2011年6月10日 星期五

換樓無望搞裝修 美化家居商機在

樓價高企,一些內地家庭眼見換樓無望,「把心一橫」花錢把原來的房子裝修,故此房市雖然淡靜,裝修市場的需求卻持續旺盛。城市人口增加,且中國家庭平均人口有下降趨勢,意味小家庭愈來愈多,對裝修和家俬的需求湧現。

內地人過去十年經歷了住宅市場開放,國家統計局資料顯示,中國每年售出的普通住宅物業總建築面積由1999年的1.3億方米,增長至2008年的5.93億方米,每年複合增長達到18.4%。大量新宅落成,裝修及家俬市場自然高速增長。

複合增長逾24%

據《中國統計年鑑》資料,2008年中國家俬零售市場營業額達41億美元,而1999年的數字僅為5.8億美元,十年之內每年複合增長24.3%。

從油漆、牆紙到浴室用品和家具,裝修及家俬市場的產業鏈很長,美化家居的市場更見蓬勃,亦更為多姿多采,部分小康之家開始顧及生活品味而裝修,層次已超過實際需要。葉氏化工(408)旗下的紫荊花油漆,過去三年穩定增長,若不是原材料價格波動,葉氏塗料部門期內的盈利應可再創高峰。

現在「紫荊花」漆在內地的知名度,較「葉氏化工」還要高。葉氏在中國這個潛力十足的市場取態積極,集團在這兩年把全國的銷售點由不足1000個,大幅增加至1500多個。

軟性宣傳也成為推廣這個市場的一個特點,早前葉氏化工便開展了一個名為「你裝修,我買單」的遊戲,呼籲業主為自己的房屋拍攝短片,並說明為什麼房子最需要改造,得到主辦單位評審賞識,便可得到8萬元的裝修獎金,可謂別出心裁。

家居不塗漆油,可以貼貼牆紙,群星紙業(3868)業務之一便是生產及銷售牆紙及家俬外層裝飾紙。

要把房子裝飾得有富有品味,家俬配搭不可或缺,售賣梳化的敏華(1999)、售賣家俬的皇朝傢俬(1198)及銷售浴室用品的奧普(477),業務皆與裝修有關。這還未計及在A股上市的一眾相關股,相關股份為數不少。

Euromonitor資料顯示,中國休閒梳化零售額由2004年的1830萬美元,激增至3.03億美元,年複合增長達101%,機構預測到2011年,梳化銷售額將達到7.61億美元,即是2009至2011年三年間複合增長36%;同一份報告指出,內地首五個梳化品牌,已佔去約四分之一市場,品牌對中國消費者有產生了影響力。

敏華憑藉Cheers(芝華仕)品牌在神州闖出名堂,成為市場佔有率最大的五個品牌之一。敏華上半年純利3.7億元,增長達46%。同樣主攻內地市場的皇朝傢俬,特意在香港建立展銷廳,務求藉着香港這個窗口,讓國際客戶認識其商品,務求把產品檔次進一步提高。

事實上,部分家俬股已獲得機構投資者的留意,好像皇朝傢俬便曾獲惠理(806)持股超過5%;敏華雖於招股市遇到冷鋒,但上市後業績續佳,開始吸引到大戶留意。

內地裝修家俬市場的商機存在,中國品牌在大眾化市場攻城略地,還向外資名牌佔據的高檔產品市場進軍,未來中國企業爭取高檔市場分額,將成為一種趨勢。

2011年6月9日 星期四

Beware This Chinese Export

Feature

| SATURDAY, AUGUST 28, 2010



IN CHINA, IF YOU WANT YOUR BUSINESS LISTED on an American stock exchange, you may find yourself talking to Du Qingsong. His electronics company was among the first to reach Nasdaq back in 1997. From the city of Xi'an, the end of the ancient Silk Road in central China, Du has put together half a dozen of the country's latest arrivals on the Nasdaq and the New York Stock Exchange. Yet it's hard to find him in their securities filings or even at his office, located in a room inside the headquarters of his son's beef company. That could be because Du was banned from stock-market activity, after drawing a four-year jail term for a 1999 fraud conviction.

Like their American counterparts, China's biggest businesses raise capital through underwritten initial public offerings. But in the past few years, hundreds of mid-market entities have gotten U.S. listings through a back-door maneuver known as a "reverse takeover"—in which an active Chinese business merges into a dormant American shell corporation that was registered for public trading. So Chinese medical-device vendor Winner Group merged into the shell of Las Vegas Resorts; tire maker Zhongsen International merged into Rub A Dub Soap. The stocks rarely surpass $1 billion in market capitalization, but their collective presence is substantial. More than 350 of these deals have been done in recent years, reaching, at their peaks, a combined capitalization of more than $50 billion.


A Barron's study of the most seasoned 158 China reverse mergers shows that in the first three years of each stock's trading, the median among them underperformed the Halter Index by a dismal 75% (see the chart, Relatively Lousy). The Halter index is composed of U.S.-listed Chinese companies, ranging from the American depositary shares of well-known names like Internet giant Baidu.com (ticker: BIDU) and telecom power China Mobile (CHL) to small-cap reverse mergers. The median of those China reverse mergers lagged behind the Russell 2000 index of small-cap stocks by 66%.
The billions in reverse-merger losses were shouldered by Chinese entrepreneurs, who thought they were raising capital the American way—and by American investors, who thought they were buying a piece of China's prosperity.

