Actually, I didn't expect such an active discussion from fellow forumers on the seemingly big performance bonuses awarded to the Chans and Tays, as EDs. I just wish to again stress that the IDs forming THG's Remuneration Committe - who together decide how much to pay the EDs - are not pushovers. Besides, we mustn't forget that Dr Henry Tay and Dr Jannie Chan were the founders of THG; and they are already very wealthy in their own rights and charitable people. Having gained a good reputation for themselves over the years from their careers and social involvement, it will be rather silly for them to deliberately contrive a scheme in THG just to remunerate themselves unfairly by 1 to 2 million Singapore dollars worth of extra bonuses every year.
I am happy that more and more people have begun to appreciate - and many have understood very well - the superior quality aspects of THG as a business. This simply means that THG's shareholder base will become more and more solid over time - just like what has happened to Vicom - and its share price volatility should also fall as well. This has to be good for long-term shareholders/investors like me!
http://info.sgx.com/webcorannc.nsf/Annou...endocument
If one look at the agenda for the coming THG AGM,
Item 2: to approve dividend payment of 6.0 cents per share
Item 4: to approve non-directors executive fees of $283,514
Questions:
1) Why approval is not needed from shareholders on the 7.8 million paid to the executive directors? Is this fair to the minority shareholders?
2) If approval is not needed, could the process in determining at executive directors remuneration be made more transparent to the minority shareholders?
Has anyone done a SWOT analysis on THG?
It seems like there is a lot of Strength being mentioned on this tread already. How about
Weakness(Limitations)
Opportunities and
Threats
???
I very much find an analogous comparison to the pay structure of our government...
(09-07-2012, 10:26 PM)Boon Wrote: [ -> ]Has anyone done a SWOT analysis on THG?
It seems like there is a lot of Strength being mentioned on this tread already. How about
Weakness(Limitations)
Opportunities and
Threats
???
1) Standard of customer service and reputation is not guaranteed
2) Susceptible to strengthening of CHF as seen from Q4 2012 result
3) competition coming from Cortina, Sincere, Dickson and other smaller players
4) Poor investment record - GEMS TV, and the mistakes in the 1990s
5) Expanding very cautiously and slowly (can be a strength too)
6) Reliance on long-term relationship built with suppliers and customers
7) Lack of sufficient foothold in Hong Kong which is the largest market for luxury watch currently
(10-07-2012, 08:13 PM)shanrui_91 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-07-2012, 10:26 PM)Boon Wrote: [ -> ]Has anyone done a SWOT analysis on THG?
It seems like there is a lot of Strength being mentioned on this tread already. How about
Weakness(Limitations)
Opportunities and
Threats
???
1) Standard of customer service and reputation is not guaranteed
2) Susceptible to strengthening of CHF as seen from Q4 2012 result
3) competition coming from Cortina, Sincere, Dickson and other smaller players
4) Poor investment record - GEMS TV, and the mistakes in the 1990s
5) Expanding very cautiously and slowly (can be a strength too)
6) Reliance on long-term relationship built with suppliers and customers
7) Lack of sufficient foothold in Hong Kong which is the largest market for luxury watch currently
That is a good start. But let's do it this way in the order of A1, B1, C1, D1, A2, B2, C2 .............. . And do it one at a time
Question A1: what do you think is the No:1 Strength of THG? Why?
A: (Strength)
1.
2.
3.
B: (Weakness/Limitation)
1.
2.
3.
C: (Opportunities)
1.
2.
3.
D: (Threats)
1.
2.
3
On 2 May 2012, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) issued a revised Code of Corporate Governance, accepting the recommendations made by the Corporate Governance Council. The Code is a principles-based approach to prudent corporate governance, and while not mandatory, publicly listed companies are expected to comply with its guidelines. The 2012 Code replaces the 2005 version, with key changes relating to areas of director independence, Board composition and performance, remuneration practices and disclosures, risk management, and shareholder rights. The revised Code will take effect for Annual Report disclosures relating to financial years commencing 1 November 2012, with a longer timeframe for implementing Board composition changes. See attachment.
Page 14 to 18 deal with Remuneration Matters.
The STATEMENT ON THE ROLE OF SHAREHOLDERS shown below, which falls on last page of the document, unfortunately does not form part of the Code of Corporate Governance.
THE ROLE OF SHAREHOLDERS
IN ENGAGING WITH COMPANIES IN WHICH THEY INVEST
The Code on Corporate Governance focuses on providing principles and guidelines to listed companies and their Boards to spur them towards a high standard of corporate governance. To ensure that these standards are achieved and sustained in practice, active and constructive shareholder relations is crucial. Bearing in mind the diversity of shareholders in a listed company and their differing investment objectives, this statement sets out certain broad views on the role of shareholders.
