(28-01-2016, 12:08 AM)weijian Wrote: [ -> ] (27-01-2016, 09:04 PM)testwrite Wrote: [ -> ] (27-01-2016, 08:35 PM)Bibi Wrote: [ -> ]I prefer them to issue rights 
Vested.
whatever decision they took, it has been very bad for the shareholder and Singapore. They invested billions in such a narrow industry, use up so much resources, and it turns out, they only have 1 main "sketchy" customer. and now that all these are slowly unfolding, the past profit might not be there, and investment in these rig building might be impaired, going forward how much money is needed to maintain the company expense, shareholder lose money and jobs are lost. Will have been better use of all these investment if it have been invested in other industries.
so much for these high paying CEO and CFO. I expect some head to be drop, and not for them to try to continue to "strategise". the selling of MI, the REITS, rights issue, shows how opaque these people are, last week, when they are confidently presenting the result, they are still talking about dividend, high profits, showing great confidence, but they are not very transparent on how bad the situation is, I can imagine the retiree who invest their lifesaving, not only they are losing their savings, no more money for this few years and they have to pay up for the rights. I think these people have to be more transparent, we are talking about livelihood of many people, not the few high paying manager there
in the finance industry they will have been fired, and gov are talking about clawing these traders bonus, but here, not only there are not fired, they continue to talk big
Another hindsight bias-heavy complaint that almost got me laughing off my chair as I read.
Rewind the clock back to 2010. In the Gulf of Mexico, a certain BP cut corners and their oil rig blew up. The name of the oil rig was called Deep Horizon and it gushed out millions of gallons of oil. Fast forward a few months, a plan was devised to seal the leak. Cavalry was called in. Fast forward another few months, PM Lee proudly reminded Sporeans during National Day Rally of the contributions made by Keppel to stop the oil spill (and save the birds in the Gulf)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxpg58OIFCs
There is a season for everything under the sun.
1. What i think is wrong about this, the O&M venture is so risky, keppel should have hightlight it properly, and not involved so many people and resources, now ITE graduates in O&M have difficulty getting a job, retiree who holds the stock will have lots of problems
it depends on 1 big corrupt customer (and i dont know what they did to get this customer also)
it depends on high oil price (I think at least $80, $60 the shale oil will be profitable, so you will have lots of shale oil )
2. There are very opaque about the current situation, they knows it is possible they have to sell assets or even rights issue, but they are still keeping mum and keeps painting a good picture, hopefully there are no further shock down the roads
Thanks for replying about whether Keppel has a hand in shale business..
How about the recent LNG tie up with BG group..this does looks promising as Singapore Aims to be a LNG hub..
Any insights here as this could be a catalyst for future growth.. if shale isn't for Keppel?
(28-01-2016, 11:02 AM)Stephen Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for replying about whether Keppel has a hand in shale business..
How about the recent LNG tie up with BG group..this does looks promising as Singapore Aims to be a LNG hub..
Any insights here as this could be a catalyst for future growth.. if shale isn't for Keppel?
I think keppel venture are very speculative in nature,
O&M depends on oil price
Property depends on China housing price
I dont understand the EVA they always proudly published, EVA is about how efficient they are running a business with the current resouce. what is the point of publishing EVA when your business are so speculative
I think it will have been better if they will just summarise
how much proft and loss when oil price is this price, and how much profit and loss when the house price in china is up or down
With cyclical businesses, you make plenty of money on the way up, and have to focus on survival when times are bad. Property development is notoriously cyclical, and yet most of the richest people in Asia are developers. I
The key for investors are where we are in the cycle, and whether the companies have the balance sheet strength to ride out the storm.
IMHO, plenty of bad news has been priced in at this point. The saving grace is Keppel has businesses which are defensive to provide it the crucial cash flow to survive. Eventually, the weaker players will have to consolidate or exit, and the last few player standing will be ready for the next cycle.
(28-01-2016, 10:57 AM)testwrite Wrote: [ -> ]2. There are very opaque about the current situation, they knows it is possible they have to sell assets or even rights issue, but they are still keeping mum and keeps painting a good picture, hopefully there are no further shock down the roads
I reckon, clarification was given, on the inappropriate "accusation" on Keppel Corp. Unless further evidence are given that "they know" and has misrepresented in the briefing, otherwise I will remove further comment on the matter, and warning will be issued.
Regards
Moderator
sorry have a bad in work, just remove whatever is required, and then just give me warning
(28-01-2016, 11:56 AM)testwrite Wrote: [ -> ]sorry have a bad in work, just remove whatever is required, and then just give me warning
I respect buddies who respect our VB forum and value. I assume the post, is an apology from you.
All opinions are allowed, but not for unfounded accusation. A minor warning is issued.
Thank you.
Regards
Moderator
BELOW IS MY QUERY LETTTER TO KEPPEL. IN REFERENE TO M1 "NON CORE ASSETS"
Dear sir,
I am a Singaporean investor who have been holding KepCorp for years. I find the management sound and rational.
