14-03-2013, 09:10 AM
(This post was last modified: 14-03-2013, 09:14 AM by specuvestor.)
(13-03-2013, 10:07 PM)d.o.g. Wrote: What is today's Terry O'Connor doing differently from yesteryear's Terry O'Connor that is resulting in such dramatic improvements?
I have no proof that the financial statements were "dressed up" for the IPO, but it is certainly puzzling. In any case, investors should be aware that "reversion to the mean" is a powerful business trend.
As usual, YMMV.
As per my previous posts, IMHO the difference was Courts Singapore megastore in Tampines
(19-02-2013, 08:46 AM)specuvestor Wrote: Hi Cityfarmer
Please refer to my 4 months' old post #35 below. GM for Malaysia is higher but that is just one aspect. We have to take into account credit cost and sales psf. We also know that this is their 2nd venture into Indonesia.
In any case in the long run the market is a weighing machine. Many "voting" stocks have risen past 2 months, and Courts being an IPO stock is deemed as little technical resistance. So we'll see if this is another Challenger
(14-10-2012, 12:36 AM)specuvestor Wrote: IIRC when I met Courts a year ago, (which they subsequently aborted the listing), their main profit generator is actually Courts Megastore Tampines, which is 1/3 their sales and half their profit, or something like that. They also closed down a number of stores that were unprofitable. IIRC Singapore sales per square foot is like 10X of the neighbour. Trace back the history and not difficult to understand the turnaround. I haven't read the new prospectus, do correct me if I am wrong.
(13-03-2013, 06:15 PM)shanrui_91 Wrote: http://remisiers.org/cms_images/research...v4_ed1.pdf
KE did a pretty good initiation on Courts yesterday and i was surprise that net interest income accounts for 46% of their PBT and that interest rate charged is actually 11.6%-29%.
Previously, poor credit control seemed to have led them to disaster in 2008 according to the report. "The old poorly designed credit infrastructure. Inadequate credit controls a sharp jump in bad debts, especially in Malaysia, Thailand. This led to the eventual closure of operations."
this is probably a problem since "Courts’ target audience for credit facility is those who cannot afford credit card loans or meet the minimum requirement for credit card sign-ups."
Seemed like the way to analyse this company will be to treat it like a finance company, looking at deliquncy ratio and net interest margin. Might even have to do some scuttlebutt to test their credit control
In any case, this is definitely not a simple retail company like challenger
(not vested)
This is their business model. They are a finance company. Hence credit control and counterparty risk management is most important
(18-02-2013, 04:15 PM)specuvestor Wrote: I have to admit that Courts Asia has performed way better than I expected after the initial dip. They are a consumer credit company that sells consumer goods
Malaysia business is not very profitable. I guess it is a function of the credit write-offs. Indonesia could be interesting if they manage the credit process properly I guess.
Before you speak, listen. Before you write, think. Before you spend, earn. Before you invest, investigate. Before you criticize, wait. Before you pray, forgive. Before you quit, try. Before you retire, save. Before you die, give. –William A. Ward
Think Asset-Business-Structure (ABS)
Think Asset-Business-Structure (ABS)