SBS Transit, SMRT submit applications for fare adjustment
-
raysusan:
The best philosophy, in this instance, is, \"If you can't beat them, join them!\" As someone else wrote, if you believe SMRT to be wildly profitable, go buy a few lots of shares in them, and you will be richly rewarded. And no, I am not joking.i dont understand the theory behind a company that makes so much $$$ a year and yet telling us not enough if need to improve the 'service standard'
the true is even if they want to raise the price, there is nothing we can do at all
greed has no boundary .....
our transport minister seem to agree on the price raise too
The real truth is that prices have gone up everywhere. $300,000 gets me a smaller flat than 5 years ago, $6 gets me 880gm of ice-cream compared with 1 litre previously.
Not easy to stomach, but not hard to understand SMRT's move, is it? -
When a company is wildly profitable.. the small shareholder reaps the most rewards or the CEO/management/major shareholder?
Highly profitable does not guarantee high dividend payout.
Prices gone up.. but, the fact still remains that SMRT remains highly profitable.
As many already pointed out the root of the problem.. that public transport should not be privatized.. same as electricity, water, gas etc..
If they wanna privatize, then there must be 2 or more players plying the same route offering duplicate services so as to introduce competition and let the public really have a choice.
Oh, btw, during the election rally, WP Ms Glenda Han did mentioned that, when the fuel costs up, the transport companies ask for fare increase citing fuel cost up, but when fuel cost comes down, there were no reduction in fares. So, is the transport minister taking us for a ride?3Boys:
The best philosophy, in this instance, is, \"If you can't beat them, join them!\" As someone else wrote, if you believe SMRT to be wildly profitable, go buy a few lots of shares in them, and you will be richly rewarded. And no, I am not joking.
The real truth is that prices have gone up everywhere. $300,000 gets me a smaller flat than 5 years ago, $6 gets me 880gm of ice-cream compared with 1 litre previously.
Not easy to stomach, but not hard to understand SMRT's move, is it? -
limlim:
Define highly profitable. Is $1 million highly profitable? Or $10 million? Or $1 billion? It depends on the nature of the business and the amount of work and infrastructure that goes into generating that profit, doesn't it? I don't think SMRT is highly profitable at all, and I think many investors will agree.
Prices gone up.. but, the fact still remains that SMRT remains highly profitable. -
regarding this subject on public transport, is PTC really putting the public as priority ? seems all the increase application go through without much debate usually.
Gerald Giam, NCMP from WP, just replied to http://motoring.asiaone.com/Motoring/News/Transport/Story/A1Story20110714-289124.html about the non-feasibility of a National Transport Corporation ( NTC ) which purely serve the public, not for profits.
http://wp.sg/2011/07/overhauling-singapore%E2%80%99s-public-transport-model/
very well written.
the ball now in Mr LUI's court :evil: Lui is money in hokkien ? -
To the general public, 200 million would obviously seem like a lot. But to SMRT, what is 200 million? SMRT is worth much more. You say that a person is rich when he earns, say, 20k bucks. But you are talking about a single PERSON. Here you are referring to a COMPANY. A GROUP of people. a BIG group of people. SMRT's operating cost is more than $800 million. So what is $200 million to them? The best bus in the world costs $500 000. With $200 million only 400 of these buses can be purchased. And that is excluding the huge maintenance cost and driver training cost subsequently.
I assume you you're trying to defend the SMRT and transport operators in the application for fare hike? (Sorry if my assumption is wrong, but my subsequent comments will be based on this assumption)
Yes that is my stand.
Perhaps, these question that I posted are totally not relevant bcoz the increase in fare is NEVER to solve the overcrowding/frequency issues in the first place!....?
Overcrowding will NEVER be solved!! With the population of Singapore (and the influx of foreigners) increasing, the transport system will certainly be pushed to its limits. The buses are able to carry 88 people for a reason. You can't buy more buses (especially bendy buses, which require additional training) and then hire more drivers (and even that is a challenge, because we are talking about hiring local drivers here) because over time there will be too many buses, not enough depots, and the total salary of the drivers will be too high (to attract local drivers which obviously have higher expectations SMRT will have to buy better-quality buses, have more reasonable schedules for the drivers to adhere to, and even increase salary) and SMRT will eventually start LOSING MONEY.
