28-09-2011, 06:45 PM
i'm interested to know more of this list of ">6% blue chips" too 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
29-09-2011, 09:11 AM
SPH fits the bill too.
Oops, are we getting off-topic here?
Oops, are we getting off-topic here?
29-09-2011, 09:49 AM
(28-09-2011, 05:49 PM)Musicwhiz Wrote: [ -> ](28-09-2011, 02:30 PM)violinist Wrote: [ -> ]Anyway, when so many blue chips dividend yields are above 6%, it is far from attractive (to me).
I'm quite surprised - you mentioned there are "many" blue chips yielding >6%? Maybe you'd like to name a few?
My personal understanding is that for blue chips like SIA Engineering and ST Engineering, the yield is just 5+% currently. Only Starhub is yielding around 7+%.
Thanks.
Yes, 5% is more like the norm now. I remember late 2008 all went to 8%+
The standard site for yield stocks: http://yieldstocks.reitdata.com/
and for Reits and Trusts: http://reitdata.com/
SPH
SATS
Singpost
The 3 Telcos
and a host of Reits/Trusts (I know the argument against their apparent high yield, but well..)
29-09-2011, 10:00 AM
(29-09-2011, 09:49 AM)violinist Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, 5% is more like the norm now. I remember late 2008 all went to 8%+
The standard site for yield stocks: http://yieldstocks.reitdata.com/
and for Reits and Trusts: http://reitdata.com/
SPH
SATS
Singpost
The 3 Telcos
and a host of Reits/Trusts (I know the argument against their apparent high yield, but well..)
Apologize if this is off-topic, but please bear with me.
Of the companies you named, SATS, Singpost and M1 are not considered blue-chip. When the term blue chip is used, I assume it to mean that it is included in the Straits Times Index.
So if you eliminate the three, you are left with SPH, SingTel and Starhub. Now the question is whether the apparent high yield is sustainable.....
29-09-2011, 10:05 AM
Yup, sustainable is the word. I certainly hope Vicom's low yield is not sustainable.
29-09-2011, 12:28 PM
Look at the debt level and payout ratio. Vicom is debt-free, pays out 63% of its earnings and gives a yield of 4.8%. Blue chip REITs (like AREIT, CMT etc) have debt to equity ratio > 50%, pays out 100% of its earnings and gives a dividend yield of 5.5 - 6.5%. I guess same applies to Starhub. If Vicom paid out similar amount of earnings to unit-holders, its yield would be similar to such REITs (despite being debt-free) ! However, this doesn't mean that Vicom is cheap at current prices.
(Vested in Vicom)
(Vested in Vicom)
01-10-2011, 09:37 AM
VICOM is a resilient stock with free cash flows and payout ratios that should continue to maintain its dividend payout in the years to come.
I realized it is a gem after doing some fundamental analysis, about 1yr ago when it's share price was still doing at ~2.50. At that price, with risk factors like:
(1) sustainability of SETSCO continued profitability - as its improvements from last 3years have all came from this division due to construction boom from the 2IRs.
(2) 11mil goodwill on balance sheet
(3) Small, illiquid float. There are only ~90mil shares and 70% is owned by ComfortDelgro
I demanded a margin of safety and would only get in at price of <1.80. Of course, the Market continues to be The Great Humiliator (as it always has been) and prices has since then rocketed to >3.00...
I realized it is a gem after doing some fundamental analysis, about 1yr ago when it's share price was still doing at ~2.50. At that price, with risk factors like:
(1) sustainability of SETSCO continued profitability - as its improvements from last 3years have all came from this division due to construction boom from the 2IRs.
(2) 11mil goodwill on balance sheet
(3) Small, illiquid float. There are only ~90mil shares and 70% is owned by ComfortDelgro
I demanded a margin of safety and would only get in at price of <1.80. Of course, the Market continues to be The Great Humiliator (as it always has been) and prices has since then rocketed to >3.00...
03-10-2011, 09:47 PM
Good news for Vicom?
Vehicle growth rate to be cut - http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/s...98/1/.html
Vehicle growth rate to be cut - http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/s...98/1/.html
03-10-2011, 10:00 PM
Hi FFN,
Thanks for the article. I have copied/pasted it here for reference. More details will be announced in October (this month). Sounds like good news for VICOM as this means higher COE prices and thus more people will hold on to existing vehicles. Either that or they may decide to scrap them for public transport (highly unlikely though).
Channelnewsasia
Vehicle growth rate to be cut
03 October 2011 1908 hrs (SST)
SINGAPORE: Minister for Transport Lui Tuck Yew has said that Singapore's annual vehicle growth cap would be cut further from next year.
Mr Lui did not say how much lower it will go. The quantum, he said, would be announced in October.
Mr Lui said this in an interview with the local media ahead of the opening of the new Parliament sitting next week.
The annual allowable vehicle growth rate now stands at 1.5 per cent.
One way Singapore manages its vehicle growth population is through the vehicle quota system.
Under it, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) determines the number of new vehicles allowed on the roads.
