Thank you for your reply but I suggest you read up more foreign news, the local news are controlled and tell good things and only things they wanted you to know.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Economic News
- Thread starter FHBH12
- Start date
Thank you for your reply but I suggest you read up more foreign news, the local news are controlled and tell good things and only things they wanted you to know.
I had only said "They should have thought of scaling down the project until times are better." Did I say "They must...."? I was only suggesting, especially with regards to the highly suspicion that PETRONAS may be selling its stake in the project to ARAMCO for a song. At the end of the day, should PETRONAS will get the losing end of this deal, it is not going to make me any richer nor poorer. So, it doesn't quite matters to me.
If you still insist on pointing your fingers at The Straits Times, do go ahead as much as you like. I can only say that you are still very insistent, despite having already admitted that you are unable to prove. There's no need to further dispute on this issue. As Snowbird has said, you should read more Foreign news. And I also agree with him that a 50/50 deal will create more complications down the road.
Last edited:
Coffeeshop operator Kimly launches IPO; to sell 173.8 million new shares at 25 cents each
By: PC Lee
08/03/17, 04:09 pm
SINGAPORE (March 8): Kimly Group, one of the largest traditional coffeeshop operators in Singapore, is tapping capital markets to raise funds to grow its business operations.
In conjunction with its Catalist listing, Kimly is selling 173.8 million new shares at 25 cents each. These consist of 3.8 million shares for public subscription and 170 million placement shares. Together they represent 15.1% of Kimly’s enlarged share capital of some 1.2 billion shares.
Kimly plans to use the IPO net proceeds of $40.4 million for acquisitions, joint ventures as well as general business expansion; renovation of its existing food outlets; expansion of its corporate HQ and central kitchen; and development of technological capabilities and productivity initiatives.
Based on the invitation price of 25 cents, Kimly will have a post-invitation market capitalisation of about $289 million.
PrimePartners Corporate Finance is the issue manager and sponsor, while UOB Kay Hian is the underwriter and placement agent for the IPO.
As the master leaseholder of the food outlets under its management which includes coffeeshops, food courts and industrial canteens, Kimly leases food stalls to tenants, operates the drinks stalls within the food outlets as well as manages and provides cleaning services in the food outlets.
Of the 64 food outlets, 56 coffee shops and three industrial canteens are operated under the Kimly and third-party brands while the other five food courts, located mainly in tertiary institutions, are managed and operated under the “foodclique” brand.
The group also operates and manages 121 food stalls islandwide comprising 36 mixed vegetable rice stalls, 10 Rice Garden stalls, two teochew porridge stalls, 43 dim sum stalls, 29 seafood “zi char” stalls and one live seafood restaurant.
Group revenue grew at a CAGR of 7.6% from $148.9 million in FY2014 to $172.2 million in FY2016 while profit after tax increased at a CAGR of 9.9% from $20.1 million to $24.2 million during the same period. The group has no outstanding borrowings.
Kimly is recommending an annual dividend of not less than 50% of its earnings.
The invitation will close at 12 noon on March 16. Trading of its shares will start at 9am on March 20.
http://www.theedgemarkets.com.sg/ar...ail&utm_term=0_46b7beec93-2b81e9b1c3-90561809
By: PC Lee
08/03/17, 04:09 pm
SINGAPORE (March 8): Kimly Group, one of the largest traditional coffeeshop operators in Singapore, is tapping capital markets to raise funds to grow its business operations.
In conjunction with its Catalist listing, Kimly is selling 173.8 million new shares at 25 cents each. These consist of 3.8 million shares for public subscription and 170 million placement shares. Together they represent 15.1% of Kimly’s enlarged share capital of some 1.2 billion shares.
Kimly plans to use the IPO net proceeds of $40.4 million for acquisitions, joint ventures as well as general business expansion; renovation of its existing food outlets; expansion of its corporate HQ and central kitchen; and development of technological capabilities and productivity initiatives.
Based on the invitation price of 25 cents, Kimly will have a post-invitation market capitalisation of about $289 million.
PrimePartners Corporate Finance is the issue manager and sponsor, while UOB Kay Hian is the underwriter and placement agent for the IPO.
As the master leaseholder of the food outlets under its management which includes coffeeshops, food courts and industrial canteens, Kimly leases food stalls to tenants, operates the drinks stalls within the food outlets as well as manages and provides cleaning services in the food outlets.
Of the 64 food outlets, 56 coffee shops and three industrial canteens are operated under the Kimly and third-party brands while the other five food courts, located mainly in tertiary institutions, are managed and operated under the “foodclique” brand.
