OLAM_OLAM

According to MW, the latest bonds issuance will extend Olam's life span for a few more months only, and Olam would have bankrupt without it. MW also claimed that it did not change its view on Olam unless Olam were to raise another 3 billions- simply put, this bonds issuance is deemed to insignficant by MW. If you really believe in what MW has claimed so far, you should keep your short position for another 1 year or so.

Secondly, Temasek simply agree to be be an underwriter  for the latest issuance but  has yet to  provide any significant  help to  Olam. There might not even be a need for Temasek to underwrite anything if every shareholder takes up his right.

Finally, when  one attack a company, he can expect retailation from its shareholders. This is especially the case for firms with  powerful and influential shareholders. For MW's case, apparently  it did not put in sufficient effort in their game theory analysis when it claimed that Olam will go bankrupt. This goes to say something about MW's so called comprehensive study on Olam and MW's foresight.

Without Temasek’s support, Olam ‘may’ go bust. However, in my view, it is inappropriate to say that it ‘will’ go bust in the absence of Temasek’s support. First, although it is true that banks may not continue to support Olam if the bond yields continue to rise, one would be naïve to assume that without Temasek’s support, no shareholders will subscribe to the rights issue of bonds. As a shareholder, I find the rights issue very attractive and I will certainly take it up and I do not believe that I am the only shareholder that holds this view. Indeed, KC group, which is the largest shareholder of Olam, is also taking up the rights issue. Second, although the rapid expansion over the last few years has caused Olam to incur a high level of debt, it has also enabled it to build up a huge portfolio of assets. Unless you assume that all the assets are worthless, there is the option of raising funds through divestment. Although this may lead to a fall in its profitability, going bust is a different thing altogether.

I don't think Muddy Waters is doing this for purely altruistic reasons. Neither are they a modern day Robin Hood. They're making a living out of this. This is precisely their job. But then again, this is a good wake up call for Olam and its investors. It could have been worse. If I may ask, who dare to say Olam would not have gone bust by now if Temasek haven't came in. The fact that Temasek did, and thus, the credibility of Olam has indeed become muddied.Investing should not be about hoping for some white knights arrival but about confidence in the issuer's stability without any external help.Temasek could be viewed as protecting Singapore Inc in a wider context.If SGX’s reputation is affected due to accounting & listing practice then it will affect us also since we invest in SGX.