Depression Looms

Secular Talks is a left-of-centre podcast out of the US. He's often quite perceptive and I laughed while watching this recent rant about how jiggered we are right now, what with imbeciles in the White House setting out to destroy the western world. 

Navinder Singh Sarao - Flash Crash

Somehow, the story of Navinder Singh Sarao fascinates me. He is said to have caused the Flash Crash of 2010. But then, having made so much money he was then a sucker for wide boy scammers who took his money off him.

He's banned from financial trading now, but here's an idea, why don't the authorities put him under close supervision and have him go to work to earn the money back? Then anything left over gets split 50/50 charity and Sarao, so he does get rewarded for his efforts beyond serving time for his crime and pays to repair society. Just an idea, having him sit in his parents house and unable to pay the money back seems like a waste of time if you ask me.

Here's an article on Sarao https://www.livemint.com/Money/TYUUtwYOj0VIPhFFyLICQM/How-flash-crash-trader-Navinder-Singh-Sarao-went-from-genius.html

Stock Tips: New Zealand

Three companies I like on the New Zealand Stock Exchange at the moment are:

1. New Zealand Refining (NZE: NZR)

Their current price of NZ$2.10 looks good buying. This company refines 70% of fuels used in NZ, including the majority of the diesel and jet fuel. It's been around a long time and always delivers for its shareholders which include a couple of large oil companies (Mobil and BP). Yes, I own shares in NZ Refining.

2. Mainfreight (NZE: MFT)

From their humble beginning in the 1970's, Mainfreight has come to dominate domestic NZ freight services and they now have global reach. They have a high P/E and that may put some off, but the company rarely puts a step wrong. No, I don't own this one, but nevertheless it's a good company.

3. Steel & Tube (NZE: STU)

They do as the name suggests, supply steel and tube. Why such a low share price? They've been having trouble over steel they supplied that wasn't to grade. Nothing wrong with the steel mind you, just not as labelled. They've taken a hit as a result. I like companies that take a hit but with nothing wrong with the underlying business itself.

Portfolio Performance

The following portfolio provides ample evidence of the robustness of my investment approach. Sadly, I don't think many have checked it out. Why do people chase rainbows and the latest bitcoin nonsense yet ignore solid stocks like these?

Check out the portfolio here...https://www.siliconinvestor.com/portfolio.aspx?fid=521

Companies included in this portfolio:

American Railcar
Caterpillar
Emerson Electric
Federal Signal
Oshkosh Truck
Paccar
Freightcar America
Trinity Industries and note the Arcosa spin-off distribution to stock holders https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180515006540/en/Trinity-Industries-Introduces-Spin-off-Company-Arcosa-Announces and check this analysis which sounds balanced https://seekingalpha.com/article/4180716-trinity-industries-inc-spin-entity-look-overly-promising

Smiths City Group (NZX:SCY)

I am a shareholder in Smiths City Group, the New Zealand Stock Exchange listed retailer. It is a long established business that has had its ups and downs over the years, but generally it could be relied on to return a reasonable dividend. That changed recently with the suspension of a dividend off the back of reported losses. What's going on over at Smiths City?

I'm not happy with the direction the company is taking and I won't be changing my mind on that opinion any time soon. That's because it's been downhill for a while, at least 10 years or possibly longer. I put this down to one simple factor: they do not know what they are doing.

Harsh you might say. Possibly, but reading their latest Annual Report prompted me to make this post. The report, replete with typo's, has a schizophrenic feel to it; on the one hand talking about its 100 years in business and the next minute about all things fresh and new. The problem with the company is it has moved away from what it was good at to riskier business that it has never been good at. Don't they realise this and why go toward an area of business they've demonstrably failed at in the past?

If we look at Smiths City from the old days; it was a boring business that looked after the locals. They sold trade tools, hardware, appliances and some home furnishings. Included in that list was the auctioning and trading in secondhand goods. They were actually quite good at all this and Smiths was always the place for a bargain. What was Smiths not? They were not trendy, or fashionable, or up-market. Their brand is irrevocably linked to trade, blokes, bargain hunters. That's it.

Now what are they doing? Investing heavily in their on-line presence, and store fit-out, and overall branding trying to impress on customers that they are now good looking. Right, good luck with that one.

