| Latest Forum Topics / Alpha Integrated RE Last:0.48 -- |
 Post Reply
|
|
YZJFH - potentially rewarding
|
|||||
|
pkli899
Supreme |
23-Nov-2020 15:22
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Oh, that' s good news.
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
Tipster88
Senior |
23-Nov-2020 15:18
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Waiting for what?
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
|
|||||
|
Tipster88
Senior |
23-Nov-2020 14:57
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
I have verified with Boardroom Corporate & Advisory Services Pte Ltd, they informed to resubmit the forms to supercede the previous submission....
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
lukewong82
Master |
23-Nov-2020 14:47
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
either way failure or success, sabana share price will chiong. Have not voted yet.. still waiting
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
laksaman57
Supreme |
23-Nov-2020 12:33
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Withholding sabans dpu distribution that will keep it's share price depressed while ESR distribute dpu which helped kept price up is so ridiculous.
Sabana price will cheong once merger get rejected !
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
|
|||||
|
lukewong82
Master |
23-Nov-2020 12:29
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
both ways success or failure.. once uncertainty removed, sabana share price sure chiong.. 40 cents..
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
laksaman57
Supreme |
23-Nov-2020 10:11
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
" ...CPFIS Investors and SRS Investors who wish to vote at the Scheme Meeting should approach their respective CPF Agent Banks or SRS Agent Banks as soon as possible by 5.00 p.m. on
24 November 2020 ..."
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
Observers
Elite |
23-Nov-2020 09:57
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
ESR cannot vote, I think this EGM resolution hard to go thru. | ||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
|
|||||
|
lukewong82
Master |
23-Nov-2020 09:41
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
once EGM over, both ways fail or success, share price will rise becos of the impending distribution of retained dividends. If success, they will distribute out all the retained dividends before the actual merging. | ||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
Joelton
Supreme |
23-Nov-2020 09:01
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Sabana Reit manager disputes fund managers' internalisation proposal
THE proposed merger of ESR-Reit and Shari' ah Compliant Industrial Real Estate Investment Trust (Sabana Reit) is " the only offer that is currently on the table" , the Reit manager' s board said in a statement on Friday night, responding to fund managers Quarz Capital and Black Crane Capital' s call to unitholders to reject the deal and internalise the Reit' s management.
The Reit manager also asked the fund managers to " substantiate their claims or provide more details so that the management team and unitholders can carry out a serious analysis of their claims and proposals" .
Quarz and Black Crane advise entities that collectively hold more than 11 per cent of Sabana Reit, and oppose the proposed merger at its current terms of 0.94 ESR-Reit unit for one Sabana Reit unit.
Their latest statement on Wednesday called for the internalisation of Reit management, saying this should be done after the merger falls through.
An extraordinary general meeting (EGM) on the proposed merger is due to be held on Dec 4, with unitholder voting having already begun.
On Friday, Sabana Reit' s manager said it had " reviewed the statement but was unable to determine the workability and benefits of the internalisation proposal" . It pointed out that such a move would require consent from banks, so that Sabana Reit does not risk defaulting on its existing obligations.
The Reit manager added that " the two fund managers are proposing a very different and highly uncertain path for Sabana Reit as a standalone Reit without a sponsor vis-a-vis merger to create a larger Reit with a strong sponsor."
It also questioned several estimates made by the fund managers, including:
* The S$2 million cost savings from internalisation
* Sabana Reit' s 2021 standalone DPU being more than 20 per cent above the 2020 level and
* Annual net rental and distribution income for the retail component of 151 Lorong Chuan at S$3.7 million and S$3.1 million respectively.
" The Board finds that some of these claims are unrealistic," it added.
The Reit manager noted that " the fact of the matter is that the Sabana Manager has not received any alternative offers for Sabana Reit and/or its assets" .
If the merger is not approved at the EGM, the ESR-Reit Manager and its concert parties will be restricted from making another offer for Sabana Reit in the next 12 months.
Following Sabana Reit' s statement, Quarz and Black Crane said that they intend to provide their comprehensive views and answers to the Reit managers' questions within a week.
They clarified that for the internalisation, they do not intend to purchase the Reit manager from ESR-Reit. Rather, the internal manager " will be owned by all unitholders and for all unitholders" .
