Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

TGA - Thorn Group

Thanks for that. TGA also imports direct. Last annual report states "The increase in gross profit from $86,475,000 to $99,714,000 was favourably impacted by the introduction of a direct import program under the Thorn brand name and the appreciation of the Australian dollar." Under the heading "Highligts" the report lists "Thorn brand flat panel TVs introduced". In effect this just solidifies the concept that TGA's buying power is a moat, albeit a shallow one through which big retailers could wade if they wished to get into the TGA-style game.

If one swallow makes a a summer, then company culture is another moat. The two key players in the 4-person rural branch that I visit were astoundingly proud of TGA and its work, pleased to be working there, and they lionised John Hughes, the MD. They said that employees tended to stay on for many years. I am sure that if one could secure employment metrics of absenteeism, average length of service and the gender breakdown, perhaps average wage, you will find that TGA's metrics will surpass those of most comparable employers in Australia.

The duo with whom I conversed work in a Radio Rentals outlet with a predominantly Aboriginal customer base. They said they worked closely with elders and customers who were well connected with the various Aboriginal communities. This included sending condolences and flowers when certain people died, et cetera. This relationship made it easy to track down individuals who they wanted to trace, and it helped to obviate problems. I know from working at Centrelink in Canberra as a contractor that TGA has a close relationship with people there. These relationships, and TGA's focus on its customers' ability to pay reflect the driving corporate culture that has underpinned TGA's significant and long-term success. A would-be competitor with a hug bag of funding cannot quickly acquire the expertise and attitudes of the TGA team.

I would give TGA a 6 or 7 score on my 0-9 moat scale.

This is probably enough on moats. EPS growth will be my next focus. If I could only find another nine TGA-quality stocks at TGA's current SP vs FV (fair value) ratio, I would instantly sell all my non-TGA shares, and in the interest of balance some TGAs too, and I would without compunction build a share portfolio made in heaven.
 
My investment philosophy is to exchange capital for cash flow.

. . . So long as nothing is going wrong with the business I would only sell if the market is offering more than my estimation of future cash flows.

. . . If the price falls further, that is no reason to turn my future cash flows into a loss.

Excellent post. I always think that people must be brilliant if their views accord with mine, or I can easily adopt them if they are better reasoned than mine. The corollary is that when I reject others' views, I am inclined to think that those holding them are odd. Through the eyes of a crab, men walk sideways.

What I write below is to underscore that a significant role in the share transaction decisions that one makes springs from one's SMSF trust deed, personal taxation position, estate planning, one's debt situation, age et cetera, and the alternative uses (of which one is aware) to which money realised by selling shares can be devoted. For illiquid shares, one may have to exit slowly.

From memory, when I tried to sell TGA shares about a year ago, the SP was close to my valuation of circa $2.30, so I was ambivalent, in spite of the fact that the average buy price in that portfolio was 84 cents. My SMSF co-trustee wanted to make capital gains within the SMSF to reduce capital gains tax in my estate when I die, and because TGA had done well relative to the other stocks held, TGA had had pipped the single-stock limit set in the SMSF trust deed. I agreed to start selling that portfolio's TGA shares at $2.30, but the SP then retraced, so nothing was sold. I had no inkling that the SP slide was going to continue for so long, otherwise I would have sold, and bought in later,.

When the SP retreated to about $2.00, and my valuation remained at about $2.30, as it still does, I started to accumulate TGA in my personal portfolio, where I am prepared to take more risks. My fair-value SP has not moved over the year, because I down-rated TGA because of the NCML acquisition and capital raising, but this is offset by estimating that the EPS is now three cents higher.

There are two points at which I would sell SOME shares in both portfolios. One is when the SP approaches my target SP, say $2.20. I have explained why I would do this for shares held within my SMSF portfolio. In respect to the playpen portfolio, I have debts that I could expunge if I sold part of my personally-held TGA shares. The second selling point is when, and if, I uncover a share of equal value relative its SP, because then I could diversify without paying a premium to do so.

There are two points when I would sell ALL my TGA shares – namely: a) when the SP runs ahead of my fair-value SP by a meaningful margin; and b) when I am convinced that there is a better place to park the funds realised if I sold TGA. Within the SMSF, capital gains is not an immediate issue, but for shares held personally, the tax angle would affect what I would do (perhaps split the selling over two tax years).

Can we shift the conversation to REASONED fair-value guesstimates, time frames and the quality of TGA as a business. Bouncing numbers around between $1.00 and $3.00 tells us nothing. With the preliminary full-year report due on 22/05/2012, you might prefer to venture your views later. I have no problem with TA-based views, which can be helpful on the matter of timing, but please avoid a TA vs FA polemic.
 
Fess up! You haven't even read that book, have you? If so, show me the part in it where it claims Warren Buffett was nearly made bankrupt by credit default swaps.

Seems I misread the passage---page 99 LTCM --- Long Term Capital Management
was in deep do do so shopped around its portfolio after losing 1.9 billion during the GFC to Buffett and Soros. Soros wouldn't have anything to do with it.
Buffett almost purchased the portfolio --the deal was "nixed" at the last minute due to technicalities. Your right the deal wouldn't have bankrupted. Fortunately he avoided an error in judgement.

