(29-07-2012, 11:39 PM)Stocker Wrote: [ -> ]The lease expiry issue was raised 3 years ago and Lawrence Chiang replied was the rentals were high and by the time when the leases are expired, we would have collected more than enough rental. He couldn't confirm the lease will be extended or not.
During one AGM , the CFO ever said the valuation based more on the cash flows than the value sof the lands or buildings.
In that case the "value" of the properties should be more accurately determined by the DCF model, rather than from a valuation done yearly by a valuer. Probably with a significant discount.
There was a thought raised by Gerald that their 40% govt partner is already super cash-rich now & in no shortage of cash at the expiry of the lease. So why would they still need a partner (like metro) at that time and he said something on relationship management. maybe some 'x' factor has to be present?
(29-07-2012, 11:56 PM)GFG Wrote: [ -> ] (29-07-2012, 11:39 PM)Stocker Wrote: [ -> ]The lease expiry issue was raised 3 years ago and Lawrence Chiang replied was the rentals were high and by the time when the leases are expired, we would have collected more than enough rental. He couldn't confirm the lease will be extended or not.
During one AGM , the CFO ever said the valuation based more on the cash flows than the value sof the lands or buildings.
In that case the "value" of the properties should be more accurately determined by the DCF model, rather than from a valuation done yearly by a valuer. Probably with a significant discount.
The gems of the property portfolio of Metro are Metro city and Tower in Shanghai. Metro city contribute more than the office Tower and its lease will be expired in 17 years .
If the property is generating high rental, why wouldn't the PRC gov take back and collect the rentals for themselve ? Who would not do it anyway, as there is no breaching of law ?
If they do that, who will dare to build malls and office in china again.............
(30-07-2012, 12:08 AM)Stocker Wrote: [ -> ] (29-07-2012, 11:56 PM)GFG Wrote: [ -> ] (29-07-2012, 11:39 PM)Stocker Wrote: [ -> ]The lease expiry issue was raised 3 years ago and Lawrence Chiang replied was the rentals were high and by the time when the leases are expired, we would have collected more than enough rental. He couldn't confirm the lease will be extended or not.
During one AGM , the CFO ever said the valuation based more on the cash flows than the value sof the lands or buildings.
In that case the "value" of the properties should be more accurately determined by the DCF model, rather than from a valuation done yearly by a valuer. Probably with a significant discount.
The gems of the property portfolio of Metro are Metro city and Tower in Shanghai. Metro city contribute more than the office Tower and its lease will be expired in 17 years .
If the property is generating high rental, why wouldn't the PRC gov take back and collect the rentals for themselve ? Who would not do it anyway, as there is no breaching of law ?
(30-07-2012, 10:37 AM)chaosdiablo Wrote: [ -> ]If they do that, who will dare to build malls and office in china again.............
(30-07-2012, 12:08 AM)Stocker Wrote: [ -> ] (29-07-2012, 11:56 PM)GFG Wrote: [ -> ] (29-07-2012, 11:39 PM)Stocker Wrote: [ -> ]The lease expiry issue was raised 3 years ago and Lawrence Chiang replied was the rentals were high and by the time when the leases are expired, we would have collected more than enough rental. He couldn't confirm the lease will be extended or not.
During one AGM , the CFO ever said the valuation based more on the cash flows than the value sof the lands or buildings.
In that case the "value" of the properties should be more accurately determined by the DCF model, rather than from a valuation done yearly by a valuer. Probably with a significant discount.
The gems of the property portfolio of Metro are Metro city and Tower in Shanghai. Metro city contribute more than the office Tower and its lease will be expired in 17 years .
If the property is generating high rental, why wouldn't the PRC gov take back and collect the rentals for themselve ? Who would not do it anyway, as there is no breaching of law ?
They have did it so many times before. Nothing wrong. China is so big, and like what the management says, alot of this depends on Guan xi and who you rub shoulders with.
If they take it back and do it themselves, they will rope in whoever can pass the most money under the table back to them.
1949 , they nationalized all assets, all ran for their lives.
(30-07-2012, 10:46 AM)propertyinvestor Wrote: [ -> ] (30-07-2012, 10:37 AM)chaosdiablo Wrote: [ -> ]If they do that, who will dare to build malls and office in china again.............
(30-07-2012, 12:08 AM)Stocker Wrote: [ -> ] (29-07-2012, 11:56 PM)GFG Wrote: [ -> ] (29-07-2012, 11:39 PM)Stocker Wrote: [ -> ]The lease expiry issue was raised 3 years ago and Lawrence Chiang replied was the rentals were high and by the time when the leases are expired, we would have collected more than enough rental. He couldn't confirm the lease will be extended or not.
During one AGM , the CFO ever said the valuation based more on the cash flows than the value sof the lands or buildings.
In that case the "value" of the properties should be more accurately determined by the DCF model, rather than from a valuation done yearly by a valuer. Probably with a significant discount.
The gems of the property portfolio of Metro are Metro city and Tower in Shanghai. Metro city contribute more than the office Tower and its lease will be expired in 17 years .
If the property is generating high rental, why wouldn't the PRC gov take back and collect the rentals for themselve ? Who would not do it anyway, as there is no breaching of law ?
They have did it so many times before. Nothing wrong. China is so big, and like what the management says, alot of this depends on Guan xi and who you rub shoulders with.
If they take it back and do it themselves, they will rope in whoever can pass the most money under the table back to them.
I doubt Metro has good Guan xi now because Metro went in in late 80,early 90 when not many people fight for prime assets in China. Now even the local Chinaman also have plenty of money to buy good assets. The Chinaman always prefer own Chinaman especially come to under the table or even over the table.
" SHUI ON LAND LIMITED
PROPOSED FURTHER ISSUE OF US$ 9.75% SENIOR NOTES DUE 2015 TO BE GUARANTEED BY THE COMPANY "
Metro owns about 2 % of this company. Shui On Land seems having problem to raise borrowing from banks.
9.75% doesn't sounds like a good deal
Why does Shui on need to pay such high coupon rate for these bonds ? Its credit rating drops so much ?
(30-07-2012, 12:06 AM)pianist Wrote: [ -> ]There was a thought raised by Gerald that their 40% govt partner is already super cash-rich now & in no shortage of cash at the expiry of the lease. So why would they still need a partner (like metro) at that time and he said something on relationship management. maybe some 'x' factor has to be present?
They needed Metro in the 80s but not now and future, now should be the other way round.
Sin- Sino SZ Industrial park tells all. They cornered S'pore from 65% to 35 % partner.