【7月26号】
有名股东设了一个部落格，他花了RM15 ssm search了有关 Symfusion的资料， 但我还是看不懂，到底sab 的 case 有多少宗？
http://symfusionscam.blogspot.com/
case 1（SECTION 144. Section 144. Convening of extraordinary general meeting on requisition.）
早前一宗是由Banting Hock Hin Estate起诉的（下闻），罢免的董事是Yap Soon Nam 和 Haji Mohd Hisham Bin Harun。
case 2 （Section 181. Remedy in cases of an oppression）
最近的一宗是由symfusion 引起的，symfusion收了2.5millions的服务费，被视为不正当交易。【delete】
sab不在我的研究名单中，无法跟进和消化资料。
【旧闻】
南方油脂 大股東紛爭一觸即發
2009-05-01 07:54:53 轉寄給朋友
列印
（吉隆坡1日訊）旗下擁有約15億令吉資產的萬津福興園私人有限公司，掀起股東紛爭。
上述資產包括了2家上市公司，即南方油脂（馬）有限公司（SAB，5134，主板工業產品組）和百樂園機構有限公司（PARAMON，1724，主板產業組）。
消息指出，這些股東之間的分歧逐漸升級，並可能在未來數周內爆發。
這項不和的起因是其中一方尋求把福興園清盤，而另一方則希望維持原狀。
根據最新年報，福興園與一些子公司控制南方油脂至少50%股份，以及百樂園機構約18.3%股權。
南方油脂目前市值約為1億8200萬令吉，而百樂園機構則為2億3770萬令吉左右。這使得福興園與相關團體擁有兩家公司的股權價值約1億3450萬令吉。
南方集團屬下也擁有許多私人資產。據其網站顯示，該集團在我國和印尼擁有逾5萬公頃油棕園（約8200公頃是由南方油脂持有），以及6座棕油廠，聯合總加工產能每小時約250公噸。
大馬公司委員會的調查顯示，在2004年，福興園擁有非經常資產約2億1640萬令吉、經常資產2600萬令吉以及儲備金6760萬令吉。而截至2004年杪，該公司的負只有400萬令吉。
消息稱，在上述紛爭中，兩派分別是以劉文來和劉文聰為主，後者是南方油脂創辦人已故拿督劉文華的兄弟。（人名譯音）
目前，在百樂園機構並未出現任何董事部斗爭的跡象，可能因為福興園僅屬小股東，但在南方油脂卻已經箭在弦上。
在上月杪向大馬交易所作出的宣布中，南方油脂要求召開一項特別大會，以罷黜董事葉順南和莫哈末希山，以及在3月27日至特大召開前委任的任何董事。
莫哈末希山是朝聖基金局的托管人，後者持有南方油脂約13%股份。
不過，消息指出，朝聖基金局仍然考慮上述事項，及尚未表明立場支持任何一方。
除了福興園和朝聖基金局，南方油脂並沒有其他大股東。
Banting Hock Hin feud boiling over
Monday, 27 April 2009 00:00
A tussle between shareholders is emerging in little-known Banting Hock Hin Estate Co Sdn Bhd, which has some RM1.5 billion in assets under its belt, including sizeable stakes in two listed companies — Southern Acids (M) Bhd and Paramount Corp Bhd.
Sources say the disagreement between the shareholders is growing and could boil over in the next few weeks.
The feud is due to one faction looking to wind up Banting Hock Hin and another wanting to keep it intact.
Some of the other large companies controlled by the group include Southern Realty (Malaya) Sdn Bhd, Victory Investment Company Sdn Bhd, Southern Keratong Plantations Sdn Bhd, Serata Kaya Sdn Bhd and Southern Edible Oil Industries (M) Sdn Bhd. Most of these companies are lumped under the Southern group banner.
According to latest annual reports, Banting Hock Hin and the other units control at least 50% of Southern Acids and about 18.3% of Paramount Corp.
Southern Acids’ market capitalisation, at its close last Thursday, stood at RM182 million while that of Paramount Corp was RM237.7 million. This would value the stakes that Banting Hock Hin and related parties own in the two companies at about RM134.5 million.
There are also a lot of private assets parked under the Southern group. According to its website, the group has more than 50,000ha of oil palm estates both here and in Indonesia (about 8,200ha of which are held under Southern Acids) and six palm oil mills with a combined processing capacity of about 250 tonnes per hour. Southern Edible Oil, meanwhile, has palm oil refineries and shares in Southern Acids.
Another unit, PKE (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, provides dry bulk terminal services, with warehouse space, while the Sri Kota Specialist Medical Centre located in Klang is also under the group’s control.
A search at the Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM) shows that in 2004, Banting Hock Hin had non-current assets of about RM216.4 million, current assets of RM26 million and reserves of RM67.6 million. The company’s liabilities as at end-2004 stood at RM4 million.
For the year ended December 2004, Banting Hock Hin posted a profit after tax of RM17.2 million on revenue of RM7.2 million.
In the tussle, one faction is led by Low Boon Lai while the other is headed by his cousin Low Mun Chong. There are also splinter groups in the feud looking to get a foothold in the company — to sway things their way, sources say.
