金迪生物科技（Bio-Treat）经审计后的全年净利，比之前发布的未经审计业绩当中的净利，少了8323万人民币（1620万新元），原本报3亿零528万人民币，审计后为2亿2205万人民币。
审计前后净利数据出现如此巨大的差别，主要因为销售成本、特别账项收益以及财务成本的差异。销售成本比原本呈报的高出7689万人民币，特别账项收益则比之前少4166万人民币，而财务成本比之前高出1937万人民币。
it make me feel that Bio-treat is swindling their investors.
Nov. 18, 2010 (China Knowledge) - China Angel Food Ltd, which principally operates food business in Guangdong Province, may delist from the Singapore Stock Exchange mainly due to extremely small transaction volume, sources reported.
According to the privatization offer launched by Fine Alley that holds a 49.82% stake or 159.59 million shares of China Angel Food, the latter firm is suggested to be delisted at an exit offer price of S$0.17 apiece, a price 13.33% higher than the closing price of S$0.15 on Nov.12.
In the past 12 months, China Angel Food's daily transaction volume accounted for only 0.05% to 0.07% of its total shares. Thus, Fine Alley hopes to delist the firm to avoid high listing cost.
Registered in British Virgin Islands, Fine Alley is partly owned by Liang Qiusheng who is also the chairman of China Angel Food.
In the third quarter of this year, China Angel Food booked S$4.8 million in net earnings, boosted by high sales, but the amount dropped 20% year on year.
At present, China Angel Food, which owns three well-recognized brands, namely Angel, QiWang and Yongtai, has a maximum annual output capacity of 7,200 metric tons of moon cakes, 3,786 metric tons of pastry products and 3,000 metric tons of cookies.
--------------------------------------------------------
The company may actually would looking for more money by raising IPO on other exchange in Asia or other part of the world.... greed is good?
Most of the Chinese company are like that....
FORGET the solemn Canberra talk of the need to follow FIRB processes in weighing the proposed Singapore stock exchange-ASX deal.
This will come down to a political decision -- a very fraught one. And in its current form, the proposal has no chance of receiving approval.
Instead, the Gillard government will want to loudly proclaim it is protecting the national interest on such a sensitive issue. The main question is what changes the government will demand and whether Singapore will be willing to amend the agreement sufficiently.
But as the deal is now formulated -- as a clear takeover by the Singapore exchange and where Australia has only four of 15 directors -- the politics are overwhelmingly stacked against it.
At the very least, the government will want a deal that looks far more like a merger than a complete takeover. Presumably backed by advice from the Foreign Investment Review Board, Wayne Swan will demand more equal board representation as well a range of other commitments.
That need for "give" is certainly understood by the ASX and its advisers at UBS, even if they won't want to acknowledge it. Just how much give is necessary or available is less certain.
The main hurdle in Canberra was never going to be the predictable criticism of the authoritarian Singapore government by the Greens or the outrage of independents such as Bob Katter. It is the need to get support from both Labor and the opposition to render those minor players irrelevant in the passage of legislation.
But doubts within both major parties about the risks and rewards of the deal won't be easily resolved. Against the background of political populism and financial jitters -- just look at the debate over interest rates -- any suggestion of loss of national control creates problems.
Even in the market, the particulars of this deal have as many critics as adherents. So to the extent that Canberra does actually listen to financial players, it won't necessarily find reassurance about the merits of such a tie-up.
For the ASX, however, the priority was getting the highest financial equation on the table first and worrying about the political equation second. In terms of money, this approach worked well. The $8.4 billion offer from Singapore Exchange was at a 37 per cent premium to the last trade share price of ASX on October 22. The political equation is not so neatly calculated.
Certainly Canberra is going to reject any notion that a good deal for ASX shareholders implies a good deal for the country. It will only be more suspicious that self-interest, rather than national interest, is driving the deal. But the basic ASX argument is to suggest this will be win-win.
It maintains that the crucial regulatory infrastructure, including licensing, clearing and settlement and listings rules, will continue to be controlled in Australia so there will be no change to the standards and integrity of the market. In addition, the ASX maintains that the only alternative to linking up with another exchange is an Australian stock exchange that becomes progressively less significant in global terms and less able to provide necessary liquidity and capital as other exchanges consolidate. It points to the fate of a shrinking New Zealand stock exchange after it refused to link up with Australia. And it says the Singapore deal gives Australian companies and investors much better exposure and access to Asia, the world's fastest-growing region.
It also suggests that the decision of the government to allow competition next year in the form of Chi-X Australia means that the ASX had no choice but to look internationally.
