苏小妹：
大华银行非常了解什么是"Gambling with Other People’s Money"。所以早就卖掉10.29%马可波罗海业的股票；拿回$12.68m.MarcoPolo Marine ~ Trading in a downward sloping channel, downside biasedMarcoPolo Marine closed with a black marubozu @ S$0.028
(-0.003, -9.7%) with 24.1m shares done on 27 Apr 2018.
Immediate support @ S$0.022, immediate resistance @ S$0.031.
UOB disposes stake in Marco Polo Marine for $12.68m5 Feb 2018
Marco Polo went through a debt restructuring exercise.
United Overseas Bank Limited (UOB) disposed its 10.29% stake, comprising 362,189,351 shares, in Marco Polo Marine Ltd (MPML) for $12.68m.
According to an announcement, the disposal is pursuant to a court-approved refinancing and debt restructuring exercise involving MPML and certain of its subsidiaries and associated companies, namely, Marco Polo Shipyard Pte Ltd, PT Marcopolo Shipyard and PT Pelayaran Nasional Bina Buana RayaTbk.
UOB previously announced on 26 January 2018 that it bought a 10.29% interest in MPML, at a price of $0.035 per share.
DealStreetAsia revealed in a report that Temasek Holdings is reportedly mulling the purchase of the stake through its unit Heliconia Capital Management.
However, Heliconia only said that Temasek does not play a role in its investment decisions.
DealStreetAsia said that Marco Polo Marine will be amongst the first listed corporates to emerge from debt restructuring exercises amid the prolonged slump that has impacted the oil & gas (O&G) industry – and seen a slump in the offshore & marine (O&M) sector.
Apricot emerges as largest Marco Polo shareholder with $15.2m equity injection 2 Feb 2018
Apricot emerges as largest Marco Polo shareholder with $15.2m equity injection Super Group’s Teo family-backed private investment firm Apricot Capital is injecting $15.2 million (SG$20 million) in equity into Marco Polo Marine as part of the restructuring financing by about nine investors to rescue the troubled marine logistic group.
Headed by Managing Partner Darrent Teo, an heir of the Teo family, Apricot Capital is emerging as the largest shareholder in Marco Polo Marine owning 19.28 per cent deemed and direct interest in the latter after a long restructuring exercise, according to a report from BT on Friday.
Marco Polo’s debt reduced to $9.14 million (S$12 million) when compared to $196.5 million (S$258 million) before it started the debt restructuring plan.
Teo, according the report, has said that the family is trying to uncover gems in the oil and gas (O&G) sector, which he described as “having been well-loved before but now unloved”.
Among other nine investors are Azure All Start Fund, Chua Chuan Leong Ventures, Lim Chap Huat, Singapore Enterprises, Yanlord Capital, Penguin International, Ho Lee Group and Eric Low.
According to a report on Thursday, Temasek Holdings was reportedly considering the acquisition of equity stakes in Marco Polo Marine and Ezion Holdings through its unit Heliconia Capital Management.
徐若瑄老公的航运集团马可波罗海业申请破产保护！ ~ 31 May 2017
http://www.sohu.com/a/144899789_397917
AK：马可波罗海业给了我一个价值10万元的教训 ~ 20 Apr 2017
http://cj.sharesinv.com/20170420/45736/
这家公司在多年前从拖船和驳船管理与运输业务拓展至离岸油气服务领域，其良好的业务模式令它茁壮成长，越来越值得受人青睐。此外，它也在全球金融危机中乘风破浪，依旧能取得盈利。这些都验证了这家公司的管理层并非泛泛之辈。
Gambling with Other People’s MoneyImagine a superb poker player who asks you for a loan to finance his nightly poker playing. For every $100 he gambles, he’s willing to put up $3 of his own money. He wants you to lend him the rest. You will not get a stake in his winning. Instead, he’ll give you a fixed rate of interest on your $97 loan.
The poker player likes this situation for two reasons. First, it minimizes his downside risk. He can only lose $3. Second, borrowing has a great effect on his investment — it gets leveraged. If his $100 bet ends up yielding $103, he has made a lot more than 3 percent — in fact, he has doubled his money. His $3 investment is now worth $6.
But why would you, the lender, play this game? It’s a pretty risky game for you. Suppose your friend starts out with a stake of $10,000 for the night, putting up $300 himself and borrowing $9,700 from you. If he loses anything more than 3 percent on the night, he can’t make good on your loan.
Not to worry — your friend is an extremely skilled and prudent poker player who knows when to hold ,em and when to fold ,em. He may lose a hand or two because poker is a game of chance, but by the end of the night, he’s always ahead. He always makes good on his debts to you. He has never had a losing evening. As a creditor of the poker player, this is all you care about. As long as he can make good on his debt, you’re fine. You care only about one thing — that he stays solvent so that he can repay his loan and you get your money back.
But the gambler cares about two things. Sure, he too wants to stay solvent. Insolvency wipes out his investment, which is always unpleasant — it’s bad for his reputation and hurts his chances of being able to use leverage in the future. But the gambler doesn’t just care about avoiding the downside. He also cares about the upside. As the lender, you don’t share in the upside; no matter how much money the gambler makes on his bets, you just get your promised amount of interest.
If there is a chance to win a lot of money, the gambler is willing to take a big risk. After all, his downside is small. He only has $3 at stake. To gain a really large pot of money, the gambler will take a chance on an inside straight.
As the lender of the bulk of his funds, you wouldn't want the gambler to take that chance. You know that when the leverage ratio — the ratio of borrowed funds to personal assets — is 32–1 ($9700 divided by $300), the gambler will take a lot more risk than you’d like. So you keep an eye on the gambler to make sure that he continues to be successful in his play.
But suppose the gambler becomes increasingly reckless. He begins to draw to an inside straight from time to time and pursue other high-risk strategies that require making very large bets that threaten his ability to make good on his promises to you. After all, it’s worth it to him. He’s not playing with very much of his own money. He is playing mostly with your money. How will you respond?
You might stop lending altogether, concerned that you will lose both your interest and your principal. Or you might look for ways to protect yourself. You might demand a higher rate of interest. You might ask the player to put up his own assets as collateral in case he is wiped out. You might impose a covenant that legally restricts the gambler’s behavior, barring him from drawing to an inside straight, for example.