Mun Chong is the brother of the late Datuk Low Mong Hua, the founder of Southern Acids, and is said to be in disagreement with Boon Lai and directors affiliated to him.
Checks with the CCM show that there are seven directors in Banting Hock Hin. Apart from Boon Lai (who is designated manager and director) and Mun Chong, the others are Datuk Low Boon Eng, Ng Si Weon, Lim Kim Long, Lou Ai Choo and Lim Kum Loke.
There are also two liquidators present on the board — Michael Joseph Monteiro and Heng Ji Keng from Monteiro & Heng. They were appointed earlier this year after a shareholder tussle in 2003. The presence of the liquidators means the board has likely lost its powers.
In the 2003 tussle, Boon Lai made some headway after a court judgment was seen to be in his favour.
According to the CCM search, there are 47 shareholders in Banting Hock Hin, with the largest being Southernel (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, which has about 24% of the company’s four million share base. The rest of the shareholdings vary from 1,000 to 228,229 shares, making Banting Hock Hin a very fragmented company.
It is not clear when the feud started. According to sources, it could have commenced sometime in the late 1990s or early 2000, when Boon Lai or members of his faction became unhappy with the way the late Mong Hua was running the show and attempted to oust him.
A legal suit was filed after Mong Hua disagreed with a resolution of the Banting Hock Hin board of directors to demerge or wind up the company and have its assets valued and distributed to the shareholders.
In 2003, the court ruled in favour of a liquidation of Banting Hock Hin.
Mong Hua passed away in April last year.
While there is no sign of any boardroom tussle in Paramount Corp, probably because Banting Hock Hin is a minority shareholder, there appears to be some disagreement in Southern Acids, based on the company’s announcements to Bursa Malaysia.
In an announcement to the exchange late last month, Southern Acids requested an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to remove directors Yap Soon Nam and Mohd Hisham Harun, and the removal of any director appointed between March 27 and the conclusion of the EGM.
The announcement also proposed as directors, Wong Yien Kim and Jonathan Law Ngee Song.
It is not clear which faction requested the removal of the two directors.
Mohd Hisham is the nominee of Lembaga Tabung Haji, which has about 13% equity interest in Southern Acids. However, sources say Tabung Haji is still considering the matter and has yet to make a stand supporting either party.
Possibly due to the feud, the company’s accounts for the financial quarter ended January 2009 were not issued on time. An announcement to Bursa said this was “due to insufficient information and explanation to the board in respect of foreign exchange losses and contracts”.
For the nine months ended January 2009, Southern Acids suffered a net loss of RM4.6 million on RM346.8 million in revenue. A year ago, it had made about RM24.7 million in profit on the back of RM345.4 million in revenue.
Other than Banting Hock Hin and Tabung Haji, there are no other substantial shareholders in Southern Acids.
Showing posts with label sab. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sab. Show all posts
26 July 2009
08 July 2009
sab的人事纠纷，后续。
【原文】
之前提到的sab人事纠纷，几乎忘了。
昨天sab董事委任了新的管理团队，接管了sab。
sab董事根据公司法，Section 181. Remedy in cases of an oppression，委任Lim Tian Huat 和 Duar Tuan Kiat 为临时接管人。至于之前的人事，犯了什么错，就不清楚。
The Company wishes to announce that it has today been served with an ex-parte order dated 30 June 2009 for the appointment of Mr Lim Tian Huat (NRIC No. 541128-04-5235) and Mr Duar Tuan Kiat (NRIC No. 610323-10-5375) both of Messrs Ernst & Young, 4th Floor, Kompleks Antarabangsa, Jalan Sultan Ismail, 50250 Kuala Lumpur as Interim Receivers and Managers of Southern Acids (M) Berhad, pursuant to a petition under Section 181 of the Companies Act, 1965 filed by two shareholders, one of whom is an executive director of the Company.
【update on 8 july 09，suspended pending the decision of the court】
【Saturday July 11, 2009】
What’s going on in Southern Acids?
By CECILIA KOK
The company, which has been served an ex-parte order, is reported to be embroiled in a shareholder dispute, stemming from factions in its major shareholder
IT may not be a closely watched counter, but over the week, Southern Acids (M) Bhd caught some limelight after it announced on Monday that it had been served an ex-parte order for the appointment of two Ernst & Young partners as interim receivers and managers.
On Wednesday, the company said the ex-parte order had been suspended pending a court decision on July 14 on the preliminary objections to an application to set aside the order.
Trading of the company’s shares will be suspended on the same day until further notice.
Southern Acids is principally an investment holding company that carries out the marketing of oleo-chemical products for commercial use. The ex-parte order is the result of a petition filed by two shareholders, one of whom is an executive director.
The company currently has two executive directors, namely Low Mong Chai and Lim Kim Long, who held 56.2% and 50.5% direct and indirect interests, respectively, in Southern Acids as at Sept 15 last year.
Reasons for the filing of the petition are still not clear. When contacted, the management of Southern Acids and representatives from Ernst & Young refused to comment on the current status of the company because the court case is outstanding.
If the ex-parte order stands, the control of Southern Acids will be placed under the stewardship of the interim receivers and managers from Ernst & Young.
The net book value of the company’s affected assets as at April 30, 2009 was RM368.3mil.
