Based on available announcements in Bursa, Mulpha had raised more than RM1 billion cash in several rights issue and during that period given RM Nil dividend to shareholders. Meantime, the current market cap is RM648 million. Someone please explain why would anyone even consider buying sampah today with their hard earn money and then later contribute some more hard earn money to buy sampah rights knowing that (if history repeat itself) the only return you are gonna get is more sampah. No dividend and negative growth. Why throw good money and chase after bad money. WHYYYYYYYY????

Betul kata kkng0819. Memang syarikat sampah. Lagi teruk dari sampah. Alam Flora pun untung banyak. Pengarah bodoh. Syarikat ada pelaburan hartanah jenis "High End Property" bernilai RM42.7 juta tetapi menghasilkan pendapatan sewa sebanyak RM3 ribu setahun. Kalau Syarikat ada lebihan kewangan dan pengarah tak nak bagi dividend kepada pemegang saham, nak labur pun labur lah pakai otak sikit. Kalau xde otak letak saja kat bank simpanan tetap pun dapat pulangan 3.5% = RM1.5 juta setahun.

ArmstrongKL. Ordinary resolution is required for the RI. Therefore by definition, MINORITY cannot defeat the resolution. The only way would be to gather enough votes [yours + you as proxy] at the EGM exceeding 50% of votes casted by poll in the EGM. Tough. The major shareholders has 859,787,549 shares. If they are the only one who vote yes, you still need 859,787,550 votes to say no. Of course if the market price[MP] goes below RI price then there are instances of Co who postpone or abort their RI exercise. It would be interesting if MP < RP and the Directors proceed with the RI then the major shareholders may be the only subscriber thus ends up with 60.2% from 40.3% of the entire paid up capital.

agree with Parkson n Lewis Lee. Mulpha is a strange Co and run by strange people who looks more like corporate dealers/accountants/lawyers/etc instead of business persons. A Co that is making PROFITS, sell assets for cash but never pay dividend and still call for rights every few years. Wonder what happens to all those cash. Burned? What really baffles me is that these major shareholders who also receives NO returns on investments always have the money to subscribe for rights over the years. I wonder should LHDN pays them a visit for explanation on their source of money to subscribe for the rights!!! By the way , the reason the RI is RM0.50 is because under the law, the minimum price for Mulpha is RM0.50.

Even u ask question, do u really think u would get an answer?? The Co and its directors does not know what biz they want to do. So they just do a bit of this and that. Get/Borrow some money and buy plentiful of assets and hope these assets make some profit for the Co. Also, 2 of their directors were criminally charged by SC. So u think u will get a truthful answer if they have one?? Co is listed under property segment but property development revenue for 6 months is only RM853K only!!! See they dun even know what segment the Co is! Land held for development has been there for several years. Maybe 200 years later the Directors may wake up and realise besides holding for development, they should actually develop these land to derive income. 31.07.15 results show hundreds of millions in investment securities but deriving loss of RM25 million. Even an idiot who puts hundreds of millions will derive positive profit if put in FD. Rubbish Co.

Whilst revenue MAYBE up because of forex translation, it is definitely going to have substantial unrealised forex losses due to translation of borrowings in foreign currencies. Exchange differences (approx) : C$, RM down by RM0.30, S$ - 0.30, Aud$ - 0.20, Euro - 0.90, etc. As per 30.04.15 qtr, borrowings in C$100,858K - Forex loss = RM30M, S$175,700K : RM53M, Aud$122531K : RM24M, Euro44853K : RM40M.
These 4 currencies denominated borrowings alone between 30.06.15 to todate, roughly forex loss = RM147million.

Agree totally on Insas. Conglomerates means diversifications but more importantly it also means Jack of All Trades but Master of None.

I always felt that in most cases bonus issues are done by rubbish companies to con shareholders into believing that they are being rewarded as u rightly point out that the pizza is still the same size. On the contrary, I think these directors are trying to punish the shareholders by having bonus issues especially if the BI is done via capitalising capital reserve and not distributable reserve. Even if via distributable reserves, I am sceptical bcos if making so much money why not pay higher dividend. The only instances I think BI is good is when the co is growing at a fast rate and needs to maintain cash to fund growth or the value of its shares is so high that a BI would bring it down to be more tradeable. I still remember my young son who loves Milo and Maggi goreng asked me to put his entire piggy bank money in Nestle. Alas, he would need to save much more to buy 1 lot unless Nestle do a share split or BI to bring it down to RM7!!!!

I am an avid fan of KYY but for him to criticise another whose opinion differs from him seems a wee bit immatured. Everybody is entitled to an opinion or two and it is known that no 2 person will think alike or else the market will only have everyone either buying or selling instead of some buying and some selling. Does it matter who is right or wrong on VS price since what goes up normally also come down and vice versa. So both will be right and also wrong!!!!At least KYY is brave enough to show his face not like most(me included) who hides behind an avatar.LOL

Thks for sharing but IMHO bonus issues are normally meant to con the shareholders into believing that the Co is rewarding them. BI is good if the share price is very high and the BI is to lower the price to make it more "tradeable" or management wishes to retain cash for future capital expenditure. Else why bother BI when easier to declare dividend or higher dividend. Therefore BI also means that whilst the Co is making a lot of "Profit" it has no money to declare dividend.

Yes interesting and exciting reading but can you trust Malton? Firstly they gave a property worth RM140M to Tan Sri so that he can pay for this PBD land. In return Malton gets a piece of paper which is then shown as investment property in the accounts!!!!How on earth a piece of paper can be reflected as "Investment PROPERTY" is beyond my simple mind. Should it not be shown as INTEREST FREE LOAN to Tan Sri and only capitalise as 'PROPERTY' when/IF the property can be rented out as stated in their acctg policy on Inv Property.

correction : reborrowings = borrowings

Rubbish counter. BOD doesn't know what the coy wants to do. Developer? Property Investment? Hotel? Money lending? Even qtrly reporting is confusing. Investment holding make forex losses bcos of borrowings in S$. How can this happen if these reborrowings are for S$ investment.Then if forex loss in borrowings, there should be forex gain in investment holdings lah.