Country Heights Grower Scheme (CHGS)

Lowyat.NET forums

Lowyat.NET Kopitiam Garage Sales

Lowyat.NET Rules and Regulations FAQ Help Search Members

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Lowyat.NET -> Finance, Business and Investment House

Bump Topic Add Reply RSS Feed

2 Pages 1 2 >Bottom

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

Country Heights Grower Scheme (CHGS), anyone heard before?

views

kinwing	Jan 23 2013, 10:19 AM Return to original view \| Post #1
On my way Senior Member 559 posts Joined: Mar 2010 From: Ipoh/Kuala Lumpur	We should not vote for the termination. Don't be afraid that we won't get back the 90% of our capital if we vote against. If the manager can't do a good job of realising the assets to give back our capital in full instead of threatening us not giving us the full amount, why don't we replace the manager and appoint a trusted manager to continue run this scheme or at least realise a fair value for the shareholders? LKY does not have much stake on this company, so if we the minority shareholders can collaborate, we can have this to be under our control without need to follow the stupid advice from the independent advisor. The only thing I can think of not getting back full amount of capital due to the assets were inflated with manipulation when the time the company sold their stakes with a higher cost to the minority shareholders. By the way, the shareholders' meeting is too rush to be hold on 8 February and many shareholders are unable to attend the meeting. Maybe we could apply a court injunction to stop the meeting and request the company to hold the meeting after chinese new year. I am now trying to gather support from minority shareholders to vote against the termination. Hope you all can do the same to defend our rights as minority shareholders. This post has been edited by kinwing: Jan 23 2013, 10:26 AM
Card PM	Report Top Like Quote Reply

kinwing	Jan 23 2013, 10:35 AM Return to original view \| Post #2
On my way Senior Member 559 posts Joined: Mar 2010 From: Ipoh/Kuala Lumpur	QUOTE(airline @ Jan 23 2013, 10:29 AM) Go DreamCity seri kembangan Clearwater group development show house there make noise His daughter development Bang table I got LKY's 3 daughters punya FB, but don't feel good to put their link here or else their pages will be flooded with complain, ahaha. This post has been edited by kinwing: Jan 23 2013, 10:36 AM
Card PM	Report Top Like Quote Reply

kinwing	Jan 23 2013, 10:46 AM Return to original view \| Post #3
On my way Senior Member 559 posts Joined: Mar 2010 From: Ipoh/Kuala Lumpur	QUOTE(hpcp @ Jan 23 2013, 10:43 AM) WAHHH... u targeting people's daughters? No lah, they all married edi .
Card PM	Report Top Like Quote Reply

kinwing	Jan 23 2013, 11:01 AM Return to original view \| Post #4
On my way Senior Member 559 posts Joined: Mar 2010 From: Ipoh/Kuala Lumpur	Anyway, I feel the manager is not doing his job in protecting the interest of minoirty shareholders and give the promised yield of 8% to 12% as promised. If the company terminate earlier and only returning our capital in 2 years later, most probably the company has breached the agreement of giving a guaranteed YTM of 8% to 12%, so we could sue the company on this basis. Or we could just fire the manager and run the company by ourselves since the company has planted palm oil for almsot 5 years and I think it's time for us to ripe off the benefit from mature of palm oil yield by ourselves. No way they can kick us out by getting cheap fund from us and sharing their risk to us in the initial stage and now try to kick us out when time to ripe fruits without sharing the return back to minority shareholders. A typical situation head you win, tail we lose!!! This post has been edited by kinwing: Jan 23 2013, 11:02 AM
Card PM	Report Top Like Quote Reply

kinwing	Jan 23 2013, 11:26 AM Return to original view \| Post #5
On my way Senior Member 559 posts Joined: Mar 2010 From: Ipoh/Kuala Lumpur	QUOTE(squall_12 @ Jan 23 2013, 11:05 AM) so most of u guy will vote against? Yes we will vote against!
Card PM	Report Top Like Quote Reply

