APFT: messy announcements (2)

And the company made another announcement, correcting the mistakes noted in the previous blog post.

The way things went:

• An "interested observer" noted that the price could not be right, and informed me
• I posted a blog posting about the subject
• Most likely Bursa picked it up and notified the company
• The company (most likely the company secretary) amended the announcement, for the third time

This bags the question, how many times in the past have there been mistakes in these kind of announcements? My guess: many times.

Automating (part of) this process (probably with a link to the CDS system) should greatly help, both in the amount of work needed currently and in the quality of the announcements, avoiding the most obvious errors.

APFT: messy announcements

On January 17, 2017 the company announced:

On February 16, 2017 the company amended the above announcement:

Two changes, but both puzzling:

• There was no "disposal of shares via open market" done on January 4th 2017 at a price of RM 0.40. 
• It is not possible to announce on January 17th 2017 (the date of the original annnouncement) a disposal of shares in the open market to be done on February 6th 2017.

A second amendment was announced, but no changes in the above.

I guess we have to wait for a third amendment, will they get it right this time?

It all looks very amateuristic and reflects badly on the company.

Also, I like to reiterate a call to automate these kind of announcements.

APFT: why the generous options for directors?

This is the share graph of APFT over the last five years:

And here are the financial results for the last five years:

Next to that, the latest audited accounts have an "emphasis of matter", quoting:

".... there are material uncertainties that may cast significant doubt on the ability of the Group to continue as a going concern."

In short, things have been pretty tough, both for the company and its shareholders.

But still the company announced that Directors would receive millions of options:

The usual reasoning for these kind of options is to allign the interests of shareholders and directors, but that seems to have been lost in the case of APFT.