upcoming 10-Q releases, skip to the inventory section and target the "finished goods inventory" component -- it's unlikely to be pretty for many companies that had earnings shortfalls. It requires time to sell off products collecting dust, even if a price discount has been enacted.
● There is this natural tendency for executives to believe an improved macroeconomic environment will alleviate the aforementioned issues, but they are hesitant to share this with analysts and shareholders for fear of over-promising and under-delivering. As a result, we are left exposed to potential false reads by the market -- as is currently the case, with stocks reacting harshly to earnings misses.
These are the primary takeaways to my trip to the bottom. I don't want to completely ruin your day with zillions of earnings bullets flying by. You see, the bottom is an ugly place to be, a barren wasteland where the slightest bit of rain brings hope. Stock-pickers will play with their discounted cash flow models, modeling in "reasonable" free cash flow and P/E multiple assumptions -- yet there is no real assurance they are reasonable enough.
At some point, yes, we will have to circle back to the industrial complex, call the big names oversold and then plunk down wagers on brighter quarters in 2013. However, I remain hesitant to call that in names such as Caterpillar CAT and Texas Instruments TXN , as the market is not telling us that should be the game plan right around now.
Deep Thought
Caterpillar traded off the lows of the session in response to earnings. If that was a type of stealthy bullish tell, am I a complete whack job in saying that the action should have spilled over to comparable companies in industrials -- for example, General Electric GE ? Heck, shouldn't the stock have closed at session highs? Theoretically, if a name like Caterpillar is moving counter to conventional wisdom -- that the world stinks -- then sentiment must be mirrored elsewhere in terms of sectors.
Uncensored
On Sept. 5, I said this on Decker's Outdoor DECK : "I'm not feeling how its outlook is shaping up on cost of goods sold, nor on what this means to consumers." On Oct. 23, I say this: Stay far away from this stock. Holiday-quarter guidance will be slashed, inventories are likely to be elevated (again), and core Ugg brand sales will be weak. But why stay far away? Well, there is an outside chance lower prices cleared some excess inventory, and that could trigger hope consumer appetite still exists for the brand -- which would crush the shorts.

Is Dollar-Cost Averaging Overrated?



