When will the property bubble burst?
The property industry has been a hot topic for quite some time now. Prices from land, rental, aquisitions have been surging rocket high. And the contest; none. The question is, when will the property bubble burst?
I say never!
My reasons:
First, it's a world-known fact that Singapore is puny. There is not much land space left available and every square metre counts. The result: expensive land cost. This trend would probably not change for a very long time as even if Singapore has developed all the land available, competition to own the land would still exist.
Second, development costs would remain a challenge as getting landsand for construction is still quite an issue. Although Myanmar has agreed to provide landsand to Singapore, nothing has been certain yet.
Apart from Singapore, demand for property in other countries too is very strong.
Some suggestions:
Japan, as more people are moving into bigger cities. South Korea for the demand of lesser inventories and high-class offices. Mexico for their industrial investments and not forgetting Berlin as more people are reportedly moving there for the culture and low office prices.
In countries like these especially, there will always be demand for property and this seems to be the likely scenario for a very long time.
Maybe it will burst like everything else that goes up; it is bound to come down in a matter of time. From the looks of things though, not anytime soon.
Nurwidya Abdul
I say never!
My reasons:
First, it's a world-known fact that Singapore is puny. There is not much land space left available and every square metre counts. The result: expensive land cost. This trend would probably not change for a very long time as even if Singapore has developed all the land available, competition to own the land would still exist.
Second, development costs would remain a challenge as getting landsand for construction is still quite an issue. Although Myanmar has agreed to provide landsand to Singapore, nothing has been certain yet.
Apart from Singapore, demand for property in other countries too is very strong.
Some suggestions:
Japan, as more people are moving into bigger cities. South Korea for the demand of lesser inventories and high-class offices. Mexico for their industrial investments and not forgetting Berlin as more people are reportedly moving there for the culture and low office prices.
In countries like these especially, there will always be demand for property and this seems to be the likely scenario for a very long time.
Maybe it will burst like everything else that goes up; it is bound to come down in a matter of time. From the looks of things though, not anytime soon.
Nurwidya Abdul
Excuses or Valid Points? Reading Between the Lines
We're in the thick of quarterly earnings here in Singapore, and globally as well, and so far markets seem to have reacted fairly positively to the general bulk of the announcements.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average is hitting on all cylinders, pushing into record territory, and here in Singapore we have seen a recovery take place since the global sell-off in February.
But with earnings announcements comes some fairly interesting stories within the stories themselves. Some 'twists' if you will, or what appears to be companies scrambling to either make excuses or logical explanations for why there was a significant drop in profits, revenue, cash flow, etc.
I personally came across one yesterday with Pan United Marine. In a nutshell, we saw the company report an uptake in revenue, but profits fell significantly. Needless to say on the surface, this isn't something an investor wants to see necessarily.
As I reported, there was what I thought was a good reason for this. In Q1 of 2006, there was a disposable gain made of S$16.1 mln related to Rodolfo Mata that contributed to overall profits of S$21.7 mln for Pan United Marine.
Q1 2007 profits at the company came in at only S$11.5 mln, a 47% overall decrease from a year ago. However, if you were to exclude the Rodolfo Mata gain from the Q1 2006 figures, then profit actually doubled QoQ more or less.
These 'one-off' gains made in companies can really throw you for a loop, and really cloud the bigger picture of whether or not there was 'organic growth' or growth excluding these disposable gains.
In some cases, such as Pan United Marine, this was something that was probably a valid explanation to make to the market, and investors probably picked up on it as the stock did trade higher yesterday.
On the flip side, these companies can also use disposable gains to artificially inflate earnings, especially if the bulk of their profit is coming from that. The only downside to that is, next year, chances are the companies will have to explain something to investors as to why their profit was down (if it is), especially if the percentage of profits from that one-off disposable gain was high.
But far too often, we see companies clamoring to make excuses, point the finger, and struggling to give a reason for their rather lackluster earnings announcements so investors don't punish them on the open market. The press releases are even more hilarious to read sometimes as they tend to be filled with only the warm and fuzzy information exuding bit after bit of positive sentiments.
So to all investors out there, what do you think when you see something like what Pan United was explaining? Understandable? Think its an excuse for companies to try to cover their tracks? Chime in with your comments.
Have a great weekend everyone!
-Curtis Bergh
As always please see your licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions
The Dow Jones Industrial Average is hitting on all cylinders, pushing into record territory, and here in Singapore we have seen a recovery take place since the global sell-off in February.