For SMRT Trains, it is even worse. As I have said before the current system is old and any upgrades done to the signal system to increase capacity will take at least 5 years due to the complexity of the signals. Without those signals, trains will never run smoothly. And new trains, again, have to be shipped over, tested on the main lines before eventually being deployed. SMRT recently sent its first 5 Kawasaki Heavy Industries/CSR Sifang Qingdao C151A trains into service. Those trains were extremely problematic... but is it SMRT's fault? No. SMRT did not buy the trains. LTA bought them. So it should be LTA's fault for awarding the tender to a not up-to-standard manufacturing company (China Southern Railway (Qingdao) NOT Kawasaki). -
I feel the pinch of fare rise - or rather, rises. I am just wondering out loud - so LTA bears all the cost of building tracks and buying trains n buses? Funded by whom? And the fares paid by all the users go to -??
LTA manages upgrades to the train system. SMRT only manages the operations (maintenance, train overhaul, drivers, service). SMRT also have no right to add new bus services as all of these is managed by LTA. In other words, SMRT only manages the current infrastructure, and the purchase of RIGID buses. If for any reason SMRT decides to purchase articulated (\"bendy\") buses, they have to verify with LTA. SMRT also cannot purchase double decker buses because their depots cannot accommodate them. -
I must also say that I am \"impress\" how a 13yr old can know so much about the transport company, including the industry jargon. Or perhaps, stating the age could be a smokescreen to shield any attacks, and made the posts more credible.
Age does not determine credibility. -
I disagree that overcrowding of public transport cannot be solved.
it is pure poor planning. no excuse. -
From what I checked.
SMRT has 1,518,131,296 floating shares.
The last traded price per share was S$1.865.
Given that the profit was S$200 millions as stated in previous post (I didn’t check). It amounts to S$0.13165 porfit per share.
The PE ratio will be 14.16 (it means that if the profit remains at this level and never increase or decrease, it take 14 years for you to get back all your principal investment in this company)
One also has to consider the quality of the profit. For other companies that have fierce competition, a PE ratio of 14 is definitely worse off than SMRT because SMRT is a monopoly business. Also, it seems that it is almost a riskless business unlike other listed companies. So is it wildly profitable? -
The main issue here is \"public\". We are talking about public transport. It is for the masses. Over 80% of the masses stays in HDB flats and earn a median salary of less than $2000 a month. A 1% of fare increase will work out to less than 1 cents, we may argue. However, the increase is frequent. Too frequent for comfort and that is the main grouse of the masses. Take, for example, a commuter spending $1, the minimum fare to commute to and from work every day for 5 days a week, averaging 22 days a month. That amounts to $44 a month, which is 44/2000 X 100 = 2.2% of his monthly salary. This is the minimum amount (best scenario, mind you). However, if he has a family of 4 with 2 schoolgoing children, each spending $0.45 per trip = $0.45 x 2 x 2 = $1.80 per day, $42.20. Presuming his DW is SAHM, total transport = $86.20, almost 5% of his income. This does not include any outings the family may have during the month. Personally, I spend at least $60 on transport myself. DS2 takes the train and transfer to bus = $45 monthly train concession and $20 bus = $65. DS3 takes bus with transfer = $0.55 per trip, $1.10 per day, $24.20. DS1 spends more cos though he works 12 hour shifts and commute less to work, he goes for night classes everyday. His transport about $100. DH drives and takes the bus or train occasionally. Of course, include outings etc, the amount is much higher. Guess putting forth my own family would reduce unnecessary dispute.
Is not the masses' fault that there is overcrowding. I know this open another can of worms. Is this what the masses have to put for economic progress, higher standard of living etc.
JMHO
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login