【SUPERMX 7106 交流专区】速伯玛

Mr.Business

不需要是APLI的小股东才能投诉的。。。

我会在Wednesday (07/11/2007)发出我的投诉电邮。

[ 本帖最后由 Mr.Business 于 3-11-2007 11:42 PM 编辑 ]

8years

不要等wednesday了，monday就搞定它啦。
靠你了，有什么消息记得在这里公布

Mr.Business

我要给有买进APLI和Supermax的网友有时间考虑。。。

8years

考虑什么？？？你的letter也不会effect apli的股价表现的。要等bursa做事也要等2个星期后啦。更何况可能什么事也不会做。。。。

Mr.Business

摘录：

<长期投资的旅程>

原帖由 kinwing 于 4-11-2007 12:01 AM 发表
最近亚太工业(简称为"APLI"的帐目调整事件的确令人感到懊恼，但这也在我的预料之中。因为APLI在SUPERMAX还未掌控其管理层之前已经面对很多内部问题。所以当SUPERMAX控制APLI之后，这些问题才一一被揭发，但其帐目的透明度也逐渐明朗化。假设APLI到现在还是由之前一任的管理层所控制而不是由SUPERMAX入主，那这帐目问题到现在还可能未被揭发出来呢，到时候问题将越滚越大而
导致另一个MEGAN事件了 ,也所幸这问题能由SUPERMAX加以阻止而未能失控。毕竟SUPERMAX才入主APLI约2年左右，可能还需要多一些时间才能扭转乾坤！

另一个我所观察到的现象是市场对这件事情的过度反应，认为大幅度加大帐目亏损就能导致APLI和SUPERMAX变成世界末日，结果大家都在歇斯底里的喊着要卖出，却不曾独立思考的想过这件事对SUPERMAX真正的影响。其实APLI在前两季已经开始转亏为盈了，而这一次的帐目调整是一次性的，我相信这对APLI的营业能力影响不大。

还有就是传媒对这帐目事件的误读，认为大幅度调整多2千万亏损会导致SUPERMAX要承担约十多巴仙的总亏损，这简直就是误导读者:@。根据会计制度，SUPERMAX持有APLI的约13%股权，所以APLI只能算是SUPERMAX的associatecompany,所以SUPERMAX是否能从APLI中赚钱，是取决与APLI的dividendpayout比率来计算的。假设APLI有赚钱，它将会发出分红，那SUPERMAX就有赚了。而APLI假如没钱赚甚至亏损，所以没分红可发(因为不能发负数分红吗 )，对SUPERMAX的业绩也无甚大影响，最多只能算是无钱可收而浪费了机会成本。除非APLI是SUPERMAX的subsidiary,那其亏损才能根据SUPERMAX对APLI所持有的股权比率算入SUPERMAX的帐目里。

简单的来说，SUPERMAX对APLI投入的资金只是一次过的，之后APLI的发展，SUPERMAX都无需再投入一份钱。而且SUPERMAX也曾说过对买入APLI的股权只是一项投资，SUPERMAX将在投资之后尝试对APLI的运作，才决定是否要全面献购APLI。假设APLI的情况再恶化下去的话，大不了SUPERMAX会从APLI撤资而已。更何况站在SUPERMAX股东的角度来看，我更希望APLI能因为这一次事件被纳入PN17后除牌，届时APLI的股价将再度降低，毕竟瘦死的骆驼比马大，APLI少少也有些资产和市场占有率，因此SUPERMAX将可以以折扣的价钱全面收购APLI 。

以上是我对APLI帐目调整的看法，难免有些主观的想法(因为我已经湿了个头在里面了 )，所以希望各位能以更理性和客观来分析和看待这件事情的发展，给多一点时间来拭目以待吧。

原帖由 Mr.Business 于 4-11-2007 12:16 AM 发表
我的了解：
APLI亏损RM21.091 million, Supermax持有APLI的12.9%股份，所以承担帐目亏损RM2.071 million (呈现在Income Statement内的Share of profit of associates)。

可是这帐目亏损并不是重点，公司丑闻、做假帐的财务丑闻才是重点， 我大胆的怀疑APLI现在爆发的假帐并不全是前一任的管理层所经手的！

我们的讨论有了新的进展，所以欢迎kinwing兄来<APLI - Supermax超级豹的忧与愁。>一起讨论。

8years

“认为大幅度调整多2千万亏损会导致SUPERMAX要承担约十多巴仙的总亏损”

