The ink was not yet dry of my previous posting while Glaucus Research posted their short seller report about Real Nutriceutical Group Limited (HK: 2010).
The share is down about 9% at the moment.
Many of the allegations in the report touch on similar concerns related to many of the China listed companies on Bursa.
Thursday 22 October 2015
Short sellers active again
Short seller Citron Research dropped a "bomb" on Valeant, a pharmaceutical company, the report can be found here.
Interestingly, well known hedge fund manager Bill Ackman is "long" the stock. Ackman himself is short Herbalife.
Bronte Capital wrote "Some comments on the Valeant conference call".
Bloomberg reports: "Ackman Feeling Shortseller's Sting as Citron Sinks Valeant Stock", a snippet:
Ackman, the billionaire hedge fund manager, has long maintained that Herbalife Ltd. is a house of cards -- a suggestion that’s drawn howls from the company. Now another Wall Street scold, Citron Research’s Andrew Left, says one of Ackman’s picks looks like the Enron Corp. of Big Pharma -- a claim the company, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc., rebutted Wednesday.
Yet as Valeant’s share price plunged anew, Ackman was, in effect, getting a small taste of his own medicine. Left, a small-time short seller, had grabbed headlines and captivated Wall Street, much as Ackman has done with his campaign against Herbalife. While this dust-up might seem lopsided -- Ackman runs a prominent hedge fund, Left a relatively obscure investment and research shop -- it nonetheless underscored how vocal short-sellers can gain attention and turn markets against companies fast.
“If there’s one person in the world I don’t feel bad for, it’s Bill Ackman,” Left, a 45-year-old Florida native based in Los Angeles, said in a telephone interview. “If I could switch bank accounts and hair with him, I’d close out tomorrow. Ackman’s a hedge fund manager who goes short and goes long and sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.”
Assuming there’s been no change in its holdings since the end of the second quarter, Ackman’s Pershing Square Capital Management has lost about $2.8 billion on Valeant as it declined 55 percent from an intraday peak of $263.81 on Aug. 6, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
“In this business, nothing is personal,” Left said. “He goes home and sees his kids, I go home and see mine, and he does what he believes with his opinion.”
Biggest Selloff
If people had never heard of Citron Research before, they have now. Just after 10 a.m. Wednesday, the firm published a note suggesting Valeant was inflating its sales, igniting the biggest selloff anyone had ever seen in the stock. Laval, Quebec-based Valeant plunged as much as 40 percent, prompting a public response from the company and creating billions of dollars of losses for its hedge fund owners.
In a statement, Valeant said Citron’s research is “erroneous” and that the company derives no sales benefit from inventory held at specialty pharmacies mentioned in the report. It suggested Citron had reached inaccurate conclusions, misconstruing links between them that are explained by logistics and support agreements.
Past foes of Ackman saw irony that a company he’s invested in was sent reeling by a short-seller claiming that its revenue is overstated. Citron, the decade-old stock-commentary site originally founded as Stocklemon.com, said Valeant is using a specialty pharmacy called Philidor RX Services to store inventory and record those transactions as sales. “Is this Enron part deux?” the report said.
Just last week Muddy Waters wrote a scathing report about TeliaSonera, a Swedish telco involved in corruption which is, according to Muddy Waters, much larger than reported so far.
Interestingly, well known hedge fund manager Bill Ackman is "long" the stock. Ackman himself is short Herbalife.
Bronte Capital wrote "Some comments on the Valeant conference call".
Bloomberg reports: "Ackman Feeling Shortseller's Sting as Citron Sinks Valeant Stock", a snippet:
Ackman, the billionaire hedge fund manager, has long maintained that Herbalife Ltd. is a house of cards -- a suggestion that’s drawn howls from the company. Now another Wall Street scold, Citron Research’s Andrew Left, says one of Ackman’s picks looks like the Enron Corp. of Big Pharma -- a claim the company, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc., rebutted Wednesday.
Yet as Valeant’s share price plunged anew, Ackman was, in effect, getting a small taste of his own medicine. Left, a small-time short seller, had grabbed headlines and captivated Wall Street, much as Ackman has done with his campaign against Herbalife. While this dust-up might seem lopsided -- Ackman runs a prominent hedge fund, Left a relatively obscure investment and research shop -- it nonetheless underscored how vocal short-sellers can gain attention and turn markets against companies fast.
“If there’s one person in the world I don’t feel bad for, it’s Bill Ackman,” Left, a 45-year-old Florida native based in Los Angeles, said in a telephone interview. “If I could switch bank accounts and hair with him, I’d close out tomorrow. Ackman’s a hedge fund manager who goes short and goes long and sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.”
Assuming there’s been no change in its holdings since the end of the second quarter, Ackman’s Pershing Square Capital Management has lost about $2.8 billion on Valeant as it declined 55 percent from an intraday peak of $263.81 on Aug. 6, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
“In this business, nothing is personal,” Left said. “He goes home and sees his kids, I go home and see mine, and he does what he believes with his opinion.”
Biggest Selloff
If people had never heard of Citron Research before, they have now. Just after 10 a.m. Wednesday, the firm published a note suggesting Valeant was inflating its sales, igniting the biggest selloff anyone had ever seen in the stock. Laval, Quebec-based Valeant plunged as much as 40 percent, prompting a public response from the company and creating billions of dollars of losses for its hedge fund owners.
