|
|
发表于 30-11-2007 03:56 PM
|
显示全部楼层
新闻。
Supermax 'too much too soon?'
Updated : 14-05-2005
Media : The Star
Story By : ERROL OH
THERE is no doubting the aggressiveness and ambition of glove manufacturer Supermax Corp Bhd and its controlling shareholder, Datuk Seri Stanley Thai, who is also its group managing director. Within just over three months, Supermax came up with two deals that have dramatically altered the company's status and profile.
Thai's admirers applaud these moves as strategic acquisitions, but the detractors wonder if Supermax has been hasty and if it has been bitten off more than it can chew.
To some industry insiders, the larger issue is whether the high-stakes rivalry between Supermax and Top Glove Corp Bhd will lead to a bubble of expectations that threatens to rock investor confidence if it bursts. Says an observer, Competition is always good, but when it involves so much hype and one-upmanship, you worry about what will happen if disappointment sets in.''
It is clear that Supermax is in a hurry to grab the top spot in the industry. At the start of the year, it was a distant second, while Top Glove was still celebrating its ascension to the No.1 position in the world's glove-making hierarchy.
Then, on Feb 3, it acquired a 12.9% stake in APL Industries Bhd (APLI), another listed glove manufacturer, for RM27mil. Supermax has options to buy another 7.2% and proposes to seek a shareholders' mandate to up its interest in APLI to a maximum of 32.9%. Thai was appointed APLI's chief executive officer on Feb 15.
Last Thursday, Supermax announced that it had acquired a 17.02% stake in Seal Polymer Industries Bhd, yet another listed glove maker, for RM33.6mil.
Unlike the APLI deal, there was no mention of Supermax acquiring additional shares in Seal Polymer, but in a press conference the same day, Thai told reporters that he did not discount that possibility. However, as is the case with APLI, Supermax will assume management control of Seal Polymer and Thai will be the new CEO.
Says an analyst who covers Supermax, ? think Stanley Thai won't be able to eat and sleep. He won't have the time because he'll be running three listed companies.''
That is said in jest, but it does reflect the concern of some observers that Supermax may have taken on too much too soon. in an industry where margins are thin, and efficiency and productivity are make-or-break factors, the quality of management is always of prime importance.
It is easy, of course, to list the benefits of having APLI and Seal Polymer in the Supermax stable. An obvious one is the ability to enjoy economies of scale and the fruits of synergy.
SBB Securities points out that the enlarged group has greater bargaining power with suppliers because it can consolidate its purchase of fuel and raw materials.
Another plus is that the group now has greater market coverage. Supermax has made its name primarily through its own brand of gloves, whereas APLI is mainly a contract manufacturer of low-end products and Seal Polymer operates in the high-end segment of the industry.
With the various locations, capacities and capabilities within the group, there is more flexibility to serve customers and improve operations.
Instead of having APLI and Seal Polymer as competitors, Supermax can now count on them enhancing its earnings. In its research note last Friday, Mayban Securities says it believes that the Seal Polymer acquisition will further consolidate Supermax's position as the market leader in the latex glove industry.
Indeed, a person can be forgiven if he believes that the chief objective of the two acquisitions is to enable Supermax to lay claim to the title of the world's largest glove manufacturer, based on installed capacity.
The company promptly did so after the APLI acquisition, only for Top Glove to immediately dispute that claim. Top Glove currently has a production capacity of 13.6 billion pieces per year.
On the other hand, Supermax and APLI have a combined forecast capacity of 17.78 billion pieces, but that is only when all their new production lines are fully commissioned next year.
Supermax must feel that it has ended the dispute over the capacity number with its control of Seal Polymer. Thai says the three company's total annual capacity is 15.8 billion pieces and this will vault to 23.34 billion by next year.
An industry observer says it is not always useful to compare capacities. ?t's pointless to talk about capacity if the factories are not running anywhere near full capacity. It's the revenue that counts. If the lines are idle, there are also costs involved.''
Others take issue with Supermax's method of taking up 100% of the production capacities of APLI and Seal Polymer although it owns only 12.9% and 17.02% of the two companies.
