Saturday, June 21, 2008

Jim Rogers Blasts The Insanity Of the Feds while remains bullish on Oil & Commodities

Here are some latest comments from Jim Rogers.

  • Jim Rogers: Oil Bull Market Has Years to Go

    Thursday, June 12, 2008 5:18 PM

    The bull market for oil has many years to go before it peters out, says billionaire Jim Rogers, chairman of Rogers Holdings.

    There are several factors for this view, but the primary one is that "known sources of petroleum are dwindling," Rogers told Bloomberg in an interview.

    Global oil supplies could fall far short of need and expectations in the next 20 years, reported the International Energy Agency in mid-May. The agency long expected supply to rise to meet demand of 116 million barrels a day by 2030.

    It now expects oil output to struggle to reach 100 million barrels in that time frame.

    These market conditions will make life difficult for airlines — and airline stocks — well past 2010 and will also impact Federal Reserve policy in the coming months, Rogers said.

    Rogers has proved astoundingly prescient since suggesting that investors buy into the older, industrial economy back in 1999 when gold and oil were coming off 25-year lows and when the Internet stock market was soaring.

    Now in his mid-60s, Rogers retired from full-time work when he was 37, and invests for fun. ( source of article: here )

And fresh on Forbes.

  • "We think the bull market in commodities still have a long way to go, especially when you look at growth rates in China, India, the Middle East, North Africa and throughout most of the developing world, where demand for just about every commodity is rising at unprecedented rates," Rogers said. ( Taken from Forbes article here )

Do note that Jim Rogers made them comments when he announced he is teaming up with S-Network Global Indexes to launch The Rogers Van Eck Hard Assets Producers Index. Unlike the Rogers International Commodity Index, the new index tracks the performance of companies that deal in commodities--rather than performance of the commodities themselves.

And in another article on MoneyNews, Rogers blasts the insanity of the US Fed

  • Jim Rogers: Helicopter Ben Bernanke 'Insane'

    Friday, June 20, 2008 2:40 PM

    The Fed, explains commodities bull Jim Rogers, has made things worse by printing huge amounts of money, causing huge inflation, and driving the dollar down.

    Plus, American taxpayers will have to pay off the $400 billion spent on Bear Stearns.

    "If the system is so fragile that the collapse of the fifth-largest investment bank in America could bring the whole thing down, what’s going to happen in a few years when the No. 2 or No. 1 banks go bad?" Rogers asks.

    "What’s Bernanke going to do, get in his helicopter and fly around the country repossessing cars and houses? This is insane."

    So, Rogers say he's buying airlines.

    It's counterintuitive: Twenty-four airlines went bankrupt last year, and five of the seven largest U.S. air carriers went bankrupt during the past decade.

    "That’s great news," Rogers says. "Bankruptcies are signs of bottoms, not signs of tops."

    "I fly a lot and planes are full," Rogers notes. "You read every day that the airlines are cutting capacity and raising fares. How much more bullish can you get?"

    Rogers' current investment picks also include Swiss francs, Japanese yen, agriculture and oil — but no financials right now.

    "I'm short on the investment bank ETF, which means I’m short on all of them," Rogers observes.

    "Some of these companies have horrendous balance sheets."

    Financials go for unbelievably low prices in bear markets, he points out, but this bear hasn’t hit bottom yet.

    Rogers — who is also short Citibank and Fannie Mae — says the excesses in financial markets have been far too great.

    "You don't see any 29-year-old cotton farmers driving Maseratis," Rogers says.

    "But a lot of 29-year-olds on Wall Street are driving them. This is not the way the world is supposed to work."

    However, the oil bull market has years to run, Rogers says, even though big market reactions can still occur.

    He points out that the price of oil has dropped by 50 percent twice since 1999.

    "Unless someone discovers a lot of oil very quickly in accessible areas, we’re running out of known oil reserves," Rogers says.

    "If the price of oil goes high enough, they’ll be drilling on the White House lawn and Buckingham Palace."

    And because food reserves are at their lowest level in 50 years, unless someone starts bringing on a lot more capacity soon, Rogers believes the agricultural bull market has got a ways to go, too.

    Meanwhile, prices for nickel, zinc and silver are down 50 percent to 80 percent from their historic highs, yet Rogers is waiting to add more of these commodities to his portfolio.

    "It looks like Congress is about to do something that will drive commodity prices down, and that will create a fantastic buying opportunity," he says.

    Rogers advises investors, however, not to panic in bear markets.

    "Bear markets perform a necessary service by cleaning out the system," he says.



Friday, June 20, 2008

Warren Buffett: In Business World Ugly Ducklings Stays Ugly!

Blast from the past.

(Continuing on the wonderful compilation of Warren Buffett's sayings done by Bud Labitan called "The Warren Buffett Business Factors" but unfortunately the link I had recorded is broken.)

For an understanding of how the to-invest-or-not-to-invest dilemma plays out in a commodity business, it is instructive to look at Burlington Industries. In 1964 Burlington had sales of $1.2 billion against our $50 million. It had strengths in both distribution and production that we could never hope to match. Also, it had an earnings record far superior to ours. Its stock sold at 60 at the end of 1964; ours was 13.

Burlington made a decision to stick to the textile business, and in 1985 had sales of about $2.8 billion. During the 1964-85 period, the company made capital expenditures of about $3 billion, far more than any other U.S. textile company and more than $200-per-share on that $60 stock. A very large part of the expenditures, I am sure, was devoted to cost improvement and expansion. Given Burlington’s basic commitment to stay in textiles, I would also surmise that the company’s capital decisions were quite rational.

Nevertheless, Burlington has lost sales volume in real dollars and has far lower returns on sales and equity now than 20 years ago. Split 2-for-1 in 1965, the stock now sells at 34 -- on an adjusted basis, just a little over its $60 price in 1964. Meanwhile, the CPI has more than tripled. Therefore, each share commands about one-third the purchasing power it did at the end of 1964. Regular dividends have been paid, but they too have shrunk significantly in purchasing power.

This devastating outcome for the shareholders indicates what can happen when much brainpower and energy are applied to a faulty premise. The situation is suggestive of Samuel Johnson’s horse: “A horse that can count to ten is a remarkable horse - not a remarkable mathematician.” Likewise, a textile company that allocates capital brilliantly within its industry is a remarkable textile company - but not a remarkable business.

My conclusion from my own experiences and from much observation of other businesses is that a good managerial record (measured by economic returns) is far more a function of what business boat you get into than it is of how effectively you row (though intelligence and effort help considerably, in any business, good or bad). Some years ago I wrote: “When a management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for poor fundamental economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact.” Nothing has since changed my point of view on that matter. Should you find yourself in a chronically-leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks.

Taken from The New Buffettology :

Investing in Burlington in a market downturn or on bad news isn't a great move if the long-term growth is the goal. It is the kind of investment that Warren steers away from because it lacks the durable competitive advantage other companies can offer.

