chan99 thanks for pointing that out, but why are you still insistent on arguing the point of DD by the thais? DD or not, doesn't make this stock more credible the way their debt is evolving.
By the way, it seems since joining our forum u have not posted anything on any other thread but this one as well. Are you vested in any other stocks? care to share your views on those too?
Bluekelah - Since there was some discussion on the DD part, thought this document is enough proof that the Thais have done the DD. Hope this point doesn't come again and btw, this is the only stock which interests me as of now in SGX as it makes for a good thesis - was riding high till Newman9, then all the way down, then Thais entered at cheap valuation and now it is again re-rating. The next few months will be even more interesting.
^^^
(14-04-2016, 12:10 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ] (14-04-2016, 09:46 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (13-04-2016, 11:15 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]For US$20m they will go through EGM and personal guarantees. Now TTA will do the due diligence
If this loan go through they will be able to pay SB1
Hi Mr. specuvestor,
I didn't go into detail of the debate between you, crubs, and portuser on the matter previously, due to other commitments, obviously. I briefly read crubs and portuser part of story now.
Yes, Sino investment, is relatively small to TTA, thus a formal DD is not there. With the high profile of the investment, and the following TTA commitments, it is inconceivable for a "NO due diligence" of TTA on Sino. As portuser has highlighted, as outsider, no way we will know the detail now. We can doubt on depth of the DD, or the focus of the DD due to each individual's opinion, but very unlikely No DD.
May I suggest that let's avoid using "No DD" or similar statement in future posts? Let's give Sino, the benefit of doubt. What do you think?
Regards
Moderator/CF
Hi CF
Sure. You know I only state what I know. I have closed this DD issue 3 days ago: http://www.valuebuddies.com/thread-3371-...#pid128202
The announcement on "Conditions Precedent" say one of the criteria is DD. That's what I was referring to in this recent post
Cheers
(18-04-2016, 12:16 PM)chan99 Wrote: [ -> ]Bluekelah - Since there was some discussion on the DD part, thought this document is enough proof that the Thais have done the DD. Hope this point doesn't come again and btw, this is the only stock which interests me as of now in SGX as it makes for a good thesis - was riding high till Newman9, then all the way down, then Thais entered at cheap valuation and now it is again re-rating. The next few months will be even more interesting.
right just like oldman9 and crubs this is the only stock that interests you
well let's see if it makes as good a thesis when the IPO doesn't come around.
(18-04-2016, 12:29 PM)BlueKelah Wrote: [ -> ] (18-04-2016, 12:16 PM)chan99 Wrote: [ -> ]Bluekelah - Since there was some discussion on the DD part, thought this document is enough proof that the Thais have done the DD. Hope this point doesn't come again and btw, this is the only stock which interests me as of now in SGX as it makes for a good thesis - was riding high till Newman9, then all the way down, then Thais entered at cheap valuation and now it is again re-rating. The next few months will be even more interesting.
right just like oldman9 and crubs this is the only stock that interests you
well let's see if it makes as good a thesis when the IPO doesn't come around.
Thanks Buddy!
Specuvestor wrote on 14 April:
"Secondly this EB restriction would not have applied till this day if it has been redeemed. Like I always tell my children: you can choose your actions; but you cannot choose your consequences. It's a baggage of the past that haunts today."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sino Grandness could not be unaware of the restrictions imposed by bondholders. But to borrow on longer term to grow the nascent beverage business, it had to bite the bullet.
Without the bonds, Sino Grandness could not have earned RMB 518m in 2015, five times the profit of canned food export business.
As the pioneer in the loquat juice market, Garden Fresh has two choices -- grow aggressively to maintain or widen its lead in the market, or grow at a moderate pace to conserve cash to fully redeem the bonds.
While it reduces financial risk, moderate growth presents opportunity for larger beverage players to enter the fray.
In page 50 of 2014 annual report, Sino Grandness stated that the construction of the Anhui plant might be deferred in anticipation of full redemption. The company also indicated negotiation with bondholders for partial redemption.
