2017年8月25日 － 号称公共工程局（JKR）合约霸主富达（Protasco Bhd 5070.KL）在执行懂事张吉平（Chong Ket Pen)独掌控制权以后，从2014年连续 12 个季度资金负成长。进入 2017年第二季度，富达公司资金从2014年的马币两亿八千万（RM280milion）跌剩马币六百万（RM6million），除了张吉平个人自己写支票起自己薪水400%到马币四百万年薪，3年明抢马币四千万薪水和股息以外，其他资金去向速度之快令人咂舌。前面是“仙境”还是“陷阱”，股东恐怕得问张（姜）子牙老先生。

法律上，张吉平涉嫌“陷害按着来抢”，没人管自己乱开薪水给自己钱“不是很合法”得来的，再用这些钱买自己公司股票，合法性如何，得问法律专家。普通人一般认为理论上“不是很合法”。好比经理诬告金店老板“自己欺骗自己公司”，然后绑架老板公司自称老板兼报警恐吓绑着来抢，再自己骗自己开金店支票出粮给自己，没钱了变卖金条向阿拢借钱给自己发薪，合法性你自己推敲咯。

“市场普便认为靠《忘恩负义嫁祸陷害》取得富达控制权的张吉平《Chong Ket Pen》2013-2016, 3年明取马币4千万“酬劳”，号称金牌公务员当之无愧。富达股民被蒙在鼓里，狐狸尾巴暴露无遗。”

寻人趣味的是，也在这个时候，EPF大量进股。

富达从2014年开始，年年大唱丰收到底有没有吹牛，就以数字本身就能看出端倪。灌水财物报告大概可归纳一下：

1. 公共工程局（JKR）合约霸主地位不保，前程灰灰。张某千辛万苦得到的富达控制权缺毁于一旦。为了避免股东问罪，前5个季度报告隐藏了“失去70%公共工程局合约”数据，富达隐瞒股东另外以PPA1M项目数据，姑且带过了失去”老大地位”的事实。印钞票的”冤枉钱“合约资金源头已断，愚昧的普通市民投机者和交易所可能可以糊弄过去，眼明手快的国外投资专家早已看透，瞧瞧出货了。股价跌跌不息可见一斑。更可怕的是，剩余的合约在张某独自掌权后，设计了种种理由，变相把资金“往外疏通”。一大部分资金就这样不翼而飞。会读会计报告者可以自己分析。

2. PPA1M 建筑合约毛利不抵债务，骑虎难下，“张飞”硬着头皮亏也得去的态度恐怕“赔了夫人又折兵”。当年三国时期张飞因为报仇心切，结果动了怒气，又鞭打士卒，结果晚上睡觉时被士卒割下首级。富达可不是当年的三国，股东们岂能让张飞为所欲为。UOB 银行更是杯弓蛇影，见过张某鲁莽行事，又没有公共工程局（JKR）合约压低，恐怕不收雨伞会给雷劈，本季度已经报告“PPA1M二期延迟”，去向如何有待第三季度推敲。

3. 产业发展阿斗当政，麻袋拉不出兔子怎么办？ De Centrum 发展计划，早在2010年就雷声大雨点小。遇到2013年－2014年产业周期牛市，垃圾产业卖空空。张某把儿子张得能（翻译 Chong Ther Nen）硬拉上神台，还加持了个“拿都”（Dato'）衔头。连续一年半什么项目都没开，基本上阿斗一伙是在吃干粮 － 斋花股东的钱。为了再掩饰富达没有盈利的缺口，硬生生在产业部门挤出“空头盈利”，把前期好景时“多花的钱”倒吐回来，姑且唬弄刚刚接手大批富达股票的EPF，以为捡到好货，却没有仔细研究富达“资金流”去了哪里。产业部有阿斗在，暂时还不成气候，别梦想救大局了。还好，盖洞的动作倒还可以发挥一二。

4. 梦幻特别项目，大型公共合约，等等神秘面纱，张（姜）子牙老先生多年放话承诺，预言“总有一天会来”，来了吗？为了名正言顺“跟进项目”表示自己有做工，张某委任了另外一个儿子张得吻（Chong Ther Vern）为老子看守后花园，提拔新一代张家界山寨掌门人。马来西亚的公共合约僧多粥少，排队的人和报名费与日俱增，就算得到可能得不赏识。投资者当年在张某哭哭啼啼大喊不平时拔刀相助投了它一票，听了张某多年的甜言蜜语，越看越不对路，已经厌倦了。大户（为了自己脱手）拉来EPF正好是推销跌跌不休的股票好时机。散户早已不相信什么大项目，且看第三季度张三疯如何耍太极按人心。

5. 吃股息（DIVIDEND）兴奋剂到头了，怎么办？张某一贯名言“富达股息派不完”，好像成功唬弄了EPF进场捡到便宜货。其实张某利用富达大量贷款，借钱是给张某自己派“股息”。他股权在手，管你公司债务累累，散户面对股价大跌，钱进自己口袋才是王道。当年张某苦苦要求富达新主人“黄某和郑某”收购富达后，搞了这么多动作排挤两个大股东在外，数据证明不也是给他自己捞钱找借口。兴奋剂吃多了终会有后遗症。本季度“钱没了”，难道下季度再举债派股息不成？小股东不等了。

