(11-06-2014, 01:39 AM)ethys Wrote: [ -> ]Guys, one naive thought: if any of the above is true then this would definitely be a material non public information meaning that AMAT and Andy recent sells are inside trading which is strictly forbidden and they can be sued for that. It means they need to release this information before making any investment decisions based on this information.
Really don't think they would take such a big reputational and legal risk especially AMAT!
I agree with your view. Also except the 193 lots which is immaterial sold above 90ct , the 2 SSH sold the rest at ex-bonus price of 67-69.5ct. If there were any negative news which i doubt there were, wouldn't it be more profitable for them if they had sold at highest point during CB? So maybe only profit-taking, shareholding adjustment n to increase number of shares in the hands of the public to raise trading liquidity.
Any possibility of pushing share price down to buyout company? That is if the ceo is no longer interested in running the company and looking for early retirement.
😇天堂与地狱😈就在当下
http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/premium/...s-20140611
PUBLISHED JUNE 11, 2014
Key stakeholders' sales prompt 'sell' call on UMS
Profitability may not be sustainable in the year ahead: OSK DMG
BYSHEENA TAN
tsheena@sph.com.sg
SHARE sales in semiconductor company UMS Holdings by two key stakeholders - founder and chief executive officer Andy Luong and a single main customer - have prompted a downgrade of its stock to "sell" by research firm OSK DMG.
In a report yesterday, OSK DMG lowered its target price for UMS to 47 cents from 70 cents.
The stock fell 10 cents, or 14.4 per cent, yesterday to 59.5 cents with about 16 million shares changing hands.
UMS had earlier proposed a one-for-four bonus share issue. The share transfer book closed on Monday for the purpose of determining shareholders' entitlements to bonus shares.
(10-06-2014, 08:49 PM)NTL Wrote: [ -> ]Hi yenyenpark,
Once they falls below 5%, we will not know if they will be continue to sell. As this is just the first quarter, will have to wait for another 3 more quarters to look at the annual report to know exactly how much more shares they will be left holding till then.
If they maintain their holdings above 5%, I am definitely not as worry as now.
In the AR, disclosure of shareholding would only cover
1) SSH (5% stake and above), and
2) Twenty largest shareholders (regardless of % of stake).
AMAT is no longer a SSH. Its stake would be disclosed only if it still remains as one of the twenty largest shareholders.
(vested)
suddenly we see a lot more new members into VB haha. AMAT have probably 2 other contractors and perhaps they want to do away with the single source model. then again they werent single source, they just offer the lowest price because andy is crazy at reducing cost.
the idea seems clearly that ums doesnt have much edge, except that they do it at crazy low cost, to the extent that even the AGM lunch BBQ was done by their own staff!
interesting point that if they want to reduce their share holdings, they should all have done it ex bonus. they cant do it too early because it will create the spook that is now
(11-06-2014, 08:08 AM)Boon Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2014, 08:49 PM)NTL Wrote: [ -> ]Hi yenyenpark,
Once they falls below 5%, we will not know if they will be continue to sell. As this is just the first quarter, will have to wait for another 3 more quarters to look at the annual report to know exactly how much more shares they will be left holding till then.
If they maintain their holdings above 5%, I am definitely not as worry as now.
In the AR, disclosure of shareholding would only cover
1) SSH (5% stake and above), and
2) Twenty largest shareholders (regardless of % of stake).
AMAT is no longer a SSH. Its stake would be disclosed only if it still remains as one of the twenty largest shareholders.
(vested)
Hi Boon,
That is my point. Anyway, by then, I guess what is their shareholdings will be of little impact to the share price from then on.
Unless they go above 5% again?
(10-06-2014, 11:46 PM)Tiggerbee Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2014, 11:19 PM)Boon Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2014, 10:29 PM)valuebuddies Wrote: [ -> ]If both AMAT and Andy selling because of the endura issues, i see no reason why the insiders are not selling AMAT shares as well.
No one is saying " AMAT and Andy selling because of the endura issues"
What I am saying is, come 2017 when the contract is due for renewal, if Endura still remain its relevance in the market, chances are contract would be renewed if cost is not an issue (UMS is still entitled to the "loyalty margin")
If cost is an issue (UMS no longer entitled to enjoy the "loyalty margin"), "margin squeeze" would likely to be the outcome rather than non-renewal of manufacturing contract.
If Endura has lost its relevance in the market by then - there would be no contract needed to build endura.
According to the following report : Endura is poised to remain relevant for a long time to come
(vested)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
UMSH is near-exclusive assembler of Endura system. UMSH generates revenue from Applied Materials in two key ways, namely: i) the manufacturing of metallic components used in the assembly of Applied Materials’ semiconductor equipment as well as consumables for its customers, and ii) acts as the near-exclusive assembly and testing services provider for Applied Materials’ popular Endura system (90% global market share). These are subsequently sold to integrated device manufacturers (IDMs) such as Intel, front-end wafer manufacturers such as TSMC, and back-end packaging and testing services providers such as STATS ChipPAC, which use them in the manufacturing of integrated circuits, memory chips and the like. These are all core components of personal computers (PCs), laptops, smartphones, tablets and other mobile devices
Endura, backbone of the semiconductor sector. The Endura system is the semiconductor industry’s leading “metallisation” platform, whose function is akin to those of a robotic arm in the manufacturing space. According to Applied Materials, the vast majority of microchips made over the last two decades were created by the 4,500 Endura platforms used by over 100 global semiconductor manufacturers. Its integrated multistep process sequence allows for large quality yield and the system is currently unmatched by any other in the market.
