Viz Branz

(31-08-2011, 09:58 PM)orang Wrote:

(31-08-2011, 03:08 PM)freedom Wrote: There are some revenue adjustments to FY2010 result in FY2010 result. The revenue and selling & distribution expense is higher accordingly. the operating income and profit are still the same.

maybe the company change the way of revenue recognition?

Oh really? Can the company, or any company for that matter, change the way of revenue of revenue recognition?
The revenue in the annual report for FY2010 is an audited figure right?

Strangely enough, there has been no change in the cost of sales.

(01-09-2011, 08:59 AM)orang Wrote:

(31-08-2011, 09:58 PM)orang Wrote:

(31-08-2011, 03:08 PM)freedom Wrote: There are some revenue adjustments to FY2010 result in FY2010 result. The revenue and selling & distribution expense is higher accordingly. the operating income and profit are still the same.

maybe the company change the way of revenue recognition?

Oh really? Can the company, or any company for that matter, change the way of revenue of revenue recognition?
The revenue in the annual report for FY2010 is an audited figure right?

Strangely enough, there has been no change in the cost of sales.

The cash flow did not change at all. So should be okay, IMO.

(01-09-2011, 09:24 AM)freedom Wrote:

(01-09-2011, 08:59 AM)orang Wrote:

(31-08-2011, 09:58 PM)orang Wrote:

(31-08-2011, 03:08 PM)freedom Wrote: There are some revenue adjustments to FY2010 result in FY2010 result. The revenue and selling & distribution expense is higher accordingly. the operating income and profit are still the same.

maybe the company change the way of revenue recognition?

Oh really? Can the company, or any company for that matter, change the way of revenue of revenue recognition?
The revenue in the annual report for FY2010 is an audited figure right?

Strangely enough, there has been no change in the cost of sales.

The cash flow did not change at all. So should be okay, IMO.

Does earnings quality matter?

Strange announcement today (1Sep11).....
http://info.sgx.com/webcorannc.nsf/Annou...endocument

It looks like Senior Chng had forgotten to file a notice for a share sale of 30 lots at $0.30/share done on 27Oct10. The man is getting sloppy with age? Or just an isolated mistake?

indeed is strange. i wonder what will sgx do to him?

(01-09-2011, 10:33 PM)pianist Wrote: indeed is strange. i wonder what will sgx do to him?

SGX also didn't do anything about Ben Chng crossing 50% and trigerring the takeovers code right?

Question, question, question but no answers

(03-09-2011, 07:46 PM)Dodo Wrote:

(01-09-2011, 10:33 PM)pianist Wrote: indeed is strange. i wonder what will sgx do to him?

SGX also didn't do anything about Ben Chng crossing 50% and trigerring the takeovers code right?

he and his father (related person) combined crossed 50% long time ago. so no need to take over.

(05-09-2011, 07:14 PM)freedom Wrote:

(03-09-2011, 07:46 PM)Dodo Wrote:

(01-09-2011, 10:33 PM)pianist Wrote: indeed is strange. i wonder what will sgx do to him?

SGX also didn't do anything about Ben Chng crossing 50% and trigerring the takeovers code right?

he and his father (related person) combined crossed 50% long time ago. so no need to take over.

It should seem clear with the law suit that the father and son have fallen out, so cease acting in concert since some time back?

On 1Sep11 (last Thursday), Ben Chng renewed buying shares - after the company released its FY 11 (ended 30Jun11) full-year on 29Aug11 - and added 41 lots and paid an average $0.2599/share.....
http://info.sgx.com/webcorannc.nsf/Annou...endocument