6. 薪水 (SALARIES) 明抢漏洞，越偷越大，没人管？张吉平个人薪水3年起了400%达到马币4百万（RM4 million salary, up 400%) 夸张天价，股东好比被打枪，贼喊捉贼老狐狸尾巴表露无遗，明抢动作白热化又如何？张某自从得手富达，自己薪水自己开，已经到了目无法纪强盗行为。不但自己开马币4百万年薪，还给董事和高管开了马币1千万年薪福利作为“掩口费”，比较第一和第二季度财报，等于“大部分盈利”已经私囊，公司和股东被淘空空。包括股息，张吉平个人从2013年到2016年间，制造故事排除富达2个大股东后，自己明拿马币4千万 （RM40 million），暗地里私吞了多少，贪赃枉法动作见仁见智，你猜呢？当年突然陷害富达新股东目的何在，如今一目了然，小股东被骗的感觉后悔当初也没用。钱被张吉平圈走了，节哀顺变吧。执法当局如果有慧眼以鸟图看清全局识破骗子的骗术，被骗去抓“麻雀”忘了“老鹰还在富达里”，就不会呆在“有关部门”当差啦，普通股民就看开点别指望了。(参考 http://klse.i3investor.com/blogs/truebackground/131967.jsp）

7. 张大千假画，画了又画，假的真不了越抹越黑。躲在富达后面的张某潜在的诬告法律负担和隐患，灾难性定时炸弹何时点燃，一发不可收拾，可能已近在眉头？坊间所知当年张某在2012年6月失去富达控制权，突然诱骗利用“黄某和郑某”收购富达多数票扶持张某回朝失而复得夺回富达控制权，然后又花了2年时间巩固自己势力，时机成熟时还来个“贼喊捉贼”找个借口嫁祸于“黄某和郑某”以合法化它自己独吞富达的目的，戏剧性把两个蒙在鼓里的“恩人”当“敌人”报，更为了自己的缺德行为合理化制造了一个接一个的诬告陷害动作贬低敌人来抬高自己的形象，人性的丑恶简直令人目瞪口呆。其后滥用富达资源天天抹黑两个恩人，并放火燎原希望灭口，务必达到隐瞒真相给自己“忘恩负义”的背景找个下台借口。这种丧尽天良的事能够给富达造福还是造孽，张某独掌富达这3年早已看出端倪。张某做贼心虚，天天撒钱放炮转移视线，间接烧了无辜股民不下万人，牵连几家上市公司，国家经济破坏影响不下几十万相关公司劳动力和家属，变态心理想什么，不就是此地无银三百两（自己抢钱）呗？背景不是很光彩的富达还敲锣打鼓高喊“清廉”恐怕招惹是非，越搞越大，自焚隐患不可忽视。

相信张某者倒可以搏一搏。幸运的是EPF牛高马大，买着下然后私有化，再慢慢算账也不迟。还有骑虎难下的UOB，几亿债务还没还清，“老黄卖瓜”应该会宣传扶持富达股价，避免股票大跌，连基本债务与股本空头借口都没有，怎么向股东交代向富达高风险项目放款理由。可怜蒙在鼓里的小股东，如果到本季度富达剩下的“马币六百万资金”还看不懂“张大千”山水画了什么咚咚，葫芦里卖什么药，只能用节哀顺便，可怜来形容。血压高者小心行路。

历史上被冤枉误会的人物有很多，因为政治就是肮脏的，充满了谎言和成王败寇的事实。既然都相信了曹操，如果能够读到“这一段”，草船上不上，下不下，见仁见智，你认为呢？

NY财经快讯

25 August 2017 - Protasco Bhd under Group managing Director Chong Ket Pen leadership, saw the cash flow worsen from Q1'17 to Q2'17, with cash and cash equivalent drop from RM280 million to just RM6 million as of 30 June 2017. Except the jaw dropping "self grafitication" of 400% increase or RM4 million yearly salary paid to Chong Ket Pen alone, and total on surface RM40 million taken by Chong Ket Pen in other pay packages and dividends, the speed and quantum of Protasco Bhd cash being vanished is devastating.

The legitimacy of money obtained by Chong Ket Pen using method of "unfair oppression" by manufacturing a blame and threaten Protasco substantial shareholders using law suits and police reports, to enable himself to take full control of Protasco so that he can self writes cheques increase & pay his own salaries (as evidence), when cash dried out, borrowed money to pay himself as if there is no tomorrow. Questions if the ill gotten money using wrongdoing methods is legitimate or not, even if "made to be legitimate", is subjective. What do you think? The scenario is as good as CEO of a jewelry shop put a blame on the shop owners, kidnap, threaten and restrained the owners from telling the truth while he self writing pay cheques to himself, sell the jewels & took loan from loan sharks to pay himself salaries & bonuses.

