Btw, I'm pretty sure you are not aware that First Solar just reported their results two days ago. If you invest in Greatech yet don't even keep track of Greatech's single largest customer (>80% revenue), I have nothing to say but only again wish you good luck

I am not frequenting i3 anymore but I felt responsible to respond to your naive comment for other readers' sake.

1. Look closer at Greatech's revenue, it has been dropping for every quarters since IPO. so I was not wrong when I highlighted that orderbook/revenue is dwindling. Profit still held up ok, partly because of reversal of warranties.

2. Share price has done extremely well. This is a fact. But why? Did it report outrageously good numbers? Or any significant newsflow? Answer is no and no.

So what actually happens is so-called PE rerating (in simple terms, people keep chasing the share price when profit does not grow as fast, so PE keep getting higher). Currently they are making ~RM12m a quarter which means the current trailing PE is more than 40x. Even if assume 30% growth, forward PE is ~33x.

I have already highlighted in the ending of my article that I am only interested in the financials, the readers have to decide for themselves what PE does Greatech deserve and derive their own TP. If from the beginning you think that Greatech deserves 40x PE then good for you.

3. Which begs the question, is Greatech's valuation fair or is that irrational exuberance? For reference, its valuation is higher than Vitrox, Pentamaster etc. So Greatech is better than these guys? Of course they are not all 100 %comparable but they do operate in similar space. Time will tell if Greatech is as good/even better than the other equipment makers.

4. @csan I don't know your age and I'm not interested in that either. I'm not young for a long time but throughout my years, I have learned that age has very little to do with knowledge and experience (if you understand).

You may think that I always have a response to all criticism, that's not because I can't take it, it's simply that most of those criticism are flawed (including yours unfortunately). There's no rational argument, no valid basis, all they resort to is shouting, name calling, try to justify everything by share price movement (like you) without bothering to understand the thought process.

Justifying everything by outcome is dangerous, especially over long term. E.g. if you make money over money game, is money game a good investment, or are you a genius? Yes you can justify by saying the outcome trumps all, but keep repeating that, I assure you there's no happy ending. (to be clear, Greatech is not money game, in case people get sensitive)

Many people in this forum kept making low probability and bad risk to reward trades. Occasionally they might hit 1 or 2 winners, but overall they will only be poorer if they keep repeating it. But some people will only cheer that 1 or 2 winners and boast to others, which is fine if it soothes your ego, but I find it disturbing when it influences more people to go down that same path.

As for your concern, yes I'm getting better day by day. Despite not buying Greatech, I have multipled my retirement pot multiple fold in just last few years. But I will always keep learning. Not sure if you are doing the same but good luck.

Hmm interesting....its upstream associate actually contributed RM51 profit in 2017 before the dispute

@csan well, I guess you are like the Chinese saying, "a dog can't change from eating shit"

Since you doubled down on your lies, why don't we bet your Greatech profit on them? I'll even give you odds of 10 to 1
1. I'm not seekingalpha888
2. I did not buy any Greatech shares

If you can prove any of the above otherwise, your Greatech profit grows tenfold. Otherwise, you only lose that amount. I'm sparing your capital. Isn't that wonderful?

But to all i3 readers, no money in guessing right a liar will only find an excuse to back out.

Too bad this is an online forum where people can hide behind their PC. It would be fun to see one's reaction when they were caught lying on the spot.

@csan now seems like not only you have a work ethic problem, but character as well. that someone in i3 is yourself isn't it hahaha? why don't you confirm with i3 admin if seekingalpha888 is the same person as me? or use whatever digital means like IP address etc.? I'm more than willing to bet any amount of money with you on that.

On a more serious note, slander and lies show one's character. You may lie to all the people part of the time, and part of the people all the time, but not all the people all the time. eventually you have to pay your dues.

maybe money has blinded you to do whatever it takes, but mark my words, a morally bankrupt person more often than not also ends up financially bankrupt. Maybe not instantly, but it could always be just round the corner.

Hope that you might still change while you are young.