But with earnings announcements comes some fairly interesting stories within the stories themselves. Some 'twists' if you will, or what appears to be companies scrambling to either make excuses or logical explanations for why there was a significant drop in profits, revenue, cash flow, etc.
I personally came across one yesterday with Pan United Marine. In a nutshell, we saw the company report an uptake in revenue, but profits fell significantly. Needless to say on the surface, this isn't something an investor wants to see necessarily.
As I reported, there was what I thought was a good reason for this. In Q1 of 2006, there was a disposable gain made of S$16.1 mln related to Rodolfo Mata that contributed to overall profits of S$21.7 mln for Pan United Marine.
Q1 2007 profits at the company came in at only S$11.5 mln, a 47% overall decrease from a year ago. However, if you were to exclude the Rodolfo Mata gain from the Q1 2006 figures, then profit actually doubled QoQ more or less.
These 'one-off' gains made in companies can really throw you for a loop, and really cloud the bigger picture of whether or not there was 'organic growth' or growth excluding these disposable gains.
In some cases, such as Pan United Marine, this was something that was probably a valid explanation to make to the market, and investors probably picked up on it as the stock did trade higher yesterday.
On the flip side, these companies can also use disposable gains to artificially inflate earnings, especially if the bulk of their profit is coming from that. The only downside to that is, next year, chances are the companies will have to explain something to investors as to why their profit was down (if it is), especially if the percentage of profits from that one-off disposable gain was high.
But far too often, we see companies clamoring to make excuses, point the finger, and struggling to give a reason for their rather lackluster earnings announcements so investors don't punish them on the open market. The press releases are even more hilarious to read sometimes as they tend to be filled with only the warm and fuzzy information exuding bit after bit of positive sentiments.
So to all investors out there, what do you think when you see something like what Pan United was explaining? Understandable? Think its an excuse for companies to try to cover their tracks? Chime in with your comments.
Have a great weekend everyone!
-Curtis Bergh
As always please see your licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions
ComfortDelgro and SMRT should merge.
SMRT president Saw Phaik Hwa is now singing a different tune from almost four years ago.
In 2003, when former transport minister Yeo Cheow Tong suggested for one operator to run all trains to save overheads and offered that SMRT take over the then loss-making North-East Line, Saw said she would not buy a loss-maker.
According to the Straits Times, she now says she does not have a problem running NEL, “but the price must make sense” since it is a business deal.
She also said then, that an industry overhaul is unnecessary, but that improvements could be made.
ComfortDelgro chairman Lim Jit Poh has, on the other hand, suggested “a mega-merger with rival SMRT to create a single public transport group” in his recent formal proposal to the Government. He also suggested an option of having one operator run buses and the other run trains.
The Transport Ministry wouldn't say what else ComfortDelgo has proposed, but is expected to release results of its review by the end of the year.
My two cents to the Transport Ministry is this: Suggest the merger of these two companies and split the running of buses and trains into separate divisions operating independently of each other, but adhering to the same corporate message and allowing cross-platform collaboration.
I had worked with SBS Transit and left just before NEL was launched, so most of my work only circled around buses and corporate matters. My sources from within the company then availed to how messy things were with NEL and how difficult it was to deal with both buses and trains.
The dust seems to have settled since then, but when (according to ST) SBS Transit says it does not make much money from rail and SMRT says it does not make much from buses, isn't it already blindingly obvious that something needs to be done?
Let's picture a scenario with only one public transport company – ComfortDelgro – which has bus (SBS Transit), train (SMRT) and taxi (Comfort) divisions.
SBS Transit would be able to run a more efficient bus company by planning services that ply unique routes without any worry of duplication, which usually leads to diluted revenue.
SMRT can run the North-South, North-East and circle line, which can all be further integrated to streamline operations and improve efficacy.
Both divisions can even come together to organise some transfer solutions for commuters.
Fares would also be standardised and regulated because there would be no competition, essentially.
One might argue that this does not necessarily require them both to merge into one entity since each only needs to concentrate on one business.
But unless both companies get the same memos from management, have both sides on the same page and are both working towards a common goal, SBS Transit and SMRT as individual companies will not be able to achieve the same level of productivity they would under one main group.
Perhaps after merging, ComfortDelgro may even decide to delist and become a co-operative instead to focus on serving the needs of the public.
We'd love to hear your comments.
Serene Lim
*pictures courtesy of clangnuts.com and www.rochford.gov.uk.
In 2003, when former transport minister Yeo Cheow Tong suggested for one operator to run all trains to save overheads and offered that SMRT take over the then loss-making North-East Line, Saw said she would not buy a loss-maker.
