|
|
FashionValet rugi lima tahun berturut-turut sebelum pelaburan Khazanah, PNB
[Copy link]
|
|
|
haah kan.. mcm ada bau2 bacang... tu if suh pakai contact lense kaler hazel ke sebijik
harap2 kote tak layu lah 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some Suckies (eh Duckies) I know dah start meroyan dah dekat FB sebab ketua dia kena tahan SPRM. Katanya netizen Melesia tak reti bisnes chuols. Padahal sendiri bodo hadap sangat tudung harga 300 ringgit padahal cost membuatnya tak berapa sen. Suckies dan bodo berpisah teda |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
babynina30 replied at 6-11-2024 07:45 AM
Padza n siblings , jua vv suko feeling2 tak roti ckp melayu
Siap buek challenge , speak BM in 24hr ...
Kalau dia baru balik dari sana dan memang masa duduk sana, 5 tahun tak campur Melayu langsung, mungkinlah juga lidah kelu tidak terkata. Tapi kalau dah balik sini lama dikelilingi Malaysians cakap Melayu, susah la sikit nak isolated macam tu. Ada kawan saya dari sekolah dia kena hantar bersekolah kat sana, lepas tu degree sampai masters, kerja, kahwin berpuluh tahun juga duduk sana memang duduk di kalangan English people, itu pun dia fasih cakap BM walaupun penulisan tu ke laut. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitty_catz replied at 5-11-2024 10:04 PM
Haah tak reti , lidah omputih uols.. muka je jawo, jgn terkeliru
Hehe gitu pulak. Macam2 hal la kan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anger and intrigue are mounting across Malaysian social media over the loss of US$10 million in state funding for Fashion Valet, with users turning to AI to investigate the spending habits of the influencer founders behind the failed e-commerce firm.
With more than 1.8 million followers on Instagram, Fashion Valet co-founder Vivy Yusof, 37, – renowned for her fondness for social media “humblebragging” and luxury brands – is now in the spotlight as the collapse of her business venture billows out into a national scandal.
Vivy and her husband and co-founder, Fadzarudin Shah Anuar, 36, were called in for questioning on Tuesday by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) over the failed venture, as public interest surged in the loss of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money.
The revelation last week that Malaysian sovereign wealth fund Khazanah Nasional Berhad and investment firm PNB Anger dumped their stakes at a loss of 47 million ringgit (US$10.7 million) in 2022 has seen anger spill out online.
Malaysians on X have scrutinised Vivy’s collection of luxury handbags and shoes, posted under hashtags such as “crazy bag lady” and “each of them has a story”.
Estimated by some to be worth over 1.5 million ringgit, Vivy’s display of wealth has struck a nerve in Malaysia, where the median household income is just 6,338 ringgit.
She previously explained over Instagram that the bags “defined” her and were acquired over two decades using her “hard-earned money”.
Aside from eagle-eyed fashion aficionados, others have employed AI for analytical insights, with OpenAI’s ChatGPT inferring that the collection likely belongs to someone “within the ultra-high-net-worth category”.
Some also used the platform to illustrate what else could be spent using the same amount to fund Fashion Valet, which returned with more than 400 low-cost housing and 4,000 hospital beds.
In light of the scrutiny, one X user quipped that if they ever get this rich, “I hope I become the quiet type”.
Vivy’s star power and image of success led to her own reality TV show, “Love, Vivy”. She has received accolades, including a place on Forbes’ 30 Under 30 Asia list and Young Entrepreneur of the Year at the Asean@50 Achievement Awards in 2017.
Despite her success, she stirred controversy with her 2019 appointment to the board of Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) at 30. The public questioned her qualifications for the role, leading to a petition and her eventual removal a year later.
Adding to the public’s fascination, a 2021 research paper by linguistics lecturers at the International Islamic University of Malaysia analysed Vivy’s use of “humblebragging language” on social media.
The usually secretive and opaque MACC has also stepped into the fray, releasing an in-house news video on TikTok documenting raids on four of Fashion Valet’s offices, complete with dramatic music and pixelated employee faces.
