Technical Analysis
This is lesson one
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Philippines News Archives
Did your IT administrator block your Yahoo! or Hotmail? Check out these other free web mails.
Did your IT administrator block your Yahoo! or Hotmail? Check out these other free web mails.
Saturday, March 20, 2004
http://philippines-news.blogspot.com/
How about Michelle Pfeiffer in Fabulous Baker Boys? I really dig that movie. I'm so enamored with the cocktail singer concept in a smokey bar. She never laid down on the piano while singing though.
How about Michelle Pfeiffer in Fabulous Baker Boys? I really dig that movie. I'm so enamored with the cocktail singer concept in a smokey bar. She never laid down on the piano while singing though.
I think taxi fares can be deregulated. The cabs can probably advertise their rates on signs painted on their bodies. It becomes a more efficient market then.
Cab and bus advertising I think are steps in the right direction. It's an added revenue stream that was otherwise exclusive to media giants. Imagine if the payment comes in fuel discounts.
Cab and bus advertising I think are steps in the right direction. It's an added revenue stream that was otherwise exclusive to media giants. Imagine if the payment comes in fuel discounts.
Friday, March 19, 2004
March 19, 2004
The PSE Private Placement
The PSE recently issued 5.26 million new shares or 40% of the bourse's unissued shares to five institutional investors: PLDT Beneficial Trust Fund, San Miguel Corp. Retirement Fund, the Government Service Insurance System, Kim Eng Investment Ltd. and KE Strategic Pte. Ltd.
The premise for the sale was the Security and Exchange Commission's (SEC) order for the PSE to sell more shares because brokers still held majority of the shares outstanding.
There were apparently several flaws. First of course is that the PSE sold the new shares P119.50 per share, translating to roughly about P730 million in proceeds. It's a good amount until we look at the shares' market value at the time of the sale, wherein the price hoevered from P190-P200.
Second is that the sale was reportedly done in haste. Whereas some stockholders were looking at a year horizon before deciding, the sale was executed almost immediately after it was contemplated.
Third was that the underwriter was ATR Kim Eng Capital Partners, which is conspicuously related to the buyers
Roxas also questioned the statement of the underwriter ATR Kim Eng Capital Partners which had pegged the price at a price-to-earnings ratio of 46 times the PSE’s projected 2004 earnings of R10 million.
For the valuation, it was determined that the selling price was at "48.6 times the prospective earnings per share of the PSE this year and a 10% premium over book value." The point was that at P119.50, PSE shares were already expensive.
Assuming that was the case, as an analyst I would recommend a 'sell' to holders at market. That's what happens in the market after all. Disposing shareholders sell down at market, but never below market. It even seems more scandalous considering that these are bulk shares. Remember that less shares such as in odd lots are sold at a discount; on the other hand, bulk shares, such as that made by SSS of its EBC shares, are done at a premium to market, regardless of valuation.
What would have been a better option? The PSE could have issued stock rights at the lower price. In such a case, existing shareholders would not have been prejudiced.
So the SEC ordered the sale? Let's compare this to other companies that should have sold shares to public. What happened to Smart, Calex or Shell? They all begged off apparently because of poor market conditions. Yet these are all required by law to list. It would be a stretch to believe that the PSE will not be allowed a similar concession.
As for the Kim Eng conflict of interest, let's just consult a CFA book on that.
The PSE Private Placement
The PSE recently issued 5.26 million new shares or 40% of the bourse's unissued shares to five institutional investors: PLDT Beneficial Trust Fund, San Miguel Corp. Retirement Fund, the Government Service Insurance System, Kim Eng Investment Ltd. and KE Strategic Pte. Ltd.
The premise for the sale was the Security and Exchange Commission's (SEC) order for the PSE to sell more shares because brokers still held majority of the shares outstanding.
There were apparently several flaws. First of course is that the PSE sold the new shares P119.50 per share, translating to roughly about P730 million in proceeds. It's a good amount until we look at the shares' market value at the time of the sale, wherein the price hoevered from P190-P200.
Second is that the sale was reportedly done in haste. Whereas some stockholders were looking at a year horizon before deciding, the sale was executed almost immediately after it was contemplated.
