Post Reply
381-400 of 562
Not sure where you are getting your numbers. From the financial prsentation, page 8 DPU
2021 - 8.95
2020 - 9.5
2019 - 10.25
2018 - 10.3
2017 - 11.05
2016 - 11.35
2021 - 8.95
2020 - 9.5
2019 - 10.25
2018 - 10.3
2017 - 11.05
2016 - 11.35
pkli899 ( Date: 28-Jul-2021 12:31) Posted:
|
Haha, your sweeping statement is doing injustice to the stock.
Lets look at the DPU over several years:
2021 : 5.15 cents.....on track to breach 10 cents for the full year.
2020 : 8.5 cents.....respectable despite it being a Covid-19 year.
2019 : 10.3 cents.
2018 : 8.3 cents......worst performing year.(in line with all others in the same sector)
2017 : 12.5 cents....best performing year.
2016 & 2015 both same at 11.3 cents.
Earlier years DPU were between 10 to 11 cents.
From above statistics, surely we can' t say the DPU is declining. At most we can say is inconsistent/erratic DPU.
In actual fact, it' s consensually agreed that the reit is one of the most well managed.
Lets look at the DPU over several years:
2021 : 5.15 cents.....on track to breach 10 cents for the full year.
2020 : 8.5 cents.....respectable despite it being a Covid-19 year.
2019 : 10.3 cents.
2018 : 8.3 cents......worst performing year.(in line with all others in the same sector)
2017 : 12.5 cents....best performing year.
2016 & 2015 both same at 11.3 cents.
Earlier years DPU were between 10 to 11 cents.
From above statistics, surely we can' t say the DPU is declining. At most we can say is inconsistent/erratic DPU.
In actual fact, it' s consensually agreed that the reit is one of the most well managed.
prophetjul ( Date: 28-Jul-2021 10:01) Posted:
|
DPU has been reducing over the years. Bad sign for shareholders.
Aims Apac Reit posts 12.5% rise in Q1 DPU to 2.25 S cents
Aims Apac Reit' s distribution per unit (DPU) rose by 12.5 per cent to 2.25 Singapore cents for its first quarter ended June 30, 2021, from two cents for the same period a year ago.Gross revenue of the real estate investment trust (Reit) was up 16.8 per cent to S$31.8 million for the quarter, from S$27.2 million a year ago.
The growth was mainly contributed by new leases at its recently acquired 7 Bulim Street property, and higher rental and recoveries from two of its other properties, 20 Gul Way, and 8 and 10 Pandan Crescent, the Reit' s manager said in a bourse filing on Wednesday.
Net property income grew 23.9 per cent on year to S$23.1 million, from S$18.6 million.
Distributable income rose 12.6 per cent on year to S$15.9 million from S$14.1 million.
The Reit' s manager expects the distribution will be paid out on Sept 22, after the record date on Aug 6.
Chief executive of the Reit' s manager Koh Wee Lih noted that the Reit' s portfolio, focused in the warehouse and logistics sector, has seen high resilience in the quarter due to positive demand for logistics and warehouse spaces amid the pandemic.
Chairman of the Reit' s manager George Wang said: " We will continue to evaluate total return investment opportunities in our core markets of Singapore and Australia which offer sustainable income yield and good capital growth potential."
" Additionally, to expand our focus across a greater range of assets that offer different risk and return profiles, we will also continually seek new capital and business partners as we move ahead," Mr Wang added.
In the quarter, the manager said it successfully executed 38 new and renewal leases representing 72,715 square metres (sq m) or 9.8 per cent of total net lettable area, to lead to a portfolio occupancy of 95.7 per cent and a weighted average lease expiry (WALE) of 3.98 years, as at June 30.
It expects its occupancy rate will be sustained &ldquo as strong demand for logistics and warehouse facilities continue to be underpinned by e-commerce, stockpiling and shifts in supply chain&rdquo .
In January, the Reit also announced the acquisition of a property at 315 Alexandra Road for S$102 million.
