Sheng Siong Group

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
(25-06-2024, 10:21 AM)weijian Wrote: This is where I figured out ROU understanding (including the portion of lease/interest which was confusing to me for a long time): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4tR1s0ojD0

It basically works like a mortgage amortisation schedule. In the old lease accounting, rental is a straight line amortisation. Under IFRS16, it is front-loaded which means that for F&B business where rental terms is 3 years, the swing will be more meaningful. There was an old Breadtalk presentation slide which illustrated this comparison very well.

IFRS16 was introduced because there were a lot of off balance sheet lease arrangements adopted, mainly by the western companies. You can think of it as sales and leaseback on steroids in order to juice their ROE. Hence IFRS16 attempts to quantify the full on balance sheet impact. The trade off is that net cash companies with high lease exposure, especially F&B businesses, end up with a large amount of lease liabilities. People unaware of the intention will then think these companies are highly leveraged and incurring "interest" payments.

I don't include lease liabilities in my enterprise value calculation because these are not actual interest-bearing debt obligation. It is contractual binding but same nature as employee contracts. Terminating it comes with penalties (e.g. severance payments) but we don't PV all employees contracts and add it into EV.
"Criticism is the fertilizer of learning." - Sir John Templeton
Reply
(25-06-2024, 12:57 PM)dzwm87 Wrote: IFRS16 was introduced because there were a lot of off balance sheet lease arrangements adopted, mainly by the western companies. You can think of it as sales and leaseback on steroids in order to juice their ROE. Hence IFRS16 attempts to quantify the full on balance sheet impact. The trade off is that net cash companies with high lease exposure, especially F&B businesses, end up with a large amount of lease liabilities. People unaware of the intention will then think these companies are highly leveraged and incurring "interest" payments.

I don't include lease liabilities in my enterprise value calculation because these are not actual interest-bearing debt obligation. It is contractual binding but same nature as employee contracts. Terminating it comes with penalties (e.g. severance payments) but we don't PV all employees contracts and add it into EV.

hi dzwm87,

Would you actually mean "juice their ROA" instead? In the sales/leaseback, equity doesn't change but the asset will increase due to the ROU.

One of the main problems with IFRS16 is that we might overestimate the OCF since these lease payments (or rental expenses) are shifted to the financing portion side in the CF statement.

Normally when we use EV, it is akin to taking over the entire business on a on-going basis and so it make sense not to include lease liabilities because one still expects the business to continue operations. But let's say if we decide to value certain companies based on liquidation value, then it probably make sense to account for them (ie. write off the ROU asset to zero and account for the ROU liability in full).
Reply
Yes ROA being asset-light 

And yes, one have to adjust headline operating cashflow too.
"Criticism is the fertilizer of learning." - Sir John Templeton
Reply
(25-06-2024, 10:21 AM)weijian Wrote: hi Choon,

Just sharing my non-accountant understanding (and would appreciate account-trained VBs to chip in/correct me):

(1) ROU asset/liabilities are generally matched, meaning their equity value is roughly zero. So yes, they did not "invest a large sum to acquire it". But this does not include building/improvement costs (where the latter is classified under PPE). For example, the Lims have mentioned that every leased space takes ~1mil to renovate before it can start ops.

This is where I figured out ROU understanding (including the portion of lease/interest which was confusing to me for a long time): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4tR1s0ojD0

(2) Pg90 shows that 6 Mandai Link is under 4(a) and not 4(b). So 6 Mandai Link is classified under PPE. My personal notes didn't record much information on it but SSG spent 17mil to own a couple of leasehold units below (pg11 of AR21) and they should be quite self explanatory:

In October 2021, the Group completed the acquisition of a  commercial premise situated at 1 Jalan Berseh #B1-02 to #B1 22 New World Centre S209037, with floor area of approximately 19,267 sq. ft for a consideration of S$17.25 million.

--------------------------------

In summary, I think we could imagine ourself deciding between whether to rent OR purchase a strata lot at Shine@TuasSouth (21years lease remaining) from HockLianSeng:

(A) If we decide to rent it for a year at 3k/month --> we record 36k each of ROU asset and ROU liability.
(B) If we decide to buy it from Chairman Chua at 1mil --> we record 1mil as PPE and then depreciate this 1mil over 21years.

Thanks Weijian.

There is a footnote on pg90 which states that the leasehold land and properties of 6 Mandai Link are classified as ROU assets.

My guess is that: 
  • SS is leasing the land of 6 Mandai Link from JTC and pays a rent on the land annually. The rent over the next 10/20/30 years is capitalised as ROU asset/liability.
  • The warehouse that SS built on the land of 6 Mandai Link, that was a one-time capex.  

https://sbr.com.sg/retail/news/sheng-sio...-warehouse
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)