Much earlier they got rid of their hardware, a steady earner, I've lost count of the number of times over the years that I've been in Smiths amongst the tools to discover a father with his child buying tools for the first day on the job as an apprentice. Smiths has lost that loyalty amongst customers and is chasing dreams in Auckland, a notably fickle market, where Smiths can only be seen as dead naff.

Then they'd bought the Wellington business of LV Martin, a local appliance retailer, and re-branded it Smiths City. Do they not understand that Smiths is generally openly laughed at in Wellington while LV Martin is loved? Yes, Smiths are that stupid.

On-line presence is really not that important for Smiths. They used to specialise in locations where the locals have few options, buying online means waiting days or even weeks and when it arrives it will be damaged. Or just go down to the Smiths store and Bob's your uncle. This store does not have to be flash. So what do they do? They spend on flash fit-out everywhere.

The problem they're faced with is the amount of money required to prove they're now sexy. This is way out of proportion to what they'll ever make from actually being sexy, presuming they can actually reach that goal.

What they should be doing is rather simple. Remember what they're good at, and do that often. At the moment they've forgotten about it. Then add bolt-on acquisitions that are aligned and don't spend outrageously trying to tart things up. I'm thinking farm supplies, trade tools, builders supplies, maybe some agencies on valuable imported lines and so on. And get back to secondhand and even auctions to boot. Business in Auckland and everything stylish is a mirage.

Greenbrier Companies Inc (NYSE: GBX)

My latest stock pick is railcar and marine manufacturer Greenbrier Companies Inc., based in Lake Oswego, Oregon.

Check them out here: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GBX?p=GBX

I make no secret if my liking for solid industrials like these. But one thing to note is many pundits are picking them to collapse. I don't see that happening and expect them to do well.

[Update @ 20/11/2019: now solidly in the buy range for bargain hunters ]

I Picked Bradken, Did Anyone Else?

Just to recap, back in 2016 I mentioned Bradken three times.

I first mentioned them at 84 cents here...http://kenhorlor.blogspot.com/2016/04/risky-asx-stcoks-worth-checking-out.html

Then I followed up in June http://kenhorlor.blogspot.com/2016/06/advantages-of-investing-in-stocks.html and November http://kenhorlor.blogspot.com/2016/11/update-advantages-of-investing-in-stocks.html

Note that in October 2016 Bradken came under takeover interest by Hitachi Construction Machinery and the full sale was completed in early 2017. Any investor acting upon my initial pick at 84 cents, would have nearly quadrupled their money. The sale price was $3.25 (Australian Dollars).

My hypothetical $135,000 invested in Bradken would be $513,000 less than a year later. Sometimes I even surprise myself with this stuff.

Portfolio Performance

It's been a year since I posted my portfolio on this blog. As a whole the portfolio is up 54%, with Oshkosh up 107%. Two other favourites of mine, Trinity Industries and Caterpillar are also up more than 70%.  If you want more picks like these then I suggest my readers subscribe to the Stock Tip Hotline.

Check out the portfolio here http://www.siliconinvestor.com/portfolio.aspx?fid=521

Stock Tip Hotline explained here http://kenhorlor.blogspot.com/p/stock-tip-hotline_18.html

We are investing now as well, so if you've got a good business to sell, let me know. Even if it doesn't meet our strict requirements, we may offer the business on our blog to our very wide readership.

Investing now explained here http://kenhorlor.blogspot.com/p/investment.html

Update Market Report UK

Just a note pointing out Breedon are on a bit of  slide, now at a P/E ratio of 26.52, down from the 31 they were on when I last mentioned them. Breedon has been a standout performer in the aggregates sector, the value of their shares having almost doubled in value in the last three years. Given their performance and market domimance with room still to grow, Breedon now represent a "buy".

https://www.google.com/finance?cid=6216709

Case Study: Martin Jetpack vs Fletcher Building

I often get asked, what do I avoid when investing in a company. My answer goes something like, I avoid dogs and lemons. Which brings me to these two companies, Martin Jetpack and Fletcher Building. They're both New Zealand businesses, the former being listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX MJP), while the latter is listed on both the ASX and NZX (ASX FBU).