Warren is fond of saying that when management with an excellent reputation meets a business with a poor reputation, it is usually the business's reputation, it is usually the business's reputation that remains intact. In other words no matter who is running the show, there is no way to turn an inherently poor business into an excellent one. Ugly ducklings only grow up to be beautiful swans in fairy tales. In the business world they stay ugly ducklings no matter what managerial prince kisses them!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ugly ducklings only grow up to be beautiful swans in fairy tales. In the business world they stay ugly ducklings no matter what managerial prince kisses them!

How true isn't it?

Take the toughest industry... for example the airline industry in the US. Here is my favourite comment on it from Charlie Munger (The Art of Stock Picking)

If it's a pure commodity like airline seats, you can understand why no o­ne makes any money. As we sit here, just think of what airlines have given to the world safe travel, greater experience, time with your loved o­nes, you name it. Yet, the net amount of money that's been made by the shareholders of airlines since Kitty Hawk, is now a negative figure ‑ a substantial negative figure. Competition was so intense that, o­nce it was unleashed by deregulation, it ravaged shareholder wealth in the airline business.

Now you can the smartest and most innovative management running the airline, but no matter how good and how dedicated they are, a terrible business remains a terrible business.

And here is more comments from Mary Buffett's book.

In 2000, it was reported that United Airlines, one of the best-run airlines in the United States, carried a net debt of USD$5 billion versus USD$4 billion in net income the last 10 years. Unions and high fixed costs ensured that any airline flying the friendly skies will never allow their shareholders' riches to soar for very long.

And what about the terrible automobile business?

In 2000, GM carried approximately USD$136 billion in long term debt, a sum greater than the USD$34 billion it earned from 1990 to 2000. Imagine, if you took every dollar that GM made for the last 10 years down to the bank, you still couldn't pay off the loan. Doesn't sound like a great business, does it?

For the car industry, they have to spend tons and tons of money designing and researching on new models. Then they have to spend tons of money to market the product (the car). And after all the moola spend, when the car hits the street, their nearest competitor comes out with a similar competing design. How? Does it matter who is managing the business? A lousy business will most likely remain a lousy business because the economics structure of the business industry does not allow the business to be good!

Anyway, the GM example also highlights the issue on why it is so risky owning business which carries such a huge debt. Just imagine if we own such a company which carries this sort debt. Now if and when the boom time is over, what will happen? Well, when the boom is over, sales and profit will most likely decline. And the decline might turn into losses due to financial interests incurred by the company carrying those huge long term debts.

So let me remind myself again...

Ugly ducklings only grow up to be beautiful swans in fairy tales. In the business world they stay ugly ducklings no matter what managerial prince kisses them!

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Recent Stock Market Crashes

Firstly I am not INSINUATING anything.

So do not ass-u-me anything for it will make an ass out of you an me. This posting merely looks at past stock market crashes and it does not attempt to say when and where the stock market crash will happen.


However, if you reckon that such a posting is taboo and it will be a jinx to your investments then do please not read. Ok?

There's this old little book by Neoh Soon Kean called Stock Market Investment in Malaysia and Singapore. It's published under Berita Publishing Sdn Bhd.

Here are some collection of comments from the book which I find to be very interesting.

from pg 14...

It is always difficult to determine exactly when a bull run starts, certainly much more difficult than pin-pointing the time a crash starts. Typically, a bull run always starts gently. The prices tend to bump along the bottom for a while before starting up and even after it has started, there may be a few false starts when the rate of rise would falter. With that caveat in mind, it is my opinion that the bull run started in Jan 1971 and the big marker break (that is the start of the crash) occured on 13 Feb 1973, an up-cycle period of about two years.....

The amazing fact is that in 1971 and 1972 could be regarded as bad years economically for Malaysia while 1973 and 1974 were, in fact very good years for both Msia and Singapore. Yet the latter two years coincided with the sharpest fall in the history of Msian/S'porean stock market. STi fell by 41% in 1973 and 42% in 1974.

Until after June 1973, the Malaysian stock market and the Singapore stock market were joint. The whole market was therefore affected by the economic well being of Malaysia. In the early 1970's Msia/S'pore was still very much an export-oriented region. The prosperity of many quoted co's in the stock market was much dependent on the export of primary commodities.

What were some of the factors which caused the big boom?

(1) Early profit was made

after May 13th incident of 1969, investors' confidence sank to an extremely low ebb. there was a very considerable amount of panic selling and the Straits Time Industrial Index dropped to a low of 130 in late 1970 from 170 in April 1969. Many shares were being sold at an extremely low level. The few investors who had the courage to buy then were to make hefty gains later on.

... even after another more than 40% rise in the overall price level by 31 Dec 1971, many of the stocks, were still very reasonable, especially the second tier stocks.

The early profits attracted a lot of investors into the market and again, the prices rose and by June 1972, ST had increased by another 20%. However from this point onwards, the people entering the markets were no longer governed by economic considerations.

The prices were to be increased by yet another 81% in the next six months (WAAAHHH), after which the end of the boom was in sight. By that time, the market had caught the speculative fever and price rises were no longer rational. The market was to rise another 41% in the final six weeks before collapsing. It is notable that the increase every six months got steeper and steeper. In the final three months or so, the increase of the index exceeded that of the previous 2 years! This rate of increase obviously cannot be sustained and the speculative mania ran out of steam and had nowhere to go but down.

... When a market is rising, everyone who goes in makes some profit and he is therefor encouraged to make further purchases. However, the continuous price increase cannot go on forever. At some point of time, the amount of money tied up is so high (at the highs, one lot of OCBC costs 50,000, a sum which was more than the selling price of two terrace houses at that point of time) (Fiyoh!!!! Now that's what u call BULL, eh?) that the buyer who buys in anticipation of a further rise will be forced to sell soon if the market is not going up. Once the market sees that a shares has stopped rising, the opposite goes into effect. The intending buyer will delay buying hoping that the price will fall further. This causes the weak intending seller to lower his price yet again. A spiral of forced selling at low prices is thus started and it tends to continue at ever increasing speed until eventually much, if not all, of the earlier rise is completely increased.

(2) Many were First Time Investors

For much of the 1960s, investment in the local share market was very much limited to the institutions, large corporation and a few well-off private individuals. The middle class was of a small number and wielded little economic power. However, with the Independence in M'sia and Singapore, the social spending of the governments were vastly increased and slowly a large body of middle class consisting of civil servants, doctors, teachers and other professionals were established.

Like the US of the 1920's investment opportunities in the late 1960's were the limited. Three months of fixed deposit was then paying 5% (Wahh... 5% now banyak lo). Naturally the stock market market attracted some of the money in circulation. As explained before, those who made profit early, attracted many others into the fold. The commentators of the time also pointed out an additional fact which caused a large number of first timers into the market. In late 1972, all teachers in msia received a considerable amount of back pay. The sudden receipt of an unexpected sum of money and the booming stock market at that time was all that needed to push many teachers into the market. Indeed in 1972, teachers' common room conversation was largely limited to the stock market. (LOL!!!! Wahh... so much happening inside ze teacher's in common room!!!... hohoho... playing shares when they are free??? )

These first timers had little idea of the economic principles upon which stock purchases should be made. Instead they relied on market talks, brokers' advice and self-proclaimed experts. (hehe... they become Sayur lor or some prefers to call it as Hong Kong Kai Lan) As a well-known Wall Street saying goes: 'Genius is a rising market'. the rapidly increasing prices gave all involved a vision of boundless prosperity and wealth ( hmmm... Grandiosity lo ). By the end of 1972, price rose to a level which could not be justified by any known economic standard.

