本版告示: 投資涉及風險,包括損失本金。閣下不應僅依賴本論壇資料而作出任何投資決定。投資者應該參閱相關產品的章程以獲得更多細節,包括產品特色和風險因素。投資者考慮是否適合投資任何投資產品時,敬請考慮本身之投資目標及情況。
普通會員
炮哥
rbenabled
avatar
218.250.192.86
金錢: 837.40
帖數: 429
GP: 0
LV: 21
交易所:

康健系大大大懶人包(相關:醫生、粉哥) 人氣: 7291 回覆: 75


直屬:

48, 205, 243, 397, 566, 681, 802, 911, 986, 1019, 1027, 1046, 1063, 1082, 1126, 1225, 1327, 1380, 2324, 3886, 6108, 8006, 8018, 8019, 8021, 8037, 8061, 8081, 8086, 8087, 8100, 8120, 8180, 8193, 8195, 8250, 8255, 8260, 8326


經手,但實際控制另有其人:

80, 136, 628, 630, 736, 766, 813, 1106, 1226,

疑似個案:

228, 479, 648, 653, 745, 904, 1035, 1039, 1046, 1217, 1246, 1355, 1808, 1980, 2379, 2728, 3322, 8116, 8122, 8153, 8181, 8212, 8218, 8222, 8266, 8315, 8356
kiss7888 : 加賴kiss7888 奶水人妻泰洗處女敢玩3P雙飛無套全場3K起【有圖】http://kiss7888.blogspot.com/ (5月17日)
普通會員
炮哥
rbenabled
avatar
218.250.192.86
金錢: 837.40
帖數: 429
GP: 0
LV: 21
交易所:
個市咁好,但係三四線股全部唔升! 啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊!!!!!
此廣告由陳啦毛所買。想在這裡下廣告嗎? 請按我
一定有遺漏,兼分類有機會錯,連同原因遲點補上

這系真的比想像中還要大得多

在這股市氣氛下,這些股小心為上,像今天便最少爆了911、1082及1380
普通會員
greatsoup38
rbenabled
avatar
183.178.164.120
金錢: 149201.15
帖數: 166081
GP: 3287
LV: 408
交易所:
仲有1979,他一見到我地寫,他地又轉倉
普通會員
greatsoup38
rbenabled
avatar
183.178.164.120
金錢: 149201.15
帖數: 166081
GP: 3287
LV: 408
交易所:
http://webb-site.com/articles/CAID.asp
CAID (0048) gains from umbrella bubble
10th October 2015 (update 27-Oct-2015)

In our article Bubbles and Troubles in Hong Kong (24-Sep-2015) we noted that there were huge unrealised investment gains in the interim results of China Automotive Interior Decoration Holdings Ltd (CAID, 0048) for the 6 months to 30-Jun-2015 and that it had failed to disclose what these investments were, claiming:

"At 30 June 2015, there was no significant investment held by the Group"

Webb-site filed complaints with SEHK (under the Listing Rules) and the SFC (under the Securities and Futures Ordinance, that this was a false and misleading statement). Last night, CAID made an announcement, noting that "errors have been found" in this binary statement. So it was false. CAID now discloses 3 investments. The largest by far is about 227.3m shares (1.52%) of umbrella-maker China Jicheng Holdings Ltd (CJ, 1027). As we noted in the article, this stock is in a huge bubble. CAID says these shares were purchased for about RMB 7.9m (HK$9.9m) which implies that they were allocated in the IPO at HK$0.044 (split-adjusted).

At 30-Jun-2015, CAID's shares in CJ were valued at RMB 371.2m, or 48.7% of CAID's net tangible assets of RMB 761.9m. The other 2 holdings disclosed yesterday were 0.7% of Suncorp Technologies Ltd (Suncorp, 1063, also mentioned in our article) and 0.8% of China Properties Investment Holdings Ltd (CPI, 0736). CPI was also in a bubble and has dropped 89.5% from $2.37 to $0.25 since 30-Jun-2015. Suncorp was a bubble but peaked at $1.51 on 5-May-2015, and was already down to $0.52 by 30-Jun. It closed on Friday at $0.222, down 57.3% since the end of June. Meanwhile the umbrella bubble is staying up. By last night, CJ had only fallen 9.6% since 30-Jun-2015 and had a market value of HK$28.2bn, or 70.6x its net tangible assets of $399.6m.

In Chinglish, the CAID announcement says:

"Although the recent weakness in the stock market, the Board expects the performance of Significant Investments will still contribute positive return to the Group in the near future"

The Board does not give any reasons for that expectation. In our view, nobody could reasonably expect a bubble to grow larger or even to stay inflated, assuming that person did not know of any plan to make that happen. CJ accounted for 65.8% of the held-for-trading investments at 30-Jun-2015, and the other two holdings are down sharply, so it is hard to see how the overall portfolio returns "in the near future" could be expected to be positive. The Stock Exchange should require CAID to either justify that statement or withdraw it.

As readers will recall, CAID also holds 75m shares (7.82%) of Lerado Group (Holding) Co Ltd (Lerado, 1225) received at $0.60 each in exchange for a business sale. At the 30-Jun-2015 closing bid price of $0.59, these were worth HK$44.25m, or RMB 35.4m. So the 4 investments together amounted to RMB 514.6m, or 91.2% of CAID's investments. Lerado closed on Friday at $0.27, down 54.2% since the end of June.
Lerado next?

So now we have identified 2 shareholders of the umbrella bubble, namely CAID with 1.52% and China Environmental Energy Investment Ltd (CEEI, 0986) with 2.11%, out of the 25% float. As we noted in the article, CEEI also bought into the Suncorp bubble. Given the other identified connection between CAID and Lerado Group (Holding) Co Ltd (1225), we suspect that Lerado's massive market gains for the first half of 2015 also involve a shareholding in CJ, but so far, they're not saying. The SFC probably knows who held the stock at 27-Apr-2015, because it announced that 16 shareholders then held 96.1% of the float.
Update, 27-Oct-2015

Following our complaint about the statement above, CAID announced on 23-Oct-2015 that its Board "would like to replace" that sentence.

© Webb-site.com, 2015
普通會員
greatsoup38
rbenabled
avatar
183.178.164.120
金錢: 149201.15
帖數: 166081
GP: 3287
LV: 408
交易所:
http://webb-site.com/articles/trouble2015.asp
Bubbles and troubles in Hong Kong
24th September 2015

As readers may recall, last year, Lerado Group (Holding) Co Ltd (Lerado, 1225) announced the proposed sale of its core business of baby strollers and infant car seats to Canadian listed firm Dorel Industries Inc (Dorel) for HK$930m. Lerado was planning to squat on most of the cash proceeds and only pay out $0.30 per share, or $228m. For this reason, we opposed the sale, because of concern that Lerado would become a cash shell trading at a discount to its net asset value. Your editor, David Webb, is a disclosed substantial shareholder currently holding over 8%. However, the sale was approved by shareholders on 16-Sep-2014 and completed on 31-Oct-2014.

Our concerns have now proven justified, culminating in current egregious proposals not just by Lerado but by other listed companies. We hope to stop them, if the regulators will require certain parties to play fairer. This article is long and complicated, and we thought about breaking it into pieces, but the picture becomes clearer if you assemble the whole jigsaw, so here it is. Apart from Lerado, this article covers transactions by numerous other listed companies in which you may have an interest, and several billion US dollars of bubbles.

So pour yourself a large coffee and let's get started.
Lerado share movements

The first sign of movement in Lerado came on 25-Nov-2014. Intelligence Hong Kong Group Ltd (IHK) is a company owned 68.27% by Lerado Chairman Henry Huang Ying Yuan (Mr Huang) and 31.73% by his wife, Jamy Huang Chen Li Chu. IHK owns 148,353,540 shares which was 19.50% of Lerado at 31-Dec-2014, before the recent dilutions. On 25-Nov-2014, our system shows those shares moving from CTBC Asia Ltd (the local subsidiary of a Taiwan bank) where they had rested since 30-Dec-2009, to Convoy Investment Services Ltd (Convoy IS), the brokerage sister of Convoy Financial Holdings Ltd (Convoy FH, 1019). Convoy IS is in the process of trying to list on the GEM in the form of CIS Holdings Ltd, which filed an application proof on 23-Mar-2015, sponsored by Quam Capital Ltd.

There can be any number of reasons for such transfers, but one possibility is that the shares are security for a loan. Banks and brokers are exempt from disclosing security interests in shares pledged to them. It wouldn't be so worrying were it not for the fact that Mark Mak Kwong Yiu (Mr Mak), CEO of Convoy FH and a director of Convoy IS, is also claimed to be an INED of Lerado since 25-Apr-2014. Mr Mak joined Convoy as CFO in 2002.

You may recall that in Some bubbles for New Year (31-Dec-2014) we warned about a bubble then called Finsoft Corporation (Finsoft, 8018), which was then trading at $1.235 (adjusted for the subsequent 2:1 split), with a market value of HK$4.94bn, or 110 times its net asset value. Convoy FH owned over 5% of Finsoft. The stock didn't stop there though. It reached a high of $2.92 on 20-May-2015, when Finsoft was valued at HK$11.68bn. Since then, it has crashed 94.8% to its close on Wednesday (23-Sep-2015) at $0.139, down a net 88.7% since our article. Finsoften aren't what they seem.

The Finsoft bubble allowed Convoy FH to book unrealised gains of HK$238.4m for 2014. It sold 40m shares (2%) of Finsoft on 20-Jan-2015 for about $73.5m (split-adjusted: $0.919 per share) and went below the 5% disclosure threshold. The sale was purportedly on-market but it was far larger than market volume that day of 1.925m shares so the disclosure must be wrong.

Returning to Lerado, another large chunk of 96,805,800 shares (12.71% at 31-Dec-2014) was held by Hwa Foo Investment Ltd (Hwa Foo), 30% controlled by Patrick Chen Chun Chieh (Mr Chen), an Executive Director and the son of the late co-founder of Lerado, and 70% by his mother. He joined the board on 3-Apr-2008 following his father's death on 14-Feb-2008. On 8-Sep-2014 those shares moved from HSBC (where they had rested since 27-Jun-2007) to UBS Securities HK Ltd , and then, more interestingly, they moved to small broker Win Fung Securities Ltd (Win Fung) on 9-Dec-2014, two weeks after IHK's holding moved to Convoy IS. So the Huangs and the Chens had moved custody of 32.21% of Lerado after leaving it untouched for years. More on Win Fung below.
Dispute with Dorel

First let's mention that on 10-Feb-2015, Lerado announced that it was in dispute with Dorel over the final net asset value of the business, which may lead to a partial repayment of the purchase price, in an unspecified "significant" amount.

On 27-Mar-2015, Lerado announced that it could not reach agreement with Dorel, so under the terms of the sale they had agreed to go to arbitration with an independent accountant, not yet appointed. In the 2014 annual results announcement on 30-Mar-2015, Lerado revealed that the disputed amount was HK$307m, which accordingly had been booked as a liability in the balance sheet. Still, Lerado ended 2014 with cash of $797m or HK$1.048 per share and no bank borrowings. The disputed amount was about $0.404 per share, so even if they have to pay all of that back, there would have been $0.644 per share of cash, and net assets of $633m or $0.832 per share.

On 20-Jul-2015, Lerado announced that it and Dorel had appointed RSM Nelson Wheeler as the independent accountant to determine the disputed items. Two months later, the result has not yet been announced. If Lerado were to win all of it, then the pro forma net asset value at 31-Dec-2014 increases to $1.236 per share.
Lerado swaps shares for property from CIFG

The day after the results, 31-Mar-2015, Lerado announced the acquisition of a property in Guangzhou from China Investment and Finance Group Ltd (CIFG, 1126) for HK$39m, but despite being flush with cash, only HK$1m was payable in cash and the rest in 76m new Lerado shares (9.49% of then existing shares) issued under the general mandate at $0.50 each, again a discount to cash and NAV per share.

The intended use of the property is as premises for the residual business of Lerado, which is mainly mobility scooters for the elderly and disabled, or what it calls "medical products". However, even if intended use of the property sounds plausible, the issue of shares at a discount to net cash and NAV was entirely inappropriate. The deal completed on 17-Apr-2015, giving CIFG a 8.59% stake in Lerado. Our system shows that CIFG deposited the shares into CCASS with Astrum Capital Management Ltd (Astrum) on 5-May-2015.

CIFG is not a regular listed company, but is a closed-end investment company listed under Chapter 21. This prohibits taking controlling positions (over 30%) in companies, and requires it to adhere to its stated investment restrictions. We asked the Stock Exchange why CIFG was allowed to invest in property in the first place. The result was this "clarification announcement" on 7-Aug-2015, admitting that investment properties were outside the scope of CIFG's Investment Policy and blaming it on the former Chairman and Vice Chairman. They had been removed by the Board on 14-Sep-2012, 6 months after becoming uncontactable.
Lerado begins money-lending and stockbroking

The "Prospects" section of Lerado's 2014 results indicated a new direction. The board had "concrete financial knowledge and background" and had decided to diversify into "securities trading, money lending business and other financial and property investment." It revealed that on 23-Feb-2015, Lerado had agreed to buy an unnamed target company, for HK$1.6m plus its net asset value. The target was a securities broker and planned to engage in margin financing business after the acquisition was completed. On 17-Apr-2015, Lerado announced that it would reallocate HK$300m of its cash pile for these activities.

On 2-Jul-2015 Lerado announced the name of the target, Yim Cheong Share Broking and Investment Co Ltd, and that the acquisition was completed that day. This was then renamed Black Marble Securities Ltd (Black Marble Securities), and Lerado intended to pump HK$200m into it. This small, nearly-dormant broker at that point had a minimal two licensed staff and minimal holdings in its CCASS account shown here.

Policy note: This highlights a defect in the Listing Rules: if you make a "Major Acquisition" (over 25% of your total assets), then you need shareholders' approval, but if you buy or establish a small company and then pump your funds into this new line of business, then this is completely exempt, even though shareholders are exposed to very new and different risks.

