Posted by MG9231 > 2014-11-26 16:57 | Report Abuse

I guess,the boss of Pintaras Bhd listened to the advices from his Fund managers while at that pertinent time,construction activities also down. With shareholders interest in mind, he was rightly deplyoed company's money and let fund managers invest heavily in equity market.
If I did not remember wrongly, he said it very clearly in sta-paper during the AGM of 2009 or 2010, asked the shareholders to be patient with him and if the cash in hand was not generated a fair returns, he didn't mind to propose a capital repayment.

Posted by Kian Leong Lim > 2014-11-26 16:58 | Report Abuse

I already told you. There are 3342 shareholders shown on last year's annual report who had to pay Rm $2400 per share and receive 95 dollars as dividends for a 1000-shares purchase and dividend yield of 3.96%. The 100 employees collected 6.2 million for advisory and managementfees, but the 3342 people who bought shares in the company collected RM9.9 million. Do you think this is a good company? Is it fair to shareholders---3342 people get 9.9 million as dividends while 100 people get 6.2 million for working for the company? You have to bring your dissentment to Tan Teng Boo and the other directors from the US who is majority shareholder properly in a write-up letter to them! After all, Mr. Tan does not own many shares in the company himself maybe for a good reason! He does not even trust his own company that much, could you please ask him why is that , and at the end of the day why should you?

Posted by MG9231 > 2014-11-26 17:07 | Report Abuse

at that time, pintaras directors MD was drawing $800,000 P.a while $100 millions in the bank.(figures may not be accurate because i based on my memory only)

Posted by stockoperator > 2014-11-26 17:15 | Report Abuse

Welcome back Lim. Making friend is more important ya.

Posted by NOBY > 2014-11-26 17:16 | Report Abuse

Kian Leong, the article here is not suggesting that one invest in ICAP due to the great management... I think you miss the point... rest my case...

Posted by Kian Leong Lim > 2014-11-26 17:23 | Report Abuse

In 2014 Annual Report, the total money paid out to shareholders and employees = 16.1 million. (Dividend is 9.9 million and Advisory and Management Fee is 6.2 million).
The 100 employees get 6.2 million/16.1 million = 38.5 % of money.
One employee gets 38.5/100=0.385% per person share of money.
The 3342 shareholders get 9.9 million/16.1 million = 61% of money.
One shareholders get 61/3342=0.018% share of money.
If you want to learn Tai-Chi, you should go and learn from Tan Teng Boo
and I think he is a better value investor than all of us.
The problem is not the company is underperformed, it is just that
the employees are getting so much more than the shareholders.
If you prop up the shares, you are helping him that is all.
He is the one in-charge of the company it is not wrong for
him to make his decision. Like you said, as owners of the company,
you have to talk properly to Tan Teng Boo and the other directors that
why is employees getting 0.385%/0.018%= 21 times more than the shareholders
on a person-by-person basis when money is paid out to shareholders and employees. Furthermore, revenue and profit are not growing in the company too. You want to show the rate of decrease to the directors of the company. The directors fees totalled RM232,000 only. I am sure US directors may think that that is not so high either.

Posted by MG9231 > 2014-11-26 17:33 | Report Abuse

Whereas for icap, of course it depends on fund managers forecast on the market, other fund managers are loading up in the equity since 2010 while he choose to liquidated from equity and keep cash. Market is not waiting for him, obviously, he had made a severe mistakes not only for 2010 , but since than, in each AGM or EGM or his invited Seminar,did you see him candidly admit his mistakes? Apologise? Instead , he keep saying he is damn good! I , as icap shareholders have the right to question him, isn't it?
Market is over-valued in bursa now according to a numbers of fund managers,did he make any proposal to deployed part of cash either return to shareholders in the form of dividend or use for any purpose he deemed correct.

Posted by Kian Leong Lim > 2014-11-26 17:38 | Report Abuse

He is mostly selling company assets only. After all the good assets have been sold off over time, he doesn't need to care about the company anymore. The payment of employees are 21 times more than shareholders on a person-by-person basis. That is maybe why he is carrying only about 1% of company shares and paying so much money to employees. He is making an exit in the future probably after the company money that are not used to purchase shares are paid out handsomely as rewards to the employees. I think he is betting that the market turns sour in the next few few years for as long as possible so he gets to do very few things and collect good salaries until the company's funds dry down.

