Thursday, 20 September 2012

Public Bank Berhad

Public Bank Berhad : Income Statement Evolution


Public Bank Berhad : EPS Dividend



Company Value50 080 M MYR50 090 M MYR
Valuation2012e2013e
PER (Price / EPS)13,3x12,1x
Capitalization / Revenue6,08x5,55x
EV / Revenue--
EV / EBITDA--
Yield (DPS / Price)3,93%4,14%
Profitability2012e2013e
Operating Margin (EBIT / Sales)66,0%66,4%
operating laverage (Delta EBIT / Delta Sales)-1,07x
Net Margin (Net Profit / Revenue)46,0%46,7%
ROA (Net Profit / Asset)1,46%1,45%
ROE (Net Profit / Equities)23,1%22,7%
Rate of Dividend52,3%50,0%
Balance Sheet Analysis2012e2013e
CAPEX / Sales  --
Cash Flow / Sales (Taux d'autofinancement)--
Capital Intensity (Assets / Sales)31,6x32,3x
Financial Leverage (Net Debt / EBITDA)-0,00x
Price Earning Ratio
Public Bank Berhad : Price Earning Ratio




Public Bank Berhad : Balance Sheet Analysis

The impact of spam that touts stocks upon the trading activity of those stocks . Spam Works!


Spam Works: Evidence from Stock Touts and Corresponding Market Activity


Laura Frieder 


Purdue University - Krannert School of Management

Jonathan Zittrain 


Harvard Law School and Kennedy School; Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences; Berkman Center for Internet & Society

March 14, 2007

Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2006-11
Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 135
Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 43/2006 

Abstract:      
We assess the impact of spam that touts stocks upon the trading activity of those stocks and sketch how profitable such spamming might be for spammers and how harmful it is to those who heed advice in stock-touting e-mails. We find convincing evidence that stock prices are being manipulated through spam. We suggest that the effectiveness of spammed stock touting calls into question prevailing models of securities regulation that rely principally on the proper labeling of information and disclosure of conflicts of interest as means of protecting consumers, and we propose several regulatory and industry interventions.

-  Based on a large sample of touted stocks listed on the Pink Sheets quotation system and a large sample of spam emails touting stocks, we find that
 stocks experience a significantly positive return on days prior to heavy touting via spam. 

-  Volume of trading responds positively and significantly to heavy touting.  For a stock that is touted at some point during our sample period, the probability of it being the most actively traded stock in our sample jumps from 4% on a day when there is no touting activity to 70% on a day when there is touting activity. 

-  Returns in the days following touting are significantly negative. The evidence accords with a hypothesis that spammers "buy low and spam high," purchasing penny stocks with comparatively low liquidity, then touting them - perhaps immediately after an independently occurring upward tick in price, or after having caused the uptick themselves by engaging in preparatory purchasing - in order to increase or maintain trading activity and price enough to unload their positions at a profit. 

-  We find that prolific spamming greatly affects the trading volume of a targeted stock, drumming up buyers to prevent the spammer's initial selling from depressing the stock's price. 

-  Subsequent selling by the spammer (or others) while this buying pressure subsides results in negative returns following touting. Before brokerage fees, the average investor who buys a stock on the day it is most heavily touted and sells it 2 days after the touting ends will lose close to 5.5%. 

-  For those touted stocks with above-average levels of touting, a spammer who buys on the day before unleashing touts and sells on the day his or her touting is the heaviest, on average, will earn 4.29% before transaction costs. The underlying data and interactive charts showing price and volume changes are also made available.



