Sino Grandness

Boon,

“Unless the “bondholders” have agreed to regard the bond issuer’s story as the “truth”, otherwise everything is just as “fluid” as before………Ha-ha!”

yes they have.

(24-02-2016, 09:15 AM)CityFarmer Wrote:

(24-02-2016, 08:28 AM)CY09 Wrote:

(24-02-2016, 12:27 AM)crubs Wrote:

(24-02-2016, 12:06 AM)CY09 Wrote: While it is nice that an EGM has been convened on Garden Fresh's IPO with presentations done, I am still skeptical on the materialization of this IPO.

For current shareholders, the good news is that 10% payout as dividends should be announced on the 26th.

CY09, may I know the reasons for your skepticism ?

Firstly, went to HK August last year, visibility of the products in wellcome and 7&11 are not as widespread as talked about. You can walk around 7&11 outlets to view.

Depressed economic conditions may hinder the IPO unlike a year ago.

It is probably the worst time to IPO at HKSE now. The situation might sustain for a while in months at least, IMO.

(not vested)

CY09 & CityFarmer : yes market conditions are not the best now. management has indicated that IPO works will still be on going. By my estimates, all the preparation work will be done by 2H 2016 and then marketing will commence. It's hard to say what market conditions will be like then. There are also many levers they can pull such as lowering the valuation and decreasing the offer size. Garden Fresh also has potential cornerstone investors and brand name shareholders like Goldman that will lend credibility. This, coupled with a good growth story might be sufficient to attract investors.

Hi all

I am not sure what Boon is trying to do. Another round of endless meaningless discussion again when Sino has made it very clear >>

In slide 2, they have stated very clearly that '2013 adjusted earning enable investors to know that the profit target of RMB250m for FY2013set by 2011 and 2012 bondholders HAS BEEN MET and thus conversion will be based on 1.5b market cap.'

Boon you are implying that Sino has given false information. Please state your intention here. I do not know what you are really up to.

Oldman don't really care whether you have short or long positions here or no position at all, but please do not mislead and confuse others.

Couple of months back, the argument then was about Sino being a fraud. That perspective changed and argument couple of weeks back changed to VAT and now profit numbers and valuations. Skeptics will forever be skeptics.

Boon, if you think Sino is misleading, you still have an opportunity to clear your doubt. Please attend the result briefing and argue your points there if you want to be considered seriously otherwise its all wayang from you. Please stop hitting below the belt.

cheers
oldman9

(24-02-2016, 12:31 PM)Oldman9 Wrote: Hi all

I am not sure what Boon is trying to do. Another round of endless meaningless discussion again when Sino has made it very clear >>

In slide 2, they have stated very clearly that '2013 adjusted earning enable investors to know that  the profit target of RMB250m for FY2013set by 2011 and 2012 bondholders HAS BEEN MET and thus conversion will be based on 1.5b market cap.'

Boon you are  implying that Sino has given false information. Please state your intention here. I do not know what you are really up to.

Oldman don't really care whether you have short or long positions here or no position at all, but please do not mislead and confuse others.

Couple of months back, the argument then was about Sino being a fraud. That perspective changed and argument couple of weeks back changed to VAT and now  profit numbers and valuations. Skeptics will forever be skeptics.

Boon, if you think Sino is misleading, you still have an opportunity to clear your doubt. Please attend the result briefing and argue your points there if you want to be considered seriously otherwise its all wayang from you. Please stop hitting below the belt.

cheers
oldman9

Hi oldman9,
 
Slide 2 statement:
“2013 adjusted earning enable investors to know that the profit target of RMB250m for FY2013set by 2011 and 2012 bondholders HAS BEEN MET and thus conversion will be based on 1.5b market cap.”
 
My point is to verify what was the Management’s basis for the slide 2 statement.
 
Was it formed on the basis that the bondholders have agreed to it? If it were the case, then congratulations and I would have nothing more to add.
 
Without having come to a common agreement on the Reference Net Profit in determining the aggregate conversion proportion of CB1 & CB2, if slide 2 statement were merely representing a “best effort” view or judgment or appraisal formed on the part of the Management on the subject matter, it could turn out to be wrong, even though the management had acted in good faith and with no intention to mislead investors in the first place.  Under such circumstance, the Management could not be deemed to have committed “misrepresentation."
 
