Perennial China Retail Trust

(14-03-2014, 10:29 PM)cfa Wrote:

(14-03-2014, 10:02 PM)MINX Wrote:

(14-03-2014, 09:38 PM)kayhian Wrote: gone case .... become $0.70 and no more dividend

In this case, can PCRT's minority shareholders vote against the take over by ST James?
Why did Pua Sek Guan agree to it, seems like a bad deal for PCRT shareholders?

It is at a premium because last traded price was 0.545 , so why bad deal for minority of PCRT ?

PCRT's NAV is 74c, their offer is below book value. You are forced to trade your shares for St James & there is a share reduction, 50 shares to 1 share so you'll end up with odd lots. The devil is in the details, i'm still trying to figure out the ramifications with my limited know how. But it seems like a lousy deal for PCRT minority share holders, especially those who got in earlier at higher prices. It might be better to maintain status quo.

This is a reverse takeover. After the whole deal, it will be called Perennial Real Estates Holdings Ltd (PREHL) and Phua Sek Guan will be the CEO, and PREHL will then be transferred to the main board.

It sounds to me the whole exercise is for PCRT to change from a model of business trust to that of a normal corporation to remove the constraints of being a business trust.

(15-03-2014, 04:30 PM)gutman Wrote: This is a reverse takeover. After the whole deal, it will be called Perennial Real Estates Holdings Ltd (PREHL) and Phua Sek Guan will be the CEO, and PREHL will then be transferred to the main board.

It sounds to me the whole exercise is for PCRT to change from a model of business trust to that of a normal corporation to remove the constraints of being a business trust.

It sound interesting. May be a worthy effort to understand it more.

PCRT should publish a easy-to-understand explanation for retail investors.

This deal could be a fantastic one but nobody seems to understand it

(15-03-2014, 10:08 PM)kayhian Wrote: PCRT should publish a easy-to-understand explanation for retail investors.

This deal could be a fantastic one but nobody seems to understand it

Agreed, they just went ahead and changed the business without consulting retail investors or explaining things clearly. It's very bad PR wise.

Hi regardless of PRCT's deal,

The key determination to future pricing of this counter is still the ability of PRCT assets to have a high lv of occupancy and rental pricing in the 2nd tier cities (Chengdu, Shenyang & Foshan). Others may point its NAV is much higher than current market price but take note interpreting a counter's NAV is very different for retail mall and ppty developers.

Secondly, the only reason why I think it is good for St James to come onboard is because Mr. Dennis Foo may be able to persuade F&B owners to consider opening china outlets at PRCT's mall.

This is actually a very smart move. I must say Phua Sek Guan is really a deal maker.

It is probably not easy for retail investor to understand a reverse takeover (or maybe not). Shareholder has been informed to wait for recommendations of the independent directors of the company as well as the advice of the independent financial adviser which will be circulated in due course.

I think a few questions we need to ask is :
1. Do we understand what is a reverse takeover (RTO)?
2. What is it that they can do as a normal company compare to being a business trust? Do we understand what is a business trust in the first place?
3. By doing this RTO, are they unlocking shareholder value?
4. Will the move into other markets benefits shareholders? (PCRT is focused purely in China. But the new company is already talking about Myanmar and Singapore.)

Maybe we should just follow the majority shareholders and win big with them

(16-03-2014, 11:57 AM)gutman Wrote: This is actually a very smart move. I must say Phua Sek Guan is really a deal maker.

It is probably not easy for retail investor to understand a reverse takeover (or maybe not). Shareholder has been informed to wait for recommendations of the independent directors of the company as well as the advice of the independent financial adviser which will be circulated in due course.

I think a few questions we need to ask is :
1. Do we understand what is a reverse takeover (RTO)?
2. What is it that they can do as a normal company compare to being a business trust? Do we understand what is a business trust in the first place?
3. By doing this RTO, are they unlocking shareholder value?

Answer to 1 & 3 - easier and faster way than a IPO. They will first unlock value for themselves first since they are the vendors

4. Will the move into other markets benefits shareholders? (PCRT is focused purely in China. But the new company is already talking about Myanmar and Singapore.)

They have continued to build up their presence in Singapore by virtue of their familiarity. PCRT is only mandated for China so unless a new mandate can be approved by present shareholders then cleaner way is via a RTO. Myanmar - you are better off betting on Yoma. This is just a frontier where everyone are hopeful - only the juntas know who the ali babas will be...

(16-03-2014, 02:42 PM)greengiraffe Wrote:

(16-03-2014, 11:57 AM)gutman Wrote: This is actually a very smart move. I must say Phua Sek Guan is really a deal maker.

It is probably not easy for retail investor to understand a reverse takeover (or maybe not). Shareholder has been informed to wait for recommendations of the independent directors of the company as well as the advice of the independent financial adviser which will be circulated in due course.

I think a few questions we need to ask is :
1. Do we understand what is a reverse takeover (RTO)?
2. What is it that they can do as a normal company compare to being a business trust? Do we understand what is a business trust in the first place?
3. By doing this RTO, are they unlocking shareholder value?

Answer to 1 & 3 - easier and faster way than a IPO. They will first unlock value for themselves first since they are the vendors

4. Will the move into other markets benefits shareholders? (PCRT is focused purely in China. But the new company is already talking about Myanmar and Singapore.)

They have continued to build up their presence in Singapore by virtue of their familiarity. PCRT is only mandated for China so unless a new mandate can be approved by present shareholders then cleaner way is via a RTO. Myanmar - you are better off betting on Yoma. This is just a frontier where everyone are hopeful - only the juntas know who the ali babas will be...

what I personally don't like about the proposal is there is no alternative way out offered to the exiting minority shareholders as the offer is in shares & not cash. Firstly, we're in the blurr about the new entity whose shares we're obliged to accept. Is the new entity worth the share price proposed? Why are PCRT's china assets volunteered at a 25% discount to its book value, if you want to buy assets from me, a good offer should be one at a premium to book value(74cts), no? The new entity is venturing into Myanmar, a frontier market with high risks, can a bix trust suddenly alter its mandate abruptly like that?