Demand>supply means share price go up. Doesn't mean it has to be backed by fundamentals or anything. From the beginning, I leave it to readers to decide what they want to do with this stock because I know equipment makers do trade at premium valuation at current environment (doesn't mean I have to agree on that). So share price could go higher and stay high for a while (which it did, at least for now).

I'm not judging the buyers or sellers. But just that they should be aware of the actual situation. If they are aware and they decide to buy/sell, at least that would be an informed decision. Everyone can have different reasons for their decision, that should give you comfort when you bought and share price go down or when you sold and share price go up.

@csan my personal guess is you never work in a real firm in your life before. Just writing reports as an analyst in IB gives you little feel of the real world. Just imagine, would you bill your customer a multi-million system all at one go at the end of delivery? Like any major project, MRT, power plants or even just a company implementing a firm wide ERP system, do you think any of those would be recognised based on milestones or lump sum at the end? You may not grasp the concept of accrual accounting but actually all you need is just need basic logical thinking.

Or better, maybe you should check with the company if they recognise the production line system revenue for the whole factory all at one go or do they go by milestones.

The fact is you did not do your research thoroughly. I doubt you even read their prospectus in full. Did you compare their orderbook 6 months ago vs now? Are you aware of their book-to-bill? Did you even bother checking their main customer's progress and plans?

@shpg22 Greatech has limited semiconductor exposure so they are not really affected. But yes it would not be good timing if they are trying to break into that space now

Correction: Greatech's orderbook was RM169m as at Oct 2018. So it has gone down by almost half in around 6 months time.

@ Baby Shark On hindsight, I should only write this article when Greatech's bubble blows up

@csan Unfortunately you are the one who does not understand the situation here. Unlike others that sell mainly machines, Greatech is selling a production line to First Solar which consists of multiple machines. In this case, it is only logical that it would follow project revenue and costing. Every major parts delivered would constitute billable milestones. Greatech would be an idiot if they only ship and bill First Solar once they complete the whole thing.

Management doesn’t know anything about their company? If you attend enough AGM or meet enough management, you would know what is called “management talk”. Unless the industry or company is in a bad shape or clear downtrend, there is always “a lot more” to do. Longer term they may be right, but did they say a lot more from Vietnam/Malaysia or in 2019?

Btw, according to one of the readers, apparently Greatech’s orderbook was RM169m as at Apr 2018 when the draft prospectus was released (unfortunately I couldn’t verify it since the copy was taken down). It shrunk to RM91m in April 2019 when the final prospectus was launched. Which also means they have less than one year revenue cover now.

Unless there’s a lot new orders coming in after April 2019, it seems like “a lot more” is more based on hope at this juncture rather than real figures.

To summarise, I’m not saying Greatech is a good or bad company. All I’m highlighting is there is a high possibility that revenue from First Solar will drop. Whether it could secure new orders to replace or even outgrow that is up to your faith in the management.

As for valuation, it’s subjective and it also depends on your views on the sector and the company. Of course you could argue that Vitrox trades at >30x PE or Pentamaster >15x PE. But not too long ago both these companies trade at much lower valuations. It’s far too common when people pay high PE during periods of higher profits and only to realise that PE also shrinks together when profits plateau or drop, causing a double whammy to the share price. That’s why you see a lot of roller coaster rides in Malaysia listed companies’ share prices.

Thanks for the opinions. Let me try to reply to some of them.

@Primeinvestor I already mentioned they may or may not secure new sizable orders from other customers. I’m not an insider so I can’t answer that. Track record suggested that other that Panasonic (around RM19m orders), they have not secured any sizable new ones (>RM3-5m) in recent years.

@wolf1 No doubt Greatech’s niche is solar, but I don’t think the company is targeting only solar customers. The only question is how successful can they secure new customers outside solar industry.

@ 624298991 Tek Seng is solar panel manufacturer and one with limited technology know how. Not comparable at all.

@ BoPoint Those are insider information which I don’t have access to. Why don’t you share?

@ csan I’m quite worried if you are one of the unit trust fund managers or analysts managing public money because it does not seem like you do much research.

1. Machines can be fixed inside a factory building before or after completion as long as main structure is done, but nonetheless that doesn’t mean machines are not pre-ordered. Unless the machines are standard ones and available on demand, you have to let your suppliers design and manufacture them.

