The company still has over 1 billion cash in hand, the cost of Selangor state government's final cost is not even 10% of the cash value, yet the company share price has fallen to less than 40% cash. Worse yet, some smart guy suggesting it should trade below 20% cash in hand... What's more interesting yet disgusting, the company's board is doing nothing, as if minorities are used disposal diapers...

PN 16 is for cash rich company of which cash is 70% or more of company asset. Currently, Puncak is no longer under this category. Furthermore, a sue that demand money from Puncak will only drain its cash, instead of the other way. So, it won't trigger PN 16 classification. The best option for minorities, I guess, would be a collective action demanding capital repayment option.

http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/5424393

Puncak wishes to announce to the Exchange that the Company had, on the evening of 9 May 2017, received a sealed copy of the Amended Writ together with an Amended Statement of Claim both dated 28 April 2017 from the solicitors of Pengurusan Air Selangor Sdn Bhd (“PASSB”).

The Suit arose from alleged breaches on the Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 11 November 2014 (“SPA”) between Puncak and PASSB relating to the disposals by Puncak of the entire equity interest and cumulative convertible redeemable preference shares held in Puncak Niaga (M) Sdn Bhd (“PNSB”) and 70% equity interest and RM212.0 million nominal value of redeemable convertible loan stocks held in Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Sdn Bhd (“SYABAS”) to PASSB for RM1,555.3 million in line with the consolidation/restructuring of the water industry in the State of Selangor and the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya by the State Government and the Federal Government. The disposals of PNSB and SYABAS were completed on 15 October 2015.

In the Suit, Puncak is named as the First Defendant.

The relief sought by PASSB against Puncak is as follows:-

(i) a sum of RM63,237,583.05 (“Sum”) to be paid within 14 days from the date of the Honourable Court judgment.

(ii) interests on the Sum at the rate of 5% per annum to be calculated from 22 August 2016 until full payment thereof.

(iii) a declaration that Puncak continues to indemnify PASSB for all losses which arises after the filing of this claim that PASSB may suffer as a result of the breaches in this action, including but not limited to future RPGT relation to the transfer of properties of PNSB to Puncak Group under the SPA.

(iv) general damages to be assessed (“Assessed Damages”) and interests on the Assessed Damages at the rate of 5% per annum to be calculated from the date of assessment until full payment thereof.

(v) an order that Puncak do deliver to PASSB the original or photocopies of PNSB’s documents within seven (7) days from the date of the Honourable Court order.

(vi) costs and interests at the rate of 5% and other reliefs or orders that the Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to grant.

Puncak has instructed its solicitors to contest the matter and to file an appearance at the pre-trial case management on 17 May 2017.

Pending the outcome of the Suit, there is no financial impact on the Puncak Group. There is also no operational impact on the Puncak Group.

Puncak will make the relevant announcement on further developments on this matter in due course.



This announcement is dated 11 May 2017.

I did mention, however, should Puncak believe in its strategy of the plantation and TRIPLC deals, let Puncak minorities a exit option at 2.30 per share. I didn't ask for much, given Puncak has a NA per share of 3.19 and cash per share of approximately 2.40 (1.1 billion cash with approximately 454 million shares after full conversion).

I didn't file complaint to SC with regards to TRIPLC deal. I have mentioned before I have no idea how to value this company at 210 million. I am a small shareholder seeking to right what's wrong with Puncak cause I'm a minority there. I merely commented here earlier because there's a likelihood TRIPLC might fall into the same situation like I do with Puncak and probably TRIPLC (potential) minorities should be aware too before they consider adding position.