On Sunday, the founders apologised in an Instagram post, saying they were to blame and had expanded “too aggressively”.
Yet their defence has come from unexpected quarters.
Former MP Tony Pua, known for his role in exposing the 1MDB scandal, has criticised the intense scrutiny on Fashion Valet, calling it “misguided and unfair”.
This includes calls from Umno Youth Chief Muhamad Akmal Salleh – whom Pua called a “joker” – for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the matter.
“The excessive shaming will only foster a culture where no decision-maker will take risks,” Pua said on Facebook.
Khazanah has faced criticism before for passing on opportunities like Malaysia’s ride-sharing giant Grab, which then received funding from Singapore’s Temasek Holdings and moved its headquarters from Kuala Lumpur to Singapore.
“We can’t have it both ways,” Pua added. “You can’t be angry when we didn’t invest, and also when we did.”
Kuching lawmaker Kelvin Yii echoed Pua’s concerns about excessive scrutiny stifling venture capital but noted red flags in Fashion Valet’s funding from the start.
“[We] can’t just hand out huge sums of money and allow unaccountable spending under the guise of high-risk investment,” he said on X.
Hadi Azmi
Hadi Azmi
FOLLOW
Hadi Azmi is the Post's Malaysia Correspondent. Based in Kuala Lumpur, he covers Malaysian politics and current affairs. He has written for Bloomberg, The New York Times, and CNN.
Malaysia
This Week in AsiaPolitics
US$10 million Fashion Valet fail prompts Anwar to probe Malaysia sovereign fund selections
The loss of Khazanah’s investment in an online fashion retailer has sparked outrage among a public still sensitive after the 1MDB scandal
Reading Time:
2 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
1
Listen
Further Reading
Malaysian ex-PM Najib fails to end 5-year trial over 1MDB scandal
Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysia’s elite and the state-funded schools that shaped them
Najib apologises, without accepting full blame, for Malaysia’s 1MDB scandal
Discover MORE stories on
Malaysia
FOLLOW
now and stay updated with
Malaysian state pushes for 100km wall along Thai border to tackle crime
Malaysia’s Anwar deepens economic ties with Beijing
With ChatGPT and hashtags, Malaysians show unease with Fashion Valet losses
NEWSLETTEREvery Saturday
A weekly curated round-up of social, political and economic stories from China and how they impact the world.
By submitting, you consent to receiving marketing emails from SCMP. If you don't want these, tick here
GET OUR NEWSLETTER
By registering, you agree to ourT&CandPrivacy Policy
Malaysia’s Prime Minister and Finance Minister Anwar Ibrahim delivering his speech on the 2025 national budget at the Malaysian Parliament in Kuala Lumpur on October 18. Photo: EPA-EFE
Hadi Azmi
Published: 2:40pm, 4 Nov 2024
A US$10 million loss of Malaysian state funds invested in a failed online fashion retailer has ignited public outcry and prompted Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim to order an audit of the country’s nearly US$30 billion sovereign wealth fund.
News that Khazanah Nasional Berhad fund and investment firm Permodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB) had divested their combined 47 million ringgit (US $10.74 million) stake in e-commerce retailer Fashion Valet for just 3.1 million ringgit (US $710,000) broke in parliament on Tuesday.
The revelation has raised questions over the investment selections of Khazanah and comes as Malaysia remains acutely sensitive over state fund mismanagement following the multibillion-dollar 1MDB corruption scandal.
Fashion Valet, helmed by influencer couple Vivy Yusof and Fadzarudin Shah Anuar, aimed to build an online sales platform to take the country’s fashion retailers global, similar to China’s Shein or Temu.
However, the company collapsed in 2022 after struggling through the pandemic. As outcry crescendoed after the state’s losses emerged, the founders apologised on Sunday, saying they were to blame and had expanded “too aggressively.”
“We made the mistake of scaling the company in anticipation of continued growth, and when the pandemic hit, we were left exposed,” the couple said in an Instagram post.
