(26-02-2014, 05:12 PM)cyc Wrote: [ -> ] (26-02-2014, 04:31 PM)Shrivathsa Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, if there is a catalyst for property counters, will not Sing Holdings also benefit?
What is the catalyst you have in mind ?
LSH should considering launching a takeover offer and delist the company. Even at $0.50, many investors out there will still make a decent profit.
There was an article in Business Times yesterday about property companies ripe for taking private. Sing Holdings was one of the counters mentioned.
(28-02-2014, 02:02 PM)Shrivathsa Wrote: [ -> ] (26-02-2014, 05:12 PM)cyc Wrote: [ -> ] (26-02-2014, 04:31 PM)Shrivathsa Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, if there is a catalyst for property counters, will not Sing Holdings also benefit?
What is the catalyst you have in mind ?
LSH should considering launching a takeover offer and delist the company. Even at $0.50, many investors out there will still make a decent profit.
There was an article in Business Times yesterday about property companies ripe for taking private. Sing Holdings was one of the counters mentioned.
Yup, this article was also reported in My Paper, also highlighting Tuan Sing Holdings and Wing Tai holdings as potential candidates. LSH would have taken note of it. It is currently trading at 36 % discount to its NAV and even more sizeable discount if RNAV is used as a yardstick. He should consider following the example of Singapore Land and privatise Sing Holdings. If he continues to do nothing to unlock the value, Sing holdings may end up as sink holdings. Obviously, those who are vested would prefer it as RI-Sing Holdings
So far I have not seen one rational that the controlling shareholder gets the benefit when it privatizes the company. So I wonder why it would ever consider it.
I challenge existing investors to give me one reason why it will privatize it.
Hi Freedom, it is true Sing Holding's current controlling shareholder has no incentive to privatize it. The family controls approximately 38% of the company and holds the top 2 post. Thus they can benefit by paying themselves bonuses.
The likely way for privatisation to take place is a two way tussle between the Lee Family and whichever party that comes in. This is because the Lee Family may lose the avenue of milking the company through bonus in the event they become the second largest shareholder.
<The above is my view>
(02-03-2014, 08:40 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]So far I have not seen one rational that the controlling shareholder gets the benefit when it privatizes the company. So I wonder why it would ever consider it.
I challenge existing investors to give me one reason why it will privatize it.
Good evening Freedom San and all.
Are you vested?
QC?
<vested>
(02-03-2014, 10:20 PM)CY09 Wrote: [ -> ]Hi Freedom, it is true Sing Holding's current controlling shareholder has no incentive to privatize it. The family controls approximately 38% of the company and holds the top 2 post. Thus they can benefit by paying themselves bonuses.
The likely way for privatisation to take place is a two way tussle between the Lee Family and whichever party that comes in. This is because the Lee Family may lose the avenue of milking the company through bonus in the event they become the second largest shareholder.
<The above is my view>
True. But unlikely.
If you examine the shareholding statistics of Sing Holdings, it is unlikely that a second meaningfully large shareholder will emerge. And before that ever happens, there are lot of ways for the current controlling shareholder to defend its position. Plus, who is going to launch an expensive war when it can't buy enough at current price? If the second shareholder pays 50 - 60 cents per share to acquire large enough stake, what's the meat left?
Property development is a capital intensive business. The one launching an attack has to have deep pocket to fund all the development themselves away from public market.
There is a better chance that the controlling shareholder gets fed up with requests then it privatizes the company.
(02-03-2014, 10:48 PM)kbl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-03-2014, 08:40 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]So far I have not seen one rational that the controlling shareholder gets the benefit when it privatizes the company. So I wonder why it would ever consider it.
I challenge existing investors to give me one reason why it will privatize it.
Good evening Freedom San and all.
Are you vested?
QC?
<vested>
I was long ago. I was naive at that time. I got out around 45 cents.
I simply can't see the value ever being unlocked.
The controlling shareholder treats the minority shareholders like crap. That's big enough sign for me to get out once I realize my mistake.
I totally agree with freedom's assessment of Lees. That's why I wrote if minority shareholders would want to pool together but my guess is most do not want to be involved in it yet want to reap.
I was talking to a friend about Oxley Holdings. Instead of buying land and issuing debts, they should have use their surging share price to issue shares to take a significant stake in sing holdings. So instead of incuring debts to build landbank, oxley would receive cash(From sing's receivables(the laurels) ) and landbank. Oxley got a big project near robin so they should know the value of the land sing is holding. So instead of building debts, oxley would be able to reduce debts while acquiring good property.
(03-03-2014, 07:45 AM)Behappyalways Wrote: [ -> ]I totally agree with freedom's assessment of Lees. That's why I wrote if minority shareholders would want to pool together but my guess is most do not want to be involved in it yet want to reap.
I was talking to a friend about Oxley Holdings. Instead of buying land and issuing debts, they should have use their surging share price to issue shares to take a significant stake in sing holdings. So instead of incuring debts to build landbank, oxley would receive cash(From sing's receivables(the laurels) ) and landbank. Oxley got a big project near robin so they should know the value of the land sing is holding. So instead of building debts, oxley would be able to reduce debts while acquiring good property.
Good morning Behappyalways san and All.
You draft and send the copy to Boss Lee. I can support you with few names. We need 100 shareholders.
<vested><not a call to buy or sell>