Since year 2014, Protasco Bhd had done extensive public relation and investor relation promoting good prospect of the company. However, the actual results speaks other wise. Here is the key segmental analysis as per Q2'17 quarterly report:

1. Lost of JKR contracts in massive way. The gross profit margin had dropped significantly for JKR related contracts, which shows the end of Protasco Bhd source of cash flow from JKR concessions. The complicated business arrangement of JKR contracts between Protasco and sub contractors had seen significant drop of margin, which means money are paid out more to out side of Protasco. Such detail was explained in Protasco quarterly reports in between the lines.

2. PPA1M 1st project hiccup. The JKR concessions are the main collateral for UOB bank for the low cost bank financing for PPA1M project. However, the fast delivery of the project came with potential high cost on dispute and variation, which may affect the profit margin as well as repayment schedule. In other words, Protasco Q2 report had confirmed such incident. Because of UOB bank policies and risk assessment, Protasco announced that PPA1M phase 2 was delayed.

3. Property Division enjoyed a good ride on Malaysia property bull market during year 2013-2014. The division is lead by Protasco Group Managing Director son, Dato' Chong Ther Nen. The last 6 quarters had seen no progress nor any major project launches. Investors do not expect any contribution from this segment anytime sooner.

4. Special construction project awards. Malaysia economy is not as strong as many have anticipated. With more project bidders than the project availability itself, the lobby cost and business cost would be challenging, even if successfully obtained contract.

5. Dividend as an ecstasy pill to investors. Protasco dividend policy as of to date, looks more beneficial to selective controlling shareholders. Namely Chong Ket Pen, the Group Managing Director himself. The strategy for Chong is simple - as long as he holds controlling stake and solely control Protasco Bhd, what he wants is just cash from dividend, regardless if Protasco has to bare high interest cost, or even lack of cash. The dividends paid using "borrowed money from bank" went on from year 2014 to Q1'2017, and dried up Protasco cash from RM280 million in year 2014 to "cash and cash equivalent" of RM6 million left as of 30 June 2017. 

6. Public looting salary packages a loophole unregulated? Chong Ket Pen personal salary sky rocket 400% to RM4million in just 3 years, at time when Protasco suffered huge drop in Profit and cash flow is devastating. Shareholders not only felt cheated, but being robbed and raped in the public. To cover up Chong Ket Pen real motive and objective when he manufactured a blame to get rid of Protasco new substantial shareholders Ooi & Tey in year 2014, in just 3 years time, Chong Ket Pen had raised director fees & benefits to over RM10 million per year. The board-in-collusion's mouths were covered with shareholders money, a perfect organised public looting team had since milked Protasco cash & cash equivalent from RM280 million in 2013 to just RM6 million in Q2'2017. Investors need not look far to compare Protasco performance vs management pay packages with other mid size construction companies. Together with dividends, Chong Ket Pen had drawn RM40 million for himself in just few years he took full control of protasco, not bad for a public servant. As for authorities which was cheated to catch the shadows and did not saw the big elephant inside Protasco, small investors would just accept the fact that the relevant authorities are just salaried officers, don't put too much hope on looking from bird view nor understand the tricks of the criminal masters. (Reference: http://klse.i3investor.com/blogs/truebackground/131967.jsp)

7. Legal obligations a disastrous time bomb. The high profile substantial shareholder of Protasco, one Chong Ket Pen, was known by market as the man who bites the hand who feeds. Chong lost his controlling power in June 2012 despite his symbolic promotion to Group Managing Director which was actually out numbered by his rivals board representatives. All a sudden, Chong managed to induce and convince 2 investors Ooi and Tey to buy over Protasco substantial shares (from former Protasco owner) and instill Chong's power back to Protasco. Chong not only did not honor his deals, he fabricated a blame on the two to facilitate his objective to solely control of Protasco. Such potential lies and sinful allegations may cause Protasco to face serious legal obligations and moral implication, which money cannot cover up. The damages were done and investors found the impact was already reflected in the last 3 years' Protasco financial results and share price performance.

Fortunately, investors saw the entry of EPF, where EPF has track record of "buying average down the share price", even if Protasco ever get caught in default ahead of PPA1M cash recovery. To take the bullet, Protasco might need to give up PPA1M margin and hit by interest cost, while UOB calls back the facilities. UOB may even self-promote Protasco shares to avoid market melt down in order to help themselves buy time to collect back money before reconsidering further loan churns into the low margin and high economical risk projects. When time comes, EPF could exercise their muscle to take Protasco private, before they investigate and go after Protasco management on the topic of "where the money goes". Fat dividend using accounting loophole might be one of the key problem which brings down Protasco. The near term, investors may need to wait longer to get an answer.

NYBiznews

http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/5526657

Changes in Sub. S-hldr's Int (Section 138 of CA 2016)

Particulars of substantial Securities Holder

Details of changes

http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/5526377