真好笑，被高价吃掉也好过只有大股东吃。。。再说，只有真正为公司经营 才能获得好的估价 和小股东的支持 而高股价本身就是最好避免被收购的行动，有人能收购美国苹果，谷歌 等公司吗?只有自私的大股东才会那么想，要不就是被糊弄了

And, may I add, the more shareholders calling SC, taking active role to seek better treatment, the better the outcome it can be. So, I would appreciate active participation from all of you.

ks55, like I said, I don't know if what I'm doing can have any effect, but I'm trying my best and approaching whom I think can have an impact. Of course, if you are a minority sharing the same concern, you are welcome to approach SC to learn what I have been trying to do in case if you thought that I'm just cakap cakap here. Posting 'I doubt' won't make a difference, trying new approaches from each lesson learnt will offer hope.

chonghai, I was informed by SC around 3:30 pm today the investigation is still ongoing, except that they can't reveal any detail, and reassure me its been taken seriously. I have stressed my request for a capital repayment option and not intended to go against Rozali. Lets see how it goes, given the concerns have been filed already. If you are a shareholder and is concerned, do call SC. Every shareholder raising concern counts!

hopefully its foreign funds buying... at least the share price appreciation will stay

what's going on? Luckily I used to buy, hold and wait... hopefully its the Jeju ruling giving BJLand billions ... but then, bjland share price not moving, headache...

I was wondering if the board had known about this issue prior to the announced M&A?

hng33 very geng!

impairment on the ownership of BJTOTO is almost a certainty, except the amount impaired is yet to known given the recent financial results for the past 4 quarters. Given Ritz-Carlton Residences is yet to be completed (hopefully in another 3-6 months with impact only to be felt for 1QFY2018 or 2QFY2018,) there's little to present a good 4QFY2017 earning report except for (1) an impairment so small (wonder if that's possible) that the gains from selling subsidiaries is more than enough to offset (2) sale of the 2nd half of properties WRT 2nd phase Kyoto Four Season Residences are good and completed in the last quarter (3) a surprisingly good ruling favoring BJCorp (well, BJLand actually) from Jeju project (a bit doubtful, given that VT sold his BJLand ownership to BJCorp (4) a stellar performance from Vietnam Toto that BJCorp can somehow be included into its 4QFY2017 result.

actually, I have underestimated how badly the Ritz-Carlton Residences can be delayed, surprised by Vietnam Toto not allowed to announce details of BJCorp's involvement. Still, these are much more bearable compared to my other holding, Puncak Niaga.

BJCorp can't reveal anything about Vietnam Toto, Malaysia Toto not doing well, its property projects are delayed or in court or in the process of being sold, its retail businesses not expected to do well given current economic environment. The boss not helping either, kept issuing new shares to himself in exchange for BJLand, acquiring companies minorities are scratching head. what to do? Can only hope with Ritz-Carlton Residences completed soon, Kyoto Hotel doing well and properties 100% sold now, Jeju court case showering BJCorp with a lot of cash and Vietnam Toto starts to contribute towards cash flow.

steveooikp, if you are shareholder and worry about the situation, you can always call SC, attend AGM, MSWG, or any other measure to help. What you are doing now won't change a thing...

Sigh! Can only hope Rozali offering capital repayment option or SC intervene, otherwise, minorities will be squeezed harder and harder...

there's nothing BJCorp can do, so long BJToto profit keeps falling, it will have to conduct impairment to reflect the value of its gaming license in Malaysia, sigh! Yet, BJCorp can't reveal much about Vietnam Toto's venture

err... given BJToto's profit of late, I guess there will be another impairment ahead in the 4th quarter BJCorp financial report. Hopefully the profits from disposing other companies helps...

my guess, having difficulty selling?!? They shouldn't have delayed the project by this much, sigh!

Pineapple123, please refer to my earlier posts on Puncak. I am not at war with Puncak Rozali, just seek a better treatment for minorities... Tired of keep posting the same stuff

i was at the Ritz-Carlton Residences site about an hour ago... unfortunately, the building is yet to be completed and handed over to buyers. Guess it will be another 3-6 months before it can be completed and quarter report won't be showing this project for FY2017, can only expect a show in 1Q2018 or 2Q2018, sigh!

err.... more insider news? like gambling license on Mars, the one and only?

stockraider, I know, which is the reason I have been adding this company's shares, though, extremely unhappy with additional delay in the Ritz-Carlton Residences, and I have to know it through Edge...

instead of awaiting some license, I would rather BJCorp board trying to optimize its assets, from getting out of Jeju and China, completing Ritz-Carlton Residences, and addressing Toto Malaysia business

just read the edge weekly, seems like Ritz-Carlton residences won't be completed until 3rd quarter this year. Don't like the delay, wonder how true is the news?!?