The lure for American investors is the wondrous growth of China's economy and the ascent of such benchmarks as the Halter USX CHINA Index, which rose more than 60% last year. But most reverse-merger stocks have proven to be a poor way to ride China's boom. Today, the market cap of these stocks has shrunk to $20 billion, a 60% drop.

Reasons for the stocks' disappointing performance aren't hard to find. The group has been a minefield of revenue disappointments and earnings restatements. Financial filings the companies make with the Securities and Exchange Commission often diverge from those filed with the Chinese government—by drastic amounts. Investor and analyst visits to corporate facilities in China reveal operations smaller and less impressive than shown in U.S. presentations. The companies too often select auditors who have previously signed off on the financials of companies that turned out to be busts. Some companies' securities filings don't disclose the involvement of promoters in China or the U.S., who—like Du Qingsong—have disquieting track records in the stock market.

These companies fall between the cracks of market regulation. The SEC's enforcement staff can't subpoena evidence of any fraudulent activities in China, and Chinese regulators have little incentive to monitor shares sold only in the U.S. Many reverse-merged companies admit in prospectuses that they haven't gotten required approvals under China's financial regulations. Yet the convoluted structures devised by lawyers in China and the U.S. have kept the companies out of trouble, says Mitchell Nussbaum, a lawyer with Loeb & Loeb who's arranged dozens of reverse mergers. But satisfying each country's legal requirements doesn't make the companies' shares good investments.

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, established under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to police auditors, recently warned against lax auditing of U.S.-listed Chinese businesses. The PCAOB plans to ask Congress to lift restrictions on the disclosure of its disciplinary proceedings against accountants. China is one of several nations that won't let the PCAOB inspect the local auditors used by U.S.-listed companies.

AS WITH THE MANUFACTURED GOODS that China exports to the U.S., there's an established supply chain for Chinese reverse mergers. At the Chinese end, promoters like Du Qingsong scout out businesses that are viable candidates for reverse mergers. Some of the companies are reorganized around their most profitable parts. These are then merged in share exchanges with American shells that are frequently provided by U.S. firms that deal in penny stocks. The Big Board or Nasdaq collect listing fees. Capital is injected by hedge funds, who in return get cheap shares in a private placement. The hedge funds often also get substantial say over the new U.S. company's hiring of key financial personnel. Among the active and well-known investment banks in these deals are Roth Capital, Rodman & Renshaw and William Blair. Bankers fete the companies at investor conferences; one even featured former President George W. Bush as keynote speaker. This week, as it happens, Roth Capital is hosting its annual gathering of reverse-takeover companies at Hawaii's Grand Wailea Resort.

Only a handful of reverse takeovers have made it from China to a listing on the most prominent U.S. exchange, the NYSE. One of them is China Green Agriculture (CGA), which produces fertilizer and operates greenhouses. In late 2007, the predecessor to China Green reverse-merged with Discovery Technologies, the dormant shell of a Mexican-restaurant operator whose stock had fallen to less than a penny a share. The deal was already complex. Before merging into Discovery, China Green's predecessor first merged into a New Jersey corporation controlled by Yinshing David To. To was a Chinese citizen who also goes by the names ShingHoi To and Du Chenghai. His father is Du Qingsong.

After surviving China's Cultural Revolution, Du Qingsong rose in the 1980s to become general manager of Sha'anxi province's largest fertilizer factory. Provincial officials then sent him to run a floundering maker of TV-tube components in Xi'an City. Du revitalized the state-owned enterprise and, by 1997, one of its units was listed on China's Shenzhen Stock Exchange. In September of that year, Du took two other subsidiaries of the state business onto Nasdaq, raising $42 million in one of the exchange's first China listings. But the Nasdaq stock, Asia Electronics Holding Co., went into a tailspin when Du disappeared in the summer of 1998.

He'd been arrested. Newspaper reports speculated that Du was the victim of a power struggle between his political patrons in Xi'an and their rivals. In 1999, a local court found Du guilty of "fraudulent investment schemes" and sent him to prison. China's securities regulators also barred Du from China's stock markets and any management role in a listed company. Nasdaq delisted Asia Electronics after its shares fell to pennies. At a subsequent corruption trial of the Xi'an branch chief of China's securities regulator, evidence showed that Du had given the branch chief 5,000 shares of his company before its Shenzhen Exchange listing. The regulator got a 12-year sentence after a bribery conviction.

Du, now 64, agreed to speak with Barron's when we called him. (Xia Ming, a China expert and political scientist at City University of New York, translated.) But, asked about run-ins with the Chinese government, Du cancelled the interview. He communicated with us, instead, by e-mail. His jail sentence, he wrote, was the result of politics. "After their investigation, they found nothing," said Du. "The court made the decision simply for the sake of a conviction." As for the alleged bribery of a securities regulator, Du said in the e-mail that government officials sometimes took shares meant for employees. "I merely acquiesced without objection," he said. "I only met him once. I never had any relationship with him."

