Hap Seng Consolidated Berhad's (KLSE:HAPSENG) Dismal Stock Performance Reflects Weak Fundamentals
Hap Seng Consolidated Berhad (KLSE:HAPSENG) has had a rough three months with its share price down 15%. Given that stock prices are usually driven by a company's fundamentals over the long term, which in this case look pretty weak, we decided to study the company's key financial indicators. In this article, we decided to focus on Hap Seng Consolidated Berhad's ROE.
Return on Equity or ROE is a test of how effectively a company is growing its value and managing investors' money. In short, ROE shows the profit each dollar generates with respect to its shareholder investments.
AI is about to change healthcare. These 20 stocks are working on everything from early diagnostics to drug discovery. The best part - they are all under $10bn in marketcap - there is still time to get in early.
The formula for ROE is:
Return on Equity = Net Profit (from continuing operations) ÷ Shareholders' Equity
So, based on the above formula, the ROE for Hap Seng Consolidated Berhad is:
7.7% = RM733m ÷ RM9.5b (Based on the trailing twelve months to March 2025).
The 'return' is the yearly profit. Another way to think of that is that for every MYR1 worth of equity, the company was able to earn MYR0.08 in profit.
View our latest analysis for Hap Seng Consolidated Berhad
Thus far, we have learned that ROE measures how efficiently a company is generating its profits. We now need to evaluate how much profit the company reinvests or "retains" for future growth which then gives us an idea about the growth potential of the company. Assuming all else is equal, companies that have both a higher return on equity and higher profit retention are usually the ones that have a higher growth rate when compared to companies that don't have the same features.
On the face of it, Hap Seng Consolidated Berhad's ROE is not much to talk about. However, given that the company's ROE is similar to the average industry ROE of 8.2%, we may spare it some thought. But Hap Seng Consolidated Berhad saw a five year net income decline of 8.4% over the past five years. Remember, the company's ROE is a bit low to begin with. Therefore, the decline in earnings could also be the result of this.
That being said, we compared Hap Seng Consolidated Berhad's performance with the industry and were concerned when we found that while the company has shrunk its earnings, the industry has grown its earnings at a rate of 18% in the same 5-year period.
Earnings growth is a huge factor in stock valuation. What investors need to determine next is if the expected earnings growth, or the lack of it, is already built into the share price. This then helps them determine if the stock is placed for a bright or bleak future. If you're wondering about Hap Seng Consolidated Berhad's's valuation, check out this gauge of its price-to-earnings ratio, as compared to its industry.
With a high three-year median payout ratio of 79% (implying that 21% of the profits are retained), most of Hap Seng Consolidated Berhad's profits are being paid to shareholders, which explains the company's shrinking earnings. The business is only left with a small pool of capital to reinvest - A vicious cycle that doesn't benefit the company in the long-run. To know the 2 risks we have identified for Hap Seng Consolidated Berhad visit our risks dashboard for free.
Additionally, Hap Seng Consolidated Berhad has paid dividends over a period of at least ten years, which means that the company's management is determined to pay dividends even if it means little to no earnings growth.
In total, we would have a hard think before deciding on any investment action concerning Hap Seng Consolidated Berhad. The company has seen a lack of earnings growth as a result of retaining very little profits and whatever little it does retain, is being reinvested at a very low rate of return. So far, we've only made a quick discussion around the company's earnings growth. So it may be worth checking this free detailed graph of Hap Seng Consolidated Berhad's past earnings, as well as revenue and cash flows to get a deeper insight into the company's performance.
Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) simplywallst.com.This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
States are rolling out red carpets for data centers. But some lawmakers are pushing back
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The explosive growth of the data centers needed to power America's fast-rising demand for artificial intelligence and cloud computing platforms has spurred states to dangle incentives in hopes of landing an economic bonanza, but it's also eliciting pushback from lawmakers and communities. Activity in state legislatures — and competition for data centers — has been brisk in recent months, amid an intensifying buildout of the energy-hungry data centers and a search for new sites that was ignited by the late 2022 debut of OpenAI's ChatGPT. Many states are offering financial incentives worth tens of millions of dollars. In some cases, those incentives are winning approval, but only after a fight or efforts to require data centers to pay for their own electricity or meet energy efficiency standards. Some state lawmakers have contested the incentives in places where a heavy influx of massive data centers has caused friction with neighboring communities. In large part, the fights revolve around the things that tech companies and data center developers seem to most want: large tracts of land, tax breaks and huge volumes of electricity and water. And their needs are exploding in size: from dozens of megawatts to hundreds of megawatts and from dozens of acres up to hundreds of acres for large-scale data centers sometimes called a hyperscaler. While critics say data centers employ relatively few people and pack little long-term job-creation punch, their advocates say they require a huge number of construction jobs to build, spend enormous sums on goods and local vendors and generate strong tax revenues for local governments. In Pennsylvania, lawmakers are writing legislation to fast-track permitting for data centers. The state is viewed as an up-and-coming data center destination, but there is also a sense that Pennsylvania is missing out on billions of dollars in investment that's landing in other states. 'Pennsylvania has companies that are interested, we have a labor force that is capable and we have a lot of water and natural gas,' said state Rep. Eric Nelson. 'That's the winning combination. We just have a bureaucratic process that won't open its doors.' It's been a big year for data centers Kansas approved a new sales tax exemption on goods to build and equip data centers, while Kentucky and Arkansas expanded pre-existing exemptions so that more projects will qualify. Michigan approved one that carries some protections, including requirements to use municipal utility water and clean energy, meet energy-efficiency measures and ensure that it pays for its own electricity. Such tax exemptions are now so widespread — about three dozen states have some version of it — that it is viewed as a must-have for a state to compete. 'It's often a nonstarter if you don't have them, for at least the hyperscalers,' said Andy Cvengros, who helps lead the data center practice at commercial real estate giant JLL. 'It's just such a massive impact on the overall spend of the data center.' Zoning, energy fights often frustrate developers In West Virginia, lawmakers approved a bill to create 'microgrid' districts free from local zoning and electric rate regulations where data centers can procure power from standalone power plants. Gov. Patrick Morrisey, a Republican, called the bill his 'landmark policy proposal' for 2025 to put West Virginia 'in a class of its own to attract new data centers and information technology companies.' Utah and Oklahoma passed laws to make it easier for data center developers to procure their own power supply without going through the grid while Mississippi rolled out tens of millions of dollars in incentives last year to land a pair of Amazon data centers. In South Carolina, Gov. Henry McMaster signed legislation earlier this month that eased regulations to speed up power plant construction to meet demand from data centers, including a massive Facebook facility. The final bill was fought by some lawmakers who say they worried about data centers using disproportionate amounts of water, taking up large tracts of land and forcing regular ratepayers to finance the cost of new power plants. 'I do not like that we're making customers pay for two power plants when they only need one,' Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey told colleagues during floor debate. Still, state Sen. Russell Ott suggested that data centers should be viewed like any other electricity customer because they reflect a society that is 'addicted' to electricity and are 'filling that need and that desire of what we all want. And we're all guilty of it. We're all responsible for it.' Some lawmakers are hesitant In data center hotspots, some lawmakers are pushing back. Lawmakers in Oregon are advancing legislation to order utility regulators to ensure data centers pay the cost of power plants and power lines necessary to serve them. Georgia lawmakers are debating a similar bill. In Virginia, the most heavily developed data center zone in the U.S., Gov. Glenn Youngkin vetoed a bill that would have forced more disclosures from data center developers about their site's noise pollution and water use. In Texas, which endured a deadly winter blackout in 2021, lawmakers are wrestling with how to protect the state's electric grid from fast-growing data center demand. Lawmakers still want to attract data centers, but a bill that would speed up direct hookups between data centers and power plants has provisions that are drawing protests from business groups. Those provisions would give utility regulators new authority to approve those agreements and order big electric users such as data centers to switch to backup generators in a power emergency. Walt Baum, the CEO of Powering Texans, which represents competitive power plant owners, warned lawmakers that those provisions might be making data center developers hesitant to do business in Texas. 'You've seen a lot of new announcements in other states and over the last several months and not as much here in Texas,' Baum told House members during a May 7 committee hearing. 'I think everybody right now is in a waiting pattern and I worry that we could be losing to other states while that waiting pattern is happening.' ___ Follow Marc Levy on X at
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
States are rolling out red carpets for data centers. But some lawmakers are pushing back