When we read the next annual report, we will have a six-year record of a fistful of performance metrics, plus risk-related matters like the debt/equity ratio and management cues as to how well TGA is travelling. We can then invent a growth scenario, subjective as it will be.

But you have 5 yrs already.
You have held with the knowledge of 5 yrs of reporting through a 40% drop in stock price---without even an inkling of concern to your holdings capital value?

Why do I own so many other crappy stocks? Because I have delinquently failed to devote time to think about them.

Ill suggest another reason inherent in many many investors.--Fear of loss.
There comes a point in every trade that goes south where the loss becomes painful.
At this point they become bottom draw stocks. "You dont have a loss until you sell"--RIGHT??

I have control of my buy price and hence have some control over initial drawdown but not over what the market will do to the share price subsequently. If the price runs ahead and pulls back then so be it. The risk of trading and loosing exposure to a good business is not worth it. If the price falls further that is no reason to turn my future cash flows into a loss. Only the business performance dictates my actions, not other peoples onion of its value (aka price)

You have complete control over when you sell. Why on earth buy at $2.03 and hold after price falls below a small % of this?---sure sure future growth--
If you sold every purchase that didn't keep above its buy price you'd be way way wealthier IN ALL YOUR HOLDINGS--than you are today.

I have no problem with TA-based views, which can be helpful on the matter of timing, but please avoid a TA vs FA polemic.

Both you and Craft keep bringing up this ----I have made NO MENTION OF T/A.
I have made and will continue to make reference to RISK MITIGATION.

I dont see anything in the way of RISK MITIGATION displayed on this thread.
For the sake of others passively watching I'm bringing it up everywhere I see the need for it.This thread is ANOTHER example of where it is needed.

Much is said elsewhere on trader Psychology and I think here is displayed a great deal in Pioupiou's posts. TGA needs to reverse 65% to reach your target.
No amount of number crunching is going to make that happen.

ONLY--
not other peoples opinion of its value
---other peoples opinions aligning with yours WILL.
If your out of sync in any or all of your holdings---best be out of them UNTIL YOU ARE IN SYNC.

Make a pact with yourself that you wont ever place yourself in this position again.
If my post is of no help to any die hard's here they maybe one passive investor watching on who has a light bulb moment.
 
Seems I misread the passage---page 99 LTCM --- Long Term Capital Management
was in deep do do so shopped around its portfolio after losing 1.9 billion during the GFC to Buffett and Soros. Soros wouldn't have anything to do with it.
Buffett almost purchased the portfolio --the deal was "nixed" at the last minute due to technicalities. Your right the deal wouldn't have bankrupted.

I read a fair bit on long term capital from many sources not from the book you mentioned but I will get to that book soon...
LTCM went belly up during the Russian default not during the GFC, and there are many version to what happen and different people has a different view on it.

I came to the conclusion LTC went belly up because they leverave too far and cant hold
on to their losing position, their strategy has some merits...on the other hand I reckon Buffett would stand to profit a lot of money should he got control of it...He has deep pocket and can carry those position for many years at a fire sale price before the market turns and it did turn soon after...

Anyway since knowing a bit about Long term I use their strategy myself with Buffet style pocket...No matter what happen I can hold it and comes out un-damaged

Leverage is what kill long term not their strategy...

PS for people who dont know what ltcm is about they are a bunch of very smart marhematician including the options formular creator, went on to invent their own formular to tackle options and abitrage.. their options cater for an orderly market without extreme shock..
Russian default is an extreme shock and it cant handle it..ie they levergae too far with little equity...
 
I read a fair bit on long term capital from many sources not from the book you mentioned but I will get to that book soon..

You'll enjoy it a tremendous read --- one of those books you cant put down.

Oh and happy to place a technical point of view with chart on TGA if wanted.
 
Seems I misread the passage---page 99 LTCM --- Long Term Capital Management
was in deep do do so shopped around its portfolio after losing 1.9 billion during the GFC to Buffett and Soros.

LTCM was broke back in '98 not '07. It has nothing to do with the GFC. Didn't the Fed end up bailing them out?
 
LTCM was broke back in '98 not '07. It has nothing to do with the GFC. Didn't the Fed end up bailing them out?

Yes your pretty well spot on.
from page 99

The winding down of the fund was brutal. Involving 14 US and European banks organised by the federal reserve.Many of the Partners who had invested their life savings in the fund suffered massive personal losses.
 
LTCM was broke back in '98 not '07. It has nothing to do with the GFC. Didn't the Fed end up bailing them out?

The fed and several wall street firms helped bail them out. Bear stearns was not one of them and some argue that decision was taken into account when Bear failed...interesting.
 
Seems I misread the passage---page 99 LTCM --- Long Term Capital Management
was in deep do do so shopped around its portfolio after losing 1.9 billion during the GFC to Buffett and Soros. Soros wouldn't have anything to do with it.
Buffett almost purchased the portfolio --the deal was "nixed" at the last minute due to technicalities. Your right the deal wouldn't have bankrupted. Fortunately he avoided an error in judgement.

