Paiseh, i didn't subscribe but read the hardcopy at Popular store
Morever, its two full pages, very detailed yet easy to comprehend
I think this link should not be here. And whatever said is after things have happened.
Is not right to push for classes here.
Ignore the class induction. Listen to what is said about the reit mgr to better understand, in particularly on the book value of the reit
(12-02-2017, 08:30 AM)ACTIVIST SPEAKS Wrote: [ -> ]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”.
This comment from him is disingenuous. The reit manager has also not substantiated that the proposed acquisition of the three property will be yield accretive or result in increase of DPU for unitholders. Double standards Mr Xayaraj?
(12-02-2017, 08:30 AM)ACTIVIST SPEAKS Wrote: [ -> ]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.
personally I am aware of the former but where did you infer that it is the role of the trustee to search for a manager?
Specuvestor. The code and SFA are silent about what happen next after the manager is removed. We know now we are correct to infer that the trustee has the right to appoint the manager from the fact he has the right to remove. But even that now points toward appointing an external manager and not incorporating and staffing a new internal set up. MAS has directed us to the trustee for clarification. We and the journalists are now asking the Trustee on their role in this fiasco. they have not come back to us. Frankly, I have the feeling everybody is not sure. The code was written not expecting a group of widely dispersed minority shareholders can actually remove the manager. Can you imagine what will happen to our Singapore REIT landscape if we can really internalize at zero cost?
(12-02-2017, 08:22 PM)ACTIVIST SPEAKS Wrote: [ -> ]Specuvestor. The code and SFA are silent about what happen next after the manager is removed. We know now we are correct to infer that the trustee has the right to appoint the manager from the fact he has the right to remove. But even that now points toward appointing an external manager and not incorporating and staffing a new internal set up. MAS has directed us to the trustee for clarification. We and the journalists are now asking the Trustee on their role in this fiasco. they have not come back to us. Frankly, I have the feeling everybody is not sure. The code was written not expecting a group of widely dispersed minority shareholders can actually remove the manager. Can you imagine what will happen to our Singapore REIT landscape if we can really internalize at zero cost?
I would have thought that the procedure would be to have the following resolutions passed at an EGM :
(1) Directs the independent directors of the REIT to commence the search for qualified people to assume the role of internal manager
(2) Authorises the independent directors to spend the necessary fees / expenses to hire a reputable recruitment firm to conduct this search as soon as possible
(3) Allows the current manager to continue in his role until internal management is in place
(4) Voids any previous resolution that allowed the Manager to raise new equity without a shareholder vote. By taking away the ability of the current Manager to raise any new equity (whether by placement or rights issue) you prevent the current Manager from making any acquisitions without the approval of all the shareholders. This was the resolution that was passed at Cambridge REIT, when shareholders got annoyed with the Manager.
In Sabana REIT, there is no board in the REITs at all. The entire board (including the independent directors) are with the Manager. What it means is if we remove the manager, we remove the entire board. Someone just pointed out on FB that in the trust deed - the manager cannot leave without the approval of the Trustee and the removal of the manager must be by notice given in writing by the Trustee. That means until we find a suitable candidate to head the internal set up, the trustee will not remove the present manager to maintain the legality of the trust. After the set up is done, the trustee will remove the present manager according to the resolution passed.
That solve all transition problem....back to square one, how can we muster enough votes to remove this manager?