(11-11-2014, 05:07 PM)eve Wrote: [ -> ] (11-11-2014, 04:34 PM)corydorus Wrote: [ -> ]They tend to be inward focus that benefits themselves on the expense of employees or minority shareholders. There maybe dieheart employees who are closer to the inner circle. That's about it. I seen enough talented employees got sidelined and leave.
Thanks for sharing. Do you happen to have worked for Super? Just curious about your last statement.
Ha. No. Just a general statement.
(12-11-2014, 07:25 AM)greengiraffe Wrote: [ -> ]From my impression, the cash generated is not up to what was reported in terms of accounting earnings plus several significant one-offs.
Please correct me if I m not wrong.
Make no mistake - Super is no F&N and let alone trying to match up 10% of Nestle.
Vested
Odd Lots
GG
To contribute some number here for reference.
In the last 5 years, the indicator of cash earning return on equity (in %) are the following. The definition of cash earning return on equity is (OCF before WC change)/Equity
2013 : 23%
2012 : 24%
2011 : 20%
2010 : 19%
2009 : 17%
The cash return is significant.
(not vested)
Yes, for the past 5 year the Cash earnings on equity is impressive.
However, for the last 3Q (9 months), it's CEE drop significantly to 14%.
It's ROE also falls to 9.2% compare to last 5 years average of 18%
not vested.
(13-11-2014, 03:39 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (12-11-2014, 07:25 AM)greengiraffe Wrote: [ -> ]From my impression, the cash generated is not up to what was reported in terms of accounting earnings plus several significant one-offs.
Please correct me if I m not wrong.
Make no mistake - Super is no F&N and let alone trying to match up 10% of Nestle.
Vested
Odd Lots
GG
To contribute some number here for reference.
In the last 5 years, the indicator of cash earning return on equity (in %) are the following. The definition of cash earning return on equity is (OCF before WC change)/Equity
2013 : 23%
2012 : 24%
2011 : 20%
2010 : 19%
2009 : 17%
The cash return is significant.
(not vested)
It will be another on-off gains of few million dollars...
(not vested)
---
SALE OF PROPERTY AT 37 CHIN BEE CRESCENT SINGAPORE 619903 BY OWL
INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD
The Board of Directors (the “Board) of Super Group Limited (the “Company” and together
with its subsidiaries, the “Group”) wishes to announce that its wholly-owned subsidiary, Owl
International Pte Ltd (“Owl International”) has granted an Option to Purchase (the “Option”)
to Four Leaves Pte Ltd, an unrelated third party (the “Purchaser”) relating to the sale of
property (the “Sale”) located at 37 Chin Bee Crescent Singapore 619903 (the “Property”).
http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/Ann-Sale...eID=324761
(11-11-2014, 04:13 PM)eve Wrote: [ -> ] (11-11-2014, 04:06 PM)hongonn Wrote: [ -> ] (11-11-2014, 03:23 PM)jim_city Wrote: [ -> ]I do want them to succeed because of all the research I have done and I like the Management a lot.
Sometimes it is not because all the research you have done you have to own the company. For me most of the cases are after all the research i have done, i want to avoid the company.
Few years back i did a quick look on this co management, just to discover the management is like 1 big merry family husband & wife, son & daughter, uncle & wife's brother. It might have changed now i am not sure. But no way i will like the management.
Please elaborate on what's wrong with this? Since they would more likely to share the same heartbeat and would have strong vested interest for the firm to succeed?
This stock attracted my attention for a period of time. I had similar concerns as well about management being mostly family members. Family members can be an absolute bane or boon.
I do not know the management well. Perhaps, if the family members have strong corporate track record, it may be more reassuring. Years ago, a friend of mine worked with Super. He mentioned the same. That was, all family members inside, but he didn't mention about management quality.
It depends on how much one believes in them. This phenomenon of family members dominating a company is common in other listed companies. To add, this may not be a bad thing, so long as these folks are up to the job and not just "look pretty". On this basis, its still important to assess the management holistically, rather than whether they are related family members.
If I m a shareholder, I would surely be interested to observe their responses to queries during the AGM. At least, there is some assurance of whether they know where they are heading.
(18-11-2014, 04:47 PM)vesfreq Wrote: [ -> ]This stock attracted my attention for a period of time. I had similar concerns as well about management being mostly family members. Family members can be an absolute bane or boon.
I do not know the management well. Perhaps, if the family members have strong corporate track record, it may be more reassuring. Years ago, a friend of mine worked with Super. He mentioned the same. That was, all family members inside, but he didn't mention about management quality.
It depends on how much one believes in them. This phenomenon of family members dominating a company is common in other listed companies. To add, this may not be a bad thing, so long as these folks are up to the job and not just "look pretty". On this basis, its still important to assess the management holistically, rather than whether they are related family members.
If I m a shareholder, I would surely be interested to observe their responses to queries during the AGM. At least, there is some assurance of whether they know where they are heading.
IMO, it is a valid concern on the company, that worth a monitoring.
The recent re-branding exercises have been handled by two Teo's family members, Darren and Elaine Teo. IIRC, both are in their earlier-thirties. It provides a good opportunity to observe the next generation of Teo family members, and make a judgement whether they are up to the task.
So far so good, as I have been monitoring.
(not vested, but monitoring)
^^ Interesting cause I didn't know Darren Teo is family. It would have raised a red flag back in July when I met them as I have no clue what he was saying. He was presenting the marketing strategy like a consultant or a recent marketing class graduate. I don't think he understood the competitors or the landscape. IMHO he think a brand is a sticker.
Missed this cue from a "Corporate strategy and business development" AGM who is family and hence probably have greater say.
Family-owned is a 2 sided sword. We have to make sure their interests is aligned for the common good ie higher share price and wealth for them, rather than they stripping out the business's cashflow.
(19-11-2014, 12:40 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]^^ Interesting cause I didn't know Darren Teo is family. It would have raised a red flag back in July when I met them as I have no clue what he was saying. He was presenting the marketing strategy like a consultant or a recent marketing class graduate. I don't think he understood the competitors or the landscape. IMHO he think a brand is a sticker.
Missed this cue from a "Corporate strategy and business development" AGM who is family and hence probably have greater say.
Family-owned is a 2 sided sword. We have to make sure their interests is aligned for the common good ie higher share price and wealth for them, rather than they stripping out the business's cashflow.
Yes, indeed. but so far it seems no major mistake was taken.
I reckon it is mainly due to his elder sister, Elaine Teo, who has intensive experience in the company, since 1999.
Well, this is one factor which warrant higher MOS to invest into the company
(not vested)
Should ask their marketing team to explain their strategy of selling the same white coffee under 2 different branding (Owl and Super Coffee) when the coffee tasted the same.
This is not considered product differentiation.
Anyone knows why stock jump?
Vested