Sino Grandness

[specuvestor]

crubs

3) 40% of the CB are converted to straight bonds which has a direct claim on assets vs what is technically an Exchangeable Bond. As I posted before, the amount due for SB1 is roughly the amount of cash on their books. So if you think about it you will get your answer

1) Get a sample... not "a" chinese friend. You're building a strawman. Goldman and SHK (not KGI) are unlikely to be the ultimate bond holders but just investment bankers. There are some names that have already been thrown out so we know who they are. TTA didn't even do any due diligence. AC Nielson is at least credible though others have posted otherwise. Bottomline is whether it makes sense and fits your observation.

2) If the CB holders or company announces a default, proceedings would have started. If there was a credit default swap on the bond a credit event would have occurred whether it is announced or not. In this case there was a compromise to restructure. The reason for the compromise is what we differ on.
http://credit-deriv.com/isdadefinitions.htm
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...uts-rating
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/348c6158-f6ac-...z45FVMPZVK

I would like to know why unable to pay on an agreed payment date is technically not a default until you call the rose a rose. Like I said, if it is a proper negotiation then it should be done earlier before the payment date. The company can reissue separate tranches as per any normal treasury or funding operations. That to me is rationally obvious.

[weijian]

I really wish facts are checked before being asserted. The first link is not as you have mentioned, the company's own online stall. It is a store by the name of 振鹏达食品. So factually wrong. The second on the other hand is a store from huiyuan itself.

hi babyblue,
Forumer Debronic hasn't gotten the facts wrong.

- Garden Fresh Loquat juice is found on the first item on the left, at the 3rd row.
- Key in 振鹏达 into Google and you may be able to find the Chinese wiki page. It is suggesting that it is Sino Grandness for sure.

[crubs]

crubs

3) 40% of the CB are converted to straight bonds which has a direct claim on assets vs what is technically an Exchangeable Bond. As I posted before, the amount due for SB1 is roughly the amount of cash on their books. So if you think about it you will get your answer

1) Get a sample... not "a" chinese friend. You're building a strawman. Goldman and SHK (not KGI) are unlikely to be the ultimate bond holders but just investment bankers. There are some names that have already been thrown out so we know who they are. TTA didn't even do any due diligence. AC Nielson is at least credible though others have posted otherwise. Bottomline is whether it makes sense and fits your observation.

2) If the CB holders or company announces a default, proceedings would have started. If there was a credit default swap on the bond a credit event would have occurred whether it is announced or not. In this case there was a compromise to restructure. The reason for the compromise is what we differ on.
http://credit-deriv.com/isdadefinitions.htm

I would like to know why unable to pay on an agreed payment date is technically not a default until you call the rose a rose. Like I said, if it is a proper negotiation then it should be done earlier before the payment date. The company can reissue separate tranches as per any normal treasury or funding operations. That to me is rationally obvious.

specuvestor,

where did you get all your facts from ?? how did all your assumptions come about ?

3) "the amount due for SB1 is roughly the amount of cash on their books. So if you think about it you will get your answer"

Taken from the latest annual report "the Group's cash and bank balances were approximately RMB 143.0 million (2014 - RMB 223.6 million). As at 29 February 2016, the Group's cash and bank balances has improved further to approximately RMB 233.1 million"

Are you even suggesting that the bondholders said "let's take everything Sino Grandness has on their books" without even realising that it would jeopardise the whole business and their likelihood of collecting the rest of the amount ? What is your basis for assuming that ? Just because SB1 and cash balance in FY 2015 is both RMB 100+m ?

1) "Goldman and SHK (not KGI) are unlikely to be the ultimate bond holders but just investment bankers."

Apologies it is CDIB (of which KGI is a subsidiary). SHK have long sold the CBs.

"Just investment bankers" How did you know ? where is your proof ?

If you said they are not the ultimate holders, when why is it recorded on the books of CDIB ? http://www.cdibank.com/other/B3592-f.pdf (page 81 of their last available quarterly report). Why did CDIB bother to introduce Taiwanese food and beverage producer AGV Products to Sino Grandness ? Why did Goldman Sachs bother to provide management and corporate governance advice ? (page 131 of prospectus)

"TTA didn't even do any due diligence." How do you even manage to assume that ? TTA management have repeatedly stressed that they have done their due diligence. (multiple sources have stated this, CNBC interview, TTA presentations, newspaper articles). All are lies ?

"Get a sample... not "a" chinese friend" Asking a group of chinese friends in Singapore about loquat juice in a country with over 1 billion people makes more sense to you than 3 market research reports, 2 bond holders, 1 ipo sponsor and 1 strategic investor (which you conveniently assumed didn't do any due diligence). Even then, I have friends who say garden Fresh is a prominent brand in HK and parts of China. 

2) http://credit-deriv.com/isdadefinitions.htm --- > "Restructuring covers events as a result of which the terms, as agreed by the reference entity or governmental authority and the holders of the relevant obligation, governing the relevant obligation have become LESS FAVOURABLE to the holders that they would otherwise have been. These events include a reduction in the principal amount or interest payable under the obligation, a postponement of payment, a change in ranking in priority of payment or any other composition of payment. A default threshold amount can be specified."