Posted by erwinsftan > 2014-11-26 18:00 | Report Abuse

I am a silent reader, but I just want to say that while I am not an idol of kcchong, his writings certainly make good sensible reading material. I used to attend ICap's AGM and looked forward to TTB's sharing, but no longer so, after seeing his arrogance (to the extent of self-promoting with him portrayed as 'Superman' in an animated/cartoon video shown at one of his post AGM-sharing) and his then focus on constantly bashing an ex-Premier rather than on investment. Like many others, I only see increasing fees every year and dismal performance that is gradually but consistently eroding whatever super gains that he made in the first few years. The irony is that while the annual fee increases with the growing asset base, the performance goes south. And while TTB still maintains that his performance beats the KLCI by a wide margin, the average compounded growth in NAV has dropped from 45% in 2007 to 14% in 2014. No doubt, 14% is still good by any standard, but it is no longer a superb performance, and it is only so because it is boosted by the performance in 2005-2007. Post 2007, the actual growth in NAV over the past 7 years is actually just about 5-6 % pa.

Posted by MG9231 > 2014-11-26 18:05 | Report Abuse

A friend of mine questioned him during his recent road show,
Quote
Mr, Tan ,you have been saying the market is over valued in bursa since 2010, just wait, .......what if 3 years later, market not crash, what are you going to do?
Unquote

You know what did he reply , I will continue to ask you to wait lah , that's all. Sarcastically!

If a genuine and sincere fund manager will admit to you that he misread the markets in last couple of years and immediate apologies and said sorry for his past actions. Alternatively, excess cash in hand will be deployed for useful purposes for the benefit of shareholders.
Of course, I also expect him to said he should cut his fees in the event his forecast is wrong again in next 3 years.
That is why I say he his more concern of his 7millions yearly fees than the interst of existing icap shareholders.

Posted by Kian Leong Lim > 2014-11-26 18:21 | Report Abuse

You should not be fooled by share price and those profit figures the company presented to you. The share price can be propped up easily (just 140 million share capital company) and the profit figures can be manipulated by selling shares.

During IPO, the company issued shares totalling 140 million at price of RM1 per share, this implies that your initial capital is 140 million.
Retained earnings at 31st Aug 2014 stood at 204 million. If you minus the two, what is left after the initial capital is 204 million - 140 million = RM 64 million.

What does this tell you? After spending 140 million in 2005 during IPO, the company only retains 64 million of profits right now over a life span of 9 years. This means profit per year made after dividends is 9 million.
With initial capital of 140 million, the company retains 9 million every year for 9 years or 6.4 per cent annually (9 million/140million * 100).

The company's actual growth in RM dollar value that is retained in the company is only 6.4% every year since its IPO from 2005. Bear in mind this is very low because your assets are shares and they fluctures in value according to market performance.

Due to stock fluctuation, that is why he set up a fair value adjustment reserve or margin of safety account that registers 85 million (at the equity section). Even with the margin of safety, the growth rate over the 9 years that is still retained in the company is (64 million + 85 million)/9/140 million*100=11.8% per cent annually.

This is not such a so good company that you think it is, annual growth retain in the company is basically only 6.4% in RM dollar value over 9 years . It probably will have to rely on keep selling assets in the future is what I think if there are no miracle on the stock market.

Tan Teng Boo and his fund managers hasnt' does very spectacular jobs over the 9 years. His success is mainly relying on publicity and self-proclaimation.

Posted by Alpha Trader > 2014-11-26 18:38 | Report Abuse

If TTB is a value fund manager, how can he missed out MYEG? SCICOM? GHLSYS? IFCA- THE KING OF 2014? TTB- over rated fund manager, kcchong easily beat him upside down

Posted by murali > 2014-11-26 18:40 | Report Abuse

Kian Leong,u took medicine oredi.....good

Posted by JeevS > 2014-11-26 18:49 | Report Abuse

TTB only hire pretty girls in his company...the office gent's washroom is even locked, need a key to go in.

Posted by Kevin Wong > 2014-11-26 19:50 | Report Abuse

Well done!