哈哈哈哈，恐怕问题比200多万更严重。45000000unit * 0.60=2千7百万肯定泡汤了

迟一点就变成investment write off,3千万化为乌有

Mr.Business

原帖由 kinwing 于 4-11-2007 12:01 AM 发表
。。。更何况站在SUPERMAX股东的角度来看，我更希望APLI能因为这一次事件被纳入PN17后除牌，届时APLI的股价将再度降低，毕竟瘦死的骆驼比马大，APLI少少也有些资产和市场占有率，因此SUPERMAX将可以以折扣的价钱全面收购APLI 。

APLI的Equity是RM46435K，短期债务共RM30 million，而长期债务共RM50 million，手上现金有RM168K。

Supermax完成收购Seal Polymer之后，Supermax的Equity将是RM396488K，而债务共是RM371.2 million，D/E是0.94，手上现金有RM51189K。

假设Supermax免费得到APLI，但是要一并接收APLI的债务。Supermax的Equity将是RM442923K (RM46435K+RM396488K), 而债务共是RM451.2 million, D/E是1.02。

结果：
1. Supermax的D/E将超过1,并背负RM451.2 million的债务。
2. Supermax的RM120 million的债券的A2, negative outlook的评级将被进一步降级。
3. Supermax将得到APLI残旧，问题多多的生产线。

结论：
如果没发出新股或rights issue，Supermax很不可能收购APLI。

Mr.Business

请看看RAM Ratings所带出来的讯息。。。
1. Supermax不能再增加债务了以继续扩张。
2. Supermax手上的现金是要支持债务的，所以是不能动的。


RAM Ratings reaffirms Supermax’s bonds; outlook revised from stable to negative

20 July 2007

RAM Ratings has reaffirmed the A2 rating of Supermax Corporation Berhad’s (“Supermax” or “the Group”) RM120 million Fixed-Rate Serial Bonds (“the Bonds”). However, the outlook on the rating has been revised from stable to negative, premised on RAM Ratings’ concerns about Supermax’s rising debt level and thin operating cashflow in the last 2 years. As at end-FYE 31 December 2006 (“FY Dec 2006”), Supermax’s debt load of RM215.44 million had already exceeded our expected maximum of RM150 million during the initial rating exercise. The heavier debt burden had been largely due to the Group’s continuous capital expansion and heftier-than-expected working-capital requirements due to more costly latex and slow collections from its overseas trading arms. More importantly, the increased debt burden has not been matched by a commensurate growth in the Group’s net operating cashflow.

By end-FY Dec 2007, Supermax’s debt level is expected to elevate to RM265 million, as the Group intends to borrow further to partially fund its ongoing expansion. Nonetheless, the management has intimated that the additional debt will be supported by an anticipated increase in Supermax’s cash reserves to beyond RM100 million by end-FY Dec 2007; the Group expects better collection efforts vis-à-vis its associates (as demonstrated by its healthier financials in 1Q FY Dec 2007). Therefore, while the additional debt is expected to push the Group’s gearing ratio up to 0.92 times, the management has represented that Supermax’s net gearing ratio will remain relatively manageable at around 0.55 times as at end-FY Dec 2007, bolstered by the envisaged increase in its cash reserves. Given the expectation of a stronger operating cashflow in FY Dec 2007, the management is also optimistic that Supermax’s operating cashflow debt coverage (“OCFDC”) will revert to the earlier projected level of around 0.2 times, compared to a mere 0.04 times as at end-FY Dec 2006.

RAM Ratings has consistently highlighted that Supermax has little flexibility to continue relying on debt to finance its expansion programme, without affecting its credit rating. Given that its overall debt load has continued to exceed our expectations, we highlight that it is imperative for Supermax to demonstrate a substantially better operating cashflow in FY Dec 2007 to avoid even more deterioration in its credit-protection measures. Should Supermax’s net gearing and OCFDC ratios still fall short of RAM Ratings’ expectations by end-FY Dec 2007, there will be downward pressure on its credit rating. Conversely, the rating outlook may be revised to stable if Supermax is able to demonstrate significant and sustained improvement in its financial performance over the next 1-2 fiscal years.