Their apology did little to appease the Malaysian public, who remained unconvinced and criticised Vivy in particular for her display of luxury handbags, including exclusive Hermès Birkins, on social media while Fashion Valet was floundering.
27:37
Anwar Ibrahim on navigating Malaysia through China-US tensions | Talking Post with Yonden Lhatoo
Anwar Ibrahim on navigating Malaysia through China-US tensions | Talking Post with Yonden Lhatoo
“She flaunts her wealth around while Khazanah and PNB’s funds go down the drain,” said X user Khairy Zulfadhli in a post that garnered over 200,000 views.
In response to the public outcry, Anwar, who is the chairman of Khazanah – a position traditionally held by the prime minister – issued a “strict instruction” on Sunday for an internal audit of the sovereign wealth fund over the investment losses.
He said this is in line with his earlier instruction for the National Audit Department to conduct an audit of 2,000 government-related companies (GLC).
“[This is] to create a better governance system, in addition to ensuring that all companies in question fulfil the demands of their respective responsibilities and functions,” Anwar wrote in a social media post.
Public frustration was also directed at the finance ministry, also led by Anwar, which had stated that the loss was “negligible compared to Khazanah’s and PNB’s overall income” in its response to parliament last Tuesday.
The National Audit Department has said it had cleared legal hurdles and now has a mandate to audit the accounts of 1,856 government-linked entities, more than double what it previously looked at.
With fiscal responsibility and spending reforms as key priorities, Anwar has criticised certain GLCs for awarding management bonuses of up to eight months’ salary, despite poor performance and failure to meet objectives .
The investment loss at Fashion Valet has also invited the scrutiny of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), which launched a probe into Khazanah and PNB minutes before the prime minister’s own announcement.
“This investigation is important because it involves the use of public funds and is an issue of public interest,” said the commission’s chief Azam Baki, in a statement.
Established in 1993, Khazanah invests both domestically and internationally, with holdings that include Malaysia Airlines and, more recently, energy transition ventures.
Hadi Azmi
Hadi Azmi
FOLLOW
Hadi Azmi is the Post's Malaysia Correspondent. Based in Kuala Lumpur, he covers Malaysian politics and current affairs. He has written for Bloomberg, The New York Times, and CNN.
US$10 million Fashion Valet fail prompts Anwar to probe Malaysia sovereign fund selections | South China Morning Post
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tapi i am so shocked MACC only got 11 handbags valued at 200K mana bag lain yang mahal tu? Asma and the other Musa daughter simpan ke |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Firenzza replied at 5-11-2024 09:23 AM
Sapa chairman khazanah masa tu yg bg kelulusan ? BOD diorg patut diheret sekali masuk sprm.....mmg b ...
Setujuuu sgt... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitty_catz replied at 5-11-2024 09:07 PM
Haah iyee.. gigih masatu
Hebatt siii kitty...boleh jadi geng sprm nih..
Semoga sis sihat Dan dipanjngkannumur utk berjuang mendedahkan kepincangn mana mana company yg menjahanamkn mesia nih... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
babynina30 replied at 6-11-2024 07:45 AM
Padza n siblings , jua vv suko feeling2 tak roti ckp melayu
Siap buek challenge , speak BM in 24hr ...
Kann..kalau dulu2..all education in gov school pun English pasti semua warga mesia boleh ckp fluent english kan..even acik2 jual nasi kt tepi jalan fluent english... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
macih
aaa mana taw meols mmg acik espiarem underkaver main porem
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harap sangkut la walau satu dua pertuduhan. Tapi kalau tak sangkut takde la akaun sampai kena beku dengan barang kena sita kan? Macam ada bau2 nak sangkut ni |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by Nfir at 7-11-2024 12:37 PM
Berkemungkinan besar MACC ambil barangan itu sebagai barangan bukti. Barangan bukti adalah barangan yang relevan untuk sesuatu penyiasatan atau dakwaan.
Mungkin at this stage siasatan MACC sudah tertumpu kepada sudut-sudut tertentu dalam siasatan mereka. Jadi MACC mengambil barangan bukti yang relevan untuk sudut siasatan tersebut saja.
