Posted by Jay > 2017-03-01 19:40 | Report Abuse

kahhoeng, my advice is in investments don't get emotional. everyone make mistakes, just have to accept, learn and move on. you already know legally selective cash-out option is not possible, privatization is very remote yet you still insists, then that is nothing but stubborn.

trust me, the most SC can do is to make life difficult for Puncak by asking them to disclose as much details possible to help shareholders make their decisions, no way they can impose a cash-out option. they regulate takeovers, they don't instruct or instigate takeovers

the land both in Puncak and Triplc I suppose eventually they will sell it cos they don't have the expertise to develop them. like I said, Puncak is a value trap. it needs earnings for the market to value it

Posted by Jay > 2017-03-01 19:49 | Report Abuse

that's why I keep saying the deal is actually bad for triplc (in terms of price) and good for puncak.

if anyone should oppose the deal, it should be triplc shareholders. if only puncak shareholders have done a little homework they would know that special dividend is not happening again, so better have earnings generating assets for market to value Puncak properly. that would be a better chance for puncak to rebound rather than non-stop losses

Posted by kahhoeng > 2017-03-02 16:55 | Report Abuse

Jay, like I said over and over again, if the Puncak BOD so confident, they can keep the prized diamond and laugh to the end after offering those not trusting an exit at fair price. Sure hope Puncak Board can prove the rest wrong. There's no lose to Rozali offering that, unless he knows well its a bad deal that he has to get it through. Then, it's a total different story to tell...

Posted by Jay > 2017-03-03 01:01 | Report Abuse

no offense but I really wonder if puncak was one of your first stocks and you were so badly burnt that you can't even think straight

why should rozali sacrifice his listing vehicle, his cashpile to make small minority shareholders happy? if you are rozali, would you privatise Puncak? if you think paying RM3 for Triplc which was trading around RM1.90 is not fair, why should he pay you RM2.50 when Puncak is trading below RM1?

if you have invested long enough you wouldn't be so surprised with all these stuffs. Puncak case is nothing when you compared to those old days like Union Paper, Kenmark etc.

look at things objectively. if a road is a dead end, don't go knock on the wall, find an alternative route. for puncak's case, if dividend is not forthcoming, then aim for a turnaround in biz. what's the point of keep banging you head against the wall? seriously dude wake up, whole market is flying and you keep hoping for rozali to grow a conscience or pestering regulators for things they are not empowered to do

Posted by Jay > 2017-03-03 01:07 | Report Abuse

at first I admire your courage, even though you may not fully understand what you are doing. after being explained numerous times, you kept insisting then really it's nothing but pathetic

btw, do you guys mind keeping you own sad little story back in puncak page? it adds very little to no value here

Posted by Jay > 2017-03-03 01:09 | Report Abuse

if you have seen me in other pages before, you know I am never this harsh (borderline rude I admit) but I have my reasonable basis which are based on facts and not just emotions

Lastly, it would be good if you guys could digest and understand the quote below:
Harlan Ellison — 'You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.'

Posted by rogers123 > 2017-03-03 01:33 | Report Abuse

I objected the deal. Is not worth to buy triplc at 3.00. Can anyone guarantee that after the acquisition, Triplc business can provide good profit to puncak which can over the acquisition cost. If u r a good businessman, u r both directors of the companies, will u use the money from one company to acquire another company. It will incur a huge cost in the transaction. R u so stupid? Will u do it? Except u can make some commission from the transaction.

Posted by Jay > 2017-03-03 10:32 | Report Abuse

not necessarily, you can see how YTL acquire over those YTL related companies or how Ananda Krishnan privatise his company using usaha tegas. or more recently when SKP bought over the entire biz of Tecnic. that's not stupid. now you privately own 20+% of triplc, you used your 40+% controlled puncak to buy over triplc, you get a higher effective control, why not?

you assume that because triplc is trading at RM1.90 so RM3 is overpriced without looking at intrinsic value. mind you, tecnic was trading at around RM3 when SKP launch the acquisition. it shot up to almost RM7 before ex, went ex then limit up 2 consecutive days. no one accuse SKP of overpaying because they saw value

do me a favour, just do some homework and look at Triplc margin when they were doing the RM200m construction. now they have RM600m contract, work out the profit then see if it's fair. and don't forget the updated valuation of all the land they hold. just because it's currently sitting idle doesn't mean it has no value. then you will know how favourably it's actually skewed towards puncak's favour. if you can't even work out such simple calculation, I'm afraid you will struggle to value most companies in bursa