Once the fertilizer company China Green became a U.S. stock in December of 2007, its SEC filings show that Du's son, whose New Jersey company had merged with it, controlled 38% of its shares. He later turned most of the stake over to China Green's chief executive, Li Tao, under the terms of an agreement worked out with the company's hedge-fund investors. Du's son retained 3%. "We always take cash for our consulting service," Du Qingsong wrote to Barron's , explaining the arrangement . "Of course, if the consulting service is for a listing, we also take some percentage of shares."

China Green says Du was not involved in founding or organizing the company, "directly or indirectly," nor did he receive any stock.

Du hands out an expensive-looking marketing brochure for his consulting firm AiDi Investment, with pictures of him alongside "directors" who its says include a partner of the well-known law firm Proskauer. The law firm says its partners have no relationship with Du. Many of the photos also feature an American stockbroker, Meiyi Mary Xia, who started a brokerage firm called Asia Pacific Securities with Du just before he was arrested in 1998. Her home is the address used for AiDi's American office and for the China Green shareholdings of Du's son. When the diesel-fuel producer China Integrated Energy(CBEH) did a reverse merger in October 2007, about 90% of its stock was held for a time by Xia. Her husband, Lawrence Xiao Xia Pan, was Nasdaq's chief China representative from 2005 to 2007. When asked about Du, Xia said, "I don't work with him any more," and hung up.

In scouting for reverse-takeover candidates, Du Qingsong has plenty of competitors.

One is Kit Tsui, who has helped deliver some of China's most volatile reverse takeover stocks, like the chemical supplier Gulf Resources (GFRE) and the cardboard makerOrient Paper (ONP). The two stocks rocketed from pennies a share to about 15 bucks around year end, ballooning the value of shares held by Tsui through entities like Max Time Enterprises. But trouble seems to haunt Tsui's deals. The company that first brought him to Nasdaq—a telephone manufacturer he'd started in the 1990s by the name of Industries International—had its main business forced into bankruptcy by Chinese authorities in 2004, and its auditor alleged that the company misreported related-party deals with Tsui. Tsui subsequently stepped down.

In June, the Amex-listed shares of Orient Paper plunged to 5 when a pair of investment researchers published a report declaring the company a fraud. The Hong Kong-based analysts, whose firm is Muddy Waters Research, said in their report that they visited Orient Paper's factory in January and found it idle and dilapidated. They calculated that the company's SEC filings overstated the value of its assets some ten-fold. Revenues were overstated 40-fold, the researchers estimated. They've shorted the company's stock. Muddy Waters said last week it stands by its conclusions.

Company spokesman Crocker Coulson said Orient Paper would have no comment, pending a board-commissioned internal investigation of the Muddy Waters allegations by the company's lawyer, Loeb & Loeb's Mitchell Nussbaum, who also declined comment. A money manager who spoke with company officials says they blame Tsui for the alleged irregularities. Barron's left messages at Tsui's offices in Beijing, Shenzhen and Shanghai. We heard nothing back. We also visited the address of Tsui's firms, China Finance and China U.S. Strategy, in New York, near Rockefeller Center, but building attendants said the floor was vacant.

One of the most controversial promoters of Chinese reverse takeovers, Benjamin Wey, continues to find work. Wey'shistory of suspension and censure by Nasdaq and state securities regulators has been amply reported, including a Barron's story ("AgFeed Trips on Its Way to the Trough," May 19, 2008). Since our piece describing Wey's work for the hog farmer AgFeed Industries (FEED), the company has missed production targets and its shares have slumped from 15 to below 2.50. The company could not respond to queries by presstime. In an interview last year with the English-language newspaper China Daily, officials of his New York Global Group investment bank claimed that 15% of the Chinese companies on Nasdaq were its clients. The firm has offices in Beijing and at 40 Wall Street in New York. On its Website (www.nyggroup.com), Wey's firm brags of alliances with four city governments and China's central bank. With hedge-fund operator Michael D. Witter—grandson of the brokerage founder Dean Witter—Wey last year announced plans to raise $300 million to invest in China companies. Neither Wey nor Witter responded to Barron's queries.

Kitchen-appliance maker Deer Consumer Products (DEER) doesn't mention Wey in its securities filings. But the Chinese language version of Wey's Website shows him flying with Deer's management in a private jet on the night before the pricing of a $75 million secondary offering underwritten by William Blair and BMO Capital Markets. Wey's latest success story is CleanTech Innovations (EVCP), a maker of windmill towers whose shares tripled to $9.50 shortly after a July private placement led by William Blair. At that price, the stock trades for 220 times last year's earnings.

THE REVERSE TAKEOVER of a China company usually coincides with a private placement of its shares with hedge funds. For instance, in the reverse merger of China Green in December 2007, hedge funds and other investors bought $20.5 million of the new company's stock. Among the frequent participants in such deals are Pinnacle Adviser's Barry Kitt, Barron Capital's Andrew B. Worden and Guerilla Capital's Peter Siris, who's talked about his Chinese stock holdings with this magazine.

Plano, Texas-based Kitt has invested in dozens of China reverse mergers—often taking the lead position in the private placement. When executives of China Green, the fertilizer company that had initially merged with the company controlled by Du Qingsong's son, rang the opening bell at their NYSE listing in April, Kitt was beside them on the balcony. In the reception that followed, Kitt thanked China Green for letting him invest. Kitt refused an interview and after he received e-mailed questions, our messages were blocked from his e-mail system.