Jay, if your market efficient idea holds true, the Puncak price dropped and TRIPLC price upped (but price can't fully reflect the offer) after the TRIPLC deal is announced should suggest the deal is not good for Puncak. In addition, its either market thinks the TRIPLC is overvalued or the money received in the deal will not fully pass on to TRIPLC shareholders. Puncak has a cash and equivalent of more than 1 billion besides other hard assets over 400 millions but with a market capitalization of less than 450 millions. Yet, you believe the current Puncak share price is right because its bleeding with losses. With no core business, its as if the losses can be more than 1 billion? I suppose I would have believed more if you have suggested another possibility, the board of Puncak could possibly trying to benefit themselves at the cost of Puncak's balance sheet and minority shareholders. But then, given how Puncak's been managed, how would TRIPLC be different once its cash rich with nothing else but 310 millions?


Frankly, I don't know how to express my doubts on the functioning of Malaysia equity market. However, through interaction with SC, MSWG, and various other investors/traders in i3investor of late, I have found the following to be intriguing and paradoxical:

Market capitalization vs net asset vs net cash

Net asset is the accumulated wealth of a company through years of operation. Intriguingly, though, I have seen so many MGO, private placements and so forth at a level so much below net asset with experts citing not well perceived by the market (low market capitalization) and deemed the offer not fair but acceptable. This is as if the efforts put in to accumulate the wealth should be ignored and the asset reflected in the balance sheet is bogus. What's more, there's little effort seen from SC to address this, as if there is nothing else could be done. Paradoxically, simply citing the intention of NOT intervening how each corporation should micro-manage itself, SC has allowed the wealth accumulated be awarded to a certain group of people but not minority shareholders.

Hasn't SC realized the inaction is equivalent to denying minority shareholders rightful and equal ownership of the firm, encouraged further withdrawal of retail investors participation in the equity market for fear wealth be destructed overnight despite health balance sheets?

... too lazy to write and type

Jay, think you don't know what you are talking about... writing this on handphone, shall reply with further details when next to computer

Jay, I believe I have mentioned before I am no expert and can't decide on TRIPLC's value, but if the market is an indicator, TRIPLC is definitely NOT worth the money, despite how you run the math. In addition, I am only asking the board to table an option to minorities, to let go with at least an offer price of 2.50 per share. Rozali can laugh to the end after seeing those short-sighted minorities, including me, go while he is making tons and tons of money for all I care... What's more, I have emailed SC my concern over plantation deal, how the board had twisted the classification of L3 investment to avoid PN 16 classification, and how minorities have not benefited from any asset accumulation by the listed companies.

Furthermore, all I see is TRIPLC directors selling below the 3.10 offered when a 3.10 is offered, wonder why?

Jay, I believe I have mentioned before I am no expert and can't decide on TRIPLC's value, but if the market is an indicator, TRIPLC is definitely NOT worth the money, despite how you run the math. In addition, I am only asking the board to table an option to minorities, to let go with at least an offer price of 2.50 per share. Rozali can laugh to the end after seeing those short-sighted minorities, including me, go while he is making tons and tons of money for all I care... What's more, I have emailed SC my concern over plantation deal, how the board had twisted the classification of L3 investment to avoid PN 15 classification, and how minorities have not benefited from any asset accumulation by the listed companies.

I have emailed MSWG pertaining to Puncak's various acquisitions and balance sheet. Given that I have made comment here on the acquisition of TRIPLC while one of my email to MSWG is related to TRIPLC, I suppose its only fair if I were to share what I have learnt from MSWG. The followings are what I have received from Mr. Wong:

As per your complaint, please find below our investigation and findings:

1. Puncak Niaga’s second quarter 2016 report
As mentioned previously, we are seeking clarification with Bursa Malaysia on the definition of “Other Long Term Investments”. We will revert back to you on this issue once we got the response from Bursa Malaysia.

