Succession conspiracy in family company

Does your business look like this?

Ivan Landsberg, a Yale University expert in family businesses, coined the term succession conspiracy - how business owners, their spouses, their family members, and non-family co-workers either consciously or unconsciously make damaging decisions that foil the effective succession of the busines to the next generation.

He described three general types of family business management structures back in the 1980s:

Controlling owner:  A single owner is involved in every aspect of the business and makes critical decisions.  Typically little or no planning occurs for this owner's departure.

Sibling partnership:  Siblings may share leadership, or a lead sibling may be designated - or designated by default - to make most of the business's key decisions.

Cousin consortium:  This structure is common among some of the biggest family fortunes in the world.  When the business has been passed on to the children of prior sibling owners, eventually several branches of the family share ownership, and coalitions may be formed to create blocks of stock that represent more voting power.

Aligning with any of these ownership structures doesn't mean your family company is necessary sliding off the rails.  But if you recognise yourself in any of these structures, ask yourself whether the following also applies:

• The owner has created a succession plan that not only sets benchmarks for who the next generation leadership will be but also comes with full buy-in from all family memebrs, young and old, with a stake in the business.
• The owner and top family officers have spoken with family members recently either separately or in a group about their feelings about the business and whether any conflicts or issues need to be worked out.  Better yet, is there a formal meeting structure?
• The owner has helped craft - with experienced legal and tax professionals - a quality transition plan that allows her the money and freedom to work in the family business if she's asked or to comfortably start retirement or a new phase of her career.

Facts about family-owned companies

The following statistics were collected by the Boston-based Family Firm Institute:

The leadership of 39 % of family-owned businesses changed hands by the end of 2008.

34% of family firms expected the next CEO to be a woman; 52% of participants hired at least one female family member full time, and 10% employed two female family members of  the same status.

Of CEOs age 61 or older and due to retire in 2008, 55% had not yet chosen thier replacement.

Deciding What to do about the Family Company

Need to understand the followings:

Why parallel planning for the family and the business is crucial

Facts about family-owned companies

How families hurt their business's valuation without even knowing it

Ways to constructively manage family conflicts

Family friction and the need for valuation

When a founder dies

When a founder dies, families can go to war for reasons far more emotional than economical.  Relationships forged in childhood don't always translate into effective working relationships in a shared business concern.  At the same time, family members who have been longtime employees in a business may feel that they have a deeper stake in the business than cousins and siblings who have worked elsewhere.

Divorce

Likewise, divorce breaks up more than a few family businesses.  Both partie in a divorce frequently do valuation if a family business is involved as a prime asset. 

Family matters are critical drivers for valuation.

Activities boosting valuation

Numbers reveal behaviour.  So what exactly is value building behaviour in a company?  Here are some ideas:

• A strong management team with longevity.
• Hot products with plenty more in the pipeline - research and development spending that's paying off.
• Customers in a love affair with the company.
• A plant and equipment in top shape.
• Consistent upward trends in revenues and earnings - no big swings or extremes.
• Low employee turnover and high marks for its workplace.
• A wide variety of customers without anyone accounting for more than 5 percent of the company's sales or earnings.
• A history of an appropriate level of advertising.

e.g. Nestle Malaysia.

Acceptable debt

Is debt bad?  This is a controversial topic!

Although a solid credit record is a good thing for people and businesses to have, it's best for businesses to think in terms of how they can fund their operations from money they make doing what they do.

How do you know when a company has too much debt? 

Generally, if a company has solid cash flow and a  return on investment (ROI) that's significantly greater than the percentage it is paying on borrowed funds, it's probably going to be okay.

A balance sheet loaded with debt will devalue your business over time.  Therefore, if you find that you have to take on debt, treat it as a short-term expense to be extinguished quickly.  (That's not a bad idea for your personal finances, too.)

Is Value Investing Dead?

Is Value Investing Dead?
By Jordan DiPietro
January 14, 2010


Every year thousands of people make the trip to Omaha for Berkshire Hathaway's annual shareholder meeting. They come in fanatical droves -- from as far away as South Africa and Singapore -- to see the man whose extraordinary success has been largely attributed to one strategy: value investing.