Posted by MG9231 > 2014-11-26 20:19 | Report Abuse

Sweet girls around cannot concentrate lah , pick sweet girls are paramount important than picking stocks for icap shareholders,.
Anyway, with 7 million easy money yearly, age already sixty plus, still don't enjoy , silly isn't ?
Previous stingy , save money pattern were just acting lah, icap shareholders are mostly grateful ,easy fool investors, if necessary, hide more traveling with sweet girls to advertising expense in 2015 accounts. Why worry.

Posted by Kevin Wong > 2014-11-26 20:45 | Report Abuse

Yeah, anyone still want to buy more than 1,000 shares...?!

Posted by MG9231 > 2014-11-26 20:55 | Report Abuse

I appeal to those who know his the other side of characters please contribute or share it with us, as a icap shareholders, fund managers is the key personnel who may ruin and destroy the value of the company easily. By knowing more on the other side of him is paramount important.
I still remembered when he fenced of Laxey partners in previous EGM, he even went to the extent of killing the personal characters of Laxey partners.

Posted by cannottahan > 2014-11-26 21:06 | Report Abuse

Hello Lim Kian Liong,
so it only need for someone to go to office every morning to be a good funda manager?
Dont joke lah...
with that kind of cash...many other fund manager and non-fund manager can also bring that kind of return loh
somemore with cost lower than 7m

Posted by klsetitan > 2014-11-26 21:11 | Report Abuse

I think what Lim Kian Leong trying to say/hint are -
1)This company is not a good one to invest "even though" it looks cheap. The financial parameters are "too perfect"
2)TTB doesnt have the intention to reward the shareholders but instead its employees judging by his ownership of 1% and heavily reward "fund manager" but not shareholders
3)Trying to value the company thro financial parameters is not the true reflection of the company as one may fall into "traps".
His point of argument is: In the 1st place, this company isnt a good investment choice to start with...
Friend friend all...no fighting... happy happy investing...

Posted by Kevin Wong > 2014-11-26 21:26 | Report Abuse

kls...you are a genius!

Posted by vinext > 2014-11-26 22:31 | Report Abuse

it all go back to the integrity of TTB. I raed this till i fall asleep but i saw some1 asking abt this. few things to know:
1) he is no longer tat arrogant,i would said not anymore
2) the ego part probably shadow her integrity
3) ICAP was 25-30% of his AUM size (but now it is bit bigger),his main income is from managing other funds,where he charges X % for anything above X%,with the mgmt fee.

he din buy back etc cuz it has a 1off effect & doesnt help. Like seth karlman who underperforms for 4yrs during tech bubble, he also faced such pressure.

That said, KC has his points, sometimes it is good to ppl like KC who Q him.
But for u to buy just to do that, it's more like..... (how to say) lol

Posted by kcchongnz > 2014-11-27 12:24 | Report Abuse

Posted by kcchongnz > Nov 27, 2014 12:17 PM | Report Abuse X

This Sunday AGM proposes to renominate an existing director to the board. The question asked is should you or should you not?

Then a shareholder must think, has this director been doing something good for the shareholder? He should be nominated again if he has, that is for sure. But has he?

Let us go back say five years ago when the market was severely beaten down.

1)Did icap take the golden opportunity to invest fully in the market?
Why not?
2)If it was not a good time to invest then, when will be a good time?
3)Had the portfolio of stocks icap changed much at all? Why not?
4)If it hasn't changed, has it been performing well?
5)Has anything, anything at all, done with the intention of shareholder value maximizing? Any evidence at all?
6)If I think a board member has not done his job he is paid for, can I vote for not to re-elect him to the board? Mind you I am not talking about kicking him out half way in his tenure.
7) As a fellow shareholder, can I also suggest other fellow shareholder to think deep about this and act accordingly to his owe interest too? In a selfish way, that will take care of my interest too.
8)Who doesn't think of his own interest when investing in a stock?

Fund manager has the prerogative to invest or not to invest in which stock, for sure. But is there any role for the board of icap? If not what is the function of the board?

I also think the market is no more cheap now and it may be prudent to keep more cash. However, I am sure there are many ways shareholder value still can be enhanced, if we have the right people to take care of our interest. Don't you think so?

But do you think the same people will change and care about your interest?