As with most private placements of public equities—otherwise known as PIPEs—the investing public should think twice before following PIPE investors.

To test whether particular funds' participation augered well for investors, Barron'sstudied the performance of hedge funds' Chinese PIPE deals the same way we did all the Chinese reverse mergers. We analyzed data from Morningstar and Bloomberg using the statistics routines of the open-source project Rmetrics (www.rmetrics.org), which many Wall Street firms utilize. One of Rmetrics' developers, Yohan Chalabi, a Ph.D. student at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, helped write our computer scripts. We compared each stock's return, from the date of its reverse-merger announcement, against a benchmark's return for the corresponding period. Because the stocks all had different merger dates, this approach (known as an "event study") helps control for varying market environments. Then we looked at the median return for the group under examination (see charts, Relatively Lousy). Of the reverse mergers where Pinnacle was a PIPE investor, there were 23 stocks with at least one year of returns. Over that stretch, the post-merger return of those stocks slightly lagged behind that of the Halter Index, as it did for the 15 stocks in Kitt's PIPE portfolio that had three-year returns.

Relatively Lousy

From 2003, Barron's compared the cumulative return of 349 Chinese reverse-merger stocks against the Halter USX China Index starting from the merger announcement. The red line, below, is the Halter-relative return of the median of the 158 reverse mergers with three years of data. At the bottom, Halter-relative returns of reverse mergers banked by Roth Capital, or funded by Barry Kitt, or advised by Crocker Coulson.

[CHINa_4CHTS_c]

Investors would be well advised to steer clear of stocks like those in the PIPE deals involving Andrew B. Worden's Barron Capital. Of those China stocks, 11 had at least a year's worth of returns and their median lagged behind the Halter Index by 30%. For the seven stocks with three years of returns, the median fell short of the Halter Index by over 75%. The Barron Website features testimonials by the chief executives of Orient Paper and SkyPeople Fruit Juice (SPU) thanking Worden for his support. The Website invites companies to let him introduce them to lawyers and accountants who can help them go public. It boasts of his 20 years analyzing and investing in public and private companies, yet neglects to mention that during that span he pled guilty in a 1995 prosecution for wire fraud and settled an SEC civil suit that alleged he'd opened dozens of accounts and then stiffed brokers on losing trades. Worden didn't return calls or e-mails.

Buried in the exhibits of many reverse-takeover filings are agreements that often give hedge funds like Worden's and Kitt's extraordinary sway over the fledgling companies. In exchange for their PIPE financings, the funds get approval power over a company's choice of auditor, investor-relations firm and chief financial officer. One of the most frequently stipulated IR firms is CCG Investor Relations, which boasted last year that its "core group" of 15 clients had gained an average of 412% after listing on the Nasdaq or the Amex. CCG founder Crocker Coulson told Barron's that China offers "the most exciting economy and companies in the world." He has set up two blind-pool companies to invest in Chinese businesses.

But a longer term analysis of Coulson's client list shows performance that doesn't come close to his selective sample. As shown in the nearby chart, the median return among the 30 CCG reverse-merger clients with at least three years of trading history underperformed the Halter index by a whopping 70%, since their mergers. Coulson commented that these companies had only benefitted from CCG's services for a portion of their history as U.S. listings.

Hedge funds would seem to want to ensure that their portfolio companies hire only the sharpest auditors. Yet one after another of the reverse-merger companies hire the same small firms that certified the financials of companies that came to grief.

Dozens have hired Frazer Frost, the successor firm to Moore Stephens Wurth Frazer & Torbet. Moore Stephens, a Los Angeles auditor, gave clean audit opinions in 2004-05 to China Energy Savings Technology. Doubts about the balance sheet caused the SEC to suspend trading in 2006 and eventually file a fraud suit against the company, which is now defunct. The PCAOB found no deficiencies when it made its regular inspection of Frazer Frost and the firm's Asian-services partner, Susan Woo, notes that she and her colleagues go to China themselves to examine and audit clients. "We are the guard to the public and we have a responsibility," she says.

Accounting problems have recently surfaced at a couple of Frazer Frost's China clients. Even the investment banker of China Natural Gas (CHNG) consigned the stock to a Sell rating a couple weeks ago after the company admitted that its March balance sheet had failed to reflect a large bank loan from February. RINO International (RINO), a Frazer Frost client that makes equipment for sewers, has had three auditors and four CFOs in the past four years, while restating its financials twice. "Every company has some deficiencies in internal controls," says Woo. "These are newly public companies."

Another popular auditing pick is Kabani & Co., a small Los Angeles firm that the PCAOB found deficient in a routine inspection in 2008. Kabani audited Bodisen Biotech, one of the earliest China blowups. Bodisen's shares ran up to 19 with the help of commercials on CNBC, then tanked to 47 cents when the Amex suspended the stock in 2007 over the company's misleading disclosure of its relationship with Benjamin Wey's New York Global Group. Kabani has audited a number of Wey's other promotions and now audits China Green. Partner Hamid Kabani did not respond to requests for an interview.

As the "auditor of auditors," the PCAOB has sounded an alarm over the auditing of overseas businesses. A July 12 practice alert noted with concern that 40 accounting firms with five or fewer partners had rendered opinions on companies with China-based operations. "We take these practice alerts very seriously," says Greg Scates, the agency's deputy chief auditor.

