Revisting this older question after being reminded about it from reading an article on Hyflux on Business Times. These are the points given by S&P on what we can learn from this fiasco, and I'll just share my brief thoughts on there as well.
TL;DR Don't take defensive industry for granted, beware of volatile earnings, debt instruments can be volatile and don't expect the government to save you.
"No Sector is Immune to Financial Troubles"
S&P brought up the fact that distrissed situations were mainly confined to cyclical industries like the energy and commodity businesses. However, they also brought up defaults of other services such as telecoms in 2015, which had been traditionally thought to be a defensive sector.
This reminded of the fact that althought industry analysis is important, we can't just bank on that because high debt levels, poor cashflow management and lack of management foresight can cripple any business.
"Situations can evolve quickly with narrow or uncertain earnings quality"
S&P cited volatitle EBITDA fluctuation of Hyflux that occured during the past few years, which had led to deep operating losses. This made reminded me of being especially careful with businesses that fluctuate so much.
Not only do investors have a harder time predicting the health of the company, management may also have a tougher time forecasting cashflows and being unable to manage their working capital and leverage, which led to Hyflux crumbling.
"Losses can be harsh depending on the characteristics of debt instruments outstanding"
This is an important point as well, since the increase in more sophisticated debt instruments in the market to retail investors should cause investors to be more cautious. Such instruments have also made it harder to analyse the debt profile of the company.
"Investors should not make assumptions regarding a private company's importance to the government"
This is another interesting point brought up by S&P, arguing that even though water security is important to the country, this shouldn't lead investors to the assumption that a bailout is likely. Hence, we should also not think that as long as Temasek or GIC has a major stake in a business, we are safe.
Revisting this older question after being reminded about it from reading an article on Hyflux on Business Times. These are the points given by S&P on what we can learn from this fiasco, and I'll just share my brief thoughts on there as well.
TL;DR Don't take defensive industry for granted, beware of volatile earnings, debt instruments can be volatile and don't expect the government to save you.
"No Sector is Immune to Financial Troubles"
S&P brought up the fact that distrissed situations were mainly confined to cyclical industries like the energy and commodity businesses. However, they also brought up defaults of other services such as telecoms in 2015, which had been traditionally thought to be a defensive sector.
This reminded of the fact that althought industry analysis is important, we can't just bank on that because high debt levels, poor cashflow management and lack of management foresight can cripple any business.
"Situations can evolve quickly with narrow or uncertain earnings quality"
S&P cited volatitle EBITDA fluctuation of Hyflux that occured during the past few years, which had led to deep operating losses. This made reminded me of being especially careful with businesses that fluctuate so much.
Not only do investors have a harder time predicting the health of the company, management may also have a tougher time forecasting cashflows and being unable to manage their working capital and leverage, which led to Hyflux crumbling.
"Losses can be harsh depending on the characteristics of debt instruments outstanding"
This is an important point as well, since the increase in more sophisticated debt instruments in the market to retail investors should cause investors to be more cautious. Such instruments have also made it harder to analyse the debt profile of the company.
"Investors should not make assumptions regarding a private company's importance to the government"
This is another interesting point brought up by S&P, arguing that even though water security is important to the country, this shouldn't lead investors to the assumption that a bailout is likely. Hence, we should also not think that as long as Temasek or GIC has a major stake in a business, we are safe.