QAF

(24-04-2019, 10:26 PM)mkzhou88 Wrote: my earlier post was deleted?

Dear mkzhou88,

For a reason I had to delete the post. I am really sorry.

(24-04-2019, 10:26 PM)mkzhou88 Wrote: my earlier post was deleted?

Your post didn't seem particularly defamatory to me.

But I suppose the guys running this site have had past experience which tells them that it was in everyone's best interest that your post be removed. So don't feel bad about it. They probably saved you a lawyer's letter.

With regards to the 'non-independent' relationships between independent directors and the rest of the board, this is just the way the world works. Why would anyone choose to be policed in what they deem to be their fiefdom? Or, suppose you are able to choose your supervisor at work, would you choose one whom you know -- perhaps based on a recommendation from your friend/colleague -- is partial towards you, or would you go with someone you do not know? The rationale and concept of having IDs are good, but an effective implementation of it isn't realistic. So long as a company is able to deliver value to shareholder, I'm not sure if it is worthwhile to study the level of independence between the IDs and the rest of the board.

And as for management compensation, the market will have already punished those companies that pay too much to management. Since higher management compensation will mean lower profits, the market value of the company will be lower, assuming that its earning multiple remains the same. Certainly though, for existing shareholders, increasing management compensation is bad, since market value of the company, and probably dividends, will be lower.

Since both of these issues are not within the locus of OPMI control, what the OPMI can do is take them into account when calculating his/her expectation of the company's value.

(25-04-2019, 11:10 AM)cyclone Wrote:

(24-04-2019, 10:26 PM)mkzhou88 Wrote: my earlier post was deleted?

Dear mkzhou88,

For a reason I had to delete the post.

Ok it was only a list of question for us as public shareholders to raise. Seems like there is really something wrong with the board composition. Shareholders and investors who wish to know what was my earlier post u can google qaf investingnote and look for my questions (commented at the 2018 annual report post)

(25-04-2019, 07:57 PM)karlmarx Wrote:

(24-04-2019, 10:26 PM)mkzhou88 Wrote: my earlier post was deleted?

Your post didn't seem particularly defamatory to me.

But I suppose the guys running this site have had past experience which tells them that it was in everyone's best interest that your post be removed. So don't feel bad about it. They probably saved you a lawyer's letter.

With regards to the 'non-independent' relationships between independent directors and the rest of the board, this is just the way the world works. Why would anyone choose to be policed in what they deem to be their fiefdom? Or, suppose you are able to choose your supervisor at work, would you choose one whom you know -- perhaps based on a recommendation from your friend/colleague -- is partial towards you, or would you go with someone you do not know? The rationale and concept of having IDs are good, but an effective implementation of it isn't realistic. So long as a company is able to deliver value to shareholder, I'm not sure if it is worthwhile to study the level of independence between the IDs and the rest of the board.

And as for management compensation, the market will have already punished those companies that pay too much to management. Since higher management compensation will mean lower profits, the market value of the company will be lower, assuming that its earning multiple remains the same. Certainly though, for existing shareholders, increasing management compensation is bad, since market value of the company, and probably dividends, will be lower.

Since both of these issues are not within the locus of OPMI control, what the OPMI can do is take them into account when calculating his/her expectation of the company's value.

 guess they dont want shareholders to know they are all connected. There is nothing wrong to know each other but there should be certain measure to ensure indepedence. I will raise in the AGM tomorrow if time allows!! 

any value buddies buying in this counter now?

I am not buying into QAF now. However I am already heavily invested in it.
I see it as capable of maintaining the 5c dividends in the years ahead.

Recent year my focus was more on the primary produce business of QAF. Had been monitoring Australian feed crop and pig prices, as well as ASF. So far so good.
As long as ASF stays out of Australia, pig prices continue to climb and feed crop prices at least stabilize. The pri produce business should be producing much better results. In the most recent quater update, QAF had confidently announced that "The cyclical business of the Primary Production segment has turned the corner...".
This website is good for weekly checks:

http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/pub...prices#pig

Risk is that ASF hits Australia and QAF.

Request for Trading Halt : Pending release of announcement.

The Halim family has been consolidating their ownership of QAF over the past year, through various parties, in transaction sizes both big and small.

The current bearish capital market sentiments may make this an opportune time to take QAF private. Financing such a deal should not be prohibitive, since the cash-generating ability of the business is predictable, and borrowing costs are still low.

So shareholders of QAF should not be hoping for a buyout at bearish times like now. Since it is likely that QAF's profits, dividends, and market price will be much higher when its primary production business recovers, and its Philippines bakery expansion starts bearing fruit.

But if the Halim family has engaged an advisor to make an offer for the rest of the outstanding shares not in their control, they should make an offer that is at least $1.14 per share, as that is what they paid to buy out their long-time partner, Didi Dawis. And if they intend to CA all shares, there should be another premium to the price paid to Didi Dawis, say 10%. So the magic number should be at least $1.25 per share.

(06-11-2019, 08:51 PM)karlmarx Wrote: The Halim family has been consolidating their ownership of QAF over the past year, through various parties, in transaction sizes both big and small.

The current bearish capital market sentiments may make this an opportune time to take QAF private. Financing such a deal should not be prohibitive, since the cash-generating ability of the business is predictable, and borrowing costs are still low.

So shareholders of QAF should not be hoping for a buyout at bearish times like now. Since it is likely that QAF's profits, dividends, and market price will be much higher when its primary production business recovers, and its Philippines bakery expansion starts bearing fruit.

But if the Halim family has engaged an advisor to make an offer for the rest of the outstanding shares not in their control, they should make an offer that is at least $1.14 per share, as that is what they paid to buy out their long-time partner, Didi Dawis. And if they intend to CA all shares, there should be another premium to the price paid to Didi Dawis, say 10%. So the magic number should be at least $1.25 per share.

quarterly report out soon, might be just another profit warning kind of announcement.

Yes, a profit warning will be welcomed at this stage to buy more shares. Cashing out at 1.20 now boh hua.
Just checked, australia still seem to be still free of asf and no news of fook hai enbloc, though qaf stake is small and so dont think need to halt for that.