The group also operates and manages 121 food stalls islandwide comprising 36 mixed vegetable rice stalls, 10 Rice Garden stalls, two teochew porridge stalls, 43 dim sum stalls, 29 seafood “zi char” stalls and one live seafood restaurant.
Group revenue grew at a CAGR of 7.6% from $148.9 million in FY2014 to $172.2 million in FY2016 while profit after tax increased at a CAGR of 9.9% from $20.1 million to $24.2 million during the same period. The group has no outstanding borrowings.
Kimly is recommending an annual dividend of not less than 50% of its earnings.
The invitation will close at 12 noon on March 16. Trading of its shares will start at 9am on March 20.
http://www.theedgemarkets.com.sg/ar...ail&utm_term=0_46b7beec93-2b81e9b1c3-90561809
The rise and decline of Four Little Dragons
After a stunning growth performance, all four dragons are slowing and ageing. In the absence of drastic policy changes, they are facing relative stagnation, says Dan Steinbock.
In The Four Little Dragons (1992), US academic Ezra Vogel argued that the four little dragons-Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore-were the newly-industrialised economies, which had followed Japan's export-led growth model to prosperity. Unlike major advanced economies, which established their position in a century or two, the four dragons made their mark in just a few decades.
Today, the dragons' world looks very different. There is a common denominator behind Hong Kong's economic and political malaise, Taiwan president Tsai Ing-wen's effort to lean on the Trump White House, South Korea's mass demonstrations to impeach President Park Geun-hye, and Singapore's Future Committee's attempt to accelerate economic growth.
Political friction usually follows ageing and slowing. That's the common denominator.
Rise of dragons
Some half a century ago, the four dragons began extraordinary rapid industrialization starting with Hong Kong's textile industry in the 60s, followed by export-oriented industrialization in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, modernization and export expansion in Kuomintang's Taiwan, and Park Chung-hee's South Korea. From the early 1960s to the 90s, the dragons enjoyed high growth rates. In the process, they leapt "From the Third World to the First" within one generation, as Lee later put it.
In 1960, Hong Kong, the first dragon to begin the catch-up, still led in average living standards; it was only 20 per cent behind Japan, followed by Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea. But Hong Kong remained more than 30 per cent behind US In the weakest dragon, South Korea, living standards were barely 10 per cent of those in America.
As the toughest phase of industrialization was achieved by 1980, little dragons were still led by Hong Kong. Although trade-friction between the US and Japan was about to dominate headlines, living standards in Hong Kong were now only 25 per cent behind those in Japan, but still 45 per cent behind those in US
Usually, most economies' internal engines decelerate after industrialization associated high growth. However, the four dragons were in the right place in the right time and made the right growth choices. As China - the ultimate dragon - began its economic reforms and opening-up policies, the little dragons' went overdrive that supported their growth another three decades.
Today, living standards in all dragons, except for South Korea, are relatively higher than in Japan, which has been overwhelmed by economic stagnation. Intriguingly, living standards in Singapore are now on average 35 per cent higher than those in America; which Hong Kong has caught up with as well.
But easy catch-up growth is behind.
Shaky short-term prospects
In 2017, Singapore hopes growth of 2-3 per cent, although analysts expect it to stay below 2 per cent. Despite a strong last quarter in 2016, it is coping with economic malaise. Trade outlook is uncertain, due to new protectionism and regional tensions. Like Hong Kong, Singapore must also cope with the Fed's hikes amid a tight labour market and softening property sector. It is seeking new growth not just in China and emerging Asia but via economic integration with Malaysia and Riau.
Despite improved prospects, Hong Kong's growth is about 2.0 per cent. Its future is overshadowed by political angst. Even more than Singapore, it is exposed to global liquidity swings, US trade protectionism and China's rebalancing in the region. But unlike Singapore, Hong Kong has missed or continues to shun pro-growth integration opportunities. Failures in leadership are illustrated by the misconduct of former chief executive Donald Tsang and the weakness of his successor CY Leung.
South Korea's growth rate has been cut to 2.8 per cent, but economic momentum has moderated. Neither foreign trade, which is constrained by international environment, nor domestic demand, which suffers from indebted households, has been adequate to support strong growth. While rising inflation may generate a hike by the Bank of Korea, Seoul must cope with Chinese deceleration and US protectionism and Washington could also target it for alleged currency manipulation.