The manager added it will also continue to be &ldquo prudent and selective&rdquo with the Reit&rsquo s cash flow, with priority granted to crucial asset enhancements and deferment of non-critical capital expenditure. Aggregate leverage of Aims Apac Reit is at 34.3 per cent.
The Reit also separately announced that it would change the reporting of its financial results to a half-yearly basis, with its next announcement being for the six-month period ending Sept 30, 2021.
It will, however, still pay distributions to unitholders on a quarterly basis, the manager said.
Units of Aims Apac Reit closed flat at S$1.55 on Tuesday.
RHB stays ' overweight' on S-REITs with Suntec, AIMS APAC and Prime US as top picks
RHB Group Research analyst Vijay Natarajan is positive on Singapore REITs (S-REITs), despite the sector underperforming the STI so far this year.
" S-REITs are up 3% YTD vs the STI' s 10%, but we expect the recovery pace to pick up in 2H2021 &ndash on a stronger economic rebound and positive shift in Singapore' s policy stance," he affirms in a July 16 report.
Underpinning the sanguine outlook is an anticipated acceleration in economic recovery in the 2H2021, driven by vaccinations. With Singapore on track to meet its target to vaccinate two-thirs of the population by August 9, Natarajan anticipates further easing of Covid-19 measures that will be positive for REITs.
In addition, he points to recent comments by Ravin Menon, managing director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, stating that risks for Singapore' s GDP to exceed the official forecast of 4-6% is are tilted towards the upside.
Natarajan views that the valuation gap between small, mid-cap REITs as well as large-cap REITs will continue to narrow in the near team. He notes that y-t-d, small, mid-cap REITs have, on average, outperformed +10%, compared to large-cap REITs' +2%.
He foresees 2021 becoming a record year for REIT acquisitions, highlighting that the sector has seen $7 billion in acquisitions y-t-d. " With REITs' expanding global mandate, the need for diversification, and ultra-low interest rates providing tailwinds, we expect the strong acquisition momentum to continue in 2H2021," he says.
He also anticipates a pick-up in primary market activity in 2H2021, mainly driven by overseas REIT listings - four are currently in the pipeline.
Industrial REITs remain Natarajan' s preferred pick, given their earnings resilience, while hospitality REITs have priced in most of the optimism from vaccine rollouts. " Overall, we recommend investors hold on to a balanced portfolio of industrial REITs for stable yields, and mix of office and retail REITs to ride on near-term growth," he explains.
His top picks are Suntec REIT, AIMS APAC REIT, and Prime US REIT. He has " buy" ratings on all three stocks with target prices of $1.76, $1.70 and US$1.03 respectively.
He views that keys risks for the sectors include the reimposition of strict Covid-19 lockdown measures, and a faster-than expected rise in interest rates, which would potentially result in a surge in 10-year treasury yields.
As at 4.36pm, units in Suntec REIT, AIMS APAC REIT and Prime US REIT are trading at $1.51, $1.57, and 86 US cents respectively.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businesstimes.com.sg/stocks/brokers-take-rhb-raises-aims-apac-reit-target-price-to-s170-on-strong-logistics-assets-demand%3famp
Broker RHB raises target to 1.7 with potential 25% of the lease renewal increase.???
Broker RHB raises target to 1.7 with potential 25% of the lease renewal increase.???
https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/Headlines/reits-should-be-careful-with-trust-schemes-of-arrangement
Reits should be careful with trust schemes of arrangement
Source: Business Times
Article Date: 01 Jul 2021
Author: Rae Wee
Given added scrutiny of such schemes, Reits should consider if it is most appropriate method to achieve their objectives.
Real estate investment trusts (Reits) in Singapore may have to be more careful when they undertake a trust scheme of arrangement in future as such schemes will likely draw more scrutiny, say corporate lawyers.
This follows the recent privatisation of Soilbuild Business Space Reit (Soilbuild Reit) in March, where the Singapore High Court had raised concerns over the use of the one-proxy rule and the legal basis for a Reit trust scheme to be carried out.