First things first, Martin Jetpack is not a jet. It's a contraption which one pilot flies while strapped into. The product can best be described as hype. An early version of the contraption flew at Oshkosh in 2008 and I'm informed the reaction from onlookers there was a wide yawn. They'd seen this before with the SoloTrek XFV which flew back in 2001 some seven years earlier.

The inventor wanted everyone to believe he'd worked on his flying thing for 30 years from his garage in the suburbs of Christchurch, but this assertion was never independently verified. It is truly incredible to think that shareholder money went into this thing. It has yet to enter commercial production and I'm not even sure if anyone outside the company has flown it (put under independent scrutiny). My bet is it will never enter commercial production and if it does the company will promptly go bust as it is a silly proposition with little or no practical use.

Then we have Fletcher Building. This is a large business which carries out wide scale construction projects, and it is NZ's only locally based manufacturer of cement. When the Christchurch earthquakes hit, the only company capable of a rebuild that big was Fletcher Building.

You know Formica, everyone knows what Formica is, well Fletcher own it, and Laminex as well. Get the idea? Fletcher has fingers in many pies. Having said this though, Fletcher does tend to underperform and that's why I own no part of it, but that could change, and here's why: its share price fell 10% in one day on Monday and continues to fall. This is because of a profit downgrade due to cost overruns on two large projects. Construction is a risky business and they've been burned. But heck, 10% off the value in one day?

That's right, completely silly businesses like Martin Jetpack, which has never made anything useful and likely never will, ride up to $1.25 highs then plunge to 14 cents today. Then a solid company like Fletcher is punished harshly for business as usual.

What I'm saying is the market overreacts. It panics on bad news and gets all excited about hype. All commonsense seems to fly out the window. Fletcher Building are a solid buy, Martin Jetpack a joke.

Snap Inc

We've seen the hype, Snap has listed on the NYSE and the company now has a market capitalization of around 28 billion dollars. It's not a profitable business, so why the backing from investors? The only answer must be that investors are taking a punt, or gambling in other words.

By market cap, Snap is now worth more than Terex (3.51), Genesee & Wyoming (4.60), Martin Marietta Materials (14.22), Navistar (2.38) and Winnebago (1.14): they all add up to 25.89 billion. Call me old fashioned but I just ran off a list of companies that actually do something. Snap lets you do silly things with photo's and you share them. Fun yes, but is this a real thing with real value?

So by my measure Snap is not something to invest in.

Three or more Essential Reads for Investors

If you read nothing else in relation to investing then these are my picks, in order of importance, read them in numerical order:-

1. The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham.

Get the edition with a forward by Warren Buffet and annotated by Jason Zweig. It is a timeless classic full of practical advice. You may have heard of it and discounted simply because it isn't trendy, or some such, well don't, the book is as good as people say. Follow the advice and you'll rarely go wrong.

2. Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits by Philip A Fisher.

The 'father' of growth investing, Fisher follows the 'scuttlebutt' approach. Find a good business and learn about it, check it out in the flesh, how is it run, is this a good business is it? Of course you don't believe rumour and all that crap, but there are things to take notice of and Fisher tells you how. Ben Graham references Fisher and points out how talented he is, and so the readers of both should take note; follow Graham for soundness and when your skill improves or you're very talented, then you may graduate to Fisher.The truth lies somewhere in the middle, be a Ben Graham type with room for some of Fisher in there somewhere.

Special note here for Peter Lynch's Beating the Street; it is a very valuable book too and could be read in conjunction with 'Common Stocks', it shows how keeping it simple can be a real winner. I only add it as a mention as you don't have to read it if you've got 'Common Stocks' on hand.

3. Freakanomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner

This will make you think about everything. Basically, if you provide the incentives, you will get it, even if you didn't intend to.

Special note: for the real estate fanatics an often overlooked book that is the first and last word on investing in real estate: Jones on Property by Bob Jones. The short message is; there is glamour in industrial. This book covers everything any real estate investor needs to know. It was published in 1977 in New Zealand and covers that market and Sydney Australia. The author is a successful investor, now Sir Robert Jones.

Head over to the forum to discuss the best investment reads.

My 3 Rules for Stock Market Investment

Boiled down I have three broad rules related to stock market investment.

1. Boring is best

If the industry is out of date, no-one wants to know about it any more, isn't sexy, isn't highly technological, people laugh if you mention it or better still, have never heard of it and have no idea what it does exactly, then I'm interested in it.