Unfortunately, this was just at the time when that same prospect of domestic competition had driven down the ASX's own relative market cap and restricted the ability to do a merger of equals.
Outgoing chief executive Robert Elstone expressed those sentiments in announcing the deal on October 25. "Policies of governments to fragment their domestic markets to open them up to competition means the importance of scale and technology, product offering, tapping into the largest possible savings pool -- all of these parameters take on far more significance," he declared.
"I think the choice for the government will be a stark one -- is the national interest best served by boxing the domestic exchange into its existing strong but confined to Australia franchise or should it allow its domestic exchange to truly internationalise?"
For the moment, that stark choice is being deliberately, if temporarily, downplayed publicly by the government, the opposition and the ASX following the initial excitement around the announcement of the deal.
The ASX is waiting to rev up its own arguments until the Singapore exchange formally lodges its FIRB application, now expected in the first week of next month.
The ASX has appointed David Gazard, who was an adviser to former treasurer Peter Costello and unsuccessful Liberal candidate for Eden Monaro, to work on the Liberals and National Party. It has appointed Cameron Milner, former Queensland state Labor party secretary, to work on the Labor side of politics.
But the lobbying will remain relatively light-handed while the FIRB process continues, probably for several months. The ASX wants to be seen to follow the rules. It also knows that to do otherwise would be counterproductive anyway, given the mood in Canberra.
The government is likewise attempting to contain the issue within FIRB and to chloroform a potential confrontation into next year before considering what sort of conditions and changes might be acceptable.
After all, it has plenty of other more urgent crises to deal with beforehand. Labor would also have to be convinced any revised deal is worth arguing for in terms of long-term benefits to the Australian economy -- and that it will not open up its flank to the Liberals.
The opposition has likewise pulled back on its virulent criticism, now insisting that it needs to see the implications of "potentially ceding control over an institution which is really at the heart of our financial system".
In reality, the Liberals want the onus of the decision to be on the government and don't want to be accused of blocking a deal before it is properly considered. But the opposition will be ready to criticise the deal as soon as it perceives political advantage.
And so far the ASX is yet to sell a persuasive political case. It was prevented from informally prepping the politicians ahead of time because it, of all companies, had to follow procedure on continuous disclosure. Even so, it wasn't ready to go with a strong national interest argument immediately, leaving the territory open for a few days of xenophobic attack.
Some political insiders say this sort of political furore was inevitable no matter what. The rationale is that this is a long game that will play out over many months so the first few days of hysteria didn't matter in the context of calmer consideration.
This all sounds logical on one level. But logic in Canberra is in short supply and the main political poker game will only start once the FIRB advice officially gets into Swan's hands next year. Certainly if FIRB advised against the proposal, it would be all over. But the predisposition in favour of foreign investments means that is almost certainly not going to happen.
More likely will be an outcome where FIRB suggests conditions while the government hardens those up and adds to them. This would avoid the political embarrassment of outright rejection undercutting the government's credibility while turning the focus on Singapore's willingness to compromise. It's the ultimate political bet on the market.
---------------------------------
Who do you think you are that you want to merger with ASX?...
Unless SGX belong to American that should not be a problem.
Hosting rice future and spot exchange maybe will have the "ERP effect" on selling the rice on the market.
----------------------------------------
Singapore could play a leading role in regional food security and help stabilize rice prices if it took up the opportunity to host a rice futures and a spot exchange, which includes the actual buying and selling of rice for immediate delivery.
In the report Never an Empty Bowl: Sustaining Food Security in Asia, produced by a high-level international task force on rice-based food security, the need for a rice futures market is highlighted.
The report says that, “Under normal circumstances, a robust and deep rice futures market should add substantial stability and transparency to the formation of rice prices, which would help build confidence in the reliability of the world rice market.
“However, the successful development of a commodity futures market depends heavily on the legal structure of the contracts (and their perceived enforceability) and on access to modern financial markets to provide the underlying liquidity that makes a futures market useful to traders. Singapore seems a logical place for a rice futures market because it can satisfy these criteria.”
Ambassador Ong Keng Yong, member of the task force and member of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) Fund Singapore Board that promotes and facilitates support for rice science, agreed with the report, highlighting Singapore’s potential to play a role in helping to secure the food supply of the region.
“The fact that we don’t grow rice commercially in Singapore means we have added impetus to take an active interest in the security and sustainability of our rice supply,” said Amb. Ong, who is the director of the Institute of Policy Studies at the National University of Singapore and ambassador-at-large in the Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Other notable members of the task force were World Food Prize recipient M. S. Swaminathan, Director General of the United Nations (UN) Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific Noleen Heyzer, Executive Director of the UN World Food Programme Josette Sheeran, and Director of the Centre for Chinese Agricultural Policy Jikun Huang.