In a statement, Valeant said Citron’s research is “erroneous” and that the company derives no sales benefit from inventory held at specialty pharmacies mentioned in the report. It suggested Citron had reached inaccurate conclusions, misconstruing links between them that are explained by logistics and support agreements.
Past foes of Ackman saw irony that a company he’s invested in was sent reeling by a short-seller claiming that its revenue is overstated. Citron, the decade-old stock-commentary site originally founded as Stocklemon.com, said Valeant is using a specialty pharmacy called Philidor RX Services to store inventory and record those transactions as sales. “Is this Enron part deux?” the report said.
Just last week Muddy Waters wrote a scathing report about TeliaSonera, a Swedish telco involved in corruption which is, according to Muddy Waters, much larger than reported so far.
Tuesday 20 October 2015
IPOs leaning too heavily on cornerstones
From Reuters:
In construction, the cornerstone is an all-important component of a new building. In capital markets, it’s an investor that helps support the value of a company before its initial public offering. In Hong Kong, these cornerstones are bearing too much of the load and undermining the foundation of the local stock market.
In principle, there’s nothing wrong with companies pre-selling some shares to big investors ahead of an IPO. Fund managers ensure they get a decent allocation in return for agreeing not to sell for six months. For the listing company, the endorsement of a shrewd backer can help stimulate interest from smaller shareholders.
The practice in Hong Kong is spinning out of control, however. Big companies preparing to sell shares now routinely pledge half or more of them to friendly investors. Take China Huarong Asset Management, the state-owned “bad bank” that is seeking to raise between $2.3 billion and $2.5 billion. It already has commitments worth $1.6 billion from 10 investors, according to a term sheet describing the deal. That’s more than two-thirds of the total at the middle of the price range.
Huarong isn’t alone either. Cornerstone investors have pledged $1.1 billion to China Reinsurance, which is targeting up to $2 billion. Of the 28 Hong Kong listings that have raised more than $500 million since the beginning of 2013, the average allocation to cornerstone investors was 40 percent, according to Breakingviews calculations. Giving a small group of buyers such large slugs creates an overhang that weighs on the share price.
The cosy arrangement also undermines the whole concept of a public offering. Huarong’s biggest cornerstones are not professional money managers but developer Sino-Ocean Land and China’s State Grid, which is also backing China Re. When one state-backed Chinese company invests in another, getting the best available return on investment may not be the only consideration.
After a botched bailout of the stock market over the summer, the money-go-round in Hong Kong is another example of how state influence can distort public markets. Buildings may depend on the support of a cornerstone. Hong Kong’s exchange participants would do better to start chiseling away at them.
The above is also very relevant in the Malaysian context. Suddenly a few years ago the term "cornerstone investor" was introduced.
Another concept that also doesn't work is artificial holding up the price in the month after the IPO.
In construction, the cornerstone is an all-important component of a new building. In capital markets, it’s an investor that helps support the value of a company before its initial public offering. In Hong Kong, these cornerstones are bearing too much of the load and undermining the foundation of the local stock market.
In principle, there’s nothing wrong with companies pre-selling some shares to big investors ahead of an IPO. Fund managers ensure they get a decent allocation in return for agreeing not to sell for six months. For the listing company, the endorsement of a shrewd backer can help stimulate interest from smaller shareholders.
The practice in Hong Kong is spinning out of control, however. Big companies preparing to sell shares now routinely pledge half or more of them to friendly investors. Take China Huarong Asset Management, the state-owned “bad bank” that is seeking to raise between $2.3 billion and $2.5 billion. It already has commitments worth $1.6 billion from 10 investors, according to a term sheet describing the deal. That’s more than two-thirds of the total at the middle of the price range.
Huarong isn’t alone either. Cornerstone investors have pledged $1.1 billion to China Reinsurance, which is targeting up to $2 billion. Of the 28 Hong Kong listings that have raised more than $500 million since the beginning of 2013, the average allocation to cornerstone investors was 40 percent, according to Breakingviews calculations. Giving a small group of buyers such large slugs creates an overhang that weighs on the share price.
The cosy arrangement also undermines the whole concept of a public offering. Huarong’s biggest cornerstones are not professional money managers but developer Sino-Ocean Land and China’s State Grid, which is also backing China Re. When one state-backed Chinese company invests in another, getting the best available return on investment may not be the only consideration.
After a botched bailout of the stock market over the summer, the money-go-round in Hong Kong is another example of how state influence can distort public markets. Buildings may depend on the support of a cornerstone. Hong Kong’s exchange participants would do better to start chiseling away at them.
The above is also very relevant in the Malaysian context. Suddenly a few years ago the term "cornerstone investor" was introduced.
Another concept that also doesn't work is artificial holding up the price in the month after the IPO.
Friday 9 October 2015
1MDB needs a new script (2)
I wrote before about the rather curious relationship between 1MDB and Avestra, an asset management company that seems to be managed from a townhouse in the Gold Coast, Australia.
It has been mentioned several times in the press "Australian firm Avestra Asset Management has been managing over US$2 billion of 1Malaysia Development Bhd's monies invested in several Cayman Islands funds."
