Neptune Orient Lines (NOL)

Even if NOL is not allow to consolidate or die ... would you want to hold NOL stock at the end of the day assuming it cannot compete with reasonable profit or worst still continuously issue rights ?

NOL got parents with deep pockets

that's what i used to think too... until chartered semicon came along

Singapore is destined to be a port town, with its "natural resource", NOL is complementary

Same reasoning went for chartered semicon with SG in a no earthquake zone

NOL is too stragetic to singapore, downsize is possible only....

(29-11-2011, 11:03 PM)brattzz Wrote: NOL is too stragetic to singapore, downsize is possible only....

Yes, shipping is a very difficult business to be in but can Singapore let other countries be her National shippers? If so what are the possible consequences even in peace time? i believe at one time our PAPAYA thought of downsize or even let NOL kaput. i think that was the time PAPAYA did the opposite and expanded NOL business. Papaya bought "APL" instead. So why Papaya needs to buy "APL"? Will the Papaya thinking change? Close NOL and depends on International Shippers? i think if this the case Singapore will/may be hold to ransom even by International Shippers even in the best of time. By the way, which country doesn't has it's own shippers whether private or National? Malaysia? Indonesia?.......Still NOL may go the "Semicon way". Who knows? But i don't think so. i agree with "brattzz". Why did Papaya bought "APL"?

We cannot expect government bureaucrats and politicians to be naturally good and skilled investors, and we should always bear in mind that they usually also harbour other objectives beyong just economics in their agenda. But as private investors, we should focus mainly on economics and safety of the businesses we want to put our money into.

(30-11-2011, 08:09 AM)dydx Wrote: We cannot expect government bureaucrats and politicians to be naturally good and skilled investors, and we should always bear in mind that they usually also harbour other objectives beyong just economics in their agenda. But as private investors, we should focus mainly on economics and safety of the businesses we want to put our money into.

"and we should always bear in mind that they usually also harbour other objectives beyong just economics in their agenda."

That is exactly the point. Most BIG/Strategic Corporations are tied or binded to the country's political system or more important than just economic survival of the company. So that the country doesn't dare to allow some corporations to fail. Just like 2009 America's too big to fail corporations, bailed out by their Tax Payers' money. The most important question to ask is : "Is NOL in this category? "Too Big To Fail"? If not, than think twice the survival of this company.

(30-11-2011, 09:17 AM)Temperament Wrote: The most important question to ask is : "Is NOL in this category? "Too Big To Fail"? If not, than think twice the survival of this company.

I think even if it's too big too fail, another angle to consider is whether it will provide a decent return on (our) capital. After all, as Investors, isn't that our main objective?

That's exactly my point.

Why would i want to invest even if it is too important to go. I invest to beat inflation, to retire early, to get bette returns than banks. If we want ultra safe with fixed protection, Singapore gov bond will be better. So why would anyone want to invest in NOL ? Just curious.

When i invest, the first question i always ask myself is: How likely is this company to be around in 5 years time; in 10 years time? Then i invest accordingly. Some counters are for dividends and some growth as bonus. Some are cyclical stocks like NOL for capital gain. If you ride the cycle correctly, you can have 2 times or even more ROI. i am only very afraid if Papaya wants to downsize or even outsource National Shipping to FTS. That's why i gave it a miss in 2008/2009 cycle. i only have 5 lots.
On record, NOL is one of my best ROI till today.