Katakan, sebuah handbag dibeli menggunakan director's emoluments atau director's bonus di luar investment period yang relevan dengan investment Khazanah.
Maka handbag ini tidak relevan dalam siasatan MACC. Walau pun handbag itu dipakai oleh Vivy, di upload oleh Vivy di Instagram beliau, diketahui oleh public, dan dikira harga handbag itu oleh public.
Ini adalah contoh pembayaran director's emoluments dan director's bonus di luar investment period Khazanah:
https://x.com/Alturkistiano/status/1852722180376916475/photo/2
+ + +
Ringkasnya, siasatan MACC akan tertumpu kepada perkara-perkara yang berlaku selepas pelaburan Khazanah. Khazanah buat announcement tentang pelaburan mereka dalam FashionValet pada March 2018.
Setelah Khazanah melakukan pelaburan dalam FashionValet, MACC masih perlu investigate apa aktiviti yang dilakukan oleh founder yang mempunyai unsur jenayah.
Ini adalah dua perkara yang dilakukan oleh founder melibatkan pengambilan duit syarikat dan kedua-dua perkara ini BUKAN aktiviti jenayah.
+ + +
Perkara 1: Mengambil director's remuneration dalam jumlah jutaan ringgit walaupun syarikat sedang mengalami kerugian BUKAN aktiviti jenayah. Boleh baca tentang perkara ini di sini:
"3. In the most recent annual report, director's remuneration actually went down, and there were no added bonuses
In Aliff’s post, he mentioned that the directors’ allowance was increasing. However, if we look at the latest financial statement ending December 31, 2020, the directors’ remuneration went down. In 2019, it had been RM2,152,416, while in 2020 it was RM1,453,866."
https://vulcanpost.com/798674/investigate-fashionvalet-financial-controversy-profit-loss/
Pertama, kenapa perkara ini bukan jenayah? Kerana, pengambilan director's remuneration ini bukan dilakukan secara penipuan. Ia bukan juga dicuri.
Founder / Director menjelaskan dengan terang dalam annual report tentang jumlah director's remuneration pada tahun 2019 dan tahun 2020. Maksudnya, pembayaran director's remuneration ini berlaku di bawah pengetahuan dan kebenaran Khazanah.
Kedua, daripada pembayaran director's remuneration untuk tahun 2019 dan tahun 2020, wujud tak kemungkinan founder beli handbag menggunakan duit ini?
Yes, wujud kemungkinan itu. Kita pun tak tahu bagaimana founder membelanjakan director's remuneration ini.
Ketiga, jika founder membeli bag, adakah bag itu boleh menjadi barangan bukti?
Most likely, tidak. Kerana, duit yang menjadi sumber untuk membeli handbag itu dijelaskan dalam annual report dan diketahui oleh pelabur. Duit tersebut bukan daripada aktiviti jenayah.
+ + +
Perkara 2: Syarikat 30 Maple Sdn Bhd membayar dividen pada tahun 2017 dan 2018 BUKAN aktiviti jenayah.
Boleh baca tentang dividen di sini:
"30 Maple, however, did appear to be a profitable company in 2017 and 2018 recording a profit of RM8.5 million and RM7.745 million respectively.
According to 30 Maple’s company documents, the company paid a RM4.2 million dividend in 2017 and RM10 million in 2018."
https://www.scoop.my/news/234588/duck-and-cover-fashionvalet-bought-vivys-30-maple-for-rm95-mil-in-2018/
Pertama, pembayaran dividen dilakukan ketika Syarikat 30 Maple Sdn Bhd belum dimiliki oleh Syarikat FashionValet Sdn Bhd. Pelaburan Khazanah disalurkan kepada Syarikat FashionValet Sdn Bhd.
Jadi, ketika pembayaran dividen dilakukan oleh Syarikat 30 Maple Sdn Bhd, pembayaran dividen ini tidak melibatkan Syarikat FashionValet Sdn Bhd mahu pun pelaburan Khazanah.
