Sing Holdings

This morning around 9:30 am, someone sold 50 lots of Sing Holding @ 20 cents. I wonder who is the lucky person who picked up the shares. Anyone here get the top price?

waos! 50 lots at 20cts!!! GIMME MORE!! :O

congrats to the lucky chap who got that!!

In many cases, we are the shareholders, we own part of the company, but do we have any say? no.

Besides choosing a company in a viable industry, one has to look for a competent management team who is
shareholder friendly. Chuan Hup/Tan Cheng Bock suddenly came to mind.

A lot of the smaller firms(esp construction/property)run like a private family business.

(30-08-2011, 12:02 PM)Big Toe Wrote: In many cases, we are the shareholders, we own part of the company, but do we have any say? no.

Besides choosing a company in a viable industry, one has to look for a competent management team who is
shareholder friendly. Chuan Hup/Tan Cheng Bock suddenly came to mind.

A lot of the smaller firms(esp construction/property)run like a private family business.

Chuan Hup didn't pay dividend for 2 to 3 yrs before shareholders stopped the share buyback resolution.....

(08-08-2011, 11:00 PM)Behappyalways Wrote: During the AGM, the director was saying that the counter is doing well, no need share buyback. Shareholders should take opportunity to buy. Well price has been dropping for the past few days, are the directors buying? If a counter is undervalued, the company should have a share buyback and it instills stability in time like this when we have a correction in the stock market. We all know that the company would be flush with cash when The Laurels TOP and share buyback now would be using cash to buy future cash as a discounted value. A lot of people are not smart enough to understand that a company can actually make good returns on share buyback if their company is trading at a discount to NTA, esp when it's asset going turn to cash in a near future. Doing business, property in Sing Holding case would have business risk but if Sing Holding had a share buyback mandate and buying shares at 30 cents now knowing that the company's NTA would be 60-70 cents in 2 years time, that's a 100% return on investment with a 2 year time frame. Is it a better venture than property? And it props up the share price and protects minority shareholders since for us minority shareholders, our returns are mostly gained by higher share price. Some people are just not smart enough to understand even though they are directors or whatsoever, don't really want to spend too much effort to educate them.

(29-04-2011, 01:25 PM)Behappyalways Wrote: Copied from Channelnewasia Market Talk

paul1688 wrote:
behappyalways wrote:
Today's AGM

(By Behappyalways)Few notes.....

1. Board had a meeting a month ago to decide on share buyback. Conclusion is that they decide not to because they believe that fundamentals will determine share price and share buyback would only prop up the share price short term(PS: I don't agree on this). They felt that cash would be put to good use on buying land rather than on their shares.

2. The Robin Drive plot of land would not be launch so early. The CEO wanted to launch it to coincide with the Stevens MRT. So I think earliest could be next year....(PS: I think the govt supply and possible coming financial crisis gonna show that this is a bad decision)

3. They expect $180m revenue from The Laurels this year. Based on my estimate of 15-20% net profit margin, net profit for this year could be in the $30-36m range.

4. My personal view on the directors is that the company is in safe hands but they don't/(do not know how) to play the market. To create buzz......I wanted to ask them if they would declare a bonus issue if the company do well but I did not ask because like what they said earlier, they believe that the fundamentals would determine share price

Maybe others who attend the AGM would disagree with my notes or want to add his views....

å¿ å¿ ç›´ç›´...........


(By Paul1688) It is always pleasant to see forumers like behappyalways sharing AGM notes and giving their short take (view). Thanks behapplyalways.

My view on the share buyback. Yes, share buyback (SB) does have a short term effect of proping up share price. However, we need to appreciate where Sing Holdings management is coming from. Companies use SB as a financially effective means to use excees funds to improve ROE. However, if a company has a better means to deploy the funds for growth, then this is normally a better way to use capital then just merely mopping back your own shares.

On the Robin Road launch, I happen to concur that Sing Holdings should time the launch to maximise pricing value. The Robin Road site is a great site, is a stone throw from Stevens Rd MRT and is freehold. The DownTownLine commence operation in 2015. Before the government measures, it is probably ok to launch it soon to bring in revenue stream sooner. Now, with the uncertainty associated with current property cylce, Sing Holdings management is probably right in seeking a launch timing closer to 2015 to maximise returns (balancing of course with opportunity cost of delayed launch).

I like the Sing Holdings profile in current uncertain times. It has a confirmed profit stream equivalent to its market cap. They seek manageable sized good plots, develop & sell, generate profit, seek another good plot ..... and so on. Being boutique style premium location developer play is now more prudent than amassing large leasehold landbank and being saddled with property cycle risks and cashflow concern.

So in short term, Sing Holdings can do with a catalyst to jerk up the price. Longer term the strategy of the management group seems sound. Of course, I wish too they can be more generous with dividends in meantime to reward current shareholders.

Disclaimer : Vested. Just my view. Not influencing anyone to buy or hold.


