Sabana Shari'ah REIT

(14-02-2017, 10:41 PM)specuvestor Wrote:

(14-02-2017, 09:36 PM)laksaman57 Wrote: http://www.theedgemarkets.com.sg/article...h-property

I actually agree with the logic but Activist is nonetheless gutsy

I agree with the logic too. The dispute is turning uglier. It might turn out to be a loss-loss game.

I have mentioned earlier on the valuers earlier which should hold them accountable. Going through CAD I think is a smart way to do it as this may expose any illegal dealings.

Even for a lose-lose, this give a good education to public companies who treat minority holders non-existence. Theirs are hard earn money.

"Colliers, Savills and Knight Frank separately and independently did a valuation on the Changi South property using the Capitalization Approach and Discounted Cash Flow Analysis (DCF)."

(15-02-2017, 09:14 AM)YMPL Wrote:

(14-02-2017, 10:41 PM)specuvestor Wrote:

(14-02-2017, 09:36 PM)laksaman57 Wrote: http://www.theedgemarkets.com.sg/article...h-property

I actually agree with the logic but Activist is nonetheless gutsy

I agree with the logic too. The dispute is turning uglier. It might turn out to be a loss-loss game.

Mr. Jerry Low is setting a good example for the minorities to fight for own right and interest , he has the respect of many who don't even own a share in SABANA also !
If buying into some sabana shares can help him to succeed in kicking out the manager , I will definitely do so  !

(15-02-2017, 09:35 AM)cfa Wrote:

(15-02-2017, 09:14 AM)YMPL Wrote:

(14-02-2017, 10:41 PM)specuvestor Wrote:

(14-02-2017, 09:36 PM)laksaman57 Wrote: http://www.theedgemarkets.com.sg/article...h-property

I actually agree with the logic but Activist is nonetheless gutsy

I agree with the logic too. The dispute is turning uglier. It might turn out to be a loss-loss game.

Mr. Jerry Low is setting a good example for the minorities to fight for own right and interest , he has the respect of many who don't even own a share in SABANA also !
If buying into some sabana shares can help him to succeed in kicking out the manager , I will definitely do so  !

Well, I admire Mr. Low's EGM initiative. A good example for OPMIs indeed. The saga can be settled via biz term, rather than a dogfight, at least not now before the EGM, IMHO. The new move blurred the "agenda".

(an outsider opinion)

(15-02-2017, 09:14 AM)YMPL Wrote:

(14-02-2017, 10:41 PM)specuvestor Wrote:

(14-02-2017, 09:36 PM)laksaman57 Wrote: http://www.theedgemarkets.com.sg/article...h-property

I actually agree with the logic but Activist is nonetheless gutsy

I agree with the logic too. The dispute is turning uglier. It might turn out to be a loss-loss game.

I reckon this is a game of chess. One needs to attack so that the opponent uses up their own pieces to defend, and subsequently reduces the attention to other areas of defence or their own planned offensive.

@ ACTIVIST SPEAKS
 
Where is your source of info that there was a valuation done by Colliers who also valued the property at SGD 23 million?
 
Valuation by Knight Frank:
-      Was commissioned by the Reit Manager.
-      Valuation methods (income capitalization approach and the discounted cash flow analysis)
 
Valuation by Savills:
-      Was commissioned by the Trustee
-      Valuation methods (direct comparison, income capitalization approach and the discounted cash flow analysis)
 
Interestingly, the valuation done by “Savills” was supposed to be commissioned “independently” by the Trustee, this raise another BIG question……………
 
How “independent” was it?
_______________________________________________________________________________________

(15-02-2017, 09:54 AM)YMPL Wrote:

(15-02-2017, 09:35 AM)cfa Wrote:

(15-02-2017, 09:14 AM)YMPL Wrote:

(14-02-2017, 10:41 PM)specuvestor Wrote:

(14-02-2017, 09:36 PM)laksaman57 Wrote: http://www.theedgemarkets.com.sg/article...h-property

I actually agree with the logic but Activist is nonetheless gutsy

I agree with the logic too. The dispute is turning uglier. It might turn out to be a loss-loss game.

