S'pore stocks - down but not out

Published June 28, 2008
By LYNETTE KHOO

Rising inflation and slower economic growth projections are eating away at sentiment on the Singapore stock market. With the picture unlikely to brighten in the near term, stocks could drift further south in the second half of this year, analysts say.




Since January, the Straits Times Index (STI) has lost almost 15 per cent to 2,955.91 points along with the broad sell-off across regional bourses and on Wall Street.

Trading volumes have also slumped 46 per cent from a year ago to some 150.5 billion shares in the first half of this year.

Analysts believe that investors are in for a tougher ride in the next six months as lingering inflationary fears and possible tightening measures by central banks continue to stoke market volatility.

'We started the year thinking that the second half will be better than the first, but we are beginning to doubt it more and more,' says CIMB-GK research head Kenneth Ng.

In May against a backdrop of choppy trading, the main market index was lifted to a high of 3,250 points on positive news of the Bear Stearns rescue, the aggressive interest rate cuts and the stimulus package by the US Federal Reserve.

But that did not last as the index subsequently slid towards March's low of 2,800 on worries over oil price spikes, slowing exports growth and further monetary tightening by central banks.

Already, analysts have priced in higher costs and lower demand into corporate earnings estimates.

They point to a host of concerns that will trouble the market in the second half - high oil prices and inflation, poor performance of US and European banks, slower consumer demand and easing economic growth.

'As these issues are likely to persist for a while and together with the lack of any strong positive leads, the market is already showing signs of a standoff, with a downward bias,' says Carmen Lee, head of research at OCBC Investment Research.

A survey by fund managers by OCBC Bank's wealth management unit released yesterday echoed these views.

Given the slowing consumer demand and rising costs, fund managers are concerned that earning expectations may be too high and warned that potential earnings downgrades could weigh on equity markets in the following months.

Kim Eng's technical chartist Ken Tai noted that the STI could break below 2,800 points in the second half before recovering back towards the end of the year on a potential Santa Claus rally.

'Market yield is 7.1 per cent but inflation is 7.5 per cent. The market has to correct lower in order for it to make sense for investors to buy,' he says.

But not all is lost. Analysts believe that market corrections also present opportunities for investors to accumulate stocks that can ride the inflationary wave, or are less adversely impacted by rising prices.

Offshore marine and oil and gas plays will continue to get attention as long as oil prices do not correct significantly in the near term, analysts say.

Yesterday, oil prices continued to edge up, with light, sweet crude for August delivery hitting a record US$141.71 per barrel in Asian trading.

Also looking good now are companies with pricing power, big cash hoards or high dividend yields as the average retail investor pulls money out of bank deposits in search of a better hedge against inflation.

'We couldn't find any reason to be terribly excited but we think there are still some stocks that investors could consider,' says Kim Eng's regional head of research Stephanie Wong.

She favours counter-inflationary stocks such as SingTel, MobileOne and Singapore Press Holdings (SPH), which she believes have pricing power.

She also likes stocks that may benefit from higher oil prices, such as Keppel Corp and ASL Marine.

Likewise, DBS Vickers' research head Janice Chua said in a recent report that her third-quarter picks were based on the inflationary theme and the 'urgent need to keep it in check'.

Parkway Life Reit is seen as a natural hedge against inflation as the minimum guaranteed rental growth is pegged at one per cent above the consumer price index, Ms Chua said. Shipping trusts and offshore ship charterers are also expected to benefit if the greenback strengthens as anticipated as their earnings are denominated in US dollars.

DBS Vickers is also positioning its strategy on what it reckons to be a rising interest rate environment that will bode well for the banks, and on the Formula One fever ahead of the event in September, the key beneficiaries of which are hotel and tourism-related stocks.

OCBC recommends a flight to safety towards defensive stocks. This would include blue chips for their profit track record and sound business models, while CIMB-GK recommends dividend exposure via SPH and local Reits, as well as some oil and gas exposure.

Analysts are, however, divided on commodity stocks. While most select counters in the agricultural commodities sector, Ms Wong of Kim Eng believes commodity prices could be a bubble in the forming.

'We are talking about investors who are taking a longer-term view - who want to buy into stocks with deep value, downside protection with asset backing, and decent yields,' Ms Wong says.

Read more!

