Đặt gạch tiếp 1 bài ở đây, rảnh rổi sẽ tóm tắt ý chính để mọi người tham khảo.

Still jet-lagged by 8 hours from a day and a half in London, I haven't slept for a good 48 hours and remembered I owe WSO my process for dissecting a10-k in the usual form. Before I get right into it, keep in mind every business is different and that will dictate the way you should read their specific annual report. What might be important to look at for an oil & gas company might be completely ignored for a hardline retail company, so don't take this as gospel when your PM tells you to get up to speed on a company and you remember the stupid shit old BlackHat told you was right and you end up missing something crucial to making an investment decision.

So with that, here is a full breakdown of how I like to look through a 10-K for the first time, what's important to focus on, and what can be glazed over (if anything) to save time and/or not confuse yourself. As always, I'll field questions afterwards if and when I feel like it to clear anything up.

Business Description

No matter how simple the business appears to be on the outside, I always go into researching a new business assuming I know absolutely nothing because chances are I do. On the cover page alone, I'll always highlight a few things: fiscal year end, headquarters location, and shares outstanding/market cap if included. Simple stuff, but I still do it no matter what.

Moving on, business description is the first portion of every K. Things that are surprisingly important to me include the history of the business and any historical changes in the company's defined reportable segments. The way a business perceives its moving parts is really important to understanding what they consider important. Sometimes management will decide to move from functional segmentation to geographic segmentation (or the other way around), or might simply consolidate segments or anything similar. I always want this in mind before I get into the granular aspects of the business so I have a frame of reference for how management looks at their own business. If I end up disagreeing it could be an interesting angle if we end up doing something activism-ish or if this may be a short candidate.

I always read the Business section in its entirety (note: I read every section in its entirety to be honest). Besides the things I've already mentioned, the obvious things to focus on are revenue breakdown by whatever segmentation they choose, key business relationships, and key business risks. The main things I'm trying to answer in this section are:

1) Where is the crown jewel of this business? I want to identify the cash generator/main earnings driver for the company. Most of the time this isn't going to be the same segment as what I'm looking for in #2, but it's very important to understand what the majority cash generator is for the company. Normally a company can't survive long enough without its bread and butter to develop any high-growth areas, so determining the key risks to it are just as significant as determining the catalysts to the explosion of another segment.

2) What is the major growth generator? Having a cash cow is great, but doesn't make for a compelling investment if it's growing top line at 1% annually. Normally management will make a point to highlight any major growth in a particular segment, but then again sometimes they won't. Always have this question in your mind when you're looking through segment information. If sales as a % of revenue have moved up from something like low teens to mid-thirties over the past few years, all the sudden you may have a good idea of where growth is coming from... or where a segment will have to pick up the slack as a crown jewel business starts to wither away...

3) Where are the key risks for #1 and #2? Section 1A will always list the risks to the business. A certain chunk of business risks seem identical in every company and can probably be skimmed, but firm-specific risks can be very important and disclose some important information. The things you can usually glaze over include the standard "macroeconomic conditions" clauses,litigation risks (unless it's a litigation-heavy business like a medical supplier, car company, airline, etc.), and key man statements. Specific things to look for might be in regards to expansion plans re: the growth engine and market share or other revenue losses re: the crown jewel. Management will usually outline what they think is scary about both of these things, and that will help you build a foundation for what you need to go out and investigate after you're done reading the K.

Properties

Skim through them, but usually not a big deal because there should be no surprises here. If it's a retailer and they provide historic square footage numbers, it's helpful to see how square footage has grown and you'll probably want to evaluate sales/sq. ft. over time to see how if the business has been able to grow its store base in an efficient way.

Commitments/Contingencies (i.e. Litigation)

Again, not particularly important for most but sometimes in lock-step with the business risks section, management might highlight a certain lawsuit or risk of lawsuit that could be make or break for the company. In those cases, obviously focusing on this section becomes a must. But when Kohl's has a $12M lawsuit hanging over its head in regards to a black woman's discrimination lawsuit after she got fired for shoplifting, you probably don't need to spend too much time figuring out what's gonna happen with that one.

Market for Equity / Selected Financial Data

The market for equity section should be pretty straight forward, and chances are if you decided to take a look at the company you already know where their stock has traded recently and if they have a dividend. Other times though you might want to at least skim over this to see if there could be any plans for a dividend or discontinuation of a dividend. Usually one of the more unimportant sections to me (except maybe Mine Safety Disclosures, haha).

