Pursuit of Happiness

Understand this!

Else you do this...

...in the Pursuit of Happiness

Owe the bank housing loan till you die...

Do you really know how your housing loan is calculated? I bet the general public will answer "NO" to this question. Thanks to HBA which highlights this unfair housing loan agreement, which will make us owe the bank housing loan till you die. 

MOST if not all house buyers will require financing to buy their dream homes. While there appears to be stiff competition among banks for market share and interest rates may be kept low, house buyers are ultimately at the mercy of banks when it comes to the detailed terms and conditions of the housing loan. (Banks in this context refers to commercial banks, Islamic banks and other financial institutions).

Unfair legal fees
When a borrower takes a housing loan, the borrower is required to execute a loan and other related agreements. This entails the borrower having to pay legal fees, the amount of which varies, depending on the loan amount – the higher the loan amount, the higher the legal fees although the complicity and level of work does not necessarily commensurate directly with the loan amount.

Although it is the borrower paying the loan lawyers’ fees, the said loan lawyer is actually acting for and on behalf of the bank. As such, the loan lawyer is not in the best position to advise the borrower if there are clauses in the loan agreement which are not in the best interest of the borrower.

In addition, in the event of any dispute between the borrower and the bank, the borrower cannot ask the loan lawyer for advice as the loan lawyer is acting for the banks.

If this is the case, then is it “fair or equitable” for the borrower to pay such legal fees when it is clear that the lawyer is actually acting for the banks? Obviously not. Hence, the bank should absorb the legal fees as the lawyers are clearly there to act for the bank and protect its interest.

Exorbitant fees for simple letters
The banking sector in Malaysia is a very tightly regulated industry. Any fees that banks intend to charge must be approved by Bank Negara. It is disheartening to note that borrowers continue to be charged exorbitant fees which seem to have the explicit blessings and consent of Bank Negara. Instances of borrowers being charged unreasonable fees for copies of redemption statement, EPF statement letter etc are common.

Allocation of monthly repayment to principal and interest
This is a story about three friends who took a housing loan (HL) of RM500,000 ten years ago. They were offered the same HL interest rate of 4.2% (base lending rate of 6.60% less 2.40%) but took different loan tenures as follows:

Albert took a 20-year HL. Eric took a 25-year HL and Jamie took a 30-year HL.

After servicing their monthly loan installments diligently for the past 10 years, they decided to fully settle their housing loan using a combination of their EPF monies and own savings. When they asked for a redemption statement to find out what was the principal sum outstanding, they received a shock of their lives.

Albert, Eric and Jamie were under the impression as they had served 50%, 40% and 33.3% of the loan tenure, their principal sum outstanding would be RM250,000, RM300,0000 and RM333,333 respectively.

So, when their respective redemption statement showed that Albert, Eric and Jamie still owed respectively RM301,654, RM359,415 and RM396,652, they got a big shock.

So, why did they still owe so much more than what they had thought? The answer lies in the allocation of the monthly installment towards covering the principal sum and interest charged by the bank.

In an equitable world, the monthly installments would be allocated on a “straight line basis” to cover the principle and interest charged. Thus, a borrower who served 10 out of a 20-year HL would only owe 50% of the original loan amount.

However, the reality is that the borrower still owes 60.3% of the original loan amount.

The typical borrower will always be “penalised” for settling his loan before the maturity date. Even in the penultimate year of the original loan tenure, the actual amount outstanding is still higher than the theoretical amount, which should be the amount outstanding had the allocation of monthly installments been done on a straight line basis.

Is it fair and equitable?
Most borrowers do not know or even understand how this allocation is calculated. Is such an allocation “fair and equitable” to the borrower? Under such circumstances, are borrowers supposed to accept that the bank’s own generated computer system has calculated the interest correctly and allocated the payments in the correct manner?

To the borrower, they have paid 10 out of a 20-year loan, he should only owe balance 50% and not 60.3%. Is this manner of allocation not just another unjust way for the bank to generate higher profits, after all the bank did receive the payments on time and in full every month. It is the dream of every borrower to be debt-free as soon as possible and it is not fair to the borrower to be penalised in such a manner when he wants to settle his loan early.

That said, borrowers have no choice but to accept the calculation of the bank as correct and final. If the borrower were to reject and not pay the required sum, the loan will not be considered as repaid in full. The borrower could even be blacklisted and even have his property auctioned off by the bank to recover the remaining sum outstanding if the borrower refuses to pay up.