Kedua, most likely, daripada mana sumber duit untuk membayar dividen pada 2017 dan 2018?
Pada 2017 dan 2018, Syarikat 30 Maple Sdn Bhd mencatatkan keuntungan terkumpul kira-kira RM 16 juta. Jumlah pembayaran dividen pada 2017 dan 2018 adalah sekitar RM 14 juta.
Jadi, kita boleh rumuskan bahawa Syarikat 30 Maple Sdn Bhd mempunyai keuntungan yang mencukupi untuk membayar dividen tersebut.
Ketiga, seandainya handbag dibeli menggunakan duit dividen daripada Syarikat 30 Maple Sdn Bhd, handbag tersebut tidak boleh dikira sebagai barangan bukti juga. Kerana, wang untuk membeli handbag itu bukan daripada sumber aktiviti jenayah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitty_catz replied at 7-11-2024 12:11 PM
macih
aaa mana taw meols mmg acik espiarem underkaver main porem
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nfir replied at 7-11-2024 12:28 PM
Berkemungkinan besar MACC ambil barangan itu sebagai barangan bukti. Barangan bukti adalah barangan ...
Nak tnya chuols, chairman khazanah blh kena jel x sbb lantik fv yg mmg dh tahu 5 tahun berturut2 rugi, klau x silap iols ada sorang chairman glc tu kena gari & pakai baju jingga sbb board of directors buat report sprm ckp diorg kena paksa (duress) dlm mtg bod dgn chairman utk luluskan pelaburan offshore tp lps tu kerugian 2j dan chrman tersebut x mengaku salah mintak bicara |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by Nfir at 7-11-2024 04:44 PM
Sekarang kita tak tahu secara jelas bagaimana procedure kelulusan investment di peringkat Khazanah sewaktu Khazanah melabur dalam Syarikat FashionValet Sdn Bhd pada 2018.
Jadi ada dua kemungkinan:
1) Kemungkinan 1: Investment decision-making melibatkan Pengerusi Khazanah
2) Kemungkinan 2: Investment decision-making TIDAK melibatkan Pengerusi Khazanah
+ + +
Apabila ia memerlukan decision untuk keluarkan duit syarikat, selalunya corporation akan letakkan range. Contoh:
1) Range RM A – RM B: CFO sebagai final decision-maker.
2) Range RM C – RM D: Top management sebagai decision-maker. Contohnya, CEO atau other C-level executive.
3) Range RM E – RM F: Board of Directors (BOD) sebagai decision-maker. Kalau BOD jadi decision-maker, ia akan include Pengerusi.
Semakin besar jumlah duit yang perlu approve, semakin tinggi jawatan decision-maker yang diperlukan untuk kelulusan.
Procedure ini bukan terpakai untuk Khazanah saja. Ia adalah normal practice untuk corporations, i.e. multi-billion companies.
+ + +
Berbalik kepada isu pelaburan Khazanah dalam FashionValet, ada kemungkinan Pengerusi jadi decision-maker.
Ada juga kemungkinan Pengerusi tidak jadi decision-maker. Maksudnya, investment ini sekadar memerlukan decision di peringkat top management atau investment committee.
+ + +
Kenapa ada kemungkinan Pengerusi Khazanah tidak terlibat dalam investment untuk FashionValet?
Investment Khazanah dalam FashionValet berjumlah RM 27 juta.
Berapa jumlah keseluruhan asset yang diuruskan oleh Khazanah?
RM 120 billion. Specifically: The value of the Investments Portfolio as measured by Realisable Asset Value (“RAV”) stood at RM126. 2 billion as at 31 December 2023.
Kalau kita melihat secara nisbah, ia akan jadi begini: RM 27 juta : RM 120 billion
To put things in perspective: RM 1 billion = RM 1,000 juta
Apabila kita melihat dalam bentuk nisbah seperti ini, kita akan nampak bahawa RM 27 juta itu SECARA RELATIF adalah jumlah yang kecil. Jumlah yang mungkin boleh diluluskan oleh decision-maker di peringkat bawahan.
