Are we in a bull run? Of course we are. Not to labour the point but I highlighted the start of the bull run back in January this year... and got a lot of naysayers but never mind:
p/s: needless to say, this is Jing Tian ... beautiful face and a certain kind of freshness in her looks and acting career thus far
http://malaysiafinance.blogspot.my/2016/12/bank-negara-may-have-switched-on-bull.html
I would like to extend my prediction that the bull run for Bursa stocks should continue to run well till the end of the year. What we are seeing for the past 3 weeks was a general lull where volume suddenly shrunk but the general trend is still intact. My reasons for saying so:
a) the overall equity markets globally will be supported by a benign recovery complemented by a timid approach to raising rates by most central banks
b) thanks to a drastic bear run for most commodities, and to a lesser extent some oil & gas players, the undertone for "cost of materials" have been weak and has provided a cushion for improved margins for producers of goods and services
Hence we have what we need, a stable global equity playground so as to not destabilise other smaller equity markets. To continue the argument:
c) the bull run will continue for Bursa because the recovery of the ringgit is intact and will be slow; while nobody in the country liked the dramatic weakening of the ringgit over the past 2 years, there are benefits - we are still very much an export led economy, with less than 30 million, we can never be a domestic led economy; that said, the economy has been competitive and productive for the last 4-10 years at 3.20-3.40 to the USD ... interest dwindled and "funds departed" when the "issues" started to hit Malaysia over the last 2 years, causing the ringgit to slump to as weak as 4.40; that was the MAIN reason why I thought Bank Negara may have unwittingly started a big bull run when the implement the new strategies beginning of this year cause once investors can see a shift in the pendulum swing, a trend is your friend cause if you are productive and competitive at 3.2-3.4 ... what more at 4.2-4.4; that is still a 30%-37% "increase in competitiveness", it was certainly as good as a substantive devaluation
d) the no-par value regime: many are still in the dark with the no par value regime which began this year; the "snowball effects" for positive corporate exercises have not been appreciated or discounted at all by investors:
http://malaysiafinance.blogspot.my/2014/06/need-to-get-to-no-par-value-regime-very.html
There are two main reasons:
1) What is even more galling is the ACE market, which is supposed to be encouraging growth companies, but there is still the par value regime which locks out many applicants. Why do you think so many smaller growth companies have been going to AIMS and Taiwan to list their companies, while you can count the number of new ACE companies listed over the last 12 months on one hand. Let me tell you that the very poor performance of the last few listed ACE companies is probably due to the paid up capital issue - these are companies, by hook or crook boost up their paid up with bricks and mortars but no solid business, so you end with small manufacturing plants and unconvincing old school products.
The very basis of encouraging growth companies is GROWTH PROSPECTS, THE SUSTAINABILITY & LEVERAGE/SCALABILITY of the business model, and NOT par value. It is very important because as current rules stands, even Facebook could not have listed 5 years back on ACE because their paid up was too low. Even when Facebook listed recently, their par value (which still exists, but there are no rules as to how low you can go) was something like 0.0006 cents per share, and IPO price was nearly $30.00.
When you hold to the current regime, any company considering to list on ACE must at least have a minimum of RM7m - RM10m, even that will considered as low to our regulators. We all should be aware that in the evolution of business model, invested capital is a poor judge and poor guide for evaluating any company.
If you are making a few million ringgit, with a scalable business model, why do you need to have RM10m in paid up? The new economy would indicate emphatically that the internet, new business processes/delivery of services and new marketing platforms (MLMs, network marketing, franchising) are playing critical roles in new business models. Most of these require a LOT LESS INVESTED CAPITAL, but what they do provide is more VALUE ADD SERVICES and PRODUCTS delivered in a smarter and more creative way.
The longer Bursa/SC stays inactive with the par value regime, the more we are pushing away great smaller companies. As it stands in ACE, with a minimum of RM7m-RM10m "unwritten rule" as paid up, YOU ARE ENCOURAGING THE ENTIRE ECONOMY TO STAY WITH SUNSET INDUSTRIES, YOU ARE ENCOURAGING COMPANIES TO STAY OLD SCHOOL IN THINKING, YOU ARE STRONGLY DISCOURAGING INNOVATION - all that has a strong trickle down effect, how do you think private equity investors or angel investors will feel, they will further shy away from innovative companies and rather fund companies with bricks and mortar assets or in manufacturing. The cycle is devastating, when early seed funders do not get good exit options, smaller companies get little or no funding.
