Lian Beng

[postage paid]

Agree the service agreement should be the ultimate reference on this issue.

However, I understand the IDs view.

As the group does not include MI, the group directors' pay should be based on the performance excluding MI.

That is the principle the IDs are standing up for and I personally applaud them for that as this remuneration arrangement is not in the best interests of the shareholders as a whole.

Can we trust the management of a company who signs such agreement which are not in the best interest of shareholders as a whole?

I wonder.

[CityFarmer]

Agree the service agreement should be the ultimate reference on this issue.

However, I understand the IDs view.

As the group does not include MI, the group directors' pay should be based on the performance excluding MI.

That is the principle the IDs are standing up for and I personally applaud them for that as this remuneration arrangement is not in the best interests of the shareholders as a whole.

Can we trust the management of a company who signs such agreement which are not in the best interest of shareholders as a whole?

I wonder.

To be fair, the issue only surfaced after MI becoming significant in FY2014. In the previous years, MIs are negligible. The service agreement was signed long back in 1999. At worst, it is a negligence, rather than an integrity (trust) case.

Yes, by right, the calculation should exclude non-controlling part, which I am fully agree. One doubt, when MI was insignificant, have the two IDs raised the issue? I reckon they didn't, otherwise they have resigned years back. If there is a negligence, the two IDs should share part of the blame, IMO

Having said so, I respect the two IDs to make the point by resignation, rather than keeping silence. The two IDs are

Mr. Sitoh Yih Pin
Mr. Wan Soon Bee

(not vested)

[postage paid]

I think everyone will be able to come to the same conclusion as to what is the fair and equitable profit figure to use.

The initial signing I can accept to be negligence (i.e. mistake).

However, after discovering a mistake and deciding not to challenge the interpretation of the contract for the benefit of shareholders as a whole. This is another issue.

The beneficiaries of the current interpretation of the service agreement are also the same directors and senior management who have chosen not to challenge it.

Moderators please feel free to delete the post if inappropriate comments are made as I recognise I do not have all the relevant facts and information on this case.

Anyhow. As always, one must be extremely careful when entrusting one's money to others.

[CityFarmer]

The initial signing I can accept to be negligence (i.e. mistake).

However, after discovering a mistake and deciding not to challenge the interpretation of the contract for the benefit of shareholders as a whole. This is another issue.

Anyhow. As always one must be extremely careful when entrusting one's money to others.

The contract has been signed, and the management has no ground to revoke it. It should be a direct statement (a formula), which has no room for subjective interpretation.

You can't just revoke an agreement, due to your own mistake, right? You might end-up pay more in legal cost, and jeopardizing the executive team.

However, there should be an exit clause in the contract for renewal.

(not vested and sharing a view on the matter)

[thor666]

Imo the execs should review and adjust the service agreement accordingly in 2015, if 2014 was done and dusted.

The silence on the review may be disconcerting for MI. Further, ex-ID mr sitoh is an esteemed Member of Parliament. His cessation speaks a lot of volume.

(not vested, just kaypoh)

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

[greengiraffe]

Agree the service agreement should be the ultimate reference on this issue.

However, I understand the IDs view.

As the group does not include MI, the group directors' pay should be based on the performance excluding MI.

That is the principle the IDs are standing up for and I personally applaud them for that as this remuneration arrangement is not in the best interests of the shareholders as a whole.

Can we trust the management of a company who signs such agreement which are not in the best interest of shareholders as a whole?

I wonder.

To be fair, the issue only surfaced after MI becoming significant in FY2014. In the previous years, MIs are negligible. The service agreement was signed long back in 1999. At worst, it is a negligence, rather than an integrity (trust) case.

Yes, by right, the calculation should exclude non-controlling part, which I am fully agree. One doubt, when MI was insignificant, have the two IDs raised the issue? I reckon they didn't, otherwise they have resigned years back. If there is a negligence, the two IDs should share part of the blame, IMO

Having said so, I respect the two IDs to make the point by resignation, rather than keeping silence. The two IDs are

Mr. Sitoh Yih Pin
Mr. Wan Soon Bee

(not vested)

Both men in white so they will play it very safe especially with PCKs

[HitandRun]

However, I understand the IDs view.

As the group does not include MI, the group directors' pay should be based on the performance excluding MI.

Personally, I think the issue should be a little bit more nuanced. If the group can get MI (NCI) to share the directors' remuneration, I don't think it should be a problem.

[CityFarmer]

The company has provided further detail, upon SGX query. Well, the query isn't just a routine SOP, right?

The management has insisted on their calculation, and the grounds are given in the reply.

http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/Reply%20...eID=360516

[Sincerity]

Lian Beng will be annoucing their results in Oct for financial month from June to August 2015. ie: Q1/FY16

There are a few catalysts which I think will push the share price higher to 60 cents region by October. For a start, this analyst report is quite comprehensive.

http://www.nextinsight.net/index.php/sto...-lian-beng

Catalyst 1)

Based on Hock Lian Seng trend, investors will start to take note of a counter roughly 1-2mths before result is out and when an industrial building obtained TOP resulting in a huge spike in revenue and profit. (Industrial building revenue and profit is only recognised when it obtains TOP).

Lian Beng 19% stake in Eco-tech Sunview has obtained TOP in July, so for the coming financial report, there will be a spike in revenue and profit. Revenue should be $30M, profit I estimate to be $6M assuming a 20% profit margin. So Lian Beng will be getting back $30M cash with roughly $6M as profit.

TOP obtained for Eco-tech Sunview in July. https://www.bca.gov.sg/eservice/ShowDetails.aspx
[Image: fksnf8.jpg]



Catalyst 2)

With the spike in profit, NTA will jump. Currently NTA is 91 cents, so perhaps NTA will pass $1 will cash component spiking. P/B ratio will be greatly reduced with the increase in NTA. Based on 52 cents, I predict P/B ratio will drop to 0.52.


Catalyst 3)

September Triple witching is coming aka 3rd week of September. Last triple witching in 19 June 2015, Lian Beng surges to 58 cents from 54 cents at closing due to the triple witching day. So perhaps another surge again in the September triple witching?


Catalyst 4)

Dividend of 2 cents will be given out in Oct, the month when the financial results is out too.


Vested. I aiming for the share price to reach 58 to 60 cents by June. Hope my information helps. All these are based on my deduction, ignore this post if u think I talking nonsense

[Tiggerbee]

Construction and property sector stocks are cyclical. You don't invest in it when the positives have already been priced in. Any bumper dividend announcements are just opportunities for the BBs to exit.