Sino Grandness

(24-10-2014, 01:39 PM)specuvestor Wrote: PS just to be factually correct, Goldman tranche is not the one that can redeem the CB this month right? Their maturity is next year sept

Para 13.2 in page 26 of Sino’s circular dated 4 Jul 2012 in relation to the issue of 2012 convertible bonds states:

13.2 Notwithstanding anything contained in the Terms and Conditions, in the event the 2011 Bonds, are to be redeemed, whether voluntarily or mandatorily, earlier than the Convertible Bonds, the Bondholder’s redemption rights contained herein shall be accelerated and treated as a pari passu redemption obligation by the HK Issuer at the applicable Revised Redemption Amount under Condition 8.3 of the Terms and Conditions. If the 2011 Bonds are redeemed on 19 October 2014, then the aggregate principal amount of the Convertible Bonds shall be deemed to be RMB267,000,000 for the purpose of calculating the Revised Redemption Amounts set forth below with respect to the Convertible Bonds upon acceleration and redemption.

“Convertible bonds” in the passage are 2012 convertible bonds.

During the EGM to approve the recommendations of circular, the company clarified that when one 2011 bondholder redeems, 2012 bondholders can ask for early redemption.

^^^ Thanks portuser for the contingent clause

(24-10-2014, 01:56 PM)chinafarmer Wrote: another 2 more points.

1. Grant Thornton as auditor

Loquat said since Grant Thornton has audited me and sent a customary letter saying my accounts are ok and reflect true state of affairs blah blah (i am lazy to copy / paste .. go read the SGX announcement), the loquat is then real.

Grant Thornton. I laughed when I read that. Honestly, how many rotten s chip eggs were under Grant Thornton? China Essence a Negative NTA company was audited by them. How about those suspended ones that went to zero? All these companies also got the customary letter from the auditor to certify they were ok. What happened then?

2. Count the loquat trees.

I do not have figures with me. Neither am i familiar with the loquat company.

But my point is this. If the loquat claimed that they are so huge, all you need to do is count how many loquat trees are required to produce so many bottles of loquat juice? And what is the number of hectares required.
Does the result pass a simple common sense test?

For sure I too gasp when they tried to be credible quoting Grant Thorton. It's like asking Saddam Hussein to vouch that you are not a murderer

It is not so easy to count the trees. In fact for any biological assets. From Sinoforest to Bre-X. In theory it sounds easy in practice not so easy to verify

And if you really read through this thread and Eratat thread you would realise this forum is not one of those "Emperor's new clothes" scenario as we have sufficient skepticism here to debunk that. Forumers here are generally more cynical than to chase the wind

(24-10-2014, 04:27 PM)specuvestor Wrote: ^^^ Thanks portuser for the contingent clause

(24-10-2014, 01:56 PM)chinafarmer Wrote: another 2 more points.

1. Grant Thornton as auditor

Loquat said since Grant Thornton has audited me and sent a customary letter saying my accounts are ok and reflect true state of affairs blah blah (i am lazy to copy / paste .. go read the SGX announcement), the loquat is then real.

Grant Thornton. I laughed when I read that. Honestly, how many rotten s chip eggs were under Grant Thornton? China Essence a Negative NTA company was audited by them. How about those suspended ones that went to zero? All these companies also got the customary letter from the auditor to certify they were ok. What happened then?

2. Count the loquat trees.

I do not have figures with me. Neither am i familiar with the loquat company.

But my point is this. If the loquat claimed that they are so huge, all you need to do is count how many loquat trees are required to produce so many bottles of loquat juice? And what is the number of hectares required.
Does the result pass a simple common sense test?

For sure I too gasp when they tried to be credible quoting Grant Thorton. It's like asking Saddam Hussein to vouch that you are not a murderer

It is not so easy to count the trees. In fact for any biological assets. From Sinoforest to Bre-X. In theory it sounds easy in practice not so easy to verify

And if you really read through this thread and Eratat thread you would realise this forum is not one of those "Emperor's new clothes" scenario as we have sufficient skepticism here to debunk that. Forumers here are generally more cynical than to chase the wind

Thanks specuvestor. I know you are cynical and are probably right in doing so. I was referring to the supporters of the loquat.

A key pillar of their argument that the loquat is not rotten is because Alan Wang, Goldman and Thai are inside and since they have done their due diligence we are safe.

