Posted by Ckk2266 > 2016-10-31 15:58 | Report Abuse

Bought @ 1.09

Posted by r°Moi > 2016-11-01 08:05 | Report Abuse

http://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2016/10/31/ta-ann-defends-agrogreen-deal/



PETALING JAYA: Ta Ann Holdings Bhd which came under scrutiny for its proposed purchase of Agrogreen Ventures Sdn Bhd, has defended the deal saying that the acquisition price was “fair” compared with other recently-transacted oil palm estates in Sarawak.

Sibu-based timber and oil palm player Ta Ann is paying RM211.14mil for a 100% stake in Agrogreen, which has 5,280ha of brownfield plantation land in Stungkor, Sarawak.

Ta Ann group managing director and CEO Datuk Wong Kuo Hea told StarBiz that the agreed price for the Agrogreen acquisition was a fair reflection of the market value of its assets.

He said the group took into account various factors including the size of its land bank, planted area, age of the palm trees, quality of the estate and estate management practices.

It also considered the estate’s infrastructure, locality, promixity to the crude palm oil (CPO) mills as well as recently-transacted market prices.

It said Agrogreen’s brownfield plantation was strategically located with less than an hour’s drive to Kuching and the palm oil refinery.

“Its close proximity to the city presents a great potential for future development after one cycle of planting.” Wong added.

Another pertinent point is the scarcity of good quality estates and plantations of sizeable area in Sarawak.

Wong explained: “The state government of Sarawak has repeatedly emphasised that no new plantation land would be made available in the near term (titled state land) and all new developments would have to be carried out on native customary rights (NCR) land through joint-ventures with NCR land owners.

“This adds more value to the estates or plantation on the titled state land.”

As Ta Ann had no intention to expand into Indonesia, Wong noted that the group’s oil palm land bank expansion would mainly be in Sarawak.

Of the group’s 87,076ha total land bank, almost 70% is believed to be NCR land.

CIMB Research and Maybank IB Research in their reports had deemed Ta Ann’s latest acquisition as “expensive” based on Agrogreen estimated enterprise value (EV) per planted area at RM41,473 per ha and up to RM56,020 per ha respectively.

This is higher than Sarawak Oil Palm Bhd’s proposed purchase of Shin Yang Group’s 47,000ha oil palm estates at an estimated average EV per planted area of RM32,347 per ha (CIMB Research) and RM34,000 per ha (Maybank IB).

Maybank IB said Agrogreen made a net loss of RM15mil last year and has a negative shareholders’ fund of RM34mil as of Dec 31, 2015.

“Assuming no fresh equity injection this year with an estimated net debt of RM74mil at Agrogreen, the acquisition EV per ha could rise up to RM56,020 per ha which is expensive for largely immature estates in Sarawak,” added the research unit.

MIDF Research said its estimated EV/ha for Ta Ann’s purchase of Agrogreen at RM39,989 per ha appeared to be “fair”.

“It is close to a recent brownfield deal in Sarawak valued at RM39,832 per ha,” the research unit said.

Some recent estate deals in Sarawak include Puncak Niaga Holdings Bhd’s unit acquiring Shin Yang’s plantation company which has 46,674ha in Murum at RM446.5mil this month and also, Sarawak Plantations Bhd acquisition of 1,908ha brownfield plantation at RM76mil.

Ta Ann’s total current planted area is 41,525ha. According to CIMB Research, Agrogreen’s acquisition is estimated to raise Ta Ann group’s total planted oil palm oil area by 12% to 46,231ha.

It will also raise the immature oil palm area of Ta Ann group’s from 17% to 21% of the total planted area.

This would help boost the fresh fruit bunches (FFB) output growth of the group, added the research unit.

On Agrogreen’s future contribution to Ta Ann’s group, Wong said Agrogreen’s estates were still young with 60% immature and 40% classified as young mature.

“As such, contribution to Ta Ann’s palm oil division will be in the long-term.

“Agrogreen’s FFB production should reach more than 100,000 tonnes per year within the next six to seven years,” he pointed out.

At current CPO prices, Wong expected the internal rate of return of Agrogreen’s estates to be at 8%.

For this year, Ta Ann’s capital expenditure for oil palm is estimated at RM60mil with FFB output of 720,000 tonnes and CPO output of 200,000 tonnes. He also envisaged the group’s palm oil division to perform better than the timber division this year.

On CPO, he said the price had seen a strong uptrend in the second half of 2016 which had lifted the full year average price achieved so far this year.

