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.
Buying another 180000 shares today but will wait for five minutes for the dust to settle.
Henry has delivered on virtually all of his promises this year except the dividend distribution and he explained that at the CC. He wants to complete the audit of the APR financials before the distribution takes place. This is a holding company that has made a ton of progress. He managed to keep making progress through the COVID 19 pandemic, ADE and Lux fund. “No Worries Here!”
CC Takeaway:
Humble not Arrogant CEO.
Walks with God and will be truthful.
Has the interest of the shareholders in mind.
Has declared publically to all shareholders that he is determined to complete the buyback of as many shares as possible.
The buybacks will be incremental and he will spin-off certain assets “if necessary” to make it happen.
They have the exclusive license to sell natural rough, finished and polished diamonds in Asia. They could start today but need to get the building built to go full speed ahead.
They have a press release about two major projects coming up in a few weeks.
The Vinafilm financials are in the works pending completion of an audit.
Company has been around since 2009, it’s not a startup.
Many activities including financial transactions delayed due to Covid.
My perspective:
How many Companies have the approval and the license to set up a Diamond Exchange. We are not talking about a liquor license. We are talking about a billion dollar Diamond exchange. They have overcome all obstacles and have the exclusive license and approval to do the ADE immediately. That’s Huuuuuuge!!!!!!!
Had he had the time to get the Vinafilms financials into the 10Q, I am convinced he would have. I think he was focusing on getting the companies financial reporting completed and current and did not want to interfere with that timeline waiting for the Vinafilm financials to be completed.
Don’t listen to the crying baby in the Church Service, listen to the sermon!
The chart now indicates a partial “W” bottom or could by noon be a full “”W” bottom which is a buy signal. A full “W” bottom is at the price of .01. A reversal can occur at either the partial “W” or full “W” bottom. The conference call will likely result in a share price increase by either end of the day today or end of day tomorrow. When it reverses, it will reach its first resistance value at .015. If it breaks that resistance, it will approach .0175 the second resistance. JMO!
Perhaps Henry will give a hint about the buyback in the AM. That would make for an interesting trading day! He can post anything he wants at any time now that the company is “Pink Current!”
So True! The other day they quickly erected a 19M share blocker on the ask to keep the share price from rising. We can expect more of the same over the course of the next few weeks. You can bet on it! If the news is great a Tsunami of buyers will bring those walls down. Let’s wait and see!
A share price of .05 or .10 by September is not outside the realm of possibilities. Now that PHIL is pink current the “mute button” on Henry no longer applies. We can expect some great news on Wednesday and regular PR’s on the companies progress.
Today we gap up to .015 and blow past .02 end of day. JMHO!
Pink Current is like a “Coming Out Celebration” or like a “Bar Mitzvah” for PHIL! Creates an opportunity for greater exposure to investors.
Great News for “PHI Group, the shareholders and future investors!
God Bless Henry for all his hard work!
The shorts are going to “take it in the shorts” tomorrow morning!
The bears were caught on Friday with their pants down. They expected a delay and were banking on PHIL to tank. Henry rained on their parade when he announced the filings would be released next week and that he would hold a conference call on Wednesday. I believe PHIL already received the financial review approval and the filing of the remaining Q’s will take place on Monday (JMO). After they are posted pink current will occur on Tuesday with the CC on Wednesday after the close. The conference call will confirm any and all doubts about the future trajectory of PHIL.
The shorts, after facing a 30% unexpected loss on Friday will try to turn this around on Monday by bashing the stock and provide a barrage of negative posts, so as to not incur greater losses.
The longs are in the driver’s seat. The shorts are worried. If this charges forward out of the gate they will have to buy rather than sell to cover Friday’s losses.
There will be a lot of buyers and a lot of sellers and some winners and a lot of losers. Those who have their shares can sit back and watch the fireworks knowing no matter what happens the share price will go up by the end of the day.
The battle of the buyers and sellers will commence at the open. Will be interesting to watch. Let the games begin!
PHIL reminds me of penny stock “TSNP” which went from .30. to $1.90 in one week in February of this year. It accomplished this on its product and strategy but with no earnings.
I believe PHIL has greater potential now based on the DD and anticipated revenues than TSNP in February when it’s share price went up over 600% in a weeks time.
A dime share price in a week is not out of the question.
I invested in TSNP last year and it has a great product, a great CEO and a great execution strategy, rode several hundred thousand shares from pennies to dollars. Just before the reverse split, I cashed out and bankrolled $230,000.00. Bought me a house and paid off all debts.
After I discovered PHIL, I bought a lot more shares. I saw an investment company that has a whole lot of irons in the fire. I found a company that has invested in some businesses that have been around for a long time we’re historically marginally profitable but are now banging on all eight cylinders, Vinafilms is a case in point. Others are huge capitalization firms with funds to spend, friendly government. Hanoi Times VN has a huge master plan for airports, roads, bridges, high speed rails, housing, theme parks resorts and more. PHIL will be a major player. Not to mention it other ventures, the going to establish the Asian Diamond Exchange (with free consultation from a prominent official in the Middle East) and the Lux fund and partnership with TECCO.