kinwing	Jan 25 2013, 11:30 AM Return to original view \| Post #6
On my way Senior Member 559 posts Joined: Mar 2010 From: Ipoh/Kuala Lumpur	QUOTE(EddyLB @ Jan 25 2013, 10:57 AM) Big Fish always win. This story tells us in all investment, no matter how good it looks like, there is always risk. High risk high return. Low risk low return. On the hindsight, how much is the return to the investor ? Let's do a simple calculation Buy on 1/1/2007 RM5000 Get 1st dividend 1/1/2008 8% Get back RM500 in 2013 No dividend for 2013, 2014 and 2015 Get back RM4500 in 2015 Returns 2007 0% 2008 8% 2009 8% 2010 8% 2011 8% 2012 12% 2013 0% 2014 0% 2015 0% Simple interest calculation (not NPV), the average return over the 9 years is 4.89% pa. Actually not too bad (based on the above dividend rate) compare to FD which is risk free. Provided the growers will get all the capital back (RM500 + RM4500) by 2015 But of course, the promoter gain the most as it got cheap funding for a high risk business The growers should just accept the proposal and forget about the whole thing. Go enjoy the CNY holidays instead of attending the meeting. The most you can do is don't get involve in the future with investment which got anything to do with the promoters of CHGS. The growers are 100% better than those Genneva investor. Consider yourself lucky because at least the promoters promised to pay you back the capital, although it is 2 years from now. I think the rich bosses will be happy to "honour" his promise and pay you back the money in 2015 and say "thanks for the cheap funding, anyway.... " Not too bad? It is lucky that the scheme sail through its initial stage without any problem or else growers would be screw even worse than what happened now. Let me recap, growers provide cheap fund and they shared the risk of the oil palm planting. Now it's time to ripe off after 5 years and growers are being kicked out from the scheme. If compare to FD may be the above return you mentioned may perform better than FD, but remember this scheme is risky and its risk adjusted return is pretty bad. If no full refund, the YTM for the whole scheme would be even lower. Look at the way how the rich boss treat the growers now by telling BS in the circular (of which they should evaluate, and if the scheme is not workable then it should not be launched to begin with) and not adhering to their promise as stated in the prospectus, I do not think growers will confidence that LKY will keep his promise of full repayment in 2015. This post has been edited by kinwing: Jan 25 2013, 12:15 PM
Card PM	Report Top Like Quote Reply

kinwing	Jan 28 2013, 10:53 PM Return to original view \| Post #7
On my way Senior Member 559 posts Joined: Mar 2010 From: Ipoh/Kuala Lumpur	QUOTE(xxx2299 @ Jan 28 2013, 08:55 PM) Btw, mine is a joint name with my mum, so if she cannot go for the 8/2 meeting, does she need to appoint me as her proxy? According to Section 7.21A of Bursa's Main Market Listing Requirement, it is a bad governance for listed companies to restrict certain type of people to become proxies and thus Bursa has prohibited listed companies to proxy restriction; "Section 7.21A Qualification and rights of proxy to speak - (1) A member of a company entitled to attend and vote at a meeting of a company, or at a meeting of any class of members of the company, shall be entitled to appoint any person as his proxy to attend and vote instead of the member at the meeting. There shall be no restriction as to the qualification of the proxy." However, PGCB has a very bad governance that impose restriction on proxy as stated in the proxy form that "A Grower of CHGS entitled to attend and vote at the meeting is entitled to appoint a proxy to attend and vote in his stead. A proxy appointed must be a Grower of CHGS." This indicates PGCB has ill-intention and poor integrity and imposing a lot of restrictions for the Growers to vote in the meeting. Too bad PGCB is not a listed company or else it would be reprimanded and fine by Bursa Malaysia . Good luck Growers, try your endeavour to defend your rights in the meeting. Hope justice will be served for the minority investors like us. This post has been edited by kinwing: Jan 28 2013, 10:56 PM
Card PM	Report Top Like Quote Reply

kinwing	Jan 30 2013, 09:05 AM Return to original view \| Post #8
On my way Senior Member 559 posts Joined: Mar 2010 From: Ipoh/Kuala Lumpur	QUOTE(prophetjul @ Jan 30 2013, 08:54 AM) Cheap opex money for the managemnet....... Rm5k for QTR acre! WOW! Thats RM20k per acre or Rm49.4 per hectare! Wishhhhhhhhhhh! At that price you could OWN the land and pay for the startup as well! ScrewED from the beginning......... I myself not a Grower but assisting those who complain the proposed termination. I am wondering why so many investors got into this scheme with such a high cost of RM49k per hectare, some more put money into the mouth of LKY . With such a high cost, CHGS owed the Growers $ without having enough asset to back the claim, no wonder the IA mentioned Growers may not be able to get back your principal in full, so Growers are screwed from the beginning is true . When I 1st come to know CHGS, I don't even really bother to read more on the brochure even it looked attractive with guaranteed return, as I totally avoid any scheme launched under the deck of LKY. This is a lesson we should learn that never trust big croc. This post has been edited by kinwing: Jan 30 2013, 09:08 AM
Card PM	Report Top Like Quote Reply

kinwing	Jan 30 2013, 09:17 AM Return to original view \| Post #9
On my way Senior Member 559 posts Joined: Mar 2010 From: Ipoh/Kuala Lumpur	QUOTE(prophetjul @ Jan 30 2013, 09:12 AM) These Bizmen like Sheeples........they dont know the in and outs of the biz.......... The marketing ploy a) GUARANTEED payouts b) 7% better than FD c) GROWing divs d) endorsed by ministers BUT they dont see the micro perspectives This post has been edited by kinwing: Jan 30 2013, 09:18 AM
Card PM	Report Top Like Quote Reply