For that matter, Supermax cannot even equity account the results of these companies. Last Monday, Supermax announced that it had signed supplemental agreements to extend the deadline to exercise its options to acquire another 7.2% in APLI from May 4 to Aug 3.
That has led to some speculation. Observers question the wisdom of buying the additional shares for 70 sen each when it is cheaper to accumulate APLI shares in the open market. They point out that the stock is liquid and is trading below 50 sen.
Some analysts say it is uncharacteristic of major shareholders of listed companies to give up management control when the purchaser's stake is less than 20%.
It seems to suggest that the vendors acknowledge that their companies can't compete with the leaders, and thus are eager to exit the industry. Perhaps, it is a matter of selling to somebody who has a better shot at raising the competitiveness of the companies,' says an analyst.
Considering Supermax's cash outlays for the share purchases and its expansion programme, some industry observers believe that the company will be stretched. On the same day it disclosed its Seal Polymer deal, Supermax announced the proposed issue of RM120mil of bonds.
The company's numbers show that its debtors and inventories have been rising over the past year. Based on its quarterly results, Supermax's debtor balances have been steadily growing from RM33.4mil at end-2003 to RM80.8mil as at December last year. Its inventories too have been building up in the same period from RM14.3mil to RM18.3mil.
[ 本帖最后由 Mr.Business 于 30-11-2007 03:57 PM 编辑 ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 30-11-2007 03:58 PM
|
显示全部楼层
新闻。
Game ain't over yet for Supermax Corp
Updated : 21-05-2005
Media : The Star
Story By : ERROL OH
SUPERMAX Corp Bhd group managing director Datuk Seri Stanley Thai is not done reshaping his empire. ?he game is not over yet. Eventually, we'll see three companies as one,' he says. He is referring to Supermax, APL Industries Bhd (APLI) and Seal Polymer Industries Bhd.
Supermax had recently acquired substantial stakes in the two other companies, and have assumed management control of them as well, with Thai appointed as chief executive officer of both.
There has been a lot of curiosity over his plans for APLI and Seal Polymer, considering that Supermax's current stakes are not enough to allow it to equity account their results.
Supermax acquired a 12.9% equity interest in APLI on Feb 3. On May 12, it announced that it had acquired a 17.02% stake in Seal Polymer.
In addition, Supermax plans to seek its shareholders' greenlight to exercise options to buy another 7.2% in APLI, and to up its stake in the latter to a maximum of 32.9%. The plan is to table these resolutions at the Supermax AGM on June 8, but Thai says the company is still waiting for Bursa Malaysia to approve the circular.
As a result, the company has missed the boat and has to convene a separate general meeting to obtain the approvals. ? hope I don't have to wait until the cows come home,' Thai complains.
However, Thai maintains that the options are to protect Supermax, not the APLI share vendors.
?f we can buy lower, we will. I believe if the market continues to dive, we'll be able to buy for lower than 70 sen. But if the price goes up, the maximum we have to pay is 70 sen. But it's premature for me to say at what price we'll be paying. We don't have the shareholders' mandate yet,' he says.
He adds that he will renegotiate with the vendors if the shares stay at 40 sen or 50 sen. At the same time, he says it is reasonable for Supermax to pay slightly above the market price because it is transaction for a block of shares.
The immediate objective is for Supermax to reach a 20.1% stake so that it can consolidate APLI's results. ?'m not in a hurry to achieve 32.9%,' says Thai.
He, however, declines to reveal his plans for Seal Polymer. Still, he hints that there will be some restructuring to come that will involve the three companies.
He alludes to the fact that such a thing is easier to do now that Supermax has management and board control of APLI and Seal Polymer. He points out that it would have been difficult to execute a merger if it involves three CEOs negotiating with each other.
He says it is logical for the former controlling shareholders of APLI and Seal Polymer to give up management control although Supermax's stakes in the companies are below associate level, because they seek the continuity that Supermax can provide for the two other companies.
?t's better for the former owners to look for a party that can come in with a controlling stake and that can move forward the businesses that the former owners had worked on over the years. Don't you think it's better? They can feel good about their decisions,' Thai reasons.
He regards the takeover of APLI and Seal Polymer as no different from adding factories to extend Supermax's production capacity.