The CB restructuring has made it MORE FAVOURABLE for CB holders ! Instead of full principal payment which Sino Grandness could have done, they chose to give the CB holders some shares in GF which upon IPO, together with the 40% principle payment, is worth more than the full principal payment before restructuring. Thanks for confirming it is not a default.

[specuvestor]

3) if u have not been paid 1 or 2 years and the redemption amount became capex at end of 2015, is the basis of what u would do to protect your self interest

1) i didnt say CDIB is the investment banker. TTA was at the last AGM. U should try attending one of these. I'm also pretty certain Garden Fresh is recognisable in the Guangdong province including HK.

2) u are obviously reading what u want to read. It's not a complicated one pager. You can read the other 2 news links to learn how the real world works if u interested

[crubs]

3) if u have not been paid 1 or 2 years and the redemption amount became capex at end of 2015, is the basis of what u would do to protect your self interest

1) i didnt say CDIB is the investment banker. TTA was at the last AGM. U should try attending one of these. I'm also pretty certain Garden Fresh is recognisable in the Guangdong province including HK.

2) u are obviously reading what u want to read. It's not a complicated one pager. You can read the other 2 news links to learn how the real world works if u interested

3) Well, you have observed SB1 = RMB 100+m and cash in bank as of FY 2015 = RMB 100+m, and made assumptions to make sense of the two numbers. Even though it does not hold because it does not address the other concerns of the CB holders longer term needs like SB2 and GF shares.

1) you said "TTA didn't even do any due diligence." Then you said TTA was at the AGM. I don't get you. Did the Joseph Chia tell Sino Grandness shareholders that TTA didn't do any due diligence ?

And then you assumed and made a declaration that they are unlikely to be the ultimate bondholders

Regarding researching, your stance is "Bottomline is whether it makes sense and fits your observation". Of which asking a group of china man in Singapore makes more sense and is more credible than all the due diligence done by multiple parties. 

2) oh yea I read everything. under "failure to pay", maturity date was reached but the CB holders did not ask for payment so how did GF "failed to pay" ?
China Fishery defaulted because the bond holders chose to ask for the coupon payment and they "failed to pay" 

I rest my case.

[Boon]

Another interesting document from the web.

Has Sino G ever disclosed to its shareholders that Grandness Sichuan had stopped production (as reported in the environmental impact report document ) because it could not compete in the overseas market?
 
http://www.doc88.com/p-9049465585832.html
建设项目环境影响报告表
(公示版)
项 目 名 称:15 万吨果蔬饮料生产线技改项目
建设单位(盖章):四川鲜绿园果蔬饮料有限公司 
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[piaopiao]

Another interesting document from the web.

Has Sino G ever disclosed to its shareholders that Grandness Sichuan had stopped production (as reported in the environmental impact report document ) because it could not compete in the overseas market?
 
http://www.doc88.com/p-9049465585832.html
建设项目环境影响报告表
(公示版)
项 目 名 称:15 万吨果蔬饮料生产线技改项目
建设单位(盖章):四川鲜绿园果蔬饮料有限公司 
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I think the guidelines for disclosure is whether the business development significantly affect the balance sheet, p&l and cash flow of the company.

Sichuan factory was not disposed off. SG changed the use for this factory.

There was a factory in Yunnan which SG sold off and the transaction was announced.

Sichuan and Yunnan are inland provinces. SG needed to be nearer to the ports for the benefits of their export business.

[cyclone]

as usual, this will be noise in a few months time. Why bother to debate on " whether BDO is credible or not"...  What's the intention ultimately, shorting?

I doubt anyone has the balls to short now.. Please show us if you are shorting. I will be impress and respect since you do actually short and not just talk this stock down.

So a long-only fund manager should never has negative view (talk down) on any stock, since he/she will never short? 

Hahaha.. nice one CF. I have no answer for your comment!  Speaking of funds, do they hedge? I think they only de-risk if in this case.

Hi CF

You did not make comments to the above hahaha. Why target me?
I will not apologize. I consider that you have made an error and I shall forgive you.

oldman9

Firstly, I missed it, doesn't mean you can do it. I would fault you before the notification, but not after that. 

Next, I can't vet all posts based on the time allocation. VBs are allowed to rise moderator report to alert me on potential offences or irregularities. I will follow up from there.

Lastly, the notification is for all VBs, rather than only targeted on you, similarly for all previous alert. In fact, I don't have the time to target any individual, as moderator.

The apology means nothing to me in the virtual faceless world, but it gives an indicator who are likely you.

Basic warning will be issued, on the basic of disrespect to moderation. We need the order to ensure a smooth operation of our VB, for the benefit all.

Regards
Moderator

Let me also add some warning points.

[leeeta]

Lol, its funny, . seems like poor oldman9 is getting thrashed by the two admins here. Lucky there are only 2 admins, if there were 3 or more, i guess oldman9 would have been kicked out and landed in hospital. ooops.

[cyclone]

Lol, its funny, . seems like poor oldman9 is getting thrashed by the two admins here. Lucky there are only 2 admins, if there were 3 or more, i guess oldman9 would have been kicked out and landed in hospital. ooops.

Let me also add some warning points for you.