Homepage
PR Newswire
10-02-2017, 05:47 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-02-2017, 11:33 AM by ACTIVIST SPEAKS.
Edit Reason: change
)
SPECUVESTOR You are right about the savings. It is all about saving on the profit margin of the Manager. The Sabana Manager takes "20% cash/80% share" management fee right from the first day. This "20% cash" has been enough to support the entire operation all these years.... this begs the question how much their profit margin is. This savings can be really really big.
Imagine me walking into a listed REIT and ask to see the CEO. "Hi, I am Jerry Low. I need to know whether you are interested to take over Sabana REIT because we want to remove your friend, Kevin X and his team. The 66 of us have a total of 0.6% stake in the REIT." You get the picture?
We are right all along and they were wrong from the start. The Trustee has both the right to fire and the right to hire. In the event the unitholders remove the manager, the Trustee may appoint a new Manager. It has always been my contention that after the Manager is removed, we can direct the trustee to look/set up a new internalized manager. I see no merit in replacing an external manager with another external manager. And we are definitely not paying to internalize the present team.
NEWYORKCITY BOY MAS did not approve Cambridge's application to manage two similar industry REITs although they did indicate they will consider future application. Again, because we want to internalize, this is not the issue.
I believe from day one that we, a 66 member motley crew, do not have the mandate, the experience nor the ability to look tor the replacement manager (see, I do not even know how many people a Manager employs). This is the duty of the Trustee and MAS will assess their fit and proper criteria. Some disagree. They said it is not the duty nor the right of the Trustee to look for a replacement. And that was the main reason why one of the participants went on to start another group to remove the manager. He told everyone not to sign our letter and by doing so, there will be chaos, raping of assets and end of world scenario. I refuse to talk to any "Johnny comes lately" team hoping to take over Kevin X's place (and there were many) simply I do not know how to assess them. In addition, I want to internalize and not replacing Kevin X with another external Manager. We have confirmation now that we are right all along. The trustee does have a duty to appoint the next Manager, with the approval of the unitholders.
I already explained to Specuvestor why it is a bit silly for me to approach another local industrial REIT Manager (which the other group tried.... I am not sure whether they got past the receptionist). It is after the media publicity that we are being taken a little bit more seriously. Prior to this, our email queries to Bobby Tay, IR Sabana Manager was ignored and our re-sent email was answered with a "we will have a internal discussion on this subject". In any way, we are looking to internalize.
I think the scare tactics employed by the Manager works on many people. Yes, there is a default on the loan convenants if the manager is removed and the bank MAY call the loans. The manager does not own the property and these properties are less than 45% pledged. These are just strategies to deeply entrench them in their position. You got to ask yourself...who is the client here? Do you really think the banks will force sell a 42% pledged loan property portfolio of a listed REIT owned by more than 30,000 unitholders just because the incompetent Manager is replaced?
Removing Manager - It is simple majority of those present and voting. It is in the code and Sabana Manager has acknowledged receipt of our requisition letter. The date of the meeting has to be announced as soon as practicable or in any case less the 2 months from the receipt of the letter. The Meeting is on. The odds are against us. At least 3000 people must turn up to vote before we have a chance to remove the manager. Wish us luck.
Imagine me walking into a listed REIT and ask to see the CEO. "Hi, I am Jerry Low. I need to know whether you are interested to take over Sabana REIT because we want to remove your friend, Kevin X and his team. The 66 of us have a total of 0.6% stake in the REIT." You get the picture?
We are right all along and they were wrong from the start. The Trustee has both the right to fire and the right to hire. In the event the unitholders remove the manager, the Trustee may appoint a new Manager. It has always been my contention that after the Manager is removed, we can direct the trustee to look/set up a new internalized manager. I see no merit in replacing an external manager with another external manager. And we are definitely not paying to internalize the present team.
NEWYORKCITY BOY MAS did not approve Cambridge's application to manage two similar industry REITs although they did indicate they will consider future application. Again, because we want to internalize, this is not the issue.
I believe from day one that we, a 66 member motley crew, do not have the mandate, the experience nor the ability to look tor the replacement manager (see, I do not even know how many people a Manager employs). This is the duty of the Trustee and MAS will assess their fit and proper criteria. Some disagree. They said it is not the duty nor the right of the Trustee to look for a replacement. And that was the main reason why one of the participants went on to start another group to remove the manager. He told everyone not to sign our letter and by doing so, there will be chaos, raping of assets and end of world scenario. I refuse to talk to any "Johnny comes lately" team hoping to take over Kevin X's place (and there were many) simply I do not know how to assess them. In addition, I want to internalize and not replacing Kevin X with another external Manager. We have confirmation now that we are right all along. The trustee does have a duty to appoint the next Manager, with the approval of the unitholders.
I already explained to Specuvestor why it is a bit silly for me to approach another local industrial REIT Manager (which the other group tried.... I am not sure whether they got past the receptionist). It is after the media publicity that we are being taken a little bit more seriously. Prior to this, our email queries to Bobby Tay, IR Sabana Manager was ignored and our re-sent email was answered with a "we will have a internal discussion on this subject". In any way, we are looking to internalize.
I think the scare tactics employed by the Manager works on many people. Yes, there is a default on the loan convenants if the manager is removed and the bank MAY call the loans. The manager does not own the property and these properties are less than 45% pledged. These are just strategies to deeply entrench them in their position. You got to ask yourself...who is the client here? Do you really think the banks will force sell a 42% pledged loan property portfolio of a listed REIT owned by more than 30,000 unitholders just because the incompetent Manager is replaced?
Removing Manager - It is simple majority of those present and voting. It is in the code and Sabana Manager has acknowledged receipt of our requisition letter. The date of the meeting has to be announced as soon as practicable or in any case less the 2 months from the receipt of the letter. The Meeting is on. The odds are against us. At least 3000 people must turn up to vote before we have a chance to remove the manager. Wish us luck.