(28-11-2016, 01:55 PM)TUBInvesting Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2016, 01:44 PM)Boon Wrote: [ -> ] (27-11-2016, 11:26 AM)TUBInvesting Wrote: [ -> ]Hi just did a write up on Wheelock Properties.
Its an interesting stock and the balance sheet is strong.
The only concern is the QC charges for Ardmore Three - Hopefully they sell all other 30 units soon.
http://tubinvesting.blogspot.sg/2016/11/...about.html
<Vested>
Hi TUBInvesting,
NAV as at 30-Sep-2016 is SGD 2.52 per share. How did you get 1.703 ?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I did a 50% discount on its Non-current Asset figure. However, it should be around $2.0 instead (30% discount).
Anyway realize there is insider buying in Sep. Not sure if it is already posted.
May I know why you are giving a disc to their non current asset when most of the asset and investment properties they hold are understated?
(28-11-2016, 02:02 PM)Scg8866t Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2016, 01:55 PM)TUBInvesting Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2016, 01:44 PM)Boon Wrote: [ -> ] (27-11-2016, 11:26 AM)TUBInvesting Wrote: [ -> ]Hi just did a write up on Wheelock Properties.
Its an interesting stock and the balance sheet is strong.
The only concern is the QC charges for Ardmore Three - Hopefully they sell all other 30 units soon.
http://tubinvesting.blogspot.sg/2016/11/...about.html
<Vested>
Hi TUBInvesting,
NAV as at 30-Sep-2016 is SGD 2.52 per share. How did you get 1.703 ?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I did a 50% discount on its Non-current Asset figure. However, it should be around $2.0 instead (30% discount).
Anyway realize there is insider buying in Sep. Not sure if it is already posted.
May I know why you are giving a disc to their non current asset when most of the asset and investment properties they hold are understated?
@ TUBInvesting :
What is your basis in working out the “fair value” or “intrinsic value” of Wheelock Properties?
Why should it be SGD 2.0 (@30% discount) now as opposed to 50% discount as assumed by you not so long ago?
The difference between a 30% and a 50% discount is huge - your notion of “fair value” seems to change rather quickly……………………
@ Scg8866t :
Investment properties is measured at “fair value”, what makes you think they are “understated”?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(28-11-2016, 07:47 PM)Scg8866t Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2016, 05:52 PM)Boon Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2016, 02:02 PM)Scg8866t Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2016, 01:55 PM)TUBInvesting Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2016, 01:44 PM)Boon Wrote: [ -> ]Hi TUBInvesting,
NAV as at 30-Sep-2016 is SGD 2.52 per share. How did you get 1.703 ?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I did a 50% discount on its Non-current Asset figure. However, it should be around $2.0 instead (30% discount).
Anyway realize there is insider buying in Sep. Not sure if it is already posted.
May I know why you are giving a disc to their non current asset when most of the asset and investment properties they hold are understated?
@ TUBInvesting :
What is your basis in working out the “fair value” or “intrinsic value” of Wheelock Properties?
Why should it be SGD 2.0 (@30% discount) now as opposed to 50% discount as assumed by you not so long ago?
The difference between a 30% and a 50% discount is huge - your notion of “fair value” seems to change rather quickly……………………
@ Scg8866t :
Investment properties is measured at “fair value”, what makes you think they are “understated”?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Book value of HPL is likely to be understated as its hotel properties are classified under PPE. From HpL annual report you can see that they value their freehold fourseasons hotel at ard 120mil only. My impression is their HPL investment should be worth more than its current book. Even if we were to ignore this problem and just value it as it is, i dont see any reason why anyone should give a 30-50% disc to wheelocks non current asset. None of their assets are spun off to become fully valued reits yet. Thats why im puzzled by TUB valuation.
Agreed – Investments in HPL are understated.
But investment Properties – Wheelock Place and Scotts Square Retail – measured at “fair value” are unlikely to be understated.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(28-11-2016, 09:03 PM)Boon Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2016, 07:47 PM)Scg8866t Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2016, 05:52 PM)Boon Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2016, 02:02 PM)Scg8866t Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2016, 01:55 PM)TUBInvesting Wrote: [ -> ]I did a 50% discount on its Non-current Asset figure. However, it should be around $2.0 instead (30% discount).