(By Behappalways)Notes - My personal take

A shareholder in the AGM was trying to explain to Mr Lee on the merits of doing a share buyback.NTA going to rise so it is a good time to do a share buyback and company does not really need to fully buy up the amount mandated. Hence not going to eat up on company resources. It would give a positive signal and also bring comforts to the existing shareholders that the share price is undervalued at the current value. But the director basically shuts off the idea for the board had a meeting on share buyback a month ago and feels that it does not bring long term benefits. Well you have to understand at where the director is coming from. He can't sell his shares so he is more on a long term view while minority shareholders depend mostly on appreciating share price.

The director sound offended when the same shareholder tries to explain to him and during the AGM, the director keeps on 'poking' fun at the shareholder. Sad to said most shareholders in the AGM was laughing in the 'joke' and not realising what is happening or going to happen to the shares they are holding......laughing their way to 'gas chambers'. I believe that when this company do well, the director would give good dividends but would the dividend plus share price be higher than the share price that shareholders pay in the first place?

The shareholder asked why didn't the company join SGX research scheme to make the company more 'visible' and the director said that he is in constant contact with analysts and the property projects already give the company a significant buzz.....The shareholder asked why the company's website was not updated....you can take a look at the website and click on investor relations....and I think director said that allocating of resources and bla bla bla.

When the finance manager(i think so) said that the company invest in Singapore Post shares, the shareholder ask if the company believe that property is what they do best, why invest in equity. If so, why not on own counter by doing share buyback, there was no answer.

I find it positive and negative that the director really think that fundamentals will determine share price. Look at Fragance Grp and Allgreen. Both reported good result although Fragance Grp decided to give a bonus issue. Look at their share performance...

My personal view is that the director is a honest person but not .....The director wish to have a buffer in the land bid. This is a plus and also a minus.....Minus is that you can see why company has problem winning bid in the open market and also why it has to hold on to the piece of land that they got.....personally I believe that if they have been more successful in their land bid, they would launch the plot of land in Robin Drive earlier

Since the nta of the company will be 60 to 70 cents in 2 yrs time, why worry? In addition, it looks like the nta will consists of mainly cash.
I will be surprised if there is no attempt to take the co private if the share price is still below nta then....
And assuming this is the case, why should the management buyback the shares or pay good dividend?
So, it is going to be a long (3 to 5 yrs) term investment but potentially very rewarding...

(31-08-2011, 12:01 AM)camelking Wrote:

(30-08-2011, 12:02 PM)Big Toe Wrote: In many cases, we are the shareholders, we own part of the company, but do we have any say? no.

Besides choosing a company in a viable industry, one has to look for a competent management team who is
shareholder friendly. Chuan Hup/Tan Cheng Bock suddenly came to mind.

A lot of the smaller firms(esp construction/property)run like a private family business.

Chuan Hup didn't pay dividend for 2 to 3 yrs before shareholders stopped the share buyback resolution.....

Is that right? Didn't really follow it that closely nowadays, did own it for a good many years and was quite happy holding it for the dividends they did give.
A quick check reveals that they paid dividends 25times since 1999. (including 'special'/'bonus' dividends) In 2005 alone, paid > $0.50.
For the older folks who can remember, it was trading below $0.50 in the prior years. If this is not a good investment, what is?

(01-09-2011, 12:49 AM)Big Toe Wrote:

(31-08-2011, 12:01 AM)camelking Wrote:

(30-08-2011, 12:02 PM)Big Toe Wrote: In many cases, we are the shareholders, we own part of the company, but do we have any say? no.

Besides choosing a company in a viable industry, one has to look for a competent management team who is
shareholder friendly. Chuan Hup/Tan Cheng Bock suddenly came to mind.

A lot of the smaller firms(esp construction/property)run like a private family business.

Chuan Hup didn't pay dividend for 2 to 3 yrs before shareholders stopped the share buyback resolution.....

Is that right? Didn't really follow it that closely nowadays, did own it for a good many years and was quite happy holding it for the dividends they did give.
A quick check reveals that they paid dividends 25times since 1999. (including 'special'/'bonus' dividends) In 2005 alone, paid > $0.50.
For the older folks who can remember, it was trading below $0.50 in the prior years. If this is not a good investment, what is?

Yes, it is right. There are some discussions on chuan hup in this forum i believe. Just a few clicks...don't need to follow too closely.

Sure, it is a good investment and i got the special dividend too. But you were talking about friendly management team.

Nothing sold for the month of August for "The Laurels". Perhaps, September 2011 will be a better month. Total number of units sold to date is 213 versus 229 (total number of units).

(15-09-2011, 01:32 PM)Behappyalways Wrote: Yesterday, a friend and I took a drive to The Laurel's site. They built up to a few levels now.... A friend called them up and asked on payment and he was told that if someone will to buy now, he have to pay up to 40% meaning that they have collected up to 40% of the sales although in their financial statement, they ony accounted 17% of the sales.

Thank for the construction progress updates .

Based on the section 10, forward statement
"...As at the date of this announcement, approximately 93% of the units in “The Laurels” at Cairnhill Road have been sold....".

The above statement implies there is no sale for "The laurels" project in October .

Looking forward for a much better year end dividend in FY 2011. My guess is at least 1.5 cents compared to last year of 0.75 cents.