If a company is making RM2m-3m profit early in its life with a paid up of less than RM500,000 ... why stop them from listing on ACE? These are the very companies you need to encourage and foster. When they can do that with minimal capital, it show their business model is SCALABLE ... which is to say if you provide further capital by allowing them to tap the ACE market, say another RM5m-10m, they have a good chance to churn out 3x, 4x, maybe more profits.
And you know smaller companies will always find funding very difficult in their early days, banks... fergedaboudit, with minimal exit options, angel investors and private equity would be hesitant as well.
Let me give you a real example, a company that makes RM3m a year with a paid up of RM500,000 in its 3rd year of existence. No way can they list on ACE. They have to put in another RM7m-10m cash into the company as the minimum par value is 10 sen. So, if you have RM10m PUC, you can have 100m shares listed, and then issue another 25m shares to the public to raise funds.
In a no par value regime, the company can capitalise their profits and bring it up to say RM3m in PUC, and issue 100m shares with a par value of 0.3 sen a share. You price IPO shares no on par value, you price based on earnings potential, ...historical and forward. Say for the same company making RM3m a year, you may even attribute a 15x PER as growth is paramount for sustainable growth companies = a market cap of RM45m, or an IPO price per share @ 45 sen. (If you force these companies to put in RM10m cash to get listed on ACE, what is the point ... if they have RM10m, they need not tap ACE for funds).
When you move to a no par value regime, you will be able to greenlight more exciting companies with scalable and creative business platforms - isn't that the very aim of ACE, isn't that the best way to encourage entrepreneurs, innovation, maintaining competitiveness and assimilation into the new economy?
2) Do you realise how many listed companies on Bursa are trading below their par value? We only have just over a thousand listed companies and I can safely say that there are between 250-400 companies, my estimates based on a brief perusal of a couple of sectors.
What happens when you trade below your par value? You get there usually because of accumulated losses over the years. Say your par value is RM1.00 and your share is RM0.70 sen now, there is no way you can issue new shares below par value to raise funds or to use new shares to buy some other businesses.
In a no par value regime, par value doe not count, the value of your shares is the last traded price. Hence even when you are at RM0.70, you can issue new shares around RM0.70 to existing shareholders (rights issue) to raise funds for new ventures, or you can issue new shares at around RM0.70 to take over some business which you thing will add value to your current platform or help to reinvent/recharge your business model.
In the current regime, these companies no longer have those options. Plus, for 99% of them, they would probably have MAXED out their available banking facilities as well ALREADY. So what is left for them to do?
With limited options, and a deteriorating business model, no access to funds, you can do zilch. Hence for many of them, they resort to speculative price "management" or what some of us refer to as rampings by syndicates, to bring forth some "profits" for themselves or stakeholders - I mean, they have to try to make money somehow.
They cannot even consider a RTO by a profitable and bigger company. In the cited example, no company will want to take new shares issued at RM1.00 for a company with a market price of RM0.70. Hence the only way left is to do a capital reduction. That is a fair path since the company has not been doing well, and shareholders are supposed to benefit and be punished alongside with company's fortunes. However, many are not taking up that option because they can very well make good pocket money by appointing syndicates to ramp up their shares once or twice a year. By limiting the options to these companies, Bursa/SC are indirectly condoning/encouraging these speculative share ramoings. (Especially when there IS ALREADY a viable, prove, global best practice that the authorities can adopt IMMEDIATELY ... ist not that their hands are tied or there are no options for Bursa/SC to take).
When the no par value regime is enacted, you will also energise the market enormously, which will have tremendous trickle down benefits. These companies below par value will be more active in scouring for good companies to buy to reinvent their business models (to help them get out of the slump). They could also do rights issues, and maybe even sweeten them with free warrants (which they could not do in a current regime).
The end result is they need not turn to syndicates to ramp their shares to make money, they can turn their attention to more genuine plans. It will reinvigorate investors as well as they can see some light at the end of the tunnel. Its like a patient with a terminal
disease slowing rotting away, suddenly turning into a patient with new drug cures possibility.
Hence the strongest claim for a sustaining bull run has to be the no par value regime. Start researching companies taking advantage of the new regime.
So when will we need to be careful about this bull run? I think its not that hard to spot the turning points. I would start to be careful when the ringgit breaks 4.00 vs USD cause anything lower than that would probably signal to plenty of foreign funds to start taking profits to exit. So we still have a lot of legs for this market.
Title: How Long Will The Bull Lasts For Malaysia
Posted by:Dhduf
Published :2017-06-13T21:11:00-07:00
Rating: 3.5
Reviewer: 5 Reviews
How Long Will The Bull Lasts For Malaysia
Artikel keren lainnya:
Belum ada tanggapan untuk "How Long Will The Bull Lasts For Malaysia"
Post a Comment