Posts: 1,119 
	Threads: 16 
	Joined: Jan 2012
	
 Reputation: 
 0
	 
 
	
	
		 (19-02-2012, 10:15 AM)freedom Wrote:  most cash still locked in project account til T.O.P.  
 
to pay higher dividend, the company may need some loan. or they can pay higher dividend from its shareholder loan to "The Laurels". 
They can always pay a higher dividend from the cashflow generated from leasing out their industrial building, dividends collected from singpost and sing investment & finance    No need to loan money to pay dividends
	  
	
	
	
	
 
 
	
	
	
		
	Posts: 1,119 
	Threads: 16 
	Joined: Jan 2012
	
 Reputation: 
 0
	 
 
	
	
		Ok congrats to everybody for having faith in Boss lee!
	 
	
	
	
	
 
 
	
	
	
		
	Posts: 84 
	Threads: 0 
	Joined: Feb 2011
	
 Reputation: 
 1
	 
 
	
	
		if break 34cts next 2 days with >700 lots, should hit 38cts to 40cts.  Let's see. 
 
 
Personal opinion only. 
	 
	
	
	
	
 
 
	
	
	
		
	Posts: 1,119 
	Threads: 16 
	Joined: Jan 2012
	
 Reputation: 
 0
	 
 
	
	
		 (22-02-2012, 03:07 PM)old friend Wrote:  if break 34cts next 2 days with >700 lots, should hit 38cts to 40cts.  Let's see. 
 
 
Personal opinion only. 
For that to happen, got to ask happy to offload his shares at 32.5c to create volume
	  
	
	
	
	
 
 
	
	
	
		
	Posts: 2,512 
	Threads: 24 
	Joined: Sep 2010
	
 Reputation: 
 19
	 
 
	
	
		or boss lee announced MORE dividends?!   
	 
	
	
1) Try NOT to LOSE money! 
2) Do NOT SELL in BEAR, BUY-BUY-BUY! invest in managements/companies that does the same! 
3) CASH in hand is KING in BEAR!  
4) In BULL, SELL-SELL-SELL! 
 
	
	
 
 
	
	
	
		
	Posts: 1,119 
	Threads: 16 
	Joined: Jan 2012
	
 Reputation: 
 0
	 
 
	
	
		 (22-02-2012, 04:11 PM)brattzz Wrote:  or boss lee announced MORE dividends?!   
That will surely come, the question is WHEN?   
	 
	
	
	
	
 
 
	
	
	
		
	Posts: 2,713 
	Threads: 243 
	Joined: Sep 2010
	
 Reputation: 
 29
	 
 
	
		
		
		26-02-2012, 05:18 AM 
(This post was last modified: 26-02-2012, 05:23 AM by Behappyalways.)
		
	 
	
		A nice read on share repurchase 
 
 
Charlie and I have mixed emotions when Berkshire shares sell well below intrinsic value. We like 
making money for continuing shareholders, and there is no surer way to do that than by buying an asset – our 
own stock – that we know to be worth at least x for less than that – for .9x, .8x or even lower. (As one of our 
directors says, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel, after the barrel has been drained and the fish have quit flopping.) 
Nevertheless, we don’t enjoy cashing out partners at a discount, even though our doing so may give the selling 
shareholders a slightly higher price than they would receive if our bid was absent. When we are buying, 
therefore, we want those exiting partners to be fully informed about the value of the assets they are selling. 
 
Berkshirehathaway's letters on Share Repurchases 
 
Share Repurchases 
Last September, we announced that Berkshire would repurchase its shares at a price of up to 110% of book 
value. We were in the market for only a few days – buying $67 million of stock – before the price advanced beyond 
our limit. Nonetheless, the general importance of share repurchases suggests I should focus for a bit on the subject. 
Charlie and I favor repurchases when two conditions are met: first, a company has ample funds to take 
care of the operational and liquidity needs of its business; second, its stock is selling at a material discount to the 
company’s intrinsic business value, conservatively calculated. 
 
We have witnessed many bouts of repurchasing that failed our second test. Sometimes, of course, 
infractions – even serious ones – are innocent; many CEOs never stop believing their stock is cheap. In other 
instances, a less benign conclusion seems warranted. It doesn’t suffice to say that repurchases are being made to 
offset the dilution from stock issuances or simply because a company has excess cash. Continuing shareholders 
are hurt unless shares are purchased below intrinsic value. The first law of capital allocation – whether the 
money is slated for acquisitions or share repurchases – is that what is smart at one price is dumb at another. (One 
CEO who always stresses the price/value factor in repurchase decisions is Jamie Dimon at J.P. Morgan; I 
recommend that you read his annual letter.) 
 
