有病？逻辑链在那里？真正理解 PTRANS 的商业模式，就不会把“补贴”“浪费纳税人钱”这种标签乱贴上来。马来西亚所有公共交通相关项目，本来就属于 州政府与私营企业的合作框架（PPP），全球都是这样做——从新加坡、香港到英国都一样，因为公共交通是强外部性的基础设施，不可能靠收车票来回本。

PTRANS 的收入结构也不是靠政府补贴，而是靠 综合商业化：终站商铺租金、广告位、场地营运、巴士运营授标费用等等。政府的角色是提供政策支持，让地区交通系统能正常运作，而不是替公司“补贴亏损”。这类合作反而让纳税人少花钱，因为如果完全由政府自己建、自己营运，成本会比现在高得多。

你可以不喜欢这家公司，但至少要理解行业运作方式之后再批评，否则就会把一个正常的公共交通商业模式误会成人民“补贴”来续命。他们今晚有说明会，你可以直接问管理层，他们会解释得更清楚。

Based on the sukuk's prospectus, the 2 tenants that deal with advertising & promotional spaces are Century Edge Sdn Bhd ( Company No. 1073707-X) and Angkasa Aman (Business Registration No. IP0404650-V). Maybe can ask in the zoom to confirm these companies are the one who defaulted their debts

亮点主要集中在两个：

1）Bidor、Kampar 的租户都已经开业运营，只是部分租户有 payment schedule 的安排，但 PTRANS 已经收了两个月租金押金，cash flow 受到的影响不大；

2）Dividend 减少，是因为大量 warrant 被行使，share base 变大而已，不是业绩变差。

股价大跌主要原因还是 market technical —— 大股东因 margin 被 forced sell 才出现恐慌盘，并不是基本面问题。

Margin calls can happen even when a company’s fundamentals remain solid. They are not triggered by the business performance of PTRANS, but by the shareholder’s own financing position. If a major shareholder uses margin financing and the share price drops below the required collateral value, the broker will automatically force-sell the shares to protect their loan exposure. This can happen to any company, even those with stable earnings, strong cash flow and healthy balance sheets, because the mechanism is linked to the shareholder’s leverage, not the company’s fundamentals. If the issue were fundamental, we would see signs such as weakening revenue, deteriorating cash flow or asset impairment — none of which are present here. The forced selling simply reflects the shareholder’s margin level, not a problem with PTRANS itself.

被爆仓卖股的确是老板个人行为，
假设公司一切正常，股价大折扣，
这个千载难逢的机会没鲨鱼过来分肉，
不奇怪？
就小虾米一直在唱好，鲨鱼们都瞎了不识货？