What's wrong with these people??
Posted on Business Times: MK Land to be taken private?
- TAN Sri Mustapha Kamal Abu Bakar, a co-founder of MK Land Holdings Bhd, may take the troubled property developer private as part of plans to turn it around, a source close to him said.
The businessman holds 47.4 per cent of MK Land and he has taken over the company's leadership as chief executive on June 25.
He replaces his partner Datuk P. Kasi who was redesignated as a non-executive director. Kasi holds 25.4 per cent of MK Land.
"As a majority stakeholder of MK Land, it's logical for him to come back and return the company to the black," the source said.
Mustapha could not be reached for comment.
However, it is learnt that he will study the company's situation before making major moves.
Contractors and consultants for some of MK Land's projects are expected to be called for a meeting soon.
"After leaving MK Land for so long, Mustapha Kamal wants to study the nitty-gritty of the company," the source said.
In May, MK Land asked its bondholders for permission to delay debt repayments by up to a year.
The company had in 2001 and 2002 issued two tranches of RM150 million each of serial bonds, with the final maturities due in August this year and September 2009.
MK Land said it was seeking an indulgence from bondholders to defer payments for a total of RM60 million to two separate sinking fund accounts.
Yet another article written based on sources who are unnamed!
So let me ask a simple question, how do we know if this yet another grandmother story cooked up by a certain party to drive the stock higher?
As it is, MK Land is a troubled company. The following news article was published on May MK Land’s share price falls to 52-week low
- MK Land Holdings Bhd’s share price fell to a 52-week low of 34 sen yesterday, following news it might defer its obligation to place RM60 million into sinking fund accounts (SFA) for bonds totalling RM300 million.
And their last reported earnings in May was terrible. Quarterly rpt on consolidated results for the financial period ended 31/3/2008
As it is, MK Land has lost some 18 million for the first 3 quarter of the current fiscal year and the company has a mountain of debts in its balance sheet. Would Tan Sri Mustapha Kamal Abu Bakar take this company now given the terrible state the company is in?
Well at the rate of these stories are being published and no much action are taken against such reporting, pretty soon our financial news would conjur an article stating that perhaps Bursa Malaysia could be privatised too! Yeah, why not? According to sources what.
Are you still not watching SC? Do you even know who are all these sources?
-------
ps. I usually read about companies being taken private because the owners felt the company was worth so much more as a private entity. As it is, I reckon not for MK Land!
July 14 (Bloomberg) -- InBev NV agreed to buy Anheuser- Busch Cos. for $49.9 billion to become the world's biggest brewer, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing unidentified people familiar with the situation.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFeprSPTUVFk&refer=home
All in all, it's still the public's responsibility to analyse the facts and to discern the truth from the rumours. An ''unnamed source'' from WSJ would be more credible than one from our local daily.
Dear Great Game,
ReplyDeleteYet again I see no logic on your comparison.
My issue is on Business Times article on MK Land.
Why the need to divert attention from this issue?
Are you suggesting that if it happens elsewhere it is deemed ok here?
Where's the logic to all this type of argument?
Wrong is wrong is wrong.
Dear Moola
ReplyDeleteI am not trying to argue or insinuate anything. I am just merely highlighting more examples in light of an issue that has been brought up by you.
Anyway, isnt the citing of the 'unnamed sources' in itself has appropriately informed the readers that the news in itself is merely an ex ante speculation event and not an
ex post fact reporting?
Shouldnt the readers themselves be responsible to digest and discern between facts, opinions and rumours?
Shouldnt the readers themselves be responsible to digest and discern between facts, opinions and rumours?
ReplyDelete=> Answer of course is YES.
But why should the press be allowed to print as much garbage as they wish?
And what if the articles were used as a tool to illegally promote a stock?
Should the press be allowed to get away with such shambolic reporting?