ValueBuddies.com : Value Investing Forum - Singapore, Hong Kong, U.S.

(24-02-2016, 03:14 PM)chan99 Wrote: [ -> ]Hi Boon,

I agree that Management has put forth their view on the subject matter but do you seriously think that the CFO of SinoG or those connected with the IPO are duds? Or no one is even talking to Bond holders at the moment? To be honest the discussion with Bond holders on how much to redeem & how much to participate in the IPO will be based on the group's numbers and the Bond holders must be very much aware of the profit numbers at this stage. This EGM is a very significant event in SinoG's history & Management would not have conducted it if they were not sure of the numbers. Your last 3 posts, sorry to say, lacks purpose & direction.

Hi chan99,
 
1)  Haha! I am in no position to pass judgment on whether the CFO and those associated with the IPO are duds.
2)  CB1 and CB2 had expired in June/July 2015 with no clear definite outcome. That’s a fact.
3)  CB1 and CB2 have been working “overtime” past its original scheduled maturity or expiry date. That’s a fact.
4)  CB1 and CB2 holders would demand compensation for working “overtime”. That’s common sense.
5)  Did I say no one is even talking to bondholders at the moment?
6)  Agreed. This EGM is a very significant event. But unfortunately all numbers in the Circular were for illustrative purposes only.
7)  However slide 2 statement is an interesting one.
8)  The purpose and direction of my past 3 posts are very clear – the intention is to have a better understanding of the risks in order to better evaluate the upsides and the downsides.
9)  If the basis of slide 2 statement is “the bondholders have agreed to it”, then the strength of an outcome of this event can be fairly predicted – in another words, the uncertainty is low.
10)  If the basis of slide 2 statement is not based on “the bondholders have agreed to it” then the strength of an outcome of this event cannot be fairly predicted – in another words, the uncertainty is high.
11) Of course, 9) would be much preferred over 10)
12) Of course, 4) would have to be fully understood and accounted for as well in the evaluation of upsides and downsides.
13) So what was wrong for raising all these issues? These are all part and parcel of a due diligence process.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(24-02-2016, 04:10 PM)Young Investor Wrote: [ -> ]Hi Mr Boon

Your following statement is very interesting: 

"To eliminate any doubts, there was a need to probe further! That’s exactly what I have been trying to do. 
 
Management do get their judgment wrong at times on certain issues but would it be fair to accuse them of having committed “misrepresentation”?"

Common sense will tell you that bondholders would have read the circular.

Do you not know that CB2 is being represented on GF board of directors by David Chou? Was Chou sleeping when the conversion ratio was fixed at 23.4% in 2014 after 2013 accounts had been audited?

Come on, be constructive rather than putting up ludicrous points.

Hi Young Investor,
 
1)  Ha-ha! I am in no position to pass judgment on whether someone was sleeping in whatever event.
2)  I am in no position to know if bondholders have read the Circular.
3)  Common sense tells me that bondholders and bond issuer have to fulfill their obligations according to the CB contracts, not the circular.
4)  It would be very much appreciated if you could help make a list of ludicrous points that I have made. Unfortunately, what seem constructive to one might seem ludicrous to another.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
 

(24-02-2016, 12:16 PM)crubs Wrote: [ -> ]Boon,

“Unless the “bondholders” have agreed to regard the bond issuer’s story as the “truth”, otherwise everything is just as “fluid” as before………Ha-ha!”

yes they have.

Hi crubs,

Does it mean you have insider information on the bond issue?
Since there is no public official information on the bondholders' stands.

Let's not start any statement in your post, with a "Haha!", it doesn't help your statement in any way. The request applies to all, including Boon.

Regards
Moderator

(24-02-2016, 05:52 PM)alex Wrote: [ -> ]

(24-02-2016, 03:10 PM)Boon Wrote: [ -> ]

(24-02-2016, 12:16 PM)crubs Wrote: [ -> ]Boon,

“Unless the “bondholders” have agreed to regard the bond issuer’s story as the “truth”, otherwise everything is just as “fluid” as before………Ha-ha!”

yes they have.

Hi crubs,

If "bondholders" have agreed to it, then congratulations and I would have nothing more to add, on the aggregate conversion proportion of CB1 and CB2 as per contract. But both CB1 & CB2 had expired in June/July 2015 without a clear definite outcome - no conversion - no redemption - still under negotiation for  extension. 

In another words, CB1 & CB2 have been working "overtime" for quite a long while now , don't you think the bondholders should be fairly compensated for it regardless of if the outcome is conversion or redemption?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Boon, how do you know SG didn't gave them an option to redeem the CB at that point of time? So, from another angle, SG might have given the CB holders opportunity to participate in the IPO as a win-win situation, with them as shareholders of GF to boost confidence/cornerstone investors.

It was fair to allow CB  holders chance to participate in the IPO, as without their money, there is no way GF can grow to this size. In business, it's not just a one off transaction, so you lose out a bit today and win some the next round. You can't win all the time, even though by doing so, maybe shareholders will "lose out a bit", but without them, there will be no IPO to talk about as you need to place out additional 23.4%.


