Back

Latest Forum Topics / Alpha Integrated RE    Last:0.49 --

Post Reply

SABANA REIT Post Reply Rate topic
Alignment Elite	25-May-2026 20:46        Alignment About Contact  Quote this Post! Style: Fundamental
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	https://links.sgx.com/1.0.0/corporate-announcements/LX3UXRBM6ALQS1MU/5cfcbee2a29b7efa21e1a0670f4b96e17473b066a2956783d932dafc1edecceb AGM minutes: " it was noted that based on the results for the financial year ended 31 December 2025 and the first-quarter performance, the AIREIT delivered results that exceeded initial expectations."
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Alignment Elite	07-May-2026 21:20        Alignment About Contact  Quote this Post! Style: Fundamental
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	The strong AIMS APAC REIT results were driven by its Singaporean assets, highlighting in particular how tight the logistics market is in Singapore at present. Re-emphasises that Alpha' s focus on Singapore puts it in a very good place amongst the SGX listed REITs
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Hzwusr Member	24-Apr-2026 18:37        Hzwusr About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Today hit 0.49, closing in on 52 week high of 0.495 soon. This counter is still a discount to NAV, continue holding and collect dividends.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Alignment Elite	22-Apr-2026 11:58        Alignment About Contact  Quote this Post! Style: Fundamental
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	It' s a very nice update. Occupancy growing but still only 91.4% so a lot more upside from that. Meanwhile interest costs coming down is a nice surprise. Guess the fear about an internal manager having higher interest costs was unfounded. So many drivers of continued DPU growth.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Joelton Supreme	17-Apr-2026 11:05        Joelton About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Alpha Integrated REIT&rsquo s 1QFY2026 portfolio occupancy improves to 91.4% Alpha Integrated REIT (SGX:M1GU) (AI REIT) has reported a portfolio occupancy rate of 91.4% for 1QFY2026, ended March 31, as compared to 86.4% a year ago. The improvement in portfolio occupancy rate was supported by strong retention and proactive leasing, with momentum carried from FY2025 where it witnessed higher occupancy rate driven by new leases in the High-Tech cluster and Warehouse & Logistics cluster. For 1QFY2026, close to 60% of its gross rental income (GRI) is contributed by the High-Tech segment, while a quarter of its GRI came from Warehouse & Logistics segment. At the same time, AI REIT renewed 26,145 sq m of space and secured 6,848 sq m of new leases. This adds up to close to 33,000 sq m worth of leases secured in 1QFY2026. On a portfolio level basis, rental reversion was at 12% for this quarter, with Warehouse & Logistics segment saw the highest reversion of 12.9%, followed by General Industrial of 12.1%. AI REIT says that more than 59% of leases due in FY2026 have been renewed, with the remaining leases currently under active renewal discussions. Portfolio WALE by GRI stands at 2.4 years with 16.5% of total net leasable area are due for renewal for the rest of FY2026. On the capital management front, AI REIT&rsquo s aggregate leverage was higher at 36.1% as at March 31, 2026, compared against 35.8% as at December 31, 2025, due to slightly higher borrowings. Average all-in financing costs has declined from 4.13% as at December 31, 2025 to 3.85% as at March 31, 2026. Average debt maturity profile has been extended to 2.2 years following the recent successful refinancing of $75.0 million loan in March. AI RETI says that it is currently in discussion with lenders on refinancing in FY2027. $25 million worth of revolving facilities and $50 million term loans are due for refinancing in FY2027. For the upcoming AEI at New Tech Park (Phase 3), AI REIT highlights that it is still currently under evaluation and if confirmed, it could add a new block within the building to unlock untapped plot ratio, which could see 19,508 sq m of modernised High-Tech industrial space.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Alignment Elite	15-Apr-2026 10:36        Alignment About Contact  Quote this Post! Style: Fundamental
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	I don' t know in what way you thought my post was not balanced because your response to it does not address the points I raised at all, namely 1) why prioritise whether to recommend selling based on recent share price performance rather than the intrinsic value of the company, and 2) that it is the directors of the company itself making this recommendation also raises questions about their views on the prospects of the business. One point you do highlight that I did not mention in my previous post but actually makes the recommendation more problematic is that Mr Moermann and Mr Chi also stated they intend to reject the offer. The argument that " The above recommendation would be more relevant to larger shareholders who might be unable to dispose of their desired quantum of AI REIT stock on the open market due to limited liquidity." does not hold water because Mr Moermann and Mr Chi actually represent the biggest shareholder outside of the offeror itself. If anyone has an issue about limited liquidity it is them, yet they chose not to sell. How then does that argument stack up as a reason to recommend selling? sgmystique      ( Date: 14-Apr-2026 13:50) Posted: The  Independent Financial Adviser (IFA)  was  of the opinion that, in the absence of an alternative offer, the financial terms of the Offer is, on balance,  NOT FAIR BUT REASONABLE.  