2. Don't pay too much

That great company may be the bees knees, have great management, reasonable debt levels and has been making solid profits for a hundred years; but if it's over-priced it's still a no go.

3. It must be solid

The company must be respected, well managed, have a dominant position within its market, have brands that resonate, and been around quite a while.

My advice: take your own advice and use these three rules, then you'll likely do better than any investment adviser. Want a snapshot of how good returns can be? Check this out >>Do Not Click Here<< Nah, go on you can click it, what it shows is that by applying my three rules you can achieve better than a 40% return in less than a year.

To discuss please visit the forum. Your ideas are valued.

Update: Advantages of Investing in Stocks

I have pointed out how investing in stocks or shares can achieve outstanding returns. I tipped Bradken (ASX: BKN) back then, you can read about it here >>>http://kenhorlor.blogspot.com/2016/06/advantages-of-investing-in-stocks.html

Check out Bradken now; AUS$3.19

Jan 21 they were AUS$0.38

Jun 9 they were AUS$1.22

As at Nov 30...they are AUS$3.19

That's just one year; AUS$50,000 invested upon my tip on June 10, would have acquired 40,000 shares (rounding and allowing for brokerage and such), and that stake would now be worth AUS$127,600.

Also, check my portfolio tracker, now up 48% this year. http://www.siliconinvestor.com/portfolio.aspx?fid=521

My favourites, Oshkosh (NYSE: OSK ) and Trinity Industries (NYSE: TRN)  are up 103% and 72% respectively

Advantages of Investing in Stocks

New Zealanders are obsessed with real estate. Apart from a few savings in the bank, that's about all they invest in, be it their own home or home plus other property as an investment. Residential rental makes up a large proportion of the latter.

With the just announced bank restrictions on financing available to investors, it's possible they may look to the share market. If they do, there are several advantages over direct personal investment in real estate:-

1. It's a relatively passive form of investment (this is not to say you turn your brain off and don't let the company know what you think). With real estate you need to be concerned about maintenance, paying rates, insurance, making mortgage payments, finding tenants - the list goes on. 

2. Gains can be outstanding and so long as you don't buy with the intent to sell, then like real estate investment the capital gains are tax free. With real estate, over time, the gains are definitely there, but do those gains all occur within a year? You can do that in stocks. But like deciding which property to buy you need to do your research and be satisfied that the company you're investing in, and becoming part-owner of along with all those other shareholders, is well managed and has prospects. 

3. You can adjust your portfolio and do it easily. By that I mean, if you own the shares, you can sell as many of them as you like if you choose to (any marketable parcel). Can you sell half of that house you rent out? Or sell doors and windows? And if you can you need to get your hands dirty, and if selling the building you need a lawyer and likely an agent. Then if subdividing the property there are tax implications.

4. Income from dividends, return of capital, bonus issues and dividend reinvestment schemes make the returns often better than real estate.

Think about it, but beware, I think the most important thing is to be disciplined. The share market is a roller coaster and you need to think for yourself and be prepared to go in the opposite direction to the herd. That is, buy when everyone is selling and sell when everyone is buying.

An example of what is possible:-

ASX Bradken (BRK)

Jan 21 - they were at Aus$0.38 

Jun 9 - they closed at Aus$1.22

You'd find it hard to triple your money in months in real estate. Some bright spark will point out, no doubt, that the above company is losing money and having to restructure. And they'd be right. But think about this, the company is not going to disappear overnight and if it fails will be gobbled up by someone else. It's a pretty solid company, not fly-by-night stuff.

Our bright spark will rightly reply that with investment real estate, you get the advantage of mortgage gearing and the tenant pays off the mortgage.  How does mortgage gearing work? Well, the lender is not participating in the asset, they're just lending the investor money and charging for it while keeping the real estate as security. If you buy a $450,000 house and put in the minimum amount of equity, say, $135,000 and the property rises 10% in value during the first year, you book a $45,000 profit (at least on paper). Rounded down that's a 33% return on that $135,000. All the capital gains are yours.

This all sounds good and it looks like real estate is by far the better bet. But think about this - while things are going great, real estate is a sure-fire winner, but as an investor it is you with everything on the line. If the market tanks, you still have that mortgage to pay back. If you can't find tenants, tough, you still have to pay the mortgage. Everyone thinks of the times when things are going great and they never think about what may happen if things go wrong.

