Market Leaks: CHC Shadow Banking

[scroobal]

Thanks for additional insight bro. Looks like religion has overtaken common sense.

Outstanding. You do understand the mechanics of bonds issuing.

1. The shareholders has pre-approved the issuing of up to $500m (multicurrency mid-term note programme). As such the board can issue the perpetual securities as and when "needed"


The alarms very triggered because they feared that CHC will eventually walk away with the money. In shadow banking, the listedco would charge a very much higher rate to CHC. However, considering this as a service to the faith, I would say good luck to the shareholders.

 

[god_zeus]

no ah

a bond issue is a IOU
this means that they can say their company lost money and cannot pay back the princpal amount
and dont pay lor

same like lehman brothers

The listed company is making a very risky move; if CHC closes down, they will not recover the money.

The underwriting bank discovered the deal after placing the bonds, don't dare to reveal to public

 

[kaipoh]

Don't worry about Gon Hee Fatt Choy, His god wouldn't throw him to the DOG!!!

I am not surprise. Con hee looks like a crook, behaves like a crook. I hope more stinkees gong kias to join chc to help con hee.

 

[blindswordsman]

Ongoing trials with CHC have affected CHC's ability to obtain fresh loans from banks.

A local listed company has emerged as the proxy for CHC and launched a massive bond issue, in which funds raised were channelled to CHC at a similar interest rate (slightly priced higher to include underwriter's placement fees). The leadership of the listed company is a faithful believer of the church.

Typical case of "if you cannot enter a building by the front door, you sneak in by the back door" Only crooks and cheats do it this way.

 

[blindswordsman]

no ah

a bond issue is a IOU
this means that they can say their company lost money and cannot pay back the princpal amount
and dont pay lor

same like lehman brothers

Write it off as bad investment, bad debt, etc to make fools out of investors.

 

[blindswordsman]

The chief of the list company is simply a delusional dumb nut, he thought like that can confirm ticket to heaven. I guess this moron doesn't even give his own parents 1% of the money.

It is not the money in question. It is recklessness to abuse standing of his company with public listed status to tarek the funding from investors. He believes more in Con Hehe than being prudent with the image of his company.

 

[blindswordsman]

1. The shareholders has pre-approved the issuing of up to $500m (multicurrency mid-term note programme). As such the board can issue the perpetual securities as and when "needed".

2. Certainly, there is no legal case against such practice (being a proxy for CHC) because everything appears to legal, ie I borrowed money to lend you.

3. This is why the underwriters were not aware of the true intention in the first place and decided to silent whistleblowers because they decided not to stir shit (further).

If such medium term note could be issued for the purpose of funding CHC, and CHC used the funds to pay for legal fees of Con Hehe, would the authorities act?

 

[Runifyouhaveto]

If such medium term note could be issued for the purpose of funding CHC, and CHC used the funds to pay for legal fees of Con Hehe, would the authorities act?

Such peer-2-peer lending is legal. Even the KPMG Auditors are not obliged to highlight it because six months ago, the management had cleverly included "financial services business" as part of the company's core business in EGM. Of course, they haven't even audit the company yet.

The arranger of the $500m debt program is DBS, increased from $400m. The first issue was also $100m in bonds of 4.6% coupon about a year ago.The latest tranche is another $100m >7% perpetual debt.

Basically DBS don't know if they are threading on some moral line; should they update the private banking clients that they have been misled and misrepresented the exact use of funds stipulated in the prospectus in both issues?

 

[Runifyouhaveto]

Typical case of "if you cannot enter a building by the front door, you sneak in by the back door" Only crooks and cheats do it this way.

Due diligence. It depends whether got people helping to open back door (management of the listedco) or willing trigger the alarms to the shut the backdoor when they found it(arranging bank).

 

[blindswordsman]

Such peer-2-peer lending is legal. Even the KPMG Auditors are not obliged to highlight it because six months ago, the management had cleverly included "financial services business" as part of the company's core business in EGM. Of course, they haven't even audit the company yet.

