Back

Latest Forum Topics / SMRT

Post Reply

SMRT Post Reply Rate topic
andreytan Elite	08-May-2014 01:24        andreytan About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	SMRT below 70c, luckily i did not sell, but i bought more. MetalTrader3      ( Date: 26-Apr-2014 14:13) Posted: Prediction ended 29 Jan. Read carefully. yourdadisme      ( Date: 25-Apr-2014 21:29) Posted: When is 0.80 coming? 3 MONTHS ALREADY LEH? YOUR PREDICKION DAMN ZUN SIAH !!!
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
remister889 Member	07-May-2014 15:27        remister889 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Maybank KE has a sell call on  5 May 14.TP 0.50c (lowest) Philip Sec TP @ 0.90c.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Isolator Supreme	07-May-2014 01:16        Isolator About Contact  Quote this Post!   Mood:
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Sell....
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Novice13 Veteran	05-May-2014 12:17        Novice13 About Contact  Quote this Post! Style: Flexible
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Current smrt share price does not match its current fundamentals. It is overvalued. Privatisation play in progress?
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
ascend88 Master	05-May-2014 11:51        ascend88 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Lt Gen  give order already....as soon as possible... better double up !
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
ascend88 Master	05-May-2014 11:44        ascend88 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	broken 1.27 the closing for 28/4 should be moving to try 1.30$
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
ascend88 Master	05-May-2014 11:42        ascend88 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	cheong ah ! 1.28$
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
ninpeh Member	05-May-2014 11:33        ninpeh About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	just received a mailer on this. what do you guys think?   SMRT Corp. Ltd. - Full Year operating loss for Fare Business, but stronger quarter seen Recommendation: Sell Friday&rsquo s Closing: S$1.25 Target Price: S$0.90 Full Year FY14 revenue grew 4.0% y-y to S$1.16 bn but operating profit and net profit down 33.9% y-y to S$84.2 mn and down 38.5% y-y (adj.) to S$61.9 mn respectively. Divergent top line and bottom line largely due to Fare business posting Full Year S$25 million operating loss, underlining the unsustainable models for the core Fare businesses. Final dividend of S$0.012, bringing total DPS to S$0.022 (54% payout) for FY2014. Maintain " Sell" rating with two-year horizon TP of $0.90.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
ascend88 Master	05-May-2014 10:34        ascend88 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Christopher Tan The Straits Times Monday, May 05, 2014   Transport operator SMRT Corp' s growth in the medium term could well be propelled by its non-fare businesses, and a change in the way public transport is financed and operated in Singapore. Chief executive Desmond Kuek said the company' s non-fare businesses, such as advertising and rental, are growing steadily. For the year ended March 31, 2014, operating income from its non-fare businesses amounted to $109.2 million - more than total income, which was dragged down by a $25 million loss in the fare businesses. The breakdown was starkly different 10 years ago. For the year ended March 31, 2004, non-fare income amounted to $33.9 million - or just one-third of total income. The Sports Hub will also boost SMRT' s non-fare income. The company has tied up with NTUC FairPrice to operate 41,000 sq m of commercial retail space - more than the 36,000 sq m it has in its train stations - at the sports venue, due to open next month. In the same vein, Mr Kuek said SMRT is continuing to explore international opportunities and boosting its engineering capabilities. Speaking at a post-results conference yesterday morning, he said " we' re very optimistic" that the non-fare side will " generate sustainable growth for the company" . He said this in response to a question on whether SMRT would ever return to the 40 per cent margins it enjoyed in its heyday. For the year just ended, its operating margin stood at 22 per cent. Mr Kuek also said a shift to a new rail financing framework will bode well for the company' s long-term sustainability. The change will see the Government assuming ownership of rail operating assets and being responsible for their timely replacement. It will free the operator of holding hefty assets in its books, depreciation charges and lumpy capital expenditures. " We' ve put in our proposal, and are awaiting response from the authorities," Mr Kuek said. The chief executive added that a contestable bus industry - which the Government has been studying for about six years now - will also be positive for SMRT. The Temasek Holdings owned company has long been incurring losses on its bus business, which it inherited when it acquired Tibs Holdings in 2001. Analysts blame SMRT' s small route parcel for this. A contestable bus regime - where companies bid for routes - could give the company an opportunity to expand its bus network. Mr Kuek was less optimistic about another loss leader: the Bukit Panjang LRT. He said the line has incurred losses from Day One, and is likely to continue to do
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
ascend88 Master	05-May-2014 10:17        ascend88 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	taxpayer....pay double.... invest to offset....
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
oldflyingfox Master	05-May-2014 08:53        oldflyingfox About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	The controlling shareholder is still the govt so it goes back to the same pocket in the end.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
pasttime Supreme	04-May-2014 12:24        pasttime About Contact  Quote this Post!   Yells: "gold silver are real money. not others iou."
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	smrt can always subcontract out to proven mall operator tp operate their shop. steadylar      ( Date: 04-May-2014 12:17) Posted: Agree. When the skeletons fell from the cupboard the previous CEO had to leave. The present CEO is still figuring out what to do with those skeletons. By the way, shopping  malls are so successful in attracting human traffic & generating rental income,  yet with such strategic convenient locations  the SMRT rental unit has not done  impressively well.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
steadylar Veteran	04-May-2014 12:17        steadylar About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Agree. When the skeletons fell from the cupboard the previous CEO had to leave. The present CEO is still figuring out what to do with those skeletons. By the way, shopping  malls are so successful in attracting human traffic & generating rental income,  yet with such strategic convenient locations  the SMRT rental unit has not done  impressively well.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