The interim receivers and managers will be reviewing the financial and operational aspects of the company.
This mandate includes protecting and safeguarding the assets of the company, managing its affairs and conducting investigations about its past doings. The scope of investment, however, is limited to what is allowed by the court.
In essence, the receivers and managers in the case above are the officers of the court and they report to the court.
Generally, through receivership, a company can avoid liquidation through the reorganisation of assets and liabilities with the help of a court-appointed trustee, or until a white knight comes and rescue the company.
A management consultant familiar with such cases explains that the placement of Southern Acids under receivership (if the ex-parte order is not set aside) does not necessarily mean that the company would wind up in liquidation.
“The company can get out of this entanglement once the ‘main cause’ that triggered the action is resolved,” he clarifies.
Southern Acids in April was reported to be embroiled in a shareholder dispute, stemming from factions in its major shareholder Banting Hock Hin Estate Co Sdn Bhd.
According to media reports, there was a group in Banting Hock Hin that wanted to wind up Southern Acids and distribute its assets to shareholders, while another wanted to keep the company as a going concern.
“When two parties cannot agree on important matters of the company, it will definitely affect the company’s operations,” the consultant says.
“So, in this case, it is best that the company be put under a custodian until the conflict is resolved. This is for the betterment of the company, so that it can operate normally,” he adds.
The concern now is the effect of the receivership on the interests of other shareholders in Southern Acids.
“Well, it is too premature to conclude that they will lose out in the current scenario,” an analyst familiar with the case explains.
“If you take the spirit of what the receivers and managers are doing as professional, and that is, they are managing the affairs of the company for its good until any dispute is resolved, then it should not prejudice the interests of other shareholders,” he says.
Further announcements on the company are expected to be made in the week ahead.
Southern Acids booked a loss of RM4.35mil on a turnover of RM442.2mil for the financial year ended April 30, 2009. In the preceding financial year, the company made a net profit of RM23.2mil from a turnover of RM465.5mil.
Based on the counter’s closing price of RM1.45 per share on Thursday, the market capitalisation of Southern Acids stood at RM198.55mil.
【Tuesday July 14, 2009】
Southern Acids announces additional information
PETALING JAYA: Southern Acids (M) Bhd has announced additional information pertaining to the appointment of its interim receivers and manager from Messrs Ernst & Young.
In a filing to Bursa Malaysia yesterday, it said the additional information was announced after the company was served with an ex-parte order dated June 30 on July 6 for the appointment of Lim Tian Huat and Duar Tuan Kiat as interim receivers and managers of Southern Acids pursuant to a petition filed by two shareholders – Southern Acids executive director Low Mong Chai and his brother-in-law Soh Ah Bah.
The petitioners said in the filing that Symfusion Sdn Bhd was engaged at a fee of RM2.5mil to investigate complaints raised by shareholders in respect of numerous alleged questionable transactions, such as removal of certain bank signatories and payment of certain allowances to two non-executive directors, were alleged to be irregular.
The directors were unable to ascertain, at this point in time, if the company would suffer any losses from the aforesaid appointment, it said.
【Tuesday July 15, 2009】
Clarification (thestar)
WITH reference to yesterday’s report Southern Acids announces additional information, Symfusion Sdn Bhd was appointed to investigate only complaints over numerous alleged questionable transactions and not as published.
之前提到的sab人事纠纷，几乎忘了。
昨天sab董事委任了新的管理团队，接管了sab。
sab董事根据公司法，Section 181. Remedy in cases of an oppression，委任Lim Tian Huat 和 Duar Tuan Kiat 为临时接管人。至于之前的人事，犯了什么错，就不清楚。
The Company wishes to announce that it has today been served with an ex-parte order dated 30 June 2009 for the appointment of Mr Lim Tian Huat (NRIC No. 541128-04-5235) and Mr Duar Tuan Kiat (NRIC No. 610323-10-5375) both of Messrs Ernst & Young, 4th Floor, Kompleks Antarabangsa, Jalan Sultan Ismail, 50250 Kuala Lumpur as Interim Receivers and Managers of Southern Acids (M) Berhad, pursuant to a petition under Section 181 of the Companies Act, 1965 filed by two shareholders, one of whom is an executive director of the Company.
【update on 8 july 09，suspended pending the decision of the court】
【Saturday July 11, 2009】
What’s going on in Southern Acids?
By CECILIA KOK
The company, which has been served an ex-parte order, is reported to be embroiled in a shareholder dispute, stemming from factions in its major shareholder
IT may not be a closely watched counter, but over the week, Southern Acids (M) Bhd caught some limelight after it announced on Monday that it had been served an ex-parte order for the appointment of two Ernst & Young partners as interim receivers and managers.
On Wednesday, the company said the ex-parte order had been suspended pending a court decision on July 14 on the preliminary objections to an application to set aside the order.
Trading of the company’s shares will be suspended on the same day until further notice.
Southern Acids is principally an investment holding company that carries out the marketing of oleo-chemical products for commercial use. The ex-parte order is the result of a petition filed by two shareholders, one of whom is an executive director.