Of course, the CB holders will be the one with the most updated information at any point in time to make such decision. For them to delay today, with their money "not working OT", is because they valued that this IPO will be worth much more than what they are entitled to by taking all accrued interest and leave on expiry.

Hi Alex,
 
I agreed with you that bondholders and bond issuer should think win-win and work together to make things work. Give and take would be part and parcel of the negotiation.
 
If there were no redemption or conversion on expiry, extension should have been done before or on expiry.
 
What I find strange is that CB1 and CB2 had reached its maturity or expiry date in June/July 2015 with no outcome of conversion or redemption or extension. And after so many months, there are still talking about potential extension………………….  
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________   

I'll be more worried if the bond holders choose to redeem. Its a good chance that they see a bigger carrot down the road. At least, this is what i will do in that position. To take the money now or to wait. Your call.

By the way, all publicly released information by the company on formal occasions are obligations. Its the rule. Else, it will be weird if company can come out to release information and not following it through with no good reasons. Therefore, no reason to doubt circular at all.

Hi Boon,

Thanks for taking time out to reply to each of my points. You were all along trying to drive home your point on the Profits to be considered for valuation & even after the company has put it for public consumption you are still raising the same point but now saying that Bond holders have not agreed to it! Seriously man ....... have to give it to you!!! IMO this point has become null & void the moment company has clarified it openly in front of shareholders. What you are are now saying is purely speculative!

As far as extension of Bonds are concerned I would be worried only if they redeem & not otherwise. And btw why is SGX silent? Shouldn't they seek clarification from the company as to why the Bonds have not been extended or redeemed? It constitutes a going concern event if the Bond holders ask for redemption all of a sudden! That's the reason why SinoG had put up a circular saying that Bond holders have agreed to extend the bonds but further discussions are ongoing!

We can discuss/analyse a lot by reading between the lines but when the company has clarified a point clearly the matter should be put to rest. Continuing the same topic again is pure speculation & I thought this forum doesn't allow for such things!

Cheers!

(24-02-2016, 07:42 PM)Boon Wrote: [ -> ]

(24-02-2016, 03:14 PM)chan99 Wrote: [ -> ]Hi Boon,

I agree that Management has put forth their view on the subject matter but do you seriously think that the CFO of SinoG or those connected with the IPO are duds? Or no one is even talking to Bond holders at the moment? To be honest the discussion with Bond holders on how much to redeem & how much to participate in the IPO will be based on the group's numbers and the Bond holders must be very much aware of the profit numbers at this stage. This EGM is a very significant event in SinoG's history & Management would not have conducted it if they were not sure of the numbers. Your last 3 posts, sorry to say, lacks purpose & direction.

Hi chan99,
 
1)  Haha! I am in no position to pass judgment on whether the CFO and those associated with the IPO are duds.
2)  CB1 and CB2 had expired in June/July 2015 with no clear definite outcome. That’s a fact.
3)  CB1 and CB2 have been working “overtime” past its original scheduled maturity or expiry date. That’s a fact.
4)  CB1 and CB2 holders would demand compensation for working “overtime”. That’s common sense.
5)  Did I say no one is even talking to bondholders at the moment?
6)  Agreed. This EGM is a very significant event. But unfortunately all numbers in the Circular were for illustrative purposes only.
7)  However slide 2 statement is an interesting one.
8)  The purpose and direction of my past 3 posts are very clear – the intention is to have a better understanding of the risks in order to better evaluate the upsides and the downsides.
9)  If the basis of slide 2 statement is “the bondholders have agreed to it”, then the strength of an outcome of this event can be fairly predicted – in another words, the uncertainty is low.
10)  If the basis of slide 2 statement is not based on “the bondholders have agreed to it” then the strength of an outcome of this event cannot be fairly predicted – in another words, the uncertainty is high.
11) Of course, 9) would be much preferred over 10)
12) Of course, 4) would have to be fully understood and accounted for as well in the evaluation of upsides and downsides.
13) So what was wrong for raising all these issues? These are all part and parcel of a due diligence process.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Moderator log:

I have to admit that I have given up, to read the posts in detail, with my limited time allocated to VB.

IF official disclosure is available and without doubts, then it should be no reason to further "speculate". Further clarification might follow, but we shouldn't doubt on official disclosure, unless obvious contradiction(s) observed. We need to take verbal communication in EGM, with a pitch of salt, due to a risk of miscommunication. SGXWeb based disclosures, should be reliable.

Boon, any comment?

Regards
Moderator

(25-02-2016, 11:04 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]Moderator log:

I have to admit that I have given up, to read the posts in detail, with my limited time allocated to VB.

IF official disclosure is available and without doubts, then it should be no reason to further "speculate". Further clarification might follow, but we shouldn't doubt on official disclosure, unless obvious contradiction(s) observed. We need to take verbal communication in EGM, with a pitch of salt, due to a risk of miscommunication. SGXWeb based disclosures, should be reliable.

Boon, any comment?

Regards
Moderator

Hi CityFarmer,

This is interesting.

If I interpret the disclosure rules correctly, slide 2 statement should be disclosed via SGXNET according to rule 702 and 703, am I not right?
 
http://rulebook.sgx.com/en/display/displ...62&print=1
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________