|
SMRT
Jan 17, 2014 16:13:50 GMT 7
oldman likes this
Post by zuolun on Jan 17, 2014 16:13:50 GMT 7
|
|
|
Post by zuolun on Jan 18, 2014 2:45:52 GMT 7
Candy188, fundamental investors like me will only look at the fundamentals of the company. We do not consider the historical highs in our fundamental analysis. For me, I use technical charting to determine entry and exit points. After I have bought a share, I use the historical highs to help me determine my sell price. Similarly, I use the historical lows to pick up shares. But historical highs and lows are not used in my fundamental analysis. A struggling infrastructure company like SMRT needs lots of capital expenditure to put the things right. This is likely to take years to sort out and may drain lots of money. I don't think this is the right time to even look at its fundamentals. I rather look for a more stable company with stable profits. Of course, if you are a TA practitioner, you may be tempted to play the rebound..... oldman, I agree with your brief analysis on SMRT. When using FA and/or TA, bear in mind that the major trend won't change overnight. Chart-wise SMRT's primary trend is down; a dead cat bounce is an opportunity to sell on strength or short, not long. Fare hike seen to have little impact on SMRT, ComfortDelGro — Currently, analysts have 11 sell calls on SMRT shares, versus one hold and one buy, 17 Jan 2014 Maybank KE's review on SMRT on 17 Jan 2014: Sell TP S$0.60SMRT (weekly) — A penny stock in the making; TP S$0.60
|
|
|
SMRT
Jan 18, 2014 16:55:29 GMT 7
odie likes this
Post by zuolun on Jan 18, 2014 16:55:29 GMT 7
|
|
|
Post by zuolun on Jan 19, 2014 12:55:22 GMT 7
|
|
|
Post by zuolun on Jan 24, 2014 6:14:07 GMT 7
|
|
|
SMRT
Jan 25, 2014 22:28:16 GMT 7
odie likes this
Post by zuolun on Jan 25, 2014 22:28:16 GMT 7
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Jan 28, 2014 19:38:45 GMT 7
A quick look at the report card released today. Staff costs have gone up by 21.4% or about $20 mil for the past quarter. As revenues have not gone up by much, it is likely that most of this increase in staff costs is due to the hiring of more maintenance people. If so, these costs are likely to remain high for some time, regardless of the strength of the economy. Loans total $623 mil. If there is any downturn, interest rates are likely to go up. Best to keep watching from the sidelines.
|
|
|
Post by me200 on Jan 28, 2014 22:19:45 GMT 7
Staff costs rose 21.4% to $119.6 million due to increased Train and Bus headcount, and impact of the wage revision exercise in 4QFY13. A quick look at the report card released today. Staff costs have gone up by 21.4% or about $20 mil for the past quarter. As revenues have not gone up by much, it is likely that most of this increase in staff costs is due to the hiring of more maintenance people. If so, these costs are likely to remain high for some time, regardless of the strength of the economy. Loans total $623 mil. If there is any downturn, interest rates are likely to go up. Best to keep watching from the sidelines.
|
|
|
Post by zuolun on Jan 29, 2014 8:50:50 GMT 7
A quick look at the report card released today. Staff costs have gone up by 21.4% or about $20 mil for the past quarter. As revenues have not gone up by much, it is likely that most of this increase in staff costs is due to the hiring of more maintenance people. If so, these costs are likely to remain high for some time, regardless of the strength of the economy. Loans total $623 mil. If there is any downturn, interest rates are likely to go up. Best to keep watching from the sidelines. 创业难,守业更难。To start a business is difficult but to keep it going with efficiency and profitability is much more difficult... A Journey into Singapore MRT’s Pastoldman, I agree with your brief analysis on SMRT. When using FA and/or TA, bear in mind that the major trend won't change overnight. Chart-wise SMRT's primary trend is down; a dead cat bounce is an opportunity to sell on strength or short, not long.
|
|
|
Post by stockpicker on Jan 29, 2014 16:42:21 GMT 7
Just compare the income statement for SMRT and MTR, downloaded from Yahoo. Found that SMRT has exceptionally high operating cost that choked up approx. 90% of the total revenue. As for MTR, about 60%.. The cost of revenue could have already included things such as labour, electricity etc, the extra operating cost not stated must be depreciation of plants and equipment and other financial cost.. in particular, the other operating expenditure in SMRT's statement is very high, about 20% of the revenue at $55 mil per quarter. I have previously compared the labour cost of MTR and SMRT and SMRT was slightly lower. With the increase recently, it should bring it in line. Have a feeling that our SMRT is not properly managed. It has choked up about $800 mil of long term debt with a NET EBITA debt ratio of 13 and increasing each year. Its current ratio is 0.9 which indicates that it is terribly short of operating fund. If it is not because it is a public transportation company backed by the Government, the management would have been asked to pack up a long time ago. Just wondering why they had the train infrastructure and many retail spaces almost free of charge, why should they operating at such sickened condition compare to MTR?
|
|
|
Post by stockpicker on Jan 29, 2014 18:31:11 GMT 7
Here is a comparison of the balance sheets between the two companies, it can be seen that MTR also has quite a high long term debt but MTR is more profitable and therefore, its net EBITDA debt ratio is much lower. Without examining the income statement that shows a high operating cost, one would have easily jumped into a conclusion that the fares in SMRT is much lower than MTR. This is not exactly true according to this article. trulysingapore.wordpress.com/2012/04/22/how-spore-compares-to-other-cities/
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Jan 29, 2014 20:11:40 GMT 7
In between the lines, one wonders whether the 'profits' from previous years may not have been so good if management then had focus more on reliability instead of profitability. Herein lies the issue of listing a public service company. One cannot fault the CEO of any listed company if its board wants the CEO to focus on profitability... and incent him or her accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by stockpicker on Jan 30, 2014 4:45:43 GMT 7
Here is another piece of comparison between MTR and SMRT. One can see that MTR is much better managed and profitable. Hope our chaps can do as good as them.
|
|
|
SMRT
Jan 30, 2014 11:52:46 GMT 7
oldman likes this
Post by zuolun on Jan 30, 2014 11:52:46 GMT 7
In between the lines, one wonders whether the 'profits' from previous years may not have been so good if management then had focus more on reliability instead of profitability. Herein lies the issue of listing a public service company. One cannot fault the CEO of any listed company if its board wants the CEO to focus on profitability... and incent him or her accordingly. oldman, 将帅无能,累死三军。Incompetent leader is the root cause of annihilation.The key to success in business is always about leadership. Chart-wise MTR and SMRT moved in lockstep from 2000 to 2011 (longterm strong uptrend). The divergence started only after ex-CEO Saw Phaik Hwa left SMRT on Jan 2012.
|
|
|
SMRT
Jan 30, 2014 13:13:18 GMT 7
Post by kenfish on Jan 30, 2014 13:13:18 GMT 7
Companies focusing only on the financial scorecard is like individual focusing only in career, ignoring health, relationship and family.
Working short term but not sustainble
|
|