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
lukewong82
Master |
22-Nov-2020 18:46
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Dun understand estimate this group of share/reits holders that are not interested in the politics but in the share price. Think better convince them through real action supporting Sabana share price.
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
lukewong82
Master |
22-Nov-2020 18:44
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
I just vested on Friday. Right now solely based on share price of 35 cents vs ESR 39 cents, I am sitting on the fence. If I see Sabana reit share price falls while ESR reit share price rises, I have the incentive to vote yes for the merger. BUT if i see sabana share price approaching ESR reits, then I may vote NO. I think there are quite a lot of Sabana reit holders who are not interested in the " politics" that is going on. We vote solely based on how it will benefit us in terms of share price. I think if anyone oppose the merger needs to convince this group of sitting on the fence shareholders. Just like politicians who may promise a lot but achieve very little, right now funds are sweet talking small shareholders into voting no and promise many good things to come for Sabana. I dun trust both sides, I just trust how i can gain from the share price. Think is wise for the funds to show action and put up a 10000 lots buy support to match ESR share price to convince those sitting on the fence who only worry is the share price and not the politics. So I will vote according to the share price and not the stories from BOTH sides. Cheers
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
|
|||||
|
savesabanareit
Member |
22-Nov-2020 15:19
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
A funny, baseless nonsenical hypothesis of why there is selling pressure now: it is very likely the sellers selling at .35-.36 will most probably immediately disappear once voting closes at 1 Dec 2020 why is anyone selling at this level when you will most probably have a dividend of 5+% in Jan 2021 which is just 1+mth later (retained dividend + 2H2021 dividend), interest cost is coming down, the retail at lorong chuan will complete which will add more dividend, and if they get the internalisation through, dividend will further increase.....world is also recovering from COVID-19 who is incentivise to get people to agree to the lowball merger? Take advantange of the opportunity to accumulate!
