Back to Portfolio
RXS

RXS

$0.101 SGD 147M market cap February 22, 2026
Pacific Radiance Ltd RXS BUFFETT / MUNGER / KLARMAN SUMMARY
1 SNAPSHOT
Price$0.101
Market CapSGD 147M
EVSGD 136M
Net DebtUSD -10.8M (net cash)
Shares1.448B
2 BUSINESS

Pacific Radiance is a Singapore-based integrated offshore marine services provider operating in two segments: Ship Management (58% of revenue), which manages, charters, and operates offshore support vessels for third-party owners supporting oil and gas operations; and Shipyard (42%), providing ship repair, maintenance, and fabrication at its Singapore facility. The company emerged from a major debt restructuring in September 2022 that eliminated ~US$343M in debt but transferred its 33-vessel fleet to a related party (ENAV). It now primarily earns fees from managing those same vessels and has begun re-acquiring vessels.

Revenue: USD 43.8M Organic Growth: 40%
3 MOAT NONE

No identifiable competitive moat. Offshore marine services is a highly competitive, cyclical, commodity business with no brand premium, no switching costs, no network effects, and no cost advantage. The company's only edge is regional relationships in Southeast Asia and Middle East, and the Pang family's 30+ years of industry experience -- but these are narrow and replicable within 1-3 years by well-funded competitors.

4 MANAGEMENT
CEO: Pang Yoke Min (Executive Chairman/CEO since Jan 2025, with company since 2007)

Family-controlled company (Pang Yoke Min, Pang Wei Meng, Pang Wei Kuan). Capital allocation concerns: (1) resumed heavy CapEx (US$19.9M in FY2024) on vessel acquisitions and CTV construction after emerging from a crisis caused by over-investment in vessels; (2) complex related-party transactions with ENAV entity that bought the original fleet; (3) rights issue tripled share count in 2024; (4) management warrants create misaligned incentives. First dividend declared for FY2024 (0.05 SGD cents/share, ~0.5% yield) after perpetual securities were fully redeemed.

5 ECONOMICS
7.0% reported; ~5-8% adjusted for non-recurring items Op Margin
10.3% (inflated by non-recurring gains; recurring ~3-5%) ROIC
USD -4.3M (negative due to vessel acquisitions) FCF
Net cash / 6.9M adjusted EBITDA Debt/EBITDA
6 VALUATION
FCF/ShareSGD -0.004 (negative FCF)
FCF Yield-2.9% (negative)
DCF RangeSGD 0.030 - 0.041 (base); SGD 0.060 - 0.074 (bull)

Base case: US$6.9M adjusted EBITDA growing 8% for 5 years then 3% for 5 years, 14% discount rate (micro-cap, cyclical, restructuring risk), 2% terminal growth. Bull case: revenue reaches US$60M with margin expansion to 20% EBITDA margin, 12% discount rate. Both scenarios imply current price is significantly overvalued relative to recurring earnings power.

7 MUNGER INVERSION -45.5%
Kill Event Severity P() E[Loss]
Oil price decline below $50/bbl crushes OSV demand and charter rates -60% 25% -15.0%
ENAV terminates ship management contracts (majority of revenue) -50% 15% -7.5%
Related-party conflicts destroy shareholder value (Pang family interests) -40% 20% -8.0%
New vessel acquisitions prove unprofitable, FCF stays negative -30% 30% -9.0%
Further dilution via warrants or new equity raises -15% 40% -6.0%

Tail Risk: Non-additive worst case: another oil price downturn (like 2015-2020) combined with ENAV contract termination would reduce revenue by 70%+ while the company carries vessel acquisition debt. This is essentially a replay of the 2015-2022 crisis that destroyed shareholder value. The Altman Z-Score of 0.79 confirms the company remains in the financial distress zone despite the clean balance sheet.

8 KLARMAN LENS
Downside Case

In a bear case, oil prices fall below $60/bbl, offshore E&P spending contracts, OSV charter rates decline 30-40%, ship repair demand drops, and the company's newly acquired vessels become loss-making. Revenue falls to US$25-30M, EBITDA turns negative, and the company burns through its US$17.8M cash balance within 2-3 years. The stock returns to SGD 0.02-0.03 (post-restructuring levels), an 70-80% loss.

