Masterskill Sinking Deeper

Don't just watch the stock price. Do pay attention to what the owner says too. It says a lot.

On 30th May 2011, I posted  How Now Masterskill?. In that posting I highlighted the comments made by Masterskill (MEGB) Boss on Star Biz.

• “Well, I need to wait and see. Perhaps, anything below RM2 doesn't justify keeping the company listed,” Edmund said when asked on the amount of shares he intended to purchase.
  
  Last December, he told StarBiz that the share price then of RM2.22 was not “justifiable” for a firm that made about RM100mil in net profit annually.He said that the company was fundamentally sound and that its Kuching campus was already in operation.
  
  “The current share price weakness presents a great buying opportunity for Edmund to accumulate its shares,” an analyst said, adding that Edmund's move to purchase more shares may be a practical thing to do.

Masterskill or MEGB is still a listed stock today.

Yes, my dearest, MEGB,the stock, is still trading in Bursa Malaysia.

And that's not all. Yesterday, MEGB announced its quaterly earnings again. It lost money once again, its 5th consecutive quarter of losses!

Here's a screen shot.

As you can see from the screen shot, MEGB last traded at 0.615!!!

Yes only 61.5 sen!!!

Those comments back in 2011 rings soooooo loud today!

 'ANYTHING BELOW RM2 doesn't justify keeping the company listed'!!!!!!!

So I am telling you... the ownership factor is important factor when you want to make a stock investment.

Give back FAIRLY to your shareholders

On Star Biz:

• Monday February 18, 2013
  Give back unused cash to shareholders
  
  Excess cash sitting idle on corporate balance sheets can be the subject of discontent among shareholders.
  Corporate notes by Gurmeet Kaur
  
  CASH is king. This mantra applies both to investors and their companies. Having a ton of cash, companies have the opportunity to grow via acquisitions. Money can also be used to squeeze out the competition.
  
  But excess cash sitting idle on corporate balance sheets can be the subject of discontent among shareholders, taking recent developments at Apple Inc as an example.
  
  Apple, perhaps the world's most reknown company as the maker of iPhone, is facing a rebellion from an influential investor, hedge fund manager David Einhorn of Greenlight Capital who wants the company to stop stockpiling cash and instead give some of it back to shareholders.
  
  Apple has some US$137bil (RM423.8bil) in cash and its once rapid growth has slowed in recent years.
  
  The Apple incident raises the old debate: If companies are unable to demonstrate using their cash effectively, would the right thing to do be returning part of it to shareholders?
  
  In the United States and the United Kingdom, there seems to be heightened shareholder activism in this area as a fair share of large companies have been unable to deploy their cash pile because of the slowing economy.
  
  The Apple case has also shifted the attention to companies like Google on whether it should consider doing the same.
  
  Last year in India, Infosys institutional shareholders had called for top-level changes in the company's management and pushed for the return of the company's excess cash to shareholders through either a higher dividend payout or a buyback offer.
  
  The good news, though, is Bursa Malaysia has a number of cash-generating companies that often return cash to shareholders. But, most of these companies have tended to be multinationals. Hence, the high payouts have also been driven as a means for these firms to repatriate their profits back to their parent companies abroad.
  
  Another set of companies that could be doing more for their shareholders are those that may not be generating a lot of cash, but are sitting on a pile of valuable assets. If these companies have no definitive plans for these assets, then shouldn't they be considering unlocking these assets by selling them and returning the money to shareholders?
  
  Property companies come to mind, especially those whose land-banks have yet to be revalued. As a result of not doing much with this land and, by extension, for the shareholders of these companies, these property stocks tend to trade at paltry valuations, despite the rich assets these companies have.
  
  Worse, a few of these property companies have become privatisation targets of the major shareholders. The major shareholders would justify the exercises as being driven by the market not ascribing a high enough value on the companies.
  
  But the converse is also true: The major shareholders, who are clearly in control of the companies, have not done enough to make the assets of their listed companies work to the benefit of shareholders.
  
  So, there is room for more shareholder activism to question the management/ownership of those companies.
  