No, I have nothing against anybody. There is no one to pay me to write about this either. i am voicing my opinion as a shareholder.

I really hope shareholders knows what is their main purpose in investing in a stock, if not for his own benefit.

Posted by stockoperator > 2014-11-27 13:21 | Report Abuse

Going forward a group of prominent and independent directors who are familiar with the industry should be selected to :

1)safeguard the investment integrity inclusive of investment process, selection criteria, fee structure, cash optimum level, risk management, hedging and so on.
2) Address the structural issue and chart the company direction such as succession planning, capital structure, selection of fund manager and so on.

I wish there is game changer coming soon and public interest will return.

Posted by stockoperator > 2014-11-27 13:34 | Report Abuse

Since the setup is Investing funds, Board of Directors should set a criteria for fund performance review, what is the criteria and benchmark to judge fund managers. This is part of corporate governance as well in response to the Public interest and safeguard the investment integrity.

Posted by stockoperator > 2014-11-27 13:48 | Report Abuse

if the mentality and the end result is This is my company, my set up, my fund, my criteria, my prerogative, my appointment of directors then the setup should be private equity funds.

Posted by MG9231 > 2014-11-27 16:56 | Report Abuse

Is icap fund manager, TTB has integrity ?


http://ck5354.blogspot.com/2014/11/icap-tunku-aziz-oh-icap-tunku-aziz.html

Posted by murali > 2014-11-27 16:59 | Report Abuse

MG9231,how many millions of icap do you owned?

Posted by MG9231 > 2014-11-27 17:04 | Report Abuse

Well said stockoperators. Your simple demand from interest of shareholders point of view should not be considered difficult to be fulfilledfrom .

Posted by stockoperator > 2014-11-27 19:59 | Report Abuse

Well, i think we shared the same concern. Same as KC and many others, we just wish the industry to grow and prosper.

It frustrates KC to write this article and I always wish i can say good things about others. It is High time management should look into constructive suggestion.

It does not reflect good on the industry with bad perception and bad publicity.

Posted by MG9231 > 2014-11-27 20:16 | Report Abuse

Murali,
I bought during ipo and added on during its initial listing. I sold all when it was traded at substantial premium.
I pick it back in 2009 around $1.4 plus and sold some before previous EGM.
However, I being the investors of any company, I will voice it out as long as the key personnel of the company not doing things correctly. Of course, I also not stingy to praise those major shareholders who take care the interest of the company.
At the end of the day, what I am concern the most is my investment returns.

Posted by murali > 2014-11-27 21:09 | Report Abuse

Well.good luck on Sunday.

Posted by murali > 2014-11-27 21:10 | Report Abuse

Hope this will serve as a wake up call to ttb......

Posted by RonnieKimLondon > 2014-11-27 23:49 | Report Abuse

Can shareholders vote to change fund manager ?

Posted by MG9231 > 2014-11-28 21:01 | Report Abuse

以少欺多？
Author: Tan KW | Publish date: Fri, 28 Nov 13:29



2014-11-28 11:23

被本地一些投資者喻為“大馬股神”的陳鼎武，向資本投資（ICAP，5108，主板封閉式基金組）最大單一股東——倫敦投資管理基金唱反調，顯示他不屈服“老闆”之下，相信令一些小股東大快人心，惟卻也引起一些疑問。

倫敦投資管理基金在今年10月11日舉行的股東大會中，讓東姑阿都阿茲連任董事的議案無法通過；並在股東要求下，資本投資決定暫時保留該議案，並在11月30日再次召開股東大會，第二度尋求讓東姑阿都阿茲連任。

誰說投反對票一定要透明，只要跟著法律及程序跑，沒有違法，相信並不一定要向市場公開其投票決定的詳情。雖然說要有道德與責任感問題，若是能夠做到這點，實是錦上添花，不過，這卻是個客觀問題及沒有法律約束，胥視各人的情況或各自理由而定。

若要東姑阿都阿茲連任，更應該是解釋為甚麼一定要東姑阿都阿茲連任的詳情與理由，特別是他對公司的貢獻，為甚麼公司不能缺少他等，以讓許多有權投票的小股東瞭解來龍去脈，以做出正确選擇，這才是較為妥當途徑。

