(10-02-2017, 11:18 AM)ACTIVIST SPEAKS Wrote: [ -> ]The sponsor and the manager has around 12%. I am just grabbing a figure from the sky based on the fact if minority shareholder has an average of 50,000 share each. 3000 people will give us around 15%. (The 66 guys who came down to sign the letter has an average of 100,000 share each). The number of direct CDP unitholders is 12,600. I estimate there are another 18,000 in CPF,SRS and Nominees. I understand the average attendance of their AGM is less than 100.... very very very tall order ahead.
I have never attended an AGM with 3000 shareholders...
that'd be massive.
12 years ago, when Mdm Ho Ching warned that an incompetent or negligent manager can simply store up future time bombs if they don’t understand the risks involved, the investing community took little notice. She also warned that when REIT Manager agrees to buy assets at inflated prices in return for inflated rents from the same vendor, he put the asset in the trust at risk of “taking a serious beating” if the economy takes a nose dive. Again, the investing community did not care. She stressed that in the worst case, poorly supervised REITs may even evolve into a nasty pyramid game for crooked managers.
That was in 2005 when she sounded the strongest warning to the investing public from Mumbai as she could not return to Singapore in time for the dinner marking the listing of Mapletree Logistics Trust.
Today, as we see the events unfold in Sabana REIT where the Sabana Manager openly justifies his recent purchase at 88% higher than the market price with a “rent collection arrangement”, we know we are heading towards the “worst case” scenario. Perhaps, it is time for all of us to take a closer look at what Mdm Ho Ching said 12 years ago
http://www.temasek.com.sg/mediacentre/sp...ailid=8618
she's quite a legend, this Mdm Ho Ching.... someone we know? CEO of temasickH? :O
REMOVAL OF MANAGER EXPLAINED:
We are like Workers' Party and we just defeated PAP in Aljunied GRC. Aljunied GRC under PAP is managed by CPG. We informed CPG that they would be removed. Workers Party then set up FMSS to manage Aljunied GRC. Before the official handover, CPG continued to manage Aljunied GRC until FMSS was ready to take over. CPG cannot just walk away. The handover was orderly and there was no chaos.
We are proposing that instead of setting up FMSS, we want to run Aljunied GRC like Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC where there is no external managing agent. Bishan - Toa Payoh GRC has an internal managing team that is directly employed by the town council. There are many good people employed by the current manager who can staff our new internal set up.
Do not succumb to the scare tactics used by Sabana Manager. There will not be chaos. The structure of the REIT is codified. The appointment of the manager and trustee is codified. We will direct HSBC Trustee to set up the Internalised Manager and to search for suitable candidate to fill up the CEO post. MAS overlooks the entire transition process. Have faith in the process. Have faith in the system, the same system that allows 50 unitholders to convene a meeting to remove the manager if they are not performing to our liking.
VOTE OUT SABANA MANAGER
https://www.facebook.com/groups/15863995...0/?qsefr=1
(10-02-2017, 05:31 AM)momoeagle Wrote: [ -> ]Hi all,
6 years ago, I didn't invest into this but into AIMS, in the same industrial REIT arena.
One of main reasons was: I felt that Shar'iah Compliant is not an asset, but a liability. It is a form of restriction, and restrictions like this doesn't really help any business.
However, Sabana repackaged it as an asset, and something to brag about.
*Not vested since IPO.
Hi monoeagle,
Could you elaborate more on why you view Sabana as liability , form of restriction?
I bought Sabana a few years ago and sold it about 2 years later. The time read AK71 blog and he liked this Reit , however when the dividend started to drop, he immediately sold it. He wrote a blog why he sold it. Then Sabana started the trending down terribly and never stop. I was amazed that he could predict this and sold it immediately and as novice , I sold it one year later. But at least this wise person liked Sanbana at the beginning, however you had a different view even at its IPO, Seems you see even deeper, so I'm very interested how you came to that conclusion. I'm very keen to learn . Thanks
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(11-02-2017, 06:58 PM)SpaceX Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2017, 05:31 AM)momoeagle Wrote: [ -> ]Hi all,
6 years ago, I didn't invest into this but into AIMS, in the same industrial REIT arena.
One of main reasons was: I felt that Shar'iah Compliant is not an asset, but a liability. It is a form of restriction, and restrictions like this doesn't really help any business.
However, Sabana repackaged it as an asset, and something to brag about.
*Not vested since IPO.
Hi monoeagle,
Could you elaborate more on why you view Sabana as liability , form of restriction?
I bought Sabana a few years ago and sold it about 2 years later. The time read AK71 blog and he liked this Reit , however when the dividend started to drop, he immediately sold it. He wrote a blog why he sold it. Then Sabana started the trending down terribly and never stop. I was amazed that he could predict this and sold it immediately and as novice , I sold it one year later. But at least this wise person liked Sanbana at the beginning, however you had a different view even at its IPO, Seems you see even deeper, so I'm very interested how you came to that conclusion. I'm very keen to learn . Thanks
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Learn from AK71 should be enough and more than enough to learn from him. The 'standard' of forum participants varies and the intention behind their posting is also unknown at times. Blogger like AK71, however, make it very clear their purpose of blogging. For AK, it is sharing on how to invest for income, generate passive income and so on and so forth. Undoubtedly we have quite a few insightful participants in valuebuddies and their postings are followed by me closely. Let's see if monoeagle care to elaborate in response to your request. Sorry I digress a bit.
“The trust manager agrees to buy assets at highly inflated prices, and the vendor agrees to lease back the asset, also at inflated rents which are well above market rates……….In such a situation, the losers are the unit holders. In substance, they would be sitting on a capital loss right from the start, as the purchase price consideration far exceeds the fair market or replacement value of the asset. They would also be unwittingly saddled with a much larger credit risk than appropriate.” ..... Mdm Ho Ching, at Dinner, Mapletree Logistic Trust, 2005.
We did not know or were too stupid not to heed Mdm Ho Ching’s warning then. But Kevin Xayaraj, the CEO, knew about her 2005 speech and maybe he was there at the dinner. Mr Steven Lim Kok Hoong and Mr Yong Kok Hoon, the two chartered accountants and also independent directors must have also read her speech. The other two directors, Mr Henry Chua, the sponsor representative and Ms Ng Shin Ein, a lawyer, definitely knew the content of Mdm Ho’s speech.
The entire board of directors, knowing that the unitholders would be sitting on a capital loss right after the REIT bought Eunos 3, Eunos 7 and Changi South properties, did nothing to stop the purchase. In fact, they went on to ask the unitholders for monies to buy with the knowledge that immediately after they signed on the dotted line to buy, we will lose.
Are we that stupid to let them continue running our Sabana REIT?
KEVIN XAYARAJ, CEO on SGXnet 7 Feb 17
“In his note, Mr Low has proposed to remove the Manager and suggested to Unitholders to set up “our own in-house team to manage the REIT”. It does not appear that an in-house team has been assembled as Mr Low has stated that “(w)e want to look for qualified people to head our in-house team”. However, Mr Low has not substantiated his assumption that such a process will result in “expected cost savings” and “immediately increase our DPU”.
OUR ANSWER on 7 Feb 17
The Manager is correct that we have not assembled a team to take over. When MAS allows 50 minority unitholders to convene a meeting to remove the manager, WE BELIEVE that MAS had not intended for us to look for an alternative manager. Logic will tell you that there is no way MAS will allow a group of unlicensed motley crew decides the fate of a $800m REIT owned by more than 30,000 unitholders.
We now know that we can direct HSBC Trustee to set up an internal Manager. We also now know we can direct HSBC Trustee to search for qualified personnel to head this internal Manager. When (not if) we replace Kevin Xayaraj and his gang, the immediate cost savings will be the massive profit they earned from us every year. The Manager has proudly announced in every opportunity that they elected to receive 80% of its fees in Units since IPO. That means the 20% cash they received every year was enough to support the entire operation. When we internalize, we will save a lot and the amount is probably in the region of 80% of the management fees.
Check out latest article in the magazine, The Edge Singapore, pg 8/9. Saizen reit offers blueprint to solve sabana reit's problems 👍
Well researched and written article that will allay shareholder fear caused by reit mgr warning. A must read for all vested and non-vested. MAS too should read !
If possuble ,cut and paste so as to enable more unitholders to read , not all subscribe to this magazine .