Chung Yen Wong

Chung Yen Wong
Contributor since: 2013
how does the 10% dividend come into the picture? Do you expect any changes with that respect?
Good analysis. I also remember reading on businessweek about LT unemployed staying out of formal economy and shifting into the shadow economy, estimated at $2tril, such as using their own house as place to conduct trading business with cash only transactions. It is a representation of the underlying structural change in the formal economy.
"1871-2012"? Seriously? Is that even practical?
I'm an advocate of buy-hold but am not convinced of that chart. Think it would give better picture if they have charts which cover more timeframe combinations up to the last 10 or 15 years aside from the starting point up there. The landscape has certainly changed in one way or another.
Hi frdmhr, as I have no access to data providers I'd go to for their reports/announcements. Agree that in the states there isn't much coverage, just look at the number of follower of this stock on SA should give you very good clue. I haven't had time to dig into the ownership structure, hope to get onto that when I have more time. On the dividend, they did make a small change to die dividend to COP instead of Operating Profit, the payout ratio for 2012 is around 53%, which is still pretty high considering their cash needs.
After hearing what the management said last Thursday, it doesn't seem that they have realised the core issue. They claimed that LF USA is the core problem and once that is over Distribution will be good again. I'm not so sure. Looking at the growth of Logistics & Trading, they don't look like they are anywhere heading to their original target ($0.1 & 0.7bil respectively).
Anyway they have abandoned their target now. Didn't set a new target, tells you how confident they are that the mess will be over real soon.
Any follow up? It's 6.50 now :s
Thanks for bringing this up. Would be interested to see your valuation work on the intrinsic value. Would be nice if u can publish a follow up on that.
Thanks very much
dude you need to look into the 8K seriously. Look for the fully diluted share count.
35% is to account for the past damage in the period as define by the laches, i.e. Sept 2011. The past damage is precisely accountable for the 35% of the 6 years that was originally sought after.
Hi murphman,
Thanks for the link to the Proffer. Although I still couldn't understand what do Laches and Proffer mean, after reading the entire Proffer Vringo submitted, it really-really doesn't make any sense to limit the damage in the initial years.
I was again clearly known/stated in pg8 that:
"Google was aware of the patents-in-suit prior to September 15, 2012. Google owns U.S. Patent No. 7,647,242, and the ‘242 patent lists the ‘420 patent on its face. (PX 0416). In particular, in an Office Action dated September 30, 2003, the ‘420 patent was cited as a reference made of record in the prosecution history of the ‘242 patent. (PX 0417).
In a 2008 Google email, Google’s employees discuss Don Kosak, one of the inventors of the patents-in-suit. (PX 0408, 0409). Google also produced articles from 1996, 1997 and 1998 that were obtained from its corporate archives describing Ken Lang and WiseWire, which was a precursor to the technology described in the patents-in-suit. (PX 0410, 0411, 0412, 0413). Google produced a patent used as a deposition exhibit in a prior Google litigation, as well as another patent presumably produced as alleged prior art in this litigation. (PX 0414, 0415). The ‘799 patent is listed as a cited reference on the face of these patents."
I couldn't understand why JJ made the decision at this particular moment with all this evidence on the table.
Jeez man, jeez...
Not again...
I'm sure the people comment after me will remind you how your so called "prior arts" have been mentioned multiple times to USPTO when Lang/Kosak file their search patent.
Yes, very fortunate indeed. Thanks Steve, once again.
Thanks steve, in advance.
Docket 719 pg 11 #12
"The reasonable royalty rate that is adequate to compensate 1/P Engine for Defendants' infringement of the '420 and '664 patents is 3.5%."
Hi Mohan thanks for digging in and pointing this out for us.
Thanks steve, once again, for deciphering this. I personally think that your theory is logical and plausible. And if you are right, the market is over-reacting based on no settlement reached. The market is upset when Google hasn't paid the bill, yet missing the point that Vringo is still re-calculating the price for what Google has consumed in her restaurant. (not a perfect analogy I know)
Thanks Icarus, hoping to hear your view soon in light with the current /latest updates :)
Hi Michael. I first saw Randgold nearing its 52wk-low, and I read this article of yours back then. Boy it has outperformed most of its peer by huge margin -- by some 20% to 40%.
I'm thinking that this is not sustainable now; however not on RIS basis as most of the miners are >70 or even 80.
Mind sharing your opinion on Randgold again? If you care to revisit this company. Thanks in advance.
Thanks for really outlining this in layman terms.
Dont get me wrong. Im a VRNG fan. But assuming if im Apple can you please convince me why i should acquire them in terms of getting to Google. Aren't they already doin the dirty job for me?
Sorry i meant the European approval
Thanks for the useful info. Do you have a 6mth and/or 1yr price target for SVNT?
And is it true that FDA approval can come anytime now?
Yes I consider this to be a shareholder-friendly move. It's a sign of commitment to me. Not sure if anyone has other explanations.
Thank you so much MJ :)
Hi Mercy,
Thanks so much for the insight. Something new to a newbie like me who always thought Nat Gas is really 'cleaner' than Coal as popularised by the media.
I'm interested in that article you mentioned. I find it hard to maneuver/search in Journal of Geophyisical Research's site. Could you share the link of that article?
Thanks first.
$5? it's impossible for them to be valued at that price if we are in the same planet. then other coal companies would be dead.
Paulo honestly I didn think these words are coming out from you so soon, sooner than I have expected. I remember commenting on one of yours that no stocks are bad as long as the price is right and asking at what stage you would consider, say, BTU.
Well, it seems comforting even the most "anti-coal" person in SA (hope you won't mind me calling you that) are joining us on the coal-train-ride. Welcome :) However I certainly hope we will continue to be cautious during our ride and not blinding ourselves from any negative.
I long BTU. Cheers.
I was about the ask the same too. Actually I've been waiting for his call to come to fruition, and was hoping that way too. Hoping for some practical explanation on that... thanks in advance James.
Thanks for the very informative article mark.
Objectively speaking, it's really kinda 'absurd' in the sense that 5M tons in the first 2 months but only 7M in the subsequent 10 months? kinda huge drop here their predictions... are they bullish or bearish, lol.
Absolutely. Everytime we have a new read, you know the debate is gonna rage... Thanks so much. Its really interesting watching this :)
Thanks Paulo. You are really patient in terms of answering all the comments.
I'm just not so sure if we will see a "coal world of panic" or a distressed situation.
I understand your proposition that as long as price of nat gas is underpressured, coal will be depressed. However from what I've seen/read, those capacity that can switch to nat gas have already switched. (I know you told me that you rebutted that in one of your article, which I have not read yet. Any kind soul can share that link?) Also for this fact, I choose BTU because its operation and market is more diversified/global. So even if I'm wrong, the switching is not exactly happening elsewhere.
Btw, Disclosure: Long BTU at 29
Hi Paulo. I get what you are trying to say bout the numbers that can be deceptive. I was involved in academic research for a while.
But you have to admit with what you have on hand right now, its just not enough to disprove Mark with your hypothesis. In any case, you presented a possible scenario only.
That aside, i believe no stock is bad given a low enough price. You seem to have left out providing your insight of such, or I have missed. Could you kindly share at what kind of valuation, or metrics, at current condition, would you take a look at them? Take BTU for example.
Thanks for the sharing once again.
agree. Thanks to Mark & Paulo here.