Or alternatively, everyone is ignorant to whether the Emperor (the loquat) has clothes on or not (is a fraud or not), but believes that everyone else (Alan Wang, Goldman, and Thai) is not ignorant.

(24-10-2014, 04:43 PM)chinafarmer Wrote: Thanks specuvestor. I know you are cynical and are probably right in doing so. I was referring to the supporters of the loquat.

A key pillar of their argument that the loquat is not rotten is because Alan Wang, Goldman and Thai are inside and since they have done their due diligence we are safe.

Or alternatively, everyone is ignorant to whether the Emperor (the loquat) has clothes on or not (is a fraud or not), but believes that everyone else (Alan Wang, Goldman, and Thai) is not ignorant.

Human make mistake, including our great mentor, Mr. Buffett. The most recent one is the Tesco's case.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102054399#.

So even Mr. Buffett's DD isn't "safe", then who are Alan Wang, Goldman and Thai Towkays?

(24-10-2014, 05:16 PM)CityFarmer Wrote:

(24-10-2014, 04:43 PM)chinafarmer Wrote: Thanks specuvestor. I know you are cynical and are probably right in doing so. I was referring to the supporters of the loquat.

A key pillar of their argument that the loquat is not rotten is because Alan Wang, Goldman and Thai are inside and since they have done their due diligence we are safe.

Or alternatively, everyone is ignorant to whether the Emperor (the loquat) has clothes on or not (is a fraud or not), but believes that everyone else (Alan Wang, Goldman, and Thai) is not ignorant.

Human make mistake, including our great mentor, Mr. Buffett. The most recent one is the Tesco's case.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102054399#.

So even Mr. Buffett's DD isn't "safe", then who are Alan Wang, Goldman and Thai Towkays?

i agree. But Buffett realised his mistake and did not dig a deeper grave for himself. He reduced his TESCO holdings and did not add.

Sino Grandness = Sino Madness?

Off topic but why wouldn't anyone just buy a rich yielding boring but simple toll road company like CMP?

Why should many be debating over the Madness... Personally, is Madness any different from other typical S Chips... Sounds to me like a China MZ just that there is lack of strong shareholder in this case...

No smoke without fire lah...

Investments should not be difficult. Investments should be easily understandable after doing ground work. Investments should be rewarding with dividends. Dividends come from operating cashflows - basically a company that pays consistent and better still growing dividends over time is a good sign of health and hence will deserve rerating that everyone is eyeing over time.

Grumpy Giraffe
GG

Loquat juice. How come I can't find it in Singapore NTUC or 7 11? Honestly, how many here have even tasted a loquat? I myself have not.

And if it is so saleable with margins that make even some pharma companies drool why is it that there are no copycats in China grabbing market share? We are talking about China one of the largest counterfeit and copycat markets in the world.

I read the 2013 Loquat annual report stating receivables at close to RMB 900m. That is roughly SGD 192m. convinced investors should check out the receivables of Yeo Hiap Seng, Food empire and other peers with more products and geographical markets. You will be shocked beyond words.

(24-10-2014, 06:30 PM)chinafarmer Wrote: i agree. But Buffett realised his mistake and did not dig a deeper grave for himself. He reduced his TESCO holdings and did not add.

Sound advice from Mr Buffett, he made a mistake (about the facts) and he is going to make mistakes. One just have to make more right decisions than bad ones.

That said, I think the facts given are still insufficient to prove fraud for Sino Grandness case. I am comfortable investing a portion of my portfolio in situations without 100% clarity.

ymmv

For those who doesn't know what loquat is, see below (枇杷膏):
http://nin-jiom.com.tw/upload/2011/09/20...130510.jpg

Loquat is pretty common in Chinese medicine as a remedy to sore throat, even in Singapore.

Sino's poor corporate governance and poor IR communication has sowed the seeds for the company to become a short sellers' target. They should have learnt a lesson from the China Minzhong saga in 2013.

Did the loquat boss pledge his shares?

A quick glance at the 2013 annual report's top 20 shareholders show that the top 2 shareholders are HSBC (Singapore) Nominees Pte Ltd and Raffles Nominees (Pte) Ltd. Shareholdings under these two entities total around 58 percent of entire issued loquat shares. Loquat boss owns 40.13 % as of 2013 annual report.

Should Loquat supporters check with Loquat IR Parry on the above?