Despite improved forecasts, Taiwanese growth rate for 2017 is estimated at 1.8 per cent. Like Hong Kong, it is struggling with economic and political malaise; the former derive from maturation, the latter are largely self-induced. Thanks to growing political uncertainty, investment contraction could follow in due time, especially if friction with China will weigh on trade and investment.
Today, dragons are steadily ageing and slowing, as evidenced by steady and occasionally steep deceleration of growth in each.
Slowing growth
The four dragons are ageing. With demographic transition, birth and death rates are slowing, as evidenced by rise of median age. Among major advanced economies, it is highest in Japan and Germany (47), which are facing population decline. Among the dragons, it is highest in Hong Kong (43), followed by South Korea (41), Taiwan (40) and Singapore (40).
Worse, average living standards tend to mask broadening income polarisation in the four dragons. Among major advanced economies, income inequality, as measured by Gini coefficient, is the highest in the US (45), but significantly lower in Japan (32), France and Germany (less than 30). Among the dragons, it is highest in the financial hubs of Hong Kong (54) and Singapore (46), as opposed to high-tech giants Taiwan (34) and South Korea (30).
In the long-run, high living standards require solid growth and strong productivity, which usually rely on sustained innovation. Most dragons are driven by technology innovation, as reflected by their R&D per GDP. It is relatively highest in the world in South Korea (4.3 per cent), and in the top league in Singapore (3.2 per cent) and Taiwan (3 per cent), which have bypassed the US and Western Europe. However, Hong Kong (0.7 per cent) is the great laggard.
All four dragons need great structural reforms and inclusive pro-growth policies, including greater productivity, innovation and R&D investments; more dynamic competition and new enterprises; higher retirement ages, accelerated skill-based immigration, drastically reduced policy barriers to female labour participation; and greater efficiency of public spending. A greater stress on human capital also requires more progressive taxation, aggressive measures to reduce income inequality; and adequate job protection legislation.
Finally, as the dragons' internal growth engines are slowing, they must aggressively seek greater integration opportunities, especially through greater economic integration regionally and international trading arrangements.
In the absence of such changes, all four dragons could face creeping stagnation.
Dr Steinbock is the founder of the Difference Group and has served as the research director at the India, China, and America Institute (USA) and a visiting fellow at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more information, see http://www.differencegroup.net/
The original, slightly shorter version was published by South China Morning Post on February 28, 2017.
- See more at: http://news.asiaone.com/news/business/rise-and-decline-four-little-dragons#sthash.Qn1HV2ta.dpuf
After a stunning growth performance, all four dragons are slowing and ageing. In the absence of drastic policy changes, they are facing relative stagnation, says Dan Steinbock.
In The Four Little Dragons (1992), US academic Ezra Vogel argued that the four little dragons-Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore-were the newly-industrialised economies, which had followed Japan's export-led growth model to prosperity. Unlike major advanced economies, which established their position in a century or two, the four dragons made their mark in just a few decades.
Today, the dragons' world looks very different. There is a common denominator behind Hong Kong's economic and political malaise, Taiwan president Tsai Ing-wen's effort to lean on the Trump White House, South Korea's mass demonstrations to impeach President Park Geun-hye, and Singapore's Future Committee's attempt to accelerate economic growth.
Political friction usually follows ageing and slowing. That's the common denominator.
Rise of dragons
Some half a century ago, the four dragons began extraordinary rapid industrialization starting with Hong Kong's textile industry in the 60s, followed by export-oriented industrialization in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, modernization and export expansion in Kuomintang's Taiwan, and Park Chung-hee's South Korea. From the early 1960s to the 90s, the dragons enjoyed high growth rates. In the process, they leapt "From the Third World to the First" within one generation, as Lee later put it.
In 1960, Hong Kong, the first dragon to begin the catch-up, still led in average living standards; it was only 20 per cent behind Japan, followed by Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea. But Hong Kong remained more than 30 per cent behind US In the weakest dragon, South Korea, living standards were barely 10 per cent of those in America.
As the toughest phase of industrialization was achieved by 1980, little dragons were still led by Hong Kong. Although trade-friction between the US and Japan was about to dominate headlines, living standards in Hong Kong were now only 25 per cent behind those in Japan, but still 45 per cent behind those in US
Usually, most economies' internal engines decelerate after industrialization associated high growth. However, the four dragons were in the right place in the right time and made the right growth choices. As China - the ultimate dragon - began its economic reforms and opening-up policies, the little dragons' went overdrive that supported their growth another three decades.
