23-07-2013, 09:06 AM
(This post was last modified: 23-07-2013, 08:28 PM by Stockerman.)
stockerman - Tuesday, 23 July 2013 09:06 (Comments at Nextinsight)
From the point of view of the equity holders, there might not be much “value creation” as can be seen from the small "edging up" of EPS (pre and post BAT contract). Had Tien Wah not secured the BAT contract, it would have been much worse for Tien Wah and New Toyo.
Let me give a simple analogy. The GDP of the country is growing bigger every year but in terms of real growth to each member of the country, we have to look at GDP per capita. Similarly, in terms of value creation to each equity holder of the company, we look at EPS attributable to equity holders and not group EPS, which is analogous to “GDP of the country”.
*****************
Had there been so much "value creation" from the BAT contract, why are there still so many disgruntled equity holders?
From the point of view of the equity holders, there might not be much “value creation” as can be seen from the small "edging up" of EPS (pre and post BAT contract). Had Tien Wah not secured the BAT contract, it would have been much worse for Tien Wah and New Toyo.
Let me give a simple analogy. The GDP of the country is growing bigger every year but in terms of real growth to each member of the country, we have to look at GDP per capita. Similarly, in terms of value creation to each equity holder of the company, we look at EPS attributable to equity holders and not group EPS, which is analogous to “GDP of the country”.
*****************
Had there been so much "value creation" from the BAT contract, why are there still so many disgruntled equity holders?