(24-09-2011, 09:45 PM)Bibi Wrote: [ -> ] (24-09-2011, 08:46 PM)pianist Wrote: [ -> ] (24-09-2011, 08:25 PM)Contrarian Wrote: [ -> ]If the economy crisis goes full blown, the demand for their products may drop a lot. I cleared out my holdings last week.
in the last 08/09 crisis, i recalled adampak reached as low as 0.14-0.15. my cost-in price net of dividends received for those shares that i bought and have not sold any to-date is at 0.0958.
based on what dydx shared At $0.26, assuming Adampak keeps the same (as last FY10's) total dividend payout for FY11 at $0.03/share - i.e. an $0.01/share Interim, to be followed by a $0.02/share Final in May12 - we will get a dividend yield of 11.54%'
at my cost-in price of 0.0958, i am getting 31.3% dividend yield. it doesnt make sense for me to square my position.
still fully vested
I bought quite an amount at 0.18, sold some at 0.295 and all at 0.315. Fully divested.
I sold out in March after I thought the price just was not able to make anymore headway. My average price was 21c & I sold half at 34c and the other half at 31c after x div. Don't get me wrong - I believe that Adampak is a great company and I look forward to the opportunity to buy back when the HDD industry & the economy goes up again.
wow are you guys some value investing gods?
(25-09-2011, 06:57 PM)Drizzt Wrote: [ -> ]wow are you guys some value investing gods?
I don't know about the rest, but I can safely assure you that I am 100% human!
Ok, I'm definitely part of the humans too.
Still vested, average price at 0.235.
I can see there has been an interesting discussion among the 'boys' and 'men'. This again confirms the sustained investors' interest in Adampak.
We know in FY10 (ended 31Dec10), Adampak delivered an EPS of USD0.0354 (approx. $0.046) and per share FCF (after tax, before accounting for changes in working capital items and capex) of USD0.0423 (approx. $0.055). Based on the 1H-FY11 results.....
http://info.sgx.com/webcoranncatth.nsf/V...900306556/$file/AdampakResultsQ22011_11082011.pdf?openelement
we should be quite confident that for FY11 (ending 31Dec11) Adampak should be capable in delivering a NP of at least USD8.0m (bearing in mind 2H is usually a busier period) and a FCF of at least USD10.0m - which will translate into an EPS of USD0.0303 (approx. $0.0394), and a per share FCF of USD0.0379 (approx. $0.0493). We also know that as at 30Jun11, Adampak had a nett cash balance of USD13.0m, translating into a per share nett cash of approx. $0.064. Of course, we should be aware that Adampak paid out total dividends of $0.03/share in FY10, and is likely to repeat the same in FY11 and continue with its long-standing track record of generous yearly dividends.
For such a high-quality business, there is always a good chance that someone will be willing to pay a fair price to buy it entirely. When such a privatization offer happens, the 'men' shareholders - including Adampak's controlling shareholders - will sure be laughing their hearts out to the bank. As for the 'boys', I don't know what they would do....perhaps going to the nearby Harry's for a beer!
historically is the payout that high? I would expect weakening due to the economy to affect it.
dydx how many quarters of weaken sales constitute this FY11 earnings?
Just because an investor sold off a share they are call boys? Hang on to a share they are call men? Each have our own valuation metrics. For me, the value price is 0.235 cts. Above 35 its fully valued. My reason for divesting is price close to my calculated value price and the introduction of tablets and labtops which uses FDD. Irregardless of how high quality a company is, i am 100% sure Mr Market will sell it to me at very lousy price within the next 7 years.
What do you call people who do not have a vested interest .....girls?
Pardon me for making some forumers unhappy because of using the words 'boys' and 'men' to describe certain different behaviors of investors. I belonged to the 'boys' as well, and only become more like 'men' over time because of age and experience.
Something I have learned over the years: If an investor has the luck to encounter a very high-quality business or stock, he should not sell it too easily; instead, he should take a longer term view and accumulate more when the price is right. By holding on to a high-quality business or stock, an investor will benefit from all the cash pay-outs and the appreciation of its value over time, as well as any positive surprises from Mr Market that may just come usually without any prior indications.
Actually Orang ........it looks like it is probably better to be a member of the fairer gender when it comes to selecting stocks ........... have a look at the following CNBC article ............. he he!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Are Women Better Stock Pickers?
Published: Monday, 26 Sep 2011 3:38 AM ET
CNBC.com
In a male-dominated industry, female stock pickers are a rare breed. But when it comes to buying equities and surviving on little sleep, all while managing a family as well as a portfolio, women often come out ahead of their male peers.
Ana Armstrong, a mother of three and chief executive of Armstrong Investment Managers, believes companies should provide more flexibility to encourage working mothers in the finance industry. “Women often re-evaluate their decisions, which is good for a stock picker. They are also more risk-averse than men and are superior in managing portfolio volatility. Women are also equipped with better intuition and are trained to survive on little sleep, multitask and organize their time, as they cannot afford to waste any,” Armstrong told CNBC.com. “This helps with work-life balances, and companies should provide more flexibility to encourage working” mothers, she added.
This view is backed up by research published by DigitalLook.com in 2005 and 2008, which showed that female investors generally outperformed male investors, as they were less prone to underestimate risks.
Kathryn Langridge from Jupiter Asset Management recently launched and runs a global emerging markets fund. She started out in the 1980s and recalls that being a female investor back then was not all plain sailing. Today women are legally granted maternity leave in many countries, but back when Langridge started out as an investor she found she had to use her holiday time to have her first child in September 1987. She had her baby in September 1987, while working for Jardine Matheson Group. Based in Hong Kong at the time, she was the first female to be hired by the company on the trading side. “There are a lot of extremely successful female fund managers and what is likely to mark out those women is that they have had to be more than usually determined throughout their lives,” Langridge told CNBC.com. Like Armstrong, Langridge said she has faced many obstacles that made it harder to balance maintaining her career and meeting the demands of her family.
When describing key investing skills, Langridge believes women should not cut themselves off from instinctive judgment. “I do place a high store on subjective elements,” she said. “The hair at the back of your neck does tell you a lot about companies — how they conduct themselves. Maybe that is a more feminine skill. I place a very high store on visiting company management.” “A lot of one’s job is not identifying the best companies, but avoiding the badly managed companies, and a lot of what you pick up at a company meeting does depend on some of these softer skills. That enables you to minimize some of the pitfalls in investing,” Langridge said.
When it comes to taking risks, women are more careful. “A very large part of my job is avoiding pitfalls and danger... estimating risks. I tend to run relatively diversified portfolios. One interpretation of risk is how you structure a portfolio to minimize risk. There are different approaches... some men may have a more concentrated portfolio with much larger stocks than I would be comfortable with,” adds Langridge. Langridge does not believe it is possible to invest in a company simply by looking at the numbers. “Actually understanding how management (thinks) and how they behave, observing their conduct over time that you can’t measure. These are more behavioral skills. Those skills are very important,” she said.
Thirty years later, there are very few women who are still engaged at a senior level, Langridge said. Both Armstrong and Langridge have witnessed a high fall-out rate among their peers because of the obstacles in their way. Armstrong recalled: “I am aware of an institution that had five female portfolio managers at one point. Shortly afterwards, there were none. It would be nice to have more women on boards, more female fund managers.”
© 2011 CNBC.com