Hi all VBs,
SinoGrandness thread is open again. The thread was previously closed due to feedback from external parties and as a pre-emptive measure, the Moderators decided to close the thread. There was a request made in Oct2016 to open the thread but after discussion, we did not proceed ahead.
Recently, CY09 flagged out this thread was still closed and we decided to open the thread again as previous concerns (against opening it) were diminished in our opinion.
As usual, our house rules apply:
https://www.valuebuddies.com/thread-1844...#pid142286
Moderator
On 16 Jun 2016 when this thread was closed, the SinoG share price was 57cts.
The current price is 19cts.
STI index was 2751 and it is currently at 3230.
On the way, there was a 5 for 11 right issue at 21cts.
The skeptics were right till date - SinoG was/is not a good investment.
This is an excellent learning case of long term vs short term noises! Loud voices tried their best to defend their vested interest and looking only for confirmation bias.
So at least time is the judge this time and fortunately or unfortunately (depends on which side u ar), it is quite a short time (1 year+).
If i learn one thing from this saga, it is that the incentive force is so strong that is probably better to stop trying our best effort in talking sense to the vested interest.
agrees.
It works both way.
I'm very mindful of that.
I kept reminding myself not to be too extreme.
I guess, it's more difficult to do than typing.
Will try to be factual and not too emotional moving forward.
Time to roll?
![[Image: hinsang7.15.jpg]](https://nextinsight.net/images/stories/Sino_Grandness/hinsang7.15.jpg)
(13-09-2017, 11:58 PM)ksir Wrote: [ -> ]This is an excellent learning case of long term vs short term noises! Loud voices tried their best to defend their vested interest and looking only for confirmation bias.
So at least time is the judge this time and fortunately or unfortunately (depends on which side u ar), it is quite a short time (1 year+).
If i learn one thing from this saga, it is that the incentive force is so strong that is probably better to stop trying our best effort in talking sense to the vested interest.
I reckon that the motivation of any posting shouldn't be trying to "talk sense to the vested interest" - as much as it should be anything to do with "win an online argument", "proving you are right", "2nd guessing the other party's posting intentions" or "trying to convince yourself". All these are not contributory to having a healthy discussion on the forum for OPMIs.
Rather it should be about "keeping an open mind", "readily be willing to be proven wrong" and "ready to see new blind spots by taking the outside view". I reckon with the latter, knowledge can compound just as much as our monetary wealth does - Knowledge and monetary wealth actually synergizes! (knowledge creates monetary wealth, monetary wealth allows knowledge to be leveraged and the effect just snowballs..)
(14-09-2017, 09:05 AM)weijian Wrote: [ -> ] (13-09-2017, 11:58 PM)ksir Wrote: [ -> ]This is an excellent learning case of long term vs short term noises! Loud voices tried their best to defend their vested interest and looking only for confirmation bias.
So at least time is the judge this time and fortunately or unfortunately (depends on which side u ar), it is quite a short time (1 year+).
If i learn one thing from this saga, it is that the incentive force is so strong that is probably better to stop trying our best effort in talking sense to the vested interest.
I reckon that the motivation of any posting shouldn't be trying to "talk sense to the vested interest" - as much as it should be anything to do with "win an online argument", "proving you are right", "2nd guessing the other party's posting intentions" or "trying to convince yourself". All these are not contributory to having a healthy discussion on the forum for OPMIs.
Rather it should be about "keeping an open mind", "readily be willing to be proven wrong" and "ready to see new blind spots by taking the outside view". I reckon with the latter, knowledge can compound just as much as our monetary wealth does - Knowledge and monetary wealth actually synergizes! (knowledge creates monetary wealth, monetary wealth allows knowledge to be leveraged and the effect just snowballs..)
I concur on the latter part of your post. But the prerequisite for healthy exchange to form such discussion is logic and sense and fact and not emotion due to vested interest.
However, the actual fact is that, the incentive force is so strong that it prevent such to occur. So it tends to be a party coming out with data and logic formed due to facts and the other just based on emotion and accusation.
So without equal footing, the one with logic is usually at disadvantage as the louder voice is louder! So the ability of Moderator to filter and assist the fact-bearer is paramount to the success of the discussion.
I'm reminded of the quote by Don Corleone: "keep your friends close but your enemies closer".
