Post Reply
401-420 of 1690
Agree. Internalisation is a a win-win situation. DPU will go up even if it fails. Good job by Quarz by pushing that through in Singapore, especially as trustee, MAS don' t seem very supportive....
you are right, so cost already charged.pain alr incurred. Hence if internalisation complete, then cost will drop off.. DPU will go up.
alternatively, if internalisation fail, then cost will also drop off as well. DPU go up
so win win for shareholders buying in now
alternatively, if internalisation fail, then cost will also drop off as well. DPU go up
so win win for shareholders buying in now
Umm.. internalisation cost incurred already... more than $3m already... and still counting
sangsang1 ( Date: 13-Mar-2024 17:15) Posted:
|
IMO, sabana is a win win situation at current price -
1) if internalisation works, hurrah, project complete, no internalisation cost, dpu goes higher than before due to the cost savings and better manager. > 9% dividend yield
2) if internalisation fails, also no internalisation cost, dpu goes back to normal and we vote in new external manager. - around 9% divd yield at current price...all reits which have divd yield of less than 6% will have to trade with higher dividend yield cos we now know cannot remove manager
3) portfolio can also be sold at 10% discount to NAV of 52 cents = 47 cents. its SG assets so i not scare.
so i am dipping to buy abit everyday, when people fear, the bold gets their opportunity
1) if internalisation works, hurrah, project complete, no internalisation cost, dpu goes higher than before due to the cost savings and better manager. > 9% dividend yield
2) if internalisation fails, also no internalisation cost, dpu goes back to normal and we vote in new external manager. - around 9% divd yield at current price...all reits which have divd yield of less than 6% will have to trade with higher dividend yield cos we now know cannot remove manager
3) portfolio can also be sold at 10% discount to NAV of 52 cents = 47 cents. its SG assets so i not scare.
so i am dipping to buy abit everyday, when people fear, the bold gets their opportunity
Agree with your point.
I was the first to mentioned Croesus at the very beginning of the saga.
I am not suggesting to follow paying good money to buy the manager.
It is how the process was done in double quick time that all can look into.
Anyway, the very first post I already mentioned circumstances different between Croesus & Sabana.
Hence it will not be as smooth sailing but at least can gain on how to expedite.
I was the first to mentioned Croesus at the very beginning of the saga.
I am not suggesting to follow paying good money to buy the manager.
It is how the process was done in double quick time that all can look into.
Anyway, the very first post I already mentioned circumstances different between Croesus & Sabana.
Hence it will not be as smooth sailing but at least can gain on how to expedite.
GoldenPig ( Date: 13-Mar-2024 08:14) Posted:
|
If Q is serious , Q should engage a lawyer to ask the trustee for the questions they asked but did not get the satisfactory replies. If a legal letter is issued , the trustee has no choice but to reply . Is Q really serious about this action ?
You did not seem to get.my hint ?
aragosta ( Date: 13-Mar-2024 08:34) Posted:
|
Someone posted about about Croesus before. I think Croesus took the easy way by paying $50m (or $30m? Cannot remember the amount exactly) to buy over the external manager.
You want to pay ESR say $30m to take over the REIT manager? I don' t want....
So I already expected Sabana to spend a few million $ at least to do all these due diligence to set up our own internal manager. HSBC is just doing its job as the trustee. But it deserves the flak at the EGM for its failure to communicate its action plan and to update unitholders in a more timely manner. Yes, it is impossible to quantify progress exactly in terms of percentage. But it should be possible to give a tentative budget and an indicative timeframe with key milestones. Unitholders are not idiots. We know that response time by the authorities etc are largely beyond the control of the trustee.
You want to pay ESR say $30m to take over the REIT manager? I don' t want....