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The explosive growth of the data centers needed to power America's fast-rising demand for artificial intelligence and cloud computing platforms has spurred states to dangle incentives in hopes of landing an economic bonanza, but it's also eliciting pushback from lawmakers and communities. Activity in state legislatures — and competition for data centers — has been brisk in recent months, amid an intensifying buildout of the energy-hungry data centers and a search for new sites that was ignited by the late 2022 debut of OpenAI's ChatGPT. Many states are offering financial incentives worth tens of millions of dollars. In some cases, those incentives are winning approval, but only after a fight or efforts to require data centers to pay for their own electricity or meet energy efficiency standards. Some state lawmakers have contested the incentives in places where a heavy influx of massive data centers has caused friction with neighboring communities. In large part, the fights revolve around the things that tech companies and data center developers seem to most want: large tracts of land, tax breaks and huge volumes of electricity and water. And their needs are exploding in size: from dozens of megawatts to hundreds of megawatts and from dozens of acres up to hundreds of acres for large-scale data centers sometimes called a hyperscaler. While critics say data centers employ relatively few people and pack little long-term job-creation punch, their advocates say they require a huge number of construction jobs to build, spend enormous sums on goods and local vendors and generate strong tax revenues for local governments. In Pennsylvania, lawmakers are writing legislation to fast-track permitting for data centers. The state is viewed as an up-and-coming data center destination, but there is also a sense that Pennsylvania is missing out on billions of dollars in investment that's landing in other states. 'Pennsylvania has companies that are interested, we have a labor force that is capable and we have a lot of water and natural gas,' said state Rep. Eric Nelson. "That's the winning combination. We just have a bureaucratic process that won't open its doors.' It's been a big year for data centers Kansas approved a new sales tax exemption on goods to build and equip data centers, while Kentucky and Arkansas expanded pre-existing exemptions so that more projects will qualify. Michigan approved one that carries some protections, including requirements to use municipal utility water and clean energy, meet energy-efficiency measures and ensure that it pays for its own electricity. Such tax exemptions are now so widespread — about three dozen states have some version of it — that it is viewed as a must-have for a state to compete. 'It's often a nonstarter if you don't have them, for at least the hyperscalers,' said Andy Cvengros, who helps lead the data center practice at commercial real estate giant JLL. 'It's just such a massive impact on the overall spend of the data center.' Zoning, energy fights often frustrate developers In West Virginia, lawmakers approved a bill to create 'microgrid' districts free from local zoning and electric rate regulations where data centers can procure power from standalone power plants. Gov. Patrick Morrisey, a Republican, called the bill his 'landmark policy proposal' for 2025 to put West Virginia 'in a class of its own to attract new data centers and information technology companies.' Utah and Oklahoma passed laws to make it easier for data center developers to procure their own power supply without going through the grid while Mississippi rolled out tens of millions of dollars in incentives last year to land a pair of Amazon data centers. In South Carolina, Gov. Henry McMaster signed legislation earlier this month that eased regulations to speed up power plant construction to meet demand from data centers, including a massive Facebook facility. The final bill was fought by some lawmakers who say they worried about data centers using disproportionate amounts of water, taking up large tracts of land and forcing regular ratepayers to finance the cost of new power plants. 'I do not like that we're making customers pay for two power plants when they only need one,' Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey told colleagues during floor debate. Still, state Sen. Russell Ott suggested that data centers should be viewed like any other electricity customer because they reflect a society that is 'addicted' to electricity and are 'filling that need and that desire of what we all want. And we're all guilty of it. We're all responsible for it.' Some lawmakers are hesitant In data center hotspots, some lawmakers are pushing back. Lawmakers in Oregon are advancing legislation to order utility regulators to ensure data centers pay the cost of power plants and power lines necessary to serve them. Georgia lawmakers are debating a similar bill. In Virginia, the most heavily developed data center zone in the U.S., Gov. Glenn Youngkin vetoed a bill that would have forced more disclosures from data center developers about their site's noise pollution and water use. In Texas, which endured a deadly winter blackout in 2021, lawmakers are wrestling with how to protect the state's electric grid from fast-growing data center demand. Lawmakers still want to attract data centers, but a bill that would speed up direct hookups between data centers and power plants has provisions that are drawing protests from business groups. Those provisions would give utility regulators new authority to approve those agreements and order big electric users such as data centers to switch to backup generators in a power emergency. Walt Baum, the CEO of Powering Texans, which represents competitive power plant owners, warned lawmakers that those provisions might be making data center developers hesitant to do business in Texas. 'You've seen a lot of new announcements in other states and over the last several months and not as much here in Texas," Baum told House members during a May 7 committee hearing. "I think everybody right now is in a waiting pattern and I worry that we could be losing to other states while that waiting pattern is happening.' ___ Follow Marc Levy on X at Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Is Flawed AI Distorting Executive Judgment? — What Leaders Must Do