The report, organized by the Asia Society and IRRI, and launched on 27 September 2010, says that climate change mitigation research, farming infrastructure, and market price stability are all needed to ensure reliable rice supplies. This could improve food security in Asia and decrease the number of people living in poverty there by 15% by 2030.
Also on the task force was Dr. Robert Zeigler, the director general of IRRI and the chairman of the IRRI Fund Singapore Board. Dr. Zeigler pointed out that Singapore was specifically mentioned in the report as a potential location for a rice futures market given its strong legal structures and transparent access to financial markets.
“The size of the Asian rice economy is approximately US$160 billion and Singapore is well equipped to handle this,” said Dr. Zeigler. "Significant storage and port facilities for handling very large volumes of grain will probably also be required to meet the needs of a regional or even global rice exchange.
“Singapore also has great potential as a regional leader in research investment, contributing to the next generation of plant scientists, and further strengthening its engagement with the wider region,” he added.
Weak US dollar could trigger rise in the price of crude oil, sending the crude over $100 next year.
Crude oil prices have hovered around $78 per barrel most of the year, providing little excitement as other commodities, including copper, gold, and cotton, have enjoyed record runups. Global economic growth has not been brisk enough to drive up Crude oil demand substantially, U.S. inventories have been ample, and the Saudis have been pumping enough to guarantee a plentiful supply.
A change in the crude oil markets may now be upon us. Crude may climb past $100 next year as central banks pump cash into their economies to revive growth, predict JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and Bank of America Merrill Lynch (BC). The Federal Reserve's decision to buy $600 billion of Treasuries from commercial banks should lower U.S. interest rates and weaken the dollar further. Investors may turn increasingly to oil and other commodities to get a decent return.
The Federal Reserve's actions are "likely to push prices upwards," says Antoine M. Halff, head of energy research at Newedge USA in New York and former principal administrator at the International Energy Agency. "The past few years have shown that the more cheap money in the system, the more money flows into commodities, in particular energy." Since the start of September, oil prices have climbed 17 percent, to a recent $86.96.
Crude Oil analysts are also watching OPEC for signs of its intent. Cartel members may seek a higher price as the depreciation of the greenback erodes the profitability of their dollar-denominated exports. Saudi Arabia's Oil Minister, Ali Al-Naimi, said in Singapore on Nov. 1 that a range of $70 to $90 a barrel should be satisfactory for consumers. The kingdom had previously indicated a target of $75 a barrel. "Al-Naimi spoke of a $70-to-$90 range for the first time," says Francisco Blanch, head of global commodity research at Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Research in New York. "The next threshold is $90 if Al-Naimi says he won't be putting any more oil in the market until we get to that level." Later, however, OPEC's secretary-general said the group was satisfied with a range of $70 to $85.
Growth in emerging markets will help reduce stockpiles of crude oil in 2011, says David Greely, head of energy research at Goldman Sachs (GS) in New York. The Paris-based IEA figures global oil demand will climb from 86.9 million barrels a day this year to 88.2 million in 2011. Hedge funds and other large speculators are getting into the act: They increased their wagers on rising crude prices in late October, according to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
There are still skeptics about $100-a-barrel oil, such as Sarah A. Emerson, managing director of Energy Security Analysis in Wakefield, Mass. There's plenty of crude to satisfy world demand without spurring a dramatic climb in prices, says the energy analyst. "This is a well-supplied market, and that won't be changing anytime soon," Emerson says. "At the end of the day, fundamentals matter."
The bottom line: After several years in the doldrums, oil prices are creeping upward. Some analysts are projecting prices at $100 a barrel by next year.
From WSJ.com
EPA
The last few days have seen a double blow to American hopes for reducing its heavy dependence on imported oil.
1st, on Tuesday the U.S. Geological Survey cut by 90% its estimate of the undiscovered hydrocarbon reserves beneath the National Petroleum Reserve on Alaska’s North Slope–the richest region for onshore oil production in the country.
2nd, one of the largest oil and gas producers in the American, Royal Dutch Shell, revealed that the Deepwater Horizon accident and subsequent drilling moratorium will significantly reduce for several years its oil output from the Gulf of Mexico–the richest offshore area in the American It also unveiled its third quarter results.
Already unrealistic hopes that the American could mitigate the profound economic and security implications of weaning itself off foreign oil by dramatically boosting domestic output are more remote than ever.