  There have also been instances where listed companies have deployed excess cash to investing in stocks and trading them an area where they have no competitive advantage and taking an unnecessary risk, according to some quarters, as they would seem to be deviating from the core business.
  
  Clearly, greater vigilance of shareholders would keep management on their toes, whether it is the right strategy to take or should not that surplus money be returned to shareholders for them to decide how they want to use it.
  
  A recent example of attempted shareholder activism ought to be mentioned. This was the case of icapital.biz Bhd where a little-known UK fund, Laxey Partners Ltd, had sought to shake things up at Bursa's only listed closed-ended fund.
  
  In any case, Laxey may have picked the wrong stock to seek a change. icapital.biz's higher performing and well-known maverick fund manager Tan Teng Boo is no easy pushover. Shareholders have been and remain impressed by Tan's returns and do not wish for icapital.biz to end.
  
  But what's noteworthy was this: that Laxey was seeking to have the fund dissolved and the stocks in icapital.biz's portfolio sold and the money distributed to shareholders. By its assessment, icapital.biz should be more proactive in reducing the substantial discount the fund's market price was trading at against its net asset value.
  
  Laxey is symbolic of shareholders who want more from their management. In principle, that behaviour is not only healthy for our market, it is markedly absent.

Source: http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2013/2/18/business/12724877&sec=business

Comment:

Fully agree with the comments about the property stocks (and even plantation stocks and other companies) sitting on properties that have not been revalued for years! ( The opposite? Sometimes I laugh so loud on how them REIT managers revalued their properties every few months! )

The clear danger to the shareholders of such companies is that the owners could privatise the stock without the shareholders getting rewarded for their loyalty for being a shareholder and get a fair value of what the stock should be worth.

Pirates?

Exactly.

And on iCap?

Yes, companies should really return excess cash back to the shareholders. If you do not know what to do with the excess money, it's only fair to give it back to the shareholders!

Remember, shareholders are your business partners!

So companies should treat their shareholders as business partners and not as other people's money.

Having said all that, surprise, surprise, surprise but I do not feel sorry for Laxey partner or any shareholders of iCapital who feel disgrunted about iCapital not returning the excess money back to the shareholders.

They really should know better.

When they invest (or speculate) in iCapital, they should not have discounted the TTB factor. If they know who and understand TTB's character, they should have known TTB's character better.

And oh yeah, my buddy highlighted one rather good posting last month. http://cgmalaysia.blogspot.com/2013/01/lending-money-to-related-company-is-no.html

I see many making the assumption that a company is worth investing based on the cash per share yardstick without understanding the company.

In Panasonic Manufacturing Malaysia (Panamy), as highlighted by M.A. Wind , a huge chunk of money belonging to Panamy is placed (I think LEND is a much better word) to a related company. Yes, Panamy do get interest for the money placed (LEND) but I am amazed why Panamy shareholders aren't asking the simplest question: Why is this related company borrowing money from Panamy at such a cheap rate? (last I checked it was way below 4%!!!)

Why aren't Panamy shareholders thinking about it?

This is their money and the money lend is massive! It's over 444 million ringgit!!!

Why is the money lend to the related company at such a low rate?

Don't they rather have the excess money returned to them as dividends?

Yes, it's all about money and if you are a shareholder, hey, it's your money.

DO NOT BE BLINDED BY THE CASH PER SHARE.

Understand the company.

Understand what the company does with its excess money.

If they are going to be a cash hoarder or worst still, lend your money to a related company at a cheap rate, don't you think that your money is being abused?

No?

Do you call this FINANCIAL NEWS?

Seriously.

Do you call this financial news?

Have a look at this headline financial news published on Business Times:

• KYM set to return to limelight?
  
  Francis Fernandez Published: 2013/01/25
  
  IN NEGOTIATIONS: Datuk K.Y. Lim, who has significant business interests in Perak, is said to be working closely with the state government for a dry bulk port concession
  
  DATUK K.Y. Lim, one of the country's top backroom deal maker in the 1990s, is believed to be engineering a deal that would help push his listed company KYM Holdings Bhd back into the limelight.
  
