Good thing won't cheap.

Cheap thing not necessary good.

By "cheap" u meant P/E valuation-wise, or RM-wise?

P/E & P/BV wise lar.. RM-wise is not a valuation factor.

This post has been edited by gark: Mar 2 2013, 04:43 PM

Mmmm just saw one, but not sure if its a good dividend play...Plenitude, property stock, holds >300mil cash, floating shares is 270mil, average >1.20 cash per share...been giving dividends since 2004 consistently every year... Technically oversold, RSI hitting 20 last friday...

maybe sifus can gip me a thought bout this? undervalued? potentially they may increase dividend payout or something?

Unless we can spot a good thing before others 'discover' it...
But even if we do, we may not have confidence in ourselves

Morning river.sand,

no risk, no gain......

Morning gark,

Do you come acros where to download the EPS, PE, DPS, gearing, Revenue, Libilities ? Do you formula ?

I came across this websites ... site to download the data

http://klse.neobie.net/quote.php

This post has been edited by felixmask: Mar 3 2013, 10:48 AM

felixmask,

You make my day! This is very good. I know a place to get this data but I need to subscribe/pay for it!

Cheerio

share share share, let me see whay i can

You can count yourself by reading the financial reports... now don't be lazy.

Otherwise you can get a nice 10 year summary from the Malaysian Stock Performance book - published every 6 months - RM 70.

There is a better screener than the one you posted...http://markets.ft.com/screener/customScreen.asp

This post has been edited by gark: Mar 4 2013, 10:12 AM

Morning Gark,

Im programmer prefer automated download.

thanks you vey much sifu gark for link.

This post has been edited by felixmask: Mar 9 2013, 01:14 PM

Greetings + G'Day,

Conclusion = What is the BEST Passive Income from Dividend after so long discussion?

S'pore REIT Or USA Stock or Other ? Greater currency exchg rate is playing critical role, but yr costs are
huge too. IMHO, timing to enter, keep and hold the stocks are great decision-making.. No EXIT, as it
generates good ROI.

Have a great day.

This post has been edited by netmask8: Mar 8 2013, 05:25 PM

What I really think to have a sustainable passive income from dividend, we must not neglect the ability of a company to generate constant cashflow. Company operating in sustainable business normally provide good cash flow excess.
Company that is expanding usually don't pay any dividend toward its shareholders, if ones could spot this type of expanding company with huge cash from operation, usually few years down the road, this type of company will slowly declared dividend. This is how you could earn passive income years before the company actually pay any dividend. Once a company is paying constant dividend, you can bet the valuation will be higher than before.
Just my opinion and I start to adopt this kind of strategy, spotting growth company that have the potential to give dividend in the futures.

I agree. A healthy stream of free operating cash flow is one of the important factors to consider.

We also have to check if the dividends are sustainable over the long-term. Check their dividend history over the past 10 to 20 years. Especially during 2000/2001 and 2009/2010.

Company expanding, doesn't mean must poor cashflow or no dividend, it is how company manage its cashflow.

Company not expanding also doesn't mean good dividend, there are company with huge cash pile, but management board only decided little dividend.

Dividend or not, and how much largely depended on the management board decision.

Especially with tax credit is going to be forfeited after 2013, there are still company with significant tax credit + significant cash + steady cashflow every year, yet only declare little dividend.
It is a big loss for minority shareholders that subjected to lower tax bracket or do not need to pay tax one (income below taxable income, especially for those retired one)

There are also company expand, expand, then struggling afterwards, so not every expanding company ended up with good cashflow or good dividend afterwards.

So can't generalise, it depends on individual company and situation.

cherroy I do agree with everything you said. It really depend on the management how they manage their finances and cashflow, every company have different style of management, but the few thing I notice is company with steady dividend usually also produce steady cash from operation.

One of the thing I try to avoid is buying a company in industry which require high capital expenditure which quickly eat up the cash pile it produce from operation. Some bluechip stocks are in high capex industry, and what I notice is that when their cashflow is negative, they usually issue debts to pay its dividend, which what I think unsustainable.

Please give comment.

It depends on the capital expenditure nature.
Eg.
We knew Telco always need large capital expenditure as to sustain and improve the equipment, especially changing from 3G to 4G transition period.

If the capital expenditure means expanding revenue and future cashflow, then it is still seem ok. Normally when large capital expenditure incurred, issuing of debt is inevitable.

But if the capital expenditure did not improve the revenue and that can result in better cashflow, then it is another story.

For simple eg.
Company use 1 million to buy furniture and fancy decoration, company revenue still remain the same.
vs
company use 1 million to buy machinery and equipment that provide better productivity, that increase revenue.

But company with high capex normally comes with certain degree of risk(at least higher than low capex industry) even if their capex can bring them more revenue. so one bad decision in the future might jeopardize the stability of the income stream d. So, isn't it safer to invest in industry that do not need high capex to generate higher return?

Yes, that's true.

Normally those high capex company, we can see revenue can be improved with ease compared to those low capex one, aka company can growth faster, which could translate, share price can grow faster as compared to those low capex.

Capex is needed when you want to get more sales, take more sales from rival etc.

Ideally, it is better to have a company with low capex, and yet can grow, and generate good cashflow + dividend.
But we do not live in ideal world.

I like to give simple eg so that it is easier to understand.

A company with existing 1 machine, produce 100 item per month, the most A can sell is 100 item x price = revenue
Next year, no capex, still remain the same, so revenue is still the same, if price is not hiked.

B company also with existing 1 machine that produce 100 item, now B has capex to buy addition machine.
Now B can produce 200 item as compared with A, so B revenue could be higher than A, as well as cash generated from the sales made.

So it is applied on telco, if a telco doesn't want to invest, aka low capex, and resulted in low capacity to handle usage, slower internet line etc, consumer may complain due to bad experience and may switch to rival, which could resulted lower revenue and lower cash generated in the future.
Unless the company is operating at monopoly state, then different story.

are you mentioning the recent-100k-fined-by-MCMC DiGi?