cccx123 Elite	04-May-2014 12:10        cccx123 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	1) Not possible because fare prices are set by the PTC and not decided unilaterally by SMRT or SBS. All the public transport providers can do is propose fare increases. 2) It is usually one or the other. It is very difficult to set a compromise between public-private operation. SMRT should either be allowed to adjust fares unilaterally or the govt should just operate the services themselves. In addition, the public transport sector ought to be liberated. Taxi touting should be legalised too to provide viable competition to the train companies, preventing them from charging excessive rates. Under the new framework, all capital expenses are merely going to be shifted over to the government while the operators merely collect fares and pay the licensing or leasing fee to the govt. Because SMRT is the sole provided of rail services, aren't they essentially a monopoly as well? Ignoring SBS for now... Markie      ( Date: 04-May-2014 11:23) Posted: The idea of part government part public transport companies do have its benefits. Take a few scenarios for example. 1) monopolisation of a transport company - this transport company works in a monopolistic environment. it isn' t afraid of reduced ridership since everyone is dependable on it. any fuel increment is directly passed to the consumer. there is no need to care about how much they charge to consumers since demand would always support any increase in fare prices. At the same time, there is also no need to care about service quality. In addition, there is no need to also actively pursue cost-savings initiative, since these costs can just be passed on to consumers directly, since the impact of decreasing ridership would essentially be minimal given its low elasticity to price changes. 2) however, in a scenario of part public and part gov companies, essentially, you have the work of the government and the public. The public exerts pressures on the government, the government works with the transport companies, the transport companies are squeezed by investors in essence, you have the public and gov coming at full forces in all directions to steer productivity in providing service - which essentially would provide high cost savings for consumers and higher profitability for transport companies. Hence, in the new rail framework, the government charges a license fee to SMRT for licensing their trains. SMRT works heavily on providing better service for the community. The government also isn' t stupid to allow SMRT to take high profits too. I am sure the profit margins enjoyed by SMRT on a per fare basis would essentially be the same, but what would only propel SMRT to earn more would be increased ridership - which is also dependable on the service they render. cccx123      ( Date: 04-May-2014 11:05) Posted: No leh...all the fares collected will go to SMRT. The govt will own the assets and get paid by SMRT for leasing them. Ridiculous corporatism..
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
kirana Senior	04-May-2014 11:56        kirana About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	So generations by generations, CEO performance is relative. Not exactly they are good. They cut corners here and there and so the results & stock performance improved. The next CEO has the tougher job.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
steadylar Veteran	04-May-2014 11:30        steadylar About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	11 high profile members on the Board still can' t save SMRT. Is selling assets to govt their last futile hope for survival? Pushing the burden back to the govt and taxpayers is a strategic move? or desperation?
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Markie Senior	04-May-2014 11:23        Markie About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	The idea of part government part public transport companies do have its benefits. Take a few scenarios for example. 1) monopolisation of a transport company - this transport company works in a monopolistic environment. it isn' t afraid of reduced ridership since everyone is dependable on it. any fuel increment is directly passed to the consumer. there is no need to care about how much they charge to consumers since demand would always support any increase in fare prices. At the same time, there is also no need to care about service quality. In addition, there is no need to also actively pursue cost-savings initiative, since these costs can just be passed on to consumers directly, since the impact of decreasing ridership would essentially be minimal given its low elasticity to price changes. 2) however, in a scenario of part public and part gov companies, essentially, you have the work of the government and the public. The public exerts pressures on the government, the government works with the transport companies, the transport companies are squeezed by investors in essence, you have the public and gov coming at full forces in all directions to steer productivity in providing service - which essentially would provide high cost savings for consumers and higher profitability for transport companies. Hence, in the new rail framework, the government charges a license fee to SMRT for licensing their trains. SMRT works heavily on providing better service for the community. The government also isn' t stupid to allow SMRT to take high profits too. I am sure the profit margins enjoyed by SMRT on a per fare basis would essentially be the same, but what would only propel SMRT to earn more would be increased ridership - which is also dependable on the service they render. cccx123      ( Date: 04-May-2014 11:05) Posted: No leh...all the fares collected will go to SMRT. The govt will own the assets and get paid by SMRT for leasing them. Ridiculous corporatism... oldflyingfox      ( Date: 04-May-2014 11:03) Posted: If going to  such model, it means all the fares collected  will go to govt, SMRT will get  paid by providing the services instead.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
cccx123 Elite	04-May-2014 11:05        cccx123 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	No leh...all the fares collected will go to SMRT. The govt will own the assets and get paid by SMRT for leasing them. Ridiculous corporatism... oldflyingfox      ( Date: 04-May-2014 11:03) Posted: If going to  such model, it means all the fares collected  will go to govt, SMRT will get  paid by providing the services instead. steadylar      ( Date: 04-May-2014 09:40) Posted: To me, it' s weird if the  govt really buy over SMRT' s assets using  tax payers' money, and yet the earnings from running the trains & buses go into SMRT' s   pocket. What logic is that?
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
oldflyingfox Master	04-May-2014 11:03        oldflyingfox About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	If going to  such model, it means all the fares collected  will go to govt, SMRT will get  paid by providing the services instead. steadylar      ( Date: 04-May-2014 09:40) Posted: To me, it' s weird if the  govt really buy over SMRT' s assets using  tax payers' money, and yet the earnings from running the trains & buses go into SMRT' s   pocket. What logic is that?
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
steadylar Veteran	04-May-2014 09:40        steadylar About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	To me, it' s weird if the  govt really buy over SMRT' s assets using  tax payers' money, and yet the earnings from running the trains & buses go into SMRT' s   pocket. What logic is that?
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me

                                                         First   < Newer   2041-2060 of 2545   Older>   Last