LOLC HOLDINGS PLC (LOLC.N0000)

asitha wrote:lolc will be moved to 1xx

Academic wrote:

1.
The immediate reason for going LOLC down is its earning quality and downgrading debt rating based on double leverage.

Can any of you explain how name change to Holding address above issues? Isn't it the same LOLC?

2.
Further it is no more a Finance company. A jack of all trades.

Investors attracted to its finance business which will be shifted to LOFC. Once LOFC listed people may forget LOLC. This may explain why we saw large sell orders for LOLC in last couples of days (an information leakage?)?

In addition to that widely diversified companies are subjected to a "Conglomeration discount" in calculating its fair-value.

gann wrote:

Academic wrote:

1.
The immediate reason for going LOLC down is its earning quality and downgrading debt rating based on double leverage.

Can any of you explain how name change to Holding address above issues? Isn't it the same LOLC?

2.
Further it is no more a Finance company. A jack of all trades.

Investors attracted to its finance business which will be shifted to LOFC. Once LOFC listed people may forget LOLC. This may explain why we saw large sell orders for LOLC in last couples of days (an information leakage?)?

In addition to that widely diversified companies are subjected to a "Conglomeration discount" in calculating its fair-value.

According to the following article LOLC is already in the top list of diversified companies in par with JKH with a impressive growth of Assets and ROE.
http://www.ft.lk/2011/04/08/welcome-the-new-conglomerate/

Any comments?

tubal wrote:Thanks for your post academic. I find myself often talking about QoQ growth but didn't bother to check it with LOLC because YoY was pretty impressive. Having said that I don't think the price will decline, this stock seems to have good support at the 136 levels. At the same time these earnings wouldn't justify a breakout.

Aamiable wrote:

tubal wrote:Thanks for your post academic. I find myself often talking about QoQ growth but didn't bother to check it with LOLC because YoY was pretty impressive. Having said that I don't think the price will decline, this stock seems to have good support at the 136 levels. At the same time these earnings wouldn't justify a breakout.

I think most of the investors have collected at higher levels, many are not prepared to dispose at low levels.
With these new developments on an up beating market .. LOLC is an attractive stock. It has a good support level,
LOLC is a very familiar stock for most investors.

Academic wrote:

gann wrote:

Academic wrote:

1.
The immediate reason for going LOLC down is its earning quality and downgrading debt rating based on double leverage.

Can any of you explain how name change to Holding address above issues? Isn't it the same LOLC?

2.
Further it is no more a Finance company. A jack of all trades.

Investors attracted to its finance business which will be shifted to LOFC. Once LOFC listed people may forget LOLC. This may explain why we saw large sell orders for LOLC in last couples of days (an information leakage?)?

In addition to that widely diversified companies are subjected to a "Conglomeration discount" in calculating its fair-value.

According to the following article LOLC is already in the top list of diversified companies in par with JKH with a impressive growth of Assets and ROE.
http://www.ft.lk/2011/04/08/welcome-the-new-conglomerate/

Any comments?

It is bit difficult to predict how market would react. However, FT article clearly shows ROA of LOLC is well below two largest diversifieds, JKH and Carson. In addition to that part of reported earnings of LOLC was due to SEYB investment reclassification (1.7 billion). This may have revised by 31 march as SEYB doped to 75. So I cant see a impressive ROA with LOLC. IMHO recent acquisitions made LOLC's ROA stagnant (As Fitch Ratings pointed out in below link).

See http://www.lankabusinessonline.com/fullstory.php?nid=926577279 for more details.

I think LOLC wants to remove this diluting effect of acquisitions from its main business. That is why they are going to list Financial companies. Thus, financial subsidiaries would be attractive compared to LOLC in terms of ROA , ROE etc, as all dilutions are accumulated at holding company (LOLC) level.

This is not an investment advice or recommendation

Academic wrote:

I do not see any logic in the claims of "support levels" either for an index or stock. For example someone may say ASI support at 7330 or LOLC at 116.5. What these numbers can do with fair value of an index or stock?

It is the demand and supply that determine price. Even ASI doped to 7330, if further selling occurs, it will further go down. The same is true for a stock. So the key for determining share price is predicting demand and supply, not naively hang on to some arbitrary numbers (7330, 166.5 etc).

slstock wrote:
If one was treating LOLC purely as financial company before this announcement then LOLC share price was bordering fair value I'd say. But if one wishes to now place LOLC has holding company with the future expectation of growth from its acquisitions /subsidiaries I guess it would trade at premium like the diversified sector. Gann reference to ft.lk article would help to identify where LOLC stands in diversified.

tubal wrote:

Academic wrote:

I do not see any logic in the claims of "support levels" either for an index or stock. For example someone may say ASI support at 7330 or LOLC at 116.5. What these numbers can do with fair value of an index or stock?

It is the demand and supply that determine price. Even ASI doped to 7330, if further selling occurs, it will further go down. The same is true for a stock. So the key for determining share price is predicting demand and supply, not naively hang on to some arbitrary numbers (7330, 166.5 etc).

academic, these are not arbitrary numbers. These are numbers deducted using well tested and established theories. Being an academic, I am surprised that you are rejecting them without doing proper investigation into them.

tubal wrote:

Academic wrote:

I do not see any logic in the claims of "support levels" either for an index or stock. For example someone may say ASI support at 7330 or LOLC at 116.5. What these numbers can do with fair value of an index or stock?

It is the demand and supply that determine price. Even ASI doped to 7330, if further selling occurs, it will further go down. The same is true for a stock. So the key for determining share price is predicting demand and supply, not naively hang on to some arbitrary numbers (7330, 166.5 etc).

academic, these are not arbitrary numbers. These are numbers deducted using well tested and established theories. Being an academic, I am surprised that you are rejecting them without doing proper investigation into them.

xmart wrote:O-key.. where is LOLC march 31st report? i can't find it at CSE website. i want to see their QtoQ performance.

ashlee wrote:
I think the guy who converted 100% LOLC is gonna be a real winner now..

dr kiru005 wrote:

ashlee wrote:
I think the guy who converted 100% LOLC is gonna be a real winner now..

Itz me

xmart wrote:O-key.. where is LOLC march 31st report? i can't find it at CSE website. i want to see their QtoQ performance.

UKboy wrote:

xmart wrote:O-key.. where is LOLC march 31st report? i can't find it at CSE website. i want to see their QtoQ performance.

It will be a huge achievement if they can improve Q4 profits by at least 12.5%.

asitha wrote:why LOLC price extremely drooped down???
in this year also they have profits.last year they have gained over 9 bll profit but still FS not published.i have shares at a price of 115.i have to deside wether is it keeping worth or not..