kinwing	Jan 30 2013, 01:30 PM Return to original view \| Post #10
On my way Senior Member 559 posts Joined: Mar 2010 From: Ipoh/Kuala Lumpur	QUOTE(jeffayn @ Jan 30 2013, 01:27 PM) as I presume.. there is nothing you can get out from them... but from their website and sales prospectus, they had already committed an offence which miss guide, but that only lead you to the full refund, which the CHGS is willing to do ... what they are not willing to share is their profit in the future coming 23 years.... growers need to fight on their legs and make sure they full filled the agreement which is till the expiry but to get to that point, first growers must appoint a legal team before the meeting is held and decision made. after that point, growers had 2x the difficulties the agreement growers signed, is clearly a very grey , even though favor to CGHS not not entirely, there is room big enough to stick till the end... only thing is disappointing that grower only intend to get back their capital that is all they want... .. sad.. but true.... How they can not share their profit in the coming 23 years if the minority garner enough vote to change the manager. Look at the interested party, they only have less than 15 plots over the scheme.
Card PM	Report Top Like Quote Reply

kinwing	Jan 30 2013, 02:50 PM Return to original view \| Post #11
On my way Senior Member 559 posts Joined: Mar 2010 From: Ipoh/Kuala Lumpur	QUOTE(jeffayn @ Jan 30 2013, 01:53 PM) you are right, you are the *minority* , how are you going to change the manager ? This coming meeting is only giving you a chance to show your face, is not even a genuine meeting at all. It doesn't matter 1 plot or 10 plots or 100 plots, the plots are only for investor show and tell. And you are only investing in the "participation", you do not have any rights, or any share, or any linked to the company. In simple words, you are not even allow to profit sharing with the company. You can owned the whole 10,000 plot grower scheme, and CHGS still can kick u out from the scheme anytime at their mercy. Because you do not hold an interest in the company... people should read carefully what they sign, not based on understanding ""You don ask, I don tell I dont tell because you didnt ask"" above is a fair defense for many years until recently in alot of country where intentional hiding is consider a crime actually when you buy fund, bank is oblige to inform you that there is a risk of losing all of the money but when you buy this grower scheme, have anyone told you about the risk and what happen when you lose money ? I am not part of it so I am immune. Just pitty those old folks who rugi to the greedy croc.
Card PM	Report Top Like Quote Reply

kinwing	Jan 30 2013, 06:25 PM Return to original view \| Post #12
On my way Senior Member 559 posts Joined: Mar 2010 From: Ipoh/Kuala Lumpur	Minority Shareholderws Watchdog Group ("MSWG") has taken the lead to step in garnering support from Growers with a forum in relation to the Proposed Termination to be hold on the office of MSWG . I hope everyone minority investors who really concern on how to defend their right in CHGS should take this chance to attend the forum hold by MSWG. Attached File(s) MSW_Forum.pdf ( 134.45k ) Number of downloads: 170
Card PM	Report Top Like Quote Reply

kinwing	Jan 30 2013, 06:34 PM Return to original view \| Post #13
On my way Senior Member 559 posts Joined: Mar 2010 From: Ipoh/Kuala Lumpur	QUOTE(Rubberban @ Jan 30 2013, 05:44 PM) got it, reading it now. "Without the expected output and FFB yield income, the management company as a legal establishment is not in a financial position to pay out Nett Yield continuously based on the contracted rate, which puts it in a default risk." If the proposed termination was passed, actually PGCB is getting free call option from Growers that they collect huge funds from Growers with cheap premium and spread the risk to Growers, i.e. when good time their profit is unlimited with only limit cost on paying promised limited yield to Growers; when bad time come they can wash they ass and walk away free. How 'nice' that they can even return partial of the principal to Growers in 2 long years since only income/yield is guaranteed but principal. And now the so-called 'guaranteed yield' is also not guaranteed. By having a volunatarily termination, PGCB is finding a stage to get down nicely from the impossible target they have made by themselves previously instead of being blamed to have defaulted the payment. Growers of CHGS, if you vote for the proposed termination, you are really being screwed from the head to your ass big time! This post has been edited by kinwing: Jan 30 2013, 06:38 PM
Card PM	Report Top Like Quote Reply

kinwing	Jan 31 2013, 09:59 AM Return to original view \| Post #14
On my way Senior Member 559 posts Joined: Mar 2010 From: Ipoh/Kuala Lumpur	QUOTE(prophetjul @ Jan 31 2013, 08:50 AM) Nice PAYDAY for Someone! I am wondering which authorities approved this scheme? Looks like the SC has not said a word on this scheme. So far only CCM is the only authority approved this scheme, so I not sure if CCM got the relevant resources as compare to the SC to understand what type of investment scheme they approved?
Card PM	Report Top Like Quote Reply