On a separate note, Tillotson Corporation (“Tillotson”), which has patented its nitrile gloves, filed a complaint on 30 May 2007 against 30 rubber-glove manufacturers from the US, Malaysia (including Supermax), Indonesia and China over alleged infringement of its patent. Tillotson is also demanding a royalty fee of USD2.00 per carton of 1,000 nitrile gloves. According to the management, Tillotson’s actions will have minimal impact on Supermax as the Group’s distribution arm in the US will factor the requested royalty fee into its selling prices. Following this, Supermax expects to have to pay around RM1 million of royalties in FY Dec 2008; the management is confident that this will eventually be passed on to its customers. Meanwhile, for Supermax’s associate, Seal Polymer Industries Berhad (“Seal Polymer”) has some of its major customers agreeing to bear the royalty fee. This would also alleviate some of Seal Polymer’s burden of having to bear the additional cost.

[ 本帖最后由 Mr.Business 于 4-11-2007 12:52 AM 编辑 ]

老散一名

還是那句，醬 hot 的股市，有折扣（pe）的公司。
就要念返下呢句，市場係唔會瞎眼的，瞎眼的係我們這些老散看唔清嗜。

8years

哇，才研究，连supermax都有可能做假账
在全部大头（kossan,topglove）都不能交出成长业绩的同时，竟然supermax的营业额越来越强，果然强

Mr.Business

原帖由 Mr.Business 于 1-11-2007 09:58 PM 发表
不幸给小弟言中，Supermax属下的APLI又出事了！！！

连接。

General Announcement
Reference No CCS-071031-3783B  
Company Name : APL INDUSTRIES BERHAD  
Stock Name  : APLI
Date Announced : 31/10/2007
   
Type : Announcement
Subject : APLI INDUSTRIES BERHAD (“APLI” OR “THE COMPANY”))
- Net Profit Variance in Audited and Unaudited Accounts
Executive Summary :
-

Contents :

Net Profit Variance in Audited and Unaudited Accounts
Basedon the audited financial statements of APLI Group for the financialyear ended 30 June 2007, the Net Loss After Tax amounting to RM 21.1million, which is higher than the unaudited result (i.e. RM 4.5million) for the same period. Details are as follows:

	Unaudited	Audited	Variance
	RM’000	RM’000	RM’000
Loss before taxation	(3,451)	(17,571)	(14,120)
Taxation	(1,068)	(3,520)	(2,452)
Loss after taxation	(4,519)	(21,091)	(16,572)

The difference arose from the audit adjustments made, mainly attributed to the following:

1. Accounting treatment for land lease rental fees payable in respect of the unoccupied plot.

The Company had purchased a large plot of land for its Vietnam plant but large portion of the total land area is currently unoccupied. In this respect, the land lease rental fees payable was charged off based on the occupied land area while the remaining plot was capitalised as “pre-operating expenses”, amounting to USD 111,660 (RM 385,227).

However, according to the Vietnamese accounting standards, such item should instead be expensed off regardless of whether the land area has been occupied or not. Therefore, an additional amount of USD 111,660 (RM 385,227) has to be charged out as expenses (land lease rental). Total land lease rental charged out for FY06/07 is now RM 854,427 instead of RM 469,200.

Mr.Business: 用“pre-operating expenses”来隐藏RM 385,227的地租 (land lease rental fees), 有趣有趣。。。


2. Classification of certain machineries and equipment installed at Vietnam plant resulting in depreciation not charged.

Machineries and equipment purchased by the company’s Vietnam plant were not reclassified from “Construction in Progress” to “Fixed Assets” since they were commissioned. These items, once classified as “Fixed Assets” will be subject to annual depreciation charge. The Auditors had highlighted that the depreciation charge for these items was not recognised for 2 financial years. Therefore, an additional depreciation charge of USD 233,067 (RM 804,080) will be charged out during the audit year.

Mr.Business: 整整两个财政年没有报越南工厂的depreciation charge (RM 804,080)，很夸张哦。。。


3. Damaged machinery parts not written-off.

The Company’s Vietnam plant is housing a number of damaged formers (being part of the machinery). Previously, it was anticipated that these formers could be disposed off as scrap and thus there was no decision to write-off.