... the price increase obtained were totally out of bounds of rationality. A PER of three digits is absurd by any standard but to the newcomers, PER was a meaningless measure. All they believed was that: 'If the prices had doubled in the past 6 months, they must be capable of doubling yet again in the next six months'. (ho ho ho... they believed that the stocks could really fly up, up and awayyyyyyyy hor!!... and today's high is tomorrow's low eh?)

(3) Rapidly Rising Foreign markets

(4) Trust in 'Blue Chips'

(hmmm.... is this where the common advise to buy blue chips come from?)

In the Crash of 1973, the top tier company was made much of finance, properties and a few old line companies such as Sime Darby and Haw Par. The enthusiasm for these top tier stocks was such that most others were largely ignored. The PER of the favoured stocks would rise to an astronomical level while for the less favoured, their PER would remain at a reasonable level even at the height of the speculative mania. The over-concentration of interest in a specific class of stocks naturally meant that the price rise would be even more phenomenal. Unfortunately, when the crash came, all stocks, favourites or otherwise, were brought down. Stock market crashes knew no favourites.

The higher the stocks rose, the worse they fell. Many ex-market favourites lost over 90% of their peak price. Local newspapers reported many cases of bankruptcies and several cases of suicides directly attributed to the stock market collapse.

But stop it did as it must in all slumps. The severe losses that took place traumatised the speculators for many years. When the overseas market picked up in 1975, the Msian/Sporean market failed to do so decisively. The prices bumped along the bottom for many years until 1979.
At the time, once again the lessons of history appeared to have been forgotten and Msian/Sporeans indulged in yet another speculative orgy......


The Crash of 1981

In magnitude, it is almost as severe as the first Crash.

First, it would appear that there were sound economic reasons behind the rise of share prices this time. M'sian/Sporeans had learnt sufficiently to depend on their own feelings on how the economy was doing rather than rely on foreign indices. (Ahhh... the problem of de-coupling our own market from others... be independant lo) At the time of the beginning of the bull run (approx Jan 1979), both Dow Jones and Financial Time Indices were in the doldrums. The local economic environment at the beginning of 1979 was vastly better than that of 1970.

(the tables in the book.... showed that price of rubber went from 1.99 to 3.25, price of tin went from 18,736 per ton to 35,710 and CPO went from 882 to 1177)

.... commodity prices were approaching or just below their respective all time high. Most of the companies directly or indirectly involved in the commodities business were doing extremely well and were flush with cash.

... per capital GNP had been rising most steadily for five years at an average of about 15 per cent. More than that, the private sector was very liquid with cash. In 1979, the money supply of Msia was standing at a figure that was five times higher than in 1971!

With profit increasing at a rapid rate, a PER of 20 or more seemed fully justifiable. (yeah... look at Cycle... price went from 2.62 to 5.25, and yet the PER only increased from 10 to 13... there is growth!!) As the memory of 1973 faded away and the mood of the country totally changed (market sentiments lo), stocks were once more respectable investments. Thus, more and more Msian/Sporeans invested and saw their investments steadily increased in value...

Secondly, the timing was right this time. In 1978-1980 the economic horizon was bright and it was natural to envisage an extended period of prosperity. Indeed the governments did promise just that. It is natural to bid up the price of stocks at the top of an economic cycle and until mid-1980, the prices of most stocks were very reasonable. Not many people, if any, could have foreseen the recession of 1982 (two years away still)

Thirdly one could detect several signs of market efficiency which was most surprising in view of what happened in 1973. Even at the height of the speculation some shares were being quoted at very reasonable prices. At the maximum level Bata, C&C, SIn Heng CHan and many others could be bought at a PER of less than 20. Given the Msian/Sporean context, the PER reached could be considered rational. Purchases even at those prices would not have been unwise investments if the region's growth rate of the late 1970's were to continue into the 1980's. Furthermore, it is noticeable that many of the plantation and tin mine stocks turned down well in advance of the general market. Many plantation stocks peaked in 1981 and most tin stocks even earlier on. This can be shown by comparing the KLSE Industrial Index with the prices of popular plantation and tin stocks. Considering that the poor corporate reports were not to be published for yet another year, this was a very creditable performance. A considerable number of investors must have taken note of the softening price trends of rubber, cocoa and tin at the point of time and started to liquidate or reduce their holdings.

It must be stressed, however, that despite these pockets of efficiency by late 1980's, the usual symptoms of a speculative mania were making their appearance. Trading on the stock market became more and more widespread among the populace. The mania was slowing taking hold in the minds of the people and soon many of them would throw rationality to the wind.

By early 1981, the mania had once again reached epic proportion. The prices again showed the accelerating rate of increase that is common to all manias.

Once again, a large number of ignorant and inexperienced people were attracted to the stock market. Remisers set up operations in every small town and did roaring business. In a typical small town like Teluk Intan, butchers, rubber merchants and small holders from the surrounding areas would crowd into town in the afternoon to take part in the rush to buy and sell shares. Even the universities were not immune to the temptation of the market. Many lecturers from each of the local universities were heavily involved. Housewives of all ages spent their days at the brokers' offices, no doubt finding it more exciting than a game of mahjong. (LMAO!!!..... hohoho.... mania!! Err.... Lecturers involved again? Soooo does this mean that these buggers are great BULL indicators???..... and kakaka.... if 2nd Auntie is so busy playing mahjong.. then u know stock market ain't too happening hor!!! )

The Conglomerate Game.

.. the value a speculator places on a stock (or a tulip) does not necessary depend on anything which is tangible. Rather, it depends on the image or fantasy the investor may have on a particular stock. A company that is continuously in the public eye ( a result of a continuous stream of announcements of bonus, rights, takeovers and profit forecasts, etc.) is that much more likely to become the object of such fantasy. ( Aha!!... got fancy CREATIVE story to sell??) In the same way, an actress who is always in the news is far more likely to become the object of a man's fantasy. Stocks of such companies are far more 'attractive' (sexy stocks?) and are more likely to be bidded up to a far higher level than the dull 'never-anything-happens' type of stocks.

... Indeed the activities of several companies during 1980 and 1981 fit the description. they are the companies that were busily engaging in takeovers and mergers ( for example, MUIB, Hong Leong Industries and PEGI). With the announcement of each new takeover, their profit forecast would become greater and their prices attain a higher level. It would be indeed be foolish for these companies not to make use of their new found strength in the form of high stock prices to seek new takeovers by an exchange of shares. More takeovers led their prices to go even higher and an upward spiral took shape. What was realised by the public did not necessary mean higher per share earnings. This is because a lot of new shares had to be created to 'pay' for the takeovers. (ze dilutions effect lo!!!... BE WARNED! ) Therefore, the per share price should not necessarily go up between overall and per share share earnings was lost in the general madness to pursue high-flyers. Most of the newly-fledged conglomerates saw their stock price increase to a level that is ridiculous by any measure.