While the privatisation went through, the High Court said during the hearing that the one-proxy rule has the " potential to cause prejudice" .
A Soilbuild Reit unitholder had earlier opposed the trust scheme sanction application on the grounds that the one-proxy rule, which allows for the appointment of only one proxy per unitholder, should not have been used for the trust scheme meeting. The court hearing was thus adjourned to allow time for the Reit manager to compile and provide further information to the court.
A partner of a major law firm, who declined to be named, drew similarities between the Soilbuild Reit case and an earlier case in January this year relating to shipping company Pacific International Lines (PIL).
The court had then directed that the voting instructions received by nominee holders of bonds issued by PIL be recorded by the scheme manager for the court' s consideration.
In light of the doubts raised by the court during the Soilbuild Reit hearing, the partner said that " Reits seeking to undertake a scheme of arrangement should carefully consider whether the process and procedures it intends to adopt are fair, and how they will affect the question of whether the voting results obtained at the scheme meeting are an accurate reflection of the level of support for the scheme for final court sanction purposes" .
Similarly, lawyers at Rajah & Tann Asia noted in an April commentary that while the one-proxy rule is an established industry practice, " an applicant for a trust scheme may need to consider taking steps to satisfy the court that its application of the proxy regime did not disenfranchise minority unitholders" .
During the case, the High Court had also taken " great interest in a separate question as to where the legal basis of a Reit trust scheme can be found" , according to another commentary by INC Law, which represented the dissenting unitholder.
Section 210 of the Companies Act covers the premise for schemes of arrangement within companies, but there is no such similar statute for Reit trust schemes. Instead, reference to a Reit trust scheme can be found in Singapore' s code on takeovers and mergers, though it is neither primary nor subsidiary legislation, it noted.
The High Court had thus added that it was " mindful of the fact that (it had) doubts about the basis on which the rights of unitholders can be expropriated, even under a trust scheme" .
Jaryl Lim and Lim Ming Yi, associate and associate director at INC Law, also raised a separate question as to whether a trust scheme can be " legitimately adopted in the context of a Reit" which deals with real estate property and property rights, noting: " Should dissenting unitholders have their property rights seized just because a majority of unitholders say so?
" This calls into question an even more fundamental legal issue as to whether a Reit should be considered a corporate or a trust structure, because that in turn determines whether company law - where the majority rule is often the default rule - should apply, or whether trust law should apply instead."
At present, there is existing legislation for the acquisition of Reits under section 295A of the Securities and Futures Act, which requires approval of investors holding 90 per cent of the Reit' s units.
Thus, the duo at INC Law noted that Reit clients looking to do a takeover should " seriously consider whether a trust scheme is the most appropriate method to achieve their objective" .
" One can no longer rule out the possibility of a formal challenge in court involving the legitimacy of a trust scheme, in which case a Reit client should be prepared to defend such an objection and show why a trust scheme may be adopted in lieu of an acquisition under section 295A," they added.
In Singapore, the one-proxy rule is typically deployed as a tool to satisfy the " headcount test" .
The local regulatory regime requires a scheme of arrangement to cross two thresholds. It must be approved by creditors or shareholders representing three-fourths in value of those voting at a scheme meeting it must also be approved by a simple majority, in number, of the scheme company' s creditors or shareholders present or voting at the meeting.
This second threshold is commonly known as the headcount test.
In order to facilitate calculations for the test, custodian banks or nominee companies that hold shares on behalf of multiple shareholders are considered as a single shareholder and are usually only allowed to vote one way.
However, the Singapore court has the power to waive the headcount test, under a revision to the Companies Act in 2016.
Rajah & Tann' s lawyers therefore noted that " an applicant may also need to consider whether to apply for the court to direct a different regime of proxy voting for the company scheme (or) trust scheme meeting" .
For instance, the use of multiple proxies could be considered instead, which would allow for the votes at such scheme meetings " to be counted on a ' see-through' basis, to allow for clients of the relevant intermediaries to each submit their votes directly as if they were direct unitholders" , they said in their commentary.