Number of Pages in PDF File: 44
Keywords: spam, stock, tout, markets, e-mail, Internet, cyberlaw, SEC, unsolicited, commercial, manipulation, timing, consumer protection, pink sheets, efficiency


Roundtable: The Worst Investment Advice You Ever Got


By Motley Fool Staff | More Articles 

Worldwide Invest Better Day 9/25/2012
In the lead-up to Sept. 25's Worldwide Invest Better Day, The Motley Fool is reacquainting investors with the basic building blocks of investing.
Yesterday, we held a roundtable asking a group of our top analysts forthe best investment advice they ever got. Today, it's time for the flip side... the worst investment advice they ever got.
This may be even more fun. Here's what they said.
Dan Caplinger: The worst investment advice I ever got was from the full-service broker my parents used. He had me invest in a bunch of index-tracking mutual funds that included high annual fees as well as a back-end sales charge that locked me into the funds for several years. Later, I discovered I could get a nearly identical set of funds that would save me several hundred dollars in fees each year. In the end, I decided to pay a 2% sales charge in order to get out of the costly funds as soon as possible. But I've been critical of full-service brokers ever since, and the experience taught me just how important it is to reduce investing costs wherever you can.
Anders Bylund: There's nothing wrong with diversification -- as long as it's properly done. But spreading out your investment dollars without a clear strategy is "diworsification" at its worst.
As a young investor, I was informed that my portfolio really needed more balance across both geographies and market sectors. After much hand-wringing, I picked a Japanese carmaker, an American megabank, a large pharmaceutical specialist, and some other things I barely understood.
These were some of my worst investments ever. When I finally closed out the last of my diversification plays, they had all gone sideways at best over nearly a decade. That's dead money, while I was handily beating the market in industries that made sense. My portfolio would be much fatter today if I had doubled down on the technology and media stocks close to my heart, rather than wasting my time on diversification for its own sake.
Matt Thalman: I was new to investing and talking with a co-worker. He claimed his brother was buying tons of shares of this little-known mining company that was about to hit it big. Sound familiar to anyone? So I go and buy a few thousand dollars' worth of this penny stock. For months nothing happens, then about a year later, cha-ching. In a matter of days thestock was up tenfold. (This was before I had been given the best investment advice ever and my emotions took hold. Greed! I made a good deal of money, but didn't sell when I should have.)
So if you haven't guessed it, I owned a stock, then coincidently it was pumped by a penny stock scam . So why was that the worst advice I was ever given? Because, still to this day, I know it was just dumb luck that I made money on this, but I still find myself looking atpenny stocks from time to time. Dreaming of hitting it big again when I know I'd be better off burning the money I would invest in these stocks.
Morgan Housel: I've never owned a house. And I can't remember how many times I was told in 2005 and 2006 that, "You're throwing your money away!" by renting. I didn't take the advice to buy, but I came close. It was offered by so many people whom I admired. When everyone around you is making a fortune doing something you're not, you start to question yourself.
In hindsight, it was terrible advice. Tens of millions of Americans have seen their net worths destroyed by the mistaken belief that owning a home is always and forever a good thing. I think the belief persists to this day. And it's just wrong. The decision to buy a home is a complicated one that rests on how long you can stay in one area, how stable your job prospects are, the comparability of local rents, population growth in your town, and of course, housing prices. Owning makes sense for a lot of people, but it's not a slam dunk. Renting is a superior option for millions of Americans. 