When that process starts, suppliers will start to recognize the revenue and profits. Revenue and profit would have started to be recognised upon receipt of purchase order and recognised in milestones. Which is also why revenue starts to flow in 2017, more than a year before all the S6 factories are completed. So sorry to poke your bubble, but machines for Malaysia and Vietnam would have been mostly if not all delivered and installed.


2. I think you are confusing adding new lines with ramp up.

When you build a factory you could design extra floor space to add more machines in the future. But not the case for First Solar. They are confident of the end demand and so when they design and build the factory it's all fixed. Machines and production lines are set up to hit 1.2GW from the beginning.

Every new line got early stage teething issues or there may not be enough demand to require it to run up to the designed capacity it was meant for. Ramp up simply means getting it to run smoothly until it reaches optimal capacity. The green arrows stretching to end of that charts simply indicates it is supposed to produce for the foreseeable future, not ramp up period.

I'm sure you would still like to argue one way or another but there's already a conclusive answer in First Solar's disclosures. The fact that you didn't bother to check means you don't even do your research properly.


3. Yes they have allocated IPO proceeds to expand biz in US but there’s nothing concrete. No doubt US is a big market and it would be positive if they could secure more customers there. But I would be very worried if they target more solar customers than to diversify.

4. Margins were not a big surprise. 2017 they hit similar margins only it dropped in 2018. My best guess is the margins could be different at early stage and late stages when they produce and fix the machines. 2019 first quarter I suspect it’s early stage for Ohio Plant 2 again and if there’s also reversal of warranties (when warranty provision is not needed anymore after expiry of warranty period). So it’s not because of maintenance revenue. And if you think the company list at ridiculously low price instead of listing after their best year (might still be their best year for a while), then you have a lot of faith in the company than I do.

I think you have strong foundations and have started better than most at your age. Keep doing what you are doing and you should improve over time.

My advice to people your age is to challenge the theory of the books you read and don't blindly subscribe to one or two super investor's methodology, even that of Warren Buffett. Develop and find the investing style that suits you best.

For you personally, I think what you still lack is empathy and awareness. Pull yourself down from the pedestal and observe what others are seeing. Doesn't mean you have to agree with them but seeing from others' perspective will help you a lot in both investing and in real life. Help you in anticipating others' actions as well.

I think you come from a relatively well to do family. Nothing wrong with that. But many people from such background lack an appreciation in time value of money or the notion that capital is limited (not everyone get constant cash inflow from insurance biz like Buffett). Be careful of value trap. They could cost you more than you think.

Otherwise, good luck and hope you achieve what you set out to achieve

read the news carefully. one of the first groups that object is House Buyers Association (HBA) who unlike you, cares about and takes action to protect house buyers interest. most people have nothing to gain or loss from speaking out against this scheme. there are genuine concerns and questions raised on the scheme which until today, fail to be answered

not all innovations are destined for success. remember windows 8? I bet some of the software engineers in windows thought it's the next big thing. but it's clunky and clumsy. most consumers hated it and still hate it today. guess they never reach the "so obviously good" stage...

house is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, investment for most people in their life. false advertising just to earn some commission and seduce people into making the wrong life choices can cause long lasting damage and is simply despicable, whether being the mastermind or his lackey

@qqq3 I'm sorry if my articles can't help you grow a brain. I'm also sorry if you can't differentiate between misleading example provided by your idol and other tables in the article that are clear cut. why I don't see you see asking your idol to explain its misleading national advertisement? it's like UMNO politicians who turns a blind eye to 1MDB and then go around demanding apologies. walking jokes...

until today, you don't get the point. for someone who can afford to buy a house, of course it's better to purchase one for own stay rather than renting. the misleading example your idol is trying to paint like example 1 is these people can't afford a house (when they actually can) and FundMyHome is their best option (when it's not). for those who genuinely cannot afford a house, pushing them to buy one (20% or 100%) is also just shifting the risk from developer to these poor buyers

it's like agent trying to convince you to buy unit trust vs your current FD. longer term of course investing in equities is better than putting in FD. but he doesn't tell you about the risk, and only sell you the unit trusts he gets commission from instead of the ones best suited for you

FundMyHome is just another financial product and Tong should advertise as such. If Tong is so confident with his product, just stick to the facts and present the full picture. those who are interested will take up. No need false advertising and using misleading calculations to show how it's better than renting and mortgage.

