20-08-2014, 09:23 PM
(20-08-2014, 09:17 PM)Damien Wrote: [ -> ]Think Curious Party made a gamble on it and hoped others get on the boat too. Now it is time to get off.Period.
Seriously, this is your first or second post?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
20-08-2014, 09:23 PM
20-08-2014, 09:32 PM
First, what is wrong with it?
20-08-2014, 10:36 PM
Damien
Pls refer to my post #346.
If anyone can convince me that sunsine is "real solid gold", I might hold the remaining lots for longer term or even add more to my portfolio. (the likelihood of the later case is much lower, given the higher hurdle rate imposed on S chip)
Management did some share buyback in the past but not for the recent periods - does this imply that they did not believe in the sustainability of the "high ASP"?
If u have "new info" on sunsine, pls share with us too, preferably new things that are still not discussed yet at VB.
Hopefully, this will give us fresh new perspectives on sunsine. (else, my lens are still very "tainted" since it is a S chip after all)
Tks.
****************
btw, no one person has the "power" to change the tide of a counter just because he talks up or talks down the counter, unless the person is a "substantial shareholder".
Pls refer to my post #346.
If anyone can convince me that sunsine is "real solid gold", I might hold the remaining lots for longer term or even add more to my portfolio. (the likelihood of the later case is much lower, given the higher hurdle rate imposed on S chip)
Management did some share buyback in the past but not for the recent periods - does this imply that they did not believe in the sustainability of the "high ASP"?
If u have "new info" on sunsine, pls share with us too, preferably new things that are still not discussed yet at VB.
Hopefully, this will give us fresh new perspectives on sunsine. (else, my lens are still very "tainted" since it is a S chip after all)
Tks.
****************
btw, no one person has the "power" to change the tide of a counter just because he talks up or talks down the counter, unless the person is a "substantial shareholder".
21-08-2014, 05:41 AM
(20-08-2014, 10:36 PM)Curiousparty Wrote: [ -> ]Damien
Pls refer to my post #346.
If anyone can convince me that sunsine is "real solid gold", I might hold the remaining lots for longer term or even add more to my portfolio. (the likelihood of the later case is much lower, given the higher hurdle rate imposed on S chip)
Management did some share buyback in the past but not for the recent periods - does this imply that they did not believe in the sustainability of the "high ASP"?
If u have "new info" on sunsine, pls share with us too, preferably new things that are still not discussed yet at VB.
Hopefully, this will give us fresh new perspectives on sunsine. (else, my lens are still very "tainted" since it is a S chip after all)
Tks.
****************
btw, no one person has the "power" to change the tide of a counter just because he talks up or talks down the counter, unless the person is a "substantial shareholder".
Yours are bordering on insinuating malpractices on the part of company's management. Implying,among others, the genuinity of company's cash balance by comparing it with Eratate.
http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of...7-sghc-204
21-08-2014, 08:25 AM
I have to clarify again.
1. Firstly, I did not say or imply that the company's cash balance is false. Pls check my postings and wordings carefully. I was merely saying that because it is an S chip, the hurdle rate to be cleared for investment merit has to be much higher, and one ought to be more careful and do the due diligence. There is no intention to create any "panic selling" whatsoever. The intent is to put forth all sources of information (public info - pls see below) and analysis and then decide whether the stock has further or real investment merit. One has to see all sides of the info (both upside and downside) to have a more comprehensive picture. High returns comes with high risk - a simple fact that everyone knows.
2. I declare here that I am not in the possession of any "material information". All the information I have are publicly available information. It is on the basis of publicly available information that I make my investment decision. I have no access to "material information" and I don't attempt to access them (e.g. having tea session with CEO, CFO, chairman, etc).
3. By "new info", I meant PUBLIC INFO which is out there in the public domain but has still not been discussed in this forum.
Tks for the timely reminder that we ought to be very careful when posting on public forum like this.
1. Firstly, I did not say or imply that the company's cash balance is false. Pls check my postings and wordings carefully. I was merely saying that because it is an S chip, the hurdle rate to be cleared for investment merit has to be much higher, and one ought to be more careful and do the due diligence. There is no intention to create any "panic selling" whatsoever. The intent is to put forth all sources of information (public info - pls see below) and analysis and then decide whether the stock has further or real investment merit. One has to see all sides of the info (both upside and downside) to have a more comprehensive picture. High returns comes with high risk - a simple fact that everyone knows.
