It was the 28th of February 2012, and Joshua Shen, an investment associate with a large banking group, found himself saddled with a project that blurred the lines between his professional and personal lives in an unexpected manner. His Chief Investment Officer had sent to him a fact sheet on a proposed private placement subscription to the shares in Cordlife Group for a private banking client, and tasked him to prepare a valuation report on the company so that he could decide whether to recommend the private placement to the client. Cordlife was not your typical firm: instead of selling everyday consumable goods and services, it was an umbilical cord tissue bank, in the business of life itself. Joshua was familiar with the company: he and his wife had just banked their first-born's cord cells with them. But, more often than not, a good product does not necessarily mean a good company, and a good company does not necessarily mean a good stock. How does one value such a business? Should he recommend the investment to the client, and on what basis?

Student spreadsheet for case NTU184

Malaysia headquartered Genting Berhad has been assigned highest credit rating among global gaming companies. This remarkable gaming focussed conglomerate adopted what in 1965 was a unique strategy to develop a portfolio of stable and recurring cash flow generating integrated resorts. This strategy was to establish flagship IRs in regulated markets such as Malaysia (where Genting is a monopoly) and Singapore (where the company operates in a duopolistic market) before diversifying into competitive markets like the U.S. and U.K. This strategy has enabled Genting Berhad to achieve a net cash position despite operating in a cyclical and capital intensive industry. Using Genting Berhad as an example, this case study delineates the concepts of credit ratings in general, credit ratings of corporates in particular, and industry specific credit rating methodology. The case study prompts users to adopt a systematic approach to fundamental and counterparty analysis by assessing the impact of the macro economy, industry environment, and company specific attributes in evaluating a company's debt servicing ability.

"Noble and The Valuation of Its Investment Associates" focusses on the Noble Group's performance since 2011 and the impact of the adverse research report published by the independent outfit, Iceberg Research in 2015, on the company. The veracity of Iceberg Research's reports is analyzed. The case uses financial statement analysis, valuing companies through income, market and asset/cost approaches to assess if Noble Group paid purchase considerations in excess of the target firm's intrinsic values while acquiring associates, particularly Australia-based Yancoal. The case study also provides the setting to use macroeconomic factors in conjunction with valuation techniques and financial statement analysis to evaluate a potential investment.

This case features the development of KargoCard, a Shanghai-based prepaid gift card startup, from its inception in 2008 until late 2015/early 2016 when it received news of a potential buyout by a global player. It illustrates the challenges of entrepreneurship, particularly management and leadership in dynamic and foreign business environments. In particular, this case highlights the considerations in pursuing different growth strategies. This case is suitable for graduate-level management, business, and executive development programmes that include entrepreneurship and/or tech innovation components. It is also targeted at similar programmes with an international, Asia Pacific, or especially a China focus.

This case examines the contexts and outcomes of Bright Food Group's eight overseas merger and acquisition (M&A) initiatives in the food industry in Australia, Europe, New Zealand and the United States from 2010 to 2012. The case provides an opportunity to examine a Chinese state-owned enterprise's overseas M&A strategy, including reasons for M&A targets and challenges in its first steps in global M&A deal making.

On 18 Feb 2011, paper made from stone rolled off from a factory in the city of Huaibei, makingTethia Lungmeng Environmental Friendly Products Co. Ltd. (TLM天象龙盟) the first company to produce commercial stone paper in China. TLM's founder and chairman, Kong Ling Fa, (孔令发) gave his visitors his stone paper business card and put one business card into a glass of water. Half an hour into the conversation, he pulled out the card, shook off the water and passed it around. The stone paper business card felt the same as ordinary paper and yet was completely waterproof. Stone paper is paper made from limestone, which is an abundant raw material. Kong felt that he was breaking new ground with this new material, and that it had commercial potential. He believed that stone paper's potential goes beyond replacing traditional paper. How readily would consumers accept it? How should TLM promote the value and potential of stone paper? Which markets should he target? Should TLM focus on China or reach out to more developed countries in the West? What would be the appropriate business model? TLM licensed the technology from Taiwan and had exclusive rights only in Anhui province. Although TLM was the first to produce stone paper commercially, three other companies were in the process of starting up production. How should TLM exploit its first-mover advantage? How should TLM develop the resources and strategic capabilities to ensure success? How could it leverage on the reputation and experience that Kong and TLM had accumulated over the years? Was it sustainable?

This case traces Shenzhen-based AAC Technology's entrepreneurial journey, depicting their motivations, experiences, learning and foresight. It discusses the inter-generational transfer between the entrepreneur and his son, and their cooperation with VCs, thereby laying the foundations for a Chinese family business to transform into a first-source global supplier to several major mobile device manufacturers. Scoring wins in miniaturization and the mobile phone market, AAC continued to build its competitive advantages in high quality and fast response products. Case B examines the strategies undertaken by AAC for growth and expansion after its IPO in 2005.

This case provides the setting to evaluate the capital raising and management strategies taken by Genting International/Singapore to build Resorts World Sentosa. The case introduces the Singapore Integrated Resorts concept which is a distinct new business model in the global gaming business. This is followed by a review of the parent company behind Resort World Sentosa, Genting Berhad and Genting International which was subsequently renamed Genting Singapore. The case then discusses the several capital raising initiatives and management strategies taken by Genting International/Singapore for the development of Resort World Sentosa.