However, the Auditors are of the opinion that these formers are not in recyclable condition and could not be easily disposed of. As such, these formers had to be written-off amounting to USD 143,474 (RM 494,985).

Mr.Business: 损坏的机器打算当废铁卖掉，所以不决定write-off？原来价值RM494,985的机器，当废铁卖掉也能拿回RM494,985？？？


4. Computation of deferred tax asset and deferred tax liability.

(a) Based on the profits reported in Asia Pacific Latex Sdn Bhd’s unaudited financial results, a deferred tax asset was recognised amounting to RM 275,400. However, the audited financial statements revealed that the company recorded losses instead of profits as per unaudited results and thus such deferred tax asset has to be reversed accordingly.

(b) The Auditors’ computation of the deferred tax liability differs from the Management’s computation. Such difference resulted in under provision of deferred tax liabilities amounting to RM 343,266.

Mr.Business: Auditor和APLI内部的会计部门读的会计书是不一样的，所以税务算法会不同？


5. Accounting treatment on settlement of corporate tax underpaid.

IRB had carried out a tax investigation on APL Products Sdn Bhd’s tax affairs, for the year assessment 2001 to 2004. The outcome of the investigation revealed that the total tax underpaid amounted to RM 2,470,000 (including the tax penalty). Under initial understanding, this amount was supposed to be settled against the tax benefit carried forward from prior years and thus only need to be adjusted against deferred tax asset (i.e. 27% of the underpaid tax which is equivalent to RM 666,900).

However, the Auditors highlighted that the above item should instead be fully adjusted against the company’s tax credit. Therefore, additional tax expense should be recognised amounting to RM 1,803,100, making the total of RM2,470,000 for the entire FY06/07.

Mr.Business: 这个更夸张，tax underpaid总共是RM2,470,000，那当然得还回RM2,470,000给IRB，APLI却认为只需还RM2,470,000的27％，也就是RM666,900，这是什么逻辑？


6. Downward revaluation of finished goods

All finished goods held are valued based on actual product costing.

However, the Auditors viewed certain finished goods as slow-moving stocks and thus they should be valued lower. This had resulted in a downward revaluation of such goods by RM 1,691,000.

Mr.Business: 没有话讲。。。


7. Billing of finished goods sent to specific plant of an affiliated company for QC and packing and onward shipment to external customers.

During the financial year, there were certain goods transported from a manufacturing plant of APLI to another plant of an affiliated company for the purpose of QC and packing. These goods were then directly shipped to the external customers. The trading arm then issued sales invoices to overseas customers.

However, the Auditors highlighted that there were instances of incorrect billing where sales invoices had been erroneously issued based on shipment of goods to the plant handling the specific QC and packing functions.

As the shipment of these goods were already supported by sales invoices issued by the trading arm, the incorrect billing had resulted in sales being double taken-up amounting to RM 7,273,560.

Mr.Business: Double Billing达到RM7,273,560，这招好。。。


8. Purchases of raw materials not taken up due to timing differences

There were several commercial invoices on purchases of raw materials which were captured as July 2007 transaction instead of June 2007. Although the commercial invoices were dated in July 2007, the delivery of stocks took place in June 2007.

Therefore, the purchases (amounting to RM 3,501,382) should be recognised in June 2007, i.e. at the point when the company took delivery of the stocks.

Mr.Business: APLI为了帐目好看真是无所不用其极。。。

[ 本帖最后由 Mr.Business 于 4-11-2007 01:39 AM 编辑 ]

Mr.Business

如果Supermax的结局真的是我猜测的一样 (闹假帐)，那我将是发现她有问题的第一人了。。。

PS：我不希望我的猜测会是真的。

[ 本帖最后由 Mr.Business 于 4-11-2007 02:03 AM 编辑 ]

老散一名

原帖由 Mr.Business 于 4-11-2007 02:00 AM 发表
如果Supermax的结局真的是我猜测的一样 (闹假帐)，那我将是发现她有问题的第一人了。。。

PS：我不希望我的猜测会是真的。

江湖

原帖由 Mr.Business 于 4-11-2007 02:00 AM 发表
如果Supermax的结局真的是我猜测的一样 (闹假帐)，那我将是发现她有问题的第一人了。。。