I think this is where investing in the companies listed on the share market comes into its own. If things go bad, you have no ongoing obligation to anyone so long as you haven't borrowed to buy those shares. You may have to forgo a dividend, or wait for the company to recover, or even sell at a loss, but that's where your obligations end. The company may ask for a further contribution, a rights issue, but you're never compelled to invest in those (they're often a very good idea by the way).

If we go back to our $135,000 equity example above, it's hard to get that 33% return on the share market across the whole portfolio. But get this, you also have far less risk than with real estate. If you apply the time honoured principle of compounding your investment, by reinvesting capital gains when realised, participating in dividend reinvestment schemes, buying shares offered in a rights issues, and taking your dividend income and reinvesting part of that (I'm assuming at least some of the dividend income is used to pay expenses, such as brokerage when due), then I'm sure returns can be better than real estate investment.

Whatever you do, my own experience of using advisers is they're often useless. My advice is use your own research, like you would when buying a house, know the market and what you want. What company do you like and why?

Portfolio Tracker Update

Making a small adjustment, I've sold half of my under performing Freight Car America and bought Federal Signal. The loss on Freight Car I've reflected in the share cost for that stock holding (put the share cost up). 

Apple Inc

Is Apple Inc down and out? If you only read the responses to their latest earnings report then you'd be excused for thinking they were.

Check this out - the stock price for Apple Inc at the close of business Friday May 4, 2001 was $1.84. The price on May 4 2016 was $94.19. 

10,000 shares bought at 1.84 = $18,400

10,000 shares sold at 94.19 = $941,900

That's a capital gain of $923,500. I think you'll agree, a pretty nice return.

Naysayers can be found everywhere. They're often wrong. Apple was thought to have peaked in 2012. Their price then was $80.75.

Now I'm not guaranteeing staggering returns like these. But pick a good company and by sticking with it, you can do a lot better than with real estate or any other form of investment for that matter.

Check This Out

Check out this portfolio (see new adjustments), it may just impress. Not even a year has past and this portfolio is up more than 50%. The trick is to think old fashioned. Do you jump on all the latest bandwagons? Well don't, they almost always lose money. Are you excited by dirty metal bashing industries? Great, think like that. 

Here it is...http://www.siliconinvestor.com/portfolio.aspx?fid=521

Look at Trinity Industries, up over 70%. Caterpillar up 55%. Oshkosh up over 100%. You never hear people banging on about how great these companies are do you. Think margin of safety, I believe Trinity offers margin of safety based on its relatively cheap price compared to its peers. 

Update (@27/06/2017): I have adjusted the portfolio and decided to take most of my Caterpillar gains and invest those in Paccar which appears cheap for such a great company right now. My thinking here is that Caterpillar's restructuring will take some time while Paccar represents quality truck brands, and Paccar is still making money. I'm selling half of my Caterpillar shares, those that remain represent the bulk of what the 1,000 original shares cost in the first place. Think about that for a minute.....18 months after purchase, they've just about paid themselves off and I can go after another great company. Note that the performance of the whole portfolio now drops after this new position is taken, but the whole has grown by the gain made on sale from the Caterpillar sale. And think, where I'm based this capital gain is tax free.

Update (@13/08/2018): Note this portfolio is doing very well. If you check in from time to time you will see that each stock fluctuates, but over time they all do well. That's because they're conservative picks, run cautiously and adroitly. They're not the next big thing, which usually crashes soon enough.

Update (@2/09/2019): I have one bad performer, FreightCar America Inc., but we don't go along with selling in a panic, we're sticking with it.

Update (@20/03/2020): The markets have been severely impacted by the COVID-19 crisis, but this portfolio is still ahead, up 12.7% since inception. The lesson; hold conservative value stock like these. Caterpillar is still up 59%, Federal Signal by 102%.

(Note: These opinions are information only and do not constitute investment advice. If you need investment advice on these stocks or anything else for that matter, talk to your recognised and professional investment adviser. Better still, do your own research and act on it confident in your own ability.)

New Zealand Investors

I've been thinking long and hard about the Auckland house price inflation. The banks have a role to play, they're willing to lend on real estate almost exclusively. But the way the New Zealand investment landscape is structured also has a major part to play.

