SingTel

Returns of 56.8% over 26 years ?

==================

Hot stock: Singtel sinks to 12-year low
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/compani...2-year-low

"....An investor who has been holding the blue chip since its initial public offering (IPO) in 1993 would have got a total return of 56.8 per cent, assuming the dividends were reinvested into the securities, according to Bloomberg data...."

Singtel is at multi-decade lows, any comments on it's value with respect to it's price? One would expect that this is the time when most money could be made (by buying at the lows) or saved (by cutting loss). 

Not optimistic of their Indian business, because I am much more bullish of their competitor (for many years now).

(not vested in Singtel or Reliance Industries)

Singtel is actually a good case study on what not to do for an investor.

Valuation and business.

IPO valuation. I don't know but base on the earliest number for singtel investor website ( think 2002-2003) would say it was very rich.

Business. From sole provider of fixed line/ mobile line to the current 3 or more. ROE keep dropping. And a way of looking at the business is ask a 50 year old guy. Have you pay more for your bill in your lifetime? Singtel IPO at the time where only the rich own the giant mobile phone and now everyone has at least one and how many pay more for their bill?

This is simple. Really.

Mr Yuen Kuan Moon took over from Ms Chua (retiring 31 Dec 2020).
https://links.sgx.com/1.0.0/corporate-an...c9a410ca7e

Stay home and stay safe, everyone.

(30-09-2020, 05:47 PM)donmihaihai Wrote: Singtel is actually a good case study on what not to do for an investor.

Valuation  and business.

IPO valuation. I don't know but base on the earliest number for singtel investor website ( think 2002-2003) would say it was very rich.

Business. From sole provider of fixed line/ mobile line to the current 3 or more. ROE keep dropping. And a way of looking at the business is ask a 50 year old guy. Have you pay more for your bill in your lifetime? Singtel IPO at the time where only the rich own the giant mobile phone and now everyone has at least one and how many pay more for their bill?

This is simple. Really.

While Singtel does not rely on Singapore only, Singtel certainly isn't benefiting from any obvious favoritism in its home ground (I do not know if that "peanut" fine for data breach is the norm).

Another issue is how many telcos will there be in Singapore? Govs need to balance between price competitive (more licenses) & profitability of the major players (ideally to encourage improvements). 

Anyhow, I like Singtel's SEA reach in AIS (Thai), Telkomsel (Indonesia), and GLO (Philippines); all with major market share. Singtel and these telcos can stay uninteresting and generate cash. 

With cash comes startup/ investments in startups/ acquisitions. 
The remaining questions would be whether Singtel knows how to best create synergistic product offerings. As a consumer: I remember canceling "value-added" services that I didn't know I subscribed; I do not know why I've never tried Dash by Singtel.

Grab-Singtel digital banking license would be a very interesting beginning.

(20-10-2020, 10:29 PM)Raks Wrote:

(30-09-2020, 05:47 PM)donmihaihai Wrote: Singtel is actually a good case study on what not to do for an investor.

Valuation  and business.

IPO valuation. I don't know but base on the earliest number for singtel investor website ( think 2002-2003) would say it was very rich.

Business. From sole provider of fixed line/ mobile line to the current 3 or more. ROE keep dropping. And a way of looking at the business is ask a 50 year old guy. Have you pay more for your bill in your lifetime? Singtel IPO at the time where only the rich own the giant mobile phone and now everyone has at least one and how many pay more for their bill?

This is simple. Really.

While Singtel does not rely on Singapore only, Singtel certainly isn't benefiting from any obvious favoritism in its home ground (I do not know if that "peanut" fine for data breach is the norm).

Another issue is how many telcos will there be in Singapore? Govs need to balance between price competitive (more licenses) & profitability of the major players (ideally to encourage improvements). 

Anyhow, I like Singtel's SEA reach in AIS (Thai), Telkomsel (Indonesia), and GLO (Philippines); all with major market share. Singtel and these telcos can stay uninteresting and generate cash. 

With cash comes startup/ investments in startups/ acquisitions. 
The remaining questions would be whether Singtel knows how to best create synergistic product offerings. As a consumer: I remember canceling "value-added" services that I didn't know I subscribed; I do not know why I've never tried Dash by Singtel.

Grab-Singtel digital banking license would be a very interesting beginning.

My favourite subsidiary of Singtel is NCS that was formerly a government body. So there may or not may be biasness in awarding it contracts.

Dont forget Singtel too has a wide base of corporate customers who will stick to Singtel 4G plans for their corporate use even though there are cheaper telecos like Circles or even M1. Therefore, imo, there is quite a big loyal base of customers

<Have to answer cryptically to avoid any potential lawsuit>

(20-10-2020, 10:29 PM)Raks Wrote: ..

Govs need to balance between price competitive (more licenses) & profitability of the major players (ideally to encourage improvements). 

..

Is it really the government's job to ensure any particular private company is profitable? I get that they may want to spur economic growth in general, or an industry sector specifically. But I don't think they are allowed to show favoritism to any singular company.

(20-10-2020, 10:29 PM)Raks Wrote: ..

Govs need to balance between price competitive (more licenses) & profitability of the major players (ideally to encourage improvements). 

..

Is it really the government's job to ensure any particular private company is profitable? I get that they may want to spur economic growth in general, or an industry sector specifically. But I don't think they are allowed to show favoritism to any singular company/companies.

(20-10-2020, 10:44 PM)Wildreamz Wrote:

(20-10-2020, 10:29 PM)Raks Wrote: ..

Govs need to balance between price competitive (more licenses) & profitability of the major players (ideally to encourage improvements). 

..

Is it really the government's job to ensure any particular private company is profitable? I get that they may want to spur economic growth in general, or an industry sector specifically. But I don't think they are allowed to show favoritism to any singular company/companies.

Ah? 
..
Singtel certainly isn't benefiting from any obvious favoritism in its home ground...
..

Obviously, gov agency doesn't "ensure any particular private company is profitable". 



-----------  ----------
Remember Singtel vs Starhub bid war for EPL broadcasting rights resulted in Singaporeans paying more for the higher "winning" bid?
 
So Singapore, ~5 M population that time contributed 7% (or 17%?) of total receipt of English Premier League TV broadcast rights. 

+ World cup wanted higher payment from that Singapore pay-tv operator, because "if Singaporeans were willing to pay so much for EPL they will pay this much for world cup".

All I'm saying, is that's probably how Singapore's economy is intended to function: level playing field, and let market forces determine the success of companies, through competition.

Very capitalist and egalitarian at it's core.

And this is the expectation that investors need to price in.