What is the use of having the Moneylenders Act, Finance Companies Act and Banking Act if the listed company is allowed to borrow and pass on the funds like a re-lender to a third party like CHC and does not have to comply with the provisions of these 3 statutes? Isn't this listed company considered an illegal money lender?

Although it has the M&A specifying provision of financial services, what kind of financial services? Does it hold a licence to lend money to another third party like a bank, a finance company or a moneylender?

They do not have a brilliant finance team. They have the crooks thinking that they can beat the pappies. Some one somewhere will pay for this deception after the trial is over.

 

[halsey02]

no ah

a bond issue is a IOU
this means that they can say their company lost money and cannot pay back the princpal amount
and dont pay lor

same like lehman brothers

But CPF is a an U owe them....or UOU...even they loose money, you still pay them! or you owe U-self money....ha ha ha

 

[blindswordsman]

Due diligence. It depends whether got people helping to open back door (management of the listedco) or willing trigger the alarms to the shut the backdoor when they found it(arranging bank).

Someone must have forgotten or conveniently overlooked to conduct DD process before arranging the MTN. If MOF does not follow up to find out more, it means more public listed companies in SG can employ the same tactic to re-lend funds to third parties and circumvent the provisions of the Moneylenders Act, the Banking Act and Finance Companies ACT. Will it be a conduit for money laundering?

 

[Runifyouhaveto]

What is the use of having the Moneylenders Act, Finance Companies Act and Banking Act if the listed company is allowed to borrow and pass on the funds like a re-lender to a third party like CHC and does not have to comply with the provisions of these 3 statutes? Isn't this listed company considered an illegal money lender?

Although it has the M&A specifying provision of financial services, what kind of financial services? Does it hold a licence to lend money to another third party like a bank, a finance company or a moneylender?

They do not have a brilliant finance team. They have the crooks thinking that they can beat the pappies. Some one somewhere will pay for this deception after the trial is over.

Sir, I understand that the moneylender act and likes, dont really apply to a corporation if you just lend to a few parties.

 

[kukubird58]

Hahaha......local listed company, what is stopping u from naming the company...do the public a whistle blowing service......don't have to explain so much

 

[Pfizer]

Hahaha......local listed company, what is stopping u from naming the company...do the public a whistle blowing service......don't have to explain so much

hahaha.....

 

[oli9]

Why does a fucking church need so much money? :oIo::kma:

How do one suppose he can stay in a sentosa cove condo & buy several units of Horizon Towers condo?

 

[sense]

A local listed company has emerged as the proxy for CHC and launched a massive bond issue, in which funds raised were channelled to CHC at a similar interest rate (slightly priced higher to include underwriter's placement fees). The leadership of the listed company is a faithful believer of the church.

Without stating the name of this 'local listed company', this is just yet another fantasy.

 

[blindswordsman]

Sir, I understand that the moneylender act and likes, dont really apply to a corporation if you just lend to a few parties.

Lending to one party or multiple parties is not of material consideration for the purpose of considering an offence. The act of lending is itself an offence unless it is re-lent to a subsidiary company and the purpose of re-lending is fully declared in the documents provided to the investors. Wonder what the MOF would say about this circumvention of the law statutes by this public listed company.

 

[Runifyouhaveto]

Without stating the name of this 'local listed company', this is just yet another fantasy.

Buay swee lah, say me until like that. I must know where to draw the line.

 

[Runifyouhaveto]

Lending to one party or multiple parties is not of material consideration for the purpose of considering an offence. The act of lending is itself an offence unless it is re-lent to a subsidiary company and the purpose of re-lending is fully declared in the documents provided to the investors. Wonder what the MOF would say about this circumvention of the law statutes by this public listed company.

Sorry sir, I still beg to differ because some other companies doing the same but not for chc. no offence. Of course, we can only leave it to dbs to reveal and auditors to judge.