Posts: 24
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation:
2
(08-09-2013, 06:21 PM)KopiKat Wrote: (08-09-2013, 03:24 PM)freedom Wrote: (08-09-2013, 02:18 PM)KopiKat Wrote: (08-09-2013, 11:38 AM)freedom Wrote: my guess, probably additional tax is coming for not all units being sold after t.o.p. for how many years.
Hmm... 18 Shelford was TOP on Sep-10, perhaps already quietly paying extension charges for the past year and decided not to extend for another year? 
think the first extension is relatively cheap. penalty for not sold after 3 years is much higher. and end of 3 year is coming next Tuesday.
TOP was Sep-10, 2 years means Sep-12 ie. they must have paid for 1 year so far. Should be 2nd year which they're trying to avoid. As for the rates, from an old article,
Developers pay 8 per cent, 16 per cent and 24 per cent of the property purchase price for the first, second and third extra years, respectively. The amount is pro-rated based on the proportion of unsold units.
the two 18 shelford self-buy is just another curiosity shop side shows.
The coming main event is 8 Raja.
Borders was a curious ego trip.
chinese oldies like to boast of having eaten more salt than youngsters had rice, guess they weren't educated about salt related kidney stones & heart diseases.
Posts: 2,113
Threads: 19
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
5
impairment loss of 3 million + for 18 Shelford.
Wonder how much more impairment loss it is going to incur for 8 Raja if it can't sell it within the next 2 years.
Posts: 1,348
Threads: 42
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation:
87
Since the two units is in the process of being sold to elder Chou, we should see a reversal of the impairment, and a slight boost to profit for the next quarter.
Without the impairment loss, the results are much better than last year's corresponding quarter. Good news for the core businesses.
That said, eight raja, and its two parcels of undeveloped land, will continue to be a major concern.
Posts: 2,113
Threads: 19
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
5
(11-09-2013, 06:18 PM)karlmarx Wrote: Since the two units is in the process of being sold to elder Chou, we should see a reversal of the impairment, and a slight boost to profit for the next quarter.
Without the impairment loss, the results are much better than last year's corresponding quarter. Good news for the core businesses.
That said, eight raja, and its two parcels of undeveloped land, will continue to be a major concern.
If I did not misread its announcements, there won't be reversal of impairment. As the impairment was based on recent valuation and the elder Chou did not buy above valuation.
Posts: 1,348
Threads: 42
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation:
87
Yes, I see.
'On a recent valuation of the Group’s properties held for sale, an impairment loss of $3.1 million was accounted for the two unsold units of 18 Shelford...'
But since it is mentioned that the two units are unsold, I was wondering whether this statement should be read within the context of the 3-mth period ending 31/07/13, which was before elder Chou's (approved) proposal to purchase the two units.
Posts: 2,113
Threads: 19
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
5
(11-09-2013, 06:57 PM)karlmarx Wrote: Yes, I see.
'On a recent valuation of the Group’s properties held for sale, an impairment loss of $3.1 million was accounted for the two unsold units of 18 Shelford...'
But since it is mentioned that the two units are unsold, I was wondering whether this statement should be read within the context of the 3-mth period ending 31/07/13, which was before elder Chou's (approved) proposal to purchase the two units.
IIRC, in the announcement about its purchase, it specifically mentioned that the elder Chou bought based on recent valuation.
I believe it must be the same valuation.
Posts: 1,889
Threads: 5
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation:
15
(11-09-2013, 07:13 PM)freedom Wrote: (11-09-2013, 06:57 PM)karlmarx Wrote: Yes, I see.
'On a recent valuation of the Group’s properties held for sale, an impairment loss of $3.1 million was accounted for the two unsold units of 18 Shelford...'
But since it is mentioned that the two units are unsold, I was wondering whether this statement should be read within the context of the 3-mth period ending 31/07/13, which was before elder Chou's (approved) proposal to purchase the two units.
IIRC, in the announcement about its purchase, it specifically mentioned that the elder Chou bought based on recent valuation.
I believe it must be the same valuation.
In the previous Q (Apr-13), under CA,
Properties Held for Sale = $12,430,000
In the proposal to sell the 2 * units to Mr Chou,
Valuations = $9,316,000
If we subtract the two,
ie $12,430,000 - $9,316,000 = $3,114,000
This figure is identical to the one in pg2/15 of latest results,
Impairment on properties held for sale = $3,114,000
So, it looks like for next Q, there'll be more impairment as the proposed,
Net Selling Price = $8,809,000
is below latest valuations.... another $507,000 ...
Posts: 2,113
Threads: 19
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
5
think the 507,000 would be the expense to sell the properties. probably won't see it reflected in the impairment.
but it is just financial gimmicks....
Posts: 1,348
Threads: 42
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation:
87
Wow that is a pretty high over-valuation of its properties. I didn't think they had to sell the 2 units at a loss. This could mean the real estate assets held on its balance sheet may be similarly overvalued.
Posts: 2,808
Threads: 170
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation:
1
impairment loss, I think there is no real cashflow out rite?
on the contrary, since mr chou bought them, we should see cash inflow.
|
Homepage
PR Newswire