As it turned out, construction of the Anhui plant proceeded and will be ready for operations this year. Several projects were also initiated last year.
As potential shareholders of Garden Fresh, bondholders might have acquiesced in the expansion plan, to benefit from higher valuation if Garden Fresh is allowed to unleash its potential.
Holders of 2011 Bonds exercised their rights to extend the maturity date of 19 Oct 2014 to 30 June 2015. On 26 June 15, the maturity date was further extended by 25 days, to 25 July 2015, to coincide with that of 2012 Bonds, to facilitate negotiations.
The seven months taken to conclude the partial redemption deal on 29 Feb 2016 was not inordinately long, more so when five bondholders were involved. Bondholders' original collective 23.4% stake in Garden Fresh has been pared to 14.7%; and Garden Fresh has more breathing space to redeem 40% of the bonds, with the bulk to be paid on 28 February 2017, on 10% interest rate.
Not bad. Now they sponsoring Voice of china 2016, for Chengdu selection. Just saw on wechat.
Getting better exposure compared to the previous ones. Hope they can be the strategic sponsor for the whole campaign.
(08-04-2016, 09:31 PM)babyblue Wrote: [ -> ]I really wish facts are checked before being asserted. The first link is not as you have mentioned, the company's own online stall. It is a store by the name of 振鹏达食品. So factually wrong. The second on the other hand is a store from huiyuan itself.
babyblue
It's as Weijian had pointed out....振鹏达食品 IS Sino Grandness' Chinese name. I already said in a prior post on this thread that I tried searching for Garden Fresh's online store and could not find it and instead I found Garden Fresh's drinks listed on Sino Grandness' online store.
FYI, I saw your post 2 weeks ago and did not respond to it as 1) I was away on holidays and 2) I sort of guessed someone else will correct you. And after Weijian had pointed out your mistake, I was hoping that you will at least own up to it but I haven't seen any indication so far. I think it's just courtesy to do it especially when you call others out for being "factually wrong" and "not checking facts before being asserted" when you are non the wiser yourself. Regardless, I don't have a bone to pick with anyone and this post is just to clear my name more than anything.
Hi debronic,
I probably made a mistake with that. It's not my first. Definitely wont be my last. I say probably, not because i dont want to own up to it, but its because I have a different interpretation of how Taobao works and I'm not vested enough to research more to prove im definitively wrong and you are definitively right. As for why I didnt "own up" earlier, I dont read the threads post to post, definitely will miss out posts when a thread gets busy ( and it was at that time)
I just felt that I had to speak out because first, it seems like not a few people were really just taking pot shots at Sino Grandness, from just a cursory look, or a cursory survey and were "uninformed skeptics". Also, I wanted to point out some flawed thinking / circular reasoning that some skeptics have, the root issue of which is that Sino is an schip.
But such is life, in the end some of the skeptics could well turn out to be "correct", even though their reasoning is wrong. Its like playing a poker hand well but still losing, and the stock market is very much like poker.
My own take is this, there is good enough evidence that Sino sales is legit and not an outright fraud. The behaviour of convertible bond holders, their due dilligence, TTA's involvement and due dilligence, DBS as sponsor ( they have to take responsibility should facts turn out to be wrong according to recent HK laws; ie go to jail), market research by two separate reputable firms, circumstantial evidence in carry of products in supermarkets in china etc.
Of course, Sino could turn out to be a fraud but based on the evidence is it probable? If it is, than it will be a fraud on the level of a Bernie Madoff scam or Enron. And that kind of fraud can happen to ANY stock. Although I have to say, it is much easier to verify figures of product like a drink vs the opaquness of a investing scheme ala Madoff or the complexities of the spv / marking to market of exotic products in the case of Enron. The way I protect against this kind of fraud is to invest only what I can afford to lose or the percentage I can make back through the performance of my other stocks in a year whichever is lower.