The company currently has two executive directors, namely Low Mong Chai and Lim Kim Long, who held 56.2% and 50.5% direct and indirect interests, respectively, in Southern Acids as at Sept 15 last year.
Reasons for the filing of the petition are still not clear. When contacted, the management of Southern Acids and representatives from Ernst & Young refused to comment on the current status of the company because the court case is outstanding.
If the ex-parte order stands, the control of Southern Acids will be placed under the stewardship of the interim receivers and managers from Ernst & Young.
The net book value of the company’s affected assets as at April 30, 2009 was RM368.3mil.
The interim receivers and managers will be reviewing the financial and operational aspects of the company.
This mandate includes protecting and safeguarding the assets of the company, managing its affairs and conducting investigations about its past doings. The scope of investment, however, is limited to what is allowed by the court.
In essence, the receivers and managers in the case above are the officers of the court and they report to the court.
Generally, through receivership, a company can avoid liquidation through the reorganisation of assets and liabilities with the help of a court-appointed trustee, or until a white knight comes and rescue the company.
A management consultant familiar with such cases explains that the placement of Southern Acids under receivership (if the ex-parte order is not set aside) does not necessarily mean that the company would wind up in liquidation.
“The company can get out of this entanglement once the ‘main cause’ that triggered the action is resolved,” he clarifies.
Southern Acids in April was reported to be embroiled in a shareholder dispute, stemming from factions in its major shareholder Banting Hock Hin Estate Co Sdn Bhd.
According to media reports, there was a group in Banting Hock Hin that wanted to wind up Southern Acids and distribute its assets to shareholders, while another wanted to keep the company as a going concern.
“When two parties cannot agree on important matters of the company, it will definitely affect the company’s operations,” the consultant says.
“So, in this case, it is best that the company be put under a custodian until the conflict is resolved. This is for the betterment of the company, so that it can operate normally,” he adds.
The concern now is the effect of the receivership on the interests of other shareholders in Southern Acids.
“Well, it is too premature to conclude that they will lose out in the current scenario,” an analyst familiar with the case explains.
“If you take the spirit of what the receivers and managers are doing as professional, and that is, they are managing the affairs of the company for its good until any dispute is resolved, then it should not prejudice the interests of other shareholders,” he says.
Further announcements on the company are expected to be made in the week ahead.
Southern Acids booked a loss of RM4.35mil on a turnover of RM442.2mil for the financial year ended April 30, 2009. In the preceding financial year, the company made a net profit of RM23.2mil from a turnover of RM465.5mil.
Based on the counter’s closing price of RM1.45 per share on Thursday, the market capitalisation of Southern Acids stood at RM198.55mil.
【Tuesday July 14, 2009】
Southern Acids announces additional information
PETALING JAYA: Southern Acids (M) Bhd has announced additional information pertaining to the appointment of its interim receivers and manager from Messrs Ernst & Young.
In a filing to Bursa Malaysia yesterday, it said the additional information was announced after the company was served with an ex-parte order dated June 30 on July 6 for the appointment of Lim Tian Huat and Duar Tuan Kiat as interim receivers and managers of Southern Acids pursuant to a petition filed by two shareholders – Southern Acids executive director Low Mong Chai and his brother-in-law Soh Ah Bah.
The petitioners said in the filing that Symfusion Sdn Bhd was engaged at a fee of RM2.5mil to investigate complaints raised by shareholders in respect of numerous alleged questionable transactions, such as removal of certain bank signatories and payment of certain allowances to two non-executive directors, were alleged to be irregular.
The directors were unable to ascertain, at this point in time, if the company would suffer any losses from the aforesaid appointment, it said.
【Tuesday July 15, 2009】
Clarification (thestar)
WITH reference to yesterday’s report Southern Acids announces additional information, Symfusion Sdn Bhd was appointed to investigate only complaints over numerous alleged questionable transactions and not as published.