Selected Financial Data is your first look at the actual performance of the business. I don't spend too much time here but I like to get an idea of the recent growth trends on the important line items, a sense of the margins at a high level, and anything particular that sticks out, like enormous one-time charges or a year where all the sudden everything fell off a cliff. These are really just things that quantify our idea of business risks, and hopefully we'll see these addressed later in the MD&A or footnotes. If not, we have some phone calls to make...

Management Discussion & Analysis

This, along with the notes to the statements themselves, are pretty much the bulk of the K for understanding what the hell is going on with a business. I spend a good amount of time scrutinizing this section and tend to re-read it once or twice before I feel like I'm actually done with that particular K. This is where the management team will outline their strategy and give a breakdown of what happened during the fiscal year. It's not uncommon for this section to be a way for the company to explain away their failures, or to pump a successful plan.

While I think this section is different for every company, the big things to watch for in getting acquainted with the way the business runs are 1) the important operating metrics that management uses to gauge performance, 2) any non-GAAP accounting that you might otherwise come across in an earnings release and be confused by, and 3) understanding the cash position of the business and seeing where any cash burn might be coming from. I always find myself playing the role of operator of a competitor, trying to scrutinize management's positions on everything they explain and coming up with a list of questions - no matter how basic - that I might have if they're still unanswered by the time I finish the annual report. This section also helps for providing some outlook and giving you better visibility/confidence in any projections you might make for an operating model.

Financial Statements / Notes

Before I get too excited, I always force myself to highlight in the auditor's note the phrase "fairly, in all material respects" twice, and "maintained, in all material respects" once. While most companies will have an unqualified opinion from their auditors, it's just a good exercise to make sure you don't miss any language changes or anything from year to year that might indicate something is a little fishy. I think it's a good habit to get into if you can help it.

Into the financial statements, I always go line item by line item to see if everything jives with what I think I now know based on the MD&A section. I'll highlight any lines or year-over-year changes that indicate significant strength or weakness, and all that good stuff. This post isn't about analyzing financial statements (and I don't want it to get too long) so I'm not going to dive into the color of what would be important... not to mention the fact that it varies from business to business.

Another good habit to get into here though is, while picking apart the statements and identifying any strange areas or major changes that manifest themselves in the numbers, create an ad-hoc checklist on a sticky note or notepad or something and write down all the things you wish you had an explanation for. When you go through the Notes to the Financial Statements (yes, you should go through this section with more detail than any other, no matter how long it is) you can then cross off every concern as they get answered in the notes. The ones left over are the ones you will probably want to ask IR about, or perhaps answer on your own from external sources such as other operators or sell-side analysts (if it's something they'd have expertise in).

Also a quick note: I have a (possibly dangerous) habit of almost completely ignoring the statement of comprehensive income. To this day I don't really understand what the point is and yet to be punished by it. I'm not sure if there's much intelligence to be gained from it and anything important enough to be on it is probably going to manifest itself elsewhere. This could be something I need to change, but like I said I haven't been punished for ignoring it yet.

Of particular interest to me are Revenue Recognition, Stock-Based Compensation, anything related to Inventory Management (if applicable for the company), and any accounting standards that require a significant level of subjectivity. I'll also make sure to understand how the company is accounting for their pension and evaluating the discount rates and other assumptions they use for it, which can often be indicative of the aggressiveness with which the company accounts for other things. It's a fair measuring stick in most circumstances, particularly when you're skeptical they might be a bit aggressive in their accounting.

Another thing about the notes to the financial statements... you will notice a lot of repeated language from earlier in the K, particularly from the MD&A and business description, but sometimes the company will slip little changes into the same language over time, and that's something to look for if your ADD will allow it. I guess this is really just my way of stressing the practice of reading the notes in their entirety even when you think you've already read something earlier. A lot of analysts will be too passive and possibly trust the company too much to notice funny little changes, but they can be the difference between recommending the stock and having a clear, fundamental misgiving that keeps you from doing so.

Apologies for the way this is scattered, but I have no other way of thinking about it... yet another thing to look at is the stock repurchase history of the business. As always, the three main questions I want answered to determine whether or not we're dealing with a quality management team: 1) are they skilled operators, 2) do they have capital allocation expertise, and 3) do they have industry-leading vision? Most of the time, only one of these is even required to have a good management team, and anyone with multiple traits is a slam dunk. So anything that quantifies these is important, and stock repurchase is one of many that do. Be sure to see how much is left on their repurchase program and factor that into your models as needed.

