(01-06-2014, 09:03 PM)weijian Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2014, 05:11 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]For a company with about RMB 15 billion investment fund, CFO is a key person. She joined in 2008, when the HTM investment was just started. It is conceivable that she played a instrumental role for the success of the HTM investment to date.
I didn't manage to talk to her, but listened to her reply to shareholders queries. She can communicate well in English, focus, down to earth, and well verse on financial matter (of course 
). She remind me of M1 CEO Karen Kooi...
So far, She is up to the task, in fact, I will say with flying colors.
Just to share view of the CFO
Hi CF, Thanks for sharing your views.
I was once vested with a S-chip that bombed and it had a young CFO too (similar age as YZJ CFO). On hindsight, i realized that having a young CFO for that particular case simply implied that the CEO wanted a 'yes man' who was only too glad to be elevated to such an important position at such a young age. Since he is well versed in english (much better than the Chinese CEO and Sporean IDs), that CFO was answering the bulk of the questions during AGM and he was as good and smooth as he could be.
I took a quick look at AR2013. The CFO is paid <250k per year and her remuneration is 100% in cash. In addition, the short description i could find is '...based in Spore office. She regularly meets investment analysts and fund managers for updates with investors' With this info, it is not too obvious that she is playing/has played an important role in the HTM business growth and current form.
I have to admit that I know very little on the lady. It is inconceivable that as Deputy CFO since 2008, she didn't involve in the company investment decision.
IIRC, she shifted to Singapore since YZJ started the trading offices in Singapore, and is doubled-up as IR officer for the company. I have no supporting source to confirm it, please take it with a pinch of salt.
(01-06-2014, 11:08 AM)franko.yank Wrote: [ -> ]Surprise so many kana burn before by s-chip still dare to defend them. run while u can.
Is Hankore a s-chip? I remember u mention u made 80% return from Hankore in another post.
(01-06-2014, 09:03 PM)weijian Wrote: [ -> ]I was once vested with a S-chip that bombed and it had a young CFO too (similar age as YZJ CFO). On hindsight, i realized that having a young CFO for that particular case simply implied that the CEO wanted a 'yes man' who was only too glad to be elevated to such an important position at such a young age. Since he is well versed in english (much better than the Chinese CEO and Sporean IDs), that CFO was answering the bulk of the questions during AGM and he was as good and smooth as he could be.
From my observation of the few that I followed, S-chip tend to have relatively young CFO, usually from Singapore or HK. As for being a 'yes man', I guess if the CEO is also the major shareholder his word is law.
(01-06-2014, 08:00 PM)ValueMaster Wrote: [ -> ]to buy YZJ I would need at least 50% MOS
the fair value has to be $2 if I were to pay $1 for it
better safe than sorry
I did a quick calculation on YZJ using my trusty model based on Owner's Earnings (12% discount rate, 8% growth for 3 years followed by 2% growth to infinity, which is rather pessimistic) and came up with an intrinsic value of $1.45. If you buy at $1.00, indeed the MOS is about 45%. Assuming you accept my calculations as correct for the sake of argument, would you still buy today at $1.00? (Not vested but mildly interested)
I have seriously study the news again, it seems that the htm loans to Cheng Qingbo was started in 2011 carry interest of 17% and Cheng suppose to repay the loans by end 2013 but this wasn't the case, thus the share repurchase agreement kicks in and Liyuan acquire the GH shares from Cheng. The conditions set by Ren/YZJ are on the ground that Ren/YZJ does not involve in the management of GH, so should not be viewed that Ren/YZJ is trying to manipulate the financial information or the share price. Rather, these are merely to serve as a protection against losses on the htm.
On the accusation about insider trading and to own large amount of listed shares via illegal means, I think rather making no sense at all. GH last done price is already below 1.50, so the conditions was breached, how can it be insider trading?
In fact I view it similar to when parent set a target for their children to achieve certain stipulated academics results, if the conditions met then children will be rewarded with prices etc. So is it insider trading as well if this arrangement is not made known to school, siblings, grandpa grandma and relatives? Or can we view it as to manipulate the children academics results?
I think in the GH case, Cheng and the former GH directors could be found liable but not Ren/YZJYZJ/Liyuan IMO. To YZJ, I think the losses would be the 340m loan to Cheng.
After reassessing the news, I think I might need to wait for a while before deciding to buy in any interests.What do worry me is whether all counterparties in the htm loans are "high credit quality" as claimed in the audit report (I wonder if the external auditor should assume some responsibility over this statement?). And also whether any chain effect from this news causes more write off to the htm.
[ not vested but watching ]
As a follow-up to SGX’s query on the trading activity of Yangzijiang Shipbuilding’s stock on Friday, YZJ has now issued an official statement on the news about accusations against its chairman, Mr. Ren Yuanlin.
Recall that Tianjin Guoheng Railway Holding had accused Mr. Ren of illegal activities including misrepresentation, insider trading infringement of the independent operation of a listed company, illegal access to shares of listed company, manipulation of stock price and interference in the truthful disclosure of regular report.