LouAnn Lofton: "You'll never make money in stocks. You're not smart enough, you don't know enough, and you're not trained in this." Thanks, but no thanks, Mr. Sneering Condescending Financial Advisor. I was young when I started investing, sure, but I didn't deserve that. Luckily, I'd already read about and been inspired by legendary financial gurus like Warren Buffett and Peter Lynch, (soon I would also learn about this amazing community of do-it-yourself investors called The Motley Fool) so I was not intimidated and I was not swayed by this guy's "charm." Ah, the pleasure I felt standing up and walking out of his office. I haven't looked back.
Anand Chokkavelu, CFA: Beware anyone's advice on their "love stock." When someone's enthusiasm for a company starts to sound like fanaticism for a sports team, the logic can get twisted and the objectivity can get nonexistent. That goes for our love for our own stocks as well. As an example, I love my shares of Accenture, but since it's my former employer I have to watch for nostalgia and familiarity clouding my judgment.
Molly McCluskey: Wait until you're out of debt before you start investing. What a terrible idea! In my twenties, I had student loan and credit card debt. Now I'm saving for a mortgage. Who knows what other expenses will come along. The trick is to keep investing in spite of them.
Had I been smart, I would have been socking away every little extra bit that came in from the second I finished undergrad. I would have gone to the movies less and rented more, packed my lunch, taken the bus, rented smaller apartments in cheaper cities, had more roommates, visited the bookstore less and the library more, and put all that money away. I would have developed the habit of investing, long before there was anything to show for it.
Tim Beyers: On the advice of a financial professional, I once bought a thinly traded penny stock. His pitch: The business was essentially trading for the cash on its balance sheet, making it a screaming value. And I bought it, hook, line, and sinker. What I should have realized is that cash comes and goes all the time. Genuine competitive advantage and skill in allocating capital, on the other hand, are rare. My shortsightedness cost me thousands of dollars that should still be sitting in my retirement account.
Eric Volkman: "Don't worry about it -- open a position! They own that huge asset and it ain't going nowhere; sooner or later, they'll have to turn a profit. Really!!" So said a colleague of mine about one particular company, the name of which I won't reveal (OK, OK, it was France/Britain's Eurotunnel). That asset (the Channel Tunnel) was a big and impressive one, all right, so much so that I cheerfully ignored the company's many other problems... plus the fact that it didn't technically own the tunnel. I bought a thousand shares. Wh-hoops! The problems deepened, the debt widened (yes, I ignored the Best Investment Advice I Ever Got), and the stock tanked. Which is what I get for not digging deeply enough into the operational and financial aspects of the company. Yes, Virginia, these are important. Lesson learned.
Chris Baines: "The trend is your friend." If I had a penny for every time I've heard this, I'd be a trillionaire. Unfortunately, this piece of "wisdom" is not true for any real investor. (I'll grant you, the trend is the friend of journalists looking for clicks.)
As an investor, the trend is not your friend, it's your worst nightmare. When the stock marketpeaked in 2000 the trend was up. When the stock market bottomed in 2009 the trend was down. Let valuations be your guide instead of letting a stranger's actions dictate your moves. That's what the best investors have historically done (I'm thinking Buffett and Peter Lynch) and will continue to do.
Jacob Roche: "Be diversified" can be a useless bit of advice.

