ZKIZ Archives


You Can Still Make It In The Market CUP

http://nodeadcow.blogspot.com/2011/07/you-can-still-make-it-in-market.html

又係時候推介第二季的投資好書。

今次推薦的是 Nicolas Darvas 的 "You Can Still Make It In The Market" --下圖,在五窮六絕的市況中,這個書名可謂應景:



看這本書之前當然最好先看完我在2009年第4季推介的 "How I Made $2,000,000 In The Stock Market" http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/Chui-Cup/article?mid=16926, 這本是今次推介書的上集。


這本1976年的作品 Nicholas Darvas 主要是透過敍述自己繼續用自創的 Box Theory 如何在50-60年代搵了$2M 、在1973-74的大熊市後,繼續贏大錢,以表示自己並非撞彩,自己所定的操作系統之重要性,以及歷久不衰。並藉此再解釋 Box Theory 的用法、持續有效性、以及如何切合市場的本質和實用性,並講及市場諸多普遍輸錢的錯誤以及股票市場的真相究竟是什麼。在 "You Can......" 一書中,作者把 Box Theory 稱為 DAR-CARD,不過都是一樣的,名稱並不重要。

此書其實很短,基本上英語水平不差的話,半天已可看完。以上兩書看似傻下傻下,但短小兼淺白,看完也有很大得著。比坊間大量超圾財經書藉,以及大而無當的 所謂經典有用得多。

以下是一些書中節錄,可供大家欣賞一下:


You Can Still Make It In The Market CUP
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=25953

China's private sector still in shadow of the state 張化橋

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_50c88c400101o93k.html

China's private sector still in the shadow of the state

   South China Morning Post,19 Dec. 2013

In an essay published eight years ago (Financial Times;October 5, 2005), I said that China's private sector was in theshadow of the state.

I can make the same argument today with one significantdifference: the state sector's dominance in China has grownconsiderably in the last eight years.

The last decade has almost completely undone the reforms of thetwo previous decades.

The consensus in the West is that China's state sector iscorrupt, inefficient and ideologically inferior, so it must belosing ground against private enterprise which is steadily chippingaway at the communist, state-backed old guard.

That is just not the case.

The playing field is unfair andaligned against the private sector. Moreover, there are many hybridjoint venture companies in China that blur the distinctions betweenthe two sectors

Nicholas Lardy, in a recent Bloomberg Brief piece,compared the financial performance of China's state sector with theprivate sector. Citing the National Statistics Bureau, his numberswere predictable: last year, the state sector return on assets(ROA) was merely 4.6 per cent and well below the private sector's12.4 per cent.

I think those numbers are biased and wrong.

The biggest components of the state sector are the banks, whichaccount for almost half of the domestic stock market valuation, andabout half of the total net profit of all the listed companies.Other big components in the stock market, or in the unlisteduniverse for that matter, are state-controlled big insurancecompanies, big oil corporations and telecommunicationsoperators.

Chinese banks have an average return on equity (ROE) of about 20per cent – twice the level of their global peers. Insurancecompanies do well in general, and telecoms operators enjoyexorbitant privileges. How can the state sector underperform theprivate sector in financial terms?

Of course, you can argue that the banks' profits are entirelydue to the government's control of interest rates. That is a trueand fair assessment, but the fact remains that the state sector hasa much higher ROE than the private sector.

Lardy's use of ROA is meaningless because banks by definitionare highly-geared business and their ROAs are low in nature (around2-3 per cent). The nature of the banking business is such that youcannot usefully compare bank ROA with other sectors. ROE is theappropriate benchmark.

The other problem with Lardy's comparison is that tens ofthousands of private sector companies go bankrupt, or voluntarilyclose each year. Once that happens, they exit from the statistics.So there is a 「survival basis」. But you do not hear any state-ownedenterprise being shut down.

Uneven playing field
The state sector not only benefits from the economies of scale, butalso from the economies of scope. The state sector as a whole islike a giant conglomerate company that benefits fromdiversification, the low cost of plentiful funding and politicalfavours.