Unfortunately, the original value crusaders, Benjamin Graham and David Dodd, are long gone, while Warren Buffett has become a touchstone in an investing landscape riddled with leveraged corpses, speculative traders, and overzealous CEOs.

We've squeezed almost every gem of wisdom from his meetings and transcripts, and we've analyzed his moves from every conceivable angle. All of this ultimately raises one question: Once Warren is gone, will the end of an era also mark the end of value investing?

Old school values
When Graham and Dodd's seminal piece, Security Analysis, was written in 1934, it was much easier to be a value investor.

First, the time was right. Still reeling from the Great Depression and unemployment of up to 25%, the Dow had lost about 90% of its value in three years. The tenets of Graham and Dodd -- to buy stocks for prices significantly below their intrinsic values and even their book values -- were especially applicable because prices were distorted, and many stocks were significantly undervalued.

Second, with most of the Dow 30 comprised of metal, oil, or manufacturers, balance sheets were pretty straightforward. Valuing stocks wasn't necessarily easy, but there were some pretty common elements to look for: book value, tangible assets, etc.

Third, if you look at all the value crusaders, they all share one unique attribute: tenacity. They had the doggedness to perform painstakingly tedious work, laboring over worksheets, completing arithmetic by hand. They just seemed to work, well, the hardest.

New school values
Seventy years have come and gone, and value investing has come under increasing criticism. In fact, I've seen money managers tell their clients that if their time horizon is less than two decades away, value investing is not for them.

Why? Take a look at the comparative performance of value versus growth over the last five years.

Indices
Top Holdings
2009 Return
3-Year Return
5-Year Return

Russell 1000 Value Index (IWD)
JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM), General Electric (NYSE: GE)
19.2%
(7.9%)
(1%)

Russell 1000 Growth Index (IWF)
Cisco Systems (Nasdaq: CSCO), Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT)
36.7%
(2.1%)
2.5%


What gives? Well, business is much more complex than it used to be. With intellectual property rights, patents, and licensing fees, studying balance sheets is a bit murky. Companies like Qualcomm (Nasdaq: QCOM), Pfizer (NYSE: PFE), and Merck (NYSE: MRK) are all wrapped up in intangibles, and its simply harder to predict future earnings.

In addition, the days of sweating over spreadsheets are over. Computer programs and stock screeners make it simple to find a company that fits a certain mold -- even the laymen can whittle down enormous loads of data and draw conclusions. The advantage of having the fortitude to do the "hard work" is gone, lost in a sea of statistics and a market inundated with information.

And finally, being a value investor requires a temperament few have -- especially given the above considerations. Asset manager Jean-Marie Eveillard said, in response to the question of why there aren't more value investors, given Buffett's success, "If you are a value investor, every now and then you lag, or experience what consultants call tracking error. It can be very painful. To be a value investor, you have to be willing to suffer pain."

So does this mean value investing is dead?

WWWD?
Value investing isn't dead -- but it's not going to look the same in the 21st century as it did in the 20th.

We just have to look at Buffett, who, like always, adapts to the times. As the market collapsed around us and blue chips fell by the wayside, he scooped up some $3 billion worth of General Electric, and recently invested in ExxonMobil and Nestle. He lent Goldman Sachs $5 billion and locked in 10% annual gains -- and of course negotiated an option that has already netted him close to $2.4 billion.

Deliberate, prudent, unyielding -- classic Buffett.

Today's market offers something unique to the 21st century -- a plethora of booms and busts. There have been more financial crashes in the last 30 years than in any other time period -- and that means there are price distortions that investors can take advantage of, just like Buffett has done lately. Value investing isn't dead, nor is it immaterial.

Don't get distracted by puzzling trading strategies or speculate on leveraged financials (thank you, Citigroup). Understand a business and invest in your area of competence -- when it's cheap.

And remember as well that the last five years don't dictate the future. From 1927-2005 (78 years!), value investing has outperformed both small and large cap growth stocks by a substantial margin. From 1975-2005, value stocks outperformed growth stocks in 12 out of 13 developing countries. Clearly, in both the U.S. and abroad, value reigns supreme.