The Segment Information section is the last (I promise) part of the notes that should always get extra scrutiny. This is where you get the full breakdown of how much each segment contributed to the company as a whole, how much each subsegment (if that's a word) contributed to their respective segments, and how profitable each segment was. This usually is just a way to get more color in identifying or evaluating the crown jewel and growth engine areas of the business.

Follow-Up

After finishing with the notes and everything else, hopefully you have some questions left over. If you don't, chances are you just weren't asking enough questions and unfortunately might need to double back because you've been too lenient on the company. Now that we feel good about the K, I always move on to the most recent Q or two, an earnings transcript, etc. But before I do that, I always go to the proxy statement. Making sure you have a good grasp on the management team's background/history, their incentives, and how well they are lined up with yours as an investor, is just as important as having a good grasp on the actual business itself. Management quality is more or less important depending on how defensible an industry is, so the level of care to address that with is really up to the situation. Anyway - proxy statement, recent quarterly releases and transcripts, and any conference transcripts you can dig up are next on the docket after the K. If after all that you still have questions left (I hope you do) then it's time to hit the phones and any less than orthodox sources of information you can find. When you're looking for a business you want to own (or short) for the long-haul, you really need to understand what they're doing, and a lot of the time you just don't know what you don't know yet... so never pull the trigger too soon. Regret is a better feeling than poverty, or so my boss says.

Hope this wasn't too long for you guys, and I'm pretty sure I've rambled plenty enough in here. I found myself having trouble explaining what to actually look for since it varies so much from situation to situation, but if you can take one or two little pieces of information away from this then I think it's served its purpose.

I'll try and answer anything in more detail in the comments. Enjoy!

I hate victims who respect their executioners Follow BH & Co. on Twitter: @DumbLuckCapital twitter.com/DumbLuckCapital

Đặt gạch ở đây, rảnh sẽ dịch cho mọi người cùng tham khảo nhé! American investment banks dominate global finance once more. That’s not necessarily good for America

FOR a few tense weeks in 2008, as investment-bank executives huddled behind the imposing doors of the New York Federal Reserve, Wall Street seemed to be collapsing around them. Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, Merrill Lynch collapsed into the arms of Bank of America. American International Group (AIG) and Citigroup had to be bailed out and the rot seemed to be spreading. Hank Paulson, the treasury secretary at the time, recalled in his memoir that: “Lose Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs would be next in line—if they fell the financial system might vaporise.”

Across the Atlantic, European politicians saw this as the timely comeuppance of American capitalism. Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, blamed her peers in Washington for not having regulated banks and hedge funds more rigorously. European banks saw the crisis as their chance to get one up on the American banks that had long dominated international finance. Barclays quickly pounced on the carcass of Lehman Brothers, buying its American operations in what Bob Diamond, the head of its investment bank at the time, called “an incredible opportunity” to gain entry to the American market. Deutsche Bank, a German giant, also expanded to take market share from American rivals. The dominance that American firms had long exerted over global capital markets seemed to have come to an abrupt end.

Almost five years on it is Europe’s banks that are on their knees and Wall Street that is resurgent. Switzerland’s two biggest banks, UBS and Credit Suisse, which were expanding fast before the crisis, are still shedding assets. Royal Bank of Scotland, which for a brief time broke into the ranks of the world’s ten-biggest investment banks, remains a ward of the British government. The share of the investment-banking market held by European banks has slumped by a fifth since the crisis (see our special report), with many of the gains going to Wall Street’s surviving behemoths. JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup alone account for a third of the industry’s revenues. Two European outfits, Barclays and Deutsche Bank, have managed to share in some of these spoils since the crisis. Both, however, face hostile regulations at home and abroad that seem likely to crimp their global ambitions. And although HSBC has increased its share of some investment-banking markets, it is still well behind Wall Street’s titans.

What America got right

The industry over which Wall Street is reasserting itself is very different from the one it dominated half a decade ago. Revenues globally have fallen by about $100 billion, or almost a third. Employment has plunged, with London alone shedding 100,000 jobs. Pay has fallen too. Higher capital requirements and other regulations, including America’s absurdly complicated (and still unfinished) Dodd-Frank act, are likely to erode the profitability of the industry. The stellar returns earned by banks before the crisis and the massive rewards paid to their employees are unlikely to recur soon, if at all.