17 April 2009
国外的洪水猛兽商品，就快蚕食大马市场了？
我迟迟不敢进IOI，因为还有一些问题要解决。
1.RM7时buyback太多，可能是蓄意。
2.马股估值太高。
3.和citibank的交涉留下污点。
4.和某些reputable bank签了数额庞大的结构型远期外汇买卖（currency target redemption forward contract）。（这才是主题。）
我不敢小看这个计时炸弹，当然现在的规模还小，但几年后就会泛滥了。
虽然这里只谈种植，但如果他影响了决策，还是要提他一提的。
上篇博文曾说过，我不再找有关于CTRFC的资料，我在之后的确没有再找过了。但由于上篇的博文篇幅太多了，很多中途读到的资料没有办法全部发表在里面，
现在就把资料做更进一步的解释。
我本来以为，CTRFC的架构是建立在target redemption note的基础上的，但实际是两者的设计方式（意义）是完全不同的。
target redemption note是一种能保值的利息投资。
但CTRFC却是一个“可以让你破产，不能让你发达”的香港商品。
人们一定以为这种商品是从美国和欧洲来的，一定“稳”，其实他是从香港来的。
这是因为他的“设计蓝本”是从香港的结构性投机--accumulator，研发出来的。
他的游戏规则是，赢只能赢一倍（有顶限，且，一到顶限就作废），输就要输双倍（无底线）。
也就是说，购买这类的商品，必须同时认购一张call option和两张put option，而且这个put option好像是不能像股票一样卖出的，也就是说你的亏损是无限的。
call能作废，put就不能作废。
【add later，一共有四种组合，buy call,buy put,sell call,sell put，也许你会乱，但只要能懂我说什么就可以了。】
CTRFC的游戏规则也有类似的地方，但他是算monthly basis的，只比daily basis的商品（一种更危险的货币商品，不记得名字了）安全一点点。当然，accumulator也是daily basis的。
CTRFC的基本游戏规则：
假设说现在的美元换马币的汇率是3.5。
银行和你签了一份CTRFC，strike price是3.4。
如果月尾的汇率是3.5，银行赔你0.1。
如果月尾的汇率是3.6，银行赔你0.2。
如果月尾的汇率是3.7，银行赔你0.3。
如果月尾的汇率是3.8，银行还是赔你0.3。（限涨） （也可能银行照赔0.4，但合约累积总计不能赔超2.0，之类的。）
如果这个走势继续，到一个程度，合约将被作废。
如果月尾的汇率是3.3，你要赔银行双倍，0.2。
如果月尾的汇率是3.2，你要赔银行双倍，0.4。
合约不会因为你输钱而作废。
这类商品，马来西亚第一个签的应该是Ioicorp（应该是07年10月），第二个是symphony，第三个是sab。
至少知道symphony的strike price是3.2，但ioicorp和sab没有透露。
这不是什么值得怀疑的问题，但，我怀疑ioicorp和citibank签了这份合约，相信会越买越多。
重点是citibank，因为他们的关系相当特殊。
虽然不一定是和citibank卖的（可能是hsbc，德国，法国，苏格兰，荷兰银行。。。），但不可否认的是，这个洪水猛兽很快就会蚕食大马了。（除非国家银行把关游戏规则，不然。。。。。。。）
【add a day later】
需注意的是，有关于这个contract，我在五个月前作出的ioicorp分析是错的，因为我当时并不了解。
来重温这个图，这是从IOI的30 sept 2008 的季报截取出来的。
第一行和第三行的“赌注”，已经重叠了，而且是倒行逆施（违背）的。
eur/usd 和 usd/myr 同时购买，就等于你买了一份 eur/myr （可以offset）， 根本不必买两份，因为两份赌注都是限涨不限跌，这不是加害？
管理层可能会辩解说，strike price 和 condition, package不同，所以才买两份？
“乱枪打鸟”在名义上是分散风险，实际上是买多输多。
明确的说，如果真的要替公司日常作业护盘，他是可以买其他商品的，哪怕是美国的天气期货。
既然有“赌”的成分在，就不能是护盘的借口了，因为你不是投资公司（如symphony house那样）。
【end of add】
1.RM7时buyback太多，可能是蓄意。
2.马股估值太高。
3.和citibank的交涉留下污点。
4.和某些reputable bank签了数额庞大的结构型远期外汇买卖（currency target redemption forward contract）。（这才是主题。）
我不敢小看这个计时炸弹，当然现在的规模还小，但几年后就会泛滥了。
虽然这里只谈种植，但如果他影响了决策，还是要提他一提的。
上篇博文曾说过，我不再找有关于CTRFC的资料，我在之后的确没有再找过了。但由于上篇的博文篇幅太多了，很多中途读到的资料没有办法全部发表在里面，
现在就把资料做更进一步的解释。
我本来以为，CTRFC的架构是建立在target redemption note的基础上的，但实际是两者的设计方式（意义）是完全不同的。
target redemption note是一种能保值的利息投资。
但CTRFC却是一个“可以让你破产，不能让你发达”的香港商品。
人们一定以为这种商品是从美国和欧洲来的，一定“稳”，其实他是从香港来的。
这是因为他的“设计蓝本”是从香港的结构性投机--accumulator，研发出来的。
他的游戏规则是，赢只能赢一倍（有顶限，且，一到顶限就作废），输就要输双倍（无底线）。
也就是说，购买这类的商品，必须同时认购一张call option和两张put option，而且这个put option好像是不能像股票一样卖出的，也就是说你的亏损是无限的。
call能作废，put就不能作废。
【add later，一共有四种组合，buy call,buy put,sell call,sell put，也许你会乱，但只要能懂我说什么就可以了。】