PS：我不希望我的猜测会是真的。

如果Supermax真的做假账死的人可能又会很多。。。。
善哉。。。善哉。。。
股票真的那么难投资吗？

keatsmon

原帖由 Mr.Business 于 3-11-2007 11:34 PM 发表
我要给有买进APLI和Supermax的网友有时间考虑。。。

你很有人情味。

我也很奇怪APLI出了假帐新闻，SUPERMX到目前为止竟然没有影响...

keatsmon

有同感。

生意兄，可在你的email中向BURSA反映我们对大马公司帐目监督不严（有意或无意）的不满吗？

kinwing

原帖由 老散一名 于 4-11-2007 12:49 AM 发表
還是那句，醬 hot 的股市，有折扣（pe）的公司。
就要念返下呢句，市場係唔會瞎眼的，瞎眼的係我們這些老散看唔清嗜。

老散兄应该是"有效市场假说"(Efficient Market Hypothesis)的拥护者吧 。

kinwing

原帖由 Mr.Business 于 4-11-2007 02:00 AM 发表
如果Supermax的结局真的是我猜测的一样 (闹假帐)，那我将是发现她有问题的第一人了。。。

PS：我不希望我的猜测会是真的。

呵呵 ，所谓好事不出门，坏事传千里，结果所有的坏消息都在这个时候涌出来了 。不过我会在观察SUPERMAX和亚太工业的第3季度报告后(11月杪公布)再说吧。

khliew7

原帖由 kinwing 于 4-11-2007 08:57 AM 发表


呵呵 ，所谓好事不出门，坏事传千里，结果所有的坏消息都在这个时候涌出来了 。不过我会在观察SUPERMAX和亚太工业的第3季度报告后(11月杪公布)再说吧。

郑金森和他夫人总共拥有超过41％的SUPERMAX股权，而且又是SUPERMAX的CEO和高层执行人员，暂时他们还没有卖出SUPERMAX股票的迹象，看来SUPERMAX并没有我们所想的那么糟糕。

另外，Atlantis Investment Management Ltd 在8月和9月间不断的买进SUPERMAX的股票。直到9月7号，已经累积了15,002,000股。难道又多一个受害者？

再看看TOPGLOV，KOSSAN和SUPERMX从年头到现在的股价行情。TOPGLOV分红后，价钱由RM9.xx跌到现在的RM6.55，KOSSAN则从RM4.8x涨到4月最高RM5.90，然后到如今的RM4.20，而SUPERMX从年头的RM4.18，折细1变2以后，到目前的RM2.23。从这里我们可以看到，三大手套制造商，只有SUPERMX的股价表现比较好，说明看好SUPERMX的投资者还是比较多。

APLI的假帐到底能给SUPERMX带来多大的打击？而收购了的SPOLYMR又能为SUPERMX带来多少帮助呢？SUPERMX里面的管理层到底有没有问题？如果真的有问题的话，到底他们有没有能力去解决呢？买了票的，就只好对号入座，再看另一套企业风云了。。

Mr.Business

原帖由 kinwing 于 4-11-2007 08:57 AM 发表
呵呵 ，所谓好事不出门，坏事传千里，结果所有的坏消息都在这个时候涌出来了 。不过我会在观察SUPERMAX和亚太工业的第3季度报告后(11月杪公布)再说吧。

我想Supermax的坏消息还没出完，等11月杪Supermax公布第3季度报告时，Supermax的Equity将是RM410628K (完成收购Seal Polymer)，而债务共是RM371.22 million，D/E是0.90。
PS：资料根据06/03/2007的Bursa文告。

RAM本以为"By end-FY Dec 2007, Supermax’s debt level is expected to elevate to RM265 million＂，现在Supermax的债务已经有RM371.22 million，整整多了RM100 million！你认为RAM会有什么反应？再次降级是有可能的。RAM将Supermax的RM120 million的债券的评级从stable outlook降为negative outlook是有原因的，请再看看我的76楼。。。想想Megan的教训。。。

我是很理性和客观来分析和看待这件事情的发展，而我察觉你非常的乐观，你能不能提出你的看法和理据？