The Hour Glass

2nd Time around, all the principal of swiss made watches are lossing faith in Sincere after changing hand on dealership contracting agreement. Instead of focusing on the business of building their brand, they get a rep that is interested in selling Co. and assigning the dealership time and again.

I think better to still to Cortina as it has been from day1 focus on Patek and Rolex as a strong source of income. I have no doubt Cortina will cross 1$ mark soon!!

(05-09-2012, 12:44 PM)ValueBeliever Wrote: 2nd Time around, all the principal of swiss made watches are lossing faith in Sincere after changing hand on dealership contracting agreement. Instead of focusing on the business of building their brand, they get a rep that is interested in selling Co. and assigning the dealership time and again.

I think better to still to Cortina as it has been from day1 focus on Patek and Rolex as a strong source of income. I have no doubt Cortina will cross 1$ mark soon!!

After it crosses the $1 mark, it will stock split like THG and go up again! Once again, lets remind ourselves that the stock is so good that Henry Tay owns 12.6% of it!

Quote "the stock is so good that Henry Tay owns 12.6% of it! "

I must point out that this stake of shareholdings was due to Henry Tay's initial interest in acquiring Cortina. Cortina's folks promptly put a stop to it with many measures to boost their own shareholdings instead. Hence, Cortina is not that good on its business merits, so much so that Henry Tay has to have that 12.6%.

Why nobody seem to bring up the issue on the management write off 14million worth of investment in securities lost in 2008.
I been tracking the pe ratio of the past 10 years. They average out to be around 6x.
Highest pe hit was 15x on the year 2008 where company cut their earning with that huge disposal.
Other than that stay relatively well below 7x.

Dispute low pe (currently pe at 6.1x) the company. As compare to past performance, The pe now is still consider high in history. Ain't gonna go in unless drop to 0.85 or lesser .lol.

If u imagine this company to be e next vicomm, then guess ur thought was that government enforce everyone to service their watch or watchessssss once or twice a year.lol.

---

In 2009 they decide to change the accounting method to conceal up the loss.
Subsequently, investment loss on that securities was only presented as loss per fy.

My rough guess from chasing the figure was the company still holding that investment securities today.lol

The investment security is Gems TV Holdings, a SGX-listed company. Based on their AR2009, cost of investment in Gems TV was ~15 million, and they wrote it down by 14 million in 2008-2009. Over the years they have adjusted this value and at the moment, they are still holding the shares at book value of 783k so there isn't much room for any more paper losses on the investment.

Hence, low downside and much upside if Gems TV actually turns around.

(13-09-2012, 05:46 AM)Baldric Wrote: Why nobody seem to bring up the issue on the management write off 14million worth of investment in securities lost in 2008.
I been tracking the pe ratio of the past 10 years. They average out to be around 6x.
Highest pe hit was 15x on the year 2008 where company cut their earning with that huge disposal.
Other than that stay relatively well below 7x.

Dispute low pe (currently pe at 6.1x) the company. As compare to past performance, The pe now is still consider high in history. Ain't gonna go in unless drop to 0.85 or lesser .lol.

How did you track the P/E for the past 10 years? It's pretty time consuming if you DIY

Nonetheless, working on average historical P/E can offer a certain margin of safety if there is an inclination for reversion to mean. Earnings can be less certain than asset value/book value. Hence, this can tend to fluctuate frequently. If an investor has a conviction the company can grow substantially, then there can be a possibility for P/E to break above average. However, we are talking about some heavy assumptions here.

My next natural question is why does HrGlass trade at some P/E - about 6x historical? Could they have been discounting the fact that family interests may go above investors' interests? Been reading the above few posts and it does seem to be the case - i.e. higher salaries for family management

my 2 cents

*not vested*

Find the highest low and high prices for 10 years. Average the high and average the low. Then take the average of both u sld get around 6x.

Earning just dig back past year reports.



Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

(13-09-2012, 09:31 AM)dzwm87 Wrote: My next natural question is why does HrGlass trade at some P/E - about 6x historical? Could they have been discounting the fact that family interests may go above investors' interests? Been reading the above few posts and it does seem to be the case - i.e. higher salaries for family management

my 2 cents

*not vested*

Another possible discount made by the market would possibly be the perception that the industry is not recession-proof and that demand for luxury watches should be cyclical, hence the low PE (unlike other businesses in the medical/consumer staples industry).

In conjunction with the opening of a new store in Paragon Shopping Mall recently, THG is presently hosting a special HUBLOT POPS UP! exhibition at the Main Atrium from 14th to 23rd September.....
http://www.thehourglass.com/?p=2381

I just wonder whether THG's one and only USD $5 Million Big Bang HUBLOT watch will ever find a buyer?

Hehe looks a classic framing tactic to sell more of the normal hublots.