HWZ Forums

Login Register FAQ Mark Forums Read

Hyflux 6% Perpetual Securities

Like Tree302Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-04-2019, 02:07 AM   #2956
Member
 
boyinhersense's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 340
Why the Telegram folks like to keep harping on PPP? Is it to make a point that Hyflux bid was so obviously mispriced and sure-lose that PUB should not have ‘taken advantage’ and let them win the tender?

If it was such a terrible business plan at the time, why would Maybank have set up a long term financing facility and lent Hyflux $500m?

Btw, it was mainly their money that built Tuaspring, not the mom and pop perps from 2016. The perp investor money went to paying back other noteholders and sustaining operating costs (losses).
boyinhersense is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2019, 03:06 AM   #2957
Master Member
 
xd3vilx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,554
Moral obligation from Maybank? I don’t see any moral obligation of them sharing their 6% annual dividend to the public when times are good. I pity those old folks who have zero knowledge of investment but that got sweet talk into buying Hyflux. The rest, it is just greed.
xd3vilx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2019, 09:00 AM   #2958
Arch-Supremacy Member
 
Tuckie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 21,068
@BBCWatcher,

Quoted from Para 2.2.5 from the above MOF PPP handbook version 2, 2012:



Also, allow me to quote section 2.3
I think that this means “structuring” of the ppp has to be fair. What this means is that the ppp should not be beneficial to the govt and detrimental to the private (for example, the ppp is such that profit goes to govt, and private bears the loss)

In this case, hyflux won the tender fair and square, by quoting a price they deem to be competitive, whatever profit they make off it will not go to the govt, but hyflux. Hyflux stands to gain from it IF their calculation is on point. Saying that the structuring of the ppp is not fair is wrong, it’s fair, if hyflux got its calculations right. This means that hyflux can only blame itself for its current state.

To add, as individual entities, the govt seeks value for money in the ppp, they award to the lowest bidder who can provide that service. The private entity seeks to maximize profit, hence they will and should put in a bid which can maximize their profit while ensuring they submit the lowest bid to win the contract. Both taken together, the private entity and the govt should reach a state where both these conditions are met through bidding, revealing the private entity’s preference. Hyflux in this case, probably have other plans in mind when bidding such a low price, and the govt is in no position to ask why they are bidding at such a low price if they are able to fulfil the requirement set forth.

Last edited by Tuckie; 10-04-2019 at 09:06 AM..
Tuckie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2019, 09:07 AM   #2959
Supremacy Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 7,173
still got cheaper water from Malaysia and reservoir.
Yes its cheaper, but is it unreliable? Could it get cut one day? Will it get polluted?

The answer seems to be Yes
LAMtopia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2019, 09:50 AM   #2960
Arch-Supremacy Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 11,854
Basically it just boils down to the Hyflux investors looking for someone to blame to absolve them of any fault for an investment that goes wrong...It is easier to blame everyone but themselves for their own mistake...If you blame others, it is easier for them to push their agenda to get a bailout and recoup back all their capital plus interest...
eddy2099sg likes this.
makav31i is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2019, 09:53 AM   #2961
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 903
Yes its cheaper, but is it unreliable? Could it get cut one day? Will it get polluted?

The answer seems to be Yes
reliable enough for the next 20 years.

That's about why water price is cheaper in Singapore than in Israel.
fr33d0m is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2019, 10:45 AM   #2962
Arch-Supremacy Member
 
MikeDirnt78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 18,840
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...investor-greed
__________________
Eat | Live | Punk Rock | Save | Invest | Finance | Fitness | Geneco | Tech
MikeDirnt78 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2019, 11:29 AM   #2963
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 729
You work in gov or PUB? Please share link to water agreement to support your amazing LD calculation.

Anyhow, you just showed with that wall of text, how one-sided and punitive PUB contract can be. And so opposite from the MOF-PPP quotes highlighted by tmkedmw.

.....
jianlee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2019, 11:35 AM   #2964
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 729
His explanation sounds more like one from a PUB apologist.

Can't even be honest enough to use a more reasonable rate of S$0.67/m³ (second highest bid) in his amazing LD calculation to help PUB justify the takeover.

Good explanation.

.....
jianlee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2019, 11:40 AM   #2965
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 729

Finally a article sympathetic to these investors versus those who gloat over their misfortune.

Like the last paragraph:

"The loss may be investors’ to nurse, but neither their gullibility nor greed is entirely to blame for it."
jianlee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2019, 11:49 AM   #2966
Arch-Supremacy Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 11,854
You work in gov or PUB? Please share link to water agreement to support your amazing LD calculation.

Anyhow, you just showed with that wall of text, how one-sided and punitive PUB contract can be. And so opposite from the MOF-PPP quotes highlighted by tmkedmw.
Please quote where in the MOF-PPP that states that it is the obligation of a government agency to ensure that the company is profitable..?
makav31i is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2019, 11:53 AM   #2967
Arch-Supremacy Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 11,854
His explanation sounds more like one from a PUB apologist.

Can't even be honest enough to use a more reasonable rate of S$0.67/m³ (second highest bid) in his amazing LD calculation to help PUB justify the takeover.
So what do you want PUB to do? Impose punitive damage to Hyflux at $0.67 -$0.45 multiply by the remainder of the 25 year term?
makav31i is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2019, 11:54 AM   #2968
Arch-Supremacy Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 11,854
Finally a article sympathetic to these investors versus those who gloat over their misfortune.

Like the last paragraph:

"The loss may be investors’ to nurse, but neither their gullibility nor greed is entirely to blame for it."
So investors do no wrong...Everyone else from PUB, the public, EMA, DBS, KPMG and etc to blame...
makav31i is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2019, 12:10 PM   #2969
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 729
So investors do no wrong...Everyone else from PUB, the public, EMA, DBS, KPMG and etc to blame...
So investors 100% to blame?

Fine, carry on gloating.

You are no better than those who love to post they're happy sleeping.
jianlee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2019, 12:12 PM   #2970
Supremacy Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 5,152
His explanation sounds more like one from a PUB apologist.

Can't even be honest enough to use a more reasonable rate of S$0.67/m³ (second highest bid) in his amazing LD calculation to help PUB justify the takeover.
What is your rationale for using the 2nd highest bid of $0.67 per cubic metre? If you don't understand that contracting parties are in a natural adversarial position once contract is breached, you must be living somewhere where all parties will happily forgive and forget and have to make sacrifices for each other or you are simply biased because you are vested.

"The company was chosen as the preferred bidder after an open tender that attracted 16 bids from seven local and international bidders, PUB said in a statement.

The plant is expected to commence operations in 2020 and will add another 30 million gallons of water (about 137,000 cubic metres) per day to the nation’s water supply.

Under the arrangement with PUB, Keppel will supply water to PUB for a 25-year concession period at a first-year price of S$1.07867 per cubic metre."

Most recent tender won by Keppel. WPA price of S$1.07867 per cubic metre. That would be the basis for claims. In a contract dispute between 2 companies, one company will try to claim as much as possible while the other will try to dispute the claims and pay as little as possible and the court will weigh the merits of their arguments and decide. This is the norm. Besides, in my LD calculations, I also stated that it is likely that the courts will not allow the full claims. ( $1B in liquidated damages @ around $0.90 per cubic metre would be a possibility)

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/keppel-to-build-singapore-s-4th-desalination-plant-in-marina-eas-7676776

Last edited by Texas5ice; 10-04-2019 at 03:40 PM..
Texas5ice is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts.

Please refer to our Terms of Service for more information.


Thread Tools

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On