<存股> 8926,台汽電,長期存股討論

灰狼01 wrote:
且無形資產變多了,也不是好事,甚至是該擔心的~...(恕刪)

你誤會了
台汽電的無形資產只有這樣而已

帳列其他無形資產的部分是上民營造的甲等營造登記證申請及複查成本

---
另外簡單解釋商譽,是指買入溢價
廉價購買利益,就是買入折價
FYI
J1977 wrote:
你誤會了台汽電的無形...(恕刪)


J大,謝謝你的說明..請問這資料哪裡查找?

但,雖不編列為無形資產,還是不懂為什麼剛買入股權,就可以認列損益呢?

以公允價值計算? 若是,可以拿來配息嗎? 這是小弟的最愛~

另,小弟查8926之資產負債表及現金流量表,好像8926是舉長債買入這些投資權益,

負債比變高了,投資現金流出及籌資變多了,以後的效益怎看?
灰狼01 wrote:
J大,謝謝你的說明..請問這資料哪裡查找?
但,雖不編列為無形資產,還是不懂為什麼剛買入股權,就可以認列損益呢?
以公允價值計算? 若是,可以拿來配息嗎? 這是小弟的最愛~
另,小弟查8926之資產負債表及現金流量表,好像8926是舉長債買入這些投資權益,
負債比變高了,投資現金流出及籌資變多了,以後的效益怎看?....(恕刪)

1.公開資訊觀測站

2.不是故意的,IFRS3強制上市櫃公司執行收購須在當日一併認列溢價或折價
台汽電收購股權的時間是在03/20
自然認列購買利益會一次全部出現在14Q1
每一家公司執行股權併購都會這樣
並非刻意拉抬股價的作為,無須過度聯想

3.不能用來配息,它是未來現金流資產...除非台汽電想殺雞取卵

4.台汽電這裡有一個眉角教你看一下
台汽電每一季認列的業外收益都有數億元台幣
但這裡的錢指的是權益份額,並不是現金喔
所以公司平時要用到大錢的時候自然需要舉債
直到8,9月份股息派發旺季的時候
台汽電才會從轉投資電廠一次拿到十幾億的現金股息
然後用這筆錢大量償還貸款以及發放股息
這是台汽電很特別的收入模式
你看現金流量表就知道
每一年的營業現金入帳都是Q3(7/8/9月)最高
融資還款也是Q3最多

J1977 wrote:
1.公開資訊觀測站2...(恕刪)


長知識了~

謝謝大大~

"Happiness only real when shared."

orion9981 wrote:
長知識了~謝謝大大~...(恕刪)

很高興對您有幫助
新消息

公平會又遭翻案 9電廠60.5億元免繳
====================================
公平會針對九家民營電廠電價聯合行為
裁罰六十點五億元的行政處分,昨天遭到行政院訴願會撤銷
並須在兩個月內另為適法之處分。
這已是行政院訴願會,第二度撤銷公平會對民營電廠行政處分
=====================================
全文網址

J1977 wrote:
新消息公平會又遭翻案...(恕刪)