2. Plantation deal
According to the analysis done by our plantation analyst, her finding was that the acquisition is for the entire issued and paid up capital of Danum Sinar S/B together with the land, estate office building, estate management and staff quarter, guests house, storage and other ancillary facilities relating to the oil palm business. The lands were priced at RM18,500 per acre for planted portion and RM3,500 per acre for unplanted portion. However, MSWG has no expertise to comment on the acquisition price because:-

(i) The acquisition is for the equity stake in the company, not any particular assets, e.g. estate land. As this is a private company, we would not be able to value the company without further research on the financial stand and the outlook of the company.
(ii) The price of any estate land and the biological assets are not just based on the acreage and the age of the crops. There are many other factors, such as location, geographical condition of the land, soil condition, etc, to be taken into consideration.

For a broad comparison with the recent acquisition by Sarawak Oil palm, the price paid by Puncak Niaga seemed to be on the high side as highlighted by the complainer. However, compare with the price offered by KLK for the proposed acquisition of a plantation company with operations in Kalimantan, the price seemed reasonable.

3. Puncak Niaga’s offer to purchase TRIPLC
According to our investigation, the realisable net asset value of TRIPLC should be RM360 million, which is at a deep discount to the offer price of RM210 million made by Puncak Niaga. Indeed, the deal is unfair to the shareholders of TRIPLC rather than to the shareholders of Puncak Niaga.

Regards,
Wong Kin Wing, CFA (黄建融)
Manager
Corporate Monitoring Division
Minority Shareholder Watchdog Group (MSWG)
11th Floor, Bangunan KWSP
No. 3, Changkat Raja Chulan
Off Jalan Raja Chulan
50200 Kuala Lumpur
Tel : 03-2070 9090
Fax : 03-2070 9107

Should you find the above insufficient, please contact Mr. Wong to seek further clarification. Thanks.

Pertaining to my email to MSWG, the followings are the reply:

As per your complaint, please find below our investigation and findings:

1. Puncak Niaga’s second quarter 2016 report
As mentioned previously, we are seeking clarification with Bursa Malaysia on the definition of “Other Long Term Investments”. We will revert back to you on this issue once we got the response from Bursa Malaysia.

2. Plantation deal
According to the analysis done by our plantation analyst, her finding was that the acquisition is for the entire issued and paid up capital of Danum Sinar S/B together with the land, estate office building, estate management and staff quarter, guests house, storage and other ancillary facilities relating to the oil palm business. The lands were priced at RM18,500 per acre for planted portion and RM3,500 per acre for unplanted portion. However, MSWG has no expertise to comment on the acquisition price because:-

(i) The acquisition is for the equity stake in the company, not any particular assets, e.g. estate land. As this is a private company, we would not be able to value the company without further research on the financial stand and the outlook of the company.
(ii) The price of any estate land and the biological assets are not just based on the acreage and the age of the crops. There are many other factors, such as location, geographical condition of the land, soil condition, etc, to be taken into consideration.

For a broad comparison with the recent acquisition by Sarawak Oil palm, the price paid by Puncak Niaga seemed to be on the high side as highlighted by the complainer. However, compare with the price offered by KLK for the proposed acquisition of a plantation company with operations in Kalimantan, the price seemed reasonable.

3. Puncak Niaga’s offer to purchase TRIPLC
According to our investigation, the realisable net asset value of TRIPLC should be RM360 million, which is at a deep discount to the offer price of RM210 million made by Puncak Niaga. Indeed, the deal is unfair to the shareholders of TRIPLC rather than to the shareholders of Puncak Niaga.

Regards,
Wong Kin Wing, CFA (黄建融)
Manager
Corporate Monitoring Division
Minority Shareholder Watchdog Group (MSWG)
11th Floor, Bangunan KWSP
No. 3, Changkat Raja Chulan
Off Jalan Raja Chulan
50200 Kuala Lumpur
Tel : 03-2070 9090
Fax : 03-2070 9107

Should you find the above insufficient, please contact Mr. Wong to seek further clarification. Thanks.

yeah, don't think bjcorp want to develop jeju already, think they only want a huge compensation, unless a very very good deal is tabled...

my bad, thought its related to the Selangor Turf Club land swap... anyway, should not be bad for BJCorp, cause the land is purchased from BJCorp...