  Business Times understands that the tycoon, who has significant business interest in Perak, is working closely with the state government for a dry bulk port concession.
  
  In the 1990's, Lim held key positions in Technology Resources Bhd (Celcom (M) Bhd), Naluri Bhd and Malaysia Airlines.
  
  The tycoon has been low profile ever since, only to emerge in the limelight briefly in 2010, when he managed to convince Brazil's Vale SA, the world's second largest diversified metals and mining company to build a distribution centre and a port in Telok Rubiah, Perak.
  
  As part of the deal, Lim also managed to sell off some 166ha of land in the area for almost RM102 million cash to the Brazilian company.
  
  Lim's listed company, KYM Holdings Bhd, had a 54 per cent stake in Harta Makmur Sdn Bhd, the company which sold the land to the Brazilian firm.
  
  At the time of the sale, there was talk that KYM would also actively participate in helping build and manage the port for the Brazilian company.
  
  Such talks helped push KYM shares to RM3 a share by December 13 2010, but since the deals with Vale on helping build the port did not take off, the shares have since retreated.
  
  KYM shares were last traded at 68 sen a piece, and market talk is the tycoon is finally ready to pull the rabbit out of the hat.
  
  "This is the big one, as far as KYM is concerned," said a person close to the tycoon.
  Business Times was told that KYM has shifted its focus to now ride on the Vale's RM9 billion distribution centre.
  
  As such, the company is already involved now in helping reclaim 1,376ha of land in Bagan Datoh, Perak, which will be used for industrial purpose and the construction of a jetty.
  
  In 2010, KYM's unit KYM Development Sdn Bhd inked an agreement with the Perak State Government State Economic Development Corp to help reclaim and develop the industrial park.
  
  "Within the next few weeks, they will sign an agreement to build the jetty/port, with the state authorities," said the source.
  
  Business Times was told in the first stage, the port will have two berths, and it will cost KYM somewhere between RM300 million and RM400 million to build the port.
  
  "They will also manage the port, which will act as a feeder port for Vale," said the source, adding if the deal goes through, Perak will be home to the country's biggest dry bulk port.

What do you think?

Tell me if this is financial news or pure rumours/speculation made by 'a person close to the tycoon'?

And if the stock, KYM, moves just because of this news, what then do you think of our financial news? (Yes KYM is now up 2.2% at 9.05am!)

Isn't our financial news used as a tool by UNKNOWN parties to drive the stock price for a profit???

And incredibly, do you note the reporter name?

Same reporter who wrote a wild story recently that Permaju Holdings would win a giant timber concession? Yeah, the timber concession that never even existed in the first place.

Do You Think There's Honesty And Integrity In Our Financial News?

It's serious.

Think about it.

Recall the posting on Permaju ( see No Such Timber Concession! )  made on 9th Jan 2013. Based on information on a so-called source, Permaju Holdings was said to be close to be awarded a GIANT timber concession. The stock upon being 'gifted' with such good news surged much higher. Later in the day, this so called news was denied by all parties involved. Stock of course went down.

What's the first thing that came to mind?

Would it be wrong to conclude that someone lied about the existence of the giant timber concession. Someone had cheated and profited by the surge in the stock price. Someone had invented the giant timber concession to make the stock surge.

Would these be a wrong set of assumptions?

But what about the role of the financial press itself?

Do they just publish the news without even checking the validity of its so-called sources?

And when the story is denied, doesn't the financial news and its reporter and editor have any remorse to see the stock go up but only to come crashing down once the story is denied?

Does the reporter feel even stupid for writing such an article?

And what about the role of the editor?

If such events keep happening, aren't they even ashamed about it?

Don't they understand that as an editor, they need to preserve the integrity of the financial press?

Surely, they can't allow these cheating and lying sources to keep feeding their reporters with baseless pieces of information. Surely they cannot allow the financial press be used as a tool for these cheater and liars to push their stock prices.

Think about the No Such Timber Concession! posting again. The next morning, after Business Times published the Giant timber concession story, Business Times published Sabah Forestry: No timber concession issued. Do we see Business Times publish an apology for publishing the erroneous Giant timber concession story?

