[結果都係私有化]但,點解要私有化?就解你知。
TLDR:一來就9蚊買10蚊嘢。二來,公司一路擴張業務,但資本唔夠,又集唔到資。老母想增資又受制於75%公共持股限制,咁私有化咪一了百了,私人公司點增次都得
==============
月頭訂最抵!2021比別人知得多。subscribe now(https://bityl.co/4Y0h)。Ivan Patreon,港美市場評點,專題號外,每日一圖,好文推介。每星期6篇,月費80,半年已1600人訂! 畀年費仲有85折
==============
1. 上次寫過下廖創興,呢個「短暫停牌」一短暫就搞咗兩個星期。呼,同宇宙歷史相比都係好短暫。
2. Anyway,都係開大路嘢,私有化。原本好似有講「越秀要私有化嘅當年買就順手做埋啦」,的確係。你見當年招商買永隆,私有化除牌;坡佬華僑銀行(OCBC)買永亨,亦係除埋牌。咁但,當年有當年保持上市地位嘅理由,而家一樣可以改變主意啫。可能環境唔同,或者當初考慮得唔周到。陣間會講呢部份。
3. 作價係20.8蚊,較停牌前溢價五成。留意停牌嗰日都仲抽咗三成,「你話冇煙嘥打不如打撚死我啦」,但你估證監會唔會做嘢?梗係證據不足啦。
4. 咁講返,過去五年任何位買嘅,你都贏錢走,還好啦。至於你話個價合唔合理?超,有乜合唔合理,你受咪合理。可以唔受的,要股東會投票,但我估必定過到。特別係今年唔再係舊年咁人人股神,好多人都想套現走人算,陣間私有化唔成又跌返落10蚊邊
5. 另外留意,公告寫明唔會加價,亦不保留呢個權利。即係,take it or leave it,受就受,唔受就拉到。咁你話可唔可以20.8唔受,下個月大股東又玩21蚊私有化?梗係唔得啦,古惑仔烏鴉投長紅定阿仙奴雲加買蘇亞雷斯呀?一次衰咗,應該一年(好似係)不能重提。同樣地,legally binding 的,話咗唔加,就真係唔可以加,唔可以見勢色唔到,「唏當我冇講過」「Please ignore my previous email」
6. 咁你話,有冇公司唔出呢句嘢?有的。咁有冇試過之後真係加價?都試過,不過近年都唔多記得,要講十幾廿年前中信國金(183)(主要係中信嘉華銀行,即係而家中信銀行(國際))私有化,就真係見勢色唔對,然後再加價。
7. 咁都話,過去五年買,你任何位買都贏錢。但可能作價同好多人預期都爭好遠。當然我諗大家咁大個人,唔會以為可以重演金融海融前嗰啲咩3倍book 賣盤。但,你見寫到明,每股淨資產23.14。即係11%折讓,0.9倍book.9蚊買10蚊嘢,抵。而銀行啲資產,好多都mark to market,照計真實價值唔會同在盤數上好大分別。至於咩「商譽」(*),冇噃,名譽呢樣嘢唔係人人可以有的。
8. 點解私有化?先講官方原因,當然少不免就係股價一路唔掂呀冇成交呀小股東好慘呀而家大股東慈悲為懷畀個機會你走就讓全世界所有罪都讓我揹。真的,每一份都係咁寫,亦即係廢話。正如啲IPO,寫公司賣點係「管理層優秀」,亦即係廢話,因為呢句係萬能key
9. 比較有意思嘅係,佢有講過去7年(即係越秀入主後),公司資產升咗3倍。留意,銀行係highly regulated 嘅生意,你冇足夠嘅資本(equit/capital),就不能畀你擴張,所以生意唔係任做,會有壓力的
10. 咁公司就話,1111呢隻嘢,根本唔會點在市場上集得到資呀(今日先知?)。如果供股呢?又會攤薄權益拖低股價喎(咁你之前又供兩次?)。既然係咁,不如私有化算啦—但留意返,私有化咗嘅銀行,當然一樣受同樣嘅條例影響,所以係咪冇分別?又唔係,因為私人公司,就可以唔使理嗰啲麻煩嘅「關聯交易」之類。BTW,供股not necessarily 會拖低股價的。
11. 講到尾,好簡單,股價夠平,咪做咯,9蚊買10蚊嘢。另外,你可以參考下工行(1398)當年私有化工銀亞洲(349)咁。頭先講過,私有化咗你一樣要守金管局嘅條例,但有一個好大分別:私家雞嘅,老母可以增資落去子公司,咁資本大咗咪做多啲生意。咁點解上市公司唔可以老母增資?因為要有75%公共持股嘛,渣到爆咪冇得再增。我私有化咗佢,咪唔使守75%嘅條例
12. 而燈燈燈燈!越秀咪正係渣到75%咯!