According to the Straits Times, she now says she does not have a problem running NEL, “but the price must make sense” since it is a business deal.
She also said then, that an industry overhaul is unnecessary, but that improvements could be made.
ComfortDelgro chairman Lim Jit Poh has, on the other hand, suggested “a mega-merger with rival SMRT to create a single public transport group” in his recent formal proposal to the Government. He also suggested an option of having one operator run buses and the other run trains.
The Transport Ministry wouldn't say what else ComfortDelgo has proposed, but is expected to release results of its review by the end of the year.
My two cents to the Transport Ministry is this: Suggest the merger of these two companies and split the running of buses and trains into separate divisions operating independently of each other, but adhering to the same corporate message and allowing cross-platform collaboration.
I had worked with SBS Transit and left just before NEL was launched, so most of my work only circled around buses and corporate matters. My sources from within the company then availed to how messy things were with NEL and how difficult it was to deal with both buses and trains.The dust seems to have settled since then, but when (according to ST) SBS Transit says it does not make much money from rail and SMRT says it does not make much from buses, isn't it already blindingly obvious that something needs to be done?
Let's picture a scenario with only one public transport company – ComfortDelgro – which has bus (SBS Transit), train (SMRT) and taxi (Comfort) divisions.
SBS Transit would be able to run a more efficient bus company by planning services that ply unique routes without any worry of duplication, which usually leads to diluted revenue.
SMRT can run the North-South, North-East and circle line, which can all be further integrated to streamline operations and improve efficacy.
Both divisions can even come together to organise some transfer solutions for commuters.
Fares would also be standardised and regulated because there would be no competition, essentially.
One might argue that this does not necessarily require them both to merge into one entity since each only needs to concentrate on one business.
But unless both companies get the same memos from management, have both sides on the same page and are both working towards a common goal, SBS Transit and SMRT as individual companies will not be able to achieve the same level of productivity they would under one main group.
Perhaps after merging, ComfortDelgro may even decide to delist and become a co-operative instead to focus on serving the needs of the public.
We'd love to hear your comments.
Serene Lim
*pictures courtesy of clangnuts.com and www.rochford.gov.uk.
Labels: bus, comfortdelgro, merger, smrt, train, transport
Sex still sells
~ Nurwidya Abdul's take ~
We may live in a highly educated, condusive and progressive environment, but there is one prominent stigma that remains. Sex.
Yes, sex to sell, stills exist in this society, sadly, successfully. Hmm... Didn't mean to sound like a pun, but you and I know, the Singapore Girl, she ain't no nun!
In this modern age where technology and people are becoming more matured, they don't necessarily judge a product by looking at the mini-skirts and pretty face that promotes them.
As unfair and surreal as it may be, the term 'sex' or 'sex appeal' are still being incorporated to market products. And sadly, more often than not, successfully.
My reasons:
First, female models are being used rampantly in product launches and advertisements. In the plant visit to Super Coffeemix in Johor last Friday, we saw the advertisement for 'Super Power' coffee. This one literally suggests 'sex' to sell.
Second, well how many of you viewers tuned in to Channel 5 to watch Miss Singapore last night? Come on admit it, don't be shy...
Third, how many of you watched Ugly Betty and then America's next top model after? Uhuh... I see more hands raised now...
More often than not, these viewers are made up of the women population. In order to be noticed, they 'must have' slim and slender figure, big bosoms and smooth skin that those models on the show.
As shallow as it may seem, pretty faces get people's attention. It's a natural instinct to look at a pretty face and admire. From a marketing point of view, having a pretty salesman or woman is an advantage, and this practice will remain for a very long time.
I guess the day where sex does not sell anymore, will be the day where there won't be a Miss Universe pageant anymore.
Or will it?
~ Yeo Sue En's take ~
Chocolate, potential investments, oysters and truffles. What do these four items have in common?
Well, besides leaving a pleasurable after taste on your palette, they are catalysts that arouses sexual desire.
Yup you didn't hear me wrong, potential investments are on my list.
Trade conferences leave the men wanting more and sets women eyes rolling.
Yes the sweet young things who are hired as gimmicks to attract traffic to their booths.
Sex sells. And thats the way the world goes round.
Talk shop? Most likely not all they offer is sweet smiles and enough attention for you to venture near enough for a exhibitor to ambush you convince you that their service is exactly what you need.
Well, in all honesty, this old school tactic seems to hold its charm on investors both young and old. Distasteful to some it maybe, it is successful and will be a tactic used over again for a very long time.