So don't let the naysayers get you down -- there are still plenty of tremendous value stocks out there! Our Motley Fool Inside Value team practices what Warren preaches and scours the market for the best deals each month. This has been a difficult few years for our analysts, but they're still managing to beat the S&P 500 by over seven percentage points -- that's pretty impressive considering the challenging environment.

If you believe like we do that value investing is here to stay, and you want to...
http://www.fool.com/investing/value/2010/01/14/is-value-investing-dead.aspx

How to Fail at Investing in 5 Easy Steps

How to Fail at Investing in 5 Easy Steps
By Morgan Housel
January 14, 2010 | Comments (1)

I'm a fan of checklists. Especially the ones listing things you shouldn't be doing. It's easier to overlook what you shouldn't be doing than to focus on what you think you're doing right. If you're not humble enough to admit this, you've just proven the point accurate.

One such list I came across resides in Philip Fisher's groundbreaking 1958 book, Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits. Who is Philip Fisher? You could ask Warren Buffett, who admits, "I'm 15 percent Fisher and 85 percent Benjamin Graham." Ben Graham is Buffett's well-known, highly praised, mentor. Philip Fisher, a sort of godfather of growth investing, doesn't get enough credit.

Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits is one of the best guides for evaluating businesses ever written. Buried in the back of the book, right after "Five Don'ts for Investors," is "Five More Don't for Investors." It's quite simple. To fail at investing …

1. Overstress diversification
Diversification is usually a good thing, but Fisher cautions against blind diversification. In his own words, "Investors have been so oversold on diversification that fear of having too many eggs in one basket has caused them to put far too little into companies they thoroughly know and far too much in others about which they know nothing at all."

Far too many investors approach diversification with the mindset of, "I need financials. I need tech. I need telecom. I need healthcare," etc., etc. Wrong. What you need is diversification among good, high-quality companies, not a blind selection among diverse sectors. Let me give you an example of a "diverse" portfolio gone astray:

Financials: Lehman Brothers
Telecom: WorldCom
Energy: Enron
Industrials: General Motors
Technology: GlobalCrossing

These are obviously cherry-picked. But you can see how, in an attempt to blindly diversify among sectors, you can just as easily concentrate in failure. Even slight diversification among good companies that you understand can be superior to blind, yet broad, diversification.

2. Be afraid of buying on a war scare
Fisher writes, "The fears of mass destruction of property, almost confiscatory higher taxes, and government interference with business dominate what thinking we try to do on financial matters. People operating in such a mental climate are inclined to overlook some even more fundamental economic influences."

In short, don't be scared of investing in wartime. Some might even say: Buy on the cannons, sell on the trumpets.

Fisher's more direct point regards war's ability to spread inflation through increased government spending. Again, that's quite analogous to today. "Modern war always causes governments to spend far more than they can possibly collect from their taxpayers while the war is being waged. This causes a vast increase in the amount of money … the classic form of inflation."

But rather than sell in panic, "This is the time when having surplus cash for investment becomes least, not most, desirable."

Bingo. If you're scared witless over today's policies, and many are, cash isn't your answer. There are several very high-quality companies that derive enormous revenue from abroad, enabling success in the face of ravaging domestic inflation. Philip Morris International (NYSE: PM), Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO), and Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) are three such examples.

3. Forget your Gilbert and Sullivan

"The flowers that bloom in the spring, tra-la, have nothing to do with the case." This Gilbert and Sullivan tune confused me, too. Fisher's analogous takeaway from the example is that "there are certain superficial financial statistics which are frequently given an underserved degree of attention by many investors."

His examples include focusing on past share performance and previous years' earnings. "One reason [investors are] fed such a diet of back statistics is that if this type of material is put in a report it is not hard to be sure it is correct" he writes.

Another set of data investors give undue focus to is quarterly earnings. Lehman Brothers was announcing record quarterly earnings not much over a year before it went kablooey. Ford (NYSE: F), Citigroup (NYSE: C), and Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) announced abysmal earnings in the process of becoming multibaggers last year. The underlying value of company's shares can be far disconnected from their short-term reported earnings.