The objective of creating sustainable and financially sound enterprises that offer long-term value to shareholders is best served through a constructive relationship between shareholders and the Boards of companies.
Shareholder inputs on governance matters are useful to strengthen the overall environment for good governance policies and practices, and convey shareholders' expectations to the Board. By constructively engaging with the Board, shareholders can help to set the tone and expectation for governance of the company.
A shareholder's vote at general meetings is a direct way of expressing views and expectations to the Board. Hence, shareholders should exercise their right to attend general meetings and vote responsibly. Where relevant, shareholders should communicate to the Board their reasons for disagreeing with any proposal tabled at a general meeting.
Where appropriate, specific shareholder groups and their associations are encouraged to consider adopting international best practices. Initiatives by relevant industry associations or organisations to develop guidelines on their roles as shareholders of listed companies will be welcomed.
For the avoidance of doubt, this statement does not form part of the Code of Corporate Governance. It is aimed at enhancing the quality of engagement between shareholders and companies, so as to help drive higher standards of corporate governance and improve long-term returns to shareholders.
(09-07-2012, 11:01 AM)dydx Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, I didn't expect such an active discussion from fellow forumers on the seemingly big performance bonuses awarded to the Chans and Tays, as EDs. I just wish to again stress that the IDs forming THG's Remuneration Committe - who together decide how much to pay the EDs - are not pushovers. Besides, we mustn't forget that Dr Henry Tay and Dr Jannie Chan were the founders of THG; and they are already very wealthy in their own rights and charitable people. Having gained a good reputation for themselves over the years from their careers and social involvement, it will be rather silly for them to deliberately contrive a scheme in THG just to remunerate themselves unfairly by 1 to 2 million Singapore dollars worth of extra bonuses every year.
I am happy that more and more people have begun to appreciate - and many have understood very well - the superior quality aspects of THG as a business. This simply means that THG's shareholder base will become more and more solid over time - just like what has happened to Vicom - and its share price volatility should also fall as well. This has to be good for long-term shareholders/investors like me!
Over the years, the top 20 shareholders as listed in THG Annual Report seems to be the same over the last 5 years, and they actually holding about close to 87% of the total number of shares issued. The shareholdings of these shareholders seldom change and the names that are listed every year in the Annual Report appear to be the same.
Crabcrab has started investing in THG more than 6 - 7 years ago when the price is low. I have been keeping the shares since then and each year increasing my stake in it.... I can say that this is one of the best investment that I have so far in terms of net returns.
Another company which Crabcrab invested previously was CK Tang. Undergoing two times failed privatisation, I decided to sell due to opportunity cost while holding my view that it is worth more than $2.00 per share when the share price was still around $0.60. It turned out to be true, the Tangs finally wanted to buyout remaining shares at $2.00.
There may be a day soon or sooner that THG may be a privatisation target in view of the growing profit each year.
Good Luck......
Crabcrab really good foresight. i entered very little also 5,6 yrs back before share split. just bought some more after latest financials. this is absolute solid, cash-generating business to hold. i hope the current management continues doing what they do best. In my humble opinion, watch retailing business is about relationships: with the manufacturers and customers. THG has established itself and build up a brand name that is not on its balance sheet. will be really interesting to know at what prices are potential suitors willing to fork out for the intangibles.
(11-07-2012, 12:53 AM)guru Wrote: [ -> ]Crabcrab really good foresight. i entered very little also 5,6 yrs back before share split. just bought some more after latest financials. this is absolute solid, cash-generating business to hold. i hope the current management continues doing what they do best. In my humble opinion, watch retailing business is about relationships: with the manufacturers and customers. THG has established itself and build up a brand name that is not on its balance sheet. will be really interesting to know at what prices are potential suitors willing to fork out for the intangibles.
Couldn't have agreed more. Its cash flow generating ability is simply "awesome" if good market conditions prevail.
Sounds fun.
Heres mine
A: (Strength)
1. Automatic branded watch is an addiction. Its like girls buying prada/channel.
2. Good margin business (no need to invest in production capex / R&D Cost) / No lelong competition allowed
3. Selling a product that is time tested (quartz invention makes manual watch market more premium imo)
B: (Weakness/Limitation)
1. Unable to "dominate" a market even if the watch brand does. No actual "Moat"
2. Rental cost / Marketing cost
3. Sales are more discount & location based rather than brand based
C: (Opportunities)
1. Able to enjoy sales of "upcoming" new brands unlike a watch maker
2. Able to tap into growing market easily
3. Stock is not overly expensive!
D: (Threats)
1. Watch maker open their own retail store offering more discount than THG
2. Family run business
3 Trend / love for watches diminish