@qqq3 still preying on the weak minded and hope that you can push this scheme and some properties to the poor first time homebuyers? unfortunately, the points in my article are already too damning for your idol and your comments so far have only solidified those points. maybe you should ask your idol for help, at least one of you needs a brain to come out with a convincing argument

if the scheme fails, it's not because it's too complicated, it's because there are genuine concerns on its viability and suitability for buyers, so no need to spin for Tong.

many industry stakeholders have voiced out against it because they understand its flaws. common sense will tell you that you need to understand something to understand its flaws. if you can't see it, that's because you don't really understand it despite what you claim

what's concerning is there are still signs that the government is trying to force through this P2P scheme in its current form. instead of engaging industry stakeholders, public consultation, get regulators to come out with framework before launching, it seems like Tong is getting the special treatment by doing it in reverse.

of course spinmaster like Tong and qqq3 will claim that FundMyHome is not a real P2P yet but we all know that it's only pending a SC rubber stamp

@qqq3 I think after entertaining for so long, it's really feeling like a waste of my time. yes 10% funded by personal loan can reduce your monthly payments for 5 years, but it's only giving you an illusion of ownership. 5 years later, if property price appreciates (if you think it will depreciate, you shd not be buying using mortgage or P2P), you have to refinance higher because you don't exactly own the house

talking about gamble some more? hahaha. like I said, you must belong to those groups of property investors/speculators who are desperate for house prices to increase fast to get out of trouble. these groups are the ones responsible for today's unaffordable house prices

if you still have a conscience, then don't seduce these first time homebuyers to get into financial trouble, now or 5 years later. I rest my case

@Shinnzaii no, investor means those who will be funding the property purchase, like institutions or individuals in a P2P shceme

and again, you are reverting back to your property investor or speculator self. 20% is only given back to you if 1) you sell the property 5 years later 2) property price did not drop

if you buy a house, get a mortgage and sell it after 5 years, you also get to use it for 5 years and get back your money.

but are you encouraging first time housebuyer who's supposedly genuine buyers to do that? so they are supposed to sleep under the bridge?

@qqq3 it's you who are confused, comparing 80% and 90%. of course paying 80% would be better than 90%, but who do you expect to pay the difference of 10%? fall from sky? and good luck borrowing a personal loan at 5%

are you Tong himself? haha, can't imagine there's someone who love and adore Tong so blindly like you do. maybe even more than his mother

I have never mentioned that the scheme is a fraud, just that it may not be in the best interest for the buyers. it makes perfect sense for Tong as an entrepreneur but it is up to others to protect their own interest. I hope the Finance Minister is just being exploited in this case by Tong and there's no hanky panky behind the scenes

Tong is now running the property portal (like property agent). he doesn't really care if buyers or sellers get a good deal, all he cares is the commission he receives when a transaction is done and how his portal could become famous (for him to sell it off one day). basically in his eyes, no good or bad transaction, just commission and publicity. no transaction is bad for him...

for the scheme to have the slightest chance to work, developers have to give real 20% discount. that means selling at a loss. pragmatic businessmen don't do that unless they are really desperate. so if that indeed happens, buyers should be really alarmed. Tong was a developer before, ask him if he would have sold his properties at a loss?

@qqq3

I think for you, it's easier I just change it to 80% mortgage vs 80% FundMyHome, so that you don't get confused.

if their salaries doubled, congratulations. which means they most likely can qualify for a mortgage after working for a few years. then why need FundMyHome? it's not as if FundMyHome help them lock in the property price

I'm sorry if you cannot appreciate statistics or distinguish between misusing and harnessing statistics. what do you think big data is? it's basically huge amount of data analysed in a more advanced manner, including AI. don't pretend like you understand technology when you can't get the basics right. speaking of targeted marketing, if someone salary increase at that rate, they don't really need FundMyHome. if FundMyHome still target them, isn't it vulture marketing, offering (swaying) them an option away from the better option (mortgage)?