Why Market Wrong

The market may be wrong if: (1) offshore OSV market tightness persists longer than expected, driving charter rates higher and making vessel acquisitions highly profitable; (2) the offshore wind CTV business generates a meaningful new revenue stream diversifying away from oil; (3) the Pang family's industry expertise creates genuine value despite related-party concerns; (4) H1 2025 revenue growth of 50% represents a sustainable trajectory toward US$60-80M revenue.

Why Market Right

Bears are likely correct because: (1) 87% of FY2024 earnings were non-recurring -- the company's recurring profitability is thin; (2) the company is repeating the same capital-intensive vessel acquisition strategy that led to bankruptcy; (3) cyclical peak in OSV market may be near; (4) micro-cap SGX stocks with complex restructuring histories and family control deserve a steep discount; (5) Altman Z-Score of 0.79 is the market's collective signal of ongoing financial stress.

Catalysts

Positive: sustained revenue growth to US$60M+; recurring EBITDA reaching US$12M+; successful CTV deployment in offshore wind; major new third-party contracts. Negative: oil price decline; contract losses; further dilution; related-party governance issues.

9 VERDICT REJECT
C Rejected
Strong Buy$0.025
Buy$0.035
Sell$0.101

Pacific Radiance is a classic value trap disguised by misleading headline metrics. The 6.2x P/E and 22.7% ROE are artifacts of US$22.5M in non-recurring gains from debt forgiveness and write-backs. On recurring earnings, the stock trades at 30-90x earnings for a cyclical, moatless, micro-cap company with a history of near-bankruptcy, massive dilution, and complex related-party transactions. The current price of SGD 0.101 exceeds our bull-case DCF of SGD 0.060-0.074. At SGD 0.025-0.035 (the restructuring/rights issue price range), the risk-reward would improve significantly, but the fundamental business quality remains poor.

🧠 ULTRATHINK Deep Philosophical Analysis

RXS - Ultrathink Analysis

The Real Question

The real question is not whether Pacific Radiance is cheap at 6.2x trailing earnings. The real question is: Should you buy a company that nearly destroyed itself through capital-intensive vessel ownership, watched that fleet get transferred to a related party during bankruptcy, and is now spending aggressively to buy vessels again -- managed by the same family that oversaw the original destruction?

Put another way: has anything structurally changed about this business that would prevent a repeat of the 2015-2022 catastrophe, or is this merely the same cyclical roller coaster with a fresh coat of paint and a clean balance sheet?

Hidden Assumptions

The market is making several assumptions that deserve interrogation:

Assumption 1: The headline P/E is meaningful. It is not. US$22.5M of the US$25.9M in FY2024 net profit came from debt forgiveness, write-backs, and deferred gains. These are accounting entries from the restructuring, not operating cash flow. The company's management even flags this: "EBITDA after adjusting for non-recurring items amounted to US$6.9 million." That is the real earnings power -- about US$6.9M on US$43.8M revenue.

Assumption 2: Revenue growth means earnings growth. Revenue grew 40% in FY2024 to US$43.8M, and H1 2025 showed 50% growth. But gross margin declined from 39.9% to 32.6%, and G&A expenses grew 9%. The revenue is growing, but it is lower-margin revenue. The new vessel charters and ship agency services dilute margins. This is the classic trap of pursuing revenue growth at the expense of profitability.

Assumption 3: The balance sheet is clean. On the surface, yes -- bank loans are zero, net cash is US$10.8M. But look deeper: accumulated losses of US$(117.4M), an Altman Z-Score of 0.79 (deep distress), and US$19.9M of CapEx that consumed more cash than operations generated. The clean balance sheet is already being re-leveraged through vessel acquisitions.

Assumption 4: This time is different. The offshore OSV market is "supply-constrained" due to years of underinvestment. True. But this is exactly the narrative that precedes every cyclical peak. In 2013-2014, the same industry was saying the same things. Then oil went from $100 to $30 and Pacific Radiance lost everything.

The Contrarian View

For the bears to be right, one or more of the following must be true:

  1. The OSV cycle is nearer its peak than its trough. Global E&P spending could plateau or decline if oil prices weaken, energy transition accelerates, or macro recession hits. Every oil services cycle feels permanent at the top.