Referring to concerns that the Supermax management is taking on too much with the acquisitions, he says, ?f I had bought a furniture company, it might be true that I would not have time to eat and sleep because it's a different industry.
?ut this (the Seal Polymer deal) is merely extending Factory #11 and #12 of Supermax. It's no big deal.''
In addition, Thai and his wife, Datin Seri Cheryl Tan who is an executive director of Supermax, are getting more help in the management department. He says Supermax has identified a chief operating officer and is headhunting a chief financial officer for the group. ? will be focusing mainly on the marketing, sales and distribution,' he says.
On the wrangling between Top Glove Corp Bhd and Supermax over which company is the world's No.1 glove manufacturer, Thai says, ?y competitor would come in and defend itself. Why be so defensive? The more my competitor defends itself, the more I'll poke fun. It's for fun. It's fun. There's nothing wrong.''
In response to comments that Supermax's inventories and debtors have risen considerably last year, he explains that it was in tandem with the large rise in sales, and does not reflect any problems with the company's management.
[ 本帖最后由 Mr.Business 于 30-11-2007 04:00 PM 编辑 ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 30-11-2007 04:02 PM
|
显示全部楼层
新闻。
Integration pains
Updated : 05-08-2006
Media : The Star
Story By : ERROL OH
SUPERMAX Corp Bhd is in danger of becoming a case study for the pitfalls of mergers and acquisitions. Its management takeover of fellow listed rubber glove manufacturers APL Industries Bhd (APLI) and Seal Polymer Industries Bhd was among last year's biggest business stories, but people are beginning to wonder if the pains of integration will outweigh the benefits.
APLI is bleeding and its Vietnam plant "the key reason for Supermax's entry" has yet to go into full swing because of operational difficulties.
In comparison, it was widely thought that Seal Polymer would settle in smoothly at the Supermax stable. Yet, last Monday, the former announced that its net profit for the financial year ended February 2006 (FY06) had been slashed by almost half after its accounts had been audited.
Instead of the RM21.8mil as per the unaudited fourth-quarter results released last April, Seal Polymer's FY06 net profit has been restated to RM11.7mil, which is a 40% drop from the previous year's figure. The bulk of the variance was traced to raw materials, utilities and depreciation that had not been taken up previously.
In its announcement through Bursa Malaysia, the company says the deviation between the audited and the unaudited figures was mainly due to disruptive changes in the accounts personnel and the accounting system. It adds that its finance department was relocated to the corporate office in Sungai Buloh, Selangor, in June.
Even before last Monday's announcement, there had been signs that Seal Polymer's FY06 accounts would not be a glowing report card. The company missed the June 30 deadline for the submission of its audited accounts. Its application to the stock exchange for an extension of time was turned down, as was the subsequent appeal.
The accounts were finally filed with Bursa Malaysia last Monday. And as provided under the exchange's listing requirements, Seal Polymer had to explain the significant difference between the audited and unaudited net profit.
The last shocker?
In a research note issued last Wednesday, TA Securities says, ¡°We are rather disappointed with the latest development as we believe that this incident was within the purview of management. It is our hope that this will prove to be a one-off event, as any other disappointing news could severely affect sentiment towards the share price of the stock.¡±
Indeed, Seal Polymer board of directors have a lot of explaining to do when they meet shareholders at the annual general meeting on Aug 28.
For starters, there will be questions as to why it took so long for the new management team to uncover the accounting discrepancies at Seal Polymer when it had come on board in May, immediately after Supermax had bought a 17% stake.
Seal Polymer managing director Datuk Seri Stanley Thai, who also heads Supermax and APLI, says the issues over accounting treatment and practices surfaced after the external auditors, Deloitte KassimChan, had been called in subsequent to the financial year-end.
Thai explains that the priority when Supermax assumed management control of Seal Polymer was to grow Seal Polymer's business by increasing capacity and strengthening the customer base.
That meant spending a lot of time on accelerating the expansion of Seal Polymer's factory in Taiping. At the same time, the management had been looking at operational areas such as integrating the work culture and the people.
¡°By the time we were ready to look into the bookkeeping and accounting matters, it was already the last leg of the streamlining exercise at Seal Polymer. It was also time for the year-end audit and we decided to do these together. It was the first audit under the new management,¡± he adds.