4. Fail to consider time as well as price
"When the indications are strong that [rapid growth] is coming, deciding the time you will buy rather than the price at which you will buy may bring you a stock about to have extreme further growth at or near the lowest price at which that stock will sell from that time on."

This is a hard point to understand, but Fisher apparently studied companies' prices and found they were normally lower at certain points in their business cycle -- say, about a month before a venture reaches the pilot-plant stage. I finally equated it to Buffett's rule that, "if you wait for the robins, spring will be over." Waiting for Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) to actually release a new product like the iPhone, for example, means undoubtedly foregoing the gains that anticipation has priced in.

5. Follow the crowd
Around 2000, top-selling books included Dow 36,000 and The Roaring 2000s. Whoops. In 2006, Why the Real Estate Boom Will Not Bust was a big hit. As of late, top-sellers have included The Great Depression Ahead and The Ultimate Depression Survival Guide.

Pandering to fear and exuberance at or near the peak is nothing new. That's when it's most prevalent. That's when it sells the most. But if the history of the outcome of these extreme views is any indication, you might find optimism in visiting the business section of your local bookstore. More often than not, popular yet awe-inspiring views are dead wrong.

Tying it all together
These are five useful tips for failing at investing. Please don't follow them. Truly triumphant investing means binding together hundreds of factors successfully.


http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/01/14/how-to-fail-at-investing-in-5-easy-steps.aspx

Beware of buying Private Limited Companies

Wednesday January 13, 2010
Beware of buying Private Limited Companies (PLCs)
Personal Investing - By Ooi Kok Hwa

SOME investors are concerned over the shares that they own in some private limited companies (companies that are registered as “Sdn Bhd”).

Most are just minority shareholders, owning about 10%-20% of the companies’ shares, and they have not received much dividend from the companies over the past few years.

Now that they intend to sell their shares, they do not know the right price to sell. In this article, we will look at two main key issues related to owning private limited companies’ shares, namely

• lack of marketability discount (LOMD) and
• lack of control discount (LOCD). 

Assuming two similar size companies, one public listed and the other a private limited company, the discount on the LOMD is as much as 35% (based on Mergerstat Studies in the US).

Comparing a major shareholder of a public listed company (Position A) and a major shareholder of another similar size but not listed company (Position C), the discount on LOMD is about 35% ((RM100-RM65)/RM65).

Many investors do not realise that there are big differences between owning controlling interest and non-controlling interest shares. In general, if we own 50.1% of a company’s shares, we should be in a controlling position.

From the table above, whether you are in Position B, which is the non-controlling interest of a listed company or position D, which is the non-controlling position of a non-listed company, the LOCD can be as much as 35% (based on Mergerstat Studies in the US).

For example, if you own 49.9% of a private limited company (you are in Position D) and your partner is the major shareholder of the company with 50.1% interest (he is in Position C), which is 0.2% higher than you, his shares are worth RM65 each, but your shares will only worth about RM42 each, which is at a LOCD of 35% ((RM65-RM42)/RM65).

The main reason for this LOCD is that your partner, having the controlling interest, he can pay himself with very high salary, high director’s fee and enjoy all other benefits from the company.

Since you do not have the controlling position of the company, you have no control over a lot of company’s major decisions. Given that it is not a listed company, your return will depend highly on the dividend payments from the company.

If your partner does not want to share company’s profits with you by not paying out any dividend payments, you will not receive any returns for holding this company’s shares.

Nevertheless, if you own 49.9% of a listed company, which is in Position B, even though your shares is still subject to about a 35% LOCD compared with Position A ((RM100-RM65)/RM100), given that it is a public listed company on Bursa Malaysia, you can easily dispose of your shares in the open market.

The worst case is if you are holding a minority interest and it is a private limited company (Position D), your shares’ value is only at 58% discount ((RM100-RM42)/RM42) compared with a controlling interest in a public listed company (Position A) as your shares are subject to discounts due to lack of marketability and lack of control.