Today, living standards in all dragons, except for South Korea, are relatively higher than in Japan, which has been overwhelmed by economic stagnation. Intriguingly, living standards in Singapore are now on average 35 per cent higher than those in America; which Hong Kong has caught up with as well.
But easy catch-up growth is behind.
Shaky short-term prospects
In 2017, Singapore hopes growth of 2-3 per cent, although analysts expect it to stay below 2 per cent. Despite a strong last quarter in 2016, it is coping with economic malaise. Trade outlook is uncertain, due to new protectionism and regional tensions. Like Hong Kong, Singapore must also cope with the Fed's hikes amid a tight labour market and softening property sector. It is seeking new growth not just in China and emerging Asia but via economic integration with Malaysia and Riau.
Despite improved prospects, Hong Kong's growth is about 2.0 per cent. Its future is overshadowed by political angst. Even more than Singapore, it is exposed to global liquidity swings, US trade protectionism and China's rebalancing in the region. But unlike Singapore, Hong Kong has missed or continues to shun pro-growth integration opportunities. Failures in leadership are illustrated by the misconduct of former chief executive Donald Tsang and the weakness of his successor CY Leung.
South Korea's growth rate has been cut to 2.8 per cent, but economic momentum has moderated. Neither foreign trade, which is constrained by international environment, nor domestic demand, which suffers from indebted households, has been adequate to support strong growth. While rising inflation may generate a hike by the Bank of Korea, Seoul must cope with Chinese deceleration and US protectionism and Washington could also target it for alleged currency manipulation.
Despite improved forecasts, Taiwanese growth rate for 2017 is estimated at 1.8 per cent. Like Hong Kong, it is struggling with economic and political malaise; the former derive from maturation, the latter are largely self-induced. Thanks to growing political uncertainty, investment contraction could follow in due time, especially if friction with China will weigh on trade and investment.
Today, dragons are steadily ageing and slowing, as evidenced by steady and occasionally steep deceleration of growth in each.
Slowing growth
The four dragons are ageing. With demographic transition, birth and death rates are slowing, as evidenced by rise of median age. Among major advanced economies, it is highest in Japan and Germany (47), which are facing population decline. Among the dragons, it is highest in Hong Kong (43), followed by South Korea (41), Taiwan (40) and Singapore (40).
Worse, average living standards tend to mask broadening income polarisation in the four dragons. Among major advanced economies, income inequality, as measured by Gini coefficient, is the highest in the US (45), but significantly lower in Japan (32), France and Germany (less than 30). Among the dragons, it is highest in the financial hubs of Hong Kong (54) and Singapore (46), as opposed to high-tech giants Taiwan (34) and South Korea (30).
In the long-run, high living standards require solid growth and strong productivity, which usually rely on sustained innovation. Most dragons are driven by technology innovation, as reflected by their R&D per GDP. It is relatively highest in the world in South Korea (4.3 per cent), and in the top league in Singapore (3.2 per cent) and Taiwan (3 per cent), which have bypassed the US and Western Europe. However, Hong Kong (0.7 per cent) is the great laggard.
All four dragons need great structural reforms and inclusive pro-growth policies, including greater productivity, innovation and R&D investments; more dynamic competition and new enterprises; higher retirement ages, accelerated skill-based immigration, drastically reduced policy barriers to female labour participation; and greater efficiency of public spending. A greater stress on human capital also requires more progressive taxation, aggressive measures to reduce income inequality; and adequate job protection legislation.
Finally, as the dragons' internal growth engines are slowing, they must aggressively seek greater integration opportunities, especially through greater economic integration regionally and international trading arrangements.
In the absence of such changes, all four dragons could face creeping stagnation.
Dr Steinbock is the founder of the Difference Group and has served as the research director at the India, China, and America Institute (USA) and a visiting fellow at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more information, see http://www.differencegroup.net/
The original, slightly shorter version was published by South China Morning Post on February 28, 2017.
- See more at: http://news.asiaone.com/news/business/rise-and-decline-four-little-dragons#sthash.Qn1HV2ta.dpuf
You know, it is fun to see your reply with so many fallacies. You tried to make what you think into "this is the facts"
1. You said: Already said time and time again, getting a bank loan is out | the rates will be exorbitant
Are you trying to imply bank lending money into O&G is almost gone? even they willing, high rate?