Charlie and I have mixed emotions when Berkshire shares sell well below intrinsic value. We like 
making money for continuing shareholders, and there is no surer way to do that than by buying an asset – our 
own stock – that we know to be worth at least x for less than that – for .9x, .8x or even lower. (As one of our 
directors says, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel, after the barrel has been drained and the fish have quit flopping.) 
Nevertheless, we don’t enjoy cashing out partners at a discount, even though our doing so may give the selling 
shareholders a slightly higher price than they would receive if our bid was absent. When we are buying, 
therefore, we want those exiting partners to be fully informed about the value of the assets they are selling. 
At our limit price of 110% of book value, repurchases clearly increase Berkshire’s per-share intrinsic 
value. And the more and the cheaper we buy, the greater the gain for continuing shareholders. Therefore, if given 
the opportunity, we will likely repurchase stock aggressively at our price limit or lower. You should know, 
however, that we have no interest in supporting the stock and that our bids will fade in particularly weak markets. 
Nor will we buy shares if our cash-equivalent holdings are below $20 billion. At Berkshire, financial strength 
that is unquestionable takes precedence over all else. 
* * * * * * * * * * * * 
This discussion of repurchases offers me the chance to address the irrational reaction of many investors 
to changes in stock prices. When Berkshire buys stock in a company that is repurchasing shares, we hope for two 
events: First, we have the normal hope that earnings of the business will increase at a good clip for a long time to 
come; and second, we also hope that the stock underperforms in the market for a long time as well. A corollary to 
this second point: “Talking our book” about a stock we own – were that to be effective – would actually be 
harmful to Berkshire, not helpful as commentators customarily assume. 
 
Let’s use IBM as an example. As all business observers know, CEOs Lou Gerstner and Sam Palmisano 
did a superb job in moving IBM from near-bankruptcy twenty years ago to its prominence today. Their 
operational accomplishments were truly extraordinary. 
 
But their financial management was equally brilliant, particularly in recent years as the company’s 
financial flexibility improved. Indeed, I can think of no major company that has had better financial management, a 
skill that has materially increased the gains enjoyed by IBM shareholders. The company has used debt wisely, made 
value-adding acquisitions almost exclusively for cash and aggressively repurchased its own stock. 
Today, IBM has 1.16 billion shares outstanding, of which we own about 63.9 million or 5.5%. 
Naturally, what happens to the company’s earnings over the next five years is of enormous importance to us. 
Beyond that, the company will likely spend $50 billion or so in those years to repurchase shares. Our quiz for the 
day: What should a long-term shareholder, such as Berkshire, cheer for during that period? 
I won’t keep you in suspense. We should wish for IBM’s stock price to languish throughout the five years. 
Let’s do the math. If IBM’s stock price averages, say, $200 during the period, the company will acquire 
250 million shares for its $50 billion. There would consequently be 910 million shares outstanding, and we 
would own about 7% of the company. If the stock conversely sells for an average of $300 during the five-year 
period, IBM will acquire only 167 million shares. That would leave about 990 million shares outstanding after 
five years, of which we would own 6.5%. 
 
If IBM were to earn, say, $20 billion in the fifth year, our share of those earnings would be a full $100 
million greater under the “disappointing” scenario of a lower stock price than they would have been at the higher 
price. At some later point our shares would be worth perhaps $11⁄2 billion more than if the “high-price” 
repurchase scenario had taken place. 
 
The logic is simple: If you are going to be a net buyer of stocks in the future, either directly with your own 
money or indirectly (through your ownership of a company that is repurchasing shares), you are hurt when stocks 
rise. You benefit when stocks swoon. Emotions, however, too often complicate the matter: Most people, including 
those who will be net buyers in the future, take comfort in seeing stock prices advance. These shareholders resemble 
a commuter who rejoices after the price of gas increases, simply because his tank contains a day’s supply. 
Charlie and I don’t expect to win many of you over to our way of thinking – we’ve observed enough 
human behavior to know the futility of that – but we do want you to be aware of our personal calculus. And here 
a confession is in order: In my early days I, too, rejoiced when the market rose. Then I read Chapter Eight of Ben 
Graham’s The Intelligent Investor, the chapter dealing with how investors should view fluctuations in stock 
prices. Immediately the scales fell from my eyes, and low prices became my friend. Picking up that book was one 
of the luckiest moments in my life. 
 
In the end, the success of our IBM investment will be determined primarily by its future earnings. But 
an important secondary factor will be how many shares the company purchases with the substantial sums it is 
likely to devote to this activity. And if repurchases ever reduce the IBM shares outstanding to 63.9 million, I will 
abandon my famed frugality and give Berkshire employees a paid holiday. 
 
	 
	
	
	
	
 
 
	
	
	
		
	Posts: 2,512 
	Threads: 24 
	Joined: Sep 2010
	
 Reputation: 
 19
	 
 
	
	
		ok, reproduce this during singholdings AGM?   
	 
	
	
1) Try NOT to LOSE money! 
2) Do NOT SELL in BEAR, BUY-BUY-BUY! invest in managements/companies that does the same! 
3) CASH in hand is KING in BEAR!  
4) In BULL, SELL-SELL-SELL! 
 
	
	
 
 
	
	
	
		
	Posts: 1,119 
	Threads: 16 
	Joined: Jan 2012
	
 Reputation: 
 0
	 
 
	
	
		Boss Lee must have his reasons. Im sure this question will again pop up at the board meeting later this week prior to the release of the financial results. Lets not forget they are still on the lookout for opportunities!
	 
	
	
	
	
 
 
	
	
	
		
	Posts: 2,113 
	Threads: 19 
	Joined: Dec 2010
	
 Reputation: 
 5
	 
 
	
		
		
		26-02-2012, 06:15 PM 
(This post was last modified: 26-02-2012, 07:53 PM by freedom.)
		
	 
	
		given that 4Q administrative expense shot up quite some, the bosses were giving themselves quite good bonus. my speculation only
	 
	
	
	
	
 
 
	 
 |