You are also relying upon the beneficence of a super-majority Chinese owner (80%) , who would have considerable latitude on self-dealing , management charges property transactions and the like. All this would take place outside the U.S. legal system with indeterminate local protections and too small a float to justify much in the way of minority self-protection . Maybe it's OK. Sounds appropriately discounted to me.
Hi Dave, thanks for sharing. Do you have the financials since its IPO? The links on the website are broken. Do you expect some cyclicality? Just seeing the stock perf in 2007-2008, as well as Seeking Alpha writeups on LCAV, a former laser eye surgeon in the US.
What do you think may be the reasons to leave just 5% of shares in public hands and not to take the company private?? Specifically taking into account the costs, control and administrative burdens that public companies bear.
You are also relying upon the beneficence of a super-majority Chinese owner (80%) , who would have considerable latitude on self-dealing , management charges property transactions and the like. All this would take place outside the U.S. legal system with indeterminate local protections and too small a float to justify much in the way of minority self-protection . Maybe it's OK. Sounds appropriately discounted to me.
Sky New Zealand is a great example of illiquidity as well. Decent company, incredibly cheap, but also very illiquid. It pays a decent dividend.
Nice idea, thank you for sharing. Were you able to find the full financials statements in English?
Why did AIER never complete the purchase and stop at 80%?
Interesting idea - how do we buy the shares (ie via which broker) ?
Hi Dave, thanks for sharing. Do you have the financials since its IPO? The links on the website are broken. Do you expect some cyclicality? Just seeing the stock perf in 2007-2008, as well as Seeking Alpha writeups on LCAV, a former laser eye surgeon in the US.
Really interesting company!!
What do you think may be the reasons to leave just 5% of shares in public hands and not to take the company private?? Specifically taking into account the costs, control and administrative burdens that public companies bear.