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
savesabanareit
Member |
22-Nov-2020 14:43
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
投 票 反 对 ESR-胜 宝 合 并
在 下 次 特 别 股 东 大 会 提 出 动 议 ， 让 胜 宝 工 业 信 托 经 理 人 内 部 化 一 旦 胜 宝 单 位 持 有 人 (Sabana REIT Unitholders)反 对 跟 胜 宝 与 ESR合 并 ， Quarz和 Black Crane计 划 提 议 罢 免 现 有 经 理 人 ， 并 设 立 胜 宝 内 部 经 理 人 。 委 任 内 部 经 理 人 就 无 需 支 付 管 理 费 给 ESR Cayman， 胜 宝 每 单 位 派 息 （ DPU） 即 刻 提 高 约 7.5％ 。 通 过 消 除 与 ESR潜 在 的 冲 突 ， 能 让 所 有 胜 宝 单 位 持 有 人 的 利 益 一 致 ， 从 而 让 胜 宝 工 业 信 托 (Sabana REIT) 完 全 实 现 价 值 。 有 了 专 注 、 目 标 一 致 、 称 职 和 负 责 任 的 管 理 ， 胜 宝 工 业 信 托 有 潜 力 将 DPU提 高 [40％ ]以 上 ， 派 息 收 益 率 超 过 约 9％ ， 并 在 接 下 来 的 12至 18个 月 内 有 升 值 潜 能 。 这 可 消 除 自 成 立 以 来 ， 由 于 管 理 不 善 及 冲 突 导 致 的 胜 宝 单 位 价 格 与 净 资 产 值 之 间 的 折 价 。 Quarz资 本 和 Black Crane计 划 投 票 反 对 胜 宝 和 ESR房 地 产 投 资 信 托 的 合 并 建 议 。 基 于 以 下 原 因 ， 我 们 认 为 拟 议 中 的 合 并 将 破 坏 胜 宝 单 位 持 有 人 的 价 值 ：
属 于 胜 宝 单 位 持 有 人 并 代 表 胜 宝 单 位 持 有 人 的 内 部 信 托 经 理
(类 似 于 NetLink Trust 的 内 部 化 经 理 人 ) Quarz资 本 和 Black Crane计 划 在 短 期 内 召 开 特 别 股 东 大 会 ， 寻 求 把 胜 宝 经 理 人 内 部 化 。 内 部 信 托 经 理 附 属 胜 宝 工 业 信 托 并 代 表 所 有 胜 宝 单 位 持 有 人 内 部 信 托 经 理 的 主 要 目 标 ， 是 缩 小 胜 宝 单 位 显 著 的 巨 大 净 资 产 值 折 让 ， 通 过 以 下 方 式 和 ／ 或 通 过 出 售 全 部 或 部 分 胜 宝 投 资 组 合 ， 将 剩 余 资 本 返 还 给 单 位 持 有 人 ， 改 进 胜 宝 工 业 信 托 的 表 现 。 我 们 确 认 了 五 个 主 要 方 式 ， 可 将 单 位 持 有 人 的 价 值 和 DPU提 高 [40％ ]以 上 ， 并 取 得 9％ 以 上 的 派 息 收 益 率 ：
胜 宝 内 部 房 地 产 投 资 信 托 经 理 也 将 加 速 发 展 罗 弄 泉 巷 151号 （ 新 科 技 园 ） 和 本 茱 鲁 巷 33号 和 35号 的 未 开 发 总 楼 面 面 积 ， 以 增 加 租 金 收 入 。 距 离 中 央 商 业 区 只 有 15分 钟 的 新 科 技 园 ， 将 建 造 超 过 约 20万 平 方 英 尺 的 商 业 园 空 间 。 这 个 在 罗 弄 泉 地 铁 站 正 对 面 的 地 段 ， 也 将 打 造 一 个 令 人 振 奋 的 零 售 部 分 。 新 科 技 园 空 间 适 合 主 要 租 户 型 业 者 ， 尤 其 是 有 意 把 整 个 营 运 归 纳 在 一 个 高 规 格 设 施 内 的 科 技 业 者 。 本 茱 鲁 巷 33号 和 35号 的 70万 平 方 英 尺 潜 在 总 楼 面 面 积 ， 相 当 具 规 模 。 它 就 在 宝 泽 亚 太 房 地 产 信 托 （ Aims APAC REIT） 隔 邻 ， 后 者 位 于 本 茉 鲁 巷 27号 ， 是 一 个 相 当 新 的 多 层 坡 道 式 仓 库 和 物 流 设 施 （ 就 在 胜 宝 资 产 后 面 ） 。 毗 邻 本 茉 鲁 巷 31号 的 丰 树 物 流 信 托 还 有 12年 租 约 。 内 部 房 地 产 信 托 经 理 可 以 和 第 三 方 合 作 ， 把 本 茉 鲁 巷 33号 和 35号 有 效 发 展 成 一 个 先 进 物 流 设 施 ， 为 胜 宝 单 位 持 有 人 增 值 。 内 部 房 地 产 投 资 信 托 经 理 可 以 在 没 有 任 何 冲 突 的 大 前 提 下 ， 探 索 任 何 可 终 结 净 资 产 值 折 价 状 况 的 交 易 ， 如 与 其 他 房 地 产 投 资 信 托 合 并 ， 或 脱 售 房 地 产 投 资 信 托 或 所 有 相 关 资 产 以 套 现 ， 又 或 结 合 以 上 所 述 ， 为 单 位 信 托 持 有 人 创 造 比 采 用 上 述 单 一 策 略 更 高 的 价 值 。 