“We expect to achieve an average price of around RM2,500 per tonne for the year.”

At the close last Friday, Ta Ann was unchanged at RM3.51 per share.







“Its close proximity to the city presents a great potential for future development after one cycle of planting.” Wong added.



Another pertinent point is the scarcity of good quality estates and plantations of sizeable area in Sarawak.

Posted by r°Moi > 2016-11-01 08:08 | Report Abuse

And...


So November it is....


TRIplc price is being managed... kept at a tight range within 1.80?

Posted by Edward Wong > 2016-11-01 11:25 | Report Abuse

roger.this time I have to tell u that land in Sarawak of large scare is very hard to get acquire now...their cost is increasing every yr.

Posted by ahquan > 2016-11-01 11:27 | Report Abuse

SELANGOR goverment losses money in puncak

Posted by linges > 2016-11-01 15:54 | Report Abuse

added @ 1.08 and avg down to 1.11 :))

Posted by jacklintan > 2016-11-01 23:43 | Report Abuse

OTHERSPUNCAK NIAGA HOLDINGS BERHAD (416087-U) ("PUNCAK" OR THE "COMPANY")UPDATE ONTHE FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT DATED 13 JULY 2016 IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED DISPOSALOF 93.81% EQUITY INTEREST IN LUWEI (PINGDINGSHAN) WATER CO., LTD, ASUB-SUBSIDIARY OF THE COMPANY ("FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT")You are advised to read the entire contents of the announcement or attachment.To read the entire contents of the announcement or attachment, please accessthe Bursa website at http://www.bursamalaysia.com

Posted by linges > 2016-11-02 00:31 | Report Abuse

TH acquiring back :))

Posted by r°Moi > 2016-11-02 07:59 | Report Abuse

Welll...

First acquisition made by Rozali

Considered a screw up by many

But not Lembaga Tabung Haji

Anyway.. still have lots of money

Posted by r°Moi > 2016-11-02 08:04 | Report Abuse

Now....


Looks like good opportunity...

But.. KIV... wait purposefully


Is it gonna be 650000 emails Hillary??

Or.. that bad hair style guy who is nutty?

Posted by Ckk2266 > 2016-11-02 12:03 | Report Abuse

Bought some @ 1.08

Posted by Ckk2266 > 2016-11-02 15:57 | Report Abuse

Bought some @ 1.07

Posted by stkoay > 2016-11-02 16:19 | Report Abuse

Knives are falling...........be cautious

Posted by LilyLL > 2016-11-02 16:22 | Report Abuse

Shit I just bought 1.08 why today market very very bad!

Posted by Ckk2266 > 2016-11-03 12:26 | Report Abuse

Accumulate more @ 1.05

Posted by kahhoeng > 2016-11-03 17:13 | Report Abuse

think somebody makes money from the plantation deal, just don't know who. Fishy!

Posted by angiess > 2016-11-04 08:10 | Report Abuse

Hi anyone familiar with the bursa guildelines? By reading the guildelines PN16 isn't there a timeframe for the company to get into a new business?

Posted by kahhoeng > 2016-11-04 16:46 | Report Abuse

Any of you know how to post blog here? I have written an email to CIMB's analyst on his questionable articles on Puncak Niaga. If you are shareholder, and agree with me after seeing my article, please email him, together with the research team heads as follow:

Regional Michael William, GREENALL
michael.greenall@cimb.com

Malaysia
Ivy, NG (CFA)
ivy.ng@cimb.com

Puncak Niaga's analyst
Sharizan Rosely
sharizan.rosely@cimb.com

My email is in the next posting

Posted by kahhoeng > 2016-11-04 16:47 | Report Abuse

Dear Mr. Rosely,

Having compared your three research articles on Puncak Niaga Holding Bhd. dated Aug 25, 2015, Feb 25, 2016, and Oct 18, 2016 (attached), I have noticed (1) a sudden change of view on Puncak Niaga post disposal of water asset on article dated Feb 25, 2016 and (2) an error in your analysis that has wrongly increased Puncak Niaga Holding’s FD shares with a detrimental impact on your analysis.

