(19-07-2013, 07:33 AM)HitandRun Wrote: [ -> ]Hi NTL
Do you have any idea how many staff is required to manage a property of approx 59k sqm or >600,000 sqft?
Based on what I know from Ascendas, they only need 3 staff or less, 1 Marketing and 2 Maintenance. Some of these staff are shared with other properties as well.
If a property has say 50 tenants and assuming average lease is 2 years (3 years is usually the standard), the marketing staff need only handle 2 tenants a month. Contracts are standard and non negotiable except for rental unit, amount of rent, rental period and rent free period. Property maintenance is normally outsourced and only 1 or 2 point men are needed to answer tenants' concerns or supervise the external contractors.
Hi,
Thanks. I don't know that.
If this case, they only need 12 staff max to manage the 4 properties?
(19-07-2013, 08:39 AM)Stocker Wrote: [ -> ] (19-07-2013, 07:33 AM)HitandRun Wrote: [ -> ]Hi NTL
Do you have any idea how many staff is required to manage a property of approx 59k sqm or >600,000 sqft?
Based on what I know from Ascendas, they only need 3 staff or less, 1 Marketing and 2 Maintenance. Some of these staff are shared with other properties as well.
If a property has say 50 tenants and assuming average lease is 2 years (3 years is usually the standard), the marketing staff need only handle 2 tenants a month. Contracts are standard and non negotiable except for rental unit, amount of rent, rental period and rent free period. Property maintenance is normally outsourced and only 1 or 2 point men are needed to answer tenants' concerns or supervise the external contractors.
More tenants , more things to deal with. Non-payment or delay of rentals, complaints , defaults.. dealing with humans is always more tedious than dealing with hardwares.
They just have to hire experienced people to take care. They can even outsource the whole management to estate agencies . That should solve the issues?
Take notice that the manager sold their holding again in open market, they should know something that many man-in-the -street don't .
yeah they sold out at average price 1.16
just to check this is lower than what they sold out previously right?
I think this kinda actions by management might be taken in negatively by investors
Thought it is normal for Reit manager to sell their share soon after result announcement as these shares are paid to them as management fee or bonus fee ? Suntec Reit manager had been doing it all the while.
Yea. I don't think we should read too much into it. Its quite normal practice for independent reit managers to divest their management fees paid in shares. And shareholders shouldn't complain, since by not paying the fees in cash, the DPU is larger.
(Not Vested)
(03-08-2013, 01:34 PM)Nick Wrote: [ -> ]Yea. I don't think we should read too much into it. Its quite normal practice for independent reit managers to divest their management fees paid in shares. And shareholders shouldn't complain, since by not paying the fees in cash, the DPU is larger.
(Not Vested)
Every Q, this'll pop up in this thread....
hm.. by paying fees in shares, since new units are created
isn't dpu and nav diluted?
sorry I'm not too familiar with paying management fees via units, so just curious
(03-08-2013, 03:43 PM)felixleong Wrote: [ -> ]hm.. by paying fees in shares, since new units are created
isn't dpu and nav diluted?
sorry I'm not too familiar with paying management fees via units, so just curious
In 2Q 2013, Sabana REIT declared distributable income of $15.590 million and declared DPU of 2.40 cents. This is possible as it settled $1.148 million worth of management fees in terms of new shares.
Distributable Income: $15.590 million
Outstanding Shares: 648,711,000
Issue of Shares to Mgmt: 993,185
Shares Entitled to Distribution: 649,704,185
DPU: 2.3995 cents (2.40 cents declared)
If the Management had elected to receive the fees entirely in cash, the distributable income will be reduced to 15.590 - 1.148 = $14.442 million.
Distributable Income: $14.442 million
Shares Entitled to Distribution: 648,711,000
DPU: 2.226 cents
What does this means ? By paying management fees in scrip, the DPU gets to be inflated (though I am not sure whether it works in the long run). A number of REITs pay management fees in terms of scrip or partially in scrip. Obviously, management firms need to pay their expenses in cash so it is entirely normal for them to divest the newly issued shares time to time to generate hard cash.
yeah the yield becomes inflated, but in the long run the original shareholders stakes become diluted isn't it?
short term good for shareholders but long term no good?
(03-08-2013, 04:02 PM)Nick Wrote: [ -> ]A number of REITs pay management fees in terms of scrip or partially in scrip. Obviously, management firms need to pay their expenses in cash so it is entirely normal for them to divest the newly issued shares time to time to generate hard cash.
I believe less than a handful pays in cash.... PLife, Starhill, MLT used to, but switched?