  2. The Pang family's interests diverge from minority shareholders. With stakes in both Pacific Radiance and the ENAV entity that owns the fleet, the family can extract value on both sides of management contracts. The US$7.0M in charter hire income from joint ventures and the related-party ship repair revenue deserve scrutiny.

  3. Capital discipline will not hold. The company is already spending aggressively on vessels after emerging from bankruptcy caused by over-investment in vessels. The pattern repeats because the incentive structure has not changed -- management is rewarded for growth, and the vessel acquisition machine is easier to restart than to restrain.

  4. The micro-cap discount is permanent. A SGD 147M market cap company listed on SGX with a restructuring history, family control, limited free float, and no analyst coverage will never command a fair multiple. Governance and liquidity discounts should be 30-50% versus fair value.

Simplest Thesis

Pacific Radiance is a cyclical value trap where non-recurring restructuring gains create the illusion of cheapness, while the underlying business earns thin margins in a commoditized industry with no moat and a management team repeating the same capital-allocation mistakes that caused the previous crisis.

Why This Opportunity Exists

The opportunity -- or more precisely, the mispricing -- exists because:

  1. Quantitative screens cannot distinguish recurring from non-recurring earnings. The Buffett screen scored this stock 80/100 based on trailing ROE and P/E that are entirely driven by one-off items. Mechanical screening works beautifully most of the time, but it breaks catastrophically on restructuring situations.

  2. SGX micro-caps are inefficiently priced. With no analyst coverage, limited institutional ownership, and a thin free float post-rights issue, the stock price reflects retail sentiment more than fundamental analysis.

  3. The restructuring narrative is compelling. "Company rises from the ashes" is a powerful story. The revenue growth is real (40% in FY2024, 50% in H1 2025). The balance sheet is clean. The offshore market is strong. It is easy to see why a casual investor would be excited.

  4. The dilution is hidden in the per-share math. The 997M share rights issue in February 2024 tripled the share count. Most investors look at the stock price chart and see a doubling -- they do not realize the per-share value creation has been far less impressive.

What Would Change My Mind

I would reconsider if:

  1. Recurring adjusted EBITDA reaches US$12M+ for two consecutive years with positive free cash flow. This would indicate the business has genuine earning power, not just restructuring sugar.

  2. Gross margins stabilize above 35% while revenue continues to grow, proving the growth is high-quality and not margin-dilutive.

  3. Related-party transactions as a percentage of revenue decline below 20%, demonstrating the company can win business on merit rather than through captive ENAV contracts.

  4. The Altman Z-Score rises above 1.8, moving out of the distress zone and confirming sustainable financial health.

  5. The stock price falls to SGD 0.025-0.035, which was the rights issue price range and would provide a genuine margin of safety on even conservative recurring earnings estimates.

The Soul of This Business

The soul of Pacific Radiance is not a ship management company, nor a shipyard, nor an offshore services provider. The soul of this business is the Pang family's ambition to build an offshore marine empire in Southeast Asia.

This is their third act. Act One was co-founding Jaya Holdings in 1981 and building it into a major OSV operator. Act Two was Pacific Radiance, listed in 2013 with a fleet of 50+ vessels, which was destroyed by the oil price crash. Act Three is the post-restructuring rebuild.

The Pang family are industry veterans with 30+ years of experience. They know the business. They survived the restructuring. They are motivated. But their instinct is always the same: buy vessels, grow the fleet, capture the upcycle. This instinct served them well from 2006-2014 and destroyed them from 2015-2022.

The question is whether an asset-light ship management model can generate enough value to satisfy their ambitions, or whether they will inevitably return to the capital-intensive vessel ownership model that is seductive in upswings and fatal in downturns. Based on FY2024's US$19.9M in vessel acquisitions and CTV construction, the answer is already clear: they are going back to the fleet.

For a value investor, this is the red flag that matters more than any financial ratio. The same management, pursuing the same strategy, in the same cyclical industry, with the same risks. The balance sheet is clean today. Whether it stays clean depends on whether this cycle ends differently. History says it will not.