It must be noted that 1MDB has never denied the above.
Avestra was fined in the past by ASIC having committed six offences, and being mentioned by hard-hitting blogger "Dr Benway" in a not "very positive way", to put it mildly.
But things are about to get much stranger according to this press release:
ASIC seeks court orders to wind up Avestra Asset Management
ASIC has commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against Avestra Asset Management Ltd (Avestra), the holder of an Australian financial services licence and responsible entity or trustee of a number of managed investment schemes. Avestra's schemes are managed funds which invest in shares and other financial products. ASIC understands the schemes comprise approximately $18.5 million under management.
ASIC alleges that Avestra has persistently contravened its duties in relation to a number of the schemes, including to:
Among other things, ASIC alleges that Avestra borrowed money on an unsecured basis from the property of its schemes, and invested scheme property in entities and offshore funds connected to its directors without proper due diligence or regard for the interests of members.
ASIC is seeking interim orders to appoint provisional liquidators or receivers to take control of Avestra's assets and report on, among other things, any suspected contraventions of the law, any losses suffered by scheme members, and whether the schemes ought to continue in operation (under a new responsible entity) or whether they should also be wound up.
ASIC is seeking final orders that Avestra be wound up on a just and equitable basis.
According to this article there are clear links with Malaysia, in particular Harvest Court Industries, Eddie Chai and several ACE listed companies:
ASIC: Avestra ‘diverted cash to tax haven’
The corporate watchdog has accused management of Gold Coast funds management group Avestra of diverting investors’ money to unregulated entities in tax haven the Cayman Islands and using fund money to prop up a timber tycoon’s controversial takeover bid for a Malaysian company.
In a blockbuster 200-page Federal Court affidavit, Australian Securities & Investments Commission senior investigator Glenn Childs details the regulator’s concerns about failures to disclose related party transactions, potential breaches of takeover laws and the plummeting value of Avestra’s investments.
Mr Childs said he was concerned that Avestra Asset Management executives Paul Rowles and Clay Dempsey “may not be fit to act as the responsible managers” of the company and “investor funds may be at risk”. The company controls about $18.5 million of investors’ money.
Earlier this month, ASIC asked the court to appoint Simon Wallace-Smith and Robert Woods of Deloitte as provisional liquidators of Avestra with a mandate to take control of the 13 funds run by the group.
Justice Jonathan Beach on Thursday ordered the application be heard on October 27.
Avestra has yet to file a defence and its solicitor, Angela Yates of Moray Agnew, declined to comment because the case is before the court.
Mr Childs’s affidavit reveals that Avestra has been the subject of a full-scale ASIC investigation since December 2014.
He alleges Avestra began moving money to the Cayman Islands funds in May last year after ASIC began inquiring into management of its Australian wholesale funds.
Avestra allegedly closed the Australian wholesale funds — Canton, Worberg and Safecrest — and opened equivalents in the tax haven, Bridge Global CMC and Hanhong High Yield.
However, the underlying investments, allegedly dominated by risky punts on Malaysian second-bourse stocks [most likely the writer means the ACE market], did not change.
Mr Childs alleges that one of the funds into which investor money was channelled, the Avestra Credit Fund, failed to disclose a series of investments that involved conflicts of interest.
The largest was $US5.4m, about three quarters of the fund’s assets, loaned in May last year to Zenith City Investments, a company registered in tax haven Seychelles and run by Malaysian businessman Eddie Chai.
“The circumstances in which the loan to Zenith was made suggest that it may have been used for an attempt by Zenith and its director (Mr Chai) … for an attempt to take over the board of Harvest Court Industries … a company listed on the main market of the Malaysia Bursa,” Mr Childs said.
At the same time, Avestra “itself acquired a significant holding in Harvest Court Industries on behalf of its various schemes”, he added.
Under examination by ASIC, Mr Rowles denied knowing Mr Chai wanted the money to buy more stock in Harvest Court.
Mr Chai succeeded in his takeover bid but it was controversial, sparking a Malaysian High Court case.
The Malaysian regulators (BM and/or SC) might want to take note of the above, several Bursa listed companies do indeed have Avestra as an investor.
Two of the funds that are being managed by Avestra have the following track record according to information from their own website:
In a bit more than one year, the funds NAV price lost 60% of its value.
And this fund lost 46% of its NAV price in only nine months time.
According to its website the company delivers "superior performance", but I can't find any proof of that, in the contrary. I only notice a very bad performance and a extreme volatile NAV price. Losing 40% respectively 34% in a single month is simply beyond my believe.
1MDB is not invested in these two funds, that will be of some relief to Malaysian taxpayers.
But it still leaves important questions, for instance:
It has been mentioned several times in the press "Australian firm Avestra Asset Management has been managing over US$2 billion of 1Malaysia Development Bhd's monies invested in several Cayman Islands funds."
It must be noted that 1MDB has never denied the above.
Avestra was fined in the past by ASIC having committed six offences, and being mentioned by hard-hitting blogger "Dr Benway" in a not "very positive way", to put it mildly.