The next day, Business Times published another story based on un-known sources suggesting that DRB will be privatised. ( See Why 'According To Sources' Financial News Should Be Stopped ).

Same style.

Based on sources, this and that is going to happen.

Stock naturally moves higher.

And needless to say, the news is denied.

What's the obvious question?

Did someone cheated by cooking the DRB privatisation story up so that they can profit from the moving stock price?

If the answer is a clear yes, then why is our financial press being used as a tool for others to cheat?

And someone would even question the role of the financial press involved. What if someone within the financial press is in cahoots with these sources?

How?

On today's so-called financial news.

• Ng set to make further moves on Inch Kenneth
  
  By Francis Fernandez Published: 2013/01/21
  
  SYF Resources Bhd chairman Ng Ah Chai plans to boost his interest in Inch Kenneth Kajang Rubber Public Ltd Co by as early as this week.
  
  Last week, Business Times reported that the tycoon was going to raise his personal stake in Inch Kenneth to about 10 per cent.
  
  Subsequently, on January 17, Inch Kenneth told the stock exchange that Ng had bought more of the company's shares from January 11 to January 17 this year.
  
  Against this backdrop, Inch Kenneth had started buying back its own shares in recent days. From December 27 last year until today, the company has bought back some 6.39 million of its shares to bring its treasury shareholding to 6.75 million shares.
  
  As a result of the purchase, Ng now controls 42.16 million Inch Kenneth shares, giving him ownership of 10.18 per cent of the company.
  
  Ng, a long-time shareholder of SYF, one of the largest rubberwood furniture manufacturers in the country, had emerged in Inch Kenneth some five months ago.
  
  Ng and parties alligned to him are expected to boost their stake in Inch Kenneth to about 15 per cent by the end of this week, said a person familiar with Ng's plans for the company.
  
  "Ng might tie up with another public-listed company to gain a firmer foothold in Inch Kenneth," said the source.
  
  The source said by the end of next week, they will request for a board seat.
  
  "Their desire for now is not to take control of Inch Kenneth, but to force the current Inch Kenneth board to either return the cash from the company's war chest or to provide a detailed plan on the company's future development plans."
  
  A check on its annual report for the year ended 31 December 2011 showed that Inch Kenneth had RM221.69 million as short-term deposits with banks.
  
  Inch Kenneth became cash rich after it sold two plots of land in Bangi, Selangor, to UEM Land Holdings Bhd for RM268.5 million.
  
  "Minority shareholders should be given a special dividend from the proceeds of the sale, or an executable plan should be given on how Inch Kenneth is going to develop its massive landbank," added the source.
  
  He did not discount the possibility of the Ng faction making an outright offer to take over the company.
  
  Currently, the dominant shareholders of Inch Kenneth are those who control Concrete Engineering Products Bhd (CEPCO). CEPCO controls about 13.5 per cent of Inch Kenneth.
  
  CEPCO disclosed last year that it was buying Inch Kenneth shares because Inch Kenneth was trading at below its net asset per share of RM1.71.
  
  "The current market price represents a good opportunity to average down the cost of the investment, backed by the net asset of Inch Kenneth at RM1.71," CEPCO said in its annual report last year.
  
  However, according to RHB Research, Inch Kenneth should be valued at between RM1.77 and RM1.88, based on the sum parts valuation method.
  
  The method values a company by determining what its divisions would be worth if they were broken up and spun off or acquired by another company.

And this is the very same reporter, who also based on unknown source wrote the Giant timber concession for Permaju.

Yes!!!!

Same reporter.

Same style.

Based on sources!!!!!

Makes you wonder. Did this reporter get censored for publishing the Permaju giant fimber concession story at all?

See, we can blame sources for cheating and lying to the financial press. They lied to the press in an attempt to profit from the stock price movement.

But let me ask once again.

What about the financial press?

Should they not show restrain from simply publishing news based on such sources?

Look once the parties involved denies the story published, the financial press is going to look mighty stupid from publishing such news.

But since it is happening constantly, I do wonder...