The Property Injection Game

Owing to various government and institutional obstacles, it has become increasingly difficult for a Malaysian company to become publicly listed. (Oh my, how times have changed!) For the five years prior to 1981, only a handful of new companies each year had reached such exalted rank. This naturally resulted in a great deal of impatience among entrepreneurs who were anxious to have access to the public capital market. Over the previous four or five years, this impatience had manifested itself in the form of an increasing number of entrepreneurs buying over control of a listed company and injecting his own properties into the listed company as a way of achieving public listing. Since taking over a successful company is not cheap, these entrepreneurs naturally turned their attention to less successful companies ( yalor - the lousy ones - ones that wud stretch and bend ze rules sikit!! ) , in particular, textile companies which were going thru a poor earning stretch.

... On taking over a moribound or semi-moribound listed company, the entrepreneur would use it to takeover their existing assets by a process which is locally known as 'injection'. Most of these assets being so injected had been real properties (ie pieces of land). To the local share buying public, real estate had a magical ring to it for did we all not know that: "All real real-estate developers are rolling in money?" Given this fantasy image of real-estate development, every time the re-organisation of a moribound listed company into a real properties development company was announced, the public went wild bidding up the price of the previously moribound or semi-moribound company to incredible heights. Not only was there an enormous enthusiasm for companies actually being re-organised this way, the speculation spilled over the companies which might be taken over.

This when Taiping Textile was being reorganised the stocks of South Pacific textile, Imatex and Textile Corporation all went up in sympathy even though there were NO concrete news. As mentioned earlier, since the 'Property injectors', were only interested in moribound or semi-moribound companies, we have the most curious phenomenon whereby stocks of companies which would normally be considered as not particularly good, were bidded to an unjustifiable level even for a good company.

(The Goreng of the Chekai and Lousy stocks????)

The End is Near

Thus, if one were to refer to a list of most active stocks for the two years before the Crash of 1981, one would see that much of the activities centred around either conglomerates or re-organised companies or companies rumoured to be facing re-organisation. The day of reckoning arrived when the prices were bidded up to a ridiculously high level and when weak holders become anxious. Like in all slumps, once nervousness started to appear, confidence rapidly ebbed since it was not based on anything tangible in the first place. The market peaked on 26 june 1981, and lost rapidly almost HALF of its value within the next four months. there were a few anaemic attempts atrallying which all failed to go very high. This went on for about eight mnoths. In late July 1982, stock prices began to drop again, slowly at first and then sharply to result in a market loss of another 100 points.

( .... hmmm.... the dangers of using of year high and year low as an indicator to buy stocks lor ... cause .... if one used such indicator as a guide.... surely KENA big, big time lo .... so think it is wise to use a contrarian approach to buy a stock based on low prices?)

There is an ironical twist in the end of the story if the Crash of 1981. The market went down rapidly from a high of 823 on the KLSE to reach a low of 364 after fourteen months. This means a decline of about 58% in just over an year, a very rapid fall by any standard. One would expect it to continue falling further and stay down for a while to catch its breath as in most speculative collapses. This however, did not take place as the local speculators did not seem to have suffered enough and the market started moving up again toward the end of 1982 and was to reach a very high level of 680 by Feb 1984. Most local speculators were ecstatic over the unexpected rise and most local stock market commentators were expecting renewed climb to new heights for 1984. Once again, the unexpected happened and 1984 turned out to be another bad year for local speculators.

The Crash of 87!


At the time of writing (June 1988), it may be premature to write the history of 1987Crash as the full story of this crash has not yet been revealed. (Aisehhhh... what la.... !!.. I told you this little book is OLD what!). However, the global stock market crash of Oct 1987 has become part of the folklore of the investment world and it would be negligent if this story is left out.

In some ways, it is more difficult to get a 'handle' of this Crash than the two Crashes previously described. There were no obvious villains as in the earlier crashes. The bull market was intense and broad based, to be followed by a crash of unprecedented severity. The amazing thing to most casual observers of the market is that the crash took place just as both Msia's and Spore's economy were getting into full steam after two years of unprecedented low growth.

It is to be admitted that the economy of both countries were expected to do well in 1987/88 compared with the previous two years but the growth rate which has been achieved is low if compared with the heydays of say 1975 or 1981 when the economy grew at twice this rate or more. In spite of the mediocre economic rate, the stock market put up one of the best performances ever.

... It matched the growth rate of the bull market of 72/73 all the way.

From the start of bull market up to its peak, the SES All Shares nearly doubled while the KLSE increased by 167%. This is to be contrasted with an expected total growth in GNP of about 15% for 1987 and 1988. An examination of the earnings trend of the listed shares on both exchanges is even more telling. Apart from commodity companies and certain turnaround situations (eg Cycle & Carriage), the improvement in EPS between 1986 and 1987 is not particularly remarkable.

The increase in the EPS between 1986 and 1987 is only 18.7% for the Sporean stocks and 34.6% for the Msian stocks. Their March 1986 PER (based on 1987 EPS to allow for the expected increase in EPS) at the start of the bull run were not particularly low by usual financial standards (respectively 13.8 and 21.9). At the peak of the bull run, their PER can be said to be very high indeed and probably not sustainable.

The experience of the non-blue chips more or less mirrored that of the blue chips except the former were more extreme in their movements. In spite of the none-too-low PER level of the majority of the stocks in March 1986, the market took off in the classical manner with an ever increasing rate of increase that is so typical of a speculative stock market boom. Readers may like to compare it with the rate of increase experienced in the previous two booms described earlier.

Thus by Sept 1987, many local stocks were selling at prices which were completely out of line with the fundamentals. [ same symptoms lo - prices went totally out of whack!! ] The earlier two tables in message 33 and 34 shows the PER of a selection of stocks at the top of the market compared with the highest PER during the previous bull markets. It is safe assumption that the shares do indeed look expensive compared with previous stock market tops.

Why should the market height it did, if there are no strong fundamental reasons to account for? (LOL!! No strong fundamental reasons? Kaki-kia?)

Influence of the Foreign markets

There is little doubt that the four years up to 1986 saw one of the best periods for stock markets worldwide. It is interesting to compare the performance of the various stock markets of the world between 1982 and 1983 to that of the local market.

.. the local market was the only one which had done badly in the four years preceding 1986. Furthermore, by Jan 1986, local bear market was 26 months old, a very advanced age for a bear market. Given the very powerful psychological stimulus provided by the continuing strong advances in most major markets, it is not surprising that local investors took heart and got the bull market underway.

Local commentators also attributed foreign buying ti giving the market further impetus. There is no doubt that there was some foreign buying although the exact quantity is unknown. A figure of US$2-3 billion has been cited by various commentators. This figure us quite small relative to the overall capitalisation if the market (US$50 billion, at the peak). However, given the poor liquidity of the local market, foreign buying could give quite a boost to the local prices.

Low Local Interest Rate

Due to a combination of factors, interest rate sank to a historically low level by early 1987. In Singapore, interest rate reached a peak in 1980, declined quite sharply in 1981 and held steady from 1982 to 1984. In 1985, interest rate in Singapore started to decline again, by early 1986 the three month fixed deposit rate was down to 4.5% and by early 1987 it was down to 2.85%.