The playing field is unfair and aligned against the privatesector.

Moreover, there are many hybrid joint venture companies in Chinathat blur the distinctions between the two sectors.

Finally, the state sector takes on many social functions, andtheir existence and activities provide a positive spillover effectfor the whole economy and society.

While liberal commentators may disagree with this, the statesector is designed to achieve more than just financial ratios.

Utilities, (power, water, natural gas and public transportation)for example, where the state sector dominates, are not charged atfull price because of affordability and other social reasons. Thatdrags down their financial returns, but the financial ratios do notreflect their efficiency.

More stateinvolvement

It is wrong for liberal economists to say that the dominance ofthe state sector goes against the public's wishes.

In China, the public wants more, not less, involvement by thestate sector. The public wants a bigger state sector to tackle themany challenges China faces, even if many of these challenges areby-products of the state sector (inequality, overpopulation andpollution).

Even the recent third plenum does not mention the privatesector, a point Lardy acknowledges.

The official data shows that the government tax revenue as apercentage of gross domestic product almost doubled from 12 percent a decade ago to 22.3 per cent last year. This is almost awholesale reversal of the economic liberalisation of the previoustwo decades.

But Western economists do not mention this uncomfortablefact.

The state dominates strategically important sectors – essentialinfrastructure and sectors with pricing power – while the privatesector is left to fight it out in fiercely competitive sectors suchas low-end manufacturing, retail, service industries and (some)real estate.

The writing is on the wall: the score of the past decade's matchof the private sector versus the state sector in China is 「privatesector - zero」 and 「state sector - one」.

Joe Zhang is a corporate adviser based in Hong Kong, and theauthor of Inside China's Shadow Banking: The Next SubprimeCrisis?

China's private sector still in shadow of the state 張化 化橋
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=85627

Patience .......is the key STILL !

hi ! James,
see the date and what I had put on the table. Look at what the market calling GMG now?

Investing is profoundly needed hell a lot of patience.
Without that, speculating in the property with decent leveraging, would be an idea instrument too. Goodthing about property is no daily price quote for viewing.

Some stocks, I have been holding for years. GMG is considered a mid-term play, but in between I had been traded it.

Again, I shall be available next Tuesday/Wednesday, confirm in due course.

thanks & regards


--- On Mon, 8/24/09, wrote:

From:
shyong998@yahoo.com
Subject: GMG-Right issues
To: "Warren Oh"
Date: Monday, August 24, 2009, 7:04 PM
Hi ! Warren,

As mentioned this afternoon about participating GMG Global-Right issues. Before elaborating further, I hereby would like to declare my interest/position in this investment selection.

(1) You may have to double check all the facts I’m going
to put on
the table.

(2) I’m not a rubber expert or know a lot about the rubber business.
It is
purely from my “reading” as a small investor point of view and it meet most of my criteria to put some monies in it for mid-term.

(3) Unlike my previous speculation on East Asia Bank, which I was pretty much sure, if you still remember, a great rally after bonus issue 1 for 10 at HK$14 & dividends.

(4) Lastly, please forgive me if ever there is any error and correct me if you can.

My criteria for stock speculating in mid-term, briefly;
(1) Every season has a reason, I’m not buying anything just because it’s cheap or undervalue.

(2) Every selection has to be attached with an impetus for its price to be accelerated.

(3) Very important to warm-up prior loading-up any heavy
position.

MGM Global-Right Issues;
(1) 9 for 10 @ Right price SGD0.055.
(2) 1,818,544,446 @ $0.055 to raise SGD$100 million for Future Acquisition.

Myself;

(1) I had been trading on this stock prior till G.O in July 2008 by Sinochem International Corporation, a listed company on Shanghai Stock Exchange. Some players behind... made and lost money before.

The market mechanism;

(1) The theoretical ex-price was $0.092, based on the last cum-price of $0.125.

(2) First day trading after ex (Friday, 21 August 2009), mother price dropped till $0.105 and PAL was trading at the ranged-down from $0.05 till $0.035.

