|
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Than Setthakij has conformed that both Temasek and Crown Property Bureau (Siam Commercial Bank PCL) DID takeover Shin Corp through 49.6% shares for Temasek and 5-10% for SCB.
Crown Property Bureau (Siam Commercial Bank PCL) has sent Khun Phongse Sarasin (son of former PM Poj Sarasin - he used to run Thai Pure Drink PCL (Thai distributor for Coca Cola)) and Dr. Wijit Suraphongsechai from SCB to run ShinCrop. Initally SingTel and SCB want to buy ShinCorp at 30 Baht/Stock ... so PM Thaksin Suspended the Deal until he got the right prices. Even worse, Khun Chumphon Na Lamliang (former Siam Cement PCL General Manager - now run as the head of SingTel (Thailand)) said he OBJECT SingTel Plan to run ShinCorp. ... SO, Temasek has got the way ... Details on the deal: Shinnawatra-Damaphoingse Families: 1.158 Billion Stock whcih can be broken down as follows: 1) Miss Phinthongtha Shinnawatra -> 440 million Stock => 14.92% 2) Mr Banjaphot Damaphongse -> 404 million Stock => 13.71% 3) Mr. Phanthongthae Shinnawatra -> 293 million Stock => 9.96% 4) Miss Yingrak Shinnawatra -> 20 million Stock => 0.68% 5) Ms. Bussaba Damaphongse -> 0.1598 million Stock => 0.01% UBS AG (Singapore): 0.297 Billion stocks Total: 1.456 Billion Stock - 49.6% of registered capital = 72.8 billion Baht -> the biggest transactions sicne the first day for Thai Stock Market at 30 July 1975. Buyer: Temasek Funds Price: 49.50-50.00 Baht/stock -> all in CASH (!) No Stock Swapping Even though the sell are supposed to pay 15% Tax to Revenue Dept, Khun Thanong Phitthaya insists that this massive transaction is NOT subjected to tax collection due to Thai-Singapore Treaty for Taxing from capital transaction. If Temasek DID pay the tax to Singaporean Revenue Dept at least 15% of payment, the tax to Thai Revenue Dept is Exempted. Temasek has intended to KEEP Only AIS while Temasek woudl sell ITV to Grammy Entertainment PCL and ShinSat woudl be back to the Shinnawatra family. |
|
Sponsors |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ahah!
So this is how Temasek intends to get around the foreign ownership restrictions.
So here's the next question. Who controls Temasek's alleged local partner (other than SCB), Kularbkaew Co? Crazy how the Nation mentions them without being able to give any background! Anyone have any idea? http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006..._19721825.html Quote:
Last edited by Tettyan; 23-01-06 at 12:34 PM.. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Update
Press Release from the Stock Exchange of Thailand's website:
http://www.set.or.th/set/newsdetails...US&language=en Quote:
Last edited by Tettyan; 23-01-06 at 01:03 PM.. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Shin letter to SET, continued
...continued from previous post
Quote:
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kularb Kaew
So now we have a little bit of an idea about who's behind Kularb Kaew. But their chairman says that the initial shareholders will sell off their shares soon to repay the loans needed to buy their stake in Shin. So the $64 question is - to whom do they plan to sell? Maybe I'm reading too much into this - and that this is just one step in a straightforward plan to bring more Thai investors on board, in order to comply with foreign-ownership restrictions. Or could it open the door for the Shinawatras or other politically-connected groups to buy back into the company in future? I saw some i-banker say that if that's what they planned to do, such a set-up would allow them to do so without so much public scrutiny. Since I'm not an expert on the subject, I'm not really sure what to believe.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006..._19730654.html Quote:
|
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
holding patterns
Any investment banker worth half a damn knows full well how t get around shareholding restrictions. I can't comment on the Shin structure specifically since I don't know the details, but I can lay out the basics - it's not very complicated actually.
The key is understanding the difference between shareholding (who legally owns how many shares and therefore % of the company), management & governance (who makes decisions), and financial disbursements (where the money goes). These are not the same things, and do not necessarily need to be consistent with each other. Shareholding is the only item which is covered by the restrictions (I believe); but in many ways, it's the governance and financial disbursements which are the important parts of the business. Suppose you own 80% of a company and I own 20%. We can still agree that I, the minority, will have a management contract to run the business as I see fit. We can further agree that my management compensation will be tied to the profits of the company. That way, the financial distribution can be totally different than the shareholding. This is where financial structures like intermediary companies and shareholder loans come into play - essentially they're clever ways of adhering to the letter of the law while violating the spirit of it. And if anyone is excellent at doing that, it's our pal Thaksin. All that being said, I should state that I personally believe that shareholding limits for foreigners are stupid on many counts - let me know if I need to get into this, though I suspect most people in this board feel the same way. Cheers, Scuba22 |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Can anyone explain the reasoning behind why no tax is being sought by the Revenue Department?
Are share transactions usually tax free? The Enforcer! |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|