So I already expected Sabana to spend a few million $ at least to do all these due diligence to set up our own internal manager. HSBC is just doing its job as the trustee. But it deserves the flak at the EGM for its failure to communicate its action plan and to update unitholders in a more timely manner. Yes, it is impossible to quantify progress exactly in terms of percentage. But it should be possible to give a tentative budget and an indicative timeframe with key milestones. Unitholders are not idiots. We know that response time by the authorities etc are largely beyond the control of the trustee.
pkli899 ( Date: 12-Mar-2024 14:12) Posted:
|
I blame it on Q.. Why did Q not sit down with the trustee and have some PROPER PLANNING FIRST before having the EGM to approve the internalisation? Last year Q should have worked with Trustee to work out a detailed plan for shareholders to vote aka do first vote later instead of vote first do later.
Now is really sinking deeper and deeper into quicksand.
Now is really sinking deeper and deeper into quicksand.
Money belongs to
Unit holders, but not the trustee ! They know nothing the.unit holders can do to them ， not happy with me , but what can you all do to me ?
Unit holders, but not the trustee ! They know nothing the.unit holders can do to them ， not happy with me , but what can you all do to me ?
sealTeam3 ( Date: 12-Mar-2024 19:17) Posted:
|
during the egm, one unitholder asked trustee to give itemized breakdown of the costs incurred but they openly refused citing rubbish reasons.. they should be investigated.. how on earth can you spend 3.2mil in 3-4 months??!
trustee is completely useless... wasted so much of unitholders $$.. engaged the most expensive lawyers in town but cannot get things done.. MAS now already give waivers, let' s see what other excuses the trustee gonna come up with
Few millions had been spent on this and still have to spend millions to have one or more EGM to get a mandate , still hanging in the air after spending so many millions . Trustee had said need to have EGM , and hope trustee do not resign as trustee ， if trustee resigns , more problems and more expenses.
pkli899 ( Date: 12-Mar-2024 13:14) Posted:
|
Croesus was a very good example.
If the management of Croesus is still contactable, actually can approach them to learn a thing or two.
They did it in a very short time.
If the management of Croesus is still contactable, actually can approach them to learn a thing or two.
They did it in a very short time.
I agree 100%. We should not lose sight of what' s important (despite all the twists and turns in the Sabana saga, which will eventually lead to internalisation I am sure): Singapore REITs need a proper way to make internalisation possible!! Internalisation should be a straightforward and easy decision by unitholders and easy to implement. (Please, regulators, step in and do something.......)
pkli899 ( Date: 12-Mar-2024 13:14) Posted:
|
Internatisation is the way to go, like it or not.
Definitely cost saving, no two ways about it.
Definitely cost saving, no two ways about it.
MAS was the one who approved the trust deeds when REITs and trust were listed on SGX .
What is interesting was that even MAS now step in to provide waivers to support internalisation. Very strong sign that regulators also understand that internalisation is good for the market and want it
good article that support retail investors!!
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/opinion-features/mas-waivers-sabana-sias-rebuke-great-eastern-could-be-heartening-signs-minorities
Singapore should emulate Japan and South Korea by encouraging companies to unlock value, but it&rsquo s also important to change the attitudes of controlling shareholders
THE topic of minority shareholder rights and protections grabbed a lot of attention in the local market this past week.
On Mar 6, Great Eastern said a request by minority shareholders to table resolutions at its coming annual general meeting (AGM) to address the poor market valuation of its shares did not satisfy all the necessary requirements.
The company said that although it will continue to strengthen its business and maintain a reasonable dividend payout, the market price of its shares depends on many other factors.
Great Eastern ended its statement with a warning that investors should tread carefully, saying: &ldquo There is no certainty that requests made to the company through the media before the company has been able to first review the requests and provide a formal response, will materialise.&rdquo
Ong Chin Woo &ndash the minority shareholder who proposed the resolutions &ndash has not given up, though.
He told me last week that the number of minority shareholders supporting his resolutions has been growing. He now plans to seek legal advice, and submit a fresh request to table his resolutions in time for the coming AGM.
Meanwhile, minority unitholders of Sabana Industrial Real Estate Investment Trust (Reit) demonstrated similar pluck in their quest to internalise the management function of the trust.
