More than 30% of companies in SG on do not add shareholder value.They are better off closing down
Hi everyone, I been doing FA research on SGX stocks. I have analyzed the financials of almost every single company out there. Let me share 1 of the interesting findings.
Based on their financials, I confidently conclude that more than 30% of companies on SGX do not add shareholder value. These companies are crap and the shareholders are effectively losing money/value. They are better off closing down.
Is this a shocking revelation? Come and pls share your opinions
[Image: 70841719.jpg]
Not sure about the exact percentage, but I fully agree that many companies are destroying shareholder value.
However, that's a problem that is not unique to Singapore but most stock exchanges in the world.
Have u heard 肥水不流外人田?
Why do Hotel Properties list so many years, do mediocre and then delist when they struck good deal to build condo?
Why Hotel 81 do not list?
:-)
There is nothing constructive to discuss in this thread. You didn't explain the criteria you have used to assess these companies nor have you named or discussed any of them.
It is too optimistic to assume investing in SGX's stock is 100% sure creating value. I am not sure the criteria, but if close to 70% stocks created positive value, than it should be very good already, right?
Base on the same criteria, how is SEHK stocks are performing?
(09-09-2014, 10:31 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]It is too optimistic to assume investing in SGX's stock is 100% sure creating value. I am not sure the criteria, but if close to 70% stocks created positive value, than it should be very good already, right?
Base on the same criteria, how is SEHK stocks are performing?
Right! You can never find it in our or any casinos.
(09-09-2014, 10:26 PM)roxhockey Wrote: [ -> ]There is nothing constructive to discuss in this thread. You didn't explain the criteria you have used to assess these companies nor have you named or discussed any of them.
Agree. Though like many pointed out, the primary purpose of capitalists listing stocks is not to share the spoils, I would also like to know the criteria used. Since Wahkao has analysed every single one of them i hope he can share which are the top and bottom 10 so that we can see if his quant approach makes sense
(09-09-2014, 10:26 PM)roxhockey Wrote: [ -> ]There is nothing constructive to discuss in this thread. You didn't explain the criteria you have used to assess these companies nor have you named or discussed any of them.
So what do you suggest then ?
List out a whole chunk of rotten companies and shame them one by one ?
I used to keep a list of rotten companies that I shouldn't touch, and keep track of how they change their name from ABC to DEF, and then to XYZ.
After a while I gave up as it's really a waste of time.
A quick way to identify them is by share price, 10 out of 10 of the sub one cent ( or sub sub one cent ) companies are mostly rotten.
But does a rotten company make a bad investment?
Most of Graham's net-nets are poorly run businesses. But he's done alright.
(10-09-2014, 04:00 PM)theasiareport Wrote: [ -> ]But does a rotten company make a bad investment?
Most of Graham's net-nets are poorly run businesses. But he's done alright.
Graham's net-net are based entirely on a good study on the financials with a low PE as a rule of thumb. That is notwithstanding a good run of sales before the depression. I believe it is possible to find good net-net companies at that time as sentiments at that time was bad.
The penny stocks that we are talking about here are companies which uses the SGX as a "milking ground" and they list for the sake of getting money out from the unknowing investor. Sometimes, they are not even keen to grow and build up on shareholder's equity.