Remove the existing Manager already then who be the Manager?
Are the activist shareholders providing an alternative?
(21-01-2017, 10:44 PM)ACTIVIST SPEAKS Wrote: [ -> ]REMOVE SABANA REIT MANAGER....You will be making a binary decision. Remove the Manager or Keep the Manager. It is your choice. Not voting is a vote to Keep the Manager. Do nothing and you will continue to lose. Please attend the meeting and vote in favour of the adoption of all the resolutions at the general meeting.
http://sabanareit.blogspot.sg/
Not vested. But I wish you luck and the best in this matter.
(23-01-2017, 12:22 PM)ACTIVIST SPEAKS Wrote: [ -> ]Sabana Shari'ah Compliant REIT
Rumblings of Unitholder activism
SINGAPORE | REAL ESTATE (REIT) | TRADING NOTE
Event-driven trading idea
The price of Sabana Shari'ah Compliant REIT (SSREIT) had declined by $0.335 or 47% to
$0.380 for the year ended December 30, 2016; and returned only 5.26 cents in
distributions (for 4QFY15 to 3QFY16) during the year. The recent dilutive 42-for-100 Rights
Issue with Issue Price of $0.258 to fund acquisitions that are non-accretive on a pro forma
basis, appears to be the last straw for Unitholders and they are doing something about it.
For more.... see Philips Capital
For the full report:
http://internetfileserver.phillip.com.sg...170123.pdf
Glad this is getting more coverage.
I got a nice escape from this one. 1K+ dented....
Colliers (for Vibrant), Savills and Knight Frank (for Sabana) separately and independently did a valuation on the Changi South property using Capitalization Approach and Discounted Cash Flow Analysis (DCF). All three concluded that the property is worth exactly $23m, which is also the price sold to us. DCF is merely a mechanical valuation tool, which makes it subject to the principle “garbage in, garbage out”. In order for all three to come up with the exact valuation figure, they must have used exactly the same future rental income, same assumed discount rate, same forecasted 30 years rent renewal payable and the same estimated terminal value etc. Small changes in inputs can result in large changes in the value of the property.
Colliers, Savills and Knight Frank all agree that the Changi South Property is worth exactly $23m. We can only hypothesize that they were given the same exact figure to value the property. If this is true, it begs the question of objectivity and independence of these and past valuation reports.
(23-01-2017, 06:49 PM)ACTIVIST SPEAKS Wrote: [ -> ]Colliers (for Vibrant), Savills and Knight Frank (for Sabana) separately and independently did a valuation on the Changi South property using Capitalization Approach and Discounted Cash Flow Analysis (DCF). All three concluded that the property is worth exactly $23m, which is also the price sold to us. DCF is merely a mechanical valuation tool, which makes it subject to the principle “garbage in, garbage out”. In order for all three to come up with the exact valuation figure, they must have used exactly the same future rental income, same assumed discount rate, same forecasted 30 years rent renewal payable and the same estimated terminal value etc. Small changes in inputs can result in large changes in the value of the property.
Colliers, Savills and Knight Frank all agree that the Changi South Property is worth exactly $23m. We can only hypothesize that they were given the same exact figure to value the property. If this is true, it begs the question of objectivity and independence of these and past valuation reports.
Even if it is worth $23mil, in this climate, you'd want your managers to buy it at a discount to valuation, isn't it?
This reminds me of Quarz Capital Management's recent activist actions with International Healthway Corporation. According to their latest letter, they claim to have sway strategic corporate decisions through an EGM.
Having a vocal party like Quarz on board would help I suppose.
That being said, Quarz wasn't successful with their capital reduction suggestion with Metro. This is not unexpected though as real estate is capital intensive and Metro is conservative.
Good luck with this!
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Have anyone gotten their rights shares allocation yet? Taking quite long to show the available holdings
Is the manager and the properties they are dumping into the REIT related to Tong Jinquan (Sabana's substantial unitholder) in any way?
This Chinese chap has significant interests in a number of small REITs in Singapore and I'm surprised he's so passive towards Sabana over the years. Activists should try and find out if he is benefiting from these destructive transactions in any way. If affirmative, it would be an even more uphill battle to remove the manager. If not, Tong's support would be crucial in removing the manager.