Endura to endure. Moving forward, it is highly likely that Endura will continue to be a popular system and will probably be used in conjunction with other systems by front-end wafer manufacturers that are currently striving for smaller node sizes. For example, the Endura Amber Physical Vapour Deposition (PVD) system is able to overcome electroplating difficulties faced by other processes when wafer nodes drop below 20 nanometres (nm). Given that smaller wafer nodes of such size are needed for the increasingly popular smartphones and tablets, and that equipment using Endura can facilitate the manufacturing process of these nodes, Endura is poised to remain relevant for a long time to come.
http://research.osk188.com/attachments/5...a38e82.pdf
Hi Boon,
Does the near exclusive contract guarantee UMS a minimum amount of orders? Cos if not, it's possible that AMAT is free to channel more orders to another vendor?
Based on my experience, there is nothing proprietary in the assembly and testing operations of the Endura system. AMAT just outsourced the entire operations that was originally located in the AMAT US plants to UMS. All the IPs related to the Endura platform belong to AMAT. UMS is just providing a service. Even the parts supplied by UMS to AMAT are supposedly based on specs provided by AMAT. I do not know what is the context of the contract between UMS and AMAT. Shareholders should dig out more details on the contents of the "near exclusive" contract during the AGM. Especially when AMAT is almost the sole revenue source for UMS. If UMS does not own any IP ties AMAT to UMS, then AMAT can easily outsource a portion of Endura's of the orders to other vendors?
Hi Tiggerbee,
If there has not been any co-sharing of any IP from their "joint-development-efforts", how could one explains the high Gross Margin that UMS has got to enjoy consistently since 2010? "Free lunch" from AMAT?
That has always been my query.
(vested)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Lucrative OEM contract with Applied Materials
UMS has a five-year supply contract with AMAT to machine and manufacture components, sub-modules and whole systems for the latter’s Endura vapour deposition equipment from 2012 to 2017. As a result, as much as 80% of UMS’s revenue comes from AMAT such that a comparison of the two companies’ sales trends would look like they are the same company! Some investors may not like this single-customer, single-product dependency.
However,
AMAT gives UMS a fixed percentage allocation (~80%) of its annual requirements at a fixed margin. In addition, this contract is renewable for another five years after 2017. In our view, UMS’s OEM business with AMAT appears to be sustainable.
http://research.maybank-ib.com/pdf/docum...4_5643.pdf
(10-06-2014, 09:57 PM)efreet Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2014, 09:13 PM)yenyenpark Wrote: [ -> ]AM had invested and hold on those shares since 2003! If they cash out, I also think it's reasonable, and this doesn't mean they will stop working with UMS..
in business, we talk business, UMS has worked decade with AM, and similarly AM also holding small shares in many small companies like UMS.. thus probably they are encash their investment, but as long as UMS continue doing a good job, and secure more customers if possible.. I don't think UMS can't survive.. even AM doesn't hold any share in UMS doesn't mean that they will not want UMS as their supplier..
well, this morning I was very worried as well.. and about to divest all my holding (just short of clicking SELL at 0.650) and got a small profit instead of all profit wiped out at the end of bell.. but I was not that worried now, after I had read that AM and UMS had worked together since 2003... UMS had been there even way before dot com bubbles, and I see the logic is this probably one of the golden chance of en cash their shares if I were AM too.. for Andy, I hope he can't do more to boost the business if he wants to have higher price for his remaining 20%... lol..
Hi Bro yenyenpark, i happen to see your posts here. How are you? Don't know if u still remember me. Hehe. Anyway, i am vested in UMS too.
Hi Bro, happy to see you here also.. Long time no see, how are you? Got Huat big big?
(11-06-2014, 01:47 AM)efreet Wrote: [ -> ]Save for the 193 lots sold by AMAT above 90ct, the rest of the sale by both SSH was abt 67-69.5ct. Why didn't they sell those shares at highest point above 90ct during CB? Possible reason is that they want the bonus shares n stay vested in UMS. The bonus shares when credited to their accounts will replenish to some extent what they sold. So could it be just some profit-taking which also results in increase in shares held by others beside the 2 SSH? Due to the small float of shares, a new SSH may emerge but a co is required by sgx to announce changes in SSH interest only a few days later?
BINGO! I also think the best time to sell actually last few day cum-bonus, more meat.. but of course UMS faith is tight deeply to Andy and AM.. the 2A had caused UMS traded below industrial average PE..
If not, may be we see 75c by now.. well.. well..
(11-06-2014, 01:39 AM)ethys Wrote: [ -> ]Guys, one naive thought: if any of the above is true then this would definitely be a material non public information meaning that AMAT and Andy recent sells are inside trading which is strictly forbidden and they can be sued for that. It means they need to release this information before making any investment decisions based on this information.
Really don't think they would take such a big reputational and legal risk especially AMAT!
(11-06-2014, 01:47 AM)efreet Wrote: [ -> ]Save for the 193 lots sold by AMAT above 90ct, the rest of the sale by both SSH was abt 67-69.5ct. Why didn't they sell those shares at highest point above 90ct during CB? Possible reason is that they want the bonus shares n stay vested in UMS. The bonus shares when credited to their accounts will replenish to some extent what they sold. So could it be just some profit-taking which also results in increase in shares held by others beside the 2 SSH? Due to the small float of shares, a new SSH may emerge but a co is required by sgx to announce changes in SSH interest only a few days later?
I've also been wondering why AMAT sold a little before XB. I'm thinking it might be liquidity consideration
If they are expecting a new SSH, they would have done a cross. That's not to say that a non solicited one will not emerge
Events next quarter, not to mention 3years, are not considered insider trading. If it is then board of directors all no need to trade Liao