PHIL is not a typical penny stock with a plan, they have the plan, the network, the relationships, government backing and involvement and a CEO who lived there, fought there, loves the people and has the where with all to make it happen. He is also a Christian convert from Buddhism and an up front guy who has delivered on his promises on all the things over which he has control.
The Vietnamese people work hard and I know they will build a great country. Had a friend in a similar position who was in South Vietnam. After the war was imprisoned, escaped, took a boat to Thailand, immigrated to the US with only a dime in his pocket. He worked three jobs to realize the American Dream. His story is not unlike the story of Our CEO, Henry Fanham.
I am all in and believe this horse is ready to run. JMHO!
As Henry would say to his shareholders: God Bless You!
PCABO Audits:
1. What is a financial statement audit?
A financial statement audit is an examination, on a test basis, of evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in a company's financial statements and that such amounts and disclosures are accounted for in accordance with a generally accepted set of standards.
2. What is the purpose of an independent financial statement audit?
To provide financial statement users with reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that the financial statements prepared by management are fairly presented. This assurance is provided in the form of a written opinion report signed by the Certified Public Accounting firm.
3. Who is allowed to conduct a financial statement audit?
An independent audit must be conducted by a Certified Public Accountant (CPA). The CPA may have accounting staff perform audit procedures but the staff must be fully qualified and must be closely supervised by the CPA. In addition, an independent audit of a publicly-held company, or a company about to go public must be conducted by a CPA in a firm that is registered with the U.S. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB).
4. Are all PCAOB registered firms the same?
Not all firms are the same. Some firms are full service firms that do a little of everything and only a small amount of public company auditing. Other firms are niche firms that specialize in public company auditing. There are also differences in the quality of the work product generated by the firms.
5. How can I determine the quality level of the firm I select?
There are several ways to learn about a firm's quality. The first method of course is to ask your other advisors about the firm's reputation. Another method is to ask the CPA firm for a copy of their peer review report. A third and more direct method is to view the PCAOB firm's inspection report. PCAOB registered firms are required to undergo a vigorous inspection at least once every three years. The PCAOB inspects a sample of audits the firm has worked on and also inspects the firm's quality control systems. The PCAOB then produces a final inspection report which is available to the public on the PCAOB website.
6. How long does it take to complete an audit?
The time to start and complete an audit will vary with the size of the company and the quality of its internal bookkeeping, accounting and record keeping. In general if a company's records are in good order, the audit process should take anywhere from three to six weeks.
Henry’s expectation of a completion of the review should occur any time now. The timeliness of the report is just as important as the quality of the report!
Trusting What You Can’t See: Audit Oversight and the PCAOB
Posted by J. Robert Brown, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, on Friday, March 12, 2021
Commentprint this page Printemail this post E-Mail
Accountability, Accounting, Accounting standards, Audits, Bebchuk v. Electronic Arts, Disclosure, Enron, Sarbanes–Oxley Act
More from: J. Robert Brown, PCAOB
J. Robert Brown is a former Board Member of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. This post is based on his keynote speech given at “What Investors Need to Know about Audits,” CFA Society New York.
I thought about a number of possible topics for the discussion today.
I considered talking about the relationship between the SEC and the PCAOB. There’s also the role, if any, of the auditor in providing assurance on non-GAAP and ESG metrics and the possible role of the PCAOB in leading the discussion.
I think it would be interesting to talk about the use of academic research in driving the regulatory mission of the PCAOB, particularly insights gleaned from the non-public data that the PCAOB receives from audit firms. And then there’s the issue of audit firms in China.
But instead of those topics, I thought today I would talk about trust.
Audits are about trust. Trust in the audit raises investor and public confidence in the company’s financial disclosure. Confidence in the financial disclosure in turn drives the capital markets.
The PCAOB’s mission, to put it succinctly, is to ensure trust in the audit.
To do this, Congress expected the PCAOB to be independent of the audit profession—another topic for future discussion by the way—and to act in the interests of investors and the public. While Sarbanes-Oxley included a number of mechanisms designed to address independence, the investor protection part of the equation mostly fell to the PCAOB to implement.
So let’s step back and ask the question, has PCAOB oversight resulted in investor trust in the audit?
I think it’s fair to say that the PCAOB has improved the auditing process, at least when measured against conformity with PCAOB standards. PCAOB conduced inspections increased investor confidence.
Nonetheless, I wonder whether we can say that investors and the public truly trust the audit and the role of the auditor. As we watch failures like Wirecard and the debate taking place globally over audit quality, there are clear indications of concern from investors that they are not receiving the quality that they want and expect from auditors.
