(02-06-2016, 08:56 PM)valuebuddies Wrote: [ -> ]BlueKelah, how do you get the NCAV of 40m?
Using numbers from the FY2015 report released in february 2016 this year(not sure if they revised it in the annual report, i am too lazy to download and review) and use that smiling fellow up there his more conservative formula of net current asset value = current asset - all liabilities loh.
If just use the net current asset - net current liability then its 58.773m as stated in the report.
both method its still less than current market cap loh, unless you wanna add in the PPE but then it would be NAV liao
@valuebuddies What number are u getting?
1Q Financial Statement not posted yet. Much later than last year, when it was posted 12th May. Wonder if they are waiting for everything to settle after consolidation? Management might at least keep investors informed....
BlueKelah, I didn't do a calculation. I don't like to stick to numbers all the time, in any case my vested interest are not big enough for me to worry about.
My view: Capex spending in oil&gas support will only resume in late 2018. This means Penguin will see increase in earnings likely in 2019.
I am basing estimates on how much Penguin will be worth then. The answer to me is a guess estimate of 0.55-0.60 per share.
So based on my own hurdle rate, I am inclined to purchase Penguin at 0.305 and below.
As of now, on 1Q balance sheet, most of Penguin's assets (ex Invenotry and PPE) equals to its liabilities. Therefore what we are paying now is the worth of its PPE+ inventories. Currently, the market (at 0.33 per share) values to be worth approx 50% of reported its book value. To me, that MOS is sufficient.
However since i have 2 values to gauge on, I have chosen the lower - 0.305 per share
Also I wont be putting a permanent queue on Penguin every day. It just so happened that first day after consolidation, I predicted ppl may suddenly sell the shares because they may be misled that the price has jump to 0.3; so I set a buy order and got it.
ok ok, but why the fixation on this co.?
3 years (2019) is a quite a long time and recovery MAY not be as predicted...
admired you for your guts/convictions!
*not vested*
Not much as fixation but thinking which coy is a better bet for a turn around. Nam cheong, vard, ezion, ezra, triyards, mermaid, technics, swiber, otto marine were not comfortable choices to me. Also worth noting the no of lots I bought is 10 only, currently hold about 197 lots post consolidation.
(03-06-2016, 06:52 PM)CY09 Wrote: [ -> ]Not much as fixation but thinking which coy is a better bet for a turn around. Nam cheong, vard, ezion, ezra, triyards, mermaid, technics, swiber, otto marine were not comfortable choices to me. Also worth noting the no of lots I bought is 10 only, currently hold about 197 lots post consolidation.
For outsider, it is quite clear cut of the difference between cut loss vs positioning for the turn around. But for the insider, it isn't.
My company issued stock options during the bad times and at its peak, the stock price rose 500% from the strike price of the options. There were of course triumphant chants from colleagues who "managed" to catch the peak and reap outsized gains by exercising and collecting the delta between market vs strike price (all of us know to choose to settle straight, rather than paying up to own the stock). 2 years from its peak, the current stock price is still a respectable ~50% above the strike price but some told me that they don't want to exercise them (even though I suspect some of them know they should), simply because they weren't willing to lose that "unrealized profit"
they could have had. The issue is compounded by the haunting that there were folks whom reaped outsized rewards earlier (their sense of "fairness" were not doing good to them. But who could blame them? We are all regular employees)
A simple exchange I had with them, a few days ago. But one full of profound wisdom.
(23-02-2016, 08:17 PM)weijian Wrote: [ -> ]whichever fraction is been used, everyone will be impacted but the extent is different. The mathematics for a share consolidation is not too different from a bonus share/rights issue in which odd numbers create fractions that impact everyone, but of course, the impact is proportional based on ur holdings.
Lets imagine a situation of 1000 shares in total where a major shareholder owns 910shares (91%) with 9 OPMIs each owning 10shares (1%).
One fine day, Mr Major shareholder asks for a share consolidation od 3 to 1 (similar to this situation) with fractions disregarded by rounding down to the nearest integer. His 910shares will become 303shares, while each OPMI becomes 3 shares now. the total number is now 303 + 9*3 = 330shares.
Post consolidation, Mr Major shareholder owns 303/330 = 91.8% while each OPMI owns 0.9% now. There is a magical increase for Mr Major while poor Mr OPMIs owns less now.
The above example clearly shows who are on the losing and winning side, who stands to win the most and lose the most. In investing, it is never equal playground for OPMIs.
Almost 4 months down the road, the 3:1 consolidation has been done.
http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/_Form1_F...eID=408011
Pre-consolidation, Mr Jeffrey Hing owned 130,000,649 shares. With total share count at 660,518,052 shares, his stake is calculated as 19,6816% of the company.
Post-consolidation, Mr Jeffrey Hing owned 43,333,549shares. With total share count of 220,169,774 shares, his stake is calculated as 19.6818% of the company.
Dear Chairman Hing has earned an additional 0.02basis points ownership of the company at no cost! Based on a market cap of ~66mil, an "immediate 13k" in the pocket!
http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/Penguin_...eID=416468
As usual, not a strong quarter. Judging from the cash burn, it is very likely there wont be dividends for shareholders this FY. Otherwise inventories is still stubbornly high. It tells its not because of the building cycle, but more towards unsold inventories
<still vested>
One thing that has puzzled me is that management has repeatedly stated that the company will look to alternative markets for it's crew boats and yet there is no evidence of progress on that front.
This is especially evident if we compare to Triyards who have successfully managed to secure customers for crew transfer vessels servicing the offshore wind farms. I wonder if Penguin's fleet and vessel designs are less versatile than thought.