I have sold out of all my Cordlife shareholdings at 0.24 per share. This is a pretty good annualized return of 85% from about a year of holding.
Maybe a short recap is in order, if nothing else but for entertainment sake.
Like most of the stocks in my portfolio, I was attracted to... problems. And Cordlife have a major problem (notice I use present tense, it is not out of it yet!). It has two groups of users which cordblood units (CBU) are damaged. One is high risk, which are pretty much no longer 'useful', and low risk, which expert opined that given the temperature or duration of which the incident last, it should still be viable.
They are still looking at the test results of the low risk group. The report, as the group announced in sgx, should be out in the latter half of this year. That timeline isn't very useful since there isn't much of this year left...
In terms of value, I do believe that if the low risk CBU is not damaged, Cordlife is worth way more than 0.127, which was my holding price.
Genesis
It started with a private placement (which was thwarted) and most of the directors were then removed during the AGM after which TransGlobal (my opinion, it is anyone's guess if the incumbents are TransGlobal allies), lost the ability to control the company, and as expected, the CEO (TransGlobal's non-exec director's younger brother) quit recently. It looks like the company has passed on from the power struggle stage and could rebuild.
I think they are still in the early stages of rebuilding, and this could be a lengthy process. At least they regained the license from MOH to continue business as it is.
Sometime during this incident, I joined one particular telegram group, which primarily consist of parents of affected CBU. Obviously I would like to know if they could legally challenge the company. They were forming various group representation to sue. I do read their concerns and felt that, for the high risk group, they were undercompensated by the company.
I am not too sure what to think of the low risk group's parents. Basically, if the CBUs are not damaged, there should be no basis to sue. Unless you have evidence that they have been negligent for a long time, then yes, you have some basis to sue.
Sometime during the conversation some parents told me certain disturbing issues about Cordlife which was on the back of my mind. I told her that I would talk to Cordlife's management when I have the chance. Unfortunately, I missed the EGM due to work. With this liquidation, I guess there won't be.
Don't f**k with parents
Something negative happened during this course of research as well. I was out openly in the telegram group and accused of being a spy. My opinion stays that these parents are better served by buying stocks than engaging these lawyers. Firstly, by buying shares, you are having some kind of psuedo-ownership over the company you hate. You could question them during the AGM. Secondly, you are not provided additional capital to the company-- only stock ownership was transferred. You are not providing additional funds or gunpowder to the very company you hated. "Investing" in Cordlife had a very misleading naunce to it.
Of course none of them were having it and I was asked to leave.
I am not sure how much did they paid the lawyers, and the odds that they going to get anything back eventually
But I was certainly not getting a single cent from offering that investing advice, and my opinions and intent were pretty clear. I was very willing to explain to these parents the investing thesis of it all, and if anyone had listen, they would be slightly happier today.
About Journalists:
The only person that actually listened was a Straits Time reporter. The Business Times reporters were pretty snobby (LOL) and only Ben Paul replied. None of his underlings/colleagues bothered; neither were they willing to write from an angle that there is potentially a lot of value in this company. They were only keen about the board power struggle (which I actually spent a damn long time to understand the players involved, and tried to reach out to them), the parents-MOH angle (understandable). But hey, you guys are Business Times. Nobody wants to stick their neck out and look at it from a distressed angle?
The End
The offer price of 0.25 from Thailand's Medeze is a fair deal, considering the following factors:
a) it is possible that the low risk group is affected.
b) The timeframe of which the value of the company that could be revise by the public market might take a long time (not that I wasn't willing to wait)
c) any other possible problems which I might be unaware of, such as financial fraud.
d) quite a few directors resigned, which worried me a fair deal.
What should happen next
The low risk group should be ... still viable, and eventually all the suits involving the low risk group could be thrown out. I afraid that these parents would be doubly disappointed by the outcome.
The company should be able to afford the outcome of the group representation suit from the high risk group, although it would significantly impact its coffers.
Cordlife, after clearing these legal issues, would be privately bought out by NJXJK or a consortium consisting of it. I suspect the company is worth at least over 30 cents if the low risk group isn't a liability. It could be a long wait, but it wasn't the waiting that is an issue, it is the uncertainty of things. A return of a few hundred percent over a lengthy course of 5-6 years is not a big deal.
What if the low risk group is an issue? Thing would be very bad indeed.