Happy Easter to all forummers.
Thank you for your 14th March posting regarding Techcomp Musicwhiz – my apologies for taking so long to respond – not been 100% lately.
Before offering answers to your pertinent questions, and in the interests of transparency for VB forummers, I’ll be upfront that a) I’m vested in Techcomp’s Singapore shares and b) a narrative on another “investor forum” has criticised some receivables level related concerns that I registered in an earlier VB Techcomp posting, asserting that I don’t understand Techcomp’s business.
In respect of the latter point – may be the other “investor forum” is correct regarding my know-how………. but I’m sticking to my guns. While I’m vested, I believe there are some question-marks related to Techcomp, particularly regarding its escalating receivables levels and its acquisition track-record. I believe if Techcomp’s Management successfully addresses these concerns then it will have a beneficial impact on the share price.
If a listed company is perfect with absolutely no issues whatsoever, then everyone will rush to invest, won’t they? I believe share investment decisions are based on judgement of the balance between the positives and negatives of a counter. On balance, I invested in Techcomp and I’m not selling now, as I believe the Singapore share price has upside. I believe the other “investor forum” I refer to above has a habit of falling into the trap of only seeing and citing the positives in the counters it is egging-on (e.g. Hu An Cable, Eratat and…...Techcomp), IMHO. Of my favoured holdings such as Kingsmen, BBR, Zagro, LHT and Lee Kim Tah, each have issues ………….. but I’m vested since I believe their positives outweigh their negatives and I have confidence in the capabilities and capacities of their management teams to successfully address the issues that really matter.
Specifically, the facts are a) a review of Techcomp’s own Financial Reports will bring out a rising level of receivables, and Techcomp’s own management point to China when talking to how they have honed their focus for bringing such levels to heel, and b) the “jury is still (very much) out” regarding the success of Techcomp’s European acquisitions of 2-3 years ago – on its own admission, management has had to undertake restructuring of the acquired businesses and only this year are the acquired European business expected to breakeven on an operating basis. I am pleased and relieved that Techcomp’s management is focusing on the PRC and emerging Asian markets for future growth, rather than on European markets.
Coming to the points you raised regarding Techcomp Musicwhiz (you had quite a number of questions which I have tried to put into four buckets) ………………….
A. Some key financial and profitability indicators of Techcomp for the last nine years:
________________2002___2003___2004___2005___2006___2007___2008___2009___2010___2011
Revenue (US$ Mln)_22.9___38.8____41.9___44.6____54.8___65.8____81.0 __104.8__127.1___154.1
Net Profit (US$ Mln)__1.7____3.0____3.7____3.7_____4.4____6.0_____3.1____7.4____10.5____8.4
EPS# (US$ Cents)__0.84___1.48____1.83___1.83____2.15___2.87____1.33___3.17___4.52____3.61
Dividend (S$ Cts)________________0.95+__1.00____1.20___1.20____1.20___1.20___1.00*__~1.00
Dividend POR (%)_____________________________________22.8____39.8_________________22.3
I’ve gotten all the numbers in the above tabulation from Techcomp’s Annual Report’s (which are generally decent reads by the way - although I missed a comparison with previous years financial performance in the recently distributed 2011 Annual Report) and their recent FY2011 SGX disclosure. Regarding my annotations in the above tabulation (which I realise does not have the best presentation!!)......
# In calculating EPS, I have corrected for both the 2010 1-for-2 bonus share issue and the 2004 Restructuring Exercise – I hope I have made the conversions correctly.
+ Dividends for 2004 and before were in US$.
* Dividend per share decreased in 2010 (vs. 2009) due to a 1 for 2 bonus share issue in 2010; in reality the dividend was actually a year-on-year increase. Page 29 of Techcomp’s 2004 annual report also describes the 2004 “Re-structuring Exercise” (Techcomp’s words) better than I can; this explains the 2004 vs. 2003 NIAT/EPS ratio change.
- I will insert additional Dividend POR coverage data in due course - bear with me please.
I believe the numbers in the above tabulation demonstrate that Techcomp has delivered a strong and sustained track-record of underlying profit and revenue growth over the last ten years. During the period 2002 thru 2010 inclusive, Techcomp’s revenue stream grew at a CAGR of just under 24% and its net profit increased by a ~ 26% CAGR. As mentioned in my earlier posting, when the costs for the 2011 dual listing exercise and a 2010 divestment are taken into account, 2011 was actually Techcomp’s record year of underlying profitability. Only in 2008 (aka Lehmans Crisis) did Techcomp’s profitability see a marked downturn. I’ll rest my case on Techcomp’s strong growth track record!
B. Dividend payments have been consistent, although I would accept that the yields are nothing to write home about. Techcomp pay a moderate dividend – currently it is yielding 2.3% - of course, I would like that to be higher – and as the above table shows, Techcomp have the coverage to pay more.