同時，該公司也不能代表沒有出席的大多數小股東定下他們的立場。

或許陳鼎武在第一輪股東大會汲取了經驗與教訓，即在較後第二輪的股東大會之前召開新聞發佈會，以宣佈詳情，實是正确的做法。而避免在大會達致結果後才來亡羊補牢，甚至再勞師動眾再召開另一次的股東大會，進行同樣的議案。

這也顯示該公司不尊重第一輪的大會，無論它的結果如何，只要是符合法律與程序，有關議案結果應受到尊重及被接受，而不是加以拒絕及重新再選。

在一個自由市場裡，小股東的利益固然不可以被忽略，若以此准則，大股東的應有權利，也應受到尊重，只要沒有犯法，一切照著程序行事，聆聽及考慮所提出的要求，這是個原則上問題。

若是要避免今次事件重演，特別是要抵擋諸如倫敦投資管理基金的大股東任何不想看到的發展，有關人士包括管理高層等，就最好成為持有更多股權的大股東，或至少擁有一個支持管理層的大股東，相信這才適當及無爭議，從而保住屬意的董事甚至是管理層及基金經理人選等。又或是爭取另一大股東的認可與支持。

目前該公司沒有其他單一大股東，大多數股票皆落在散戶手裡。若是這樣的話，要在股東批准的事項中，最好之前就做好準備，事先設法儘量說服散戶股東。同時，也應該擁有一定的風度，實不必要對大股東之一，給予指責或暗示影射。

若是大會選出的結果，都未被重視及加以執行，這可能被視為對外資不公平，反而壞了大馬市場的信譽。只要合符法律，誰都可以成為上市公司的股東。他們應有的權利也該受到保護與尊重。（星洲日報／焦點評析：李文龍）


點看全文: http://biz.sinchew.com.my/node/106329?tid=17#ixzz3KL20srEj

Posted by MG9231 > 2014-11-28 21:54 | Report Abuse

Tan Teng Boo has called City of London Investment Co Ltd’s explanation to why it is opposing the reappointment of icapital.biz Bhd’s director Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim “ inadequate, baseless and utterly weak.”
City of London, together with Laxey Partners Ltd have announced that they will oppose the reappointment of Tunku Aziz. The two collectively hold 11.39% in the fund. The duo had submitted their proxy vote to oppose the reappointment just two days before the fund’s annual general meeting on Oct 11, 2014.
Their move was heavily criticised by Tan Teng Boo who is both the fund’s manager and a shareholder. He had questioned the timing, lack of explanation and motives of City of London and Laxey in opposing Tunku Aziz’s reappointment.

In his capacity shareholder, Tan put forward a motion to adjourned the AGM to a later date in view of City of London’s move. The adjourned AGM will be now held on Nov 30, 2014, and Tan has called for shareholders to turn out to make their votes.

He has also repeatedly asked City of London to send a representative to explain their decision despite the fact it is under no obligation to do so. Tan has suggested that it is the morally right thing to do

In a written response to Tan, City of London explained that they were opposing the reappointment because that they are concerned over the length of time since Tunku Aziz retired from active employment and his knowledge about close ended funds (CEFs) such as icapital.biz.

Tan has since reacted strongly to the explanation. Aside from referring to it as feeble, he has also chided City of London for only the letter to him and not the “entire board, Bursa Malaysia and all 3,400 shareholders.”

Addressing City of London’s explanation regarding Tunku Aziz’s position, Tan said that the issue of specific knowledge of CEFs would apply to all icapital.biz’s directors. Tan also questioned why Tunku Aziz was the only one being targeted.

He said “being the only listed closed-end fund in Malaysia, it is only logical that none of the directors of icapital.biz have requisite understanding of closed-end funds. Why is there a targeted attempt made by the foreign fund to single out Tunku Aziz? What are City of London’s ulterior motives?”

Furthermore he questioned what City of London’s definition of ‘active employment’. And pointed out that Tunku Aziz is the current president of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Foundation and has been a director of icapital.biz Berhad since 2011.

He questioned the integrity of the foreign investment firm and said “the letter by City of London is a clear testament of the foreign fund’s lack of integrity. By giving such superficial reasons for the opposition of Resolution 4, the foreign fund makes a mockery out of the other 3,400 shareowners.”