13. 另外留意,實際上越秀要買嘅,只係啲獨立小股東。唔係25%,而係16%。中間嗰9%去咗邊?就係廣州地鐵同廣州汽車都渣住啲股權,而呢兩間都係越秀姐妹公司(廣州市政府嘛),所以係「一致行動人士」,如是我聞(**)
14. 最後可能有人問,「我提咗私有化金融海嘯,可唔可以反口」。答案係…….yes and no.我都唔知。喱文會覺得「好似買樓咁殺訂」「但簽晒紙就冇得反口」,或者講咩「合約精神」(****)。實務上?「好難講」。我好奇怪,點解啲友就咁望下個新聞頭條,就可以決定埋「邊有得反口」「一日未畀錢一日都可以改變主意」。即係,你覺得律師收咁貴係做乜的?即使律師根本都答唔到你啦。早排都有單,Victoria Secret賣盤,傾完就肺炎,有人想彈弓手。真係打到法庭先知點先計 Material adverse change 點先叫Force majeure
(*)Goodwill是也,每次我都鬧「商譽」呢個中文名不知所謂,亦差不多每次都有人出嚟講「官方係咁譯喎」,as if 我唔知咁。屌你,我咪就係屌個「官方」譯名不知所謂咯,當年啲師爺水平低,就唔鬧得?你幾撚多人真係以為「商譽」係brand value。Goodwill,就只係「溢價買嘢突咗舊嘢在Balance Sheet平唔到唯有搵舊嘢攝住個位遲下慢慢磨走佢」。學校冇教你呢?
(**)當然我都好奇怪,「點解建行拆幾百億幾千億interbank就唔係關連交易呢?」「明明都係中央匯金」。又或者,「點解聯通 中電信 中移動啲高層可以打麻雀咁執位?明明都係工信部國資委,拎咗white wash冇?」(***)
(***)不過真係尋根究底嘅,「主權政府」一般係不受呢啲條款限制的,亦唔止係中國政府。
(****)再講一次,呢個名詞夠晒混帳,唔知邊個發明出嚟的。你見鬼佬邊有呢個字?合約唔係匠人精神,你唔使尊重的,上法庭咯。
==============
月頭訂最抵!2021比別人知得多。subscribe now(https://bityl.co/4Y0h)。Ivan Patreon,港美市場評點,專題號外,每日一圖,好文推介。每星期6篇,月費80,半年已1600人訂! 畀年費仲有85折
==============
adverse中文 在 Roger Chung 鍾一諾 Facebook 的最佳貼文
今早為Asian Medical Students Association Hong Kong (AMSAHK)的新一屆執行委員會就職典禮作致詞分享嘉賓,題目為「疫情中的健康不公平」。
感謝他們的熱情款待以及為整段致詞拍了影片。以下我附上致詞的英文原稿:
It's been my honor to be invited to give the closing remarks for the Inauguration Ceremony for the incoming executive committee of the Asian Medical Students' Association Hong Kong (AMSAHK) this morning. A video has been taken for the remarks I made regarding health inequalities during the COVID-19 pandemic (big thanks to the student who withstood the soreness of her arm for holding the camera up for 15 minutes straight), and here's the transcript of the main body of the speech that goes with this video:
//The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, continues to be rampant around the world since early 2020, resulting in more than 55 million cases and 1.3 million deaths worldwide as of today. (So no! It’s not a hoax for those conspiracy theorists out there!) A higher rate of incidence and deaths, as well as worse health-related quality of life have been widely observed in the socially disadvantaged groups, including people of lower socioeconomic position, older persons, migrants, ethnic minority and communities of color, etc. While epidemiologists and scientists around the world are dedicated in gathering scientific evidence on the specific causes and determinants of the health inequalities observed in different countries and regions, we can apply the Social Determinants of Health Conceptual Framework developed by the World Health Organization team led by the eminent Prof Sir Michael Marmot, world’s leading social epidemiologist, to understand and delineate these social determinants of health inequalities related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to this framework, social determinants of health can be largely categorized into two types – 1) the lower stream, intermediary determinants, and 2) the upper stream, structural and macro-environmental determinants. For the COVID-19 pandemic, we realized that the lower stream factors may include material circumstances, such as people’s living and working conditions. For instance, the nature of the occupations of these people of lower socioeconomic position tends to require them to travel outside to work, i.e., they cannot work from home, which is a luxury for people who can afford to do it. This lack of choice in the location of occupation may expose them to greater risk of infection through more transportation and interactions with strangers. We have also seen infection clusters among crowded places like elderly homes, public housing estates, and boarding houses for foreign domestic helpers. Moreover, these socially disadvantaged people tend to have lower financial and social capital – it can be observed that they were more likely to be deprived of personal protective equipment like face masks and hand sanitizers, especially during the earlier days of the pandemic. On the other hand, the upper stream, structural determinants of health may include policies related to public health, education, macroeconomics, social protection and welfare, as well as our governance… and last, but not least, our culture and values. If the socioeconomic and political contexts are not favorable to the socially disadvantaged, their health and well-being will be disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Therefore, if we, as a society, espouse to address and reduce the problem of health inequalities, social determinants of health cannot be overlooked in devising and designing any public health-related strategies, measures and policies.
