Sino Grandness

I am vested in Sino Grandness and understand that the red flags flashed are meant to warn investors to be careful with Sino Grandness.

I wonder whether the rising A&P by Garden Fresh is a red flag? Was it likely that Garden Fresh deliberately overspent on A&P to con investors?

.............................................RMB m
.................................2013........2014..........2015

Garden Fresh..............58.5.......172.9..........267.9
% of revenue.................4.2...........9.2...........11.6

I will also appreciate Specuvestor elaborate on his statement "TTA didn't even do any due diligence." Was it hearsay?

(09-04-2016, 05:53 PM)Young Investor Wrote: I am vested in Sino Grandness and understand that the red flags flashed are meant to warn investors to be careful with Sino Grandness.

I wonder whether the rising A&P by Garden Fresh is a red flag? Was it likely that Garden Fresh deliberately overspent on A&P to con investors?

.............................................RMB m
.................................2013........2014..........2015

Garden Fresh..............58.5.......172.9..........267.9
% of revenue.................4.2...........9.2...........11.6

I will also appreciate Specuvestor elaborate on his statement "TTA didn't even do any due diligence." Was it hearsay?

All these due diligence reports are privy to the person who will engage professional to perform and you won't be able to see them freely online unless leaked or they choose to make it public.  From my few years in audit, I have gone through a few.

Sino Grandness annual report is published when I searched on SGX net. EPS is RMB 0.30 which is around 6.25 singapore cents.

PE is around 11.2 times at 70 cents share price

Assume a 15 times PE, the target price is 93.75 cents

Looks like there is value at the moment with possible 34% gain

Hi Young Investor

High and low is a matter of what we call advertising intensity. What it means is simply the amount of advertising dollar you need to maintain or increase your revenue or market share. It is also a function of industry competition and branding.

In fact previously some forumer asked if the figure is too low for Sino Grand. Huiyuan has about 30% of revenue spent on "selling and marketing expenses" in 2014. So you do your own analysis. If it is purely about numbers then accountants are all great investors; it is to learn to look beyond the numbers to understand the asset, business and structure.

There are 2 types of people that go AGM: one that goes straight for the food after AGM; and the other go the opposite direction. VB has low postings does not mean it has low traffic, and no seasoned VB has big enough ego or mouth to shoot his own foot.

(09-04-2016, 08:57 AM)piaopiao Wrote:

(09-04-2016, 07:40 AM)Boon Wrote: Another interesting document from the web.

Has Sino G ever disclosed to its shareholders that Grandness Sichuan had stopped production (as reported in the environmental impact report document ) because it could not compete in the overseas market?
 
http://www.doc88.com/p-9049465585832.html
建设项目环境影响报告表
(公示版)
项 目 名 称:15 万吨果蔬饮料生产线技改项目
建设单位(盖章):四川鲜绿园果蔬饮料有限公司 
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I think the guidelines for disclosure is whether the business development significantly affect the balance sheet, p&l and cash flow of the company.

Sichuan factory was not disposed off. SG changed the use for this factory.

There was a factory in Yunnan which SG sold off and the transaction was announced.

Sichuan and Yunnan are inland provinces. SG needed to be nearer to the ports for the benefits of their export business.

Yes it doesn't need to be reported as not significant.

What is interesting to me is that it cost RMB21m to produce 150k tons production vs RMB596m "Deposit paid for non-current asset" at end 2015.

specuvestor,

Young Investor asked : "I will also appreciate Specuvestor elaborate on his statement "TTA didn't even do any due diligence." Was it hearsay?"

Which could be answered by a simple yes or no.

But your reply was : "There are 2 types of people that go AGM: one that goes straight for the food after AGM; and the other go the opposite direction. VB has low postings does not mean it has low traffic, and no seasoned VB has big enough ego or mouth to shoot his own foot."

you talked about AGM behaviour and VB but did not answer the question

can you clarify where and when did you see or hear that "TTA didn't even do any due diligence" ? put it out here so that everyone evaluate and decide whether your statement is true.