P.S: You have to watch the Super Power commercial by Super Coffeemix. Go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yExTf4-1Sa4&mode=related&search= to watch the video. Do watch the whole 4-part commercial. You won't regret!
Nurwidya Abdul and Yeo Sue En
Labels: chocolate, Miss Singapore, Miss Universe, Sex, Singapore Girl, Top Models, Ugly Betty
Don't take it for Granite!
Ok, there was a play of words on that headline i'll admit, pretty good for a Friday!
The recent unexpected ban from Indonesia on sand and granite exports to the city state has left builders and construction companies scrambling to find other sources of the material.
If your an investor you may have gotten a little bit nervous about this, but as is usually my attitude in life, there's an upside to everything.
Shortly after the Indonesia ban, there was news that Myanmar could be a potential supplier replacing Indonesia. That seemed to have a particularly positive affect on construction stocks, and people seemed to react well to news of how the sector would recover.
Besides all of that, I am still deeply puzzled by Indonesia's decision to ban sand and granite to us here in Singapore. From just about all perspectives, I can't seem to come up with a logical reason why and what prompted such a move. Nevertheless, we are dealing with it, and Myanmar could save the day by being a replacement in exporting the materials to us. Just wonder now what will happen to the construction stocks.
-Curtis Bergh.
As always please see your licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions.
The recent unexpected ban from Indonesia on sand and granite exports to the city state has left builders and construction companies scrambling to find other sources of the material.
If your an investor you may have gotten a little bit nervous about this, but as is usually my attitude in life, there's an upside to everything.
Shortly after the Indonesia ban, there was news that Myanmar could be a potential supplier replacing Indonesia. That seemed to have a particularly positive affect on construction stocks, and people seemed to react well to news of how the sector would recover.
Besides all of that, I am still deeply puzzled by Indonesia's decision to ban sand and granite to us here in Singapore. From just about all perspectives, I can't seem to come up with a logical reason why and what prompted such a move. Nevertheless, we are dealing with it, and Myanmar could save the day by being a replacement in exporting the materials to us. Just wonder now what will happen to the construction stocks.
-Curtis Bergh.
As always please see your licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions.
The CEO Blog
Start a blog.
Yes, that's the big, bold statement I'm pushing out today.
Companies (even those with corporate communication departments) often whine about not being able to reach out to their investors, which usually comes about after their shares don't do too well and interest in their stocks wane.
They then hire big name investor relations agencies and hold some glitzy events to try to endear themselves to the public.
Considering how much capital goes into such reactive efforts, it would really be way cheaper and proactive to START A BLOG.
Here's why:
One of investors' main gripes is that management is always inaccessible. This means they can only rely on things like media reports and the occasional Q&A session (which, by the way, is not done by most companies) for their information. Even then, management still just comes across as a group of boardroom old farts who are too uppity to speak to the common people, and not living, breathing human beings like you and me.
Now, if the chief executive of listed company AWEFULLY CHOCOLATE (something I made up on the fly) were to start a blog and writes about his work, his encounter with a homeless guy on the street and the kind of music he listens to, wouldn't that make him that much more human? He could even throw in how he felt about that last deal he did with Hershey's.
By putting yourself out there and showing existing and potential shareholders how normal you are, you may get less flak when you have to take the week off to take care of your sick kid.
A good example of such a blog would be Fred Wilson's. He's an American venture capitalist and managing partner of Union Square
Ventures.
In an interview with Business 2.0, Wilson says he plays music for his readers and shows them videos he likes. He even tells them what he did over the weekend.
“And it works. About 50,000 people come to by blog every month. The site brings in about $30,000 a year now in ad revenue, and I donate it all to charity. Most important, I'm getting to know entrepreneurs of all kinds – in India, Australia, England, China, and Silicon Valley.”
He adds that his blog “acts as an amplifier and a filter”.
“I see many more opportunities, but they are also way more relevant. It makes me a better investor.”
So looking at how Wilson does it, a blog is more than just for your shareholders. It is also for you and your business. And it doesn't cost anything to start one.
Of course, one could argue that blogging appears less formal, and therefore, less credible.
But looking at how the people around me read their daily news and blogs all on one page on a news aggregator, I'd say formality really doesn't matter.
I'd really prefer to see a human running AWEFULLY CHOCOLATE, not just some airbrushed, photoshop-ed picture of a man in glasses called a CEO.
Looking forward to your comments. =)
Serene Lim
*images courtesy of avc.blogs.com and dilbert.com.
