Chip Eng Seng

yes, everything in will be >30 cents EPS for the full FY2014

(29-07-2014, 03:51 PM)RT Knight Wrote:

(29-07-2014, 09:11 AM)Curiousparty Wrote: Have to caution all buddies here.

CES's Q2 results might be "uninspiring". the real spark will come in Q3 or Q4 when Alex Central Retail segment TOP and also in 2015 when the hotel segment's revaluation is factored in.

Based on company's Q1 statement, Alex retail will TOP in 2H.
If that happens, full year EPS will likely exceed 30 cents (IMHO)

"CES has managed to create a small company of market cap ~$200mil based on one FY result"

Happy trading

Isn't that there is Belysa to be recognized this quarter? This should contribute 3 cent EPS.
In addition, My Manhattan should be this quarter as well. My Manhattan is using progressive billing. How much unbilling revenue is unknown. But, it can be sure that, there should have some contribution to this quarter.

2nd Half 2014, there is also Belvia to be recognized. Expected 7 cents EPS.

(29-07-2014, 09:11 AM)Curiousparty Wrote: Have to caution all buddies here.

CES's Q2 results might be "uninspiring". the real spark will come in Q3 or Q4 when Alex Central Retail segment TOP and also in 2015 when the hotel segment's revaluation is factored in.

Based on company's Q1 statement, Alex retail will TOP in 2H.
If that happens, full year EPS will likely exceed 30 cents (IMHO)

"CES has managed to create a small company of market cap ~$200mil based on one FY result"

Happy trading

Gone a few days and now SuspiciousParty (pardon the pun) is talking down this counter and cautioning buddies. What happened to all the positive bullish posts that were being posted, all of last couple weeks and bullish replies to any bearish posts?? I feel like Stockerman this member has an agenda talking up the stock before and now talking down the stock.

Also we are a value forum and "trading" is not really consistent with the value investing philosophy we have. Are you trying to push this counter up or down for your own trading benefit by posting here?

Moderators please keep a closer eye.

I think regulars here can see the trend and substance of postings

IMHO if a post or opinion is substantiated with facts and basis, it is difficult to be moderated and the burden of proof remains if a short term view in a value forum means much. A quarter of caution with 2 quarters of optimism doesn't sound too unreasonable.

OTOH there are also postings by perma bulls and bears come rain or shine

At least it has much more value than 1 liner posts

(01-08-2014, 08:16 AM)specuvestor Wrote: I think regulars here can see the trend and substance of postings

IMHO if a post or opinion is substantiated with facts and basis, it is difficult to be moderated and the burden of proof remains if a short term view in a value forum means much. A quarter of caution with 2 quarters of optimism doesn't sound too unreasonable.

OTOH there are also postings by perma bulls and bears come rain or shine

At least it has much more value than 1 liner posts

Mr. Specuvestor highlighted the points that I intended to reply.

We don't restrict individual opinion, as long as it is not baseless, and within posting guidelines. We also don't restrict posts from fickle-minded buddies.

BlueKelah's post isn't a personal attack, but an opinion on Curiousparty's posts.

No further moderation needed.

Regards
Moderator

Skyscraper faces tall order over Melbourne City Council's shadowing decree on special seven
July 31, 2014
A 77-storey silver skyscraper planned for Carlton is likely to be opposed by Melbourne City Council because of a little-known decree in its planning scheme.
There are seven public spaces in the city considered to be so special that they cannot be overshadowed by new high-rises.
They are the north bank of the Yarra River, Federation Square, City Square, Queensbridge Square, St Paul’s square and the State Library of Victoria forecourt. The south bank of the Yarra is also is also specially named in the planning scheme as being protected from overshadowing from the CBD and Docklands.
Next week one of these rules will come into play when the city council considers whether to support the construction of a 236-metre high-rise on the corner of Victoria and Bouverie streets, former home of the Carlton and United Breweries.

The tower would overshadow the state library forecourt, located about half a kilometre away. According to council’s 3D computer modelling the first shadow would creep into the square at exactly 1.56pm on June 22.
Council planning staff say this is an instant deal breaker.
“Notwithstanding the many other merits of this proposal, the development cannot be supported in its current form on that basis of this issue alone,” they wrote in a report submitted to councillors.
“In addition to the shadowing of the state library forecourt, the proposed tower will also cast shadows on Victoria Street, Swanston Street and Elizabeth Street to La Trobe Street.”

Read more Here

For investors to decide impact on CES. Councils are a pain when developing in Australian CBD.

Fundamentals wise I still think CES has good fundamentals.

To be a value investor, I don't think it would pay to be fickle-minded especially after doing all the research and buying a stock for cheap. I will try to be humored by fickle minded posts in the future as they don't seem to be of much VALUE(pun intended) to members reading and deciding on their investments.