Lerado had also established BlackMarble Capital Ltd, incorporated 28-Jan-2015, a licensed money-lender. The application was gazetted on 27-Feb-2015 and the license was granted on 22-May-2015.
Lerado option grants

On 12-Feb-2015, Lerado granted options over 75m new shares (equivalent to 9.86% of the existing shares), of which half went to an unspecified number of employees, and half to "5 consultants". The options were exercisable for 2 years at $0.592 per share. It makes no sense whatever to be granting options which exercise at less than net cash per share, and much less than NAV per share, diluting both. Staff could have been incentivised with a restricted share purchase scheme to use the company's cash to buy stock in the market, which closed at $0.58 on the date of the option grants.

Despite being options of 2 years duration, 48m of the 75m were quickly exercised. We arranged an inspection of the share register on 14-Apr-2015 to discover who had been in such a hurry. We combined that with two filings of allotments by Lerado, which did not name the recipients. Here are the results:
Shareholder   Shares   Date entered   Status
Chu Chun Ting   7,500,000   11-Mar-2015   1 employee, 1 consultant
Kung Yiu Fai   7,500,000   11-Mar-2015
Chan Kam Fuk   7,500,000   17-Mar-2015   employee
Law Yee Man, Thomas   3,000,000   17-Mar-2015   employee
Wang Zewei   7,500,000   20-Mar-2015   consultant
Wong Sin Fai, Cynthia   7,500,000   20-Mar-2015   consultant
Kwok Wai Leung   7,500,000   2-Apr-2015   consultant
Total so far   48,000,000   14-Apr-2015   3 employees, 4 consultants

That leaves 1 more consultant who has not exercised the options. We recognise some of these names:

  Chan Kam Fuk is Dominic Chan Kam Fuk (Dominic Chan), proprietor of accountancy firm Dominic K.F. Chan & Co. He was appointed as Company Secretary of Lerado on 1-Aug-2014.
  Thomas Law Yee Man (Mr Law), an architect, is an INED of two listed companies, AcrossAsia Ltd (AcrossAsia, 8061) and Sage International Group Ltd (Sage, 8082). Here's a connection: Mr Law joined AcrossAsia on 28-May-2010, replacing Mr Mak of Convoy, who resigned as INED four days earlier. Perhaps Mr Mak helped to arrange Mr Law as his replacement at AcrossAsia. And here's another connection: Leung Tin Fu (Mr Leung), founder and Chairman of Sage until 14-Dec-2007, is also a pre-IPO holder of 10% of Convoy IS. Dominic Chan was an INED of Sage, resigning the same day as Mr Leung. We don't know what role Mr Law plays as an "employee" of Lerado.

  Cynthia Wong Sin Fai (Cynthia Wong) is a solicitor who consults for Robertsons and has been Company Secretary of Suncorp Technologies Ltd (Suncorp, 1063) since 15-Feb-2011. We'll come back to that. We don't know what role she plays as a "consultant" to Lerado.

  Wang Zewei (Mr Wang) is the name of the person who in 2014 sold 22.5% of Sincere Smart International Ltd to Hao Wen Holdings Ltd (Hao Wen, 8019) for HK$69m, valuing the business at $306.7m when it had net assets of $2.9m. Two other companies, Capital VC Ltd (Capital VC, 2324) and Unity Investments Holdings Ltd (Unity, 0913), bought 14% and 29.5% for $42.7m and $90m respectively, without naming the vendor(s). For more, see our article Hao Wen, Capital VC and Unity today. We don't know what role Mr Wang plays as a "consultant" to Lerado. He was the only mainlander on the list, and he gave an office address at 10 Gaoxin South 4th Road, Nanshan District, Shenzhen.

Incidentally, Mr Mak was also an Executive Director of Computech Holdings Ltd, now named China Mobile Games and Cultural Investment Ltd (CMG, 8081), from 30-Jul-2008 to 28-Apr-2014, three days after he joined Lerado. In fact he was the only ED of CMG from 17-Sep-2009 to 8-Nov-2011. The Convoy FH IPO prospectus dated 29-Jun-2010 said that despite this, Mr Mak considered Convoy his main focus and "has devoted more than 80% of his time to his duties" at Convoy during 2007-2009 and he would continue to allocate a similar proportion of his time to Convoy after listing. That basically meant that CMG only had about 0.2 Executive Directors!

Win Fung acted as the placing agent for CMG in a placing on 22-Apr-2015.

The option shares were deposited into CCASS via various brokers as follows. Click on the dates to see the movements in CCASS:
Date   Broker   Number
15-Apr-2015   SBI China Capital Financial Services Ltd (SBI CCFS)   7,500,000
29-Apr-2015   Win Fung   7,500,000
8-May-2015   Gransing Securities Co Ltd (Gransing)   7,500,000
27-May-2015   Gransing   7,500,000
24-Jun-2015   Prudential Brokerage Ltd   7,500,000
4-Aug-2015   Convoy IS   3,000,000
13-Aug-2015   UOB Kay Hian (HK) Ltd   7,500,000
Total      48,000,000

It appears likely that Mr Law deposited his 3m shares with Convoy IS, as all the other deposits matched the 7.5m option grants.

Incidentally, the other pre-IPO investor in 10% of Convoy IS is Howard Jiang Qi Hang, who featured in several previous investigations on Webb-site Reports.

Gransing is a name you will see again - it has acted 4 times as a placing agent for Convoy FH, in a bond placing on 21-Jan-2015 and a bond placing on 16-Sep-2014 as well as two unannounced bond placings on 8-Jul-2014 and 14-Nov-2014 mentioned in Convoy FH's annual report. Gransing's client list in Webb-site Who's Who also shows that it has acted as placing agent for Hao Wen, Suncorp and WLS Holdings Ltd (WLS, 8021), a company which we cover below.
CIFG-Lerado cross-holding

On 22-Apr-2015, probably in response to queries from the regulators, Lerado made a "voluntary announcement" trying, and in our view failing, to justify its decision to use shares rather than cash to buy the property from CIFG.

On 21-May-2015, Lerado announced that it had agreed to subscribe for 130m shares (12.44%) of CIFG at at $0.275, or $35.75m in total, setting up a cross-holding between the two, as CIFG still held 8.59% of Lerado. This was, incidentally, highly dilutive to CIFG, a 66.9% discount to its NAV per share at 30-Apr-2015 of $0.83. This fact was omitted from the CIFG announcement. The issue completed on 2-Jun-2015. Our system indicates that Lerado deposited 70m CIFG shares with Gransing on 23-Jun-2015, and deposited 60m CIFG shares with Kingston Securities Ltd (Kingston) the next day.

On 11-Aug-2015, Lerado cut its holding in CIFG from 128.8m shares (12.32%) to 103.392m shares (9.89%), selling the shares at an average $0.196, a 29% loss. As the stake was cut below 10%, Lerado is no longer a "substantial shareholder" and "connected person" of CIFG under the Listing Rules.

Policy note: the disclosure threshold for substantial shareholdings in HK-listed companies was reduced by law from 10% to 5% on 1-Apr-2003, but the Listing Rules have never been updated to match this.
Lerado issues shares to CAID (0048)

On 26-May-2015, Lerado announced the acquisition of Brilliant Summit Ltd from China Automotive Interior Decoration Holdings Ltd (CAID, 0048), for HK$45m, but again, not using any of the cash pile. Instead, it issued 75m shares at $0.60 each, or 7.82% of the enlarged issued shares of Lerado, further diluting existing shareholders. The target was "engaged in the trading of garment accessories, such as nylon tape, polyester tape and polyester string". It had net assets of just $7.24m and a net profit in the year to 31-Mar-2015 of $0.9m.

In giving reasons, Lerado claimed that "certain fabric products and expertise knowledge of the Target Group can be utilised in the Group's business of manufacturing medial products, including but not limited to powered and non powered mobility aid, wheel chairs and other durable equipment". Stretching the polyester yarn further, they claimed that the Target Group's "sizable clientele" would allow Lerado to "penetrate into a new market." This rather ignores the fact that Lerado already had its own expertise in sourcing fabrics for baby strollers, infant car seats and mobility aids over many years.

CAID had purchased Brilliant Summit from its manager, a Mr Cheung Ngai, for HK$42m on 15-May-2013. He apparently goes by the name of "Elman" and apart from Brilliant Summit (products here), he runs another company in the same line of business called San Wah Holdings Ltd. CAID, announcing the sale of Brilliant Summit to Lerado, said that "as a result of the constantly increasing costs of sales and competition, the Company is of the view that its business is not expected to grow at its current rate without further investments and developments." CAID intended to hold the Lerado shares "to achieves earnings in the form of capital appreciation."

The transaction completed on 16-Jun-2015. We can see that CAID deposited the 75m new Lerado shares with Win Fung in two batches, 40m on 23-Jun-2015 and 35m on 14-Jul-2015. Of all the brokers it could use, why this little firm, and why is this the same firm in which Mr Chen and one of the option holders also deposited their Lerado shares? The shares are positioned in the same custodian ahead of an important vote on Lerado's future. To summarise those deposits of shares with Win Fung:
Shareholder   Shares   Deposit date
Mr Chen (Hwa Foo)   96,805,800   9-Dec-2014
An exercised option holder   7,500,000   29-Apr-2015
CAID   40,000,000   23-Jun-2015
CAID   35,000,000   14-Jul-2015
Total   179,305,800   

CAID's new INED or mooncake coordinator

For some light relief, on 4-Sep-2015 CAID appointed a new INED and audit committee member, Ms Adeline Ng Li La, who "has over 10 years of experience in human resources and corporate management". She also has a Certificate of Human Resources Management from HK Baptist University and is "a senior administrative officer of a renowned international technology company in Hong Kong". Wow, she sounds highly qualified, doesn't she?

A quick search discovers her Linked In page (copy here). Since May 2015, she has been personal assistant to the General Manager of Amadeus Hong Kong Ltd - and her duties include "supervise the receptionist and the cleaning lady", "coordinate mooncake distribution", "manage pantry cabinet" and planning the Christmas party. Now this of course is all important work, but probably not that relevant to the duties of a listed company director and audit committee member. We wonder how she was introduced to CAID. This is probably not what HKEx had in mind when it started promoting board diversity, but it's what you get when as a regulator, you let controlling shareholders vote on INED elections.
CAID and Convoy

On 30-Jun-2015, CAID announced a placing via Convoy IS, listing the Financial Adviser as Opus Capital Ltd (Opus Capital) and using the full 20% general mandate of 276.48m shares at $0.485, a 19.2% discount to the closing price of $0.60. However, the price then collapsed, and on 9-Jul-2015, they cut the placing price to $0.345, a 42.5% discount to the original closing price. The placing completed on 21-Jul-2015. Our CCASS analysis shows that 125.48m shares were deposited with Astrum, only 68m with Convoy IS and 25m with Kingston, with the remaining 58m to 4 other brokers.

CAID's interim results for 30-Jun-2015 disclosed a huge unrealised gain of RMB 448.6m (HK$561m) on "held-for-trading investments" which then had a market value of RMB564.0m (HK$705m). In other words, a gain of about 389% in 6 months. No normal stock will give you that, but a bubble stock will. Net tangible assets at 30-Jun-2015 were RMB761.9m (HK$952m) or about $0.689 per share, so the investments accounted for 74% of that.

CAID's interim results and report contain the following statement, which we regard as false and misleading:

"At 30 June 2015, there was no significant investment held by the Group."

Policy note: Some of the listed companies which have recently reported exceptionally large percentage gains on listed securities must own bubble stocks. If you know what stocks a listed company owns, then you would be able to take the SFC's concentration warnings into account and discount those investments to what you regard as fair value, rather than relying on inflated market valuations. But unfortunately, the Stock Exchange and SFC do not require such disclosure, even when inflated listed investments make up the bulk of a companies net assets. They simply rely on the company having to announce losses as inside information after the bubble has burst, rather than telling you that they hold bubble stocks in the first place.

This is despite the fact that Listing Rules Appendix 16 paragraphs 32(4) and 40(2) (or on GEM, Rules 18.41(4) and 18.59) require that companies disclose "significant investments held, their performance during the financial [year/half-year] and their future prospects". It seems that SEHK just doesn't want to enforce this.

Although the Listing Rules which require such disclosure contain no definition of "significant", it should be seen in the context of the size of the holder's balance sheet and therefore the potential impact on shareholder value if the market value of the investments were to change. Whether the investment is "held-for-trading" or as a long-term "available for sale" asset is irrelevant to the potential impact on shareholder value, except for the fact that profits tax applies to trading.

Separately, many listed companies have avoided the notifiable transaction rules in Chapter 14 by declaring themselves to be "in the business" of trading securities. This then allows them to invest as much of their shareholders' money as they like on purchasing "held-for-trading" securities without announcing the transactions, because they are deemed transactions "of a revenue nature in the ordinary and usual course of business" under Listing Rule 14.04(1)(g). The Stock Exchange should close this loophole. Investments in securities, regardless of how they are booked, should be subject to the notifiable transaction rules.

You might wonder then why CAID did not just cash in some of its $705m of investments rather than raise $94.2m in a placing of 20% new shares, claiming that it needed the money. The results failed to identify these spectacular investments, but noted that by 31-Aug-2015, the value had decreased by 23.5% since the end of June. That's about HK$224m of loss.
CIFG and Lerado: parallel open offers

On 17-Aug-2015, Lerado announced a massive 3:1 open offer of new shares at $0.15 each, a 68% discount to the market price of $0.47, with no excess applications. The primary underwriter is Gransing, the Financial Adviser is Octal Capital Ltd (Octal Capital) and the IFA is Opus Capital, the same as the Financial Adviser to CAID.

As we've said before, deep discount open offers are a form of extortion of existing shareholders, because they are faced with the choice of either being heavily diluted economically, or putting in cash to prevent the dilution. Unlike rights issues, the holder does not have the third option of selling his entitlements to recover the discount and thereby mitigate the economic damage. For this reason, the UK Listing Rules include a limit (set decades ago) of not more than a 10% discount on open offers. Hong Kong, still in many ways a developing market, allows this extortion to continue. See UK Listing Rule 9.5.10.

