• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

S-Chip Firms Rapidly Collapsing Amidst Debt And Fraud

borom

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
The curious case of SAH and its big sell-off

MOST sellers, whether in business or the property market, invariably try to get the best deal possible. ........

The curious story of Shanghai Asia Holdings (SAH) and its one billion yuan (S$195 million) deal to sell off all of its businesses, however, appears to defy that logic.....

.....SAH said last October that it was selling its aluminium foil and cigarette carton printing businesses to two parties, Shantou Wanshun Package Material Co (SWP) .....and Gemguard Technologies'......SAH... had earlier expounded the bright prospects of the businesses.

......SAH said it will use part of the net proceeds from the sale to pay off its outstanding loan....Some ....will be placed in the hands of shareholders through dividend payouts or a capital reduction.'....The rest of the funds will be used to invest in 'viable business opportunities in other areas of business', ....trading of the firm's shares will be suspended - assuming that the Singapore Exchange (SGX) allows SAH to remain listed without a core business.

This is a deal riddled with questions. First of all, the company has offered little clarity on its rationale behind the sale of its assets, except to say that it had received 'unsolicited offers'. That doesn't seem convincing, especially when the assets supposedly enjoy bright prospects. In fact, in its last results statement before the deal was announced, SAH said of its aluminium foil business: 'The markets for the group's aluminium foil rolling products are improving and the group stands to benefit from the increasing consumer spending and sentiment in China and the US, which bode well for the aluminium industry.'

Following the sale, SAH said it will seek opportunities 'in other areas of business'. But why does SAH want to sell off promising assets, and face the uncertainty of looking for a new business? It has, so far, given no answers to that.

Then there is the structure of the deal and the way the businesses are valued. Based on what SWP is paying for a 75 per cent stake in the aluminium foil business, a simple calculation shows that the 25 per cent stake that Gemguard is buying is worth S$48.8 million. This suggests then that Gemguard is paying just S$1.2 million for the cigarette carton printing business that brought SAH 42.9 million yuan in operating profit in 2009. 'The sum is derisory because SAH serves major cigarette companies,' said minority shareholder Richard Lim in a letter to BT. 'Moreover, SAH has stakes in two printing firms with a total book value of well over S$2 million.'

In a statement to SGX that appears to be a bid to justify the way the transaction was structured, SAH said that its intention was to sell the businesses for one billion yuan. To put it bluntly, it was not concerned that the sale would value its cigarette carton printing assets at a mere S$1.2 million.

This does not reflect much business sense. As put by Mr Lim in his second letter: 'The two businesses are distinctly different and can be sold separately. The printing business should be valued comparable to other established industry players and not under part of a single package.'

SAH appears to be 'selling this business as though it is in distress' and is 'in a hurry to raise cash. One wonders why', added Mr Lim.

Another niggling issue is the finder's fee that SAH will pay a shareholder, Yao Hongyuan, who has a 0.96 per cent stake in the firm. According to SAH's October statement, it will pay Mr Yao 9 million yuan upon the completion of the sale.

This again is questionable because one of the buyers, SWP, already has a business relationship with SAH, noted another shareholder who wrote in to BT. According to SWP's own IPO prospectus, it has served two wholly-owned subsidiaries of SAH involved in cigarette carton printing.

Given that the two parties already know each other, what did Mr Yao do to justify being paid a finder's fee?

It is only fair for SAH minority shareholders to pose these questions. And they deserve better answers from the company - which so far has avoided the nub of the issue.

Copyright © 2010 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/sub/storyprintfriendly/0,4582,421494,00.html?

Lets see what the authorities will do.
So far nothing except for CAO
 

johnny333

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Came across an article in Bloomberg that the problem is also happening in the US.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_04/b4212058566865_page_7.htm

Worthless Stocks from China

(page 7 of 7)

January 17, 2011


Investors also dumped shares of companies that used Rino auditor Frazer Frost, including Harbin Electric, which Bird had shorted. Harbin dropped 15 percent in two days after trading in Rino shares was halted.