Posted by Jay > 2017-03-03 10:35 | Report Abuse

I'm really fed up answering simple questions by naive puncak shareholders. not only they refuse to think, allow emotions to cloud their mind, personally i have even written two articles on this deal, one for triplc and one for puncak. anyone with some determination could have browse, read and try to understand them. if you think some parts are wrong, you could come up with facts to dispute them instead of cry baby over here

just goes to show how lazy these shareholders are when it comes to investing

Posted by urfather > 2017-03-04 12:52 | Report Abuse

Hi Jay, I have read your articles on TRIplc. There is an issue I would like to discuss with you. How do I contact you ?

Posted by Up_down > 2017-03-04 13:01 | Report Abuse

Buy Triplc if the deal is not approved by shareholders. Buy Puncak when it has acquired Triplc.

Posted by Jay > 2017-03-04 17:56 | Report Abuse

you can just leave your comments here or in any specific article

Posted by urfather > 2017-03-05 02:33 | Report Abuse

Hi Jay. Alright then, I want to clarify on the DCF calculation in your articles. The figures displayed show that loans taken in are used to fund the construction costs, which are incurred over the course of the first 3 years.

Figures used in DCF calculations are based on incremental earnings and incremental costs in order to make project/investment decisions. As we already know that the loans are used to pay for construction costs, this means that the loan amount is part of capital and not incremental earnings. However, in the DCF calculation, “Net Cashflow” column was used to discount for NPV. Although this column shows the actual movement of cash for the company, this does not paint the real picture of incremental cash flows. Using the “Net Cashflow” column to calculate NPV seems to suggest that in the first year of construction, the business earned a large sum of money, when in actual fact it does not. The resulting DCF figures presented in the tables also show very clearly where the bulk of the “value” comes from, i.e. the valuation of the project is being skewed towards the present value of the loan. Furthermore, because the loan was “earned” at the beginning of the period, the valuation becomes extremely heavily skewed towards the loan value.

From another perspective, this way of calculation does not make much sense either. Using your first example for Z1P3 valuation, if we assume that we make an outright purchase for this project's equity at the end of its 4th year at a “fair value” of RM143.49 mln (107.45*1.075^4), this project will only earn us an IRR of 3.74% p.a. on this future Net Cashflow. Earning such a rate would either be because there are no other alternative returns that can give much higher rates, or we are clearly overvaluing this project at current price of RM100 mln. The reality is that the project is supposed to be the earnings generator, whereas the loan is the opportunity cost of funding the project. Therefore, inflow of loans should not be used in calculating NPV, because its inclusion will result in the valuation of the loan amount instead of valuing the project only.

Also, as a reality check, assuming we are only able to collect the total RM284.33 mln net earnings attributable to equityholders at the end of the 25th year, its present value should be sitting it about RM46.62 mln. So by right, the project's worth should not deviate too far from this ballpark figure.

Posted by Jay > 2017-03-05 17:18 | Report Abuse

@urfather since this is a question on a specific article, maybe you might want to leave your comment there next time. just a suggestion, easier for me to refer back

my answer may be a bit long winded so bear with me

1. DCF has 2 separate methods, one is free cashflow to equity (FCFE) and another free cashflow to firm (FCFF). I think where you come from is FCFF, where loan proceeds, interest and principal repayments are not considered and cashflow are discounted using WACC. what I did was FCFE whereby all cashflows available to equity shareholders are explicitly considered. the reality is they have access to the loan amount which was used to fund the project

or you could think from it another way. from a shareholder's point of view, I don't have to fork out anything for rights issue, placement etc. all cash are from sukuk holders to be used by me, so essentially I have zero upfront cash outflow. all I need is to share my future cashflows (through payment of interest and principal) and my entire project is discounted using cost of equity (which will definitely be higher than WACC).

in essence, the loan proceeds and repayments are future incremental cashflows which you cannot ignored when you are valuing the project from an equity holder's point of view (FCFE).