A lot of investors use the Peter Lynch "buy what you know" approach and buy shares of companies like AppleStarbucksDisney, and Coach and think they're diversified. After all, they've got technology, restaurants, entertainment, and apparel, a diverse-sounding group of sectors. But each of those sectors is highly dependent on consumers, so the true risk remains the same.

Even if an investor buys a broadly diversified S&P 500 index fund, his or her investments are still heavily weighted toward the United States, and even if an investor buys an even morediversified Morgan Stanley Capital International All-Country World Index fund, he or she isstill betting everything on stocks, while ignoring other asset classes like bonds, real estate, and other alternatives.
Diversification as a concept is deceptively simple and lulls many investors into a false sense of security, but experts are still arguing over what risk is, exactly, and what diversifying means. The reality is that there is no magic wand to wave risk away, and while broad diversification is good, an investor should still be cognizant of the risks he or she is taking.
Tim Brugger: There was a time not so long ago when municipal bonds were high on my investment priority list. Limiting my tax bill -- even at the expense of longer-term growth -- was very appealing. It was my own, personal stand against the IRS and state tax man.
As I conducted my due diligence, I came across a local bond trader and decided to give him a shot. After discussing various laddering strategies and reviewing alternatives, he said something that still causes a snicker from me today.
"The great thing about municipal bonds, beyond the obvious tax benefits, is that it really doesn't matter if they're investment grade or not. I mean, it's not like a city or county is going to go bankrupt or anything."
Oops.
Dan Newman: I started reading the ZeroHedge website about a year ago, and while entertaining and a good view from one extreme side of things, the main takeaway ofbuying gold, guns, and shelf-stable food would have severely underperformed the market. Pessimism about the economy will always be around, and should be considered, but if you squirrel away all your money, precious metals, and cans of beans and wait for the apocalypse, you may only be right once. Meanwhile, if you invest in value-generating businesses, you can help create wealth and a better society, and ensure your future until doomsday happens.
Evan Niu, CFA: Try to use technical analysis. As a former registered broker, I've had my fair share of experience with literally thousands of traders attempting to time the market by reading charts and picking up on technical signals. It's a losing proposition the majority of the time, in my opinion. A few will make it work, but far many will lose trying.
Andrew Marder: I'll probably repeat it until I die, but nothing has caused me more heartache than investing in companies that I know -- thanks, Mr. Lynch. It's my own fault, but I tend to really know, from actual experience, two kinds of companies: boring companies and banks. Here's a tip, don't invest in either of those two.
The first batch isn't so bad. I know Williams-Sonoma, and it's starting to do some really good things. I know Starbucks, but knew it best when it was flopping around like a missed fish at Pike Place. And I know Barnes & Noble. The second basket is less boring, and is instead a little nightmare. Not only do I know banks, I know British banks. Reading the annual reports requires a homemade Enigma Machine, and even then it's not always clear why the stock does whatever it does. 
So I've tweaked that advice: Invest in companies that you, your oldest friend, and a college kid know. That should keep you out of the slowest, and most dangerous, stocks.
Keith Speights: The worst investment advice I ever received was that buying individualstocks was too risky. I held back from buying stocks and only put my money into mutual funds for years. While there certainly is a level of risk in buying stocks, risk exists with any form of investing. The better advice would have been to be aware of the risks in buyingindividual stocks and learn how to manage that risk (through diversification, for example).
Sean Williams: I know this might sound brutally counterintuitive, but the absolute worst advice I've ever latched onto was Peter Lynch's advice to "buy what you know." Now don't get me wrong, I whole-heartedly agree that you should be able to describe what the company you own does as if you're telling it to a child, but Lynch's investing mantra boxed me into researching a very small swath of companies.
Since abandoning Lynch's market view years ago I've uncovered an incredible number of gems that I would never have discovered had I not actively sought out new ideas, concepts, and technologies. Investing is a constant learning process and Peter Lynch's investing thesis was curbing that want to expand my investing universe.
Chuck Saletta: The worst investment advice I ever got came from a broker who talked me into a high sales charge, high ongoing fee, and high churn technology fund in the mid-1990s. I was still in school and wanted a way to invest my summer earnings, and he was very eager to turn my hard-earned cash into commissions for himself. The tech bubble was in the process of forming, yet somehow (probably due to the charges, churn, and fees), my fund never seemed to rise all that much.
Fortunately, I did sell the fund before the eventual tech bubble burst -- but not due to any incredible flash of investing brilliance. I simply needed a down payment for my car, and that was the only real savings I had.
Alex Dumortier, CFA: In the mid-2000s, I bought the shares of Journal Register, a publisher of local newspapers, after reading the analysis of a fundamentally oriented research organization. The thesis was that the shares were cheap enough to account for a heavy debt load and the secular decline of the newspaper business. The shares just got cheaper and cheaper and the research organization was forced to bring its valuation downmultiple times. I ultimately exited the investment for a near total loss and the company filed for bankruptcy. This month, Journal Register filed for bankruptcy again. The lesson here is that no margin of safety is great enough when investing in a business with declining economics. That may not be an absolute rule, but behaving as if it were will spare you plenty of aggravation. There are easier ways to make money.
We hope you enjoyed the roundtable. Click on the button below for more on Worldwide Invest Better Day.