But things are about to get much stranger according to this press release:
ASIC seeks court orders to wind up Avestra Asset Management
ASIC has commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against Avestra Asset Management Ltd (Avestra), the holder of an Australian financial services licence and responsible entity or trustee of a number of managed investment schemes. Avestra's schemes are managed funds which invest in shares and other financial products. ASIC understands the schemes comprise approximately $18.5 million under management.
ASIC alleges that Avestra has persistently contravened its duties in relation to a number of the schemes, including to:
- act in the best interests of scheme members
- exercise the required degree of care and diligence
- do all things necessary to ensure that the financial services provided under its licence are provided efficiently, honestly and fairly.
Among other things, ASIC alleges that Avestra borrowed money on an unsecured basis from the property of its schemes, and invested scheme property in entities and offshore funds connected to its directors without proper due diligence or regard for the interests of members.
ASIC is seeking interim orders to appoint provisional liquidators or receivers to take control of Avestra's assets and report on, among other things, any suspected contraventions of the law, any losses suffered by scheme members, and whether the schemes ought to continue in operation (under a new responsible entity) or whether they should also be wound up.
ASIC is seeking final orders that Avestra be wound up on a just and equitable basis.
According to this article there are clear links with Malaysia, in particular Harvest Court Industries, Eddie Chai and several ACE listed companies:
ASIC: Avestra ‘diverted cash to tax haven’
The corporate watchdog has accused management of Gold Coast funds management group Avestra of diverting investors’ money to unregulated entities in tax haven the Cayman Islands and using fund money to prop up a timber tycoon’s controversial takeover bid for a Malaysian company.
In a blockbuster 200-page Federal Court affidavit, Australian Securities & Investments Commission senior investigator Glenn Childs details the regulator’s concerns about failures to disclose related party transactions, potential breaches of takeover laws and the plummeting value of Avestra’s investments.
Mr Childs said he was concerned that Avestra Asset Management executives Paul Rowles and Clay Dempsey “may not be fit to act as the responsible managers” of the company and “investor funds may be at risk”. The company controls about $18.5 million of investors’ money.
Earlier this month, ASIC asked the court to appoint Simon Wallace-Smith and Robert Woods of Deloitte as provisional liquidators of Avestra with a mandate to take control of the 13 funds run by the group.
Justice Jonathan Beach on Thursday ordered the application be heard on October 27.
Avestra has yet to file a defence and its solicitor, Angela Yates of Moray Agnew, declined to comment because the case is before the court.
Mr Childs’s affidavit reveals that Avestra has been the subject of a full-scale ASIC investigation since December 2014.
He alleges Avestra began moving money to the Cayman Islands funds in May last year after ASIC began inquiring into management of its Australian wholesale funds.
Avestra allegedly closed the Australian wholesale funds — Canton, Worberg and Safecrest — and opened equivalents in the tax haven, Bridge Global CMC and Hanhong High Yield.
However, the underlying investments, allegedly dominated by risky punts on Malaysian second-bourse stocks [most likely the writer means the ACE market], did not change.
Mr Childs alleges that one of the funds into which investor money was channelled, the Avestra Credit Fund, failed to disclose a series of investments that involved conflicts of interest.
The largest was $US5.4m, about three quarters of the fund’s assets, loaned in May last year to Zenith City Investments, a company registered in tax haven Seychelles and run by Malaysian businessman Eddie Chai.
“The circumstances in which the loan to Zenith was made suggest that it may have been used for an attempt by Zenith and its director (Mr Chai) … for an attempt to take over the board of Harvest Court Industries … a company listed on the main market of the Malaysia Bursa,” Mr Childs said.
At the same time, Avestra “itself acquired a significant holding in Harvest Court Industries on behalf of its various schemes”, he added.
Under examination by ASIC, Mr Rowles denied knowing Mr Chai wanted the money to buy more stock in Harvest Court.
Mr Chai succeeded in his takeover bid but it was controversial, sparking a Malaysian High Court case.
The Malaysian regulators (BM and/or SC) might want to take note of the above, several Bursa listed companies do indeed have Avestra as an investor.
Two of the funds that are being managed by Avestra have the following track record according to information from their own website:
In a bit more than one year, the funds NAV price lost 60% of its value.
And this fund lost 46% of its NAV price in only nine months time.
According to its website the company delivers "superior performance", but I can't find any proof of that, in the contrary. I only notice a very bad performance and a extreme volatile NAV price. Losing 40% respectively 34% in a single month is simply beyond my believe.
1MDB is not invested in these two funds, that will be of some relief to Malaysian taxpayers.
But it still leaves important questions, for instance:
- Did 1MDB invest in a fund managed by Avestra, if so who was responsible for the due diligence of selecting the fund manager, and how was that process exactly performed? Did the due diligence result in any red flags?
- Which fund did 1MDB exactly invest in, and what have the returns been so far?
- Is any commission paid to an agent (or other person/organisation) when 1MDB made this investment, if so how much?
Thursday 8 October 2015
Why Protecting Minority Shareholders Builds Stock Markets
From Wharton university:
Once upon a time, only countries like Britain and the United States had legal provisions in place to protect the rights of minority shareholders against the actions and decisions of large shareholders and management. As a result, money flowed into the stock market, and capitalization grew vigorously, dwarfing all other markets around the world. Beginning in the 1980s, however, countries in Continental Europe and Asia introduced reforms in their corporate legislation, affording minority shareholders a number of legal protections, including boosting the powers of the general shareholders’ meeting, prohibiting multiple voting rights and dual-class shares, mandating the presence of independent directors, and requiring the disclosure of major equity stakes, among others. What has driven these changes? Have they resulted in the growth of the stock market?
A new paper by Mauro F. Guillén of the Wharton School and Laurence Capron of INSEAD sheds light on these important issues.* They have assembled information on legal protections for minority shareholders in as many as 78 countries since 1970. They document that whereas four decades ago the Anglo Saxon countries afforded minority shareholders the greatest degree of protection, after the year 2000 countries in Western Europe, East Asia, and, especially, Eastern Europe and Central Asia had passed new legislation protecting minority shareholders.
The authors show that many countries around the world passed such new rules and regulations in response to a number of factors, including new economic ideas about free markets, imitation of other countries in the same region, emulation of the United States as the global financial leader, and pressures from the International Monetary Fund, which grew eager to induce countries in under financial stress to implement reforms.
By the 2010s, the countries in the world with the greatest degree of protection of minority shareholders were Kazakhstan, Russia, Uzbekistan, South Korea, Mauritius, and Poland. This phenomenon begs the question of whether legal reforms protecting minority shareholders are actually enforced or if they remain largely ceremonial. The research by Guillén and Capron, which carefully takes into account a number of economic and financial variables, conclusively shows that the adoption of legal protections has increased stock market capitalization, trading, and turnover. But they also found that the beneficial effects of such legal provisions are larger when the government has the capacity to enforce them.
Guillén and Capron argue that governments should continue to promote minority shareholder rights as an antidote against the abusive use of private information. Global competition for capital has intensified considerably, and having an appropriate legal framework that protects minority shareholders should be at the top of the policymaking agenda. Their research also has implications for companies and investors. Companies making investments in foreign countries need to carefully consider the extent to which minority shareholder rights are protected whenever they make decisions about floating part of their equity in a foreign subsidiary. Investors seeking global diversification of their portfolios also need to study the international map of shareholder protections before making decisions.
In Malaysia the legal protections are in place, and the government has the capacity to enforce them, but will they do that, without fear or favour? Or are the reforms in the name of good (corporate) governance mostly ceremonial?
63 Innovation agencies ...
From The Malaysian Reserve:
The government plans to address the existence of too many government agencies involved in innovation and technology in order to enhance efficiency and eliminate red tapes, said Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Razak.
The prime minister (PM) said presently there are a myriad of entities with so many roles which have created the risk of fragmentation in the innovation space.
“At the last count, entities in the government involved in technology innovation include:
The government plans to address the existence of too many government agencies involved in innovation and technology in order to enhance efficiency and eliminate red tapes, said Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Razak.
The prime minister (PM) said presently there are a myriad of entities with so many roles which have created the risk of fragmentation in the innovation space.
“At the last count, entities in the government involved in technology innovation include:
- five units under PM’s Department
- three ministries with direct technology funding
- six ministries with technology associations
- three regulators
- four councils that I chair
- four other councils
- three development corporations with funding
- seven development agencies or corporations
- one foundation
- six research institutions
- five mutual funds
- five managed funds
- 11 funding agencies
If I add them all up, 63 in total. Simply amazing .....
Monday 5 October 2015
XingQuan: does the company believe its own cash? (2)
Bursa has queried XingQuan about its rights issue, and the company has replied:
The Company wishes to clarify that the cash balance of RM886.55 million is mainly reserved for working capital, and as explained in the announcement dated 25 September 2015, Xinquan requires sufficient cash buffer and a high level of working capital to ensure minimal disruption to its operations in the event of a liquidity crisis or a sharp economic downturn. The purpose of the Proposed Rights Issue with Warrants is to raise funds for Xinquan’s capital expenditure requirements whilst maintaining a healthy level of cash balances at all times.
In addition, the available cash balance may also be used for future business expansion into related businesses, in particular, acquisition of foreign brand(s), if and when the opportunity arises.
The Group has placed its cash balances in savings accounts with licensed banks in China which carries an interest rate of approximately 0.35% per annum. The cash is placed in savings accounts as the cash is not idle and is required to fund Xinquan’s day-to-day operations.
I find the answers completely unsatisfactory given the size of its current operations. Just looking at balance sheet items like inventory, receivables, payables etc. gives an indication roughly how much cash the company needs in case the company grows, or in case there is a calamity. The company has abundant cash for all those purposes, much more than needed.
Regarding business expansion, first of all that sounds very vague, secondly those take time, the company could still raise money when the opportunity arises.
The company claims that it can not put money (not even a few hundred million RM) in a fixed deposit since it needs the money in day-to-day operations. That sounds highly questionable. The company should be forced to proof that, by showing the minimum amount of cash throughout the year in all saving accounts.
Chinese listed companies have a really bad reputation for its cash management. There have been fraud cases where the promised money was simply not there. Others have embarked on acquisitions (sometimes in related party transactions) that have destroyed value. They hardly pay out a decent dividend or embark on a share buyback program. In the contrary, they rather use private placements at share valuation below the amount of cash per share.