Should be a good news to BJCorp...

http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/5383225

Description ACQUISITION OF APPROXIMATELY 871.01 ACRES OF FREEHOLD LANDS LOCATED IN MUKIM SUNGAI TINGGI, DAERAH ULU SELANGOR, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN FOR A TOTAL CASH CONSIDERATION OF RM155.0 MILLION ("ACQUISITION")


We refer to our Announcement dated 22 September 2016 in relation to the Acquisition.

The Board of Directors of Berjaya Land Berhad wishes to announce that the Acquisition has been completed today.

This Announcement is dated 31 March 2017.

http://www.klmanagement.com.my/blog/pn16-cash-criteron/http://www.klmanagement.com.my/blog/pn16-cash-criteron/


Practice Note No. 16/2005 or PN16 in short, is issued by Bursa to address Cash Companies, deciding whether to maintain the company’s listing status or proceed with de-listing exercises. During this period as a Cash Company, the listed company is obliged regularize its condition by:-
1.Submiting a proposal to regularize its condition; and
2.Upon approval from relevant authorities, the listed company must implement its proposal within the timeframe approved by the relevant authorities.

A Cash Company that fails to regularize its condition or its proposal is rejected by the authority, will face the situation where its shares and securities will be suspended and subsequent de-listing procedures will commence.

If you are minority shareholder and would like to seek further clarification, kindly call MSWG or SC. Meanwhile, I will insist on my request and hope for support here, given this is the only platform that I can use to reach out to minorities. Thanks!

I have received acknowledgement of email from SC but yet to receive any call from them. Meanwhile, Mr. Wong of MSWG has replied as follow:

We are currently discussing with Bursa on the definition on the classification of the “Other Long Term Investments” in Puncak Niaga which lasted for only 2 quarters, hopefully we will get clarifications from Bursa over this matter before we decide the next move on the possible trigger of PN16 by Puncak Niaga.

Regards,
Wong Kin Wing, CFA (黄建融)
Manager
Corporate Monitoring Division
Minority Shareholder Watchdog Group (MSWG)
11th Floor, Bangunan KWSP
No. 3, Changkat Raja Chulan
Off Jalan Raja Chulan
50200 Kuala Lumpur
Tel : 03-2070 9090
Fax : 03-2070 9107

In return, I have emailed him with the following content:


Dear Mr. Wong,

Thank you for your reply. Your effort and work on Puncak Niaga is much appreciated. Given my initial email, may I know what's MSWG on the rest of the matters I have raised?

Thanks.

1. Dubious purchase of level 3 financial asset to avoid PN 16 classification.

2. Expensive plantation and TRIPLC deals that clearly disregard minority shareholders interest (a clear case of Puncak Niaga suffering from principal agent problem.)

3. Given recent cases of majority shareholders offering a heavy discount to net asset citing unfavorable market condition, it is better to let minority shareholders an option to leave when the cash is in the company and the asset easier to evaluate. Please do not let us suffer financial losses after being humiliated by independent adviser trying to educate us the terminology ‘reasonable’ but ‘unfair’ or ‘unreasonable’ but ‘fair.’

The following has been emailed to MSWG and SC on March 27:

The followings are discussed during our conversation on Feb 24. Thank you for your time. Would appreciate if you could set up a forum for all concerned Puncak shareholders as soon as possible.

Best regards,

1. In Puncak Niaga’s second quarter report, the balance sheet is shown to have

Other investments 63,713
Cash & bank balances 280,358
Short-term investments 906,065
Total assets: 1,754,250

The 63.713 million investment is a L3 financial asset purchased during the second quarter that classified it as long-term asset. Had this L3 financial asset considered liquid, the cash & equivalent of Puncak Niaga would have crossed 70% threshold and be classified as PN 16 company ((63,713+280,358+906,065)/1754250)=71.26%. The issue is, what’s this other investments of 63.713 million so crucial to Puncak’s business development? Without doubt, if the significance of this investment can’t be explained, its nothing but an attempt to hide asset to avoid PN 16 classification.

