I have actually made the effort to learn balance sheets, especially double entry accounting (and other accounting methods) and the SIA method of deriving BVPS defies this simple accounting principals indeed.

 

 

 

I apologize for being unable to answer categorically, every one of your queries because there seems some problem with my formatting and I cannot display my writing in paragraph form.

 

 

 

The fact that MCB holders are entitled to any dividend payouts in the situation where the MCB are converted to shares after 10 years if cash redemption didn' t occur is enshrined in the non dilution clause in the MCB prospectus (any dividend payouts to normal shareholders is considered dilution to the SIA share price and thus the equivalent value is accrued to MCB holders in the context of MCB conversion to SIA shares).

 

 

 

The purpose of accounting financial reports is to present the financial and capital structure etc status of the business to investors, analyst and regulators.

 

 

 

Whilst SIA has indeed accounted for the $3.5B from MCB sales as equity, SIA has not recognised the future conversion of MCB into SIA shares, which is the preset default situation, which ought to be the default way of presenting the BVPS figure, until the day when the MCB are fully redeemed.

 

 

 

I believe that SIA has thus gone against basic accounting principles to switch classification of the MCB , as and were it is convenient to dress up their accounts, i.e. as equity to decrease their debt and then subsequently as debt to increase the BVPS, which is very deceptive to investors since two wrongs don' t make a right and by my calculation based on consistently applying MCB as equity, the BVPS is actually $3.57 as opposed to the wrongfully declared BVPS of $5.14 that SIA claims.

 

 

 

 

False/ misleading reporting of financial figures is a very serious offence and I believe that the BVPS calculation that SIA provided is based on false or wrongly applied accounting principles/ methods.