There is a chance that the Thai deal may not go through given that 1) ONLY a small amount of bondholders have asked for redemption while the rest has extended their redemption,2) the Thai investors may ask for lower price given the fall in share prices.
Vested now at 0.405
Another CMZ alike debate...
The rise of loquat juice is truely spectacular. For a yearly increase of 200million in PPE, the revenue increases by 600million annually.
I noted that Huang Yupeng is getting $1.7 million of salary for 2013 and none of his management staffs gets more than $250k.
HUANG YUSHAN (黄育珊) executive director, HR, only earned $17000.
ZENG MING (曾明), executive director, research, earned $36000.
??? a two billion revenue company has a $17k CFO and HR VP?
Did I interpret wrongly?
http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/Sino%20G...leID=20794
Moderator Update:
This thread attracted lot of interests, both from existing and newly joined buddies. Exiting buddies usually don't give us problem, but new buddies need closer monitoring.
As a precautionary move, suspicious new buddies, will be put under moderation i.e. means their post will be vetted, before go public.
Please take note.
Regards
Moderator CF
Good morning everyone.
The king in caned & bottled drinks in china is Zong QingHou of Hangzhou Wahaha Group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangzhou_Wahaha_Group
Ask any China friends in Singapore about popular fruit juice brands in China.
The popular brands in china are 娃哈哈，汇源(this is the one Coca-cola failed to take over), 农夫，美汁源（Coca-cola's co.), 统一，康师傅.
<not vested><not a call to buy or sell>
On Sino Grandness 2012 Annual Report :
Revenue (Year ended 31 December 2012) is 1,640,258,626 RMB
On Sino Grandness 2013 Annual Report :
Revenue (Year ended 31 December 2012) is 1,632,387,153 RMB
The difference is small, 7,871473 RMB only, but don't know which one is the correct one ?
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Not vested.
(28-10-2014, 01:51 PM)cyclone Wrote: [ -> ]On Sino Grandness 2012 Annual Report :
Revenue (Year ended 31 December 2012) is 1,640,258,626 RMB
On Sino Grandness 2013 Annual Report :
Revenue (Year ended 31 December 2012) is 1,632,387,153 RMB
The difference is small, 7,871473 RMB only, but don't know which one is the correct one ?
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Not vested.
Probably 2013 report restated 2012 revenue......its common
Mr market thinks its worth another 10% less today, its either going to the buy of the year or a another great flop
(28-10-2014, 11:05 AM)yeokiwi Wrote: [ -> ]Another CMZ alike debate...
The rise of loquat juice is truely spectacular. For a yearly increase of 200million in PPE, the revenue increases by 600million annually.
I noted that Huang Yupeng is getting $1.7 million of salary for 2013 and none of his management staffs gets more than $250k.
HUANG YUSHAN (黄育珊) executive director, HR, only earned $17000.
ZENG MING (曾明), executive director, research, earned $36000.
??? a two billion revenue company has a $17k CFO and HR VP?
Did I interpret wrongly?
http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/Sino%20G...leID=20794
Continuing....
Key management personnel (other than directors):
– salaries and related costs 1,038,433 1,107,760
– defined contributions 72,098 90,594
Impressive. The entire key management team only costs about S$200k per year.
The entire staff remuneration including CEO costs $53million(the CEO gets $8million out of it)
In comparison, CMZ, in 2013, with a revenue of RMB3billion has a staff cost of 336million.
(28-10-2014, 01:51 PM)cyclone Wrote: [ -> ]On Sino Grandness 2012 Annual Report :
Revenue (Year ended 31 December 2012) is 1,640,258,626 RMB
On Sino Grandness 2013 Annual Report :
Revenue (Year ended 31 December 2012) is 1,632,387,153 RMB
The difference is small, 7,871473 RMB only, but don't know which one is the correct one ?
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Not vested.
Sales rebate 2012 amounting to RMB 7.87 m was reclassified:
You need to refere to refer to note 32 in page 115 of annual report 2013.
32 Comparative figure
In prior years, the sales rebate was recorded as an expense under distribution cost in the profit or loss. Rebates should have been netted off against the revenue under FRS 18. Therefore, reclassification have been made to the prior year’s financial statements. Comparative figures have been adjusted to conform to the current year’s presentation.
(28-10-2014, 10:39 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]Wildreamz it's hard to have a "complete" fraud if that's your point. It's a matter of degree... it's like saying a fund cannot be underperforming because one of the stock it holds doubled. The equity proceeds of SGD25m in 2009 and SGD23m last year, not to mention the CB proceeds, will be able to fund for these activities. Key is to look at how the cashflow changes, either funded or used
IMHO the catalyst will be whether the thais show us the money as the deal is still not closed
Thanks. That is my point exactly, while I understand it is often advantageous to have a good degree of skepticism, the level of skepticism on every single claim (whether the product is even commercially viable, sales figure are faked 2-5x, SG paid analyst for their report, SG paid big time retailers to slot more and more of their stock on their shelves for 4 years etc) seems more than reasonable.
Also agreed with the Thai deal being the biggest short-term catalyst in this point in time. The good thing is, we will probably know the answer soon, because the deal is meant to be completed by the end of this month.
(28-10-2014, 03:20 PM)portuser Wrote: [ -> ] (28-10-2014, 01:51 PM)cyclone Wrote: [ -> ]On Sino Grandness 2012 Annual Report :
Revenue (Year ended 31 December 2012) is 1,640,258,626 RMB
On Sino Grandness 2013 Annual Report :
Revenue (Year ended 31 December 2012) is 1,632,387,153 RMB
The difference is small, 7,871473 RMB only, but don't know which one is the correct one ?
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Not vested.
Sales rebate 2012 amounting to RMB 7.87 m was reclassified:
You need to refere to refer to note 32 in page 115 of annual report 2013.
32 Comparative figure
In prior years, the sales rebate was recorded as an expense under distribution cost in the profit or loss. Rebates should have been netted off against the revenue under FRS 18. Therefore, reclassification have been made to the prior year’s financial statements. Comparative figures have been adjusted to conform to the current year’s presentation.
Hi portuser,
Thanks for the explanation.