Mr. Jerry Low is setting a good example for the minorities to fight for own right and interest , he has the respect of many who don't even own a share in SABANA also !
If buying into some sabana shares can help him to succeed in kicking out the manager , I will definitely do so  !

Well, I admire Mr. Low's EGM initiative. A good example for OPMIs indeed. The saga can be settled via biz term, rather than a dogfight, at least not now before the EGM, IMHO. The new move blurred the "agenda".

(an outsider opinion)

This runs parallel to what the credit rating agencies (firms which rate debt instruments) did prior to the American subprime mortgage crisis in 2008.
I am not suggesting any wrongdoing by the real estate valuation companies. But we all know who is paying for their services at the end of the day.

(15-02-2017, 10:39 AM)Boon Wrote: @ ACTIVIST SPEAKS
 
Where is your source of info that there was a valuation done by Colliers who also valued the property at SGD 23 million?
 
Valuation by Knight Frank:
-      Was commissioned by the Reit Manager.
-      Valuation methods (income capitalization approach and the discounted cash flow analysis)
 
Valuation by Savills:
-      Was commissioned by the Trustee
-      Valuation methods (direct comparison, income capitalization approach and the discounted cash flow analysis)
 
Interestingly, the valuation done by “Savills” was supposed to be commissioned “independently” by the Trustee, this raise another BIG question……………
 
How “independent” was it?
_______________________________________________________________________________________

ok I got it.

Colliers was commissioned by the Sponsor.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(14-02-2017, 09:36 PM)laksaman57 Wrote: http://www.theedgemarkets.com.sg/article...h-property

My very first post after several months of silences. Thumb up to Activist Speak, being a small tiny investor of SR, I don't wish to contribute anything to this affair, but wish the fellow unitholders succeed in seeking "justice"

Interesting court case which pointed out the fundamental difference between real estate value and contract derived “business investment value”
 
http://www.attorneyatlawmagazine.com/twi...ket-value/
 
Sale-Leasebacks: Are They Indicative of Market Value?
By Robert A. Hill
…………………………………………………….
 
 
Valuing the Fee Simple Interest of the Real Estate
After establishing the business model of the sale-leaseback, the Walgreens court went on to discuss the framework for valuing the fee simple interest in the real estate under this business model. In the case in question, Walgreens pointed out the fundamental difference between real estate value and contract-derived “business investment” value – arguing that the increased value to the contractual rights associated with the leased fee estate was not a real estate but rather a contract “investment value.”
 
Walgreens also pointed out that the duty of the assessor is to differentiate between the aspects of the contract that aren’t typical of the open real estate market. Walgreen’s argument was that the lessor’s rights in this case were contract rights associated with the leased fee estate and therefore not subject to evaluation for ad valorem property tax purposes.
 
Essentially, Walgreens maintained that the real property assessment should not be based on the above market rent that was paid due to its agreement with an investor. These conditions were not normal in the open market for real estate and didn’t reflect the market value of the fee simple absolute real estate at-issue. The high court agreed, stating that assessors should examine the financing terms in order to determine if the sale price reflects the market value of the real estate standing alone in the open market. The court continued, “If we were to expand the law in the direction the city requests, property assessments would in essence become business value assessments.” Id. ¶65.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s analysis in Walgreens applies equally to the valuation of all real estate subject to a sale-leaseback. In fact, Standard 5.9 of the International Association of Assessing Officers’ “Standard on Verification and Adjustment of Sales” provides: “Sales involving leasebacks are generally invalid because the sale price is unlikely to represent the market value of the property.” Hence, if your property is the subject of a sale-leaseback, you must make sure your local assessor is made aware of the terms and conditions of the business transaction. If you fail to do so, the assessor’s temptation to commingle the contract rents with the market rents can – and often will – result in an assessment well above the actual market value of the “sticks & bricks.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________