I found the first report to be rather thorough and convincing to be honest. Furthermore, after hearing what management has to say, compared to the report, it somehow lacks substance. How can they just convince us shareholder's by just saying that what they are doing is all legal and to just trust them. Anyways, I received the second report (attached in the link below). There are pictures in it, however, my opinion are that it can be misrepresented and can seen both ways. My biggest question would really be why did the Thai investors still invest in Sino even if it was a small amount of money to them.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/can85x062t07kh...4.pdf?dl=0
I come across this new posting from Nextinsight.
"About 80.5% of 1st bondholders decided to extend to Jun 2015. Why are they doing this if the company is of concern. Is it significant for the company?"
Hope someone can enlighten the shareholders. Thanks.
If you read the two VIC reports, there is nothing to lose for bondholders
The company need to pay 20 - 25% interest to the bondholders per year.
If the company closes down, the bondholders are the first to get paid from the sell of the assets of the company.
I hope my above understanding is correct
(23-10-2014, 07:39 PM)Young Investor Wrote: [ -> ]I come across this new posting from Nextinsight.
"About 80.5% of 1st bondholders decided to extend to Jun 2015. Why are they doing this if the company is of concern. Is it significant for the company?"
Hope someone can enlighten the shareholders. Thanks.
Equity holders are last in line...no wonder share price is falling day after day..
(23-10-2014, 07:44 PM)Max12345678 Wrote: [ -> ]If you read the two VIC reports, there is nothing to lose for bondholders
The company need to pay 20 - 25% interest to the bondholders per year.
If the company closes down, the bondholders are the first to get paid from the sell of the assets of the company.
I hope my above understanding is correct
(23-10-2014, 07:39 PM)Young Investor Wrote: [ -> ]I come across this new posting from Nextinsight.
"About 80.5% of 1st bondholders decided to extend to Jun 2015. Why are they doing this if the company is of concern. Is it significant for the company?"
Hope someone can enlighten the shareholders. Thanks.
I actually find the 2nd VIC report even more damning than the first one, as there were specific rebuttals that scored many points. Now that all the info is easily accessible, it's up to the market to decide who to believe.
The 'show' is on!
Sino Grandness CEO flew to SG today, spoke with analysts and investors during lunchtime today. Assured everyone.
This news is from another website.
(23-10-2014, 08:30 PM)sykn Wrote: [ -> ]I actually find the 2nd VIC report even more damning than the first one, as there were specific rebuttals that scored many points. Now that all the info is easily accessible, it's up to the market to decide who to believe.
When persons holding 19.5% aggregate value of 2011 bonds asked for redemption in early Oct, holders of 2012 bonds (maturing in Sep 2015) could ask for earlier redemption. This did not happen.
The principal values of 2011 bonds and 2012 bonds are RMB 100m and RMB 270m respectively. Only RMB 19.5m (belonging to the first tranche) were redeemed for RMB38m. The rest could have walked away with around RMB 623m, but they did not.
The report by newman9(VIC) says that “based on 1.5x EV/Sales for the beverage business and the assumption that sales are only 5x overstated (despite evidence suggesting sales could be overstated by 25x or more….”.
If sales were overstated 2x only, Garden Fresh would have incurred huge losses in 2012 and 2013 when the reported sales were halved:
.………………………….……...….....…...…2012.……..2013
Reported sales (RMB m)….........…..865……..1,382
Reported pre-tax profit (RMB m)…..223…………368
Equity of Garden Fresh as at 31 Dec 2011 was RMB86m only. If Garden Fresh has suffered huge losses in 2012 and 2013, its actual equity should be negative now.
Goldman Sach is one of those holding out and it is not aware that the bonds are worthless without any equity backing at all. Can this be the case?
The show is on indeed.
http://tta.listedcompany.com/newsroom/20...r01-en.pdf
Interesting to see buy-side analysts from Thoresen Thai Agencies and Goldman Sachs, as well as HKSE's analysts (if they are engaged at all that is) all get it wrong and shamed by some anonymous short-seller on the web.
It might actually be worth the cash that I invested.
(staying vested to see show, ymmv)
(23-10-2014, 09:36 PM)portuser Wrote: [ -> ]The report by newman9(VIC) says that “based on 1.5x EV/Sales for the beverage business and the assumption that sales are only 5x overstated (despite evidence suggesting sales could be overstated by 25x or more….”.
If sales were overstated 2x only, Garden Fresh would have incurred huge losses in 2012 and 2013 when the reported sales were halved:
.………………………….……...….....…...…2012.……..2013
Reported sales (RMB m)….........…..865……..1,382
Reported pre-tax profit (RMB m)…..223…………368
Equity of Garden Fresh as at 31 Dec 2011 was RMB86m only. If Garden Fresh has suffered huge losses in 2012 and 2013, its actual equity should be negative now.
Goldman Sach is one of those holding out and it is not aware that the bonds are worthless without any equity backing at all. Can this be the case?
There are two tranches of capital inflow, by CB in 2011 (100 million RMB) and 2012 (270 million RMB), total of 370 million RMB.
(not vested)
With so much debt to recycle just wonder what happen to the IPO? If the IPO is not going to happen soon, will it turn out to be another Goldman pull the plug case in waiting?
Singapore Inc. prefers to be cheated then to question the Co. Seems to me that Singapore Inc. had too many failed Co. including its very own. If so many Co. is failing, where is the economy heading?