Capital Preservation for Value Investor

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
#21
(04-09-2012, 11:22 AM)snowcap Wrote:
(03-09-2012, 12:20 PM)d.o.g. Wrote: Those who blindly bought REITs and shipping trusts on the basis of passive income learnt this the hard way when many REITs destroyed value via rights issues, and many shipping trusts cut or even suspended their distributions.

As usual, YMMV.
Thanks d.o.g. for the insightful post.

I was one of those who had REITs during the 08 GFC and the massive rights issues.

One thing I want to clarify is how do rights issues destroy value? I know they dilute the earnings over a larger number of shares, but when they issue rights at low prices and I subscribe to the rights, in the end my returns (yield) is still around 6% on total investment (initial investment + rights subscription). Compared with about 6% also before the rights issue. Am I missing something?

Sorry for the noob question, I'm not financially trained.

If you are a retiree, I am sure that you would feel different because it is difficult for you to subscribe the rights.
Reply
#22
(04-09-2012, 01:24 PM)freedom Wrote:
(04-09-2012, 11:22 AM)snowcap Wrote:
(03-09-2012, 12:20 PM)d.o.g. Wrote: Those who blindly bought REITs and shipping trusts on the basis of passive income learnt this the hard way when many REITs destroyed value via rights issues, and many shipping trusts cut or even suspended their distributions.

As usual, YMMV.
Thanks d.o.g. for the insightful post.

I was one of those who had REITs during the 08 GFC and the massive rights issues.

One thing I want to clarify is how do rights issues destroy value? I know they dilute the earnings over a larger number of shares, but when they issue rights at low prices and I subscribe to the rights, in the end my returns (yield) is still around 6% on total investment (initial investment + rights subscription). Compared with about 6% also before the rights issue. Am I missing something?

Sorry for the noob question, I'm not financially trained.

If you are a retiree, I am sure that you would feel different because it is difficult for you to subscribe the rights.

No! i always love "Rights Issue". It's an opportunity for you to find out whether you should subscribe or not. Or even buy the "NIL PAID RIGHTS" if you think you can make money in the long run. I think it's better than buying "IPO" most of the times.Big Grin
WB:-

1) Rule # 1, do not lose money.
2) Rule # 2, refer to # 1.
3) Not until you can manage your emotions, you can manage your money.

Truism of Investments.
A) Buying a security is buying RISK not Return
B) You can control RISK (to a certain level, hopefully only.) But definitely not the outcome of the Return.

NB:-
My signature is meant for psychoing myself. No offence to anyone. i am trying not to lose money unnecessary anymore.
Reply
#23
snowcap Wrote:One thing I want to clarify is how do rights issues destroy value? I know they dilute the earnings over a larger number of shares, but when they issue rights at low prices and I subscribe to the rights, in the end my returns (yield) is still around 6% on total investment (initial investment + rights subscription). Compared with about 6% also before the rights issue. Am I missing something?

Let's take a look at some of the worst (IMHO) offenders:

CapitaMall Trust (CMT)
CapitaCommercial Trust (CCT)
K-REIT

CMT
===
In March 2009 CMT had a 9 for 10 rights issue at $0.82. Prior to the rights issue it traded at $1.45, paying a quarterly DPU of about 3.6 cts, or 14.4 cts annualized. After the rights issue, DPU was about 2 cts per quarter or 8 cts annualized.

Suppose you owned 10 lots at $1.45. Annual DPU was 14.4 cts, so your yield was 9.9%. After the rights issue you owned 19 lots, at a weighted average cost of $1.15. Annual DPU dropped to 8 cts, your yield was now 7%.

The money raised was not put towards yield-accretive acquisitions but to pay off debt, so DPU fell. As a result, even though you got the rights at a discount, your final yield declined. So in the case of CMT the rights issue clearly destroyed value.

Unitholders who subscribed and got excess rights did relatively better because they were able to transfer value to themselves from other unitholders who gave up their rights. But in aggregate, shareholders lost out.