CTRFC的游戏规则也有类似的地方，但他是算monthly basis的，只比daily basis的商品（一种更危险的货币商品，不记得名字了）安全一点点。当然，accumulator也是daily basis的。
CTRFC的基本游戏规则：
假设说现在的美元换马币的汇率是3.5。
银行和你签了一份CTRFC，strike price是3.4。
如果月尾的汇率是3.5，银行赔你0.1。
如果月尾的汇率是3.6，银行赔你0.2。
如果月尾的汇率是3.7，银行赔你0.3。
如果月尾的汇率是3.8，银行还是赔你0.3。（限涨） （也可能银行照赔0.4，但合约累积总计不能赔超2.0，之类的。）
如果这个走势继续，到一个程度，合约将被作废。
如果月尾的汇率是3.3，你要赔银行双倍，0.2。
如果月尾的汇率是3.2，你要赔银行双倍，0.4。
合约不会因为你输钱而作废。
这类商品，马来西亚第一个签的应该是Ioicorp（应该是07年10月），第二个是symphony，第三个是sab。
至少知道symphony的strike price是3.2，但ioicorp和sab没有透露。
这不是什么值得怀疑的问题，但，我怀疑ioicorp和citibank签了这份合约，相信会越买越多。
重点是citibank，因为他们的关系相当特殊。
虽然不一定是和citibank卖的（可能是hsbc，德国，法国，苏格兰，荷兰银行。。。），但不可否认的是，这个洪水猛兽很快就会蚕食大马了。（除非国家银行把关游戏规则，不然。。。。。。。）
【add a day later】
需注意的是，有关于这个contract，我在五个月前作出的ioicorp分析是错的，因为我当时并不了解。
来重温这个图，这是从IOI的30 sept 2008 的季报截取出来的。
第一行和第三行的“赌注”，已经重叠了，而且是倒行逆施（违背）的。
eur/usd 和 usd/myr 同时购买，就等于你买了一份 eur/myr （可以offset）， 根本不必买两份，因为两份赌注都是限涨不限跌，这不是加害？
管理层可能会辩解说，strike price 和 condition, package不同，所以才买两份？
“乱枪打鸟”在名义上是分散风险，实际上是买多输多。
明确的说，如果真的要替公司日常作业护盘，他是可以买其他商品的，哪怕是美国的天气期货。
既然有“赌”的成分在，就不能是护盘的借口了，因为你不是投资公司（如symphony house那样）。
【end of add】
15 April 2009
SAB的jan 09季报
续 《SOUTHERN ACIDS 进入多事之秋了吗？》，
SAB的报告出炉了，季亏损为-15,313,000，比我预期中来的好太多了，在外汇亏损方面，亏不多。
大体而言，SAB的亏损的原因是各项业务的表现不良好，并不是因为外汇亏损造成。
种植税前只赚30万，医疗税前亏损，制造部门则亏损加剧，股票投资单季减值RM743,880。。。。。。。
根据惯例，SAB的other operating expenses特别多是正常的，它不是外汇亏损造成。
细节。
1.印尼的开发成本付款（Advances for plasma project）。
需注意的地方是，plasma project只占了SAB的种植版图很小的位置。
这个project有点特别，SAB全权负责开发油棕园，成熟以后，SAB须把这些地段转让给plasma farmer，相关银行将根据市价付款给SAB。
盈利计算方式是：转让地段的账面值-开发成本付款
盈利计算应该是one-off（到期才算）的，也相信这个project是stage by stage转让的。
开发成本的账面值，是以印尼盾做为货币单位，所以我相信这一季他蒙受的一些货币亏损。
这是基于自己的推理，并没有明文说明，也可能我是错的。
由于账面加起来只有4百万，因此相信他最多只亏了几万（单季）。
有关于plasma project，如果有更精确资料，才可说明。
2.美元债务账面值。
USD 2,263,000 ，相等于马币8,061,938。
美元上涨对美元债务不利。
3.forward foreign exchange contracts （4月份的细节）
数额太小。只有RM3,430,613的exposure，目前的亏损settle price为RM5,000。
4. USD/MYR Target Redemption Forward（structure contract）
全名叫作dual currency target redemption forward contracts，相信在我们的准则和制度中并没有明确规定它要如何expose给大众知道。
这个contract对股东来说，名声并不好，因为游戏规则是银行设计的。（Ioicorp也签了一份）
可以假设，当usd/myr超过3.65时，银行将遵照差额赔钱给SAB，但最多只能赔一个顶额。可是当usd/myr跌破3.65时，SAB需赔偿双倍给银行，这是可能发生的，因为我们不知道游戏规则。
到目前为止，我还是认为SAB的管理层是“忠”的，所以我还是以正常的角度解释图中的内容，如有说错之处请包涵。
但如果是“忠”的就不会签这种合约（commission又高），所以前提是，他必须是“无辜”的。
以下都是【假设】：
【SAB和银行在1 april 09签了一份DCTRFC，内容规定，SAB需在每个月的月尾，以(6660000x3.65)马币，换取6660000美元的货币，共15次。（是15次还是16次，就不探讨了）
666x15=9990，所以我认为他是15次。
但这不是真的拿钱去换，而是SAB和银行之间做出的每月结算。结算方式（盈亏）可能是根据daily weighted，或可能是月尾当天结算。
如果每个月，usd/myr都在3.65以上，SAB就是accumulator of contract（盈余累计者），只要SAB达到一个limited gain，这份合约就会被作废。
但如果，usd/myr都在3.65以下，SAB在当月就需以(9990000x3.65)马币换取9990000美元的货币。
对于DCTRFC来说，如果strike price是在spot price以下，是有惩罚性的，我在这里假设，惩罚是notional amount的50%。
