Debates on Elephant Culling

Debates on Elephant Culling Ivy Terry The Controversy of Elephant Culling Press and media have pushed the idea that elephant populations are threatened, diminished by habitat loss, poaching and a variety of other reasons. In the 1930s habitat loss and heavy ivory poaching had decreased South Africas elephant population from 3-5 million to around 500,000 (Harmse, Riana). Since then, through protection, laws and regulations the elephant population in South Africa has increased dramatically, to the point of overabundance. Due to the recent prosperity in the elephant population, measures to control their ecology is crucial to the health and wellbeing of the ecosystem, neighboring species, and the prevention of elephant-human conflict. In South Africas Kruger National Park, in particular, this wildlife management is a necessity in keeping a successfully thriving park. There have been many ways Kruger has pursued in solving the elephant population issue. Including birth control in females, birth control in males, relocation and the establishment of corridors, bu t the most popular in past years has been culling (Harmse, Riana). Culling is a controversial subject when it comes to management because it entails physically killing elephants in a population to reduce its size. So controversial in fact that it was outlawed in Kruger in 1995 but then recently reintroduced back as a management method, in smaller scale (Harmse, Riana). Kruger today has around 13,050 elephants and this population is growing exponentially (Role of Bull Elephant). With lack of predators and an abundance of artificial and natural watering holes, as well as other natural resources, there is no controlling the rate of population growth of these animals (Harmse, Riana). This growth is an imminent problem for the park as well as its surrounding areas. First of all, elephants move in herds, this means they have a substantial effect on landscape and tree cover in the environment. These herds are also constantly moving, covering and destroying vase amounts of land per day (Role of Bull Elephant). Kruger is 7,523 square miles, though this seems large, it is not enough space to support such a population of large mammals (Harmse, Riana). This issue of space contributes to greater and more frequent human-elephant conflict as well as the destruction of park boundary fences and more frequent crop raids (â€Å"Role of Bull Elephant†). There h ave been many other suggested and tested methods of elephant population control in Kruger but none have been proven to be as effective as annual culls. Contraceptives in male or female elephants prove to be expensive, invasive, time consuming and not always successful. Relocation resulted in elephants coming back through the park boundary as well as being massively expensive and dangerous for both parties. Finally, the introduction of corridors from park to park has shown to be too expensive and there is simply no land available to dedicate to this sort of expansion (Harmse, Riana). It is out of the ashes of these other methods of management that culling was reintroduced to Kruger. Currently 500 to 600 elephants are killed in Kruger each year in order to keep the population as close to 13,000 as possible (Elephants To Cull or Not to Cull That Is the Question). After these elephants are killed they are immediately removed and taken to processing locations to which all parts of the an imal are used; meat for food, bones for jewelry and tools, organs for medicine and medical research etc. (Harmse, Riana). Though culling is the most widely used form of elephant population management used in Kruger today it is also the most contested. Each year 950, 000 people visit Kruger and these visitors account for millions of dollars worth of income for the park annually (Harmse, Riana). Obviously any detriment to this tourism would be to the disadvantage of the park and elephant culling, even if hidden from the public, has proven to cause a drop in visitors (Harmse, Riana). Culling in the park is not only affecting tourism but the well being of the elephants as well. Elephants are one of the most sensitive mammals on the planet and one could only imagine the psychological damage that occurs to young after a culling. Typically, hunters go in and wipe out the elders of the herd, leaving the young (Harmse, Riana). This terribly disrupts the age structure of the population by removing the experience necessary to raise the elephant young. This has been known to cause said young to grow up as rogue ele phants, removing themselves from the herd, wreaking havoc on the park and neighboring areas (â€Å"Elephants To Cull or Not to Cull That Is the Question†). These elephants have to be killed due to them posing such a significant threat to humans. Apart from being sensitive, elephants are intelligent creatures. They have been known to communicate from herd to herd by using low frequency grunts very similar to how whales communicate. Therefore, if elephants are culled in one area others know about it, this aggravates them and they can get very frightened, leading to panic and further damage to the environment and danger to humans (Elephants To Cull or Not to Cull That Is the Question). Another major concern with culling in elephant populations is the fact that professional hunters are not always used. This is a considerable issue. These kills needs to be clean and fast, injured elephants are very dangerous, and their cries cause more stress to the remaining herd and can provoke permanent psychological damage on the young. Quick removal of the bodies is also very important due to the fact that remaining elephants often will go back to see their dead companions and this puts even more stress on the animal (Elephants To Cull or Not to Cull That Is the Question). Finally, elephants have a keen sense of smell. So much so that they can smell elephants that have been in distress, blood on the ground, and other signs of death. Elephants are warded off by these smells and will no longer range in areas where a cull has taken place, even years after the event. This can pose problems if the area had been a migratory route for the herd. The elephants would have to take alternate routes to avoid the area, potentially bringing them into contact with farms and villages as well as the possibility of them never finding their traditional feeding grounds, leading to starvation (Elephants To Cull or Not to Cull That Is the Question). The culling of elephants as a management approach in Kruger National Park is a widely debated topic. Personally I believe that the culling of elephants in Kruger or in any other location should be outlawed. I am not necessarily against culling all together but with such a sensitive animal as the elephant it is not appropriate. There are other circumstances in which culling may prove useful and not be of such detriment to the species. Authoritize in the United Kingdom, for example, have recently started regulated culling of badgers. The massive local badger population has been thought to spread tuberculosis to neighboring cow herds. In response, two major culls have taken place, these culls have proven to lower the tuberculosis in herds without having any detriment to the age structure, mental health or the badger populations overall well being (Second Year of Badger Culling Begins). For this reason it is of the utmost importance that before any sort of culling occurs a thorough analy sis of family structure, age structure, mental health and behaviors is looked into on an species to species basis. From there, other strategies can be weighed based on population size and situation. Culling is a viable option for population management but on a situational basis and in terms of the elephant it is inappropriate. Work Cited Elephant Population Management. Kruger Park News. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov.  2014. Elephants To Cull or Not to Cull That Is the Question. Kruger Park Times. N.p.,  n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2014. Harmse, Riana. Elephant Population Management In Kruger. Olifants Reserve,  Kruger National Park, Limpopo, South Africa. Aug. 2014. Lecture. Role of Bull Elephant. Elephant Culling. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2014. Second Year of Badger Culling Begins. BBC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.

Dynamic and formal equivalence Essay

? Wikipedia: Translation is the communication of the meaning of a source-language text by means of an equivalent target-language text. ? General Oxford Dictionary: Translation n 1 the act or an instance of translating. 2 a written or spoken expression of the meaning of a word, speech, book, etc. in another language. ? Dictionary of Translation Studies: Translation: An incredibly broad notion which can be understood in many different ways. For example, one may talk of translation as a process or a product, and identify sub-types as literary translation, technical translation, subtitling and machine translation; moreover, while more typically it just refers to the transfer of written texts, the term sometimes also includes interpreting. ? Free Online Dictionary: trans ·la ·tion (tr[pic]ns-l[pic][pic]sh[pic]n) n. 1. a. The act or process of translating, especially from one language into another. b. The state of being translated. 2. A translated version of a text. ? Elook. org [noun] a written communication in a second language having the same meaning as the written communication in a first language. Synonyms: interlingual rendition, rendering, version In his seminal paper, ‘On Linguistic Aspects of Translation’ (Jakobson 1959/2000), the Russo-American linguist Roman Jakobson makes a very important distinction between three types of written translation: 1. Intralingual translation- translation within the same language, which can involve rewording or paraphrase. 2. Interlingual Translation- Translation from language to another, and 3. Intersemiotic Translation- Translation of the verbal sign by a non-verbal sign, e. g music or image. Only the second category, interlingual translation, is deemed ‘translation proper’ by Jackobson. Theories of Translation Eugene A. Nida Discussions about theories of translation are too often concerned with distinctions between literary and nonliterary texts, between prose and poetry, or between technical articles on physics and run-of-the-mill commercial correspondence. But in order to understand the nature of translation, the focus should not be on different types of discourse but on the processes and procedures involved in any and all kinds of interlingual communication (Bell, 1987). Furthermore, a theory of interlingual communication should not be restricted to discussions between translating and interpreting (whether consecutive or simultaneous), since interpreting differs from translating primarily because of the pressures of time and exigencies of the setting. Some professional translators take considerable pride in denying that they have any theory of translation — they just translate. In reality, however, all persons engaged in the complex task of translating possess some type of underlying or covert theory, even though it may be still very embryonic and described only as just being â€Å"faithful to what the author was trying to say. † Instead of no theories of translation, there are a multiplicity of such theories, even though they are seldomly stated in terms of a full-blown theory of why, when, and how to translate. One of the reasons for so many different views about translating is that interlingual communication has been going on since the dawn of human history. As early as the third millenium BC, bilingual lists of words — evidently for the use of translators — were being made in Mesopotamia, and today translating and interpreting are going on in more than a thousand languages — in fact, wherever there are bilinguals. One of the paradoxes of interlingual communication is that it is both amazingly complex (regarded by LA. Richards (1953) as â€Å"probably the most complex type of event yet produced in the evolution of the cosmos†) and also completely natural (Harris and Sherwood, 1978). Interpreting is often done by children with amazingly fine results, especially before they have gone to school and have learned something about nouns, verbs, and adjectives. One reason for the great variety of translation theories and subtheories is the fact that the processes of translating can be viewed from so many different perspectives: stylistics, author’s intent, diversity of languages, differences of corresponding cultures, problems of interpersonal communication, changes in literary fashion, distinct kinds of content (e.g. mathematical theory and lyric poetry), and the circumstances in which translations are to be used, e. g. read in the tranquil setting of one’s own living room, acted on the theatre stage, or blared from a loudspeaker to a restless mob. The wide range of theories and the great diversity of problems in translation have been treated by a number of persons interested in translation theory and practice, e. g. Guttinger (1963), Vazquez Ayora (1977), and Wilss (1988). A theory should be a coherent and integrated set of propositions used as principles for explaining a class of phenomena. But a fully satisfactory theory of translating should be more than a list of rules-of-thumb by which translators have generally succeeded in reproducing reasonably adequate renderings of source texts. A satisfactory theory should help in the recognition of elements which have not been recognized before, as in the case of black holes in astrophysics. A theory should also provide a measure of predictability about the degree of success to be expected from the use of certain principles, given the particular expectations of an audience, the nature of the content, the amount of information carried by the form of the discourse, and the circumstances of use. Despite a number of important treatments of the basic principles and procedures of translation, no full-scale theory of translation now exists. In fact, it is anomalous to speak of â€Å"theories of translation,† since all that has been accomplished thus far are important series of insightful perspectives on this complex undertaking. The basic reason for this lack of adequate theoretical treatments is that translating is essentially a technology which is dependent upon a number of disciplines: linguistics, cultural anthropology, psychology, communication theory, and neurophysiology. We really know so little about what makes translators tick. But tick they must — and increasingly so in a shrinking multilingual world. Instead of speaking of theories of translation, we should perhaps speak more about various approaches to the task of translating, different orientations which provide helpful insight, and diverse ways of talking about how a message can be transferred from one language to another. The different ways in which people go about the task of interlingual communication can perhaps be best described in terms of different perspectives: (1) the source text, including its production, transmission, and history of interpretation, (2) the languages involved in restructuring the source-language message into the receptor (or target) language, (3) the communication events which constitute the setting of the source message and the translated text, and (4) the variety of codes involved in the respective communication events. These four different perspectives could be regarded as essentially philological, linguistic, communicative, and sociosemiotic. These four major perspectives on the problems of interlingual communication should not, however, be regarded as competitive or antagonistic, but as complementary and supplementary. They do not invalidate one another but result in a broader understanding of the nature of translating. They do, nevertheless, reflect an interesting historical development as the focus of attention has shifted from emphasis on the starting point, namely, the source text, to the manner in which a text is understood by those who receive and interpret it. Such a development is quite natural in view of the fact that all communication is goal oriented and moves from the source’s intention to the receptor’s interpretation. The philological perspective The philological perspective on translation in the Western World goes back ultimately to some of the seminal observations by such persons as Cicero, Horace, Augustine, and Jerome, whose principal concerns were the correct rendering of Greek texts into Latin. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Europe the philological orientation in translating focused on the issue of â€Å"faithfulness,† usually bound closely to the history of interpretation of the text, something which was especially crucial in the case of Bible translations. For the most part, arguments about the adequacy of translations dealt with the degree of freedom which could or should be allowed, and scholars discussed heatedly whether a translator should bring the reader to the text or bring the text to the reader. Some of the most important early contributions to the philological aspects of translation were made by Luther (1530), Etienne Dolet (1540), Cowley (1656), Dryden (1680), and Pope (1715), but Luther’s influence was probably the greatest in view of his having directly and indirectly influenced so many Bible translations first in Western Europe and later in other parts of the world. This philological perspective is still very much alive, as witnessed by the important contributions of such persons as Cary and Jumpelt (1963), George Steiner (1975), and John Felstiner (1980). Felstiner’s book on Translating Neruda is a particularly valuable contribution to the problem of translating lyric poetry. And the numerous articles in Translation Review, published by the University of Texas at Dallas on behalf of the American Literary Translators Association, represent very well this philological perspective. It is amazing, however, that avowedly philological approaches to translating can result in such radically different results. Those who set their priorities on preserving the literary form produce the kinds of translations which one finds in the text of 2 Corinthians 10. 14-16 in the New American Standard Version of the Bible: For we are not overextending ourselves, as if we did not reach to you, for we were the first to come even as far as you in the gospel of Christ; not boasting beyond our measure, that is, in other men’s labors, but with the hope that as your faith grows, we shall be, within our sphere, enlarged even more by you, so as to preach the gospel even to the regions beyond you, and not to boast in what has been accomplished in the sphere of another. The Greek of this passage is not stylistically bad, but this English butchering of it is hacking at its worst. Many translators have, however, succeeded brilliantly in combining sensitivity to style with faithfulness to content, perhaps represented most strikingly in the rendering of the plays of Aristophanes by Benjamin B. Rogers in the Loeb series (1924). The Clouds is an especially difficult text to translate adequately, since it combines sublime lyrical passages, sharp barbs against philosophy, satirical treatment of Greek education, and ribald humor, which must have kept the crowds roaring with laughter. Rogers makes the text come alive with frequent shifts in meter to match the mood, clever plays on the meanings of words, and particularly adroit handling of dialogue, even to the point of toning down the scatological comments to match the Victorian tastes of his readers. A number of the essential features and limitations of the philological perspective on translating literary works are helpfully described and discussed by Paz (1971) and by Mounin (1963). Octavio Paz has the special gift of being able to discuss issues of literary translation with the touch of a literary artist, which indeed he is. And Georges Mounin has a way of delineating diverse opinions and judgments so as perform an elegant balancing act. Those who have followed primarily a philological orientation toward translating have increasingly recognized that other factors must be given greater attention. In the volume On Translation, edited by Brower (1959), and in the volume Translation: Literary, Linguistic, and Philosophical Perspectives, edited by Frawley (1984), these broader factors of linguistic and cultural matters are introduced and point the way to a more satisfactory approach to some of the crucial problems confronted by translators. The linguistic perspective Since translating always involves at least two different languages, it was inevitable that a number of persons studying the issues of translation would focus upon the distinctive features of the source and receptor languages. Important studies of diverse linguistic structures by such persons as Sapir, Bloomfield, Trubetskoy, and Jakobson laid the foundation for a systematic study of the functions of language. Then the analysis of languages outside of the Semitic and IndoEuropean families by linguist-anthropologists provided the creative stimulus for seeing interlingual relations in new and creative ways. Chomsky (1965, 1972) and his colleagues added a dynamic dimension to language structure through the use of transformations. All this led to the publication of a number of books on translating which have focused primary attention on the correspondences in language structures. Some of the most important of these books were by Vinay and Darbelnet (1958), Nida (1964), Catford (1965), Tatilon (1986), Larson (1984) and Malone (1988). Except for Malone’s volume, most books dealing with the linguistic aspects of translating have been essentially aimed at meaningful relations rather than purely formal ones. This is particularly true of the approach of Nida and of Larson. But Malone’s volume employs a transformational orientation for a number of formal and semantic processes, including equation, substitution, divergence, convergence, amplification, reduction, diffusion, and condensation. This focus on processes is very productive, but greater attention needs to be paid to the pragmatic features of the original message and to the circumstances regarding the use of a translation. Developments in transformational-generative grammar, with its Boolean rewrite rules and seemingly precise formulas for embedding, gave machine translating a great methodological boost, but this was not adequate to fulfill the expectations aroused through early promotion by computer enthusiasts. The limited success of machine translating, since it requires so much preediting and postediting, has resulted in a shift of focus from purely linguistic methods to Artificial Intelligence as a possible source of fresh insights. But even with highly sophisticated techniques the resulting translations often sound very unnatural (Somers et al, 1988). Some important indirect contributions to a linguistic approach to translating have been made by a number of philosophers interested in linguistic analysis as a way of bringing philosophy down from the clouds of truth, beauty, and goodness to the realism of talking about the language of philosophical discussion. Some of the most influential of these philosophers have been Wittgenstein (1953), Cassirer (1953), Grice (1968), Quine (1953, 1959), and Ric? ur (1969). Many of their insights have been effectively discussed from the linguistic viewpoint by Wells (1954), Antal (1963), Leech (1970), and Moravcsik (1972). These developments provided an important stimulus for developing a less naive approach to epistemology in translation theory. It also encouraged greater interest in the ordinary uses of language in dialogue and helped to undermine false confidence in the reliability of natural language. A number of psychological insights about translating have been contributed by Ladmiral (1972), who has treated a variety of psychological factors which  influence the ways in which linguistic and cultural elements in communication are processed by the mind. And Lambert (1978) has distinguished two different types of bilingualism based on a speaker’s degree of integration of the respective language codes. This should prove very useful in understanding certain marked differences in the manner in which translators and interpreters perform. The communicative perspective The volume From One Language to Another (de Waard and Nida, 1986) reflects the importance of a number of basic elements in communication theory, namely, source, message, receptor, feedback, noise, setting, and medium. It also treats the processes of encoding and decoding of the original communication and compares these with the more complex series in the translation process. Linguists working in the field of sociolinguistics, e. g. Labov (1972), Hymes (1974), and Gumperz (1982), have made particularly important contributions to understanding principles of translating which focus upon various processes in communication. This relation between sociolinguistics and translation is a very natural one, since sociolinguists deal primarily with language as it is used by society in communicating. The different ways in which societies employ language in interpersonal relations are crucial for anyone concerned with translating. Any approach to translating based on communication theory must give considerable attention to the paralinguistic and extralinguistic features of oral and written messages. Such features as tone of voice, loudness, peculiarities of enunciation, gestures, stance, and eye contact are obviously important in oral communication, but many people fail to realize that analogous factors are also present in written communication, e. g.  style of type, format, quality of paper, and type of binding. For effective impact and appeal, form cannot be separated from content, since form itself carries so much meaning, although in Suzanne Langer’s sense of â€Å"presentational† rather than â€Å"discoursive† truth (1951). This joining of form and content has inevitably led to more serious attention being given to the major functions of language, e. g. informative, expressive, cognitive, imperative, performative, emotive, and interpersonal, including the recognition that the information function is much less prominent than has been traditionally thought. In fact, information probably accounts for less that twenty percent of what goes on in the use of language. This emphasis upon the functions of language has also served to emphasize the importance of discourse structures, also spoken of as â€Å"rhetoric† and â€Å"poetics,† in which important help for translators has come through contributions by Jakobson (1960), Grimes (1972), and Traugott and Pratt (1980). This focus on discourse structures means that any judgment about the validity of a translation must be judged in terms of the extent to which the corresponding source and receptor texts adequately fulfill their respective functions. A minimal requirement for adequacy of a translation would be that the readers would be able to comprehend and appreciate how the original readers of the text understood and possibly responded to it. A maximal requirement for translational adequacy would mean that the readers of the translation would respond to the text both emotively and cognitively in a manner essentially similar to the ways in which the original readers responded. The minimal requirement would apply to texts which are so separated by cultural and linguistic differences as to make equivalent responses practically impossible, e. g. translations into English of West African healing incantations. A maximal requirement would apply to the translation of some of Heinrich Heine’s poems into English. Such requirements of equivalence point to the possibilities and limitations of translating various text types having diverse functions. Mounin (1963) treats this same issue as a matter of â€Å"translatability,† and Reiss (1972) has discussed the communicative aspects of translation by calling attention to the issue of functional equivalence. The sociosemiotic perspective. The central focus in a sociosemiotic perspective on translation is the multiplicity of codes involved in any act of verbal communication. Words never occur without some added paralinguistic or extralinguistic features. And when people listen to a speaker, they not only take in the verbal message, but on the basis of background information and various extralinguistic codes, they make judgments about a speaker’s sincerity, commitment to truth, breadth of learning, specialized knowledge, ethnic background, concern for other people, and personal attractiveness. In fact, the impact of the verbal message is largely dependent upon judgments based on these extralinguistic codes. Most people are completely unaware of such codes, but they are crucial for what people call their â€Å"gut feelings. â€Å"These types of codes are always present in one way or another, whether in oral or written communication, but there are certain other accompanying codes which are optional and to which the verbal message must adjust in varying ways, e. g. the action in a drama, the music of a song, and the multiple visual and auditory features of a multimedia essay. These optional codes often become the dominant factors in a translation, especially when lip synchronization is required in television films. The problem of multiple codes and their relation to the social setting of communication have been helpfully treated by a number of persons, e. g. Eco (1976), Krampen (1979), Merrell (1979), and Robinson (1985). The beginning of a sociosemiotic approach to translating has been undertaken by de Waard and Nida (1986) and by Toury (1980), but a good deal more must be done to understand the precise manner in which the language code relates to other behavioral codcs. In the first place, language must be viewed not as a cognitive construct, but as a shared set of habits using the voice to communicate. This set of habits has developed within society, is transmitted by society, and is learned within a social setting. This implies a clear shift away from abstract and reductionist approaches to language and toward the sociolinguistic contexts of performance in both encoding and decoding messages communicated by multiple codes. This also means that in both encoding and decoding there is a dialogic engagement between source and receptors, both in anticipatory feedback (anticipating how receptors will react) and in actual feedback through verbal and nonverbal codes. In the second place, language must also be viewed as potentially and actually idiosyncratic and sociosyncratic, in the sense that people may create new types of expressions, may construct new literary forms, and may attach new significance to older forms of expression. Discourse, in fact, becomes as much a matter of fashion as any other element of communication, and outstanding communicators can set new standards and initiate new trends.  The advantages of a sociosemiotic approach to translating are to be found in (1) employing a realistic epistemology which can speak relevantly about the real world of everyday experience, since its basis is a triadic relation between sign, referent, and interpretant (the process of interpretation based on the system of signs  and on the dialogic function of society), (2) Being at the cutting edge of verbal creativity, rather than being bound by reductionist requirements which depend on ideal speaker-hearers, who never exist, (3) recognizing the plasticity of language, the fuzzy boundaries of usage, and the ultimate indeterminacy of meaning, which makes language such a frustrating and subtly elegant vehicle for dialogue, and (4) being essentially interdisciplinary in view of the multiplicity of codes. The full implications of sociosemiotic theories and their relation to translation are only now emerging, but they have the potential for developing highly significant insights and numerous practical procedures for more meaningful and acceptable results.