Third was that the underwriter was ATR Kim Eng Capital Partners, which is conspicuously related to the buyers
Roxas also questioned the statement of the underwriter ATR Kim Eng Capital Partners which had pegged the price at a price-to-earnings ratio of 46 times the PSE’s projected 2004 earnings of R10 million.
For the valuation, it was determined that the selling price was at "48.6 times the prospective earnings per share of the PSE this year and a 10% premium over book value." The point was that at P119.50, PSE shares were already expensive.
Assuming that was the case, as an analyst I would recommend a 'sell' to holders at market. That's what happens in the market after all. Disposing shareholders sell down at market, but never below market. It even seems more scandalous considering that these are bulk shares. Remember that less shares such as in odd lots are sold at a discount; on the other hand, bulk shares, such as that made by SSS of its EBC shares, are done at a premium to market, regardless of valuation.
What would have been a better option? The PSE could have issued stock rights at the lower price. In such a case, existing shareholders would not have been prejudiced.
So the SEC ordered the sale? Let's compare this to other companies that should have sold shares to public. What happened to Smart, Calex or Shell? They all begged off apparently because of poor market conditions. Yet these are all required by law to list. It would be a stretch to believe that the PSE will not be allowed a similar concession.
As for the Kim Eng conflict of interest, let's just consult a CFA book on that.
March 19, 2004
Ho, Ho, Ho and Sexual Advisers
Before we speculate on Mike Arroyo's ties with PAGCOR chair Efraim C. Genuino, on Stanley Ho's alleged P700M campaign contribution to GMA or how to apply as a presidential sexual advisor, let us focus on a central issue.
What is wrong with operating a casino anyway? An opinion is that gambling in general contributes to poverty both in the financial and moral sense. I suppose that's true for jueteng, jai alai and maybe even for your neighborhood pusoy dos. In that sense, given that your "target market" are not financially well off, maybe it is a good idea to keep temptation away.
But think Vegas, theme park and tourism - these are possibilities for progress for the country. So let's host all these high rollers. We don't have to play or spend with them. We can provide the hotels, the entertainment and the sites to visit. There is nothing immoral about that. It won't contribute to poverty because those bordering on poverty probably can't afford to be in the place anyway.
So did Stanley Ho visit the country to invest? To tie up with Pagcor? By all means, let him do so legitimately. If he wants to buy into Philweb, go ahead. Just let me accumulate shares first. If you've seen how many on-line casinos there are in the Internet, you'd realize just how lucrative on-line gaming is.
That's the pretty picture.
Archbishop Oscar V. Cruz has a point though when he said that big gamblers, drug lords and kidnappers are also visible do-gooders. He said that in reference to the Angeles University Foundation's (AFU) endowment of a humanities doctorate to Ho for his achievements. It's not exactly a baseless accusation by Cruz. The same gambling lord reputation also preceded Ho's investment entry back in the Estrada administration. It was that reputation that drove the catholic church against Ho, and subsequently, Estrada.
Did Ho really make a campaign contribution to GMA? If so, this blurs the issue. It shouldn't be called an investment but a concession and totally inappropriate at that. Considering the fact that President Arroyo's brother is the trustee of AFU, the situation only becomes more questionable. Don't forget that the administration also earlier denied having welcomed Ho to the country, only to retract the statement later.
For sure, GMA's detractors have highlighted the political color in the issue. After all, mudslinging is scheduled to peak in a few weeks. To brush this off as mere propoganda, however, would be unwise. GMA admittedly is becoming more and more a picture of impropriety.
So what would be the possible impact? An investment per se is politically and morally neutral. In this case, however, the circumstances are questionable. History will also skew perception towards the negative. Remember that the whole Ho bruhaha was a central issue to the BW scandal. The stock market simply cannot withstand another questionable chapter, as confidence is the catalyst to good market performance.
Analyst Recommendation: wait after the elections before welcoming such a controversial character.
Ho, Ho, Ho and Sexual Advisers
Before we speculate on Mike Arroyo's ties with PAGCOR chair Efraim C. Genuino, on Stanley Ho's alleged P700M campaign contribution to GMA or how to apply as a presidential sexual advisor, let us focus on a central issue.
What is wrong with operating a casino anyway? An opinion is that gambling in general contributes to poverty both in the financial and moral sense. I suppose that's true for jueteng, jai alai and maybe even for your neighborhood pusoy dos. In that sense, given that your "target market" are not financially well off, maybe it is a good idea to keep temptation away.