CIMB and Maybank already participated in the 80%, if they also give that 20%, it's effectively 100% fully funded by them. by that logic, might as well they give 100% loan-to-value to all property buyers

@qqq3 your common sense is funny. of course paying 80% is less than 90%. but are you expecting the difference of 10% to fall from the sky? now tell me, have you passed primary school mathematics?

if you stats is correct, there should be almost no B40 among those age above 35. I don't think govt stats support your claims and somehow it also doesn't jive with all the complaints around that salaries growth are stagnant among workers. there are already step up financing in place if you are looking for bridging finance, no need to rely on scheme that exploits you

@qqq3 I have already pointed out (at least a few times) that there's two comparison made, one using SAME price, one using prices that could happen in real life scenario. I can forgive you for the past few times if you miss that, but if you continue to falsely accuse me of misleading others, then it's clear that you have a malicious agenda here trying to confuse others

@qqq3 you have some misplaced understanding on how loans actually work, don't you? borrowing RM300k over 30 years 4.5% interest or borrow RM60k 8% interest RM240k 4.5% interest , which one do you think pays more interest? I suggest using a loan calculator and the amortisation table, that would help your to have a clearer picture

but getting 10% from personal loan 10% from other sources does make cashflow sense (have to give you credit on that) because there indeed is reduced monthly cash outflow, for the first 5 years at least. but then again, you need to feed on parents or friends' money (may or may not need to be repaid) and ultimately you still have to pay more interest over the course of home ownership. it's enjoy first (first 5 years), suffer later (next 30 years)

@qqq3 stop misleading yourself. that was the second half of the article whereby I show how real life it could have worked (not necessary, but likely). first half I already show you mortgage (RM492k 30 years) and P2P (RM498k 35 years). it's you who have selective reading problem

@qqq3 so now after i rebutted all your arguments, including how you try to spin that I show different fig (when the fact is you can't read properly), do you have any more wild spins to blindly defend your almighty scheme? or are you finally going to come out with some proper arguments to FACTUALLY challenge my articles?

but I don't blame you, it's tough to defend a porous scheme, just like how difficult it is for a lawyer to defend someone whom you know is guilty

a financial product needs to be transparent. if your product is good then you can show the calculations as it is. when you need to present selective data or misleading calculations, I would be very sceptical no matter how you good you claim the product is

before my first article, I thought FundMyHome just wanted to offer an alternative for homebuyers. it may shortchange housebuyers but it's still an option. but then when they show those misleading calculations on advertisements, I started to be alarmed. that's why I needed to write this to help raise public awareness in case they got tricked into this

@qqq3

just a wild speculation, maybe you have a lot of properties which you are desperate to unload. because FundMyHome always claims that it is to assist home ownership (whether they mean it is another matter), but somehow your argument eventually will drift into property investment

if someone got themselves into mortgage loans in recent years which they can afford, it's impossible for them to lose any money (deposits or instalments). because they would still be owning the house and servicing their loans. and if they are genuine buyers, they would know that they are in for the long term and not too concerned even if short term price dips

if they are speculators, yes they would lose money if they suffer foreclosure on mortgage they couldn't service. that is exactly why no one should buy a house they cannot afford, 20% or 100%. FundMyHome and you are trying to creatively showing them otherwise

@qqq3 i would be concerned if it's a monopoly. but Tong admitted that the platform was his idea which subsequently crept into the Budget. which in days was also launched with the presence of none other than the PM and Minister of Finance. then there's pressure from the government to SC to come out with the framework asap.

I'm not against any businessmen having cozy relationship with the government, just that when they use that to gain unfair advantage over competitors (or potential competitors, since it's doubtful that anyone wants to cross a platform that somehow already gain endorsement from government without any prior public or stakeholder consultation), at least have the guts to admit it, instead of hiding behind spinners like qqq3 or continue to promote it with misleading examples

@qqq3 if FundMyHome is so good in securing people with 20% personal loan with 5% interest, maybe they should help people in real life to get better mortgage interest rate. That way the buyers would qualify for a loan easily. That would be a real game changer for the country

Doesn't change the fact that you also need to be creditworthy enough to qualify for that 20% personal loan even with 5% interest. I have shown the calculations, another hard fact is if someone can afford RM1250 a month for an uncollaterised loan, then he would easily qualify for a RM1280 a month mortgage with the house as security

@qqq3 not sure who's being dishonest here. I don't think anyone can be so blind so I'm assuming you have personal interest in ignoring the facts here.