Question: Every year I add money to my IRA account in a lump sum. Would I be better off using dollar-cost-averaging over the course of the year?
Answer: Dollar-cost-averaging, which is a technical term for buying shares of a stock or mutual fund in equal dollar amounts and at regular intervals, is assumed by many investors and financial pros to be the best way to invest. The advantages are clear: By investing a given amount over time and in equal-sized chunks rather than all at once, the investor ends up buying more shares when prices become cheaper and fewer when they become more expensive.
For example, let's say you get a $1,200 tax refund. Rather than invest all $1,200 at once, you could invest $100 per month for a year. Now let's say the fund you're investing in sells for $10 a share in the first month but drops to $5 a share in the second. Using the dollar-cost averaging method, you would end up buying 10 shares in the first month, before the market drop, but 20 shares in the second, after the drop. Had you invested the entire $1,200 in the first month you would have owned 120 shares, which, in month two, would have declined in value to $600. In this way, dollar-cost averaging helps reduce an investor's exposure to a potential market downturn, a danger inherent in the lump-sum approach.
Dollar-cost averaging also fosters a level of investing discipline. Rather than trying to figure out the best time to invest a lump sum, dollar-cost averaging uses a more systematic approach that helps investors conquer bad habits such as buying shares only when the market is up.
If you have an employer-sponsored retirement account, you may be using dollar-cost-averaging without even knowing it. That biweekly or monthly contribution made to your 401(k) is a form of dollar-cost-averaging.
Putting Dollar-Cost Averaging to the Test
However, despite the conventional wisdom that dollar-cost averaging is usually the best way to invest, there is an opportunity cost to be paid for holding money in cash while it waits to be invested in the market. If the market goes up while you're dollar-cost averaging into it, you've lost out on any gains you would have had by investing the entire amount right away.
In fact, a recent Vanguard study found that, on average, lump-sum investing resulted in higher returns than dollar-cost averaging about two-thirds of the time. The authors looked at historical monthly returns for $1 million invested as a lump sum and through dollar-cost averaging over periods as short as 6 months and as long as 36 months, assuming that funds were kept in cash before being invested. They tested various stock/bond allocations ranging from an all-equities portfolio to an all-bond portfolio. Finally, they tested these variations on the dollar-cost averaging vs. lump-sum question over rolling 10-year periods from 1926-2011.
At the end of each 10-year period, the portfolio value of the lump-sum method was compared with that of the dollar-cost averaging method. The result: The lump-sum method delivered higher returns compared with the 12-month dollar-cost averaging method about 66% of the time regardless of whether an all-equities, all-bond, or 60% equity/40% bond allocation was used. When the authors conducted a similar analysis using historical returns for markets in the U.K. and Australia, a similar pattern emerged, with lump-sum investing consistently outperforming dollar-cost averaging.
The authors note that the longer the dollar-cost averaging time frame, the greater the chance of the lump-sum method outperforming. For example, dollar-cost averaging over 36 months lost out to the lump-sum method 90% of the time (for U.S. markets).
It's also worth noting that while lump-sum investing consistently outperformed dollar-cost averaging, the average rate of outperformance was relatively modest. Using a 60/40 equity-bond allocation in U.S. markets and dollar-cost averaging over a period of 12 months, the authors found that after 10 years the initial $1 million investment would have grown to $2,450,264 on average using the lump-sum method versus $2,395,824 using dollar-cost averaging, a difference of about $54,000 or 2.3%.
DCA Better in Declining Markets 
So the Vanguard study proves it's always best to invest in a lump sum if possible, right? Not so fast. As the authors concede, during market declines, the dollar-cost averaging method often performs better because it helps mitigate the effects of falling share prices, whereas the lump-sum method puts all the capital at risk in the market at once. They examined more than 1,000 rolling 12-month periods in U.S. markets and found that lump-sum investors would have seen their investment decline in value 22.4% of the time vs. 17.6% for dollar-cost averaging.
The Takeway
So what should we make of these findings? There appears to be little doubt that, when investing for the long-term, you'’re more likely to end up ahead using the lump-sum approach than dollar-cost averaging. (Again, assuming you have a choice--with a work-sponsored retirement account, you may not.) However, there are three important points in dollar-cost averaging's favor.
If you expect a market downturn in the near future, dollar-cost averaging is the better choice. By spreading out contributions at regular intervals, you are essentially limiting your exposure by keeping some of your money in cash. 
For some investors, a relatively modest shortfall in return is a small price to pay for piece of mind. If dollar-cost-averaging helps you sleep better at night than you would with an all-in strategy, it may be worth it.
Dollar-cost averaging, especially through an automatic contribution mechanism such as a 401(k) or automatic deduction from a bank account, offers a level of investing discipline that lump-sum investing doesn't. The lump-sum approach, by its nature, involves market timing, and that's a dangerous game to play, especially during times of volatility. Dollar-cost averaging provides a smoother, more consistent entry into the market.One last factor to consider is investing costs, which may provide an advantage for the lump-sum method. For example, if using dollar-cost averaging requires paying multiple brokerage fees to buy shares of a stock in several lots rather than just once, this may further erode your returns as compared with the lump-sum method.
Ultimately, your comfort level with lump-sum investing and your expectations about the market's near-term direction should help you decide if it makes sense for you. If moving a lump sum into the market all at once gives you a queasy feeling in the pit of your stomach, that may be all the answer you need.
Have a personal finance question you'd like answered? Send it toTheShortAnswer@morningstar.com.

Are Earnings Coming Back to Earth?