Thus, we urge SC to investigate into this matter and classify Puncak as a PN 16 company regardless how Q3 and future financial reports are presented.

2. Misinformed Expensive Plantation Deal

Seller: Shin Yang Holding Sdn. Bhd. (shareholders include Tan Sri Datuk Ling Chiong Ho)
Acquisition price: RM 446,505,690.45 (Puncak Niaga’s stake of 60% is RM 267,903,414)
Date of announcement: Oct 17, 2016
Palm Oil price during the month: Should be about RM 2,600
Land (location): Murum District and Silat District, Sarawak (Lot 13-15, 18, 20-23, Murum District, Lot 1, Silat District).
Land (size): 43,139.5 hectares (planted: 9,766.9 hectares, unplanted: 33,372.6 hectares)
Palm age: Less than 18 months 7,258.10 hectares
More than 18 months 2,508.80 hectares

A recent transaction deal announced on Bursa: Sarawak Oil Palm Berhad

Seller: Shin Yang Oil Palm (Sarawak) Sdn. Bhd. (Shareholders include Tan Sri Datuk Ling Chiong Ho)
Acquisition price: RM 873,005,875.00
Date of announcement: July 04, 2016
Palm Oil price during the month: Should be about RM 2,300
Land (location): Between Batang Belaga and Sungai Murum, Belaga District, Kapit Division, Sarawak. (Lot 30-42 Murum Land District, Lot 40-64 Punan Land District)
Land (size): 47,000 hectares (planted: 23,798 hectares, unplanted: 6,772 hectares)
Palm age: Less than 4 years: 6,716 hectares
4 years – 10 years: 12, 388 hectares
11 – 16 years: 4,694 hectares

Puncak Niaga’s purchase is extremely expensive compared to what’s presented by Sarawak Oil Palm. Sarawak Oil Palm purchase prices its planted acreage at RM 34,224 per hectare while Puncak Niaga is paying RM 45,714 per hectare, a premium of 33.57%!

In addition, 52% of Sarawak Oil Palm purchase has trees between 4 – 10 years old while 74% of Puncak purchase has trees less than 18 months that the Board of Puncak considered as ‘matured’ trees that has clearly misled minority shareholders!

Finally, given trees planted are mostly less than 18 months, it is possible that the deal has been leaked to seller that has incentivized the seller to plant at a speed of at least 400 hectares per month (the planting speed of Sarawak Oil palm’s is 140 hectares per month for trees less than 4 years)!

3. Puncak Niaga is offering to purchase TRIPLC at RM 210 million while at the announcement date on Dec 16, 2016, TRIPLC has a market capitalization of RM 139 million at RM 2.03 per share. That’s a premium of 51%. What’s more, when the Head of Agreement was announced on April 18, 2016, TRIPLC was ONLY trading and closed at RM 1.41 per share with a market capitalization of RM 96,549,869. That’s a premium of 117% .
Since the conclusion of the Selangor water asset disposal and distribution of special dividend of RM 1.00 per share, the share price of Puncak Niaga has dropped to new low. As of Feb 24, Puncak Niaga’s closing price is 0.985 with a market capitalization of RM 442 million, less than 40% of its cash in hand. The phenomenon is not temporary, in fact, it’s on a declining trend from RM 1.70 per share right after the special dividend is distributed. We are urging SC to intervene to defend minority shareholders by requiring Puncak Niaga to offer minority shareholders an exit option at a minimum price of 2.68 per share (the cash position of Puncak Niaga at the 2016 Q3 financial report (63.713 million other investment, 913.735 million short term investments, and 229.990 million cash and bank balances divided by shares outstanding of 449,283,784) on the following grounds:

doubt BJCorp can reveal the profit of sports betting license if it manages to acquire the license. Most likely will be facing similar fate, i.e., vietlott acquiring the license while its a 50%-50% JV with BJCorp and its subsidiaries.

I think there will be another impairment on BJToto's gaming license coming quarter. Hopefully the profits from selling Ritz-Carlton can offset the impairment.