但SAB的最大亏损是RM41,000,000，因为他可以以这个代价取消合约。
意即，notional amount不是maximum exposure，他的背后可能有更大的泡沫。
问题是，我们不知道strike price是多少，他是3.65还是3.75？这合约公平吗？无人知晓。】
注，此合约无关jan 09季报，因为这是april签订的。
如果想更进一步了解这个contract“通常性”机制，需要找国外的一些term来做参考，但是，我不能因为这个issue浪费我的时间，这样就够了。
相信DCTRFC将会被泛滥使用。
5.股票投资
单季亏损为RM743,880。
SAB的报告出炉了，季亏损为-15,313,000，比我预期中来的好太多了，在外汇亏损方面，亏不多。
大体而言，SAB的亏损的原因是各项业务的表现不良好，并不是因为外汇亏损造成。
种植税前只赚30万，医疗税前亏损，制造部门则亏损加剧，股票投资单季减值RM743,880。。。。。。。
根据惯例，SAB的other operating expenses特别多是正常的，它不是外汇亏损造成。
细节。
| date | usd/myr | myr/rupiah | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 30/04/2007 | - | 2650.75 | |
| 31/07/2007 | - | 2649.09 | |
| 31/10/2007 | - | 2725.71 | |
| 31/01/2008 | - | 2860.71 | |
| 30/04/2008 | 3.16 | 2953.25 | |
| 31/07/2008 | 3.26 | 2799.50 | |
| 30/10/2008 | 3.53 | 3062.76 | |
| 31/01/2009 | 3.62 | 3193 | |
| 01/04/2009 | 3.65 | - | |
| 08/04/2009 | 3.59 | - | |
| 15/04/2009 | 3.60 | 3120.28 |
1.印尼的开发成本付款（Advances for plasma project）。
需注意的地方是，plasma project只占了SAB的种植版图很小的位置。
这个project有点特别，SAB全权负责开发油棕园，成熟以后，SAB须把这些地段转让给plasma farmer，相关银行将根据市价付款给SAB。
盈利计算方式是：转让地段的账面值-开发成本付款
盈利计算应该是one-off（到期才算）的，也相信这个project是stage by stage转让的。
开发成本的账面值，是以印尼盾做为货币单位，所以我相信这一季他蒙受的一些货币亏损。
这是基于自己的推理，并没有明文说明，也可能我是错的。
由于账面加起来只有4百万，因此相信他最多只亏了几万（单季）。
有关于plasma project，如果有更精确资料，才可说明。
2.美元债务账面值。
USD 2,263,000 ，相等于马币8,061,938。
美元上涨对美元债务不利。
3.forward foreign exchange contracts （4月份的细节）
数额太小。只有RM3,430,613的exposure，目前的亏损settle price为RM5,000。
4. USD/MYR Target Redemption Forward（structure contract）
全名叫作dual currency target redemption forward contracts，相信在我们的准则和制度中并没有明确规定它要如何expose给大众知道。
这个contract对股东来说，名声并不好，因为游戏规则是银行设计的。（Ioicorp也签了一份）
可以假设，当usd/myr超过3.65时，银行将遵照差额赔钱给SAB，但最多只能赔一个顶额。可是当usd/myr跌破3.65时，SAB需赔偿双倍给银行，这是可能发生的，因为我们不知道游戏规则。
到目前为止，我还是认为SAB的管理层是“忠”的，所以我还是以正常的角度解释图中的内容，如有说错之处请包涵。
但如果是“忠”的就不会签这种合约（commission又高），所以前提是，他必须是“无辜”的。
以下都是【假设】：
【SAB和银行在1 april 09签了一份DCTRFC，内容规定，SAB需在每个月的月尾，以(6660000x3.65)马币，换取6660000美元的货币，共15次。（是15次还是16次，就不探讨了）
666x15=9990，所以我认为他是15次。
但这不是真的拿钱去换，而是SAB和银行之间做出的每月结算。结算方式（盈亏）可能是根据daily weighted，或可能是月尾当天结算。
如果每个月，usd/myr都在3.65以上，SAB就是accumulator of contract（盈余累计者），只要SAB达到一个limited gain，这份合约就会被作废。
但如果，usd/myr都在3.65以下，SAB在当月就需以(9990000x3.65)马币换取9990000美元的货币。
对于DCTRFC来说，如果strike price是在spot price以下，是有惩罚性的，我在这里假设，惩罚是notional amount的50%。
但SAB的最大亏损是RM41,000,000，因为他可以以这个代价取消合约。
意即，notional amount不是maximum exposure，他的背后可能有更大的泡沫。
问题是，我们不知道strike price是多少，他是3.65还是3.75？这合约公平吗？无人知晓。】
注，此合约无关jan 09季报，因为这是april签订的。
如果想更进一步了解这个contract“通常性”机制，需要找国外的一些term来做参考，但是，我不能因为这个issue浪费我的时间，这样就够了。
相信DCTRFC将会被泛滥使用。
5.股票投资
单季亏损为RM743,880。
13 April 2009
SOUTHERN ACIDS 进入多事之秋了吗？