Fact 1: first half of my article makes comparison based on SAME selling price and it's already showing FundMyHome's flaws.

Fact 2: second half of my article shows how reasonably a real world scenario could pan out and that shows even more lopsided comparison

in a way I must thank qqq3 for his/her blind support of this scheme. with every weak argument and rebuttal it's almost like a Q&A that reinforces the whole article's message

@qqq3

1. smart businessman? business sense? I thought this scheme is supposed to help first time homebuyer? you are contradicting yourself now hahaha

2. no matter how you slice and dice the RM300k, if you don't have the cash you have to borrow. by borrowing you have to pay interest, it's only a matter of when. besides, personal loan carries much higher interest than mortgage if you are unaware

3. unfortunately if you are not ready to own a house, you have to find alternatives or adjust your expectations. either increase your income or lower the price range of the house you want to purchase. FundMyHome is just a financial product that creatively package itself as though there's no need for payment for 5 years (in actual you already paid the 20% upfront). It does not solve any affordability issues

@qqq3
Scenario 1
1.if they guy qualifies for a mortgage, there's no problem for him, just up to his choice whether to buy or rent. FundMyHome is suppose to target those who can't qualify for mortgage. But they know if they put someone who earns RM2k in their example, the scenario won't work. The guy won't have the 20% nor will he qualify for a RM60k personal loan. So instead they choose someone who qualifies for mortgage in the example but slyly imply he only have FundMyHome or rental as his options

2. I'm not sure if you have poor eyesight or reading disability. There is no cashflow advantage even in the misleading example. Personal loan monthly payment is exactly the same RM1250 vs rental RM1250. And that's where they mislead you with personal loan interest of 5%. Average personal loan interest is 8% and above which means monthly payment of RM1400 and above. Mortgage would have been RM1370 (30 years) or RM1280 (35 years)

Scenario 2
1. again I suspect you have reading disability. FundMyHome example assume downpayment 20% for mortgage monthly payment would be RM1216. I put 10% downpayment monthly payment would be RM1370. how you see it as same is beyond me

2. if there's discount from developer, the comparison would be even more lopsided as I have shown in the second half of the article

@qqq3 pretty lame arguments you have so far, but at least that's a start. more discussions may be able to open up your mind better

@qqq3
Scenario 1
1. one of the key element for the whole scheme to work is property to appreciate. if the guy thinks the property will appreciate and he qualifies for a loan, why isn't FundMyHome advising him to buy a property outright and enjoy 100% upside?

2. what cashflow advantage? the example is asking the guy to get personal loan for the 20%. so instead of getting a mortgage loan at 4.5% interest, they are asking people who qualifies for mortgage to get personal loan at 8% and above

Scenario 2
1. I did not adjust anything. the calculations are as shown in the example provided by FundMyHome, except under mortgage, downpayment of 10% instead of 20% is used (because that's what happens in real life)

2. relying on parent's money is not called equity. if not, by that logic, we can just ask all parents to buy a house for their child and that will probably solve a lot of first-time housebuyer problem.

even if the scheme is not to fuel speculation, its selling point (like no monthly payment needed) is fueling speculative behavior among first time homebuyers. remember the first buyer in FundMyHome launching? first year working, no savings, rely on parents to come up with the 20% for a house that he's not even sure if he's gonna stay in it (i.e. he has no real need for the house). if this is not speculative, I don't know what is

@qqq3 care to point out which figures are wrong? I have definitely pointed out clearly the misleading figures provided by FundMyHome. Anyone with a brain, basic financial knowledge and some common sense would be able to tell that I'm showing the truth, unless you lack all of that

for someone with zero points to rebut my article, you are certainly very persistent . which begs the question, are you somewhat involved in this scheme?