Petronas bond rating was not cut by rating agencies.
http://www.nst.com.my/news/2017/02/214469/petronas-cost-cutting-measures-producing-results
Gazprom To Seek First Eurobond Issue Since Sanctions
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-N...eek-First-Eurobond-Issue-Since-Sanctions.html
This is where we conflict: Petronas able to borrow at reasonable rate for RAPID project, banks will be willing to borrow. You think it is hard and even they borrow, rate will be high and make it unsuitable to finance via bank loan.... show me your prove on what you claim please
Oh...by the way, banks are not lending money to upstream oil exploration? Anyway, Gazprom, upstraem producer just this week, ady borrow money, can consider as slap face on what you said. I do not think bank will not willing to let money to Petronas for its downstream factory, petronas credit rating not affected plus this is not upstream activity.
2. You said: Aramco already committed certain amount of "work' for the RAPID
Aramco alraedy did something on rapid, as in construction? how me your evidence, appreciated.
3. 50%/50% means any decision need to be mutually agreed. How to hostile takeover, when anyone party not agree? 700m to blackmail???
4. Foreign press did mention about the 700M scandal. You said: scandal not over.
So? I dont know how you read foreign press, can read out of context? You trying to hint that 700M used as blackmail for military and rapid project...bcoz foreign press keep repeating the 700M? Ok show me prove that foreign press did clearly write that 700m is used as blackmail and you do not read out of context.
5. You said:50/50 joint venture cannot be a true win/win situation, any smart businessman will tell you this.
Then both party want to have equal say, you said 50/50 cannot be win/win, how to arrange then? You are not telling any logic at all, too much conspiracy.
So initially, you said, Saudi no money, deal have to cancel...kena slap face
Deal done, then make up your story, the deal, despite 50/50, is unfair deal, they pay less.
I already explain, we do not know the actual arrangement, please stop making your story.
You insist, link 700M to make the story flows, they able to get the deal unfair bcoz of the corruption.
I dont know how you read foreign news laaa can read until so special understanding coming out. If you think this is what foreign news told you, prove to me. Oh...maybe the conspiracy foreign news already deleted...hehe
I know you suggest scalling down, so i was wondering perhaps you know the downstream market better hence giving such advise.
I always read foreign news (if not i will not be the first one to be alerted to read straits times fake news) but i never read out of context..... winners and snowbird are expert in reading foreign news, prove? You wrote "why the flip-flop and with a reduced amount of investment by ARAMCO for this second time round?".... which foreign news said anything about the first round investment amount? You made it up or read it from foreign news?
And since you said 50/50 deal will create more complications down the road, perhaps you can elaborate further how 50/50 do not mean equal voice in business world? All i want is logic, not some fancy thought that make no sense. If either one party not agree, then decision cannot be on, this mean both party interest will be safeguarded, not?
Last edited:
Rotikok, you are getting awkward because instead of replying constructively, you are throwing the same questions back to us. This clearly reflects your lack of means to arguing effectively. There's no point in answering to you anymore. The whole RAPID project is estimated to cost $27b. If $7b can get one a 50% share, probably my maths has failed me badly. A 50/50 JV is never encouraged because of deadlock in decision making. What happens if one owner will disagree? There will then be a deadlock and its owners will end up in court, which is not ideal, not to mention incurring unnecessary costs to pursue this legal suit. In this case, both owners are from different countries and it is logical that they will give priority to their own country in terms of operational benefits. Any layman will agree that if PETRONAS will have 51% (or the majority) share, it'll be better, especially when the whole project is on Malaysian soil.
From my personal view, oil prices will remain sluggish for a long while because whenever there will be a chance for higher oil prices, those shale oil drillers in America will come in to eliminate that advantage. I believe those major Middle Eastern OPEC countries (and probably Russia as well) can ill afford to keep cutting productions, unless they would want to revise their economies drastically away from their extravagant spending as in the past.
The above are just my own opinions, not from foreign or local news, nor fake news. Just want to make myself clear here to avoid further unnecessary questioning by that recalcitrant Rotikok again.
From my personal view, oil prices will remain sluggish for a long while because whenever there will be a chance for higher oil prices, those shale oil drillers in America will come in to eliminate that advantage. I believe those major Middle Eastern OPEC countries (and probably Russia as well) can ill afford to keep cutting productions, unless they would want to revise their economies drastically away from their extravagant spending as in the past.
The above are just my own opinions, not from foreign or local news, nor fake news. Just want to make myself clear here to avoid further unnecessary questioning by that recalcitrant Rotikok again.
Last edited:
OMG!,
How to deal with someone who refuse to look at things logically and instead asking for proofs and proofs.
How to deal with someone who thinks that a business deal with 50/50 ownership is OK, especially its a multi billion$$$ business between 2 country with totally different culture and business practice.