Adding to this abuse is that an open offer often involves no ability for shareholders to make "excess application" for unsubscribed shares. Nor are the unsubscribed shares sold in the market to capture the premium above the issue price for the benefit of passive shareholders. This leaves the underwriter with the benefit of the discount on shares which shareholders cannot or do not subscribe. In these circumstances, the open offer in practice is a conditional placing of deeply discounted shares with the "underwriter", subject to a right of first refusal by existing shareholders pro rata to their holdings.

Gransing cannot end up as a controlling shareholder of Lerado, so it has to have sub-underwriters. From a disclosure of interest, we can see that Capital VC (mentioned above) is a sub-underwriter for 370m shares, or 9.64% of the enlarged capital. Another disclosure shows that Barry Lau Wang Chi is a sub-underwriter for 370m shares. He is a Responsible Officer of Adamas Asset Management (HK) Ltd (Adamas), which will feature below.

On 9-Sep-2015, CIFG announced a huge 8:1 open offer with no excess applicatoins, "underwritten" by Black Marble Securities, which is owned by Lerado. The Financial Adviser to CIFG is Akron Corporate Finance Ltd (Akron) and the IFA is Opus Capital, the same as Lerado's IFA and CAID's FA.

As Lerado owns less than 10% of CIFG, the underwriting is not a "connected transaction". However, it is blatantly clear that Lerado has a "material interest" in the CIFG transaction and should be prohibited from voting in the EGM of CIFG to approve the open offer. Furthermore, Lerado stands to benefit from any unsubscribed shares at the discounted offer price. As there are no excess applications, this is in effect a discounted placement with Lerado subject to clawback by existing holders.Listing Rule 2.15 states:

"Where a transaction or arrangement of an issuer is subject to shareholders' approval under the provisions of the Exchange Listing Rules, any shareholder that has a material interest in the transaction or arrangement shall abstain from voting on the resolution(s) approving the transaction or arrangement at the general meeting."

Correspondingly, we submit that CIFG should not be permitted to vote in the Lerado EGM, because obviously Lerado is engaged in a commercial transaction with CIFG to provide it with funding under the CIFG open offer.
Mr Chen's "disposal" at a 53% loss

Now, according to a disclosure of interest, on 9-Sep-2015, Mr Chen, ED of Lerado, sold his entire interest of 97,823,800 shares, including a personal holding of 1,018,000 shares and those held by Hwa Foo. Some of it was on-exchange at $0.25, but most of it was off-market at $0.22 because total market volume that day was only 7,625,800 shares. When we look at CCASS movements, on the settlement date of 11-Sep-2015 we see his personal holding of 1,018,000 shares leaving Core Pacific Yamaichi, and only 2,805,800 shares leaving Win Fung, and there have been no reductions in Win Fung's balance since then. So it appears that the other 94,000,000 shares were transferred, off market, to other clients of Win Fung and remain there.

As an ED of Lerado, Mr Chen would have been prohibited from voting in favour of the proposed open offer, so it is a matter of great concern that these shares may have been placed in friendly hands, along with the positions held by CIFG and CAID, to vote in favour (if they are not required to abstain).

This disposal, at a deep discount to cash and to net asset value, of a key block of shares, really makes no economic sense for Mr Chen. If he was unhappy with the effects of the proposed open offer, he could have joined us in voting against the proposal. He was only prohibited from voting in favour. At a purported disposal price (for most of his shares) of $0.22, he appears to have accepted a loss of 53% since the open offer was announced. We find this hard to believe. Accordingly we urge the SFC to investigate the true nature of the transactions and who has bought the shares. We would be surprised if the "buyers" had not been mentioned elsewhere in this article.

China 33 Media (8087)

There's another open offer we need to tell you about, and the background is this.

On 26-Jan-2015, China 33 Media Group Ltd (C33M, 8087) announced that its controlling shareholder, Lizhong Ltd (Lizhong), which had held 243.756m shares (43.13%) had 5 days earlier pledged 192m shares (32.00%) to a lender and on 22-Jan to 26-Jan Lizhong had sold its remaining 66.756m shares (11.13%) in the market. They didn't say who the lender was, but a subsequent disclosure of interest shows that it is funds managed by Adamas, which was mentioned above. Our analysis shows the average price received by Lizhong in the 3 days was $0.4192 per share, a total of $27.98m. Now, why did Lizhong need to sell those shares and borrow that money by pledging the remainder? Read on.

On 10-Apr-2015, CIFG, via its 100% subsidiary New Express Investment Ltd, agreed to subscribe 120m shares (16.67%) of China 33 Media Group Ltd (C33M, 8087) at $0.22, exhausting its general mandate, for a total of HK$26.4m. The deal completed on 22-Apr-2015, diluting Lizhong from 32.00% to 26.67%. Our system shows that on 6-May-2015, CIFG deposited its C33M shares with Gransing.

Three months later, on 24-Jul-2015, C33M announced a massive 7 for 1 open offer at $0.10, a 75.6% discount to the closing price of $0.41, without excess applications. The Financial Adviser was Octal Capital (the same as for Lerado's open offer), and the underwriters were Gransing, Kingston and RHB OSK Securities HK Ltd (RHB OSK). The IFA again was Opus Capital, the same as for Lerado. Lizhong undertook to take up part of its entitlement amounting to 844,799,700 shares, which to the nearest thousand is 4.4 shares for each share it owns, not 7. That would cost it $84.5m, but of course, it had already raised about $27.98m by selling shares in the market in January, so there was a funding gap of $56.5m, or about $0.294 per existing share, which it might have borrowed from Adamas funds.

If CIFG was to maintain its holding, it would have to put in another $0.70 for each share it held. It had sold a few shares but still held 113.622m (15.78%). The share price dived 26.8% on the day after the news, but the prospect strangely seemed to delight CIFG, which undertook not to sell any more and to take up all its entitlements to 795.354m shares at a cost of $79.5m. However, on 4-Aug-2015, C33M announced that it and Gransing had agreed to cut CIFG's commitment to 290m shares. As a result CIFG would be diluted to 7.01% of C33M.

Under GEM Listing Rule 10.39(1) or Main Board Listing Rule 7.24(5)(a), if an open offer is at a ratio higher than 1 for 2 then it must be approved by "independent" shareholders excluding the controlling shareholder or, if none, the executive directors and their associates. So the largest holder of C33M, Lizhong, could not vote in favour at the EGM, as it is an associate of the Chairman.

How convenient, then, that there was another "independent" shareholder who could vote in favour. Look at the EGM results on 31-Aug-2015. CIFG almost certainly voted its 113.622m shares in favour, and only 2,050 other shares voted in favour, while 28,638,000 shares voted against. The open offer was thereby approved, and the prospectus was published on 14-Sep-2015.
Update, 26-Sep-2015

The C33M open offer prospectus discloses that several sub-underwriters have been engaged. Gransing, with a commitment of 1,905,200,300 shares (33.07% of the enlarged shares), engaged SBI CCFS for 800m shares (13.89%) and 3 other unnamed sub-underwriters for a total of 540m shares (9.37%), each with less than 5% of enlarged shares. RHB OSK, with a commitment of 500m shares (8.68%) had engaged 2 unnamed sub-underwriters to take all of them.

Kingston, with an underwriting commitment of 1500m shares (26.04%), had engaged but then terminated 4 sub-underwriters to take all of it. One was Harvest Aspect International Ltd, which a filing shows is owned by William Yu Tsung Chin, for 644.64m shares (11.19%). The remaining 3 each had less than 5% but totaled 14.85%. After these 4 were terminated, Kingston engaged a single sub-underwriter for the whole lot. Guess who? Black Marble Securities (owned by Lerado).

SBI CCFS and Black Marble have each failed to file a disclosure of interest.

The denominator in the calculation of percentage for disclosure of interests under s308 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance is based on the number of "issued shares", not the number which may be in issue in the future. So in a 7:1 open offer, there are new shares equivalent to 700% of existing shares. All the filings by the underwriters and sub-underwriters in the C33M case use the wrong denominator (the number of shares which will be in issue if the open offer completes) and hence show the wrong percentage, which should be multiplied by a factor of 8. Anyone with an underwriting commitment equal to 5% or more of the existing shares (in the case of C33M, 36m shares) should make a filing, and clearly, that has not happened, with several sub-underwriters of Gransing, RHB OSK and Kingston. The SFC should require them to correct their filings and to procure filings by their sub-underwriters, including those which have now been terminated.
GreaterChina Professional Services (8193)

Now let's look at how Lerado (via Black Marble Securities) and Akron (Financial Adviser to CIFG on its open offer) have been working together in another transaction.

GreaterChina Professional Services Ltd (GPS, 8193) is listed on GEM and owns Greater China Appraisal Ltd, which values real estate and other assets. On 13-Nov-2014, GPS began to deviate from its core business, by buying 80% of Golden Vault Ltd, which indirectly owns a mainland advertising business with in-elevator poster frames and LCD displays in Changshu, PRC, for HK$110m in promissory notes.

Golden Vault had turnover of RMB 7.34m in 2013 and net assets of RMB 5.73m (HK$7.16m) at 30-Sep-2014. This business was valued by Roma Appraisals Ltd at $184m, because, hey, elevators are difficult to get into - especially when they are going up. That valuer is owned by Roma Group Ltd (Roma, 8072) and the financial adviser on the profit forecast was Akron.

A disclosure of interest shows that on 11-May-2015, China Environmental Energy Investment Ltd (CEEI, 0986) increased its holding in GPS from 2.63% to 5.13%, buying 21.495m shares at $0.556 per share. From our CCASS system we see the shares deposited with Southwest Securities (HK) Brokerage Ltd (SWSHK, formerly Tanrich Securities Co Ltd).

On 8-Jul-2015, Roma announced that it had agreed to lend up to HK$58m to Brilliant One Holdings Ltd (Brilliant One) for 12 months at 12% p.a., secured by 310.85m shares in an unnamed GEM-listed company and guaranteed by persons named Ip Kwok Kwong and Wong Chi Keung, the ultimate owners of Brilliant One. That non-disclosure of the GEM company's name was silly, because it was easily determined that Brilliant One was the 36.23% controlling shareholder of GPS, which eventually announced the loan facility on 4-Aug-2015. Ip Kwok Kwong is the MD of GPS, while Wong Chi Keung (this one) is an accountant with 13 INED positions. The loan facility includes a maximum loan-to-value ratio of 65%. So if they draw the full loan, then the share price falling below $0.287 would trigger a top-up obligation. The shares were moved from Emperor Securities Ltd to Infast Brokerage Ltd on 9-Jul-2015.

On 9-Jul-2015, the day after the share pledge, GPS announced a huge proposed placing of shares under a specific mandate, 2.6bn shares at $0.10, a 74.4% discount to the market price of $0.39, via Black Marble Securities, which is owned by Lerado. The Financial Adviser is Akron (the same as for Lerado's open offer). That represents 303% of the existing shares, and they are not even bothering to make the shares available to existing shareholders by an open offer or rights issue. Simultaneously, it was proposed that SEEC Media Group Ltd (SEECM, 0205) would subscribe 1.4bn shares at the same price, a total of $140m, for 28.82% of the enlarged shares.

Policy note: As we mentioned above, open offers or rights issues larger than 1 for 2 (a 50% enlargement of issued shares) must be subject to shareholders' approval with controlling shareholders abstaining, or if there are none, then with executive directors and their associates abstaining. That does provide some small measure of protection, (unless the vote is being manipulated with warehoused shares). However, this protection is negated by the fact that a massive placing under a "specific mandate" can be approved without requiring controllers or executive directors to abstain. The Listing Rules should be amended to close the loophole so that controllers/executive directors should be required to abstain from voting in favour of any proposal to approve a "specific mandate" that enlarges the issued shares by more than 50%.

Brilliant One, which has pledged its controlling shareholding to Roma, was allowed to vote to approve this outrageous proposal.

Of the $395.1m net proceeds, GPS intends to use $100m in its money-lending subsidiary, Colbert Finance Ltd, and $150m to develop its securities brokerage business. It doesn't own a stockbroker yet, but it plans to either buy one or set one up. The EGM approved the placing on 14-Sep-2015 without objection. With an avalanche of shares due to hit the market at $0.10, it is quite impressive that the stock still closed at $0.495 on 23-Sep-2015.
SEECM (0205)

Now let's look at a fourth open offer involving Lerado (via Black Marble Securities) and Opus Capital.

SEECM is, or was, principally engaged in advertising agency, distribution of books and magazines. And securities trading, of course, like all shoddy companies should be. It announced its investment in GPS on 10-Jul-2015.

On 17-Jul-2015, SEECM announced that it had agreed to subscribe 103.02m shares (16.67%) of China New Economy Fund Ltd (CNEF, 0080) at $0.385, for a total of HK$39.66m, exhausting CNEF's general mandate. CNEF is another Chapter 21 investment company, and that was a 61.5% discount to the NAV of CNEF at 30-Jun-2015 of $1.00. As we noted in our article Some Bubbles for New Year on 31-Dec-2014, CNEF had shares in the Finsoft bubble alongside Convoy FH, and Tony Tai Man Hin, the CFO and Company Secretary of CNEF, was an INED of Finsoft. He retired from Finsoft on 5-May-2015. The CNEF announcement of the subscription named Astrum as the placing agent and did not mention the discount to NAV.

Also on 17-Jul-2015, SEECM announced that it is applying to the SFC to set up a stockbroker. Now everyone wants to be a broker. Lerado, GPS and SEECM.

On 19-Aug-2015, SEECM announced a huge open offer, 3 for 1 at $0.10, a 61.5% discount to the market price of $0.26. The Financial Adviser is Opus Capital (the FA of CAID and the IFA of C33M and Lerado), the IFA is Hercules Capital Ltd (Hercules) and the underwriter is Black Marble Securities, owned by Lerado. Again there will be no excess applications, so the "underwriter" gets the benefit of discounted unsubscribed shares. Of net proceeds of $624m, SEECM plans to use HK$365m to set up a stockbroker, $30m to set up a corporate finance advisory and asset management firm and $225m for the acquisition and operation of an unspecified e-commerce platform.

