*Official* First REIT (SGX: AW9U)

[WindBoi]

rights issue soon.

 

[endlssorrow]

rights issue soon.

Like that will drop to 0.5 liao lor..

 

[battledome64]

I hope they give rights issue at 90 percent discount

10 rights for 1 share for extra super value dilution

 

[endlssorrow]

I hope they give rights issue at 90 percent discount

10 rights for 1 share for extra super value dilution[/QUOT

that means what ah..

 

[kenpachi82]

rights issue soon.

source of news?

 

[vinciee88]

rights issue soon.

seriously? with their gearing of about <20% i dont see a need for them to do rights...must be out of their mind..

vested.

 

[WindBoi]

seriously? with their gearing of about <20% i dont see a need for them to do rights...must be out of their mind..

vested.

their gearing never got over 20%. indonesia is known to be very adverse to inflation so they usually don't hold alot of debts.

the last time it went hyperbole at such a high price they are tempted to do a rights issue.

do note that in the next 5 years they want to add 15 hospitals!

 

[vinciee88]

their gearing never got over 20%. indonesia is known to be very adverse to inflation so they usually don't hold alot of debts.

the last time it went hyperbole at such a high price they are tempted to do a rights issue.

do note that in the next 5 years they want to add 15 hospitals!

as a reit, wouldnt adding more hospital mean a better DPU?

shall look at their financial performance this friday.

 

[Paul Lee]

as a reit, wouldnt adding more hospital mean a better DPU?

shall look at their financial performance this friday.

Sure; but according to the exacting standards of some value investors, the assets must be acquired in a manner without a need for a massive dilutive equity raising and/or over-leveraging of their debt structure.

 

[WindBoi]

as a reit, wouldnt adding more hospital mean a better DPU?

shall look at their financial performance this friday.

As an investor gauge it this way:

a) Net Property Income (sans interest) / Existing property asset value

b) New Property Income / New property Value

b > a

but to be honest i will rather see

c) Net property income (sans interest)/ historical property value

b > c

if b > c then its a good buy

 

[vinciee88]

Sure; but according to the exacting standards of some value investors, the assets must be acquired in a manner without a need for a massive dilutive equity raising and/or over-leveraging of their debt structure.

over-leveraging? not for first reit since windboi mentioned is no good for them to hold too much of debt..

massive dilutive equity raising shouldnt happen as it is hard to justify their actions for their still !@#$ low gearing...

but on the other hand, when REIT rockets at such a pace must be something fishy going on...

As an investor gauge it this way:

a) Net Property Income (sans interest) / Existing property asset value

b) New Property Income / New property Value

b > a

but to be honest i will rather see

c) Net property income (sans interest)/ historical property value

b > c

if b > c then its a good buy

thanks for the insight...but any indicator/news that says that the new property(hospitals) that they are buying would be of poor value?

sounds like ure quite certain the hospitals they are going to acquire are of low quality..:X

 

[dreamer75]

must hold tight tight to this gem

 

[WindBoi]

over-leveraging? not for first reit since windboi mentioned is no good for them to hold too much of debt..

massive dilutive equity raising shouldnt happen as it is hard to justify their actions for their still !@#$ low gearing...

but on the other hand, when REIT rockets at such a pace must be something fishy going on...



thanks for the insight...but any indicator/news that says that the new property(hospitals) that they are buying would be of poor value?

sounds like ure quite certain the hospitals they are going to acquire are of low quality..:X

i am not saying they are low quality.

i got the figures but i am at work so cannot calculate.

give me sometime.

the last hospital in Korea that they bought yields 9%. that is a blardy good return. Korea is a yield king currently and soemmore asset are freehold. maple log trust is also going heavy into it.

for first reit, their CFO victor have indicate they bought this to test fire to see if its good for first reit. i find the yield compelling.

 

[vinciee88]

i am not saying they are low quality.

i got the figures but i am at work so cannot calculate.

give me sometime.

the last hospital in Korea that they bought yields 9%. that is a blardy good return. Korea is a yield king currently and soemmore asset are freehold. maple log trust is also going heavy into it.

for first reit, their CFO victor have indicate they bought this to test fire to see if its good for first reit. i find the yield compelling.

okie...do share what u know here man! would like to thank u for educating all the newbies(including me) here..

i only know good yield is buy buy buy...

 

[callmebad]

not likely to have right issues so soon, because they just had one late last year which brings down their gearing to below 30%

part of the reason for its good performance is due to increase market risk, which leads some people to go for high dividend yield stocks

management is not those cow-boy type of character

a while back, they signed a few non legal-bindings MOUs to acquire some Chinese hospitals, but luckily in the end, they didn't pursue these deals
instead they acquired a few more from their parents

 

[WindBoi]

not likely to have right issues so soon, because they just had one late last year which brings down their gearing to below 30%

part of the reason for its good performance is due to increase market risk, which leads some people to go for high dividend yield stocks

management is not those cow-boy type of character

a while back, they signed a few non legal-bindings MOUs to acquire some Chinese hospitals, but luckily in the end, they didn't pursue these deals
instead they acquired a few more from their parents

was their gearing ever more than 20% i don't think so.

 

[urban_closet]

Release of results today.....

 

[Mecisteus]

To be honest, I dont really bother so much about the yield accredited purchases. What matters to me is the overall yield and potential of the property to grow in value.

There are flaws with relying on yield accredited formula. First of all, you cant expect the reit managers to continuously purchase higher yielding assets. If this criteria is strictly followed, then no new assets can be purchased just because they are yielding slightly lower. Then dpu cannot rise.

The yield on property is calculated by NPI / Asset Value. Assuming NPI remains the same, yield can go down if asset value rises. Does that means it is a bad thing? NO. Asset value goes up is a good thing also. So here is a reason why you cant really rely on yield accreditive aspect alone. The potential rise of the property value is important too. This is similar to the dividend trap that many investors had fallen into with First Ship Lease. Current yield shot up but share price fell down.

 

[WindBoi]

To be honest, I dont really bother so much about the yield accredited purchases. What matters to me is the overall yield and potential of the property to grow in value.

There are flaws with relying on yield accredited formula. First of all, you cant expect the reit managers to continuously purchase higher yielding assets. If this criteria is strictly followed, then no new assets can be purchased just because they are yielding slightly lower. Then dpu cannot rise.

The yield on property is calculated by NPI / Asset Value. Assuming NPI remains the same, yield can go down if asset value rises. Does that means it is a bad thing? NO. Asset value goes up is a good thing also. So here is a reason why you cant really rely on yield accreditive aspect alone. The potential rise of the property value is important too. This is similar to the dividend trap that many investors had fallen into with First Ship Lease. Current yield shot up but share price fell down.

which is why i disagree with my previous example of using (a) and rather use (c) which shows how shrewd the manager is.

my question to you is why buy yield unacretive assets?

the current share holders with their 10 mil market cap earns 1 mil for a 10% yield.

you get them to subscribe to 5 mil more. the new market cap becomes 15 mil. the new asset earns 0.45 mil. the total earnings become 1.45 mil. your eventual yield becomes 9.66%.

why buy assets when it makes you the shareholders are worse off?

 

[WindBoi]

don't equate FSL problem with that of what we are calculating. the reason FSL got **** upon was that the people they chartered to was in a difficult shipping climate and they had to default. its a management problem at FSL as well.