A matter of yields

The relationship between bond and equity yields and how inflation impacts both

ECONOMIST. com has a column called Market.View that appears only on its online edition. This week the column touched on the relationship between bond and equity yields and how inflation affects both of them.

First off, why is it that when analysts talk about equity market valuation, they also bring up bond yields? What are the implications of rising bond yields for equity markets?

One approach, according to the article, sees equities and bonds as assets that compete for a place in investors' portfolios. If one asset class becomes overpriced, investors will flock to the other.

The conventional way of comparing the two is to look at the yields. But which equity yield should investors look at? In more conservative times, they looked at the dividend yield. Until the late 1950s it was common for the dividend yield on the stock market to be higher than the government-bond yield, says the article. After all, since dividends could be cut, they were more risky.

But pension funds and other institutional investors noted that, in a broadly diversified portfolio, dividends would tend to rise pretty steadily over time. That growth meant that equities could trade at a lower dividend yield than bonds. The wisdom of this shift into equities seemed to be confirmed when the real value of bonds was devastated by the inflation of the 1960s and 1970s, The Economist noted.

Fed Model

By the 1990s, investors had turned to the earnings yield, the inverse of the price-earnings (PE) ratio. So if the PE ratio is 20, the earnings yield would be 5 per cent.

A paper by US Federal Reserve economists led to widespread belief in the Fed Model - that the market was fairly priced when its prospective earnings yield was equivalent to the 10-year Treasury-bond yield.

So according to this model, falling bond yields are good news for equities. The model seemed to be correct - at least for a while. That was the long period of disinflation from 1982 onwards. During that time, nominal bond yields fell sharply and share prices rose substantially.

However, this model did not work prior to 1960. The earnings yield then was much higher than the government bond yield because companies only paid out a fraction of their earnings as dividends. And the model did not work in the Japan of the 1990s, where sharply falling government bond yields did not help the stock market.

Disillusionment with the model came in 2000-02, according to The Economist. Bond yields fell sharply, but this was not good news for shares. Indeed, investors were switching out of shares and into fixed income in the wake of the dotcom bubble. Equities looked cheap on the basis of the Fed model and got cheaper.

A lot of people began to argue that the model was rubbish. After all, if lower bond yields were the result of lower inflation, why should equities benefit? Profit forecasts would have to fall as well.

The Economist thinks that perhaps the answer to the riddle can be found in some of the figures highlighted by Richard Cookson, a strategist at HSBC, who was formerly a writer with the magazine. His theory is that bonds may move in sync with equities at some parts of the economic cycle but not at others.

When recession or deflation looms, government bonds are relatively unaffected but equities suffer because profits are likely to fall.

Since 1900, when inflation has been in the one to 4 per cent range, price-earnings ratios on the stock market have averaged between 17 and 19 - in other words, an earnings yield of 5 to 6 per cent.

But when inflation has been below one per cent, PE ratios have averaged just 14 (an earnings yield of 7 per cent). In such circumstances, bond yields fall but earnings yields rise.

Charts show the relationship between inflation and stock market PE, market valuation was highest - just under 20 times - when inflation was between one and 2 per cent. The next highest valuation was when inflation was between 2 and 3 per cent.

The market PE was below 15 times when there was deflation - that is, when inflation was negative. And it fell below 10 times when inflation exceeded 10 per cent a year.

The Economist article said that in the current situation, bond yields are rising because of inflation - the headline rate is above 4 per cent in Britain and America. And that is a problem for equities, since 4 per cent seems to be a key figure. Average PEs when inflation has been in the 4-5 per cent range have been 15. And by the time inflation reaches 6-7 per cent, the PE drops to 11.

'The problem for stockmarket investors is that the economy currently seems posed between extremes,' according to the article. 'If inflation returns, that will be bad for valuations. If recession wins out, that will be bad for profits. It is an unpalatable choice.'

The table presented with the article piqued my curiosity. Does the Singapore market behave the same way?

To find out, I downloaded the Thomson Datastream's calculations of the weekly PE of Straits Times Index (STI) going as far back as 1973. The average PE for the year was taken, and then I matched the PE to the inflation rate for that year, which I found on the Singapore Statistics website.

Inflation factor

What I found was that the Singapore stock market appears to be more averse to inflation than to recession.

In the four years when inflation was negative - 1976, 1986, 1998 and 2002 - the average PE for the STI ranged from 14.5 times (2002) to 23.4 times (1986). The average PE for those four years was 17.1 times.