It would be more transparent and equitable if the monthly payments made by the borrower are allocated in a “straight line basis” to interest and principal equally over the

tenure of the housing loan. Short of that, borrowers are at the mercy of banks.

Some banks operate like a “cartel” and standardise their fees to be charged to customers. One wonder whether such unfair practices are condoned by the regulators like Bank Negara.

It is also interesting to note that banks are exempted by the Malaysia Competition Commission allowing banks to agree and collude on unfair fees, penalties and practices to be charged to borrowers.

Unnecessary expenses
Loan agreement “printing charges” – sold between RM150 and RM350. The banks’ solicitors need to purchase a standard loan agreement from the bank (via soft copy) and adds the borrowers’ details in order to complete the loan agreement. The banks charge the lawyer and the lawyer charges the borrowers.

Standard loan agreements are now downloaded from the bank’s website or from soft copy. The bank no longer need to print them and should not charge for such documents. Alas, this has been continuing till to date.

Lopsided terms and conditions
Lopsided terms and “add-on” products are aplenty, if the borrower wants to identify with them. It would be good practice to remove or qualify the banks’ arbitrary powers.


Conclusion
The National House Buyers Association (HBA) had on Sept 4, 2014 made representation to the Finance Ministry (MOF), Bank Negara. Housing and Local Government Ministry in the presence of Association of Banks Malaysia and Islamic Banks of Malaysia in the form of slides presentation on some observations and unethical practices of some banks.

HBA is looking to work closely with MOF, Bank Negar and all related stakeholders to level the playing field for housing loan borrowers in the long-term interest of the banking industry. We had proposed to set up a working committee to resolve all unfair practices. MOF and Bank Negara have a legitimate interest in the final shape of the banking industry into operating a principled and towards a “customer friendly arena”.


Article from thestar to assist homebuyer by:
Chang Kim Loong is the honorary secretary-general of the national House Buyers Association: www.hba.org.my, a non-profit, non-governmental organisation manned purely by volunteers.


My final say:
If you think this housing loan is absurd, go and find out about Hire Purchase Act 1966. You'll be blown away.... merdeka from what?

Wow, money makes more money....

How fast a tech companies build wealth?

Hak dibawah Akta Strata

Siapakah yang pertama akan didakwa dibawah Akta Strata. Kita tunggu dan lihat kemunculan kambing hitam tersebut walaupun yang putih amat sedikit.

klik imej untuk besarkan

RIP klse.my

Another site is down, RIP klse.my. Yep, they provide good info for the man on the street, but in this knowledge economy world,  its all still about dollar n cent. Bravo to the hunters, but you are not looking good either as your hunt is only in local territory! Pls click on the pictures, to read or see larger view.

Bye-bye notes - June 2016

Participation never recover and more will stay away

The hunter financial performance is so-so

Rumah oh rumah - Aku tak mampu memilikimu

Ketidakmampuan memiliki rumah telah diketahui umum. Namun mereka yang diberikuasa adalah penyamun sebenarnya. Selagi apa yang mereka dapat tersedia depan mata, membutakan mata, memekakan telinga adalah sifat semulajadi mereka, apa mereka mahu revolusi? Walaupun mengetahui kekuatan kerajaan Singapura adalah pada keupayaan menyelesaikan pekara keperluan asas rakyatnya.

Khazanah Research Institute (badan kerajaan ni) melalui repot pada 24 Ogos 2015 mula membuka bicara. Diulang pula oleh Lapuran Bank Negara 2015, namun siapa peduli?

Terusan dicanang harga rumah sekitar RM500K adalah rumah milik. Bangangnya mereka!

 Memang saya marah dengan puak-puak yang menjanjikan langit & bumi setiap 4 tahun nie.

Yang tidak mampu ketika ini, bersedialah dengan 10% deposit untuk rumah idaman anda (buat homework sekarang) kerana rasanya tak lama dah firesale akan kembali.

Tak logik untuk BNM melaung sekuat itu kerana mereka-mereka itu adalah yang terarif dalam hal kewangan!

Untuk yang bersedia, jadikan Rumah oh rumah - Aku mampu memilikimu.