Only the Strong Survive

January 17, 2013 Industry Report Shipbuilding (Neutral) Only the strong survive Offshore orders to drive growth The shipbuilding industry is in a situation similar to that of 2002. In 2013, plunging order volume and weak new building prices are fueling intensifying competition. In 2002, shipbuilding shares rose because of an increase in orders, but then quickly fell on concerns over weak new building prices, which caused earnings to stagnate. For a period in 2002, shipbuilders went into red. There is a big difference between the shipbuilding market of 2002 and 2013, however.In 2013, a few, major shipbuilders with an edge in the construction of offshore plants are expanding order backlogs due to growing demand for offshore plants. We anticipate investments in offshore E&P projects will continue to rise, as we expect oil prices will remain high. We anticipate major shipbuilders will offset sluggishness in the commercial vessels market with their offshore-plant businesses. Daewoo Securi ties Co. , Ltd. Ki-jong Sung +822-768-3263 kijong. [email  protected] com Ryan Kang +822-768-3065 ryan. [email  protected] om Three major catalysts in 2013 1) Increase in new orders despite depressed market conditions. 2) Improved cash flow and balance sheets. 3) Growing competitive gap between shipbuilders due to accelerated restructuring. Historic low P/B presents attractive valuations We expect Korean shipbuilders will be able to maintain their competitive edge regardless of the depressed shipbuilding market. Although shipbuilding shares currently trade at a P/B of 1. 0x, we believe they have the potential trade at a P/B of 1. 2x.We recommend Hyundai Heavy Industries (009540 KS/Buy/TP: W280,000), and Samsung Heavy Industries (010140 KS/Buy/TP: W46,200) out of the large shipbuilders. We find Hyundai Mipo Dockyard (010620 KS/Buy/TP: W148,000) to be the best among shipbuilders that focus on mid-to-small vessels. We raise our target price on Samsung Heavy Industries by 5% to W46, 200 to reflect its stable earnings and solid order flow; however, we downgrade our rating of Hanjin Heavy I&C (097230 KS/Hold) from Trading Buy to Hold. Three major domestic shipbuildersE cash flow and share performance (Wbn) 10,000 Avg. ash flow of major shipbuilders (L) Avg. share price of major shipbuilders (R) (1/31/2005=100) 1,000 6,000 800 600 2,000 400 -2,000 200 -6,000 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13F 13 14 14F 0 Source: KDB Daewoo Securities Research Analysts who prepared this report are registered as research analysts in Korea but not in any other jurisdiction, including the U. S. January 17, 2013 Shipbuilding Figure 1. New orders and newbuilding price for commercial vessels (mnCGT) 100 New orders (L) Newbuilding price (R) 80 180 160 60 140 40 120 20 100 80 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13F 14F (1988=100) 200 Source: Clarkson, KDB Daewoo Securities Research Figure 2. Three major domestic shipbuildersE order trend and forecast (Wbn) 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13F Shipbuilding Non-shipbuilding Source: Company data, KDB Daewoo Securities Research Figure 3. KOSPI and shipbuilding stock index trend (1/1999=100) 1,000 KOSPI Shipbuilding stock index 800 600 400 200 0 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13F 13 14F 14 Source: KDB Daewoo Securities ResearchKDB Daewoo Securities Research 2 January 17, 2013 Shipbuilding Three major catalysts in 2013 1. New orders for major Korean shipbuilders to increase sharply In 2013, we expect major Korean shipbuilders will see sharp increases in new orders. Despite intensifying competition, these companies have demonstrated competitive advantages in the construction of large commercial vessels and offshore plants. We expect demand for LNG carriers will remain sound, and anticipate orders for mega-containerships will also increase.We expect the latter to be driven by small- and mid-sized shipping companies improving their competitiveness through greater efficiency. We also expect shipbuilders will be forced to take new orders at lower-than-normal prices because of the dearth of order backlogs for commercial vessels. We forecast the number of bids and orders for large offshore-plant construction projects to increase for each company in 2013. In particular, we expect orders for certain high-priced vessels, including FPSO and LNG FPSO, to increase. 2.Improved cashflow and balance sheets Since 2009, shipbuilders have taken out more loans for more orders as the proportion of heavy-tail payments (characterized by small advance payments) has increased. On a positive note, however, we expect shipbuilder loans to decrease (thus improving cashflow) as these contracts are paid off toward late 2013. We believe share prices will improve (despite concerns about lower-priced orders) thanks to increasing orders, and improved cashflow. Share prices for shipbuilders will be influenced by cashflow.Despite intensifying market competition, we anticipa te Hyundai Mipo Dockyard will take an increasing amount of orders, even though some will be lower-priced. 3. Second phase of restructuring to further consolidate industry We anticipate the shipbuilding market will remain weak due to the global economic downturn, and the tightening of ship financing. We project the current, still-surviving shipbuilding companies will aggressively seek new orders to strengthen backlogs. We believe the winners of this second phase of restructuring will benefit significantly when the market recovers.Amid the current drop in vessel construction, the percentage of bulk carriers and tankers (out of total orders) has decreased significantly, while the percentage of megacontainerships and LNG carriers has increased. We expect these trends will continue in 2013. We also anticipate major Korean shipbuilders will be able to develop new types of vessels boasting improved efficiency, which will strengthen these companiesE competitiveness. Risk factors Earnings at shipbuilders will not recover easily, due to orders at lower-than-normal prices and won appreciation. In order to secure backlogs, hipbuilders will need to take low price orders. Another risk factor is won appreciation, but at current levels, we believe risks are limited, thanks to Korean shipbuildersE technological edge, and dollar denominated payment for raw materials, which accounts for 40% of total raw material purchase. KDB Daewoo Securities Research 3 January 17, 2013 Shipbuilding Figure 4. Three major domestic shipbuildersE cash flow and share performance (Wbn) 10,000 Avg. cash flow of major shipbuilders (L) Avg. share price of major shipbuilders (R) (1/31/2005=100) 1,000 6,000 800 600 2,000 400 -2,000 00 -6,000 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13F 13 14 14F 0 Source: Company data, KDB Daewoo Securities Research Figure 5. Korean and Chinese shipbuildersE restructuring (No. of shipuilders) 200 Korea China 160 197 120 -88. 3% 80 40 24 23 -66. 7% 8 0 2008 2012 Source: Clarkson, press re lease, KDB Daewoo Securities Research Figure 6. Comparison of currency rates (10/2/2012=100) 105 US$/W JPY100/W EUR/W RMB/W 100 95 90 85 80 10/12 11/12 12/12 1/13 Source: KOSTAT, KDB Daewoo Securities Research KDB Daewoo Securities Research 4 January 17, 2013 Shipbuilding Investment strategy & valuationWe believe the P/B of KoreaEs top 3 shipbuilders, which is trading at around 1. 0x, should rebound to 1. 2x, a level seen historically as the low, thanks to the aforementioned three major catalysts. In addition, the ROE of shipbuildersE is projected to improve to 19%. And as most new orders are expected in 1H, shares are likely to show strong performance in the same period. The relative share performance of global shipbuilders has changed. Thanks to the rising proportion of offshore orders, Korean shipbuilders and Hyundai Mipo Dockyard are now grouped together with Keppl Corp. nd Sembcorp Marine (Singapore companies specialized in offshore plant). In light of the ongoing eurozone cris is and unstable global economy, shipbuilding shares are expected to trade between a P/B of 1. 0x~1. 3x. Although we believe the shares have bottomed, we do not expect a long term recovery until new building prices rebound in earnest. We suggest accumulating the shares near a P/B of 1. 0x. Shipbuilding shares will likely begin to recover full-swing from 2014, when the market starts to turnaround, along with increased orders for commercial vessels, improved cashflow, and earnings recovery.Figure 7. Major shipbuildersE ROE, P/B trends (Market cap, Wtr) 4. 0x (%) 50 3. 0x 40 90 60 2. 0x 30 20 30 1. 0x 10 0 05 07 09 11 13 13F 0 Source: Bloomberg, KDB Daewoo Securities Research Figure 8. Relative share performances of major shipbuilders (-1Y=100) 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 1/12 2/12 3/12 4/12 5/12 6/12 7/12 8/12 9/12 10/12 11/12 12/12 1/13 HHI DSME HMD Guangzhou Shipyard Keppel Corp. SHI STX Offshore & Shipbuilding Rongsheng Heavy Sembcorp Marine Source: Bloomberg, KDB Daewoo Sec urities Research KDB Daewoo Securities Research 5 January 17, 2013 Shipbuilding Figure 9.New order trends (US$bn) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 HHI SHI HMD Figure 10. Order backlog trends (US$bn) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 07 08 09 10 11 12 HHI SHI HMD Source: Company Data, KDB Daewoo Securities Research Source: Company Data, KDB Daewoo Securities Research Figure 11. Sales breakdown by business unit (Wtr) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 HHI 11 10 SHI 11 Construction Other Refinery Finance Green energy Electro electric systems Construction equipment Engine & machinery Industrial plant & engineering Offshore & engineering Shipbuilding Figure 12. Hyundai Heavy IndustriesE P/B trend Market cap,Wbn) 42,000 35,000 28,000 21,000 14,000 7,000 0 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13F 13 3. 0x 2. 5x 2. 0x 1. 5x 1. 0x Source: Company Data, KDB Daewoo Securities Research Source: KDB Daewoo Securities Research Figure 13. Samsung Heavy IndustriesE P/B trend (Market cap,Wbn) 14,000 12,00 0 10,000 8,000 1. 0x 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 13F 2. 0x 6. 0x 4. 0x Figure 14. Hyundai Mipo DockyardEs P/B trend (Market cap,Wbn) 10,000 2. 5x 8,000 1. 5x 6,000 2. 0x 1. 5x 4,000 1. 0x 2,000 0. 