Tan suggested that City of London was trying a repeat the attempt it made in 2012 to displace several directors and replace them with nominees of their own. He also asserted that the firm focus on Tunku Aziz is a “classic divide and rule tactic…as they know that the person in Resolution 4 (Tunku Aziz) is not popular with the Chinese investors.”

http://www.kinibiz.com/story/corporate/124816/uk-firm%E2%80%99s-explanation-over-tunku-aziz-feeble-tan-teng-boo.html?utm_source=applet_mkinicom&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=mkinicom

MAJOR SHAREHODERS 's letter to icap Bhd was not published and announced in Bursa officially .
How come this shameless shareholders know such a letter exist?
Who actually does not have integrity ?

Posted by MG9231 > 2014-11-28 22:06 | Report Abuse

Now, our shameless fund manager ,TTB not try to explain his rationale why he insists of letting Tunku Aziz bin Tunku Ibrahim re-appointment as icap director but try to stir race issue. Not just shameless but a bastard.

Posted by sense maker > 2014-11-28 22:31 | Report Abuse

The best thing to do is to learn what TTB has done right in 2005 to 2007 and so wrong thereafter. And then, you apply those lessons on your future investment selection. Icap has never been a buy for so long. Those who still hold icap should just sell and close the chapter.

His failings include failure to understand what QE meant from beginning to the end, how L shape recovery would play out, inability to anticipate China's slowdown, "parkson" disaster, etc. He opined on many macro trends that sound knowledgable and respectable but he drew wrong conclusions on the net effects of the interplay of all these trends, especially when it comes to decisions on his stock-picking. Hence his disastrous performance.

Posted by stockoperator > 2014-11-28 23:46 | Report Abuse

Ha, sense maker, who has that ability to understand those economic issues?

Those who think they can understand must know that they have lots more to understand eventually. TTB is one of them. He thought he knows; in the end, there is lot more than he knows.

I cant make sense of lots of things but luckily in investment i dont have to make sense of lots of things.

Stay focus ya. I hope we can learn from other people mistakes and do it better.

Posted by sense maker > 2014-11-28 23:53 | Report Abuse

QE was a clear game changer in that the global economy would be pump-primed back into health artificially. TTB wrongly believed Jim Roger who bashed central bankers and grossly underestimated what FED could do.

Posted by stockoperator > 2014-11-28 23:56 | Report Abuse

So you see the mistakes is Not what we dont understand, but we really thought that we are smart enough to understand what we believe must be the truth of which it turns out not be the case.

In investment, there lies a high possibility that the less educated simple mind might win the race.

Posted by stockoperator > 2014-11-29 00:05 | Report Abuse

Ha, i really dont know what is going on. Central Bankers used to make lots of mistakes as well of which effects will only be realized years later. Lets the history be the judge.

Posted by sense maker > 2014-11-29 00:05 | Report Abuse

The biggest pitfall in investment is misplaced self-confidence and lack of knowledge. Lack of discipline is merely an excuse used invariably for failure resulting from insufficient insight and analyses. Which is a manifestation of lack of objectivity, also a big no-no.

Knowledge separates winners from losers in the long run.

Posted by MG9231 > 2014-11-29 07:58 | Report Abuse

I should add more loical reasons,
Currently,TTB managing 3 funds personally, one called icap Bhd, the other 2 covers world wide, according to him, they cover 40 countries.
With 24 millions fees he received from icap Bhd since 2010 -2014, he tour around the world instead of taking care the interest of icap shareholders with his sweet and pretty girl staff.
Icap board of directors are just his puppet , icap shareholders are grateful and easily fool.
Company law is interpreted as his wishes. Suka-Suka AGM resolution passed by hands voting, Suka-Suka by votes counting
You don't know when he will uses his personal capacity such as shareholders, fund manager ,or representing board of directors. Power is vested on him, TTB only. Of course, expenses incurred by him mostly will be charged and absorbed by icap Bhd
That's way, 2011 - 2014 he is underperformed .

Posted by deepmarine > 2014-11-29 08:40 | Report Abuse

MG9231, shut up

Posted by deepmarine > 2014-11-29 08:41 | Report Abuse

Mr Tan is good

Posted by jtpc2006 > 2014-11-29 09:21 | Report Abuse

Response of TTB to one of his 'employers' City of London who are objecting to the re-election of Tunku Aziz sounds highly arrogant. Is this how TTB always responds to criticism from the shareholders? Pride goes before a fall.