To eliminate any doubts, there was a need to probe further! That’s exactly what I have been trying to do.
 
Management do get their judgment wrong at times on certain issues but would it be fair to accuse them of having committed “misrepresentation”? 
 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(24-02-2016, 12:16 PM)crubs Wrote: Boon,

“Unless the “bondholders” have agreed to regard the bond issuer’s story as the “truth”, otherwise everything is just as “fluid” as before………Ha-ha!”

yes they have.

Hi crubs,

If "bondholders" have agreed to it, then congratulations and I would have nothing more to add, on the aggregate conversion proportion of CB1 and CB2 as per contract. But both CB1 & CB2 had expired in June/July 2015 without a clear definite outcome - no conversion - no redemption - still under negotiation for  extension. 

In another words, CB1 & CB2 have been working "overtime" for quite a long while now , don't you think the bondholders should be fairly compensated for it regardless of if the outcome is conversion or redemption?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hi Boon,

I agree that Management has put forth their view on the subject matter but do you seriously think that the CFO of SinoG or those connected with the IPO are duds? Or no one is even talking to Bond holders at the moment? To be honest the discussion with Bond holders on how much to redeem & how much to participate in the IPO will be based on the group's numbers and the Bond holders must be very much aware of the profit numbers at this stage. This EGM is a very significant event in SinoG's history & Management would not have conducted it if they were not sure of the numbers. Your last 3 posts, sorry to say, lacks purpose & direction.

Hi Mr Boon

Your following statement is very interesting: 

"To eliminate any doubts, there was a need to probe further! That’s exactly what I have been trying to do. 
 
Management do get their judgment wrong at times on certain issues but would it be fair to accuse them of having committed “misrepresentation”?"

Common sense will tell you that bondholders would have read the circular.

Do you not know that CB2 is being represented on GF board of directors by David Chou? Was Chou sleeping when the conversion ratio was fixed at 23.4% in 2014 after 2013 accounts had been audited?

Come on, be constructive rather than putting up ludicrous points.

City farmer, No disrespect to you as moderator. But, my post was for Boon to read. You have the right to delete.

But, to me, he is just wasting everyone's time and effort. Is there misleading information by him, you decide for yourself.

(24-02-2016, 03:10 PM)Boon Wrote:

(24-02-2016, 12:16 PM)crubs Wrote: Boon,

“Unless the “bondholders” have agreed to regard the bond issuer’s story as the “truth”, otherwise everything is just as “fluid” as before………Ha-ha!”

yes they have.

Hi crubs,

If "bondholders" have agreed to it, then congratulations and I would have nothing more to add, on the aggregate conversion proportion of CB1 and CB2 as per contract. But both CB1 & CB2 had expired in June/July 2015 without a clear definite outcome - no conversion - no redemption - still under negotiation for  extension. 

In another words, CB1 & CB2 have been working "overtime" for quite a long while now , don't you think the bondholders should be fairly compensated for it regardless of if the outcome is conversion or redemption?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Boon, how do you know SG didn't gave them an option to redeem the CB at that point of time? So, from another angle, SG might have given the CB holders opportunity to participate in the IPO as a win-win situation, with them as shareholders of GF to boost confidence/cornerstone investors.

It was fair to allow CB holders chance to participate in the IPO, as without their money, there is no way GF can grow to this size. In business, it's not just a one off transaction, so you lose out a bit today and win some the next round. You can't win all the time, even though by doing so, maybe shareholders will "lose out a bit", but without them, there will be no IPO to talk about as you need to place out additional 23.4%.


Of course, the CB holders will be the one with the most updated information at any point in time to make such decision. For them to delay today, with their money "not working OT", is because they valued that this IPO will be worth much more than what they are entitled to by taking all accrued interest and leave on expiry.

(24-02-2016, 05:39 PM)alex Wrote: City farmer, No disrespect to you as moderator. But, my post was for Boon to read. You have the right to delete.

But, to me, he is just wasting everyone's time and effort. Is there misleading information by him, you decide for yourself.

I will delete it. No post is meant for only one person, in a public forum. You can use PM for one-to-one communication.

For those are feeling that Boon is wasting their time, you can use the ignore-list to ignore his posts. Don't feel bad about it, it is your right.

I don't know the detail, but with the refuting posts available, the readers should be able to make a sound judgement themselves.

Regards
Moderator