Yes, that's the big, bold statement I'm pushing out today.
Companies (even those with corporate communication departments) often whine about not being able to reach out to their investors, which usually comes about after their shares don't do too well and interest in their stocks wane.
They then hire big name investor relations agencies and hold some glitzy events to try to endear themselves to the public.
Considering how much capital goes into such reactive efforts, it would really be way cheaper and proactive to START A BLOG.
Here's why:
One of investors' main gripes is that management is always inaccessible. This means they can only rely on things like media reports and the occasional Q&A session (which, by the way, is not done by most companies) for their information. Even then, management still just comes across as a group of boardroom old farts who are too uppity to speak to the common people, and not living, breathing human beings like you and me.
Now, if the chief executive of listed company AWEFULLY CHOCOLATE (something I made up on the fly) were to start a blog and writes about his work, his encounter with a homeless guy on the street and the kind of music he listens to, wouldn't that make him that much more human? He could even throw in how he felt about that last deal he did with Hershey's.
By putting yourself out there and showing existing and potential shareholders how normal you are, you may get less flak when you have to take the week off to take care of your sick kid.
A good example of such a blog would be Fred Wilson's. He's an American venture capitalist and managing partner of Union Square
Ventures.In an interview with Business 2.0, Wilson says he plays music for his readers and shows them videos he likes. He even tells them what he did over the weekend.
“And it works. About 50,000 people come to by blog every month. The site brings in about $30,000 a year now in ad revenue, and I donate it all to charity. Most important, I'm getting to know entrepreneurs of all kinds – in India, Australia, England, China, and Silicon Valley.”
He adds that his blog “acts as an amplifier and a filter”.
“I see many more opportunities, but they are also way more relevant. It makes me a better investor.”
So looking at how Wilson does it, a blog is more than just for your shareholders. It is also for you and your business. And it doesn't cost anything to start one.
Of course, one could argue that blogging appears less formal, and therefore, less credible.
But looking at how the people around me read their daily news and blogs all on one page on a news aggregator, I'd say formality really doesn't matter.
I'd really prefer to see a human running AWEFULLY CHOCOLATE, not just some airbrushed, photoshop-ed picture of a man in glasses called a CEO.
Looking forward to your comments. =)
Serene Lim
*images courtesy of avc.blogs.com and dilbert.com.
Labels: blog, business 2.0, CEO, fred wilson, listed companies
Should companies put shareholders or employees first?
Shareholders often enjoy hearing companies mentioning the words “return to shareholders”. This is especially true for long-term investors (as compared to daily punters) who want good returns on their investment, whether in terms of dividends or higher share prices.
It makes sense, since a public company is at least partially owned by the public.
As quoted in an article on The Motley Fool, “the main reason you exist...is to serve the interests of those who own you”.
But if caught between shareholder and employee wants, to which would you lend your support?
Let us take a look at each group.
If a company put shareholders first, it may be pushed to expand and drive productivity. This would, in turn, drive employees to the max in terms of workload. And at minimum wage too.
They want what makes most economic sense to the company, factoring in growth and expansion.
Now if employees were put first, things would be very different. Management would want to keep good employees by offering them higher wages and reasonable working hours. They would also leave layoffs as an absolute last resort.
An example of a company offering lifetime employment is Nasdaq-listed Lincoln Electric. It pays high wages and sells goods at low selling prices, but also has high productivity. How, you ask, can such a company be profitable?
Well, it can and has to be, since it's been around for about 107 years.
So employees would want to be well taken care of, which, in the minds of shareholders, may not reap as much returns as they'd like.
Of course, one would think this conflict could be mitigated if employees were shareholders as well. After all, they would then be accountable to themselves.
Contrary to that belief, research shows employee ownership may, sometimes, be counterproductive.
According to an article on MIT Sloan Management Review, employees' “interest in the company's future is typically dwarfed by day-to-day concerns, such as ensuring that their jobs remain secure and their wages are paid”.
Such employee shareholders also “tend to to favor low-risk strategies that generate stable cash flows over riskier projects that could generate greater profitability and growth”.
Add to that the inertia of investing in productivity-enhancing equipment which might potentially make their jobs obsolete.
So who should a company put first?
It is probably clichéd, but they should focus on both.
It is not impossible to set up employee-friendly policies and have them work in an environment that will boost shareholder value as well.
Please offer us your take on the matter.
Serene Lim
It makes sense, since a public company is at least partially owned by the public.
As quoted in an article on The Motley Fool, “the main reason you exist...is to serve the interests of those who own you”.