CCT
===
In May 2009 CCT had a 1 for 1 rights issue at $0.59. Prior to the rights issue it traded at $1.06, paying a semi-annual DPU of about 5.8 cts (last 12 months was 11 cts). After the rights issue, DPU was about 3.3 cts per half-year (7 cents in the next 12 months).

Suppose you owned 10 lots at $1.06. Annual DPU was 11 cts, so your yield was 10.4%. After the rights issue you owned 20 lots, at a weighted average cost of $0.825. Annual DPU dropped to 7 cts, your yield was now 8.5%.

As with CMT, the money raised was not put towards yield-accretive acquisitions but to pay off debt, so DPU fell. As a result, even though you got the rights at a discount, your final yield declined.

So for CCT the rights issue also clearly destroyed value.

Again, unitholders who subscribed and got excess rights did relatively better, but in aggregate, unitholders lost out.

K-REIT
===
In Oct 2009 K-REIT had a 1 for 1 rights issue at $0.93. Prior to the rights issue it traded at $1.18, paying a semi-annual DPU of about 5 cts (last 12 months was 10cts). After the rights issue, DPU was about 2.8 cts per half-year (5.7 cents in the next 12 months).

Suppose you owned 10 lots at $1.18. Annual DPU was 10cts, so your yield was 8.5%. After the rights issue you owned 20 lots, at a weighted average cost of $1.055. Annual DPU dropped to 5.7 cts, your yield was now 5.4%.

As with CMT and CCT, the money raised was not put towards yield-accretive acquisitions but to pay off debt, so DPU fell. As a result, even though you got the rights at a discount, your final yield declined. So for K-REIT the rights issue also clearly destroyed value.

Again, unitholders who subscribed and got excess rights did relatively better, but in aggregate, unitholders lost out.

===
Does anybody see a pattern here?

As a side note, Teh Hooi Ling looked at this issue of rights issuance by the REITs some time ago. Her conclusion was that unitholders did OK as measured by price appreciation. What was also shown by her data, but not explicitly addressed, was that REITs came to market as dividend paying instruments, but they ended up taking back all (and more) of the cash they paid out when they did rights issues.

As a result, the actual returns to REIT unitholders were essentially all capital in nature, via price appreciation. There was basically no income to speak of because it had all been reclaimed via the rights issues, EVEN THOUGH EVERY SINGLE REIT ADVERTISED ITSELF AS PAYING STEADY CASH DISTRIBUTIONS.

In Chinese we say "gua yang tou, mai gou rou" - hanging a goat's head but selling dog's meat. In English we say "bait and switch". To me this is the biggest credibility issue that Singapore REITs have as an industry - that in aggregate, they have not in fact delivered on their claim of steady cash distributions, because all that cash (and more) got taken back via rights issues.

Temperament Wrote:No! i always love "Rights Issue". It's an opportunity for you to find out whether you should subscribe or not. Or even buy the "NIL PAID RIGHTS" if you think you can make money in the long run. I think it's better than buying "IPO" most of the times.

I do not dispute that unitholders who subscribed to excess rights could have made significant profits. But these profits came at the expense of fellow unitholders who did not take up their rights - basically, it was financial cannibalism.

As a group, the unitholders in the 3 cases above lost out in the rights issues. So who won? The REIT manager, of course. Unitholders take the risk, the REIT manager takes the reward. Nice work, if you can get it.
---
I do not give stock tips. So please do not ask, because you shall not receive.
Reply
#24
Nice and detailed explanation by d.o.g. (as usual Tongue) and I also remember the article and research done by Teh Hooi Ling back then.

These are the reasons I avoid REITs:-

1) Tied to the real estate market, so a collapse in real estate will drag ALL REITS down, whether commercial, industrial or hospitality.

2) Levered yield - the high yield is a result of REITs taking on gearing; I'd rather have a lower yield without the risk of blowing up when the world collapses Big Grin

3) Frequent Placements (dilutive) and rights issues (sucking back your money like a vacuum cleaner) - self-explanatory.