5x 0 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 13F Source: KDB Daewoo Securities ResearchSource: KDB Daewoo Securities Research KDB Daewoo Securities Research 6 January 17, 2013 Shipbuilding Figure 15. Global new orders by vessel type (mnCGT) 25 LPG carrier LNG carrier Containership 20 Bulker Tanker 15 Figure 16. Newbuilding prices by vessel type (US$'000/TEU) 30 Containership (L) Tanker (R) Gas carrier (R) Bulker (R) (US$'000/DWT) 3 20 2 10 10 5 1 0 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 0 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12F 12 13F 13 0 Source: Clarkson, KDB Daewoo Securities Research Source: Clarkson, KDB Daewoo Securities Research Figure 17. ROE-P/B comparison (P/B ,x) 3. 0 Figure 18.EPS growth-P/E comparison (P/E, x) 20 Keppel 2. 0 Sembcorp Mitsubishi HHI 1. 0 Guangzho u Sumitomo Mitsui (ROE, %) 0. 0 0 5 10 15 20 HMD S HI 15 Keppel 10 S HI Sumitomo Sembcorp HHI 5 (EPS growth, %) 0 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 Source: Bloomberg, KDB Daewoo Securities Research Source: Bloomberg, KDB Daewoo Securities Research Figure 19. Global shipbuildersE share performances (-1Y=100) 160 HHI Mitsui SHI Guangzhou HMD Sembcorp CSSC Keppel Figure 20. KOSPI and shipbuilding stock index (index) 8,000 Shipbuilding stock index KOSPI 140 6,000 120 4,000 100 2,000 80 60 1/12 3/12 5/12 7/12 9/12 11/12 1/13 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 Source: Thomson Reuters, KDB Daewoo Securities Research Source: KDB Daewoo Securities Research KDB Daewoo Securities Research 7 January 17, 2013 Shipbuilding Hyundai Heavy Industries (009540 KS) Buy (Maintain) Target Price (12M, W) 280,000 Share Price (01/16/13, W) 227,500 Expected Return (%) 23. 1 EPS Growth (13F, %) 17. 6 Market EPS Growth (13F, %) 19. 1 P/E (13F, x) 8. 5 Market P/E (13F, x) 9. 0 KOSPI 1,977. 45 Market Cap (Wbn) 17,290 Shares Ou tstanding (mn) 76 Avg Trading Volume (60D, ‘000) 229 Avg Trading Value (60D, Wbn) 51 Dividend Yield (13F, %) 1. Free Float (%) 59. 3 52-Week Low (W) 193,500 52-Week High (W) 346,500 Beta (12M, Daily Rate of Return) 1. 46 Price Return Volatility (12M Daily, %, SD) 2. 1 Foreign Ownership (%) 19. 6 Major Shareholder(s) Mong-Jun Jung et al. (21. 31%) Treasury shares (19. 36%) NPS (5. 08%) Price Performance (%) 1M 6M 12M Absolute -1. 7 -3. 8 -20. 7 Relative -0. 9 -12. 6 -27. 1 One step back for two steps forward ? ? ? Targeting orders of US$29. 7bn and revenues of W26. 9tr (non-consolidated) in 2013 Implemented a self-rescue plan for the first time in 40 years. Maintain Buy with TP of W280,000Maintain Buy with TP of W280,000 We maintain our Buy call on Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) with a target price of W280,000. HHI displayed weak share performance due to poor earnings and orders in 2012. However, we expect the company to record robust orders in 2013, boosted by a pickup in the offshore/onshore plant market. The companyEs earnings are anticipated to turn around in 2H13, while its cash flow should improve on massive orders and an increase in heavy-tail payments. HHIEs shares are trading at a 2013F P/E of 8. 5x and a P/B of 1. 0x, the lowest levels in the companyEs peer group.This tepid performance signals that weak 2012 orders and earnings results have been fully reflected. However, HHI has strong investment merits in 2013, as it is projected to win massive orders. Investment summary 1) The company exhibited poor orders across all business units last year, posting disappointing earnings results. In 2013, however, the company will be able to achieve its order target of US$29. 7bn in light of its strong determination to revamp its business structure. 2) The company is anticipated to receive massive offshore/onshore plant orders.In particular, the company will likely win orders for the Egina project (US$2. 5bn) and the Brass LNG project (US$3. 5bn) in 1Q. In a ddition, HHI is expected to bid for additional projects worth US$1-4bn; indeed, we believe the company will be aggressive in its order-taking efforts. 3) Orders for merchant ships, including mega containerships, LNG carriers, and LNG FSRU, will likely increase markedly in light of their superior competitiveness. 4) Exports of construction equipment and ultra-high voltage transformers should also increase on recoveries in the US and Chinese economies. ) The company has recently implemented a self-rescue plan for the first time in 40 years. While the number of applications for HHIEs early retirement plan (pushed through at end-2012) missed expectations, the company has subsequently carried out structural reform measures. We expect the companyEs long-term restructuring efforts to positively affect earnings going forward. Share price 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 1/12 5/12 9/12 1/13 KOSPI Earnings & Valuation Metrics FY 12/10 12/11 12/12F 12/13F 12/14F Revenue (Wbn) 37,342 53,712 54,741 5 8,433 63,025 OP OP Margin (Wbn) (%) 5,532 14. 8 4,536 8. 4 2,485 4. 5 3,331 5. 7 3,782 6. NP (Wbn) 4,154 2,559 1,729 2,033 2,449 EPS EBITDA FCF ROE P/E (Won) (Wbn) (Wbn) (%) (x) 54,652 6,326 88 34. 5 8. 1 33,671 5,473 -504 16. 7 7. 6 22,750 3,469 -2,260 10. 2 10. 6 26,750 4,320 2,005 11. 1 8. 5 32,218 4,768 2,297 12. 2 7. 1 P/B (x) 2. 5 1. 3 1. 1 1. 0 0. 9 EV/EBITDA (x) 6. 5 5. 3 8. 5 6. 2 5. 2 Notes: All figures are based on consolidated K-IFRS; NP refers to net profit attributable to controlling interests Source: Company data, KDB Daewoo Securities Research estimates Daewoo Securities Research 8 January 17, 2013 Shipbuilding Hyundai Heavy Industries (009540 KS/Buy/TP: W280,000) Comprehensive Income Statement (Summarized) Wbn) Revenues Cost of Sales Gross Profit SG Expenses Operating Profit (Adj) Operating Profit Non-Operating Profit Net Financial Income Net Gain from Inv in Associates Pretax Profit Income Tax Profit from Continuing Operations Profit from Discontinued Operations Ne t Profit Controlling Interests Non-Controlling Interests Total Comprehensive Profit Controlling Interests Non-Controlling Interests EBITDA FCF (Free Cash Flow) EBITDA Margin (%) Operating Profit Margin (%) Net Profit Margin (%) 12/11 53,712 46,784 6,927 2,392 4,536 4,536 -659 52 -148 3,876 1,133 2,743 0 2,743 2,559 184 2,617 2,498 118 5,473 -504 10. 8. 4 4. 8 12/12F 54,741 49,759 4,981 2,496 2,485 2,485 110 233 -240 2,595 766 1,829 0 1,829 1,729 100 1,568 1,458 110 3,469 -2,260 6. 3 4. 5 3. 2 12/13F 58,433 52,473 5,960 2,630 3,331 3,331 -448 248 -200 2,882 749 2,133 0 2,133 2,033 100 1,872 1,762 110 4,320 2,005 7. 4 5. 7 3. 5 12/14F 63,025 56,408 6,618 2,836 3,782 3,782 -338 188 -150 3,444 895 2,549 0 2,549 2,449 100 2,288 2,178 110 4,768 2,297 7. 6 6. 0 3. 9 Statement of Financial Condition (Summarized) Wbn) Current Assets Cash and Cash Equivalents AR & Other Receivables Inventories Other Current Assets Non-Current Assets Investments in Associates Property, Plant and Equipment Inta ngible Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities AP & Other Payables Short-Term Financial Liabilities Other Current Liabilities Non-Current Liabilities Long-Term Financial Liabilities Other Non-Current Liabilities Total Liabilities Controlling Interests Capital Stock Capital Surplus Retained Earnings Non-Controlling Interests Stockholders' Equity 12/11 23,076 1,610 9,525 6,478 2,359 25,924 973 15,565 2,324 49,001 25,491 14,339 8,903 2,249 5,334 3,224 1,954 30,824 16,379 380 1,100 15,399 1,797 18,177 12/12F 25,628 1,888 10,237 6,897 2,737 24,553 916 15,706 2,290 50,181 23,183 11,605 9,060 2,518 7,460 5,550 1,755 30,643 17,624 380 1,100 16,894 1,915 19,538 12/13F 28,538 3,517 10,927 7,304 2,922 24,365 716 15,703 2,264 52,903 24,136 12,388 9,060 2,688 7,602 5,550 1,896 31,737 19,141 380 1,100 18,682 2,025 21,166 12/14F 30,153 3,469 11,786 7,878 3,151 24,277 566 15,700 2,240 54,430 24,320 13,361 8,060 2,899 6,901 4,550 2,195 31,221 21,074 380 1,100 20,885 2,135 23,208 Cash Flows (Summariz ed) Wbn) Cash Flows from Op Activities Net Profit Non-Cash Income and Expense Depreciation Amortization Others Chg in Working Capital Chg in AR & Other Receivables Chg in Inventories Chg in AP & Other Payables Income Tax Paid Cash Flows from Inv Activities Chg in PP&E Chg in Intangible Assets Chg in Financial Assets Others Cash Flows from Fin Activities Chg in Financial Liabilities Chg in Equity Dividends Paid Others Increase (Decrease) in Cash Beginning Balance Ending Balance 12/11 276 2,743 3,078 853 85 -860 -4,072 -178 -1,442 -364 -1,474 -888 -1,583 -67 -34 796 347 1,206 0 -411 -448 -269 1,879 1,610 12/12F -1,972 1,829 1,907 899 85 107 -4,572 -512 -453 -3,197 -1,136 -544 -1,074 -60 406 184 2,806 3,484 0 -245 -444 278 1,610 1,888 12/13F 3,082 2,133 2,187 903 86 50 -489 -691 -407 783 -749 -770 -900 -60 0 190 -683 0 0 -245 -438 1,628 1,888 3,517 12/14F 3,345 2,549 2,220 903 84 50 -528 -859 -574 973 -895 -738 -900 -60 0 222 -2,654 -2,000 0 -245 -409 -48 3,517 3,469 Forecasts/Valuatio ns (Summarized)P/E (x) P/CF (x) P/B (x) EV/EBITDA (x) EPS (W) CFPS (W) BPS (W) DPS (W) Payout ratio (%) Dividend Yield (%) Revenue Growth (%) EBITDA Growth (%) Operating Profit Growth (%) EPS Growth (%) Accounts Receivable Turnover (x) Inventory Turnover (x) Accounts Payable Turnover (x) ROA (%) ROE (%) ROIC (%) Liability to Equity Ratio (%) Current Ratio (%) Net Debt to Equity Ratio (%) Interest Coverage Ratio (x) 12/11 12/12F 12/13F 12/14F 7. 6 10. 6 8. 5 7. 1 5. 6 6. 8 5. 7 5. 0 1. 3 1. 1 1. 0 0. 9 5. 3 8. 5 6. 2 5. 2 33,671 22,750 26,750 32,218 46,009 35,699 39,772 45,203 203,367 220,183 240,492 266,237 4,000 0 4,000 4,000 9. 6 0. 0 12. 1 10. 0 1. 6 0. 0 1. 8 1. 8 43. 8 1. 9 6. 7. 9 -13. 5 -36. 6 24. 5 10. 4 -18. 0 -45. 2 34. 0 13. 5 -38. 4 -32. 4 17. 6 20. 4 5. 9 6. 0 6. 1 6. 1 9. 3 8. 2 8. 2 8. 3 4. 1 4. 8 5. 7 5. 8 5. 7 3. 7 4. 1 4. 8 16. 7 10. 2 11. 1 12. 2 17. 3 7. 8 10. 0 11. 2 169. 6 156. 8 150. 0 134. 5 90. 5 110. 6 118. 2 124. 0 40. 8 45. 3 34. 1 22. 7 15. 7 6. 0 7. 6 9 . 2 Source: Company data, KDB Daewoo Securities Research estimates KDB Daewoo Securities Research 9 January 17, 2013 Shipbuilding Samsung Heavy Industries (010140 KS) Buy (Maintain) Target Price (12M, W) 46,200 Share Price (01/16/13, W) 37,850 Expected Return (%) 22. 1 EPS Growth (13F, %) 0. 6 Market EPS Growth (13F, %) 19. 1 P/E (13F, x) 9. Market P/E (13F, x) 9. 0 KOSPI 1,977. 45 Market Cap (Wbn) 8,739 Shares Outstanding (mn) 231 Avg Trading Volume (60D, ‘000) 938 Avg Trading Value (60D, Wbn) 34 Dividend Yield (13F, %) 0. 0 Free Float (%) 69. 5 52-Week Low (W) 31,650 52-Week High (W) 42,350 Beta (12M, Daily Rate of Return) 1. 