Noble Group

(17-06-2015, 02:47 PM)greentea Wrote: And Michael Dee's response: http://businesstimes.com.sg/companies-ma...xtor=AL-18

In his rebuttal to Noble's letter, Mr Dee questioned how Yancoal can be considered an associate company, since Noble only owns 13 per cent of it (instead of the required 20 per cent). "How is that consistent with accounting standards and market practice? If you are so confident of your Yancoal book value release the full model, with all its assumptions, both before and after you recently wrote it down 40 per cent. Let the market decide if your assumptions that it is worth 30 to 50 times the market value are realistic and if Yancoal is worth what you say. You ask us to believe all your mark-to-market valuations yet you will not show us your work," said Mr Dee, asking Noble to release the full model.

You can read the full letter here.
http://www.theedgemarkets.com/sg/article...pen-letter

Sorry, have any of the insiders used their hard-earned money to buy back?

If not, it is hard to convince. After all, share buyback is just using shareholders' money. less convincing. (IMHO)

And Warren Buffett warning on derivatives on books really rings a hard bell for this counter.

(15-06-2015, 10:30 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: More share-buy-back from the company on 12 June, another 25 million shares. It is approx 0.7% of outstanding shares bought so far. The bullets used were approx S$32 mil, more bullets in the pipeline?

(not vested)

http://infopub.sgx.com/Apps?A=COW_CorpAn...3e3ea05a4f

(17-06-2015, 03:34 PM)CityFarmer Wrote:

(17-06-2015, 02:47 PM)greentea Wrote: And Michael Dee's response: http://businesstimes.com.sg/companies-ma...xtor=AL-18

In his rebuttal to Noble's letter, Mr Dee questioned how Yancoal can be considered an associate company, since Noble only owns 13 per cent of it (instead of the required 20 per cent). "How is that consistent with accounting standards and market practice? If you are so confident of your Yancoal book value release the full model, with all its assumptions, both before and after you recently wrote it down 40 per cent. Let the market decide if your assumptions that it is worth 30 to 50 times the market value are realistic and if Yancoal is worth what you say. You ask us to believe all your mark-to-market valuations yet you will not show us your work," said Mr Dee, asking Noble to release the full model.

You can read the full letter here.
http://www.theedgemarkets.com/sg/article...pen-letter

I find mr dee's letter strange. As an individual he could respond within an hour. I wonder how long did Morgan Stanley take to respond to the dot com allegations. Surely he cant be unaware of protocols?

Similarly since when did Morgan Stanley research reveals their modelling to the public?

And he still comparing Noble with Dow index. Maybe he should compare Morgan Stanley with CSI index

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but not to their facts. If someone claim mr dee was fired from Temasek after just a 20 months stint would he leave the guy alone? Why shouldn't Noble sue for serious allegations of accounting impropriety?

He has no skin in the issue yet he dare others to add skin to the game. And he wants to be contacted... Based on what? Advocate for Noble shareholders?

And thats with so called 30 years of experience. Probably not so sweet experiences. I'm glad i don't know this guy.

(18-06-2015, 01:00 AM)specuvestor Wrote:

(17-06-2015, 03:34 PM)CityFarmer Wrote:

(17-06-2015, 02:47 PM)greentea Wrote: And Michael Dee's response: http://businesstimes.com.sg/companies-ma...xtor=AL-18

In his rebuttal to Noble's letter, Mr Dee questioned how Yancoal can be considered an associate company, since Noble only owns 13 per cent of it (instead of the required 20 per cent). "How is that consistent with accounting standards and market practice? If you are so confident of your Yancoal book value release the full model, with all its assumptions, both before and after you recently wrote it down 40 per cent. Let the market decide if your assumptions that it is worth 30 to 50 times the market value are realistic and if Yancoal is worth what you say. You ask us to believe all your mark-to-market valuations yet you will not show us your work," said Mr Dee, asking Noble to release the full model.

You can read the full letter here.
http://www.theedgemarkets.com/sg/article...pen-letter

I find mr dee's letter strange. As an individual he could respond within an hour. I wonder how long did Morgan Stanley take to respond to the dot com allegations. Surely he cant be unaware of protocols?

Similarly since when did Morgan Stanley research reveals their modelling to the public?

And he still comparing Noble with Dow index. Maybe he should compare Morgan Stanley with CSI index

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but not to their facts. If someone claim mr dee was fired from Temasek after just a 20 months stint would he leave the guy alone? Why shouldn't Noble sue for serious allegations of accounting impropriety?

He has no skin in the issue yet he dare others to add skin to the game. And he wants to be contacted... Based on what? Advocate for Noble shareholders?

And thats with so called 30 years of experience. Probably not so sweet experiences. I'm glad i don't know this guy.

Isn't the bigger issue at hand the fact that his points are actually valid, and have been raised multiple times (but never addressed satisfactorily). I don't really understand the hatred against Mr. Dee here where he's actually seeking the answers for minority shareholders (who failed to get an adequate reply).

He's seeking the facts here - which shareholders are perfectly entitled to, especially when serious concerns about the financial statements are raised.