The Soilbuild Reit case is not the first instance of the one-proxy rule coming under fire.
During the failed merger of Sabana Reit and ESR Reit last year, activist fund managers Quarz Capital Management and Black Crane Capital had similarly raised concerns over potential " voting irregularities" as a result of Sabana Reit' s one-proxy rule.
Since then, the market has become more aware of the pitfalls of the one-proxy rule.
When jewellery group Aspial Corp took its subsidiary World Class Global (WCG) private, it provided clear information on how votes by share custodians would be treated.
In a May announcement, WCG noted that relevant intermediaries, such as that of nominees, " need not cast all the votes it uses in the same way" .
WCG said if an intermediary cast more votes for the scheme than against it, that intermediary would have been considered as casting one vote in favour of the scheme, and vice versa.
If the intermediary cast equal votes for and against the scheme, WCG would have treated it as casting one vote for and one vote against the scheme.
Of course, such clarity does not amount to fairness to investors. On the contrary, it merely highlights everything that is wrong with current practice.
INC Law' s Mr Jaryl Lim and Mr Lim Ming Yi said that it would " be of great benefit to Reit clients and lawyers alike if the relevant authorities could weigh in on the legal basis of the use of a trust scheme and one-proxy rule in the context of a Reit" .
"This will provide greater clarity as to the possible legal mechanisms for the take-overs or mergers of Reits in the future.""
Reits should be careful with trust schemes of arrangement
Source: Business Times
Article Date: 01 Jul 2021
Author: Rae Wee
Given added scrutiny of such schemes, Reits should consider if it is most appropriate method to achieve their objectives.
Real estate investment trusts (Reits) in Singapore may have to be more careful when they undertake a trust scheme of arrangement in future as such schemes will likely draw more scrutiny, say corporate lawyers.
This follows the recent privatisation of Soilbuild Business Space Reit (Soilbuild Reit) in March, where the Singapore High Court had raised concerns over the use of the one-proxy rule and the legal basis for a Reit trust scheme to be carried out.
While the privatisation went through, the High Court said during the hearing that the one-proxy rule has the " potential to cause prejudice" .
A Soilbuild Reit unitholder had earlier opposed the trust scheme sanction application on the grounds that the one-proxy rule, which allows for the appointment of only one proxy per unitholder, should not have been used for the trust scheme meeting. The court hearing was thus adjourned to allow time for the Reit manager to compile and provide further information to the court.
A partner of a major law firm, who declined to be named, drew similarities between the Soilbuild Reit case and an earlier case in January this year relating to shipping company Pacific International Lines (PIL).
The court had then directed that the voting instructions received by nominee holders of bonds issued by PIL be recorded by the scheme manager for the court' s consideration.
In light of the doubts raised by the court during the Soilbuild Reit hearing, the partner said that " Reits seeking to undertake a scheme of arrangement should carefully consider whether the process and procedures it intends to adopt are fair, and how they will affect the question of whether the voting results obtained at the scheme meeting are an accurate reflection of the level of support for the scheme for final court sanction purposes" .
Similarly, lawyers at Rajah & Tann Asia noted in an April commentary that while the one-proxy rule is an established industry practice, " an applicant for a trust scheme may need to consider taking steps to satisfy the court that its application of the proxy regime did not disenfranchise minority unitholders" .
During the case, the High Court had also taken " great interest in a separate question as to where the legal basis of a Reit trust scheme can be found" , according to another commentary by INC Law, which represented the dissenting unitholder.
Section 210 of the Companies Act covers the premise for schemes of arrangement within companies, but there is no such similar statute for Reit trust schemes. Instead, reference to a Reit trust scheme can be found in Singapore' s code on takeovers and mergers, though it is neither primary nor subsidiary legislation, it noted.
The High Court had thus added that it was " mindful of the fact that (it had) doubts about the basis on which the rights of unitholders can be expropriated, even under a trust scheme" .
Jaryl Lim and Lim Ming Yi, associate and associate director at INC Law, also raised a separate question as to whether a trust scheme can be " legitimately adopted in the context of a Reit" which deals with real estate property and property rights, noting: " Should dissenting unitholders have their property rights seized just because a majority of unitholders say so?