AT THE END OF THE reverse-merger supply chain are the U.S. bankers, which include Roth Capital, Rodman & Renshaw and William Blair, among others.

Journey to the West

In all about 350 China companies have merged their way to the U.S. markets since 2003.

[china_bar_c]

The pre-eminent banker for China reverse mergers is Roth, the Newport Beach, Calif., firm whose promotional materials say that it pioneered the practice of PIPE financing and has helped raise more than $2.8 billion for 67 U.S.-listed Chinese companies. Roth works closely with hedge funds like Kitt's Pinnacle. Indeed, Kitt's son is an investment banker in Roth's Shanghai office.

The broker's analysts were caught flat-footed by the problems of banking clients like Orient Paper and China Natural Gas, cutting ratings and price targets after the shares had already slumped.

Questions have also begun to be raised by investors about banking client China Green. In SEC filings the company reported revenues of $23 million for 2008, but in its tax filings in Xi'an it reported less than $8 million. "CGA's financial statements are accurate," said chief executive Li Tao, in an e-mail. "Legitimate reasons exist for why [China's State Administration for Industry and Commerce's] reported financial statements do not match those numbers filed with the SEC."

Roth Chairman and CEO Byron Roth declined an interview, but in an e-mail said: "We take the due diligence process very seriously and perform extensive due diligence." Asked about the promoters Du Qingsong, Kit Tsui and Benjamin Wey, Roth wrote: "None has had any role in connection with any offering we have completed."

When asked how Roth's banking clients had performed as investments, the brokerage chief said the 70 China stocks that his analysts follow were up 120% in 2009 and down about 15% through early August. That didn't quite answer the question, so we ran the numbers ourselves.

Of the 28 Roth client companies with at least three years of trading post-merger, the median among them underperformed the Halter Index by one third over a three-year period. By comparison, the Roth client companies roughly matched the returns of the Russell 2000. Roth isn't alone as a banker for China reverse-mergers, of course. Running a similar three-year analysis of Rodman & Renshaw's banking clients, we found the 12 companies with three years' of post-merger returns performed some 70% worse than the Halter Index. Rodman's Chief Executive Edward Rubin says his bank focused on China in a big way in 2009, after most of these stocks had been reverse-merged and—he claims—abandoned by their original bankers.

The reverse-merger industry gathers in Hawaii this week at a Roth conference—a venue equally favored by China stock touts and by the sector's short sellers. The rest of us should probably stay home.


北美「股壇長毛」發功 內地民企「爆煲」成風

‧炒股就像看籃球比賽,除了基本面誰可看高一線,也要看臨場發揮;同樣道理,投資股票時基本因素及技術因素也缺一不可。戴約克及黃玲在20 頁「財金教室」從上述兩方面評估大快活(052)的短炒價值。

‧一個普通人活到七十歲,扣除「亂打亂撞」的日子,剩下的光陰不多,如何「善用萬多天」?錢志健在27 頁介紹兩位在金融市場有過風光日子的過來人,如何歸於平淡卻活得更踏實精采。

‧因為「大得不容倒閉」的想法,各國政府傾盡財力拯救罪有應得的大銀行。然而,從來沒有證據證明有銀行重要得非救不可,雷曼倒閉的不可收拾局面也不能視為反證。28 頁「THE LEX COLUMN」刺破too big to fail 的迷思。

6月5日,周日。眾所周知,香港「股壇長毛」David Webb以揭發本地上市公司「蠱惑賬」得享大名,粉絲不少,樹敵更多。

北美股壇亦有一位「長毛」,三十四歲,律師出身,姓【圖】,曾在上海執業,起初替外資在華併購投資穿針引線,惟也許耳濡目染多了,久而久之,對內地民企「另眼相看」,去年6月創辦網上研究公司Muddy Waters,轉而為對沖基金提供投資研究服務,專門針對「貨不對辦」的美加掛牌內地民企發出沽售建議,最新一家被「點中死穴」的是「對沖天王」John Paulson【圖】旗下基金持有逾一成四股權而成單一大股東的嘉漢林業(Sino-Forest,多倫多證交所代號TRE,在本港上市公司綠森集團〔094〕持股63.6%;綠森上周五申請停牌獲准)。

Muddy Waters開業不足一年,創辦人不過三十出頭,卻一而再令過去數年通過借殼形式在美加上市的內地民企「雞毛鴨血」,醜態百出,Carson Block的影響力,絕對不容忽視。這個「黃毛小子」來勢洶洶,從二事上可見一斑:①美國金融周刊《巴隆氏》不久前替Block做了一個專訪,一唱一和,力「插」美加上市內地小型股(《巴隆氏》2010年8月30日發表〈當心這種中國出口〉〔Beware this Chinese Export〕一文,其質疑內地民企的立場,早已彰彰明甚);②有「第一中國淡友」之稱的美國著名投資者Jim Chanos,最近大吐苦水,慨嘆北美上市企業名稱中只要有China或Sino任何一字,大大話話十家有九家股價給「質」至體無完膚,沽得落手者已少之又少。