The inflation rate most comfortable for the market is between one and 2 per cent. During those years, the average market PE was 19.4 times.

Market multiples gradually declined as inflation rose. In 1974, when inflation rate exceeded 20 per cent a year, the STI was trading at 10.9 times earnings. The market PE plunged from a high of 26.6 times in 1973 - when inflation touched 19.6 per cent - to less than half that figure the following year.

But there was only one observation each for inflation rates of between 19 and 20 per cent - that is, in 1973, and for an inflation rate above 20 per cent, in 1974.

There were two observations when inflation hit the 8 per cent range. The years were 1980 and 1981. The PEs in those years were 12.9 and 12.4 times.

With inflation expected to hit 6 per cent this year, perhaps it is no wonder the STI is now trading at just 11 times PE. The current PE is one standard deviation below the mean PE of the STI since 1973.

On the other hand, the STI has been trading at such low-teen PEs for the past two or three years, when inflation was between 0.5 and 2 per cent.

So inflation may not be the only cause of the low valuation for the Singapore market.

Since we are at it, I also plotted the graph of how the STI, the Urban Redevelopment Authority property index, Singapore's gross domestic product and the consumer price index have grown since 1975. As you can see, property prices ran significantly ahead of the GDP from 1993 until 1997. They corrected sharply in the subsequent seven or eight years.

In the past two years, both property and the stock market indices have again spurted at a sharper trajectory than GDP. The current easing of property prices is perhaps to be expected, the argument of Singapore being a global city notwithstanding.

Published June 21, 2008
Show Me The Money
By TEH HOOI LING
SENIOR CORRESPONDENT
The Business Times

Read more!

High-yield stocks in demand

High-yield stocks in demand given soft interest rates: DMG

WITH interest rates set to remain soft, stocks with a high dividend yield are expected to pack a hard punch.

According to DMG & Partners analyst Leng Seng Choon, such stocks are going to become more attractive to investors as interest rates in Singapore and the US stay low.

Despite remarks made by US Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke earlier this month that further interest rate cuts are unlikely, high US unemployment could keep rates down.

And with local deposit rates starting at 0.325 per cent and capped at one per cent, stocks with dividend yields of more than 3 per cent look significantly more enticing in comparison.

Mr Leng pointed to stocks like ComfortDelGro and Suntec Reit, with current dividend yields of 6.6 and 5.1 per cent, respectively.

'Apart from their higher yields compared with fixed income instruments, these stocks also have growth prospects coming from business expansion,' said Mr Leng.

Local interest rates are expected to stay low despite the spike in Singapore 10-year government bond yields to 3.6 per cent.

'The spread of the US 10-year bond yield over the Singapore equivalent is now 40 basis points, significantly lower than the 110 basis point average over the past five years,' said Mr Leng. 'We see the likelihood of further spread-narrowing as very low and this points to limited upside for Singapore 10-year government bond yields.'

The US 10-year government bond yield has risen from 3.3 per cent to 4 per cent since mid-March this year.

Its Singapore counterpart has recorded a swift rise from 2.3 per cent to 3.6 per cent over the same period, which Mr Leng said could be due in part to inflation concerns here.

'We note that the current 3.6 per cent yield on Singapore 10-year government bonds may lead to some switching out of dividend yield stocks to these bond instruments,' he said. 'But stocks that offer high dividend yield remain interesting, particularly if they have accompanying growth prospects.'

The spike in the 10-year government bond yield is not expected to spill over into Sibor rates, Mr Leng told BT. 'Even in a hypothetical scenario of the US Fed Fund rate rising, the current narrow spread provides scope for the three-month Sibor to remain soft.'

The spread between the US Federal Funds rate over the three-month Sibor rate is now 0.7 of a percentage point, against a three-month average of 1.5 percentage points.

The low rates paid by other fixed-income instruments like time deposits are also expected to continue, further fuelling the attractiveness of high-yield stocks.

'As long as Sibor rates are low, time deposit rates will stay low,' Mr Leng said.

Published June 13, 2008
Singapore Companies
By JOYCE HOOI
Read more!

Looking beyond dividends

WE said last week that yes, with high dividend-yielding stocks you might be able to obtain double rewards - dividend yield and capital gains. While knowing that a good dividend-paying stock can give your portfolio a boost, it is very necessary to dig deeper when picking high-yield stocks.

