Btw, its not very likely they will do a share buyback. Boss big focus now is how to maximise profit on the robin road site. If he does it correctly, he can sell it in excess of 2500psf. There is also potential for Sing Holdings to improve the Plot ratio of the land, but that would only happen if the DC rates are revised downwards
Btw, its not very likely they will do a share buyback. Boss big focus now is how to maximise profit on the robin road site. If he does it correctly, he can sell it in excess of 2500psf. There is also potential for Sing Holdings to improve the Plot ratio of the land, but that would only happen if the DC rates are revised downwards
Btw, its blackout period now. So boss cant do share buyback. But he kept his promise by saying the balance sheets of the company will only get stronger and stronger from now till 2013. Its a pity the market is not recognising this value.
Btw, its blackout period now. So boss cant do share buyback. But he kept his promise by saying the balance sheets of the company will only get stronger and stronger from now till 2013. Its a pity the market is not recognising this value.
can ask the management to peg their pay to dividend.
(09-01-2012, 09:40 PM)Behappyalways Wrote: [ -> ]company can make money thru property. BUT company can also make money by doing share buyback in Sing Holding case. Let's say they buy 1 lot at 30 cents and company's 3Q2011 NTA is 40 cents. The NTA in this case is near cash and what is the return? 10cents per share using 30 cents purchase.....what more NTA is going to increase rapidly... The mgmt still don't get it .....sighhhhhhh. By the way, I do not approve of doing share buyback at price above NTA(to me it is propping up share price and it should be deemed as an opportunity to run. One good example is Osim when it is $1.50) unless the assets are undervalued or NTA itself gonna rise rapidly to near share buyback price.
Yes the company is doing well, the mgmt did a good job but as long as share price languish, it does not benefit shareholders. If share price falls further, then old shareholders lose out because the new shareholders breakeven cost is lower than them and old shareholders' entry price might become a price resistance. Personally I think the mgmt is just thinking for themselves. They owned 35% of the company, they cannot sell in order not to lose control. So they are more willing to give healthy dividends because they can maintain holdings while getting income and if price fall, they accumulate.....falling share price benefits them more than rising share price.
As a minority shareholder, if i feel the directors are not tending to my interest then I think I should do something about it rather than sit and pray
The boss logic is simple. If he can make more money from property, why not just focus on the business instead of playing with the numbers? He is not in the business of value investing but in the business of creating value.
He would also have to ask SIC to waive the requirements of a takeover offer since he already has more than 40% in the company.
fact of the matter is SingHldg simply cannot afford to do any meaningful share buybacks, or even a script dividends, without risks of triggering a Takeover.
for ease of discussion, we just look at the shares of FH LEE Holdings (136,110,746 shares or a 33.94%) and ignore the rest of the LEEs family members.
Below is valid coz the LEEs aggregate stake in SingHldg is greater than 30% BUT less than 50%.
just a mere 3% buyback = that's only 12,029,840 shares only, will reduces issued shares to 388,964,812 shares
then FH LEE Holdings 136,110,746 shares (currently at 33.94%) will jump to 34.99%.
==> if this happen (> 1% change for the LEEs) within a 6-month period, a mandatory takeover is trigger !!.
==> the LEE's may NOT be keen at all in seeing SingHldg getting delisted.
for that matter, even a script dividend could easily trigger a mandatory takeover
eg. just a 2c script div, with script priced at 25c per share (just a small discount)
ASSUMPTIONs => total takeup rate for scripts at 60% (inclusive of the LEEs who opt for script in full)
=> will again see FH LEE Holdings stake alone, rising from 33.94% to 34.98%
==> again trigger a mandatory takeover.
NB: not vested in SingHldg,
for those who follow my thinkings, it should be obvious to you that I always believe there are much more attractive alternatives out there.
share buyback or not is not the only way to enhance shareholders' value.
they can declare higher dividend and lower management payment since management is substantial shareholders of the company when they can, naturally, share price will appreciate accordingly.
It all depends on whether what they care is shareholders' value, or their own pockets and their own ego to have a larger balance sheet for more projects.
(10-01-2012, 08:51 AM)Vseeker Wrote: [ -> ]fact of the matter is SingHldg simply cannot afford to do any meaningful share buybacks, or even a script dividends, without risks of triggering a Takeover.
for ease of discussion, we just look at the shares of FH LEE Holdings (136,110,746 shares or a 33.94%) and ignore the rest of the LEEs family members.
Below is valid coz the LEEs aggregate stake in SingHldg is greater than 30% BUT less than 50%.
just a mere 3% buyback = that's only 12,029,840 shares only, will reduces issued shares to 388,964,812 shares
then FH LEE Holdings 136,110,746 shares (currently at 33.94%) will jump to 34.99%.
==> if this happen (> 1% change for the LEEs) within a 6-month period, a mandatory takeover is trigger !!.
==> the LEE's may NOT be keen at all in seeing SingHldg getting delisted.
for that matter, even a script dividend could easily trigger a mandatory takeover
eg. just a 2c script div, with script priced at 25c per share (just a small discount)
ASSUMPTIONs => total takeup rate for scripts at 60% (inclusive of the LEEs who opt for script in full)
=> will again see FH LEE Holdings stake alone, rising from 33.94% to 34.98%
==> again trigger a mandatory takeover.
NB: not vested in SingHldg,
for those who follow my thinkings, it should be obvious to you that I always believe there are much more attractive alternatives out there.
Obviously, you havent heard of something called a whitewash resolution. Share Buybacks can always be done, its just a matter of whether they think its appropriate to do so.
This Robin road project will be a good money spinner for Sing Holdings. I would say Sing Holdings is a good store of value since its backed by a cash hoard and a solid land bank.
(09-01-2012, 01:56 PM)Behappyalways Wrote: [ -> ]then share price will continue to languish...if share buyback and other means are not explored.....
look at today volume...0 sales....got to 'HOPE' that the director aggressively buy some shares before announcement else no one buys and share price languish.....minority shareholders in the weak position of selling only to director who is the 'only' big buyer around since no share buyback, no analyst coverage and very low profile.....
Hi, any reason why you are not using this period to buy more since I sense that you have strong conviction in this company? Assuming say $0.10 EPS and NTA going up, the chance of having 6% dividend yield backed by solid balance sheet looks good?
Not vested