2. DCF valuations are dynamic, meaning when you shift timeframes, the value will move. if you are buying in the 4th year, value will be different because
i) your future cashflows from year 4 onwards should now be discounted at a lower rate so PV should be higher
ii) those sukuk cashflow should have yielded some return by then
iii) you lost access to the sukuk cashflow which are available in the first few year

3. I assume the RM284m you refer to is conservative case-cashflow after tax column. the cashflow is after interest, which is return to sukuk holders. but after adjusting for the sukuk proceeds and repayment, what happen was you get the cashflow now but pay them back gradually over the years. so time value kicks in (I already deduct the interest so sukuk holders are not actually worse off). since sukuk holders are not worse off, why are the equity holders better off? because of the difference in cost of debt and cost of equity. from sukuk holders point of view they are happy to get returns equal to their cost of debt, but we are using cheaper cost of debt to finance equity cashflow, whereby shareholders usually demand a higher cost of equity. so IRR for these sukuk could be 5% and sukuk holders are happy, but I get to tap that cash inflow first and gradually pay them back discounting using maybe 7.5% cost of equity, that's where I get the advantage

to sum it up, yes the financing arrangement did contribute to the NPV calculation. debt financing does have its benefits, at least from time value of money point of view. 100% debt essentially also means zero equity which could be sky-high or infinity IRR, but in reality, of course it may not be zero cash outflow. sometimes these projects will require to park some equity even when it's fully funded through borrowings. e.g. Ekovest in their SPE project

I have been thinking for the past few months, the only possible method which Triplc advisers can manipulate the concession biz valuation is probably by imputing a large sum of equity needed and drag down the valuation

hope all these above clarifies

Posted by DK66 > 2017-03-05 22:30 | Report Abuse

As the project ZIP3 is still far from completion, advisers may cite execution risks for lower valuation.

Posted by urfather > 2017-03-07 18:06 | Report Abuse

Hi Jay. Since we are already commenting here, I guess I will just continue here since I will be commenting on the underlying fundamentals of the valuation method.

Using FCFE may not even be the appropriate valuation method if debt-equity structure changes significantly over time, which is exactly the case for TRIplc. I guess it really depends on how one presents their logic as long as the flaws are fully understood, since FCFF isn't without flaws itself.

Anyway, while I do agree with you that TRIplc has "access" to the loan amount, we still have to bear in mind that this is a concession agreement. TRIplc will only get to enjoy full access if the company eventually owns the assets that was originally funded by the debts.

However, this project is not about TRIplc and the debtholders. Instead, the main parties are TRIplc and UiTM, the grantor of the concession. So the debtholders are basically the third party here. TRIplc may be the direct borrower, but this is sort of on behalf of UiTM, because UiTM is the owner, hence the one that ultimately services the loan payments through TRIplc.

So this means that UiTM is the true beneficiary of the project assets, and not TRIplc. This also means that TRIplc is only reaping the benefits of the fair value of its contract assets, and it has no entitlement over the assets that it is managing on behalf of UiTM.

Truth is this is my first time valuing concessionaires, so I'm saying this based on what I understand at this point in time. So please correct me if I am wrong or something.

I never really apply the wide range of conventional valuation methods, in any dealmaking, I find it helpful if I always keep in mind to understand how the economic benefits of an asset "pie" is being divided among ALL capital providers and with whom the benefits are flowed most towards, that could possibly undermine the safety of the other capital providers. After all there really is no such thing as a free lunch.

Posted by DK66 > 2017-03-07 20:10 | Report Abuse

Urfather, if I may interrupt. Concession is never about owning the underlying asset but the rights to the future cashflows which is all that matter. In this case, it is also not about whether the underlying asset is able to generate sufficient income to pay off its obligation. It is the undertaking from UiTM and its credibility that assures the certainty of the future payments.

Posted by Jay > 2017-03-08 08:54 | Report Abuse

it's like what DK66, in concessions you rarely own the assets at the end. most concessions run on the build, operate and transfer method so eventually ownership will be passed back to UiTM or whoever that grants the concession.