57 Price Return Volatility (12M Daily, %, SD) 2. 3 Foreign Ownership (%) 32. 0 Major Shareholder(s) Samsung Electronics et al. (24. 42%) Treasury shares (6. 13%) Mirae Asset Global Investment (5. 05%) Price Performance (%) 1M 6M 12M Absolute -2. 7 4. 3 12. 3 Relative -1. 8 -4. 5 6. 0 Reliable again in 2013 ? ? ? 2013 orders and revenues forecast at US$1 4. 2bn and W14. tr Stable business operations and earnings to remain intact in 2013 Raise TP by 5% to W46,200; Maintain Buy Raise TP by 5% to W46,200; Maintain Buy We maintain our Buy call on Samsung Heavy Industries (SHI) and raise our target price 5% to W46,200. In deriving our target price, we applied a 5% premium to the companyEs lowest P/B level since 2005 (1. 3x). We believe that the 5% premium is undemanding, as the company is expected to win solid orders and display stable earnings in 2013. We expect SHI to win massive orders of US$14. 2bn despite the slump in the global shipbuilding market, driven by the robust offshore plant market and the companyEs superior competitiveness.SHIEs shares are trading at a 2013F P/E of 9. 4x and a P/B of 1. 3x. We think that SHI has strong investment merits in light of its competitive edge, stable earnings, robust growth potential, and cash flow improvement. Investment summary 1) Domestic institutions are most optimistic on SHI among the thre e largest domestic shipbuilders. SHI has proven its superior competitiveness in the offshore plant business, including FLNG and drillships. As such, the company has solid earnings relative to its competitors. 2) SHI is expanding into the subsea business, and we believe that the company will be able to bolster its competitiveness in the segment rapidly. ) The commercial vessel unit, which exhibited a tepid performance last year, is likely to recover in 2013 thanks to: 1) rising mega containership orders and 2) steady orders for LNG carriers and LNG FSRU. 4) SHI is expected to display the fastest cash flow improvement in its peer group this year, backed by: 1) a rise in orders for both offshore plants and commercial vessels and 2) an increase in heavy-tail payments. As such, the company will be able to repay its debt and strengthen its financial structure. 5) SHIEs earnings should gradually increase on rising revenue contributions from the offshore plant unit. Share price 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 1/12 5/12 9/12 1/13 KOSPI Earnings & Valuation Metrics FY 12/10 12/11 12/12F 12/13F 12/14F Revenue (Wbn) 13,146 13,392 14,875 14,980 15,751 OP OP Margin NP (Wbn) (%) (Wbn) 1,433 10. 1,000 1,160 8. 7 851 1,226 8. 2 929 1,198 8. 0 934 1,355 8. 6 1,015 EPS EBITDA FCF ROE (Won) (Wbn) (Wbn) (%) 4,330 1,504 598 28. 7 3,685 1,455 1,556 19. 4 4,021 1,551 282 18. 4 4,044 1,514 931 15. 8 4,396 1,667 978 14. 9 P/E (x) 9. 5 7. 6 9. 6 9. 4 8. 6 P/B (x) 2. 1 1. 2 1. 5 1. 3 1. 1 EV/EBITDA (x) 8. 2 5. 4 6. 1 5. 5 4. 5 Notes: All figures are based on consolidated K-IFRS; NP refers to net profit attributable to controlling interests Source: Company data, KDB Daewoo Securities Research estimates Daewoo Securities Research 10 January 17, 2013 Shipbuilding Samsung Heavy Industries (010140 KS/Buy/TP: W46,200) Comprehensive Income Statement (Summarized) Wbn) Revenues Cost of Sales Gross Profit SG Expenses Operating Profit (Adj) Operating Profit Non-Operating Profit Net Financial Income N et Gain from Inv in Associates Pretax Profit Income Tax Profit from Continuing Operations Profit from Discontinued Operations Net Profit Controlling Interests Non-Controlling Interests Total Comprehensive Profit Controlling Interests Non-Controlling Interests EBITDA FCF (Free Cash Flow) EBITDA Margin (%) Operating Profit Margin (%) Net Profit Margin (%) 12/11 13,392 11,628 1,763 681 1,083 1,160 -10 -25 -32 1,150 299 851 0 851 851 0 616 616 0 1,455 1,556 10. 9 8. 7 6. 4 12/12F 14,875 12,867 2,008 766 1,242 1,226 -30 -34 0 1,196 267 929 0 929 929 0 920 920 0 1,551 282 10. 4 8. 2 6. 2 12/13F 14,980 13,017 1,962 764 1,198 1,198 4 -44 0 1,202 268 934 0 934 934 0 925 925 0 1,514 931 10. 1 8. 0 6. 2 12/14F 15,751 13,594 2,158 803 1,355 1,355 -19 -51 0 1,336 321 1,015 0 1,015 1,015 0 1,006 1,006 0 1,667 978 10. 6 8. 6 6. 5 Statement of Financial Condition (Summarized) Wbn) Current Assets Cash and Cash Equivalents AR & Other Receivables Inventories Other Current Assets Non-Current Assets Inv estments in Associates Property, Plant and Equipment Intangible Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities AP & Other Payables Short-Term Financial Liabilities Other Current Liabilities Non-Current Liabilities Long-Term Financial Liabilities Other Non-Current Liabilities Total Liabilities Controlling Interests Capital Stock Capital Surplus Retained Earnings Non-Controlling Interests Stockholders' Equity 12/11 9,617 806 4,132 540 1,905 6,797 0 5,408 86 16,414 10,539 4,425 3,232 2,883 1,231 1,004 88 11,770 4,644 1,155 423 3,610 0 4,644 12/12F 9,112 1,115 3,793 550 1,711 6,316 5 5,434 38 15,428 7,758 3,882 1,570 2,306 2,213 1,881 138 9,971 5,457 1,155 423 4,430 0 5,457 12/13F 9,229 1,264 3,820 554 1,648 6,372 5 5,506 21 15,601 7,301 3,910 1,070 2,322 1,918 1,481 188 9,219 6,382 1,155 423 5,364 0 6,382 12/14F 9,720 1,445 4,017 583 1,733 6,439 5 5,573 13 16,159 7,223 4,111 670 2,442 1,656 1,081 271 8,878 7,280 1,155 423 6,272 0 7,281 Cash Flows (Summarized) Wbn) Cash Flows from Op Activitie s Net Profit Non-Cash Income and Expense Depreciation Amortization Others Chg in Working Capital Chg in AR & Other Receivables Chg in Inventories Chg in AP & Other Payables Income Tax Paid Cash Flows from Inv Activities Chg in PP&E Chg in Intangible Assets Chg in Financial Assets Others Cash Flows from Fin Activities Chg in Financial Liabilities Chg in Equity Dividends Paid Others Increase (Decrease) in Cash Beginning Balance Ending Balance 12/11 1,341 1,150 189 294 78 75 549 1,284 150 164 -548 332 -242 -1 309 265 -1,306 -1,090 1 -108 -109 359 447 806 12/12F 351 1,131 558 297 11 -268 -1,061 34 39 -541 -276 -274 -368 -1 3 92 240 416 1 -108 -68 309 806 1,115 12/13F 1,376 934 580 299 17 -50 130 -27 -4 27 -268 -310 -370 -1 0 61 -917 -900 0 -108 -17 149 1,115 1,264 12/14F 1,408 1,015 651 302 10 -50 62 -197 -29 201 -321 -307 -370 -1 0 64 -921 -800 0 -108 -13 181 1,264 1,445 Forecasts/Valuations (Summarized)P/E (x) P/CF (x) P/B (x) EV/EBITDA (x) EPS (W) CFPS (W) BPS (W) DPS (W) Payout rati o (%) Dividend Yield (%) Revenue Growth (%) EBITDA Growth (%) Operating Profit Growth (%) EPS Growth (%) Accounts Receivable Turnover (x) Inventory Turnover (x) Accounts Payable Turnover (x) ROA (%) ROE (%) ROIC (%) Liability to Equity Ratio (%) Current Ratio (%) Net Debt to Equity Ratio (%) Interest Coverage Ratio (x) 12/11 7. 6 5. 3 1. 2 5. 4 3,685 5,296 22,582 500 12. 7 1. 8 1. 9 -3. 3 -19. 0 -14. 9 2. 8 23. 3 3. 2 4. 8 19. 4 15. 5 253. 4 91. 3 25. 8 57. 5 12/12F 9. 6 7. 2 1. 5 6. 1 4,021 5,358 26,307 0 0. 0 0. 0 11. 1 6. 6 5. 7 9. 1 3. 8 27. 3 3. 7 5. 8 18. 4 18. 9 182. 7 117. 5 7. 2 57. 9 12/13F 9. 7. 0 1. 3 5. 5 4,044 5,410 30,381 0 11. 6 0. 0 0. 7 -2. 4 -2. 2 0. 6 4. 0 27. 1 4. 0 6. 0 15. 8 16. 9 144. 5 126. 4 -10. 3 69. 5 12/14F 8. 6 6. 6 1. 1 4. 5 4,396 5,747 34,309 0 0. 0 0. 0 5. 2 10. 1 13. 0 8. 7 4. 1 27. 7 4. 1 6. 4 14. 9 19. 1 121. 9 134. 6 -22. 5 106. 2 Source: Company data, KDB Daewoo Securities Research estimates KDB Daewoo Securities Research 11 January 17, 2013 Sh ipbuilding Hyundai Mipo Dockyard (010620 KS) Buy (Maintain) Target Price (12M, W) 148,000 Share Price (01/16/13, W) 125,000 Expected Return (%) 18. 4 EPS Growth (13F, %) 45. 2 Market EPS Growth (13F, %) 19. 1 P/E (13F, x) 13. 1 Market P/E (13F, x) 9. 0 KOSPI 1,977. 5 Market Cap (Wbn) 2,500 Shares Outstanding (mn) 20 Avg Trading Volume (60D, ‘000) 121 Avg Trading Value (60D, Wbn) 14 Dividend Yield (13F, %) 1. 6 Free Float (%) 51. 6 52-Week Low (W) 102,500 52-Week High (W) 167,000 Beta (12M, Daily Rate of Return) 1. 58 Price Return Volatility (12M Daily, %, SD) 2. 4 Foreign Ownership (%) 18. 1 Major Shareholder(s) Hyundai Samho Heavy Industries et al. (46. 4%) NPS (7. 38%) Price Performance (%) Absolute Relative Shining in the dark ? ? ? 2013 target: US$3. 2bn in orders and W3. 6tr in revenues Stands to benefit most from industry restructuring Maintain Buy and TP of W148,000 Maintain Buy and TP of W148,000We maintain our Buy recommendation on Hyundai Mipo Dockyard (HMD) and our target price of W148,000. We expect HMD to maintain stable growth in orders and earnings, despite the global economic slowdown and eurozone fiscal crisis. Indeed, among small- to mid-sized shipbuilders, HMD is the company most favored by shipowners. Amid an expected further slowdown in the shipbuilding market, the company is anticipated to display distinguished share performance in 2013. Given HMDEs cash holdings of W450bn and the value of its stake in Hyundai Heavy Industries (W1. 4tr; 8. 0% of outstanding shares), we believe that the companiesE shares are currently undervalued (trading at a 2013F P/E of 13. 1x and a P/B of 0. 9x). Investment points ) We believe HMD will continue to display outstanding performance among small- to mid-sized Korean shipbuilders in 2013. Even amid intensifying competition due to limited orders and low ship prices, the company is expected to enjoy stable orders, earnings, and cash flow this year. 2) HMDEs competitiveness comes from its productivity, fi nancing capability, and the quality of its products. It also boasts strong cost competitiveness as the company purchases raw materials at relatively lower prices from the Hyundai Heavy Industries Group. 3) In the small- to mid-sized merchant ship market, the product carrier (P/C) segment, in which HMD has the strongest competitive edge, is expected to be relatively robust in 2013. ) If the shipbuilding market remains in a slump for a protracted period of time, HMD should be able to widen its gap with its peers. The company stands to benefit most from a second industry restructuring that is expected to end sometime in 2014. 1M 2. 5 3. 3 6M 6. 4 -2. 4 12M 11. 6 5. 3 Share price 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 1/12 5/12 9/12 1/13 KOSPI Earnings & Valuation Metrics FY 12/10 12/11 12/12F 12/13F 12/14F Revenue OP OP Margin NP EPS EBITDA FCF ROE P/E (Wbn) (Wbn) (%) (Wbn) (Won) (Wbn) (Wbn) (%) (x) 4,138 683 16. 5 493 24,629 741 431 14. 7 9. 1 4,624 378 8. 2 200 9,992 441 -633 5. 5 11. 2 4 ,404 126 2. 9 131 6,556 192 -563 4. 3 19. 4 4,624 191 4. 1 190 9,518 256 397 6. 