Wednesday, 19 September 2012

My mission was to establish a clean government — Lee Kuan Yew


September 19, 2012

SEPT 19 — In a region where corruption is endemic, Singapore has remained clean. From 1959 when the PAP first formed the government, we have stamped out corruption. The challenge is to keep corruption free. We have to rid our society of greed, corruption and decadence. When I became Prime Minister in 1959, my mission was to establish a clean and efficient Government against the backdrop of a corruption-ridden region. We set up systems and processes to ensure that every dollar in revenue was properly accounted for: we sharpened the instruments that could prevent, detect and deter instances where discretionary powers could be abused. The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), which was under my care, has succeeded in keeping the country clean.
The CPIB was established by the British in 1952 to tackle the increasing corruption. However, little was done because the CPIB lacked the necessary resources and legal powers. When I took over in 1959, I strengthened the laws and the organisation of CPIB.
We tightened the law on corruption. Wealth disproportionate to a person’s earnings would serve as corroborative evidence when a person is charged for corruption. The CPIB was placed directly under the Prime Minister. And if the Prime Minister were to refuse giving his consent for the CPIB to make any inquiries or to carry out any investigations into any person including the Prime Minister himself, the Director CPIB can seek the concurrence of the President to carry on with the investigations. In other words, nobody is exempt.
Over the years, Singapore has established an effective anti-corruption framework. Leaders must be above suspicion. They must insist on the same high standards of probity of their fellow ministers and of the officials working for them. We do not tolerate corruption. CPIB has since developed a formidable reputation for its thorough and fearless investigations. The bureau has successfully dealt with a number of corrupt senior government officials including Ministers, Members of Parliament, senior civil servants and prominent businessmen. This is testament to CPIB’s independence. The bureau can discharge its duties in a swift and sure, but firm and fair manner.
The most dramatic case was that of Teh Cheang Wan, then minister for National Development. In November 1986, he was investigated by the CPIB for accepting two bribes totalling US$1 million (RM3 million). In one case, it was to allow a development company to retain part of its land, which had been earmarked for compulsory government acquisition, and in the other to assist a developer in the purchase of state land for private development. These bribes had taken place in 1981 and 1982. Teh denied receiving the money and tried to bargain with the senior assistant director of the CPIB for the case not to be pursued. He had offered to pay back SG$800,000 in exchange for immunity. The cabinet secretary reported this and said Teh had asked to see me. I replied that I could not until the investigations were over as I could become a witness. A week later, on the morning of December 15, 1986, my security officer reported that Teh had died and left me a letter:
Prime Minister,
I have been feeling very sad and depressed for the last two weeks. I feel responsible for the occurrence of this unfortunate incident and I feel I should accept full responsibility. As an honourable oriental gentleman, I feel it is only right that I should pay the highest penalty for my mistake.
Yours faithfully,
Teh Cheang Wan
CPIB has been and is a tenacious and effective instrument against corruption. The bureau and its officers have contributed to Singapore’s standing, giving confidence to investors that has led to our progress and prosperity. We must remain vigilant and ensure that Singapore continues to be regarded as one of the least corrupt nations in the world, with a clean public service and businesses that abhor corruption. — TR Emeritus
Former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, who was Singapore’s first Prime Minister, wrote a preface for the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau 60th anniversary commemorative coffee table book.

Helping the small investor: The Magic Formula

Why the Formula Matters
Many hard working, middle class people find it very difficult to make ends meet, never mind make the appropriate contribution to their retirement savings. Even those that are making regular contributions to retirement savings find it unlikely their nest egg will grow large enough to let them live the dream retirement.

There is a hope! Before we get to the impact of the magic formula, you need a specific goal. Find out how much you need to retire. Use one of the online calculators to find your number and write it down.