(1) On your article dated Feb 25, 2016, you have used the FD number of shares at 532.5 million, assuming a full conversion of convertible sukuk. However, on Dec 03, 2015, Puncak Niaga has, through Bursa Malaysia, announced the repurchase of sukuk at a cost of RM 200 million (http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/4941665 ). The repurchase has in effect made the FD number of shares at 452.5 million (5.27 million warrants + 449.3 million shares outstanding – 2.04 million treasury shares). This would have affected your valuation of SOP value per share by a great margin. Your reported SOP value per share of 2.20 would have increased to RM 2.59 per share assuming your SOP figure in Feb 25, 2016 article is ‘correct’. This mistake has been extended to your article dated Oct 18, 2016 that has still assumed the sukuk conversion. I was wondering how it is possible for you to commit such an obvious mistake. This is especially so given that in your earlier article dated Aug 25, 2015, you have come up with a SOP value per share of RM 4.25. Hasn’t the sharp drop in SOP number alarmed you to at least double check the numbers before finalizing your report with report disseminated to readers and published in newspapers?

In addition, based on Puncak Niaga Bhd’s 2nd quarter report (http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/listed-companies/company-announcements/5186601 with file attached), its balance sheet is sitting on net asset of 3.62 per share after heavy impairment in FY 2015 while you are stating a SOP of 2.20 (2.59 assuming you have had the sukuk mistake corrected). Of which, the cash and cash equivalent is at RM 1.25 billion (of which, 63.713 million as other investment, 906,065 million as short-term investment, and 280.358 million as cash and bank balances.) Even after deducting short-term and long-term liabilities of 138.377 million, its net cash will still at 1.117 billion, i.e., RM 2.47 per share. Before accounting for your error, your SOP is less than net cash per share by RM 0.27 per share. Even accounting for your mistake stated in the above paragraph, you are leaving only RM 0.12 per share or RM 31.7 million for the rest of Puncak Niaga Bhd’s asset. Your professionalism is in serious doubt!

(2) On your article dated Feb 25, 2016, you have taken a 50% discount to SOP value. Meanwhile, in your article dated Oct 18, 2016 on the purchase of palm oil estate in Sarawak, you have deemed the deal reasonable and upgraded the target price by RM 0.03 per share, an increase of valuation of the firm by less than RM 16 million (RM 0.03 multiplied by 532.5 FD shares) even the purchase is valued at RM 446 million. I was wondering how you come up with the upgrade of RM 0.03. By throwing a dart on a board full of numbers? Or, despite finding the deal reasonable, the addition of the plantation to Puncak Niaga should still take another 50% discount (well maybe slightly less given your ‘upgrade’ of RM 0.03)?

(3) In your article dated Aug 25, 2015, the Selangor water deal is yet to be completed with cash held by the Selangor state government. However, in your article dated Feb 25, 2016, the Selangor water deal has been completed with cash fully disbursed to Puncak Niaga Holding Bhd. In your discount to SOP value, you have adopted 40% in Aug 25, 2015 report but 50% in Feb 25, 2016 report. It’s as if, to your professional logic, the cash yet to be received has a higher value than cash in the company’s hand. If you have doubted the credibility of Puncak Niaga’s management to deserve a higher discount on cash in hand, shouldn’t that you have to warn your readers in your Aug 25, 2015 report and applied a similar discount to Aug 25, 2015 report? Or, you have only realized the management of Puncak Niaga is questionable only after Selangor state government has disbursed the fund? Or, could it be the dismal outlook on oil and gas industry has a ripple effect on the cash held by Puncak Niaga? However, from what I know, the crude oil price has been pretty much the same on around the dates of your three articles. Your ethics is questionable!

I am looking forward to you relooking at your analysis and addressed the abovementioned doubts that I have mentioned. Given that your earlier articles on Puncak Niaga Holding Bhd. has been disseminated to other readers as well as newspapers, I am expecting your new work to be similarly disseminated to other readers and newspapers with clear comparison on how your earlier analysis differed from the new one.

Posted by jacklintan > 2016-11-04 18:33 | Report Abuse

kahheong: You should officially forward this to Bursamalaysia.com

Posted by kahhoeng > 2016-11-04 20:42 | Report Abuse

I have to email this to CIMB first, but need shareholders' support such that CIMB knows they are not dealing with one shareholder only. So, if you are a shareholder and have deep concern reading the CIMB report while agreeing with what I have said, please email them to show them you have deep concern over the analysis too.

Posted by jacklintan > 2016-11-04 22:01 | Report Abuse

Please provide the necessary email in conjunction to this issue.
Welcome to help.

Posted by fzank > 2016-11-04 22:25 | Report Abuse

kaheong kor-kor .... it's been so long already .... still in pooncak ???

