Is Now The Time To Put Pan-United (SGX:P52) On Your Watchlist?
Investors are often guided by the idea of discovering 'the next big thing', even if that means buying 'story stocks' without any revenue, let alone profit. Sometimes these stories can cloud the minds of investors, leading them to invest with their emotions rather than on the merit of good company fundamentals. While a well funded company may sustain losses for years, it will need to generate a profit eventually, or else investors will move on and the company will wither away.
Despite being in the age of tech-stock blue-sky investing, many investors still adopt a more traditional strategy; buying shares in profitable companies like Pan-United (SGX:P52). Now this is not to say that the company presents the best investment opportunity around, but profitability is a key component to success in business.
Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit.
If a company can keep growing earnings per share (EPS) long enough, its share price should eventually follow. That means EPS growth is considered a real positive by most successful long-term investors. Impressively, Pan-United has grown EPS by 28% per year, compound, in the last three years. If the company can sustain that sort of growth, we'd expect shareholders to come away satisfied.
Careful consideration of revenue growth and earnings before interest and taxation (EBIT) margins can help inform a view on the sustainability of the recent profit growth. Pan-United maintained stable EBIT margins over the last year, all while growing revenue 4.9% to S$813m. That's progress.
You can take a look at the company's revenue and earnings growth trend, in the chart below. To see the actual numbers, click on the chart.
View our latest analysis for Pan-United
While we live in the present moment, there's little doubt that the future matters most in the investment decision process. So why not check this interactive chart depicting future EPS estimates, for Pan-United?
Many consider high insider ownership to be a strong sign of alignment between the leaders of a company and the ordinary shareholders. So those who are interested in Pan-United will be delighted to know that insiders have shown their belief, holding a large proportion of the company's shares. Indeed, with a collective holding of 72%, company insiders are in control and have plenty of capital behind the venture. Intuition will tell you this is a good sign because it suggests they will be incentivised to build value for shareholders over the long term. This insider holding amounts to That means they have plenty of their own capital riding on the performance of the business!
You can't deny that Pan-United has grown its earnings per share at a very impressive rate. That's attractive. With EPS growth rates like that, it's hardly surprising to see company higher-ups place confidence in the company through continuing to hold a significant investment. The growth and insider confidence is looked upon well and so it's worthwhile to investigate further with a view to discern the stock's true value. We should say that we've discovered 1 warning sign for Pan-United that you should be aware of before investing here.
While opting for stocks without growing earnings and absent insider buying can yield results, for investors valuing these key metrics, here is a carefully selected list of companies in SG with promising growth potential and insider confidence.
Please note the insider transactions discussed in this article refer to reportable transactions in the relevant jurisdiction.
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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Iran Stands Alone Against Trump and Israel, Stripped of Allies
(Bloomberg) -- Iran's leaders are discovering they're on their own against the US and Israel, without the network of proxies and allies that allowed them to project power in the Middle East and beyond. Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports As the Islamic Republic confronts its most perilous moment in decades following the bombing of its nuclear facilities ordered by US President Donald Trump, Russia and China are sitting on the sidelines and offering only rhetorical support. Militia groups Iran has armed and funded for years are refusing or unable to enter the fight in support of their patron. After decades of being stuck in a game of fragile detente, the entire geopolitical order of the Middle East is being redone. The Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel was only the beginning. It led to multiple conflicts and tested decades-long alliances. It offered Trump, on his return to power this year, a chance to do what no president before him had dared by attacking Iran so aggressively and directly. Since Israel started strikes on Iran on June 13, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has spoken of goals beyond neutering Tehran's nuclear threat, even hinting at regime change. But the risk is that an isolated Iran could become more unpredictable with its once-steadfast allies keeping their distance. 'As Iran faces its most critical military test in decades, further tangible assistance from either Moscow or Beijing remains unlikely,' said Bloomberg Economics analysts including Adam Farrar and Dina Esfandiary. 'While both maintain bilateral strategic partnerships with Tehran, neither Russia nor China is a formal military ally, and neither is likely to provide significant military or economic aid due to their own limitations and broader strategic considerations.' Iran isn't getting any support, either, from the BRICS grouping of emerging markets that purports to want a new global order that's not dominated by Western nations. The organization — set up by Brazil, Russia, India and China and which Iran joined in early 2024 — has been silent over Israel and the US's attacks on the Islamic Republic. Iran signed a strategic cooperation treaty with Russia in January and it was a vital source of combat drones early in President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. However, Russian officials have made clear the pact includes no mutual-defense obligations and that Moscow has no intention of supplying Iran with weapons, even as they say Tehran hasn't asked for any. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told reporters in Turkey on Sunday he plans to travel to Moscow to discuss the situation with Putin on Monday. He can expect warm words and little practical support. That's a far cry from 2015, when Russia joined Iran in sending forces to Syria to save the regime of President Bashar Al-Assad, which was eventually toppled by rebels last year. Moscow risks losing another key ally in the Middle East if the government in Tehran led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei falls. Yet while the Kremlin has condemned the Israeli and US attacks, Putin is distracted and stretched — militarily and economically — by his war in Ukraine. China, too, 'strongly' condemned the US strikes as a breach of international law. But it hasn't offered assistance to Iran, which sells some 90% of its oil exports to Beijing. Iran's Gulf neighbors urged restraint and warned of potentially devastating implications for the region if Iran retaliates against US assets in the Middle East. Nations such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates spent months trying to use their geopolitical and economic heft to bolster nuclear talks between the Americans and Iran. In the end, the talks have been overtaken by military power. Iran's proxy militant groups are mostly absent too. Hezbollah in Lebanon, hitherto the most potent member of Tehran's 'axis of resistance' was pummeled by Israeli forces last year, much as Hamas was. Israeli strikes on Assad's military in Syria, meanwhile, played a part in his government's collapse. Hezbollah still poses a threat and on Sunday the US ordered family members and non-emergency government personnel to leave Lebanon. Still, the group's not threatened to back Iran by firing on Israel, as it did right after Hamas' attack in 2023. The Houthis in Yemen are an exception and hours about the US strikes on Iran, they issued fresh threats against US commercial and naval ships. Yet they risk another American bombardment like that one Trump ordered before a truce with the group in May. The Europeans, meanwhile, are increasingly irrelevant, in terms of swaying Trump and Israel, and Tehran. The UK, France and Germany have historically held an important role in the Middle East. They represented the dominant economies in Europe. The first two were colonial powers in the region and in the case of Germany, given its Nazi past, there was a strong pro-Israel voice. Both the UK and France have had to handle a vocal voter constituency that was pro Palestinian and complicated their messaging. That was not always an easy needle to thread. The current UK government is led by Labour, whose legacy was damaged by Tony Blair's decision to join US President George W. Bush in his invasion of Iraq in 2003. So for Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who has finally wrested control of the country from Conservatives, there is no upside to supporting any US military involvement. Trump didn't seem to need it, and the UK was happy to stay out of it even though it has enough of a presence that it could have been useful. Europeans find themselves sidelined with little power to influence the outcome. At the Group of Seven summit, Trump put France's President Emmanuel Macron in his place for suggesting the US was working toward a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. That did not stop Macron from working the phones, but the harsh reality that has filtered through is that Europe has its own existential crisis much closer to home. It needs Trump to at least make a cameo in The Hague for a NATO summit on Tuesday and Wednesday. The organization's leaders want assurances the US post-World War II commitment to stop Russian expansionism still stands. Europe has provided back channels for Iran in the past. In a climate where Europe and the US aren't working together on Iran, it's possible some valuable diplomatic signaling may be lost. That's one side effect of the US going it alone and of Europe being a bit player, as the crisis in the Middle East deepens. --With assistance from Eric Martin. Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. 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
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
Spain reaches deal with NATO ahead of summit to be excluded from 5% defense spending goal
MADRID (AP) — Spain reached a deal with NATO to be excluded from a 5% of GDP defense spending target, days before the military alliance's leaders will gather at a summit, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said on Sunday. 'Spain will, therefore, not spend 5% of its GDP on defense, but its participation, weight and legitimacy in NATO remain intact,' Sánchez said in a televised address. Sánchez said that Spain would be able to keep its commitments to the 32-nation military alliance by spending 2.1% of GDP on defense needs. In letters exchanged on Sunday between NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and Sánchez, Spain was granted the exemption and the language around the 5% spending target was made to no longer include 'all allies,' Sánchez said. On Thursday, Sánchez told Rutte in a separate letter that Spain could not commit to the spending target. The move threatened to derail the upcoming summit at The Hague, which U.S. President Donald Trump is due to attend, since any new spending guidelines have to made with the consensus of all 32 NATO member states. Last year, Spain spent 1.28% per NATO estimates on military expenditure, making it the alliance's lowest spender. In April, Sánchez announced that the government would raise defense spending to 2% this year, a move that he received pushback for at home including from some allies. On Friday, Trump said Spain 'has to pay what everybody else has to pay,' calling the eurozone's fourth-largest economy 'a very low payer.' 'They were either good negotiators or they weren't doing the right thing,' Trump told reporters. On Sunday, Sánchez said Spain 'believes that Europe should take charge of its own defense, an idea aligned with opinions such as those expressed by President Trump.' But he called reaching a 5% spending target 'incompatible with our worldview.'