Although a higher rate of incidence and deaths have been widely observed in the socially disadvantaged groups, especially in countries with severe COVID-19 outbreaks, this phenomenon seems to be less discussed and less covered by media in Hong Kong, where the disease incidence is relatively low when compared with other countries around the world. Before the resurgence of local cases in early July, local spread of COVID-19 was sporadic and most cases were imported. In the earlier days of the pandemic, most cases were primarily imported by travelers and return-students studying overseas, leading to a minor surge between mid-March and mid-April of 874 new cases. Most of these cases during Spring were people who could afford to travel and study abroad, and thus tended to be more well-off. Therefore, some would say the expected social gradient in health impact did not seem to exist in Hong Kong, but may I remind you that, it is only the case when we focus on COVID-19-specific incidence and mortality alone. But can we really deduce from this that COVID-19-related health inequality does not exist in Hong Kong? According to the Social Determinants of Health Framework mentioned earlier, the obvious answer is “No, of course not.” And here’s why…
In addition to the direct disease burden, the COVID-19 outbreak and its associated containment measures (such as economic lockdown, mandatory social distancing, and change of work arrangements) could have unequal wider socioeconomic impacts on the general population, especially in regions with pervasive existing social inequalities. Given the limited resources and capacity of the socioeconomically disadvantaged to respond to emergency and adverse events, their general health and well-being are likely to be unduly and inordinately affected by the abrupt changes in their daily economic and social conditions, like job loss and insecurity, brought about by the COVID-19 outbreak and the corresponding containment and mitigation measures of which the main purpose was supposedly disease prevention and health protection at the first place. As such, focusing only on COVID-19 incidence or mortality as the outcomes of concern to address health inequalities may leave out important aspects of life that contributes significantly to people’s health. Recently, my research team and I collaborated with Sir Michael Marmot in a Hong Kong study, and found that the poor people in Hong Kong fared worse in every aspects of life than their richer counterparts in terms of economic activity, personal protective equipment, personal hygiene practice, as well as well-being and health after the COVID-19 outbreak. We also found that part of the observed health inequality can be attributed to the pandemic and its related containment measures via people’s concerns over their own and their families’ livelihood and economic activity. In other words, health inequalities were contributed by the pandemic even in a city where incidence is relatively low through other social determinants of health that directly concerned the livelihood and economic activity of the people. So in this study, we confirmed that focusing only on the incident and death cases as the outcomes of concern to address health inequalities is like a story half-told, and would severely truncate and distort the reality.
Truth be told, health inequality does not only appear after the pandemic outbreak of COVID-19, it is a pre-existing condition in countries and regions around the world, including Hong Kong. My research over the years have consistently shown that people in lower socioeconomic position tend to have worse physical and mental health status. Nevertheless, precisely because health inequality is nothing new, there are always voices in our society trying to dismiss the problem, arguing that it is only natural to have wealth inequality in any capitalistic society. However, in reckoning with health inequalities, we need to go beyond just figuring out the disparities or differences in health status between the poor and the rich, and we need to raise an ethically relevant question: are these inequalities, disparities and differences remediable? Can they be fixed? Can we do something about them? If they are remediable, and we can do something about them but we haven’t, then we’d say these inequalities are ultimately unjust and unfair. In other words, a society that prides itself in pursuing justice must, and I say must, strive to address and reduce these unfair health inequalities. Borrowing the words from famed sociologist Judith Butler, “the virus alone does not discriminate,” but “social and economic inequality will make sure that it does.” With COVID-19, we learn that it is not only the individuals who are sick, but our society. And it’s time we do something about it.