對沖天王慘遭滑鐵盧

嘉漢林業成為Muddy Waters最新「踩場」對象,股價狂瀉,周日有紙出的香港報章,多有篇幅不小的報道,原因相信有三:①嘉漢林業持有本港上市綠森集團控制性股權,後者在長假期前主動申請停牌,原因雖未見申述,惟嘉漢與綠森關係密切,投資者有某種聯想,事屬正常;②John Paulson透過旗下基金持有嘉漢14.13%股權,據說在該股上周四、五一連兩天暴瀉中大幅減持,損失達3.17億加元,若把Paulson持有數值不菲的嘉漢債券計算在內,損失必然不止此數;③嘉漢董事會成員名單上不乏港人熟悉的名字,包括前和黃(013)董事總經理、現任嘉能可(805)主席馬世民(Simon Murray),而據綠森集團刊發的停牌通告,馬世民在綠森亦擔任非執行董事一職。

對沖天王老貓燒鬚,加上香港上市公司和本地名利場中無人不識的人物捲入紛爭,嘉漢林業本身雖不在香港上市,惟事態發展深受持份者、非持份者以至監管機構高度關注,理所當然。

Muddy Waters的報告引發嘉漢股價洗倉式下跌(從上周三收市價18.21加元,瀉至上周五收市5.23加元,兩日跌幅超過七成),公司在6月4日周六發表聲明回應,既就嘉漢嚴重誇大在雲南臨滄市森林資產的指控作出強烈反駁,同時反客為主連消帶打,以Muddy Waters在報告中自承建立了嘉漢空倉,力陳發表報告者別有用心,作出不盡不實斷章取義的「分析」,目的是興風作浪,為其創辦人及客戶牟取暴利。嘉漢還強調,為證報告對公司的指控子虛烏有,集團已責成一個獨立委員會展開調查,結果一出,便能還嘉漢一個清白。

設獨立委員會跟進

對外行人來說,Muddy Waters與嘉漢各執一詞,「真相」不易辨明。然而,老畢周末刊了該份長達三十九頁的報告,發現一個既「有趣」又重要,惟嘉漢在聲明中並未作出正面回應之處,不妨在此一提。

Muddy Waters對嘉漢最嚴厲的指控,除了集團在雲南臨滄市的森林投資,只及公司聲稱的十分之一,以價值計,誇大之數達9億美元,還有公司採用的「人工中介人」(Artificial Intermediary,簡稱AI)商業模式:AI聲稱購入木材,將之製成木屑後再售給客戶;嘉漢似乎有意利用這種迂迴曲折的手法,製造會計假象,在既未拿出任何資本亦未轉移任何實質貨物的情況下,誇大資產規模和銷售業績。

為令這些交易成為會計上的「事實」,嘉漢承擔所有與木材相關的風險和責任,有效時間由原材料運到AI的設施開始,直至加工成木屑為止,AI違約引起的任何損失則屬例外。集團在向監管機構提交的文件中指明,除了上述有效時間,AI承擔木材的所有風險及責任──由購入木材至售予客戶為止。為了使讀報告者易於明白,Muddy Waters以一幅製作精美的配圖,針對上述「似是而非」的交易詳作解構【圖】。

作為門外漢,老畢對Muddy Waters報告中的細節重點,理解未必完全正確,加上當事人已表明,將組成獨立委員會徹查事件據理力爭,誰對誰錯,此刻不宜妄下判斷。然而,從投資者的立場出發,老畢認為有一點值得討論:在投資世界,名氣不宜輕信。John Paulson在此役中慘遭滑鐵盧,令投資者看到,即使星級基金經理,在「盡職審查」(due diligence)上也可能處處漏眼,「醒目錢」(smart money)亦難保不會聰明一世蠢鈍一時;投資者在買入任何股票前,不自己做足功課只懂「追星」,蒙受損失咎由自取,責不在人。值得一提的是,被行內機構StarMine評為今年加拿大最佳選股人之一的Raymond James林業股分析員Daryl Swetlishoff,在嘉漢股價狂瀉一天前(上周三),以價值被低估、勢必受惠於亞洲木材需求和定價能力為理據,發出「強烈買入」(Strong Buy)嘉漢的投資建議。跟此君入貨,慘矣!

看淡中國亦成泡沫

然而,投資者亦應看到,Muddy Waters專找海外上市內地民企麻煩,曲線沽空中國,迄今大有所成。在內地決策當局竭盡全力防止「中國泡沫」之際,Carson Block、Jim Chanos等淡友於美加發難,掀起一股逢中必沽且看似必賺的熱潮;在整個北美洲,「中國泡沫」(China Bubble)已迅速被「看淡中國泡沫」(Anti-China Bubble)取而代之。一些財政健全、業務基礎良好的海外上市民企,價值正在逐步顯現!