4 13. 1 4,855 230 4. 235 11,770 293 416 7. 4 10. 6 P/B EV/EBITDA (x) (x) 1. 2 4. 4 0. 8 4. 2 1. 0 13. 8 0. 9 8. 6 0. 8 6. 0 Notes: All figures are based on consolidated K-IFRS; NP refers to net profit attributable to controlling interests Source: Company data, KDB Daewoo Securities Research estimates Daewoo Securities Research 12 January 17, 2013 Shipbuilding Hyundai Mipo Dockyard (010620 KS/Buy/TP: W148,000) Comprehensive Income Statement (Summarized) (Wbn) Revenues Cost of Sales Gross Profit SG Expenses Operating Profit (Adj) Operating Profit Non-Operating Profit Net Financial Income Net Gain from Inv in Associates Pretax Profit Income Tax Profit from ContinuingOperations Profit from Discontinued Operations Net Profit Controlling Interests Non-Controlling Interests Total Comprehensive Profit Controlling Interests Non-Controlling Interests EBITDA FCF (Free Cash Flow) EBITDA Margin (%) Operating Profit M argin (%) Net Profit Margin (%) 12/11 4,624 3,975 649 272 378 378 -63 -24 0 315 112 202 0 202 200 3 -821 -823 2 441 -633 9. 5 8. 2 4. 3 12/12F 4,404 4,002 402 276 126 126 41 -8 -2 167 41 126 0 126 131 -5 -274 -265 -9 192 -563 4. 4 2. 9 3. 0 12/13F 4,624 4,143 481 290 191 191 52 -9 -2 243 58 185 0 185 190 -5 185 194 -9 256 397 5. 5 4. 1 4. 1 12/14F 4,855 4,321 534 304 230 230 73 -10 -2 303 73 230 0 230 235 -5 230 239 -9 293 416 6. 0 4. 7 4. 9 Statement of Financial Condition (Summarized) Wbn) Current Assets Cash and Cash Equivalents AR & Other Receivables Inventories Other Current Assets Non-Current Assets Investments in Associates Property, Plant and Equipment Intangible Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities AP & Other Payables Short-Term Financial Liabilities Other Current Liabilities Non-Current Liabilities Long-Term Financial Liabilities Other Non-Current Liabilities Total Liabilities Controlling Interests Capital Stock Capital Surplus Retained Earnings Non-Controlling Interest s Stockholders' Equity 12/11 4,134 564 975 283 427 3,691 34 889 340 7,825 3,914 1,774 1,779 361 502 56 420 4,416 3,217 100 91 2,081 191 3,409 12/12F 4,994 418 1,814 231 352 3,632 35 928 341 8,626 4,499 1,850 2,253 396 999 191 781 5,498 2,912 100 90 2,172 215 3,127 12/13F 4,919 468 1,568 243 462 3,675 33 964 344 8,593 4,274 1,905 1,953 416 1,046 141 878 5,320 3,067 100 90 2,323 206 3,273 12/14F 4,878 532 1,427 255 486 3,650 31 933 347 8,527 4,071 1,991 1,643 437 993 101 865 5,063 3,267 100 90 2,519 197 3,464 Cash Flows (Summarized) Wbn) Cash Flows from Op Activities Net Profit Non-Cash Income and Expense Depreciation Amortization Others Chg in Working Capital Chg in AR & Other Receivables Chg in Inventories Chg in AP & Other Payables Income Tax Paid Cash Flows from Inv Activities Chg in PP&E Chg in Intangible Assets Chg in Financial Assets Others Cash Flows from Fin Activities Chg in Financial Liabilities Chg in Equity Dividends Paid Others Increase (Decrease) in Cash Beginning Balan ce Ending Balance 12/11 -697 202 311 62 1 -213 -1,075 -190 -54 -593 -135 441 -100 -4 400 145 93 245 0 -93 -59 -168 732 564 12/12F -816 126 78 65 2 -12 -969 -220 52 66 -50 150 -112 -4 79 186 516 601 0 -39 -46 -146 564 418 12/13F 489 185 71 64 1 10 291 247 -12 56 -58 -47 -100 -4 0 57 -392 -350 0 -39 -2 50 418 468 12/14F 432 230 62 62 1 30 212 140 -12 86 -73 23 -30 -4 0 57 -391 -350 0 -39 -2 64 468 532 Forecasts/Valuations (Summarized)P/E (x) P/CF (x) P/B (x) EV/EBITDA (x) EPS (W) CFPS (W) BPS (W) DPS (W) Payout ratio (%) Dividend Yield (%) Revenue Growth (%) EBITDA Growth (%) Operating Profit Growth (%) EPS Growth (%) Accounts Receivable Turnover (x) Inventory Turnover (x) Accounts Payable Turnover (x) ROA (%) ROE (%) ROIC (%) Liability to Equity Ratio (%) Current Ratio (%) Net Debt to Equity Ratio (%) Interest Coverage Ratio (x) 12/11 12/12F 12/13F 12/14F 11. 2 19. 4 13. 1 10. 6 8. 5 12. 9 9. 8 8. 4 0. 8 1. 0 0. 9 0. 8 4. 2 13. 8 8. 6 6. 0 9,992 6,556 9,518 11,770 13,153 9,869 12,760 14,910 146,152 130,821 138,428 148,290 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 19. 6 29. 9 20. 6 16. 6 1. 8 1. 6 1. 6 1. 6 11. 7 -4. 8 5. 0 5. 0 -40. 5 -56. 5 33. 4 14. 3 -44. 7 -66. 8 52. 2 20. 3 -59. 4 -34. 4 45. 2 23. 7 6. 1 4. 2 3. 9 5. 0 18. 1 17. 1 19. 5 19. 5 2. 5 3. 2 3. 8 3. 8 2. 3 1. 5 2. 2 2. 7 5. 5 4. 3 6. 4 7. 4 53. 8 8. 1 10. 7 15. 6 129. 6 175. 8 162. 5 146. 2 105. 6 111. 0 115. 1 119. 8 -18. 0 -4. 9 -16. 9 -27. 9 689. 5 45. 6 78. 1 109. 7Source: Company data, KDB Daewoo Securities Research estimates KDB Daewoo Securities Research 13 January 17, 2013 Shipbuilding Hanjin Heavy I&C (097230 KS) Hold (Downgrade) Target Price (12M, W) Share Price (01/16/13, W) 10,000 Expected Return (%) 0. 0 EPS Growth (13F, %) RR Market EPS Growth (13F, %) 19. 1 P/E (13F, x) Market P/E (13F, x) 9. 0 KOSPI 1,977. 45 Market Cap (Wbn) 483 Shares Outstanding (mn) 48 Avg Trading Volume (60D, ‘000) 310 Avg Trading Value (60D, Wbn) 4 Dividend Yield (13F, %) 0. 0 Free Float (%) 62. 6 52-Week Low (W) 10,00 0 52-Week High (W) 23,850 Beta (12M, Daily Rate of Return) 1. 43 Price Return Volatility (12M Daily, %, SD) 2. 7 Foreign Ownership (%) 9. Major Shareholder(s) Hanjin Heavy I Holdings et al (37. 38%) KB Asset Management (5. 13%) Price Performance (%) 1M Absolute -23. 4 Relative -22. 5 Unlikely to weather market slump ? ? ? Earnings unlikely to recover due to shipbuilding market slump and protracted strike Cash flow to deteriorate due to excessive debt and weak orders Downgrade to Hold Downgrade to Hold We lower our rating on Hanjin Heavy I (HHIC) to Hold from Trading Buy. We believe that the companyEs earnings and cash flow will not improve for the time being, given its tepid order performance amid the sluggish commercial vessel market, and the suspension of its Youngdo shipyard due to a strike.Although the company has recently embarked on the development of an industrial site near the Incheon port, the project is unlikely to boost operating profit markedly due to high capital requir ements and increased interest expenses. As such, the companyEs shares are unlikely to recover in the near term, in our view Although the companyEs shares are trading at a 2013F P/B of just 0. 4x, we believe that their investment merits are low. Indeed, efforts to dispose of property amid a lackluster real estate market should meet with difficulty, and continued net losses and excessive interest expenses should leave cash flow from operations uncertain. Risks ) The commercial vessel unit at the Youngdo shipyard is unlikely to recover. The slump in the global commercial vessel market is leading to a fall in orders, while intensifying competition among shipbuilders are prompting shipowners to demand discounts on ship prices. . 2) There is a growing possibility that the Subic shipyard will take new orders, as it possesses strong price competitiveness. However, as it is difficult to build highend vessels at the Subic shipyard, the companyEs earnings are unlikely to recover in the near fu ture. 3) There are many labor-management issues yet to be resolved, including one related to employees who are currently on leave due to a lack of work. ) Although HHIC is meeting its short-term capital needs through real estate disposal, the company will likely find it difficult to sell large-scale real estate assets due to the real estate market slump. Indeed, the company needs more capital to engage in the development project near the Incheon port. Given that the project is not progressing rapidly, uncertainties over the companyEs cash flow will likely persist in the long term. 5) HHIC holds massive debt (W2. 8tr). Proceeds from the companyEs planned rights offering (estimated to at W180bn) should be only equivalent to its annual interest expenses. 6M -26. 7 -35. 5 12M -47. 9 -54. 3 Share price 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 1/12 5/12 9/12 1/13 KOSPI Earnings & Valuation MetricsFY 12/10 12/11 12/12F 12/13F 12/14F Revenue OP OP Margin NP (Wbn) (Wbn) (%) (Wbn) 3,168 120 3. 8 -72 2,8 92 108 3. 7 -97 2,547 63 2. 5 -103 2,795 76 2. 7 -10 3,071 83 2. 7 -32 EPS EBITDA FCF ROE (Won) (Wbn) (Wbn) (%) -1,496 312 487 -3. 6 -2,006 200 -224 -5. 1 -2,123 148 243 -5. 7 -158 195 182 -0. 6 -466 184 146 -1. 8 P/E (x) P/B (x) 1. 0 0. 5 0. 4 0. 4 0. 4 EV/EBITDA (x) 14. 5 19. 9 24. 0 16. 9 18. 0 Notes: All figures are based on consolidated K-IFRS; NP refers to net profit attributable to controlling interests Source: Company data, KDB Daewoo Securities Research estimates Daewoo Securities Research 14 January 17, 2013 Shipbuilding Hanjin Heavy I (097230 KS/Hold) Comprehensive Income Statement (Summarized) Wbn) Revenues Cost of Sales Gross Profit SG Expenses Operating Profit (Adj) Operating Profit Non-Operating Profit Net Financial Income Net Gain from Inv in Associates Pretax Profit Income Tax Profit from Continuing Operations Profit from Discontinued Operations Net Profit Controlling Interests Non-Controlling Interests Total Comprehensive Profit Controlling Interests Non-Controllin g Interests EBITDA FCF (Free Cash Flow) EBITDA Margin (%) Operating Profit Margin (%) Net Profit Margin (%) 12/11 2,892 2,665 227 140 87 108 -190 171 -2 -82 15 -97 0 -97 -97 0 -90 -90 0 200 -224 6. 9 3. 7 -3. 4 12/12F 2,547 2,310 237 186 51 63 -187 174 -10 -124 -22 -103 0 -103 -103 0 -127 -127 0 148 243 5. 8 2. 5 -4. 0 12/13F 2,795 2,516 280 204 76 76 -89 159 -5 -13 -3 -11 0 -11 -10 0 -35 -34 0 195 182 7. 0 2. 7 -0. 4 12/14F 3,071 2,764 307 224 83 83 -125 150 0 -42 -9 -33 0 -33 -32 0 -57 -56 0 184 146 6. 0 2. 7 -1. 