Therefore, when position A is worth RM100 per share, the value per share in Position B and Position C is about the same at RM65 per share.

Hence, if you intend to invest in any private limited companies, you need to be in the controlling position of the companies. Otherwise, if you are just a minority shareholder, it is more advisable for you to invest in listed companies.

Ooi Kok Hwa is an investment adviser and managing partner of MRR Consulting.

http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/1/13/business/5458529&sec=business

Applied Value Investing

Applied Value Investing: The Practical Application of Benjamin Graham and Warren Buffett’s Valuation Principles to Acquisitions, Catastrophe Pricing and Business Execution

ISBN13: 9780071628181
Condition: NEW
Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
Product Description

Since Benjamin Graham fathered value investing in the 1930s, the method of analysis has spawned a large number of highly successful investors, such as Graham’s own former student and employee, Warren Buffett, who is regarded as one of the most successful investors of modern times.

Over the years, numerous books have been published on Benjamin Graham’s approach. Most of these books present different interpretations of value investing and are generally introductory based. Until now, there has not been an advanced hands-on guide for investors and executives who may want to apply the powerful value investing discipline outside of stocks and bonds.

Applied Value Investing takes the same time-proven approach Graham introduced with David Dodd in their 1934 masterpiece, Security Analysis, and extends it in a variety of unique and practical ways—including mergers and acquisitions, alternative investments, and financial strategy.

This in-depth guide shows financially sophisticated readers how to use value investing in a macroinvesting framework and how to apply it to the emerging area of super catastrophe valuation. It illustrates how to put value investing to use with case studies on:

Eddie Lampert’s acquisition of Sears
Warren Buffett’s acquisitions of GEICO and General Reinsurance Corporation
The recent “new economy” boom and bust, and its aftermath
The underwriting of the Pepsi Play for a Billion sweepstakes
Applied Value Investing also demonstrates how to incorporate the cornerstones of valuation into an integrated business framework that can be used to assess and manage a franchise (or a firm operating with a sustainable competitive advantage).

In addition to its cutting-edge applications of value investing principles, Applied Value Investing sets itself apart by drawing on material published in leading academic journals to form the foundation of its presentation. However, value investing is inherently practical, and this comprehensive resource provides helpful guidance for successfully implementing value investing strategies in the real world.

To profit like the masters you have to think like them. Applied Value Investing can open new doors to value creating opportunities.

Applied Value Investing: The Practical Application of Benjamin Graham and Warren Buffett’s Valuation Principles to Acquisitions, Catastrophe Pricing and Business Execution

http://www.pdxpole.com/applied-value-investing-the-practical-application-of-benjamin-graham-and-warren-buffetts-valuation-principles-to-acquisitions-catastrophe-pricing-and-business-execution/

Benjamin Graham's 113 wise words

"The true investor scarcely ever is forced to sell his shares, and at all times he is free to disregard the current price quotation. He need pay attention to it and act upon it only to the extent that it suits his book, and no more.  Thus the investor who permits himself to be stampeded or unduly worried by unjustified market declines in his holdings is perversely transforming his basic advantage into a basic disadvantage. That man would be better off if his stocks had no market quotation at all, for he would then be spared the mental anguish caused him by other persons' mistakes of judgement." - Benjamin Graham

Are Malaysian rubber glove makers overstretched?

Are Malaysian rubber glove makers overstretched?
Published: 2010/01/14

Bulls say rally still has legs, valuations not outrageous while bears say stocks run ahead of fundamentals, correction due

While the first wave of the H1N1 infections has ebbed, Malaysian rubber glove makers continue to see their share prices soar, raking in double-digit gains in the first two trading weeks of 2010.

The sharp gains have raised eyebrows after share prices skyrocketed last year as demand for rubber gloves surged following the global H1N1 pandemic.

Shares of Top Glove, the world’s biggest rubber glove maker by production capacity, jumped by about 156 per cent over the past 12 months, and second-ranked Supermax has surged 560 per cent.

Malaysia supplies more than 60 per cent of world’s rubber latex gloves, widely used for infectious disease control purposes.