C. MW - You enquired about my comparison with Techcomp’s peers in the manufacture of Scientific Equipment (SE). Techcomp’s Singapore shares are currently trading at a P/E of ~ 9.2. Rather than reading my ramblings on peer comparisons, I quote below from page’s 2 and 3 of a 15th March 2012 Yamaichi Securities Analyst Report…….. admittedly this is aimed at holders of Techcomp's Hong Kong shares but 99% of this (quite readable) report applies for Singapore based shareholders
QUOTE
As there is no ready comparable in the same business listed in Hong Kong, we compare the Company with the peers of manufacturers and distributors of science equipment mainly in the U.S. By looking at about 1800 securities in industrial sector listed in Hong Kong and the U.S., we have observed a 40% sector premium on FY12F PER for the peer group in the U.S. over Hong Kong peers. The top 10 SE producers (mainly in the U.S.) and other peers with similar market cap are trading at 15.2x and 16.9x FY12F PER, respectively. In our model, we take the top 10 SE producers into the peer comparison, as they are highly representative to the valuation of the SE sector and more conservative compared to the peer with similar market cap.
We set the target PER of Techcomp in line with the peer average with a sector discount. Although the market cap of Techcomp is small compared with the top 10 producers, the Company has relatively higher growth potential due to the high exposure in emerging markets, especially the PRC, achieving strong top-line growth. We expect the Company to have 20.7% CAGR for top-line with 20.7% 3-year CAGR with improving profit margins.
UNQUOTE
I am of the position that Techcomp’s current P/E multiple has upside - in P/E terms it is trading at the bottom of the pack.
D. The reality remains that Techcomp’s Hong Kong share price is trading at a premium to its Singapore share price – but this has narrowed considerably since my last posting in mid March – alas, this is due more to the Hong Kong price falling rather than the Singapore price rising. At Thursday’s closing, the Singapore share price was S$ 0.43 as compared to the Hong Kong share price closing of HK$ 2.77, equivalent to ~ S$ 0.45 or about 4.1/2% higher than the Singapore price. Yamaichi contends this differential is due to tighter liquidity of the Hong Kong counter. I believe the reality, whether we like it or not, is that counters will tend to get a higher multiple on the HKEX as compared to the SGX.
Apologies for yet another epistle.......... and my feeble attempts to include a legible tabulation!!
Vested (in the Singapore shares),
Thank you for your 14th March posting regarding Techcomp Musicwhiz – my apologies for taking so long to respond – not been 100% lately.
Before offering answers to your pertinent questions, and in the interests of transparency for VB forummers, I’ll be upfront that a) I’m vested in Techcomp’s Singapore shares and b) a narrative on another “investor forum” has criticised some receivables level related concerns that I registered in an earlier VB Techcomp posting, asserting that I don’t understand Techcomp’s business.
In respect of the latter point – may be the other “investor forum” is correct regarding my know-how………. but I’m sticking to my guns. While I’m vested, I believe there are some question-marks related to Techcomp, particularly regarding its escalating receivables levels and its acquisition track-record. I believe if Techcomp’s Management successfully addresses these concerns then it will have a beneficial impact on the share price.
If a listed company is perfect with absolutely no issues whatsoever, then everyone will rush to invest, won’t they? I believe share investment decisions are based on judgement of the balance between the positives and negatives of a counter. On balance, I invested in Techcomp and I’m not selling now, as I believe the Singapore share price has upside. I believe the other “investor forum” I refer to above has a habit of falling into the trap of only seeing and citing the positives in the counters it is egging-on (e.g. Hu An Cable, Eratat and…...Techcomp), IMHO. Of my favoured holdings such as Kingsmen, BBR, Zagro, LHT and Lee Kim Tah, each have issues ………….. but I’m vested since I believe their positives outweigh their negatives and I have confidence in the capabilities and capacities of their management teams to successfully address the issues that really matter.
Specifically, the facts are a) a review of Techcomp’s own Financial Reports will bring out a rising level of receivables, and Techcomp’s own management point to China when talking to how they have honed their focus for bringing such levels to heel, and b) the “jury is still (very much) out” regarding the success of Techcomp’s European acquisitions of 2-3 years ago – on its own admission, management has had to undertake restructuring of the acquired businesses and only this year are the acquired European business expected to breakeven on an operating basis. I am pleased and relieved that Techcomp’s management is focusing on the PRC and emerging Asian markets for future growth, rather than on European markets.
Coming to the points you raised regarding Techcomp Musicwhiz (you had quite a number of questions which I have tried to put into four buckets) ………………….