So what does the PCAOB need to do to address this problem of insufficient trust in the audit?
In a nutshell, the PCAOB must do more to ensure that the audit reflects the interests of investors and the public. That means better understanding investor concerns with financial disclosure and integrating those concerns into the standard setting and inspections process. This also means placing less emphasis on the importance of deficiencies in an audit as a primary indication of audit quality and more on the role of the audit in enhancing the reliability and comparability of financial disclosure.
So today I want to talk about the importance of trust, the consequences that occur when trust is not present, and the role of the PCAOB in helping to ensure investor trust in the audit process.
The Importance of Trust
Let’s start with why trust is so important.
Auditors are gatekeepers that look over the shoulders of management in connection with the preparation of the financial statements. The audit is designed to improve the reliability and quality of financial reporting.
What does this mean in actual practice?
Investors want financial statements that are complete and accurate. That won’t happen if the numbers don’t add up, if fraud has occurred, or if the financial statements fail to conform to GAAP.
But quality is more than that, much more than that.
Financial statements increasingly consist of estimates and valuations. These are areas of the financial disclosure process that are subject to judgment and prone to management bias. While the subjectivity associated with these determinations cannot be eliminated, an audit can ensure that they are undertaken in a comparable and reliable manner.
The quality of an audit though depends upon “an auditor’s competence, effort level, and independence,” Yet these elements are, for the most part, unseen by investors and the public. Nor can they be gleaned from the relevant auditing standards. Principles based, an approach designed at least in part to reduce litigation risk, standards are mostly guide posts, leaving the step actually taken up to the judgment and discretion of audit firms.
Notwithstanding this lack of transparency, investors and the public are nonetheless asked to trust that audits were adequately executed. And they are asked to do so despite structural concerns about an audit firm’s independence, objectivity and quality.
The method of compensating audit firms raises concerns about the adequacy of the audit.
As we all know, audit firms are paid by the client that they audit. The goal of maintaining the account and the resulting revenue stream can conflict with the obligation to exercise sufficient professional skepticism and result in in excessive deference to judgments made by management.
There is also the commercial nature of audit firms. Audit quality is a cost. Firms often, if not usually, have a difficult time competing on the basis of quality. As a result, investments in audit quality may not improve the bottom line. This can result in an approach that favors profitability over audit quality even in circumstances where it shouldn’t.
The audit profession during the era of self-regulation attempted to address some of these concerns. In order to promote investor trust in the audit, firms voluntarily agreed to subject themselves to peer review, to continuing professional education requirements, and to the implementation of a system of quality control that met applicable standards.
Self-regulation didn’t work. There was no meaningful role for investors, inadequate transparency, and insufficient accountability to the public. The system largely depended upon the profession’s willingness to act in “[e]nlightened self-interest”. And let’s be blunt, enlightened self-interest wasn’t enough to ensure sufficient audit quality.
When Enron and Worldcom occurred, trust did not disappear. It was not there to begin with.
Trust and the PCAOB
That PCAOB was expected to play a major role in returning trust to the audit.
Congress advanced this goal at the PCAOB in two ways. The new regulator was to be independent of the auditing profession. And the PCAOB was to exercise oversight in the interest of investors and the public.
To improve investor confidence, the PCAOB scaled up an inspection program. The focus was on whether audit firms met the relevant standards, with any significant deficiencies set out in a public inspection report. Audits likely improved, at least as measured against compliance with auditing standards. But the approach was at best a beginning and, standing alone, not sufficient to ensure trust in the audit.
(March 6, 2002) (“Despite a series of SEC cases and private litigation which revealed clearly substandard auditing work, no major firm appears to have been publicly sanctioned as a result of a peer review.”).
For one thing, measuring audit quality through compliance with standards did not set a sufficiently high bar. When opening its doors, the PCAOB adopted the existing standards written during the era of self-regulation.
They were the same standards in place when Enron and Worldcom collapsed after receiving clean audit opinions. They were the same standards written with inadequate investor input and criticized during the hearings on Sarbanes-Oxley. And while some of them were subsequently rewritten or amended, they mostly continued to reflect the “principles” based approach developed and favored by the audit profession.
For another, the focus on ensuring compliance with auditing standards was largely disconnected from the impact of the audit on the quality of the financial statements. In fact, inspection reports specifically disclaimed any such relationship and the reports failed to provide investors with perhaps the single most useful piece of information, the identity of the issuer where the deficiency was discovered.
The approach also created the potential incentive for firms to excessively focus on a reduction in deficiencies rather than improvements in financial disclosure. And this occurred as academic literature suggested that investors did not rely on the number of deficiencies as a means of assessing audit quality.