(18-06-2015, 02:49 AM)theasiareport Wrote:

(18-06-2015, 01:00 AM)specuvestor Wrote:

(17-06-2015, 03:34 PM)CityFarmer Wrote:

(17-06-2015, 02:47 PM)greentea Wrote: And Michael Dee's response: http://businesstimes.com.sg/companies-ma...xtor=AL-18

In his rebuttal to Noble's letter, Mr Dee questioned how Yancoal can be considered an associate company, since Noble only owns 13 per cent of it (instead of the required 20 per cent). "How is that consistent with accounting standards and market practice? If you are so confident of your Yancoal book value release the full model, with all its assumptions, both before and after you recently wrote it down 40 per cent. Let the market decide if your assumptions that it is worth 30 to 50 times the market value are realistic and if Yancoal is worth what you say. You ask us to believe all your mark-to-market valuations yet you will not show us your work," said Mr Dee, asking Noble to release the full model.

You can read the full letter here.
http://www.theedgemarkets.com/sg/article...pen-letter

I find mr dee's letter strange. As an individual he could respond within an hour. I wonder how long did Morgan Stanley take to respond to the dot com allegations. Surely he cant be unaware of protocols?

Similarly since when did Morgan Stanley research reveals their modelling to the public?

And he still comparing Noble with Dow index. Maybe he should compare Morgan Stanley with CSI index

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but not to their facts. If someone claim mr dee was fired from Temasek after just a 20 months stint would he leave the guy alone? Why shouldn't Noble sue for serious allegations of accounting impropriety?

He has no skin in the issue yet he dare others to add skin to the game. And he wants to be contacted... Based on what? Advocate for Noble shareholders?

And thats with so called 30 years of experience. Probably not so sweet experiences. I'm glad i don't know this guy.

Isn't the bigger issue at hand the fact that his points are actually valid, and have been raised multiple times (but never addressed satisfactorily). I don't really understand the hatred against Mr. Dee here where he's actually seeking the answers for minority shareholders (who failed to get an adequate reply).

He's seeking the facts here - which shareholders are perfectly entitled to, especially when serious concerns about the financial statements are raised.

Champion Mr Dee... we need more of such blokes...

For that I m still awaiting the investigation outcome of the crash of the Trio of 2013...

Even with Michael Dee's repeated request , Noble still refuse to reveal the truth , WHY ? Why need to hide ?
Michael Dee is doing minority SHs a big favour !

More share-buy-back, this round costed S$28 mil. Total up-to-date is 1.5% of outstanding shares.

http://infopub.sgx.com/Apps?A=COW_CorpAn...d1146eef45

(18-06-2015, 02:49 AM)theasiareport Wrote:

(18-06-2015, 01:00 AM)specuvestor Wrote:

(17-06-2015, 03:34 PM)CityFarmer Wrote:

(17-06-2015, 02:47 PM)greentea Wrote: And Michael Dee's response: http://businesstimes.com.sg/companies-ma...xtor=AL-18

In his rebuttal to Noble's letter, Mr Dee questioned how Yancoal can be considered an associate company, since Noble only owns 13 per cent of it (instead of the required 20 per cent). "How is that consistent with accounting standards and market practice? If you are so confident of your Yancoal book value release the full model, with all its assumptions, both before and after you recently wrote it down 40 per cent. Let the market decide if your assumptions that it is worth 30 to 50 times the market value are realistic and if Yancoal is worth what you say. You ask us to believe all your mark-to-market valuations yet you will not show us your work," said Mr Dee, asking Noble to release the full model.

You can read the full letter here.
http://www.theedgemarkets.com/sg/article...pen-letter

I find mr dee's letter strange. As an individual he could respond within an hour. I wonder how long did Morgan Stanley take to respond to the dot com allegations. Surely he cant be unaware of protocols?

Similarly since when did Morgan Stanley research reveals their modelling to the public?

And he still comparing Noble with Dow index. Maybe he should compare Morgan Stanley with CSI index

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but not to their facts. If someone claim mr dee was fired from Temasek after just a 20 months stint would he leave the guy alone? Why shouldn't Noble sue for serious allegations of accounting impropriety?

He has no skin in the issue yet he dare others to add skin to the game. And he wants to be contacted... Based on what? Advocate for Noble shareholders?

And thats with so called 30 years of experience. Probably not so sweet experiences. I'm glad i don't know this guy.

Isn't the bigger issue at hand the fact that his points are actually valid, and have been raised multiple times (but never addressed satisfactorily). I don't really understand the hatred against Mr. Dee here where he's actually seeking the answers for minority shareholders (who failed to get an adequate reply).

He's seeking the facts here - which shareholders are perfectly entitled to, especially when serious concerns about the financial statements are raised.

Hate? There's no hate I'm generally disgusted when people dont "talk" properly (VBs here will know). Besides what i raised above, the tone of his voice in the letter is revealing. Sure shareholders' request should be answered but the guy is not even vested according to him!

The playing field has to be even, like what i posted previously. Else the whole system will break down. You cant have a random person every now and then raise serious allegations without accountability. Its much more difficult to build than to destroy.

