To see how undervalued is Cypark, just compared it to say Solarvest. Market cap for Solarvest is now over Rm 856 m where else that of Cypark is only around Rm 500 m. Solarvest core biz basically is just installer for other company solar projects although it also own a minute solar installation on its own. Cypark on the other hand own and operatea large no of big solar farms and still expending. Some of Cypark solar farms were developed much earlier where the return of the projects were much lucrative compared to the newer ones now. Cypark also own other green energy projects such as waste to energy and biomass. In addition Cypark operates a number of landfills for municipal waste in a number of locations.
Cypark being mainly an asset developer, owner and operator has to invest heavily upfront and this resulted in high debts and negative cashflow but later on Cypark will collect steady and robust cash flows from these assets with very little, if any, risk. Different biz and biz models will show different financial gearings and cashflow patterns , so it is very important to know the company well before you decide to put your money in. And a good understanding of the current accounting frameworks will definitely help.
Dear Karlos, what you say is entirely true, but my big concern is that the WTE project at Ladang Tanah Merah is overrunning severely and that both the interest on the finance debt and the overrun costs are being capitalised into "intangible assets" under IC Interpretation 12, notwithstanding that it may be difficult to realise the value of the overrun costs and interest by operating the WTE plant.
The auditors highlighted this in the 2020 Annual Report and closed by writing "From the matters communicated with the directors, we determine those matters that were of most significance in the audit of the financial statements of the Group and of the Company for the current financial year and are therefore the key audit matters. We describe these matters in our auditors’ report unless law or regulation precludes public disclosure about the matter or when, in extremely rare circumstances, we determine that a matter should not be communicated in our report because the adverse consequences of doing so would reasonably be expected to outweigh the public interest benefits of such communication."
And then, it would appear, the auditors resigned.
What this company needs is less mucking around with the numbers and more knuckling down and getting the WTE project finished.
"In our opinion, the accompanying financial statements give a true and fair view of the financial position of the Group and of the Company as at 31 October 2020"
The auditor gave a clean opinion on the latest annual report of Cypark. On the waste to energy project, the auditor did not mention any disagreement on the value of the recoverable intangible asset. Under IC 12 all costs incurred for this kind of Service Concession Agreement are allowed to capitalized as intangible asset and the auditor did not dispute the recoverable amount.
Anyhow Cypark was unluckily hit by a double whammy: there was an initial delay in completion due to something unexpected and was then given an extension of time which unluckily later ran into covid 19 pandemic period.
Despite delays, which were I belief not entirely due to Cypark faults, the waste to energy project return most likely still remain lucrative as this is the first such large scale in the country. The return on the investment may even increase as the amount of municipal waste is increasing more rapidly thanks to covid 19 pandemic.
Are the revenue estimates and discount rate that were used to verify that the intangible value of the WTE investment is not impaired available in the public domain? If not, has anyone attempted to estimate what they might be?
"The recoverable amount has been determined based on value in use calculation using cash flows projections covering a period of 21 years (2019: 22 years) from financial budgets approved by the directors. The Group believes that any possible change in the above key assumptions applied is not likely to materially cause recoverable amount to be lower than its carrying amount."
Above is an extract from Note 6 of the latest AR of Cypark on the waste to energy project. Hope it can help to address your query on the valuation and impairment, if any, on the tangible value of the waste to energy project.
Cypark is still very much undervalued but unfortunately being pushed down in price mainly due to cheaply issued shares via private placements and ESOS to the detriment of other shareholders.
This book is the result of the author's many years of experience and observation throughout his 26 years in the stockbroking industry. It was written for general public to learn to invest based on facts and not on fantasies or hearsay....
Dangel
422 posts
Posted by Dangel > 2021-09-04 11:24 | Report Abuse
Gaining more & more upward momentum recently!