kinwing	Jan 31 2013, 10:11 AM Return to original view \| Post #15
On my way Senior Member 559 posts Joined: Mar 2010 From: Ipoh/Kuala Lumpur	QUOTE(prophetjul @ Jan 31 2013, 10:05 AM) It appears from LKY's letter, SSM approved the scheme as he alludes to their conditions .......... Why SC has to be involved since it does nt involve listed companies? The SC not only monitored listed co. one, it also responsible for the issuance of securities, irregard the issuers are listed or non-listed. In addition, as long as a scheme is setup for investment purposes, the SC might have the authority to approve the scheme. For example, the SC issued guidelines to monitor unit trust fund. By the way, what's the role of Bank Negara? This is a scheme that collect money from the public, would this land BNM an authority to check on this scheme as well?
Card PM	Report Top Like Quote Reply

kinwing	Jan 31 2013, 10:32 AM Return to original view \| Post #16
On my way Senior Member 559 posts Joined: Mar 2010 From: Ipoh/Kuala Lumpur	QUOTE(gark @ Jan 31 2013, 10:28 AM) The scheme is more or less worded as 'contract farming' so it does not really involve SCC and BI. However being a 'contract farming' the investor have absolutely no rights on the assets. It is not illegal, but investors get zilch protection. Example MR A owns the land. Mr B gives money to Mr A 'farm' the land with agreed splitting of profits ie 50:50. Mr B used the money to farm but ultimately crop failed, so no returns. Mr B gives back Mr A whatever left of the money, but Mr B still owns the land. I see, it looks a type of quasi-security issued to collect fund from the public and not subject to approvals by the SC or BNM, another loophole .
Card PM	Report Top Like Quote Reply

kinwing	Jan 31 2013, 11:07 AM Return to original view \| Post #17
On my way Senior Member 559 posts Joined: Mar 2010 From: Ipoh/Kuala Lumpur	QUOTE(prophetjul @ Jan 31 2013, 10:41 AM) All the biggies are using themes of the day to make their big bucks at the expense of the investors..........be it oil palm, gold, silver, etc.... A lot retail investors are not so market savvy and don't know how to count, too bad for them. But I realise a lot investors have the mindset of sheep mentality and not doing enough homework before investing, like this case that the traps are quite obvious to be noticed through proper vetting through the prospectus and simple calculation, and worse investors should have known the creditability of LKY. Or all CHGS Growers were having the thought that this time is different and they won't be so unlucky to encounter another trap?
Card PM	Report Top Like Quote Reply

kinwing	Jan 31 2013, 11:08 AM Return to original view \| Post #18
On my way Senior Member 559 posts Joined: Mar 2010 From: Ipoh/Kuala Lumpur	QUOTE(prophetjul @ Jan 31 2013, 11:00 AM) ALLLLLL these schemes are DERIVATIVEs of the product or assets. ALLLLL DERIVATIVES ARE SEWAGE says Warren Buffet Worse LKY shewed that the expenses included the yield paid to growers frommmmmm ummmm the captal exercise! Is this not PONSI.??? Yah to me it is a Ponzi.
Card PM	Report Top Like Quote Reply

kinwing	Jan 31 2013, 11:10 AM Return to original view \| Post #19
On my way Senior Member 559 posts Joined: Mar 2010 From: Ipoh/Kuala Lumpur	QUOTE(gark @ Jan 31 2013, 11:08 AM) No wor... officially this is called 'contract farming' but underneath in ponzi...(hidden)... Yah just like the return is claimed to be 'guaranteed'. Now they default, can we hold on their term 'guaranteed return' ?
Card PM	Report Top Like Quote Reply

kinwing	Jan 31 2013, 11:31 AM Return to original view \| Post #20
On my way Senior Member 559 posts Joined: Mar 2010 From: Ipoh/Kuala Lumpur	QUOTE(prophetjul @ Jan 31 2013, 11:18 AM) They should check WHO the marketing company is......another related party? I come to know a marketing agent, he also makes complain. Maybe just to show that marketing agents are also hit as hard as the other Growers .
Card PM	Report Top Like Quote Reply

« Next Oldest · Finance, Business and Investment House · Next Newest »

2 Pages 1 2 >Top

Add Reply Options

Change to:

0.0287sec

0.47

7 queries

GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 9th December 2025 - 08:22 AM

All Rights Reserved © 2002- 2025 Vijandren Ramadass (~unite against racism~)

Removal Request

Powered by Invision Power Board © 2025 IPS, Inc.