If you want t the truth out of the horses mouth re LCTM watch this video from Minute 13.

Oh yeh, if you are interested in learning from somebody with credentials, the rest of the video is worth watching also, better then getting mis-information on a forum.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6231308980849895261#
 
Both you and Craft keep bringing up this ----I have made NO MENTION OF T/A.
I have made and will continue to make reference to RISK MITIGATION.

I dont see anything in the way of RISK MITIGATION displayed on this thread.
For the sake of others passively watching I'm bringing it up everywhere I see the need for it.This thread is ANOTHER example of where it is needed.

The risk control is based on business analysis.

You don't get this point - fair enough - but we are not moron's because you fail to understand it.
 
Oh and happy to place a technical point of view with chart on TGA if wanted.

How about digging us out a technical system for trading TGA since listing and then work out the result from taking ‘every’ signal.


With history to curve fit, you should be able to quickly work out a system to flog any buy and holder who has a a 15%+ CAGR since listing.

The silence is deafening

A TA perspective with every signal – since listing we don’t respect no cherry picking with hindsight around here.
 
The risk control is based on business analysis.

Which is nothing more than opinion.
These opinions even vary on this thread.

You don't get this point - fair enough - but we are not moron's because you fail to understand it.

Right I dont get it as a risk mitigation tool.
I've never seen it offered as a risk mitigation tool in any literature.
I fail to see it working as I've never seen anyone sell due to a change in valuation---they always seem to value the same regardless of how smashed price becomes.
Read the PEN thread and you'll see it in action.

A simple sell when price falls below buy price would save a lot of capital.
You and some here just fail to see that.

The silence is deafening

Listen up then.

A TA perspective with every signal – since listing we don’t respect no cherry picking with hindsight around here.

Every signal defined by what parameter/s?
A meaningless statement.
 
You buy and develop property. Do you use a chart to indicate which properties are worthy of being bought?

Sure do.
There are demographics
Growth
Price patterns
Rental
Occupancy

To name a few.
But most of all
I evaluate risk.
Pure and simple if the maths don't cut it
Then I don't do it.
 
Sure do.
There are demographics
Growth
Price patterns
Rental
Occupancy

So you use fundamentals. Thanks for clearing it up.

tech/a said:
To name a few.
But most of all
I evaluate risk.
Pure and simple if the maths don't cut it
Then I don't do it.

So, your opinion of the risk, correct?
 
So you use fundamentals. Thanks for clearing it up.

As a chart generally.



So, your opinion of the risk, correct?

Risk is just maths. For developments.

But your throwing logic back to an F/A v T/A arguement again.Now on a completely different commodity.

Doesn't avoid the fact that there is very poor risk mitigation shown by those investing in TGA
 
But your throwing logic back to an F/A v T/A arguement again.Now on a completely different commodity.

My only point is that there is more than one way to make money off an asset. . There's a multitude of variables that determine how you might approach that end. I care about it's ability to generate cash flow, not its price. I understand that others have differnet approaches.

I believe you have said, in the property thread, that in your opinion property will trend sideways for at least a few years but you wouldn't sell your IP's because they are providing a steady cash flow (regardless of price movement). Doesn't this run counter-intuitively to your argument in this thread?
 
A simple sell when price falls below buy price would save a lot of capital.
You and some here just fail to see that.

I would get "stop-lossed" out of 90% of stock purchases I make. I might be happy to accept some volatility and some risk because of the expected yield on my investment.
 
Read the PEN thread and you'll see it in action.
This is an unfair comparison because PEN is a commodity stock. They're notoriously hard to value (ie: almost impossible) because you cannot look at them with any independence to the underlying commodity price. They're extremely cyclical. In this case, they're generally worth, as you love to say "what someone else is willing to pay." Your method of stock selection (technical factors) will probably tell you more about this underlying demand. I'm not interested in it, so I stay right away from those type of stocks (another form of risk mitigation).
 
Did some quick calcs. Assuming that you loaded up during the GFC at the low of $0.415. And managed to sell, like Harry Hindsight always does, at the peak of $2.26. (edit: You're heavily into analysing volume, what effect does selling 470,000 shares on the market on those particular days have on the share price - would you have been able to sell every single one of them at the peak?)

Accounting for 46.5% tax rate (less 50% discount for the holding period) you would have net sell price of $1.83 per share. Let's call it $1.82 after brokerage shall we? Is 0.5% too generous?

If you had have held you would have stock worth $1.42 at this weeks close. Plus $0.0895 per share in fully franked dividends. Let's say $1.52.

This is a difference of $0.30 per share. Which is a 16% net difference if you sold at the peak.

Doesn't look as interesting when you look at the real numbers if you ask me. Including accumulated dividends you'd still be miles ahead of the GFC low in this scenario. With a bigger one coming in July.

Let's revisit this in July after the 2012 figures are known, and the dividend has been paid Tech/A. I will be interested to see what the gap between selling at the peak and still holding is by then. I am making no estimates because I do not have a crystal ball to predict the share price.

Great post.
 
Top