Pollux Properties

[Goldmine7777]

Analysis of NAV from 2010 to 2014, showed that NAV had remained flat over the past 5 yrs after Nico over (ex-rights). There was a 1-for-1 rights @5c in Oct 2011.
It seems their 1st completed project (Park Residences Kovan) had not contributed much to its bottomline/NAV.

Mar 2010: NAV 10.11c (311m shares)
Mar 2011: NAV 11.13c (311m shares)
Mar 2012: NAV 7.45c (622m shares)
Mar 2013: NAV 7.47c (622m shares)
Mar 2014: NAV 7.50c (622m shares)

Any comments Bros Volmax & Kelvesy? I am buying slowing, only 1 queue today at 7.5c whole day but nothing done.

[Volmax]

IMO, market is taking a wait and see approach and currently valued Pollux on par with its NAV. As Pollux is a heavily cornered and highly illiquid counter, it might need some affirmative announcement from the Management to get the sceptic and lurkers in.

Buying Pollux is akin to buying into a sexy story with spectacular future development and earnings.

First mover is bound to gain when the mass market join in; once the official announcement is made.

[kelvesy]

Hope this is considered conservative, if not, acceptable rates and profit margins.

[Image: xlxmkw.png]

[Goldmine7777]

Hi Kelvesy,
Assuming your conservative net profit rental income of $1.969m p.a. is correct (which are only ballpark figures).
Purchase price was $23.5m (in May 2011)
Add: Refurbishment cost of $23.9m
Total invested capital = $47.4m
That means Yield = 4.15% p.a.
Remaining lease balance = 21 yrs.

My point is this - can't recoup its invested capital of $47.4m (AR2014) within the remaining lease bal. of 21 yrs.

Nico need to seriously think about how to salvage the loss. Instead of refurbishing they should have appeal for lease top up to 99 yrs which is normally allowed in enbloc sale but was rejected for unknown reason. This property was valued at $56m by Cushman & Wakefield @31/3/2014.

From my layman point of view, the number does not gel at all. If rental yield is so low and lease top up to 99-yr is not allowed then might as well sell it off at valuation price of $56m now.
Bro Kelvesy, you agree or not.

[Volmax]

Pollux Holdings Pte Ltd!


[Image: 5EUyDqH.jpg]

[Image: SCj6Fhd.png]

[Image: ZCq3G1k.png]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holding_company

A holding company is a company or firm that owns other companies' outstanding stock. The term usually refers to a company that does not produce goods or services itself; rather, its purpose is to own shares of other companies to form a corporate group. Holding companies allow the reduction of risk for the owners and can allow the ownership and control of a number of different companies.


More to be released in due course!

[kelvesy]

I purchase the Pollux Holdings business profile for $5.50 because I was curious about Pollux Holdings. It is available from ACRA Biz file. Thanks Volmax for posting on my behalf. It's a small sum to understand more about the company.

If one were to do a check now, Pollux Holdings is LIVE now.

Anyway one is not silly to appoint powerful former generals into a small property developer company. Sorry Goldmine, my estimates are very conservative. Nico shared that, with 21 years, they are able to recover the sum + profit within the 21 years. I have faith that the lease can be extended based on our conversations with Mr Nico Po.

[Volmax]

Hi Kelvesy,
Assuming your conservative net profit rental income of $1.969m p.a. is correct (which are only ballpark figures).
Purchase price was $23.5m (in May 2011)
Add: Refurbishment cost of $23.9m
Total invested capital = $47.4m
That means Yield = 4.15% p.a.
Remaining lease balance = 21 yrs.

My point is this - can't recoup its invested capital of $47.4m (AR2014) within the remaining lease bal. of 21 yrs.

Nico need to seriously think about how to salvage the loss. Instead of refurbishing they should have appeal for lease top up to 99 yrs which is normally allowed in enbloc sale but was rejected for unknown reason. This property was valued at $56m by Cushman & Wakefield @31/3/2014.

From my layman point of view, the number does not gel at all. If rental yield is so low and lease top up to 99-yr is not allowed then might as well sell it off at valuation price of $56m now.
Bro Kelvesy, you agree or not.

Hi Goldmine, I had shared the below in another forum;


"Louis Serviced Residences ~ 96 Units Fully Furnished 4-Star Residences!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Louis-Ser...k=timeline

Management had submitted application for extension of leasehold to 99 years and are pending approval.

Previous delay were caused by additional requirement by the authority to install additional sprinkle systems in line with the industry standards.

Louis Residences will be ready for operation within these two months and starts recognising revenue for the group. Looking forward to the renewal of leasehold and re-valuation of this asset once operation kicks in."


Earlier rejection by the SLA was due to a major plan in that area involving MRT line. With the MRT plan finalized recently, the Management had submitted a second application and is pending approval.

From my conversation with Nico, he is expecting a bumper re-valuation to Louis Residences once the leasehold extension is approved.

[specuvestor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holding_company

A holding company is a company or firm that owns other companies' outstanding stock. The term usually refers to a company that does not produce goods or services itself; rather, its purpose is to own shares of other companies to form a corporate group. Holding companies allow the reduction of risk for the owners and can allow the ownership and control of a number of different companies.


More to be released in due course!

In common financial nomenclature, Holding Company refers to what wiki mention above.

But in reality when you buy a stock you are already actually legally buying the holdco, which is classified simply as the "Company" on the right hand column when you read quarterly results. Consolidated entity doesn't exist in reality.

http://www.valuebuddies.com/thread-4123-...l#pid88193

Not that I am saying a restructuring is not in the cards but to clarify the misconception

[Volmax]

In common financial nomenclature, Holding Company refers to what wiki mention above.

But in reality when you buy a stock you are already actually legally buying the holdco, which is classified simply as the "Company" on the right hand column when you read quarterly results. Consolidated entity doesn't exist in reality.

http://www.valuebuddies.com/thread-4123-...l#pid88193

Not that I am saying a restructuring is not in the cards but to clarify the misconception

Thanks for clarifying bro.

[Volmax]

I have been collecting transaction data from friends and investors for over a year now and there is always this "sell down" from C*** whenever something positive is posted and buying interest arises.

Why is there such a peculiar move from the SAME brokerage house? They seems to have limitless number of shares to sell down to the buying queue, no doubt this counter is very tightly circulated. What is their intention to keep the price range bound between 7 ~ 9 cents?