Quarz和 Black Crane的 利 益 ， 和 所 有 独 立 单 位 持 有 人 是 一 致 的 。 Peter Kennan说 ： & ldquo 胜 宝 的 组 合 给 予 机 构 投 资 者 如 私 募 股 权 基 金 、 房 地 产 经 理 和 家 族 办 公 室 等 ， 在 新 加 坡 具 吸 引 力 的 工 业 房 地 产 领 域 ， 加 速 扩 大 至 相 当 规 模 版 图 的 机 会 。 有 鉴 于 电 子 商 务 的 高 速 结 构 性 增 长 ， 像 胜 宝 这 类 工 业 和 物 流 资 产 需 求 相 当 高 。 & rdquo Quarz和 Black Crane已 经 和 几 个 潜 在 合 作 方 洽 谈 ， 他 们 都 在 新 加 坡 和 区 域 的 商 业 和 工 业 房 地 产 领 域 有 专 业 知 识 和 良 好 表 现 纪 录 。 Jan Moermann说 ： & ldquo 目 前 归 属 ESR Cayman的 胜 宝 房 地 产 投 资 信 托 经 理 无 法 采 取 有 效 做 法 ， 来 终 结 净 资 产 值 折 价 的 状 况 ， 现 在 还 建 议 和 另 一 个 同 样 归 属 ESR Cayman的 房 地 产 投 资 信 托 进 行 破 坏 价 值 的 合 并 。 显 然 ， 胜 宝 的 单 位 信 托 持 有 人 需 要 一 个 独 立 经 理 来 恢 复 信 托 的 价 值 。 & rdquo 数 以 百 计 拥 有 相 当 股 权 的 胜 宝 单 位 持 有 人 ， 已 在 WWW.SAVESABANAREIT.COM表 达 对 胜 宝 工 业 信 托 管 理 层 的 关 注 ， 并 对 当 前 合 并 提 案 持 反 对 意 见 。 许 多 单 位 持 有 人 表 达 了 强 烈 意 愿 ， 要 撤 掉 胜 宝 工 业 信 托 的 经 理 人 ， 换 一 个 更 符 合 他 们 的 利 益 ， 并 有 动 力 释 放 单 位 持 有 人 价 值 的 经 理 人 。 ESR和 胜 宝 工 业 信 托 的 经 理 人 主 要 归 属 ESR Cayman， 它 们 都 是 今 年 以 来 在 新 加 坡 交 易 所 挂 牌 的 工 业 房 地 产 信 托 当 中 表 现 最 差 的 。 持 续 和 严 重 的 落 后 表 现 ， 明 确 说 明 了 现 有 管 理 团 队 和 其 赞 助 人 的 执 行 能 力 。 ESR和 胜 宝 工 业 信 托 的 经 理 人 仍 无 力 地 捍 卫 规 模 效 益 ， ESR房 地 产 投 资 信 托 今 年 以 来 的 表 现 比 规 模 更 小 的 同 行 差 许 多 。 这 足 以 证 明 ， 和 规 模 相 比 ， 管 理 团 队 的 能 力 和 素 质 对 房 地 产 投 资 信 托 的 表 现 起 更 关 键 作 用 。 尽 管 时 任 经 理 人 声 称 罢 免 经 理 人 会 触 发 贷 款 违 约 条 款 ， Quarz和 Black Crane已 经 和 多 家 金 融 机 构 及 投 资 者 讨 论 ， 他 们 都 对 提 供 融 资 给 胜 宝 投 资 组 合 ， 表 现 出 浓 厚 兴 趣 。 Jan Moermann说 ： & ldquo 目 前 的 低 利 率 环 境 ， 提 供 胜 宝 工 业 信 托 一 个 具 吸 引 力 的 机 会 ， 能 够 以 较 低 利 率 融 资 ， 同 时 和 银 行 建 立 新 业 务 关 系 。 & rdquo Quarz和 Black Crane计 划 在 近 期 内 提 议 罢 免 现 有 经 理 人 ， 并 设 立 胜 宝 内 部 经 理 人 。 我 们 呼 吁 所 有 单 位 持 有 人 投 票 支 持 委 任 新 的 内 部 经 理 ， 这 将 更 符 合 利 益 ， 以 及 有 可 能 提 高 每 单 位 派 息 （ DPU） 的 收 益 。 Quarz和 Black Crane将 于 2020年 11月 25日 晚 上 8时 15分 ， 为 所 有 胜 宝 工 业 信 托 单 位 持 有 人 召 开 网 络 大 会 ， 分 享 我 们 为 何 认 为 合 并 献 议 将 大 大 低 估 胜 宝 工 业 信 托 的 价 值 ， 也 破 坏 胜 宝 单 位 持 有 人 的 价 值 。 请 到 WWW.SAVESABANAREIT.COM登 记 ， 我 们 将 发 送 链 接 给 您 。 我 们 期 待 一 个 没 有 冲 突 、 重 新 注 入 活 力 的 胜 宝 工 业 信 托 ， 有 能 力 为 单 位 持 人 创 造 更 多 价 值 。 |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
lukewong82
Master |
22-Nov-2020 11:26
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
the funds that oppose the merger can buy more sabana reits and put a queue of 10000lots at 39 cents as they are rich enough to do that. Then with their increase stake, they can then exert their pressure for the manager of sabana to be removed after the merger has failed.