So I am asking "Do You Think There's  Honesty And Integrity In Our Financial News?'

Listen.... someone is asking about the price of honesty in our stock markets

Listen....

Finally, yes finally, someone is asking the price of honesty in our stock markets.

The last 4 lines of the article stood out.

• Cheating is synonymous with lying. Like it or not, it is a frequent occurrence, even in the local stock market.
  
  In Bursa Malaysia, lies and cheating are generally in the guise of "rumours" and "speculation", invented by the so-called market perpetrators.
  
  It is not uncommon when companies repeatedly have to deny knowledge of any activity that has caused sharp price movements or active trading of their shares.
  
  The local stock market, like other bourses in the world, partially thrives on rumours and specula-tion. But to be frank, it is tough to apprehend "cheats, liars or perpetrators" in a market culture that thrives on rumours and speculation.

Mixed feelings here.

I am glad that someone else is taking note about the 'rumours' and 'speculations' INVENTED.

Yeah, INVENTED.

But the article is  lacking.

Problem is this.

The one and biggest issue, at least for me, is that these invented rumours and speculations itself are being published by our financial press constantly.

That is so badly wrong.

It cannot be this way.

Listen...

Do I want to buy a copy of our financial news only to be constantly asking myself if the news I am reading is really news or is the news invented to drive a stock price higher or lower?

Well do you?

You pick up a piece of headline financial news and do you want to be questioning yourself if the news is true or utter cow dung?

How now brown cow?

It cannot be right, yes?

Our financial news cannot be used as a tool for these 'cheats, liars or perpetrators' to pass on their INVENTED news to the unsuspecting public!!!!!

Our financial press cannot simply publish a news based on unknown sources.

Our financial press cannot simply publish a financial news by quoting 'we are told. it is believed'.

It's all cow dung.

And it reflects so badly on the financial newspaper itself.

For one will ask if our financial press is in cahoots with these 'cheats, liars or perpetrators'.

Or is the so-called journalist publishing the news for own vested interest?

Or is the news editor involved?

Are these questions not valid if we see our financial press continuing to publish news based on 'according to sources'?

Sources invent their stories, press publishes them, stock moves....

Is that what we want?

Lastly, the article mentions..

• The local stock market, like other bourses in the world, partially thrives on rumours and specula-tion. But to be frank, it is tough to apprehend "cheats, liars or perpetrators" in a market culture that thrives on rumours and speculation.

I don't quite agree.

Listen...

It's not that tough really.

First and most obvoius step that needs to be taken is to stop these invented news flow on our financial news.

That's the first small step....

Listen one last time...

If no one is willing to make sure this small step is being taken, well, we might as well start giving our 'financial news' a new name.

Ya, how about 'According to sources news'...

or how about 'Our Daily Financial Rumours'...

or how about 'News That Will Make Your Stock Fly'....

Where's The Credibility?

Credibility.

That's it.

That's the one word that says it all.

Think about it.

Seriously think about it......

The headline financial news turns that we just read yesterdat turned out to be false (denied).

Why?.

Just because our financial press continued its merry ways of publishing baselss news based on unknown sources. Yeah, the stock price of the company mentioned soars upon the publication of such news.

How?

Do we have financial news anymore?

Or do we have cooked up financial news designed just to move stock prices?

As Expected DRB Denies

Utterly ludicrous.

The frequency of the newspapers publishing a multi-million/multi billion 'news' based on un-named sources only to have the parties involved denying the whole story.

And what do we have here?

Isn't it so clear?

Print a story, stock goes up, then the story is deemed as false.

And the dumb money will ask what if the story is fabricated for monetary purpose???

How?

Not possible?

Think about it.....

And look ahead the beautiful scenario if this keeps happening, ie nothing is done to stop such un-named source based news.

What do you see?

What do I see?

Well I see more story will be fabricated so that a monetary can be derived once the stock mentioned goes up upon the publication of the fabricated news.

Which means our financial press is now nothing but a tool so that stocks can be manipulated.

Like this scenario?

I think it is ludicrous, it's appalling, it's sickening.