The news from Alaska is actually even worse than its seems on first reading. The USGS cut its oil reserve estimate for the NPRA from 10.6 billion barrels of oil to 896 million barrels, because new wells show that much of what was assumed to be oil reservoirs in fact contain gas, which has a lower energy content.
Of course, gas reserves have value, but their development can be very difficult to justify in such remote locations. Two major Alaska oil producers, ConocoPhillips and BP, have been debating for years how to monetize the huge gas reserves they hold in North Slope oil fields, but have so far failed to find an economic solution. Their plans to build a $35 billion pipeline to carry the gas to towns and cities in the lower 48 states are being reassessed and may never come to pass.
The reappraisal of the NPRA also raises questions about how much oil really lies beneath the perennial bargaining chip in the contest between environmentalism and energy security, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
On Thursday, Shell revealed that the moratorium on drilling imposed on the Gulf of Mexico in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster will have an impact on its ability to produce oil from the region for several years.
The company’s output is already 10,000 barrels of oil equivalent (boe) a day lower than it would have been without the moratorium, because it has been prevented from doing development drilling to boost output at existing fields. That shortfall will be at least 40,000 boe a day in 2011, a fall of 15% from the expected level, and could rise further because of anticipated delays in the issuance of new permits now that the moratorium has been lifted, said Shell’s Chief Financial Officer Simon Henry.
Other companies have yet to disclose whether they will also suffer a 15% cut in their potential production from the region, but everyone has suffered similar effects from the moratorium.
The impact of this on the American economy could be profound. The Gulf of Mexico produced 1.6 million barrels of oil a day in 2009, almost 30% of total American crude oil production.
Shell’s operations in Alaska have also taken a hit. Its plans to drill in the promising Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s north slope are on hold for at least 12 months after permits to drill this year were withdrawn after the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Applications have been resubmitted, but the process may take longer than expected, Henry said.
Shell has not even resubmitted its even more contentious applications to drill in the neighboring Chukchi Sea.
The prospects of a dramatic boost in domestic American oil production look slimmer by the day. If the country is serious in its intention to wean itself off foreign oil, it’s time to switch the focus from billion-barrel reserves to miles per gallon.
It will be depend more on Vietnam Govt. to stop intervention of her currency then your Vietnam Fund will look good. Do you think you're smart? See below is a news article from Bloomberg.
Vietnam May Devalue Dong Twice in 2011, Credit Agricole Says
Oct. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Vietnam’s dong is about 2 percent cheaper to buy in the black market than the rate banks pay and devaluations are likely in 2011 to bring the official exchange rate into line, according to Credit Agricole CIB.
The dong was trading at between 19,820 and 19,880 per dollar at money changers in Ho Chi Minh City this morning, according to a telephone information service run by state-owned Vietnam Posts & Telecommunications. The rate in the interbank market was 19,485 as of 9:35 a.m. in Hanoi. The Vietnamese central bank permits the currency to trade up to 3 percent on either side of its reference rate, currently set at 18,932.
Dollar liquidity has dried up because of the disparity between the official rate and market rate, forcing importers that need foreign exchange to buy euros instead, according to an Oct. 11 research note written by Dariusz Kowalczyk, a Hong Kong- based senior economist and strategist at Credit Agricole.
“The foreign-exchange market in Vietnam is distorted by all the regulations and by all the methods that companies are forced to use to circumvent them,” Kowalczyk said in a phone interview yesterday. “But the big picture point to make is that relatively soon after the last devaluation, the implied exchange rate is already 2 percent weaker than the official rate.”
Devaluations Coming
The last devaluation of 2 percent on Aug. 18 was “not large enough to balance the market,” Kowalczyk wrote in the note. The dong will probably be devalued by another 2 percent in February and by a further 3 percent in the northern hemisphere’s summer or autumn of 2011, bringing the official exchange rate to 20,500 per dollar, he wrote.
Vietnam’s inflation accelerated in September to 8.9 percent, the fastest in four months. The trade deficit widened to $1.05 billion in September from $395 million the previous month, according to preliminary General Statistics Office figures.
The currency’s weakness is being driven by Vietnam’s “large and persistent” trade deficit and by inflation, wrote Kowalczyk. The trade shortfall is putting “pressure on Vietnam’s balance of payments, requiring further devaluation in order to at least partially restore exports’ competitiveness,” he wrote.
We are now on the "currency war", every of the exporting country like to price cheaper in their currency. one good example is Vietnam and Vietnam Fund. You can see the different from there.