One of the reasons that American banks are doing better is that they took the pain, and dealt with it, faster. The American authorities acted quickly, making their banks write down bad debts and rapidly raise more capital. Those that proved unwilling or unable, and even those, like Goldman, that claimed they didn’t need it were force-fed additional capital. As a result America’s big banks have been able to return to profitability, pay back the government and support lending in the economy. This has helped them contribute to an economic revival that in turn is holding down bad debts.

European banks, in contrast, are continuing to shrink their balance-sheets and limp along with insufficient capital. Citigroup alone has flushed through $143 billion of loan losses; no euro-zone bank has set aside more than $30 billion. Deutsche Bank, which had insisted it did not need more equity, has at last faced reality and is raising almost €3 billion ($4 billion).

What Europe got right

European regulators have also contributed to their banks’ decline, in two ways. First, they are specifying how much banks can pay in bonuses relative to base pay. Second, they are trying to force banks to hold more capital and to make it easier to allow them to fail by, for instance, separating their retail deposits from their wholesale businesses.

The first approach is foolish. It will drive up the fixed costs of Europe’s banks and reduce their flexibility to cut expenses in downturns. They will therefore struggle to compete in America or fast-growing Asian markets with foreign rivals that have the freedom to pay the going rate for talent. The second approach is sensible. Switzerland and Britain are making progress in ending the implicit taxpayer subsidy that supports banks that are too big to fail. The collapse of Ireland’s economy is warning enough of what happens when governments feel compelled to bail out banks that dwarf their economies.

Some European bankers argue that the continent needs investment-banking champions. Yet it is not obvious that European firms or taxpayers gain from having national banks that are good at packaging and selling American subprime loans. Indeed, it is American taxpayers and investors who should worry about the dominance of a few Wall Street firms. They bear the main risk of future bail-outs. They would benefit from greater competition in investment banking. IPO fees are much higher in America than elsewhere (7% v 4%), mainly because the market is dominated by a few big investment banks.

Wall Street’s new titans say they are already penalised by new international rules that insist they have somewhat bigger capital buffers than smaller banks because they pose a greater risk to economies if they fail. Yet the huge economies of scale and implicit subsidies from being too big to fail more than offset the cost of the buffers. Increasing the capital surcharges for big banks would do more for the stability of the financial system than the thicket of Dodd-Frank rules ever will.

Five years on from the frightening summer of 2008, America’s big banks are back, and that is a good thing. But there are still things that could make Wall Street safer.

Economist.com

1. ABOUT THE REPORT

This report shows how vast amounts of land have been acquired for rubber plantations in Cambodia and Laos by two of Vietnam’s biggest largest companies, Hoang Anh Gia Lai (HAGL) and the Vietnam Rubber Group (VRG). The rubber barons are financed by international investors including Deutsche Bank and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) – the private lending arm of the World Bank.

It lays bare the culture of secrecy and impunity that has allowed these two rubber giants to gain rights to more than 200,000 hectares of concession land through secretive deals with the Lao and Cambodian governments. They have close links with the region’s corrupt political elites and operate with complete impunity, devastating local livelihoods and the environment in the process. Rubber Barons is the first exposé of the role of international financiers in these land grabs. Deutsche Bank has multi-million dollar holdings in both companies, while the IFC invests in HAGL.

Global Witness urges the governments of Laos and Cambodia to immediately cancel the rubber concessions in question, suspend and investigate VRG and HAGL’s rubber operations, and where there is evidence of illegal activities, prosecute the companies. It also calls on international governments to bring in and enforce regulations to stop international banks and financial institutions from continuing to turn a blind eye to deforestation and human rights abuses.

When approached by Global Witness in advance of publishing Rubber Barons, HAGL confirmed holding rubber plantations totalling 46,752 hectares in Cambodia and Laos but denied knowledge of any disputes with local communities or their involvement in illegal activities. VRG meanwhile stated the evidence presented to them was not true, but declined to confirm the status or holdings of its rubber operations in either country.