In Msia, the decline in interest rates was even more precipitous. The interest rate hit a peak in 1984 with the three month fixed deposit rate reaching 10.5%. The rate declined to 7.25% in 1985 and 6.25% by end of 1986 before diving down to 2.5% by mid 1987. ( WOW!!! that's a sure DEEP falling rates!!!... and with such low interest rates... where to put ze moola??)

In the face of interest rate being less than the average dividend yield of the stocks at the time, is not surprising that large amounts of money flowed into the stock market, thus driving up the prices.

Economic Recovery

For both countries, 1987 was an incredible turnaround year. Both countries achieved the highest growth in five years. The improving economy meant higher income for the people. Even more than that, the psychological impact of a good year after two dismal ones must have been very great. Everyone must have felt as if a great weight had been lifted off their shoulders and the general cheerfulness and good feeling may have contributed to a great deal of optimism about the market.

Lack of Other Investment Avenues.

The lack of other avenues of investment is an important factor for a stock market to boom to reach speculative proportion. In 1986/87, this condition was fully met. The only other investment alternative apart from stocks and deposits, for laymen was in houses. By 1986, the housing market in both countries was in a severe slump. What is worse, the slump did not look as if it was going to end soon. There was therefore totally no incentive for investing in homes.

Granted that there were good reasons for going into the share market, it is understandable that the market should have gone up. But what is not comprehensive is that why should the market go up so much especially for the Malaysian stocks.

I feel that once again, the local stock market players had let their emotions take over from their senses. A more charitable interpretation would be that the typical investor still did not have an understanding of investment fundamentals such as PER and DY. In this sense, they were no better than the players of the previous speculative booms. Once the market went up strongly, they would enter the market, attracted not by the value represented by the shares but by the mere fact that they have gone up so much. The market went into a self-sustaining upward spiral. (LOL!!!... kaki-kia dude!!!)

...(As we can see from the tables in the book) the PER (most of them 3 digits PER some had PER over 230!! and most had NM (not meaningful) PER cos they were companies which were losing money!) were typically so high that prices could not be sustained once the reasons for the rise in the first place disappeared.


Thus, once the collapse hit the other markets, the interest in local market largely vapourised as well and the market took a plunge of unprecedented short term severity.

The tables (in the book) shows the magnitude of the fall amongst a selection of speculative and investment grade shares. Once again, the volatility of the local market was clearly demonstrated. Even though our market started moving up much, much later than the major markets, our decline was more severe than any of these except hong Kong. Latecomers to the speculative scene once again must have suffered enormous losses. (err... buy high, sell ... ???)

Conclusion.

These three adventures to Manialand have shown all too clearly that local investors are still far from rational in their approach to investment. Their behaviour in 1987 was not much improved from that of 1973.

If anything, what can be noted is a very disturbing development, the local market seems to have become more speculative not less. (Ahemmm... now? any changes? ...how? ) The first truly speculative boom of modern time took place in 71/72 and there was a gap of over 8 years before the next speculative boom (that of 80/81) took place. But after the boom of 80/81, there were 2 more episodes of speculation within a space of seven years.

An even more disturbing fact is that the local market has not effectively progressed since 80/81. Between 70 and 80, the local market gained about 400%. But from 80/81 to 87/88, the market hardly moved at all. What this means is that had an investor bought near the top of the market in 1973, he would have bought in at the top of the market in 1981, many would still be out of money today.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


the ENd.