But if caught between shareholder and employee wants, to which would you lend your support?
Let us take a look at each group.
If a company put shareholders first, it may be pushed to expand and drive productivity. This would, in turn, drive employees to the max in terms of workload. And at minimum wage too.
They want what makes most economic sense to the company, factoring in growth and expansion.
Now if employees were put first, things would be very different. Management would want to keep good employees by offering them higher wages and reasonable working hours. They would also leave layoffs as an absolute last resort.
An example of a company offering lifetime employment is Nasdaq-listed Lincoln Electric. It pays high wages and sells goods at low selling prices, but also has high productivity. How, you ask, can such a company be profitable?
Well, it can and has to be, since it's been around for about 107 years.
So employees would want to be well taken care of, which, in the minds of shareholders, may not reap as much returns as they'd like.
Of course, one would think this conflict could be mitigated if employees were shareholders as well. After all, they would then be accountable to themselves.
Contrary to that belief, research shows employee ownership may, sometimes, be counterproductive.
According to an article on MIT Sloan Management Review, employees' “interest in the company's future is typically dwarfed by day-to-day concerns, such as ensuring that their jobs remain secure and their wages are paid”.
Such employee shareholders also “tend to to favor low-risk strategies that generate stable cash flows over riskier projects that could generate greater profitability and growth”.
Add to that the inertia of investing in productivity-enhancing equipment which might potentially make their jobs obsolete.
So who should a company put first?
It is probably clichéd, but they should focus on both.
It is not impossible to set up employee-friendly policies and have them work in an environment that will boost shareholder value as well.
Please offer us your take on the matter.
Serene Lim
Labels: employees, management, shareholders
Spam no more!
Spamming has been one of the most frustrating things encountered in the global world of communications. Unwanted emails and now with the extensive use of the handphone, smses.
Yesterday, prayers have been answered.
An anti-spam law has been passed and action will be taken for 'spammers'.
Companies will also have to give an opt-out action for their receivers and they have to add the alphabets 'ADV' to indicate advertisements.
Definitely a good call. My reasons:
First, this action could certainly benefit everyone as time taken to look through email and smses will be much faster. No more going through deleting each an everyone of them.
Second, the space in our emails and handphones are extremely critical in this era. Nobody wants or needs spams taking up space for real, important messages.
One question though. Why now?
Then again, better late than never. Certainly this move could help everyone save time, space and convenience.
Hmm... Maybe soon enough, there could be an anti-pop-up law...
Nurwidya Abdul
Yesterday, prayers have been answered.
An anti-spam law has been passed and action will be taken for 'spammers'.
Companies will also have to give an opt-out action for their receivers and they have to add the alphabets 'ADV' to indicate advertisements.
Definitely a good call. My reasons:
First, this action could certainly benefit everyone as time taken to look through email and smses will be much faster. No more going through deleting each an everyone of them.
Second, the space in our emails and handphones are extremely critical in this era. Nobody wants or needs spams taking up space for real, important messages.
One question though. Why now?
Then again, better late than never. Certainly this move could help everyone save time, space and convenience.
Hmm... Maybe soon enough, there could be an anti-pop-up law...
Nurwidya Abdul
Trust Companies To Make Right Decisions.
For the longest time, companies venturing into businesses unrelated to their core competencies have been scaring investors away.
That is because they either don't understand why the company is diversifying into the new segment, or are worried the unfamiliar territory will weigh it down.
Investors really should not be too worried because these companies are just trying to make more money from these forays.
Take Popular Holdings, for example.
When it first announced investing in property development One Robin, investors frowned upon the news and a knee-jerk selling of Popular's shares took place.
This was probably further exacerbated by how Popular's core publishing business was facing margin pressures.
Investors wondered why the company would jump into property when it should be concentrating on its core business.
But Popular had its own reasons.
First, it wanted to park a sum of money somewhere before taking it out a few years later.
Second, the property market was riding high and the company would be able to make some money from investing that particular sum in a project.
In essence, the company has found a way to make more money while waiting to pump money into a planned investment a few years later.
The same goes for Time Watch Investments.
Why would a watch-maker and retailer want to buy a shopping complex in Zhengzhou for S$20 mln?
The company wants to brand the shopping centre under its name and to house its various brands in it.
It can also make more money through commissions collected from the other retail outlets operating in it.
Of course, investors should be extremely concerned if a company like UTAC wanted to start selling canned food.
Otherwise, companies should be trusted to make the right decisions that would benefit it and its shareholders.
