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.
After your explanation of "unofficial" settling before Oct. 5th, I think I tracked the correct numbers and figured it out. Thanks!
I've understood CA receivables (according to q3 report, pg 18) was in any case meant to settled by Tri-way shares and/or cash. I've not read SIAF have any other deposits made to proceed with 12,7% Tri-way acquisition?
If 75% of the CA receivables is now settled, 25% is still unsettled, right? Around 10 million or so. So could you explain how SIAF ends up paying extra 30,5 million? I need a walking stick...
I have a hunch SIAF ended up to inject cash to Tri-way in part of the acquisition of Tri-way's 12,7% share. That explains why 25% of CA receivables was left unpaid and not converted to Tri-way shares.
Yes, somehow I feel the presentation's target is not only the shareholders, but probably other stakeholders as well. Less than 10 pages is enough to demonstrate how Tri-way currently works and negate the allegations. It's overdone for the purpose, and I'm happy to say that.
My educated guess is that part of the material is from the presentation package prepared to the banks. Or from a prospectus.
No, I don't think so. Word "IPO qualification" was the pair of words. I found the quote - but I admit, it was Solomon, not Tony:
'He added: "Because we are in the process of IPO qualification it has been advised for us not to have exact figures published at this time."'
Not saying it's an excuse not to release any PR.
Source:
https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2017/11/17/two-years-late-no-shrimp-harvested-yet-at-sino-agros-megafarm/
I wonder how much the ongoing IPO qualification of Tri-way slows down responding? I recall Ostrowski mentioned IPO qualification as a one reason not to publish exact information. It was one of those Undercurrent articles.
I've understood during IPO candidate period communication should be limited and any forecasts regarding potential growth should be avoided. How difficult is to form a credible response which doesn't include numbers of forecasts?
I'm no expert of IPO issues and not enjoying silence, though.
At least he has a guy who should know a thing or two of prawns and shrimps. "Cactii logic" applied, he'd still try to culture shrimps without water :)
For me the article I linked is convincing. They understand - or at least Mr. Ostrowski understands - the challenges.
Sure, R&D alone doesn't guarantee results, but it's the only way to get sustainable long term results. Building megafarms without shrimp related IP can't have a good edge in competition.
Therefore product certificates and breeding programs are important. As China progresses more and more to a knowledge intensive phase, it's easier to get aids and support from government to R&D initiatives.
I'm sorry if this Undercurrent article has been linked before, but it's worth reading:
https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2017/09/28/expert-china-should-look-to-replicate-indias-pedigree-shrimp-breeding-program/
"China should look to replicate India's successful pedigree shrimp breeding program rather than rely on imported shrimp broodstock, if it wants to reverse stagnating shrimp production, according to Anthony Ostrowski, chief scientific officer at Sino Agro Foods.
Ostrowski, who is based at Sino Agro's shrimp farm in Zhongshan, China, told Undercurrent News that for a country of China's size and shrimp production it is "amazing" that China doesn't already have a pedigree shrimp broodstock program, and instead must rely on imports."
In other words: "government, give us some money and we'll make China in level with India".
Lack of boiler was IMO already communicated before Undercurrent's articles.
"Conclusion
To achieve these objectives, plans at AF4 are now being made to improve the quality of source water, construct a temporary microbiology and pathology lab, and hiring of specialized staff. All is targeted to be in place by the end of the summer.
Plans are also being made to build the boiler system needed to run APRAS tanks during the winter. This represents an important step towards advancing the science and agenda of sustainable aquaculture production for SIAF/Tri-way."
http://sinoagrofood.com/content/traceability-progress
No, the one they pulled out (according to the article) from a conference called "Giant Prawn 2017". It was in March in Thailand. I checked the topics and sure, they were interesting and SIAF should've been there as a speaker.
Not sure if Mr. Ostrowski had a suitable paper to fit for the event 8 months ago. The article by Undercurrent had a "read between lines" innuendo SIAF daren't to show up. It's possible Ostrowski's article to be presented wasn't ready.
Btw, couple of presentations in Thailand dealt with all female prawns culture. It seems to get traction.