Oh yes I must admit I have a small stake in Suntec REIT paying about 9+% yield. It's more of sentimental value (my first stock!) and it's one of the first few REITs in Singapore and has done NO rights issue since listing in Dec 2004, but it did have a few placements. But in general, I would avoid REITS right now as the market is pretty saturated, not to mention REITs squeezing retailers for higher rents all the time (for higher DPU), thus contributing to inflation!
My Value Investing Blog: http://sgmusicwhiz.blogspot.com/
Reply
#25
Thanks d.o.g. Another classic post. I will save and keep!

Your examples show how rights issues are in general bad for the investor. In theory unitholders can vote against the rights issues, but in reality the major stakeholders are related parties (parent companies like Capitaland) so minorities will be outvoted anyway. Hmmm. Maybe I need to rethink my REIT strategy. Darn!
Reply
#26
(04-09-2012, 02:54 PM)snowcap Wrote: Thanks d.o.g. Another classic post. I will save and keep!

Your examples show how rights issues are in general bad for the investor. In theory unitholders can vote against the rights issues, but in reality the major stakeholders are related parties (parent companies like Capitaland) so minorities will be outvoted anyway. Hmmm. Maybe I need to rethink my REIT strategy. Darn!

I think you did not fully understand what d.o.g means.

rights issues are not in general bad for investors. but rights issues for debt repayment usually are in general not good. rights issues for steady income generation might not be good.

rights issues for good expansion can be welcomed by growth investors. be realistic, there are only a few ways for a company to raise money for expansion, rights issue is fairer to every shareholders than placement.
Reply
#27
(04-09-2012, 03:13 PM)freedom Wrote:
(04-09-2012, 02:54 PM)snowcap Wrote: Thanks d.o.g. Another classic post. I will save and keep!

Your examples show how rights issues are in general bad for the investor. In theory unitholders can vote against the rights issues, but in reality the major stakeholders are related parties (parent companies like Capitaland) so minorities will be outvoted anyway. Hmmm. Maybe I need to rethink my REIT strategy. Darn!

I think you did not fully understand what d.o.g means.

rights issues are not in general bad for investors. but rights issues for debt repayment usually are in general not good. rights issues for steady income generation might not be good.

rights issues for good expansion can be welcomed by growth investors. be realistic, there are only a few ways for a company to raise money for expansion, rights issue is fairer to every shareholders than placement.
Good point, thanks.
Reply
#28
(04-09-2012, 03:13 PM)freedom Wrote:
(04-09-2012, 02:54 PM)snowcap Wrote: Thanks d.o.g. Another classic post. I will save and keep!

Your examples show how rights issues are in general bad for the investor. In theory unitholders can vote against the rights issues, but in reality the major stakeholders are related parties (parent companies like Capitaland) so minorities will be outvoted anyway. Hmmm. Maybe I need to rethink my REIT strategy. Darn!

I think you did not fully understand what d.o.g means.

rights issues are not in general bad for investors. but rights issues for debt repayment usually are in general not good. rights issues for steady income generation might not be good.

rights issues for good expansion can be welcomed by growth investors. be realistic, there are only a few ways for a company to raise money for expansion, rights issue is fairer to every shareholders than placement.

To add-on

Another important point referred by d.o.g. is "unitholders did OK as measured by price appreciation".

REITs DPU as regular income source, then it will turn out to be a disappointment. But REITs as capital appreciation, probably might not be a bad idea.
“夏则资皮,冬则资纱,旱则资船,水则资车” - 范蠡
Reply
#29
(04-09-2012, 04:39 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: But REITs as capital appreciation, probably might not be a bad idea.

But for how long? Yields are already compressed as it is today.
My Value Investing Blog: http://sgmusicwhiz.blogspot.com/
Reply
#30
(04-09-2012, 04:54 PM)Musicwhiz Wrote:
(04-09-2012, 04:39 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: But REITs as capital appreciation, probably might not be a bad idea.

But for how long? Yields are already compressed as it is today.

For how long? As long as the long term defined for value investor. Big Grin

I totally agreed with d.o.g. view. But i would like to provide another perspective. In longer term, it might not be bad idea to reduce leverage with right issue. The lower gearing is a preparation for "yield-accretive acquisitions" in near future if opportunity arises Big Grin
“夏则资皮,冬则资纱,旱则资船,水则资车” - 范蠡
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 11 Guest(s)