2. I declare here that I am not in the possession of any "material information". All the information I have are publicly available information. It is on the basis of publicly available information that I make my investment decision. I have no access to "material information" and I don't attempt to access them (e.g. having tea session with CEO, CFO, chairman, etc).
3. By "new info", I meant PUBLIC INFO which is out there in the public domain but has still not been discussed in this forum.
Tks for the timely reminder that we ought to be very careful when posting on public forum like this.
(21-08-2014, 05:41 AM)Bluechipfan Wrote: [ -> ](20-08-2014, 10:36 PM)Curiousparty Wrote: [ -> ]Damien
Pls refer to my post #346.
If anyone can convince me that sunsine is "real solid gold", I might hold the remaining lots for longer term or even add more to my portfolio. (the likelihood of the later case is much lower, given the higher hurdle rate imposed on S chip)
Management did some share buyback in the past but not for the recent periods - does this imply that they did not believe in the sustainability of the "high ASP"?
If u have "new info" on sunsine, pls share with us too, preferably new things that are still not discussed yet at VB.
Hopefully, this will give us fresh new perspectives on sunsine. (else, my lens are still very "tainted" since it is a S chip after all)
Tks.
****************
btw, no one person has the "power" to change the tide of a counter just because he talks up or talks down the counter, unless the person is a "substantial shareholder".
Yours are bordering on insinuating malpractices on the part of company's management. Implying,among others, the genuinity of company's cash balance by comparing it with Eratate.
http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of...7-sghc-204
21-08-2014, 09:00 AM
(21-08-2014, 05:41 AM)Bluechipfan Wrote: [ -> ](20-08-2014, 10:36 PM)Curiousparty Wrote: [ -> ]Damien
Pls refer to my post #346.
If anyone can convince me that sunsine is "real solid gold", I might hold the remaining lots for longer term or even add more to my portfolio. (the likelihood of the later case is much lower, given the higher hurdle rate imposed on S chip)
Management did some share buyback in the past but not for the recent periods - does this imply that they did not believe in the sustainability of the "high ASP"?
If u have "new info" on sunsine, pls share with us too, preferably new things that are still not discussed yet at VB.
Hopefully, this will give us fresh new perspectives on sunsine. (else, my lens are still very "tainted" since it is a S chip after all)
Tks.
****************
btw, no one person has the "power" to change the tide of a counter just because he talks up or talks down the counter, unless the person is a "substantial shareholder".
Yours are bordering on insinuating malpractices on the part of company's management. Implying,among others, the genuinity of company's cash balance by comparing it with Eratate.
http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of...7-sghc-204
I briefly read the case. So what happened to that OCBC dealer and the remisier who released unsustainable news?
21-08-2014, 09:45 AM
Key Learning Points -
1. 'Behave responsibly - ensure any information disseminated is accurate. If there's any possibility of inaccuracy, then it's wise not to post it
2. 'Good news may also induce people to buy or sell shares. It's not an answer or a defence if you give good news that is false because it is still market manipulation. What matters is whether the news is accurate.'
http://forums.vr-zone.com/chit-chatting/...nline.html
********
LEGAL experts have warned people to be careful about what they say online about listed companies after a landmark judgment in Singapore.
Former share trader Able Wang Ziyi was jailed six months earlier this week for posting false, price-sensitive information online about Singapore-listed tech firm Datacraft Asia.
In 2004, he spread a rumour on a popular investor forum that the Commercial Affairs Department had raided Datacraft's offices.
He was charged and acquitted in 2006 but the prosecution appealed, and the verdict was overturned in favour of a guilty one by the High Court last November. Wang did not gain financially from spreading the rumour, although Datacraft stock closed 10 US cents down at US$1.38 that day.
Justice V.K. Rajah said in his ruling that it was especially important to penalise the spreading of false information, given 'the legislative and regulatory shift to a disclosure-based regime'.
He added: 'A fine would be inappropriate for offences such as the present one, where the potential harm caused can be enormous and devastating.'
Lawyers told The Straits Times that the case was significant on two counts - it was the first of its kind to result in a jail term and the first such case to reach the High Court.