Thai says the deviation is a one-off thing and maintains that the integration of Seal Polymer is on track. For example, he points out, Seal Polymer no longer undertakes trading activities which offered low margins.
The company now focuses on manufacturing, whose revenue in FY06 had grown by 28%, mainly driven by the commissioning of new production lines since the management takeover.
He adds that the lower profit was largely due to higher raw material costs, an increase in the Taiping plant's pre-operating expenses and higher depreciation.
Still the right thing to do
The fretting over whether the acquisitions of the two associates will work out has been blamed for the pummelling that Supermax shares have taken in past six months. After hitting this year's high of RM3.88 on Feb 15, the stock has slid by 28%. In the same period, the Kuala Lumpur Composite Index inched up 0.9%.
Last Thursday, the counter closed at RM2.78, the lowest it has gone this year. Most of the analysts covering Supermax reckon that there is little downside to its share price right now (unless, of course, the shocks keep coming).
It is also fortunate that Seal Polymer and APLI do not yet have much of an impact on Supermax's bottom line. According to a CIMB Securities report last week, the two associates account for only 8% to 12% of their parent company's earnings per share. In addition, Supermax itself has no major problems to report.
Given these factors, at least three investment outfits have maintained buy calls on Supermax following the Seal Polymer announcement. But that does not mean they are untroubled by the bad news from Seal Polymer and APLI. Furthermore, there is the perception that Supermax had been hasty in investing in the two companies.
Says CIMB: ¡°We are disappointed with these latest developments at APLI and Seal Polymer. In hindsight, some of these problems could have been anticipated or even avoided if Supermax had performed a full due diligence before acquiring stakes in both companies.
¡°We have in the past expressed our reservations on this issue. Unfortunately, Supermax¡¯s oversight in conducting a full diligence on both acquisitions has come back to haunt it.¡±
Thai denies that Supermax had not done its homework before doing the APLI and Seal Polymer deals. He says: ¡°We have invested in the two public companies just like any other investor. We have conducted due diligence exercises through whatever public information the companies had released. We have done it.
¡°With APLI , we knew it had problems, but we didn't anticipate the magnitude of those problems.¡±
He maintains that the acquisitions are good moves that are meant to establish a group with the size, capacity and product range that can make it the strongest player in the industry.
He says: ¡°I know people perceive that we have made the wrong investments, but business-wise, we have grown the companies. Supermax alone does not have the capacity to do a lot more business than that of our own brands. By combining the capacities of the three companies, we can accept orders from large, quality clients.
¡°We have been able to move to the forefront of the industry by entering market segments that we had not been strong in.¡±
That may be so, but observers are also concerned that Supermax may pay too much to increase its holdings in APLI and Seal Polymer. Supermax has a 12.9% stake in APLI (acquired in February last year) and 23.9% in Seal Polymer. Previously, Supermax had options to buy another 7.2% in APLI. However, the price was way above the current market price and the options have since lapsed.
At one time, Supermax was ready to announce its plan, codenamed Project Panther, to merge with Seal Polymer. However, this was called off, and on June 8, Seal Polymer announced that an ad-hoc merger committee has been formed to ¡°explore all available options and the viability of the proposals to maximise shareholders' value¡±.
Thai explains: ¡°We want to look at other options that we might have overlooked. There is no timeframe for us to come up with a decision. Much of it is subject to market conditions. Supermax and Seal Polymer are still operating as separate companies.¡±
Whether these three companies operate independently or not, the market already views them as interlinked. Any more jolts from either one will be felt throughout the group, and that is the last thing Thai and his team need while they continue to reshape the enlarged group.
[ 本帖最后由 Mr.Business 于 30-11-2007 04:05 PM 编辑 ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 1-12-2007 09:26 AM
|
显示全部楼层
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 1-12-2007 09:33 AM
|
显示全部楼层
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 1-12-2007 11:30 AM
|
显示全部楼层
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 1-12-2007 12:09 PM
|
显示全部楼层
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 1-12-2007 04:31 PM
|
显示全部楼层
原帖由 Mr.Business 于 30-11-2007 03:08 PM 发表 
Supermax都没讲要吃完所有的附加股。
2.2.6 Irrevocable Undertaking from Shareholders
There will be no minimum subscription for the Proposed Rights Issue.The Company shall procure the undertaking from the major shareholders,namely Supermax Corporation Berhad and Dato’ Seri Thai Kim Sim, tosubscribe for their entitlement to the Rights Shares in due course.