Posted by DK66 > 2016-11-06 14:00 | Report Abuse

Kahheong, you are right to the dot ! I have always doubted the integrity of the analyst concerned !

Posted by cheoky > 2016-11-06 23:55 | Report Abuse

Kah heong respect your persistence and attention to details. You should replace that rosely.

Posted by kahhoeng > 2016-11-07 15:30 | Report Abuse

Having compared the Sarawak Oil Palm's plantation deal, I just realize that Puncak's deal, both in similar location with Puncak's landing on much younger tree profile but at a premium, is a rip off on minority shareholders! Still trying to double confirm the numbers. Any of you good at the numbers, please read both deal carefully and voice your concern...

Posted by crownford_bl > 2016-11-07 23:40 | Report Abuse

Hng: please comment on kahhoeng issues.

Posted by Jay > 2016-11-08 15:43 | Report Abuse

SOP land deal and Puncak land deal is from same shareholder, Shin Yang.

Posted by meisha > 2016-11-08 15:54 | Report Abuse

Just bought 2 lots @ 1.04 for fun...see can get some teh tarik money...

Posted by kahhoeng > 2016-11-08 17:53 | Report Abuse

trying to finalize my finding, will post together with balance sheet analysis sometime tomorrow...

Posted by hng33 > 2016-11-08 19:38 | Report Abuse

Crownford_ bl

Why target stock analyst ? Their research report are no responsible to shareholder. unless, if their research funding is from bursa, then, at least can complaint to bursa to rectify these analyst report.

Posted by kahhoeng > 2016-11-09 09:30 | Report Abuse

hng33, its one thing uncles aunties talking economy collapsing in the coffee house, and its another thing bank governor saying economy collapsing in a parliament hearing... Stock analysts' reports are somewhere in between. Also, its one thing making a forecast based on right numbers and another thing making a forecast based on wrong numbers yet pretending nothing is wrong!

Posted by Mikkel Low > 2016-11-09 10:24 | Report Abuse

i sold off all my portion of Puncak, predicting Trump will win the election and buy at lower price

Posted by r°Moi > 2016-11-09 17:05 | Report Abuse

So bad hairstyle nutty... wins the presidency...

Posted by r°Moi > 2016-11-10 08:10 | Report Abuse

Now Trump looks kinda smart not nutty

Anyway.... now is interim divvy... big interim divvy

And.. that TRIplc RPT... now is good opportunity...

Posted by Mikkel Low > 2016-11-10 09:53 | Report Abuse

bought back and waiting for share price return to 1.1+ lolx

Posted by kahhoeng > 2016-11-10 09:56 | Report Abuse

Puncak Niaga's quarter report analysis:

Q1 2016 quarter report offers the following information:
Revenue: RM 13.2 million
Cash & bank balances RM 334.942 million
Short-term investments RM 927.177 million
Total assets: RM 1,809.468 million

Based on the above, the cash & equivalent + short-term investment as a percentage of total assets is: (334.942 + 927.177)/(1,809.468) = 69.75%, a number which is very close to 70% to be classified as PN 16 company that will require Puncak to submit proposal on its business plan.

Q2 2016 quarter report offers the following information:
Revenue: RM 10.573 million
Cash & bank balances RM 280.358 million
Short-term investments RM 906.065 million
Total assets: RM 1,754.250 million

Based on the above, the cash & equivalent + short-term investment as a percentage of total assets is: (280.358 + 906.065)/(1,754.250) = 67.63%. Some might have thought the drop in short-term investments has resulted in the drop. However, if one look at another item on its long term asset, there’s a other investments of RM 63,713 million, a level 3 investment. I have strong suspicion the purchase of the L3 asset is nothing BUT to avoid being classified as PN 16 company. How so?

By adding this L3 investment into the cash & equivalent + short-term investment as a percentage of total becomes (63.713+280.358+906.065)/(1,754.250) = 71.26%, an important criteria for Puncak to be classified as PN 16 company. If the purchase of L3 asset not to avoid PN 16, I would wonder why just an amount sufficient to avoid breaching the 70% cash company criteria.

I was wondering if Securities Commission will act on this on behalf of minority shareholders?

Posted by kahhoeng > 2016-11-10 09:57 | Report Abuse

My apology, was not feeling well yesterday and not able to finalize my work. Will work on the 2nd piece on the plantation deal as soon as I can.

