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.
Had Solomon not broken up with FD, that would be much wiser use of money. Essentially, SIAF is paying $9.9 to save one share of dilution from FD. Had they purchased from the open market, they only need $3.20 for one share. Of course, SIAF saves a little on interest when paying back to FD.
I think payingback loans is better esp. when FD wants to take over the company.
I am not sure I understand what you mean . care to explain more?
I think hr has been long gone.
Dec. 31, 2015 $32,666,666 $2,238,073 $34,904,739
Dec. 31, 2016 $18,183,267 $3,131,610 $21,314,877
Judging from the figures above, SIAF paid back $14,483,399 principle. The company also paid back, I think a little bit more than $2 million for interest. So totally, they paid back more than $16 million back to ECAB.
At least, SIAF did make money, not as Zero Hedge has consistently claimed starting from May 2016.
I think FD's intention was to buy Pre-IPO at very cheap price. He understands that SIAF can buy up to 75% of the MegaFarm. Solomon refused. Then they broke up. I remember in one of the cc's, Dan said the company will not sell cheap these Pre-IPO shares. Now, it makes perfect sense to me why he said that in cc's.
I think that is correct.
We do need to care. I think we should not direct the anger to Solomon, nor to the BOD members. Now, I understand why Solomon mentioned hostile takeover.
I think the entire Oslo listing, Merkur listing and appointment of Mr. Bertil Tiusanen was a set-up for Solomon. The purpose is to hijack the company. Remember, any financial deal, the company needs to give to FD one month notice for first refusal right, so he has plenty of time to profit from any deal the company might have.
Mr. Bertil Tiusanen left in March, Dan took as an acting CFO. I am sure the notice given to Solomon was a very short one. We need the thank Dan for taking the acting CFO. FD started to demand money back in Q1, and Q2 (a lot).
Incidentally, the alias of Zero Hedge was created in May 2016,
Very interesting, right?
ECAB convertible loan summary:
Date Principle owned Interest owned Total owned
Dec. 31, 2015 $32,666,666 $2,238,073 $34,904,739
March 31, 2016 $32,666,666 $2,894,323 $35,560,989
June 30, 2016 $24,989,906 $3,299,200 $28.289,106
Sept. 30, 2016 $20,565,187 $2,931,531 $23,496,718
Dec. 31, 2016 $18,183,267 $3,131,610 $21,314,877
Isn't the situation clear?
In an interview long time ago, I remembered that FD said that he will convert all principle into shares (that was in 2015, I think). Apparently, he changed his mind later, he demanded money back.
Given that Solomon even has a loan with 2.5% monthly rate in 2016 and Solomon paid back so much to FD, I think FD is behind the steady decline of the PPS for the last 18 months. Apparently, Solomon and FD broke up.
As of December 31, 2016, there was $18,183,267(2015: 32,666,666) principal outstanding and accrued interest in the amount of $3,131,610 (2015: $2,238,073) that was owed under the terms of the convertible note to ECAB.
yeah, the volume, so unreal. who has these many shares to sell day after day?
the volume picks up, makes you wonder why.
Listing in the real OSLO had been the goal, but all of a suddle, it was listed in mercur. Solomon talked about hostile takeover somewhere last year. Probably they realized that they were tricked into Mercur.
I have been always wondering from whom did the idea of listing in merkur come from. Solomon could have been fooled by him. It may very well be a set up for Solomon. Since the listing in MERKUR, pps has only one direction, and it is a lot more easier for them to manipulate the pps.
here comes the 2's.
Sellers sold the shares like there is no tomorrow.
Where is the loan? Dan promised on DEC. 6TH, saying it will be closed in 8 to 14 weeks. Now its 16 weeks already. It probably falls off.
who has these many shares to sell day after day? unbelievable.
The type of reporting person for the 13G/A form filed on Jan. 20th was IA, which stands for Investment Adviser. The type of reporting person for the 13G form filed today was IN, which stands for individual. So it is clear it is new filing. Very interesting.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.13d-101
(14)Type of Reporting Person - Please classify each “reporting person” according to the following breakdown and place the appropriate symbol (or symbols, i.e., if more than one is applicable, insert all applicable symbols) on the form:
Category Symbol
Broker Dealer BD
Bank BK
Insurance Company IC
Investment Company IV
Investment Adviser IA
Employee Benefit Plan or Endowment Fund EP
Parent Holding Company/Control Person HC
Savings Association SA
Church Plan CP
Corporation CO
Partnership PN
Individual IN
Other OO
I think the 6500 MT goal can be reached if they grow finfish, but not prawns. That is how I see Tony's reply.
Someone passed to me the following from Tony:
Thank you for your email and queries.
The 6,500 MT is a minimal goal for 2017 for AF4 currently producing almost exclusively finfish. This minimal target for 2017 is if nothing happens with financing and construction in 2017, since we already have in place a 6,500 MT capacity at AF4. Prawns & shrimp (i.e. freshwater prawns & saltwater shrimp) are being raised at other farms, mostly in outdoor RAS ponds. Total production from our collective farms and raising various species of finfish, shrimp, & prawns in 2016, not including AF4, was slightly over 12,000 MT.
