SembCorp Industries

(19-11-2014, 11:44 AM)greengiraffe Wrote: SCI 7 & 12 yr bonds indicative 3% and 3.7% anyone?

New Bond Issue...

Seriously I don't understand why would anyone buy these long dated bonds at such low yields...

Better off buying mother shares right?

GG

Hi gg,

I am considering getting bonds for my mom as she may not have holding power. I think that might be a reason for people to buy bonds.

Also, very unlikely to happen, but if Sci goes bankrupt, bondholders will be paid first before shareholders.

Personally I would prefer to get stocks but I cannot guarantee for her the volatility.

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

(19-11-2014, 01:31 PM)thor666 Wrote:

(19-11-2014, 11:44 AM)greengiraffe Wrote: SCI 7 & 12 yr bonds indicative 3% and 3.7% anyone?

New Bond Issue...

Seriously I don't understand why would anyone buy these long dated bonds at such low yields...

Better off buying mother shares right?

GG

Hi gg,

I am considering getting bonds for my mom as she may not have holding power. I think that might be a reason for people to buy bonds.

Also, very unlikely to happen, but if Sci goes bankrupt, bondholders will be paid first before shareholders.

Personally I would prefer to get stocks but I cannot guarantee for her the volatility.

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

Buy Bonds also need holding power. Got unexpected expenses also need to liquidate. Sometimes at the worst of times.

In priority of claims, bonds above equity. But before receivables and bank loans. If SCI assets can mark down jialat jialat in a distressed sale, bo chun for bonds and equity liao.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalki

(19-11-2014, 01:31 PM)thor666 Wrote:

(19-11-2014, 11:44 AM)greengiraffe Wrote: SCI 7 & 12 yr bonds indicative 3% and 3.7% anyone?

New Bond Issue...

Seriously I don't understand why would anyone buy these long dated bonds at such low yields...

Better off buying mother shares right?

GG

Hi gg,

I am considering getting bonds for my mom as she may not have holding power. I think that might be a reason for people to buy bonds.

Also, very unlikely to happen, but if Sci goes bankrupt, bondholders will be paid first before shareholders.

Personally I would prefer to get stocks but I cannot guarantee for her the volatility.

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

Most of the bonds are traded OTC. You don't feel that bond prices are volatile just because the prices are neither transparent nor easy to assess.

Hi opmi and tiggerbee,

Thanks for the insights. I am actually less familiar with bonds than stocks.

Sidetracking a bit (promise this is my last post unrelated to sci)
1. If one needs to sell bond below par, can I say the general below par rate is not likely more than 20% par rate?
2. In the case of elder investors, is stock investment still something to consider if the investable amount is small? I consider a prolonged correction of over 40% to be too much for an elder investor to take. (i am not so keen to recommend sti etf as I feel there will be downturn in near future and the dividend payout is quite little.)

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

Have investors overreacted on the Sembcorp Industries' stake in Sembcorp Marine to warrant a selldown all the way to $4.19? Currently trading at historical PE of 9.2 and yield of 5.3%.

Their utilities business actually accounts for 53% of net profit while marine accounts for 42% but it appears from the price fall as though marine accounts for 100% (in my opinion).

No doubt historical ratios are not good indicators of how cheap/expensive a stock is but I think Mr. Market is not giving SCI's utilities business the valuation it deserves.

(03-12-2014, 04:21 PM)sgpunter Wrote: Have investors overreacted on the Sembcorp Industries' stake in Sembcorp Marine to warrant a selldown all the way to $4.19? Currently trading at historical PE of 9.2 and yield of 5.3%.

Their utilities business actually accounts for 53% of net profit while marine accounts for 42% but it appears from the price fall as though marine accounts for 100% (in my opinion).

No doubt historical ratios are not good indicators of how cheap/expensive a stock is but I think Mr. Market is not giving SCI's utilities business the valuation it deserves.

How did you get the yield of 5.3%? Shouldn't it be 3.5% instead?

(03-12-2014, 04:21 PM)sgpunter Wrote: Have investors overreacted on the Sembcorp Industries' stake in Sembcorp Marine to warrant a selldown all the way to $4.19? Currently trading at historical PE of 9.2 and yield of 5.3%.

Their utilities business actually accounts for 53% of net profit while marine accounts for 42% but it appears from the price fall as though marine accounts for 100% (in my opinion).

No doubt historical ratios are not good indicators of how cheap/expensive a stock is but I think Mr. Market is not giving SCI's utilities business the valuation it deserves.

I read somewhere that there is an over supply of electricity in Singapore which will affect its financial performance. Nevertheless, if one has a long term view, this company is worth holding, IMO. The India power plant is expected to commence commercial operation by end of this year and they have already secured a 25 years power purchase agreement for 40% of its capacity. Also, its third engine of growth, ie, industrial parks/township development is showing promising growth prospect. The biz there are in requires high technical expertise, which means high barrier of entry.

I am slowly averaging down my purchase price, it not very often that you can get a sales price from this counter.

(03-12-2014, 04:54 PM)starcraft_76 Wrote:

(03-12-2014, 04:21 PM)sgpunter Wrote: Have investors overreacted on the Sembcorp Industries' stake in Sembcorp Marine to warrant a selldown all the way to $4.19? Currently trading at historical PE of 9.2 and yield of 5.3%.

Their utilities business actually accounts for 53% of net profit while marine accounts for 42% but it appears from the price fall as though marine accounts for 100% (in my opinion).

No doubt historical ratios are not good indicators of how cheap/expensive a stock is but I think Mr. Market is not giving SCI's utilities business the valuation it deserves.

How did you get the yield of 5.3%? Shouldn't it be 3.5% instead?

Oops. Historical dividend yield should be 0.17/4.19 = 4.05%.

I have factored in the special of 2c as they have paid the special pretty consistently. Plus they had already paid out 5c in half year.

Noticed that SCI holders were interested in Non marine part and hate the Marine part.
Why SCI not list its Utility and Power section seperately

Share price looks like falls from a cliff, don't know where is the bottom?