Arrangements will be made for the underwriting of the remaining Rights Shares not taken up by the other entitled shareholders.
我的意思是... 假設沒有人要買 apli 的 right issue...
那 supermx 就得全部吃完下來... 那 supermx 的股權會變為多少? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 1-12-2007 04:32 PM
|
显示全部楼层
原帖由 Mr.Business 于 30-11-2007 10:46 AM 发表
你没买附加股对你没有损失
真的沒有損失嗎? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 1-12-2007 04:34 PM
|
显示全部楼层
原帖由 Mr.Business 于 30-11-2007 10:46 AM 发表
假设以RM0.05的价钱买10000股，缩阳100变70后，你有7000股，你不买附加股，你的本钱是每股RM0.07 (你有7000股)。
100 變 70 後... 股價不是也跟著調整嗎? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 1-12-2007 04:41 PM
|
显示全部楼层
原帖由 mjchua 于 1-12-2007 04:31 PM 发表
我的意思是... 假設沒有人要買 apli 的 right issue...
那 supermx 就得全部吃完下來... 那 supermx 的股權會變為多少?
文告写了:
"Arrangements will be made for the underwriting of the remaining Rights Shares not taken up by the other entitled shareholders."
看谁是underwriter了 (underwriter需要吃掉所有没被认购的附加股)，应该是投资银行吧 (照理是RHB INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD)。
我猜应该会有好消息吸引股东买下附加股才对。。。
原帖由 mjchua 于 1-12-2007 04:32 PM 发表
真的沒有損失嗎?
不买附加股会不会有损失，要看你最终的每股成本会不会低过附加股的价钱。如果低过，那就不应该买附加股，因为会拉高你的本钱。。。对了，附加股的价钱还没确定的，可是不会少过重组后的par value RM0.10啦。
原帖由 mjchua 于 1-12-2007 04:34 PM 发表
100 變 70 後... 股價不是也跟著調整嗎?
我觉得考虑本身的每股成本会比较稳当。既然重组后的par value是RM0.10，而附加股的价钱不会少过par value，那你重组后的每股成本就不好多过RM0.10，假设真是100变70，那最保险是在RM0.07或以下买现货，因为重组后我的每股成本还是RM0.10 (RM0.07 x 100 / 70 = RM0.10)。
[ 本帖最后由 Mr.Business 于 1-12-2007 04:47 PM 编辑 ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 1-12-2007 04:45 PM
|
显示全部楼层
原帖由 Mr.Business 于 1-12-2007 04:41 PM 发表
文告写了:
"Arrangements will be made for the underwriting of the remaining Rights Shares not taken up by the other entitled shareholders."
看谁是underwriter了 (underwriter需要吃掉所有没被 ...
不是由 supermx 吃下嗎? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 1-12-2007 04:47 PM
|
显示全部楼层
原帖由 Mr.Business 于 1-12-2007 04:41 PM 发表
不买附加股会不会有损失，要看你最终的每股成本会不会低过附加股的价钱。如果低过，那就不应该买附加股，因为会拉高你的本钱。。。对了，附加股的价钱还没确定的，可是不会少过重组后的par value RM0.10啦。.
RM0.09 100 變 70 ... 股價會變為 RM0.125
若 issue price 是 RM0.135 誰要買? 那就得由 supermx 吃下 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 1-12-2007 04:52 PM
|
显示全部楼层
原帖由 mjchua 于 1-12-2007 04:45 PM 发表
不是由 supermx 吃下嗎?
文告是写：
2.2.6 Irrevocable Undertaking from Shareholders
There will be no minimum subscription for the Proposed Rights Issue. The Company shall procure the undertaking from the major shareholders,namely Supermax Corporation Berhad and Dato’ Seri Thai Kim Sim, to subscribe for their entitlement to the Rights Shares in due course.
