Sino Grandness

(31-10-2014, 09:23 AM)KFX Wrote: Went down yesterday. As the respective team of lawyers were not around, I did not manage to review the agreement specifically clause 4.1. Still waiting for their reply.

It was submitted on SGX and the announcement said that the documents may be inspected during normal office hours. I did not read about any clause that says the documents may be inspected only if the team of lawyers are around.

You must enforce your right as a shareholder. The announcement has legal bindings.


14. DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION
Copies of the following documents may be inspected at 6 Battery Road #10-01 Singapore 049909 during normal office hours for a period of three (3) months from the date of this Announcement:-
(i) the PM Group Subscription Agreement dated 1 October 2014;
(ii) the Soleado Subscription Agreement dated 1 October 2014;

(31-10-2014, 10:42 AM)chinafarmer Wrote: I went to Thai website and read the announcement. Under Conditions Precedent it is written:


6. Conditions Precedent
The placement is conditional upon the approval in principle of SGX-ST for the listing and
quotation of the Placement Shares on the Official List of the SGX-ST as well as approval
from relevant authorities in Thailand in relation to exchange of control and payments to
be made out of Thailand.

I doubt there was an escape clause in the original agreement. However, investors must go to the Battery Road address and check to establish the facts.

Not vested. Not short. More shocked.

This is the same statement released on SGX. I am in line with CityFarmer's view that it is reasonable to assume some form of escape clause, at least before the official placement.

Quite interesting developments.

When the announcement of Thais intending to invest in Sino, there was no comments at all.

When the majority extended their 2011 bonds that expired in Oct to Jun next year, there was also no reaction.

When Sino is going to sell Garden Fresh juice in HK largest supermarket chain and largest convenience store chain, no reaction again.

When the shortseller’s report surfaced, it was taken to be true, and many forumers concluded that Sino’s days are numbered as the scam is too large to hide.

Now some forumers are condemning Thai investors for lowering the placement share price.

I thought the central issue here is whether Sino is a fake. Unfortunately, this is not being discussed now.

Vested.

(31-10-2014, 02:02 PM)Young Investor Wrote: Quite interesting developments.

When the announcement of Thais intending to invest in Sino, there was no comments at all.

When the majority extended their 2011 bonds that expired in Oct to Jun next year, there was also no reaction.

When Sino is going to sell Garden Fresh juice in HK largest supermarket chain and largest convenience store chain, no reaction again.

When the shortseller’s report surfaced, it was taken to be true, and many forumers concluded that Sino’s days are numbered as the scam is too large to hide.

Now some forumers are condemning Thai investors for lowering the placement share price.

I thought the central issue here is whether Sino is a fake. Unfortunately, this is not being discussed now.

Vested.

Totally agree.. now its not abt Newman9 report or about inflated sales.. The critics have moved on to tomyums and padthais.. Not only dodgy but lame.

(31-10-2014, 02:02 PM)Young Investor Wrote: Quite interesting developments.

When the announcement of Thais intending to invest in Sino, there was no comments at all.

When the majority extended their 2011 bonds that expired in Oct to Jun next year, there was also no reaction.

When Sino is going to sell Garden Fresh juice in HK largest supermarket chain and largest convenience store chain, no reaction again.

When the shortseller’s report surfaced, it was taken to be true, and many forumers concluded that Sino’s days are numbered as the scam is too large to hide.

Now some forumers are condemning Thai investors for lowering the placement share price.

I thought the central issue here is whether Sino is a fake. Unfortunately, this is not being discussed now.

Vested.

Loquat supporters still have not addressed the issues i raised in my earlier post about

1. if Goldman is the beneficiary owner of the CB

2. why trade receivables grew faster than revenue

3. whether slotting fees were paid to supermarket distributors and how much

4. what is percentage of sales done at trade fairs

5 . why didnt they use bank borrowings in first place when they claim they can obtain them now to pay off bond holders if needed

6. 900m of trade receivables can be collected back to pay the bondholders. Why not do it?

7. Who introduced the Thai? Is he vested in the loquat?

The recent placement saga only adds more confusion and shock.

Not vested. Not short.

(30-10-2014, 09:48 AM)CY09 Wrote: Interesting data. From what I have gathered, an ipo of garden fresh at 12* pe at 260 rmb profit yields 3.12 billion rmb. If the bondholders get 45% of garden fresh post ipo. Their stake is 1.4b rmb. It will be better to just deer the ipo and force them to redeem. Given the situation, I am a bit confused on what's going on with the company, but nevertheless I am still holding on to my stake.