However, our results suggest that shareholders seem not to incorporate the inspection reports as an indicator of auditor quality in their decisions of auditor ratification.”). See also Lisa Milici Gaynor, et al., Understanding the Relation between Financial Reporting Quality and Audit Quality, 35 AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory 1–22. (2016) (“inspection deficiencies are rarely linked to misstatements, restatements, or even to incorrect audit opinions (e.g., issuance of an unqualified opinion when a material misstatement was present). Thus, though PCAOB-cited deficiencies provide some information about audit quality with respect to process, they rarely provide a measure with respect to outcome.”).
Ensuring Investor Trust in the Audit
More needs to be done by the PCAOB to ensure trust in the audit. Specifically, the views and goals of investors and the public must be better integrated into the oversight process. To do so, the PCAOB needs to take a number of affirmative steps.
Feedback Loop
The PCAOB cannot act in the interests of investors and the public if it doesn’t know what those interests are. There needs to be a well-developed feedback loop with investors that involves constant effort, constant interaction, and constant solicitation of views, with what is learned integrated into the oversight process. If anything, the PCAOB has in recent years gone in the opposite direction.
And in putting in place this feedback loop, the PCAOB has to ask the right questions. The conversation should not be limited to technical advice on standards or approaches. The feedback loop should be used to identify areas of concern by investors with financial disclosure and the role that the audit can play in addressing these concerns. These comments must then be integrated into the oversight process, including inspections and standard setting.
Standard Setting
With respect to auditing standards, let’s be frank. The existing set of standards do not collectively reflect the interests of investors and the public.
For investors to trust the audit, the standards need to better incorporate their views and expectations. This requires at least two broad changes.
Bringing Balance to Standard Writing
First, investors generally favor an approach to regulation that involves a mix of principles and prescriptive requirements. Prescriptive requirements establish a floor for an audit and allow investors to know that certain procedures will always be performed. Investors know that firms will observe inventory, a rare prescriptive requirement that emerged from financial scandals in the 1930s. This approach should also recognize the significant differences in firms with respect to size, resources and number of clients.
Implementation of this approach will of course generate criticisms that audits are becoming a checklist, with insufficient opportunity for professional judgment. Such a criticism, however, would be misplaced. Prescriptive requirements and principles are a balance. Right now the balance weighs almost entirely in one direction.
Audit Quality and Commercial Interests
Second, standards should more explicitly address the conflict between audit quality and commercial interests. In particular, this requires the use of governance mechanisms designed to ensure that the latter does not improperly influence the former. This is particularly true with respect to the systems of quality control implemented by audit firms. Any system of quality control that does not seek to structurally insulate audit quality from commercial interests will be susceptible to claims that commercial interests predominated and drove the decision making process, even when it shouldn’t have.
An area where this tension between commercial interests and audit quality likely exists is with respect to the use of technology in audits. Technology can qualitatively improve an audit. Full population testing, rather than sampling, is one area of significant promise.
But the standards do not require or even encourage this approach. Instead, the most that can be said is that they don’t “preclude” the use of technology. With the principles based approach in this area recently reaffirmed at the PCAOB, the matter has been left to the discretion of each firm. And while firms may have a commercial incentive to introduce technology that promotes efficiency and facilitates interaction with clients, they may not have the same incentive to develop and introduce technology designed to improve audit quality.
Inspections
With respect to inspections, this is the place where the PCAOB has made the biggest difference. But more needs to be done.
Inspections and Financial Disclosure
The focus of inspections needs to shift away from a primary emphasis on deficiencies to actual improvements in the quality of financial disclosure. In part this means inspecting audits of issuers that have a higher risk of fraud or GAAP violations and, in selecting areas of the audit to inspect, placing greater emphasis on areas of qualitative materiality.
It also means using inspections to more directly improve the quality of financial disclosure, particularly with respect to areas identified by investors as inadequate.
Academic research shows that the PCAOB has the ability to significantly alter audit firm behavior. When the PCAOB targets an area for inspection, audit firms react, a powerful tool for generating improvements to financial disclosure. The PCAOB could publicly identify for upcoming inspections areas of concern noted by investors in the financial statements. Audit firms would presumably devote greater effort to these areas.
Footnote disclosure comes to mind. Targeting particular footnotes might not result in a significant number of deficiencies given the vague nature of the disclosure requirements under GAAP. But it would focus firm attention on the areas, potentially generating improvements in the quality of the disclosure And if it didn’t, the results, when made public, could be used as a basis for amending the relevant accounting standards.
Inspections and Accounting Comparability
Improvement in financial disclosure also means a more explicit effort to use inspections to provide investors and the public with the information they need to trust what is in the financial statements. One place where this could occur is with respect to the comparability of financial disclosure.
Accounting standards are designed “to consistently measure and report an outcome across different companies. . .” Audit firms play a role in ensuring comparability.
In conducting an audit, firms review the reasonableness of assumptions used by management in making estimates and valuations. The omission of a significant assumption common to the industry could affect both reasonableness and comparability. The valuation of long term assets in the hydrocarbon industry may lose their comparability to the extent some companies consider the impact of climate change while others don’t. The PCAOB could use the inspections process to provide the public with insight into the degree of comparability in the financial statements and the role of the auditor in ensuring comparability.