【add: 这是SAB母公司（或许是相关公司）的网址】
SAB给人的评价是“小而美”。
原产品的攀升，也让他“贵来贵卖”了好一段时间。
但从2008年8,9月以来，许多oleochemical/manufacturing-based companies也像SAB一样，在原产品暴跌期间蒙受了很大程度的亏损（多为存货亏损）。
这个缓冲期很快就能渡过，随着原产品又从谷底慢慢攀升，现在正是累计这类股票的时候，不管你处在什么领域。
要如何形容sab的公司营业状况？
有点像kseng 和 thgroup。
他从事的是油脂，种植，港口仓库租借和运输，小型医院，股票投资，而且每样都赚钱。
SAB也是一间派息率高的净现金公司，即使是亏损的季度也能有股息派发。以下是5年的financial highlight。
在最近的季报中（31/10/2008），现金部分为RM86,920,294，比半年前增加了1倍，其中最大部分的原因是，他在2008年5月-7月期间，抛售了RM12,298,073的股票，成本约为8,000,000（净赚5百万）。
虽然说oleochemical部门在8-10月期间亏了不少，但他们的银根紧缩使现金增加了。
在种植业务方面，SAB的园丘在印尼经营，如果没有看错，应该有8000公顷，和800公顷正在开发，由于这些印尼园丘是和印尼政府签订的，名称叫做Plasma project。
在还没有搞懂这个project以前，我不能够充分分析出东西来。
但，最重要的是，种植部门是有赚钱的，2007财政年度赚了11,000,000，2008财政年度赚了22,000,000。
而在2009年5月-10月的六个月里，赚了4,516,000，退步。
我们一般上以为，SAB投入印尼种植业，是为了补助oleochemical部门的原料来源，其实，两者并不相干。因为SAB是向本地拿货的，我猜测。
讲了这么多，还没进入主题。
很明显的，我没讲到31/01/2009的情况。
因为到目前为止，31/01/2009的报告流产了。
根据董事的说明，他们无法评估foreign exchange losses and contracts的真实数目，要请独立单位评估。
预计报告会在14 April 2009（明天）公布。
更糟糕的是，Banting Hock Hin Estate在27 march 2009，动议开除两名董事，分别是Yap Soon Nam 和 Haji Mohd Hisham Bin Harun ，刚好这两人都是2/5的查账委员会(audit commitee)的成员，但问题在于audit commitee共有5位成员，难道没有一个人有能力报告外汇亏损的细节？
Banting Hock Hin Estate其实是LOW X X的相关公司。
以SAB的股票挂价来看（1.24 1.44），是个死庄。如果它能够挂在1.25给你吃，也不能吃，应该等到事情明朗以后才吃，哪怕是RM1.5。
这个建议和我的利益无关，因为我不打算持有他。
有言在前，如果“5月大熊”之论调降临，我也无能为力，
SAB给人的评价是“小而美”。
原产品的攀升，也让他“贵来贵卖”了好一段时间。
但从2008年8,9月以来，许多oleochemical/manufacturing-based companies也像SAB一样，在原产品暴跌期间蒙受了很大程度的亏损（多为存货亏损）。
这个缓冲期很快就能渡过，随着原产品又从谷底慢慢攀升，现在正是累计这类股票的时候，不管你处在什么领域。
要如何形容sab的公司营业状况？
有点像kseng 和 thgroup。
他从事的是油脂，种植，港口仓库租借和运输，小型医院，股票投资，而且每样都赚钱。
SAB也是一间派息率高的净现金公司，即使是亏损的季度也能有股息派发。以下是5年的financial highlight。
在最近的季报中（31/10/2008），现金部分为RM86,920,294，比半年前增加了1倍，其中最大部分的原因是，他在2008年5月-7月期间，抛售了RM12,298,073的股票，成本约为8,000,000（净赚5百万）。
虽然说oleochemical部门在8-10月期间亏了不少，但他们的银根紧缩使现金增加了。
在种植业务方面，SAB的园丘在印尼经营，如果没有看错，应该有8000公顷，和800公顷正在开发，由于这些印尼园丘是和印尼政府签订的，名称叫做Plasma project。
在还没有搞懂这个project以前，我不能够充分分析出东西来。
但，最重要的是，种植部门是有赚钱的，2007财政年度赚了11,000,000，2008财政年度赚了22,000,000。
而在2009年5月-10月的六个月里，赚了4,516,000，退步。
我们一般上以为，SAB投入印尼种植业，是为了补助oleochemical部门的原料来源，其实，两者并不相干。因为SAB是向本地拿货的，我猜测。
讲了这么多，还没进入主题。
很明显的，我没讲到31/01/2009的情况。
因为到目前为止，31/01/2009的报告流产了。
根据董事的说明，他们无法评估foreign exchange losses and contracts的真实数目，要请独立单位评估。
预计报告会在14 April 2009（明天）公布。
更糟糕的是，Banting Hock Hin Estate在27 march 2009，动议开除两名董事，分别是Yap Soon Nam 和 Haji Mohd Hisham Bin Harun ，刚好这两人都是2/5的查账委员会(audit commitee)的成员，但问题在于audit commitee共有5位成员，难道没有一个人有能力报告外汇亏损的细节？
Banting Hock Hin Estate其实是LOW X X的相关公司。
以SAB的股票挂价来看（1.24 1.44），是个死庄。如果它能够挂在1.25给你吃，也不能吃，应该等到事情明朗以后才吃，哪怕是RM1.5。
这个建议和我的利益无关，因为我不打算持有他。
有言在前，如果“5月大熊”之论调降临，我也无能为力，
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)