The reason for working with finfish initially at AF4 is to train staff and have them become familiar simply with the RAS operations, and to show that they can generate profits. RAS operations are quite different than what most farm staff in China are used to and training and familiarity is essential. As indicated in the Q2, the profit margins for mixed finfish species is similar to what we are achieved with prawns at that time. Therefore, in ramping up operations at AF4, it was considered best to ensure the farm was successful (i.e. could produce a product and a profit) given the existing level of expertise.
In the future, the plan is to increase production of prawns, and larger, more expensive prawns, on AF4. For biosecurity purposes, I have been an advocate for separation of species, meaning each production unit (3 buildings = 10,000 MT) produces either only finfish or shrimp or prawns. So, in addition to proof of concept at AF4, the expertise on hand, and biosecurity purposes, I support raising finfish only on AF4 for now. It is most important we are successful right now and staff build confidence in working with RAS.
AF5, which will increase production to 60,000 MT, or 6 x 10,000 MT production units, would have a combination of shrimp(or prawn) and finfish production. For instance, 3 buildings would only produce finfish; 3 buildings would only produce prawns. That is my ideal.
Designed capacity refers to MT in my vernacular. The 10,000 MT goal for prawns is based on operational history for FF1 and PF1, which had production capacities each of roughly 1,500 MT. Both were successful at raising prawns, so projections based on these operations in not out of touch. However, the tanks at AF4 are much larger and operations of the RAS systems there for prawns proving to be different. This is not unusual when scaling up. We are currently testing improved operations at PF1 to then transfer to AF4 in the future for this species. This is why PF1 was changed into more a research facility. This is a prudent approach.
Our mix of species in the future will be driven by market demands and profit margins. The good thing is that our RAS systems are providing to be very adaptable to species and production scenarios (depuration, for instance). We will have very good flexibility in the future to maximize revenues and profits. This is as opposed to farming operations that rely only on one species, and have to ride out market gluts and price declines at times.
I hope this helps. And thank you for your long-time and continued support of SIAF!
Clearly, the CDEL seller does not want the price to go up. It makes you wonder why.
RD, they are growing finfish right now. it sells @3.8 per kilo and the profit margin is only 22%. so the profit id around $0 .836, not $4 per kilo. I think that is the main problem.
Did they report very recently? who are selling then?
ok, they said for preIPO, PRICE IS 2xNTA. 2NTA is 450million. 32% of 450million is around 150million, that is what they said they are going to raise for preIPO. so probably, starting from the begining, they knew what they were talking about.
Each siaf share will get roughly .8 triway share as divident. $4.5 per share for preIPO PRICE, WHEN timeING WITH .8, it is $3.6, which is roughly where SIAF now stands. so if they could successfully sell their preIPO, then buying siaf @3.6 essentially means one participates preIPO and one gets all the other perks from siaf FOR free.
the question is, are they able to do it?
According to the recent pr, Triway's enterprise value is $340million. I suppose that EV is not the same as NTA, but what about Triway's NTA. FYI: the following is from Q3 report:
In this respect, the Company (SIAF) is seeking to derive the greatest return to its shareholders by (i) issuing a substantial portion of its holdings in the COSO to SIAF shareholders of record prior to the COSO IPO, and (ii) providing pre-IPO investors an opportunity to buy into the COSO to help establish / solidify a pre-IPO market valuation to levels at 3 to 4 times the COSO NTA, which is projected to provide a market valuation range at 12 to 16 times earnings.
Snow, what number did SIAF publish? I cannot recall.
snow, it is not about definition of finfish. it is about the tonnage they said. if they only grow 6500 metric tons of finfish annually, they do not reach even 30% of the projected profitability. they projected 3to4dollars per kilo for prawns.
yes, but then if they produce 6500 metric tons for 12 cycles, that is nothing. that is why i said they may play numbers with us.
The problem for finfish is for one kg, the gross profit is only 3.8*0.22, which id $.836. so even if they reach the tonnage goal, the eps for triway won't be good. in their presentation, they said for prawns, they expect $3 plus profit per kilo. so if they grow finfish, they need to grow 3 to 4times more than prawn. i think they are playing numbers with us.
only 36.6%
Do you remember how many free shates they have?
ceo and morgan stanley proposed to buy CXDC for $5.21 per share. those suckers made even thr ligitimate chinesemicrocaps worthless to invest.
Any particular reason for them to do that? Any conjecture?
The volume was quite high today. There were 24k shares traded after closing. Total volume was 80+k today. Kind of strange.
No, I need to go to work.
Hooray!
New filing: City National Rochdale, LLC increased position to 1,181,
934 shares. Went up 112,620 shares.
Purchaser, why didn't you guys buy in the OTC instead? It's cheaper.