It takes into account the prevailing traffic conditions and the number of vehicles taken off the roads permanently.
The last time the quota was cut was in 2009, when it was halved from three per cent to 1.5 per cent.
Explaining the reason for the upcoming cut, Mr Lui said one consideration is the fact that Singapore's road network will be considerably scaled down in future.
"In the recent decade, I think the roads have grown by about one per cent and going forward, we think it probably will grow only about 0.5 per cent per annum, this is the road network," Mr Lui said.
"You can't allow it (the vehicle quota) to grow at the rates in past years simply because the road networks are not expanding as what we have done before.
"And there is also a limit to what we can do with regard to congestion pricing. So it's really trying to find a balance to these two measures".
Mr Lui ruled out the possibility of a zero-per cent population growth for vehicles.
"It is a combination of both ownership measures as well as usage measures that is most ideal," he said.
"You could theoretically bring it down to zero or even below zero but I think it will bump up against the aspirations of some who want to own a car.
"Notwithstanding whatever it is, we try to improve on the public transport system and there are those who feel that they really need a car.
"They have elderly, sickly parents around and it is a lot more convenient, so we understand all that."
One expert said any drastic cuts would not make sense given that the average speed on expressways last year was about 62 kilometres per hour (km/hr).
It was 28 km/hr along arterial roads and within the CBD.
In 2002, the average speed on expressways was 64.8 km/hr. It was 63.3 km/hr in 2010.
Along arterial roads and within the CBD, the average speed was 24.6 km/hr in 2002.
In 2010, the speed improved to 28 km/hr.
Associate Professor Anthony Chin, director of the Economic Executive Programme at the Singapore Centre for Applied and Policy Economics, said: "Are we saying that 62.3 km/hr is not acceptable? That we have to cut ownership?
"Secondly, do we understand usage behaviour well enough to just go for this blatant cut in the ownership?"
"It's not just a question of ownership but it's the usage, because we are now tackling the usage problem -- congestion is a usage problem.
"You can own cars but if everybody uses it at the same time, at the same location, well, you don't need a professor to tell you that you will get traffic congestion because you are just loading it into the system."
Assoc Prof Chin added: "At this particular moment, the road speeds seem to be acceptable, unless you are saying that in the future, that this road space will not grow by one per cent and you don't do anything, you don't do any traffic management, you don't do any of these policies that would affect the behaviour of the motorist.
"Then I would agree that you would have to cut -- that makes sense, does it not? If the space is not going to grow by so much and you want to maintain these speeds, then of course something's got to give."
Industry players said the cut in vehicle growth will very likely push up car prices.
Tan Chong Motor general manager of sales and marketing Ron Lim said: "Based on vehicle population numbers of 925,772 as at end-August 2011, 1.5 per cent vehicle growth would translate to 13,887 Certificates of Entitlement (COEs).
"Thus, every 0.5 per cent cut will translate to 4,629 fewer COEs.
"Given the total COE number to be released is dependent on the growth allowed and the replacement of deregistered vehicles, even if we assume de-registration numbers remain constant, as per numbers from January-June 2011, every 0.5 per cent cut in the population growth will translate to a cut in COE numbers by around 10 per cent compared to the current COE quota.
"This situation occurs due to the already record low number of COEs released currently.
"All these only point to higher COE prices which will further impact purchases, causing further delay in people replacing their vehicles, thus, not addressing the whole purpose of curbing vehicle population growth.
"As the reduction of COEs will be across the board, businesses will also be impacted due to higher operating costs from commercial vehicles.
"Thus, overall, this will mean an even tougher time for the auto retail industry and eventually higher ownership cost to car buyers and business."
But there is some good news for motorists -- evening Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) surcharge at some gantries such as along the CTE, Chinatown and Boat Quay areas may be tweaked.
Mr Lui said the tweak will involve the timing of evening ERP, not doing away with the surcharge.
He said: "This is something I have asked LTA to study -- whether it's possible to tweak the timings a little bit during the evening period.
"Frankly, I think there are some drivers who are prepared to pay a certain amount for ERP in order to have a smoother drive home, particularly in the evenings.
"There are some who would say, 'why should I pay?' I think there is room for some re-look into the evening peak ERP, not to do away with it, but to tweak the timings."
Details will be announced in October.
-CNA/wk
Thanks for the article. I have copied/pasted it here for reference. More details will be announced in October (this month). Sounds like good news for VICOM as this means higher COE prices and thus more people will hold on to existing vehicles. Either that or they may decide to scrap them for public transport (highly unlikely though).
Channelnewsasia
Vehicle growth rate to be cut
03 October 2011 1908 hrs (SST)
SINGAPORE: Minister for Transport Lui Tuck Yew has said that Singapore's annual vehicle growth cap would be cut further from next year.
Mr Lui did not say how much lower it will go. The quantum, he said, would be announced in October.
Mr Lui said this in an interview with the local media ahead of the opening of the new Parliament sitting next week.
The annual allowable vehicle growth rate now stands at 1.5 per cent.