Broadly speaking a New Zealand investor has three options:-

1. Buy investment real estate,
2. Start or buy a business, and;
3. Invest in shares, bonds, bank deposits or government stock - passive investment in other words.

Before any of the three are implemented, paying off debt must be a priority. Assuming that is achieved (at least substantially), and the investor maintains a sensible retirement superannuation account, then the three options present themselves this way:-

1. The investor buys houses or residential flats and apartments. The ideal is to invest in industrial and possibly commercial real estate, but the reality is residential purchases are easy to achieve. It's easier for a small investor to get their foot in the door with residential property. For starters, they needn't be registered for Goods and Services Tax (GST).

2. Buying or starting up a business is limited by the experience of the investor and the size of the market. Some people can't run a business or they don't have skills in the right areas to do so. It's a risky option for most.

3. Then lastly, they can access the New Zealand and Australian stock exchange listed companies very cheaply and easily. They only pay tax on those gains that are realised (if long-term investment then only the dividends are taxed). Outside of that however, if the investor buys shares in companies listed on the NYSE, Nasdaq, LSE, Borse Frankfurt or elsewhere, then over a certain threshold they'll pay tax on gains when they occur, not only when realised.

Conclusion:

Investors are strongly encouraged to invest in real estate, which has to impact Auckland house prices, given the size of that market. Investors cannot start or buy a business as the opportunities are scarce, given the relatively small scale of commerce in New Zealand. Allied to that, investors are discouraged from spreading their net wider, effectively limiting their share investments to the local scene. No wonder then that investor money pours into Auckland housing and real estate in general.

Recommendation:

Allow investors to invest in shares outside of New Zealand, on the same basis as they invest in shares listed in Australia, that is, invest in any company listed on recognised exchanges in the USA, Canada, Japan, the U.K., and Germany (elsewhere by approval). By doing this, money would be diverted from the overheated Auckland housing market. The effect would be to lessen demand for Auckland houses, and prices would stabilise.

(The change to NZ's tax regime regarding investment in foreign shares has had a knock-on effect to the Auckland housing market. This is the law of unintended consequences)

Edit to add (off the topic but looking at investment as a NZer investing overseas)...

The following NZ Herald article traverses many of the issues a NZ investor faces when investing overseas...http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10738730

The article mentions hedging, and what I've done in the past is not very sophisticated but effective, I've maintained a US Dollar account with a NZ bank. You're not dealing with a foreign desk, but the money is effectively offshore. Many people do not realise they can have a US Dollar account with a NZ bank. The good part of this is you get higher level people within the bank with better advice attached (the down side is that over a certain amount your name gets on lists in New York and you'll be bugged by investment houses on Wall Street. This is a freedom of information thing, I recall an outfit by the name of Whale Securities was one such calling all the time - look them up they were on Wall Street - you have to develop a thick skin and know how to say no).

Most 'experts' recommend using funds, such as unit trusts. My experience is they don't do that well. I'd guess my returns over a 20 or more year period would be about 1% annually going down that road. Don't be sold unit trusts.

Risky ASX Stocks Worth Checking Out

These two companies have had serious issues of late, but they're worth a look. They're in Australia and listed on the Australian Securities Exchange:-

1. Bradken

They've been impacted by the mining collapse. They're a foundry and general engineering business, making railway equipment and the like. I call these stocks metal bashing industries.

No dividend, they don't make money. This stock is a total punt. When doing well though you can expect a price over AUS $6.00. From their current 84 cents, that's a staggering return if you're lucky.

2. Macmahon

Macmahon has also been impacted by the mining collapse. Their business is providing mining services. They're the contractor on site actually doing the work. They have the mining machines; drill and blast, crushing and screening, materials handling, mine planning, you name it. From the current 12 cents, if they come back (they may not, be warned), you're looking at a price in excess of a dollar.

These stocks do not afford the investor any margin of safety. They're a gamble. Check them out as I think you'll find they're better than you expected.

[Update @ 24 March 2019; I see people are now seeing this post from years back, check this: Macmahon are still a punt at 23 cents (100% gain from my tip), while Bradken were taken over by Hitachi for $3.25 per share, which is a gain from the tip of 386% = beat that!!]