Teh Hooi Leng calls it a day (Aggregate Asset Management)

that sounds like she is bullish on the market...

take it with a pinch of salt. 14.1 between two extreme and potentially one off ends of 10.3 and 33.5 does not mean much if most of the time 15 is the norm (for instance). too bad no median is given.

If Bill Gates walks into a bar, on average, everybody in the bar is a millionaire.

(13-10-2013, 02:05 PM)chialc Wrote: So based on patterns in the past, in so far as companies' earnings are not artificially propped up by low interest costs and barring any structural change in the economic environment, investors who enter the market at current levels have a good chance of earning satisfactory returns from the stock market over the next five years.

Its a big fat disclaimer by Ms Teh.

She has given herself a leeway in the form that should the artificially low interest rate not be affecting the earnings for the last 5 years, then yes, stocks are the way to go forward based on historical patterns.

You guys don't miss out much from her departure. I'm not a fan of her. IMHO her articles lacks depth, sounds like a summary from other established authors.

(13-10-2013, 11:37 PM)FatBoi Wrote: take it with a pinch of salt. 14.1 between two extreme and potentially one off ends of 10.3 and 33.5 does not mean much if most of the time 15 is the norm (for instance). too bad no median is given.

If Bill Gates walks into a bar, on average, everybody in the bar is a millionaire.

If his good friend joins him for a drink, then everyone inside become billionaire, on average!

The PE of a fast growth company is different from the PE of a conglomerate. Due to its size, it is harder for the conglomerate to grow as fast as a new upstart.......

Singapore's growth rate presently compared to 10 to 20 years ago is much lower so to use historical PE might not be suitable.....

(14-10-2013, 08:30 AM)investwisely Wrote: You guys don't miss out much from her departure. I'm not a fan of her. IMHO her articles lacks depth, sounds like a summary from other established authors.

I actually quite enjoyed the "Show Me the Money" books. Yes, some of the pieces are based on established research, authors but she helped to clarify something which is "Can the same thing be applied to Singapore markets?" This is her value add to the local reader I feel. I dunno abt depth of her articles but I certainly can't imagine myself running the numbers she did.

http://www.bigfatpurse.com/2013/10/an-in...hooi-ling/

See link for an interview with Teh Hooi Ling.

I saw a advertisement in The Edge, by Teh Hooi Ling, from Aggregate Asset Management, for accredited and institutional investors.

The fund is one of the local ventures on quantitative approach, similar as Joel's magic formula. Base on my general exposure on quantitative approach, the expected return should be around 20%, includes fee.

I checked with the fund web site, www.aggregate.com.sg, the net NAV growth is approx 14% in 2013, with fee should be around 18%. I recalled from a previous interview of the fund founders, they intended to double the money in 5 years, net of fee. They had make it in 2013, and should be able to make it in 2014, base on the up-to-date performance.

Well, 2 years is a short time in value investing. We shall see...

Joel's 20 years (1988-2009) magic formula compounded growth rate was 24%, with total number of stock around 20-30 stocks. Aggregate Asset Management (AAM) has 200 stocks. Joel focused on US market, while AAM focused on 5 countries in the region. Both went for long-term approach, 3-5 years period.

Joel's info from this site (randomly by google) : http://www.oldschoolvalue.com/blog/inves...-investing

It may be a good topic for discussion, and I moved the thread to value investing sub-forum.

Thanks

Joel greenblatt got use magic formula in 80s meh? I thought he more special situation then. The magic formula track record from backtesting is it?