One way Singapore manages its vehicle growth population is through the vehicle quota system.
Under it, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) determines the number of new vehicles allowed on the roads.
It takes into account the prevailing traffic conditions and the number of vehicles taken off the roads permanently.
The last time the quota was cut was in 2009, when it was halved from three per cent to 1.5 per cent.
Explaining the reason for the upcoming cut, Mr Lui said one consideration is the fact that Singapore's road network will be considerably scaled down in future.
"In the recent decade, I think the roads have grown by about one per cent and going forward, we think it probably will grow only about 0.5 per cent per annum, this is the road network," Mr Lui said.
"You can't allow it (the vehicle quota) to grow at the rates in past years simply because the road networks are not expanding as what we have done before.
"And there is also a limit to what we can do with regard to congestion pricing. So it's really trying to find a balance to these two measures".
Mr Lui ruled out the possibility of a zero-per cent population growth for vehicles.
"It is a combination of both ownership measures as well as usage measures that is most ideal," he said.
"You could theoretically bring it down to zero or even below zero but I think it will bump up against the aspirations of some who want to own a car.
"Notwithstanding whatever it is, we try to improve on the public transport system and there are those who feel that they really need a car.
"They have elderly, sickly parents around and it is a lot more convenient, so we understand all that."
One expert said any drastic cuts would not make sense given that the average speed on expressways last year was about 62 kilometres per hour (km/hr).
It was 28 km/hr along arterial roads and within the CBD.
In 2002, the average speed on expressways was 64.8 km/hr. It was 63.3 km/hr in 2010.
Along arterial roads and within the CBD, the average speed was 24.6 km/hr in 2002.
In 2010, the speed improved to 28 km/hr.
Associate Professor Anthony Chin, director of the Economic Executive Programme at the Singapore Centre for Applied and Policy Economics, said: "Are we saying that 62.3 km/hr is not acceptable? That we have to cut ownership?
"Secondly, do we understand usage behaviour well enough to just go for this blatant cut in the ownership?"
"It's not just a question of ownership but it's the usage, because we are now tackling the usage problem -- congestion is a usage problem.
"You can own cars but if everybody uses it at the same time, at the same location, well, you don't need a professor to tell you that you will get traffic congestion because you are just loading it into the system."
Assoc Prof Chin added: "At this particular moment, the road speeds seem to be acceptable, unless you are saying that in the future, that this road space will not grow by one per cent and you don't do anything, you don't do any traffic management, you don't do any of these policies that would affect the behaviour of the motorist.
"Then I would agree that you would have to cut -- that makes sense, does it not? If the space is not going to grow by so much and you want to maintain these speeds, then of course something's got to give."
Industry players said the cut in vehicle growth will very likely push up car prices.
Tan Chong Motor general manager of sales and marketing Ron Lim said: "Based on vehicle population numbers of 925,772 as at end-August 2011, 1.5 per cent vehicle growth would translate to 13,887 Certificates of Entitlement (COEs).
"Thus, every 0.5 per cent cut will translate to 4,629 fewer COEs.
"Given the total COE number to be released is dependent on the growth allowed and the replacement of deregistered vehicles, even if we assume de-registration numbers remain constant, as per numbers from January-June 2011, every 0.5 per cent cut in the population growth will translate to a cut in COE numbers by around 10 per cent compared to the current COE quota.
"This situation occurs due to the already record low number of COEs released currently.
"All these only point to higher COE prices which will further impact purchases, causing further delay in people replacing their vehicles, thus, not addressing the whole purpose of curbing vehicle population growth.
"As the reduction of COEs will be across the board, businesses will also be impacted due to higher operating costs from commercial vehicles.
"Thus, overall, this will mean an even tougher time for the auto retail industry and eventually higher ownership cost to car buyers and business."
But there is some good news for motorists -- evening Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) surcharge at some gantries such as along the CTE, Chinatown and Boat Quay areas may be tweaked.
Mr Lui said the tweak will involve the timing of evening ERP, not doing away with the surcharge.
He said: "This is something I have asked LTA to study -- whether it's possible to tweak the timings a little bit during the evening period.
"Frankly, I think there are some drivers who are prepared to pay a certain amount for ERP in order to have a smoother drive home, particularly in the evenings.
"There are some who would say, 'why should I pay?' I think there is room for some re-look into the evening peak ERP, not to do away with it, but to tweak the timings."
Details will be announced in October.
-CNA/wk
04-10-2011, 02:12 AM
(03-10-2011, 10:00 PM)Musicwhiz Wrote: [ -> ]Sounds like good news for VICOM as this means higher COE prices and thus more people will hold on to existing vehicles. Either that or they may decide to scrap them for public transport (highly unlikely though).
A reduction in the growth of car population should be relatively bad for Vicom compared to if growth had been kept the same.
More cars = more inspections
Less cars = less inspections
While 1.5% growth is still positive to Vicom, it is not as positive if let's say growth were allowed at 5%. In other words, Vicom would be better if this cap has not been implemented. So this is actually bad news and not good news.