Anyway realize there is insider buying in Sep. Not sure if it is already posted.
May I know why you are giving a disc to their non current asset when most of the asset and investment properties they hold are understated?
@ TUBInvesting :
What is your basis in working out the “fair value” or “intrinsic value” of Wheelock Properties?
Why should it be SGD 2.0 (@30% discount) now as opposed to 50% discount as assumed by you not so long ago?
The difference between a 30% and a 50% discount is huge - your notion of “fair value” seems to change rather quickly……………………
@ Scg8866t :
Investment properties is measured at “fair value”, what makes you think they are “understated”?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Book value of HPL is likely to be understated as its hotel properties are classified under PPE. From HpL annual report you can see that they value their freehold fourseasons hotel at ard 120mil only. My impression is their HPL investment should be worth more than its current book. Even if we were to ignore this problem and just value it as it is, i dont see any reason why anyone should give a 30-50% disc to wheelocks non current asset. None of their assets are spun off to become fully valued reits yet. Thats why im puzzled by TUB valuation.
Agreed – Investments in HPL are understated.
But investment Properties – Wheelock Place and Scotts Square Retail – measured at “fair value” are unlikely to be understated.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Yes interest in associate is also under non current. There is zero reason to give a disc to non current asset. Thats why im asking the reason for the disc given by TUB. Doesnt make sense.
(28-11-2016, 09:13 PM)Scg8866t Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2016, 09:03 PM)Boon Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2016, 07:47 PM)Scg8866t Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2016, 05:52 PM)Boon Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2016, 02:02 PM)Scg8866t Wrote: [ -> ]May I know why you are giving a disc to their non current asset when most of the asset and investment properties they hold are understated?
@ TUBInvesting :
What is your basis in working out the “fair value” or “intrinsic value” of Wheelock Properties?
Why should it be SGD 2.0 (@30% discount) now as opposed to 50% discount as assumed by you not so long ago?
The difference between a 30% and a 50% discount is huge - your notion of “fair value” seems to change rather quickly……………………
@ Scg8866t :
Investment properties is measured at “fair value”, what makes you think they are “understated”?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Book value of HPL is likely to be understated as its hotel properties are classified under PPE. From HpL annual report you can see that they value their freehold fourseasons hotel at ard 120mil only. My impression is their HPL investment should be worth more than its current book. Even if we were to ignore this problem and just value it as it is, i dont see any reason why anyone should give a 30-50% disc to wheelocks non current asset. None of their assets are spun off to become fully valued reits yet. Thats why im puzzled by TUB valuation.
Agreed – Investments in HPL are understated.
But investment Properties – Wheelock Place and Scotts Square Retail – measured at “fair value” are unlikely to be understated.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Yes interest in associate is also under non current. There is zero reason to give a disc to non current asset. Thats why im asking the reason for the disc given by TUB. Doesnt make sense.
Hi all,
Sorry for the lack of information from the debate.
To answer a few questions listed above:
1. In my scorecard method, I always will do a discount of 30%, 50% and 70% to my non current assets, regardless of the company and industry. Thus, I did the same for Wheelock properties as well, even through I understand that it may be understated.
2. Why I change from 50% to 30%, was an error on my part when I input the figures. When I was comparing initially across all developers, I gave all their non-current asset a 30% discount. However, for Wheelock properties, I inputted a 50% discount. Thus, it was wrong. Subsequently, I notice it and amended it. Thus, you may notice 2 different NAV for Wheelock in the post.
It maybe wrong in many people's eyes with what I am doing. But I guess I am just being more prudent in this way.
Hope these answer all the questions.
<Vested>
(29-11-2016, 08:51 AM)TUBInvesting Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2016, 09:13 PM)Scg8866t Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2016, 09:03 PM)Boon Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2016, 07:47 PM)Scg8866t Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2016, 05:52 PM)Boon Wrote: [ -> ]@ TUBInvesting :
What is your basis in working out the “fair value” or “intrinsic value” of Wheelock Properties?