Try to think of it this way, BOT is essentially a construction plus financing scheme. in a vanilla construction contract, Triplc construct and will get paid. here, UiTM does not want to pay the lump sum in the early years, instead they want to stretch the payment over a longer period, so effectively they have to pay a higher amount to compensate Triplc, similar to a loan

the value of the concession to Triplc is not dependent on whether they will own it, but how much value (earnings and cashflow) can they extract during the concession period. just like orderbook for construction, you don't own the building but you get profit and cashflow from the order, that's your value. concession is similar but stretching over longer period of time

point to note that there are 2 main types of concession. one is like the highways, company build the highway and is granted xx years to collect toll, government doesn't pay anything. second is like most university concession, company build then get paid later in instlalments by UiTM/MOE. first type highway companies will recognise the highway concession assets and fully amortised it over the concession period. second type they never recognise the asset, but instead recognise a financial asset (obligation from UiTM to pay them for works done). like I said, just like a loan.

Triplc belongs to the second type. If you read their annual report, you will see that most of the trade receivables (non-current and current) is that financial asset (discounted PV). take that amount and minus the borrowings, that would be an indication to the value of Z1P2, the previous concession they completed

like you said, DCF is not without its flaws. I personally dislike it because they are too sensitive to a few assumptions but for concession, it is still by far the best method. for normal investors, they will probably look at earnings which Triplc will recognise them soon. I have written on that topic before in a Prestariang piece, you can read them if you are interested to see the earnings impact

Posted by urfather > 2017-03-08 16:54 | Report Abuse

Hi Jay and DK66. I think my comments previously may have been unclearly written.

I will try to clarify what I was trying to say by giving a somewhat far-fetched example of a property-related purchase, and contrast this with the typical concession arrangement. It will be quite long, as I am unable to think of any other way to convey my thoughts..lol..

I managed to borrow a sum of money directly from a bank, and I appointed a construction company to build this castle of mine, which takes 3 years to build. The arrangement for this 100% debt-financed house will be such that my bank will progressively release to the construction firm, cash payments based on the agreed milestones achieved by the latter throughout the 3 years. Of course, I myself will be obligated to periodically pay off my debts owing to the bank. In a separate arrangement, I have also appointed another firm that will help me maintain security for my castle, once the construction is finished.

To tie this example as closely as possible to a concession, I may be the equivalent of the grantor of the concession, whereas the construction and security firms are the so called concessionaires. For this example, how would you value the future cash flows for the construction and security firm combined ?

My view is that future cash flow projections for this example should not be any different from a concessionaire that borrows money on behalf of the grantor. My reasoning is because the firms in both scenarios (my example vs concession example) should generate the same amount of construction profits and maintenance fees (security fees for my example).

Taking this example another step further, the construction company also borrowed money from another bank to pay for all its construction costs and other operating costs because we are assuming costs are paid in cash when they are due, but cash will only be received from my bank when respective milestones are achieved. So, how different would the valuation of its future cash flows be when compared with the scenario of 100% equity financing ?

The reason why I mentioned about which parties are entitled to a claim of the underlying asset was because the present value of the loan (aka the market price/cost of the asset) must be apportioned to the owner of the asset when projecting future cash flows, and not anyone else. If you were to allocate the future cash flows to the correct parties, you will find that it is the asset owner who is supposed to be entitled to the PV of the loan. It does not matter whether my mum services my housing loan, because if the house is solely under my name, whatever the market price is given to my house, 100% of it belongs to me, and not my mum. Anything else will need to be separately arranged with her. In fact, I could also be paying my mum so that she could help me pay my loans, but this does not give her the right to have a claim over the future value of my house.

My original intention when commenting here is that I did not agree with the inclusion of the PV of loans in TRIplc’s DCF calculation. As I had mentioned before, UiTM is the one that is servicing its delayed payments through TRIplc. To say that TRIplc is paying off its loans is half-true and half-false as well. Half false because TRIplc in a sense charged UiTM in “implicit fees” to pay off the latter’s loans, which could have been borrowed directly by UiTM, so by right UiTM is the one that is paying off the loans; half true because if TRIplc made a significant error in estimating its construction and operating costs, it is liable to pay off the loans outstanding, and not UiTM, who is only obligated to the periodic payments agreed with TRIplc.

The PV amount is also recorded in UiTM's books as a quasi-loan (financial liability), and because UiTM is the ultimate owner and borrower, and not TRIplc, this amount should be included in UiTM's DCF calculation. To assume that loan PV belongs to TRIplc would mean that TRIplc owns the project assets. However, since it does not, therefore loan PV should not be included in TRIplc’s DCF calculation.