A. Some key financial and profitability indicators of Techcomp for the last nine years:
________________2002___2003___2004___2005___2006___2007___2008___2009___2010___2011
Revenue (US$ Mln)_22.9___38.8____41.9___44.6____54.8___65.8____81.0 __104.8__127.1___154.1
Net Profit (US$ Mln)__1.7____3.0____3.7____3.7_____4.4____6.0_____3.1____7.4____10.5____8.4
EPS# (US$ Cents)__0.84___1.48____1.83___1.83____2.15___2.87____1.33___3.17___4.52____3.61
Dividend (S$ Cts)________________0.95+__1.00____1.20___1.20____1.20___1.20___1.00*__~1.00
Dividend POR (%)_____________________________________22.8____39.8_________________22.3
I’ve gotten all the numbers in the above tabulation from Techcomp’s Annual Report’s (which are generally decent reads by the way - although I missed a comparison with previous years financial performance in the recently distributed 2011 Annual Report) and their recent FY2011 SGX disclosure. Regarding my annotations in the above tabulation (which I realise does not have the best presentation!!)......
# In calculating EPS, I have corrected for both the 2010 1-for-2 bonus share issue and the 2004 Restructuring Exercise – I hope I have made the conversions correctly.
+ Dividends for 2004 and before were in US$.
* Dividend per share decreased in 2010 (vs. 2009) due to a 1 for 2 bonus share issue in 2010; in reality the dividend was actually a year-on-year increase. Page 29 of Techcomp’s 2004 annual report also describes the 2004 “Re-structuring Exercise” (Techcomp’s words) better than I can; this explains the 2004 vs. 2003 NIAT/EPS ratio change.
- I will insert additional Dividend POR coverage data in due course - bear with me please.
I believe the numbers in the above tabulation demonstrate that Techcomp has delivered a strong and sustained track-record of underlying profit and revenue growth over the last ten years. During the period 2002 thru 2010 inclusive, Techcomp’s revenue stream grew at a CAGR of just under 24% and its net profit increased by a ~ 26% CAGR. As mentioned in my earlier posting, when the costs for the 2011 dual listing exercise and a 2010 divestment are taken into account, 2011 was actually Techcomp’s record year of underlying profitability. Only in 2008 (aka Lehmans Crisis) did Techcomp’s profitability see a marked downturn. I’ll rest my case on Techcomp’s strong growth track record!
B. Dividend payments have been consistent, although I would accept that the yields are nothing to write home about. Techcomp pay a moderate dividend – currently it is yielding 2.3% - of course, I would like that to be higher – and as the above table shows, Techcomp have the coverage to pay more.
C. MW - You enquired about my comparison with Techcomp’s peers in the manufacture of Scientific Equipment (SE). Techcomp’s Singapore shares are currently trading at a P/E of ~ 9.2. Rather than reading my ramblings on peer comparisons, I quote below from page’s 2 and 3 of a 15th March 2012 Yamaichi Securities Analyst Report…….. admittedly this is aimed at holders of Techcomp's Hong Kong shares but 99% of this (quite readable) report applies for Singapore based shareholders
QUOTE
As there is no ready comparable in the same business listed in Hong Kong, we compare the Company with the peers of manufacturers and distributors of science equipment mainly in the U.S. By looking at about 1800 securities in industrial sector listed in Hong Kong and the U.S., we have observed a 40% sector premium on FY12F PER for the peer group in the U.S. over Hong Kong peers. The top 10 SE producers (mainly in the U.S.) and other peers with similar market cap are trading at 15.2x and 16.9x FY12F PER, respectively. In our model, we take the top 10 SE producers into the peer comparison, as they are highly representative to the valuation of the SE sector and more conservative compared to the peer with similar market cap.
We set the target PER of Techcomp in line with the peer average with a sector discount. Although the market cap of Techcomp is small compared with the top 10 producers, the Company has relatively higher growth potential due to the high exposure in emerging markets, especially the PRC, achieving strong top-line growth. We expect the Company to have 20.7% CAGR for top-line with 20.7% 3-year CAGR with improving profit margins.
UNQUOTE
I am of the position that Techcomp’s current P/E multiple has upside - in P/E terms it is trading at the bottom of the pack.
D. The reality remains that Techcomp’s Hong Kong share price is trading at a premium to its Singapore share price – but this has narrowed considerably since my last posting in mid March – alas, this is due more to the Hong Kong price falling rather than the Singapore price rising. At Thursday’s closing, the Singapore share price was S$ 0.43 as compared to the Hong Kong share price closing of HK$ 2.77, equivalent to ~ S$ 0.45 or about 4.1/2% higher than the Singapore price. Yamaichi contends this differential is due to tighter liquidity of the Hong Kong counter. I believe the reality, whether we like it or not, is that counters will tend to get a higher multiple on the HKEX as compared to the SGX.
Apologies for yet another epistle.......... and my feeble attempts to include a legible tabulation!!
Vested (in the Singapore shares),
RBM, Retired Botanic MatSalleh