Sing Holdings

Recently, Mr. Lee bought another round of shares between 0.375-0.38.

http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/_FORM1_2...eID=302133

Here's my take. If he is buying shares from the open market, why is the company not using its excess cash to execute a buyback. From the last round of letter, it is apparent minority shareholders has voiced the need to buy back shares . Similarly the recent round of share buying by FH Lee holdings and Mr. Lee Sze Hao is an indication of the shares being undervalued. If majority shareholders (who hold senior mgmt positions) and minority shareholders are on the same wavelength that Sing Holdings shares are undervalued, why is the company itself not executing a share buy back?

Someone should highlight buying the company shares is no different from buying any vacant land for development and the Board is familiar with the Robin Road project & the company's status. With its NAV of 0.55, a share buyback until 0.415 will "reap a 32% return for shareholders".

Lets compare the 32% return to the Robin Road project: assuming the Robin Road project is fully sold at $2200 psf under optimistic forecast, Sing Holdings will obtain an approx 29.4% return over 4 years ( Land cost 1350 psf, development 350 psf). Therefore the share buy back is better than even the Robin Road project. Excess cash should be deployed to purchase shares than any land acquisition.

Read an article on Stproperty already starting coverage of Robin Residence in new Launches.

http://www.stproperty.sg/articles-property/new-launches/robin-residences-at-bukit-timah/a/167953

Waterwoods update:
224 units sold left 149 units, 60% sold out. (as of 4/7/2014)

(21-06-2014, 10:13 PM)CY09 Wrote: Recently, Mr. Lee bought another round of shares between 0.375-0.38.

http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/_FORM1_2...eID=302133

Here's my take. If he is buying shares from the open market, why is the company not using its excess cash to execute a buyback. From the last round of letter, it is apparent minority shareholders has voiced the need to buy back shares . Similarly the recent round of share buying by FH Lee holdings and Mr. Lee Sze Hao is an indication of the shares being undervalued. If majority shareholders (who hold senior mgmt positions) and minority shareholders are on the same wavelength that Sing Holdings shares are undervalued, why is the company itself not executing a share buy back?

Someone should highlight buying the company shares is no different from buying any vacant land for development and the Board is familiar with the Robin Road project & the company's status. With its NAV of 0.55, a share buyback until 0.415 will "reap a 32% return for shareholders".

Lets compare the 32% return to the Robin Road project: assuming the Robin Road project is fully sold at $2200 psf under optimistic forecast, Sing Holdings will obtain an approx 29.4% return over 4 years ( Land cost 1350 psf, development 350 psf). Therefore the share buy back is better than even the Robin Road project. Excess cash should be deployed to purchase shares than any land acquisition.

My humble guess is that share buy backs makes a company less valuable (despite theoretically making shares more valuable). So majority shareholders may not want to embark on a corporate action that weakens the Company unnecessarily. Property development is an orderbook based business - it has to replenish landbank with cash. So using cash to purchase shares (which doesn't benefit the Company in anyway) seems counter-productive. Moreover, as investors (both minority and majority), wouldn't it be better for share price to remain depressed and under-valued ? Just my own views on why no share buybacks is happening. What do you think ?

(Not Vested)

(21-06-2014, 10:13 PM)CY09 Wrote: Recently, Mr. Lee bought another round of shares between 0.375-0.38.

http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/_FORM1_2...eID=302133

Here's my take. If he is buying shares from the open market, why is the company not using its excess cash to execute a buyback. From the last round of letter, it is apparent minority shareholders has voiced the need to buy back shares . Similarly the recent round of share buying by FH Lee holdings and Mr. Lee Sze Hao is an indication of the shares being undervalued. If majority shareholders (who hold senior mgmt positions) and minority shareholders are on the same wavelength that Sing Holdings shares are undervalued, why is the company itself not executing a share buy back?

Someone should highlight buying the company shares is no different from buying any vacant land for development and the Board is familiar with the Robin Road project & the company's status. With its NAV of 0.55, a share buyback until 0.415 will "reap a 32% return for shareholders".

Lets compare the 32% return to the Robin Road project: assuming the Robin Road project is fully sold at $2200 psf under optimistic forecast, Sing Holdings will obtain an approx 29.4% return over 4 years ( Land cost 1350 psf, development 350 psf). Therefore the share buy back is better than even the Robin Road project. Excess cash should be deployed to purchase shares than any land acquisition.

From an investor's point of view, using company funds to repurchase undervalued shares makes sense because it makes the fewer remaining shares more valuable.

But from a business manager's point of view, he may not see it that way. After repurchasing the shares, while the share price goes up, the business still remains exactly the same it was before the share repurchase, but now with much less cash. Share prices may also fall if business sentiments turn pessimistic.

A business owner or manager might prefer to reserve all, if not, the bulk of the money for improving or expanding the business, or paying down debt.

^^ property is a capital intensive business. To play property cycle, u need to have money/credit when others don't have.

Still shareholders should be rewarded with dividends.


All bets are off when substantial shareholders try to privatise with low ball offers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(15-06-2014, 08:50 PM)investor101 Wrote:

(14-06-2014, 10:38 PM)propertyinvestor Wrote:

(10-06-2014, 11:06 AM)Behappyalways Wrote: Looking at the Lee's buys and the share price performance, my personal view is that the Lees kinda have squandered most of the goodwill of the minority shareholders.

I dont believe they give a damn about what shareholders think.

There is a little LKY in all of us. As long as we believe we are doing the right thing (matter of whose perspective), we should firmly ignore what others say. Treat them like opposition members - noises only.

I think I will buy more Sing Holdings shares.

No need to send letters to complain. Apply Singapore's golden rule of the workplace; not happy, quit. In this case, not happy, sell the shares.

I am not trying to be sarcastic or mean. But for better or worse, this is the kind of values our society has fostered upon us all. I have been on the receiving end myself. And I have given up trying to reform people by talking about values. I now just learn to set my sails to follow the winds.

The problem is nobody has accumulated more than 10% to force a change through

(07-07-2014, 02:29 PM)opmi Wrote: ^^ property is a capital intensive business. To play property cycle, u need to have money/credit when others don't have.
Still shareholders should be rewarded with dividends.
All bets are off when substantial shareholders try to privatise with low ball offers.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Isn't it better for SH to stay listed? it's easier to get bank loans for listed co.

Disclosure of Interest/ Changes in Interest of Director/Chief Executive Officer
http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/FORM1_07...eID=304459

cheapo......carrot cake without xo.....no eggs and no black sauce some more..... carrot cake PLAIN ^^

shrewd boss lee lah,

cannot beat him, join him!

Another 100 lots bought at 37.5cents. He is hearing you guys. Using his own money to buy shares is a better vote of confidence isnt it?