Serene Lim
That is because they either don't understand why the company is diversifying into the new segment, or are worried the unfamiliar territory will weigh it down.
Investors really should not be too worried because these companies are just trying to make more money from these forays.
Take Popular Holdings, for example.
When it first announced investing in property development One Robin, investors frowned upon the news and a knee-jerk selling of Popular's shares took place.
This was probably further exacerbated by how Popular's core publishing business was facing margin pressures.
Investors wondered why the company would jump into property when it should be concentrating on its core business.
But Popular had its own reasons.
First, it wanted to park a sum of money somewhere before taking it out a few years later.
Second, the property market was riding high and the company would be able to make some money from investing that particular sum in a project.
In essence, the company has found a way to make more money while waiting to pump money into a planned investment a few years later.
The same goes for Time Watch Investments.
Why would a watch-maker and retailer want to buy a shopping complex in Zhengzhou for S$20 mln?
The company wants to brand the shopping centre under its name and to house its various brands in it.
It can also make more money through commissions collected from the other retail outlets operating in it.
Of course, investors should be extremely concerned if a company like UTAC wanted to start selling canned food.
Otherwise, companies should be trusted to make the right decisions that would benefit it and its shareholders.
Serene Lim
Labels: investment, property
Markets are back! See, we told you not to worry
Ah we can hear it now, the activity and panic that struck investors in late February and early March after the worldwide meltdown prompted by that gigantic sell-off in China.
With that single event, markets in the region and consequently elsewhere in the world, tumbled, and many feared that the recent surge we had seen was over. The markets were "correcting" and the good times would be no more...well, I for one didn't buy it entirely.
Fast forward a month or so: markets are on the rebound! In Singapore, the market is setting new, all-time, record highs, again (with just a few hours to go in trade this monday we're looking to finish quite strong!). One would hardly believe that little more than a month ago that markets around the world were experiencing their worst declines since 9/11.
Back during the decline, we here at Investor Central tried to lend a shoulder to cry on and encouragement for investors that were in panic mode: we simply said, 'don't panic!' If there was any potential upside to it, the market then represented a potential buying opportunity. I always look for the upside and positive for everything in life, even if there
Now, headline phrases such as "STI sets record high" and "charting new territory" are back in our everyday vocabulary (for now at least...not getting too far ahead of myself).
Lets just hope we don't have to go through something like that again.
-Curtis Bergh
as always please see your licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions
With that single event, markets in the region and consequently elsewhere in the world, tumbled, and many feared that the recent surge we had seen was over. The markets were "correcting" and the good times would be no more...well, I for one didn't buy it entirely.
Fast forward a month or so: markets are on the rebound! In Singapore, the market is setting new, all-time, record highs, again (with just a few hours to go in trade this monday we're looking to finish quite strong!). One would hardly believe that little more than a month ago that markets around the world were experiencing their worst declines since 9/11.
Back during the decline, we here at Investor Central tried to lend a shoulder to cry on and encouragement for investors that were in panic mode: we simply said, 'don't panic!' If there was any potential upside to it, the market then represented a potential buying opportunity. I always look for the upside and positive for everything in life, even if there
Now, headline phrases such as "STI sets record high" and "charting new territory" are back in our everyday vocabulary (for now at least...not getting too far ahead of myself).
Lets just hope we don't have to go through something like that again.
-Curtis Bergh
as always please see your licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions
It's about time... But still quite late
The Singapore Exchange (SGX) announced on Monday that it'll be launching its Quotation and Execution System for Trading (Quest-ST) in July next year. This would mean that Quest-ST will be up and running one year before it was intially planed.
In one of our interviews with SGX's CEO Hsieh Fu Hua, he said that by the middle of next year, both Singapore Exchange Securities Order Processing System (Sesops) and Central Limit Order Book (Clob) will be taken out to be replaced by Quest-ST.
This move was brought forward because last month, there was a number of glitches in 17-year old Sesops that caused several brokerage houses unable to trade for a few hours.
It's about time that that old system is being replaced.
My reasons:
First, in technology, things become obsolete very quickly. There are more efficient and newer systems to cope with the fast-paced economy and markets.
Second, 17 years for a heavily-used system is a bit too long. The systems' ageing. It's amazing that the Sesops and Clob are still being used in daily trade considering how long they have been around. The amount of shares exchanging hands every single day is from millions to billions. The systems might not be able to cope with those amount in the very near future.
Although Quest-ST will run a year before planned, it is still a bit too late.