The shares dived on the news, dropping 35.4% to $0.168 the next day. But they weren't done yet. On 9-Sep-2015, they decided to increase the carnage by consolidating the shares 2:1 and then changing the offer terms to 5 new shares for each consolidated share at $0.10, equivalent to $0.05 before the consolidation. So the offer discount becomes an effective 80.8% discount to the original closing price of $0.26. This will raise a bit less though, HK$519m. This news caused another drop in the price, by 16.7% from $0.156 to $0.13 the next day. So the stock price had now halved even before putting the plan to a vote.

A circular for the capital reorganisation went out on 18-Sep-2015 for an EGM on 12-Oct-2015. We urge shareholders to vote against the resolutions. They are special resolutions that require a 75% majority to pass, so blocking it is more feasible than usual. If it passes, then a circular to propose the open offer is due out on 28-Oct-2015.
Chan Cheong Yee and CESHK

There is a common person to a number of these companies. Chan Cheong Yee (C Y Chan) is a Responsible Officer of China Everbright Securities (HK) Ltd (CESHK). CESHK is the investment manager of four Chapter 21 companies: CIFG, CNEF, China Innovation Investment Ltd (CII, 1217) and China Investment Development Ltd (CID, 0204). C Y Chan is an ED of all 4 companies, and he is also an ED of Capital VC.
CID (0204)

CID is in its own little bubble - it closed on 23-Sep-2015 at $0.157, compared with NAV of $0.024 at 31-Aug-2015.
CEEI (0986)

Now remember we mentioned CEEI, the investor in GPS? On 12-Nov-2014, CEEI announced a placing of 48,190,489 shares at $0.97 per share to raise HK$46.28m, exhausting the general mandate, followed by a huge 8:1 rights issue at $0.195 per share, an 82.4% discount to the market price of $1.11, to raise between $376m and $451m. Excess applications were allowed. At the time, CEEI had no substantial shareholders.

Win Fung was both the placing agent and the rights issue underwriter. The placing was on a best efforts basis, and on 27-Nov-2014, the placing price was cut to $0.66. The placing was completed on 3-Dec-2014, and all the shares were deposited into the CCASS account of Win Fung for its clients. Not a single share moved out of that account until after the EGM to approve the rights issue. And guess what, the EGM results on 18-Dec-2014 show that the number of shares voted in favour of the rights issue was 48,437,576, just 247,087 more than the number of placing shares.

On 12-Mar-2015, CEEI announced that it would start investing in "quality stock and other financial products", so don't say you weren't warned! On 17-Apr-2015, CEEI announced that it had bought 51m shares (0.337%) of Suncorp (mentioned above) that day in the market for HK$61.45m at an average of $1.205 after a huge run up in the share price following completion of a placing at $0.245 per share on 13-Apr-2015. The stock closed at $0.204 on 23-Sep-2015, down 83% since the purchase by CEEI. Some of the other investments by CEEI are covered below.
WLS (8021)

Now let's tell who may have benefitted from a huge bubble in the shares of WLS Holdings Ltd (WLS, 8021), a construction company.

As background, on 21-Oct-2014, WLS announced that CIFG would subscribe for 79m shares (16.67% of enlarged) at $0.177, a 0.6% premium to market, exhausting the general mandate. On the face of it, WLS had no other substantial shareholders. The deal completed on 31-Oct-2014. The shares were deposited with Fordjoy Securities and Futures Ltd (Fordjoy) on 5-Nov-2014. CIFG rapidly sold off the shares, from 12-Nov-2014, dropping below 5% on 3-Dec-2014.

WLS owns a licensed money-lender, Gold Medal Hong Kong Ltd, incorporated on 19-Mar-2014 and licensed on 26-Nov-2014.

On 21-Jan-2015, WLS announced a 5:1 share consolidation and a proposed massive placing of 540m consolidated shares (563.16% of the existing shares) at $0.30 via SWSHK (then Tanrich Securities Co Ltd). The Financial Adviser was Akron. This placing price was a 42.3% discount to the adjusted closing price of $0.52. At the 5-Mar-2015 SGM to approve the placing, votes in favour were 89,597,500, or 18.69% of the issued shares. Total turnout was only 19.00%. We suspect most of those votes in favour were shares previously held by CIFG, but we'll never know for sure.

Of the 540m shares, we know that CEEI took 63m shares (9.91% of enlarged), because it announced the subscription on 18-Mar-2015. Disclosures of interests show that Samuel Chiu Se Chung, a licensed Representative of Roofer Securities Ltd, also subscribed 9.9%. Unity, mentioned above, subscribed 31.5m shares (4.95%), as did Capital VC, mentioned above and Avant Capital Management (HK) Ltd (Avant), as asset manager. Mr Ye Ruiqiang subscribed 4.95%. As of 31-Dec-2014, he owned 6.44% of Capital VC.

There are 4 subscribers whom we cannot identify. A person named Zhang Yan subscribed 40.67m shares (6.40%) which were probably deposited with Emperor Securities Ltd, and a person named Zheng Wanying subscribed 31.33m shares (4.93%). A person named Civic Cheung Sun Kei subscribed 54m shares (8.49%) and another named Cheung Kam Hong subscribed the same number.

A person named Wong Chun Wah subscribed 23m shares (3.62%). It's a common name but we see that the same number went to the custody of Henik Securities Ltd, where there is a licensee called Wong Chun Wah. Similarly a person named Ma Kin Lung subscribed 31.0m shares (4.88%), and we see that number deposited with Get Nice Securities Ltd, where Ma Kin Lung is a licensed representative.

A person named Tam Siu Ki subscribed 54m shares (8.49%), increasing his stake to 9.28%. That may or may not be the same as Simon Tam Siu Ki, who was a representative of RHB OSK (then known as Prudence Securities Co Ltd) until his license was revoked on 30-Oct-2003 for rat-trading and other trading malpractices. In summary, then after the placing, the holdings were:
  Name   Shares   Stake %
1   CEEI (0986)   63,000,000   9.91
2   Samuel Chiu Se Chung   63,000,000   9.91
3   Tam Siu Ki   59,000,000   9.28
4   Cheung Kam Hong   54,000,000   8.49   
5   Cheung Sun Kei, Civic   54,000,000   8.49
6   Zhang Yan   40,670,000   6.40
7   Avant   31,500,000   4.95
8   Capital VC (2324)   31,500,000   4.95
9   Unity (0913)   31,500,000   4.95
10   Ye Ruiqiang   31,500,000   4.95
11   Zheng Wanying   31,330,000   4.93
12   Ma Kin Lung   31,000,000   4.88
13   Wong Chun Wah   23,000,000   3.62
  Total   540,000,000   85.71

The WLS placing completed on 27-Mar-2015 and the CCASS deposits are here. By that time, the stock had more than doubled to $1.25. Unlike the allotments after the IPO, there was no concentration warning. Yet 13 holders held 85.71% of the stock.

The price continued to climb. On 15-May-2015, with the stock at $2.26, 7.53x the placing price, WLS announced a 7:1 bonus issue. The stock spiked again and was suspended at $4.27 on 17-Jun-2015, prompting the company to announce that it was negotiating for a possible share issue. After a brief correction to $2.50, it was suspended again on 19-Jun-2015, pending announcement on 23-Jun-2015 of a "framework agreement" for possible subscriptions by Avant and Shin Kong Capital Management Inc (SKCM) of 1920m and 5760m shares (post-bonus) at $0.06875, a 78% discount to the bonus-adjusted closing price of $0.3125, to raise $528m gross and enlarge the issued shares by 151%.

While the stock was suspended, it went ex-bonus on 23-Jun-2015 and the bonus shares were distributed on 3-Jul-2015, so for 10 days straddling the half-year point, only 1/8 of the company was tradable. When trading in those shares resumed on 24-Jun-2015, the stock shot up again on heavy volume, reaching a daily high of $1.22 on 26-Jun-2015. Remember that most of the existing shares had been issued at a bonus-adjusted $0.0375, so they were now up 32.5x. WLS closed at $1.05 on 30-Jun-2015, allowing those listed companies which held the stock to book enormous "fair value gains" in their interim results. At the end of June, WLS had a market capitalisation of HK$5341m, compared with net tangible assets at 30-Apr-2015 of HK$282m ($0.055 per share), so it was trading at 18.9x NAV.

Disclosures of interest indicate that SKCM was using a vehicle called SKCM TMT I, L.P., which was 50% owned by Chiang Chun Yi and 50% by Yam Tak Cheung, and managed by SKCM TMT GP Co. Ltd, which is 40% owned by SKCM. After all that excitement, SKCM backed out of the deal on 8-Aug-2015 citing disagreement over due diligence on WLS, but Avant signed a new agreement on 12-Aug-2015 to continue to subscribe 1920m shares at $0.06875, conditional on WLS issuing at least 252m shares in a fund-raising exercise so that Avant ends up with 29.48% of less - certainly under the 30% takeover trigger.

Now this long and winding road takes us back to Lerado. On 18-Aug-2015, WLS announced two placings via Black Marble Securities, owned by Lerado. The underwritten tranche is of 360m shares (7.08% of existing shares) at $0.06875, and there is a further "best efforts" placing of 5400m shares (106.15%) at the same price, at 82.1% discount to the closing price of $0.385. Together these could raise $389.22m mostly for, you guessed it, money-lending and securities business. The shares closed on 23-Sep-2015 at $0.27, down 74.3% since the end of June, but still at 4.9x NAV.
Raise the umbrellas: China Jicheng (1027)

Perhaps the most ridiculous bubble in our market at present (although there is a lot of competition for that title) is umbrella maker China Jicheng Holdings Ltd (CJ, 1027) which listed on 13-Feb-2015. It peaked on 18-Sep-2015 at $3.18 with a market value of HK$47.7bn, compared with net tangible assets in the 30-Jun-2015 interim results of $399.6m, or $0.0267 per share. So it was trading at 119x NTA.

Adjusting for a 25:1 stock split in June, CJ's IPO priced the shares at $0.044, so was up 72.3x since the IPO. This gives new meaning to the term "umbrella movement". The initial custody positions of the 150m IPO shares (25%) are in our records here. The top 3 brokers will now be familiar to you: Gransing (8.72% of CJ), Win Fung (8.18%) and SWSHK (3.73%), a total 20.64% or 82.54% of the float.

On 14-May-2015, the SFC warned that 16 shareholders owned 24.02% of CJ, or 96.08% of the float, leaving 0.98% of CJ for everyone else. The stock closed at $13.76 the day before that warning, or $0.5504 after the stock split, so it is up 5.14x since then.

In its annual results for 31-Mar-2015, CEEI (mentioned above) disclosed a holding of 12.67m shares (2.11%) in CJ at a purchase cost of $1.10 per share, which means they were allocated in the IPO, because they have never traded that low. After the stock split that will be 316.75m shares at $0.044. So CEEI doesn't always pay bubble prices for bubble shares - it occasionally gets in at the bottom.

The controlling shareholder of CJ is its Chairman, Huang Wenji, with 11.25bn shares (75%) which, on paper, makes him a US$ umbrella multi-billionaire. We note that on 17-Sep-2015, he deposited 1.5bn shares into CCASS with Black Marble Securities, owned by Lerado. That could be preparation for a placing of existing shares and possibly a subscription of new ones, if anyone is dumb enough to buy them.

Lerado interim results show massive gain

Lerado is one of several companies which have made enormous market gains in the first half of 2015 without disclosing what stocks it bought. In the 30-Jun-2015 interim results, it disclosed "held-for-trading investments" comprising "equity securities listed in Hong Kong" of HK$702.1m. It also said that by 28-Aug-2015, the value had declined by 11%. It booked an unrealised gain of $626.5m, implying a purchase cost of $75.6m and a gain of 829% in 6 months or less. No normal stock does that. Whatever stock(s) they hold, it must be bubble paper, and investors deserve to know what it is so that they can make their own assessment of "fair value" rather than relying on an artificial market price.

After providing for $105m of profits tax on the gains, Lerado had net tangible assets at 30-Jun-2015 of $1220m, or $1.27 per share. But if those gains evaporate, then the NTA drops to $698.5m, or $0.728 per share. Both figures are before dilution from the proposed open offer. If the offer proceeds, then that NAV would be diluted to about $0.430 (with the gains) or $0.295 (without the gains). Both figures assume that Lerado loses the Dorel arbitration, which is worth $307m, which is $0.320 per share before the open offer or $0.080 per share after the open offer.
Capital VC's open offer

On 13-Mar-2015, Capital VC announced a 5:1 share consolidation to be followed by a 7:1 open offer at $0.25 per consolidated share without excess applications. That was a 76.5% discount to the adjusted closing price of $1.065 per share. The Financial Adviser was Akron, and the "underwriter" was SBI CCFS. The last published NAV at 28-Feb-2015 was an adjusted $4.821, so the issue discount to NAV was 94.8%. The stock sold off on the news, down 39.9% the next day to an adjusted $0.64.

Policy note: Chapter 21 investment companies like Capital VC have to publish their NAV monthly. This involves valuing all their listed investments at market prices, so they know what they are. Until 2002, these announcements had to be published in newspapers, so space was at a premium. Now that announcements are online for the last 13 years, this is no longer the case. Yet the Listing Rules still only require Chapter 21 companies to disclose the top 10 investments once per year in the annual report. This is ridiculous. The top 10 investments should be disclosed every month so that shareholders know what risks they are taking.

Again, investors faced the extortion of having to either see the investment heavily diluted, or put in more cash, and no excess applications were allowed, so it is really a placing with the "underwriter" subject to first refusal of existing holders pro rata. The underwriter benefits from any unsubscribed shares at a discount to market. To eliminate the possibility of SBI CCFS holding a controlling stake, it had to arrange sub-underwriters. They included Gransing, for 180m shares, Jun Yang Securities Co Ltd (Jun Yang Securities), for 152m, Avant, for 142.5m, and Fordjoy, for 80m shares.