It's 2013 for heaven sake.

Do you want our financial news be financial news or not?

Or do you want our financial news be nothing but fabricated news?

Don't we all want to see improvement???

From yesterday's posting Why 'According To Sources' Financial News Should Be Stopped

Published on Business Times:

• DRB-HICOM to go private?
  
  Published: 2013/01/10
  
  FIRST QUARTER TARGET: Tycoon Syed Mokhtar may make standalone offer, says source
  
  KUALA LUMPUR: Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar AlBukhary may make a standalone offer to privatise DRB-HICOM Bhd, the country's biggest automotive company, people working on the plan said yesterday.
  
  Business Times understands that the plan is being helmed by privately-held Meridian Solutions Sdn Bhd. Meridian is a unit controlled by Syed Mokhtar's top financial aide, Ooi Teik Huat.
  
  The low-profile 53-year-old Ooi is one of the Syed Mokhtar's top backroom boys, who sits on the board of many companies in which the Kedah-born businessman has a controlling stake.
  
  Ooi currently sits on the board of Malakoff and MMC Corp Bhd.
  It is further understood that Hong Leong Bank Bhd and Public Bank Bhd are the two top banks working with Ooi on the privatisation.
  
  "Hong Leong and Public Bank will help provide the financing for the exercise. It is scheduled to take place in the first quarter of this year," said the source.
  
  Business Times was also told that DRB-HICOM could be taken private for between RM3.50 and RM4 a share, and that the exercise will be solely driven by Syed Mokhtar, who controls some 55 per cent of the company.
  
  Syed Mokhtar, 61, could fork out as much as RM7.73 billion to take DRB-HICOM private.
  
  The exercise comes barely a year after he bought Proton Holdings Bhd at RM5.50 a share or 24 times estimated earnings.
  At RM4 a share, DRB-HICOM is valued at RM7.73 billion.
  
  The stock closed at RM2.63 a share yesterday, giving it a market capitalisation of RM5.08 billion.
  
  "None of the other shareholders are involved. It is a standalone bid as DRB-HICOM is severely undervalued. Its landbank itself has a net worth of RM10 billion," said the source.
  
  Neither Syed Mokthar nor his representatives on the board of DRB-HICOM have briefed the board on the planned exercise.
  
  "When they are ready with the money and the numbers tally, they will file in straight the offer to take DRB-HICOM private to the company secretary," said the source.

On today's Business Times again.

• DRB-HICOM: We've not received any privatisation proposals
  
  Published: 2013/01/11
  
  KUALA LUMPUR: DRB-HICOM Bhd is unaware of and has not received any proposals to privatise the country's largest automotive group.
  
  DRB-HICOM managing director Datuk Seri Mohd Khamil Jamil said the group was surprised by the news like everyone else.
  
  "Let me clarify that there has been no indication on the group being privatised as alleged in the papers. For the time being, DRB-HICOM is in a state of rationalising Proton (Proton Holdings Bhd) as well as its operations," Mohd Khamil told reporters here yesterday after launching the all-new Suzuki Swift.
  
  Mohd Khamil was responding to a Business Times report that Tan Sri Syed Mokthar Al Bukhary, who controls some 55 per cent of DRB-HICOM, may make a standalone offer to take the group private.
  
  The low profile businessman had not notified the DRB-HICOM board about his intention, but would only do so once he has secured the financing to make the offer.
  
  It was reported that the plan is being helmed by privately-held Meridian Solutions Sdn Bhd. Meridian is a unit controlled by Syed Mokhtar's top financial aide Ooi Teik Huat.
  
  Ooi currently sits on the board of Malakoff and MMC Corp Bhd.
  
  DRB-HICOM reportedly could be taken private for between RM3.50 and RM4 a share, meaning that Syed Mokhtar, 61, could fork out as much as RM7.73 billion. The exercise would come barely a year after he bought Proton Holdings Bhd at RM5.50 a share or 24 times estimated earnings.
  
  At RM4 a share, DRB-HICOM is valued at RM7.73 billion. The stock closed seven sen higher at RM2.70 yesterday.