Executive Summary

3-Sentence Thesis

Pacific Radiance is a Singapore-based offshore marine services company that emerged from a major debt restructuring in September 2022, having shed ~US$343M in debt and 33 vessels while retaining ship management contracts and a shipyard. The stock appears cheap at 6.2x trailing P/E, but this is deeply misleading: FY2024's US$25.9M net profit included US$22.5M of non-recurring gains (debt forgiveness, write-backs), leaving recurring earnings of just ~US$3.4M. What looks like a deep value turnaround is actually a capital-light services business with thin recurring margins, significant related-party complexity, massive recent dilution, and an Altman Z-Score of 0.79 that screams financial distress risk.

Key Metrics Dashboard

Metric Value Assessment
Price SGD 0.101 +98% 1-year
Market Cap SGD 147M / ~US$110M Micro-cap
P/E (Trailing) 6.2x Misleading (non-recurring gains)
P/E (Recurring) ~32x On ~US$3.4M recurring profit
EV/EBITDA (Adjusted) ~15x On US$6.9M adjusted EBITDA
ROE 22.7% Inflated by non-recurring items
ROIC 10.3% Marginal
Net Debt ~US$(10.8)M Net cash position now
Altman Z-Score 0.79 Distress zone (<1.1)
Dividend Yield 0.5% First dividend: 0.05 SGD cents/share

VERDICT: REJECT

Pacific Radiance fails the quality screen on multiple dimensions. The headline metrics from the Buffett screen (22.7% ROE, 5x P/E, 80/100 score) are artifacts of non-recurring restructuring gains, not recurring business quality. The underlying business generates ~US$6.9M adjusted EBITDA on US$43.8M revenue -- a 15.7% adjusted EBITDA margin for a cyclical offshore marine services company with no pricing power, no moat, and significant operational leverage to oil prices.

Phase 0: Quick Screen Validation

Is the business simple to understand?

Partially. Pacific Radiance provides offshore marine services in two segments:

  1. Ship Management (58% of revenue): Manages, charters, and operates offshore support vessels (OSVs) for third-party vessel owners, primarily supporting oil and gas exploration/production.
  2. Shipyard (42% of revenue): Ship repair, maintenance, fabrication, and conversion services at its Singapore shipyard.

Post-restructuring, the company shed its own fleet of 33 vessels and became primarily an asset-light ship management company that manages vessels owned by ENAV (the entity that acquired the fleet during restructuring). This is a critical point: the Pang family executives who run Pacific Radiance also have interests in the entity that bought the vessels.

Has it been profitable for 10+ years?

NO. The company was deeply unprofitable from 2015-2021 during the oil price downturn:

  • FY2020: Net loss US$(58.7)M
  • FY2021: Net loss US$(44.2)M
  • FY2022: Net profit US$331.2M (entirely from restructuring gains of ~US$343M)
  • FY2023: Net profit US$14.5M (included US$10.6M write-backs)
  • FY2024: Net profit US$25.9M (included US$22.5M non-recurring items)

Fails the Buffett 10-year profitability test decisively.

Consistent free cash flow?

NO. Free cash flow has been:

  • FY2020: US$6.5M (low CapEx due to no fleet)
  • FY2021: US$5.5M
  • FY2022: US$0.6M
  • FY2023: US$4.1M
  • FY2024: US$(4.3)M (heavy vessel acquisition CapEx)
  • TTM: US$(6.6)M

The company is now investing heavily in new vessels (US$19.9M CapEx in FY2024), reversing its asset-light model and consuming cash.

ROE > 15%?

Misleading. The 22.7% ROE is calculated on a small equity base inflated by one-off gains. On recurring earnings of ~US$3.4M against equity of US$79.8M, the recurring ROE is approximately 4.3%.

Manageable debt (D/E < 0.5)?

YES, now. After the restructuring eliminated ~US$489M of debt and the FY2024 repayment of the remaining US$30.3M property loan (of which US$10.8M was forgiven), the company has:

  • Bank loans: US$0
  • Lease liabilities: US$7.0M
  • Cash: US$17.8M
  • Net cash position: ~US$10.8M

However, accumulated losses of US$(117.4)M remain on the balance sheet.

Management skin in game?