Inspections and Management Bias
Finally, inspections should take into account more explicitly the potential bias that arises from the payment of audit fees by the client. This means targeting audits and areas of the audit that involve an elevated risk of excessive deference to management.
I can think of at least two circumstances where audits may be particularly prone to increased pressure from management.
One involves earnings releases. Companies often issue earnings releases before the audit of the annual financial statements has been completed. To the extent the audited numbers differ significantly and adversely from those in the earnings release, a company’s stock prices may decline and the tenure of management may be shortened. Management, therefore, has additional incentive to put pressure on audit firms to make sure this does not occur, potentially affecting the quality of the audit.
There is also a risk of excessive deference in connection with efforts to seek an increase in audit fees once the audit is underway. Although fees are commonly negotiated in advance, unexpected circumstances arising during an audit may result in a request for additional fees. Data from overseas suggests that this occurs frequently and that management may refuse to approve the increase. Engagement partners seeking approval of an increase presumably have an incentive to maintain a positive relationship with management, something that could result in excessive deference.
These are only a few examples of instances where audit firms likely have less incentive to challenge management and to exercise the necessary degree of professional skepticism. I’m sure there are plenty of others. They should be regular targets for the PCAOB inspection process.
Transparency
Finally, to repeat something that I have said numerous times before, independent oversight will not ensure trust in the audit absent adequate transparency. Without transparency there can’t be accountability.
Accountability is necessary because all regulators, sometime during their lifecycle, invariably go through periods where they lack the incentives to fulfill their statutory mission. But transparency is particularly important to the PCAOB. The most significant failure of the self-regulatory period was the lack of public insight into how oversight was actually exercised. This lack of transparency raised concerns that decisions were made in the interests of the profession rather than those of the public.
The same concern can arise with respect to the PCAOB.
While transparency is to some degree a balance, the PCAOB, in my view, does not have the balance right. Little is done today in a transparent manner. Unlike the early days of the PCAOB, public meetings are rarely held. Advisory groups, groups designed to explore issues of interest to investors and other stakeholders, don’t hold open meetings. Disclosure in inspection reports remains inadequate, particularly the non-disclosure of the public companies where the deficiencies were uncovered.
Indeed, transparency appears to be going in the wrong direction. This can be seen with respect to changes to the disclosure in enforcement settlements. In settling actions against auditors, the PCAOB traditionally revealed the identity of the company where the problem audit occurred, rare exceptions aside. That, however, changed in 2019. The issuer is today rarely disclosed, reducing the value of the information to investors and the public. The PCAOB took this step by fiat, without first seeking input from investors and the public.
And let’s be clear, this absence of transparency is selective and disproportionately affects the public.
Conclusion
So coming full circle, trust in the audit, in my view, remains an elusive, unmet goal.
Without change, there is an eventual risk of a return to the pre-Enron era when there was acquiescence by investors but not trust. To the extent that deficiencies are declining, as some recent public statements have suggested, this may well be reminiscent of the clean opinions given in the era of self-regulation. From a peer review perspective, everything looked good. Then there was Enron.
Perhaps some would say that the strengthened role of audit committees, another SOX innovation, addresses these concerns. While a topic for future discussion, suffice it to say that this is another area where investors are asked to trust without much transparency.
Ensuring investor trust in the audit can be accomplished without changing the statute. The basic tools are there. In addition, the PCAOB has a highly qualified and professional staff committed to the investor protection mission. So what’s missing? Investor pressure. The mission is designed to protect investors and the public and they must insist on a more investor oriented approach to audit oversight
PHIL shareholders:
PCAOB Audit is Required of all Emerging Growth Companies per Sarbanes Oxley. They generally take about three to six weeks depending on the condition of the accounting practices of the company being audited. I do not know when the process began and when the process will end. It appears Henry cannot predict the time it will take as his comment that it will occur in a few days does not appear to be accurate. I guess we will find out if the Q's will be filed today.
Tecco Group is not a small company. You need to check out the investment section of the Hanoi Times to see how many infrastructure projects are being planned including airports, bridges, roads, housing, etc.
Vietnamese Tecco Group Joins PHILUX Global Funds to launch Luxembourg-based infrastructure fund for Vietnam
August 10, 2020 14:00 ET | Source: PHI Group, Inc.
...
New York, Aug. 10, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- PHI Group, Inc. (www.phiglobal.com, PHIL), announced today that Vietnam-based Tecco Group (https://teccogroup.vn/) has signed an agreement with PHI Luxembourg Development SA, a subsidiary of PHI Group, to launch “PHILUX Infrastructure Fund,” the first-ever Luxembourg-based infrastructure fund for Vietnam.