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
lukewong82
Master |
22-Nov-2020 11:23
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
why cant they just pushed up the share price of sabana to be slightly above ESR reits, quite easy to do as number of Sabana' s shares traded is not very huge, then no one will vote for the merger already right? At the current price of 35 cents vs ESR 39 cents, it is worth for sabana holders (those sitting on the fence) to vote FOR the merger. So just push it to 39 or above, those sitting on the pence will vote against the merger . |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
Starship
Supreme |
22-Nov-2020 09:01
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Our eminent Prof Mak Yuen Teen has spoken!!!!!.................... REQUISITION OF EGM AT SABANA REIT: REGULATORS SHOULD WANT ANSWERS TOO By Mak Yuen Teen On November 10, 2020, Quarz Capital and Black Crane Capital, which advise entities that collectively hold more than 11% of Sabana REIT& rsquo s units, gave notice to the Sabana REIT manager to convene an EGM for Sabana REIT unitholders to consider passing five resolutions. Mr Donald Han, the CEO of the manager, was quoted in a Business Times report on November 12 that the letter requisitioning the EGM is being taken seriously and that it was seeking advice from its advisers. Regarding the highly contentious re-designation of Ms Ng Shin Ein from non-independent to independent director, Mr Han & ldquo reiterated that her independence has been & lsquo thoroughly evaluated& rsquo .& rdquo The notice requisitioning the EGM was given pursuant to Para 4.1(b) of Appendix 6 of the Code on Collective Investment Schemes (CCIS) which reads as follows: & ldquo a general meeting may be convened at the request in writing of not less than 50 participants or participants representing not less than 10% of the issued units in the property fund.& rdquo Para 4.2 of the CCIS states: & ldquo In the convening and conduct of general meetings, regard should be had where appropriate to the relevant provisions of the Companies Act (Cap. 50) and principles in the Code of Corporate Governance 2012.& rdquo Section 176 of the Companies Act states that on receiving such a requisition, the directors shall & ldquo immediately proceed duly to convene an extraordinary general meeting of the company to be held as soon as practicable but in any case not later than 2 months after the receipt by the company of the requisition& rdquo . Meanwhile, the manager is convening an EGM to approve proposed amendments to the Sabana trust deed for the proposed merger with ESR-REIT on December 4 at 2 pm, followed 30 minutes later by the scheme meeting to approve the merger. The requisitionists face at least two potential challenges. First, the directors of Sabana REIT manager may decide not to convene the EGM on the grounds that the proposed resolutions are not valid resolutions, giving the reason that the resolutions deal with matters that are not under the purview of unitholders. Second, by the time the EGM they requisitioned is convened, the scheme meeting would almost certainly already have taken place (barring any regulatory intervention). The first two resolutions are seeking greater transparency about: (1) the circumstances surrounding Ms Ng& rsquo s re-designation and any other relationships, arrangements or payments between her and ESR Cayman (the controlling shareholder of the managers of both ESR REIT and Sabana REIT) and (2) the circumstances surrounding the hiring of three ex-ESR employees at Sabana REIT manager. I had on September 22 posted an article & ldquo Sabana REIT: Independent Overnight?& rdquo on this website questioning the re-designation of Ms Ng. On October 5, the Sabana REIT manager published a six-page response to my article justifying the re-designation. On October 27, I published an article & ldquo Trust Us, We are Really Independent& rdquo on this website, with a shorter version in the Business Times. The longer version responded point-by-point to the justifications provided by the manager. I said: & ldquo & hellip the response does not address the perception that she (Ms Ng) may be or feel obliged to support the current controlling shareholder of the manager especially as there were no details about the sale price and how it was determined, which I had raised.& rdquo I also asked: & ldquo Was she appointed with a view to supporting a certain strategy, which would raise questions about her independence?