The AI symbol sits at the heart of a circle formed by bright yellow foldable caution signs adorned ... More with exclamation marks. This image creatively conveys the urgent need for awareness and careful consideration of AI's rapid growth and its implications. The design's high impact, with its strong contrast and focal point, makes it an effective tool for raising awareness or sparking conversations around technology, security, and innovation. Perfect for customizable content with plenty of space for additional messaging or branding. As AI embeds deeper into leadership workflows, a subtle form of decision drift is taking hold. Not because the tools are flawed but because we stop questioning them. Their polish is seductive. Their speed, persuasive. But when language replaces thought, clarity no longer guarantees correctness. In July 2023, the Chicago Sun-Times published an AI-generated summer reading list. The summaries were articulate. The titles sounded plausible. But only five of the fifteen books were real. The rest? Entirely made up: fictional authors, fabricated plots, polished prose built on nothing. It sounded smart. It wasn't. That's the risk. Now imagine an executive team building its strategy on the same kind of output. It's not fiction anymore. It's a leadership risk. And it's happening already. Quietly. Perceptibly. In organizations where clarity once meant confidence and strategy was something you trusted. Not just in made-up book titles but in the growing gap between what sounds clear and what's actually correct. Large language models aren't fact checkers. They're pattern matchers. They generate language based on probability, not precision. What sounds coherent may not be correct. The result is a stream of outputs that look strategic but rest on shaky ground. This isn't a call to abandon AI. But it is a call to re-anchor how we use it. To ensure leaders stay accountable. To ensure AI stays a tool, not a crutch. I'm not saying AI shouldn't inform decisions. But it must be paired with human intuition, sense making and real dialogue. The more confident the language, the more likely it is to go unquestioned. Model collapse is no longer theoretical. It's already happening. It begins when models are trained on outputs from other models or worse, on their own recycled content. Over time, distortions multiply. Edge cases vanish. Rare insights decay. Feedback loops breed repetition. Sameness. False certainty. Businessman with white cloud instead of head on blue background. Businessman and management. ... More Business and commerce. Digital art. As The Register warned, general purpose AI may already be declining in quality, not in tone but in substance. What remains looks fluent. But it says less. That's just the mechanical part. The deeper concern is how this affects leaders. When models feed on synthetic data and leaders feed on those outputs, what you get isn't insight. It's reflection. Strategy becomes a mirror, not a map. And we're not just talking bias or hallucinations. As copyright restrictions tighten and human-created content slows, the pool of original data shrinks. What's left is synthetic material recycled over and over. More polish. Less spark. According to researchers at Epoch, high quality training data could be exhausted by 2026 to 2032. When that happens, models won't be learning from the best of what we know. They'll be learning from echoes. Developers are trying to slow this collapse. Many already are, by protecting non-AI data sources, refining synthetic inputs and strengthening governance. But the impending collapse signals something deeper. A reminder that the future of intelligence must remain blended — human machine, not machine alone. Intuitive, grounded and real. Psychologists like Kahneman and Tversky warned us long ago about the framing trap: the way a question is asked shapes the answer. A 20 percent chance of failure feels different than an 80 percent chance of success, even if it's the same data. AI makes this trap faster and more dangerous. Because now, the frame itself is machine generated. A biased prompt. A skewed training set. A hallucinated answer. And suddenly, a strategy is shaped by a version of reality that never existed. Ask AI to model a workforce reduction plan. If the prompt centers on financials, the reply may omit morale, long-term hiring costs or reputational damage. The numbers work. The human cost disappears. AI doesn't interrupt. It doesn't question. It reflects. If a leader seeks validation, AI will offer it. The tone will align. The logic will sound smooth. But real insight rarely feels that easy. That's the risk — not that AI is wrong, but that it's too easily accepted as right. When leaders stop questioning and teams stop challenging, AI becomes a mirror. It reinforces assumptions. It amplifies bias. It removes friction. That's how decision drift begins. Dialogue becomes output. Judgment becomes approval. Teams fall quiet. Cultures that once celebrated debate grow obedient. And something more vital begins to erode: intuition. The human instinct for context. The sense of timing. The inner voice that says something's off. It all gets buried beneath synthetic certainty. To stop flawed decisions from quietly passing through AI-assisted workflows, every leader should ask: AI-generated content is already shaping board decks, culture statements and draft policies. In fast-paced settings, it's tempting to treat that output as good enough. But when persuasive language gets mistaken for sound judgment, it doesn't stay in draft mode. It becomes action. Garbage in. Polished out. Then passed as policy. This isn't about intent. It's about erosion. Quiet erosion in systems that reward speed, efficiency and ease over thoughtfulness. And then there's the flattery trap. Ask AI to summarize a plan or validate a strategy, and it often echoes the assumptions behind the prompt. The result? A flawed idea wrapped in confidence. No tension. No resistance. Just affirmation. That's how good decisions fail — quietly, smoothly and without a single raised hand in the room. Leadership isn't about having all the answers. It's about staying close to what's real and creating space for others to do the same. The deeper risk of AI isn't just in false outputs. It's in the cultural drift that happens when human judgment fades. Questions stop. Dialogue thins. Dissent vanishes. Leaders must protect what AI can't replicate — the ability to sense what's missing. To hear what's not said. To pause before acting. To stay with complexity. AI can generate content. But it can't generate wisdom. The solution isn't less AI. It's better leadership. Leaders who use AI not as final word but as provocateur. As friction. As spark. In fact, human-generated content will only grow in value. Craft will matter more than code. What we'll need most is original thought, deep conversation and meaning making — not regurgitated text that sounds sharp but says nothing new. Because when it comes to decisions that shape people, culture and strategy, only human judgment connects the dots that data can't see. In the end, strategy isn't what you write. It's what you see. And to see clearly in the age of AI, you'll need more than a prompt. You'll need presence. You'll need discernment. Neither can be AI trained. Neither can be outsourced.
