18-10-2011, 09:45 PM
I personally dislike the low liquidity and free float making it less volatile and less attractive to funds even though market cap of 600m.
Vested.
Vested.
(23-12-2010, 12:13 PM)SLC81 Wrote: [ -> ]If you invested in Silverlake Axis, you may remember the System Access Limited, which was bought over by Sungard in 2006 at very high price.
Prior to this, i noticed that System Access share kept going up from 11 cents to 30 Plus in the span of 2 months and i had plenty of time to buy in but i resisted because System Access financial numbers were not good (I was suspected they may not be able to continue as a "going concern" in a few years time), that proved to be a mistake, Silver Lake was bought over buy Sungard at 0.36 $, 03 times higher then i started noticed it so there must be something good at that company and you can't see it through reading financial figures or AR.
I was really puzzled at the way the share price going up, constantly and predictably for a long period of time so there must be some things people knew, sure enough, a year later, MAS fined some people for inside trading but i guess, this is just a drop in the ocean and MAS just do what is evidently known to them,
http://www.mas.gov.sg/news_room/press_re...r2007.html
Coincidently, Sungard was privatized by "Silverlake", a private equity firm at a premium offer.
For that reason, i think it pay to watch out for Silverlake Axis and we have to look further than just the number.
(13-11-2011, 10:56 PM)mrEngineer Wrote: [ -> ]One question on Silverlake that hopefully fellow buddies can share some insight. The company has much higher NAV and asset value than the group balance sheet. Yet the liabilities of the company is much lower than the group in the recent result release. I wonder how is that possible as usually the group has to have more than 51% control over the company and have to fully consolidate the business. Unless at group level the assets are net off with the subsidiaries under the group level and only shows the net asset level.
Is this a red flag of abnormal corporate structure leading to enormous debt that hidden from the balance sheet when the asset is so much higher on company level than group level? To further illustrate, the total assets of company are 1.7 billion MYR (1.6 billion MYR for Investments in subsidiary) and total assets of company are 360 million MYR (0 for investments in subsidary). Both have comparable amounts in investment in associates.
The latest results can be found here:
http://info.sgx.com/webcoranncatth.nsf/V...400317CD1/$file/SALGroup.Results.Announcement.Q1FY2012.pdf?openelement
(14-11-2011, 12:37 AM)D123 Wrote: [ -> ]Hi,
Let me just butt in here before the accounting pros step in.
You should note that the seeming incongruity in balance sheet figures between group and company accounts is caused by the company's adoption of "pooling-of-interest" method for consolidated figures.
The company acquired their Silverlake subsidiaries in 2006 by issuing shares and you can see the change in 2005 balance sheet figures, before and after the acquisition, from their 2006 and 2005 annual reports.
For your convenience, they can be found at these links:
AR 2006: http://www.silverlakeaxis.com/2nd/images...s_AR06.pdf
AR 2005: http://www.silverlakeaxis.com/2nd/images...s_AR05.pdf
So suffice to say, the "abnormal" figures are not due to fraud, and I think it's safe to say that you can stick to using the group balance sheet figures.