" This calls into question an even more fundamental legal issue as to whether a Reit should be considered a corporate or a trust structure, because that in turn determines whether company law - where the majority rule is often the default rule - should apply, or whether trust law should apply instead."
At present, there is existing legislation for the acquisition of Reits under section 295A of the Securities and Futures Act, which requires approval of investors holding 90 per cent of the Reit' s units.
Thus, the duo at INC Law noted that Reit clients looking to do a takeover should " seriously consider whether a trust scheme is the most appropriate method to achieve their objective" .
" One can no longer rule out the possibility of a formal challenge in court involving the legitimacy of a trust scheme, in which case a Reit client should be prepared to defend such an objection and show why a trust scheme may be adopted in lieu of an acquisition under section 295A," they added.
In Singapore, the one-proxy rule is typically deployed as a tool to satisfy the " headcount test" .
The local regulatory regime requires a scheme of arrangement to cross two thresholds. It must be approved by creditors or shareholders representing three-fourths in value of those voting at a scheme meeting it must also be approved by a simple majority, in number, of the scheme company' s creditors or shareholders present or voting at the meeting.
This second threshold is commonly known as the headcount test.
In order to facilitate calculations for the test, custodian banks or nominee companies that hold shares on behalf of multiple shareholders are considered as a single shareholder and are usually only allowed to vote one way.
However, the Singapore court has the power to waive the headcount test, under a revision to the Companies Act in 2016.
Rajah & Tann' s lawyers therefore noted that " an applicant may also need to consider whether to apply for the court to direct a different regime of proxy voting for the company scheme (or) trust scheme meeting" .
For instance, the use of multiple proxies could be considered instead, which would allow for the votes at such scheme meetings " to be counted on a ' see-through' basis, to allow for clients of the relevant intermediaries to each submit their votes directly as if they were direct unitholders" , they said in their commentary.
The Soilbuild Reit case is not the first instance of the one-proxy rule coming under fire.
During the failed merger of Sabana Reit and ESR Reit last year, activist fund managers Quarz Capital Management and Black Crane Capital had similarly raised concerns over potential " voting irregularities" as a result of Sabana Reit' s one-proxy rule.
Since then, the market has become more aware of the pitfalls of the one-proxy rule.
When jewellery group Aspial Corp took its subsidiary World Class Global (WCG) private, it provided clear information on how votes by share custodians would be treated.
In a May announcement, WCG noted that relevant intermediaries, such as that of nominees, " need not cast all the votes it uses in the same way" .
WCG said if an intermediary cast more votes for the scheme than against it, that intermediary would have been considered as casting one vote in favour of the scheme, and vice versa.
If the intermediary cast equal votes for and against the scheme, WCG would have treated it as casting one vote for and one vote against the scheme.
Of course, such clarity does not amount to fairness to investors. On the contrary, it merely highlights everything that is wrong with current practice.
INC Law' s Mr Jaryl Lim and Mr Lim Ming Yi said that it would " be of great benefit to Reit clients and lawyers alike if the relevant authorities could weigh in on the legal basis of the use of a trust scheme and one-proxy rule in the context of a Reit" .
"This will provide greater clarity as to the possible legal mechanisms for the take-overs or mergers of Reits in the future.""
antifragile ( Date: 02-Jul-2021 10:02) Posted:
|
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/real-estate/small-cap-s-reits-to-benefit-from-global-real-estate-index-inclusion-citi
other small-cap S-Reits which Citi thinks could be included are Cromwell European Reit, ESR-Reit, AIMS Apac Reit, ARA Logos Logistics Trust, SPH Reit, OUE Commercial Reit, Keppel Pacific Oak US Reit and Starhill Global Reit.
other small-cap S-Reits which Citi thinks could be included are Cromwell European Reit, ESR-Reit, AIMS Apac Reit, ARA Logos Logistics Trust, SPH Reit, OUE Commercial Reit, Keppel Pacific Oak US Reit and Starhill Global Reit.