But think Vegas, theme park and tourism - these are possibilities for progress for the country. So let's host all these high rollers. We don't have to play or spend with them. We can provide the hotels, the entertainment and the sites to visit. There is nothing immoral about that. It won't contribute to poverty because those bordering on poverty probably can't afford to be in the place anyway.
So did Stanley Ho visit the country to invest? To tie up with Pagcor? By all means, let him do so legitimately. If he wants to buy into Philweb, go ahead. Just let me accumulate shares first. If you've seen how many on-line casinos there are in the Internet, you'd realize just how lucrative on-line gaming is.
That's the pretty picture.
Archbishop Oscar V. Cruz has a point though when he said that big gamblers, drug lords and kidnappers are also visible do-gooders. He said that in reference to the Angeles University Foundation's (AFU) endowment of a humanities doctorate to Ho for his achievements. It's not exactly a baseless accusation by Cruz. The same gambling lord reputation also preceded Ho's investment entry back in the Estrada administration. It was that reputation that drove the catholic church against Ho, and subsequently, Estrada.
Did Ho really make a campaign contribution to GMA? If so, this blurs the issue. It shouldn't be called an investment but a concession and totally inappropriate at that. Considering the fact that President Arroyo's brother is the trustee of AFU, the situation only becomes more questionable. Don't forget that the administration also earlier denied having welcomed Ho to the country, only to retract the statement later.
For sure, GMA's detractors have highlighted the political color in the issue. After all, mudslinging is scheduled to peak in a few weeks. To brush this off as mere propoganda, however, would be unwise. GMA admittedly is becoming more and more a picture of impropriety.
So what would be the possible impact? An investment per se is politically and morally neutral. In this case, however, the circumstances are questionable. History will also skew perception towards the negative. Remember that the whole Ho bruhaha was a central issue to the BW scandal. The stock market simply cannot withstand another questionable chapter, as confidence is the catalyst to good market performance.
Analyst Recommendation: wait after the elections before welcoming such a controversial character.
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
March 17, 2004
First Quarter Decline
The Phisix recently touched a three-month low courtesy of an eight-session slide. Who do we blame? Martha Stewart's conviction? Nah. We don't have that many homemaker investors here I think. Could it be the Supreme Court's decision that FPJ is Filipino? Well it's hard to see any silver lining related to FPJ in the first place. Sigh. Look at the charts. When did FPJ announce his candidacy? Where did the peso go right after that? Maybe Janet Jackson's nipple exposure during the super bowl? Well that certainly didn't do anything for me. My guess is that it didn't do anything for the market either. The Madrid bombing? The Eddie Gil disqualification? Guingona's defection? Calpers? It could be all those. Well the market really should behave like this anyway. Remember, Google searches for migration also increased when Erap ran for president (or so I guess). But guess what? The market rallied right after the election because it was peaceful. Perhaps that will also happen this year whoever wins. Maybe we can position in the market in the midst of the intensified mudslinging. As a hedge though, keep your other foot in the Canadian embassy
First Quarter Decline
The Phisix recently touched a three-month low courtesy of an eight-session slide. Who do we blame? Martha Stewart's conviction? Nah. We don't have that many homemaker investors here I think. Could it be the Supreme Court's decision that FPJ is Filipino? Well it's hard to see any silver lining related to FPJ in the first place. Sigh. Look at the charts. When did FPJ announce his candidacy? Where did the peso go right after that? Maybe Janet Jackson's nipple exposure during the super bowl? Well that certainly didn't do anything for me. My guess is that it didn't do anything for the market either. The Madrid bombing? The Eddie Gil disqualification? Guingona's defection? Calpers? It could be all those. Well the market really should behave like this anyway. Remember, Google searches for migration also increased when Erap ran for president (or so I guess). But guess what? The market rallied right after the election because it was peaceful. Perhaps that will also happen this year whoever wins. Maybe we can position in the market in the midst of the intensified mudslinging. As a hedge though, keep your other foot in the Canadian embassy
Monday, March 01, 2004
Yahoo! Groups : IndependentResearchPhils Messages : Message 436 of 436: "Google throws lavish party to lure new recruits"
Man, I want a piece of that IPO! Hello etrade!
Man, I want a piece of that IPO! Hello etrade!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