At an extraordinary general meeting held on Mar 8, eight out of 10 resolutions aimed at further directing Sabana Reit&rsquo s trustee on the internalisation process were passed.
Much still depends on whether internalising the manager function at Sabana Reit requires an amendment to its trust deed. This will require an extraordinary resolution with a 75 per cent approval threshold, which Sabana Reit&rsquo s sponsor group stands a good chance of blocking with its more than 21 per cent stake.
While Sabana Reit&rsquo s trustee holds the view that an amendment to the trust deed is necessary, activist investor Quarz Capital has insisted this is not the case. On Jan 9, the trustee filed an Order 32 application with the courts to clear up the matter.
Back at Great Eastern, the likelihood of minority investors getting their way seems similarly remote. Even if their resolutions are tabled at the coming AGM, the resolutions will not pass if OCBC votes against them.
OCBC &ndash which holds 88.4 per cent of Great Eastern&rsquo s shares &ndash has insisted for years that owning the insurer is crucial to its group strategy. Hence, it seems unlikely that OCBC would support any resolution that might hinder its ability to eventually fully acquire Great Eastern as cheaply as possible.
So, why do the recent minority investor actions at Great Eastern and Sabana Reit matter? Why should investors pay attention to these unfolding stories?
For one thing, the effort by minority investors to internalise the management function of Sabana Reit has not been met by regulatory indifference.
Sabana Reit&rsquo s trustee revealed last week that the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has granted it certain exemptions to make an internalised-manager structure possible.
Specifically, MAS waived the rules that prohibit Reits from investing in shares of its manager &ndash so long as the shares of the internal manager are held on trust for the benefit of all unitholders.
MAS also waived the rule requiring the trustee to be independent of the manager &ndash subject to appropriate safeguards and governance structure being put in place to ensure that the trustee cannot exercise control over the internal manager&rsquo s Reit management activities.
On top of that, MAS clarified that while substantial shareholders of a Reit manager have to meet &ldquo fit and proper&rdquo criteria, substantial shareholders of a Reit with an internal manager would not be subjected to this criteria.
Unitholders who are &ldquo effective controllers&rdquo of an internalised-manager Reit &ndash those with a 20 per cent stake or more &ndash would, however, be subjected to the fit and proper criteria.
On the face of it, MAS seems to be anticipating some of Singapore&rsquo s externally-managed Reits transitioning to internally-managed Reits.
This could be a welcome development for the Reit sector, which has been battered by rising interest rates over the past year, and lay the foundations for its next phase of growth.
It was also heartening to see Great Eastern&rsquo s flat rejection of the proposed resolutions from minority investors last week immediately draw a rebuke from the Securities Investors Association (Singapore), or Sias.
Sias said in a letter to Great Eastern&rsquo s board on Mar 7 that its response to the request to table the resolutions was &ldquo somewhat legalistic&rdquo and &ldquo appears to sidestep the substantive concerns raised&rdquo .
Sias also said it sees &ldquo significant value&rdquo in tabling the three resolutions put forward by Great Eastern&rsquo s minorities. &ldquo Each of these resolutions seeks to strengthen the alignment of directors&rsquo interests with those of all shareholders, a principle that lies at the heart of good governance practices.&rdquo
Sias went on to ask Great Eastern&rsquo s board a number of questions about its total shareholder return, and its remuneration policies &ndash including its practice of rewarding its executives with OCBC shares instead of its own shares, under its various share-based remuneration schemes.
Noting a sharp divergence in performance of OCBC shares versus Great Eastern shares over the last three years, Sias asked: &ldquo Is the board actively exploring measures to strengthen the group&rsquo s remuneration and incentive practices, particularly regarding the allocation of OCBC shares to the group CEO, considering his role primarily focuses only on the overall strategic direction and business growth of the Great Eastern Group?&rdquo
Could this seemingly supportive response from MAS and Sias to the two minority-investor actions last week be a harbinger of change in the local market? Is it time to buy Singapore-listed stocks trading at big discounts to the value of their underlying assets?
