(13-10-2013, 09:50 PM)FatBoi Wrote: [ -> ](1) SMRT business model is sound because it is a public transport operator and people use its services all the time??? Really? Then in the same light, maybe the same can be said of banks, telecom companies etc.
(2) A value investment because its business model is sound?? Really? A good business not necessarily makes a good investment, a lot has to do with entry price.
SMRT is not the same as banks or telecoms. There is less alternative to transportation services as compared to banking services or Telco services. So I agreed that SMRT business model is sound. The problem is the industry is highly regulated and the fares are not determined by the company. Especially in recent years, our Govt is so cautious in fare adjustments.
Sound business model is one aspect of value investment. And yes, entry price is also very important. SMRT is one of my earliest investments. I started buying when the company was trading at 80+ cents.
(14-10-2013, 10:06 AM)Ben Wrote: [ -> ] (13-10-2013, 09:50 PM)FatBoi Wrote: [ -> ](1) SMRT business model is sound because it is a public transport operator and people use its services all the time??? Really? Then in the same light, maybe the same can be said of banks, telecom companies etc.
(2) A value investment because its business model is sound?? Really? A good business not necessarily makes a good investment, a lot has to do with entry price.
SMRT is not the same as banks or telecoms. There is less alternative to transportation services as compared to banking services or Telco services. So I agreed that SMRT business model is sound. The problem is the industry is highly regulated and the fares are not determined by the company. Especially in recent years, our Govt is so cautious in fare adjustments.
Sound business model is one aspect of value investment. And yes, entry price is also very important. SMRT is one of my earliest investments. I started buying when the company was trading at 80+ cents.
Many transport companies(bus, train, subway) around the world either survive by handouts from government or involved in property development to sustain the low transport fare.
Japan is a great example. Almost all the transport companies have their own departmental store, commercial buildings and retail spaces. These activities help to bring in income for their companies and possibly keep their transport fares low.
And it is normally a no-brainer since all the transport hubs are prime areas and able to bring in enormous income for the companies that own the land.
If SMRT is going to stand on its own feet, S'pore should sell the land around SMRT to SMRT for property development and allows SMRT to develop twin pillars of income(property + transport).
(13-10-2013, 09:50 PM)FatBoi Wrote: [ -> ]"I remember the first stock I bought was SMRT back in 2004. I put in about $3,000 when its shares were about $1.15.
I saw it as a value investment because its business model was sound - it was a public transport operator and people use its services all the time."
I hope it's a case that he was misquoted (or maybe I misread big time).
(1) SMRT business model is sound because it is a public transport operator and people use its services all the time??? Really? Then in the same light, maybe the same can be said of banks, telecom companies etc.
(2) A value investment because its business model is sound?? Really? A good business not necessarily makes a good investment, a lot has to do with entry price.
In the papers, Mr Chow also shared in the section "Worst & Best Bets" that a rough guide he uses to determine when to sell his stocks is when it gains a value of ~10%. But he did add that one must be mindful of the market movements, stock price indicators and the fundamentals of the underlying company to decide whether to take profit or allow the stock price to continue its course.
I am not too sure about the 10% "rule of thumb" but it seems that the most difficult decision for most investors is not what and when to buy but when to sell. The late Walter Schloss had the same problem too.
When to buy is usually more important than what to buy. i agree when to sell is the most difficult? It's usually sell too early or missed the the boat to sell.
We have "a lot" to learn from these people... lol
(13-10-2013, 11:02 PM)pianist Wrote: [ -> ] (13-10-2013, 08:58 PM)kazukirai Wrote: [ -> ]I think the headline resonated with most people here. At least it did for me.
how does it resonated with your - 34 part or semi-retired part?
and how to define semi-retired
Hi Pianist, I think it resonates because that's the ideal most of us want to achieve- enough money to fund the lifestyle we want. I'm not there yet, not even close but when I track my performance month after month, I can tell I'm getting there slowly but surely. It's like grinding out a marathon.
I don't know how to define semi-retired because personally I think retirement is a bullshit concept. I prefer using the word financially free. How would I know when I get there? For me, it's when I have enough money/cashflow to be doing what I want. e.g. I could still be in a job, working for someone else but I know I don't "need" the job to put food on the table or pay the bills. I would be in the job just for the pleasure of it.
I guess the thing to figure out is "what exactly is the lifestyle I want?" I recall a Vbuddy called 'Jared' who blogs at Singapore Man of Leisure. He may not be filthy rich (in the 100s of millions, or maybe he is, but he's free). That's my target.
Over the years, we have 2 types of ppl featured either they are looking to flaunt their wealth or with marketing agenda for their training seminars.
If its smrt value investment and why only $3k with conviction?
Quote: I consider myself to be retired or semi-retired. As I am financially savvy and don't have much debt or commitments, I'm able to pursue meaningful ventures and live life on my own terms. - See more at:
http://business.asiaone.com/news/persona...QNes8.dpuf
Semi truth? I always have the mindset that whatever you put up for invest/trade on the table, the money is a loan to others and its never technically yours unless its back in your pocket. so considerably investors/traders are always "in debt" or "committed" subject to market conditions.
With his knowledge and experiences, it is hard not to doubt this article that he is out of market. What a different and strange perspective.
Just my 2 cents.
I missed a good article yesterday from The New Paper headline:
http://www.tnp.sg/content/degree-holder-sells-fish
Anyone bought and able to share here??
He dreamt of becoming a writer at a young age, but more than 10 years later, Mr Khor Chin Puang (above) wields a knife instead of a pen for a living.
The bespectacled 29-year-old is a fishmonger and has been one for five years. He has five workers and owns stalls in four markets at Tiong Bahru, Redhill, Farrer Road and Bendemeer.
There is a fact that would catch people by surprise — Mr Khor is a university graduate.
Five years ago, he graduated with a degree in communications from the Singapore Institute of Management. But he ended up fishmongering as he earned more money doing so and because he sees it as his "calling".
(18-10-2013, 08:43 AM)memphisb Wrote: [ -> ] (18-10-2013, 12:31 AM)FatBoi Wrote: [ -> ]Great sharing on Khor Chin Puang.
There's a longer write up on him and his story.
http://www.youngtalents.sg/2013/07/29/pa...singapore/
thanks. Something that strike is that he own/co-own 4 stalls. And I thought gov stopped subleting.
co-own the business. probably in a partnership or profit sharing structure.
this guy willingly to share in order to scale up. major flaw of towkays is not willingly to share profit.
as said before, the SME depends heavily on the owner to keep everything together. If the stall workers quit, Khor
get zero. Might as well, make them his partners. In-built incentive system to work hard for themselves (and Khor).