Why should it be SGD 2.0 (@30% discount) now as opposed to 50% discount as assumed by you not so long ago?
The difference between a 30% and a 50% discount is huge - your notion of “fair value” seems to change rather quickly……………………
@ Scg8866t :
Investment properties is measured at “fair value”, what makes you think they are “understated”?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Book value of HPL is likely to be understated as its hotel properties are classified under PPE. From HpL annual report you can see that they value their freehold fourseasons hotel at ard 120mil only. My impression is their HPL investment should be worth more than its current book. Even if we were to ignore this problem and just value it as it is, i dont see any reason why anyone should give a 30-50% disc to wheelocks non current asset. None of their assets are spun off to become fully valued reits yet. Thats why im puzzled by TUB valuation.
Agreed – Investments in HPL are understated.
But investment Properties – Wheelock Place and Scotts Square Retail – measured at “fair value” are unlikely to be understated.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Yes interest in associate is also under non current. There is zero reason to give a disc to non current asset. Thats why im asking the reason for the disc given by TUB. Doesnt make sense.
Hi all,
Sorry for the lack of information from the debate.
To answer a few questions listed above:
1. In my scorecard method, I always will do a discount of 30%, 50% and 70% to my non current assets, regardless of the company and industry. Thus, I did the same for Wheelock properties as well, even through I understand that it may be understated.
2. Why I change from 50% to 30%, was an error on my part when I input the figures. When I was comparing initially across all developers, I gave all their non-current asset a 30% discount. However, for Wheelock properties, I inputted a 50% discount. Thus, it was wrong. Subsequently, I notice it and amended it. Thus, you may notice 2 different NAV for Wheelock in the post.
It maybe wrong in many people's eyes with what I am doing. But I guess I am just being more prudent in this way.
Hope these answer all the questions.
<Vested>
Erm then your valuation is flawed. If you give all developers 30% disc to non current asset but gives no reason to justify it, you might as well dont do it, as deducting the same percentage for all is equals to not deducting at all.
(29-11-2016, 10:55 AM)Scg8866t Wrote: [ -> ] (29-11-2016, 08:51 AM)TUBInvesting Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2016, 09:13 PM)Scg8866t Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2016, 09:03 PM)Boon Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2016, 07:47 PM)Scg8866t Wrote: [ -> ]Book value of HPL is likely to be understated as its hotel properties are classified under PPE. From HpL annual report you can see that they value their freehold fourseasons hotel at ard 120mil only. My impression is their HPL investment should be worth more than its current book. Even if we were to ignore this problem and just value it as it is, i dont see any reason why anyone should give a 30-50% disc to wheelocks non current asset. None of their assets are spun off to become fully valued reits yet. Thats why im puzzled by TUB valuation.
Agreed – Investments in HPL are understated.
But investment Properties – Wheelock Place and Scotts Square Retail – measured at “fair value” are unlikely to be understated.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Yes interest in associate is also under non current. There is zero reason to give a disc to non current asset. Thats why im asking the reason for the disc given by TUB. Doesnt make sense.
Hi all,
Sorry for the lack of information from the debate.
To answer a few questions listed above:
1. In my scorecard method, I always will do a discount of 30%, 50% and 70% to my non current assets, regardless of the company and industry. Thus, I did the same for Wheelock properties as well, even through I understand that it may be understated.
2. Why I change from 50% to 30%, was an error on my part when I input the figures. When I was comparing initially across all developers, I gave all their non-current asset a 30% discount. However, for Wheelock properties, I inputted a 50% discount. Thus, it was wrong. Subsequently, I notice it and amended it. Thus, you may notice 2 different NAV for Wheelock in the post.
It maybe wrong in many people's eyes with what I am doing. But I guess I am just being more prudent in this way.
Hope these answer all the questions.
<Vested>
Erm then your valuation is flawed. If you give all developers 30% disc to non current asset but gives no reason to justify it, you might as well dont do it, as deducting the same percentage for all is equals to not deducting at all.
Noted. I guess everyone has their own way of viewing things. that's the interesting thing about this forum. Only time will tell.
