If the Major shareholder had sold in late May at 1.34 levels and Mgt sold in early Aug at 1.16 levels with privy information of the acquisition deal that is not available to the public, then they buy at $1 via the placement or the market with a profit. This constitutes insider trading.
At $0.02 projected quarterly dividend, the yield will be 8% p.a. at $1 (private placement price). Attractive at below $1 based on existing information.
As I have highlighted in my earlier sharing, the management placed shares to raise funds for the property acquisition. I believe the sophiscated/institutional investors are likely to hold their shares for the long term. The share price is likely to be heavily supported by the potential yield and the NAV.
SABANA management is fair to existing shareholders as it has declared advance distribution (
http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/20130913...eID=256183).
There is unlikely to be dilution of equity from its convertible sukuks as the price of conversion $1.1933 is above the current market price.
i have seen so much mention that sabana management is good in their conduct. are there specific evidence of it that substantiates this.
Drizzit,
I USED TO take comfort with 2 facts, one is the way they structure their performance fees. Two, when I compare their PAST acquisitions with buys or AEIs of other industrial reits, they are slightly higher yielding(6-7%), then others who might yield only 4-5%. Of course I didn't compare all industrial reîts.
But if it is true that AMD building is half vacant, and the fact of private placemt instead of rights, I no longer take management as a strength.
I have email the IR with questions, will repost here if they reply. Well, I won't be surprised this time I they don't reply
(15-09-2013, 09:22 AM)Greenrookie Wrote: [ -> ]I have email the IR with questions, will repost here if they reply.
Thanks, Greenrookie.
Awaiting their reply.
(14-09-2013, 06:45 PM)a74henry Wrote: [ -> ]If the Major shareholder had sold in late May at 1.34 levels and Mgt sold in early Aug at 1.16 levels with privy information of the acquisition deal that is not available to the public, then they buy at $1 via the placement or the market with a profit. This constitutes insider trading.
At $0.02 projected quarterly dividend, the yield will be 8% p.a. at $1 (private placement price). Attractive at below $1 based on existing information.
As I have highlighted in my earlier sharing, the management placed shares to raise funds for the property acquisition. I believe the sophiscated/institutional investors are likely to hold their shares for the long term. The share price is likely to be heavily supported by the potential yield and the NAV.
SABANA management is fair to existing shareholders as it has declared advance distribution (http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/20130913...eID=256183).
There is unlikely to be dilution of equity from its convertible sukuks as the price of conversion $1.1933 is above the current market price.
Any company issue placement shares have to do this , not just SABANA.
(15-09-2013, 09:22 AM)Greenrookie Wrote: [ -> ]Drizzit,
I USED TO take comfort with 2 facts, one is the way they structure their performance fees. Two, when I compare their PAST acquisitions with buys or AEIs of other industrial reits, they are slightly higher yielding(6-7%), then others who might yield only 4-5%. Of course I didn't compare all industrial reîts.
But if it is true that AMD building is half vacant, and the fact of private placemt instead of rights, I no longer take management as a strength.
I have email the IR with questions, will repost here if they reply. Well, I won't be surprised this time I they don't reply
the last time there was a joke that many companies that won transparency awards actually turn out to be problematic eventually.
performance fees on the whole are not the bread and butter for these managers and without a good enough incentive they can still muddle along with the AUM fees.
but you should be able to tell from the AEI and the purchase, i think in times when the cap rate is rather low if the management are able to find well occupied high income yield assets these are good indication.
not screwing up investors by doing what some of these forumers raise is also good.
Avoid reit which sponsor only want to own small stake , this is a obvious sign that they are more interested in making all sort of fees , and don't mind their holding get diluted.
Francis Yeoh of Starhill global reit told all unitholders who attended the last AGM that YTL always want to own a bigger stake in the reits that they own and will never resort to private placement, because they don't want their holding get diluted, they will always go for right issues, most who attended the AGM applauded on this.
Private placement at a discount to institutions who never own the reit before is never fair to the existing unitholders.
accretive acquisitions with placements enables the share holders not to "return the dividends to the company"
The so-called accretive were always short live after the master leases. Reits pay higher capital values in exchange for a higher yields master lease, a trade-off.
I would prefer placements as long as it is DPU accretive (or even neutral). The REIT diversifies its property base and clientele and if they are good Managers, the DPU would go up and yet I don't even have to put in a cent ! Just look at what FCT has done over the years. I don't get what is so fascinating over rights issue - why vomit back all the dividends (and more) back to the REIT ?
(Not Vested in any REIT)