Assuming if it is a fraud, I get zero, if garden fresh is real, the valuation of Sino is 90 cents

Believe you are using historical data to get to the 90cts figure. I understand that the valuation is done differently for companies seeking listing in HK. They use forward earnings.

If SinoG's data is real (if proven so) then its surely more than a dollar. Dont forget ..the sales for last qtr is already a record. Next coming qtrly sales figures will be much higher.

(vested)

(31-10-2014, 03:36 PM)chinafarmer Wrote:

(31-10-2014, 02:02 PM)Young Investor Wrote: Quite interesting developments.

When the announcement of Thais intending to invest in Sino, there was no comments at all.

When the majority extended their 2011 bonds that expired in Oct to Jun next year, there was also no reaction.

When Sino is going to sell Garden Fresh juice in HK largest supermarket chain and largest convenience store chain, no reaction again.

When the shortseller’s report surfaced, it was taken to be true, and many forumers concluded that Sino’s days are numbered as the scam is too large to hide.

Now some forumers are condemning Thai investors for lowering the placement share price.

I thought the central issue here is whether Sino is a fake. Unfortunately, this is not being discussed now.

Vested.

Loquat supporters still have not addressed the issues i raised in my earlier post about

1. if Goldman is the beneficiary owner of the CB

2. why trade receivables grew faster than revenue

3. whether slotting fees were paid to supermarket distributors and how much

4. what is percentage of sales done at trade fairs

5 . why didnt they use bank borrowings in first place when they claim they can obtain them now to pay off bond holders if needed

6. 900m of trade receivables can be collected back to pay the bondholders. Why not do it?

7. Who introduced the Thai? Is he vested in the loquat?

The recent placement saga only adds more confusion and shock.

Not vested. Not short.

Bro,

Either you are shorting this stock or a competitor of sinoG. Dont see you posting anywhere else but in this thread and taking every opportunity to knock this stock down. If you are are shorting then let us know, we are fine having different views and opinions. We can trade arguments for and against. But since you say you are neither long nor short , I am puzzled by your constant interest and jab on this counter. You sure you are not newman9 or bluedogmeow?

By the way I am vested.

Chinafarmer, most of your questions have being answered either in the company announcements or reports. For example,campany has already mentioned the recent trade fair received 300 mil order.

I am just wonder when you start studying this company. And why u so persistent if you have no interest in this company.

Vested.

(31-10-2014, 09:49 PM)Young Investor Wrote: Chinafarmer, most of your questions have being answered either in the company announcements or reports. For example,campany has already mentioned the recent trade fair received 300 mil order.

I am just wonder when you start studying this company. And why u so persistent if you have no interest in this company.

Vested.

This is a discussion on the loquat. It is immature to be personal. I do not wish to bring this discussion down to the level you are going to.

(31-10-2014, 03:36 PM)chinafarmer Wrote:

(31-10-2014, 02:02 PM)Young Investor Wrote: Quite interesting developments.

When the announcement of Thais intending to invest in Sino, there was no comments at all.

When the majority extended their 2011 bonds that expired in Oct to Jun next year, there was also no reaction.

When Sino is going to sell Garden Fresh juice in HK largest supermarket chain and largest convenience store chain, no reaction again.

When the shortseller’s report surfaced, it was taken to be true, and many forumers concluded that Sino’s days are numbered as the scam is too large to hide.

Now some forumers are condemning Thai investors for lowering the placement share price.

I thought the central issue here is whether Sino is a fake. Unfortunately, this is not being discussed now.

Vested.

Loquat supporters still have not addressed the issues i raised in my earlier post about

1. if Goldman is the beneficiary owner of the CB

2. why trade receivables grew faster than revenue

3. whether slotting fees were paid to supermarket distributors and how much

4. what is percentage of sales done at trade fairs

5 . why didnt they use bank borrowings in first place when they claim they can obtain them now to pay off bond holders if needed

6. 900m of trade receivables can be collected back to pay the bondholders. Why not do it?

7. Who introduced the Thai? Is he vested in the loquat?

The recent placement saga only adds more confusion and shock.

Not vested. Not short.

On top of that, when receivables increase, payables did not increase much at all. This is highly suspicious for a drinks company. If my volume increases, the company will have more bargaining power. Instead of using this power, the company try to pay off payables and incur more receivables.

Secondly, when a company depends on a listing to survive, it is a dangerous stock to hold.

The only silver lining is that a Thai company is coming up to save this company. The debate on reducing the bid price is irrelevant. Without them, there will be more trouble coming.

With the recent bad press on S Chips, I will say it is better to avoid this stocks with dubious accounting.

Not Vested.