(17-08-2015, 02:47 PM)BlueDogMeow Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.dropbox.com/s/583ymkso7bw7tk...l.PNG?dl=0
Now, adjusted for the cycle, here is the marginal sales to capital ratio. A marginal sales to capital ratio is more relevant in a trending sales to capital ratio as that implies each incremental capital adds less and less to the revenue line.
Hi Bluedogmeow,
Thanks for the reply.
Here is your table for ease of view.
[Image: BDM.jpg]
So it is not Sales to capital but marginal sales to capital. So its no longer from 1.00 to 0.7. What a change!!?
By the way, can you explain what is the time period for the first columnm and what is 0.65 invested capital?
For second columm how was "marginal sale/capital ratio" of 1.25 arrived at. The same for column 3, - how was "marginal sale/capital ratio" of 1.22 arrived at?
Many thanks
Oldman9
No, it is both sales to capital and marginal sales to capital. They have different purpose, but for a "high growth" company such as SinoG, the marginal sales to capital ratio is more meaningful.
Yup. I made a mistake as stated above, but the trend and the magnitude is similar.
The time period is the same. I was just too lazy to add the date. It is 4am over here. 0.65 invested capital is just 1/1.54. Marginal sales to capital ratio is calculated via delta sales divided by delta invested capital.
Hi bluedogmeow
Here is simple Sales to Ave total assets ratio, my Finance officer friend helped me come up with.
(dots used as the formatting isn't helpful, so i learn).
...................................RMB m
..................................2011......2012.......2013.......2014
Sales .........................1,020......1,640......2,271.....2,819
Total assets ...................850......1,338.....1,854.......2646
Ave Total assets..............707......1,094.....1,596.......2250
Sales/Avetotal assets.......1.44......1.49........1.42......1.25
Note : There isn't much change for year 2011-2013 which is around 1.4x and for 2014 it dropped to 1.25 , This is lower because the value of convertible bond was mainly restated in 2014)
My FO friend told me that sales occurs during a period while balance sheet shows data at a point in time. As some of the earnings in 2014 is used to generate sales in 2014 itself, the assets used to calculate should be an average of 2013 and 2014.
cheers,
Oldman9
Interesting that the Thais still have not given up on this company.
They prob buying to support the price, as a last ditch effort?
Must be quite dumb of them to keep buying into a sinking ship... provide more meat for the shortists.
Do the Thais really need to support the price? In fact they can buy more as it gets cheaper. If I were the Thais, it would make sense to buy more SinoG since the ROI is pretty high. From TTA's statements, we can see that SinoG contributed quite a lot to their net profit for the quarter...
BDM, you have been focusing too much on Sino that you did not even do a comparison to Huiyian.
Do you know that Huiyuan Sales to Total Asset is only 0.26? Huiyuan's sales for 2014 is rmb 4.512b and their total asset is at rmb 17.1b. Based on these two ratios, Sino (from oldman9's data for 2014 @ 1.25) and Huiyuan (0.26), it seems Sino is 5x as efficient as Huiyuan.
link to Huiyuan
2013/
2014 Annual report.
I understand that TTA account for its stake in SinoG as an associate even thought its stake is less than 20%, any thoughts on this?
Crubs
Thank you for flashing 2Q 2015 results of Thoresen Thai Agencies (TTA).
TTA was losing money consistently before Mr Prayudh Mahagistsri gained control of it.
In late 2014, TTA joined force with PM group to take a combined 13% stake in Sino Grandness.
Although its stake in Sino Grandness is only 9%, TTA classifies Sino as an associated company on the ground that it has significant influence over the governing body of Sino Grandness through "active representative on the board of directors".
(For an investment to qualify as an associated company, the investor normally has to have a stake not less than 20%.)
Nearly half of TTA's 2Q 15 profit of THB 135.4 m came from recognising THB 62.7m from its 9% stake in Sino Grandness:
"TTA’s performance swung back to positive territory in Q2/2015, recording net profit at THB135.4 million, an impressive quarter-over-quarter improvement from THB288.3 million losses, as the company’s subsidiaries – Mermaid Maritime and PMTA and investment in Sino Grandness –produced better results.
................................
Sino Grandness’ 2Q/2015 profit-sharing contribution to TTA totalled THB62.7 million, largely driven by increased sales of bottled fruit juices and canned vegetables in China as a result of an expansion of its distribution network."
(In 2Q 15, Sino's profit was RMB 126m after one-off non cash items relating to convertible bonds. Without them, profit would have been RMB 185m.)
TTA had THB 7.7 b (equivalent to S$ 300m) cash as at 30 June 15.
(17-08-2015, 10:50 PM)owq Wrote: [ -> ]Do the Thais really need to support the price? In fact they can buy more as it gets cheaper. If I were the Thais, it would make sense to buy more SinoG since the ROI is pretty high. From TTA's statements, we can see that SinoG contributed quite a lot to their net profit for the quarter...
Thanks so much for pointing out, was waiting for someone to respond to my comments.
My intended point was that the Thais have not given up on this company, as shown in their TTA results commentary and in their actual buying.
Would they really be so foolish to buy blindly? They are experts in the Food and Beverage industry and sitting in the BOD of SinoG as well. And they have so much more knowledge and experience than any of us easily about the biz of SinoG. Think about it.
Anyway, good that the market is slow to realize this. Those who dare to act, will benefit in this long run.