Boon,
Haha I refrained from pointing it out earlier because I wanted to see if you are objective with your analysis.
"1) Those who have read page 44 would have drawn the same conclusion as you."
There is no room for a different conclusion. The statement is conclusive.
Let me start by asking. Are you implying that the lawyers on both sides (CB and Sino Grandness) agree to the use of the term "Extraordinary Item" even though it is not recognised by IFRS ? Are you saying that the lawyers are writing rubbish ? What could they mean by "Extraordinary Item" ?
(13-02-2016, 08:36 PM)crubs Wrote: [ -> ]Boon,
Haha I refrained from pointing it out earlier because I wanted to see if you are objective with your analysis.
"1) Those who have read page 44 would have drawn the same conclusion as you."
There is no room for a different conclusion. The statement is conclusive.
Let me start by asking. Are you implying that the lawyers on both sides (CB and Sino Grandness) agree to the use of the term "Extraordinary Item" even though it is not recognised by IFRS ? Are you saying that the lawyers are writing rubbish ? What could they mean by "Extraordinary Item" ?
Hi crubs,
First, you were saying those who
a) had read page 44 and discovered the related clause; AND
b) had drawn the same interpretation/conclusion as you that CB related expenses are extraordinary items; BUT
c) did not immediately share “the discovery” with forumers
are deemed to be "NOT have acted in the interests of the forumers.”
Now, you are saying
i) you had read and discovered the related clause long time ago; AND
ii) you are sticking with your interpretation/conclusion; AND
iii) you had intentionally delayed sharing “the discovery” with forumers.
So effectively you are saying "you have NOT been acting in the interests of the forumers” , are you not ? – Hahaha!
This is interesting stuff! Will be back for more!
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Boon,
HAHAH WRONG !
It is in the interest of forumers to know that selective disclosure is practiced by you and I have alerted them to this ASAP. Consistent !
Let me start by asking. Are you implying that the lawyers on both sides (CB and Sino Grandness) agree to the use of the term "Extraordinary Item" even though it is not recognised by IFRS ? Are you saying that the lawyers are writing rubbish ? What could they mean by "Extraordinary Item" ?
Don't avoid this question. This needs to be addressed so we can debate about your post #1290
23 Feb is just 9 days away, the truth will be out than.
Hi Mr Boon
Can you let us know why you deleted the underlined portion of the definition on "net profit":
“Net Profit” means, with respect to a financial quarter or a financial year of the HK Issuer, the consolidated net profits of the HK Issuer and its subsidiaries after taxation, interest, depreciation and amortisation with respect to such financial quarter or year, as applicable, as confirmed by the audited accounts of the HK Issuer. For the avoidance of doubt, costs and expenses incurred in connection with the Qualifying IPO and any extraordinary items shall not be taken into account in determining “Net Profit”.
(14-02-2016, 01:00 PM)crubs Wrote: [ -> ]Boon,
HAHAH WRONG !
It is in the interest of forumers to know that selective disclosure is practiced by you and I have alerted them to this ASAP. Consistent !
Let me start by asking. Are you implying that the lawyers on both sides (CB and Sino Grandness) agree to the use of the term "Extraordinary Item" even though it is not recognised by IFRS ? Are you saying that the lawyers are writing rubbish ? What could they mean by "Extraordinary Item" ?
Don't avoid this question. This needs to be addressed so we can debate about your post #1290
Hi crubs,
Company X needs some funding for its normal business operation/expansion.
Consider a few of the following simplified borrowing plans:
Plan A : Bank Borrowing
Principal = 100 m
Term = 3 years
Interest rate = 5 % p.a. (paid annually)
Annual interest expense = 5 m (cash)
Principal Payable at end of year 3 = 100m
Question A: Is the annual interest expense of 5 m (cash) an “extraordinary item ?
NO, it is NOT an extraordinary item. It is an ordinary expense incurred by normal business operational activities.