Global Witness

2. Sau báo cáo của GW, Bầu Đức trả lời với báo BBC như link.

3. Và tới lượt doanh nghiệp chính phủ 2 nước Campuchia, Lào phản đối như sau:

Tổ chức phi chính phủ Global Witness ngày 13/5 công bố báo cáo nhằm cáo buộc 2 doanh nghiệp (DN) lớn ở Việt Nam (VN) là Tập đoàn Hoàng Anh Gia Lai (HAGL) và Tập đoàn Công nghiệp Cao su Việt Nam (VRG) đang “chiếm đất”, hủy hoại sinh kế của người dân địa phương cũng như môi trường; đồng thời chỉ trích 2 Tập đoàn này đều không tôn trọng pháp luật, phớt lờ các quy định pháp lý về bảo vệ môi trường,  xã hội của Lào và Campuchia…

Global Witness cho rằng HAGL, VRG đã lập các Cty trên giấy để có quyền thuê những mảnh đất lớn, nhiều hơn số đất cho phép theo luật tại 2 nước này thông qua các mối quan hệ thân tín. Họ đặt nghi vấn về khả năng HAGL và các Cty liên kết được bố trí tổng cộng 81.919ha đất (47.370ha ở Campuchia); VRG và các Cty liên kết thì được tổng cộng 200.237ha (ở Campuchia 161.344ha)…

Ngay lập tức thông tin trên nhận được sự quan tâm của dư luận và nhiều cơ quan báo chí trong nước cũng như quốc tế, đặc biệt là sự phản ứng quyết liệt, mạnh mẽ từ những "người trong cuộc".

Phản bác trước cáo buộc trên, trả lời trên Đài RFA, ông Phay Siphan - Người phát ngôn Hội đồng Bộ trưởng Campuchia nói: “Báo cáo của Global Witness nhằm mục đích sỉ nhục và cáo buộc Chính phủ. Campuchia không ngạc nhiên với báo cáo này vì Global Witness là một tổ chức bảo vệ môi trường đối lập.

Chính sách phát triển nông nghiệp Campuchia không chỉ riêng cấp đất tô nhượng làm kinh tế cho các Cty VN. Việc nhượng đất đều dựa trên hai yếu tố cơ bản là khả năng tài chính đầu tư và tính chuyên nghiệp phát triển. Mục đích, phát huy hiệu quả trong công cuộc giảm nghèo và góp phần vào sự tăng trưởng kinh tế.

Việc phổ biến báo cáo như vậy không phải là hành động giúp giải quyết vấn đề ở Campuchia, không phải là đối tác để giúp hạn chế người vi phạm. Những gì nêu ra trong báo cáo là có động cơ chính trị, phê phán Chính phủ…”.

Sáng qua (15/5), ông Trần Ngọc Thuận - Tổng Giám đốc VRG cho Báo Pháp luật Việt Nam biết: “VRG là một tập đoàn lớn của Nhà nước VN. Khi đầu tư ra nước ngoài, chúng tôi luôn tìm hiểu kỹ và tuân thủ chặt chẽ những quy định pháp luật của các nước sở tại. Chúng tôi đã có văn bản báo cáo để phản đối vấn đề này tới Bộ Ngoại giao VN và Global Witness”.

Còn ông Đoàn Nguyên Đức - Chủ tịch HAGL khẳng định: “Cáo buộc trên là hoàn toàn không chính xác, vô căn cứ. Chúng tôi là một tập đoàn tư nhân lớn, một thương hiệu nổi tiếng, với nhiều cổ đông trong và ngoài nước nên chuyện thượng tôn pháp luật là việc đầu tiên chúng tôi phải thực hiện. Các Cty con thuộc HAGL đang có những hoạt động đầu tư vào lĩnh vực trồng cây cao su, mía đường tại Campuchia, Lào đã tuân thủ đúng theo luật pháp nước sở tại, bao gồm cả việc bảo vệ rừng.

HAGL không tham gia khai thác gỗ, kể cả gỗ có giá trị kinh tế cao trong khu vực nhượng quyền của HAGL. Chính phủ Lào và Campuchia  toàn quyền kiểm soát, sở hữu và quyết định đối với toàn bộ khối lượng gỗ. Global Witness chưa chỉ ra bất kỳ bằng chứng cụ thể nào, HAGL sẵn sàng đối chất từng vấn đề cụ thể mà tổ chức này đưa ra”. 

Theo thông cáo báo chí vừa phát đi thì HAGL đã đóng góp rất lớn cho sự phát triển của nền kinh tế địa phương bằng cách đóng thuế, tạo công ăn việc làm ổn định cho hơn 10.000 lao động và có đóng góp rất lớn mang tính cộng đồng như xây 2.000 căn nhà cho người nghèo, các trường học, bệnh viện, hàng trăm kilômét đường, hệ thống dây điện, nhiều cầu nối liền các bản làng; ngoài ra Tập đoàn này còn quyên góp cho những chương trình xóa đói giảm nghèo tại 2 nước Lào và Campuchia với tổng giá trị lên đến cả trăm triệu USD...