Whatever number you came up with, chances are it shows that you should be saving more for retirement, correct? But what if you really have cut back as much as you can, and you still can't find that extra money to fund your retirement? Answer: If that extra income in not available in your budget, your retirement funds must earn more. Not paying attention to this fact is the single biggest risk you have to a happy, financially secure future. One of the great things about retirement accounts is that your earnings grow tax-deferred so you can realize the full power of compound interest. So what is the big deal anyway about a few percentage points over time?
Does it really make a difference whether your retirement account earns 8%, 10%, or 15% a year?

YES, YES, YES! It matters! In fact this is THE most important factor you need to consider.

The Magic Formula for Building Investment Wealth: Compound Interest

COMPOUND INTEREST (FUTURE VALUE)

You vaguely remember that Junior High School math lesson on simple and compound interest don't you? Suppose you open an account that pays a specific interest rate, compounded annually. If you make no further contributions and let compound interest work its magic the balance your account will grow to at some point in the future is known as the future value of your starting principal.
  • FV is the Future Value of your money you can calculate with this formula
  • P is the starting Principal
  • r is the rate of return expressed as a decimal (e.g., 8% is .08)
  • Y is the number of years
FV = P(1 + r)Y
The above assumes we are compounding once per year. If you want to compound n times per year, you use: FV = P(1 + r/n)Yn

THE POWER OF A HIGH COMPOUNDED INTEREST RATE

Obviously you and everyone else in the world knows it is better to have a high rate of return, but have you ever paid attention to the enormous impact that compound interest has on your future financial security and happieness? 
Let's take a simple example:

Suppose you are 40 years old and have $10,000 in a self-directed IRA account. For the purpose of this example, let's assume you will never add another dollar to that account out of your own pocket. How much will that $10,000 be worth at age 65? As you can guess the answer depends drastically on your rate of return. If you were getting a 6% annual return on your investment, then in 25 years that $10,000 would turn into $42,918. How would that same amount grow with a higher rate of return? 


 At 8%, in 25 years that $10,000 would turn into $68,484..
 At 10%, in 25 years that $10,000 would turn into $108,347.
 At 15%, in 25 years that $10,000 would turn into $329,189.
 At 20%, in 25 years that $10,000 would turn into $953,962!

Think about that. Without adding a dime to that account you could turn that $10,000 into almost 1 million dollars. But who's going to give you 20% interest you say? You are. We'll let you in on a 3 little secrets,
  1. Wealthy people don't get wealthy by settling for market returns.
  2. The money managers and brokers managing your 401K and mutual funds will get paid millions of dollars from fees and commissions regardless of the return they produce for you.
  3. As an individual investor, you have advantages that the big fund managers don't have. Once you understand this, you can exploit these advantages
Now what would happen if you were to add a small amount of money to that account each month, how would your nest egg change then? Look at the chart below and pay special attention to the columns with the higher rates of return. 

Monthly addition6% interest Over 25 years8% interest Over 25 years10% interest Over 25 years15% interest Over 25 years20% interest Over 25 years
$0 (no monthly contribution)$42,918$68,484$108,347$329,189$953,962
$50$ 77,647$115,564$172,764$474,420$1,289,068
$100$112,377$162,645$237,181$619,652$1,624,175
$200$181,835$256,805$366,016$910,114$2,294,388

Take Control of your Future

"Proverb: He who fears something gives it power over him"

So how do you consistently get that 15-20% return with almost no risk? You need to manage a portion of your future for yourself.
It is not that difficult once you learn how, but most people won't get started because of fear. Fear that they will lose money. Fear that they will not be able to do as well as the market. 

The greater risk is *not* taking some responsibility for your own future. "But I can't beat the market", you say. As we'll explain that's the wrong yardstick to begin with. You don't want to beat the market, you want to earn a consistent level of return each year. If the market looses 8% one year, who wants to "beat the market" by losing only 5% that year? Not us. And hopefully not you. We want to earn at least 15% on our retirement investment. So why are we sharing this information? 

Let's put it this way. We're advocates for the little guy. There are a lot of people in the financial services industry that want to manage our money because that is how they make money. They don't necessarily want us to know what they know, because then we wouldn't need them. Luckily for them, there are many investing myths out there that keep us in check. We accept these myths as truths, and that keeps us from taking action. 