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
The Strait Of Consequences: World Braces For Potential Energy Shock
ANKARA, TURKIYE - JUNE 17: An infographic titled "Strait of Hormuz" created in Ankara, Turkiye on ... More June 17, 2025. Connects oil and LNG production in the Middle East to global markets via the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. (Photo by Murat Usubali/Anadolu via Getty Images) There are several important energy chokepoints around the world, but none is more significant and vulnerable than the Strait of Hormuz. Now, following the U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday, the Iranian Parliament has reportedly voted to close this important energy transit chokepoint. Such a move could severely disrupt the world's energy markets. While the final decision still rests with Iran's Supreme National Security Council--and Iran has failed to follow through on previous threats to close the Strait--the vote signals intent to weaponize one of the world's most economically sensitive maritime corridors. If carried out, the consequences would be swift, severe, and global. Let's take a closer look at how we got here—and why the stakes are so high. Background On June 21, the United States launched coordinated airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. The strikes marked the most serious U.S.–Iran escalation in over a decade. The campaign featured B-2 stealth bombers and submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles. In his remarks following the strike, President Trump struck a conciliatory tone, stating, 'Now is the time for peace.' Iran, unsurprisingly, interpreted it differently. Within hours, the Iranian parliament voted to close the Strait of Hormuz—a move the U.S. would certainly interpret as a major escalation. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News, "If they do that, it will be another terrible mistake. It's economic suicide for them if they do it. And we retain options to deal with that, but other countries should be looking at that as well. It would hurt other countries' economies a lot worse than ours." Why the Strait of Hormuz Matters The accompanying picture illustrates why the Strait of Hormuz is so vital. At just 21 miles wide at its narrowest point--and significantly bordered by Iran--the Strait of Hormuz handles the transit of nearly 20% of global oil supply. But that's only part of the story. It is also a critical artery for liquefied natural gas (LNG) transit. Many important energy-producing countries rely on the Strait of Hormuz to get these products to market. There are three major global LNG producers, each with about 20% of the global market: The U.S., Qatar, and Australia. Qatar ships around 77 million metric tons of LNG annually, most of it passing through the Strait. Its customers include energy-hungry economies such as Japan, South Korea, China, and India, as well as parts of Europe. If Qatar is cut off, those nations lose part of their energy supply almost overnight. And LNG isn't as fungible as oil. While oil can be rerouted and drawn from strategic reserves, LNG infrastructure is far more rigid. Ships must be able to dock at specially equipped terminals, and production and liquefaction aren't easily shifted. The LNG market is fragile, and supply shocks can ripple fast and violently. Consequences of a Closure If Iran follows through with closing the Strait of Hormuz, the impact on global energy markets would be immediate and far-reaching. Energy prices would spike across the board. Oil could surge past $90 per barrel, and LNG spot prices—particularly in Asia and Europe—could return to levels not seen since 2022. For countries that rely heavily on imported natural gas, the consequences would be renewed inflation, worsening energy insecurity, and even the possibility of fuel rationing as winter approaches. Shipping and insurance markets would be thrown into disarray. Tanker traffic through the Persian Gulf would grind to a halt. Maritime insurers may suspend coverage for vessels transiting the Strait or demand prohibitively high war-risk premiums. Some shipping companies would avoid the region altogether, forcing longer routes and tighter global shipping capacity—raising costs not just for energy, but for commodities and consumer goods across the board. Strategic petroleum and gas reserves would likely be tapped as immediate substitutes. Countries like Japan, South Korea, and India—heavily dependent on Persian Gulf energy flows—would be among the first to draw from their stockpiles. But those reserves are limited, and a prolonged closure of the Strait would quickly strain their ability to buffer continued supply disruptions. Broader economic consequences would follow. As energy prices rise, so do input costs for key sectors like transportation, chemicals, and heavy manufacturing. Inflation would reaccelerate globally, putting renewed pressure on central banks and undermining recent progress in stabilizing prices. Some emerging economies, which lack the finances to subsidize rising energy costs, would be hit hardest, but developed economies would feel the squeeze too. Finally, a sustained disruption would accelerate the global energy realignment already underway. Policymakers would move quickly to diversify energy sources—fast-tracking LNG terminals, expanding storage capacity, and increasing imports from more stable suppliers like the U.S. It would also strengthen the case for more long-term investments in nuclear power and renewables, both of which offer insulation from the geopolitical volatility that continues to define fossil fuel markets. A Risky Game Closing the Strait would also damage Iran's own economy, which relies heavily on maritime exports. But history shows that governments under pressure don't always act rationally—especially when nationalism and survival are in play. Tehran may view the closure as a way to rally domestic support, push back against the West, or extract concessions in future negotiations. But it is a high-stakes move with no easy exit. The U.S. has made clear that such an act would be seen as hostile—and not just by Washington. Many of the world's major economies have a vested interest in keeping the Strait open, and a multinational response is more than likely. Bottom Line The world is watching closely. Energy companies are reviewing contingency plans, and governments are dusting off emergency protocols. Even in the absence of direct military escalation, the growing geopolitical risk is already being priced into oil and LNG futures. But it's worth noting that the Strait of Hormuz has never been fully closed in modern history—not even during periods of intense regional conflict. The closest call came during the Iran–Iraq War of the 1980s, particularly during the 'Tanker War,' when both countries targeted commercial shipping and laid mines throughout the Persian Gulf. Despite the violence, the Strait remained open—albeit under heavy military escort and with soaring insurance costs. Iran has issued similar threats before—most notably in 2011–2012 and again in 2019—in response to sanctions and military pressure. In each case, the threat alone was enough to shake global energy markets, even without an actual blockade. This time may be no different. But markets are rightly on edge, because the Strait of Hormuz isn't just a shipping lane—it's a pressure point for the entire global economy. And right now, that pressure is building.