Incidentally, SBI CCFS is 52% owned by Cao Guo Qi, a director of several listed companies, and 48% by Zhang Xiongfeng, the current Chairman of CMG, mentioned above.

On 11-Jun-2015, Capital VC shareholders approved the consolidation and open offer without objection. Voting turnout was only 14.39% of the issued and eligible shares, probably including the 6.44% owned by Ye Ruiqiang.

Policy note: shareholders are often unaware of opportunities to protect themselves by voting against such egregious proposals, because the SFC does not require banks and brokers who hold their stock to inform them of EGMs and seek voting instructions. As a result, most banks and brokers, in the small print of the client contracts, state that they are not obliged to do so. This is a major barrier to investor participation in governance, and the SFC should act to resolve this, as we said in our submission Principles of Responsible Regulation (26-May-2015).

On 24-Jun-2015, six days before Capital VC's financial year-end, it announced that it was changing its year-end to 30-Sep-2015, so it would produce a second set of condensed "interim" results for the 12 months to 30-Jun-2015. The purported reason for this was:

"to align the Company's financial year end date with that of the Company's principal associate, CNI Bullion Limited, which is the Group's substantial investment."

This holds no water though. Remember, Capital VC is a Chapter 21 investment company, so under Rule 21.04(3)(a), it is not allowed to take "legal, or effective, management control of underlying investments" and under Rule 21.04(3)(b) it is required to maintain a "reasonable spread of investments". So there is no logical reason to align the year ends of Capital VC and any of its investments, including CNI Bullion Ltd, which only accounted for 9% of Capital VC's NAV at 31-Dec-2014.

So what was the real reason for extending the year-end? In our view, to delay the annual disclosure of the portfolio. It's so embarrassing to have to show that your castle is built on sand.

On 15-Jul-2015 Capital VC announced that its NAV at 30-Jun-2015 was $9.0782 per share, and on 27-Aug-2015 it announced the second interim results for the 12 months to June. Capital VC booked a pre-tax profit on financial assets of $1314m for the 12 months, compared with $163m in the first 6 months, so the second-half profit was $1151m. As an investment company, it does not distinguish between realised and unrealised gains, but we can deduce them from the amount of deferred tax, which is tax that is only payable when they cash out. Note 8 shows deferred tax of $132m, so as profits tax is 16.5% they have about $800m of net unrealised gains, probably in bubble stocks.

Anyway, with that NAV in mind, let's return to the open offer. 7:1 at $0.25, versus NAV of $9.0782, so the open offer would dilute NAV to $1.354 before expenses. Shareholders who did nothing would lose 85% of their net asset value. Yet, when the offer closed on 9-Jul-2015, only 23.7% of the shares were subscribed. That left the underwriters and whoever was behind them with 66.75% of the company, acquired at $0.25 per share. The market price closed that day at $0.32. Due to market losses in July, the NAV closed that month at $1.0292, and $0.8824 at the end of August. Amazingly there was nobody with a disclosed 5% shareholding after the offer closed.

Meanwhile, even in market price terms, the shareholders who did not subscribe (and most of them did not vote against the open offer) had seen the price collapse from $1.065 before the open offer to $0.32, even while Capital VC was racking up huge gains as a holder of the unnamed inflated stocks.
Jun Yang (0397)

Jun Yang Securities is owned by Jun Yang Financial Holdings Ltd (Jun Yang, 0397). Until August, this was known as Jun Yang Solar Power Investments Ltd, but that's out of fashion, so now, like everyone else, it wants to be a financial services powerhouse.

Note 24 on page 113 of Jun Yang's 2014 annual report reveals that it owned 2.49% of Tech Pro Technology Development Ltd (Tech Pro Technology, 3823) and 4.49% of Town Health International Medical Group Ltd (Town Health, 3886). Those had a market value of about HK$235m and $280m respectively, out of total listed equities of $854m. Jun Yang booked an unrealised gain on held-for-trading investments of HK$350m for 2014, without which it would have made a loss before tax of $98m.
Tech Pro Technology (3823)

This is another bubble stock, up 93.14% in 2014, and it has kept on going, up a net 22.62% this year so far. It closed on 23-Sep-2015 at $1.87, valuing the firm at HK$12.13bn. When a company includes the syllable "Tech" in its name twice, you know it is desperate for attention. The company makes LED lamps and losses. Oh and football. Yes, it has bought a French soccer club, FC Sochaux-Montbeliard SA. After all, why sponsor the shirts when you can buy the whole thing?

The interim report at 30-Jun-2015, shows net tangible assets of RMB475m (HK$594m) or about HK$0.092 per share. Turnover for the period was RMB111m, so if you annualize that you get RMB222m or HK$278m. So the shares are trading at about 20.4x NTA and about 44x turnover.

L&A (8195)

This is another bubble stock. L & A International Holdings Ltd (L&A, 8195) makes cashmere sweaters. It listed on 10-Oct-2014 after a placing at $0.06 per share (adjusted for the 10:1 split on 21-Apr-2015). In the placing, the top 10 placees received 89.74% of the float. It closed on 23-Sep-2015 at $2.92, up 48.7x since the listing. The market value is HK$11.68bn, compared with net tangible assets of HK$129m at 31-Mar-2015, or about $0.032 per share, so it trades at 90x book value. Revenue for the year was $350m, so it trades at 33x sales.

Despite this ridiculous valuation, or perhaps because of it, CEEI bought 69.384m L&A shares (1.73%) in the market from 17-Apr-2015 to 12-May-2015, spending a total of HK$112.7m or an average of $1.62 per share. This was announced on 12-May-2015. Of course, we don't know who the sellers were. Lucky them.

On 24-Jun-2015, the SFC issued a concentration warning, noting that 19 shareholders held 23.18% out of the 25% float.
Roundup

What you have seen here is a repeated pattern of abuse. The key steps in several transactions are:

  Position votes in friendly hands which are not visibly connected to controlling shareholders or executive directors, by issuance of new shares or transfer of existing shares.
  Arrange loan financing for any existing controller to take up entitlements, or even sell shares in the market with enough time gap to deter allegations of insider dealing.
  Announce either (i) a large, deep-discount open offer without excess applications; or (ii) a "special mandate" placing, which in the first case will need "independent" shareholders' approval and in the latter, just shareholders' approval.
  Use friendly votes to approve the proposal which damages the financial interests of anyone who cannot or does not put up cash (in the case of a placing, this isn't even an option).
  Complete the fund-raising and receive deeply discounted shares as the underwriter, sub-underwriter or placee of the shares.

Hong Kong deserves better if it wishes to make a claim to be a world-class financial centre.

© Webb-site.com, 2015
Organisations in this story

  Adamas Asset Management (HK) Limited
  Akron Corporate Finance Limited
  Astrum Capital Management Limited
  AVANT CAPITAL MANAGEMENT (HK) LIMITED
  Black Marble Securities Limited
  BlackMarble Capital Limited
  Brilliant One Holdings Limited
  BRILLIANT SUMMIT LIMITED
  Capital VC Limited
  China 33 Media Group Limited
  CHINA AUTOMOTIVE INTERIOR DECORATION HOLDINGS LIMITED
  China Environmental Energy Investment Limited
  CHINA EVERBRIGHT SECURITIES (HK) LIMITED
  China Innovation Investment Limited
  China Investment and Finance Group Limited
  China Investment Development Limited
  China Jicheng Holdings Limited
  China New Economy Fund Limited
  CIS HOLDINGS LIMITED
  Colbert Finance Limited
  Convoy Financial Holdings Limited
  CONVOY INVESTMENT SERVICES LIMITED
  Dorel Industries Inc.
  Finsoft Financial Investment Holdings Limited
  FORDJOY SECURITIES AND FUTURES LIMITED
  GET NICE SECURITIES LIMITED
  GOLD MEDAL HONG KONG LIMITED
  Golden Vault Limited (VG)
  GRANSING SECURITIES CO., LIMITED
  GREATER CHINA APPRAISAL LIMITED
  GreaterChina Professional Services Limited
  Hao Wen Holdings Limited
  HENIK SECURITIES LIMITED
  HERCULES CAPITAL LIMITED
  INTELLIGENCE HONG KONG GROUP LIMITED
  Interactive Entertainment China Cultural Technology Investments Limited (KY)
  Jun Yang Financial Holdings Limited
  JUN YANG SECURITIES COMPANY LIMITED
  KINGSTON SECURITIES LIMITED
  L & A International Holdings Limited
  LERADO GROUP (HOLDING) COMPANY LIMITED
  Lizhong Limited
  Octal Capital Limited
  Opus Capital Limited
  RHB SECURITIES HONG KONG LIMITED
  Roma Appraisals Limited
  Roma Group Limited
  Sage International Group Limited
  SAN WAH HOLDINGS LIMITED
  SBI China Capital Financial Services Limited
  SEEC MEDIA GROUP LIMITED
  Shin Kong Capital Management Inc.
  SKCM TMT GP Co., Ltd
  SKCM TMT I, L.P.
  SOUTHWEST SECURITIES (HK) BROKERAGE LIMITED
  SUNCORP TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
  Tech Pro Technology Development Limited
  UNITY INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS LIMITED
  Win Fung Securities Limited
  WLS HOLDINGS LIMITED

People in this story

  Chan, Cheong Yee
  Chan, Dominic Kam Fuk
  Chen, Patrick Chun Chieh
  Chiang, Chun Yi
  Chiu, Samuel Se Chung
  Huang Chen, Jamy Li Chu
  Huang, Henry Ying Yuan
  Jiang, Howard Qi Hang
  Law, Thomas Yee Man
  Leung, Tin Fu
  Ma, Kin Lung
  Mak, Mark Kwong Yiu
  Ng, Adeline Li La
  Tam, Simon Siu Ki
  Wang, Zewei
  Wong, Chun Wah (SFC:AGV352)
  Wong, Cynthia Sin Fai
  Yam, Tak Cheung

Topics in this story

  Listing rules
  Bubble warnings
  Pre-emption rights/ general mandate
普通會員
greatsoup38
rbenabled
avatar
183.178.164.120
金錢: 149201.15
帖數: 166081
GP: 3287
LV: 408
交易所:
http://webb-site.com/articles/leradoumbrella.asp
Lerado's umbrellas and open offer
27th October 2015

Our suspicions have once again proved correct. In our article on China Automotive Interior Decoration Holdings Ltd (CAID, 0048) of 10-Oct-2015, we wrote about its stake in umbrella-maker China Jicheng Holdings Ltd (CJ, 1027):

"So now we have identified 2 shareholders of the umbrella bubble, namely CAID with 1.52% and China Environmental Energy Investment Ltd (CEEI, 0986) with 2.11%, out of the 25% float... Given the other identified connection between CAID and Lerado Group (Holding) Co Ltd (1225), we suspect that Lerado's massive market gains for the first half of 2015 also involve a shareholding in CJ, but so far, they're not saying."

We filed a complaint with the Stock Exchange and SFC about the lack of disclosure by Lerado, and on Friday night, Lerado disclosed its investment portfolio at 30-Jun-2015. Of the $702.08m of investments, CJ accounts for $624m, which implies that Lerado holds 300m shares (2.00%) of CJ. Lerado only held 4 other investments. Not by coincidence, each and every one of them was mentioned in our article Bubbles and troubles (24-Sep-2015) regarding the network of companies which includes both CAID and Lerado.

One of these holdings was previously disclosed, China Investment and Finance Group Ltd (CIFG, 1226), which in turn had a cross-holding in Lerado received in exchange for a property. Lerado subscribed for its shares in CIFG at $0.275 on 21-May-2015. Lerado's subsidiary Black Marble Securities Co Ltd is currently "underwriting" an abusive deep-discount open offer by CIFG, and Lerado is also proposing a similarly abusive deep-discount open offer.

After we urged the Stock Exchange to prohibit Lerado and CIFG from voting to approve each other's open offers due to their material interests in the outcome, what did the companies do? Each of them decided to sell their shares, unwinding the cross-holding:

  Lerado sold its 103.392m shares (9.89%) of CIFG at $0.076 on 29-Sep-2015, via Gransing Securities Co Ltd and Kingston Securities Co Ltd. You can see the CCASS settlements here. The sale was a 72.4% loss for Lerado.
  Next, CIFG sold its 71.916m shares (7.49%) of Lerado in two chunks via Astrum Capital Management Ltd, selling 23.5m shares on 5-Oct-2015 at $0.242, and the remaining 48.416m the next day at $0.248, for an overall average of $0.246. You can see the first settlements here, and the second settlements here. CIFG received its Lerado shares in exchange for property on 31-Mar-2015 at $0.50 each, so it has made a 50.8% loss.

The fact that both companies were willing to sell their shares at substantial losses, when the losses were largely due to the announcement of their respective open offers, after their ability to vote was questioned, supports the thesis that the only reason they held the shares in the first place was to support each other's abusive transactions. The shares were remarkably easily absorbed by buyers, suggesting that they had been lined up in advance - no dumping. Lerado's share price actually gained 2.5% on the first day and 1.6% on the second day of the sale by CIFG. Whether the buyers will vote in favour of the open offer remains to be seen.

Returning to Lerado's announcement, other than CJ and CIFG there are 3 other holdings, by far the largest of which was Convoy Financial Holdings Ltd (Convoy FH, 1019), at $33.81m, implying that Lerado owned 34.5m shares (1.40%) of Convoy FH. As we mentioned on Bubbles and troubles, Mark Mak Kwong Yiu, a so-called independent director of Lerado, is CEO of Convoy FH. There is also a holding of 4.6m shares (0.89%) of China New Economy Fund Ltd (CNEF, 0080), and a small holding of $18k (20,000 shares) in Finsoft Financial Investment Holdings Ltd (Finsoft, 8018). As we explained in our article on 31-Dec-2014, Some bubbles for New Year, both Convoy and CNEF had invested in the Finsoft bubble. The bubble expanded further and then burst, down a net 91.58% since the article. According to CNEF's interim report at 30-Jun-2015, it still held 2.50% of Finsoft, down from 4.34% at the end of 2014, and it held 1.46% of Convoy FH.