The good news is: There seems to be a growing realisation that a lot can be done from a policy perspective to lift the market valuations of public-listed companies.
Japan&rsquo s Nikkei 225 index earlier this month breached the 40,000 level for the first time, reportedly following years of corporate governance reform efforts &ndash including the Tokyo Stock Exchange last year deciding to push companies to come up with plans to boost their stock valuations.
Last month, South Korea took a leaf from Japan&rsquo s playbook and unveiled plans to support its own listed companies in boosting their market value. Among other things, Seoul plans to provide tax incentives to companies that increase shareholder returns and create an index of companies with proven records of profitability and those expected to boost their value.
Some market watchers wonder, however, if such initiatives will be sufficient to change the attitude of controlling shareholders of South Korean companies &ndash who are said to prefer keeping stock prices low in order to minimise inheritance tax.
Here in Singapore, it is also important to keep in mind that controlling shareholders hold most of the cards. While much could be gained if companies are incentivised to unlock value, it is probably just as important to figure out how the attitudes and motivations of controlling shareholders might be changed for the better.
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/opinion-features/mas-waivers-sabana-sias-rebuke-great-eastern-could-be-heartening-signs-minorities
MAS waivers for Sabana, Sias rebuke of Great Eastern could be heartening signs for minorities
Singapore should emulate Japan and South Korea by encouraging companies to unlock value, but it&rsquo s also important to change the attitudes of controlling shareholders
THE topic of minority shareholder rights and protections grabbed a lot of attention in the local market this past week.
On Mar 6, Great Eastern said a request by minority shareholders to table resolutions at its coming annual general meeting (AGM) to address the poor market valuation of its shares did not satisfy all the necessary requirements.
The company said that although it will continue to strengthen its business and maintain a reasonable dividend payout, the market price of its shares depends on many other factors.
Great Eastern ended its statement with a warning that investors should tread carefully, saying: &ldquo There is no certainty that requests made to the company through the media before the company has been able to first review the requests and provide a formal response, will materialise.&rdquo
Ong Chin Woo &ndash the minority shareholder who proposed the resolutions &ndash has not given up, though.
He told me last week that the number of minority shareholders supporting his resolutions has been growing. He now plans to seek legal advice, and submit a fresh request to table his resolutions in time for the coming AGM.
Meanwhile, minority unitholders of Sabana Industrial Real Estate Investment Trust (Reit) demonstrated similar pluck in their quest to internalise the management function of the trust.
At an extraordinary general meeting held on Mar 8, eight out of 10 resolutions aimed at further directing Sabana Reit&rsquo s trustee on the internalisation process were passed.
Much still depends on whether internalising the manager function at Sabana Reit requires an amendment to its trust deed. This will require an extraordinary resolution with a 75 per cent approval threshold, which Sabana Reit&rsquo s sponsor group stands a good chance of blocking with its more than 21 per cent stake.
While Sabana Reit&rsquo s trustee holds the view that an amendment to the trust deed is necessary, activist investor Quarz Capital has insisted this is not the case. On Jan 9, the trustee filed an Order 32 application with the courts to clear up the matter.
Back at Great Eastern, the likelihood of minority investors getting their way seems similarly remote. Even if their resolutions are tabled at the coming AGM, the resolutions will not pass if OCBC votes against them.
OCBC &ndash which holds 88.4 per cent of Great Eastern&rsquo s shares &ndash has insisted for years that owning the insurer is crucial to its group strategy. Hence, it seems unlikely that OCBC would support any resolution that might hinder its ability to eventually fully acquire Great Eastern as cheaply as possible.
So, why do the recent minority investor actions at Great Eastern and Sabana Reit matter? Why should investors pay attention to these unfolding stories?
MAS, Sias support
For one thing, the effort by minority investors to internalise the management function of Sabana Reit has not been met by regulatory indifference.
Sabana Reit&rsquo s trustee revealed last week that the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has granted it certain exemptions to make an internalised-manager structure possible.
Specifically, MAS waived the rules that prohibit Reits from investing in shares of its manager &ndash so long as the shares of the internal manager are held on trust for the benefit of all unitholders.