Minh chứng cho sự thật này, ông Khamphan Phommathat - Bí thư kiêm Tỉnh trưởng Attapeu (tỉnh mà HAGL đầu tư lớn nhất tại Lào) cho biết: “Mỗi dự án của HAGL đều tạo ra những đột phá về cơ sở hạ tầng, công ăn việc làm, an sinh đối với người dân nơi đây. Khoảng vài năm gần đây, Attapeu thay  đổi diện mạo từng ngày nhờ các doanh nghiệp (DN) đầu tư nước ngoài, đặc biệt là sự có mặt của HAGL”.

Phó Thủ tướng Chính phủ Lào Somsavat Lengsavad đã nhiều lần khẳng định ở các Hội nghị Đầu tư Việt -Lào: “Chúng tôi rất vui mừng nhận thấy các DN VN đã thực hiện rất đúng các thỏa thuận giữa lãnh đạo cấp cao của 2 Đảng, 2 Chính phủ. Một số địa phương chúng tôi đi thăm, đều thấy rằng các DN VN sang đầu tư đã cùng chúng tôi góp phần làm phát triển kinh tế, thu nhập của nhân dân tăng cao lên, cải thiện đáng kể đời sống, trí tuệ được nâng cao…

Ngoài chuyện làm ăn, các DN VN còn làm rất tốt công tác xã hội, mà HAGL với VRG là những hình mẫu về đầu tư nước ngoài hiệu quả và đầy tính trách nhiệm tại Lào, làm cho mối quan hệ đặc biệt giữa 2 nước ngày càng gắn bó, sâu sắc, tốt đẹp hơn...”.

Bên cạnh đó, Chính phủ Campuchia luôn ủng hộ, đánh giá rất cao những hoạt động đầu tư của VRG và HAGL tại nước họ.

Đài RFI (Pháp) cũng phỏng vấn ông Đoàn Nguyên Đức qua điện thoại và được ông Đức giải thích: HAGL không “chiếm đất” như cáo buộc, mà trái lại tạo việc làm cho hàng chục ngàn lao động tại 2 nước trên. Ông cho rằng đầu tư vào Lào và Campuchia có hàng ngàn công ty của Mỹ, Trung Quốc, Nhật Bản, Hàn Quốc… chứ không chỉ có riêng HAGL và VRG của VN.

Chính phủ 2 nước này đang khuyến khích nhiều DN trên thế giới đầu tư chứ không chỉ VN. Mục đích chính là giải quyết việc làm cho người dân địa phương, giúp có thu nhập tốt hơn và cải thiện đời sống vật chất, tinh thần. Nếu bất cứ dự án đầu tư nào làm cho người dân khó khăn hơn thì chắc chắn Chính phủ sở tại không bao giờ cho đầu tư.

Các DN mà làm sai thì sẽ bị ngừng hoạt động ngay; những việc chúng tôi làm được các cơ quan chức năng giám sát hàng ngày, chứ không phải muốn làm gì cũng được. Nơi nào HAGL đầu tư vào là tạo nên môi trường xã hội ở đó tốt lên, chứ không thể xấu đi! Những thông tin này, mọi người có thể kiểm chứng từ chính quyền các nước Lào, Campuchia hay VN.

Theo thông tin mới nhất, để tôn trọng sự thật khách quan cũng như để trả lời cho dư luận, cổ đông về những việc làm đúng pháp luật, minh bạch và hiệu quả của mình, chiều qua (15/5) HAGL chính thức gửi thư mời Global Witness đến VN vào đầu tháng 6/2013 để tham quan, kiểm tra bất cứ dự án nào của Tập đoàn này.       

Pháp luật Việt Nam

A professor stood before his philosophy class and had some items in front of him. When the class began, he wordlessly picked up a very large and empty mayonnaise jar and proceeded to fill it with golf balls. He then asked the students if the jar was full. They agreed that it was.

The professor then picked up a box of pebbles and poured them into the jar. He shook the jar lightly. The pebbles rolled into the open areas between the golf balls. He then asked the students again if the jar was full. They agreed it was.

The professor next picked up a box of sand and poured it into the jar. Of course, the sand filled up everything else. He asked once more if the jar was full.. The students responded with a unanimous 'yes.'

