NTL Wrote:I not vested in both. Just that wondering why TTJ manage to get back the contract so fast while YongNam has no news yet. Vested in another steel structure company though.
I think it is a differentiated even in steel industry...
The producer/reseller of 'raw' steel plates, pipes, rebar (Lee Metals, etc) vs specialised installers/finishers (yongnam, etc)
Just my opinion (and i may be wrong)
To me, structural steel is a specialised industry because they put together the complete product.
Hence they will command higher profit margin than players of the hardware industry who fight purely on 'raw' prices.
Here is a dated May 2012 S&P report i found comparing the quality of producer & finisher
See page 6 "Peer comparison" and Page 7
http://www.brc.com.sg/pdf/Asia%20initiat...120530.pdf
Btw, there is a singapore structual steel society.
Just for reference and we see the leading players on the board...
TTJ market cap $127.39m is smaller than Lee Metal $180.33m, BRC asia $174.32m
http://www.ssss.org.sg/index.php?option=...&Itemid=54
Based on the peer comparison, TTJ was cheap! And BRC is expensive!
Wonder how is it now.
While structural steel companies may command higher margin, they also have to face pricing competitions from other firms. According to BRC financial reports, they are saying that they enjoy the good profit due to low steel prices. This will means that they are affected by raw material cost too.
Was looking briefly at Lee Metal just now. Other than dealing with raw steel and pipes, they are doing structural steel too. Likely they are trying to 'balance' out between both division in a see-saw manner.
Well... More homework for me now...
FY13 (ended 31Jul13) makes interesting reading....
http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/TTJ_AR13...leID=19758
TTJ has been a steady performer in generating profits and FCF when compared with bigger archrival Yongnam. Notwithstanding the challenges in the local construction industry, it looks like TTJ is poised to continue as a steady performer in the foreseeable future.
The dormitory business has higher margins and takes up 11.8% of total revenue based on 2013 AR. However the tenure for Terusan Lodge is due to expire very soon on 12 Jan 2014. Has management indicated that the lease will be renewed? I thought this is an area of concern. Is my concern misplaced?
(15-12-2013, 01:13 PM)valuehunter Wrote: [ -> ]The dormitory business has higher margins and takes up 11.8% of total revenue based on 2013 AR. However the tenure for Terusan Lodge is due to expire very soon on 12 Jan 2014. Has management indicated that the lease will be renewed? I thought this is an area of concern. Is my concern misplaced?
From Note 15 (p64/65) of the latest FY13 (ended 31Jul13) AR…..
http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/TTJ_AR13...leID=19758
we have the following -
(1) The Terusan Lodge dormitory asset was acquired/built at a historical cost of $18.916m; as at 31Jul13, the asset was carried at a written-down (mainly by way of depreciation at a rate of $2.468m p.a.) NBV of $8.43m, but had an assessed Fair Value of $22.8m based on the discounted cash flow method. So in effect, this asset carries with it a 'hidden value' of $14.37m, amounting to an extra $0.041/share (based on the latest 349.8m outstanding issued shares) should TTJ choose to adopt fair value accounting on this asset.
(2) More importantly to note is that in FY13, the Terusan Lodge dormitory asset derived a revenue of $14.915m (+14.3% YoY), incurred direct operating expenses amounting to $4.823m (including an annual depreciation of $2.468m), and had a derived PBT of $10.092m (+19.6% YoY) and a derived after-tax (assumed at 17%) FCF of $10.844m (+14.5% YoY). This super cash-cow asset alone added cash to TTJ at a rate of $0.031/share in FY13.
(3) While this asset has an original tenure till 12Jan14, it carries an option, at the discretion of BCA (Building and Construction Authority), to renew for a further period of 3 years - i.e. till 12Jan17. I suppose we can reasonably assume the 3-year renewal or extension is already in the bag. If TTJ is lucky - since the company is doing a lot of good work in our all-important Jurong Island - perhaps BCA could be willing to grant a further extension after 12Jan17.
(15-12-2013, 07:54 PM)dydx Wrote: [ -> ] (15-12-2013, 01:13 PM)valuehunter Wrote: [ -> ]The dormitory business has higher margins and takes up 11.8% of total revenue based on 2013 AR. However the tenure for Terusan Lodge is due to expire very soon on 12 Jan 2014. Has management indicated that the lease will be renewed? I thought this is an area of concern. Is my concern misplaced?
From Note 15 (p64/65) of the latest FY13 (ended 31Jul13) AR…..
http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/TTJ_AR13...leID=19758
we have the following -
(1) The Terusan Lodge dormitory asset was acquired/built at a historical cost of $18.916m; as at 31Jul13, the asset was carried at a written-down (mainly by way of depreciation at a rate of $2.468m p.a.) NBV of $8.43m, but had an assessed Fair Value of $22.8m based on the discounted cash flow method. So in effect, this asset carries with it a 'hidden value' of $14.37m, amounting to an extra $0.041/share (based on the latest 349.8m outstanding issued shares) should TTJ choose to adopt fair value accounting on this asset.
(2) More importantly to note is that in FY13, the Terusan Lodge dormitory asset derived a revenue of $14.915m (+14.3% YoY), incurred direct operating expenses amounting to $4.823m (including an annual depreciation of $2.468m), and had a derived PBT of $10.092m (+19.6% YoY) and a derived after-tax (assumed at 17%) FCF of $10.844m (+14.5% YoY). This super cash-cow asset alone added cash to TTJ at a rate of $0.031/share in FY13.
(3) While this asset has an original tenure till 12Jan14, it carries an option, at the discretion of BCA (Building and Construction Authority), to renew for a further period of 3 years - i.e. till 12Jan17. I suppose we can reasonably assume the 3-year renewal or extension is already in the bag. If TTJ is lucky - since the company is doing a lot of good work in our all-important Jurong Island - perhaps BCA could be willing to grant a further extension after 12Jan17.
dydx, thank you for your reply. May i know why we can reasonably assume the renewal is already in the bag? I've not seen any annoucement to this effect. Did i miss out anything? If the tenure is not renewed, what happens to the 'hidden value' in point (1)? Have been trying to figure this out.
Hi all,
This is my first post here. Yes, I had got confirmation during the AGM that 5A Jalan Papan lease had been renewed for another 3 years. The increase in the rental costs payable to BCA is within the acceptable range.