Posted by urfather > 2017-03-08 16:57 | Report Abuse

Owning the rights to future cash flow of an asset that is a going concern is very different from owning the rights of the future cash flow of an asset that has a limited useful life. By including PV of loans, we assume that the debt levels are sustainable for the business model to continue generating future cash flows in perpetuity (theoretically). This is the reason why bank borrowings have significant value to a moneylender because the loans are fundamental to the long-term capital structure of the business. Still, the important assumption for this moneylender is that its profitability must be sustainable in the long run with no major default risks for its loans extended to its customers. Valuation for a concession is in an entirely different position because the borrowings are not “everlasting” and needs to be paid off eventually. Even if project diversification is applied by a normal construction company that depends entirely on debt financing, the sustainability of the debts in the capital structure is limited to the dollar amount and sustainable overall margins of future projects. If there is a slightest chance of insufficient future projects, PV of debts will have extremely little to no value for investors. The same also applies for the moneylender or any other business models that rely on significant debt levels.

Again, as I am still in my preliminary stage of understanding service concessions, I would be happy to revamp my understanding of such a business model if you can help to rebut on my thoughts above. Until then, I’m afraid I’m still stuck with this understanding of mine. So any feedback on will be very much appreciated.

P.S. I suppose once MFRS 15 kicks in in 2018, the recognition of construction profits will no longer be recognized in the first year as what was practiced before right ?

Posted by valuelurker > 2017-03-08 17:36 | Report Abuse

^ holy cow I cant believe I just read all of that trololo

If you exclude the bond, how would your DCF (to equity) look like?

Year 0-3

Year 4-25

Posted by little_snake > 2017-03-08 17:41 | Report Abuse

rmoi puncak stuck at rm2? kikiki

Posted by Jay > 2017-03-09 09:37 | Report Abuse

you are right when you said that UiTM could have borrowed directly themselves to fund it but the reality is they did not. you are also right to say that after Triplc borrowed the amount, they have to bear the construction risk, cost overrun risk etc.

the economic reality is UiTM did not borrow themselves and they do not own the assets until the end of the concession period. the sukuk carries interest of 5-6%, but Triplc won't charge UiTM for just 5-6%, they will charge more on top of the construction margin to compensate them for all the trouble they have to go through and the risk. and when Triplc has the cash, any interest income they keep and doesn't go to UiTM.

the difference with your example is that UiTM did not secure the financing themselves. it's more like you bought a house using mortgage. so if the bank had borrowed the sum to lend you, your repayment is not to settle the borrowed sum, but the mortgage loan. banks gets the sum and pass it to you. while you pay them, they pay their lender and earn a spread over it. and if they can get the sum in the first year but only release the sum over 3 years, there's value to them in the first 3 years

Triplc owed the lender and UiTM owed Triplc. it's 2 different economic transactions and cannot be mixed into 1. I think you are overly focused on eventual ownership, put it simply, you can think of it as Triplc effectively owns the asset during the concession period and they own the debt and they are liable to pay for it. just like you don't legally own the house until you settle the mortgage.

the debt is obtained solely for the project and will be settled during the concession period. the entire amount will be spent in the first 3 years for this concession alone, after that is repayment
the PV of the debt is not dependent on future projects because the real value is you can get financing for this concession without forking out your own money. I'm not looking at the point of view that the amount can be distributed to shareholder but more like the shareholders do not have to fork out any money.

there was initial concerns among industry players that IFRS15 could change the way of revenue recognition but after the feedback, you will realise that IFRS15 is almost the same as the current IAS11. concession revenue has separate standards under IC12 and I'm not sure if that will change. but since there's little difference between IFRS15 and IAS11, I assume IC12 is to stay

Posted by urfather > 2017-03-09 23:12 | Report Abuse

Ok, I understand where you are coming from now. So if let us say debtholders will release funds only when payment for construction costs are due, the NPV for this project would be drastically lower, would that be correct ?

Posted by DK66 > 2017-03-10 11:19 | Report Abuse

This is not true. In that case there will be savings on interest costs which may results in higher NPV.

Posted by AhSeng > 2017-03-13 13:52 | Report Abuse

Tiap tiap Hari Turun. No eye see

Posted by DK66 > 2017-03-17 08:30 | Report Abuse

No announcement by Puncak on its submission of proposal to SC.......