A company paying a low dividend of, say, 2 per cent may be a much safer bet than one that pays a high dividend yield of 10 per cent if the latter is in risk of cutting its dividends due to its inability to sustain them. Therefore, it is not sufficient to just blindly pick out the highest dividend-yielding counter from a stock screen.

In fact if one does that, one runs the risk of investing in a company that might not really be able to sustain the high dividends which could directly lead to a potential double whammy - a dividend cut and a subsequent stock price decline - instead of the expected bonus.

Rational shareholders would want the company to maintain its dividend and increase it over time. For this to happen, the company should have set aside sufficient cash to fund necessary capital expenditure. It should also set aside a level of cash buffer to maintain a margin of safety, while leaving some balance to pay out as dividends in increasing amounts overtime.

An increasing dividend can bring about a share price appreciation as the higher dividend yield makes a stock more attractive to investors than before. Take the case of Rickmers Maritime, a locally listed shipping trust. Its recent announcement of a 5 per cent rise in quarterly distribution payout saw its stock price appreciate correspondingly in the week the announcement was made.

Thus, it is imperative to know whether the company will be able to sustain its dividend payout over the long run since the occurrence of a potential double reward (or double whammy) is very dependent on the sustainability of the dividend payout. But how does one predict the dividend sustainability of a company?

There are a few crucial ratios that an investor should check out.

Payout ratio

The first thing an investor should find out is the company's payout ratio. There are two payout ratios that investors should compute. First, the payout ratio of dividends as a percentage of free cash flow, that is, net cash from operations minus net capital expenditure - simply put, how much money could the company take out each year and still keep its doors open. And second, the payout ratio of dividends as a percentage of net income. The latter will give investors the context for the dividend power of companies with lumpy capital expenditures.

The higher the payout ratio, the more likely it is that the dividend may not be sustained. A payout of more than 100 per cent is a warning sign that the company is paying out more than it earns. The lower the payout ratio, the greater the chance of the company sustaining or even increasing the dividends over time. The rule of thumb: a company with a payout ratio of 50 per cent or less is assumed to be more likely to sustain its dividends but do take note that this varies from company to company.

Other ratios

Bear in mind, however, that the payout ratios for some counters like shipping trusts and real estate investment trusts are much higher compared to other companies. For example, in the case of shipping trusts in Singapore, the payout is typically more than 75 per cent of their incomes. This is mainly due to the inherent business model of business trusts which own assets that generate regular income flow for unitholders paid back in the form of regular dividends.

In that case, investors would want to look at the two other indicators to suss out the sustainability of the dividend payout - the debt to equity ratio and current ratio (current assets/current liabilities). Both of them are measures of assets relative to liabilities. A company that has a debt to equity ratio of over 100 per cent should raise the alarm bells since it means that it may be undertaking debt to sustain its dividend payout. A current ratio of more than one may give investors confidence as it shows that the company is in a good state of financial health and able to pay off obligations when it is due, thereby increasing the possibility of sustaining or even increasing its dividend payout in the near term.

There is no specific rule that applies to all companies. Thus it is pertinent for the investor to know the individual companies before applying those above-mentioned ratios. For example, a steady but slow-growing company in a mature industry that has little or no capital expenditure needs will be more able to sustain or raise its dividend compared to one pursuing aggressive expansion and growth.

Indeed, before investors get seduced by the attractively high dividend yields offered by the listed companies, it is imperative for them to duly check out the company's payout, debt to equity, current ratios as well as its general financial health to ascertain if the dividends are sustainable before taking the plunge. Double reward or double whammy, it all depends on you.


Published May 26, 2008
BT-Citibank Young Investors’ Forum
In this follow-up to last week's introduction on dividends, JASON LOW shares some tips on identifying good dividend-yield stocks
Read more!

Top S'pore stocks' returns dissected

LAST week, I listed down stocks with the highest returns in the last five years and tried to analyse how much of the returns came from dividends and how much from capital gains. Most of the returns, of course, came from capital gains.

Earlier this week, a friend forwarded me a paper by Eugene Fama and Kenneth French entitled 'The anatomy of value and growth stocks returns'. In that study, Fama and French broke down the average returns on value and growth portfolios into a few components. One is dividends. Two, growth in book equity. This comes primarily from earnings retention. And three, the increase in price-to-book ratio.