Complex. The Pang family (Pang Yoke Min as Executive Chairman/CEO, Pang Wei Meng as Executive Director/CCO, Pang Wei Kuan as former CEO now Chief Strategy Officer) controls the company. They received new shares and management warrants during restructuring. As part of the restructuring, a Pang SPV and ENAV entered a shareholders' agreement for the entity that acquired the 33 vessels. This creates significant related-party transaction risk -- the family has interests on both sides of the ship management contracts.

Identifiable moat?

NO. Offshore marine services is a highly competitive, commoditized industry with:

  • No brand premium
  • No switching costs (customers can change vessel managers)
  • No network effects
  • No cost advantage (Singapore is not a low-cost location)
  • No regulatory moat
  • Charter rates are cyclical and driven by oil prices and vessel supply/demand

QUICK SCREEN RESULT: FAIL on 5 of 7 criteria. Does not warrant deep analysis.

However, since we have already downloaded the data, I will complete the analysis for documentation purposes.

Phase 1: Risk Analysis (Munger Inversion)

"What Would Kill This Investment?"

# Risk Probability Severity Expected Loss
1 Oil price decline (<$50/bbl) crushes OSV demand and charter rates 25% -60% -15.0%
2 ENAV terminates ship management contracts (majority of revenue) 15% -50% -7.5%
3 Related-party conflicts destroy shareholder value 20% -40% -8.0%
4 New vessel acquisitions prove unprofitable, FCF stays negative 30% -30% -9.0%
5 Further dilution via warrant exercise or new equity raises 40% -15% -6.0%
6 Offshore wind CTV investment fails to generate returns 25% -20% -5.0%
7 Customer concentration risk (Singapore 66% of revenue) 15% -25% -3.8%
8 Management succession/key-man risk (family-controlled) 10% -30% -3.0%
9 Macro recession reduces offshore E&P spending 20% -35% -7.0%
10 Altman Z-Score indicates ongoing distress risk 15% -50% -7.5%
Total Expected Downside -71.8%

Critical Risk: The Non-Recurring Earnings Illusion

The single most important risk is that investors are fooled by the headline P/E ratio. Let me decompose FY2024's US$25.9M net profit:

Recurring items:

  • Revenue: US$43.8M
  • Gross profit: US$14.3M
  • G&A expenses: (US$13.6M)
  • Finance costs: (US$0.4M)
  • Share of JV/associates: US$1.2M
  • Tax (normalized): ~(US$0.3M)
  • Recurring net profit: ~US$1.2M - US$3.4M (range depends on normalization)

Non-recurring items totaling ~US$22.5M:

  • Gain on debt forgiveness (bank loans): US$10.8M
  • Write-back of investment in associates: US$5.5M
  • Gain on deferred gain on sale of vessels: US$4.3M
  • Gain on debt forgiveness (related companies): US$1.8M
  • Gain on trade payables no longer payable: US$0.1M
  • Tax credit (overprovision prior years): US$1.8M

On recurring earnings of ~US$1.2-3.4M, the stock trades at 32-92x recurring P/E, not 6.2x.

Critical Risk: Related-Party Web

The restructuring created a complex web where:

  1. Pacific Radiance manages vessels for ENAV Radiance Pte Ltd
  2. ENAV is affiliated with RS EES Holdings Mexico, which bought the 33 vessels
  3. A Pang family SPV has a shareholders' agreement with ENAV
  4. Charter hire income from joint ventures (US$7.0M in FY2024) is a related-party transaction
  5. Ship repair income from associates and related parties is also significant

This creates principal-agent problems: the Pang family benefits from fees on both sides of the transaction. While the ship management agreements were part of the court-approved restructuring, the ongoing governance risk is real.

Phase 2: Financial Analysis

Revenue Trajectory

Year Revenue (US$M) Growth
FY2020 8.9 -88% (downturn)
FY2021 9.9 +10%
FY2022 29.9 +203% (restructuring)
FY2023 31.4 +5%
FY2024 43.8 +40%
H1 2025 24.4 +50% YoY
TTM 49.2 +44%

Revenue growth has been strong, driven by:

  1. Addition of new ship management contracts
  2. Higher charter rates in a tight OSV market
  3. New ship agency services (FY2024)
  4. Vessel acquisitions generating charter revenue
  5. Increased shipyard utilization

Margin Analysis

Metric FY2024 FY2023
Gross Margin 32.6% 39.9%
Adjusted EBITDA Margin 15.7% ~19%
Operating Margin (as reported) 7.0% 37.3%
Operating Margin (adjusted) ~5-8% ~12-15%
Net Margin (as reported) 59.0% 46.2%
Net Margin (adjusted) ~3-8% ~12-15%

Gross margins declined from 39.9% to 32.6% despite revenue growth, indicating the new vessel charter and ship agency revenue comes at lower margins. The FY2023 margins were also inflated by write-backs.