The professor then produced two Beers from under the table and poured the entire contents into the jar effectively filling the empty space between the sand.The students laughed..

'Now,' said the professor as the laughter subsided, 'I want you to recognize that this jar represents your life. The golf balls are the important things---your family, your children, your health, your friends and your favorite passions---and if everything else was lost and only they remained, your life would still be full. The pebbles are the other things that matter like your job, your house and your car.. The sand is everything else---the small stuff.

'If you put the sand into the jar first,' he continued, 'there is no room for the pebbles or the golf balls. The same goes for life.

If you spend all your time and energy on the small stuff you will never have room for the things that are important to you.

Pay attention to the things that are critical to your happiness.

Spend time with your children. Spend time with your parents. Visit with grandparents. Take your spouse out to dinner. Play another 18. There will always be time to clean the house and mow the lawn.

Take care of the golf balls first---the things that really matter. Set your priorities. The rest is just sand.

One of the students raised her hand and inquired what the Beer represented. The professor smiled and said, 'I'm glad you asked.' The Beer just shows you that no matter how full your life may seem, there's always room for a couple of Beers with a friend. :)

Trong vụ cướp nhà băng được cho là ở Cộng hòa Nhân dân Trung Hoa, một tên cướp hét lên: "Tất cả đứng im, nên nhớ tiền thuộc về Nhà nước, còn mạng sống thuộc về chúng mày!"

Mọi người trong ngân hàng nghe xong liền im lặng nằm xuống.

> Điều này được gọi là: "Cách thức khai tâm - Thay đổi những suy nghĩ theo lối mòn"

- Có cô nhân viên nằm trên bàn trong tư thế khêu gợi, một tên cướp hét lên: "Làm ơn cư xử văn minh, chúng tôi là cướp chứ không phải những kẻ hiếp dâm!"

> Điều này được gọi là "Hành xử chuyên nghiệp - Chỉ tập trung vào công việc mà bạn được huấn luyện!"

- Khi tên cướp quay lại, một tên cướp trẻ hơn (có bằng MBA) nói với tên cướp già hơn (kẻ mới tốt nghiệp hết phổ thông): "Đại ca, có phải đếm xem chúng ta cướp được bao nhiêu?". Tên cướp già gằn giọng: "Mày ngu lắm, bao nhiêu tiền, đếm thế nào được? Đợi đi, tối nay TV sẽ nói chúng ta cướp được bao nhiêu!"

> Điều này được gọi là: "Kinh nghiệm - Ngày nay thì kinh nghiệm quan trọng hơn giấy tờ, sách vở"

- Sau khi băng cướp rời khỏi, giám đốc chi nhánh định gọi báo cảnh sát. Kế toán trưởng vội vã chạy đến, thì thầm vào tai ngài: "Đợi đã, hay để 5 triệu chúng ta biển thủ vào trong số bị băng cướp lấy mất!"

> Điều này được gọi là: "Bơi theo dòng nước - Chuyển đổi những tình huống bất lợi trở thành thuận lợi"

- Người giám đốc tự nhủ: "Vậy thật tuyệt nếu cứ mỗi tháng lại có một vụ cướp!"

> Điều này được gọi là: "Hãy loại bỏ những điều khó chịu - Hạnh phúc là điều quan trọng nhất"

- Ngày hôm sau, TV đưa tin 100 triệu đã bị cướp khỏi nhà băng. Những tên cướp đếm đi đếm lại thì chỉ có 20 triệu. Chúng rất giận dữ: "Chúng ta mạo hiểm mạng sống của mình chỉ để lấy 20 triệu, bọn chó lãnh đạo chỉ ngồi chơi mà cướp được 80 triệu. Đúng là học hành, có bằng cấp thì chúng nó được ngồi cái ghế đấy, cướp tiền siêu đẳng hơn chúng ta!"

> Điều này giải thích tại sao: "Kiến thức thì giá trị như vàng"

KẾT LUẬN: Trong cuộc sống luôn có những điều chúng ta có thể nhanh chóng nhìn ra, có những điều không như chúng ta thấy từ bên ngoài, và chân lý chỉ mang tính tương đối.

Quan trọng nhất là thái độ đối với cuộc sống này, hay cách nhìn chúng ta lựa chọn để mang lại vui vẻ, hạnh phúc cho bản thân, cho những người thân xung quanh mình.

VFPress