Valuetronics Q2 net profit dips 8.4% on slower consumer electronics business
Anita Gabriel
DeeperDive is a beta AI feature. Refer to full articles for the facts.
MAINBOARD-listed Valuetronics Holdings' net profit for the second quarter fell 8.4 per cent to HK$36.3 million (S$6 million) from a year ago due to slowdown in demand for consumer electronics and higher staff costs.
Revenue over the period fell by 0.7 per cent to HS$627.6 million from HK$632.0 million, said the firm in an announcement to the Singapore Exchange.
While the consumer electronics business saw topline dip 11 per cent to HK$402 million, the firm's industrial and commercial electronics (ICE) managed to hold up well, rising 25 per cent to HK$225 million. "Our focus on developing the ICE segment has certainly paid off," said Valuetronics chairman and managing director Ricky Tse Chong Hing.
Business conditions in the consumer electronics segment remained tough, particularly in the LED lighting business. "Customers in the segment continued their aggressive pricing strategies in introducing lower priced products, and such a trend is unlikely be reversed in the near future," said the firm, adding that pricing pressures will continue to adversely impact the group's margins. "This impact cannot be fully offset by greater in-house operational efficiency and supply chain productivity," it added.
Besides cutting prices, some brand owners in the LED lighting business are also making major plans to restructure their businesses amid a challenging environment. To mitigate margin erosion in the consumer electronics segment, Valuetronics said it will stay alert amid fast-changing trends and "proactively manage its reliance" on this segment.
Copyright SPH Media. All rights reserved.
TRENDING NOW
Vietnam formalises new state leadership, redefining ‘four pillars’ power balance
‘Largest Singapore commercial S-Reit proxy’: analysts say buy CICT shares after Paragon acquisition
From 1MDB to ‘corporate mafia’: Is Malaysia facing a new governance test?
Why where you park your joint venture matters: Lessons from a US$689 million shareholder dispute