Just like what Murphy's Law says - Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong, how to proof??
Use some common sense la.
And on the topic of looking at things logically, I have another example for you to think about.
When Najib came from China, he claimed to have brought back US$34 billions worth of deals and will benefit the economy.
But it can also be said that Najib went to China and gave China US$34 billions worth of deals.
Very simple, just look at the ECRL project (RM14.5 billions) which was signed in a haste.
Here, the Chinese will provide : "detailed engineering and design of the ECRL, procure all materials and equipment, and deliver the facility to Malaysia".
Which means from the smallest bolts and nuts to the rail tracks to the fully assembled locomotive and coaches will be all made in China and thus provide thousands of job opportunities for the Mainlanders back in China.
And when the construction of the track starts, the company rail company will be sending over thousands of Chinese over to do the earthworks, tunneling, construction work, etc. (you need a battalion of men to construct a 600km rail line)
Of cos, they will be using electricity and water from MY and definitely employ a few local ladies to man the reception desk for sure la.
So ultimately, whose economy actually benefitted from this deal?
Even if China's soft loan is interest free, they actually have more to gain.
This multi billion project was not even heard of 2,3 years ago was signed in such as haste without any formal feasibility studies on both the technical and economy aspect, had arose much suspicions.
With the next GE due very soon, some foreign news already speculated that this project was overly priced and there will be massive kickbacks to a certain people.
True or not, I don't know.
But, logical or not?
In addition, shouldn't an open tender be called for this project since it will be using tax payers money?
Government to government cooperation no need open tender la especially when China is providing the full low interest loan but still using taxpayer's money to pay back loan no doubt about this.
Here, China lends MY tens of billions$$$ and then MY pay them back in tens of billions$$$$(minus some "expenses" in MY) plus interests to buy their products and employs thousands of Chinese to produce the products, so the tens of billions$$$$(minus the expenses in MY) actually stays in China technically while My has to repay that whole tens of billions$$$ plus interest over 20 years.
Hope this is not too complicated to understand.
This is the economic benefits, but just whose.
http://news.asiaone.com/news/malaysia/china-pour-billions-malaysias-east-coast-rail-project?amp
Last edited:
Long deadline for Saudi Aramco deal with Petronas
"The final terms of the investment by Saudi Aramco into Malaysia’s biggest oil refinery project is likely to be firmed up only within a year’s time, sources said."
So apparently, the deal is actually not sealed yet.
So, all the finery and all the Ra-Ra show signing ceremony during the King's visit was to make the visit looks good and while actually only some sort of MOU or Letter of Intent that was signed with all the details yet to be finalized.
And according to the report, the Saudis are actually trying to squeeze for more - seeking some concessions from Petronas in terms of valuation of the deal, the discount is believed to be more than US$500mil equivalent in equity value for the joint venture.
US$7 billions for a 50% stake and they still want more, very good in squeezing!
Again, people will wonder if that world famous "US$700 million donation" has got anything to do with this.
So, whether the Saudis can succeed in the squeezing and get what they want, watch out for the Aramco/Petronas RAPID Deal Episode II.
However, if the deal were to fall through, there is always the super nice and super rich Chinese to turn to.
Read more at http://www.thestar.com.my/business/...deadline-for-aramco-deal/#GQS1WkBYFzyiTKL3.99
"The final terms of the investment by Saudi Aramco into Malaysia’s biggest oil refinery project is likely to be firmed up only within a year’s time, sources said."
So apparently, the deal is actually not sealed yet.
So, all the finery and all the Ra-Ra show signing ceremony during the King's visit was to make the visit looks good and while actually only some sort of MOU or Letter of Intent that was signed with all the details yet to be finalized.
And according to the report, the Saudis are actually trying to squeeze for more - seeking some concessions from Petronas in terms of valuation of the deal, the discount is believed to be more than US$500mil equivalent in equity value for the joint venture.
US$7 billions for a 50% stake and they still want more, very good in squeezing!
Again, people will wonder if that world famous "US$700 million donation" has got anything to do with this.
So, whether the Saudis can succeed in the squeezing and get what they want, watch out for the Aramco/Petronas RAPID Deal Episode II.
However, if the deal were to fall through, there is always the super nice and super rich Chinese to turn to.
Read more at http://www.thestar.com.my/business/...deadline-for-aramco-deal/#GQS1WkBYFzyiTKL3.99
I would disagree with you. This railway can be considered a National project. Since it will be using taxpayers' money to finance, everything should be transparent and open. Otherwise, how will the people know if there will not be another vendor/competitor who can offer a better deal and especially a cheaper one at that?