Can the H1N1 flu, a sticky issue for countries, help rubber glove stocks defy the law of gravity?

STILL CHEAP

It may be to some extent.

“The rubber glove industry is not cyclical. Unlike commodities, it’s not affected by the business cycle. This is a very good, long-term business,” said Ang Kok Heng, who helps manage about US$125 million at Phillip Capital Management in Kuala Lumpur.

“The surge in demand is not a one-off thing. The glove industry tends to have a very good retention ratio, that means new customers added because of the H1N1 flu will likely become long-term customers for glove makers,” he said.

Ang said he would only consider to switch out from glove makers when valuations become too expensive. In the case of mid-cap stocks, such as Kossan and Adventa, that means a price-to-earnings (PE) ratio of more than 15 times, he said.

The rally still has legs, said Choo Swee Kee, chief investment officer of TA Investment Management which has about US$200 million asset under management.

“Good earnings growth has put down valuations. The PE ratio for glove makers ranges between 8 to 15 times, that’s not like way above the market PE,” said Choo.

This week, five out of 14 analysts on Top Glove have revised their annual earnings per share forecasts, hiking them by 9.1 per cent on average, according to StarMine. StarMine’s SmartEstimate shows a predicted earnings surprise of 10.8 per cent for the year to August 2010.

SmartEstimates predict future earnings more accurately than consensus estimates by putting more weight on the recent forecasts of StarMine’s top-rated analysts.

“We expect another 10 to 15 per cent upside. We are holding on to our shares and we will accumulate those with the lowest PE,” Choo said.

Malaysia’s benchmark share index trades at around 15 times 2010 earnings, higher than Top Glove’s 13.5 times and Supermax’s 11.3 times, Thomson Reuters data showed.

Kossan and Adventa, which are smaller in both market share and size than Top Glove and Supermax, trade at single-digit PEs.

“VERY OVERBOUGHT"

Malaysian rubber glove makers are “very overbought, the bull will have to pause a bit,” said Stephen Soo, senior technical analyst at TA Securities.

On technical charts, the Relative Strength Indicator (RSI) for all Malaysian rubber glove makers are hovering around 90, way above the 70 level that marks the overbought territory.

Share prices of rubber glove makers may drop one-third over a period of two weeks when a correction takes place, said Soo.

“The share price gains have run ahead of 2010 earnings,” said a chief investment officer from a bank-backed fund management firm whose company policy does not allow him to be quoted.

While demand was strong, it remained to be seen if glove makers could ramp up production capacity fast enough to meet it. There was also a risk that surging raw material costs could dent profit margins, he said.

Infrastructure constraints, such as natural gas shortages, could derail companies’ expansion plans, industry players have said.

And the price of rubber latex, from which gloves are made, has risen by more than two-thirds since last July. -- Reuters

Quek makes voluntary takeover offer for Hume

Quek makes voluntary takeover offer for Hume
Published: 2010/01/15

Tycoon Tan Sri Quek Leng Chan has made a voluntary takeover offer for Hume Industries (Malaysia) Bhd, with the aim of taking the manufacturer of concrete products private.

Hong Leong Co (Malaysia) Bhd's (HLCM) wholly-owned unit, Spectrum Arrangement Sdn Bhd, is offering RM4.30 cash per share in Hume.

Quek is HLCM's director and substantial shareholder.

Spectrum directly holds 118.8 million Hume shares, representing 64.94 per cent of the issued capital.

In a letter by Hong Leong Investment Bank to Hume, Spectrum said the offer is not conditional upon any minimal level of acceptance of the offer shares as it already owns more than 50 per cent of the voting shares in Hume.

Spectrum also plans to delist Hume from Bursa Malaysia if it receives acceptance in aggregate of more than 75 per cent of Hume shares.

Hume shares were placed on a trading halt yesterday, pending the release of the announcement.

Its shares rose 15 sen to RM4.15 before the suspension. Trading in the shares will resume from 10am today.

