ARA Asset Management

Ya, I quite agree with you.

Sias don't have that enough 'bite'.

It helped to make some noises on some of S-chips simply fallen on deaf ears.

Anyway, it does creates awareness & a channel for investors to air their grievances.

(03-03-2017, 01:12 PM)lonewolf Wrote: I wondered why hardcopy CDP account is necessary especially #1 when many of us are on eStatement and #2 the depostior proxy form send by ARA is a perfectly good proof of your shareholdings in the company.

In any case, I am not sure how useful the session is. I can't help but get the feeling that it's a 'sell koyok' session. 

Look at it as a SIAS membership drive.

(03-03-2017, 02:30 PM)Porkbelly Wrote: Look at it as a SIAS membership drive.

ex SMRT shareholders have ceased to enjoy free membership since SMRT got delisted. SIAS may have lost some members if they didnt pay from their own pocket, to continue the membership.

(03-03-2017, 05:59 PM)weijian Wrote:

(03-03-2017, 02:30 PM)Porkbelly Wrote: Look at it as a SIAS membership drive.

ex SMRT shareholders have ceased to enjoy free membership since SMRT got delisted. SIAS may have lost some members if they didnt pay from their own pocket, to continue the membership.

I refuse to join any seminar or talk organise by SIAS.
The reason is that SIAS demand that I must submit our NRIC number for registration. Failing which, I will not be allow to enter the room.
I question why NRIC is necessary... that said it is their SOP. Damn.

Anyone knows what happen if we dispose the ARA shares we have before the scheme meeting?
besides having to pay for selling fees. What are the new shareholders considered as?

I read the scheme documents but its not too clear.

(06-03-2017, 07:37 PM)memphisb Wrote: Anyone knows what happen if we dispose the ARA shares we have before the scheme meeting?
besides having to pay for selling fees. What are the new shareholders considered as?

I read the scheme documents but its not too clear.

The cut-off time is clearly stated. If you read the Notice of Scheme Meeting in the Appendix, the Depositor Cut-Off Time is "48 hours prior to the time of the Scheme Meeting". If you dispose before the cut-off time (i.e. books closure date), you will not get to vote for the scheme. The new shareholder will be able to vote for the scheme. After the scheme passes and upon court approval it will take effect for all shareholders on the effective date.

I am not allowed to take leave on some mths including this. so could not go to today's talk/

If any kind soul attend today session, can u share what John Lim said?

(15-03-2017, 11:39 PM)Contrarian Wrote: I am not allowed to take leave on some mths including this.  so could not go to today's talk/

If any kind soul attend today session, can u share what John Lim said?

My notes are incomplete but here is what I have.

A few of the shareholders asked about the rationale for doing the Scheme of Arrangement. John Lim pointed out that it is a capital intensive business. Gone are the days when ARA can just take a small stake of 3% in its private funds. 

The last rights issue was painful, according to him. There were costs involved and it seems he received communication from investors (institutional I think) slamming the rights issue. If the SOA doesn't go through, he thinks he will need to come to shareholders for capital again, or do private placements.

AVIC Trust has access to capital in China and it seems it would be easier to turn on the tap. The timing of rights issues or placements are not back-to-back. He has to get capital, then source for deals. He thinks there are tremendous opportunities in the market and accessing capital as a listed company is cumbersome (my words, not his).

IIRC, he also says that remaining listed but selling a stake to the consortium is not the best solution. The free float would be reduced, and minority shareholders would be worse off. He pointed out delisting isn't good for him as well, since there is no longer a secondary market for his stake.

He suggests that shareholders who want to invest together with ARA, can either look to its stable of REITs, or look at Straits Trading as a proxy.

A lot of paraphrasing of his words here, so please correct me where I am wrong.

Anyone asked what's his rationale of selling to Straits Trading and then privatise? Why 2 step process or what changed?

(17-03-2017, 09:04 AM)specuvestor Wrote: Anyone asked what's his rationale of selling to Straits Trading and then privatise? Why 2 step process or what changed?

Never asked but here's my interpretation:

1. Sale to Straits was to find new sources of capital, which was especially useful when Straits agreed to buy 6% of Suntec reit (costs $300mio) so as to ensure control of ARA as manager.

2. Rights issue proved that staying listed was not correct. Whole affair was painful and slow. By the time all the approvals and EGMs are done, the opportunity to acquire is gone.

3. Warbug+AVIC offer came subsequently which was attractive esp when the guys are just PE guys (i.e. passive allocators of capital and not predatory). John/Straits/CK would not be comfy with an offer from e.g. Blackrock.