(3) On Friday, a few big blocks, about 50 million PAL was crossed at $0.03/35 level.

24 August 2009; (1) GMG-R, closed at $0.035, transacted 200,087,000 shares. Out of that, 142 million shares crossed mostly @ $0.03 cent with about 20million shares @$0.035.

My market reading on the above scenario;
(1) Market over reacted towards its LOW right issues price. This is normally happen whenever a low right issue/placement price, the market just sell down and off course, those will be happily accumulating at the other end. As a contrarian’s strategy, I always love to buy any non- speculative stock under ordinary market situation.

(2) Heavy arbitraging in between the mother & PAL.

(2) Other than that, I’m totally don’t understand why should a company value dropped so drastic? Again, I would like to emphasize; the right issues is for future acquisition, rather than for debt-settlement.

(3) Based on the two days observation, I would like to take the PAL at 0.03/035 is at the bottom benchmark.

Micro interpretation;

(1) Based on the closing price, PAL is trading at a discount against its mother price of 16.67%.

(3)See the attachment, according to the balance sheet as of 30th June 2009; the NTA is about $0.14 cent, at $0.09 (during the crisis price) entry- level is approximately 55% discounted against its NTA.

(4) How about the earning?
GMG Global earning had been at a stable tight range in year 2008, made a lot of profits in year 2007. How about the prospect? What I know is the rubber price is closely tagged upon the automobile industry. The only country automobile industry is doing extremely well is China. (I have been trading some China automobile stocks in HK market and know a little bit of their fabulous financial results recently)

(5) Don’t forget, the earning was from Europe and US before taken over by Sinochem International Corporation (Paid 51% stake at $0.26 per share).

(6) I don’t know exactly how the earning prospect is going to be, but I’ m quite certain; given the current global economy momentum, rubber price shouldn’t be doing so badly, which ought to be translating a set of good earning for GMG Global Ltd.

Risks;
I always ask about risks involved in any speculation; in this context, whether it could be possibly a/some rubbish injection to take out the $100 million from this company?

Please check the below web; http://www.sinochemintl.com/en/2media/1_detail.asp?id=381

Thus, I think and I would say, the possibly rubbish injection is quite low. Given,
Sinochem International Corporation, the major shareholder’s entry cost is $0.26 plus this right issues subscription & under writing.

Other risks, I may not know such as;
(1) The fluctuation of rubber price,

(2) Geo-political/country risks in Cameron, South Africa & Indonesia? I think, being a Malaysian, whom is forced to invest abroad, inevitably to take certain degree of risks. Well, this is our career/life, dealt with it then.

(4) Worse case scenario? I think, at $0.09 cent backed with almost $0.055 cash per share. We are buying into this business at only $0.035/4, I don’t see any severe risks behind? If you know any, please tell me.

When to cash out/sell;
(1) As I said, every season has a reason; an impetus is expected to boost the share price with the $100 million future acquisition.

(2) Highly likely to participate in the robust China automobile industry,which is to deliver a good set of earning given its major shareholder background.

(3) Who the hack had been absorbing the crossed block of shares (PAL) and via open market? Are they buying for long-term or fun??

cheers !



Patience is the key STILL
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=176398

Webb still here - 隆成金融(1225)

昨日,黃國英在am730 一文指出:

「雖然事不關己,但作為一個行內人,目睹股壇長毛David Webb於隆成(1225)之上慘敗,感覺非常不舒服。隆成大比例供股不久,又來一次合股然後再供,遇著無良上市公司,的確是無底深潭。」

報導指出:

「由曾經持股逾8%或7693.8萬股,最新相信已消失於隆成的主要股東名單之內」

黃國英先生的回覆,經筆者向其員工盧志威詢問了一會,大概有一定了解,相信是一種關於「你需要攻定還是守的犧牲」,筆者也認為難分高下。至於關於黃國英先生一文的其他論據是否對,或者有人提及他的炒法的出路,如果筆者有機會,筆者會作另一文的探討,或者會利用一位我承認是我寫的作家之口寫出來。