Malaysians’ biggest money worries: Cost of living, salary and debt

 

Published: Thursday January 14, 2010 MYT 8:55:00 PM
Malaysians’ biggest money worries: Cost of living, salary and debt
By IZATUN SHARI

 

 

PETALING JAYA: The cost of living, salary changes and personal debt are the top three financial worries for Malaysians, a survey by global payment firm Visa found.

 

In the survey conducted between Aug 21 and Sept 23 last year,

• 69% of respondents said they were extremely concerned about the cost of living expenses
• while 62% were worried about salary changes and
• 59% about personal debt respectively.

“Malaysians were less worried about the value of their retirement fund and portfolio, and fluctuating interest rates,” the company said in a statement here Thursday.

 

However, 25% of those surveyed also said they were more confident about their personal financial situation as compared with six months earlier although 52% felt there would be no change.

 

Only 23% indicated they were less confident than earlier.

 

Sixty-six per cent of Malaysians also said they were more concerned about the impact of the global financial crisis on the local economy while 27% felt the same.

 

The survey involved 5,520 respondents aged between 18 and 65 years, of whom 500 were from Malaysia. The rest were from Australia, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Singapore and Taiwan.

 

Visa country manager Stuart Tomlinson said Malaysians were being practical during the current economic climate by focusing on managing their concerns, providing themselves with a level of security and peace of mind.

 

“For Malaysians, potential changes in salary levels are also of concern,” he said, adding that across the region, consumers were looking to see how they could manage their expenses, savings and job security, rather than macro-economic conditions such as exchange and interest rates.

 

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/1/14/nation/20100114205945&sec=nation

Contrarian Investment

Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Quick Comment: Contrarian Investment
I came across an article on contrarian investment recently and thought it is a nice article to share. According to Investopedia, the contrarian approach is an investment style that goes against prevailing market trends by buying assets that are performing poorly and selling when they perform well. A contrarian investor believes that the people who say the market is going up do so only when they are fully invested and have no further purchasing power. At this point the market is at a peak. On the other hand, when people predict a downturn, they have already sold out, at which point the market can only go up. Contrarian investing also emphasizes out-of-favor securities with low P/E ratios.

According to the article,
· It is a long-term strategy.
· It is not about timing the market, it is about value. For instance, "If your neighbour offers you his $500,000 house for $250,000 you don't wait for it to be offered at $200,000".
· One of the biggest errors is selling too early.
· You have to be prepared to look dumb for significant periods of time sometimes.
· Never expect to buy a stock right at the bottom.
· Staying out of companies that lose you money will save more than being in the ones that make you money. Preservation of capital and management of risk are paramount.
· Emotion is a contrarian's friend. When the market is going down the average man is looking at all the negatives and forgets the positive; that's when the opportunities arise.

The companies that contrarians look for are those that:
· Have solid brands.
· Have good cash flows.
· May be suffering a temporary economic setback.
· Would benefit from recapitalisation.
· Need management change.
· Would be capable of being changed.
· Opportunities seem to be where the market isn't, in sectors out of favour.
· Booms like the tech boom and the resources boom are good for contrarian investors because they take people away from value areas and make investors give up on long-term proven methods of investment and value assessment. They present opportunities that would never have been there otherwise.
· The contrarian is looking for market overreaction and the opportunity that overreaction presents.
· Don't be a mindless contrarian. Being contrarian is not about buying a share when it has fallen 10 per cent in a day just because everyone else is selling it. Only one in 20 major falls is an opportunity.
· Being contrarian means doing hard work to identify a situation the market hasn't while a stock is still at a price below what you calculate it to be worth.
· Contrarian investment does not rely on timing markets. You have to take a long-term view.

Sounds very much like TANJONG doesnt it? It has strong cash flow and is out of favour for fear of the negative effects of the PPA negotiations. However, the government has made it clear that it should be a win-win situation. Even if it ends up losing out a bit due to the new PPAs, downside would be rather limited since the bad news have already been priced in. Long term wise, it is still a very solid company.

Disclaimer: This report is brought to you by Investssmart, an unlicensed investment adviser. Please exercise your own judgment or seek professional advice from your remisiers. By law, they are the experts. I am not responsible for your investment decisions.

http://investssmart.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_archive.html