& rdquo Those questions were based on my review of public information relating to Ms Ng& rsquo s history with the Sabana REIT manager, including her earlier service on the board from November 2010 to May 2017 the sale of her 4.5% indirect stake to a wholly-owned subsidiary of ESR Cayman her return to the board in August 2019 and her re-designation to independent director in November 2019. I did not receive any information from the requisitionists or any other sources when I wrote those articles. To me, they are natural questions to ask if a director has sold his or her stake to a controlling shareholder, and is then involved in a corporate action involving the controlling shareholder. The questions about Ms Ng& rsquo s independence have not in my view being satisfactorily addressed even if the CEO of the manager claims that it has been & ldquo thoroughly evaluated& rdquo . In fact, the & ldquo addendum& rdquo published on September 21, more than five months after the release of the annual report on April 7 and nearly seven months after the date of the report of February 28, should rightly be called an & ldquo erratum& rdquo because the disclosures about Ms Ng were simply wrong. In the annual report, under & ldquo Board Composition and Guidance& rdquo , it said: & ldquo The Board currently consists of four Independent Non-Executive Directors , that is, they have no relationship with the Manager, its related companies, its substantial shareholders, or its officers that could interfere, or be reasonably perceived to interfere, with the exercise of the Director& rsquo s independent business judgment with a view to the best interest of the REIT, and they are able to exercise objective judgment on corporate affairs independently from the management and its substantial shareholders. Furthermore, the Independent Directors are considered independent for the financial year under review under the Securities and Futures (Licensing and Conduct of Business) Regulations because they are not substantial shareholders of the Manager and are not substantial Unitholders of the REIT, they do not have management or business relationships with the Manager and its related companies as well as the REIT and its subsidiaries and they are independent from the substantial shareholder of the Manager and substantial Unitholders of the REIT& hellip & rdquo (emphasis mine). The September 21 addendum no longer said that all the independent directors do not have business relationships and that they are all independent from every substantial shareholder of the Manager and every substantial unitholder of the REIT. It now said that Ms Ng is not considered independent in accordance with these provisions of the regulations. However, the NC and the board have deemed her to be independent nevertheless. The fact that the addendum was issued after the annual report & ndash and so long after & ndash clearly raises questions as to whether all the information relevant to determining Ms Ng& rsquo s independence was disclosed by the time when she was re-designated. If they were not, then the NC and the board would have re-designated her without adequate information. It cannot be acceptable to rely on disclosures made after the re-designation to justify the re-designation, in the same way that it is not acceptable to undertake a corporate action before the board has received the necessary information, properly considered the information and passed a board resolution. I view Resolution 1(A) proposed by the requisitionists in this light. It is important to know if the necessary disclosures were made before Ms Ng was re-designated. The additional information sought may also cast further light on Ms Ng& rsquo s independence. Resolution 1(B) questions whether the board simply relied on Ms Ng& rsquo s declaration or disclosures at face value or whether it made its own independent enquiries and investigations. This goes to the robustness of the process used by the board to deem Ms Ng as independent. The board should not be solely reliant on what a director discloses in determining independence. However, Resolutions 1 and 2 in my view raise questions beyond the independence of Ms Ng and her re-designation. They also raise questions about the conduct of the various parties involved. The answers can either absolve these parties, or taint their conduct and the proposed merger. For example, Resolution 1(C) asks about the date, price and valuation of various transactions involving ESR Cayman, Blackwood Investment Pte Ltd (which owned a 45% stake in Sabana REIT manager) and Ms Ng, and whether Ms Ng received any other payments. If she sold her stake at a higher price or received other payments, then it raises the question as to why. Resolution 1(D) asks whether the board is aware of whether Ms Ng had played a role in the sale of the remaining 90% stake of Blackwood to ESR Cayman. The answers to 1(C) and 1(D) are relevant to my point about perception regarding whether Ms Ng may be or feel obliged to support the current controlling shareholder of the manager or to support a certain strategy, such as the merger. One way or another, answers supported by evidence should be forthcoming. If the manager takes a technical position and refuses to disclose the information to unitholders, regulators should still make their own enquiries into the matters raised. Coming on the heels of the Eagle Hospitality Trust (EHT) debacle, regulators must send a clear message that they expect the highest standards of corporate governance and transparency in the sector and that they will not hesitate to take action to protect the interests of unitholders & ndash even if we are not talking about a total meltdown as we are witnessing at EHT here. https://governanceforstakeholders.com/2020/11/14/requisition-of-egm-at-sabana-reit-regulators-should-want-answers-too/ |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
