Specuvestor wrote:
"It's perplexing why u guys keep asking this question. I am not paid on behalf of sinogrand shareholders to write-in to ACRA and SGX. Like i said i will write-in on my leisure time to satisfy my inquisitive nature and how they interpret S403 with respect to what the directors are doing (notwithstanding their ID is a corporate lawyer and much more knowledgeable than me) and what the auditors represented in AGM."
Of course you are "not paid on behalf of sinogrand shareholders to write-in to ACRA and SGX."
Your said you will write to SGX and ACRA in #1705 ("Yes of course i will be asking about both New Toyo and Sino Grand to understand better where is the technicality specifically to S403, maybe ACRA as well as SGX. Hope ill get an answer that will be enlightening as I am naturally inquisitive"). I hope to read the official replies.
I am surprised that my statement ("Are you of the view that Sino Grandness Food Industry Group Limited has violated the law? Are you writing to SGX and ACRA?") has been taken to be pressure on you to check with the two authorities. It is not.
You have now said "In all bureaucratic nature SGX and ACRA may just cut and paste S403 rather than answer me directly or make a stance. Ive dealt with them before and people answering questions are noob, fresh out of schools."
If you have found bureaucrats of SGX and ACRA are noobs, why did you volunteer to seek clarification from them in the first place?
Huh so now it becomes "volunteer"? Since when doing research or DD is volunteering for the rest? For the record I am not vested in VB and I represent no one but myself. Certainly not a Volunteer nor vested Representative.
You talk to noob first then you proceed. You will get higher up if you understand their protocol. You will be stuck if you are frustrated. You should try engaging them sometime to know how even the most efficient bureaucracy in the world works, and have a better sense of appreciation when you go overseas.
There are also other ways like the contacts you get from say attending SGX own AGM
Specuvestor
You have taken exception to my saying that you volunteered to seek clarification from SGX and Acra.
Your said "Huh so now it becomes "volunteer"? Since when doing research or DD is volunteering for the rest? For the record I am not vested in VB (should be Sino Grandness ) and I represent no one but myself. Certainly not a Volunteer nor vested Representative."
It is not a requisite for a volunteer to represent another person or a group of persons (see the four meanings at the end of this mail).
Earlier, you wrote:
"When I am free I will probably email SGX to ask on the basis" in #1703, and
"Yes of course i will be asking about both New Toyo and Sino Grand to understand better where is the technicality specifically to S403, maybe ACRA as well as SGX. Hope ill get an answer that will be enlightening as I am naturally inquisitive" in #1705.
When you later wrote "It's perplexing why u guys keep asking this question. I am not paid on behalf of sinogrand shareholders to write-in to ACRA and SGX" in #1712, I had to remind you that you had earlier volunteered, on your own volition and freely, to write to the two authorities.
Nitpicking serves no useful purpose.
....................................................................................................
Volunteer is either a noun or verb:
noun
1.a person who freely offers to take part in an enterprise or undertake a task.
2.a person who works for an organization without being paid.
verb
1.freely offer to do something.
2.work for an organization without being paid.
Specuvestor, no need so marfan lah, just wait and see the show lah.
Time flies, only a couple weeks left for IPO to approve, if not shareholder and bond holders will start to get fidgety.
Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk
Hi all,
This will be my first moderation in the capacity of VB moderator.
A few points noted:
(1) I have seen that there has been 3 posts (#1704/1709/1711) by 2 forumers asking specuvestor to clarify with SGX.
(2) 'Nitpicking serves no useful purpose' in post #1715, is an excellent reminder for EVERYONE.
(3) Specuvestor has bought up a doubt during his observation in SG AGM. Many folks have chipped in with examples, and I for one (a noob) has learned a lot of new things from here.
Let's all stop the circular rounding posts of nitpicking. On paper, it sounds logical but it brings
no purpose, and more importantly, no new learning too. For example, bringing up dictionary definition into the thread, is not exactly something I would do. what purpose does it serve? What
value does it add to VB community? --> this is the question I always ask myself before I post/reply.
