Investing for income or growth?

Here is an email from another reader recently:

For pple with substantial capital, they can just buy div stocks and  hold. For those with less, it's not so simple..Cheng must be really  bullish..99% in the market, I'm only 30+% in the market..

I am surprised by LMIR, it hit a high of 53c today. Despite, the so-so management , i guess pple are still attracted by the yield.  This one is for keeps..

My reply:

I do not think that investment strategy is totally a function of how much capital we have, it is also a function of how much we want. If a person with $10,000 wants to double it within a year, of course, investing for income could disappoint.  An active trading strategy is more appropriate.  If this person is happy with 10% yield per annum, then, my current strategy is OK. Question what do we want and employ the appropriate strategy.

With LMIR, I still have a substantial position in the REIT although I did pare it down to increase my position size in AIMS. What's left in LMIR, I would just hold for its quarterly income distribution since I doubt it could go lower than 4c per annum. Fundamentally, this is a safe and stable investment.

Related post:

Roads to wealth creation in the stock market.

How to choose stocks?

I received this email from a reader recently:

Hi AK,

just want to understand better with respect to the various stocks. I  understand how say a TRUST / REITS works..and noticed that the price does not fluctuate much- but in return there is steady dividends that is tied to the NAV.

How then does one determine the NAV of say a stock that is tied to a business like manufacturing, services etc etc? and also the PE ratio?

Say for e.g memstart which focuses on membranes for water treatment.  I do think that this is one sector  besides solar/ green energy that would have a strong demand in the future given the scarcity of natural resources in the  future. How does one decide whether this is a good stock to invest in. Are there  questions that one should ask if we're investing for long term vs short term?

It's good to get a FAQ on how to choose stocks for long term and  short term, and not just purely on TA or FA.

Cheers
D

My reply:

Hi D,

A FAQ on how could we value different companies in different sectors would be a gold mine.  Unfortunately, I do not have the expertise to do this.  I think we would probably have to assemble 10 to 20 different bloggers who are experts in their own stocks of interest. ;-)

Different sectors are valued differently. So, some companies could have PEs of 30 and is considered cheap compared to other companies in a different sector with PEs of less than 10.  So, comparing against peers in the same sector is something I do often.

If you are asking questions about NAV and PE, you are doing fundamental analysis (FA) and likely to care more about values (i.e. you are a value investor). These numbers are easily obtained in a company's financial report (quarterly) or annual report. NAV is usually found towards the end of the reports.

I believe that the idea of long term investment is actually flawed and made into a legend by stories of how Warren Buffet kept adding to his investment in Coca Cola, for example.  If Coca Cola's fundamentals should take a turn for the worse one day, I am sure Warren Buffet might sell out. Stay nimble because circumstances are very fluid.  They could and often change from time to time.

If you really like the idea of long term investment, you would need the kind of foresight that Warren Buffet has.  Take note that even he makes mistakes. You want to look for companies with big "moats" (strong competitive advantages which are hard to replicate). To this end, there are many books available about how Warren Buffet picks winning stocks for the long term. :)

Best wishes,
AK

Related post:
Looking for value.

Tea with AK71: My new car's fuel consumption.

My Mazda 2 is more than a month old now and I am still trying to get 15.5km per litre out of it.  This is the official number from Mazda.  Initially, I got only 12km and now, I am able to get almost 14km but it seems that I have hit resistance, so to speak.

With my old Mazda 6 which had a 2.0 litre engine, I was able to do 11km+ per litre which from the reactions I got from friends must have been pretty amazing.  In fact, the salesperson at Mazda was amazed as well.  Then, why am I not able to get 15.5km per litre out of the Mazda 2 which has a 1.5 litre engine?

This was one of the things I thought about over the weekend and I compared what I did to the Mazda 6 that I might have to do to the Mazda 2.  Precious little since I am not the type to spend money on bodykits, sound systems and HID lights. I did spend money to run my Mazda 6 on synthetic engine oil and I did spend money on some good tires which were supposed to reduce CO2 emission.  There, I have my answers.

Running my car on synthetic oil reduced internal friction and I didn't have to wait for the engine to warm up before I drove.  Since, my Mazda 2 is new and has a free service by the agent at 5,000 km, I would just have to live with mineral oil till the car hits 10,000km.  That's when I would make the switch to synthetic oil.  This should improve the performance of the car.

New cars are usually bundled with OEM tires.  Apart from keeping tires properly inflated, swtiching to better tires could reduce resistance when driving. There could be less friction and we could cover more distance without stepping on the accelerator as much. Hence, the claim that good tires could reduce CO2 emission. Since tires usually last for 2 years or so, I would not be changing them in a hurry.  Will make a mental note.

I am rather light footed and do not rev the engine.  So, in terms of driving behaviour, I think I'm safe.  I am not sure if there could be other ways of improving my car's fuel consumption. If you have an idea, please feel free to share it. :)

Related post:
Tea with AK71: Bought a new car!

AIMS AMP Capital Industrial REIT: Excess rights.

A friend who applied for 2,500 excess rights was given 100% of his application.

Another friend who applied for 365,000 excess rights was given 39,000 rights or 10.7% of his application.

A reader, SnOOpy88, commented this morning:
"Results are out in CDP A/C.
I got only 17% of excess over my rights. Good start for me.
Wonder what will be the pricing direction now, given that some of us had got shares at $0.155 ?
Huat ah..."

SnOOpy88 did not mention how many excess rights did he apply for.

From my friends' experience, it seems that the less excess rights we applied for, the larger the percentage of our application would be successful. I wonder how many excess rights I would be alloted.  I would know this evening when I open the mailbox, I guess. ;)

Congratulations to fellow unitholders who are successful in getting some excess rights.  Each lot of excess rights secured is equivalent to an immediate gain of S$65.00 based on the current market price of 22c per unit. That's a 42% gain! In the money! :-)

Related post:
AIMS AMP Capital Industrial REIT: Results of rights issue.