Why 'According To Sources' Financial News Should Be Stopped

Over the past years, we have seen it over and over and over again. The financial press highlights an extremely juicy piece of financial news based on an unknown source. (Do refer It's a million dollar deal and the stock mentioned then jumps higher upon the publication of the news, only to come crashing down once the parties involved denies the news.

Recent case? No Such Timber Concession!

Easy way out for the publishing newspaper is claiming a bad source or a bad mistake from their financial reporter.
Which makes me wonder. What good is the financial reporter if he/she is incapable of verifying the facts?

But the most damning would be the public questioning if the news was cooked up by the source or syndicates in an attempt to derive profits from creating such news.

It gets messier once the public questions if our financial news has now become a tool for the syndicates to broadcast their cooked up financial news.

Or what if the public asks if the financial news paper is in cahoots with the syndicates?

Whatever the reasoning, once the financial news based on unknown quoted sources, is refuted by all parties involved,  the financial news becomes a laughing stock.

Some might even asks why bother buying the newspaper at all, if the news published is based on such shady sources?

Best solution?
Well, if I may, I believe it's high time for our financial news editor to wake up and clean up this mess. Get the reporters to verify their source.

The public wants and deserves to read credible news and not news cooked up as a means to gain richness.

The authorities needs to look into this shenanigans.

Less we forget that it's also a waste of public money to have our corporate leaders of the corporations  mentioned in the news, take time off from their daily work to address such baselss news reporting.

And today, what do we have?

Business Times has published yet another source based financial news.

Sigh!

Yeah... sigh!

DRB, the stock mentioned, of course is currently moving higher SOARING HIGHER based on the news. Want to guess what happens once the news is denied?

• DRB-HICOM to go private?
  
  Published: 2013/01/10
  
  FIRST QUARTER TARGET: Tycoon Syed Mokhtar may make standalone offer, says source
  
  KUALA LUMPUR: Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar AlBukhary may make a standalone offer to privatise DRB-HICOM Bhd, the country's biggest automotive company, people working on the plan said yesterday.
  
  Business Times understands that the plan is being helmed by privately-held Meridian Solutions Sdn Bhd. Meridian is a unit controlled by Syed Mokhtar's top financial aide, Ooi Teik Huat.
  
  The low-profile 53-year-old Ooi is one of the Syed Mokhtar's top backroom boys, who sits on the board of many companies in which the Kedah-born businessman has a controlling stake.
  
  Ooi currently sits on the board of Malakoff and MMC Corp Bhd.
  It is further understood that Hong Leong Bank Bhd and Public Bank Bhd are the two top banks working with Ooi on the privatisation.
  
  "Hong Leong and Public Bank will help provide the financing for the exercise. It is scheduled to take place in the first quarter of this year," said the source.
  
  Business Times was also told that DRB-HICOM could be taken private for between RM3.50 and RM4 a share, and that the exercise will be solely driven by Syed Mokhtar, who controls some 55 per cent of the company.
  
  Syed Mokhtar, 61, could fork out as much as RM7.73 billion to take DRB-HICOM private.
  
  The exercise comes barely a year after he bought Proton Holdings Bhd at RM5.50 a share or 24 times estimated earnings.
  At RM4 a share, DRB-HICOM is valued at RM7.73 billion.
  
  The stock closed at RM2.63 a share yesterday, giving it a market capitalisation of RM5.08 billion.
  
  "None of the other shareholders are involved. It is a standalone bid as DRB-HICOM is severely undervalued. Its landbank itself has a net worth of RM10 billion," said the source.
  
  Neither Syed Mokthar nor his representatives on the board of DRB-HICOM have briefed the board on the planned exercise.
  
  "When they are ready with the money and the numbers tally, they will file in straight the offer to take DRB-HICOM private to the company secretary," said the source.

 Everything is based on the source.

The source throws in a seductive $4 per share privatisation and with DRB only trading at 2.63, isn't a no brainer the stock currently is flying much higher?

So once the story is denied, let me ask you, is it OK with you that our financial news is used to promote a stock so that certain parties can cook the stock much higher?