Our website is made possible by displaying non-intrusive online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling or pausing your ad blocker.
CHAI: Question to ask you. You mentioned that the controlling and non-controlling interest reporting is when the parent own >50% but less than <100%. What about if the parent own less than 50%, aka like how much GENT owns GENM (49%)? Would the controlling and non-controlling reporting method still applies?
Also, what's the difference in US reporting style in terms of this issue?
VIN: I'm no expert in private/public advantages. But the way I see now is that GENM performance is poor and GENT performance is outstanding and worry that the share price of GENT will be dragged by GENM because many retail investors will think that GENM is the entire of GENT. Many people actually thinks this. Not everyone is as smart as most of us here and can differentiate between the two.. hahah
Thank you Chai for the explanation! You've answered the question that I have for a very long time!
I always thought controlling interest is shareholders like us and non-controlling shareholders are some private equity investors that invest and have no say in the management.
Base on the results of this quater, it appears that GENM's contribution to GENT is not as significant as the old days anymore, which is a good thing. This can shield us from the negativity of the two factors I mentioned above.
I suspect our boss LKT also knows this risk and has slowly reduced GENM casino activities while increasing casino presence in other more liberal markets/countries.
On the side note, I hope Genting management can slowly move Malaysia casino abroad so that we are completely free from the worries of sin tax and the threats of the rise of religious politics.
Sin tax ald kena before by 林神棍, that Chinese traitor as KC pointed out.
Religious politics lagi geli, what if PN won GE16 then GENM really bye bye.