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.
Fact is that people have insinuated that SIAF has breached the terms which would lead to a default of the loans for a long time, but fact remains that SIAF has continued to issue collateral to the lenders all the time. The lender can not greet the collateral if the loan is defaulted, so the loan must be alive.
It's the market that moves the shares. If the sellingprice on Merkur is higher on Merkur, it makes sense to buy shares on OTC then sell them on Merkur. During 2017 the share price has almost constantly been higher on Merkur, therefor tones of shares has been moved from OTC to Merkur.
What is very unusual right now is that the shareprice on merkur is still higher on Merkur compared to OTC, but the number of shares registered at Merkur is decreasing, this can't be explained by normal market forces.
Makes no sense that the Lenders who are active market makers on OTC would register their shares on VPS after they are issued.
It’s not impossible that Incentive or some one else has sold shares...
4 million shares moved from OTC to Merkur last year, that’s about 20k every day on average...
The shares on Merkur is more expensive than OTC, so it’s not normal arbitrage, that’s for sure.
Now don’t sell your shares to these criminals!!! Hold tight or buy.
Covering has started
Do you have an update of the shares on Merkur?
Anyone holding more then 10% of the shares in a company is considered to be an insider.
http://app.quotemedia.com/data/downloadFiling?webmasterId=101533&ref=11963332&type=HTML&symbol=0001488419&companyName=Sino+Agro+Food%2C+Inc.&formType=SC+13G%2FA&dateFiled=2018-01-02&cik=0001488419
I don’t think anyone is surprised that he filed, but I’m quite sure that everyone except you is surprised that he now owns 5,1 million shares, or twice as many as Solomon him self.
But that does not mean that the shares previously reported in Rochdales name is now reported in Garrets name. He is just saying that the shares reported in Rochdales belongs to him somehow. But it could very well be that he has transferred the Rochdale shares to his name now.
How do you know?
Agree.
But even the slightest possibility that they must buy back like 7-8 million shares on the open market is kind of thrilling.
As of today insiders is holding 8,5 million shares (if Rochdales shares are not accounted for, 9,7 millions including them).
I haven't calculated, they must have issued more shares to the lenders so it's hard to say. Now if the lenders must buy these shares back, they have a serious problem.
Garret is putting some serious money in to this, so he must have done his homework. He has the assets to get help to do his homework as well. He must have invested much more than $10 millions in this company now, that is allot of money even for someone that is very wealthy.
And now we know why the share has not dropped on high volume days but only on low volume days. Garret created the high volume days
Found it now. 10 days after the trade he should file.
http://www.newsfilecorp.com/filing/edgar/schedule13g_vs_schedule13d.php
But I don't care, happy he bought, I know these share is not going back in to the float.
He is (still?) considered a passive investor, don't think he is required to report every transaction separately.
I wonder if this new filing includes the shares held by City National Rochdale?
person or a company who trades to increase the volume
I have no timeframe for any loan.
I have not heard anything about the ECAB bond for a long time until you started to talk about it. Solomon mentioned in the meeting in Stockholm that the "banks" did not like that SIAF has a high interest loan on the balance sheet, so he wanted to renegotiate the loan. I don't know how much you know about the relationship between Solomon, ECAB, the bondholders and the bondholder representative? From the rumors I have heard I would be very surprised if any renegotiated deal would lead to a bigger loan, I'm expecting it to be smaller.
I have been in contact with the company on a regular basis ever since I started my OTC share count. It has been a very slow progress. Solomon now agrees that collateral shares must be in the float. Loan 1 and 2 is given out by 4 individuals, all 4 are active market makers. Solomon thinks that the largest part of the collateral shares in the float is sold from Loan 1 and 2 since they are active market makers. He also expect that the Chinese partner has sold some shares to hedge his position. Solomon mentioned that he thought that 2,5 million collateral shares could be in the float, I think it's more.
Solomon still says that all collateral shares must be returned when they repay the loan. Considering that the company has been topping up with collateral share, it's very unlikely that the loans are defaulted. They actually paid back 2,5 million on one loan not too long ago, but it was not enough to lower the collateral requirement.
And what has been said here already, they are looking for alternative financing to repay the collateral shares loans premature with new conventional loans.
Now I will speculate some. I think it's possible that these 4 market makers don't know what the others are doing with their collateral shares. It is possible that they have been over comfortable bleeding (throwing) out collateral shares in to the float thinking that the float is much bigger than it is. With collateral shares on the market the float appears to be bigger than it is, so they might think it's easier to buy them back then it will be.
The company is also speculating based on some statistics that low volume trading days on OTC is depressing the shareprice. Or I would say that the company is blaming the low shareprice of low volume on OTC and is considering to hire a table to increase the volume. I think its nonsense unless they are looking to start a buyback program, then it would make sense to increase the volume.
We all know that the low shareprice is a result of slow progress, missed timetables and constant pressure of collateral shares, it has nothing to do with trading volumes and I did let them know my point of view as well.
And now the filing is gone in ICRIS... strange
Because he is registered as an insider through his holdings in ECAB. But I would not be surprised if he skip to report considering the rumors about his past.
I know the exact float on Merkur, It's about 13,5 million shares. When I say short, I mean the shares that the lenders has sold that has to be bought back from the open market, same effect as being short. If I subtract all the reported insider holdings to SEC from what is left on OTC, there is about 0,5m shares left in the float + the shares the lenders has sold, I have this confirmed by the company now.
That is not too far from what might happen.
Never heard a the shareholder change the dividend that the BOD decides. If that is the case the BOD must be changed. But as I said, in this case it does not matter since the BOD and the shareholder vote is the same body.
It's correct, it's the board of directors is determines whether dividends should be paid to shareholders.
Simple explanation here -
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/decides-pay-dividends-corporation-3973.html
But is SIAF case it would not matter since it's the BOD who has the majority voting power as well.
I think you will have too look at changes in "CONSTRUCTION IN PROGRESS" and changes in "PLANT AND EQUIPMENT". Most of it is seeds, guess that goes under non-current assets held for sale.
In my opinion, capex is as halted as it can be.
But I rather see them start to sell assets that is not what the shareholders considered to be of interest. I guess that would be any type of farming activity that is not related to aquaculture. Trading will always be profitable, I don't mind that business segment.
JFD has no debt to SIAF.
Sorry, what is your question?
Do you want details on where the investments went?
Well, eventually maybe. But I'm not sure if people here realize the difficulties of transferring money out from Chinese companies. I'm quite sure that SIAF will have Triway engaged in some trading business in order to get cash out from JFD.
Same period last year was $58m, so the decrease is significant and you will never be able to go to zero capex in any business, especially business that is under construction, there is always some obligations.
That was a credit line for JFD, the Chinese subsidiary of Triway. There is no way that that money would seek it's way to SIAF.
The plan is to get proper financing.
Which loan are you referring to?
There is no such "rule"
Yes it for sure did