Mr Nish Shetty, a partner at WongPartnership, said: 'The possibility of jail terms will be more readily accepted in future. It'll set a precedent at the sub courts for jail terms involving such cases.'
Another lawyer added: 'This sends a strong deterrent message. If you post anything factual, you have got to ensure that the facts are correct. If you post and it turns out to be wrong, you may be hauled up because you've posted recklessly.'
A stock-market analyst agreed: 'The authorities are sending out a strong message that they are treating market manipulation seriously. People will be scared to make such postings now.'
Wang was charged under Section 199 of the Securities and Futures Act. The maximum penalty he could have received was seven years' jail and a $250,000 fine.
The case has raised questions among industry players as to what constitutes a legal breach and where the line is drawn on Internet share forums.
Mr Shetty explained: 'Good news may also induce people to buy or sell shares. It's not an answer or a defence if you give good news that is false because it is still market manipulation. What matters is whether the news is accurate.'
In 2001, a securities dealer was fined $80,000 for posting a bogus notice on a financial website about a purported takeover of Venture Corp, then called Venture Manufacturing.
The use of online forums to discuss stocks has caught on in recent years. Shareinvestor's forum, for example, gets more than 1,000 posts a day. ShareJunction and Stocklion are also popular forums.
The Able Wang case has led to calls for such forums to be screened. Securities Investors Association of Singapore president David Gerald said: 'Owners of these sites must also exercise diligence and be responsible enough to disallow posting of such irresponsible statements on their sites.'
However, Shareinvestor chief executive Christopher Lee said: 'It doesn't make commercial sense for us to screen all the postings. We'll act only if a user complains.'
He added that the site went from being an open forum to a closed one about three years ago to 'develop and promote a community of responsible users'.
Mr Shetty's advice to investors?
'Behave responsibly - ensure any information disseminated is accurate. If there's any possibility of inaccuracy, then it's wise not to post it,' he said.
1. 'Behave responsibly - ensure any information disseminated is accurate. If there's any possibility of inaccuracy, then it's wise not to post it
2. 'Good news may also induce people to buy or sell shares. It's not an answer or a defence if you give good news that is false because it is still market manipulation. What matters is whether the news is accurate.'
http://forums.vr-zone.com/chit-chatting/...nline.html
********
LEGAL experts have warned people to be careful about what they say online about listed companies after a landmark judgment in Singapore.
Former share trader Able Wang Ziyi was jailed six months earlier this week for posting false, price-sensitive information online about Singapore-listed tech firm Datacraft Asia.
In 2004, he spread a rumour on a popular investor forum that the Commercial Affairs Department had raided Datacraft's offices.
He was charged and acquitted in 2006 but the prosecution appealed, and the verdict was overturned in favour of a guilty one by the High Court last November. Wang did not gain financially from spreading the rumour, although Datacraft stock closed 10 US cents down at US$1.38 that day.
Justice V.K. Rajah said in his ruling that it was especially important to penalise the spreading of false information, given 'the legislative and regulatory shift to a disclosure-based regime'.
He added: 'A fine would be inappropriate for offences such as the present one, where the potential harm caused can be enormous and devastating.'
Lawyers told The Straits Times that the case was significant on two counts - it was the first of its kind to result in a jail term and the first such case to reach the High Court.
Mr Nish Shetty, a partner at WongPartnership, said: 'The possibility of jail terms will be more readily accepted in future. It'll set a precedent at the sub courts for jail terms involving such cases.'
Another lawyer added: 'This sends a strong deterrent message. If you post anything factual, you have got to ensure that the facts are correct. If you post and it turns out to be wrong, you may be hauled up because you've posted recklessly.'
A stock-market analyst agreed: 'The authorities are sending out a strong message that they are treating market manipulation seriously. People will be scared to make such postings now.'
Wang was charged under Section 199 of the Securities and Futures Act. The maximum penalty he could have received was seven years' jail and a $250,000 fine.
The case has raised questions among industry players as to what constitutes a legal breach and where the line is drawn on Internet share forums.
Mr Shetty explained: 'Good news may also induce people to buy or sell shares. It's not an answer or a defence if you give good news that is false because it is still market manipulation. What matters is whether the news is accurate.'
In 2001, a securities dealer was fined $80,000 for posting a bogus notice on a financial website about a purported takeover of Venture Corp, then called Venture Manufacturing.
