DANH SÁCH BÁN VỐN 2022 CỦA SCIC

by finandlife28/06/2022 09:04

“The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.” Lao Tzu

Link thoái vốn SCIC 2022 here

Tags: ,

Economics | General

Thông tư hướng dẫn cover warrant

by finandlife14/09/2021 19:29

Số: 107/2016/TT-BTC

Tags: ,

General

Điều 16. Giao dịch và các hoạt động phải được Ủy ban Chứng khoán Nhà nước chấp thuận

by finandlife06/07/2017 16:04

1. Giao dịch làm thay đổi tỷ lệ sở hữu dưới đây trong công ty quản lý quỹ phải được Ủy ban Chứng khoán Nhà nước chấp thuận bằng văn bản, trừ trường hợp công ty quản lý quỹ là công ty đại chúng:

a) Giao dịch chiếm từ mười phần trăm (10%) trở lên vốn điều lệ; hoặc 

b) Giao dịch dẫn tới tỷ lệ sở hữu của cổ đông, thành viên góp vốn vượt qua hoặc xuống dưới các mức sở hữu 10%, 25%, 50%, 75% vốn điều lệ của công ty quản lý.

Link thông tư 212 về QLQ

Link thông tư 210

Điều 44. Hạn chế đầu tư

1. Công ty chứng khoán không được mua, góp vốn mua bất động sản trừ trường hợp để sử dụng làm trụ sở chính, chi nhánh, phòng giao dịch phục vụ trực tiếp cho các hoạt động nghiệp vụ của công ty chứng khoán.

2. Công ty chứng khoán mua, đầu tư vào bất động sản theo quy định tại khoản 1 Điều này và tài sản cố định theo nguyên tắc giá trị còn lại của tài sản cố định và bất động sản không được vượt quá năm mươi phần trăm (50%) giá trị tổng tài sản của công ty chứng khoán.

3. Công ty chứng khoán không được sử dụng quá bảy mươi phần trăm (70%) vốn chủ sở hữu để đầu tư mua trái phiếu doanh nghiệp hoặc góp vốn sở hữu tổ chức khác, trong đó không được sử dụng quá hai mươi phần trăm (20%) vốn chủ sở hữu để đầu tư vào các công ty chưa niêm yết.

4. Công ty chứng khoán không được trực tiếp hoặc ủy thác cho tổ chức, cá nhân khác thực hiện:

a) Đầu tư vào cổ phiếu hoặc phần vốn góp của công ty có sở hữu trên năm mươi phần trăm (50%) vốn điều lệ của công ty chứng khoán, trừ trường hợp mua cổ phiếu lô lẻ theo yêu cầu của khách hàng;

b) Cùng với người có liên quan đầu tư từ năm phần trăm (5%) trở lên vốn điều lệ của công ty chứng khoán khác;

c) Đầu tư quá hai mươi phần trăm (20%) tổng số cổ phiếu, chứng chỉ quỹ đang lưu hành của một tổ chức niêm yết;

d) Đầu tư quá mười lăm phần trăm (15%) tổng số cổ phiếu, chứng chỉ quỹ đang lưu hành của một tổ chức chưa niêm yết, quy định này không áp dụng đối với chứng chỉ quỹ thành viên;

đ) Đầu tư hoặc góp vốn quá mười phần trăm (10%) tổng số vốn góp của một công ty trách nhiệm hữu hạn hoặc dự án kinh doanh;

e) Đầu tư quá mười lăm phần trăm (15%) vốn chủ sở hữu vào một tổ chức.

5. Công ty chứng khoán được thành lập, mua lại công ty quản lý quỹ làm công ty con. Trong trường hợp này, công ty chứng khoán không phải tuân thủ quy định tại điểm c, d và đ khoản 4 Điều này. Công ty chứng khoán dự kiến thành lập, mua lại công ty quản lý quỹ làm công ty con phải đáp ứng các điều kiện sau:

a) Vốn chủ sở hữu sau khi góp vốn thành lập, mua lại công ty quản lý quỹ tối thiểu phải bằng vốn pháp định cho các nghiệp vụ kinh doanh công ty đang thực hiện;

b) Tỷ lệ vốn khả dụng sau khi góp vốn thành lập, mua lại công ty quản lý quỹ tối thiểu phải đạt một trăm tám mươi phần trăm (180%);

c) Công ty chứng khoán sau khi góp vốn thành lập, mua lại công ty quản lý quỹ phải đảm bảo tuân thủ hạn chế vay nợ quy định tại Điều 42 Thông tư này và hạn chế đầu tư quy định tại khoản 3 Điều này và điểm e khoản 4 Điều này.

6. Trường hợp công ty chứng khoán đầu tư vượt quá hạn mức do thực hiện bảo lãnh phát hành theo hình thức cam kết chắc chắn, do hợp nhất, sáp nhập hoặc do biến động tài sản, vốn chủ sở hữu của công ty chứng khoán hoặc tổ chức góp vốn, công ty chứng khoán phải áp dụng các biện pháp cần thiết để tuân thủ hạn mức đầu tư theo quy định tại khoản 2, 3 và 4 Điều này tối đa trong thời hạn một (01) năm.

====

Case cụ thể,

CTy muốn thoái vốn khỏi cty QLQ, từ 51% xuống, nếu xuống dưới 51% sẽ không còn được loại trừ nữa mà sẽ vướn điều 44 thông tư 210, tức cty không được đầu tư quá 15% vốn vào một cty chưa niêm yết. Buộc phải thoái xuống dưới 15%. Giao dịch đồng thời, cần đầy đủ hồ sơ như chứng minh tài chính (ngân hàng), lý lịch tư pháp, sơ yếu lí lịch địa phương...

Tags:

General

Equity Analysis | Anatomy of the 10-K

by finandlife21/05/2013 09:19

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

Tags:

Economics | General

Investment Bank | Wall Street is back

by finandlife21/05/2013 08:56

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

Tags:

Economics | General

DISCLAIMER

I am currently serving as an Investment Manager at Vietcap Securities JSC, leveraging 16 years of experience in investment analysis. My journey began as a junior analyst at a fund in 2007, allowing me to cultivate a profound understanding of Vietnam's macroeconomics, conduct meticulous equity research, and actively pursue lucrative investment opportunities. Furthermore, I hold the position of Head of Derivatives, equipped with extensive knowledge and expertise in derivatives, ETFs, and CWs.

 

To document my insights and share personal perspectives, I maintain a private blog where I store valuable information. However, it is essential to acknowledge that the content provided on my blog is solely based on my own opinions and does not carry a guarantee of certainty. Consequently, I cannot assume responsibility for any trading or investing activities carried out based on the information shared. Nonetheless, I wholeheartedly welcome any questions or inquiries you may have. You can contact me via email at thuong.huynhngoc@gmail.com.

 

Thank you for your understanding, and I eagerly anticipate engaging with you on topics concerning investments and finance.

Designed by: Nguyễn Chí Hiếu