哇~

這下有趣了~

"Happiness only real when shared."
請問有人知道台汽電菲律賓電廠的進度嗎?
因為有查到去年五月的菲律賓新聞是不大順,參考如下:
http://www.manilatimes.net/court-blocks-p56-m-coal-power-plant-in-zambales/4853/
Court blocks P56-M coal power plant in Zambales
May 28, 2013 10:40 pm
by JOMAR CANLAS
THE Court of Appeals invalidated the Environmental Compliance Certificate issued by the Department of Natural Resources (DENR), including two consecutive amendments issued in connection with the petition filed by several activist party-list groups against the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, the Redondo Peninsula Energy Inc. (RP Energy), arising from the plans to build a P56-billion 600-megawatt power plant.
In an eight-page Resolution of the Court’s 15th Division, it denied the privilege of the writ of kalikasan and the application for an environmental protection order, and junked the motion for reconsideration filed by SBMA, DENR and the private corporations for lack of merit.
Associate Justice Celia Librea-Leagogo wrote the ruling with Associate Justices Franchito Diamante and Melchor Quirino Sadang concurring.
“Lest it be glossed over by the parties, the privilege of the writ of kalikasan and the application for an environmental protection order were denied in the instant case,” the ruling avers.
“However, the ECC Ref. Code 0804-011-4021 dated 22 December 2008, as well as its first amendment dated 08 July 2010 and second amendment dated 26 May 2011 issued in favor of respondent RP Energy, and the Lease and Development Agreement dated 08 June 2010 entered into by respondents SBMA and RP Energy were all declared invalid due to various defects and non compliance with legal procedures / requirements concerned, “ it was pointed out.
With this, the Court argued that “the ball is in the court of the respondents concerned, so to speak, to immediately take the appropriate measures directed towards their faithful compliance with all the legal procedures/requirements, as well as the rectification of the said various defects.”
In an earlier decision, the Court threw out petitioners Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Teodoro Casiño and several others’ “ prayer to declare the nullity of Section 8.3 of the DENR Administrative Order No. 2003-30 for being ultra vires[.]”
Declared invalid were: (1) the Environmental Compliance Certificate . . . dated 22 December 2008 issued is favor of Redondo . . . by former Secretary Jose Atienza Jr. of the DENR; (2) the ECC first amendment dated 08 July 2010 and ECC second amendment dated 26 May 2011, both issued in favor of Redondo . . . by OIC Director Atty. Juan Miguel Cuna of DENR, Environmental Management Bureau; (3) the Lease and Development Agreement dated 08 June 2010 entered into by respondents Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority and Redondo . . . involving a parcel of land consisting of 380,004.456 square meters.
RP Energy is a consortium of Taiwan Cogen, Meralco and Aboitiz Power.
The petition for the writ of kalikasan was originally filed with the Supreme Court by the residents of Olongapo City, the Subic Bay Chamber for Health and Environmental Conservation, the No to Coal-Central Luzon Alliance together with the activist party-list groups Bayan Muna, Kabataan, Gabriela, Anakpawis, and Kalikasan.
Heeding the cry of the residents, Olongapo Vice Mayor Rolen Paulino, city councilors and the local government units in the area have long been rejecting the project. They even passed several resolutions condemning it.
The petitioners claimed that a temporary environmental protection order should be issued against the planned establishment of a coal-fired power plant in Subic Bay Freeport Zone, adding that the construction of the plant should be stopped as it poses health risks to residents of the provinces of Zambales and Bataan.
They argued that the project violates the constitutional rights of residents to a balanced and healthful ecology.
Acting on the petition, the High Tribunal issued a writ of kalikasan against the respondents but referred the case to the appeals court for hearing, reception of evidence and judgment.
In its ruling, the appellate court said that “it is undisputed that RP Energy’s power plant project has not yet been constructed.”
“Petitioners failed to prove their allegations that the construction and operation of RP Energy’s power plant using the CFB technology will cause environmental damage of such magnitude as will adversely affect the residents of the provinces of Bataan and Zambales, particularly the municipalities of Subic, Zambales, Morong and Hermosa, Bataan and the city of Olongapo, as well as the ecological balance of the area; thermal pollution of coastal waters; air pollution due to dust and combustion gases; water pollution from toxic coal combustion waste; and acid deposition to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.”
In fact, the Court noted that “petitioners admitted during the preliminary conference that, at present, there is no environmental damage yet.”
103/06/09
(更正)代子公司國泰人壽公告董事會決議擬投資星元電力股份有限公司
交易數量:普通股66,000,000股
每股交易價格:新台幣13.5元以下
交易總金額:新台幣8.91億元以下
交易相對人:中華開發工業銀行
其他重要約定事項:(2) 台汽電具有第一優先承購權,本公司及其他投資人具第二優先認股權。
===

希望有足夠現金能買下來
工商時報【記者彭禎伶、陳欣文╱台北報導】

核四停建,電廠股權成「搶手貨」。開發工銀要出售20%的星元電力公司股權,引來國泰人壽及南山人壽爭奪,南山人壽出價每股13元要拿下6.6萬張星元電廠股票,但國壽以原始股東的優先議約權,昨(6)日董事會決定出價每股13.5元,目前仍要看南山人壽是否再往上加碼。

星元電廠是位於彰濱工業區的天然氣發電廠,原始股東即有台汽電、東京電力、兆豐銀、國壽等,每年發電490MW(百萬瓦),全數由台電收購,年化投資報酬率有6∼8%,因此被壽險資金視為絕佳投資標的。

開發工銀是星元電廠原始股東,持有股份已超過10年,期間加上每年配股,屬於報酬率穩定的投資標的,但基於考量其他投資案更具效益以及擔心電價調漲衝擊電廠股東投資報酬率,因此決定出脫持股,若以目前國壽每股13.5元出價加上歷年來的配股來算,開發的獲利至少在4成左右。

開發工銀5月即公告,預計以每股13元的價格,總價8.58億元,將20%的星元電力股權賣給南山人壽,但合約中有但書,即原始股東如台汽電、東京電力、兆豐銀、國壽有優先議約權。

國壽評估後,昨天董事會即通過以每股13.5元、總投資金額8.91億元的價格,買下星元電力20%的股權,加計原先持有的9%,即會達到29%的持股,但就算開發工銀確定要賣給國壽,也必須保險局核准這項公共投資的申請案,才能成交。
台汽電在不出聲就沒機會了......
限制級
您即將進入之討論頁 需滿18歲 方可瀏覽。
提醒:內容可能因過於寫實、驚悚而令人感到不舒服,是否繼續觀看?

根據「電腦網路內容分級處理辦法」修正條文第六條第三款規定,已於該限制級網頁,依台灣網站分級推廣基金會規定作標示。
評分
複製連結
請輸入您要前往的頁數(1 ~ 46)