"no seasoned VB has big enough ego or mouth to shoot his own foot"
How many stars, reputation points does one need to have to be considered seasoned ?
Are you saying that seasoned VB's can never be wrong, say wrong things and make mistakes ?

(09-04-2016, 07:43 PM)fatpudge Wrote: Sino Grandness annual report is published when I searched on SGX net.  EPS is RMB 0.30 which is around 6.25 singapore cents.

PE is around 11.2 times at 70 cents share price

Assume a 15 times PE, the target price is 93.75 cents

Looks like there is value at the moment with possible 34% gain

Hi Fatfudge

The profit figure that is relevant for investment purpose is the adjusted profit of RMB 517.5m. This will be RMB 0.769 per share or $0.16 per share. PE is less than five.

You may want to read page 8 of the annual report:

"Excluding the impact of non-cash charges in relation to convertible bonds, adjusted earnings would have risen by 6.4% in FY2015 to RMB517. 5 million as compared with RMB486.2 million in FY2014.

(09-04-2016, 08:37 PM)crubs Wrote: specuvestor,

Young Investor asked : "I will also appreciate Specuvestor elaborate on his statement "TTA didn't even do any due diligence." Was it hearsay?"

Which could be answered by a simple yes or no.

But your reply was : "There are 2 types of people that go AGM: one that goes straight for the food after AGM; and the other go the opposite direction. VB has low postings does not mean it has low traffic, and no seasoned VB has big enough ego or mouth to shoot his own foot."

you talked about AGM behaviour and VB but did not answer the question

can you clarify where and when did you see or hear that "TTA didn't even do any due diligence" ? put it out here so that everyone evaluate and decide whether your statement is true.

"no seasoned VB has big enough ego or mouth to shoot his own foot"
How many stars, reputation points does one need to have to be considered seasoned ?
Are you saying that seasoned VB's can never be wrong, say wrong things and make mistakes ?

Crubs

Simple no just for you

The other types that go AGM will know i answered the question. Im assuming young investor got my drift. The logic explained was quite simple: how significant do you think this investment $ is to TTA?
http://www.thoresen.com/misc/presentatio...fy2015.pdf

I dont think anyone is infallible. I meant no seasoned VBs will elaborate discussions in a public forum with no upside. But reputation like big4 helps people have a sense of the credibility attached to the statements.

(09-04-2016, 11:31 PM)specuvestor Wrote:

(09-04-2016, 08:37 PM)crubs Wrote: specuvestor,

Young Investor asked : "I will also appreciate Specuvestor elaborate on his statement "TTA didn't even do any due diligence." Was it hearsay?"

Which could be answered by a simple yes or no.

But your reply was : "There are 2 types of people that go AGM: one that goes straight for the food after AGM; and the other go the opposite direction. VB has low postings does not mean it has low traffic, and no seasoned VB has big enough ego or mouth to shoot his own foot."

you talked about AGM behaviour and VB but did not answer the question

can you clarify where and when did you see or hear that "TTA didn't even do any due diligence" ? put it out here so that everyone evaluate and decide whether your statement is true.

"no seasoned VB has big enough ego or mouth to shoot his own foot"
How many stars, reputation points does one need to have to be considered seasoned ?
Are you saying that seasoned VB's can never be wrong, say wrong things and make mistakes ?

Crubs

Simple no just for you

The other types that go AGM will know i answered the question. Im assuming young investor got my drift. The logic explained was quite simple: how significant do you think this investment $ is to TTA?
http://www.thoresen.com/misc/presentatio...fy2015.pdf

I dont think anyone is infallible. I meant no seasoned VBs will elaborate discussions in a public forum with no upside. But reputation like big4 helps people have a sense of the credibility attached to the statements.