Date: 11 July 2010Below is a real case that happened before and is good to learn from it. Is good to know more about investment fraud, Ponzi schemes like an example that "Bernard Madoff" the US$65 billions investment scandal, the latest largest investment fraud so far. it will alway happen in anywhere anyplace if there is people tend to think of high yield high return investment with no risk, this is too good to be truth.------------------------In other instances, victims are persuaded to invest in sophisticated or exotic-sounding schemes commonly known as high yield investment programs ("HYIP"). Such investment schemes are usually offered via the internet with promises of high returns. Usually, the investment and withdrawals are made via e-currency, such as e-gold, e-bullion and INTGold. Many HYIP have turned out to be ponzi scams, where the invested funds from new entrants are used to pay existing investors. HYIP usually discloses little or no details on their management and the underlying investment to generate the promised returns.
The public should be wary of HYIP. Even if you receive your returns, it is often paid from the investment of newer entrants. Furthermore, most of such schemes operate anonymously over the Internet and could operate outside the jurisdiction of Singapore, making it difficult to investigate and recover monies when such scheme collapses.
Members of public should be suspicious of any deals that promise unrealistic returns with little risks. Avoid making hasty or immediate decisions. Find out more about the firm, salesperson and investment through independent and credible sources and seek professional advice if necessary.
基因水稻缘何起风波 (is Genetically Modified rice safe?)
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering/hands-off-our-rice
Rice photoessay traditional China:-
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/photosvideos/greenpeace-photo-essays/rice-photoessay-traditional-china
The big issue!
Rice is the world's most important staple food - with more than half of the global population eating it every day. It has been grown around the world for over 10,000 years and is cultivated in 113 countries. Rice is also a key ingredient in a wide variety of processed foods ranging from baby food to the more obvious rice noodles. But all this is under threat as genetic engineering (GE) continues to creep up on our most valuable food.
Today, gentically modified (GM) rice only exists in field trials. But all that could change tomorrow as agri-chemical companies and some governments around the globe are trying to commercialise it. Ecological farming is the safest solution to the food crisis and looming climate change disasters. Keeping rice GE-free is not just about consumer choice or the environment - it's a lot bigger than that. It's a matter of global food security, human rights and survival.
Stand up for your rice!
Risky business
The German chemical giant Bayer is trying to sell a herbicide resistant variety of GM rice to countries - for commercial planting. Conventional and organic rice is at great risk from being contaminated by GM strains and controlled by multinational corporations and governments.
The rice made by Bayer (called LL62) has been genetically engineered to withstand high doses of glufosinate, a herbicide sprayed on rice fields to control a wide range of weeds. It's no surprise that Bayer also makes the glufosinate. Any use of the GM rice will boost their chemical sales as a consequence. While this is a nice set up for Bayer shareholders it places farmers, consumers and the environment at risk. Glufosinate is considered to be so dangerous to humans and the environment that it will soon be banned in Europe in accordance with recently-adopted EU legislation.
The Bayer GM rice has been shown to have a different nutritional composition than its natural counterpart. It also has a high risk of producing superweeds by transferring its new gene to weedy relatives. Rice traders and producers worldwide reject the GM rice, because of high economic risks. The global rice industry lost some 1.2 billion dollars in 2006, when another GM rice variety from Bayer contaminated global food supplies.
Where it's at
Use this map to find out what is happening with rice accross the world. This map will be updated as events and government decisions happen.
(see this link: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering/hands-off-our-rice)
Keeping it real
We are campaigning to keep rice GE-free for the following reasons:
Genetic engineering is a threat to food security, especially in a changing climate. GM crops repeatedly failed under extreme weather conditions, and some GE plants yield consistently less than their natural counterparts. Earlier this year, GE farmers in South Africa, for example, lost more than 80,000 hectares of corn for unknown reasons. The best insurance policy against climate change and erratic weather conditions is diversity.
The introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by choice or by accident grossly undermines sustainable agriculture and in so doing, severely limits the choice of food we can eat.
There have been over 140 documented cases of GM crop contamination in the past 10 years. Once GMOs are released into the environment, they are out of control. If anything goes wrong, if crops fail, human health risks are identified or the environment is harmed, they are impossible to recall.
GMO contamination threatens biodiversity. Biological diversity must be protected and respected as the global heritage of humankind, and one of our world's fundamental keys to survival.
Find out what's wrong with GM crops in more detail (facts and references).
Find out how sustainable global rice production can be achieved without genetic engineering.
Life is not an industrial commodity
A young volunteer plants conventional rice in Thailand to create 'rice art' as a symbol against GM-rice.
Take action now to protect the world's most important food.
Read more about Bayer's GM rice.
|