Balance Sheet Transformation

The balance sheet has been dramatically cleaned up:

Metric Dec 2020 Dec 2022 Dec 2024
Total Debt US$501M US$39.5M US$0
Net Debt US$482M US$13.9M (US$10.8M)
Equity (US$302M) US$23.7M US$79.8M
D/E N/A (neg) 1.67 0.08

The company went from negative US$302M equity to positive US$79.8M, primarily through:

  • Debt forgiveness and restructuring (~US$343M gain in FY2022)
  • Ongoing non-recurring gains in FY2023-2024
  • Rights issue proceeds (US$17M in Feb 2024)

Cash Flow Quality

FY2024 operating cash flow of US$15.6M looks healthy, but:

  • US$9.5M came from working capital changes (trade payables increase US$7.2M)
  • Operating cash flow before working capital changes was US$6.5M
  • After normalizing for non-recurring items, recurring OCF is approximately US$5-7M

CapEx surged to US$19.9M as the company acquired vessels and began CTV construction, resulting in negative FCF of US$(4.3)M.

Dilution Analysis

Shares outstanding nearly tripled in one year:

  • Pre-rights issue: 451M shares
  • Post-rights issue (Feb 2024): 1,449M shares (+997M shares at ~SGD 0.023)
  • Plus warrants: 67.8M additional potential shares
  • Fully diluted: ~1,517M shares

The rights issue raised ~US$17M but diluted existing shareholders by 2.2x. This is typical of restructuring situations where original shareholders bear the most pain.

Owner Earnings Calculation

FY2024 Reported Net Profit:          US$25,855K
Less: Non-recurring items:           (US$22,527K)
Add back: Depreciation:              US$4,703K
Less: Maintenance CapEx (estimate):  (US$4,000K)
Less: Warrant dilution cost:         (US$500K)
Owner Earnings (estimate):           ~US$3,531K

Owner earnings per share: ~US$0.0024 = SGD 0.0032 At SGD 0.101, this implies 31.6x owner earnings -- far from cheap.

DCF Valuation

Assumptions:

  • Base recurring EBITDA: US$6.9M (management's adjusted figure)
  • Growth rate: 8% years 1-5 (supported by H1 2025 trends), 3% years 6-10
  • Terminal growth: 2%
  • Discount rate: 14% (high due to micro-cap, cyclicality, restructuring risk)
  • Maintenance CapEx: US$4M/year
  • Tax rate: 10% (Singapore, with various exemptions)
Year EBITDA FCF
1 7.5 3.1
2 8.1 3.7
3 8.7 4.2
4 9.4 4.8
5 10.2 5.6
6-10 Grows at 3% -
Terminal 10% EBITDA -

DCF Value: ~US$32-45M = SGD 43-60M Per Share: SGD 0.030 - 0.041

This suggests the stock is overvalued by 145-237% on a DCF basis using recurring earnings.

Bull Case DCF (Revenue reaches US$60M, margins expand)

  • EBITDA grows to US$12M by year 3
  • Discount rate: 12%
  • DCF Value: ~US$65-80M = SGD 87-107M
  • Per Share: SGD 0.060 - 0.074
  • Still below current price of SGD 0.101

Why Does the Stock Trade Where It Does?