As one of the fastest growing economies in ASEAN, Vietnam is currently demanding for more foreign financial investment and technical assistance to narrowing its infrastructure gap. According to the Global Infrastructure Outlook, Vietnam requires an investment of US$605 billion to meet 83 per cent of its infrastructure goals by 2040. Among the sectors that have been given utmost priorities are the urban transportation, road & rail and port infrastructure.
Currently, just 20 per cent of the country’s national roads are paved, and a recently approved plan to build Vietnam's North-South high-speed railway, which allows passengers to travel between capital Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City in about eight hours, will cost about 26 billion U.S. dollars.
The rising population in major cities in recent years has strained and exceeded capacity of the existing connectivity networks and utilities systems. With 50% of Vietnam’s population expected to be living in cities, Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh are building rapid transit systems exceeding US$22 billion in the hope of reducing private vehicle ownership and improving air quality.
Various expressway projects are planned and underway to improve connectivity within major cities. Similarly, development and upgrading of urban utilities infrastructure are announced and there are 44 planed PPP projects with total investment value worth up to US$ 120 billion in the road and power sectors.
PHILUX Global Funds SCA, SICAV-RAIF (www.philux.eu), is a Luxembourg-based bank fund with multiple sub-fund compartments for investment in real estate, infrastructure, renewable energy and healthcare as well as the proposed Chu Lai Multiple Commodities Center (CMCC) and the Asia Diamond Exchange (ADE) in the Chu Lai Open Economic Zone, in Quang Nam Province. This will be the first rough diamond exchange in Asia, comparable with diamond exchanges in Antwerp and Dubai.
Besides supporting transport infrastructure, Tecco Group expects to utilize the Luxembourg infrastructure fund for a number of port, industrial zone cluster, and airport projects together with modern technologies. Mr. Huyen Duc Vu, Vice Chairman of Tecco Group, commented: “ This is the first time Vietnam has the opportunity to access international capital for infrastructure development through a Luxembourg-based bank fund, which helps respond to the overall social development demand and at the same time elevate the competitiveness of the economy. Representing Tecco Group, I am extremely pleased to cooperate with PHILUX Infrastructure Fund to capitalize on huge potential of the infrastructure construction market in Vietnam.”
Mr. Vu added: “ The negative impact from the coronavirus pandemic has exerted a heightened pressure on the Vietnamese government in its efforts to maintain a positive growth economy, especially in the backdrop of decreasing ODA financings, failure or negative consequences of BT, BOT and PPP models, and bottlenecks in public finance funding; therefore, I strongly believe that the launching of an infrastructure fund for Vietnam at this time is very appropriate. I am confident that the cooperation between PHILUX and TECCO will bring about positive beacons for infrastructure investment projects in the near future.”
Henry Fahman, Chairman of PHILUX Global Funds SCA, SICAV-RAIF, stated: “We are delighted to cooperate with Tecco Group in launching the first-ever Luxembourg-based PHILUX Infrastructure Fund for Vietnam. We look forward to utilizing our combined experience and international networks to serve the needs of infrastructure development in Vietnam as well as create meaningful economic value for both companies, our shareholders and other stakeholders.”
About PHI Group, Inc.
PHI Group (www.phiglobal.com, PHIL), primarily focuses on mergers and acquisitions and invests in select industries and special situations that may substantially enhance shareholder value. In addition, the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, PHILUX Capital Advisors, Inc. (www.philuxcap.com) provides M&A consulting services and assists companies to go public and access international capital markets while also serving as the investment adviser to Luxembourg-based PHILUX Global Funds (www.philux.eu).
About Tecco Group
Established on December 17, 2001 with a charter capital of VND 2,000 billion (Two trillion VND), TECCO is a multidisciplinary business operating mainly in the fields of construction investment - housing real estate, resort real estate, quarrying, water exploitation, hydroelectricity and service chains. services such as: travel and tourism services, design consulting, construction, supermarket services, hotels, etc.
With 20 years of establishment and development, TECCO Group has 5 affiliated corporations, 36 member units, joint ventures, and has been implementing more than 60 projects across 18 provinces and cities nationwide, from Lao Cai in the North to Kien Giang in the South of Vietnam. The Group is operated by a team of managers including Ph.D.’s, Masters, engineers, and well-trained, professional and experienced staff with modern specialized equipment. TECCO has been investing in many large-scale, high-quality projects all over Vietnam. Website: (https://teccogroup.vn/)
Vinafilms Revenues and Earnings dated 2017. This is before the expansion of the new equipment and long before the current earnings in 2020 and 2021, so go figure!
PHI Group Closes Acquisition of Vinafilms JSC
October 10, 2018 11:09 ET | Source: PHI Group, Inc.
...