We're not suggesting that you try to manage your entire retirement nest egg yourself. At least not immediately. Rather think of it as a new definiton of diversification. To start, leave the majority of your funds with your current 401K or IRA, but move a small percentage, maybe 10-20% to a self-directed IRA account. Get started today! 


"Never be afraid to try something new.
Remember, amateurs built the ark, professionals built the Titanic."


P.T. Unilever Indonesia

P.T. Unilever Indonesia Terbuka

Company Snapshot

Business Description:
P.T. Unilever Indonesia Terbuka operates in the Soap and other detergents sector.

Sales Analysis.
P.T. Unilever Indonesia Terbuka reported sales of 23.47 trillion Indonesian Rupiahs (US$2.46 billion) for the year ending December of 2011. This represents an increase of 19.2% versus 2010, when the company's sales were 19.69 trillion Indonesian Rupiahs. Sales at P.T. Unilever Indonesia Terbuka have increased during each of the previous five years (and since 2006, sales have increased a total of 107%). Sales of Foods and Beverages saw an increase of 25.7% in 2011, from 4.99 trillion Indonesian Rupiahs to 6.28 trillion Indonesian Rupiahs.


Stock Performance Chart for P.T. Unilever Indonesia Terbuka

Stock Data
Current Price (9/14/2012): 27,800
(Figures in Indonesian Rupiahs)

Recent Stock Performance
1 Week-0.7%13 Weeks8.8%
4 Weeks23.8%52 Weeks65.0%


P.T. Unilever Indonesia Terbuka Key Data:
Ticker:UNVRCountry:INDONESIA
Exchanges:JAK OTCMajor Industry:Drugs, Cosmetics & Health Care
Sub Industry:Cosmetics & Toiletries

2011 Sales23,469,218,000,000
(Year Ending Jan 2012).
Employees:6,043
Currency:Indonesian RupiahsMarket Cap:212,114,000,000,000
Fiscal Yr Ends:DecemberShares Outstanding:7,630,000,000
Share Type:OrdinaryClosely Held Shares:6,484,877,500\




PT Unilever Indonesia Tbk Key Developments

PT Unilever Indonesia Tbk Reports Earnings Results for the Six Months Ended June 2012
PT Unilever Indonesia Tbk reported earnings results for the six months ended June 2012. For the six months, the company reaped IDR 13.36 trillion in net sales, up 16% compared to IDR 11.46 trillion during the same period last year. The growth in revenue was the result of innovation of its products, both home and personal care as well as food and ice cream segments. The company booked IDR 2.33 trillion in net profit in the first half of 2012, up 12% from IDR 2.09 trillion year-on-year. Product innovation coupled by strong purchasing power helped the company to report strong business growth in the first semester of 2012.
Unilever Indonesia tbk PT Reports Earnings Results for the First Quarter Ended March 31, 2012
Unilever Indonesia tbk PT reported earnings results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2012. For the quarter, the company reported profit attributable to owners of the parent of IDR 1,162,598 million or IDR 152 per basic share on net sales of IDR 6,604,058 million compared to profit attributable to owners of the parent of IDR 985,590 million or IDR 129 per basic share on net sales of IDR 5,668,316 million a year ago. Profit before income tax was IDR 1,553,907 million compared to IDR 1,321,245 million a year ago. Capital expenditure was IDR 281,655 million compared to IDR 1,314,117 million a year ago. Net cash flows provided from operating activities was IDR 1,255,050 million compared to IDR 1,465,020 million a year ago. Acquisition of fixed assets was IDR 303,151 million compared to IDR 366,407 million a year ago. Acquisition of intangible assets was IDR 19,549 compared to IDR 35,132 million a year ago.

http://www.4-traders.com/PT-UNILEVER-INDONESIA-TBK-6495225/financials/