Jadi, Pengerusi dan BOD akan fokus untuk kelulusan bagi jumlah yang lebih besar seperti ratusan juta ringgit dan billion ringgit.
+ + +
Kita bukan nak kata RM 27 juta adalah jumlah yang kecil.
Kita nak kata ... apabila Khazanah perlu menguruskan RM 120 billion (RM 120,000 juta), RM 27 juta adalah jumlah yang lebih kecil.
Pengerusi dan BOD mungkin akan fokus kepada investment yang lebih besar. Kelulusan untuk investment RM 27 juta ini boleh delegate, i.e. diuruskan oleh decision-maker di peringkat bawahan.
+ + +
Sejauh mana wujud possibility tentang unsur rasuah untuk mendapatkan kelulusan bagi investment FashionValet? Atau wujud paksaan daripada Pengerusi seperti kes yang you maksudkan.
Boleh dengar perbincangan tentang pelaburan EPF, Khazanah dan PNB di podcast Ong Kian Ming. Peter adalah partner Ong Kiang Ming dalam podcast ini.
Peter adalah entrepreneur yang familiar dengan startup ecosystem di Malaysia. Menurut Peter, GLIC (Government Linked Investment Company) seperti EPF, PNB dan Khazanah mempunyai track record yang bersih dalam isu rasuah untuk mendapatkan pelaburan.
Betul, Khazanah memang mempunyai beberapa investment yang gagal. Tapi kita belum pernah lihat Khazanah terpalit dengan isu rasuah untuk mendapatkan investment approval.
Kalau kita nak kata Peter biased dalam kes FashionValet, Peter ada mengkritik FashionValet. Peter kata, di kalangan tech founder, mereka sudah lama bercakap tentang FashionValet.
Mungkin tech founder rasa tidak puas hati kerana FashionValet dapat investment GLIC sedangkan ada tech startup yang lebih bagus daripada FashionValet.
Boleh dengar perbincangan tentang FashionValet dalam podcast Ong Kian Ming di sini:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv3Zfh5qkfY
Tengok dekat minit 27:00.
+ + +
Ini adalah persoalan yang lebih menarik untuk dibincangkan:
Apabila tech founders merasakan ada tech startup yang lebih bagus untuk mendapatkan investment GLIC, kenapa Khazanah memilih FashionValet? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nfir replied at 7-11-2024 04:38 PM
Sekarang kita tak tahu secara jelas bagaimana procedure kelulusan investment di peringkat Khazanah ...
Chuols ni co sec kerr?
......ok berbalik pada isu kelulusan td, biasanya dlm annual report khazanah akan keluar kan laporan pelaburan yg diorg telah buat every year, dkt situ x kan la xde sorang pun bod members yg ada rasa walau sekelumit utk tegur yg diorg dh buat kesilapan melabur dkt fv and setiap akaun sure telah diaudit oleh professional auditor, apa respon CEO or pengerusi bila audit komen negatif x kan la bod, CEO or chairman bebal sgt x alert langsung duit public dah dijoli katak? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by Nfir at 7-11-2024 10:40 PM
“ok berbalik pada isu kelulusan td, biasanya dlm annual report khazanah akan keluar kan laporan pelaburan yg diorg telah buat every year”
Betul.
“dkt situ x kan la xde sorang pun bod members yg ada rasa walau sekelumit utk tegur yg diorg dh buat kesilapan melabur dkt fv”
Dalam konteks Khazanah, considering betapa besar / betapa banyak jumlah asset yang Khazanah perlu manage (RM 120 billion), ada kemungkinan, pada mulanya isu berkaitan FashionValet tidak sampai ke perhatian BOD Khazanah.
Walau segala financial figures direkodkan, tapi BOD tidak analyze setiap figures. BOD akan fokus kepada figures lebih penting yang mereka perlu fokus.
Contoh, berlaku kecurian RM 10,000 di outlet McDonald’s. Adakah BOD McDonald’s akan fokus tentang kehilangan duit sebanyak RM 10K? Most likely tidak.