Thank you very much!//
Please join me in congratulating the incoming executive committee of AMSAHK and giving them the best wishes for their future endeavor!
Roger Chung, PhD
Assistant Professor, CUHK JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, @CUHK Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong 香港中文大學 - CUHK
Associate Director, CUHK Institute of Health Equity
adverse中文 在 國家衛生研究院-論壇 Facebook 的最讚貼文
【兒童期負面經驗(Adverse Childhood Experience)】
美國聯邦疾病管制局(CDC)很多年前就開始研究這個議題,不只分析極端個案,而是廣泛討論兒童期不良經驗,包括遭遇──被忽視、貧困、身心虐待、家庭變故等情況,日後帶給成年人的影響,從 17337 名長期追蹤案例以及相關研究,所勾勒的事實,令人不由得心生警惕,也帶動美國醫療、教育、社工等領域的實務調整。
兒童期負面經驗(Adverse Childhood Experience)的研究,始於 30 年前,美國醫院在診治肥胖症病人的意外發現。1980 年左右,美國開始流行液體減肥法,美國大型醫療機構凱薩(Kaiser Permanente)的內科醫師費利帝(Vincent Felitti),便用這種方式幫助一群嚴重肥胖的人減重,按部就班的治療效果也很不錯,有人甚至 1 年減掉 130 多公斤。
但另一方面,減重治療的中輟率(dropout rate)也高達 50%,許多原本減肥進度領先的患者,會突然放棄治療,迅速復胖到原本體位,讓醫療團隊很洩氣。費利帝醫師開始詢問患者可能原因,其中有個問題是:「幾歲開始有性行為?(How old were you when you became sexually active?)」有一次費利帝口誤,不小心把問題說成:「開始有性行為時,體重多重?(How much did you weigh when you were first sexually active?)」
對方回答:「40 磅(18 公斤)。」當時費利帝並沒有會意過來,又再問了一次。對方回答一樣,然後大哭說:「4 歲⋯⋯跟爸爸⋯⋯」行醫 23 年的費利帝之前只遇過一位亂倫病患,一時之間不知如何反應,以為是特殊個案。接著,費利帝跟同事約談了 286 個病患,這些患者過半有兒時受虐經歷。
一名減掉三分之二體重之後放棄減重的女病患死前曾告訴醫生:「除了吃東西,我找不到面對痛苦的其他解決方法。」還有一名戒掉每天 3 包菸後又迅速增胖 135 公斤的女性坦言:「變胖是為了保護自己。」,看似健康問題的暴飲暴食,其實是他們面對痛苦的解決之道。
費利帝後來在醫學年會發表這 286 個病患的臨床研究,當時一位美國疾管局官員認為,兒虐經歷如果影響如此深遠,有必要針對一般人展開調查,也因此意外促成了橫跨地域與學門的大規模研究。(資料來源:【註1】)
【ACE(Adverse Childhood Experience)】
楊為傑兒科醫師說:「兒童期的“不良經驗”,包含了:身體虐待、情緒虐待、忽略等,這些不良經驗可能影響孩子長大之後的各種身體健康。可能早死、容易得癌症、容易得到三高等慢性病、容易酗酒等。這個不難理解。也有很多理論去解釋,為什麼童年期的傷害對孩子有一輩子的影響。」
經常被問到的問題就是:「楊醫師你不打小孩,你覺得就不該要求小孩嗎?」、「他做錯事的時候,真的不可以責罰嗎?」非也,我對孩子的要求是很嚴格的。在門診問過我的家長,或見過我家小孩的家長可能知道我是很嚴格的父親。只是不我打他並不等於我不要求他。
我非常推薦的方法之一是「訂家規」。將您的底線畫出來,明白地讓孩子知道哪些規矩是他必須遵守的。大一點的孩子,可以跟他一起討論。例如:吃飯一定要坐著吃完才可離開,看電視必須保持三公尺以上,對人一定要說謝謝,犯錯一定要道歉等等。訂完家規,家長只需要擔任「執法者」,而這種方式有好多好處。(資料來源:【註2】)
【4月30日是「國際不打小孩日」(International Spankout Day)】
