I think one reason big funds managing OPM invest in such companies is that there are just simply too few companies they can invest in. I don't think they set out to under-perform, but its just the dynamics of the business that make it hard for them to out-perform if they can only own a small subset of listed stocks (liquidity, market capitalization issues).
There's also huge career risk. If all your competitors own Noble Group, chances are you are likely to own it to. The fear of missing out is very real. Investment managers in general don't like to be trail blazers, and if you look at many of the unit trusts, most of them own the same few stocks are are generally index huggers.
After all, its called "asset management" and not "asset performance" for a good reason... its all about AUM and not out-performance.
another sizeable drop today to .75, dragging down the STI.
Big money also moving out of SGX with blue chips like Jardine stocks, singtel and SIA also taking a hammering.
Wonder is it the Greece jitters again?
(01-06-2015, 03:24 PM)vesfreq Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2015, 01:30 PM)cfa Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2015, 12:04 PM)vesfreq Wrote: [ -> ] (30-05-2015, 02:46 PM)theasiareport Wrote: [ -> ]Trading companies like Noble, Enron and Lehman all have a common feature, their existence depends on an uninterrupted flow of short term credit financing.
This is really the crux of the whole issue. I completely agree with what previous commentators have said about issues not being addressed (especially about Yancoal). Worst, most sell side research I've seen just seem to continue cheering on the stock despite the serious doubts that have not been addressed fully.
Stranger still is that institutional investors still came in. 
I suppose they are very convinced that the issues are under control. Then again, the share price still sank. Guess us retail investors won't be able to see the real "ru shan zhen mian mu".
Institution monies are OPM .
Even then, there is a moral obligation to take care of OPM and (to some extent) some degree of abstinence from unnecessary risk taking. Unless there is an absolute absence of that obligation. Its just questionable whether there is any moral obligation to handling of OPM or an absolute absence of which. Its that question that I think is interesting to understand, rather than cos its OPM.
So far, I think Michael Dee's articles have driven across a strong message about Noble. Another part of curious me wonders if Iceberg had never existed, would Michael Dee written the same or even written at all? These are tough mysteries, but enlightening to know for those waiting to enter the counter.
I mean, anyone can say OPM. Then again, what drives the market prices? Is it some value which the rest of market (and including Michael Dee) are not being able to grasp and appreciate? Just my curiousity at work. 
Of course, we can write off everything as "OPM" and walk off, then again it doesn't hurt to know the what and the why.
Not vested at the moment.
Frankly I question Michael Dee's motive. Why does he keep talking down stocks that are under attack?
And his premise is usually linked to stock price that has tanked ie he is no Paul Revere. Why don't he follow up with his critique of Olam instead? Oh I see that stock price bounced...
Seriously he is probably the cousin of Mr Market with his rich heritage in MS. People always focus on his short 20 months stint at Temasek.
sad to see noble like that. even after CEO bought around 7m shares recently. 0.71 is all time low now.
(03-06-2015, 04:59 PM)Reyes Wrote: [ -> ]sad to see noble like that. even after CEO bought around 7m shares recently. 0.71 is all time low now.
I think he has yet to answer to accounting issues. If these are acceptably clear to mr market, price shouldnt sky dive. Damn scary....
As peter lynch was saying, buy only what you understand. In this case, the story behind is both opaque and hard to understand. Too bad. With institutions coming in, price still dived.
(03-06-2015, 05:58 PM)vesfreq Wrote: [ -> ] (03-06-2015, 04:59 PM)Reyes Wrote: [ -> ]sad to see noble like that. even after CEO bought around 7m shares recently. 0.71 is all time low now.
I think he has yet to answer to accounting issues. If these are acceptably clear to mr market, price shouldnt sky dive. Damn scary....
As peter lynch was saying, buy only what you understand. In this case, the story behind is both opaque and hard to understand. Too bad. With institutions coming in, price still dived.
Sometimes CEO buy to try and steady the share price, sometimes CEO buy thinking it will up. We never know what is really going on behind the scenes of the BB.
Wonder what is the short interest in Noble now.
(03-06-2015, 10:08 PM)BlueKelah Wrote: [ -> ] (03-06-2015, 05:58 PM)vesfreq Wrote: [ -> ] (03-06-2015, 04:59 PM)Reyes Wrote: [ -> ]sad to see noble like that. even after CEO bought around 7m shares recently. 0.71 is all time low now.
I think he has yet to answer to accounting issues. If these are acceptably clear to mr market, price shouldnt sky dive. Damn scary....
As peter lynch was saying, buy only what you understand. In this case, the story behind is both opaque and hard to understand. Too bad. With institutions coming in, price still dived.
Sometimes CEO buy to try and steady the share price, sometimes CEO buy thinking it will up. We never know what is really going on behind the scenes of the BB.
Wonder what is the short interest in Noble now.
yet better still, insiders buy in order to entice innocent to follow so that their related undeclared interests can offload...
(02-06-2015, 05:44 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]Frankly I question Michael Dee's motive. Why does he keep talking down stocks that are under attack?
Me too.
If he is such a great analyst, perhaps he can share with us his insight BEFORE the stocks come under attack...
Moderator Log:
I have removed a misleading post, and its related posts.
Regards
Moderator
65 already and still rotting... seems like there are more maggots that anyone would have thought...