So, now we know 3 network shareholders of the Jicheng umbrella bubble: CAID with 1.52%, CEEI with 2.11% and Lerado with 2.00%, a total of 5.63%, or 22.52% of the float. Would anyone else like to own up?
Vote against Lerado's open offer

Lerado has now published its circular for the Special General Meeting on 10-Nov-2015 to consider the proposed open offer.

Lerado's 300m shares in CJ are still worth (if you believe the market price) HK$561m, far more than the $422m it aims to raise in the open offer, and more than twice Lerado's current market value. So you might think they could just sell the CJ shares instead - but that would spoil the game for the other companies in this network by crashing the CJ price. You might think that no sensible board would not sell CJ shares which (at $1.87 yesterday) are still trading at 55x NAV and 42.5x their IPO price - but that assumes that the board makes decisions sensibly and independently. The circular, including a laughable letter from the so-called independent financial adviser, is devoid of any discussion of this funding option. We call on the Stock Exchange to require Lerado to explain why it does not sell the CJ shares instead of raising cash in the open offer.

We still have a chance to stop this extortion and restore some value to Lerado's share price, which has been heavily depressed by the proposed open offer, of 3 shares at $0.15 for every share held. The price on 14-Aug-2015 before the announcement was $0.47 and it closed yesterday at $0.241, down a net 48.7%, and far below its net tangible assets per share, which (exclude the stock-gains) at 30-Jun-2015 is around $0.728, plus a possible $0.32 if they win the arbitration with Dorel. Any gain made from selling the CJ shares before the bubble bursts would be a bonus.

Vote AGAINST both resolutions. If you hold your shares through a bank or broker, instruct them to vote, and see our voting guide here. If your bank or broker refuses to cooperate then contact us with details and we will name and shame them. Don't sit back and expect others to carry the day - our editor David Webb holds over 8%, but that is not enough on its own to win. The trading in the shares goes "ex-vote" on 3-Nov-2015, so anyone who holds or buys before that date can vote.

© Webb-site.com, 2015
Organisations in this story

  CHINA AUTOMOTIVE INTERIOR DECORATION HOLDINGS LIMITED
  China Environmental Energy Investment Limited
  China Investment and Finance Group Limited
  China Jicheng Holdings Limited
  China New Economy Fund Limited
  Convoy Financial Holdings Limited
  Finsoft Financial Investment Holdings Limited
  LERADO GROUP (HOLDING) COMPANY LIMITED

People in this story

  Mak, Mark Kwong Yiu
普通會員
太平天下
rbenabled
avatar
118.140.21.66
金錢: 740.90
帖數: 1223
GP: 5
LV: 35
交易所:
greatsoup383樓提及
仲有1979,他一見到我地寫,他地又轉倉

1979都係? 真係唔知喎
普通會員
greatsoup38
rbenabled
avatar
183.178.164.120
金錢: 149201.15
帖數: 166081
GP: 3287
LV: 408
交易所:
太平天下7樓提及
greatsoup383樓提及
仲有1979,他一見到我地寫,他地又轉倉

1979都係? 真係唔知喎


他d證券行出晒來...
普通會員
greatsoup38
rbenabled
avatar
183.178.164.120
金錢: 149201.15
帖數: 166081
GP: 3287
LV: 408
交易所:
http://realblog.zkiz.com/greatsoup38/151478
2015-07-02  NM

牛市號角餘音未了,中港股市突然爆發小股災。先是A股崩盤,然後希臘突然「反枱」,債務危機如刀在頸上,更隨時被踢出歐元區。即使中央政府出動「雙降」救市,仍無法扭轉乾坤。本週一,上證指數曾跌穿四千點。內外夾擊下,恒指一度急挫超過一千點,收市失守二萬六千點。暴風雨突襲,但有股壇「長勝將軍」之稱的惠理基金(806)名譽主席葉維義,直言未驚過,更指是撈底時機。而東驥基金管理董事總經理龐寶林,更透露已在買貨。

本週二,恒指下午開市後一度爆跌超過一千點,全城恐慌,大市指標之一的港交所(388)最多跌近百分之七。記者去到沙田瀝源邨的中銀,有街坊話人流明顯較上午少,部分散戶在股票機前愈看愈激動:「哇!又跌!」「就嚟一千啦,倒水咁倒!」不過,有二十多年炒股經驗的玲姐就相對冷靜,指已看慣大跌市,現手上持有的以公用股為主,包括煤氣(3)。「希臘搞成咁,都知會大跌,等多兩日先知見唔見底!」她指早上已有不少散戶乘機撈底,自己就睇好電能(6)及盈富基金(2800):「跌得咁急,應該有反彈,個市升番時,佢哋實反映到。」臨近收市時,跌勢收窄,有散戶在止蝕港交所後,見股價回升十多元,大呼:「有無搞錯!」恒指最終跌幅收窄至約七百點收市,但仍失守二萬六千點。重磅股騰訊(700)及平安保險(2318)均跌約百分之四,中資證券股是重災區,海通證券(6837)急跌超過百分之八。哀鴻遍野,但推崇價值投資法、曾多次成功預測恒指走勢的「長勝將軍」葉維義,卻十分冷靜,更一早約了朋友去遊船河,他表示:「今次係恐慌性拋售,已差唔多見底。」

希臘危機事件簿

牛市未完籲撈底

恒指受A股及希臘危機兩大因素左右,葉維義首先表示仍看好A股,指之前升得急,如今「挫一挫」,令牛市基礎更穩固,升勢更長久。「啲人驚A股,最驚都係炒孖展嘅倉,依家(上證)跌咗兩成幾,挫一挫,將孖展挫出來,係好事,等啲人唔好以為買親股票都賺。」他指牛市一定要「跌一跌」,才會長久。「牛市要climb the wall of worry,挫一挫,啲人知驚,咁持續性先可以長久啲,如果個市完全冇downside,反而係到頂,因為個個都瘋狂入市。」至於希臘,他直指該國被踢出歐元區機會甚大。「希臘今次玩大咗,唔知點收科,歐盟理事會亦唔想佢收科,你以為我哋唔敢踢你走?就踢你出去。」他笑言將希臘踢出歐盟是好事,等其他歐洲國家知道,不可以輸打贏要。「如果係兩、三年前,可能會觸發連鎖反應,但依家西班牙、葡萄牙嘅經濟已見底,有復甦跡象,歐洲嘅銀行亦比兩、三年前穩健好多。」葉維義指是次跌市屬短期性,而非周期性,直言會伺機撈底,他表示:「藍籌股撈底係可以嘅,好像滙豐(5),跌到七十元,有五釐半息。仲有中資基金都可以考慮。」

基金已入貨

看好後市的,還有東驥基金管理董事總經理龐寶林,他指「央媽」出雙拳,A股四千點有支持,相反希臘GDP佔全球百分比較細,只是心理因素影響。他透露,不少外資上星期已開始收集A股,他亦乘機撈底。港股方面,他認為較進取的投資者可買香港券商、金融股,如康宏金融(1019)、惠理基金、南華金融(619)等,「今日都跌咗很多,而且比內地券商股多個優勢,就是搏被收購,好像早排嘅敦沛都賣咗六億多,今年初新鴻基證券賣咗四十幾億。」龐寶林相信中央有機會再出招,「(存款準備金)17%減到13%,都仲有大把空間,而淨利率仲係好高,仲有得減。」他指「雙降」對金融股有利,「保守一點,可以考慮買港交所、滙豐及中國銀行(3988),呢類金融股股息唔錯,滙豐有五釐幾,港交所都有三點九八。最保守嘅投資者可以買人民幣債券,全世界的債券牛市已經完結,但綠洲仲有一個,就係中國,有機會賺百分之十幾,賺息又賺錢。」

中央急救A股

金融界對後市表現樂觀,事實上,週一中午上證指數跌穿四千點後,內地官媒已群出「救市」。《人民日報》中午發出緊急社論,指「調整到位」,並會嚴查惡意沽空的金融機構。另外,有深圳大型證券行老總表示,指證監已通知所有大型私募基金停止大手沽貨,以及會宣布批准養老金入市。「中央一定要救,不救會出大事,會死人!現在投進股市裡的都是中產及富裕階級,如果這群人的財富蒸發了,經濟也會死的。」過去兩星期,A股已累跌超過兩成。該老總解釋:「主要是前期的高槓桿交易平倉,有人孖展做到一比五,就是一百萬借到五百萬,股價跌一成就要平倉。沒錢就斬倉,導致股價再跌,其他以一比四、一比三借錢的也要平倉,觸發惡性循環,導致小股災。」他指中央減息是「遠水難救近火」,最好的辦法是私下指示信託公司暫緩斬倉,令火勢不再蔓延,「當然這不是能在枱面做的事。」不過,FSM香港投資組合經理沈家麟就表示,內地傘形信託基金的斬倉潮,令A股這個星期內難以反彈:「而家A股借孖展炒嘅金額大約有兩萬億人民幣,佔咗整個A股流通量大約百分之八,係一個好驚人嘅水平,啲信託係一層一層咁借落去,個市一跌,就好多人出事。」他指內地散戶的炒股方式與香港不同,如果預期大市會跌,就情願斬倉,不會補倉。「中央係有決心救市,但單靠出口術,難以在短期內有成效,有傳話A股暫停IPO,但實際作用唔大,短期炒孖展嘅散戶會輸好多,特別係啲證券商會出現資金問題。」雖然如此,但沈家麟認為A股估值依然偏低,是趁低吸納的好時機:「而家A股市盈率只係十七倍,其實幾抵買,好多外資都已經入緊市,滬港通呢幾日額度都爆升,散戶可以等到希臘公投結果再入市都未遲。」他認為國企改革步伐才剛開始,因此A股在中央托市之下,仍會呈牛市走勢,中長線仍然持續看好,因此今次跌市反而是掃貨的好機會。

庄家加速散貨僆模也中招

細價股,翻身機會就較微。

股市波動,細股庄家為盡速散貨,無所不用其極,近月更在夜場落手,再利用WhatsApp、WeChat等方法高速「傳銷」,最終,僆模「瞓身」工作得來的辛苦錢,因股市大冧棚,已輸個落花流水。

市場傳言,此批僆模背後的「契家佬」,非常憤怒,揚言要「嚴懲」幫忙以手機散貨的庄家中間人(即艇仔)。其中一名艇仔,就是在金融界略有名氣的「Kelvin God」。現年三十出頭的Kelvin,本姓鄭,家人在旺角開花店,早年跟周顯學炒股,賺了第一桶金,並買入大量物業收租。他曾任周顯講股課程的助教,現於雜誌《港股策略王》寫專欄。Kelvin因長得高大英俊,出入揸跑車、有樓收租,符合「高富帥」所有條件,流連夜場有不少僆模埋身,他的朋友以「後宮佳麗三千」來形容他。參看Kelvin的專欄,其簡介是:「經常被美女、模特兒包圍的職業炒家」,而他亦經常在文章中談及夜場多姿多采的生活。

討論為名散貨為實

不過Kelvin的另一面,卻是細價股庄家的友好。近月,有人將其人脈關係網「結合」,開始向夜場紅顏推介股票。今年四月,一個名叫「香港股票討論區」的WeChat群組成立,參與人數達五百多人,最離奇是全屬僆模。她們在WeChat張貼的相片,不是露胸就是露腿,看得人熱血沸騰。而此群組主理人,正是Kelvin。「群組最初只有二十人加入,但經僆模廣為傳頌後,增加至一百人,連『模媽』Mia都是捧場客,最後更加至五百人爆滿,插針都插唔入!」一名參與者指,Kelvin會提供一條龍服務,除了發放股票貼士之外,更向僆模借埋錢,從中收息。僆模與僆模之間又會「集資」,瞓身炒股。

主力1063

由於Kelvin最初發放的貼士甚準,一眾僆模當他神咁拜。而事實上,今年四月撞正港股大時代,細價股爆升,賺錢如執金。但踏入六月,A股兩星期內暴跌兩成,本週一恒指跌幅曾達一千點,細價股更是一瀉千里,庄家無力也無心護盤,一班僆模亦開始喊打喊殺。 其中一名僆模張小姐(化名)指,有朋友在四月時,將她加入一個叫「香港股票討論區」的群組,「個group都有其他人推介股票,但個個都淨係信Kelvin,話佢啲料至掂,好似中泛控股(715)、俊和發展(711)嗰啲,升得好勁。」張小姐亦因此對Kelvin深信不疑:「佢強烈推介1063(新確科技),一開始我$1.1買一百萬,$1.3走,先賺二十萬甜頭。之後$1.4買五十萬,跌到落$1.1,輸咗十五萬呀!最後一次$1.2再入二百萬,跌到$0.6走,輸成一百二十萬!」

最驚契家佬

這隻1063,二月份時股價只有$0.2,踏入三月初,公司宣布與銀聯電子支付達成合作協議,並以$0.24配售二十五億股,刺激新確科技股價即時升至$0.45,之後愈升愈有,僅是一個四月,股價已升超過一倍。隨着配股完成,新確科技在五月初見頂報$1.56後,開始逐步下跌。至六月初,隨其他細價妖股走勢,股價突然大插水,一日內由$1.1大跌三成至0.8,現股價報$0.5。張小姐說,在此期間她並沒有止蝕,並歸咎於:「最衰係跌緊時,有人喺WeChat講話唔使驚,震一震啫。」她買股票的幾百萬元,全都是之前買股票賺的錢,再加上儲落的私己錢,就此一鋪清袋。一班走避不及的僆模,在群組內大呻:「輸到嘔血」、「呢個六月輸咗兩個Hermes」、「我本身贏半層樓,宜家輸埋,仲輸多架林寶」。據知情人士透露,Kelvin其實亦被新確科技的庄家,在背後過了一戙。「Kelvin一直堅信隻1063會升,仲同啲女有協議,話輸咗會賠錢。而家佢呢隻股自己都輸近千萬,仲要俾啲女×,好大鑊!」這場大龍鳳在圈中鬧得很大,有人曾找有勢力人士尋仇,「Kelvin而家都好驚呀,佢唔係驚啲女,係驚啲女背後嘅契家佬!」

