(02-09-2013, 08:53 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]May be a surprise for some but not those expecting it...
It will be interesting to know the offer price.
Possible Offer by PT Infofood Sukses Makmur Tbk (“PT Indofood”)
The Board of Directors (the "Board") of China Minzhong Food Corporation Limited (the
"Company") has today received a letter ("Offer Letter") from PT Indofood Sukses Makmur Tbk
("Offeror") in relation to a possible offer (the "Offer"). The Offer, if made, is expected to be
announced later today and a copy of their Offer Letter is attached.
http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/CMZ_Anno...eID=254787
Let me guess.......... $0.63????
No prizes for knowing how i deduce the px.........
(02-09-2013, 09:26 AM)Jared Seah Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2013, 08:47 AM)HitandRun Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2013, 08:34 AM)Jared Seah Wrote: [ -> ]HitandRun,
Perhaps furniture industry less sophisticated. We are more "local".
SMOL san
Yeah man. I won't be surprised if you spend all that time at the "local" KTVs...
Shh...
Interesting. Indofood has gone ALL-IN?
This CMZ episode is more like betting red or black at the casinos.
More punting; less investing.
I curious kaypoh onlooker; not vested but taking notes:
1) Respected hedge fund manager in VB bailed out at 50% loss.
2) Early key investors all sold out at delicious profits.
3) Vested minority shareholders willing Indofood to bail them out instead of doubling down themselves.
4) Would minority shareholders vote down the GO from Indofood if the GO price is less than what shareholders have paid for?
Would we get a repeat of Nera Telecoms where minority shareholders sees the GO price as grossly under-valuing the company?
(How the person votes may reveal a lot on their true conviction on CMZ.)
Ha! Ha!
Ignoramus like me knows besides "RED & BLACK", there is one more colour. It's to ensure you don't play, play with colours.
Not Vested!
If you are going to choose, how? Which colour?
(02-09-2013, 12:52 AM)Jared Seah Wrote: [ -> ]2) Picture 4 is hilarious too.
We need some architects or structural engineers to help us here. What kind of overhead connecting bridge is that!?
The building on the left is in shadows. That means the opposite wall of the smaller building on the right should be facing the sun... But wait! It's in shadows too?
Hang on! The wall of the smaller building facing us is in bright sunlight! Hey! Make up your mind where you want the sun to be!
Look! We have another mystery shrub on the lower left corner of the picture again!? Who plants a shrub in the middle of the road?
Draw snake add legs... Must tell the photoshop person to go easy on the include near and far objects to create "depth" technique.
Think such a bridge is possible.
Only thing is.... Look at the shadow of the bridge. It shows the sun shining from right to left.
But the building on the left is dark and in shadows
Random musings by a photography idiot
(02-09-2013, 09:47 AM)level13 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2013, 08:53 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]May be a surprise for some but not those expecting it...
It will be interesting to know the offer price.
Possible Offer by PT Infofood Sukses Makmur Tbk (“PT Indofood”)
The Board of Directors (the "Board") of China Minzhong Food Corporation Limited (the
"Company") has today received a letter ("Offer Letter") from PT Indofood Sukses Makmur Tbk
("Offeror") in relation to a possible offer (the "Offer"). The Offer, if made, is expected to be
announced later today and a copy of their Offer Letter is attached.
http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/CMZ_Anno...eID=254787
Let me guess.......... $0.63????
No prizes for knowing how i deduce the px.........
I have the same guess, and probably base on the same mean to deduce the price...
Less than PE 3x, base on historical earning.
I think all this takeover thingy is just a smoke bomb to halt trading, maybe to buy time or to think of ways to 'disturb' the short seller....just a feeling.
With the fact that CMZ did not question the authencity of SAIC documents,and that glaucus research source has been from SAIC for other comapanies that is shorted.
It means this is the third institution in china caught sleeping.
First, the trade ministry that have trading figures that are of Hugh discrepancy with their trading partners.
SAFE, as mentioned by Boon in his Eratat thread, that control RMB conversion to other currency, companies that gave dividends which through the SAFE audit process, but still get caught in frauds.
Now SAIC.
Scary...
(02-09-2013, 09:59 AM)WolfT Wrote: [ -> ]I think all this takeover thingy is just a smoke bomb to halt trading, maybe to buy time or to think of ways to 'disturb' the short seller....just a feeling.
It is quite unlikely a smoke bomb, but the offer, if materialized, will create a short squeeze for short-sellers...
(31-08-2013, 10:47 AM)shanrui_91 Wrote: [ -> ] (31-08-2013, 10:20 AM)Wildreamz Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Why a listed company put all these forum and blogger stuff on their website? Isn't that better to get proof from the authorities and show the official clarification that Glaucus report is forgery?
I agree. A much more helpful gesture would be to post their own official reply, independent auditor checks etc.
That said the documents in Glaucus report appears to be fake as you can see from the link I posted.
the document is not necessarily fake, it only proves that it is not obtained through the legal official method. In fact, it is so easy for minzhong to prove that the document is fake by producing the real document or an official source that spells out the name of the management and ownership of the company in question.
Neither will glaucus produce a fake document unless they have been conned too. Maintaining their reputation is of utmost importance to glaucus and other short sellers whose main job is to expose frauds. If glaucus wishes to profit by producing a fake document, it will have been better for them to post it anonymously instead of using the name of glaucus.
As for the Chinese articles, I can sense that these are smear articles reak of nationalism. Even goes as far as saying that this is a plot by to undermine the agricultural industry when activity of the capital market does not have much impact on the operating activity unless the company requires frequent funding from the capital market. Short seller has never been a favourite of the market and is always subjected to the usual cry of profiting by issuing fake report and e.t.c.
Minzhong's rebuttal is made of fallacious arguments that talk about how analysts and auditors have verified the truth of the financial statement. Hopefully, minzhong will produce a more robust argument which the market and concerned parties are still waiting for.
(no vested interest)
Not really responding directly to shanrui per se but I think there is a big misunderstanding here regarding documentations.
We are assuming China documentation is as good or as efficient as Singapore. In fact even if Minzhong is legit, there may be a lot of grey areas in documentation for various purposes. It is not as black and white as some assume. It is more between rock and hard place because they might implicate themselves circumventing certain rules if they produce the "wrong" documentations.
As of today I don't see any concrete evidence that Sinoforest was fraud per se. But the reputational damage was done and that will drive customers and bankers away. We will unlikely know the truth... That's the problem with these kind of aggressive short sellers.
End of day if Indofood do a GO, it speaks more volume than any amount of documentation, just as Temasek did the rights issue on Olam. That seems to be the way to prevent a Sinoforest. If Paulson did a GO on Sinoforest, things could be very different.
BTW Indofood took stake in Minzhong at $1.12 right? That means the GO has to be $1.12?
(02-09-2013, 10:15 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]BTW Indofood took stake in Minzhong at $1.12 right? That means the GO has to be $1.12?
If I recall correctly, the last acquisition was around early Mar. There is a expire date on the limitation i.e. 6 months, which is early Sept if memory doesn't fail me.
The timing seems perfect for Indofood.
Should be base on the higher price of the trades of last 6 months, if no trades then Salim grp can offer what they deem fit , 1.12 no longer applicable.