Arrangements will be made for the underwriting of the remaining Rights Shares not taken up by the other entitled shareholders.
文告不是说Supermax和Dato’ Seri Thai Kim Sim只会购买他们应分得的附加股？
原帖由 mjchua 于 1-12-2007 04:47 PM 发表
RM0.09 100 變 70 ... 股價會變為 RM0.125
若 issue price 是 RM0.135 誰要買? 那就得由 supermx 吃下
文告是说underwriter会吃掉所有没被认购的附加股。谁会要做underwriter呢？所以我猜APLI应该会发出好消息，吸引股东买下附加股才对。 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 1-12-2007 05:00 PM
|
显示全部楼层
原帖由 Mr.Business 于 1-12-2007 04:52 PM 发表
文告是写：
2.2.6 Irrevocable Undertaking from Shareholders
There will be no minimum subscription for the Proposed Rights Issue. The Company shall procure the undertaking from the major shar ...
哪裡說 underwriter 吃下? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 1-12-2007 05:02 PM
|
显示全部楼层
回复 #303 mjchua 的帖子
这里：
Arrangements will be made for the underwriting of the remaining Rights Shares not taken up by the other entitled shareholders.
可能是underwriter吃掉; 如果找得到买家，underwriter就会卖给他，总之是underwriter搞定。 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 1-12-2007 05:04 PM
|
显示全部楼层
原帖由 Mr.Business 于 1-12-2007 05:02 PM 发表
这里：
Arrangements will be made for the underwriting of the remaining Rights Shares not taken up by the other entitled shareholders.
可能是underwriter吃掉; 如果找得到买家，underwriter就会卖给 ...
Arrangements will be made 是這樣的意思嗎 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 1-12-2007 05:10 PM
|
显示全部楼层
回复 #305 mjchua 的帖子
是，可以拿Halifax做例子。
The minimum subscription level for the Revised Proposed Rights Issue With Warrants will be revised to RM37 million.
Zecon has given its irrevocable undertakings to subscribe up to RM37 million of the Revised Proposed Rights Issue With Warrants. Halifax will procure irrevocable undertakings from Datuk Hj Zainal Abidin Bin Hj Ahmad to subscribe for his entitlement under the Revised Proposed Rights Issue with Warrants.
Based on the minimum subscription level of RM37 million, underwriting arrangement will not be made for the balance of the amount of the Rights Issue.
In the event that Zecon subscribes the Rights Shares under the Revised Proposed Minimum Level Subscription which would result to its shareholdings in Halifax increase to 94.28% under the Minimum Scenario and 92.91% under the Maximum Scenario, Zecon will offer for sale certain portion of its shareholdings in Halifax in order to meet the public shareholding spread of Halifax of 25%.
Supermax不象Zecon，Zecon是"has given its irrevocable undertakings to subscribe up to RM37 million of the Revised Proposed Rights Issue With Warrants", 而Supermax只是"to subscribe for their entitlement to the Rights Shares in due course.'。
[ 本帖最后由 Mr.Business 于 1-12-2007 05:13 PM 编辑 ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 1-12-2007 05:12 PM
|
显示全部楼层
原帖由 Mr.Business 于 1-12-2007 05:10 PM 发表
是，可以拿Halifax做例子。
The minimum subscription level for the Revised Proposed Rights Issue With Warrants will be revised to RM37 million.
Zecon has given its irrevocable undertakings ...
也是沒有講是由 investment bank 來吃完 沒看到 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 1-12-2007 05:16 PM
|
显示全部楼层
回复 #307 mjchua 的帖子
请参考underwriting的解释。
Securities underwriting is the way business customers are assessed by investment houses for access to either equity or debt capital.
This is a way of placing a newly issued security, such as stocks or bonds, with investors. A syndicate of banks (the lead-managers), underwrite the transaction, which means they have taken on the risk of distributing the securities. Should they not be able to find enough investors, then they end up holding some securities themselves. Underwriters make their income from the price difference, or underwriting spread, between the price they pay the issuer and what they collect from investors or from broker-dealers who buy portions of the offering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriting |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 本周最热论坛帖子
|
且交待得不清不楚。
2254 
32