The use of online forums to discuss stocks has caught on in recent years. Shareinvestor's forum, for example, gets more than 1,000 posts a day. ShareJunction and Stocklion are also popular forums.
The Able Wang case has led to calls for such forums to be screened. Securities Investors Association of Singapore president David Gerald said: 'Owners of these sites must also exercise diligence and be responsible enough to disallow posting of such irresponsible statements on their sites.'
However, Shareinvestor chief executive Christopher Lee said: 'It doesn't make commercial sense for us to screen all the postings. We'll act only if a user complains.'
He added that the site went from being an open forum to a closed one about three years ago to 'develop and promote a community of responsible users'.
Mr Shetty's advice to investors?
'Behave responsibly - ensure any information disseminated is accurate. If there's any possibility of inaccuracy, then it's wise not to post it,' he said.
21-08-2014, 10:20 AM
Blue Chip Fan
Just a word of caution.
Not sure if u will subject yourself to civil liability if u continue to imply or insinuate that I am "implying, among others, the genuinity of company's cash balance .........." when I have no intention whatsoever of doing so.
See my posting #375.
Just a word of caution.
Not sure if u will subject yourself to civil liability if u continue to imply or insinuate that I am "implying, among others, the genuinity of company's cash balance .........." when I have no intention whatsoever of doing so.
See my posting #375.
21-08-2014, 10:58 AM
(21-08-2014, 10:20 AM)Curiousparty Wrote: [ -> ]Blue Chip Fan
Just a word of caution.
Not sure if u will subject yourself to civil liability if u continue to imply or insinuate that I am "implying, among others, the genuinity of company's cash balance .........." when I have no intention whatsoever of doing so.
See my posting #375.
Not when I don't even know who you really are. Nevertheless, I didn't say you are 'implying...', I just said you are 'borderling' on it since you specifically mentioned sunsine (and sino grandness) on eratat thread, given eratat state of affair now. It's good that you clarified you have no such intention.
21-08-2014, 11:19 AM
I noticed a stalking in the making in this thread, which warranted a statement from moderator
First of all, on Curiousparty. I presumed she has tried her best to contribute and with good faith. The quality of the contribution might be unsatisfactory, or confusing or misleading or whatever to some buddies. In most cases if not all, a post to highlight the flaw(s) should be sufficient, rather than to seek for a verdict to prove the points.
Next, some buddies might response due to the past record of Curiousparty. A buddy who was given a second chance, deserve the same privilege as other buddies. No discrimination on this point, from moderator perspective.
For the rest, no buddy is capable of "talk-up" or "talk-down" a stock, not even for Mr. d.o.g, who is the more respected buddy in VB. As long as the view/opinion isn't baseless, reasonable, and within posting guideline, we don't forbid sudden change of opinion, or a fickle-minded personality.
I do appreciate the posts to highlight the flaws for the benefit of all, but it was overly-extended, and approaching a point of meaningless stalking, and wasting your time and effort. The effort can be better utilized in a more productive manner
Lastly on "civil liability". Moderator is watching, and at the moment, no crossing of boundary. You can send moderator report to us, if you presume moderators have over-looked.
Thanks.
Regards
Moderator
First of all, on Curiousparty. I presumed she has tried her best to contribute and with good faith. The quality of the contribution might be unsatisfactory, or confusing or misleading or whatever to some buddies. In most cases if not all, a post to highlight the flaw(s) should be sufficient, rather than to seek for a verdict to prove the points.
Next, some buddies might response due to the past record of Curiousparty. A buddy who was given a second chance, deserve the same privilege as other buddies. No discrimination on this point, from moderator perspective.
For the rest, no buddy is capable of "talk-up" or "talk-down" a stock, not even for Mr. d.o.g, who is the more respected buddy in VB. As long as the view/opinion isn't baseless, reasonable, and within posting guideline, we don't forbid sudden change of opinion, or a fickle-minded personality.
I do appreciate the posts to highlight the flaws for the benefit of all, but it was overly-extended, and approaching a point of meaningless stalking, and wasting your time and effort. The effort can be better utilized in a more productive manner
Lastly on "civil liability". Moderator is watching, and at the moment, no crossing of boundary. You can send moderator report to us, if you presume moderators have over-looked.
Thanks.
Regards
Moderator