1 Statement of Financial Condition (Summarized) Wbn) Current Assets Cash and Cash Equivalents AR & Other Receivables Inventories Other Current Assets Non-Current Assets Investments in Associates Property, Plant and Equipment Intangible Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities AP & Other Payables Short-Term Financial Liabilities Other Current Liabilities Non-Current Liabilities Long-Term Financial Liabilities Other Non-Current Liabilities Total Liabilities Controlling Inter ests Capital Stock Capital Surplus Retained Earnings Non-Controlling Interests Stockholders' Equity 12/11 2,392 854 917 361 237 4,645 66 3,144 89 7,037 2,483 811 1,603 69 2,687 2,317 329 5,170 1,864 241 644 814 2 1,867 12/12F 2,058 686 868 280 209 4,535 81 2,980 89 6,592 2,286 802 1,421 63 2,566 2,177 336 4,852 1,738 241 644 712 2 1,740 12/13F 2,077 617 925 294 228 4,487 76 2,871 89 6,564 2,384 895 1,421 69 2,369 1,977 338 4,753 1,809 346 644 701 2 1,810 12/14F 2,025 422 1,016 322 250 4,412 76 2,780 89 6,437 2,479 983 1,421 76 2,204 1,777 373 4,683 1,752 346 644 669 2 1,754 Cash Flows (Summarized) Wbn) Cash Flows from Op Activities Net Profit Non-Cash Income and Expense Depreciation Amortization Others Chg in Working Capital Chg in AR & Other Receivables Chg in Inventories Chg in AP & Other Payables Income Tax Paid Cash Flows from Inv Activities Chg in PP&E Chg in Intangible Assets Chg in Financial Assets Others Cash Flows from Fin Activities Chg in Financial Liabilities Chg in Equi ty Dividends Paid Others Increase (Decrease) in Cash Beginning Balance Ending Balance 12/11 -228 -97 246 113 0 44 -379 -192 -42 -150 2 68 -15 0 -43 126 -106 91 1 0 -198 -262 1,116 854 12/12F 316 -103 265 97 0 16 131 23 77 33 22 9 -21 0 -14 44 -488 -297 0 0 -192 -168 854 686 12/13F 194 -11 206 120 0 25 -4 -57 -13 92 3 11 -10 0 0 21 -275 -200 105 0 -180 -70 686 617 12/14F 165 -33 216 101 0 25 -28 -91 -29 88 9 10 -10 0 0 20 -370 -200 0 0 -170 -194 617 422 Forecasts/Valuations (Summarized)P/E (x) P/CF (x) P/B (x) EV/EBITDA (x) EPS (W) CFPS (W) BPS (W) DPS (W) Payout ratio (%) Dividend Yield (%) Revenue Growth (%) EBITDA Growth (%) Operating Profit Growth (%) EPS Growth (%) Accounts Receivable Turnover (x) Inventory Turnover (x) Accounts Payable Turnover (x) ROA (%) ROE (%) ROIC (%) Liability to Equity Ratio (%) Current Ratio (%) Net Debt to Equity Ratio (%) Interest Coverage Ratio (x) 12/11 57. 4 0. 5 19. 9 -2,006 323 36,806 0 0. 0 0. 0 -8. 7 -35. 9 -9. 8 RR 3. 3 8. 9 3. 2 -1. 3 -5. 1 2 . 4 276. 9 96. 3 163. 0 0. 5 12/12F -112. 3 0. 4 24. 0 -2,123 -111 34,182 0 0. 0 0. 0 -11. 9 -25. 9 -41. 8 RR 3. 3 8. 0 3. 9 -1. 5 -5. 7 1. 4 278. 9 90. 0 166. 5 0. 3 12/13F 5. 9 0. 4 16. 9 -158 1,691 24,843 0 0. 0 0. 0 9. 8 31. 8 20. 1 RR 3. 6 9. 8 4. 1 -0. 2 -0. 6 2. 1 262. 6 87. 1 152. 8 0. 4 12/14F 10. 1 0. 4 18. 0 -466 989 24,030 0 0. 0 0. 0 9. 9 -5. 8 9. 9 RR 3. 6 10. 0 4. 0 -0. 5 -1. 8 2. 4 267. 0 81. 7 157. 4 0. 5 Source: Company data, KDB Daewoo Securities Research estimates KDB Daewoo Securities Research 15January 17, 2013 Shipbuilding Important Disclosures & Disclaimers Disclosures As of the publication date, Daewoo Securities Co. , Ltd. has acted as a liquidity provider for equity-linked warrants backed by shares of Hyundai Heavy Industries and Samsung Heavy Industries as an underlying asset, and other than this, Daewoo Securities has no other special interests in the covered companies. As of the publication date, Daewoo Securities Co. , Ltd. has been acting as a financi al advisor to Hyundai Mipo Dockyard for its treasury stock trust, and other than this, Daewoo Securities has no other special interests in the companies covered in this report.As of the publication date, Daewoo Securities Co. , Ltd. issued equity-linked warrants with Hyundai Heavy Industries and Samsung Heavy Industries as an underlying asset, and other than this, Daewoo Securities has no other special interests in the covered companies. Stock Ratings Buy Trading Buy Hold Sell Relative performance of 20% or greater Relative performance of 10% or greater, but with volatility Relative performance of -10% and 10% Relative performance of -10% Industry Ratings Overweight Neutral Underweight Fundamentals are favorable or improving Fundamentals are steady without any material changes Fundamentals are unfavorable or worsening Ratings and Target Price History (Share price (—-), Target price (—-), Not covered ( ¦), Buy (^), Trading Buy ( ¦), Hold (? ), Sell (? )) * Our inves tment rating is a guide to the relative return of the stock versus the market over the next 12 months. * Although it is not part of the official ratings at Daewoo Securities, we may call a trading opportunity in case there is a technical or short-term material development. * The target price was determined by the research analyst through valuation methods discussed in this report, in part based on the analystEs estimate of future earnings. The achievement of the target price may be impeded by risks related to the subject securities and companies, as well as general market and economic conditions. W) 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 1/11 7/11 1/12 7/12 1/13 Hyundai Heavy Industries (W) 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1/11 7/11 1/12 7/12 1/13 Samsung Heavy Industries (W) 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1/11 7/11 1/12 7/12 1/13 Hyundai Mipo Dockyard (W) 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1/11 7/11 1/12 7/12 1/13 Hanjin Heavy I&C Analyst Certifica tion The research analysts who prepared this report (the „Analysts†°) are registered with the Korea Financial Investment Association and are subject to Korean securities regulations. They are neither registered as research analysts in any other jurisdiction nor subject to the laws and regulations thereof.Opinions expressed in this publication about the subject securities and companies accurately reflect the personal views of the Analysts primarily responsible for this report. Daewoo Securities Co. , Ltd. policy prohibits its Analysts and members of their households from owning securities of any company in the AnalystEs area of coverage, and the Analysts do not serve as an officer, director or advisory board member of the subject companies. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Analysts have not received any compensation or any other benefits from the subject companies in the past 12 months and have not been promised the same in connection with this report.No part of t he compensation of the Analysts was, is, or will be directly or indirectly related to the specific recommendations or views contained in this report but, like all employees of Daewoo Securities, the Analysts receive compensation that is impacted by overall firm profitability, which includes revenues from, among other business units, the institutional equities, investment banking, proprietary trading and private client division. At the time of publication of this report, the Analysts do not know or have reason to know of any actual, material conflict of interest of the Analyst or Daewoo Securities Co. , Ltd. except as otherwise stated herein. Disclaimers This report is published by Daewoo Securities Co. , Ltd. („Daewoo†°), a broker-dealer registered in the Republic of Korea and a member of the Korea Exchange. Information and pinions contained herein have been compiled from sources believed to be reliable and in good faith, but such information has not been independently ve rified and Daewoo makes no guarantee, representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the fairness, accuracy, completeness or correctness of the information and opinions contained herein or of any translation into English from the Korean language. If this report is an English translation of a report prepared in the Korean language, the original Korean language report may have been made available to investors in advance of this report. Daewoo, its affiliates and their directors, officers, employees and agents do not accept any liability for any loss arising from the use hereof. This report is for general information purposes only and it is not and should not be construed as an offer or a solicitation of an offer to effect transactions in any securities or other financial instruments.The intended recipients of this report are sophisticated institutional investors who have substantial knowledge of the local business environment, its common practices, laws and accounting principle s and no person whose receipt or use of this report would violate any laws and regulations or subject Daewoo and its affiliates to registration or licensing requirements in any jurisdiction should receive or make any use hereof. Information and opinions contained herein are subject to change without notice and no part of this document may be copied or reproduced in any manner or form or redistributed or published, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of Daewoo. Daewoo, its affiliates and their directors, officers, employees and agents may have long or short positions in any of the subject securities at any time and may make a purchase or sale, or offer to make a purchase or sale, of any such securities or other financial instruments from time to time in the open market or otherwise, in each case either as principals or agents.Daewoo and its affiliates may have had, or may be expecting to enter into, business relationships with the subject companies to provide inves tment banking, market-making or other financial services as are permitted under applicable laws and regulations. The price and value of the investments referred to in this report and the income from them may go down as well as up, and investors may realize losses on any investments. Past performance is not a guide to future performance. Future returns are not guaranteed, and a loss of original capital may occur. Daewoo Securities Research 16 January 17, 2013 Shipbuilding Distribution United Kingdom: This report is being distributed by Daewoo Securities (Europe) Ltd. n the United Kingdom only to (i) investment professionals falling within Article 19(5) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005 (the „Order†°), and (ii) high net worth companies and other persons to whom it may lawfully be communicated, falling within Article 49(2)(A) to (E) of the Order (all such persons together being referred to as „Relevant Persons†°). This report is directed only at Relevant Persons. Any person who is not a Relevant Person should not act or rely on this report or any of its contents. United States: This report is distributed in the U. S. by Daewoo Securities (America) Inc. , a member of FINRA/SIPC, and is only intended for major institutional investors as defined in Rule 15a-6(b)(4) under the U. S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. All U. S. ersons that receive this document by their acceptance thereof represent and warrant that they are a major institutional investor and have not received this report under any express or implied understanding that they will direct commission income to Daewoo or its affiliates. Any U. S. recipient of this document wishing to effect a transaction in any securities discussed herein should contact and place orders with Daewoo Securities (America) Inc. , which accepts responsibility for the contents of this report in the U. S. The securities described in this report may