Leakage - Kebocoran di unit strata

Leakage - A strata living nightmare

Salient point:
Stiff penalty: Whoever fails to give access to the party carrying out the inspection commits an offence. The fine imposed is up to RM50,000 or imprisonment of up to three years or both, under regulation 63(2).

IF you live in a high rise building and have an inter-floor leakage issue, you can be rest assured that you are not alone. Inter-floor leakage is without a doubt one of the biggest problems faced by many dwellers of high rise buildings.

Whilst the leakage may appear only in a particular parcel, the source of the leakage may lie in the parcel above or even elsewhere. The cooperation of more than one party is therefore required; without which one cannot even begin to identify the problem, let alone solve it.

Two issues must be identified when there is an inter-floor leakage. Firstly, the source of the leakage and secondly, the person or body responsible for repair or rectification. Who is supposed to identify the source of the leakage to start with? The person or body responsible of course, you may say, but how do you know who is responsible before the cause of the problem is ascertained? A bit of a chicken and egg situation arises.

New Act

Will the new management Act answer to all ceiling leakages?

In February 2013 the Strata Management Act 2013 (SMA) was passed by Parliament. With that came a presumption in law, under Section 142 of the SMA, that if the leakage is on the ceiling, then such leakage is presumed to be from the parcel above unless it is proven otherwise. So, if you have a leakage from your ceiling, go to your upstairs neighbour and tell him/her that he/she is responsible and must therefore find the source of the leakage and do the repair. What if he/she disclaims responsibility? Simple, You just quote Section 142 of the SMA. What a magical section with a “one fits all” answer to ceiling leakages! I thought so too when I first read Section 142, but I was not completely right for the law does not place the entire responsibility squarely on the upstairs parcel owner.

It was to be another couple of years before the SMA was implemented in June 2015 but the good news is that with that came also the implementation of the Strata Management (Maintenance & Management) Regulations 2015 (SMR). Many thanks to those (including HBA volunteers) who worked tirelessly on drafting and fine tuning the provisions of the SMR, we now have some definite answers on what to do if you have a leakage from your ceiling.

Who is responsible?

In dealing with inter-floor leakage one must not just look at Section 142 of the SMA but also Part XV of the SMR. Indeed it is Part XV of the SMR which tells you what to do if you discover dampness, moisture or water penetration from your ceiling or if you were to go home one day only to find that it is raining in your apartment.

Go to the developer if you are still covered by the defects liability provisions.

If the leakage is still covered by the provisions of your sale and purchase agreement (SPA), follow the provisions of your SPA. For homebuyers, these are typically cases where the leakage or defect occurs during the defects liability period, and which the housing developers are required to rectify, as provided in the statutory SPA.

JMB/MC/Management first in the line of responsibility – regulation 56

If the leakage is not one which is covered by the SPA, then notice may be served by the owner of the affected parcel on the developer or the joint management body (“JMB”) or the management corporation (“MC”) or the subsidiary management corporation (“sub-MC”), as the case may be.

This is provided for in regulation 56(1) of the SMR. What regulation 56 essentially means is that you serve notice on the body responsible for the maintenance and management of the common property, which for convenience I shall refer to as “the management”. So, now you see, the party first in the line of responsibility is not your upstairs neighbour but the management.

Once notice is received, the management must, within seven days, carry out an inspection to determine the cause of the leakage and the party responsible for rectification (regulation 57). Thereafter, the management must issue a “Certificate of Inspection” stating the cause of the inter-floor leakage as well as the party responsible for rectification (regulation 59). A standard form certificate for this purpose can be found in Form 28 under the Second Schedule of the SMR.

So, what is the purpose of Section 142, you may ask? Section 142 merely creates a presumption that the defect lies in the parcel above. In practical terms, this does nothing towards resolving any inter-floor leakage issues other than perhaps as a starting point for inspection. After all, one cannot possibly rectify a defect which causes the leakage until and unless the actual defect is identified. The legal implication of Section 142, however, is perhaps best left to those much more qualified than I but I do wonder if this statutory presumption alone can be a valid ground for holding the upstairs parcel owner responsible and if so under what circumstances in light of the provisions of the SMR.

Determining factor(s)

Under regulation 58 of the SMR, the management must take into account not just the aforesaid presumption but also the following matters which to my mind are far more relevant once the defect is identified:-

(1) that any defect in something which serves more than one parcel is a common property defect; and

(2) that any defect in something which serves only one parcel is a defect of that particular parcel even though that something is situated in common property or in void space.