If I remember correctly, there exists an extensive feasibility study by HSS Engineers Bhd, which had estimated the cost of the 545km project to be only RM29b. How did it ballooned to RM55b, which is almost doubled?
Last edited:
It's not me who announced this but by the relevant MY minister, so your disagreement is with him.
In MY, when the minister says its a between a govt. to govt. project and an open tender is not required, then its is not required. Full stop!
The oppositions had already questioned the cost and had objected to this multi billion project and wanted a thorough study first before the commitment but to no avail.
As for the "ballooned" costing, didn't I mentioned here that there were already speculations of "exorbitant over pricing" by the oppositions and some foreign news.
Got it. You should have been more specific earlier.
Requote on what you and snowbird said "you should read more Foreign news". I truely believe willing to read vs willing to read it correctly are totally two different thing. You do not fail your maths, you only failed in reading foreign news correctly or like to read news out of context and failed to understand my previous post correctly. The pengerang integrated petroleum complex (PIPC) cost 27B usd while the single biggest project Rapid cost 16B usd. Aramco did not get 50% of stakes in PIPC, and i again stressed rapid arrangement is not a done deal, and at this stage there is no way we able to know the fairness of the deal. Whether there will be loan coming in, or if aramco want to bargain better deal in their favor since they will provide up to 70% of the raw material, we do not know at this stage nor do i willing to make blind guess and pull 700m to make up my own story.
My family had been in 50/50 land ownership with another datuk, luckily no conflict arised until now. But we knew from the very beginning, we need to get agreement from the other party and if conflict arise, it is in mutual responsibility to ensure the decision that act as the best interest for both party will be consider first.
A bit leceh...but i will agree with you on this one. 51% make things simpler and hopefully wont scare aramco away. If they insist 50/50 and provide other strategy benefit eg provide oil, then 50/50 still seen as favourable as the oil provider will not be forced into doing thing they do not want.
I dont really like to make guesses la... why import locomotove and coaches when they can make locally in china built kilang?
http://en.people.cn/n/2015/0819/c98649-8938437.html
https://youtu.be/xq2XIAHI2ws
You drew a good point, if you knew your small country starting to develop up and will need to import lots of cars...do you just import or make your own national cars? Look at Proton. First, i denial your claim "smallest bolts and nuts to the rail tracks to the fully assembled locomotive and coaches will be all made in China". Will be a mix, and assembly will be did in malaysia. Ohh...why sg mrt cart is made in china?
2ndly, malaysia do not need to build rail infrastructure every year nor have the size to make everything made in malaysia and pull down the cost nor malaysian intend to export their rail technology (they do not have any actually)
3rdly if china able to give cheapest price but everything need to be theirs, why not? We are after the economical impact after east coast open up.
But i have to agree with you. 1. Najib is after the vote in east coast 2. Economy impact havent been assessed 3. Is it cheap or expensive? Gov say is good deal and they compare with other more expensive project while opposition say it is expensive and say this can be even cheaper.
I only feel the loan arrangment is favourable and wonder if open tender, any country able to match such offer. If you insist of a open tender, i will support that too.
This is for the guy who still think that the Aramco/Petronas 50/50 joint venture is not an issue.
Right now, before the can agree on the additional concession, the two parties are still haggling over :
Who shall be doing the overall marketing and
Who shall be determining the appropriate personnel to run the operations and
Who shall be determining the pricing mechanism?
Can such issues be easily settled when both party has equal say?
Who will give in ultimately and if not, how?
Again. watch out for the answers in Aramco/Petronas RAPID Deal Episode II
Read more at http://www.thestar.com.my/business/...deadline-for-aramco-deal/#q74eJMmZjTP0rq5x.99
Right now, before the can agree on the additional concession, the two parties are still haggling over :
Who shall be doing the overall marketing and
Who shall be determining the appropriate personnel to run the operations and
Who shall be determining the pricing mechanism?
Can such issues be easily settled when both party has equal say?
Who will give in ultimately and if not, how?
Again. watch out for the answers in Aramco/Petronas RAPID Deal Episode II
Read more at http://www.thestar.com.my/business/...deadline-for-aramco-deal/#q74eJMmZjTP0rq5x.99
Well, still subject to further discussion. No report tells that they are already conflicted. Even at 51 advantages, at this initial discussion stage of future arrangement, i do not think you can force your way just because you are the majority. The other party not happy, there will be no deal be it 49 or lower.