I read that Temasek had a meeting with the management of KepCorp to ask them to divest non core assets. Kindly spend 52 seconds to watch the below link. This is the type of investment decisions they are capable of making. Selling at lows and weakness is not something any sound value investor would do. A good example that earned my respect was your purchase of KepLand and the subsequent delist. KepLand was fundamentally strong with prices lower than the net asset value by almost 50%. I view that as an equivalent to buying a property for leasing out to produce income and paying a huge discount on the property itself.
http://youtu.be/g1fBM3yrQZI
I do not know why Temasek would allow itself to lose 4.6 billion dollars by selling into weakness. An investment is made on a rational level after Analysing all available data. Right now M1 is not only having a very Low price, I believe that at this price, more stake in m1 should be undertaken. I believe Temasek reason for delist would be citing of the new operator and thus the possibility of M1 losing its market share. M1 has been entrenched in Singapore for decades. Building up a huge customer base and most of their clients are likely to continue with m1 because M1 has a policy of giving discount to customers who sign up for multiple lines.
M1 is not a LOSS making business and neither is Keppel. As Long a company is fundamentally strong and contributing a string of cash returns to Keppel then the duty of the investment is fulfilled. Stock prices are just a reflection of the sentiments of the overall market and not a basis to judge M1 as a bad investment. If Chanel bags and Rolex watches were selling at 50% discount there would be a string of people queueing to buy up the good. However a good money making asset like M1 should always be part of KepCorps overall portfolio. In fact I view this as an opportunity to expand my holdings on M1 as the yields would have risen considering the lowered cost of owning it.
Holding on to non core assets are a passive Way of earning income. An investment in a company comes with the management of m1 as an added bonus. They are a strong team and selling m1 would be the same as firing a manager or employee in your business who have done no wrong and contributed vastly into the company's earnings. As stated by the Keppel management in the report, KepCorp has minimised the slowdown of the marine sector by having a well diversified portfolio of investments in multiple sector. I do not know why Temasek would call for Keppel Corp to divest "NON CORE" assets when it's such non core assets which have been the backbone of diversity in the portfolio.
The response is here.....
Dear Mr Chia,
Reference to your email to Mr Loh Chin Hua, CEO of Keppel Corporation, received today. Thank you for your email and confidence in Keppel. It is our policy not to comment on rumours carried in the news media.
The original report from Bloomberg had stated that “The options, presented Monday during a regular Temasek meeting to review its portfolio companies, focused on how Temasek can preserve the value of its investments amid a downturn in the oil-rig sector and will be shared with the two companies’ boards, the people said...” This does not allude to any meeting having taken place between Temasek and Keppel’s management, as mentioned in your email below.
We would like to reassure you that Keppel is focused on deploying its capital to achieve the best possible risk-adjusted returns. As a public-listed company, Keppel Corporation is governed by an astute board comprising a majority of independent directors, who together with management work in the best interests of all our shareholders.
Your sincerely
Teri Liew
Deputy General Manager
Group Corporate Communications
Keppel Corporation Limited
MY FINAL RESPONSE EMAIL MIXED WITH HIS ANSWERS....
Dear Mr Liew,
Thanks for the time taken to clarify the issue. There have been many different version of the above report and I must have been confused.
I would like to hear your take on my interpretation of the following. I would appreciate it if you could clarify my understand of the report.
1. Based on the Bloomberg report(to avoid confusion let me cite only this version), am I right to interpret that Temasek had a meeting NOT with Keppel's board but within Temasek only?
2. Please correct my figures if it's wrong but I understand that Temasek has a 20% stake in Keppel?
3. Does a shareholder who own 20% of Keppel have so much influence in Kep Corp that they can sit down to a meeting amongst themselves to discuss what to do(or what to "recommend" Keppel to do with the 20% stake in M1 which Keppel (and NOT TEMASEK) owns?
4. If the above is true then I fully understand why Indonesia had their reservations about "Temasek" linked companies being in one place too many(their monopoly incident).
5. Assuming Keppel does receive such a proposal, are they obliged to act on such a matter or does the other 80% of shareholders be allowed their views?
I look forward to your clarification.
Humbly Yours,
-------------------------
THEIR REPLY
Dear Sir
We hope the response below clarifies. Thank you for your continued interest and confidence in Keppel.
1. Based on the Bloomberg report(to avoid confusion let me cite only this version), am I right to interpret that Temasek had a meeting NOT with Keppel's board but within Temasek only?
Yes.
2. Please correct my figures if it's wrong but I understand that Temasek has a 20% stake in Keppel?
Yes.
3. Does a shareholder who own 20% of Keppel have so much influence in Kep Corp that they can sit down to a meeting amongst themselves to discuss what to do(or what to "recommend" Keppel to do with the 20% stake in M1 which Keppel (and NOT TEMASEK) owns?
Keppel Corporation is a public-listed company and is separately governed by its own board of directors, comprising a majority of independent directors, who together with management work in the best interests of all our shareholders.
4. If the above is true then I fully understand why Indonesia had their reservations about "Temasek" linked companies being in one place too many(their monopoly incident).
5. Assuming Keppel does receive such a proposal, are they obliged to act on such a matter or does the other 80% of shareholders be allowed their views?
Keppel Corporation is a public-listed company and is separately governed by its own board of directors, who together with management work in the best interests of all our shareholders.
Thank you.
Teri
(29-01-2016, 09:44 AM)BaronWaffet Wrote: [ -> ]MY FINAL RESPONSE EMAIL MIXED WITH HIS ANSWERS....
Baronwaffet, thanks for ur kind sharing. Keppel is doing the right thing by not commenting on unsubstantiated reports.
Unfortunately as for true independence of board decision, I believe there is a high level of influence by a majority shareholder.
That said, my guess is the discussion is forward looking and preliminary. Like ur thoughts, I believe m1 is well positioned to generate positive cash flows ahead in short to medium term.
(vested in m1)
Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk