I just got back from my trip not long ago and had been a little busy... but I have to say that other than the initial response about her looking into it (that's Joanna whiteford), I have not received a reply yet. I had emailed her again to remind her of my previous email, but no response. Personally, even if she cannot give me an answer because they want to make it a public announcement or whatever, she should have been able to respond and let me know.
Sorry, no news on my side yet. If I do get a response, I will post.
Even China Hong Xing and China Gaoxian used to pay dividends, and would have had to go through SAFE.
2 key questions remain unanswered:
1. Why this company which has got 545 million in cash still need to borrow 100 million at over 30 interest (Ah Long) interest rate???
2. Even if it can justify the need for money despite so much cash, why can't it borrow from banks at much lower rates instead??? Something so many other small cap China companies have been able to do??
These are urgent questions and the management should not be be waiting until next quarter results before giving an explanation. That's being irresponsible to shareholders
I try to see if those china firms that got into accounting troubles and were suspended gave dividends.
I found that sinopipe gave dividends in 2010, but in its special audit:
Its subsidary over report its Net profit in2010.
Sinopipe like Eratat, is also incoporated in SIngapore.
As for CHina HongXing, they declared a dividend in 14 sept 2010 but was suspended in feburary 2011. CHina HOngxing is incoporated in Bermuda
China Milk special audit mention about SAFE too, so i guess it does not matter which country the company is incoporated in, as long as money need to remit out of china, it goes thro SAFE.
In conclusion, I think SAFE might not be as robust in its certification or auditing processes, since there are already predecent cases of companies falling through the cracks. I guess as long as there is enough money in the accounts to clear the dividend amount, SAFE will just clear it.
(Given that trade figures of CHINa at national level can be inflated, I doubt SAFE can be an effective guard against monkey business)
{Quote] As for CHina HongXing, they declared a dividend in 14 sept 2010 but was suspended in feburary 2011. CHina HOngxing is incoporated in Bermuda [/Quote]
greenrookie is right tat SAFE may not be that robust check. But I guess there is no harm if a SAFE may a verification check, even if it may not be 100% detailed check.
as for China Hongxing, their accounts could be real at the start since it's audited by the Big Four Ernest & young. But somehow maybe towards end of 2010-early 2011, some fraud probably happen internally within their management.
Anyway, SHK, being a bond subscriber would have accessed Eratat's accounts, financial strength and business strength carefully.
Now that sinograndness is almost on track successfully list its Garden Fresh in HK and it has to redeem its bonds at 73% higher (much more than Eratat's 60%), how come u never go criticise Sino Grandness why they are borrowing from ah long.
in what way is Eratat bond issue a penalty and sino grandness case is not a penalty? if Garden fresh is not listed, then the redemption is 52%, which is still comparable to Eratat as well.
How about the shareholders ask Eratat form a new subsidiary company for its new flag ship stores expansion and then repackage the bond contract into a multi-tier condition scenario?? Is there any difference boh? what is ur point, skeptic?
I believe Del and I have explained clearly the advantages of a bond issue + warrant over bank loans/rights/placement. Why u still so stubborn (钻牛角尖）on the bank loan?
Skeptic, there are guidelines that the CFO and the management have to adhere. It's not like u can suka suka hold a meeting for shareholders n announce. Any announcement or business decision made have to be approved by executive directors before it can be released to public. Don't tell me u dunno all these basic rules. Leaking out insider info can lend someone into jail. just wait until august la.
skeptic, u are trying to pick bones from eggs lol. Should Eratat's share price shoot up someday beyond 20 cents, please eat back the criticism u made today.
Skeptic wrote: Abb u are comparing apples to oranges. One is a basic condition for bond subscription one is a penalty. One is base case one is worst case scenario.
Now that sinograndness has successfully list its Garden Fresh in HK and it has to redeemm its bonds at 73% higher (much more than Eratat's 60%), how come u never go criticise Sino Grandness why they are borrowing from ah long.
in what way is Eratat bond issue a penalty and sino grandness case is not a penalty? if Garden fresh is not listed, then the redemption is 52%, which is still comparable to Eratat as well.
How about the shareholders ask Eratat form a new subsidiary for its new flag ship stores and then repackage the bond contract into a condition scenario?? Is there any differenc boh? what is ur point, skeptic?
I believe Del and I have explained clearly the advantages of a bond issue + warrant over bank loans/rights/placement. Why u still so stubborn (钻牛角尖）on the bank loan?
Skeptic, there are guidelines that the CFO and the management have to adhere. It's not like u can suka suka hold a meeting for shareholders n announce. Any announcement or decision made have to be approved by executive directors before it can be released to public. Don't tell me u dunno all these basic rules. just wait until august la.
skeptic, u are trying to pick bones from eggs lol. Should Eratat's share price shoot up someday beyond 20 cents, please eat back the criticism u made today.
Skeptic wrote: Abb u are comparing apples to oranges. One is a basic condition for bond subscription one is a penalty. One is base case one is worst case scenario.