Konsep yang sama terpakai kepada BOD Khazanah. Walaupun FV ini rugi, ada kemungkinan perkara ini tidak dibincangkan oleh BOD Khazanah.
+ + +
Ini kerugian FV pada tahun 2018. Tahun yang sama FV mendapat investment RM 47 juta:
“The company reported a net loss of RM20.19 million in 2018, the year it received RM27 million from Khazanah and RM20 million from PNB.”
Kita tengok memang ia jumlah kerugian yang besar pada 2018. Tapi kalau Khazanah analyze apa punca kerugian ini, mungkin pada waktu itu, Khazanah fikir ia bukan keadaan yang membimbangkan.
Contohnya, Khazanah tahu yang kerugian ini kerana pertambahan expenses. Expenses ini pula digunakan untuk tujuan business expansion.
Specifically, FV teroka market Singapore, atau market Indonesia. Atau, sewa warehouse baru, sewa lebih banyak outlet di shopping mall, etc.
Jadi, Khazanah mungkin fikir, “It makes sense. FV incurred a huge loss because of the aggressive expansion.”
Pada waktu itu, tidak ada sesiapa yang jangka sebahagian expansion tersebut akan gagal. Pada waktu itu juga, kita tidak tahu yang dunia akan diserang Covid pada 2020.
+ + +
“and setiap akaun sure telah diaudit oleh professional auditor, apa respon CEO or pengerusi bila audit komen negative”
Berbalik kepada asset Khazanah yang besar. Ada kemungkinan CEO atau Pengerusi Khazanah tidak tahu tentang komen negative yang wujud dalam audit report FV.
Macam sekarang, Pengerusi Khazanah adalah PMX. Secara logiknya, adakah PMX tahu maklumat audit report untuk setiap company yang mendapat pelaburan Khazanah? Most likely tidak.
+ + +
Ada kemungkinan ini yang berlaku. Khazanah appoint staff untuk monitor financial figures and businesss growth FV.
Tapi pada 2018, Khazanah tidak berpengalaman mengendalikan tech startup. Bila Khazanah tidak ada pengalaman, mungkin mereka tidak interpret financial figures and other metrics dengan betul dari peringkat awal.
Maksudnya, monitoring daripada Khazanah tidak berlaku dengan efektif kerana Khazanah melakukan perkara yang mereka tiada kepakaran.
Contohnya, bila kita tengok financial figures, ia adalah keadaan yang membimbangkan. Tapi Khazanah mungkin rasa ia tidak membimbangkan – suatu interpretation yang tidak betul.
Founder FV sendiri mengaku yang mereka tidak menyediakan contingency fund. Tentulah perkara ini reflect dalam financial report. Tapi wakil Khazanah tidak boleh nampak kelemahan FV tentang contingency fund dari peringkat awal.
Konsep yang sama macam bagi financial report dekat orang yang bekerja makan gaji di MNC atau GLC. Adakah mereka dapat identify kelemahan pada sesuatu financial report untuk tech startup?
Kepakaran Khazanah adalah melabur dalam syarikat yang sudah stabil. Contohnya, Farm Fresh atau Alibaba.
Bila Khazanah nak melabur dalam early-stage startup seperti FV, ia memerlukan kepakaran yang berbeza.
In short, kesilapan utama Khazanah bukannya tidak monitor FV. Tapi kesilapan utama Khazanah adalah melakukan perkara yang mereka tiada kepakaran.
Kenapa Khazanah buat sesuatu yang mereka tiada kepakaran?
Mungkin pada waktu itu Khazanah overconfident. Hopefully, now Khazanah has learned the lesson.
+ + +
“x kan la bod, CEO or chairman bebal sgt x alert langsungduit public dah dijoli katak?”
So far, SPRM belum confirm bahawa dana Khazanah digunakan untuk joli katak.
Kalau SPRM pun belum confirm, macam mana BOD, CEO atau Chairman Khazanah boleh tahu yang duit pelaburan Khazanah digunakan untuk joli katak? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Post time 6-11-2024 09:40 AM