By Jeremy Glaser

Morningstar – Sun, Oct 21, 2012

Corporate earnings have long been a bright spot during this recovery. Even when everything else in the economy looked bleak, corporations seem to keep delivering better-than-expected news quarter after quarter. But is that turning around? So far in this third-quarter earnings season, we've seen disappointing top-line numbers that could be a sign that the momentum in corporate earnings might be beginning to slow.
All things considered, most large firms handled the great recession fairly well. Faced with collapsing sales and an uncertain future, most managers became very defensive. They cut staffing to the bone, shut down unprofitable divisions, paid off debt, and raised additional capital if needed. These moves not only helped keep the lights on during the worst of the downturn, but they positioned firms well for the upturn. As the economy slowly began to come back, the leaner and more efficient companies were able to consistently boost their margins and surprise investors, even when revenue growth remained anemic. The charts below show just how high corporate profits have reached, and how profits have hit an all-time high as a percentage of gross domestic product. Shaded areas on these charts represent U.S. recessions.
US Corporate Profits After Tax data by YCharts
US Corporate Profits After Tax as % of GDP data by YCharts
But high levels of profitability can't go on forever. Eventually firms are going to have to hire more workers, invest in equipment, and face new competitors. Many (including GMO and others) have predicted that margins are due for a mean reversion and that regardless of the strength of the recovery, corporations are going to get squeezed. It's hard to extrapolate too much from the earnings we've seen during the last two weeks, but that squeeze could be starting.
Squeeze Play
To be sure, earnings have not been a disaster so far. According to data from FactSet, of the 98 members of the S&P 500 that have reported earnings so far, 70% have exceeded analyst expectations. But of those 98 firms, only 42% have beaten estimates for sales. During the last four years, an average of 59% of firms had beaten revenue estimates at this point in the reporting cycle. Some of those current misses are being driven by unrealistically high expectations and very strong currency headwinds, but some firms are starting to show signs of weakness. Given that most firms have already cut about as much as they can from their organizations, the drop in sales is likely to eventually lead to a drop in profit as it will be harder to cut deeper to keep profit growing.
One of the highest-profile misses this past week was Google(GOOG), which surprised the market not only with a premature earnings release but also with disappointing results. Revenues were below expectations, and operating costs rose quickly as the firm spent money to launch a new tablet and invest elsewhere in the business. Morningstar analyst Rick Summer thinks that as the firm continues to shift its revenue stream away from ads hosted on its sites toward ads on partner sites, content, and hardware it will become even hard to "gain operating leverage from the business" and increase margins at all. Google was hardly the only tech firm that reported a rough quarter. Microsoft(MSFT) and Intel(INTC) are feeling the impact of slowing PC sales ahead of the Windows 8 launch. International Business Machines(IBM) missed expectations as its revenues declined 5% (partially because of currency headwinds) as the firm launched its mainframe refresh.
Beyond tech, earnings misses could be found in plenty of other sectors. Sales at
McDonald's(MCD) and Chipotle Mexican Grill(CMG) both fell short of expectations. Profitability at the oil-services firms took a big hit this quarter, and
pressure pumping remained challenged. Baker Hughes(BHI) reported a North American margin of 10.5%, a nearly 300-basis-point sequential decline. This is more than Schlumberger's(SLB) 230-basis-point decline but less than
Halliburton's(HAL) 660-basis-point decline.
Sluggish global growth is causing some of these misses, and some are idiosyncratic based on product cycles or one-time issues. Certainly, some of the misses are driven by heightened expectations after such a long stretch of good earnings. But part of it is also that corporate earnings have reached very high levels, and firms are beginning to feel the force of mean reversion. The weak sales this quarter could be the canary in the coal mine that earnings are about to be pressured, too. Even if margins don't come all the way down to historical levels, the reduction in profitability could be a major headwind for investors in the coming years.

Wednesday, 24 October 2012

iCap Distribution of Shareholdings FYE 31-5-2012

iCap

FY ended 31-5-2012
Distribution of Shareholdings


Click to view:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B-RRzs61sKqRWjZDT0dFSF9KSm8

The Top 30 shareholders own 44,633,291 shares.
This is 31.88% of the total number of shares of iCap of 140,000,000 shares.


Top 30 Shareholdings

1    9,028,491
2    5,748,600
3    2,700,000
4    2,500,000
5    2,150,000
6    2,000,000
7    1,737,000
8    1,540,200
9    1,370,000
10    1,316,000
11    1,250,000
12    1,080,000
13    1,000,000
14       845,200
15       800,000
16       722,000
17       719,400
18       705,000
19       701,000
20       689,000
21       688,000
22       658,000
23       640,000
24       637,500
25       610,200
26       600,000
27       594,000
28       554,500
29       525,000
30       524,200
Total 44,633,291