Ann: Preliminary Final Report (App 4E) year ended 31.3.17, page-8

"One of the more successful companies in Queensland ....not good enough for madam! Perhaps they should still be selling soap powder ...that would be fun with supermarkets the way they are and with amazon coming! Not saying they haven't made some stuff ups."


I wasn't aware that the state of Queensland has any notable reputation as a benchmark of corporate performance investment returns.

If you take the performance of the share between similar points in the commodity cycle - i.e., today, and around 10 or 11 years ago - the compound annual investment return (excluding dividends) from investing in ALS comes to between 5%pa and 7%pa, depending on the starting point.

That's barely as good as an overall equity market return over time, but without the acute volatility that ALS's share price displays. So, ALS represents similar returns as the broader market, but with a lot higher volatility of those returns.

Given the financial pedigree of the business, I think the shareholder value outcomes should be a lot better than they are.

No one said they should have remained Campbell Chemicals. But what was said is they the have been singularly ill-disciplined in the way they have spent shareholders' capital.


"As someone who made good money on them as a young man, then great returns after the gfc after buying them then, and even January 2016 to a lesser extent , I regard them as a pretty good stock."

That's got nothing to do with the stock being "good" or otherwise; that's got to do you you buying the stock at the right points in the cycle.

But as a company to hold through the cycle, the investment returns are demonstrably mediocre. Which was the essence of my previous post.