If they want to have bigger say or gain concession, then they have to contribute more in return in order to be fair.
Aiyah, in short, i want to maintain the uncertainty in the deal, i can and willing to change my tone when i deem it is unfair, im still neutral. But you leh, already think it is unfair liao...bcoz of the 700m, so which part is unfair....you cant exactly tell too.
I refute your above claim of not "wiling to read it correctly". In the report from Reuters: UPDATE 2-Saudi Aramco to invest $7 bln in Petronas' RAPID oil refinery on 27 February 2017, it had said that, and I quote:
Can I now also say that you too had similarly "failed in reading foreign news correctly", or you will now tell me instead that even news agencies do report wrongly at times?
Even if what you said about $16b being the actual cost of RAPID vs PIPC's $27b, how is $7b equate to 50%?
Anyway, my original discontent with your post is that it is unfair for you to condemn The Straits Times without a valid proof, which you had already admitted. It's not about the 50/50 JV or the $7b poured in by ARAMCO.
Last edited:
So you suggesting that even with a majority share holding, you also have to give in because they are an important partner.
In business, you have to be firm when dealing with your partner and when you need to exercise your rights, you just do it!
You know why the foreign press always mention that "US$700 millions donation" scandal when reporting this deal?
Because they want the reader to look at it this way:
1. If the US$700 millions donation was indeed from the Saudis to Najib for him to win the last GE, then Najib has this huge obligation to return a favor and reciprocate in a few folds.
2. If the US$700 millions was never donated by the Saudis and they simply keep mum and don't "pecak lobang", they have a leverage over MY for any business bargaining and favors whenever they needed one.
So, the Saudis getting a very good deal can be due to reason 1 or 2 on the same US$700 millions donation.
Logic or not?
Jack Ma lauds Malaysia as business-friendly nation
Wednesday March 22, 2017
07:08 PM GMT+8
KUALA LUMPUR, March 22 — Alibaba Group Founder and Executive Chairman Jack Ma has described Malaysia as an efficient and very business-friendly nation to establish digital economy collaborations.
“Many asked me why I chose Malaysia to work together on the digital free trade zone (DFTZ).
“I told them that Malaysia is very business-friendly and much more efficient than I thought,” he said in his opening speech before jointly launching the DFTZ with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak here today.
Ma said the Multimedia Super Corridor project inspired him to pursue the digital world idea and moved Alibaba and Malaysia to realise the establishment of the e-hub near Kuala Lumpur International Airport.
“The DFTZ is the first digital free trade zone outside China, which will be utilising new technology to empower small businesses and young entrepreneurs.
“There will be a logistic hub to cater for the e-commerce business with a one stop service centre.
“It can grow to become a regional logistic hub that could deliver packages within 72 hours in the next 20 years.
He was optimistic that a digital economy would help increase gross domestic product (GDP) contribution from small businesses in Malaysia to at least 80 per cent.
Currently, small businesses in Malaysia contributed less than 40 per cent of the nation’s GDP with small and medium-sized enterprises accounting for about 97 per cent of total businesses. — Bernama
- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/m...business-friendly-nation#sthash.SyIWYoJo.dpuf
Wednesday March 22, 2017
07:08 PM GMT+8
KUALA LUMPUR, March 22 — Alibaba Group Founder and Executive Chairman Jack Ma has described Malaysia as an efficient and very business-friendly nation to establish digital economy collaborations.
“Many asked me why I chose Malaysia to work together on the digital free trade zone (DFTZ).
“I told them that Malaysia is very business-friendly and much more efficient than I thought,” he said in his opening speech before jointly launching the DFTZ with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak here today.
Ma said the Multimedia Super Corridor project inspired him to pursue the digital world idea and moved Alibaba and Malaysia to realise the establishment of the e-hub near Kuala Lumpur International Airport.
“The DFTZ is the first digital free trade zone outside China, which will be utilising new technology to empower small businesses and young entrepreneurs.
“There will be a logistic hub to cater for the e-commerce business with a one stop service centre.
“It can grow to become a regional logistic hub that could deliver packages within 72 hours in the next 20 years.
He was optimistic that a digital economy would help increase gross domestic product (GDP) contribution from small businesses in Malaysia to at least 80 per cent.
Currently, small businesses in Malaysia contributed less than 40 per cent of the nation’s GDP with small and medium-sized enterprises accounting for about 97 per cent of total businesses. — Bernama
- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/m...business-friendly-nation#sthash.SyIWYoJo.dpuf
Similar threads