至於該報導,相信那記者經驗十分淺,根據筆者找到的蛛絲馬跡:

1. David Webb 持股愛用Unnamed Investors Participants 持有,根據供股當日紀錄,股份的確增加了接近4倍,相信他有參與供股。

2. 披露上雖然並沒有說明增持紀錄,但根據證監會的說法:

例子1: 當某大股東的持股量由5.9%增至6.2%,由於他的股權跨越了6%這個整數百分比,所以必須作出披露。但是,若他的股權由6.1%增至6.9%,因沒有跨越任何整數百分比,所以毋須作出披露。

所以David Webb 的股權在供股後的百分比,仍然維持8%沒有變化,所以不需披露。

故此David Webb 仍然持有隆成金融的股票。他對這一系的研究見諸這兒,筆者相信他本人不會打無把握的仗。

明知照供會有危險,但筆者卻相信他一定有後著。

Webb still here 隆成 金融 1225
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=203078

Webb still here - 隆成金融(1225)

 

昨日,黃國英在am730 一文指出:

 

「雖然事不關己,但作為一個行內人,目睹股壇長毛David Webb於隆成(1225)之上慘敗,感覺非常不舒服。隆成大比例供股不久,又來一次合股然後再供,遇著無良上市公司,的確是無底深潭。」

 

報導指出:

 

「由曾經持股逾8%或7693.8萬股,最新相信已消失於隆成的主要股東名單之內」

 

黃國英先生的回覆,經筆者向其員工盧志威詢問了一會,大概有一定了解,相信是一種關於「你需要攻定還是守的犧牲」,筆者也認為難分高下。至於關於黃國英先生一文的其他論據是否對,或者有人提及他的炒法的出路,如果筆者有機會,筆者會作另一文的探討,或者會利用一位我承認是我寫的作家之口寫出來。

 

至於該報導,相信那記者經驗十分淺,根據筆者找到的蛛絲馬跡:

 

1. David Webb 持股愛用Unnamed Investors Participants 持有,根據供股當日紀錄,股份的確增加了接近4倍,相信他有參與供股。

 

2. 披露上雖然並沒有說明增持紀錄,但根據證監會的說法:

 

例子1: 當某大股東的持股量由5.9%增至6.2%,由於他的股權跨越了6%這個整數百分比,所以必須作出披露。但是,若他的股權由6.1%增至6.9%,因沒有跨越任何整數百分比,所以毋須作出披露。

 

 

所以David Webb 的股權在供股後的百分比,仍然維持8%沒有變化,所以不需披露。

 

故此David Webb 仍然持有隆成金融的股票。他對這一系的研究見諸這兒,筆者相信他本人不會打無把握的仗。

 

明知照供會有危險,但筆者卻相信他一定有後著。

 

Webb still here 隆成 金融 1225
PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=203150

股票掌故 | 香港股票資訊 | 神州股票資訊 | 台股資訊 | 博客好文 | 文庫舊文 | 香港股票資訊 | 第一財經 | 微信公眾號 | Webb哥點將錄 | 港股專區 | 股海挪亞方舟 | 動漫遊戲音樂 | 好歌 | 動漫綜合 | RealBlog | 測試 | 強國 | 潮流潮物 [Fashion board] | 龍鳳大茶樓 | 文章保管庫 | 財經人物 | 智慧 | 世界之大,無奇不有 | 創業 | 股壇維基研發區 | 英文 | 財經書籍 | 期權期指輪天地 | 郊遊遠足 | 站務 | 飲食 | 國際經濟 | 上市公司新聞 | 美股專區 | 書藉及文章分享區 | 娛樂廣場 | 波馬風雲 | 政治民生區 | 財經專業機構 | 識飲色食 | 即市討論區 | 股票專業討論區 | 全球政治經濟社會區 | 建築 | I.T. | 馬後砲膠區之圖表 | 打工仔 | 蘋果專欄 | 雨傘革命 | Louis 先生投資時事分享區 | 地產 |
ZKIZ Archives @ 2019