The market appears to be pricing in:

  1. The headline P/E of 6.2x (ignoring non-recurring nature of earnings)
  2. Continued revenue growth momentum (H1 2025 +50%)
  3. The strong OSV market tailwind
  4. Potential for the company to become a "real" vessel operator again via acquisitions

Phase 3: Moat Analysis

Moat Assessment: NONE

Moat Source Present? Evidence
Brand No Commodity services, no premium pricing
Network Effects No Ship management has no network dynamics
Switching Costs Weak Ship management contracts can be terminated
Cost Advantage No Singapore-based, not low-cost
Efficient Scale No Many competitors in offshore marine services
Regulatory No Cabotage rules in some markets provide minor protection

Pacific Radiance operates in one of the most competitive, cyclical, and capital-intensive industries. The offshore marine services sector is characterized by:

  1. Boom-bust cycles tied to oil prices
  2. Low barriers to entry for ship management
  3. Commodity pricing where charter rates are set by supply/demand
  4. High operational leverage to vessel utilization
  5. Capital intensity when owning vessels

The company's only competitive advantage is its regional relationships in Southeast Asia and the Middle East, and the management expertise of the Pang family. These are narrow and replicable.

Durability Test

  • What could erode this advantage? Any well-funded competitor could replicate the service offering.
  • How long would it take? 1-3 years to build equivalent relationships and capabilities.
  • Historical evidence? The company went from a leading OSV owner to near-bankruptcy in 2015-2022.

Phase 4: Decision Synthesis

Why This Fails as a Buffett-Style Investment

  1. No moat: Commodity offshore marine services with no pricing power
  2. Earnings quality: 87% of FY2024 net profit was non-recurring
  3. Cyclicality: Deeply tied to oil prices, which are unpredictable
  4. Dilution: Share count tripled in 2024, warrants outstanding
  5. Related-party risk: Complex Pang family interests across the value chain
  6. Track record: Company nearly went bankrupt, lost >90% of value for original shareholders
  7. Capital allocation: Now investing in vessels again (US$19.9M CapEx) after having just emerged from a crisis caused by over-investment in vessels
  8. Distress risk: Altman Z-Score of 0.79 remains in distress zone
  9. Micro-cap liquidity: SGD 147M market cap, limited institutional coverage

The Buffett Screen Was Wrong

The screening metrics that flagged this stock were misleading:

  • ROE 22.7%: Inflated by US$22.5M non-recurring gains on US$79.8M equity
  • Operating Margin 29.2%: Includes non-recurring items in operating income
  • P/E 5.0: Uses reported earnings including one-off gains
  • D/E 8: Appears to be incorrectly calculated; actual D/E is 0.08
  • Buffett Score 80/100: Mechanistic screen fails to capture earnings quality

This is a textbook example of why quantitative screens must be supplemented with fundamental analysis.

Position Sizing: 0% (REJECT)

Entry prices (for monitoring only):

  • Strong Buy: SGD 0.025 (near rights issue price, ~7x adjusted EBITDA)
  • Accumulate: SGD 0.035 (~10x adjusted EBITDA)
  • Sell: N/A (not owned)

Monitoring Triggers

Trigger Action
Recurring EBITDA exceeds US$12M for 2 consecutive years Re-evaluate
Altman Z-Score rises above 1.8 Upgrade to watchlist
Pang family reduces related-party transactions Positive signal
Oil price drops below $50/bbl sustained Remove from all lists
Additional dilutive equity raises Increase rejection conviction

Appendix: Company History and Restructuring Timeline

  • 2006: Incorporated in Singapore
  • 2013: Listed on SGX mainboard
  • 2014-2016: Oil price crash devastates offshore marine sector
  • 2017-2021: Years of losses, suspended trading, debt restructuring negotiations
  • September 2022: Debt Restructuring Plan completed:
    • 33 vessels transferred to ENAV Radiance Pte Ltd
    • ~US$343M in debt eliminated via forgiveness, schemes of arrangement
    • New shares issued to noteholders, creditors, management
    • Perpetual securities of S$3M issued
    • Shareholder and Management warrants issued
    • Trading resumed September 26, 2022
  • February 2024: Rights issue of 997M shares (tripling share count)
  • March 2024: Property loan fully settled (US$10.8M forgiven)
  • August 2024: Perpetual securities fully redeemed (enabling dividends)
  • 2024: Revenue growth to US$43.8M, vessel acquisitions resume
  • H1 2025: Revenue US$24.4M (+50% YoY), continued momentum

Analysis based on: FY2024 Annual Report (126 pages), FY2023 Annual Report (142 pages), FY2022 Annual Report (156 pages), FY2021 and FY2020 Annual Reports, FY2024 Condensed Financial Statements (34 pages), and public market data from stockanalysis.com.