savesabanareit
Member |
22-Nov-2020 01:17
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Hi Joelton, It seems like as Sabana REIT Manager cannot provide any track record justification on why they shd be retained as REIT Manager, they are trying to do ' fear mongering' to unsettle unitholders. This will not work. We intend to provide a comprehensive and full rebuttal to Sabana REIT Manager' s statement in the next few days. While ESR REIT has continuously justified size benefits, ESR REIT is the worst performing SGX-listed industrial REIT YTD (even worse performance than Sabana REIT) despite it being larger than Sabana, AIMS APAC, Soilbuild and ARA Logos. We believe that the Quality of the management and portfolio are more important determinants to price performance and dividend upside. Quarz and Black Crane will be conducting a webinar on Wednesday 815pm (25 November 2020) to share our views on why the proposed merger substantially undervalues Sabana REIT and is value destructive to Sabana unitholders. We will also share the future plans (forming an internalized REIT Manager, sale of assets) to potentially increase the unit price and dividend yield (+9%) of Sabana REIT. Please RSVP on the SAVESABANAREIT.COM website. We have also compiled a presentation to share our views and analysis on why unitholders should VOTE AGAINST the proposed merger. The setup of a new internalised Sabana REIT Manager for and owned by all unitholders will immediately increase DPU by +7.5%! https://www.savesabanareit.com/open-letters File name: VOTE AGAINST MERGER 21 Nov 2020 We look forward to a conflict free, re-energized Sabana REIT with strong prospects to increase unit price and dividend yield for all unitholders! |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
Joelton
Supreme |
21-Nov-2020 13:46
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Sabana Reit manager disputes fund managers' internalisation proposal
THE proposed merger of ESR-Reit and Shari' ah Compliant Industrial Real Estate Investment Trust (Sabana Reit) is " the only offer that is currently on the table" , the Reit manager' s board said in a statement on Friday night, responding to fund managers Quarz Capital and Black Crane Capital' s call to unitholders to reject the deal and internalise the Reit' s management.
The Reit manager also asked the fund managers to " substantiate their claims or provide more details so that the management team and unitholders can carry out a serious analysis of their claims and proposals" .
Quarz and Black Crane advise entities that collectively hold more than 11 per cent of Sabana Reit, and oppose the proposed merger at its current terms of 0.94 ESR-Reit unit for one Sabana Reit unit.
Their latest statement on Wednesday called for the internalisation of Reit management, saying this should be done after the merger falls through.
An extraordinary general meeting (EGM) on the proposed merger is due to be held on Dec 4, with unitholder voting having already begun.
On Friday, Sabana Reit' s manager said it had " reviewed the statement but was unable to determine the workability and benefits of the internalisation proposal" . It pointed out that such a move would require consent from banks, so that Sabana Reit does not risk defaulting on its existing obligations.
The Reit manager added that " the two fund managers are proposing a very different and highly uncertain path for Sabana Reit as a standalone Reit without a sponsor vis-a-vis merger to create a larger Reit with a strong sponsor."
It also questioned several estimates made by the fund managers, including:
* The S$2 million cost savings from internalisation
* Sabana Reit' s 2021 standalone DPU being more than 20 per cent above the 2020 level and
* Annual net rental and distribution income for the retail component of 151 Lorong Chuan at S$3.7 million and S$3.1 million respectively.
" The Board finds that some of these claims are unrealistic," it added.
The Reit manager noted that " the fact of the matter is that the Sabana Manager has not received any alternative offers for Sabana Reit and/or its assets" .
If the merger is not approved at the EGM, the ESR-Reit Manager and its concert parties will be restricted from making another offer for Sabana Reit in the next 12 months.
Following Sabana Reit' s statement, Quarz and Black Crane said that they intend to provide their comprehensive views and answers to the Reit managers' questions within a week.
They clarified that for the internalisation, they do not intend to purchase the Reit manager from ESR-Reit. Rather, the internal manager " will be owned by all unitholders and for all unitholders" .
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
Tipster88
Senior |
21-Nov-2020 11:39
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Yeah... Should trade towards high end of 40c to be fair...
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||