Posted by hng33 > 2016-11-10 16:32 | Report Abuse

Bought more Puncak at 1.02

Posted by kahhoeng > 2016-11-13 16:30 | Report Abuse

Why is the deal unfair?

1. The land in both deal should be in similar location, given its Murum District’s land that’s mentioned in the deal. The seller has a common shareholder, Tan Sri Datuk Ling Chiong Ho with the announcement date around the same time, one in July 04, 2016 and the other Oct 17, 2016. I would expect the deal to be completed at a similar valuation.
Assuming unplanted land is valued at RM3,500 per acre in both deal (I can’t find the valuation in Sarawak Oil Palm’s deal), the unplanted land value of Sarawak Oil Palm shall be RM 58,568,827.10 (=6,772hectare*2.47105acre/hectare*RM3500/acre). Thus, the value of the planted land in Sarawak Oil Palm’s deal should be RM 814,437,047.90 (RM 873,005,875.00 – RM 58,568,827.10), or RM 13,849.55/acre (RM 814,437,047.90/(2.47105x23798)).
That is to say, Puncak Niaga is paying RM 18,500/acre for planted land while Sarawak Oil Palm is paying RM 13,849.55/acre. What’s more, in Puncak Niaga’s land deal, most planted land, 7,258.10 hectares, has plant age less than 18 months! Meanwhile, Sarawak Oil Palm’s deal has most plants age above 4 years!

Per hectare, the planted land in Puncak Niaga’s deal is RM 45,714/hectare while the planted land in Sarawak Oil Palm’s deal is RM 34,222/hectare, a huge difference of RM 11,492/hectare. Why should Puncak Niaga paying such a huge premium for a much younger trees?

2. What’s more worrisome? Puncak Niaga is only buying a 60% stake. Question is if Puncak Niaga intends to acquire the rest of 40%. If yes, what would be the price? If the rest of 40% is acquired only after the planting is completed, does that mean Puncak Niaga’s minority shareholders have to shoulder another overpriced planting cost of RM 11,492/hectare? There are 33,372.6 hectares unplanted in Puncak Niaga’s deal, that would mean Puncak Niaga is on hook to at least overpay another RM 154,407,167.68 (RM 11,492/hectare*33,372,6hectare*60%.)

The above is work-in-progress, please do let me know if you have found any error. Thanks!

Posted by kahhoeng > 2016-11-13 16:41 | Report Abuse

To evaluate Puncak Niaga’s plantation deal, I have compared it with the recent deal by Sarawak Oil Palm Berhad’s. The followings are what I have found:

1. 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

2. Puncak Niaga Holdings Berhad
Seller: Shin Yang Holding Sdn. Bhd. (shareholders include Tan Sri Datuk Ling Chiong Ho)
Acquisition price: RM 446,505,690.45 (I can’t really justify this figure, it’s said to purchase 9766.9hectares at RM 18,500/acre and 33,372.60 hectares at RM 3,500/acre. Thus, total should be RM 735,116,988 while 60% ownership should be RM 441,070,193.30)
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

Posted by rogers123 > 2016-11-13 20:56 | Report Abuse

Good Job kahhoeng, Rzli is cheating shareholders' money

Posted by rogers123 > 2016-11-13 20:57 | Report Abuse

This is y i object icon888 tat Rzli is capable in doing business...... but capable in taking shareholders $$$

Posted by Ckk2266 > 2016-11-14 10:17 | Report Abuse

Bought more Puncak @ 1.00

Posted by hng33 > 2016-11-15 11:25 | Report Abuse

bought more Puncak at 1.01

Posted by KLCI King > 2016-11-15 11:28 | Report Abuse

Got you, hng33, what are you buying now?

Posted by KLCI King > 2016-11-15 11:29 | Report Abuse

hng33, Mind to share?

Posted by kahhoeng > 2016-11-15 11:54 | Report Abuse

roger, I never said Rozali is cheating shareholders! I merely stated that the deal is way TOO pricey.

Posted by r°Moi > 2016-11-15 12:23 | Report Abuse

Without taking into account the exact locations... distances from the nearest town... with or without major access roads... the terrains... and the unplanted portion of SOP is kinda small.... Puncak appears to have paid a tad more

Tan Sri Rozali.... to make proper use of the big sum of money.... cannot screw up again already... buy TPIplc the company... not its two subsidiaries

Posted by r°Moi > 2016-11-15 12:25 | Report Abuse

Anytime now... lets see... how Rozali... screw up the TRIplc RPT ?