11-04-2014, 05:28 PM
Here are my takes on the Capex issues:
Revenue: SGD
FY2013 = 120 million
FY2012 = 113 million
FY2011 = 114 million
FY2010 = 129 million
Purchase of PPE : (Capex)
FY2013 = 1.994 million = 0.093 million (capital work in progress) + 1.901 million (plant & equipment) = 1.7% of Revenue.
FY2012 = 1.747 million = 0.432 million (capital work in progress) + 1.315 million (plant & equipment) =1.5% of Revenue
FY2011 = 7.481 million = 1.022 million (property) + 6.459 million (plant & equipment) = 6.6% of Revenue
FY2010 = 7.621 million = 2.105 million (property) + 2.339 million (plant & equipment) + 2.977 million (Payment for the year for prior year acquisitions) = 5.9% of Revenue)
Upkeep of machinery (under other expenses) : (maintenance capex)
FY2013 = 1.981 million (=1.7% of Revenue)
FY2012 = 1.438 million (=1.3% of revenue)
FY2011 = 1.188 million (=1.0% of revenue)
FY2010 = 1.294 million (= 1.0% of revenue)
Comments:
1) Utilization rate of UMS manufacturing facility currently at 60% to 70%,hence, I guess no capex for facility expansion (purchase of property) would be needed until utilization rate hits 90% to 100%
2) Purchase of plant & equipment over the the last 4 years totalling SGD 12.014 million or on average of SGD 3.0 million per year.
3) In addition to the purchase of PPE (Capex), UMS did spend SGD 1.0 plus million per year for the upkeep of its machinery (which could be considered as maintenance capex)
4) In short, unless utilization rate of manufacturing facility hits 90% to 100%, it would be reasonable to assume that big ticket item capex expenditure requirement, on top of maintenance capex under other expenses, would be confined to the purchase of plant and equipment - averaging SGD 3.0 million per annum over the last 4 years.
5) The amount spent on upkeep of machinery (maintenance capex) + capex on plant and equipment look normal and reasonable to me. It doesn't appear that UMS has 'under-spent" in these respects.
6) If utilization rate hits 90%, addtional capex on plant & equipment would be needed (may be a few millions), but I guess the incremental FCF generated (from increase of utilization rate from 60%/70% to 90%) would be more than sufficient to cover that requirement - and may even be enough to cover additional capex on new facilities as well.
(vested)
Revenue: SGD
FY2013 = 120 million
FY2012 = 113 million
FY2011 = 114 million
FY2010 = 129 million
Purchase of PPE : (Capex)
FY2013 = 1.994 million = 0.093 million (capital work in progress) + 1.901 million (plant & equipment) = 1.7% of Revenue.
FY2012 = 1.747 million = 0.432 million (capital work in progress) + 1.315 million (plant & equipment) =1.5% of Revenue
FY2011 = 7.481 million = 1.022 million (property) + 6.459 million (plant & equipment) = 6.6% of Revenue
FY2010 = 7.621 million = 2.105 million (property) + 2.339 million (plant & equipment) + 2.977 million (Payment for the year for prior year acquisitions) = 5.9% of Revenue)
Upkeep of machinery (under other expenses) : (maintenance capex)
FY2013 = 1.981 million (=1.7% of Revenue)
FY2012 = 1.438 million (=1.3% of revenue)
FY2011 = 1.188 million (=1.0% of revenue)
FY2010 = 1.294 million (= 1.0% of revenue)
Comments:
1) Utilization rate of UMS manufacturing facility currently at 60% to 70%,hence, I guess no capex for facility expansion (purchase of property) would be needed until utilization rate hits 90% to 100%
2) Purchase of plant & equipment over the the last 4 years totalling SGD 12.014 million or on average of SGD 3.0 million per year.
3) In addition to the purchase of PPE (Capex), UMS did spend SGD 1.0 plus million per year for the upkeep of its machinery (which could be considered as maintenance capex)
4) In short, unless utilization rate of manufacturing facility hits 90% to 100%, it would be reasonable to assume that big ticket item capex expenditure requirement, on top of maintenance capex under other expenses, would be confined to the purchase of plant and equipment - averaging SGD 3.0 million per annum over the last 4 years.
5) The amount spent on upkeep of machinery (maintenance capex) + capex on plant and equipment look normal and reasonable to me. It doesn't appear that UMS has 'under-spent" in these respects.
6) If utilization rate hits 90%, addtional capex on plant & equipment would be needed (may be a few millions), but I guess the incremental FCF generated (from increase of utilization rate from 60%/70% to 90%) would be more than sufficient to cover that requirement - and may even be enough to cover additional capex on new facilities as well.
(vested)