I don' t think privatisation la, look at the composition of its shareholding.
any way, smashed its all time highs today. Vested tam pok since many years already because of its consistent fantastic yields
any way, smashed its all time highs today. Vested tam pok since many years already because of its consistent fantastic yields
To me this is more a long overdue valuation. AIMS was already trading 1.5x some years back but got knocked down for less than good reasons, and C-19 saw panic sellers allowing some to pick up a very good Reit at a low price. I would compare AIMS as the up and coming " Ascendas Reit" and many will agree a valuation at 1.6x is undemanding and expectations are over the longer run it will price higher to catch up with the kind of yield A-Reit is showing. Price trend seemed too slow for privatisation insider rumour and I really hope it is not true as I like to hold AIMS (caveat under the current management team) for a long time more as part of income portfolio.
Disclaimer: Vested. Sharing, not recommendation to buy or act.
Disclaimer: Vested. Sharing, not recommendation to buy or act.
No la, he just guess only.
Please don' t.....last few reits paying consistently good Dividend.
More worrying evil ESR give low ball offer.
Please don' t.....last few reits paying consistently good Dividend.
More worrying evil ESR give low ball offer.
kwwongm ( Date: 02-Jul-2021 12:12) Posted:
|
Source of info?
Privitatisation......???
Something is brewing....
Something is brewing....
Wow, 1.50....52 weeks high....
manager is unitholder friendly, have not done placement for a long time
Aims will rocket 🚀 🚀 for few years...enjoy the div.
Good occupancy for industrial, data centre S-Reits
With the support from rental reliefs and government incentives, the average occupancy rate of Singapore' s Reit sector (excluding hospitality Reits) dipped marginally from approximately 96 per cent as at March 31, 2020 to 95 per cent as at March 31, 2021.Pandemic-hit segments such as retail and office S-Reits saw the largest dip in occupancy rates of 2.1 and 1.9 percentages points (ppt) respectively over the year.
On the other hand, acceleration of structural trends such as work-from-home (WFH) and e-commerce provided tailwinds for the industrial and data centre segments. These two sub-sectors attained year-on-year growth in average occupancy rates of 1.4 and 3.1 ppt respectively.
In addition, 12 of the 15 acquisition announcements made during the first five months of 2021 involved industrial, logistics or data centre assets.
Among the nine industrial and data centre Reits listed on the SGX, the three that saw the most improvements in occupancy rates, are AIMS Apac Reit (+6.0 ppt), Keppel DC Reit (+3.1 ppt), Mapletree Industrial Trust (+2.2 ppt).
AIMS Apac Reit (AAReit), with a portfolio occupancy rate of 95.4 per cent as of March 31, 2021, holds a variety of assets including logistics & warehouse, business park, hi tech space, light and general industrial properties.
The Reit noted that its logistics and warehouse segment (comprising more than half of portfolio gross rental income) is largely driven by stockpiling and inventory requirements due to Covid-19, which translated to robust demand for industrial space.
Since the start of 2020, AAReit completed the acquisition of a fully occupied logistics facility at 7 Bulim Street and proposed the acquisition of 315 Alexandra Road, a light industrial building with 98.3 per cent occupancy and a long weighted average lease expiry of 10 years by anchor tenant.
Don' t think so la.
Just gradually moving back to pre-covid level, the rightful price.
In fact, some houses TP is 1.60.
One of the few well managed reit that is giving out consistently good DPU.
Better not be the target of any unscrupulous takeover.
Mindful of the evil SSH, ESR!
Just gradually moving back to pre-covid level, the rightful price.
In fact, some houses TP is 1.60.
One of the few well managed reit that is giving out consistently good DPU.
Better not be the target of any unscrupulous takeover.
Mindful of the evil SSH, ESR!
something brewing?
moving up higher yesterday and today.
or just coz of incoming quarterly results (distributions Sep21)
moving up higher yesterday and today.
or just coz of incoming quarterly results (distributions Sep21)