MAS also waived the rule requiring the trustee to be independent of the manager &ndash subject to appropriate safeguards and governance structure being put in place to ensure that the trustee cannot exercise control over the internal manager&rsquo s Reit management activities.
On top of that, MAS clarified that while substantial shareholders of a Reit manager have to meet &ldquo fit and proper&rdquo criteria, substantial shareholders of a Reit with an internal manager would not be subjected to this criteria.
Unitholders who are &ldquo effective controllers&rdquo of an internalised-manager Reit &ndash those with a 20 per cent stake or more &ndash would, however, be subjected to the fit and proper criteria.
On the face of it, MAS seems to be anticipating some of Singapore&rsquo s externally-managed Reits transitioning to internally-managed Reits.
This could be a welcome development for the Reit sector, which has been battered by rising interest rates over the past year, and lay the foundations for its next phase of growth.
It was also heartening to see Great Eastern&rsquo s flat rejection of the proposed resolutions from minority investors last week immediately draw a rebuke from the Securities Investors Association (Singapore), or Sias.
Sias said in a letter to Great Eastern&rsquo s board on Mar 7 that its response to the request to table the resolutions was &ldquo somewhat legalistic&rdquo and &ldquo appears to sidestep the substantive concerns raised&rdquo .
Sias also said it sees &ldquo significant value&rdquo in tabling the three resolutions put forward by Great Eastern&rsquo s minorities. &ldquo Each of these resolutions seeks to strengthen the alignment of directors&rsquo interests with those of all shareholders, a principle that lies at the heart of good governance practices.&rdquo
Sias went on to ask Great Eastern&rsquo s board a number of questions about its total shareholder return, and its remuneration policies &ndash including its practice of rewarding its executives with OCBC shares instead of its own shares, under its various share-based remuneration schemes.
Noting a sharp divergence in performance of OCBC shares versus Great Eastern shares over the last three years, Sias asked: &ldquo Is the board actively exploring measures to strengthen the group&rsquo s remuneration and incentive practices, particularly regarding the allocation of OCBC shares to the group CEO, considering his role primarily focuses only on the overall strategic direction and business growth of the Great Eastern Group?&rdquo
Could this seemingly supportive response from MAS and Sias to the two minority-investor actions last week be a harbinger of change in the local market? Is it time to buy Singapore-listed stocks trading at big discounts to the value of their underlying assets?
Policies to drive market
The good news is: There seems to be a growing realisation that a lot can be done from a policy perspective to lift the market valuations of public-listed companies.
Japan&rsquo s Nikkei 225 index earlier this month breached the 40,000 level for the first time, reportedly following years of corporate governance reform efforts &ndash including the Tokyo Stock Exchange last year deciding to push companies to come up with plans to boost their stock valuations.
Last month, South Korea took a leaf from Japan&rsquo s playbook and unveiled plans to support its own listed companies in boosting their market value. Among other things, Seoul plans to provide tax incentives to companies that increase shareholder returns and create an index of companies with proven records of profitability and those expected to boost their value.
Some market watchers wonder, however, if such initiatives will be sufficient to change the attitude of controlling shareholders of South Korean companies &ndash who are said to prefer keeping stock prices low in order to minimise inheritance tax.
Here in Singapore, it is also important to keep in mind that controlling shareholders hold most of the cards. While much could be gained if companies are incentivised to unlock value, it is probably just as important to figure out how the attitudes and motivations of controlling shareholders might be changed for the better.
lol.. the writer of article is funny le.. Q won the court injunction filed by ESR what....public information that Court dismissed ESR' s injunction and called the ESR' s application ' misconceived' , ' without merits' and ' should not be brought at all'
the article is funny la.. wonder if the writer has even read the court documents lol
Aiya.. just see how many sponsored events the Edge do for ESR REIT before reading the article
the article is funny la.. wonder if the writer has even read the court documents lol
Aiya.. just see how many sponsored events the Edge do for ESR REIT
before reading the article