(29-11-2016, 11:38 AM)TUBInvesting Wrote: [ -> ] (29-11-2016, 10:55 AM)Scg8866t Wrote: [ -> ] (29-11-2016, 08:51 AM)TUBInvesting Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2016, 09:13 PM)Scg8866t Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2016, 09:03 PM)Boon Wrote: [ -> ]Agreed – Investments in HPL are understated.
But investment Properties – Wheelock Place and Scotts Square Retail – measured at “fair value” are unlikely to be understated.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Yes interest in associate is also under non current. There is zero reason to give a disc to non current asset. Thats why im asking the reason for the disc given by TUB. Doesnt make sense.
Hi all,
Sorry for the lack of information from the debate.
To answer a few questions listed above:
1. In my scorecard method, I always will do a discount of 30%, 50% and 70% to my non current assets, regardless of the company and industry. Thus, I did the same for Wheelock properties as well, even through I understand that it may be understated.
2. Why I change from 50% to 30%, was an error on my part when I input the figures. When I was comparing initially across all developers, I gave all their non-current asset a 30% discount. However, for Wheelock properties, I inputted a 50% discount. Thus, it was wrong. Subsequently, I notice it and amended it. Thus, you may notice 2 different NAV for Wheelock in the post.
It maybe wrong in many people's eyes with what I am doing. But I guess I am just being more prudent in this way.
Hope these answer all the questions.
<Vested>
Erm then your valuation is flawed. If you give all developers 30% disc to non current asset but gives no reason to justify it, you might as well dont do it, as deducting the same percentage for all is equals to not deducting at all.
Noted. I guess everyone has their own way of viewing things. that's the interesting thing about this forum. Only time will tell.
How do you maintain the
objectivity of your asset valuation if all things could be viewed so subjectively ?
(02-12-2016, 11:01 AM)Boon Wrote: [ -> ] (29-11-2016, 11:38 AM)TUBInvesting Wrote: [ -> ] (29-11-2016, 10:55 AM)Scg8866t Wrote: [ -> ] (29-11-2016, 08:51 AM)TUBInvesting Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2016, 09:13 PM)Scg8866t Wrote: [ -> ]Yes interest in associate is also under non current. There is zero reason to give a disc to non current asset. Thats why im asking the reason for the disc given by TUB. Doesnt make sense.
Hi all,
Sorry for the lack of information from the debate.
To answer a few questions listed above:
1. In my scorecard method, I always will do a discount of 30%, 50% and 70% to my non current assets, regardless of the company and industry. Thus, I did the same for Wheelock properties as well, even through I understand that it may be understated.
2. Why I change from 50% to 30%, was an error on my part when I input the figures. When I was comparing initially across all developers, I gave all their non-current asset a 30% discount. However, for Wheelock properties, I inputted a 50% discount. Thus, it was wrong. Subsequently, I notice it and amended it. Thus, you may notice 2 different NAV for Wheelock in the post.
It maybe wrong in many people's eyes with what I am doing. But I guess I am just being more prudent in this way.
Hope these answer all the questions.
<Vested>
Erm then your valuation is flawed. If you give all developers 30% disc to non current asset but gives no reason to justify it, you might as well dont do it, as deducting the same percentage for all is equals to not deducting at all.
Noted. I guess everyone has their own way of viewing things. that's the interesting thing about this forum. Only time will tell.
How do you maintain the objectivity of your asset valuation if all things could be viewed so subjectively ?
My objectivity lies in my scorecard method. It reduces biaseness within myself and only those that read and understand my method will understand.
For the comparison of wheelock against other developers, I gave everyone the same discount so that all non current asset will be discount in a same way.
The reason why I gave discount is that in event of liquidation nothing can be sold at market value. That why I gave discount.
Although it seems subjective, but I do have a theory of how much discount I give to an individual company when inputting in my scorecard.
Seriously just sharing my analysis but getting blasted for 1 figure that I deem doesn't make sense when people say I might as well don't bother research. In a place like a forum, I assume some respect should be given considering all of us to be successful in a certain way or another.
Let's move on from this topic. And if you really interested to know more, do PM me. Thanks.