FPL green notes 5 years 4.49% pa

[kaywhyy@gmail.com]

I cant find it on dbs app. Any help pls?

 

[a4973]

I cant find it on dbs app. Any help pls?

Tried using the desktop UI?

 

[Kayeesha]

I cant find it on dbs app. Any help pls?

I haven’t tried the app but using the internet-banking website, select “Electronic Securities Application (ESA)” from the “Invest” tab drop-down menu.

 

[Moowoow]

Buy some. No need to go all in.

Even if u buy some, u will not be allocated full lol

 

[Pocoyoz]

yield so low

 

[sellbuyboy]

Wu all wqck how mich????

 

[BTO_Brah]

The government reportedly offers subsidies to get bond ratings

This I'm curious about. Where can I learn more about it?

 

[BBCWatcher]

This I'm curious about. Where can I learn more about it?

Here, but I’m surprising myself because the government’s offer apparently ended a few months ago I now learn.

It’s odd to me (and to the government?) that high credit quality corporations evidently didn’t raise much capital with investment grade retail bond issues when interest rates were lower.

 

[BBCWatcher]

A couple more points from me:

1. There doesn’t seem to be any advantage in placing an order this early if you’re ordering this bond. The deadline is next week. Take your time (you have time), and read the documents carefully.

2. Obviously we’ve seen bond/note defaults in Singapore. It can happen. (Noble is another recent one.) This one could default too. *Frasers* tells you there’s substantial default risk (have you read their documents reasonably carefully?), and I suggest you believe the bond issuer on this point. That said, I’m not necessarily opposed to buying individual junk bonds if they’re a small portion of your wealth and if you maintain adequate liquidity otherwise. I just don’t think this bond is offered at the right price. My back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate this should be a ~4.99% offer, not 4.49%. I’m basing this estimate on current secondary market data points and a kind assumption about credit quality.

I liked the Temasek 2.7% retail bond and thought that one was fairly priced. (And Temasek was smart to raise capital at that time. Although they could’ve gone for a longer tenor, or maybe two different tenors.) I didn’t like the SIA 3.03% bond and thought that one was overpriced. Keep in mind the benchmark 5 year SGS was quoted at 2.98% yesterday, so this offer is about 150 basis points higher for a junk bond v. AAA rated sovereign. This risk premium just isn’t high enough IMHO.

 

[BBCWatcher]

it is 1.01 now, above the initial price
https://www.sgx.com/securities/equities/SQ1B

I’m looking at the current asking price at Bondsupermart rather than the SGX, but OK.

I’m frequently amazed at what seem to be narrow risk premiums in Singapore. Anyone got any good explanations for that? This is just a thin, quirky “market”?

 

[Kojo0403]

A couple more points from me:

1. There doesn’t seem to be any advantage in placing an order this early if you’re ordering this bond. The deadline is next week. Take your time (you have time), and read the documents carefully.

2. Obviously we’ve seen bond/note defaults in Singapore. It can happen. (Noble is another recent one.) This one could default too. *Frasers* tells you there’s substantial default risk (have you read their documents reasonably carefully?), and I suggest you believe the bond issuer on this point. That said, I’m not necessarily opposed to buying individual junk bonds if they’re a small portion of your wealth and if you maintain adequate liquidity otherwise. I just don’t think this bond is offered at the right price. My back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate this should be a ~4.99% offer, not 4.49%. I’m basing this estimate on current secondary market data points and a kind assumption about credit quality.

I liked the Temasek 2.7% retail bond and thought that one was fairly priced. (And Temasek was smart to raise capital at that time. Although they could’ve gone for a longer tenor, or maybe two different tenors.) I didn’t like the SIA 3.03% bond and thought that one was overpriced. Keep in mind the benchmark 5 year SGS was quoted at 2.98% yesterday, so this offer is about 150 basis points higher for a junk bond v. AAA rated sovereign. This risk premium just isn’t high enough IMHO.

Don’t think it’s right to call it a junk bond- yes it is non-rates but it does not necessarily fall into junk bond category.. it just gives investors extra work in making their judgement on the ability of the issuer to pay back principle and interest.

If it is rated and fall under junk bond category, BB and below, then yes probably should give much higher yield instead.

 

[fr33d0m]

I’m looking at the current asking price at Bondsupermart rather than the SGX, but OK.

I’m frequently amazed at what seem to be narrow risk premiums in Singapore. Anyone got any good explanations for that? This is just a thin, quirky “market”?

Singapore is flushed with cash….

 

[Adi Dassler]

Is the interest payout every 6 mths?

 

[limster]

I’m looking at the current asking price at Bondsupermart rather than the SGX, but OK.

I’m frequently amazed at what seem to be narrow risk premiums in Singapore. Anyone got any good explanations for that? This is just a thin, quirky “market”?

Whenever one checks a bond quote, one needs to check whether it is the clean or dirty price. basic stuff.

the actual page of the bond shows the clean price plus the accrued interest you have to pay, so its $1.014 at the moment.

 

[BBCWatcher]

Don’t think it’s right to call it a junk bond- yes it is non-rates but it does not necessarily fall into junk bond category.. it just gives investors extra work in making their judgement on the ability of the issuer to pay back principle and interest.

If it were an investment grade bond it’d surely have the rating with a flotation this big. The rating means a lower net cost of borrowing, and no rational borrower would willingly pay a higher price to raise capital.

Nikko AM assumes it’s possible for an unrated bond to have a risk profile comparable to an investment grade rating, but even they don’t hold any Frasers bonds/notes in MBH, the fund that has such a quality screen.

Yes, it’s really a junk bond. There’s a market for junk bonds, of course. Frasers is testing it, and that’s perfectly fine. I hold some junk bonds (in fund form) as it happens, although they’re a tiny fraction of total household assets.

If it is rated and fall under junk bond category, BB and below, then yes probably should give much higher yield instead.

Yeah, that’s how investors get burned. You should never assume facts not in evidence when it comes to investing. There’s a reason Frasers didn’t obtain a rating from any of the 3 bond rating agencies, and you only need one guess to figure it out.

Isn’t anyone reading the documents Frasers released? Frasers spends many words describing the many ways these bonds could go pear shaped. There are considerable risks in this bond. Whether the risk premium is sufficient for you is up to you. For me, personally, no. I might be interested at 4.99% yield, but that’s my estimate.

Singapore is flushed with cash….

Seems to be. Also a puzzle to me why fixed deposits and endowment plans seem to be as popular as they are when the 6 month T-bill and other SGSes exist. I can’t fully explain what we can all see.

 

[BBCWatcher]

Whenever one checks a bond quote, one needs to check whether it is the clean or dirty price. basic stuff.

the actual page of the bond shows the clean price plus the accrued interest you have to pay, so its $1.014 at the moment.

Fair, but in this case this is a very strange asking price when SGSes exist. Are bondholders particularly excited about the call/convertibility? Or do you get free upgrades to business class on SQ if you’re holding their bond?

 

[lzydata]

Isn’t anyone reading the documents Frasers released? Frasers spends many words describing the many ways these bonds could go pear shaped. There are considerable risks in this bond. Whether the risk premium is sufficient for you is up to you. For me, personally, no. I might be interested at 4.99% yield, but that’s my estimate.

Would you say Frasers is listing as many risk factors in as many words as, for example, Temasek did with their bonds? And is this a reliable indicator of the true risk?

What you are suggesting seems to be that investment grade bonds have far fewer written risk factors and therefore Frasers is revealing something bad. But to me, nowadays issuers tend to prefer to write more rather than less.

 

[fr33d0m]

.

Seems to be. Also a puzzle to me why fixed deposits and endowment plans seem to be as popular as they are when the 6 month T-bill and other SGSes exist. I can’t fully explain what we can all see.

Singapore is financially undeveloped compared to some markets and has more money than the local market can take. Just read all the scams here.

More retail money flowing abroad has implications on MAS exchange policy.

 

[fr33d0m]

Would you say Frasers is listing as many risk factors in as many words as, for example, Temasek did with their bonds? And is this a reliable indicator of the true risk?

What you are suggesting seems to be that investment grade bonds have far fewer written risk factors and therefore Frasers is revealing something bad. But to me, nowadays issuers tend to prefer to write more rather than less.

They all write long risk factors. That’s why there are rating agencies coming in to provide more professional opinions on its merits.

 

[BBCWatcher]

Would you say Frasers is listing as many risk factors in as many words as, for example, Temasek did with their bonds? And is this a reliable indicator of the true risk?

I think the writeup is a reasonable reflection of the range of risks (kind) but doesn’t directly characterize degree.

What you are suggesting seems to be that investment grade bonds have far fewer written risk factors and therefore Frasers is revealing something bad. But to me, nowadays issuers tend to prefer to write more rather than less.

I’m not suggesting that.

Singapore is financially undeveloped compared to some markets and has more money than the local market can take. Just read all the scams here.

More retail money flowing abroad has implications on MAS exchange policy.

Could be.

They all write long risk factors. That’s why there are rating agencies coming in to provide more professional opinions on its merits.

The rating agencies aren’t perfect, but they’re helpful.