Berjaya Corp 3QFY17 profit up 44.66%

Don't know why, the press seems to favor BJCorp's quarterly earning?!?


http://www.theedgemarkets.com/my/article/berjaya-corp-3qfy17-profit-4466?type=Corporate

KUALA LUMPUR (March 30): Berjaya Corp Bhd (BCorp) benefited from lower tax charges to record a 44.66% jump in net profit for its third financial quarter ended Jan 31, 2017 (3QFY17).

Net profit for the group rose to RM22.87 million from RM15.82 million in the same period last year. However, pre-tax profit was lower, the group said, dragged by lower contribution from its gaming operations, as well as losses from its Kenny Rogers Roasters operations in Malaysia.

The company did not announce any dividend for the quarter.

In the same period, BCorp’s revenue was 2.45% higher at RM2.22 billion from RM2.17 billion previously with higher earnings from its property investment and development business, consumer product marketing and services segments.

“The marketing of consumer products and services segment contributed higher revenue as the motor distribution business reported higher revenue arising from higher sales volume of certain new car models by H.R. Owen PLC,” BCorp said in a statement today.

For its nine-month financial period ended Jan 31, 2017 (9MFY17), BCorp’s net profit declined 29.61% to RM136.71 million from RM194.21 million recorded for 9MFY16.

BCorp received lower profit share from Berjaya Auto Bhd — it sold a 21.88% stake in the company last April — and lower profit from other associates, the company said, but this was mitigated by lower expenses and higher income from its property investment and development business, particularly in China and Japan.

Hope this year dividend will be at least 0.02 per share...

the board is still expecting business environment to be tough, while earnings from Vietnam Toto has ye to kick in. I believe in a fair value of 0.60 - 1.00 but it could take time until Jeju project is sorted out, China project receiving last payment or our government is truly addressing the underground Toto business.

Guess we should be lucky to see .425-.48 range

relax a little bit lah


http://www.theedgemarkets.com/my/article/blands-3q-earnings-improve-stronger-property-hotel-automotive-contributions?type=Corporate

BLand's 3Q earnings improve on stronger property, hotel, automotive contributions

KUALA LUMPUR (March 22): Berjaya Land Bhd (BLand) posted a net profit of RM33.77 million for its third financial quarter ended Jan 31, 2017 (3QFY17), against RM21.02 million in net losses in the same period in the year before.

It attributed the improved earnings to higher profit contributions from its property development and investment business, higher sales volume of certain car models from HR Owen, and better earnings from its hotels and resorts business.

A higher share of profit from its associate companies, especially Berjaya Kyoto Development (S) Ltd from the sale of residences, and lower finance costs in the quarter were also cited as contributing factors.

Quarterly revenue climbed 3.8% to RM1.53 billion from RM1.48 billion a year ago, primarily boosted by improved revenue from its gaming arm during the Chinese New Year season, higher progress billings from its property development and investment arm, and higher automotive sales. It also registered higher average room rates at its resorts business despite a drop in overall occupancy rates.

BLand's net profit for the nine months ended Jan 31, 2017 (9MFY17) declined by 5% to RM187.01 million from RM197.19 million a year ago, dragged by lower progress billings from its property business, combined with tax adjustment and higher operating expenses from its subsidiary, Sports Toto Malaysia Sdn Bhd.

This came despite a 2.6% rise in revenue to RM4.7 billion from RM4.58 billion in 9MFY16.

Looking forward, BLand expects its 4QFY17 to be challenging, especially for its number forecast operations business, in light of illegal gaming activities, rising costs and weak consumer sentiment. However, it expects its resorts business to perform satisfactorily while its property market outlook is expected to "remain lukewarm".

Shares of BLand closed unchanged on Wednesday at 56.5 sen, giving it a market capitalisation of RM2.82 billion.

BJLand is making 33.7 million while the same quarter last year is a loss of 21 million. Guess its a good result already...

BJLand showing profit, BJCorp result should be good

Probably some guessing another impairment on bjtoto asset next quarter given poor results in Malaysia?

the okinawa land is owned by bjland. BJland already announced setting up firm in Okinawa...