Plan B : Bond Issuance
Instead of borrowing from the bank, Company X could issue Bond with the following terms:
Term = 3 years
Principal amount = 100m
Issuing price = 100 m (at par)
Coupon = 5% p.a. paid annually
Annual interest expense = 5 m (cash)
Principal Payable at end of year 3 = 100m
Question B: Is the annual interest expense of 5 m in cash an “extraordinary item ?
NO, it is NOT an extraordinary item. It is an ordinary expense incurred by normal business operational activities.
Plan C: Zero-Coupon Bond at Discount
Company X could issue a zero-coupon at discount with the following terms:
Term= 3 years
Assumed market interest rate of 5% throughout the 3 year term period.
Principal = Face Value =100 m
Issued price = 86.38 m
Discount = 13.62 m = interest expense to be amortized over the 3 year period
Principal Payable at end of year 3 = 100m
Question C : Is the total interest expense of 13.62 m to be amortized over the 3 year term period considered an “extraordinary item ?
NO, it is NOT an extraordinary item. It is an ordinary expense incurred by normal business operational activities.
Plan D : Convertible Bond (Zero-Coupon Bond at Discount)
Company X could issue Convertible Bond with the following terms:
Term= 3 years
Assumed market interest rate of 5% throughout the 3 year term.
Principal = Face Value =100 m
Issued price = 86.38 m
Discount = 13.62 m = interest expense to be amortized over the 3 year period
Principal Payable at end of year 3 = 100m
Conversion feature : Bondholders has the right but not obligation to convert ALL (no partial conversion) at MATURITY only (no early conversion)
Question D : Is the total interest expense of 13.62 m to be amortized over the 3 year term considered an “extraordinary item ?
NO, it is NOT an extraordinary item. It is an ordinary expense incurred by normal business operational activities.
In short, interest expenses incurred by normal business operational activities do not qualify as extraordinary items.
___________________________________________________________________
Extraordinary items relate to gain/loss that are “unusual” and “infrequent” such as write-down of intangible asset, casualty loss…..
IFRS do not use the concept of "extraordinary items" - this doesn't mean the concept cannot be adopted at all in any contract. This doesn't mean contracts that adopt the concept is rubbish as you have described.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Boon,
Thank you once again for showing me that you do not know anything about Sino Grandness' situation !
You are right about situation D, but that is
Not Sino Grandness' situation. You have missed out a major point. Do you know what you missed out ?
I suggest you read the circulars again before debating with me.
Or tell me when you give up so I can give you the answer
Oh by the way, it was also explained during the July 2012 EGM. Too bad you just started looking at this company and there's a lot that you still don't know.
Haha yes, thank you for helping me explain "Extraordinary Item". Now we are getting closer to the truth.
(14-02-2016, 11:02 PM)crubs Wrote: [ -> ]Boon,
Thank you once again for showing me that you do not know anything about Sino Grandness' situation !
You are right about situation D, but that is Not Sino Grandness' situation. You have missed out a major point. Do you know what you missed out ?
I suggest you read the circulars again before debating with me.
Or tell me when you give up so I can give you the answer
Oh by the way, it was also explained during the July 2012 EGM. Too bad you just started looking at this company and there's a lot that you still don't know.
Haha yes, thank you for helping me explain "Extraordinary Item". Now we are getting closer to the truth.
It is normal to have different interpretation or views.
Teasing and challenging is rather childish.
Boon have laid out much information and if you think he is wrong, you can just correct it.
Be professional.
Haha, as I was reading yeokiwi's post, Elvis' song was playing in the background (courtesy of Chialc88) and somehow I thought that it might reflect Boon-san's feelings:
For what is a man, what has he got
If not himself, then he has naught
To say the things he truly feels
And not the words of one who kneels
The record shows I took the blows
Crubs
If you are not too busy, perhaps you could enlighten us with regards to the happenings during the July 2012 EGM? Thanks.