In other words, the determining factor is not the location of that defective something but which parcels that something serves. If it serves just one parcel, that particular parcel owner is primarily responsible and must rectify the defect failing which the management shall carry out the rectification works and charge the expenses to that particular parcel owner. I say primarily because whilst regulation 61 of the SMR imposes the obligation on a specific parcel owner such obligation is expressly stated to be without prejudice to that parcel owner seeking indemnity from someone else.

That of course begs the question of who can be held liable for such indemnity; a question which is beyond the scope of this article but I certainly will not rule out any parcel owner, including the affected parcel owner, who contributes towards the defect or any delay in the rectification of the defect.

The decision of the management is, as expected, not final. Anyone not satisfied with a decision made against him/her may refer to the Commissioner Of Buildings (COB) who shall ascertain the cause of the leakage and the party responsible in accordance with regulation 64(1) & (2) and the decision of the COB shall be complied with by all parties concerned.

Grant access for inspection or risk prosecution

It goes without saying: that neither inspection nor rectification works can be effectively carried out without access to all relevant parcels and common property. Hence, the imposition of a statutory obligation on all relevant parties to give access as provided by regulation 63(1) of the SMR comes as no surprise at all.

Whoever fails to give access to the party carrying out the inspection commits an offence! And the punishment is severe too; a fine of up to RM50,000 or imprisonment of up to three years or both, under regulation 63(2).

Given that the lack of cooperation on the part of some parcel owners/occupiers has remained one of the main causes of delay in resolving inter-floor leakage problems, these provisions are definitely a step in the right direction. It does puzzle me, however, that whilst a failure to give access for inspection tantamount to an offence, the same does not seem to apply to a failure to give access for rectification.

Some of you cynics out there may be tempted to brush this aside as something unlikely to be enforced by the authorities but do you want to take that chance? Do you really want to risk prosecution over something as simple as giving access for inspection and/or rectification?

Beside, now that the Strata Management Tribunal has been set up you may be slapped with an order much sooner than you think.


Chang Kim Loong AMN is the honorary secretary-general of the National House Buyers Association: www.hba.org.my , a non-profit, non-governmental organisation manned purely by volunteers.

Kebocoran di unit strata adalah tanggungjawab siapa?

Artikel berinfomasi dari thestar.com.my!

Danger times ahead

When that man is worried, we got to be double worried. 

Stages of Collapse

An interesting excerpt from article sourced from cluborlov.

Stage 1: Financial collapse.
Faith in "business as usual" is lost. The future is no longer assumed resemble the past in any way that allows risk to be assessed and financial assets to be guaranteed. Financial institutions become insolvent; savings are wiped out, and access to capital is lost.

Stage 2: Commercial collapse.
Faith that "the market shall provide" is lost. Money is devalued and/or becomes scarce, commodities are hoarded, import and retail chains break down, and widespread shortages of survival necessities become the norm.

Stage 3: Political collapse.
Faith that "the government will take care of you" is lost. As official attempts to mitigate widespread loss of access to commercial sources of survival necessities fail to make a difference, the political establishment loses legitimacy and relevance.

Stage 4: Social collapse.
Faith that "your people will take care of you" is lost, as local social institutions, be they charities or other groups that rush in to fill the power vacuum run out of resources or fail through internal conflict.

Stage 5: Cultural collapse.
Faith in the goodness of humanity is lost. People lose their capacity for "kindness, generosity, consideration, affection, honesty, hospitality, compassion, charity" (Turnbull, The Mountain People). Families disband and compete as individuals for scarce resources. The new motto becomes "May you die today so that I die tomorrow" (Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago). There may even be some cannibalism.

ECM by Princeton Economic

Lets go

Migrating is easier said than done.....

Drive or take the public transport?

Are you among five million people who get stuck in the Klang Valley traffic every day?

According to the World Bank’s 2015 Malaysia’s Economic Monitor report:

• Jams in Greater Kuala Lumpur may be getting bigger;
• Commuters wasted between 270 and 500 million man-hours in the Greater KL jams last year.
• Cars used a possible 1.2 billion litres of fuel idling in traffic;
• Lost hours and fuel for each person in Greater KL came to at least RM3,100 each year, more than the monthly local average salary (RM2,795); and
• Total cost of traffic in Greater KL is estimated at 1.1% to 2.2% of GDP in 2014.