Liyuan Investment, Mr Ren’s investment vehicle, had acquired a 12.08% stake in Tianjin Guoheng in Jan this year, becoming its largest shareholder. Liyuan subsequently approached the incumbent board of directors of Tianjin Guoheng in early May 2014 to convene a general meeting of shareholders to reconstitute its board (including the appointment of nominees of Liyuan).
According to Mr. Ren, the directors resisted Liyuan’s approach, and then alleged misdeeds against Liyuan and Mr Ren.
On Liyuan’s part, it has confidentially submitted its responses and rebuttals to these allegations to the Shenzhen Stock Exchange.
Mr Ren has also assured the YZJ and its board of directors that these allegations are “mischievous”, and calculated to damage him and thwart Liyuan Investment’s corporate objectives in relation to Tianjin Guoheng. He also “takes a very serious view of such allegations and conduct, and will explore all remedies available to him against the perpetrators in consultation with his professional advisers”.
Meanwhile, no allegations have been made against YZJ.
Our BUY rating and fair value estimate of S$1.29 is currently under review.
OCBC Research.
(01-06-2014, 08:26 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2014, 07:36 PM)DP28 Wrote: [ -> ]Back in April when Olam and CMA was tipped to be delisted, I was considering including YZJ or Kepland to be included in my portfolio as potential STI- index play.. It is a pity that YZJ being a STI constituent reserve list can be embroil in such a predicament yet there is nothing our exchange can do nothing about it.
In the same vein, when SPH SVP Peter Khoo pleaded guilty to corruption and criminal breach of trust, is it a pity SPH being part of STI, and exchange should do something on SPH listing?
The answer for SPH seems NO, right?
We should put YZJ into context, and bear in mind that it is still an allegation, not convicted case.
http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News...67289.html
(vested)
SPH and YZJ is some what different.. Ren's of YZJ is a keyman and substantial stakeholder, if any irregulations and allegations found to be truth, it will materially impact the share price.
while in SPH case, Peter can be replaced anytime.. While if you look at the SPH incident, the quantum of the fraud amount is immaterial compared to what's the unknown downside risk poise to YZJ.
I just finished my analysis of YZJ, and my conclusion is not to invest despite its 10% drop in share price. Besides my earlier post this morning (which was positive), I also discovered the following:
a. Since FY09, CAPEX gone up 8X whereas Owner's Earnings stayed stagnant at about 2.3B RMB
b. Total borrowings shot up 81% in the last FY
c. ROE has dropped from 28% in FY11 to 12.7% last year
Not sure if I made any mistakes, as I did it in a hurry this morning; but just to share my findings with value buddies in this forum, because I am grateful to have picked up a lot of gems from some of you who posted.
(02-06-2014, 08:48 AM)DP28 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2014, 08:26 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2014, 07:36 PM)DP28 Wrote: [ -> ]Back in April when Olam and CMA was tipped to be delisted, I was considering including YZJ or Kepland to be included in my portfolio as potential STI- index play.. It is a pity that YZJ being a STI constituent reserve list can be embroil in such a predicament yet there is nothing our exchange can do nothing about it.
In the same vein, when SPH SVP Peter Khoo pleaded guilty to corruption and criminal breach of trust, is it a pity SPH being part of STI, and exchange should do something on SPH listing?
The answer for SPH seems NO, right?
We should put YZJ into context, and bear in mind that it is still an allegation, not convicted case.
http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News...67289.html
(vested)
SPH and YZJ is some what different.. Ren's of YZJ is a keyman and substantial stakeholder, if any irregulations and allegations found to be truth, it will materially impact the share price.
while in SPH case, Peter can be replaced anytime.. While if you look at the SPH incident, the quantum of the fraud amount is immaterial compared to what's the unknown downside risk poise to YZJ.
I agree with you on the impact of market sentiment.
But in our context, we are more on the regulation point of view, right?
(01-06-2014, 11:38 PM)touzi Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2014, 09:03 PM)weijian Wrote: [ -> ]I was once vested with a S-chip that bombed and it had a young CFO too (similar age as YZJ CFO). On hindsight, i realized that having a young CFO for that particular case simply implied that the CEO wanted a 'yes man' who was only too glad to be elevated to such an important position at such a young age. Since he is well versed in english (much better than the Chinese CEO and Sporean IDs), that CFO was answering the bulk of the questions during AGM and he was as good and smooth as he could be.
From my observation of the few that I followed, S-chip tend to have relatively young CFO, usually from Singapore or HK. As for being a 'yes man', I guess if the CEO is also the major shareholder his word is law.
I wouldn't dispute the observation, but I am curious on the average age of CFO for non-S-Chip listed companies?
Ms Liu Hua started as Deputy CFO in 2008, when she was 33. She re-appointed as CFO recently (I don't recall the actual year). She is 39 years old this year. She look very young, but might not as young as thought.
Borrowing a tagline, her "skin age" is much younger than her age.
