News Focus
News Focus
icon url

BiotechValues

12/23/09 2:22 PM

#19028 RE: tradinghawk1 #19017

tradinghawk1

There's a long story on why SIAF hasn't been on the OTC yet- and it's not the fault of the company directly. SIAF management were screwed big time by their former IR guy/promoter.

Chad will probably fill you in on more details.

icon url

chrich12

12/23/09 2:29 PM

#19030 RE: tradinghawk1 #19017

My take is that they are still a very young, yet diversified company. Time will tell if they can execute on the multiple initiatives, or if they will focus on a specific portion of the business in the future. In any event, there appears to be enormous opportunity for growth, but it will probably take a good while, probably years (hopefully of steady double digit growth). I basically took a flier on them after successes in YONG and CMFO,and the general belief that food security is a major initiative in China. Just my 2 cents.
icon url

Traderfan

12/23/09 2:29 PM

#19032 RE: tradinghawk1 #19017

Tradinghawk, regarding SIAF

I somehow agree with you about SIAF. It's still a pinkie and it's not really cheap based on 2009 EPS. They project 20 cents for 2010 or at least Chad projects that and he does know the company pretty well. So one could argue it's not expensive on a forward looking PE especially if it becomes an OTC BB stock in the first 2 quarters.

On the other hand let me tell you my guess why the stock is running now.

Since they announced the divi the stock is on the run. In the first few days I was wondering myself why the stock didn't immediately act to the really good news. Somehow it often takes a couple of days for the big guys to react to really good news, I see this quite often on different stocks.

If a pink promises a divi it becomes a different animal. The shorts in there (if there have been any) need to cover as soon as possible and some probably did the last few days.

Like Chad already said they have some good JV's and people get more convinced by the day that they will really uplist come 2010. They have nice potential for growth the next 3 years.

If they do 20 cents for next year then you have a 50% net income growth yoy and that is not bad.

People anticipate good guidance for 2010 in the CC and therefore it's kinda running up prior to the CC now.

That's my "guesses" why SIAF was so strong lately. FWIW
icon url

CSykes

12/23/09 2:44 PM

#19036 RE: tradinghawk1 #19017

SIAF.. the scoop..

There are a number of reasons why the company is not on the OTCBB, none of which were the Company's making.

First, Belmont Partners put them into a "piggy back" shell. It is not really a pinksheet per say, it was a mineral rights company formed in the 70's that traded on the Spokane OTC (which eventually merged into the "pinksheets") Basically it wass kind of like a shelf company with a ticker and free trading stock.

Belmont provided the auditor and transfer agent to bring the company current and utilize its "piggy back" status to obtain quotation on the OTCBB.

If a security is delisted from The New York Stock Exchange or from the American Stock Exchange, then the usual Form 211 filing and review process will apply. However, some exchange-listed securities are already quoted in the Pink Quote system on an unpriced basis. This provides the market maker with an exemption to filing a Form 211 in the event the security is delisted from the Exchange. In this case, any market maker that had been quoting the security in the Pink Quote system for the 30 days prior to delisting could continue to make a market in the Pink Quote system upon delisting. The security generally becomes "piggy-back qualified" the same day it is delisted and any other market maker can then publish quotes in the Pink Quote system without first submitting a Form 211 to FINRA. To find out if an Exchange-listed security is being quoted on the Pink Quote system concurrently, please call Pink OTC Markets' Issuer Services Department at 212-896-4420 or email us at issuerservices@pinkotc.com.

The auditor ultimately is where the delay came about. IMHO (and I have complained to the CEO as such) The current auditor was simply not up to task to handle the needs of SIAF. They are simply to small and do not have the resources to handle a Chinese company.

The biggest delay was caused by the valuation of the Land bank. In China, they recently discontinued the practice of valuing land at a set price across the country. They determined that some areas were in fact worth more and moved towards a provincial valuation system. Because the auditor is not large enough, or has the proper experience, they refused to take into account this new valuation model and instead relied on a more basic form of valuation provided by GAAP. In other words they were lazy.

This killed over $0.30 of book value over what the China affiliates were showing. Like any good CEO.. he fought with the auditor over this valuation.

After much expense and effort, the company finally caved into the auditor and book was reduced from around $1.30 to the audited $.89 in 2007. You will see this reduction on the audit as a "impairment loss on goodwill", $6.8M worth in 2007 and $19.6M in 2006.

That was a substantial chunk out of both the assets and earnings because the impairment affected EPS as well.

I hope this clears some things up. The 2006-2007 audit is very informative. I fortunately have a sister in law who just happens to be a SOX/PCAOB auditor so I have learned how to pick apart financials quite well.. and it can be a very huge edge when conducting DD.. as was the case with SIAF..