“This is a tangible economic cost, in the sense that this is equivalent to money that could otherwise be in the pockets of the people of Kuala Lumpur,” - Luis C. Blancas, World Bank senior transport specialist.

World Bank data now suggest they may have to spend a longer time on the road.

Transport costs here are also high, accounting for nearly 10% of all monthly household expenses. Much of this can be saved if people took public transport. Really? Lets see.

I use this journey as an example.

Travelling via LRT from Bukit Jalil to Hang Tuah station in the city used to cost RM1.90 before but now..... (sourced from: http://www.myrapid.com.my/jp/index.php)

One way LRT fare 

Wow that is RM1.30 (cashless, ie via rapidcard or T&Go card) more or a whopping 68% increase!

If two friends were to traveled to say Bukit Bintang n back, that is going to cost them RM12.80 for the total fare using the LRT.

Say they drive there, spend few hours and back. The return estimated distance is 29km.

One way driving distance

  

How much it gonna cost them for that distance? If they use a common car which has an average fuel consumption of 8litre/100km, That is 2.32 litres and if petrol cost RM1.90/litre, the fuel cost is RM4.41 only.

Yeah, the are other cost like car cost, route and toll charges, parking fee, travelling time, etc but those are variables which depends on individual preference. 

I bet most of us did not realised that current LRT fares are now unique (different price) from a station to station, not like before which adopt sector concept where a same fare for few station within specified sector of stations. 

It means that before, RM1.90 was the fare to disembark at any stations from Hang Tuah up to PWTC, not any more.

The flaw in the new LRT fare?  Source.

To Station: Hang Tuah-PlazaRakyat-Masjid Jamek
RM: 3.20 - 3.30 - 3.40

To Station: Bandaraya-Sultan Ismail-PWTC

RM: 3.10  - 3.20  -3.30  

What is the rationale here? What comes to mind is, profit maximisation or cross subsidy?

So there you have it. Decide for yourself if the statement "people save if they took public transport" applies now days. It was before, for me.

RIP ashadee.com

gone wef 1 mac 2016.  

Eat vegies, stay healthy

Ask your child to do just that - amazed at their ability to come up with reasons just to avoid it. This is the benefits of carrot!

-->

A sliced Carrot looks like the human eye. The pupil, iris and radiating lines look just like the human eye...and YES science now shows that carrots greatly enhance blood flow to and function of the eyes.

Cap profit margin in house sales

A nice article, its like everyone know what the problem are, but no one is taking a real action.

THE government has come up with all sorts of policies and regulations for the housing industry but it is an understatement to say that these have hardly been achieving their targets. Ask the lower-income group how traumatic it is for them both financially and psychologically to own a decent home or put a roof over their heads and that of their families.

And we are not even talking of the tens of thousand of house buyers who have been cheated in the all too rampant housing scams.

When will the authorities be able to say “enough is enough” and expeditiously deliver houses to people who have yet to own one and make the much touted “affordable homes” truly affordable?

With Budget 2016 to be unveiled next month, I really hope the prime minister, who is also the finance minister, will insert in his speech a policy under which the government will implement a price control mechanism to cap the profit margin allowable at least for perumahan rakyat or people’s housing programmes.

After all, we are very serious when it comes to controlling the prices of other daily essentials like rice, sugar, cooking oil, etc.

Isn’t a roof over one’s head equally if not more important than, say, sugar? It certainly is.

Both the federal and state governments should also free more idle land for people’s housing programmes to lower house prices.

And yet we allow a laisseiz-faire situation to persist with industry players calling all the shots and dictating their profits.

The situation is further aggravated by speculators who snap up property put up for sale and it’s time something is done about this, too.

Unlike Singapore, we are still too far away from reaching a decent level of home ownership and this is largely because it’s far too free a market out there while owning a house is the most basic thing. What is nation-building if there are still people who are still homeless because they can’t afford to buy a house under the present conditions which have been allowed to persist for so long?

Needless to say, I really hope Datuk Seri Abdul Najib Razak can take the bull by the horns this time.

Khazanah Research Institute (KRI), a unit of government investment arm Khazanah Nasional Bhd, recently came out with a damning report that the Malaysian housing market is “seriously unaffordable”, a phenomenon that’s very obvious to all Malaysians.

Its findings revealed a median house price of 4.4 times the median annual household income compared with an affordable market where the median house price is 3.0 times the median household income.

