Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Singapore Press Holdings (SPH)
29-07-2019, 01:23 PM. (This post was last modified: 29-07-2019, 01:24 PM by karlmarx.)
Post: #981
RE: QAF
(29-07-2019, 10:13 AM)specuvestor Wrote: just sidetrack a bit: I think it's the other way round that most business and politics are intertwined in the capitalistic centric world. US is supposedly a good reference.

It is enlightened policies that tries to separate them. I'm not sure if they can be separated totally but a robust structure and system should at least balance the conflict of interests

Yes, the close relationship between business and politics is ubiquitous all over the world. But there are different ways in which their relationships are structured, which may results in different economic outcomes, for any particular country.

Singapore's (or more specifically, its GLCs) model is like a 'melting pot;' the business entity and the political entity are merged. The state owns Temasek, which owns GLCs. There is not much conflict of interest between state and business, because they are one and the same. There is also not much conflict of interest between the state/business entity and the populace, because of a fair share of the efficiency/profit produced by the state/business entity is returned to the populace.

In other Asian countries, their model is more like a 'salad bowl;' the business entity and political entity are separate, although they often make use of each other to advance their own interest. The 'Alibaba' model of business in Malaysia is a good example, where business entity seek favourable concessions from the political entity. The kind of relationships I am referring to here are such as Anwar and Quek Leng Chan/Hong Leong; Daim Zainuddin and Berjaya/Vincent Tan, Mahathir and Ting Pek King/Ekran. Of course, you and some of the more experienced guys here like opmi will probably remember many such others. 

The conflict of interest between the state/business (or Ali and Baba) and the populace in Malaysia has produced a big problem because the efficiency/profit produced by the state/business collusion is not sufficiently returned to the populace. Thus producing super rich Alis and Babas. 

Malaysia has been trying to move towards Singapore's model by having the state acquire more ownership of businesses. But the problem -- and this has also been acknowledged by Dr M -- is that the state does not have the capacity to manage the business, and so has to rely on their mostly Chinese founder/partner to run the show. So the state owns only 30-40% of any large business, and not just because 30% Bumi ownership is the state policy; it is a sleeping partner, so to speak. 

Hong Kong is another where 'Alibaba' is practiced, with almost no state ownership in business. When such an economic model is overly abused by business entities, the effect on the populace is acute.

===

It is perhaps quite difficult to stop political entities and business entities from cooperating, but I think whether they are merged (i.e. state ownership of business) or separated will have a big impact in their jurisdiction.

Find Reply
13-08-2019, 03:09 PM. (This post was last modified: 13-08-2019, 03:10 PM by money.)
Post: #982
RE: Singapore Press Holdings (SPH)
i cant help it, seriously have to comment on this company again.

In the most recent results, quarter ending 31 may,

operating profit# 29m 46m ( for 31 may 2019 and 2018 respectively)

#This represents the recurring earnings of the business

i wonder how recurring the earnings is, maybe they should just drop the word recurring so as not to mislead shareholders. And over they years, the multiple acquisitions didnt seem to quite pay off because i notice quarter after quarter, there's like impairment of goodwill. Should shareholders continue to believe in management's ability to grow the business?

Find Reply
13-08-2019, 03:21 PM.
Post: #983
RE: Singapore Press Holdings (SPH)
(13-08-2019, 03:09 PM)money Wrote: i cant help it, seriously have to comment on this company again.

In the most recent results, quarter ending 31 may,

operating profit#     29m    46m    ( for 31 may 2019 and 2018 respectively)

#This represents the recurring earnings of the business

i wonder how recurring the earnings is, maybe they should just drop the word recurring so as not to mislead shareholders. And over they years, the multiple acquisitions didnt seem to quite pay off because i notice quarter after quarter, there's like impairment of goodwill. Should shareholders continue to believe in management's ability to grow the business?

To be fair, I think their disclosure is good. The truly recurring part of the business primarily comes from SPH REIT and to a smaller part Seletar Mall, numbers of which you can more or less agar agar. The non-recurring part comes from Media which they have been not shy from showing where's the decline in the breakdown.

As to whether the business will grow, the CEO of a company is usually the single most important person to drive this. Media aside, which is in structural decline, I think the track record of the CEO speaks volumes about the ability to really grow SPH in a meaningful way (or lead to further impairments).

Find Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 6 Guest(s)
Valuebuddies.com | Return to Top | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication | CONTACT US: nas......@valuebuddies.com | | Share Buy-Back | Disclosure of Interest