finally my cimb got hope after years

Is the voting on Budget 2021 set for tomorrow or not! So confusing these news outlet

Source: Voting on Budget 2021 likely to be delayed to Nov 30

Schedule for budget voting on track — source

Buybacks benefit select few like management team with ESOS or others external associates of theirs.

While company buy, associates sell. Create a net neutral movement on prices.

Small shareholders become sacrificial victims, as they are kept in the dark in regards on whether the buybacks is really for their benefits or just helping key shareholders to quietly disposed  big lots without shaking the counter.

what happened to banks eh suddenly up

this one, everyone will just exit the KLSE.

Want to tax, tax the property developers. 

The factory no close reason being jentera Akan rosak kalau tutup ....

Anyway, I holding TG at rm 8.1 , Ruberex rm 2.4 don't know what to buy else, even more losses

Total number shares bought during this period.... 153,604,900
Sum paid for these shares = RM1,116,419,996.49

Calculations should be more complicated than that cos the last balance sheet figures we saw is a few months back.

seriously... no other reason to explain why TG cannot seem to up? how naïve do we want to be?

After that, the more cash we have, the more wealth we can create. Buy blue chips stock at super bargain. Have anyone ever think of Maybank can drop to RM2? Yeah. I am talking about that level of seriousness of crash. March 2020 crash is just tip of the iceberg.

Actually my point is very simple only: everyone is looking at 2023 outlook, but how many stocks in our portfolio that already has the outlook for 2023? If no, then why are we treating gloves must look at 2023, and other sectors no need to look at 2023?

Ps: if really all the stock in ur portfolio has 2023 outlook, then pls forgive me, since my knowledge is not up to that standard yet.

Nov 26th already.... very soon we can kick 2020 into the longkang. Yipeee!

Come Feb 2021... which is the next quarter....

Reports will have to start giving out recommendations based on 2021 earnings estimate already.

Isn't this the industry standard?

Can they still give out recommendations based on 2021 earnings meh? 

banks automatic moratorium remains for B40 only. please fly again tiger

should be for entire 2021 since this is a Budget announcement.

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2020...WbM-nY.facebook

The government has agreed to implement an automatic moratorium on loan repayments for those in the B40 group as well as micro and small-medium enterprises (SMEs).

This means that those in the B40 income group and micro SMEs do not need to submit any documents to be entitled to the three-month moratorium which will be implemented till December this year.

Oh 3 months only

I thought bank should be taking a dive? Since moratorium is going to impact their earning and borrowing?

Yes, its true no analyst gives projection for other stocks except for glove companies. But i find these glove projections have a lot of flaws.  For example:
- did they factor in the "what if" no vaccine in sight for the next few years?
- did they factor in how with the amount of money made, these glove companies could diversify into other industries?  Where others are struggling on a daily basis now to make some money and with debts piling up, it would take them years to be in the black (think AirAsia). So how could these analysts projections for the glove be used when they do not know what these glove companies plan to do with their earnings?
- the CEOs of the Big 4 have from time to time gave an analyst briefing on their ASP, sales etc. All have years in this industry, they are not new players but had seen through Sars, ebola, h1n1 ad so many other viruses. So who is the industry expert here? The analyst or the glove bosses?

So my simple question is - if these analysts cannot factor in revenues for 2023 for other industries/stocks, how could they confidently gave projections for glove companies?

The announcement this week that a cheap, easy-to-make coronavirus vaccine appeared to be up to 90 percent effective was greeted with jubilation. “Get yourself a vaccaccino,” a British tabloid celebrated, noting that the vaccine, developed by AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford, costs less than a cup of coffee.

But since unveiling the preliminary results, AstraZeneca has acknowledged a key mistake in the vaccine dosage received by some study participants, adding to questions about whether the vaccine’s apparently spectacular efficacy will hold up under additional testing.

Scientists and industry experts said the error and a series of other irregularities and omissions in the way AstraZeneca initially disclosed the data have eroded their confidence in the reliability of the results.

Officials in the United States have noted that the results were not clear. The head of the flagship federal vaccine initiative suggested that the vaccine’s most promising results may not have reflected data from older people.

The regimen that appeared to be 90 percent effective was based on participants receiving a half dose of the vaccine followed a month later by a full dose; the less effective version involved a pair of full doses. AstraZeneca disclosed in its initial announcement that fewer than 2,800 participants received the smaller dosing regimen, compared with nearly 8,900 participants who received two full doses.

The biggest questions were, why was there such a large variation in the effectiveness of the vaccine at different doses, and why did a smaller dose appear to produce much better results? AstraZeneca and Oxford researchers said they did not know.

Crucial information was also missing. The company said that the early analysis was based on 131 symptomatic Covid-19 cases that had turned up in study participants. But it did not break down how many cases were found in each group of participants — those who received the half-strength initial dose, the regular-strength initial dose and the placebo.

Adding to the confusion, AstraZeneca pooled the results from two differently designed clinical trials in Britain and Brazil, a break from standard practice in reporting the results of drug and vaccine trials.

In the statement attributed to Oxford, Ms. Meixell, the AstraZeneca spokeswoman, said the error stemmed from an issue, which has since been fixed, with how some of the vaccine doses were manufactured.

Then, on Tuesday, Moncef Slaoui, the head of Operation Warp Speed, the U.S. initiative to fast-track coronavirus vaccines, noted another limitation in AstraZeneca’s data. On a call with reporters, he suggested that the participants who received the half-strength initial dose had been 55 years old or younger. Ms. Meixell declined to say whether that was the case, noting that the data would be published soon in a peer-reviewed journal.

Scientists are also pressing the Oxford team to start a fresh, large-scale trial focused solely on determining whether the half-dose regimen was indeed more effective than the two standard doses.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/25/business...rxecRK-tBHvPJzE

Good news for vaccine haters

Check this our guys.

Among all the blue chip banks, MBB latest QR is red.

the npl provisions didnt seems to affect MBB much.
Did people over-persimmistic over the economy? LOL