Stock Market Investment - Neoh Soon Kean
Berita Publishing Sdn Bhd. 1989 (ISBN 967-969-066-0)


~~~~~~~~~~~~

And what about the crash of 1987?

Here is a highly recommendable reading.

Published on the US Federal Reserve Board and written by Mark Carlson.

  • The 1987 stock market crash was a major systemic shock. Not only did the prices of many financial assets tumble, but market functioning was severely impaired. This paper reviews the events surrounding the crash and discusses the response of the Federal Reserve, which responded in a number of ways to support the operation of financial markets, including the provision of liquidity, in a highly visible fashion.

Click here for the full report: Full paper (186 KB PDF) Full paper (Screen Reader Version)

ps: Hope you enjoyed it! I did!

Cheers!

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Dr. Marc Faber: No Hurry To Buy Anything in Asia!

Dr. Marc Faber was featured again Barron's Midyear Roundtable.

Link: http://online.barrons.com/article/SB121339741569973523.html?mod=9_0031_b_this_weeks_magazine_main&page=sp

Barron's: What do you make of '08, so far?

Faber: Measured in euros, the U.S. is down around 13%. But it has outperformed many other markets. The U.S. has many problems. One is the slowdown in credit growth. Another is recession. The statistics don't indicate the economy is in a recession, but we question the statistics.

The Federal Reserve's aggressive interest-rate cuts -- to 2% from 5.25% last September -- make equities relatively attractive compared to cash yields. But in the second half and the first half of 2009 it will become evident that '09 earnings for the S&P 500 won't meet consensus estimates of $110 per S&P share. Earnings instead are coming down and will stay down, and this will weigh on stocks. The recession won't be deep but it could be long. And it could be deep for corporate profits.

How much further will the market fall?

The situation is similar to 1973-74. It's water torture. We may have a rally here or there, but once investors notice that Mr. Obama has a good chance of winning the presidential election, this will be another negative for stocks. He's not going to be good for the market.

Also, the bond market's not acting well. Bond yields are higher than when the Fed cut rates between December and January. The bond market looks as though it could weaken considerably. Once interest rates go up again, that will be another strong headwind for stocks.

The U.S. is down just 8% this year in dollars. India is down 30%; China, 40%; Vietnam, down 60%. Are those markets buys at current levels?

Among emerging markets, only Mexico and Brazil have been strong. I'd get out of them. There is no hurry to buy anything in Asia, though stocks aren't expensive. Thailand, down 7%, could fall another 5% or even 10%.

Japan is the exception. The Japanese market has performed badly in the past 18 months, and stocks are low compared to cash yields. Some corporations have increased their dividends. Steel Partners' ouster of the management of Aderans Holdings [8170.Japan], a Japanese wig maker, was an important event. Pension funds and foreign investors are starting to have more power over Japanese management.

Do you still like the iShares MSCI Japan Small Cap exchange-traded fund, which you recommended in January?

Buy that, and some Japanese banks: Sumitomo Trust, Mitsubishi UFJ and Mizuho Financial. I would still go long the dollar against the euro, which is overvalued. The tightening of global liquidity and the contracting U.S. trade and current-account deficits are likely to be dollar-supportive. Mr. Bernanke does not understand anything about international economics; it's not a weak currency that leads via import prices to inflation, as he suggested, but inflated money and credit growth that leads to a weak currency.

Where is oil headed, now that it trades in the $130s?

Prices should ease a bit. It wouldn't surprise me to see oil dropping to around $80 a barrel. If you're bearish about oil in the next three months -- though long-term, commodities will go higher -- it's best to own Japanese stocks or airlines. A drop in oil might not help the airlines much, but sentiment toward airlines will improve considerably. Buy AMR , Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines and Japan Airlines.

And sell oil stocks?

Interestingly, they haven't done well relative to crude. One problem is declining reserves. Also, I would rather own physical commodities than commodity-related equities because resource nationalism is on the upswing. That's also true of gold, which has fallen to $870 an ounce from $1,000. The price could go down to $780 to $800 an ounce. If you have no exposure to gold, start buying it here. People are blaming speculators for the recent run-up in commodities, but they are a symptom rather than a cause of the problem. The cause lies in excess liquidity, and the Fed is responsible for that.

My last suggestion concerns steel. If world economies decelerate, the pace of building in places like China will slow, hurting demand for steel. Steel stocks have been among this year's best performers. Short U.S. Steel .

Thank you, Marc.

According To Real Sources

Posted yesterday, According to Dunno-What-Sources Takaful Malaysia is to be Privatised!

Well according to real sources from BIMB Holdings, BIMB is very pleased to announce on Bursa Malaysia website that BIMB Holdings have NO plans to take Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Berhad private.

So how?

Now that BIMB holdings has publicly declared that they have NO plans to take Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Berhad private, what should we do about these 'According to Dunno-What-Sources' type of reporting?

Should we allow these reporters and its financial editorials to continue making a mockery of everyone?

Tak malu meh?

I feel so ashamed. Don't you?

And who exactly are these 'Dunno-What-Sources'?

How?

Any comments?

Do Not Be Stubborn In Investing!

Blast from past. From Sun Tzu On Investing

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sun Tzu often warned his generals that it is adaptive strategy that win wars, not persistence.

Persistence can be a fine quality, but blindly, stubbornly and obstinately pushing ahead in the wrong direction is not going to make you more successful.

Your persistence must be rational.

Stubbornly holding onto losing stocks as their business fundamental decay, hoping they magically return to your purchase price is no way to ensure victory, in fact, it all but guarantees defeat.

When the evidence says sell, then sell. Be persistent in the application of your strategy, not in banging your head against the wall or burying it in the sand. Be open to accept new information, face facts and take action as necessary. Ignoring important business developments in your portfolio won't make them go away.

Selling a stock that no longer measures up, or one that was purchased without accurate or complete evaluation is not admitting a mistake or any cause for embarrassment, it's just one more necessary, even essential step toward victory.

If the stock price rises after you sell, don't be frustrated - you made a rational decision, the best you could based on the information you had at the time - and over your investing lifetime this rational approach will win out.

You invest your time and your energy into every business analysis, so after a sell decision you need not write off the company forever. If the business prospects and fundamentals improve later, you can and should reconsider repurchasing. Each decision must be viewed independently from previous decisions. Selling as fundamental decay is essential, as it frees capital to be redeployed into another productive investment.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ahh... the most common behaviour I have seen is one tends to be frustrated because after we had decided to sell the stock, that darn stock decides to move up!

Celaka betul!!!

Haven't we not witnessed this before?

It's like we are the sole reason why that rotten piece of stock is NOT moving, and the minute we sell, it flies! It's like they know. It's like they have them eyes on me!

And even for the investor, sometimes after the most intense thorough reasoning, sou searching and consultation from our Auntie May to Uncle Bennie, we finally come to the conclusion that the certain stock is not worth to be invested in anymore. And the very minute we finally gathered all our courage to execute our SELL decision(s), the stock miraculously rises!

Aisehman! #%$^(*@#

Err... so what gives?

Yes, being frustrated is understandable but what else can be done?

Nothing more! I repeat nothing more!

The point is, in the stock market sometimes this kind of stuff does happen, and it would most likely to happen again in the future! This is simply how the game is. All can we can do is say 'Que Sera Sera'!

For me, there is no way I could tell whether a stock is gonna go up or down. It is mere impossible for me to figure out which way the stock is really going to go. Haven't we seen them bad to the bone, them rotten stocks, them almost bankrupt stocks, go up faster than Iron Man on some rocket booster?

It does happen but for me, trying to catch which and when these rotten stocks will go up is the equivalent of buying a lottery ticket.

I simply cannot do it.

Again, let me say out loud again, I am not saying that it cannot be done, all I am saying is that I realise I do NOT have the abilities to play such a game.

And in my opinion, for the investor, the most important issue is making clear logical reasoning to invest in a stock or to stay invested or to cash out of a stock investment. That's the investors edge. Making commonsense investing decisions. That's all that matters. If we take this edge away from ourselves, what then will become of we? Does it make sense to try to play a game that we don't understand too well just so long as we can be a hero?