Generated $25M in revenue and $765,000 EBIDTA in 2017
New York, Oct. 10, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- PHI Group, Inc. (www.phiglobal.com) (OTCQB: PHIL), a U.S. diversified holding company focused on mergers and acquisitions and investments in select industries and special situations, today announced that the Company has closed the acquisition of 51% of Vinafilms Joint Stock Company (www.vinafilms.com.vn) effective September 28, 2018.
According to the Stock Swap Agreement dated September 20, 2018 between the Company and Vinafilms’ majority shareholder, PHI Group issued 50 million shares of its Class A Series III Preferred Stock in exchange for 51% of Vinafilms JSC.
Vinafilms has been in business for more than 13 years and provides a variety of plastic film products, including PE film macromolecules, PE films, polyester and polyprolylene films, metalized films, etc. for use in construction, food packaging, textile products, pharmaceuticals, and many other goods. These films include many types of coatings, such as silicone, adhesive, pre-mask, corona, print treatments, and others for labels, printing, and flexible packaging purposes. Vinafilms’ customers include many reputable and loyal Vietnamese and international companies such as Saigon Plastic Packaging Co., KyVy, Huhtamaki, I.S., Vinamilk (https://www.vinamilk.com.vn/en), Tribeco (http://tribeco.com.vn/en/), Trieu Chen Co. Ltd., Friesland Campina, Tong Yuan Packaging Co., and PepsiCo (https://suntorypepsico.vn/).
In accordance with Vinafilms’ domestically audited annual report containing financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2017, it generated $25 million in revenues and $765,000 in EBITDA in 2017. It has recently installed a German state-of-the-art plastic film processing system and will add two more of these to meet the growing domestic and international demand for its products. Vinafilms also plans to enter a joint venture with a leading Vietnamese plastic bag manufacturing company with an aim to bring combined revenues to over $150 million per year by the end of 2019. PHI Group’s management believes the acquisition of Vinafilms, subject to the Company’s meeting compliance standards, should enable PHIL to qualify for an uplist to the Nasdaq Stock Market in the very near future.
PHI Group’s wholly owned subsidiary American Pacific Plastics, Inc. will hold the 51% interest in Vinafilms and plans to file a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission for it to become a separate, fully reporting, publicly traded entity to serve as a platform to facilitate financing Vinafilms’ growth and accelerate its rollup strategy. PHI Group has engaged Grant Thornton Vietnam Ltd. (www.grantthornton.com.vn.) to conduct an independent valuation to determine the fair-market value of Vinafilms JSC.
Henry Fahman, Chairman and CEO of PHI Group, stated: “We are pleased to have closed this transaction and believe that the consolidated operating results from this acquisition should add significant value to both companies going forward, including the potential of uplisting to a senior exchange.”
Ms. Do Thi Nghieu, chairperson and majority shareholder of Vinafilms JSC, said: “We look forward to being able to use the U.S. public company platform to access international capital markets to finance both organic growth and potential accretive acquisitions for Vinafilms in the near future.”
About PHI Group, Inc.
PHI Group (www.phiglobal.com) primarily focuses on mergers and acquisitions and invests in select industries and special situations that may substantially enhance shareholder value. In addition, the Company’s wholly owned subsidiary, PHI Capital Holdings, Inc. (www.phicapitalholdings.com) provides M&A consulting services and assists companies to go public and access international capital markets. We have also been working diligently to launch a Luxembourg Reserved Alternative Investment Fund (RAIF) plus several sub-funds and developing an Asia Diamond Exchange in Vietnam together with international partners.
Bought 350,000 shares today at .11. I should have waited, could have got same amount at .01. Tomorrow I will buy another 250,000 more shares but will wait to see the share price action between 9:30 AM and 11:00 AM. Glad to still have an entry tomorrow to round out my holdings. $$$PHIL$$$!. Plan to sit tight for the rest of week til the News drops!
Luxembourg Fund alive and well PHIL$$$
Expecting the stock to trickle up in the PM as we near the close in anticipation of the anxiously awaited very good news! JMHO!
via NewMediaWire - B2Digital, Incorporated (the "Company" or "B2Digital") (OTCMKTS:BTDG), the premier development league for mixed martial arts ("MMA"), is excited to announce that the B2 Fighting Series is ready to rock the Kokomo Event & Conference Center in Kokomo, Indiana, this Saturday, July 17, with a huge night of pulse-pounding LIVE MMA action in front of a capacity crowd.
What: Coliseum Combat 54, Amateur and Professional LIVE MMA
Where: Kokomo Event & Conference Center, Kokomo, Indiana
When: Saturday, July 17. Doors open at 6 pm ET. PPV Broadcast starts at 7 pm ET.
In-person tickets for the event have nearly sold out, but interested fans can stream it live on Pay-Per-View here, or enjoy it live over the B2 Fighting Series apps on Amazon Fire TV or Apple TV.