not have been regi stered under the U. S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and, in such case, may not be offered or sold in the U. S. or to U. S. ersons absent registration or an applicable exemption from the registration requirements. Hong Kong: This document has been approved for distribution in Hong Kong by Daewoo Securities (Hong Kong) Ltd. , which is regulated by the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission. The contents of this report have not been reviewed by any regulatory authority in Hong Kong. This report is for distribution only to professional investors within the meaning of Part I of Schedule 1 to the Securities and Futures Ordinance of Hong Kong (Cap. 571, Laws of Hong Kong) and any rules made thereunder and may not be redistributed in whole or in part in Hong Kong to any person.All Other Jurisdictions: Customers in all other countries who wish to effect a transaction in any securities referenced in this report should contact Daewoo or its affiliates only if distribution to or use by such customer of this report would not violate applicable laws and regulations and not subject Daewoo and its affiliates to any registration or licensing requirement within such jurisdiction. KDB Daewoo Securities International Network Daewoo Securities Co. Ltd. (Seoul) Head Office 34-3 Yeouido-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul 150-716 Korea Tel: 82-2-768-3026 Daewoo Securities (Europe) Ltd. Tower 42, Level 41 25 Old Broad Street London EC2N 1HQ United Kingdom Tel: 44-20-7982-8016 Shanghai Representative Office Unit 13, 28th Floor, Hang Seng Bank Tower 1000 Lujiazui Ring Road Pudong New Area, Shanghai 200120 China Tel: 86-21-5013-6392 Daewoo Securities (Hong Kong) Ltd.Two International Finance Centre Suites 2005-2012 8 Finance Street, Central Hong Kong Tel: 85-2-2514-1304 Tokyo Representative Office 7th Floor, Yusen Building 2-3-2 Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 100-0005 Japan Tel: 81-3- 3211-5511 Ho Chi Minh Representative Office Centec Tower 72-74 Nguyen Thi Minh Khai Street Ward 6, Di strict 3, Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam Tel: 84-8-3910-6000 Daewoo Securities (America) Inc. 600 Lexington Avenue Suite 301 New York, NY 10022 United States Tel: 1-212-407-1022 Beijing Representative Office Suite 2602, Twin Towers (East) B-12 Jianguomenwai Avenue Chaoyang District, Beijing 100022 China Tel: 86-10-6567-9699 KDB Daewoo Securities Research 17

U.S Goverment Essay - 670 Words

American government Name Professor Institution Course Date American government When many people get to hear the term Confucius, they often relate the notion to wisdom, values, and clever phrases. Confucius’ teachings centers on philosophy and specifically deals with effective leadership ideologies. Confucius states that good government comprise of a ruler playing the role of a ruler; in that, each person having a leadership role is required to perform the delegated duties with diligence. This is because any person holding a title or an office must respect a sacred responsibility of living up to the roles assigned, as opposed to using the influence associated with a leadership position†¦show more content†¦Confucius teachings aim at promoting and implementing ethical leadership as witnessed in the American arm of government. The teachings encourage leaders to make wise decisions that are crucial in the growth and progress of a nation. America is considered one of the developed country in the universe since it abides by Confucius teachings. The opening up of democratic space in the country has given citizens an opportunity to hold their leaders accountable for their actions (Freedman Clà ©ment 2002). A leader with outstanding leadership skills will certainly be re-elected in the election, and this is the reason some leaders holding low offices, end up having positions associated with the influence. The present political class in America respects the rule of law, a strong reason why the country has remained peaceful for a long time. The leaders rule is founded through compassion and virtue. The American constitution is instrumental in spelling out punishments for people who break laws in place, thereby giving the people confidence to follow the rules of the land (Confucius Cleary 1992). Conclusion Confucius states that leaders should always lead by example, as this is the only genuine way a just, great empire is created. Not only is the Emperor required to be virtuous, but every position in the military or bureaucracy created should be founded on virtue andShow MoreRelatedWays the executive branch of the U.S. goverment, through various laws and acts, gained power over the legislative and judicial brances.1710 Words   |  7 Pagespowerful weapon that helps the executive control legislation and in turn gives the president more authority in making critical decisions. The president is also granted a variety of special powers and privileges not available to the other branches of the U.S. government, which help to fortify the executive. One of these powers is the Presidents ability to use emergency powers. Emergency power is an inherent capability exercised by the president during a period of national crisis, especially pertainingRead MoreComparing The Functions And Power Of Judical, Legislative, And Executive Branches1212 Words   |  5 Pagesgovernment between three branches and each role that they should serve. Federalism divides power along national and state government with each holding specific duties to working together effectively. Even though some hoped for a unitary system, the U.S political system focused on giving limiting expressed power to national government while leaving rest to individual states. Federalism holds complex relations with each state--generally limit state authority over national politics with full faith clauseRead Mor e Legalization Of Gambling Essay1545 Words   |  7 Pagesgovernment should not engage themselves in this type of situation. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;The gambling industry has supported many different types of organizations and involves themselves financially in numerous associations. To support the Goverment the Republican and Democratic Party’s receive hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from the gaming industry. According to the Center for Responsive Politics the total number of money contributed from the gambling industry to politics in the lastRead MoreAnalysis Of The Nevada And Us Constitutions1883 Words   |  8 Pagesplays a central role in American law and government, and remains a fundamental symbol of the freedoms and culture of the nation† (U.S. Bill of Rights). Our country is a prosperous growing country. Although the constitution is a well thought out document it does not cover all the legal needs for each state individually. â€Å"A state constitution is the governing document of a U.S. state, comparable to the United States Constitution which is the governing document of the United States. Some states have hadRead MoreThe Committee On Banking And Urban Affairs2263 Words   |  10 Pagesand run† activists.In the same vein, the chief justice of the Delaware State Court campaigns for some sort of goverment intervention to prevent the financial markets from the dangers of short-term investors’ domiating decisionmaking. The next group, in support of action taken by the government to fend off activist hedge funds, is the coalition of public companies with the help of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. All thirteen members of this coalition demand that the SEC takes actions against hedgeRead MoreEssay1099 Words   |  5 Pagesoutright hostility towards the independence move followed up by the threats of violence against the emerging Kurdish State. Even the U.S. administration, a close ally of the Kurds, was openly critical of tne referendum, concerned with potential divisions within Iraqi society and destabilization of the region. The other concern of the Americans was the fact that there are U.S. troops currently involved in the fight against ISIS and taking sides in this highly sensitive dispute would add to the risks theyRead MoreEssay on North Korea: Hope for the Helpless1219 Words   |  5 Pagesand now evidence of abuse, even with the threats coming from the countries goverment. In 1905 Korea was annexed by Japan until it was split and the North was taken under Soviet control following World War Two. ----. After that North Korea adopted a policy of self-reliance to keep outside influence away which was eased in 2002 to allow for semi-private markets (Korea, North). Following the Korean War, the Communist goverment in North Korea made changes to the lived of many Koreans, such as encouragingRead MoreGeorge Chauncey, Why Marriage?1245 Words   |  5 PagesJeffrey M. Jones, Same-Sex Marriage Support Solidifies Above 50% in U.S., Gallup.com, May 13, 2013 Stonewall Rebellion, www.nytimes.com, Apr. 10, 2009 Goldberg, Carey (February 10, 2000). Vermont Panel Shies From Gay Marriage. New York Times. Retrieved July 13, 2013. https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965633 On June 26,2015, the Supreme Court sided that gay marriage is a right protected by the U.S. Constitution in all 50 states. Previously, to their decision, sameRead MoreThe World Of Ancient Persia1442 Words   |  6 Pages In the sixth century B.C, the land that we now call Iran was the center of the largest empire in the world. The kings of Ancient Persia( such as Cyrus the Great) were the leaders of a great civilization that made amazing advances in laws, goverment and communication. Founded in 550 B.C by King Cyrus the Great, the Persian Empire spanned from Egypt in the west to Turkey in the north, and through Mesopotamia to the Indus River in the east. Unlike most empires at that time, the Persian kings were benovelentRead MoreThe Ongoing Colombian Conflict1583 Words   |  6 PagesCOLOMBIAN CONFLICT Introduction: The Colombian Conflict is a long drawn out, ongoing low-intensity intrastate war between the Colombian goverment, paramilitary troops, crime syndicates and left-wing guerrillas such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN), with the Colombian goverment and the paramilitary troops combatting against the guerrillas. Its origins can be traced back to 1964. Since its inception, tens of thousands of people have been killed