放大圖片

著名基金買中資股頻損手

一名小小分析員指在加拿大上市的中國植林公司嘉漢森林賬目有問題,便能令公司股價大插,著名對沖基金經理保爾森(John Paulson)老貓燒鬚,出現虧損,但原來買入中資股失利的還有不少著名基金公司。另外,美國證監計劃發出公告,提醒中資股風險。

《華爾街日報》昨天報道,富達投資(Fidelity Investments)、私募基金凱雷集團(Carlyle Group)等基金都有投資近幾個月大跌的中資股。以「爆煲」中資股中較大規模的軟件公司東南融通(Longtop Financial Technologies)為例,截至5月中停牌前為止,公司市值蒸發近一半,股價為18.93美元。

根據Capital IQ整理的監管申報文件,富達在3月31日時擁有東南融通14.5%的流通股,假設富達隨後沒有增持或減持,富達這個投資損失約1億美元。

「誤買」問題中資股,其中一個原因可能是這些基金不是因公司前景佳而買入。Vanguard Group向《華日》說,持有中資股,純粹是反映了被動指數基金的持股。同樣中招的AQR、Renaissance Technologies LLC等對沖基金則通常以量化因素買股。

其他持有中資股的著名基金包括Citadel、Oaktree Capital Management等。高盛和大摩等大行有代客戶投資中資股,美國最大型退休基金CalPERS亦有這類股份。

但就算這些中資股股價跌至零,著名基金最多只是失威,不會虧損「入肉」,因為中資股一般只佔這些基金很小的比例。

《華日》又報道,美國證券及交易委員會(SEC)最快周四稍後發出公告,詳列投資於透過「反向收購」在美借殼上市的公司的風險。在美國,這些借殼上市的公司近年主要來自中國。

香港品牌喜見出頭天

I.T(999)派出一份理想的業績,加上佐丹奴(709)獲新世界發展(017)主席鄭裕彤密密吸納,香港服裝品牌最近成為全城焦點。港人品牌創出佳績,辛思維亦感到驕傲。I.T去年度全年錄得純利3.88億元,按年增長48%。除銷量增長外,毛利率亦由61%擴闊至63%,可見純利增長並不只靠「量」,亦有價格因素來支持。

I.T.去年購入日本潮流服品牌「A Bathing Ape」,後者僅有一個月業績納入資產負債表,暫錄得750萬元稅前虧損,集團目標是要在今、明兩年達到收支平衡。

I.T能否延續佳績,租金走勢備受關注。I.T去年8月以每月180萬元租下了銅鑼灣希慎道1號的舖位,最近又大舉租下尖沙嘴「The One」多個舖位,續租舖位租金上升的影響未反映在業績賬目上。舖位租金上升對零售商來說是壓力,不過若I.T重組了舖位組合後,銷售情況更佳的話,則可靠加價來出售產品,抵銷上漲的成本。

I.T佐丹奴各有亮點

佐丹奴股價上升,則有大孖沙增持的因素。交易所資料顯示,彤叔鄭裕彤密密在市場上吸納該股,在5月31日以每股平均價6.83元,購入1280萬股,涉資8700多萬元,增持後「彤叔」於佐丹奴的持股量由16.2%上升至17.1%。

佐丹奴最具價值的資產,是其廣泛的零售網絡。現時品牌在內地的銷售點達1040個,覆蓋各大城市,其他零售商要快速進入內地,透過佐丹奴的網絡是個不俗的選擇。還記得在2006年8月,UNIQLO母公司Fast-Retailing 曾向佐丹奴提出全面收購,就是看準了佐丹奴神州成熟的銷售網絡,惜當時佐丹奴的基金股東要求高價方肯割愛,令到Fast Retailing最終放棄全購。

服裝品牌股較紡織股的市盈率為高,相信一般散戶也知道。德永佳(321)多次想分拆零售業務上市,惟到最後也只聞樓梯響。集團主要經營「Baleno」、「I.P Zone」等品牌,在內地擁有超過2000個銷售點,內地人或不識I.T,但多能認得班尼路(Baleno的中文名稱牌子),這個網絡有一定可塑性。

彭博綜合券商預測,I.T的預測市盈率18倍,佐丹奴的預測市盈率17倍,暫時沒有券商評德永佳,假設未來每股盈利增長一成,整間公司現時預測市盈率是10倍,大股東會不會重提分拆故事?

全國機場掀擴容潮


航空業的發展與經濟息息相關,亞洲經濟增長,同時促使了航空業的發展。新興市場,尤其是中國機會處處,不過市場競爭亦轉趨白熱化。根據內地民航「十二五」規劃,未來5年,中國將新增機場56個。而目前包括首都機場(694)、美蘭機場(357)在內的多個地機場,均在積極擴容之中,為香港機場發展帶來更大挑戰。

亞洲航空業的發展,比起成熟的歐美市場更具爆發力。航空諮詢Ascend預測,未來10年全球約37%的新交付飛機將屬於亞太區航空公司,佔全球機隊的比例將提高逾1倍至30%。而北美地區的新交付飛機只佔19%,機隊所佔比重亦將從35%下滑至27%。

亞太區航空業增長迅速之際,服務質素亦受到認同。早前,由英國公布的航空服務意見調查,香港取代新加坡,成為世界最佳機場,令港人感到欣慰。只不過,值得留意的是,北京首都機場亦名列第五位,內地機場的進步不容小覷。

根據中央規劃,未來5年,內地將投資4250億元人民幣,新修建機場56個,遷建機場16個,改建或擴建機場91個。到2015年,全國機場總數將達到230個以上,覆蓋全國83%人口。

同時全國將形成五大機場群,包括以北京首都機場為樞紐的北方機場群、以上海浦東機場為樞紐的華東機場群、以廣州機場為樞紐的中南機場群、西南機場群及西北機場群。

全國機場布局嚴謹,香港明顯被排除在外。未來所面對的競爭,絕對不止是臨近的廣州機場。除了北京及上海等國際機場之外,在奢侈品免稅政策的扶助下,海南美蘭機場旅客量亦得到提升,或分薄部分香港客源。美蘭機場目前正進行國際航站樓工程,期望到2020年,將旅客吞吐能力提升至每年3000萬人次。

