InvestorsHub Logo

ValueInvestor01

10/26/18 6:00 PM

#147948 RE: ks1977 #147944

The PE of 10-12 is the value used by the appraisal firm, but for sure is a number one should discuss. There are several factors here; management (expect a lower PE if TRW don't get a different management than SIAF), interest rate (expect a lower PE if interest rates go up, which they will in the short term and possibly in the long term as well), growth (PE of 10-12 would be way too low if TRW is able to demonstrate decent growth also for the 2-3 years till listing), market place (HKSE vs OTC for instance) and so on.

Assuming that TRW is able to continue a nice growth and also not suffering too much turbulance of its net income, then a PE of 10-12 would be very conservative in my opinion.




I would take the PE of 10-12 value used by the appraisal firm with a grain of salt. But I agree with most of what you said above. I think it's too early to value this company and give it an appropriate P/E.


What long-term goal (PPS-wise) have you set for your investment in SIAF and TRW?



There's only 3 ways I would sell:
1) When I see further deterioration on the managements or the business.
2) When the intrinsic value of the company shrinks to the point that it's no longer a bargain.
3) When the price reaches close to its intrinsic value.

RealDutch

10/26/18 6:20 PM

#147950 RE: ks1977 #147944

The value reported here is the appraisal value, to which they used profits (in 2016) and a PE of 10-12



Only for AF1

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1488419/000114420418008594/filename1.htm

PF2 through PF5, having been developed/constructed and coming online within 2-years of the Investment Agreement (August 18, 2016), with some segments of those facilities still under construction as of that date, had had their valuation pegged to the cost of construction for purposes of asset values included in the agreement. Fish Farm 1, since it had undergone additional upgrades and retrofitting of its facilities since the time of its coming online in 2010, had a third-party appraisal conducted in order that its market valuation would be current and in-line with the asset values of PF2 through PF5 included as part of the agreement.