It doesn't make sense at all, and if that is the case, then in my experience most likely something else is going on, something more sinister.
There is still my suggestion in the previous posting.
More than four years ago I warned already about Chinese listed companies with cash levels that can not be trusted. Free advice for Bursa, it can't get much better than that, can it?
The Company wishes to clarify that the cash balance of RM886.55 million is mainly reserved for working capital, and as explained in the announcement dated 25 September 2015, Xinquan requires sufficient cash buffer and a high level of working capital to ensure minimal disruption to its operations in the event of a liquidity crisis or a sharp economic downturn. The purpose of the Proposed Rights Issue with Warrants is to raise funds for Xinquan’s capital expenditure requirements whilst maintaining a healthy level of cash balances at all times.
In addition, the available cash balance may also be used for future business expansion into related businesses, in particular, acquisition of foreign brand(s), if and when the opportunity arises.
The Group has placed its cash balances in savings accounts with licensed banks in China which carries an interest rate of approximately 0.35% per annum. The cash is placed in savings accounts as the cash is not idle and is required to fund Xinquan’s day-to-day operations.
I find the answers completely unsatisfactory given the size of its current operations. Just looking at balance sheet items like inventory, receivables, payables etc. gives an indication roughly how much cash the company needs in case the company grows, or in case there is a calamity. The company has abundant cash for all those purposes, much more than needed.
Regarding business expansion, first of all that sounds very vague, secondly those take time, the company could still raise money when the opportunity arises.
The company claims that it can not put money (not even a few hundred million RM) in a fixed deposit since it needs the money in day-to-day operations. That sounds highly questionable. The company should be forced to proof that, by showing the minimum amount of cash throughout the year in all saving accounts.
Chinese listed companies have a really bad reputation for its cash management. There have been fraud cases where the promised money was simply not there. Others have embarked on acquisitions (sometimes in related party transactions) that have destroyed value. They hardly pay out a decent dividend or embark on a share buyback program. In the contrary, they rather use private placements at share valuation below the amount of cash per share.
It doesn't make sense at all, and if that is the case, then in my experience most likely something else is going on, something more sinister.
There is still my suggestion in the previous posting.
More than four years ago I warned already about Chinese listed companies with cash levels that can not be trusted. Free advice for Bursa, it can't get much better than that, can it?
Sunday 4 October 2015
Tony's Top Ten Tips
I have often been critical about AirAsia (and even more so regarding AirAsia X) in this blog, especially regarding the aggressive accounting and the convoluted corporate structure.
But I did like the entrepreneurial spirit and "can do" attitude of Tony Fernandez and his staff.
Tony was invited to speak at an event organised by Digital News Asia and didn't disappoint with his speech "What’s Next: Tony’s Top 10 Tips for Entrepreneurs".
I think they are great tips, so I will copy them here from the above link:
1) You don’t need to know everything
I came from the music business. I knew nothing about planes. To all the entrepreneurs out there, you don’t need to know everything about what you want to do. It’s all about the idea, it’s about passion, it’s about implementing it.
2) Just do it!
Don’t let anyone tell you that you can’t do it. You’ve got one life, so you can’t press the rewind button and say ‘I wished I had done that.’
So I recommend to all of you out there, just do it. Live your life to the utmost, be positive. If you fail, at least you have tried.
I have failed miserably at Formula One, but I have no regrets because I got to stand with the greats from Ferrari, McLaren, and others.
3) Passion is a key problem-solver
Dreams do come true. Don’t worry about failure. You have one life, make the most out of it. Nine times out of 10, if you have the passion, you will find a way to work through it.
4) Invest in marketing
If you have the greatest idea in the world, please, please, please put some money on marketing. This is because if you don’t put money on marketing, nobody is going to hear about your great idea.
There are so many great ideas that never took off because of a lack of marketing.
Marketing is not about the dollars, it is also about public relations (PR). In AirAsia, we had no money. So I ran around with a red cap on and said controversial things so that the press would always take a picture of me. That was our marketing in AirAsia’s early days.
We have been through so many issues, and marketing played a key role in overcoming them.
Remember SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome)? At that time, nobody wanted to fly; we all thought we are going to die.
Everyone cut their advertising, but I told my guys not to cut because this was the best time to build our brand. In fact, we tripled our advertising and everyone looked at me and said, “Are you on drugs?” I said, no, it is the best time because no one else is advertising.
When the first Bali bomb attack happened, everyone cancelled their flights. I said to the guys, we cannot let the Bali route die. We must continue to fly.
So we came up with ‘Love Bali’ campaign, giving away 10,000 free seats, and it worked. All 10,000 seats were snapped up in like under one minute. And all those who got those seats told all their friends about it on social media. Your best advertisement is your customers.
5) Leverage social media
When Malaysians get a good deal, they will tell the whole world about it. So the 10,000 people who went and had a good time in Bali, told 10,000 people that they had a good time. That was the early gestation of AirAsia’s social media.
We realised the power of social media very early on, so when Facebook and Twitter came up, we latched onto them. We were early adopters. We now have 32 million people on our various social media platforms, and 7% of our business comes directly from social media.
The Bali campaign taught us that our best advertisements are our customers.