More often than not, we learn more from our mistakes than our successes. Analogously, we learn more from our critics than our supporters. If one has built up a sufficiently thick hide to publicly declare one's position (in stocks), one should also develop the humility/temperament to accept the brickbats.
P.S. While I can empathise with the decision to freeze a thread for a few days to let things cool down somewhat, I disagree with the moderators' decision to lock the thread for so long. So kudos to CY09 for raising the need to unlock this thread.
(14-09-2017, 09:58 AM)ksir Wrote: [ -> ] (14-09-2017, 09:05 AM)weijian Wrote: [ -> ] (13-09-2017, 11:58 PM)ksir Wrote: [ -> ]This is an excellent learning case of long term vs short term noises! Loud voices tried their best to defend their vested interest and looking only for confirmation bias.
So at least time is the judge this time and fortunately or unfortunately (depends on which side u ar), it is quite a short time (1 year+).
If i learn one thing from this saga, it is that the incentive force is so strong that is probably better to stop trying our best effort in talking sense to the vested interest.
I reckon that the motivation of any posting shouldn't be trying to "talk sense to the vested interest" - as much as it should be anything to do with "win an online argument", "proving you are right", "2nd guessing the other party's posting intentions" or "trying to convince yourself". All these are not contributory to having a healthy discussion on the forum for OPMIs.
Rather it should be about "keeping an open mind", "readily be willing to be proven wrong" and "ready to see new blind spots by taking the outside view". I reckon with the latter, knowledge can compound just as much as our monetary wealth does - Knowledge and monetary wealth actually synergizes! (knowledge creates monetary wealth, monetary wealth allows knowledge to be leveraged and the effect just snowballs..)
I concur on the latter part of your post. But the prerequisite for healthy exchange to form such discussion is logic and sense and fact and not emotion due to vested interest.
However, the actual fact is that, the incentive force is so strong that it prevent such to occur. So it tends to be a party coming out with data and logic formed due to facts and the other just based on emotion and accusation.
So without equal footing, the one with logic is usually at disadvantage as the louder voice is louder! So the ability of Moderator to filter and assist the fact-bearer is paramount to the success of the discussion.
Agreed that logical, sensible and factual are foundation for healthy exchange of idea.
what are the logic, sense and fact brought up in the discussion (before it re-opened)?
Was the discussion logical?
Was the discussion based common sense?
Was the discussion back with fact?
Were both vested and not vested parties discussed with 'logic, sense and fact'?
Full disclosure, was vested at one point. Started out as an investment, that turn into a binary trade (for the IPO).
Was lucky that I was able to exit at just the right time last year before it was clear that the IPO will not materialize.
On hindsight, it's was an investment that was "too hard". Forensic accounting is not my strength.
What kept investors going was Thoresen Thai and Goldman Sachs' involvements along the way. What broke the camel's back (to me) is that insiders never bought back shares despite record profits, when valuation was hugely distressed; worst, they even issued rights at distressed valuations.
Quote:"What you find is there's never just one cockroach in the kitchen when you start looking around," Warren Buffett, on Wells Fargo 2017/08/30
(17-09-2017, 11:19 PM)Wildreamz Wrote: [ -> ]Full disclosure, was vested at one point. Started out as an investment, that turn into a binary trade (for the IPO).
Was lucky that I was able to exit at just the right time last year before it was clear that the IPO will not materialize.
On hindsight, it's was an investment that was "too hard". Forensic accounting is not my strength.
What kept investors going was Thoresen Thai and Goldman Sachs' involvements along the way. What broke the camel's back (to me) is that insiders never bought back shares despite record profits, when valuation was hugely distressed; worst, they even issued rights at distressed valuations.
Quote:"What you find is there's never just one cockroach in the kitchen when you start looking around," Warren Buffett, on Wells Fargo 2017/08/30
Sino Grandness started out in a similar script - high profit margins with improving profits, while share price was never too high for one to attempt to take a position in - It is always easy to convince ourselves to buy cheap stuff but the question is always "What is it cheap? And if it is, was Mr Market wrong?"
So it came into the "too hard" for me to understand as well. But thanks to VB buddies (on both sides of the long/short camp) discussing about it, it very soon transformed from "too hard" to "not hard" - the "a-ha" moment came when I read Boon's table back in Feb2016.
https://www.valuebuddies.com/thread-3371...#pid125427
https://www.valuebuddies.com/thread-3371...#pid128745
"It's not (just) about what you look, it is (all) about what you see"