Homepage
PR Newswire
It depends on how the voting bloc works. Lets say my opposition is the controlling shareholder of 40%. My bloc is 10%.
In current reality, when an EGM is convened for asset stripping, the controlling shareholder can vote, this results in an instant 40% against my 10%. However, if both parties are taken out of the equation, it means the rest of the 50% will decide. It evens out the competition.
And if enough of minorities are fed up with situations such as, the family gets salary of higher percetage of profits relative to dividend, the results of vote may go in the favour of the 10% who proposed the motion of the EGM. In a way, it is giving up your 10% voting rights in order to negate the large block owned by the controlling shareholder/family. I have always wanted to target Oxley Holdings because it holds supposedly valuable hotel assets that it does not want to monetise despite questions during AGM.
In oxley case, the controlling holds 72%. Current reality is that no one can go against their actions where a supposedly sale and unlocking of Singapore hotels will help clean off the high interest debts, unlock NAV potential (current PB is 0.37) and turn the company profitable. However, a 72% bloc is blocking things. So if 10% of shareholders convene an EGM and then 82% cannot participate, the 18% OPMI might be tempted to know I can double my value and then vote in favour of the 10%'s proposal.
For your last part you are right in saying why should i agonize over a small pool when I can go to other markets to invest in. I have done exactly that where other markets have better corporate goverance and self regulations by towkays. Over time I have been changing my Sing Dollar to Hong Kong Dollar and US Dollar to buy such shares. Surprisingly as a Singaporean, most of my assets are now overseas, of course I have to bear the FOREX risk
In current reality, when an EGM is convened for asset stripping, the controlling shareholder can vote, this results in an instant 40% against my 10%. However, if both parties are taken out of the equation, it means the rest of the 50% will decide. It evens out the competition.
And if enough of minorities are fed up with situations such as, the family gets salary of higher percetage of profits relative to dividend, the results of vote may go in the favour of the 10% who proposed the motion of the EGM. In a way, it is giving up your 10% voting rights in order to negate the large block owned by the controlling shareholder/family. I have always wanted to target Oxley Holdings because it holds supposedly valuable hotel assets that it does not want to monetise despite questions during AGM.
In oxley case, the controlling holds 72%. Current reality is that no one can go against their actions where a supposedly sale and unlocking of Singapore hotels will help clean off the high interest debts, unlock NAV potential (current PB is 0.37) and turn the company profitable. However, a 72% bloc is blocking things. So if 10% of shareholders convene an EGM and then 82% cannot participate, the 18% OPMI might be tempted to know I can double my value and then vote in favour of the 10%'s proposal.
For your last part you are right in saying why should i agonize over a small pool when I can go to other markets to invest in. I have done exactly that where other markets have better corporate goverance and self regulations by towkays. Over time I have been changing my Sing Dollar to Hong Kong Dollar and US Dollar to buy such shares. Surprisingly as a Singaporean, most of my assets are now overseas, of course I have to bear the FOREX risk