Remember..

  • Without faith in his own judgement no man can go very far in this game! - - Lefevre

Or this one.

  • "A man must think for himself, must follow his own convictions...Self-trust is the foundation of successful effort." - Dickson G. Watts

So what's our investment edge?

The very basic of our edge is we buy a 'good' stock at a cheap price and we sell the investment when either we get a really 'good' price (ie some paying an insane price for our investment stake... but how could i call it insane since this will be a good thingy for me? :P) for our investment or if the investment makes no sense anymore - ie the stock used to be good, but due to for some reasons or another, there are clear signs that the stock won't be good no more! And obviously we also sell if and when we made an investment mistake, ie a wrong stock selection.

Remember the issue of making mistakes? Here's some words of advice yet again...

There is no shame in making a mistake. Despite a great deal of research and analysis, I make plenty of them -- and so does every other investor -- because the future is inherently unpredictable. But there is shame in refusing to acknowledge a mistake and rectifying it. - - Warren Buffett

So if a stock goes up after we decided to sell (ie the stock investment makes no sense no more), what's there to be frustrated?

Should we continue to stick to our game plan and not get bothered? (see this blog posting: Developing A Good Investing Mindset )

Or should we try to get the best possible price out of our mistakes?

(Isn't this like HOPING for the market to correct our mistakes?? Does it make sense? Are we even that lucky all the time that the market will rectify our mistakes? What if that one mistake wipes us out of the game? How then?)

Or some would rather stay delusional by insisting that their paper losses caused by their own flawed stock picking is not real. It's only paper!!?!! ( See Is Paper Loss Not A Loss? and Do Not Cheat Yourself! )

Lastly...

  • "persistence can be a fine quality, but blindly, stubbornly and obstinately pushing ahead in the wrong direction is not going to make you more successful"...

How very true!

Remember ... there is a verv, very fine line between being correct and being stubbornly wrong... hence it is most important that one's persistance must be rational!

Last but not least, in Buffett Partnership letters (July, 1966) there was this really little set of comments which is simply much, much, much better! (Aiyah.. he's the man, Warren Buffet mah!)

  • "The course of the stock market will largely determine... when we'll be right, but the accuracy of our analysis will determine whether we'll be right. In other words, we... concentrate on what should happen, not when it should happen... If we start deciding, based on our guesses or emotions, whether we will... participate in a business where we... have some long-run edge, we're in trouble. We will not sell our interests in businesses when they are attractively priced just because some astrologer thinks the quotations may go lower even though forecasts... will be right some of the time... The availability of a quotation for your business interests should always be an asset to be utilized if desired. If it gets silly enough in either direction, you will take advantage of it. Its availability should never be turned into a liability whereby its periodic aberrations in turn form your judgements."

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

According to Dunno-What-Sources Takaful Malaysia is to be Privatised!

It's a sure hot tip!

According to sources, the Super BarnYard Bhd will be privatised by the Bigger BarnYarn Bhd, hence making it the Super Duper BarnYard Bhd.

Industry experts said that only after the privatisation would private investors from the Middle East be invited to take a strategic stake in the highly profitable barn yard industry.


It is believed that this move will make the owner, Mr. MooMooCow the richest barn yard tycoon in the whole industry.

It is learnt that Super BarnYard Bhd would be privatised at between two and 2.5 times adjusted book value, which is on the high side of mergers and acquisitions involving insurance companies. “But then if the price is low, it would not attract enough acceptance,” the source said.

Nice story?

According to sources, Industry experts, it is believed.

Anyone can write stories like these.

This afternoon, I saw the following article published on the Edge.

  • 17-06-2008: Takaful M’sia to be privatised
    by Yong Yen Nie

    KUALA LUMPUR: BIMB Holdings Bhd plans to take Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Bhd (Takaful Malaysia) private as part of its strategy to restructure its asset management and Islamic insurance businesses.

    Sources said that only after the privatisation would private investors from the Middle East be invited to take a strategic stake in the insurer.

    “The restructuring exercise will be undertaken at the subsidiary level first and may move on to the group level where the private investor will come in with new money,”
    a source said.

    It is learnt that Takaful Malaysia would be privatised at between two and 2.5 times adjusted book value, which is on the high side of mergers and acquisitions involving insurance companies. “But then if the price is low, it would not attract enough acceptance,” the source said.

    Sources said it was not surprising that Takaful Malaysia would be taken private as it was one of BIMB’s more valuable ventures. Takaful Malaysia was also an attractive privatisation target, given that it was trading below its net book value of RM1.95 as at March 31, 2008,
    a source said.

    Its group managing director,
    Datuk Hassan Kamil, when contacted declined to comment on the privatisation exercise.

    According to Bloomberg data, BIMB had a controlling 66.06% stake in the takaful operator as at September 2007, while its second largest shareholder was the Employees Provident Fund with a 4.5% stake. Most of the remaining shares were held by institutional funds.

    Takaful Malaysia closed at RM1.82 yesterday, down three sen, with 437,200 shares changing hands.

    Over the last week, Takaful Malaysia’s share price had been rising steadily to a high of RM1.96 on June 11, and had gained about 25% in just five days of trading. Its trading volume had also peaked to a year’s high of 1.86 million shares on June 11.

    The takaful operator had been in the limelight since September last year when it expressed interest in seeking a partner to inject capital as it wanted to expand regionally.

    In this respect, the company announced in October and November last year that it had received Bank Negara approval to commence negotiations with two parties — the Abu Dhabi-Kuwait-Malaysia Strategic Investment Corporation and Islamic Arab Insurance Co PJSC (Salama).

    It was reported that the potential investors might acquire up to a 49% stake in Takaful Malaysia.

    Sources said the two prospective investors could still come into the picture after Takaful Malaysia’s privatisation. However, it is not known if they would take up to 49% stake.

    Takaful Malaysia has operations in Labuan through Asean Retakaful International (L) Ltd and in Indonesia via P.T. Syarikat Takaful Indonesia.

    The Islamic insurer, which has more than 120 branches in Malaysia, is attractive to Middle East investors mainly because of its first-mover’s advantage in the local takaful business. Incorporated in 1984, Takaful Malaysia was the first takaful operator in the country and the first retakaful company in the world.

    Its net profit for the third quarter ended March 31, 2008 climbed 62.8% to RM7.05 million from RM4.3 million a year earlier.

    The insurer had declared an interim dividend of 3.5 sen per share, less 26% tax, for a total payout of RM4.13 million for its financial year ending June 30, 2008.

    Takaful licences are valuable in Malaysia as Bank Negara had issued only eight licences, including four to local-foreign groups to establish Islamic insurance services in the country.

    The foreign shareholdings in these joint ventures are capped at 49%. As of end-June 2007, the total assets of the takaful industry amounted to RM7.6 billion, representing 6.3% of the asset size of the larger insurance business in the country.

    It is learnt that the central bank for the moment has no intention to grant new takaful licences, which gives those with a licence a better bargaining power. But for most of these players, the capacity to grow have been constrained by their capital.

    The global takaful industry is expected to grow by 20% to reach US$10 billion to US$15 billion (RM33-49.5 billion) within the next decade, led by the Gulf Cooperation Council countries and Malaysia.

And many thanks to such sweet article, Takaful Malaysia is now up a whopping 12 sen or 6.5%.

Yet another beautiful piece of wonderful financial reporting!

Bravo!

AirAsia: Lunatics And Cheap Talks?

Is the demand for cheap talk really so great? It really makes me wonder.

Let me show you an example again today.

Published on Associated Press
Malaysia: Budget Airline AirAsia Can Stay Profitable Even If Oil Hits $200 A Barrel, CEO Says

For some the headline is already plain cheap talk!

You see, as stated in the article itself..

  • Airlines have been struggling to contain costs this year as oil prices stay above US$130 a barrel. Scores of startup carriers have gone out of business and several major carriers have raised fuel surcharges, cut capacity and deferred plane orders or shed jobs.