Posted by Kukuman > 2014-11-29 09:22 | Report Abuse

So many matured adults here fighting to win their argument as though this is life threating issue. Ahhh it must be about personal ego. All the education acquired have all coming down to argue and argue and continue argue. No wonder this chap ttb wins without any problem. He does not need to be clever, he just need stupid person around

Posted by MG9231 > 2014-11-29 17:27 | Report Abuse

See how the behavior of this icap fund manager TTB is!!!!!
He said 12% major shareholders city lot London n Lacey wrote to him instead should write to board of directors and other shareholders informing their objection of Tunku Abdul Aziz bin Tunku Ibrahim to be re appointed as director tomorrow .Can you believed what he said?

1 I am one of the sharehoders of icap, do you think city of London know my address.?

2. Do you think City of London is that stupid to address the issue to him?
Currently ,he is merely employed by icap to pick stocks only.

It only tell us how arrogant and dishonest a person he is!!!!!!!

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

倫敦投資2原因否決阿都阿茲‧陳鼎武：理由不足
2014-11-28 17:17

（吉隆坡28日訊）資本投資（ICAP，5108，主板封閉式基金組）大股東倫敦投資管理公司（City of London Investment Management）終打破沉默，以“基金認知”和“退休太久”兩大原因，向董事經理陳鼎武解釋為何否決敦姑阿都阿茲連任董事議程。
但陳鼎武認為，倫敦投資管理解釋理由不足，更點出為何相關信函只向他作出解釋，而非董事部、大馬股票交易所，甚至是3千400位基金股東？
倫敦投資管理發文告指出，根據其封閉式基金企業監管和投票政策（第9版）報告，清楚闡述封閉式基金的經驗和認識遠比對基金投資的國家或區域知識來得重要，後者是由董事部委任並發薪提供技能的經理職責。
同時，倫敦投資管理也對敦姑阿都阿茲的退休時間過長感到擔憂，因“若一位董事已退出活躍的職場生活超過5年，他就不應重新開始一個新任期。”
“倫敦投資管理相信在相關條件外的董事技能和貢獻可能脫離現有商業實踐方案，或董事部帶來長期實際增值效益。”
不過，資本投資回應稱，作為大馬第一和唯一的封閉式基金，資本投資的董事對封閉式基金有必要的認知才是合情合理的。
此外，資本投資也質疑倫敦投資管理的“活躍就業”定義，認為敦姑阿都阿茲現為大馬反貪基金會主席，也自2011年起擔任公司董事，難道還不算是“活躍就業”？
整體來說，陳鼎武對倫敦投資管理展現出的高人一等態度感到非常失望，認為“倫敦投資管理的解釋並不足、缺乏基礎和站不住腳的，股東們並無法因此作出合理的決定”。
陳鼎武是在本月17日的媒體匯報會上指出，若倫敦投資管理基金是負責任的投資者，就該向其他股東解釋為何拒絕讓敦姑阿都阿茲連任董事。
在倫敦投資管理基金的阻撓下，資本投資在上月11日舉行的股東大會中，無法通過讓敦姑阿都阿茲連任董事的議案；由於股東要求，資本投資決定暫時保留該議案，並在本月30日再次召開股東大會，第二度尋求讓敦姑阿都阿茲連任。（星洲日報／財經）


點看全文: http://biz.sinchew.com.my/node/106380?tid=7#ixzz3KRmJuj00
Follow us: @SinChewPress on Twitter | SinChewDaily on Facebook

Posted by ZakKen > 2014-12-01 20:47 | Report Abuse

Kian Leong Lim: "During IPO, the company issued shares totalling 140 million at price of RM1 per share, this implies that your initial capital is 140 million.
Retained earnings at 31st Aug 2014 stood at 204 million. If you minus the two, what is left after the initial capital is 204 million - 140 million = RM 64 million. What does this tell you? After spending 140 million in 2005 during IPO, the company only retains 64 million of profits right now over a life span of 9 years. This means profit per year made after dividends is 9 million".

What kind of accounting is this? I suggest you don't try to manage your own money.