reasons to believe that NO due diligence was done by TTA.
1) specuvestor claims that someone told him on the side after the AGM (unverifiable)
2) small investment for TTA so they can afford to invest without any due diligence

reasons to believe that YES, due diligence was done by TTA
1) was publicly said during the AGM (unverifiable too)
2) TTA personally attended the Nanjing Tradeshow -- http://www.nextinsight.net/index.php/sto...trade-fair
3) In 1Q, 2Q and 3Q Sino Grandness was classified as an associate and its income was included in TTAs P&L
4) Sino Grandness made up a substantial portion of TTAs profit in 1Q, 2Q and 3Q --- http://tta.listedcompany.com/slides.html
5) Prayudh is an Honorary Chariman of Sino Grandness (2014 and 2015 AR)
6) TTA is on the Board of Directors (2014 and 2015 AR)
7) They have chose to lock up a portion of their shares in Sino Grandness for 10 years. --http://www.nextinsight.net/index.php/story-archive-mainmenu-60/924-2014/9092-sino-grandness-attracts-two-new-strategic-investors-from-thailand
8) "Officials of the companies had told Parry that only if the 70-year-old Prayudh was satisfied after the taste test would the companies proceed with due diligence on Sino Grandness and consider the proposed share placement." -- http://www.nextinsight.net/index.php/sto...quat-juice


which is the more likely case ?

Only insiders know whether there was due diligence. 

Outsiders like Specuvestor and Crubs have to rely on whatever information to draw their own conclusions, which may or may not be correct.

Crubs has listed seven factors suggesting that there was likely due diligence. 

What weight should be given to the following?

Mr Prayudh's son-in-law, Mr. Kamolsut Dabbaransi, is heading the new Food & Beverage Division of TTA. 

TTA's website gives his CV as follows: 

"Mr. Dabbaransi is the Senior Executive Vice President, Head of Food & Beverage. He joins TTA from PM Group, where he has held the post of Chief Business Development Officer and served as CEO/Founder of Mugendai Tempura and Sushi Bar, one of the most Japanese fine dining in Bangkok. Prior to his post at PM Group, he also served as Vice President – Business Development and Associate – Investment Banking at the SCB Securities Co., Ltd., after having starting his career several years earlier with Green Spot Co., Ltd. 

Mr. Dabbaransi received a Master of Science in Actuarial Science from Boston University, USA and a Bachelor of Science in Industrial Engineering and Operation Research from University of Massachusetts, USA."

Around the time TTA announced its intention to buy into Sino Grandness, Newman9's report portraying Sino Grandness as a sham was making its round. It was unlikely that TTA, which is listed on Bangkok Stock Exchange, paid no heed to the serious allegations. The probability that "TTA didn't even do any due diligence" is therefore very low. 

Mr Dabbaransi started his career with Green Spot, a beverage company in Thailand. It was unlikely that his father-in-law did not tap his knowledge. 

By the way, the link provided by Crubs (http://www.nextinsight.net/index.php/sto...trade-fairthe) shows that Mr Dabbaransi was at the Nanjing Trade Show, accompanied by Joseph Chia, a TTA board member.

Thanks portuser for the extra point.

Whether TTA did any due diligence is of massive importance because many investors invested based on the assumption that TTA did their due diligence back in 2014. 

A claim that "TTA didn't even do any due diligence" must be verified thoroughly because if the statement turns out to be credible and true, it will be a game changer and possibly cause many investors to change their minds about Sino Grandness.

This is not a minor claim that can be dismissed.

Young Investor asked "I will also appreciate Specuvestor elaborate on his statement "TTA didn't even do any due diligence." Was it hearsay?" to  which specuvestor said "no" after I probed further.

In post #1578, I have included 8 reasons (7 verifiable sources) that drove me to the conclusion that it is likely (not certain) that TTA has done due diligence. In my first reason (1) I explicitly said it was unverifiable as there is no documented source and thus, a hearsay.

specuvestor,
Since you have said it is not a hearsay, provide the link to the source of your information. If there is no link, tell everyone that it is not verifiable as I have done so that people can discount the claim appropriately.

Since its not hearsay, why would people hear something if they walk in a certain direction after the AGM ?