There were already reports back in early May 2014 on the Urban Melbourne website of a possible resolution to the Tower Melbourne dispute.

Quote:

"Colonial Range Pty Ltd v Victorian Building Authority & Colonial Range Pty Ltd v Building Appeals Board was slated for judgment on April 4th 2014 at the Supreme Court. It's understood Colonial Range was unsuccessful in its case, therefore removing a major obstacle in Tower Melbourne progressing. Whether this eliminates all legal impositions is unclear. "

Link:https://urbanmelbourne.info/development/2014/05/12/tower-melbourne-moves-ahead

****

Of course, there could be appeals, but is there a risk to the complainant that perhaps they could be counter-sued by CEL Australia (CES subsidiary building TM) for lost profits if they lose the appeal and TM is called off due to deadlines?

It seems that easy money for the Chow Family is not going to come easy....<controlling laughter>

A peaceful solution where everyone gets going with their respective projects would be a win-win for all parties.
Sometimes, I wonder how does "sour grapes" taste (for the Chow Family and other non-vested "individuals")

Critics would continue to argue that there could be this and that happening that would throw the project off course. I don't disagree but all these are part and parcel of property development in Australia.

In any case, the RNAV before accounting for any overseas projects (and Fulcrum) is already around $1.60 at least. If all go well, RNAV is beyond $2.00.

From a layman's perspective, one should take comfort that one of the key substantial shareholder bought at level of up to 80 cents and company did its share buy-back at 75.5 cents (early June). Coincidentally, the share buyback happened in the aftermath of the above news on the resolution of the dispute...

Curious party, this is a different issue about planning policies - nothing to do with the dispute you've mentioned.

Looks like the city council is just providing an input, with the final decision resting with the State Planning Minister. What the minister will decide no-one really knows - the violation looks pretty small (just 4 min of the 3 hour window at the Winter Solistace, so that period is pretty small and for most of the year there's no shadow at all) but the Australian authorities can be quite dogmatic when it comes to due process. There's a reason why construction in Australia moves at glacial place..

That said, even if there were need for a delay or redesign on Tower Melbourne there's still a compelling story on the realisation of profits boosting NAV this year.

yes, very good that u pointed it out.

Else, people reading it might think that that article was referring to TM..haha

<The 77-storey tower planned for Carlton is NOT Tower Melbourne>

just do some simple googling and u can find many similar such articles on city council opposing this and that.. it is just plain politics...

it would be more fruitful and instructive if we can find and post something categorically on TM status.

(03-08-2014, 12:12 AM)roxhockey Wrote: Curious party, this is a different issue about planning policies - nothing to do with the dispute you've mentioned.

Looks like the city council is just providing an input, with the final decision resting with the State Planning Minister. What the minister will decide no-one really knows - the violation looks pretty small (just 4 min of the 3 hour window at the Winter Solistace, so that period is pretty small and for most of the year there's no shadow at all) but the Australian authorities can be quite dogmatic when it comes to due process. There's a reason why construction in Australia moves at glacial place..

That said, even if there were need for a delay or redesign on Tower Melbourne there's still a compelling story on the realisation of profits boosting NAV this year.

One needs to better understand the politics of planning approval in Melbourne.

The FINAL DECISION is made by the Planning Minister. The City council can keep whining and complaining but it will be fruitless.

<sour grapes will taste even sourer - City Council and non-vested "individuals" can only suck thumb and have to live with the final decision>

http://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/s...2g9ne.html

http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/archives/63959/


****

Planning minister Matthew Guy has approved a controversial plan to build the largest apartment tower in the southern hemisphere despite concerns it may cast a shadow over the Shrine of Remembrance.

Last week, Fairfax Media tipped that approval of the tower was imminent.

When announcing his decision via Twitter this morning, Minster Guy called Australia 108 a "signature development for Melbourne".

Australia 108 will rise 388 metres over Southbank Boulevard with 108 floors housing 664 apartments and a six-star luxury hotel with 288 rooms. This latest tower will be 91 metres higher than Eureka Tower.

The $600 million project was designed by architects Fender Katsalidis and is backed by private investors Nonda Katsalidis, Benni Aroni, Adrian Valmorbida, Ian Fayman, Gary Caulfield and Mark Hopkinson. Katsalidis and Aroni were two of the major players behind the Eureka development.

Lord Mayor Robert Doyle, a trustee for the Shrine, had raised concerns that Australia 108's height could overshadow the "sacrosanct" Shrine. Mr Katsalidis branded his opposition as "political".

Melbourne city council opposed to application, but under planning rules the final decision rested with the planning minister.

Since there is so many "unknown" and guessing work, why not post a question to CES IR manager to clarify your doubt?