The report sets me thinking. Wouldn't be it be interesting if we could take a look at the 40 best-performing stocks in Singapore and try to break down their sources of returns.

And that's what I did. For the 40 companies, I tried to find out their book value per share five years ago, and compared them to the companies' latest available numbers. I also compared these companies' price-to-book ratio, their price-earnings ratio and their return on equity five years ago, to the numbers today.

Capital gains

The difference in the various measures in these companies is pretty interesting. First of all, the majority of the stocks have seen an increase in their book value per share. The average increase was 145 per cent in the last five years, with the median being 76 per cent.

For companies with no growth or even decline in their book value per share, it is due to the distribution of earnings or capital back to shareholders.

Here's what the numbers seem to suggest. The biggest source of capital gains for investors appears to be the increase in these stocks' price-to-book value. Not only has the book value of these companies increased over the past five years, investors are now also valuing the book value of these companies' assets at a more substantial premium than before.

In fact, some 70 per cent of the 40 stocks in the list were trading at a discount to their book value five years ago.

In response to my article last week, a friend noted that the question is, how do we identify these super stocks five years ago. So this simple study is perhaps confirming again what pervious studies had found, and that is: price-to-book ratio is the best predictor of the future performance of a stock. Stocks trading below their book value have a higher likelihood of seeing their share price converging to their book value.

For our 40 stocks, the average price-to-book (PTB) value was 1.1 times five years ago. The median was 0.7. Today, these stocks are trading at 3.5 times their (increased) book value. The median is 2.4 times.

Only a handful of these stocks had high PTB ratios five years ago, and are still commanding high multiples today. They include Raffles Education, Cosco, Noble Group, Singapore Exchange, Manhattan Resources, Keppel T&T, Sembcorp Marine and Parkway Holdings.

On the whole, there are sound reasons why the market is valuing these 40 stocks at a premium to their book value. The main reason is these companies have significantly raised their return on equity.

Back in 2003, the average ROEs of these stocks was 8.1 per cent, with the median being 6.8 per cent. In their last financial year, these companies' ROEs averaged 25.8 per cent. The median was 24 per cent.

Since these companies are able to generate returns of 24 per cent, which would be significantly above their cost of equity, then it stands to reason that investors would be willing to pay more than the book value of their assets.

Abnormal earnings

One way to value a company is to ascertain how much abnormal earnings - that is, earnings above the cost of its capital - it will be able to generate in the future. This stream of abnormal earnings is then discounted to its present value. Add that number to the current book value of the capital and you arrive at how much the company is worth.

This way of calculation has intuitive appeal. It implies that if a company can earn a rate of return that is equivalent to its cost of capital, then investors should be willing to pay no more than the book value for the stock. Book value is the original capital invested by the company in its various assets to start up its business after taking into account depreciation.

As mentioned, if a company is able to generate earnings above its cost of capital, then investors should be willing to pay more than the book value of its assets. Conversely, if a company's net earnings cannot even cover its cost of capital, then investors will only invest in the company if it is trading below its book value.

Five years ago, some of the companies on the list were trading below their book value probably because they were losing money. But the nature of business is such that loss-making companies will try to restructure and take measures to improve their performance. And as such, their performance will revert to the mean and their deeply depressed valuation will rebound significantly.

Meanwhile another valuation measure showed that this group of companies are trading at a lower multiple today than in 2003. That measure is price-earnings, or PE, ratio. Five years back, the average PE of the companies was some 20 times. The median was 13.2 times. Now, their average PE is just under 14 times, with a median of 9.4 times.

And based on analysts' consensus forecast, this group of stocks are trading at 11.5 times their next year's earnings.

Now back to the Fama and French study, they found that during 1964-2006, dividends contributed more to average returns on value stocks versus growth stocks, and dividends contributed more to returns on big-cap stocks versus small-cap stocks. But these patterns are special to 1964-2006. For 1927-1963, the contribution of dividends to average returns was not systematically different for big-cap and small-cap stocks, or for value and growth stocks.

They also found that value companies do not invest much and hence the growth in their book equity is trivial to negative. But value portfolios generate large capital gain returns as some value companies restructure, increase profitability, and move to lower-expected return groups.

The capital gains are larger in small-cap value stocks than for big-cap value stocks.