Kuala Lumpur and Penang are described as “severely unaffordable” markets reaching 5.4 times and 5.2 times the median household income respectively.

KRI’s conclusion that houses in Malaysia are seriously unaffordable is derived from facts and figures, based on a formula of household income vis-a-vis the prevailing prices of houses at various locations.

Why and how come the prices have to be so high is another subject for debate and yes, it’s true as the Real Estate and Housing Developers’ Association (Rehda) has since pointed out, there are other factors to be considered.

Rehda’s assertion that the cost of construction materials has gone up is true to a certain extent only, according to the House Buyers Association (HBA).

The basic question that begs to be answered is the percentage of costs that involves construction materials.

Does the industry subscribe to the teh-tarik syndrome whereby when the price of sugar goes up by 10 sen, the price of a glass of the brew also goes up by 10 sen? In other words, any price increase in materials becomes an excuse to increase selling prices.

On the weakening ringgit in recent months, the same question needs to be addressed.

“What percentage of building materials are imported and can these be replaced with local sources,” asked HBA secretary-general Chang Kim Loong.

He told me the unbridled escalation in cost happened well before the ringgit slump so to use this factor to justify the rising prices of houses in the last three years does not make sense.

Allowing foreigners to buy high-end houses will have a counter-productive effect in that developers will then focus on high-end properties and neglect the lower and medium-cost houses with detrimental effects.

But Rehda’s proposal for a single body for affordable homes instead of having various agencies and schemes such as 1Malaysia People’s Housing Programme (1PRIMA) and Syarikat Perumahan Negara Bhd is the same idea mooted by HBA years ago but which is still not taken up by the government.

We do not have to look very far to see how successful Singapore’s Housing Development Board (HBD) has been in providing affordable homes to over 80% of Singaporeans and with HBD recognised as the world’s biggest success story in housing.

The trouble with us is that we seldom want to emulate some of the things that have been implemented so well just across the Causeway but instead we send our officers to faraway places to study their models.

We also need information on affordable housing. In the past five decades, scores of low-cost housing projects and funding plans have been introduced and information on these schemes by various low-cost housing providers and state economic agencies should be made available to the public in a datebase.

This will allow individuals to learn about the availability of affordable housing in their communities and the financing options available.

Why isn’t there a single umbrella or data bank where information can be collected to coordinate the total number of such units being built, the locations and pricing?

The players must build the right product at the right place with the right pricing and the right numbers.

This article is from a veteran columnist - by Azman Ujang first appear in thesundaily.my on 17Sep2015. 

Read other related housing articles HERE. 

one up on wall street - peter lynch

favourable attributes of a company

1. It sound dull, ridiculous
dull name, less attention eg. 3 stooges

2. it does something dull
eg. manufacturing cork, bottle cap

3. it does something disagreeable
eg. deals with dirty sludge

4. it's a spin-off
eg. separation of companies into freestanding entity

5. institution don't own it & analyst don't own it

6. rumours abound: involve in toxic waste, mafia

7.something depressing about it
eg. funeral home

8. its a no growth industry
eg plastic fork/knife, boring, no competition

9.its got a niche
eg. rock pit, drug, drug companies

10. people have to keep buying it
eg. cigar, softdrink

11. its a user of technology
eg. use technology to cut cost

12. the insider are buyer
eg. workers buying its company share

13. the company is buying back its shares


comparing growth rate to PE ratio
eg. long term growth=x%
dividend yield=y%
PE ratio=z
factor=(x+y)/z
look for >= 2, 1.5=ok, less than 1=poor

evaluating the cash position
eg
cash+marketable securities=5.7+4.4=10.1b
long term debt=1.8b
cash position=10.1-1.8=8.3b
outstanding sh=500m
net cash/sh=8300/500=16.6 (ignore st debt)
say sh is trdg at 38, net buying is 21.4 (38-16.6)
if expected earning/sh=7
at 38/sh, PE=5.4 (38/7)
but at 21.4, PE=3.1

say other biz in the group is contributing earning of 1.6/sh and its PE its 10.
so, its value is 1.6x10=16, extracting 21.4-16=5.4

therefore the net buying of this share is only at 5.4 although we are purchasing it at  38.
these type of value may emerge at any time but definitely at when the whole market  is under distress, bad economic situation, share market plunging.

continue searching.....