6) Don’t be scared of complaints
Complaints are actually free market research. Someone took the effort to write to you to tell you where things went wrong and how they should be improved. These are things that companies pay a lot of money for consultants to tell them that same thing.
So we treat every email preciously.
7) Focus on one image when it comes to branding
During the early days, there was the word ‘AirAsia’ and a logo of a bird in our branding.
If you look at the top brands in the world, there’s only one image that comes to your mind. When I say “Shell,” you think of the Shell logo. When I say “Coca-Cola,” you think of the word ‘Coke’ in italics, and when I say “Nike,” you think of the swoosh.
So, back to our earlier AirAsia brand, we said drop the bird – we felt it was facing the wrong way anyway – and we used ‘AirAsia’ as our logo. Just one image. Why spend double the money to promote two images?
We also dropped the blue and the green colours. I tried very hard not to go with red, because everyone thinks that I want to be Richard Branson [the Virgin Group founder and Fernandes’ former boss] ... but it was the best colour, so we picked red.
So yes, the colour does make a big difference!
8) Go on the ground
What I used to do – although I don’t do this anymore – was that once a month, I would carry bags, I would be a cabin crew [member], and also at the check-in counter.
I did this for two reasons: The first is that you can’t be an effective CEO (chief executive officer) unless you go on the ground to experience the real situation.
Here’s a true story. The baggage handling team told me that they needed belt loaders. I told them, “No, we can’t buy that as it’s too expensive.”
So one day when I was tasked to carry bags, they put me on one of the Indonesia flights. People who fly with us generally bring their house with them, but people who fly to Indonesia bring their neighbour’s house as well!
So there was a lot of bags. I broke my back in the process, and I told my team that they were right and I was wrong, and let’s buy the belt loaders.
If I didn’t do that [go on the ground] and just sat comfortably in the office, I would have made a wrong decision, damaged a lot of bags, and probably started a union.
The second reason [for going on the ground] is that I wanted to look for talent. I wasn’t looking for the talents from Oxford or Cambridge, I was looking for the Grade 3 SPM [O Levels equivalent] kind of guys who needed a second chance.
9) Never underestimate the potential of your staff
I broke all the rules in terms of hiring people. To me, as long as you have a dream, you can do anything.
There was an ex-cabin crew member – she came up to me one day and told me that her dream was to become a pilot. I told her to go for it.
Then she called me up one day and asked if she could take part in the Miss Thailand [beauty pageant], and I told her okay, as long as I get to use her photographs in our marketing materials.
She won the [Miss Universe Thailand] pageant and recently became a captain – so we are the only airline in the world with a Miss Thailand flying with us.
The moral of the story is that we have such a flat structure that she was able to tell me what her dreams were, and we were able to make a raw diamond into a diamond.
Another one of my boys, a baggage handler in Kuching, told me he wanted to become a pilot. I told him to go for it. He passed all the exams ... he had the top marks in the flying academy. Today, he is a captain.
We have many of such stories at AirAsia.
Your biggest assets, besides your ideas, are your people – because at the end of the day, it is the people who will deliver your ideas.
10) Data is king
We have a huge amount of data that we don’t know what to do with it, but everyone else wants our data ... so we figured it must be something very valuable and there must be an opportunity there.
We are investing in a few ventures. We plan to launch our own version of TripAdvisor, a travel dongle, a new YouTube-type of channel and more – data will be playing an essential role in these ventures. Data will be king.
Where is Ze Moola (the excellent, but inactive blog) often complained about the articles written about AirAsia. I guess Tony spilled the beans how those articles were conceived:
"Marketing is not about the dollars, it is also about public relations (PR). In AirAsia, we had no money. So I ran around with a red cap on and said controversial things so that the press would always take a picture of me. That was our marketing in AirAsia’s early days."
Journalists probably should have taken some distance there, but might have fallen too easily for the juicy story.
But I did like the entrepreneurial spirit and "can do" attitude of Tony Fernandez and his staff.
Tony was invited to speak at an event organised by Digital News Asia and didn't disappoint with his speech "What’s Next: Tony’s Top 10 Tips for Entrepreneurs".
I think they are great tips, so I will copy them here from the above link:
1) You don’t need to know everything
I came from the music business. I knew nothing about planes. To all the entrepreneurs out there, you don’t need to know everything about what you want to do. It’s all about the idea, it’s about passion, it’s about implementing it.
2) Just do it!
Don’t let anyone tell you that you can’t do it. You’ve got one life, so you can’t press the rewind button and say ‘I wished I had done that.’
So I recommend to all of you out there, just do it. Live your life to the utmost, be positive. If you fail, at least you have tried.
I have failed miserably at Formula One, but I have no regrets because I got to stand with the greats from Ferrari, McLaren, and others.
3) Passion is a key problem-solver
Dreams do come true. Don’t worry about failure. You have one life, make the most out of it. Nine times out of 10, if you have the passion, you will find a way to work through it.
4) Invest in marketing
If you have the greatest idea in the world, please, please, please put some money on marketing. This is because if you don’t put money on marketing, nobody is going to hear about your great idea.
There are so many great ideas that never took off because of a lack of marketing.