VB is a place for us to ask questions,
robust debates, fine tune our learning and (get stock tips for some
). Let's keep it that way.
It is
not a place for us to prove that we are superior, or whether someone's else argument is wrong or that we are right. --> Mr Market will prove it to us.
Let's move on.
[Admin's log: Edited post numbers]
The website of the Singapore Academy of Law provides easy-to-read materials. The following states that not withstanding the doctrine of maintenance of capital, if a company makes profits in a particular year, it may pay dividends to its shareholders out of the profits made:
http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of...chapter-16
A. Maintenance of Capital
1. Capital must be maintained and not returned to company members
16.6.4 As a general rule, though this is now subject to many exceptions, a company under Singapore law is required to maintain its capital in the sense that it cannot return capital to its members. This general rule is intended to protect creditors. Creditors of a company are said to give credit to the company on the faith that the capital of the company will be applied only for the purposes of the business and therefore have a right to insist that such capital be kept and not returned to the shareholders - see Re Exchange Banking Co (1882) 21 Ch D 519.
3. Only profits can be returned to company members
16.6.6 This is not to say that members of a company cannot obtain any return on their investment. Indeed, if a company makes profits in a particular year, the company may pay dividends to its shareholders out of the profits made. The rules relating to capital maintenance also do not mean that members of the company must contribute to the company when trading losses have occurred which have depleted the company´s capital. A member´s liability to the company is limited only to the amount he has agreed to contribute to the company when the shares are issued to him. The rules relating to capital maintenance simply mean that, absent profits, a company must not take any steps that in effect return capital to its shareholders.
In #1706, Portuser quoted the stand of the Steering Committee for review of the Companies Act on dividend payment:
"The question is whether or not prior accumulated losses should be cleared before payment of dividends is allowed. There are reasons why this should not be required, viz, current shareholders should not be burdened with disadvantages arising from accumulated losses."
^^ Young investor I already posted the link at post #1705. You might also want to do some housekeeping
(18-05-2016, 01:52 PM)BlueKelah Wrote: [ -> ]Specuvestor, no need so marfan lah, just wait and see the show lah.
Time flies, only a couple weeks left for IPO to approve, if not shareholder and bond holders will start to get fidgety.
Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk
The next catalyst is the 31 May straight bond payments for more clarity on their cashflow
I'm not sure why people keep looking at July for IPO when there are still outstanding A1 from Dec 2015. It could be July, it could be September if at all.
(19-05-2016, 06:55 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]^^ Young investor I already posted the link at post #1705. You might also want to do some housekeeping
(18-05-2016, 01:52 PM)BlueKelah Wrote: [ -> ]Specuvestor, no need so marfan lah, just wait and see the show lah.
Time flies, only a couple weeks left for IPO to approve, if not shareholder and bond holders will start to get fidgety.
Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk
The next catalyst is the 31 May straight bond payments for more clarity on their cashflow
I'm not sure why people keep looking at July for IPO when there are still outstanding A1 from Dec 2015. It could be July, it could be September if at all.
are you referring to the Form A1 for IPO application to list on HKSE? I thought that was put in already last month?
hence people keep looking at IPO and bidding up the share price, since with a successful IPO in the next couple years at least cashflow and bond payment won't be a problem?
Previously one of our VB mention that vesting in this stock had become a binary bet on the IPO happening or not. I think the situation is still very much so.
-n v-
They already submitted A1 for listing application, which I think is valid 6 months. They need the PHIP to be approved for listing and start road show. There's still a backlog of A1 yet to get PHIP, and can be due to discretionary or non-discretionary reasons
I was the one who said 2 years ago that it's a binary event. It is still a binary event 2 years later. If it manages to IPO with Vendor share sale then fundy doesn't matter. Cashflow wins and none wiser. In other words if they IPO without vendor share sale then my skepticism is totally unfounded.
@specuvestor : so it was you!! LOL
its been 2 years already huh, time does fly!!
let's just wait a few more months to find out the fate of this S-Chip lah. Somehow with things starting to go sideways in Hongkong, I am quite sceptical on the IPO.