@probability there are 2 separate transactions

Transaction 1
Pay- RM160k by investor, RM40k by buyer
Receive - RM160k to developer, RM40k set aside for investor

Transaction 2
Pay-RM200k new buyer
Receive-RM160k to investor, RM40k to buyer

Investors' RM160k + RM40k, the RM40k comes from the RM40k in transaction 1 set aside by developers to pay investors over 5 years, not to be confused with transaction 2

@Jon Choivo it's not explicitly written in the website, but it was mentioned in the earlier version FAQ. the last two weeks' The Edge Weekly also explained how the 20% will be set aside and potentially recouped

@qqq3 I will respond to you one last time, I'm challenging you to state your facts from your point of argument, or even better, correct any loopholes in my articles, then we can have a discussion.

otherwise, you are simply a nuisance and stop wasting other people's time who may have read your comments

@Jon Choivo there is an article and table in The Edge weekly that shows how profits are distributed among investors, developers and buyers. That should give you a clear picture. Apologies for I don't know how to screenshot it over here

exactly the kind of attitude this P2P scheme promotes, speculative and thought that there's a free ride to prosperity

https://klse.i3investor.com/blogs/savemalaysia/181791.jsp

It's not about whether he can write or not. I lay my points here on his article

1. the scheme is exactly like what the Budget 2019 mentioned (because the idea came from Tong). the only difference is Tong haven't solicit public investment that's why it does not need to be regulated yet
2. Regulators can only come out with a proper framework when given independence. But now SC is pressured into coming out with such framework in Budget 2019 and deputy housing minister even gave a deadline of two weeks, the independence is doubtful
3. innovative stuffs doesn't equal to productive or beneficial stuffs. subprime crisis was caused by mortgage-backed securities (MBS), collateralised debt obligations (CDO), no-income-no-job(NINJA)loans and bunch of other innovative products
4. the condition on which subprime happen is not overbearing debt, it's simply the underlying speculative behavior which turns a productive asset like house into a speculative financial product. to the extent speculative buyers buy multiple houses with cash that they don't have (rely on refinancing)

Let's be honest, Tong was a developer himself and now he runs the property platform. Whose interest is he gonna look out for?

@Jon Choivo it was not mentioned explicitly but it did mention the buyer's 20% will be placed under a trust account, of which will be used to fund the investors' 5% guaranteed return.

so in essence, developer only receive effectively 80%, they forgo the 20% (as discount) to fund that 5% return a year. and they also build in a mechanism whereby if property appreciates, the first 20% goes to developer, effectively reimbursing them

1. the scheme is exactly like what the Budget 2019 mentioned (because the idea came from Tong). the only difference is Tong haven't solicit public investment that's why it does not need to be regulated yet
2. Regulators can only come out with a proper framework when given independence. But now SC is pressured into coming out with such framework in Budget 2019 and deputy housing minister even gave a deadline of two weeks, the independence is doubtful
3. innovative stuffs doesn't equal to productive or beneficial stuffs. subprime crisis was caused by mortgage-backed securities (MBS), collateralised debt obligations (CDO), no-income-no-job(NINJA)loans and bunch of other innovative products
4. the condition on which subprime happen is not overbearing debt, it's simply the underlying speculative behavior which turns a productive asset like house into a speculative financial product. to the extent speculative buyers buy multiple houses with cash that they don't have (rely on refinancing)

Let's be honest, Tong was a developer himself and now he runs the property platform. Whose interest is he gonna look out for?

@qqq3 I do not object to something just because it is new, I object it because it's problematic and could create a lot of negative issues

it's creative I give you that, but not exactly fair to buyers and clearly done with vested interest by developers and the portal.

despite numerous very detailed explanations, you don't seem to be interested in understanding or provide a valid argument against them. you keep saying it's great for everyone but can you back it up with explanations? if a person blindly supports something without proper reasoning, I can't help but doubt your motivations

I welcome constructive arguments but I don't think you are going to engage in one. your next comment probably will again be how great this scheme is, how wrong and sceptical is everyone (with zero points to support)....