事實上,首都機場2010及2009年的純利分別增長109%及250%。而美蘭機場去年純利亦有36%的增長。只不過,香港機管局方面,截至2010年3月31日,股東應佔溢利28.44億元,較2009年度上升9.9%。足見香港機場的增長動力,明顯遜於內地機場。

在內地機場不斷擴容的同時,香港稍不留神,恐怕會被大幅拋離。

旺財先旺丁 也談第三條跑道


曾幾何時,港府提出過要發展四大支柱產業,不過,到現在又有多少人仍記得這四大產業是什麼。隨便問路人甲,得到的答案是,「四大?我覺得香港只有自由行撐起的旅遊消費,以及支持內地公司IPO的金融業」。誠然,在物流漸漸息微下,目前支持香港發展的就只有人流及資金流。所以,為了保住重要的「人流」,機管局近期就提出要興建第三條機場跑道。

以轉口業務「起家」的香港,近年來在相關業務的發展已大不如前。參考政府統計處的數據,1990年代初期,香港轉口業務還是以每年逾兩成的速度增長,與內地出口增長率相若。只不過,2001至2010的10年間,香港的轉口金額只是增長了1.23倍,但同期內地的出口金額卻大增4.9倍,香港漸見落後。

事實上,隨着內地眾多沿海城市建立起先進的港口設施後,以及珠三角地區工廠北移,內地對香港轉口服務的需求已大為下降。早前,和黃(013)分拆香港及深圳部分港口碼頭業務,以商業信託基金形式在新加坡上市,亦被視作香港物流業步向衰落的重要訊號。

物流將死,剩下來支持香港經濟發展的,就只有內地自由行旅客所帶來的人流,以及海外與內地企業在香港股市互動,所推動的資金流。要令經濟持續發展,香港並沒有太多選擇,只能在人流及資金流繼續努力。

警惕物流教訓

資金流方面,惟有靠港交所(388)進一步吸引更多企業來港上市。但在人流方面,就算內地自由行旅遊政策擴大,也要香港有足夠接待能力。所以近日,機管局就發表2030規劃大綱,提出興建第三條跑道。

對於機管局所提出的數據支持,辛思維在此不再重複。不過,辛思維要提出的,是研究香港航空業的前景,有必要參考一下物流業的興衰。

參照香港物流業的發展軌迹,發現當內地港口未發展成熟之時,香港港口業務機會處處,與目前香港的航空業發展有點類似。除了以香港作為目的地的旅客之外,憑着有較多國際航線的優勢,香港機場目前亦是區內一個重要中轉機場。所以一旦機場服務飽和,旅客需求得不到滿足,人流難免步物流後塵,捨香港而去。

過往,香港引以為傲的是,社會硬件及軟件同樣先進。只不過,近年來,在經濟蓬勃發展之下,財大氣粗的地方政府,在硬件建設方面毫不吝嗇,目前不少二三線城市的機場亦頗具規模。雖然內地不少機場在軟件服務上仍比不上香港,但只要假以時日,其威脅仍不容小覷。

尤其北京、上海、廣州等多個一線城市的機場,除了硬件建設先進之外,近年亦增加了不少國際航線。內地二三線城市以及一線城市之間就可以輕易做好接駁的工作,試問為何仍需要香港?情況與目前香港物流業所面對的問題類似,所以,若不進行任何工程,香港作為客運轉口港的地位,恐怕岌岌可危。

航空發展具彈性

要保住香港所剩無幾的其中一項支柱產業,令人流繼續來港,從而促進本地消費,旺丁旺財,香港確有擴大機場容量的必要。當然,如何才能平衡環保與經濟效益,則仍待更多專業的人士進行探討。

雖然有關建設工程或能為香港部分基建股帶來發展機遇,不過,始終目前工程十劃未有一撇,難以知道誰能實際受惠。但香港機場人流的增加,一個肯定的受惠者,就非國泰航空(293)莫屬。

事實上,過去4年來,國泰的載客量一直頗為穩定,乘客數量達到2680萬人次,比起2007年,增長15%。乘客數量的增長,除了受到外圍經濟因素的影響之外,是否有足夠能力增加航班,滿足旺季需求,更是關鍵。增加航班與否不止是公司財力問題,更關乎機場容量,所以若有關擴建計劃落實,可望為國泰發展帶來彈性。

除國泰外,另一與機場業務息息相關的股份,還有香港飛機工程(044)。雖然近年來不少公司已將飛機維修工作轉到較為便宜的內地,金融海嘯後,該公司業績下跌了近4成,其後亦不見起色。去年純利7億元,比起2006年的8.4億元還要少。

未來若香港航空交通得到擴張,對於飛機維修的需求雖然有助增長,但相信相關的利好十分有限。反而公司近年在內地的業務拓展,才令人更具憧憬。

對於各企業來說,目前所說的利好利淡,仍然有點過早。不過,對於香港整體社會來說,受到物流業發展的教訓,對航空業的前景絕不能掉以輕心。