(13-08-2015, 04:24 PM)Bibi Wrote: [ -> ] (13-08-2015, 04:01 PM)lilvestor Wrote: [ -> ] (13-08-2015, 03:48 PM)fat al Wrote: [ -> ] (13-08-2015, 03:25 PM)lilvestor Wrote: [ -> ]Whats there to prove? Elman (chairman of the company) owns over 1/5th of Noble group, its reasonable to assume that he is doing this to protect his own interest.
Short of getting him to admit this to the press there is no obviously no way for anyone to prove this, but its a reasonable deduction.
Here's another angle: As sharebuyback comes at a cost, Elman also bears 1/5th of the cost. His decision on sharebuyback had better be rational then. I doubt Sharebuyback can protect shareholders' value indefinitely.
self-disclosure: I have no vested interest in Noble, nor evaluating it. Just curious about the ruckus.
He only owns 1/5th of the company, but he is utilising all of the company's resources to support his own interest.
Think about it this way, Elman can either risk his own money to buy more of Noble's shares in the open market, or he can use the company's funds to do the same thing. Both would achieve the same result, but he would be taking far greater risks if he did it with his own money.
Anyway I doubt he has the financial capacity to buy that many shares...
I think Boustead also doing the same thing. Damn, has it not been the co buying back tonns of shares, I think its share price would have fallen to 70++ cents and I would have vested.
I think Boustead has no/very little net debt, they are in a totally different situation.
The best way to support noble is for Elman to use literally his own money to scope as much as possible as a mark of confidence and mean what he says. Action speaks louder than words. It makes no sense to use dwindling cash of the company and cost to do it. This only make investors wonder and more worried.
(13-08-2015, 05:32 PM)lilvestor Wrote: [ -> ] (13-08-2015, 04:17 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (13-08-2015, 04:01 PM)lilvestor Wrote: [ -> ] (13-08-2015, 03:48 PM)fat al Wrote: [ -> ] (13-08-2015, 03:25 PM)lilvestor Wrote: [ -> ]Whats there to prove? Elman (chairman of the company) owns over 1/5th of Noble group, its reasonable to assume that he is doing this to protect his own interest.
Short of getting him to admit this to the press there is no obviously no way for anyone to prove this, but its a reasonable deduction.
Here's another angle: As sharebuyback comes at a cost, Elman also bears 1/5th of the cost. His decision on sharebuyback had better be rational then. I doubt Sharebuyback can protect shareholders' value indefinitely.
self-disclosure: I have no vested interest in Noble, nor evaluating it. Just curious about the ruckus.
He only owns 1/5th of the company, but he is utilising all of the company's resources to support his own interest.
Think about it this way, Elman can either risk his own money to buy more of Noble's shares in the open market, or he can use the company's funds to do the same thing. Both would achieve the same result, but he would be taking far greater risks if he did it with his own money.
Anyway I doubt he has the financial capacity to buy that many shares...
He is doing it with a shareholder mandate. In other words, he is doing base on wishes of the majority, valid up to next AGM, with a 10% limit
Supporting the share price, serves all shareholders, not only the major shareholder.
To buy more with his own money, carries more weight, but not doing so, doesn't mean a "fraudulent act".
Supporting the share price serves all shareholders but he stands to lose the most if things don't work out because nearly all of his wealth is in the company.
Share buybacks would be fine and logical if the company was flush with cash or borrowing at 1% like IBM, but that isn't the case. The company is drowning in debt and the cost of financing that debt is escalating by the day, yet they are exhausting whatever little liquidity thats left to pursue share buybacks.
It may not be "fraudulent" since he has the shareholders' mandate (which is really himself since he is the single largest shareholder by far), but that doesn't make it morally right since its self-serving and it doesn't help the company in the long run.
I have no vested interest in this (long or short), I apologise if I offended Noble shareholders with this tirade but I was just speaking my mind, this will be my last post on this.
I am glad you have dropped the "fraudulent". May be "irrational" is a better term, base on your description.
(never vested, and will very unlikely be invest)
Fraud contains elements of deceptions, hence criminal liability. Everything Noble has done so far is wisely, within the limits of law. Nonetheless, I agree with lilvestor that it is unlikely with the best intentions for its shareholders and could be self-serving.
Phillips Securities announced trading restrictions after mkt close today...
Can we expect more broking houses to impose similar restrictions just like bankers withdrawing umbrella when the sky opens up?
[
attachment=1359]
Wonder if those broking houses & banks are the ones making most $$$?
The biggest amount of shareholdings are all through banks & broking houses besides those substantial holders.
(14-08-2015, 09:05 PM)greengiraffe Wrote: [ -> ]Phillips Securities announced trading restrictions after mkt close today...
Can we expect more broking houses to impose similar restrictions just like bankers withdrawing umbrella when the sky opens up?
they must have found something out about noble to suddenly announce trading restrictions? Sounds like brokerages are afraid Noble will crash and halted by SGX so not allowing any contra trading. Have a feeling some really bad news is about to be released, brokerages probably know something we dont??