Marketing is not about the dollars, it is also about public relations (PR). In AirAsia, we had no money. So I ran around with a red cap on and said controversial things so that the press would always take a picture of me. That was our marketing in AirAsia’s early days.
We have been through so many issues, and marketing played a key role in overcoming them.
Remember SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome)? At that time, nobody wanted to fly; we all thought we are going to die.
Everyone cut their advertising, but I told my guys not to cut because this was the best time to build our brand. In fact, we tripled our advertising and everyone looked at me and said, “Are you on drugs?” I said, no, it is the best time because no one else is advertising.
When the first Bali bomb attack happened, everyone cancelled their flights. I said to the guys, we cannot let the Bali route die. We must continue to fly.
So we came up with ‘Love Bali’ campaign, giving away 10,000 free seats, and it worked. All 10,000 seats were snapped up in like under one minute. And all those who got those seats told all their friends about it on social media. Your best advertisement is your customers.
5) Leverage social media
When Malaysians get a good deal, they will tell the whole world about it. So the 10,000 people who went and had a good time in Bali, told 10,000 people that they had a good time. That was the early gestation of AirAsia’s social media.
We realised the power of social media very early on, so when Facebook and Twitter came up, we latched onto them. We were early adopters. We now have 32 million people on our various social media platforms, and 7% of our business comes directly from social media.
The Bali campaign taught us that our best advertisements are our customers.
6) Don’t be scared of complaints
Complaints are actually free market research. Someone took the effort to write to you to tell you where things went wrong and how they should be improved. These are things that companies pay a lot of money for consultants to tell them that same thing.
So we treat every email preciously.
7) Focus on one image when it comes to branding
During the early days, there was the word ‘AirAsia’ and a logo of a bird in our branding.
If you look at the top brands in the world, there’s only one image that comes to your mind. When I say “Shell,” you think of the Shell logo. When I say “Coca-Cola,” you think of the word ‘Coke’ in italics, and when I say “Nike,” you think of the swoosh.
So, back to our earlier AirAsia brand, we said drop the bird – we felt it was facing the wrong way anyway – and we used ‘AirAsia’ as our logo. Just one image. Why spend double the money to promote two images?
We also dropped the blue and the green colours. I tried very hard not to go with red, because everyone thinks that I want to be Richard Branson [the Virgin Group founder and Fernandes’ former boss] ... but it was the best colour, so we picked red.
So yes, the colour does make a big difference!
8) Go on the ground
What I used to do – although I don’t do this anymore – was that once a month, I would carry bags, I would be a cabin crew [member], and also at the check-in counter.
I did this for two reasons: The first is that you can’t be an effective CEO (chief executive officer) unless you go on the ground to experience the real situation.
Here’s a true story. The baggage handling team told me that they needed belt loaders. I told them, “No, we can’t buy that as it’s too expensive.”
So one day when I was tasked to carry bags, they put me on one of the Indonesia flights. People who fly with us generally bring their house with them, but people who fly to Indonesia bring their neighbour’s house as well!
So there was a lot of bags. I broke my back in the process, and I told my team that they were right and I was wrong, and let’s buy the belt loaders.
If I didn’t do that [go on the ground] and just sat comfortably in the office, I would have made a wrong decision, damaged a lot of bags, and probably started a union.
The second reason [for going on the ground] is that I wanted to look for talent. I wasn’t looking for the talents from Oxford or Cambridge, I was looking for the Grade 3 SPM [O Levels equivalent] kind of guys who needed a second chance.
9) Never underestimate the potential of your staff
I broke all the rules in terms of hiring people. To me, as long as you have a dream, you can do anything.
There was an ex-cabin crew member – she came up to me one day and told me that her dream was to become a pilot. I told her to go for it.
Then she called me up one day and asked if she could take part in the Miss Thailand [beauty pageant], and I told her okay, as long as I get to use her photographs in our marketing materials.
She won the [Miss Universe Thailand] pageant and recently became a captain – so we are the only airline in the world with a Miss Thailand flying with us.
The moral of the story is that we have such a flat structure that she was able to tell me what her dreams were, and we were able to make a raw diamond into a diamond.
Another one of my boys, a baggage handler in Kuching, told me he wanted to become a pilot. I told him to go for it. He passed all the exams ... he had the top marks in the flying academy. Today, he is a captain.
We have many of such stories at AirAsia.
Your biggest assets, besides your ideas, are your people – because at the end of the day, it is the people who will deliver your ideas.
10) Data is king
We have a huge amount of data that we don’t know what to do with it, but everyone else wants our data ... so we figured it must be something very valuable and there must be an opportunity there.
We are investing in a few ventures. We plan to launch our own version of TripAdvisor, a travel dongle, a new YouTube-type of channel and more – data will be playing an essential role in these ventures. Data will be king.
Where is Ze Moola (the excellent, but inactive blog) often complained about the articles written about AirAsia. I guess Tony spilled the beans how those articles were conceived:
"Marketing is not about the dollars, it is also about public relations (PR). In AirAsia, we had no money. So I ran around with a red cap on and said controversial things so that the press would always take a picture of me. That was our marketing in AirAsia’s early days."
Journalists probably should have taken some distance there, but might have fallen too easily for the juicy story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)