背後有老闆

除了新確科技,Kelvin在討論區內,推介過中國天然氣(931)、中國置業投資(736)、國家聯合資源(254)、財訊傳媒(205)等等。不過這個月,以上股份全都由四、五月高位下跌逾三成。Kelvin背後,據知是智易控股(8100)獨立非執董、正在股壇當紅的葉志輝(Stevens Yip)。葉志輝早年跟隨細價股玩家李鋈麟(Alan Lee)搵食,其後跳槽跟新進細價股玩家曹貴子。傳聞新確科技、以及中國汽車內飾(48)及中國環保能源(986)都是他打骰。葉志輝亦是「其樂無窮」的馬主,拉過三次頭馬;胞兄葉志明曾任新確科技執董,現任超大現代農業(682)非執董,是大股東郭浩私交甚篤的好友。而葉志輝太太伍樂琪,又稱琪琪,曾出任一中證券的證券代表。

自爆內幕

始作俑者Kelvin,出事後在WeChat辯稱僆模輸打贏要、踩到盡:「人哋低位叫你哋買1207,又唔見有人多謝,點解而家要踩咁盡」、「只怨自己蠢、咁大個棚,唔走而家怪人。」,其後他亦退出群組。本刊曾致電找他,但他拒絕回應。 在採訪後,本刊另收到一名叫Larry Chiang、自稱Kelvin朋友的電話。Larry聲稱認識本刊的Managing Director(執行董事)江美儀(編按:應為本刊前娛樂組副總編輯葉美儀,已離職逾一年),又表示要為「1063(新確科技)事件」發表聲明,後來不了了之。據知,此Larry正是友邦保險香港區總裁蔣佳良,而他亦是庄家大好友之一。其後Larry再安排手下回電,稱要為Kelvin「講句公道話」,「我一路聽Kelvin啲貼士都有受惠。人哋講晒免責聲明o架喎!呢個group啲女仔,升就誇啦啦,一跌就亂咁噏,輸打贏要,唔用個腦諗吓!」他希望記者不要報導1063,「你寫出嚟會令市場唔知點諗,啲阿婆睇完好驚沽咗,會輸好多錢,對平民百姓好大影響!」最後他還「溫馨提示」,Kelvin是中國十大富豪外甥的好友,「外甥姓吳,福建人。」有知情者說,Kelvin與世茂房地產(813)許榮茂的外甥吳成堯相熟,經常結伴夜蒲,吳成堯不時帶女友模媽Mia出席。只可惜,現在連阿爺減息,都難敵外圍大冧,這干人等也自然神仙難救。
 

普通會員
greatsoup38
rbenabled
avatar
183.178.164.120
金錢: 149201.15
帖數: 166081
GP: 3287
LV: 408
交易所:
http://www.hkjc.com/chinese/raci ... n%20Yip%20Chi%20Fai
共有1匹馬之馬主為"葉志輝"
普通會員
greatsoup38
rbenabled
avatar
183.178.164.120
金錢: 149201.15
帖數: 166081
GP: 3287
LV: 408
交易所:
普通會員
greatsoup38
rbenabled
avatar
183.178.164.120
金錢: 149201.15
帖數: 166081
GP: 3287
LV: 408
交易所:
https://www.facebook.com/%E6%98%93%E5%AE%AE-334569940067987/
財技的黑魔術

今日各大財經討論區、Whatsapp群組都在熱烈地討論恆發洋參(911) 被洗倉後的反彈機會。

想搏佢急跌後澄清反彈的股友,不妨可以參考一下小弟以下的文章,了解多一點莊家一些財技操作的黑暗面。

今天小弟的Whatsapp群組有學生提到,坊間的財技班有教他洗倉股的玩法,小弟對此有保留意見。

原因是那是一種投機性的分析,非正途的財技分析。
莊家洗倉後,雖然股價低殘到變成一個不能抗拒的買入理由,不排除會有炒家純粹短炒摶一大堆人搭返個棚上去,來個二至三成升幅的食糊。

站在散戶的角度看,現時股價跌咗9成,由0.034上返0.04都已經好和味。心想,莊家點都要响低位買返晒啲沽咗出街的貨,否則有可能會被外間追擊,喪失控股權,即失埋隻殼。

但這只是散戶們一廂情願的想法。雖說莊家需要補充返啲貨源,但沒有人說莊家只有一種方法補充貨源。除了响市場內掃返啲貨外,還有更多的印股票工具:配股、授出及行使購股權、行使CB也是隨時可行的方法。

再者,莊家還可以來招大比例合股,將貪心撈底的散戶再欺凌一番,又或是二次傷害於0.395樓上買入的股民。

若合完股都趕唔走、夾唔死散戶,不妨再來多一次大比例大折讓供股,加入苛刻的供股條款,睇怕都沒有人再敢留低。

簡而言之,响街收貨倒不如自己平價印股票。

以上很恐怖麼? 但確實在過去的股票也曾發生過的。
甚麼永義系、醫生系、華匯系、宏安系。都係以供供合合、向下炒而聞名於世。

申利:小弟現時並無持有上述股票。

注意:以上僅為小弟之個人分享,並不構成任何投資勸導或買賣要約。
各投資者應依據自身的意願,以及可承受風險的能力,作出適合自己的投資決定。如有需要,請聯絡並徵詢相關專業人士之意見。
Frank Leung 、 Evan Chow 、 Chris Cheung 以及其他 2 人都說讚。
留言
易宮
4小時 ·

市況差,最緊要係避險,才能保留實力,集中注碼落潛力股身上。

既然今日焦點係醫生系的股票,小弟也康慨一點,跟大家分享一下與醫生有關連的股票:

080 中國新經濟投資 , //剛供完股, 暫無升跌
397 君陽金融 , //暫升8%
630 雋泰控股 , //2供1@0.13中,未除權, 暫無升跌
648 中國華仁醫療 , //暫升10%
653 卓悅控股 , //暫無升跌
904 中國粗糧王飲品 , //暫跌1.5%,1供2@0.12中,未除權
911 恆發洋參 , //被洗倉,跌91%後宣佈停牌。
1082 香港教育國際 , //又一隻被洗倉,暫跌29%,昨晚公佈5合1
1225 隆成集團 , //剛供完股1個月,現升0.8%,不過仍然較供股前潛水中。
1246 毅信控股 , //暫升7.1%,早前與藍鼎系有交易
2324 首都創投 , //暫升1.4%,早前作1送1紅股,紅股已出
3886 康健國際醫療 , //醫生系旗艦號,暫跌0.6%,
6108 新銳醫藥 , //暫升2.9%, 由創仔轉主板已7個月,不過睇埋個股價圖先算。
6896 金嗓子 , //暫無成交無升跌,上市半年
8021 匯隆控股 , //暫無升跌,最近四個月沒特別財技活動
8037 銳康藥業 , //暫跌9.7%,1月中向恆發洋參(911)溢價配CB
8081 中國手遊文化 , //暫無升跌,早前10合1,繼而再1供5@0.155中,未除權
8086 DX﹒COM控股 , //暫跌0.58%,一月初宣佈配股@0.222
8100 智易控股 , //暫無升跌,最近做咗單收購及發行代價股份,另外向同系雋泰(630)出售中環寫字樓。
8101 家夢控股 , //暫跌3.44%,供股完後三個月多
8120 中國神農投資 , //暫跌2.4%,又一隻玩緊5合1
8250 絲路能源 , //暫跌3.5%,股價由去年4月一直向南至今
8361 中國育兒網絡 //暫無成交,上市半年,去年11月曾公佈與康健國際(3886)合作

申利:小弟現時並無持有上述股票。

注意:以上僅為小弟之個人分享,並不構成任何投資勸導或買賣要約。
各投資者應依據自身的意願,以及可承受風險的能力,作出適合自己的投資決定。如有需要,請聯絡並徵詢相關專業人士之意見。

股票狀態及資訊皆由易發路財訊系統提供,版權所有。
系統輔導員
greatsoup
rbenabled
avatar
183.178.164.120
金錢: 207395.76
帖數: 207295
GP: 4197
LV: 456
交易所: 305555.25
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/financeestate/art/20160421/19579849

【財經專題】
聯旺集團(8217)挾住黃翠如的星味,由區區幾億市值的創板股,用三日炒高54倍,市值最高見177億元,一度超越電視廣播(511)。今次炒起聯旺的背後莊家集團,與隆成(1225)、新確(1063)、康宏(1019)關係千絲萬縷,相關集團更曾令「股壇長毛」David Webb敗陣。其中人稱「粉哥」的殼股玩家葉志輝(Steven Yip),被指為聯旺炒風的核心人物,市場揣測,「翠如BB股」或被打造成「翻版神傘」,繼續成為百億神奇殼股。
聯旺昨收報8.7元,升8.1%,成交751萬元,市值增至108億元。
要知百億殼股是如何煉成,可由為聯旺上市穿針引線的券商入手。最近一年只賺1,800萬元的建築股聯旺,由鼎成及新確證券包銷,並由天財資本作為保薦人。
根據聯交所中央結算紀錄,鼎成由上市首日起已坐貨最多,至4月19日為止持倉仍達7.43%,因此早已成市場焦點。今次獲分貨的數間券商,如貝格隆及康宏,連同兩間包銷商,關係千絲萬縷。
貝格隆由隆成全資持有,去年底更與「無寶不落」的David Webb上演一場財技大鬥法。隆成去年8月中公佈大折讓「一供三」,雖然股東之一David Webb曾經抗爭,發動小股東投反對票,但最終供股方案獲通過,David Webb慘敗收場。至於鼎成則是供股包銷商,目前仍於隆成坐貨4.33%。

與新確證券有關連
值得一提,隆成月初換主席,新主席兼行政總裁正是康宏金融前行政總裁麥光耀;目前康宏金融於隆成的持倉量更高達14.38%。一隻隆成,令鼎成、貝格隆與康宏形成今次聯旺莊家系統的一部份。
另一包銷商新確證券,雖然上市日僅獲分貨10萬股,但從公司手影可見,更令「翠如BB股」背後操縱集團原形畢露。
新確證券母公司,為去年初曾被瘋炒的新確科技,股壇當紅炒家葉志輝兄長葉志明曾出任執行董事。據悉,曾為智易控股(8100)獨立非執董的葉志輝,於「翠如BB股」背後操縱全盤大局。市場早有傳聞,新確科技、中國汽車內飾(048)及中國環保能源(986)均由他打骰。本報曾致電葉志輝本人查詢,惟當他得悉來電為《蘋果》記者時,隨即Cut線。
吹水可以去吹水龍鳳區膠區,睇文去文章區,睇股去股區,有問題去版務區,寫Blog 就開realblog


http://realforum.zkiz.com/viewforum.php?fid=148
~greatsoup
普通會員
greatsoup38
rbenabled
avatar
183.178.164.120
金錢: 149201.15
帖數: 166081
GP: 3287
LV: 408
交易所:
2016-04-20 EW
創業板瘋炒 追蹤「翠如BB股」幕後玩家  

港股上周大升近一千點,市場氣氛好轉,不過證券行內最多散戶談論的股票,卻不是滙豐(0005)、騰訊(0700)這些大藍籌,而是「翠如BB」父親黃永華做大股東的創業板神仙股聯旺集團。上周二掛牌當天,聯旺甫開市已乾炒上二元水平,其後兩個交易日更升到「叭叭聲」,高見十四元二角的「癲價」,市值衝上一百七十七億。

以最高價計,聯旺的市盈率炒至近千倍,每手入場費貴達十四萬二千元,足夠掃七手滙豐有餘!黃永華因持有四億六千八百萬股,高峰時帳面身家高達六十六億元,比無綫大股東「爆棚哥」陳國強更富貴,相當誇張。

貨乾市癲狂

從事建築工程的聯旺,最近一年只賺區區一千八百萬,市值能夠炒到過百億,市場人士指純粹因為貨源歸邊,「街貨」極少。今次聯旺以兩毫六仙配售三億一千二百萬股上市,貨源悉數落入一百二十位幸運的「玩家」手中,他們相當有眼光,即使聯旺股價曾大升數十倍,沽貨的數量卻不多,大部份仍存放於六間證券行。

翻查港交所的中央結算紀錄,負責將聯旺分派給投資者的聯席帳簿管理人及聯席牽頭經辦人鼎成證券,總共分到一億零九百萬股,相等於三成半街貨,再加上海通、凱基、康宏、貝格隆和六福金融,六間證券行的持倉已等於聯旺逾九成七街貨。

以往,創業板新股經常喪炒,歸根究底是一個路人皆見的全配售制度漏洞,令某些莊家有恃無恐埋班「圍飛」,再「搭棚」炒高派貨,股價如煙花般一閃即逝,不少散戶成為他們手下的亡魂。

「創業板規定新股要配售畀最少一百個投資者,理論上是各自獨立股東,但變相好易圍飛。分到貨嘅人一般跟大股東同帳簿管理人有默契,呢班人頭一日唔拋售,貨源都會歸邊,容易夾上夾落。其實解決方法一字咁淺,就係規定創業板新股同主板一樣,要有公開認購,減低圍飛同亂炒嘅可能性。」一名投資銀行家說。

康宏舵手過檔隆成

揭開揸重聯旺街貨的證券行貝格隆、鼎成和康宏,其實一直活躍於細價股,背後老闆盡是財技高手,更叫人嘖嘖稱奇的,是圍繞著上市公司隆成金融頗為「微妙」的關係。

貝格隆由上市公司隆成金融全資擁有。隆成金融前身為隆成集團,主要生產嬰兒產品,屬交投並不活躍的低調工業股。○六年,「股壇長毛」David Webb在市場掃貨,儕身主要股東之列,令隆成一夜爆紅。

一四年,隆成創辦人兼大股東黃英源將嬰兒業務出售,轉戰金融業,並先後做了兩單「以股代錢」的交易,攤薄了原有股東的權益。

去年八月,黃再施展財技,宣布按一供三大比例供股,並由同樣揸重「翠如BB股」的鼎成證券擔任包銷商,激得習慣在金魚「缸」打橫行的「股壇長毛」「生蝦咁跳」,炮轟管理層刻意攤薄其他股東,呼籲聯手反對,卻罕有地「維權」失敗。

