Stratech Group

(28-05-2015, 10:57 PM)thor666 Wrote: I almost forgot to post this. Not vested, and until the company promises any kind of dividend policy in the case of profit, then will I consider. Imo, the Ceo is paid way too much for an underperforming company, does not align to my personal investing principles.

Note: the listing falls under "the Stratech group", so will need to monitor under "t" on sgx. Though I think as typical convention follows, "s" on valuebuddies makes sense to me.

For those lazy to read through, profit dropped year on year. The story doesn't meet the numbers, and net margins are rather low.

http://infopub.sgx.com/Apps?A=COW_CorpAn...ca93ff7a9c


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

A few questions you need to ask yourself

1. Is revenue increasing or decreasing?
2. What are the reason for the drop in profit?. Is it a recurring or one off event?
3. Future prospect of this company considering the business it is in

(29-05-2015, 02:50 PM)littleones Wrote: A few questions you need to ask yourself

1. Is revenue increasing or decreasing?
2. What are the reason for the drop in profit?. Is it a recurring or one off event?
3. Future prospect of this company considering the business it is in

Hi littleones, for me these questions do not matter as I do not think the company is aligned to minority shareholder interest.

In any case, I had gone through previous 3 years reports and I don't see that the management is increasing profitability.

Not vested.

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

(29-05-2015, 02:59 PM)thor666 Wrote:

(29-05-2015, 02:50 PM)littleones Wrote: A few questions you need to ask yourself

1. Is revenue increasing or decreasing?
2. What are the reason for the drop in profit?. Is it a recurring or one off event?
3. Future prospect of this company considering the business it is in

Hi littleones, for me these questions do not matter as I do not think the company is aligned to minority shareholder interest.

In any case, I had gone through previous 3 years reports and I don't see that the management is increasing profitability.

Not vested.

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

Study carefully all the announcements made by the company, especially in the past few years and decide for yourself the direction the company is headed to.

You should get a very clear picture

(not vested)

Stratech Group gets SGX nod for Watch-list removal
http://www.theedgemarkets.com/sg/article...st-removal

http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/Stratech...eID=360844

So good how come cannot reveal contract value?

Not Vested

(21-07-2015, 07:11 PM)greengiraffe Wrote: http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/Stratech...eID=360844

So good how come cannot reveal contract value?

Not Vested

To add - interesting statement in the announcement message:

Subject to accounting treatment, progress of work and other factors, the Group expects the contract to contribute positively to its earnings for the current financial year ending 31 March 2016.

The use of "subject to" - such as subject to any unexpected adverse factors, expect to contribute positively - meaning a high probability of positive contribution, and
The use of word "contribute positively" as compared to "contribute without the word positively" - implying high contribution.

So it can be understood as, management is signalling high probability of high contribution based on a certain accounting treatment (not sure whether acceptable to auditor, in accordance with accounting standard) - thus the use of "subject to".

Learning to read between the lines. Anything wrong with my interpretation? Is it common to quote accounting treatment (as if there is a choice) as a factor that will affect results? How useful is such a statement? I wonder.

Not vested.

(22-07-2015, 11:42 AM)Yoyo Wrote:

(21-07-2015, 07:11 PM)greengiraffe Wrote: http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/Stratech...eID=360844

So good how come cannot reveal contract value?

Not Vested

To add - interesting statement in the announcement message:

Subject to accounting treatment, progress of work and other factors, the Group expects the contract to contribute positively to its earnings for the current financial year ending 31 March 2016.

The use of "subject to" - such as subject to any unexpected adverse factors, expect to contribute positively - meaning a high probability of positive contribution, and
The use of word "contribute positively" as compared to "contribute without the word positively" - implying high contribution.

So it can be understood as, management is signalling high probability of high contribution based on a certain accounting treatment (not sure whether acceptable to auditor, in accordance with accounting standard) - thus the use of "subject to".

Learning to read between the lines. Anything wrong with my interpretation? Is it common to quote accounting treatment (as if there is a choice) as a factor that will affect results? How useful is such a statement? I wonder.

Not vested.

Not sure about the "high contribution".

From what i can see, it appears that the total contract value awarded to OSI is US$4,658,000 for the first 5 years and US$7,299,000 if the renewal options are exercised for the full 14 years.

(22-07-2015, 11:42 AM)Yoyo Wrote:

(21-07-2015, 07:11 PM)greengiraffe Wrote: http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/Stratech...eID=360844

So good how come cannot reveal contract value?

Not Vested

To add - interesting statement in the announcement message:

Subject to accounting treatment, progress of work and other factors, the Group expects the contract to contribute positively to its earnings for the current financial year ending 31 March 2016.

The use of "subject to" - such as subject to any unexpected adverse factors, expect to contribute positively - meaning a high probability of positive contribution, and
The use of word "contribute positively" as compared to "contribute without the word positively" - implying high contribution.

So it can be understood as, management is signalling high probability of high contribution based on a certain accounting treatment (not sure whether acceptable to auditor, in accordance with accounting standard) - thus the use of "subject to".

Learning to read between the lines. Anything wrong with my interpretation? Is it common to quote accounting treatment (as if there is a choice) as a factor that will affect results? How useful is such a statement? I wonder.

Not vested.

It sounds like some sort of "percentage of completion" method. The wording "subject to accounting treatment" sounds quite redundant. There shouldn't be choice, but consistency in the methodology applied in recognition of revenues and costs. Since this is not the first contract they were awarded, there should be some established methodology from prior periods which they can apply and its expected that the same methodology should continue to be applied, rather than reinventing the wheel.

Not forgetting, they did changi airport, so really no reason for deviating from previously applied methods.

Nonetheless, this new contract adds to their "resume" of established airports using iferret. The prospects of contract renewal smells "good".

Did anyone notice that the quarterly results of Stratech is heavily summarised and too brief? Not as detailed as Sheng Siong.

Was trying to assess the profits of the prior year same quarter, just to have a sense of how they will do this year.

Vested.

Value of this company very much driven by the trajectory of the adoption rate of its Iferret by airports in the world, given the very early part of the product life cycle, barring new competitions