|
Printable version |
From: | "Richard Hooper" <hoop@ihug.co.nz> |
Date: | Thu, 6 Sep 2001 02:21:11 +1200 |
Ruth
Read the Article, rather negative I
thought, and broad ranging tarring all NZ companies with the same
brush. I agree in most part that NZ does lack good management in alot
of companies ,most of which have now been exposed ,which is usually the
case when times are tough. I have added www.garethmorgan.com to my
favourites list. Thanks.
Large overseas investors regard NZ as the wild west
with cowboys running around, this is imho factored unfairly into the shareprices
of most NZ stocks. Govt or Securities Commission must address this area.
Shrinking financial assets/experts ,are also factored into shareprices, so any
positive deviation to the past performance should make NZ market look
undervalued. OK not much has happened NZ restructure wise ,Govt seems to be lip
reading only with this lastest conference, however looking in the revision
mirror while driving forward is not a good idea neither. Small private
businesses in NZ have always been dodgy .20 years ago 75% of small businesses
failed within 5 years. With better accounting skills that figure is maybe
slighly less today , if at all. So nothing has changed there.That
article by Gareth Morgan seems dated, because one of the best performing
sharemarkets this year is NZ, so why would you invest somewhere else ..it is
illogical. I don't know what the "true"P/E average of NZ stocks is (
unfortunately and frustrationally all figures are different) but I know
there is a number of growth stocks that are under 15 some even as low as 6 to
7(DPC). Gerry talks about BCH ..huge growth company P/E 50 something ..great
company well managed ..well worth the investment ..but there are other
gems in NZ as well but not discovered yet because of negativity,hence
their low P/E.
It may come as a surprise but I was called a
pessimist in 1986 for exactly the opposite reasons. :))
I assume you mean FFS not FRF.
God knows whats happening here. Latest result has
shown up what the Directors could hide and get away with (legally) during
the last few years ... As a result alot of mum & dad investors in the
past have had their lives ruined by these people. Now the truth
is out, the books wiped clean ??? we are led to believe, and FFS starts a new
life. I am still none the wiser if the company is operating successfully, as
some of the old guard is still hanging around, and on past performance
I can't trust them. I took a punt that FFS was going to be bought out..
.bought shares at 67c got my fingers burnt. OK my fault... its called
greed...However overall a very non-transparent company, so no surprise that
investors are playing musical chairs with this stock. Also cyclic low commodity
prices and the mystery over the Citic / CNIFP squabble doesn't help
neither.
No idea who is buying these dumped shares, surely
if it is one or two institutions we would have known through the declaration of
holding if more than 5%.
Maybe Gerry can help us with this
problem
I may be paranoid .....but why is this years FFS
booklet called an annual REVIEW when nearly every other
NZ company calls it an annual REPORT. OK.. its an attempt to make the
company more transparent , but if analysts think the NTA is valued around
50c/share why is the present market value 30c/share????. Uncertainity springs to
mind.
Reading the Chairmans Letter he states with the
opening sentence...quote..."' The company's annual result detailed in this
Review is unacceptable but was largely unavoidable. "
Sorry Sir Dryden ...you lost me
there,... not a good start to your annual review... However you can feel
proud as being the man behind the wheel of a company who has just
recorded the biggest annual loss in NZ history. (and I'll bet you say that
its not your fault)...unavoidable :)))
For me I got around the FFS loss problem by buying
Rubicon.
Hoop
|
References
|