"We can't wait to get back to Kokomo, and this time, it will be in front of a packed house for the first time since the start of the pandemic," noted Greg P. Bell, Chairman & CEO of B2Digital. "Right now, B2 is riding a string of record-setting events, which will likely continue in Indiana this weekend, especially since we won't have to cap the gate at half size to maintain social distancing standards. The joint will be rockin', and fans should expect to see that energy translate directly into fireworks in the cage."
The Company set new all-time records for total revenues and profits first at B2 Fighting Series 124 (Trussville, AL, June 19), with approximately $36K coming in through Gate and PPV ticket sales, and then at B2 Fighting Series 125 (Dayton, OH, June 26), with more than $40K coming in through Gate and PPV ticket sales.
Then, in its inaugural event in a new market (Columbus, GA, July 10), the Company saw over $22K in total Gate and PPV ticket sales - a new Company record for a first-time event in a new city, which is historically a category of event that generates, on average, between $10-12K in total ticket sales. Management believes seeing a 100% premium to that historical average in Columbus is a very encouraging marker about the ongoing growth of the B2 Fighting Series brand.
Brandon 'Hardrock' Higdon, B2's Matchmaker, commented on the most recent two events: "Crowds in Dayton and Columbus were treated to some tremendous MMA action. The Main event between Jeremy Pender and Terry Lemaire was on pace to be a 5-round war until Pender landed a punch that put Canada's Lemaire to sleep. Great action from both guys. In Columbus, Georgia Kenneth Crowder, Peter New, and Perry Stargel climbed the pro ranks with key victories. We can't wait to visit each town again."
They get about 30K per event (MMA +PPV) with about 8 events scheduled per quarter. That amounts to an annual revenue of about $1M. Not bad for a sub-penny stock.
That does not include the revenues from their gyms.
News Out! BTDG has an MMA event in Kokomo on July 17th! Tickets are sold out but the event can be watched on pay per view! Expecting revenue from ticket sales and PPV to top $22K.
105 Million Shares Traded in first thirty minutes. WOW!
I picked up 300K yesterday as well just before noon, but made the mistake of using a portion of my funds on some others that did not move. Happy I got what I did in the high 8’s and low 9’s! I have no intention of selling any til this hits a dollar!
Look at the size of the buys at the EOD on Friday. Going “Bonkers” at the open. “Hang onto your hats!”
PHIL will experience a “Pheeding Phrenzy” at the open on Monday as many limited shares get gobbled up!
Last chance to get shares near a penny. Watch & See!
Congratulations to all the holders with steel balls!
That’s the lowest share price PHIL should have reached. Should actually be trading around .015 awaiting news. JMO!
If you look at the six month chart and draw a line from the low to the recent peak high, then draw a line from the low to the recent low. Then draw a bisecting line between the two it shows a stock price of .015 and that’s where the share price should be .015. JMHO!
The fundamentals of this stock have not changed so cannot understand why the weak hands are letting go of their shares. Pure foolishness!
The share price is not worth less than a penny and any buyer purchasing shares of PHIL at its current price of .008 is getting the shares at a 20% discount. I bought 700K at .009 two days ago and at least got me a 10% discount.
I see deliberate MM manipulation going on to shake down the weak hands. Yesterday saw 23 Million on the ask to prevent the share price from moving up. This stock is being held back and will rocket up once the news breaks or when shareholders finally realize what a GEM this stock is.
This stock will trade at .50 by EOY after all the news breaks. JMHO!
Something to consider! That doesn’t imply the buyback has happened or is happening. It would just be an announcement of the buyback.
The dividend payout in the Gold Mining Operations, American Pacific Resources, may become a Godsend for many PHIL shareholders. With American debt rising, gold prices will likely rise significantly and there will be a renewed interest in gold. We will see another “gold rush” and those holding gold mining stocks will likely benefit. Something worth thinking about. JMHO!
TWANF is up almost 9% on the day. NOKPF will follow. Watch and See!
$230K is the cost of the 230. Employees payrolls for the entire year. Not bad for a single order!
Warning To Weak Hands!
Don’t fall for this morning’s head fake at the open!
And after one year under SEC Rule, those holding the restricted shares can only sell 1% of their shares in a three month period. That’s a fact and there’s a lot of buzz about it on Stocktwits. GGII shares: Hold Em! Don’t Fold EM!
This stock is a keeper, JMHO! My long term projection, $10.00 or more. Thai government is invested in this airlines and doesn’t need to see its shares become worthless. This stock will be restructured, reduce staff, curb some flights, operate freight aircraft, will likely get a government bailout, will have payments to debtors suspended, The government has agreed to drop its majority interest in the airlines so it can operate more like a for profit corporate entity. For someone investing 20 cents today and getting 50,000 shares and putting it in a locked account, I think they will be able to cash out in ten years and pay off their home mortgage. To me, after the May 28th deal and government plan, I will decide whether to lock up the shares or cash out. Between now and then I will be adding. May see a spike to $1.00 once the government shows its cards. Not your typical penny stock!