Value Investor?

(19-01-2015, 11:04 AM)Jacmar Wrote:

(19-01-2015, 10:16 AM)specuvestor Wrote: I think Jack Ma got it right when he said first comes employees, second customers, third shareholders. People who run the biz are the ones that will make the difference.

This is why I hate Jack Ma and his typical s-chip mentality. Always employees(he being biggest employee of all) first and that's why we as shareholders are getting screwed. Look at Alibaba structure n it will raise all kinds of red flags but no one cares just like there will always be suckers for s-chips.

To me to earn a corp respect is an MNC that I worked for in which it is clearly spelt out why the company exist and it is for 4 stakeholders and not in order of priority.

1. employees
2. business partners ( customers, suppliers etc)
3. shareholders
4. community ( CSR, charity work etc)

The job of management is to balance each of these. Yes sometimes you might have to retrench people and other times you have to listen to shareholders to restructure the company.

sorry OT a bit, Monday blues

I might be a bit confuse. What your priority list different from Jack Ma's list? Only the extra item of community?

(19-01-2015, 11:10 AM)CityFarmer Wrote:

(19-01-2015, 11:04 AM)Jacmar Wrote:

(19-01-2015, 10:16 AM)specuvestor Wrote: I think Jack Ma got it right when he said first comes employees, second customers, third shareholders. People who run the biz are the ones that will make the difference.

This is why I hate Jack Ma and his typical s-chip mentality. Always employees(he being biggest employee of all) first and that's why we as shareholders are getting screwed. Look at Alibaba structure n it will raise all kinds of red flags but no one cares just like there will always be suckers for s-chips.

To me to earn a corp respect is an MNC that I worked for in which it is clearly spelt out why the company exist and it is for 4 stakeholders and not in order of priority.

1. employees
2. business partners ( customers, suppliers etc)
3. shareholders
4. community ( CSR, charity work etc)

The job of management is to balance each of these. Yes sometimes you might have to retrench people and other times you have to listen to shareholders to restructure the company.

sorry OT a bit, Monday blues

I might be a bit confuse. What your priority list different from Jack Ma's list? Only the extra item of community?

That's the thing; there is no priority list and it's management job to balance each stakeholders....who says it is easy. At times customers can be king but it does not mean employees can suffer customer abuses as an example. Likewise in the pursuit of profit, pollution of environment can be taken advantage off as you see widely in china. shareholders nowadays has a strong say(only in US lah) and can even determine the break up of companies; after all it's their company and they have a say how it is to be run.

(19-01-2015, 11:28 AM)Jacmar Wrote:

(19-01-2015, 11:10 AM)CityFarmer Wrote:

(19-01-2015, 11:04 AM)Jacmar Wrote:

(19-01-2015, 10:16 AM)specuvestor Wrote: I think Jack Ma got it right when he said first comes employees, second customers, third shareholders. People who run the biz are the ones that will make the difference.

This is why I hate Jack Ma and his typical s-chip mentality. Always employees(he being biggest employee of all) first and that's why we as shareholders are getting screwed. Look at Alibaba structure n it will raise all kinds of red flags but no one cares just like there will always be suckers for s-chips.

To me to earn a corp respect is an MNC that I worked for in which it is clearly spelt out why the company exist and it is for 4 stakeholders and not in order of priority.

1. employees
2. business partners ( customers, suppliers etc)
3. shareholders
4. community ( CSR, charity work etc)

The job of management is to balance each of these. Yes sometimes you might have to retrench people and other times you have to listen to shareholders to restructure the company.

sorry OT a bit, Monday blues

I might be a bit confuse. What your priority list different from Jack Ma's list? Only the extra item of community?

That's the thing; there is no priority list and it's management job to balance each stakeholders....who says it is easy. At times customers can be king but it does not mean employees can suffer customer abuses as an example. Likewise in the pursuit of profit, pollution of environment can be taken advantage off as you see widely in china. shareholders nowadays has a strong say(only in US lah) and can even determine the break up of companies; after all it's their company and they have a say how it is to be run.

oh I see. it is no priority list vs priority list. I always take answer of "no priority list" as "I don't know enough to prioritize". May be I am very unique.

In short Jacmar is saying management role is to balance the different demands of the different stakeholders which I agree. But end of day management still the one that will decide which course to take when conflicts arise

Jacmar may be a bit confused between major shareholders and management. Sometimes we equate them but professional managements are what separates the alpha stocks from the rest. I come to realise if you take care of the employees and provide the best environment, they will take care of the rest. That's what Steve Jobs advocated as well.

This is not to say that we should not be aware of those who over-reward themselves at expense of shareholders, which are usually value-traps. End of day like Buffett say, the key is employees must act like business owners rather than self-serving.

Even shareholders' demands are not similar. I always tell management to ignore the hedge funds... listen to those that have long term vested interest. Similarly Singapore should listen to the demands of vested Singaporeans (natural or otherwise), rather than say PR. There is a difference.

You can analyse a stock in depth and one single M&A can change everything. The decisions are made by employees (with Board approval of course). If you don't trust the repute or employees then have to factor that in the MOS. Tycoons' objectives for example are very self-serving.

i think "no priority list" means each case depends on it's merits. The problem with flexibility type of thinking is it depends on the person who decides. Now who says a company without fixed "Mission Statements" will be better?

(19-01-2015, 12:41 PM)Temperament Wrote: i think "no priority list" means each case depends on it's merits. The problem with flexibility type of thinking is it depends on the person who decides. Now who says a company without fixed "Mission Statements" will be better?

I would like to share a saying:

"If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything"

(19-01-2015, 04:24 PM)CityFarmer Wrote:

(19-01-2015, 12:41 PM)Temperament Wrote: i think "no priority list" means each case depends on it's merits. The problem with flexibility type of thinking is it depends on the person who decides. Now who says a company without fixed "Mission Statements" will be better?

I would like to share a saying:

"If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything"

Ha! Ha!
Put it bluntly, no principles, no values, no nothing.
Where the wind blows so will he.
i have met such a person.
Have you?

All stakeholders need to be taken care of. No group exists on its own. So with all due respect to Jack Ma, I would disagree with him. A company is like a human body, each plays a part and are equally important. Owners/shareholders/employees/customers are at conflict many a times, a well functioning company is one that has a good balance of all the stakeholders.

Which brings to mind Ikea. Very amazed at Ikea. Here's why

1. Nett profit/Gross Margin is actually very good despite its size.
2. There are so many people unhappy about its goods and services, yet, they go back Ikea every single time.
3. There are still many people shopping even near closing time on a normal weekday.
4. The queues at its food court and its check-out is ridiculous during weekends.
5. Design is nice and prices are even nicer. No one has yet able to come even close to the prices they are able to offer. Their procurement/purchasing is excellent in this respect.
6. Ikea has been popular since the day it opened its doors in Singapore in 1978 at sixth ave.

I do not own any shares of Ikea nor am I related to them in any way but this is one company that got it right. And no one was able to come close to the products that are being offered.

Well, ikea does not play by the rules.

http://www.onlinemba.com/blog/video-why-...on-profit/

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

Somebody asked "why" property investment several pages up. I will like to share my view as I have some experience in both Singapore property and share investment.

1. Property is a hard asset, it is there physically, it has real utility.

2. Property has built in leverage, approx 4X for first property, lesser with the cooling measures.

3. Property loan is one of the cheapest loan you can find.

4. Property allow you to invest large amount of capital (eg 2mil in a single unit). You wouldn't feel as confident investing 2mil in a single stock which you have no control at all.

For me, I will make money from equity and the excess profits will be channel into properties to scale up.