I disagree with GG we need more people like Dee, we actually need more people like Oei Hong Leong or even David Webb. 事后孔明 are dime a dozen.

Yancoal valuation is certainly not at current market price either. The dynamics with Yanzhou Coal is obvious. Receivables or inventory collateralised financing is not unusual. If anything it increases the chance the stuff are real.

The only thing i thought was interesting in the Iceberg report (i hope people read it) is the purchase and sale price of the subsi. Like i said before Noble is much more opportunistic and speculative in business vs say Olam, and likely aggressive in their accounting. But to claim they are fraudulent or not compliant to IFRS is another matter altogether

PS Iceberg had said that in the 3rd report it will reveal the author. It didnt. Noble has pulled out a name. The only thing respectable about Dee is that he didn't hide behind a facade

(17-06-2015, 02:59 PM)specuvestor Wrote: Likely will be a CLO type of structure to pass on the risk, so noble's relationship is still with ANZ

Learn something today. More explanation on CLO below from investopedia.

DEFINITION of 'Collateralized Loan Obligation - CLO'
A security backed by a pool of debt, often low-rated corporate loans. Collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) are similar to collateralized mortgage obligations, except for the different type of underlying loan.

INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS 'Collateralized Loan Obligation - CLO'
In a CLO, the investor receives scheduled debt payments from the underlying loans but assumes most of the risk in the event that borrowers default. The securities offer the investor greater diversity and the potential for higher-than-average returns. Typically, banks sell CLOs with various tranches, or slices, that reflect different levels of seniority to match different risk/reward profiles.

(18-06-2015, 10:35 AM)specuvestor Wrote:

(18-06-2015, 02:49 AM)theasiareport Wrote:

(18-06-2015, 01:00 AM)specuvestor Wrote:

(17-06-2015, 03:34 PM)CityFarmer Wrote:

(17-06-2015, 02:47 PM)greentea Wrote: And Michael Dee's response: http://businesstimes.com.sg/companies-ma...xtor=AL-18

In his rebuttal to Noble's letter, Mr Dee questioned how Yancoal can be considered an associate company, since Noble only owns 13 per cent of it (instead of the required 20 per cent). "How is that consistent with accounting standards and market practice? If you are so confident of your Yancoal book value release the full model, with all its assumptions, both before and after you recently wrote it down 40 per cent. Let the market decide if your assumptions that it is worth 30 to 50 times the market value are realistic and if Yancoal is worth what you say. You ask us to believe all your mark-to-market valuations yet you will not show us your work," said Mr Dee, asking Noble to release the full model.

You can read the full letter here.
http://www.theedgemarkets.com/sg/article...pen-letter

I find mr dee's letter strange. As an individual he could respond within an hour. I wonder how long did Morgan Stanley take to respond to the dot com allegations. Surely he cant be unaware of protocols?

Similarly since when did Morgan Stanley research reveals their modelling to the public?

And he still comparing Noble with Dow index. Maybe he should compare Morgan Stanley with CSI index

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but not to their facts. If someone claim mr dee was fired from Temasek after just a 20 months stint would he leave the guy alone? Why shouldn't Noble sue for serious allegations of accounting impropriety?

He has no skin in the issue yet he dare others to add skin to the game. And he wants to be contacted... Based on what? Advocate for Noble shareholders?

And thats with so called 30 years of experience. Probably not so sweet experiences. I'm glad i don't know this guy.

Isn't the bigger issue at hand the fact that his points are actually valid, and have been raised multiple times (but never addressed satisfactorily). I don't really understand the hatred against Mr. Dee here where he's actually seeking the answers for minority shareholders (who failed to get an adequate reply).

He's seeking the facts here - which shareholders are perfectly entitled to, especially when serious concerns about the financial statements are raised.

Hate? There's no hate I'm generally disgusted when people dont "talk" properly (VBs here will know). Besides what i raised above, the tone of his voice in the letter is revealing. Sure shareholders' request should be answered but the guy is not even vested according to him!

The playing field has to be even, like what i posted previously. Else the whole system will break down. You cant have a random person every now and then raise serious allegations without accountability. Its much more difficult to build than to destroy.

I disagree with GG we need more people like Dee, we actually need more people like Oei Hong Leong or even David Webb. 事后孔明 are dime a dozen.

Yancoal valuation is certainly not at current market price either. The dynamics with Yanzhou Coal is obvious. Receivables or inventory collateralised financing is not unusual. If anything it increases the chance the stuff are real.

The only thing i thought was interesting in the Iceberg report (i hope people read it) is the purchase and sale price of the subsi. Like i said before Noble is much more opportunistic and speculative in business vs say Olam, and likely aggressive in their accounting. But to claim they are fraudulent or not compliant to IFRS is another matter altogether

PS Iceberg had said that in the 3rd report it will reveal the author. It didnt. Noble has pulled out a name. The only thing respectable about Dee is that he didn't hide behind a facade

OHL is a corporate raider. IMHO, OHL is an opportunist. I prefer real businessmen like DR Wee, FF Wong, Towkay Charoen.

There is a lack of activists here to stand up for minorities and hence plenty of crooks get away with their act.

GG