Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
IFS Capital
01-02-2015, 11:27 AM. (This post was last modified: 02-02-2015, 11:57 AM by lonewolf.)
Post: #11
RE: IFS Capital
*sigh* I dun understand why they cannot use simple English in their press release.

So let's try to break it down further one at a time to see if we can untangle the legal doublspeak.

'lower net loss for the Q4 2014 compared to the corresponding periods of the previous year' ==> lower than -S$4.2 million

'lower net loss for the FY 2014 compared to the corresponding periods of the previous year' ==> lower than -$3.7 million

Since 9M2014 net profit is S$1.77 million, that means for FY2014, net loss will be between 2.43 and 3.7 million.

2.43 million is derived from taking 1.77 (profit for 9M2014) add to expected loss for Q42014 which I just used -4.2 million.

Does the above calculation makes sense?? (NB: Edited to correct calculation error Blush)

Find Reply
01-02-2015, 06:55 PM.
Post: #12
RE: IFS Capital
Technically, the expected loss should be no more than 2.43 million (1.77 million - 4.2 million).
Any FY2014 loss higher than 2.43 million would mean the loss in Q42014 is higher than 4.2 million.

Find Reply
12-01-2018, 11:11 PM.
Post: #13
RE: IFS Capital
IFS Capital says 3Q17 losses narrowed to $333,000 from $3.95 million.

Interest income excluding non-performing loans (NPL) was 17.5% higher at $5.52 million compared to $4.70 million in 3Q16, mainly due to higher interest income earned from factoring and loans.

NPLs for the quarter was 29.9% lower at $693,000 from $988,000 a year ago.

Lim Hua Min of Phillip Assets accumulates 445,000 more shares at 24 cents, below Dymon Asia's purchase price of 24.5 cents. Likely to find buying support at 24 cents and below.

Find Reply
24-02-2019, 12:25 PM.
Post: #14
RE: IFS Capital
In the past few years, IFS' factoring business has taken large impairments that pushed the segment into losses. On years that factoring was profitable, there are losses from its insurance segment. On some years, both segments faced losses. It looks like IFS is bad at underwriting loans and insurance.

But this is not completely true.

Within its consistently poor results is its Thailand subsidiary, which has a good history of generating profits and dividends. Shareholders of IFS would have enjoyed greater returns if they had put their money in its Thailand subsidiary instead.

Why is there a divergence in the results between parent and subsidiary?

Find Reply

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s) | Return to Top | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication | CONTACT US: