The Offer Document is out.
http://infopub.sgx.com/Apps?A=COW_CorpAn...0e6cad2cac
Closing date : ACCEPTANCES SHOULD BE RECEIVED BY 5.30 P.M. ON 18 DECEMBER 2014 OR SUCH LATER DATE(S) AS MAY BE ANNOUNCED FROM TIME TO TIME BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE OFFEROR.
In the financial evaluation of the offer, it only compares the offer price which is at premium to traded prices over certain periods - but there is no NAV comparisons - and I can't seem able to find the word "NAV" being mentioned at all in the document. What a joke !
Perhaps, it is just another "coincidence" ; perhaps, it is just another “convenience” - ha-ha !
Let’s wait for the Offeree Circular from the IDs which should be dispatched within the next 14 days.
(vested)
In general, IFA recommendation is mostly a joke. Directors blindly following IFA recommendation is just for covering their asses.
I don't know why such a charade is needed. I feel IFA job is 'I can be whatever you want me to be'
David Webb from HK gave some suggestions to improve the independence of IFA recommendation.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalki
(20-11-2014, 10:07 PM)opmi Wrote: [ -> ]In general, IFA recommendation is mostly a joke. Directors blindly following IFA recommendation is just for covering their asses.
I don't know why such a charade is needed. I feel IFA job is 'I can be whatever you want me to be'
David Webb from HK gave some suggestions to improve the independence of IFA recommendation.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalki
Hi opmi,
The is only the offer document from the Offeror. The Offeree document containing IFA's advice and IDs recommendation would only be dispatched within the next 14 days.
IMO, it is hard justifying not including or not giving any weighting at all to "NAV comparisons" in any financial evaluation, especially with property related counters.
In the case of FT, once the NAV metric is taking into consideration, the discount to NAV is simply too steep - making the offer price of 1.85 looks unfairly and unjustly low . Ignoring it seems to be the "convenient" way out which probably explains what happened.
I can understand that the IFA of the Offeror can be whatever the Offeror want them to be - which is a joke really.
But it would even be a bigger joke, if not the biggest joke - if in the Offeree document, this key NAV metric is also "conveniently" being ignored by the IFA & IDs.
Will see.
(vested)
(21-11-2014, 01:26 AM)Boon Wrote: [ -> ] (20-11-2014, 10:07 PM)opmi Wrote: [ -> ]In general, IFA recommendation is mostly a joke. Directors blindly following IFA recommendation is just for covering their asses.
I don't know why such a charade is needed. I feel IFA job is 'I can be whatever you want me to be'
David Webb from HK gave some suggestions to improve the independence of IFA recommendation.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalki
Hi opmi,
The is only the offer document from the Offeror. The Offeree document containing IFA's advice and IDs recommendation would only be dispatched within the next 14 days.
IMO, it is hard justifying not including or not giving any weighting at all to "NAV comparisons" in any financial evaluation, especially with property related counters.
In the case of FT, once the NAV metric is taking into consideration, the discount to NAV is simply too steep - making the offer price of 1.85 looks unfairly and unjustly low . Ignoring it seems to be the "convenient" way out which probably explains what happened.
I can understand that the IFA of the Offeror can be whatever the Offeror want them to be - which is a joke really.
But it would even be a bigger joke, if not the biggest joke - if in the Offeree document, this key NAV metric is also "conveniently" being ignored by the IFA & IDs.
Will see.
(vested)
Hi Boon
Agree. I don't believe they will be able to swerve this issue. I asked for direct contacts with the IDs so we, as shareholders, could give our take on the offer and Cathy, the IR lady at FT, requested that these comments be routed via her, which we have done. I suggest you all do the same if you want any input into this recommendation process.
PD
(20-11-2014, 10:00 PM)Boon Wrote: [ -> ]In the financial evaluation of the offer, it only compares the offer price which is at premium to traded prices over certain periods - but there is no NAV comparisons - and I can't seem able to find the word "NAV" being mentioned at all in the document. What a joke !
This is the offeror's document. In this document apart from standard compliance requirements, they can choose what to say with regards to persuading buyers to take up their offer. They can even choose to compare their offer to how many plates of chicken rice you can buy, although that probably would not help their cause.
For IFA, they are generally asked to do three things when assessing the offer.
1. VWAP
2. Recent transactions
3. Comparable listed businesses
and comment whether offer is reasonable etc. If they reject then ID will follow recommendation to external investors to reject the bid, at which point they offeror could choose to up, or leave.
Sometimes, the majority shareholder also try and tikam tikam and see if they can get lucky.
Interestingly, CIMB was also the IFA to the IDs in the recent “HPL takeover”
Here is the relevant Offeree Document:
http://www.hotelprop.com/newsroom/201405...rcular.pdf
In assessing the financial terms of the Offer, CIMB have considered the following :
(i) Historical financial performance and position of the Group;
(ii) Historical trading performance of the HPL Shares;
(iii)
Net asset value (“NAV”) and revalued net asset value (“RNAV”) of the Group;
(iv) Historical trailing NAV of the Group relative to the Revised Offer Price and the historical market price of the HPL Shares;
(v) The benchmarking comparison of the Revised Offer Price with public information available on the traded prices of companies listed on the SGX-ST which are broadly comparable to the Group the “Comparable Companies”);
(vi) Valuation multiples of selected acquisitions of listed property -related companies in Singapore (“Comparable Precedent Transactions”);
(vii) Premium/discount paid in other transactions by listed companies on the SGX-ST involving a delisting or privatisation (“Precedent Takeovers”);
(viii)
Dividend track record of the Company and selected alternative investments; and
(ix) Other relevant considerations which have a bearing on our assessment.
Apparently, NAV/RNAV forms a big part of the evaluation. I would expect similar approaches to be adopted in assessing the offer for FT. Will see.
(vested)
(24-11-2014, 09:07 AM)orangetea Wrote: [ -> ]Remarks: Circuit breaker...
Volume done 54,206.12 k
Circuit break because of volume?
Decided to divest at 2.25
must have bought from the funds..