Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Yes, and it's not like anyone cares which secretary any company uses any way?! Sino Agro Food uses V Corp in Nevada, you probably never heard of them since no one cares about them.
Yes, still invested, just been offline for a while. I don't have any direct contact with the company.
Credible? Well, not when it comes to timeline projections. I think he always set goals for the company and his employees that is too optimistic.
Are they not waiting for the meat prices to go up?
Btw, Trump is fuckingaround with import taxes more and more, sooner or later the rest of the world will return the favor. So I think that there is a good chance China will limit the import of US beef again soon.
The fertilizer (cow shit) in stock has a higher value then SIAF right now
The SJAP farmers has always been growing sheep and they for sure at least did grow sheep at the Enping cattle farm.
When the beef prices surged back in the old days, they got less involved in mutton, but now the beef prices are down again so I guess they will get more involved in mutton.
If you read the 10K's you will see that they have been selling mutton since for ever.
Haven’t they been in to mutton meat since forever?
The Mega Farm is not valued $300m, Triway has an appraisal value close to that.
OS is 31,581,604
Well, yes, kind of, but none of the assets of the abattoir is valued based on the business they are in right? Most of the time when a write of takes place it's because the assets has become quite useless for reason or it was valued based on market value to begin with or you are balancing the sheets in merger or similar. The abattoir is not booked as "the business slaughtering", it's some land, buildings, machines etc and it all still has value that and is devalued over time based on depreciation accounting anyway.
No point writing up or down the value of any assets. Once the assets are spun off it will get a market value.
SIAF repaid $2,5M of loan 1 & 2in Q3, it's very likely that they have continued to repay on those loans in Q4 and this Q to avoid to issue more collateral shares. Since they say that they have decreased the credit line for the TF avoid increasing the collateral shares, it's very clear that they have focus on stopping the bleeding of collateral shares.
I'm quite sure that RD has been correct that the recent shares that has been issued is incentive shares (or at least a big part of them) that SIAF gives away each year to employees and other key personal. They tend to sell these shares before Chinese new year. Chinese new year celebration starts today, so it's probably very good opportunity to buy shares at this point if the selling pressure has stopped.
So lets cross our fingers and hope that we finally have a break from both collateral shares being dumped to the market and Chinese people selling shares to get drunk over new year.
Maybe you should ask him if he knows Shawn A. Mesaros as well
Looks like New Year celebration started today
Yes, that's the day before the Plaintiff was filed by SEC. But as LL pointed out, the guy SIAF was dealing with in Burnham (Dan McGlory) was not involved in the scheme. Dan McGlory quit the company at the same time as they lost the licens and is still working but for another company.
So I don't think we should draw to many conclusions from this, but of course it's not good to involved with such a company.
Nordnet updated its holdings
https://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=76715016
Yes, it was Dan McClory who was the Managing Director and Head of China Investment Banking at the time SIAF engaged Burnham. He works for Boustead Securities now.
I don't know at what extend Burnham is involved in the loans. I spent last night checking out this company and it looks like they have been involved in quite a few shady deals in the past. If Burnham has been involved and considering what we have seen lately, it's definitely not good for SIAF.
However, whenever a lawyer group post an article about a company they are suing, it always sound worse than it is.
BURNHAM SECURITIES, INC. has lost it's licens with FINRA. The homepage is down as well.
https://brokercheck.finra.org/firm/summary/11055
Yes, western world bankers are simple people imo. As long as the banker has his ass covered by collateral or by other means diminish the risk that he will not get his money back, he will give you a loan. Simple risk analysis, you as a shareholder is not a concern in that analysis, your well being is his last concern.
I can give a dozen of examples where the listed company treated it's shareholders as a piggybank but can still got a bank loan.
Regarding that the bankers has an opinion on the high interest loans, that is very likely since that is a expense that SIAF can get out from in bad times, and if ECAB can get 10,5% interest rate, why can the other banker get it? But what I belive that the banker is more concerned about is that
in case of default/bankruptcy, ECAB has the first right get their investment back, they have priority over all other entities.But this is of course only the case if it is SIAF who is lending the money directly or if Solomon will use SIAF assets as collateral for the TRW loan.
A banker only cares about himself, he does not care one bit if the shareholders are diluted, it's not his business. And in this case, we are talking about TRW who is not diluting the shareholders even, it's one of the owners who are diluting the shareholders which the bankers would care even less about.
Yes, you have to make difference on the development for us shareholders and as a company.
Put your self in a bankers shoes. Would you think it would be bad for you as a banker lending money to SIAF if SIAF at any given moment can get cash from the shareholders if the cash-flow is tight?
Of course is it's a good thing for a banker, but a terrible thing for you as a shareholder.
Triway has been in business successfully for more than 10 years and aquaculture for 7 years. The same monkeys has been running the business successfully throughout these years and you think that the bankers now have an opinion on who is running these companies successfully for all these years? I don't think so. I understand that you have an opinion on who is running the companies since they have not made you any money, but why would the banker care about you or any other shareholder.
What was the trackrecord of that company?
You can't see them, they are covered between the tanks like on this picture.
http://www.sinoagrofood.com/sites/default/files/images/TRW_header_photo.jpg
They are giving the company the loan, not a person a loan. If the business is doing well and there is assets to use as collateral, the company could just as well be run by monkeys or apes. As long as the primates are running a sound profitable business, the banks wouldn't care if it's gorillas or chimpanzees running the show
Tri-way Operations Update
http://www.sinoagrofood.com/sites/default/files/Tri-way_Status_Nov-2017.pdf
It was a joke...
"My guess is 1/4-1/2 million, I’ve seen an industrial grade of similar size in that price range. "
So what would the price be for home usage graded one?
There is none, but that does not mean he did not buy shares.
Or maybe you can show me the form 4 showing that he received collateral shares
Yes I’m saying that he bought his shares.
So all those collateral shares was hitting the market, depressing the PPS, but still one guy was holding them all the time, is that your reasoning?
Obviously bought the shares. I don’t know why he didn’t file.
Garret does not have any collateral shares.