今年四月,黃英源退下火線,由康宏金融前行政總裁麥光耀接棒,並同時在集團旗下貝格隆證券打骰。四十一歲的麥光耀在科大工商管理系畢業,取得會計師資格,○二年加入康宏,其後出任財務總監。一四年他獲主席王利民賞識,升任行政總裁。

去年八月,康宏獲台灣富邦集團創辦人蔡氏家族入主,成為單一大股東。富邦的蔡明忠和蔡明興兄弟叱咤台灣金融界,旗下富邦金控坐擁富邦銀行和富邦人壽,早前更殺入香港,鯨吞港基銀行(0636,現稱富邦香港)。

富邦入主後,麥光耀今年四月跳槽到隆成,年薪六百萬。他並無本港物業,但持有市值逾三千萬元的康宏股票,可說富貴逼人來。現時康宏旗下的康宏證券,不單揸重聯旺街貨,亦是隆成金融街貨最大持倉的證券行。

鼎成活躍細價股

而持有聯旺最多街貨的鼎成證券,以配售價計手上持倉由二千八百萬元,兩日內一度狂升至十五億元,叫人咋舌。不過,老闆黃鳳英及郭文壇神秘低調,直至今年初鼎成遷進上環新址擴張,二人才鮮有見傳媒,自爆正籌備明年上市的大計。

翻查資料,一四年郭黃二人原來曾經跟匯財軟件(8018)洽商,計劃成立合營公司收購鼎成證券,疑變相借殼上市,但最後不獲證監會放行。前稱中國手遊文化的互娛中國(8081),是匯財軟件主要股東之一,持有近一成權益,同時亦是康宏金融的股東,持貨逾百分之八,而麥光耀○八年曾加入互娛中國做執董,一四年離任。

鼎成證券八七年成立,經營證券、企業融資及資產管理,近半年非常勇猛,先後擔任劍虹(1557)、中國宇天(8230)、焯陞(1341)、建業建榮(1556)及集一家居(1495)等建築新股的聯席牽頭經辦人。其「代表作」除聯旺及去年包銷隆成金融的供股外,亦曾持倉多隻大炒狂瀉的細價股如新確科技(1063),以及炒「瘋」媲美聯旺、前稱集成雨傘的中國集成(1027),彷如細價股崛起的一位新霸主。

而郭文壇本人,曾是不少神仙股的主要股東,包括三三傳媒 (8087)、首都創投(2324)及銳康藥業(8037)等,儼如細價股玩家。他跟黃鳳英聯名持有西貢白沙灣立德台A9獨立屋,一○年以一千九百四十八萬購入,目前估值約三千萬元。

科網公司搶上市

香港投資者學會主席譚紹興表示,現時不少證券行生意淡薄,唯有靠包銷新股和供股搵食。「我同一啲行家傾開,佢哋話 家創業板上市,唔炒高幾倍都唔散貨,配售價如果幾毫子,最少要炒高十幾倍!」九九年成立的創業板,長期成交少兼「無人吼」,直至去年四月滬港通開車,愈來愈多北水南下,刺激靚「殼」有價有市,動輒索價二億至三億元,令這批「八」字頭股份水鬼升城隍。創業板不單成為金融界的大賭場,更被炮轟淪為「啤殼」工廠,連證監會主席唐家成亦不得不承認,「啤殼」問題有愈趨嚴重的跡象。

事實上,創業板成立的原意是培養新興產業,但去年上市的新股,竟以傳統建築業最多。市場估計,建築公司接獲合約後有較高現金流,容易達到創業板上市要求。當大型工程收益入帳後,盈利隨時無以為繼,業績容易極速走樣。

例如聯旺保薦人天財資本,去年一月安排同樣從事建築工程的日成控股(3708)上市,掛牌翌月便發出盈警,半年禁售期一過大股東即「走得快」沽貨,其後更成功賣殼,主席廖永燊今年三月已辭職。

「大佬啊,建築係新興產業? 家創業板根本違反成立原意,我估行政總裁李小加想港交所搵多啲錢,咩都畀上,上市公司質素咪愈嚟愈差囉!」譚紹興 說。

不過,隨著深港通醞釀下半年開車,本刊發現今年九隻上市的創業板新股,「主題」已由建築變回科技公司,當中包括揚宇科技(8113)、智傲控股(8282)、火岩控股(8345)、Hypebeast(8359)及思博系統(8319)。排住隊等上市的申請中亦不乏科技企業,如韓國資訊科技公司FUTURE DATA,以及從事金融軟件業務的東蒲等。

當中最威水的,要數潮流網站Hypebeast,上市價僅一毫三仙,上周一掛牌最高炒至二元八角,帶挈年僅三十三歲、被封為「潮流教主」的主席馬柏榮變身四十億富豪。可惜股價一如預期放煙花,本周一已直插回三毫多,馬柏榮的帳面身家亦勁縮至六億元,當真富貴如浮雲。

等深港通食大茶飯

匯盈證券董事謝明光估計,資訊科技公司突然一窩蜂擁到創業板上市,與深港通即將開車有關,皆因兩地股民有機會互炒創業板股仔,隨時掀起新一輪科技股狂潮。「港交所現時審批賣殼比較嚴格,買家只准注入相近業務,科技殼容易吸引到內地科網公司。」另一方面,多隻在美國上市的中資科網股完成私有化後,原本打算回歸A股,現時內地IPO「死火」,來港買殼上市變成另一抽水途徑。「深圳創業板PE百幾倍,香港得十幾倍,深港通後有望追落後,加上大批中國企業喺美國退市,中國 家上唔到,隨時嚟香港買殼上。」譚紹興說。

新鮮滾熱辣的科網賣殼例子,是從事閉路電視、保安監察軟件的千里眼(8051),獲台資富智康(2038)母公司鴻海集團上周斥資兩億四千萬入主。千里眼由城大教授與科研人員九四年創立,○一年在創業板上市,去年才賣盤給內地鼎一投資總經理陳海寧,豈料陳即「摩貨」嗗水,估計一鋪淨賺約八千萬元。

十四年前一場「細價股風暴」,迫使當時的財爺梁錦松委任三人專家小組,檢討由政府、證監會和港交所組成的三層監管架構。

小組其後發表長達一百六十五頁的專家報告,狠評「港交所為了達致足夠公司數量上市,已嚴重損害上市公司的質素」,更狂踩創業板「真正的投資者微不足道,多隻股票的表現差勁」。事過境遷,創業板的「爛攤子」尚未收拾,港交所早前卻想搞多一個「新三板」,委實叫人搖頭嘆息。

頭條新聞

星味十足的「翠如BB股」聯旺集團(8217),上周二在創業板掛牌。由於當日有藝人黃翠如和男朋友蕭正楠瞓身撐場,明星效應下,股價短短三日最高爆升五十四倍,市值超越二人的娘家電視廣播(0511)。

本刊追查揸重聯旺「街貨」的證券行貝格隆、鼎成和康宏,發現他們幕後一直活躍於細價股,而且與隆成金融(1225)關係頗為「微妙」。其中貝格隆證券由隆成全資擁有,隆成主席麥光耀是康宏金融(1019)前行政總裁,而康宏旗下的康宏證券,不單揸住不少聯旺街貨,更持有隆成的重倉。

至於持倉聯旺最多的鼎成證券,創辦人黃鳳英及郭文壇神秘低調,曾是多隻細價股主要股東,早前更擔任隆成金融的供股包銷商,一度變身「大股東」,叫股民嘖嘖稱奇。

餐飲證券股 下浪熱潮

創業板上市門檻較主板低,申請企業日常經營業務現金流只要在上市文件刊發前兩個財政年度,合計不少於二千萬元即可,造就有大量客兼日常現金流較強的傳統餐飲業,以及業務相對簡單的證券股爭住上市。

翻查已遞交初步上市文件的創業板申請,至少有四間證券股,包括金圈界「啤王」蔡朝暉的聯合證券,以及「公司醫生」曹貴子的阿仕特朗證券。

至於餐飲行業更多達五間,包括在港有五間酒樓的利寶閣、創立著名印度餐廳Bombay Dreams等品牌的Classified Group、營運都爹利會館的佳民集團,以及經營「台灣牛肉麵」的皇璽餐飲。

不過,香港的餐飲業利潤一般不高,租金尤其沉重。除Classified Group外,其餘四間公司去年的盈利均下跌,佳民更蝕近四百六十萬。以利嘉閣為例,去年整體盈利僅三百七十萬元,按年大跌七成七,集團解釋主因新開的上環酒樓及京香樓錄得虧損。

中國銀盛資產管理董事總經理郭家耀分析,餐飲業務簡單,現金流強勁,較容易符合創業板上市要求,「不過又有幾多間真係賺到錢,最後成功轉到主板?」

撰文:裴浩輝、鄭瑞棠︱攝影:財經組資料:鄭俊祺︱設計:林彥博
系統輔導員
greatsoup
rbenabled
avatar
183.178.164.120
金錢: 207395.76
帖數: 207295
GP: 4197
LV: 456
交易所: 305555.25
8006 doctored
載入PDF: http://www.hkexnews.hk/listedco/listconews/gem/2016/0520/GLN20160520040_C.pdf 在新視窗開啟
吹水可以去吹水龍鳳區膠區,睇文去文章區,睇股去股區,有問題去版務區,寫Blog 就開realblog


http://realforum.zkiz.com/viewforum.php?fid=148
~greatsoup
普通會員
greatsoup38
rbenabled
avatar
183.178.164.120
金錢: 149201.15
帖數: 166081
GP: 3287
LV: 408
交易所:
普通會員
greatsoup38
rbenabled
avatar
183.178.164.120
金錢: 149201.15
帖數: 166081
GP: 3287
LV: 408
交易所:
普通會員
暗月
rbenabled
avatar
119.237.74.70
金錢: 1706.90
帖數: 301
GP: 0
LV: 18
交易所:
對了,疑似是3332,不是3322。
普通會員
greatsoup38
rbenabled
avatar
183.178.164.120
金錢: 149201.15
帖數: 166081
GP: 3287
LV: 408
交易所:
暗月18樓提及
對了,疑似是3332,不是3322。


是的
普通會員
diablo3
avatar
175.45.37.82
金錢: 35.00
帖數: 61
GP: 0
LV: 8
交易所:
thanks! 好文! 今日粉哥D野好激!
普通會員
bylee
rbenabled
avatar
202.175.69.99
金錢: 198.80
帖數: 648
GP: -50
LV: 26
交易所:
??
普通會員
Louis
rbenabled
avatar
138.19.182.4
金錢: 24359.65
帖數: 22712
GP: 699
LV: 151
交易所:
?好恐怖呀,未見過咁塲面!

不奇怪,這是一個很正常的修正!
普通會員
to10midnight
rbenabled
avatar
119.246.68.242
金錢: 22.60
帖數: 46
GP: 0
LV: 7
交易所:
等睇食花生
普通會員
jj1984 (亂UP24)
rbenabled
avatar
58.177.120.222
金錢: 2500.75
帖數: 3291
GP: 254
LV: 58
交易所:
上星期已經聽人講粉哥出左事了
普通會員
太平天下
rbenabled
avatar
223.18.209.77
金錢: 740.90
帖數: 1223
GP: 5
LV: 35
交易所:
jj198424樓提及
上星期已經聽人講粉哥出左事了


真係因一隻1225?係咁佢都借都好盡
普通會員
jj1984 (亂UP24)
rbenabled
avatar
14.0.169.158
金錢: 2500.75
帖數: 3291
GP: 254
LV: 58
交易所:
太平天下25樓提及
jj198424樓提及
上星期已經聽人講粉哥出左事了


真係因一隻1225?係咁佢都借都好盡

不是1225,他有些股上星期已經被追擊了
普通會員
太平天下
rbenabled
avatar
223.18.209.77
金錢: 740.90
帖數: 1223
GP: 5
LV: 35
交易所:
Louis22樓提及
?好恐怖呀,未見過咁塲面!

不奇怪,這是一個很正常的修正!



見到咁的場面,就想炒股賺到就要買下樓
普通會員
jj1984 (亂UP24)
rbenabled
avatar
58.177.120.222
金錢: 2500.75
帖數: 3291
GP: 254
LV: 58
交易所:
Louis除左吹水同轉貼文之外無無野叻
普通會員
greatsoup38
rbenabled
avatar
183.178.164.120
金錢: 149201.15
帖數: 166081
GP: 3287
LV: 408
交易所:
太平天下25樓提及
jj198424樓提及
上星期已經聽人講粉哥出左事了


真係因一隻1225?係咁佢都借都好盡


8217 都有問題

今日是因為1225旗下Black Marble 沽貨,引起連鎖效應

我想粉哥都知道大限將至,他可能會被索償以百億計,利息起碼幾十億計

呃人咁多錢唔駛賠呀,仆街粉哥,我覺得他真是賤人,點解要呃人錢,呃人錢仲要話自己叻,就無責任,這些才是仆街正人渣,抵人罵

希望他受到法律制裁,下一代要下地獄
普通會員
greatsoup38
rbenabled
avatar
183.178.164.120
金錢: 149201.15
帖數: 166081
GP: 3287
LV: 408
交易所:
太平天下27樓提及
Louis22樓提及
?好恐怖呀,未見過咁塲面!

不奇怪,這是一個很正常的修正!



見到咁的場面,就想炒股賺到就要買下樓


我都買到
訪客
Guest (IP: 54.224.158.39) avatar
(提示:如要觀看隱藏內容, 按此回到第一頁)
此版不容許訪客發貼, 請先登入。

Home RealBlog Stock Endless Choice Fancy Buzz Gloomy Sunday ZKIZ Wiki RealWidgets

在線會員:
wilyty
creamsoda
s136022
to10midnight
i_m
dan761
6個會員和173個訪客
Powered by RealForum
Paged in 144.7ms (Q=11 + R=8) @ 2017-7-21 08:36 AM Asia/Hong_Kong
Archiver | 廣告聯繫: abbychau (at) gmail.com