Noble Group

[CityFarmer]

Taking shareholder mandated share-buy-back as "fraudulent manipulation", is flaw and inappropriate. I have removed a post with similar content.

Please take note

Regards
Moderator

[CityFarmer]

[removed by moderator]

You need to learn to save yourself, and VB, by not making accusation that you cannot prove.

Thanks for the reminder

Regards
Moderator

[CityFarmer]

The accusations have made access to capital market became more expensive...

Noble's troubles seep into its bonds: Markit
13 Aug 2015 11:22
By Angela Tan

NOBLE Group's troubles have spread from its stocks into its bonds, according to Simon Colvin, a research analyst at financial information services Markit.

Mr Colvin said accusations of accounting irregularities and the continuing global commodities slump have seen the credit markets turn bearish on the Hong Kong-based commodities group.

Noble's Certificates of Deposit's (CDS) spread has tripled in the last 12 months. The latest 5 year CDS spread stands at 714bps, the highest level since 2009.
...
Source: Business Times Breaking News

[lilvestor]

[removed by moderator]

You need to learn to save yourself, and VB, by not making accusation that you cannot prove.

Whats there to prove? Elman (chairman of the company) owns over 1/5th of Noble group, its reasonable to assume that he is doing this to protect his own interest.

Short of getting him to admit this to the press there is no obviously no way for anyone to prove this, but its a reasonable deduction.

[fat al]

Whats there to prove? Elman (chairman of the company) owns over 1/5th of Noble group, its reasonable to assume that he is doing this to protect his own interest.

Short of getting him to admit this to the press there is no obviously no way for anyone to prove this, but its a reasonable deduction.

Here's another angle: As sharebuyback comes at a cost, Elman also bears 1/5th of the cost. His decision on sharebuyback had better be rational then. I doubt Sharebuyback can protect shareholders' value indefinitely.

self-disclosure: I have no vested interest in Noble, nor evaluating it. Just curious about the ruckus.

[lilvestor]

Whats there to prove? Elman (chairman of the company) owns over 1/5th of Noble group, its reasonable to assume that he is doing this to protect his own interest.

Short of getting him to admit this to the press there is no obviously no way for anyone to prove this, but its a reasonable deduction.

Here's another angle: As sharebuyback comes at a cost, Elman also bears 1/5th of the cost. His decision on sharebuyback had better be rational then. I doubt Sharebuyback can protect shareholders' value indefinitely.

self-disclosure: I have no vested interest in Noble, nor evaluating it. Just curious about the ruckus.

He only owns 1/5th of the company, but he is utilising all of the company's resources to support his own interest.

Think about it this way, Elman can either risk his own money to buy more of Noble's shares in the open market, or he can use the company's funds to do the same thing. Both would achieve the same result, but he would be taking far greater risks if he did it with his own money.

Anyway I doubt he has the financial capacity to buy that many shares...

[CityFarmer]

Whats there to prove? Elman (chairman of the company) owns over 1/5th of Noble group, its reasonable to assume that he is doing this to protect his own interest.

Short of getting him to admit this to the press there is no obviously no way for anyone to prove this, but its a reasonable deduction.

Here's another angle: As sharebuyback comes at a cost, Elman also bears 1/5th of the cost. His decision on sharebuyback had better be rational then. I doubt Sharebuyback can protect shareholders' value indefinitely.

self-disclosure: I have no vested interest in Noble, nor evaluating it. Just curious about the ruckus.

He only owns 1/5th of the company, but he is utilising all of the company's resources to support his own interest.

Think about it this way, Elman can either risk his own money to buy more of Noble's shares in the open market, or he can use the company's funds to do the same thing. Both would achieve the same result, but he would be taking far greater risks if he did it with his own money.

Anyway I doubt he has the financial capacity to buy that many shares...

He is doing it with a shareholder mandate. In other words, he is doing base on wishes of the majority, valid up to next AGM, with a 10% limit

Supporting the share price, serves all shareholders, not only the major shareholder.

To buy more with his own money, carries more weight, but not doing so, doesn't mean a "fraudulent act".