Other airlines are struggling big time with oil prices staying above US130 per barrel. And here, our local CEO, decides to boldly announce that his airlines can stay profitable even if oil hits US$200 per barrel.

I wonder if the word humble ever exist?

Here are some of my issues.


  • AirAsia reported an 86 percent jump in its January-March net profit from a year ago to 162 million ringgit (US$50 million), buoyed by higher passenger demand and large foreign exchange gains.

Blogger Seng had mentioned this issue before. The Edge on AIRASIA

If one reads that said quarterly earnings report here, AirAsia_Bursa Announcement_1Q2008_Final.pdf, one would realise that the 162 million ringgit was boosted by a 51.4 million in deferred tax allowance (you can read more about it here: AirAsia's deferred taxes issue. and More on AirAsia's Deferred Tax Issue ) and a forex gain of 86 million. This gives a whole new meaning to that net profit 162 million ringgit, since the earnings was boosted by extra-ordinary items.

And the biggest issue for me was the very last sentence.

  • "Only a lunatic will hedge fuel _ it's too volatile. We will just have to ride it until there is some stability," he said. "You have to build a business that is sustainable at whatever price and the only way... is to have topline growth and good growth.

Only a lunatic will hedge oil???????????

Perhaps this article on 11th January 2008 will refresh memory.

  • AirAsia: No more bets on oil price

    There has been significant selling from AirAsia's foreign shareholders and this is 'related to AirAsia's fuel-hedging policy', says an analyst

    Published: 2008/01/11

    AIRASIA Bhd, Asia's biggest discount carrier by fleet size, will stop making bets on the price of oil, after incorrect forecasts contributed to a 16 per cent slide in shares over the last month.

    "It's a nightmare because the volatility is crazy," chief executive officer Datuk Tony Fernandes said in a Bloomberg Television interview on Thursday. "We took a bet that oil won't go above US$90 a barrel and it has and it's staying there."

    Crude oil rose to a record US$100 a barrel earlier this month instead of falling as AirAsia had predicted. If the price of oil remains at that level, earnings could fall by RM8.45 million a month because of speculative hedging, according to Christopher Eng, an analyst at OSK Research Sdn. in Kuala Lumpur.

    There has been significant selling from AirAsia's foreign shareholders," Eng wrote in a January 9 report. The drop is "related to AirAsia's fuel-hedging policy, which some parties considered excessively speculative."

    Fidelity International cut its stake by 9.8 million shares as of December 24, according to Bloomberg data.

    The Sepang, Malaysia-based carrier also said it will keep ticket prices unchanged even as the cost of fuel rises.

    "The danger for low-cost carriers is that it will impact demand," Fernandes said in Singapore. "You can't keep raising prices all the time. Oil inflation doesn't move in line with salary inflation."

    Fernandes is counting on higher ticket sales and revenue from selling food, drinks and other services to offset higher expenses.

    The price of jet fuel, the biggest expense at most Asian airlines, fell one per cent to US$108.50 a barrel in Singapore yesterday, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

    That is 53 per cent higher than a year earlier. Crude oil futures reached a record US$100.09 a barrel on January 3.

    AirAsia fell one sen, or 0.6 per cent, to RM1.58 at the 5pm close of trading in Kuala Lumpur yesterday.

    AirAsia has ordered 175 single-aisle A320s from Airbus SAS, worth at least RM39.33 billion at list prices, as it wins permission to start new routes, including flights between Kuala Lumpur and neighbouring Singapore.

    For now, it has enough aircraft to expand operations and will not need to exercise options to purchase another 50 planes of the same model "for the next few years," Fernandes said.
    The carrier, which will begin services between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur on February 1, plans to operate as many as 20 daily return flights between the two capitals by 2013, carrying as many as seven million passengers, he said. - Bloomberg

Lunatic?

Hmmm.... this really reminds me of the issue of AirAsia promised earnings during its IPO. (see http://whereiszemoola.blogspot.com/2005/11/airasia.html )

When AirAsia made its IPO last Oct 2004, there were indications that perhaps their IPO projection earnings was simply too optimistic.The following is a snippet from one our local newspaper business section.

  • AirAsia expects profit to soar
    By ALICE CHIA

    BUDGET carrier AirAsia Bhd expects net profit for the financial year ending June 30 2005 to more than triple to RM159.9 million compared with RM49.1 million before. Revenue is also expected to jump 90.1 per cent to RM746.6 million from RM392.7 million, according to its prospectus.

Yup. AirAsia expects its net profit to triple the very year its stock will be listed!

Very rosy isn't it?

And needless to say a year later, on Aug 2005, AirAsia simply missed its overly optimistic earnings forecast.

Here's another business article snippet.

  • Monday August 29, 4:09 PM
    Malaysia's Airasia Misses Yr Net Profit Forecast

    ]KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 29 Asia Pulse - AirAsia Berhad (KLSE:5099) has reported group profit after tax and minority interest of RM111.635 million (US$29.6 million) for its financial year ended 30 June 2005, up 127.5 per cent year-on-year.

    However, the net profit was 30.2 per cent below the RM159.9 million forecast for the year in the prospectus issued in relation to its initial public offering [IPO] last year, the budget airline said in a filing to Bursa Malaysia on Friday.

Let me work out what it means.

When it AirAsia made its IPO prospectus, the total number of shares for AirAsia was 2,335 million shares.

Now based on AirAsia meeting its rosy IPO earnings projection of 160 million, an IPO investor investing in AirAsia was investing in a stock which promised to earn around 6.9 sen earnings per share.

The IPO price was priced at 1.40, which meant that the IPO investors assumed that they were investing in AirAsia at an earnings multiple of 21 times fy 2005 earnings.

Which is probably ain't too shabby if and if AirAsia delivers what its IPO earning promises.

However... AirAsia failed.

When AirAsia only managed a distance earnings of only 111 million for fy 2005, this totally changed the whole picture.

This meant that AirAsia only made an earnings per share of only 4.8 sen.

Instead of 6.9 sen.

Which ultimately meant that based at a price of 1.40, these IPO investors invested in a stock trading at an earnings multiple of 29x.

In investing, whether if one is investing in a stock or a property, one's investment goal is to get our investment purchase right.

When we buy right, the chances of us achieving success in our investment simply increases mah.

Tiok boh?

In simple, whenever we pay less, we should be getting more.

So at 29x earnings multiple... do you think the IPO investor had gotten a fair deal?

Yeah, yeah, yeah... them smartie alecs would be saying no one forced us to invest in this stock mah.

True. So very true.

However, here's another food for thought.This AirAsia IPO was to raised a whopping RM1.04 billion.

  • If the retail shares are priced at the maximum MYR1.40 each and institutional shares at MYR1.51, as AirAsia assumes in its prospectus, the IPO will raise about MYR1.04 billion, surpassing KLCC Property oldings Bhd.'s (5089.KU) MYR766 million offering in August.


Now for me, would it be wrong to say that this is a whopping lot of moolah to be parked at a stock at a high earnings multiple? A huge drain of market capital? Am i wrong to put it that way?

Now here's another food for thought. After missing its earnings forecast, there were brokerage houses still expecting rosy earnings numbers from AirAsia. One broker had their earnings estimate set at around 170 million for its fiscal year 2006. Some even had it around 180 million.

All expecting and assuming that AirAsia will deliver such rosy earnings.

Well, well, well.. AirAsia announced its first quarterly earnings for its fiscal 2006 yesterday.

AirAsia only made a net profit of 11 .67 million.

So when the business article today posted that more passengers lifted AirAsia earnings, it just simply amuses me.

Put it this way.... 11.67 million ar? At an annualised basis (err assuming that AirAsia will make lebih kurang the same amount of net profit per quarter for the remaining of its fy 2006) AirAsia will make around 46 million.

Ahem.. that's an eps of only 2 sen lor.

Also... at this rate of earnings... do you think AirAsia can make more moolah this fiscal year compared to last year total of 111 million?


Soooooo based at current price of 1.61, AirAsia is trading at a whopping earnings multiple of 80.5x its annualised 2006.

How?

Sibeh geng leh?

So u want to buy this discounted budget Airline stock onot?

Oh, another food for thought..

We have seen two of our recent biggest IPO, Titan and AirAsia, making overly optmistic earnings projection in their IPO prospectus.

Yes, earnings projections is never easy. It is very understandable that companies will miss their projections but when their earnings projections misses by miles, it really makes me wonder the quality of our Malaysian Talk.

Is all our corporate talk so cheap?

I really wonder.

And guess what? AirAsia closed yesterday trading at 0.875!!!!!!!!!!!

The following chart was posted on June 1st to highlight AirAsia performance since its listing.


Yup, the plane is plunging!

Blogger Seng too had made comments on this article, AirAsia still profitable on US$200 a barrel oil?