Sino Grandness

Sorry correction: it's more than a year not 2 years. Feels like 2 years after attending 2 AGMs

Specuvestor

You wrote to me: "^^ Young investor I already posted the link at post #1705. You might also want to do some housekeeping"

It is interesting that you do not like others to refer to the link you have posted earlier, as though you have some form of ownership of it.

In your post #1705, you drew attention to 16.6.6 on dividends and 16.6.8 on capital reduction.

In my post, I highlighted 16.6.4 for it to be read together with 16.6.6. Many people find it odd that a company that has accumulated loss can still pay dividends in the year it is profitable. Such feeling is in line with the concept, or doctrine, of maintenance of capital. 16.6.4, which deals with capital maintenance, mentions that there are exceptions, and it is useful to share it.

HitandRun quoted from http://www.financierworldwide.com/return...znubNoaySM the following:

"Companies may return cash to their shareholders via an outright distribution of dividends and this can be implemented by way of board or shareholder resolutions, or both. However, a company can only declare and pay final dividends from distributable profits and not share capital. In determining whether the company has sufficient distributable profits, it can look at both its current year as well as past years’ profits. In terms of current year profits, a company is not required to apply its current year profits to offset any accumulated losses from past years and may distribute such profits as dividends. Any past years’ profit reserves may also be distributed, including reserves created from the revaluation of assets, provided that the revaluation is not subject to short-term fluctuations and has been verified by professional valuers independently."

When you saw it, you wrote:"

"HitandRun mate your link is as per I posted previously at #1705... u might want to do some housekeeping"

In you post #1705, you only quoted "In terms of current year profits, a company is not required to apply its current year profits to offset any accumulated losses from past years and may distribute such profits as dividends".

It is obvious that HitandRun had wanted forummer to read the full text.
Pettiness is no good.

1) unlike other forums, many people, including myself, use the this forum as additional tool for research. So we try to minimize duplicate posts. That has been the culture here unless I'm mistaken. Hence the low post count actually is an asset here vs other other forums which has more nonsensical posts in 10min than the no of posts in VB in a day. HitandRun knows that. You probably don't. If your purpose is to highlight the exceptions, that's fair and well. But exceptions are not the rule. Like I posted, there are reasons why capital and profit, though both are equity, are treated very differently. Dividends are strictly non capital in nature. You can try slicing it in different ways, but you can't change the cake

2) secondly I have no problem people quoting me or links. I have problem with people who misquote me. Nobody petty with time and energy makes effort "volunteering" to post numbers and links.

Specuvestor

Was it not clear to you that my post #1718 was to highlight 16.6.4, which you did not mention?

You now say "If your purpose is to highlight the exceptions, that's fair and well."  It is clear that you did not read post #1718 carefully, and jumped to tell me to do some housekeeping the moment you saw the link I quoted was the same as the one you posted earlier.

You said "So we try to minimize duplicate posts. That has been the culture here unless I'm mistaken".

Is it culture which you are not certain as you qualify by unless I'm mistaken?

I find it strange that when you post a link, others should not quote relevant info from the link. May I know who set this culture?

To be fair I observed strong biases against sino and generally, against s-chip in this forum. Problematic non s-chip such as ABL and the like did not receive same amount of negativity even thought I personally believe more money was lost due to ABL saga. The wild swing of share price in ISR and the other such as Technic Oil and few others also generate little discussion here. But if it is s-chip, the treatment is different. I want to declare I have vested in a couple of s-chips and I am happy with the return so far. One of the s-chips is my core holding and I have traded sino in and out with profit and I would have just stay vested if not for the purpose of freeing up capital purpose for other usage. I am grateful if fellow forumers' intention is to highlight risk such as no certainly that IPO will be successful. However, it seems that some forumers' intention was just to cast aspersion on sino which I think is not objective.

(20-05-2016, 09:02 AM)Bluechipfan Wrote: To be fair I observed strong biases against sino and generally, against s-chip in this forum. Problematic non s-chip such as ABL and the like did not receive same amount of negativity even thought I personally believe more money was lost due to ABL saga. The wild swing of share price in ISR and the other such as Technic Oil and few others also generate little discussion here. But if it is s-chip, the treatment is different. I want to declare I have vested in a couple of s-chips and I am happy with the return so far. One of the s-chips is my core holding and I have traded sino in and out with profit and I would have just stay vested if not for the purpose of freeing up capital purpose for other usage. I am grateful if fellow forumers' intention is to highlight risk such as no certainly that IPO will be successful. However, it seems that some forumers' intention was just to cast aspersion on sino which I think is not objective.

IMO, not many forumers are anti S-Chip. My experience with S-Chip is pretty bad having caught in a few so-call good counters. Having read VB and a few value investing websites, I am less inclined to be sway into being anti S-Chip. There will always be those who come in to promote their own interest whether S-Chip or not and also cast aspersion view with a strong analysis, but there are others who are there to also show their concerns with good deep thoughts of their own research and it doesn't matter which sides they take. I am vested in a few counters being mentioned with contrarian views but that doesn't mean I will not be vested further into these counters. In fact, I vested more into SG recently. Those analysis by many are wonderful experience for us to learn in life. In fact, Specuvestor in SG should be eye-opener on value investing.

Previously, doubts regarding Garden Fresh's IPO and Sino Grandness' ability to restructure the conv bonds were casted but now that DBS has filed GF IPO documents and converted 40% of conv bonds into straight bonds, I can't fathom out the reasons why some forummers are continually casting new unfounded doubts like the recent mentioned about sale of GF vendor shares.

It was mentioned in SG's recent results announcement that the audited valuation of the remaining 60% conv bonds as of 31 Mar 2016 was arrived at using a 70% probability factor that the GF IPO will be successful. Any implications? I am sure some distractors or detractors will say cannot rely on professionals and management.

(20-05-2016, 12:01 PM)piaopiao Wrote: Previously, doubts regarding Garden Fresh's IPO and Sino Grandness' ability to restructure the conv bonds were casted but now that DBS has filed GF IPO documents and converted 40% of conv bonds into straight bonds, I can't fathom out the reasons why some forummers are continually casting new unfounded doubts like the recent mentioned about sale of GF vendor shares.

It was mentioned in SG's recent results announcement that the audited valuation of the remaining 60% conv bonds as of 31 Mar 2016 was arrived at using a 70% probability factor that the GF IPO will be successful. Any implications? I am sure some distractors or detractors will say cannot rely on professionals and management.

Not to mention, the 70% probability factor was a conservative estimate as stated by the management.

Specuvestor wrote in #1719:
"The next catalyst is the 31 May straight bond payments for more clarity on their cashflow".

The payment of RMB 108m by 31 May 2016 to bondholders is a foregone conclusion. 

If not, it will be very remiss of the Directors of Sino Grandness not to find a way, by now, to rescind the decision to pay dividends to shareholders on 6 June 2016. 

Dividends cannot be paid when debts to bondholders, who are Sino Grandness' creditors, are not honored.

^^ That's true in principle but the dividend is coming from the listco where the TTA loan is going. So I'm pretty sure the dividends will be paid. The dividends were supposed to be paid upstream from Grandness but in the 1Q16 balance sheet you can see there is no cash but only A/R increase in the listco.

The straight bond SB1 payment is however coming from Garden Fresh HK. Garden Fresh HK cannot pay dividend upstream until their EB is settled. There is a good chance the EB creditors will see part of their money back on 31 May.

That's how it works and how I see the cashflow.