Although I have been warning on this counter for a long long time, I'm certainly not happy this happened because 1 friend is still in it.
The standard red flags were there. It was just a matter of time. Haiz.....
Are these SGX listed China companies whose cash are in China subject to capital control? It mentioned that the management has yet to obtain the approval of the PRC State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE) for the remittance of the funds from the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Fujian Haimingwei Shoes Co., Ltd. Seems to me they have no control over their cash movement. Either SAFE is delaying them or HWM (which is wholly owned) is not forwarding the cash.
A CEO of a company's has a duty towards its shareholders so not contactable for such a serious event is simply not acceptable. Good thing is Audit Committee acted promptly.
I am very curious on the outcomes of the investigation.
(not vested)
SAFE is used as excuse for too many times, as in the case of china milk. Dividends remitted out of CHina need to go thro SAfE too. There should not be selective clearance. It is quite clear the problem is with the cash, not the procedure
(30-01-2014, 09:37 AM)Greenrookie Wrote: [ -> ]SAFE is used as excuse for too many times, as in the case of china milk. Dividends remitted out of CHina need to go thro SAfE too. There should not be selective clearance. It is quite clear the problem is with the cash, not the procedure
I agreed. I didn't have issue from dividend paying from YZJ, one of the S-Chip.
(30-01-2014, 09:42 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (30-01-2014, 09:37 AM)Greenrookie Wrote: [ -> ]SAFE is used as excuse for too many times, as in the case of china milk. Dividends remitted out of CHina need to go thro SAfE too. There should not be selective clearance. It is quite clear the problem is with the cash, not the procedure
I agreed. I didn't have issue from dividend paying from YZJ, one of the S-Chip.
Well, it is a SAFE excuse I suppose. haha.
Anyway, this stock has been well condemned in this forum and I suppose no member or passive reader here should be adversely affected.
So what is going on with the company audit. Seems like it gives no assurance to the authenticity of the company financial. Surely it is auditor's duty to verify cash do exist during audit. No?
(30-01-2014, 08:08 AM)GPD Wrote: [ -> ]Are these SGX listed China companies whose cash are in China subject to capital control? It mentioned that the management has yet to obtain the approval of the PRC State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE) for the remittance of the funds from the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Fujian Haimingwei Shoes Co., Ltd. Seems to me they have no control over their cash movement. Either SAFE is delaying them or HWM (which is wholly owned) is not forwarding the cash.
A CEO of a company's has a duty towards its shareholders so not contactable for such a serious event is simply not acceptable. Good thing is Audit Committee acted promptly.
I am very curious on the outcomes of the investigation.
(not vested)
Honestly, the excuse given is hardly acceptable and the CEO action is questionable. The audit committee did way too little. They should have questioned the CEO when he could not provide satisfactory answer to repayment of loans. As the clause goes, the bondholder is called for the loan upfront RMB 134m. That could very likely put the company into insolvency. Shareholders watch out.
"A suggestion was then made for CEO Lin to transfer the interest payment to an
onshore account designated by the Bondholder so as to avoid any possible offshore remittance
issue. Even then, CEO Lin was unable to accede to the above request without any satisfactory
explanation."
This counter is too dodgy even for an "open-minded" S-chip investor like me
This also puts to question the credibility of SIAS to protect investors.
I have been shot down many times by people who used SIAS to support their stand in this counter.
(30-01-2014, 09:50 AM)GPD Wrote: [ -> ]So what is going on with the company audit. Seems like it gives no assurance to the authenticity of the company financial. Surely it is auditor's duty to verify cash do exist during audit. No?
Auditor can verify with bank balance. But for more detailed scope, a special audit is required.