That's true - not only Undercurrent "revealed" those, but Ostrowski has explained the same difficulties before.
"Rosenbergii is notorious for its great size differences during growout, so we’re size grading and working with only the large animals ... much bigger and with much less mortality than can be achieved in pond culture because of the grading and reduction in cannibalism and agonistic behaviors among males."
Shrimp news / 2016
https://www.shrimpnews.com/FreeReportsFolder/FarmReportsFolder/SinoAgroFoodsMegaPrawnFarm.html
Mr. Ostrowski gave presentations in two conferences couple of weeks ago. According to SIAF, presentations of those conferences will be available "late November". Cadre of negative articles were published after those conferences were held. Anyway, interesting to hear if he mentions the difficulties media's been speculating of.
Source:
http://www.sinoagrofood.com/science/conferences/fall-2017-conferences
Any capable journalist is able to cut&paste interviewee's comments to support author's view. I can recognise such a smell in the article. I don't know which degree the author has, but one golden rule of journalism is you have to give a fair chance to respond on accusations. He failed to do so.
What's the reason for such a behaviour is a different story. Maybe the bashing stories just get more clicks and the author has an incentive to get as many as possible to pay his bills. It's not an easy task to earn one's living as a journalist.
Sure, timing of sudden interest raises eyebrows...
Having done some editorial jobs, the author made a poor article. Maybe not intentionally biased, but articles such as this are getting more and more mainstream.
For example, no reason is given why the article was published instead of waiting comments from Sino Agro. I can find no "breaking news" justifying an imminent release. The author should at least have disclosed how long he waited for an answer from PR.
Even the accusations are subtle, the article does cite only one interviewee. The one with a potential conflict of interest. At minimum, professional author should point out these issues for readers.
Edit: As I re-read the article, interviewee doesn't seem to personally "attack" Sino Agro. The author draws a conclusion (or hints) that Megafarm is in trouble.
Check note 16B, analysis of other payables:
"During Q3 2017 we redeemed $0 of Promissory Notes for advances granted by third parties in fiscal year 2017 by the issuance of shares leaving a balance of $14,492,221 of Promissory Notes still due and outstanding as of September 30, 2017."
14,5M notes seems to be classified as an advance, not a debt. Couldn't find information for what is this advance for.
Answers Marius Gaard got from Dan in CC of q4/2016 show selling the collateral shares is possible. Dan couldn't claim it's impossible. Therefore the shares are just ordinary shares.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4061173-sino-agro-foods-siaf-solomon-lee-q4-2016-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single
I assume there's no third party holding the collateral shares. Lender holds the collateral and it made selling the shares possible. IMHO, if there'd been a middleman holding the collateral, this mess wouldn't have happened.
Answers Marius Gaard got from Dan in CC of q4/2016 show selling the collateral shares is possible. Dan couldn't claim it's impossible. Therefore the shares are just ordinary shares. (If dividends are paid during loans' maturity, they'll be returned to SIAF.)
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4061173-sino-agro-foods-siaf-solomon-lee-q4-2016-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single
I assume there's no third party holding the collateral shares. Lender holds the collateral and it made selling the shares possible. IMHO, if there'd been a middleman holding the collateral, this mess wouldn't have happened.
"Such a plan or initiation of a corporate dividend would be implemented as soon as practical, well before ongoing COSO initiatives realize an IPO."
I wish PR would have included an addition "but no later than Qx/2018".
The key is how "well before" is defined. A year? And which IPO? We already know Tri-way won't be listed soon. SJAP IPO - not happening soon either. Hinted CA IPO is the fastest IPO candidate, but as we know, without several new projects it's dead as dodo in IPO sense.
Until a timeframe is defined clearer, Mr Market has all the rights to have a reserved approach.
Well, I wouldn't call it a big mistake. People tend to make hasty conclusions from few words. I appreciate your efforts as an activist investor.
Btw, if no-one noticed yet(?), Tri-way.hk is online again with a new layout. No new information, just copy-paste from SIAF site. Information should be rewrote, SIAF background left behind and more emphasis on current business idea. Yes, it's not ready, but why publish half-baked stuff already?