A couple of days later, governance research firm Audit Integrity, which rates almost 20,000 public companies, warned U.S. investors about Chinese stocks listed in the U.S. Its system for scoring companies on 100 different accounting and governance metrics had been turning up poor ratings, often a sign that companies are manipulating their numbers, says Audit Integrity's chairman, James A. Kaplan. "I noticed this issue well over a year ago," he says. "But in all candor, no one cared because of the brand of China. China was flying high. If it was branded as a Chinese company, it must mean it was going to be good and make money."

"As these companies are scrutinized, investors will uncover the facts behind the 'Chinese Curtain,' " Kaplan wrote in a Dec. 3 report. "Many of these stocks may prove to be valueless."

Still, there are believers. Bill Wells of Memphis-based Pope Asset Management, a major investor in Sky One and other reverse merger companies, says the China investment thesis still holds. "We see China, and correctly so for the last few years, as the major country with the largest amount of growth," says Wells, whose firm manages about $650 million. It started buying reverse merger Chinese companies in 2005 after large-cap Chinese stocks got expensive. "If you can work through these corporate governance issues, the valuations and the earnings growth on a lot of these companies look pretty attractive," he says. According to SEC filings, Pope Asset held 1,040,224 shares in Sky One as of June 30, 2010. As of the end of September, the fund owned 723,647 shares.

Jeff Papp, a senior analyst for the $300 million Oberweis China Opportunities Fund, which has less than 5 percent invested in reverse merger stocks, is also cautiously positive. "Right now, the whole group is trading at levels implying that they are all frauds, but those who can tell the difference will hit some home runs," he says. "We're either never going to see any of these types of Chinese companies listing here again, or we may be near a bottom in terms of valuations."

Bird did not vacation in New Zealand this past Christmas. Instead he was serenaded by the sound of waves while in a Hawaii beach rental, and he heard only good news from his short-selling experiments. Sky One's shares retreated 69 percent in 2010, and Bird put $500,000 of his $1 million-plus in profits into a startup involved in cancer drug research. His suit against Sky One's auditors drags on. Bird is still short 175,000 shares of the Chinese company and hopes the next salvo will come from the SEC. The commission did not respond to two requests for comment on this story. The SEC's Ma declined to comment.

"The story is not that murky at all. Sky One is a fraudulent company, and all the ticks on the dog are trying to make as much money as they can," says Bird. "When you know the stock is going broke, they're crooks, the SEC is going after them—where are you going to find a better short than that?" What Bird's not so clear on is why other investors don't see things the way he does, saying: "It's unbelievable how the sucker born every minute keeps on wanting to line up and throw their money at these 'opportunities of a lifetime.' "

cont'd at http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_04/b4212058566865_page_7.htm
 

borom

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
SGX – A Prescription For Growth.

In listing volume and liquidity, Singapore’s stock exchange is dwarfed by Hong Kong’s.......
By Shirlene Tsui

Singapore’s economy is about the same size as Hong Kong’s and both are competitive and open, yet Singapore’s stock market pales in comparison to its counterpart.

The $6.1 billion raised on the Singapore Exchange Ltd.’s platform last year was dwarfed by the record $58 billion raised on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong (SEHK).........

What makes one equity exchange more attractive to an issuer than another? Liquidity is the largest factor.......Hong Kong ....with a total market value of $2.7 trillion and daily average trading of $8.8 billion last year. Singapore, by comparison, has a market value of $840 billion and $1.5 billion in daily trading......The average market cap on the SEHK is $2.9 billion compared to $946 million on the SGX.......

The quality of companies is also a factor for issuers choosing an exchange. SGX has built a reputation for listing sub-par Chinese companies over the last few years.
In 2010, it had more than 20 companies that were on a watch list or were on their way to being delisted due to poor performance. Eight of those companies are based in the PRC and one of them was noted for “founders fled while owing millions.”........................

Of course, SGX could do with more expertise as well. For instance, it could consider having industry experts on its board to offer a third-party opinion for IPO applicants, as an example...........

http://blogs.wsj.com/exchange/2011/03/14/sgx-a-prescription-for-growth/?mod=WSJBlog&mod=MarketsMain

Another reason why these highest paid ministers in the world are grossly overpaid and do not deserve the shameful amount they pay themselves.

Now with the previous CEO and one of the architects of the S-chips with Temasek, whats going to happen to our public funds?

Instead of going for quality, we mass import low quality Pinoys, Indians and PRC's with fake degrees.
 
Top