The writer is a CFA charterholder. She can be reached at hooiling@sph.com.sg

Published May 24, 2008
By TEH HOOI LING
SENIOR CORRESPONDENT
Read more!

Are dividends always good?

WITH the bears coming out to play for the past few months, investors have increasingly been looking out for safe harbours to put their money into. Inevitably, high dividend yielding stocks readily come to mind, as investors look to them for security and the potential double rewards that it may bring - dividend income and capital gains. The question then is: Are dividends always good?


To answer the question, we probably have to understand some basics.

Dividends are usually cash paid back to the shareholders as a share of returns that the business or company made in the last financial period. The dividend yields paid out by companies vary across the different industries. The best dividends usually come from companies that create their own products.

Altria, formerly Philip Morris, famous for its world's best selling cigarettes brand, Marlboro, was also very well known for its high dividend payments to its shareholders. A sum of US$1,000 placed in Philip Morris back in 1957, with its dividends reinvested, would have grown to almost US$4.6 million today, according to Jeremy Siegel's 2005 book, The Future for Investors.

Investors who reinvest their dividends and accumulate more shares during the bear markets will eventually recoup the price loss because the lower price allows them to own more shares than they would be able to buy if the stock had not declined. Consequently, the value of these extra shares will surpass the magnitude of the stock price declines, making these investors better off overall.

For example, assuming one buys Wal-Mart at US$58 per share and thereafter, during a market correction, Wal-mart shares trade lower at US$42. With the dividends being reinvested at the US$42 price, it enables the investor to accumulate almost 30 per cent more shares than he would have had the price not declined.

In the long run, if the investor consistently reinvests the dividend he receives from Wal-Mart and in the process accumulates more shares, the value of his additional shares obtained will more than make up for any stock price declines the company suffers and greatly enhance future returns when the market recovers.

Hence, dividends not only give the investors constant liquidity and cash inflow, it also protects the investor in a bear market and enhances his potential returns during market recovery, given that the investor reinvests his dividends.

The bad

For large growth companies like those in technology and medical sectors, however, investors might generally not prefer to receive dividends since pursuing growth requires money and the availability of funds has a direct impact on the scale of the growth projects the company can pursue. If a company does not expect to grow and has excess money, it makes sense to pay dividends to its loyal shareholders. However, a company pursuing growth and expanding its empire will want to use the money in its coffers to continue its dominance and therefore should not be expected to pay out any dividend.

Another worthwhile place that the excess money can go to is in the repurchasing of the company's own shares. Using earnings to buy shares instead of paying them out as dividends will reduce the number of outstanding shares of the company, thereby adding value to the remaining shares. Earnings per share will correspondingly increase and this will usually drive up share prices.

Instead of paying out its excess funds as dividends, companies may want to use them for reducing its debt. This is mainly because the company is constantly incurring interest expense on its debt. Therefore, it may serve the company's shareholders better if the company were to reduce its debt and correspondingly lower its interest expense incurred.

Another scenario when dividends are bad news stems from the belief in a stock-market timing model called the Dividend Dip Indicator. This model recommends avoiding stocks when corporations are raising the dividends.

Consider two companies, each paid $1 dividend per share. The next year, one company leaves it unchanged while the other raises its dividend to $1.40 and then cuts the dividend back to $1 the year after. The latter company's shareholders would seem to be better off because over the three year period, they received a higher payout than the shareholders of the former company. But in reality, the shareholders of the latter company are likely to suffer as the market in general will be likely to be taken aback by the dividend reduction and as a result, the company's share price is likely to drop.

It is common knowledge that the management of companies only raises dividends if they are certain that they are able to sustain it in the long run and that the increase in their profits is not temporary. Consequently, the number of dividend increases tends to rise only after the economy has been in good shape for a considerable period.

Chances are that by the time the management acts on dividends, the market has already discounted the good news of the economy. And since the economy is cyclical, a good time to sell is usually when all the good news is absorbed by the market, that is, when companies raise their dividends. Thus, it is apparent that based on this counter intuitive model, dividends may sometimes be bad news for the investor.

So it's not always good to head for dividend-yield stocks. Investors should always weigh all pros and cons before making their investment decisions.

Published May 19, 2008
BT-Citibank Young Investors’ Forum
Shareholders could be better off if excess cash could be used in other ways to enhance value, writes JASON LOW

Read more!