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

Full Version: Sino Grandness
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
In 2014, TTA and PM Group, both controlled by Mr Prayudh Mahagitsiri, took 9% and 4% stakes in Sino Grandness respectively. TTA, which is listed in the Bangkok Stock Exchange, has recently released its 2014 annual report.

The following extracts from the annual report are interesting:

Page 166 Extract : "On 30 December 2014, Soleado [wholly owned by TTA] subscribed ......shares......of Sino Grandness Food Industry Group Limited (“SGFI”).......... According to the subscription agreement, Soleado shall have active representative on the board of directors of SGFI and the dividend policy has been specified, any changes in term and conditions shall be agreed by Soleado. As a meaningful representation on the governing body of an entity generally indicates significant influence, then the Company classified SGFI as an associate."

To qualify as an associate, the normal shareholding threshold is 20%. TTA's stake in Sino Grandness is 9% only.

But as TTA has declared that it has significant influence over Sino Grandness (and hence classifying Sino as an associate company), it cannot be a passive shareholder. TTA should have a fair idea of how Sino Grandness is being run.

If Sino Grandness becomes unprofitable later on, TTA will have to book 9% of losses.



Page 38 Extract: "Diversification strategy underway : 2014 saw TTA make a strategic investment in Sino Grandness as part of the Group’s overarching diversification strategy. The investment will provide exposure to the China market, and to a new industry sector (food and beverages). TTA also sees potential for Sino Grandness to leverage TTA’s global infrastructure and experience to extend its business to other markets beyond China."

On separate occasions, Sino CEO has indicated that Sino's branded products will go beyond China, with Hong Kong as the first station, to be followed by Thailand, and other Southeast Asian countries. TTA, working with PM group, will have the distribution rights in Southeast Asia which has a combined population of 1 billion people.
Hi portuser

TTA owns 9% does not mean losses will be 9% to TTA

Hi Oldman9

It is obvious to me why cb1 restructured maturity to one month before cb2. If cb1 holders were confident they would have restructured to after cb2 maturity

Now that the payment has been delayed to cb2 maturity, it can be construed either way. The saga and debate continues for another month; and none will be wiser next 4 weeks
Actually,I have been wondering why are so many so concern over the entire soap opera... seriously nothing to hunt for values for China companies?

No Vested Interests

(29-06-2015, 07:58 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]Hi portuser

TTA owns 9% does not mean losses will be 9% to TTA

Hi Oldman9

It is obvious to me why cb1 restructured maturity to one month before cb2. If cb1 holders were confident they would have restructured to after cb2 maturity

Now that the payment has been delayed to cb2 maturity, it can be construed either way. The saga and debate continues for another month; and none will be wiser next 4 weeks
Cause unlike other "obvious" schips, this one has certain risk/ reward profile one can actually talk of Smile
(29-06-2015, 07:58 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]Hi portuser

TTA owns 9% does not mean losses will be 9% to TTA


After classifying Sino Grandness as an associated company, TTA will book 9% of profits/losses of Sino Grandness.

It would have been clearer had I added "its" in yesterday's post:

"To qualify as an associate, the normal shareholding threshold is 20%. TTA's stake in Sino Grandness is 9% only.

But as TTA has declared that it has significant influence over Sino Grandness (and hence classifying Sino as an associate company), it cannot be a passive shareholder. TTA should have a fair idea of how Sino Grandness is being run.

If Sino Grandness becomes unprofitable later on, TTA will have to book 9% of its losses.
"
Look at F&N associate Fung Choi Media.
(29-06-2015, 04:26 PM)Behappyalways Wrote: [ -> ]Look at F&N associate Fung Choi Media.

What relevance does this have with Sino ? Are you saying all associates are loss making ?
(29-06-2015, 05:32 PM)crubs Wrote: [ -> ]
(29-06-2015, 04:26 PM)Behappyalways Wrote: [ -> ]Look at F&N associate Fung Choi Media.

What relevance does this have with Sino ? Are you saying all associates are loss making ?

I think what he meant was despite how reputable some parent companies may be, some still make bad investment decisions - an example would be F&N's investment in Fung Choi Media.
(29-06-2015, 06:57 PM)Aldar Wrote: [ -> ]
(29-06-2015, 05:32 PM)crubs Wrote: [ -> ]
(29-06-2015, 04:26 PM)Behappyalways Wrote: [ -> ]Look at F&N associate Fung Choi Media.

What relevance does this have with Sino ? Are you saying all associates are loss making ?

I think what he meant was despite how reputable some parent companies may be, some still make bad investment decisions - an example would be F&N's investment in Fung Choi Media.

agree, but then I could also show a positive example and say how some parent companies make good investment decisions. In short, that statement did not add to the quality of the discussion.
(28-06-2015, 10:07 PM)Oldman9 Wrote: [ -> ]
(28-06-2015, 10:02 PM)newborn1000 Wrote: [ -> ]All these are red flags for me though.......which bondholder doesnt want to get paid........

Not vested

Hi Newborn1000

thanks for the reply.
If CB1 bondholders wants to get paid, they would not have notified Sino on the extension but request for payment (inclusive of the hefty penalty), right?

did I read wrongly?... hmmm

oldman9

I am also thinking now why wouldnt they want the hefty penalty gain too......