QUOTE(hybr1d3d @ Sep 24 2020, 01:23 AM)
Brother Boon3, even EPF is buying TG share now, what's your view about this?
What I strongly believes in was posted several times before. For example on May 28
see post #2184QUOTE
In theory, share buybacks are good but then... stock market is full of sharks... as it is a known fact that these sharks abuse buybacks for their own benefits. Hence, it is a risky guide/indicator.
Same as trying to use epf purchases/disposals as an indicator.
Best you develop your own person setups.
That is where I stand...
But anyway... for this EPF and TG .... I am so disappointed to read EPF buying up shares in TG.
This is a huge NO NO!
It's a situation created because the boss sits on EPF board, which means the conflict of interest issue arises! (this was mentioned casually b4 see
post #3024 )
Everything is searchable in the net... really.
Search the phrase 'epf board conflict of interest'
https://newmalaysiatimes.com/2018/12/04/naj...ct-of-interest/This part... The MSWG released a Message From CEO in the Weekly Newsletter dated November 16, 2018 (
http://www.mswg.org.my/newsletters/mswg-we...er-2018-english )
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «
Conflicts of Interest – Directors of PLCs Who Sit on Boards of Institutional Investors that Invest in the Directors’ PLCs
The concept of ‘conflict of interest’ is premised on one of the limbs of natural justice…’no man shall sit in judgment of his own course’ (Nemo judex in causa sua in Latin).
When it comes to ‘conflict of interest’, it is equally important to avoid both actual and perceived ‘conflict of interests’. This is because perception shapes reality and sometimes, that very perception becomes the reality.
It is a conflict of interest when directors of Public Listed Companies (PLCs) sit on boards (or committees) of institutional investors, who in turn have shareholdings in the said PLC, from which that director comes from.
It does not matter whether that director can influence the institutional investors’ dealings decisions when it comes to the said PLC’s shares…it is the perception that matters. Of course, that director can abstain from the institutional investors’ deliberations when discussions are held pertaining to that PLC.
But surely, it is much better to completely avoid ‘conflicts of interest’, whether real or perceived, by not accepting any board positions in institutional investors who have interests in their PLC.
Where a director of a PLC sits on the board of an institutional investor, and the institutional investor in turn deals in the shares of the said PLC, minority shareholders are often left wondering whether the share price of the PLC is due to actual market forces, (price discovery), or due to the investment/divestment decisions of the institutional investor. Such wonderings are especially pronounced if that PLC enjoys richer valuations, e.g. higher PE ratios, compared to the PLC’s competitors.
Will there be no conflict of interest if the institutional investor does not invest in the shares of the said director’s PLC? To some extent perhaps, but not completely. The said director may influence his competitors share prices through the institutional investor’s share dealing decisions.
It is better for directors of PLCs to completely avoid sitting on the boards (and committees) of institutional investors so that there is no conflict of interest – whether real or perceived.
It is especially crucial for a director to avoid such directorships at institutional investors where the institutional investor also holds shares in the director’s PLC. In such instances, the conflict of interest becomes so much more obvious and real and breaches the fundamentals of natural justice…nemo judex in causa sua absolutely.
* and of course ... TG related
https://newmalaysiatimes.com/2018/11/13/rm8...intees-company/ ***
It is a conflict of interest when directors of Public Listed Companies (PLCs) sit on boards (or committees) of institutional investors, who in turn have shareholdings in the said PLC, from which that director comes from.That's the issue..... this is simply unacceptable in the investment community, where the conflict of interest is such a huge no-no...
And then the timing of the acquisition ....
Again I am stressing the point... when a listed company do buyback, they need to be absolutely sure nothing coincides with the buybacks....
And here we have TG doing huge buybacks...
and then the conflicts.... large ESOS stake are granted listing during this time, huge chunks of TG convertible bonds are converted into ordinary shares during this period... both which carries a significant low cost, which means ESOS shares or the bond shares could be sold for a nice chunk of profit .... and then you have one of the Executive Director selling 350,000 shares (which is not a lot but the value is more than the 2 million!) ... and now ... coincides with EPF buying TG shares???
and remember the buyback on the 11th Sep, which clearly drove the stock so much higher....
so much conflict...... how la?
IF ..... someone stands up.... and accuses TG of blatantly propping up the shares ..... do you think the accusation is valid?
Here is TG chart once more... I added the red arrow to indicate 18th Sep... the day EPF bought 13,695,800 shares, which pushes EPF stake to be above the 5% threshold (thus forcing EPF to make the announcement)
Now this brings back the question of Volume posted yesterday....
QUOTE
5. Volume. Volume. Volume.... is this the biggest issue?
the blue bell in the bottom in Sep indicates the bonus issue.
TG is now 3 times bigger. If one wants to put that 3 times bigger into perspective, ie compare the volume now versus pre bonus issue volume....
one need to divide by 3....
which means.... after the bonus issue.... the volume has shrunk considerably.....
which begs the question....
With so many scientists still insisting on focusing only on fy21 numbers and still giving TG a buy call recommendation, why is the volume so dismal?
TG 1.3 billion in net profit woh.... why no big funds buying?
And remember during this period, TG bought back some 300 million worth of shares....
so where are the other buyers? why aren't the big buyers buying?
where? If the stock is worth 10 or more, why does the stock chart showing the NOT LAKU sign?
which leads back to the question on the buybacks.....
if the company stops buybacks.... how?
So if you add in this new info ... that EPF bought 13,695,800 more shares in TG ..... the question becomes much louder....
why is the volume so dismal? 
EPF sapu-ed.....
TG ownself sapu-ed ....
Scientists all still give high TP....
yet.... volume is low in comparison.... and the the stock seems stuck at 8? why cannot go higher?
Sep 23 2020, 09:39 AM
Quote
0.2073sec
0.54
7 queries
GZIP Disabled