Posted by DK66 > 2017-03-21 10:04 | Report Abuse

Directors selling......

Posted by AhSeng > 2017-03-26 17:52 | Report Abuse

Knn . Directors selling and press the price down ？

Posted by DK66 > 2017-03-29 21:21 | Report Abuse

The directors exercised their ESOS at much lower than market price and sell in the market to realise quick profits

Posted by AhSeng > 2017-03-31 07:59 | Report Abuse

Triplc look like khsb.bo

Posted by Ckk2266 > 2017-04-03 17:45 | Report Abuse

Bought Triplc @ 1.74- 1.75

Posted by AhSeng > 2017-04-03 20:18 | Report Abuse

DirectOrs Sudah Jual habis bio. Knn. Bila Nak jalan

Posted by Ckk2266 > 2017-04-04 09:14 | Report Abuse

Accumulate more Triplc @ 1.74

Posted by kahhoeng > 2017-04-04 21:39 | Report Abuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Ckk2266 > 2017-04-05 07:46 | Report Abuse

210 mil V 360 mil !

Posted by Ckk2266 > 2017-04-05 10:15 | Report Abuse

Bought Triplc @ 1.74

Posted by Jay > 2017-04-05 12:59 | Report Abuse

I said it long time ago the deal, if unfair, it's to Triplc shareholders rather than Puncak. some people never convinced until now even MSWG agrees with me

Posted by kahhoeng > 2017-04-05 14:27 | Report Abuse

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

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

Posted by Jay > 2017-04-06 09:47 | Report Abuse

the market is not always right but it's usually fair.

Triplc was undervalued back then because nobody really understood the university concession biz. all they see is the high gearing and they freaked out. plus it's a very small company with low liquidity so it's does not really appeal to most. but now more people understand that high gearing in concession biz is not all bad, it's just the nature of the biz. that's why now you see stocks like ekovest, WCE, ahmad zaki are all surging

after puncak started the negotiations (and maybe some have read my articles), people start to appreciate the company more until the highest it went up around 2.40. so if according to your theory that market is always the best indicator, then that shows the value

after the deal was announced, people sold on news as the deal like I said was not entirely favourable to Triplc plus the timeline seems longer than initially expected. price is low now most likely because of 1) deal execution risk and 2) opportunity cost (most don't want to invest in laggard stock in a bull market). so like I said, market may not be right but it is fair

in any disposals, it is meant to unlock value, just like disposing a plot of land, you will sell it at market value regardless of what your old book value is. similarly puncak cannot expect to buy Triplc at price, but should buy at value, if not what's the purpose of disposal?

puncak's price now is also fair because despite the so called high NTA and high cash, it is still bleeding losses and burning cash. lastly, I have stress it many times, the deal is good for puncak bad for triplc. it is the golden ticket for puncak to finally return to profitability and let market re-rate it. too bad many shareholders are still too blind to see it.

it's more realistic to bet that once puncak makes profit again after the acquisition, the price will move back up rather than hoping for an unrealistic windfall of RM2.50

Posted by rogers123 > 2017-04-06 17:03 | Report Abuse

Hahahaha. I will vote reject to triplc

Posted by AhSeng > 2017-04-06 23:44 | Report Abuse

Tomorrow will fly.

Posted by chonghai > 2017-04-07 13:11 | Report Abuse

One thing for sure, Puncak not worth RM 2.50 at this moment.

Posted by rogers123 > 2017-04-11 01:18 | Report Abuse

Seng expert: Where is the fly?

Posted by jc8888 > 2017-04-24 19:12 | Report Abuse

Tomorrow will fly bo?

Posted by rogers123 > 2017-04-25 00:13 | Report Abuse

Of course

Posted by Jay > 2017-04-26 19:23 | Report Abuse

finally...

"The Concession Company had received from the Government notice of concession Effective Date on 17 January 2017 and the construction is expected to commence within 2nd Quarter of 2017"

Posted by AhSeng > 2017-04-27 03:22 | Report Abuse

Result keLuar. Besok mari bo.Knn triplc

Posted by DK66 > 2017-05-02 14:39 | Report Abuse

selling intensified

Posted by DK66 > 2017-05-02 14:44 | Report Abuse

deal off ??