最早是美國反體罰組織「有效管教中心(Center For Effective Discipline)」1998年發起的。 它的英文名稱中spank一詞俗稱「打屁股」,所以也有將中文譯為「無巴掌日」或「拒絕體罰日」
「430國際不打小孩日」的訂定起源,原本只是一個一天的活動,美國反體罰組織─有效管教中心(Center for Effective Discipline),在1998年4月30日發起「Spank Out Day」,此組織旨在「邀請你試試看不要打小孩(屁股),至少在這一天不要打,也許你會發現,將來的每一天,你都不需要打。」這個活動受到不少單位的支持,而人本教育基金會於2006年開始響應。
身為四個孫子的阿公「副總統-陳建仁」談到自身成長歷程,「在我成長的過程當中,我從來沒有被父母打過,也從來沒看過他們體罰小孩。他們總是疼惜、呵護著每個孩子。」陳建仁說,台灣已在2006年通過立法禁止學校體罰,2014年正式加入兒童權利公約,並施行「兒童權利公約施行法(CRC)」,這是台灣兒童人權保障新的里程碑,近年政府持續努力推動CRC國內法化,同時致力落實零體罰。他認為,唯有不要用「打」來處理孩子的問題,才有機會重新檢視父母與孩子面臨的困難。(資料來源:【註3】)
【Reference】
1. 來源
➤➤資料
∎【註1】:報導者 The Reporter -【科學觀點:負面的童年經驗如何影響我們】:https://bit.ly/3e7sAed
∎【註2】:(ETtoday新聞雲)【打罵恐引發後遺症!醫推「這招」降孩童創傷...犯錯不一定該揍】:https://bit.ly/2Vdqroo,作者: 白袍旅人-兒科楊為傑醫師
∎【註3】:Newtalk新聞 - 【430國際不打小孩日 不打小孩要幹嘛?副總統陳建仁這麼說】:https://bit.ly/2wzYBdY
➤➤照片
∎ 鋅鋰師拔麻的「小小額葉養成手札」:https://bit.ly/2VlnWRe
2. 【國衛院論壇出版品 免費閱覽】
∎國家衛生研究院論壇出版品-電子書(PDF)-線上閱覽: http://forum.nhri.org.tw/forum/book/
3. 【國衛院論壇2019年度議題】簡介
➤http://bit.ly/2MtCqgA
4. ❤️響應今年的「430國際不打小孩日」網路串連活動:(人本教育基金會)【打造愛的家,我不打小孩❤️寫下不打宣言,好禮送給你!】 一起響應4月30日國際不打小孩日: https://bit.ly/39Z3ZFc
#國家衛生研究院 #國衛院 #國家衛生研究院論壇 #國衛院論壇 #衛生福利部 #國民健康署 #健保署 #中央健康保險署 #五南圖書 #國家書店 #五南網路書店
#兒虐 #兒童期負面經驗 #Adverse Childhood Experience #美國聯邦疾病管制局 #CDC #兒童期不良經驗 #國際不打小孩日 #International Spankout Day #無巴掌日 #拒絕體罰日 #副總統 #陳建仁 #430國際不打小孩日 #打造愛的家我不打小孩 #人本教育基金會
陳建仁 Chen Chien-Jen / 國民健康署 / 報導者 The Reporter
衛生福利部 / 國民健康署 / 財團法人國家衛生研究院 / 國家衛生研究院-論壇
兒福聯盟─孩子的守護者 / 兒童福利聯盟文教基金會 / 兒童福利聯盟
adverse中文 在 adverse中文, adverse是什麼意思:不利的… - 查查在線詞典 的相關結果
adverse中文 ::不利的…,點擊查查權威綫上辭典詳細解釋adverse的中文翻譯,adverse的發音,音標,用法和例句等。 ... <看更多>
adverse中文 在 adverse-翻译为中文-例句英语 的相關結果
使用Reverso Context: adverse effects, adverse impact, adverse impacts, adverse effect, adverse consequences,在英语-中文情境中翻译"adverse" ... <看更多>
adverse中文 在 adverse中文(繁體)翻譯:劍橋詞典 的相關結果
adverse 的例句. adverse. To compare the relative safety of the neoadjuvant treatment regimens in terms of reported adverse events. 來自Cambridge ... ... <看更多>