My first and only reason:
The problem is now. There might be more problems this month, next month, and the months after that. Considering how important for trade to fall through correctly and nicely, next July is still quite far. On top of that, earning season is around the corner and glitches especially during that period is a no-no.
In fact, the glitches now is still a no-no.
Nurwidya Abdul
In one of our interviews with SGX's CEO Hsieh Fu Hua, he said that by the middle of next year, both Singapore Exchange Securities Order Processing System (Sesops) and Central Limit Order Book (Clob) will be taken out to be replaced by Quest-ST.
This move was brought forward because last month, there was a number of glitches in 17-year old Sesops that caused several brokerage houses unable to trade for a few hours.
It's about time that that old system is being replaced.
My reasons:
First, in technology, things become obsolete very quickly. There are more efficient and newer systems to cope with the fast-paced economy and markets.
Second, 17 years for a heavily-used system is a bit too long. The systems' ageing. It's amazing that the Sesops and Clob are still being used in daily trade considering how long they have been around. The amount of shares exchanging hands every single day is from millions to billions. The systems might not be able to cope with those amount in the very near future.
Although Quest-ST will run a year before planned, it is still a bit too late.
My first and only reason:
The problem is now. There might be more problems this month, next month, and the months after that. Considering how important for trade to fall through correctly and nicely, next July is still quite far. On top of that, earning season is around the corner and glitches especially during that period is a no-no.
In fact, the glitches now is still a no-no.
Nurwidya Abdul
Oil prices up? No worries!
First and foremost, I want to set something straight before I delve into the topic at hand: I am in no way advocating that the seizure of British sailors is by any means a 'good' thing that has happened and that anybody should be looking to intentionally profit off of it in any way whatsoever. It is a deplorable act that has been committed by Iran in my opinion, and the British sailors should be released immediately.
With that said, what I want to focus on is the series of events in world markets that this crisis has triggered, AND, how the rise in crude prices could potentially affect the individual investor.
What seems to be the standard scenario that happens when geopolitical events, instability, or acts of nature arise, is a somewhat significant rise in crude prices. Case in point: Look at where crude has gone in the last week or so since this crisis began; at roughly the end of last week, since March 20th, oil has climbed roughly 10% (despite a slight decline on Friday's session in the US).
Now I am getting in to more generalized territory, and theory here, that does not specifically focus on the events that are taking place currently. The fact that we have seen such a significant spike in oil prices since the crisis began, and when other significant world events unfold, is the real focus of this blog.
When oil prices go up, oil companies stocks seem to follow suit, and for the most part seem to move in sync with crude prices. This holds particularly true for US oil companies.
So when oil prices climb higher, unfortunately sometimes to disturbing events such as the hostage crisis, I always find it particularly interesting to keep an eye on any stock related to oil (services, refining, etc.).
For instance, in the United States, major oil companies such as Chevron, Conoco Phillips, and BP all saw significant percentage advances last month for their stocks, with many seeing a sharper rise towards the end of the month due to the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the British sailors.
In general, when oil climbs higher, while you may be feeling the pain at the pump from higher crude prices, there's always an upside to everything in life I say, and there could be potentially in oil and oil services stocks.
ArchivesWith that said, what I want to focus on is the series of events in world markets that this crisis has triggered, AND, how the rise in crude prices could potentially affect the individual investor.
What seems to be the standard scenario that happens when geopolitical events, instability, or acts of nature arise, is a somewhat significant rise in crude prices. Case in point: Look at where crude has gone in the last week or so since this crisis began; at roughly the end of last week, since March 20th, oil has climbed roughly 10% (despite a slight decline on Friday's session in the US).
Now I am getting in to more generalized territory, and theory here, that does not specifically focus on the events that are taking place currently. The fact that we have seen such a significant spike in oil prices since the crisis began, and when other significant world events unfold, is the real focus of this blog.
When oil prices go up, oil companies stocks seem to follow suit, and for the most part seem to move in sync with crude prices. This holds particularly true for US oil companies.
So when oil prices climb higher, unfortunately sometimes to disturbing events such as the hostage crisis, I always find it particularly interesting to keep an eye on any stock related to oil (services, refining, etc.).
For instance, in the United States, major oil companies such as Chevron, Conoco Phillips, and BP all saw significant percentage advances last month for their stocks, with many seeing a sharper rise towards the end of the month due to the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the British sailors.
In general, when oil climbs higher, while you may be feeling the pain at the pump from higher crude prices, there's always an upside to everything in life I say, and there could be potentially in oil and oil services stocks.
January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 January 2009
