overall core business (Apparel, Gold & Jewellery, not considering their investment/property as core) dipped across all segment...but GOLD is a more worrying part of the business
debt is also a portion to take note
CURRENT BORROWING (to be pay off in <1year) stand at $41,516,000 increase from $19,207,000
disagree that dividend dropped 10.5%, $33 vs $34 is actually an increase
FY2012 (14 mth) - $33 + $5 (special dividend for extra 2 mth)
FY2013 (12 mth) - $34
FY2014 (12 mth) - no less than $35 (as per Dividend Guidance)
Quote: From Page 15 of the Financial Statement:
Quote:The revenue for FY 2012 is for 14 months as compared to 12 months for FY 2013. This is one of the reasons for the decrease in revenue in all the business segments except the securities business.
Thanks to clarify this, got it, but operating expenses were not declined in line with the decline of revenue.
For full year 2013 vs 2012
Distribution expenses (1,455) (1,921) (24.26)
Property operating expenses (1,445) (1,434) 0.77
Gold operating expenses (242) (278) (12.95)
Apparels operating expenses (2,783) (2,906) (4.23)
Administrative expenses (5,783) (6,545) (11.64)
Other operating expenses (1,015) (204) 397.55
All have decreased except for other expenses. what sort of alignment are you expecting ? proportional? unless you are comparing the 4Q 2013 vs 4Q2012?
(30-10-2013, 06:23 PM)xiang38 Wrote: [ -> ]overall core business (Apparel, Gold & Jewellery, not considering their investment/property as core) dipped across all segment...but GOLD is a more worrying part of the business
debt is also a portion to take note
CURRENT BORROWING (to be pay off in <1year) stand at $41,516,000 increase from $19,207,000
disagree that dividend dropped 10.5%, $33 vs $34 is actually an increase
FY2012 (14 mth) - $33 + $5 (special dividend for extra 2 mth)
FY2013 (12 mth) - $34
FY2014 (12 mth) - no less than $35 (as per Dividend Guidance)
Yes I omitted the extra two months. It seems that the company are getting debts to finance some securities investments? Cheap financing?
I have divested my stake in the company, @$0.45-$0.46 recently. The main reason is capital recycle.
A review showed that, XIRR return of 38%, or approx 25% per annum. It is not too bad a venture.
My best wish for those remain vested. The stock will stay in my monitoring list.
(05-12-2013, 10:31 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]I have divested my stake in the company, @$0.45-$0.46 recently. The main reason is capital recycle.
A review showed that, XIRR return of 38%, or approx 25% per annum. It is not too bad a venture.
My best wish for those remain vested. The stock will stay in my monitoring list.
That is pretty impressive returns! I am sure the funds will come in handy now that a year end sales seems imminent.
(05-12-2013, 11:00 AM)Ben Wrote: [ -> ] (05-12-2013, 10:31 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]I have divested my stake in the company, @$0.45-$0.46 recently. The main reason is capital recycle.
A review showed that, XIRR return of 38%, or approx 25% per annum. It is not too bad a venture.
My best wish for those remain vested. The stock will stay in my monitoring list.
That is pretty impressive returns! I am sure the funds will come in handy now that a year end sales seems imminent.
I agree. In fact, the opportunities seems more than enough to be served by my capital and time.
That remind me of KopiKat, the tikam buddy. Is he still in the "tikam" business?
Is this good or bad? Can this be a red flag ?
Q: You issue scrip dividend to conserve the company’s funds but at the same time are buying
back shares using the same funds. What is the rationale behind this?
A: Indeed it looks contradictory because both schemes took place at the same time. On its own or separately, both of
these schemes are generally viewed as positive by shareholders.
Both have different objectives. Basically the scrip dividend is to conserve funds to fuel future growth and the share
buyback to increase shareholders’ value. To achieve both objectives of growth and improvement of shareholders’
value will require the use of the same funds.
The Company has the flexibility to determine to its advantage the use of this fund for repurchasing its shares or for
growth opportunities. As repurchasing of shares will only be done at prices it deems reasonable, in all probability
only a small percentage of the funds will be used for the share buyback.
In its efforts to increase profits and improve shareholders’ value, any perceived or actual conflicting situation is
justifiable as long as it benefits all shareholders.
(20-12-2013, 02:43 PM)adven7 Wrote: [ -> ]Is this good or bad? Can this be a red flag ?
Q: You issue scrip dividend to conserve the company’s funds but at the same time are buying
back shares using the same funds. What is the rationale behind this?
A: Indeed it looks contradictory because both schemes took place at the same time. On its own or separately, both of
these schemes are generally viewed as positive by shareholders.
Both have different objectives. Basically the scrip dividend is to conserve funds to fuel future growth and the share
buyback to increase shareholders’ value. To achieve both objectives of growth and improvement of shareholders’
value will require the use of the same funds.
The Company has the flexibility to determine to its advantage the use of this fund for repurchasing its shares or for
growth opportunities. As repurchasing of shares will only be done at prices it deems reasonable, in all probability
only a small percentage of the funds will be used for the share buyback.
In its efforts to increase profits and improve shareholders’ value, any perceived or actual conflicting situation is
justifiable as long as it benefits all shareholders.
good for substantial shareholders and minority shareholders who take scrip dividends AND did not sell any shares. net effect, the % ownership of the company increased for remaining shareholders.
The company will sell almost all of its properties to a property fund. The disposal is valued at S$175,376,412, with book value of S$134,773,500. It is a good price, IMO.
(not vested)
-------------------
RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSED DISPOSAL
The Group entered the business of investing in properties in 1999-2000. It has held its properties as long term investments and earned steady rental income which became an increasing part of the Group’s revenue and profits over the years. The Group has reaped the benefits manifold over the past 14 years or so in the property investment business.
Going forward, the Board thinks that it is prudent to significantly reduce the Group’s exposure to its investments in properties. Additionally, the opportunity to sell the properties en masse is a rare one and provides the Group with an easier and more expedient means of disposing the Properties as compared to selling each Property individually.
The Proposed Disposal is also expected to unlock the equity tied up in real estate and the additional working capital derived from the proceeds of the Proposed Disposal can be redeployed into the operating business or to fund business expansion in the region, potentially generating a much higher return on equity. Please refer to paragraph 11 (Use of Proceeds) below for more details of the use of proceeds
Ref:
http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/SCPL_Ann...eID=273640
Yes. I think it is a good move to dump while the market is good.
Err...how to generate higher ROE when rental income is substituted by FDs and debts is reduced?