[Bibi]

Whats there to prove? Elman (chairman of the company) owns over 1/5th of Noble group, its reasonable to assume that he is doing this to protect his own interest.

Short of getting him to admit this to the press there is no obviously no way for anyone to prove this, but its a reasonable deduction.

Here's another angle: As sharebuyback comes at a cost, Elman also bears 1/5th of the cost. His decision on sharebuyback had better be rational then. I doubt Sharebuyback can protect shareholders' value indefinitely.

self-disclosure: I have no vested interest in Noble, nor evaluating it. Just curious about the ruckus.

He only owns 1/5th of the company, but he is utilising all of the company's resources to support his own interest.

Think about it this way, Elman can either risk his own money to buy more of Noble's shares in the open market, or he can use the company's funds to do the same thing. Both would achieve the same result, but he would be taking far greater risks if he did it with his own money.

Anyway I doubt he has the financial capacity to buy that many shares...

I think Boustead also doing the same thing. Damn, has it not been the co buying back tonns of shares, I think its share price would have fallen to 70++ cents and I would have vested.

[greengiraffe]

Whats there to prove? Elman (chairman of the company) owns over 1/5th of Noble group, its reasonable to assume that he is doing this to protect his own interest.

Short of getting him to admit this to the press there is no obviously no way for anyone to prove this, but its a reasonable deduction.

Here's another angle: As sharebuyback comes at a cost, Elman also bears 1/5th of the cost. His decision on sharebuyback had better be rational then. I doubt Sharebuyback can protect shareholders' value indefinitely.

self-disclosure: I have no vested interest in Noble, nor evaluating it. Just curious about the ruckus.

He only owns 1/5th of the company, but he is utilising all of the company's resources to support his own interest.

Think about it this way, Elman can either risk his own money to buy more of Noble's shares in the open market, or he can use the company's funds to do the same thing. Both would achieve the same result, but he would be taking far greater risks if he did it with his own money.

Anyway I doubt he has the financial capacity to buy that many shares...

I think Boustead also doing the same thing. Damn, has it not been the co buying back tonns of shares, I think its share price would have fallen to 70++ cents and I would have vested.

http://www.valuebuddies.com/thread-6-pos...#pid117989

[lilvestor]

Whats there to prove? Elman (chairman of the company) owns over 1/5th of Noble group, its reasonable to assume that he is doing this to protect his own interest.

Short of getting him to admit this to the press there is no obviously no way for anyone to prove this, but its a reasonable deduction.

Here's another angle: As sharebuyback comes at a cost, Elman also bears 1/5th of the cost. His decision on sharebuyback had better be rational then. I doubt Sharebuyback can protect shareholders' value indefinitely.

self-disclosure: I have no vested interest in Noble, nor evaluating it. Just curious about the ruckus.

He only owns 1/5th of the company, but he is utilising all of the company's resources to support his own interest.

Think about it this way, Elman can either risk his own money to buy more of Noble's shares in the open market, or he can use the company's funds to do the same thing. Both would achieve the same result, but he would be taking far greater risks if he did it with his own money.

Anyway I doubt he has the financial capacity to buy that many shares...

He is doing it with a shareholder mandate. In other words, he is doing base on wishes of the majority, valid up to next AGM, with a 10% limit

Supporting the share price, serves all shareholders, not only the major shareholder.

To buy more with his own money, carries more weight, but not doing so, doesn't mean a "fraudulent act".

Supporting the share price serves all shareholders but he stands to lose the most if things don't work out because nearly all of his wealth is in the company.

Share buybacks would be fine and logical if the company was flush with cash or borrowing at 1% like IBM, but that isn't the case. The company is drowning in debt and the cost of financing that debt is escalating by the day, yet they are exhausting whatever little liquidity thats left to pursue share buybacks.

It may not be "fraudulent" since he has the shareholders' mandate (which is really himself since he is the single largest shareholder by far), but that doesn't make it morally right since its self-serving and it doesn't help the company in the long run.

I have no vested interest in this (long or short), I apologise if I offended Noble shareholders with this tirade but I was just speaking my mind, this will be my last post on this.