The Recommendation of the Independent Directors was: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The Independent Directors, having considered carefully as at the Latest Practicable Date, the factors set out in the IFA Letter, the advice given by the IFA and the recommendation of the IBC, concur with the advice given by the IFA and the recommendation of the IBC in respect of the Offer. Accordingly, the Independent Directors recommend that the Unitholders ACCEPT the Offer unless Unitholders are able to dispose the Offer Units in the open market and realise their investments at prices higher than the Offer Price (and after considering, inter alia, related expenses). Unitholders should be aware that any trading of the Units is subject to possible market fluctuations and accordingly, the recommendation of the Independent Directors on the Offer does not and cannot take into account the future trading activities or patterns or price levels that may be established for the Units since these are governed by factors beyond the ambit of the recommendation of the Independent Directors. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The above recommendation would be more relevant to larger shareholders who might be unable to dispose of their desired quantum of AI REIT stock on the open market due to limited liquidity. However, if you go through Clause 5.11 on Page III-3 of the Offeree Circular the directors have clearly stated their stand on their personal holdings as stated below: 5.11 Intentions of the Directors in respect of their Units The Directors who have a beneficial interest in the Units, namely Mr. Bhavik Umesh Doshi, Mr. Saha Anshuman Manabendranath, Mr. Lim Hock Chuan, Mr. Jan Frederic Moermann and Mr. Havard Chi Cher Pan,  intend, as at the Latest Practicable Date, to reject the Offer in respect of their Units. I hope the above gives all a more balanced view on the recommendations made. Alignment      ( Date: 06-Mar-2026 12:09) Posted: Looking back at the independent board recommendation of the Volare offer, I find it troublng and disappointing that they decided to recommend the offer. The IFA' s conclusion that the offer price was not fair but reasonable was based on two separate points: not fair because on a fundamental basis the offer price undervalued the company, but reasonable effectively because the offer price was higher than what it had been in the recent past (to be clear I don' t have any dispute with the underlying analysis although I am not sure the words " not fair" and " reasonable" are the exact words that summarise the analysis). The independent board then has a duty based on this feedback to give a yes or no answer as to whether to recommend (perhaps there is a third option which is not to opine). On balance, should they give more weight to what fundamentally the company is worth, or what the share price was in the past (especially when one bears in mind that the internalisation only happened recently and hence the historic share price beyond a certain period is arguably not relevant to the value of the share in our hand today)? In my mind the former should be far more relevant in terms of thinking about whether I should be selling my shares at the offer price or not. I hope at the upcoming AGM this topic is raised with the board members who gave the recommendation. If they still believe that shareholders should have sold their shares at that offer price, I would want to ask if perhaps they really have the appropriate perspective and ambition to be board members for this company. To be clear this would not be a criticism as such, more a matter of fit/suitability. If one is not hopeful and ambitious for the future of one' s employer perhaps a change is for the best.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
sgmystique Member	14-Apr-2026 14:34        sgmystique About Contact  Quote this Post! Style: Fundamental
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Just received this message from Havard Chi in a chatgroup that I am part of. Hope it gives all shareholders something positive to look forward to  Dear All, We hope everyone is doing great! We thank everyone again for their support and patience in the internalisation process. The internalisation has been completed slightly more than half a year ago.  The benefits of internalisation are starting to show-  - The property valuation has increased by S$30m, mainly due to cost savings from internalisation and higher occupancy rate - LTV has dropped to a very healthy level of 35.8% resulting in more debt headroom.  - higher DPU from the cost savings of not paying reit and property management fees to an external manager (profits of external manager from these fees are diverted back to unitholders) The team is fully focused on executing the goals of increasing current and further DPU by increasing occupancy rate, cost cutting and optimizing properties with untapped GFA. Alpha REIT will be holding its AGM on 21 April 2026 3pm at 02-06 (lobby F) at 151 Lorong Chuan. Anshuman, Mr Lim and me will be there.  We look forward to catching up and elaborating more on our plans with Alpha unitholders at the AGM 😁 Many thanks again and have a great week ahead!  Kind regards,  Havard
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
sgmystique Member	14-Apr-2026 13:50        sgmystique About Contact  Quote this Post! Style: Fundamental
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	The  Independent Financial Adviser (IFA)  was  of the opinion that, in the absence of an alternative offer, the financial terms of the Offer is, on balance,  NOT FAIR BUT REASONABLE.  The Recommendation of the Independent Directors was: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The Independent Directors, having considered carefully as at the Latest Practicable Date, the factors set out in the IFA Letter, the advice given by the IFA and the recommendation of the IBC, concur with the advice given by the IFA and the recommendation of the IBC in respect of the Offer. Accordingly, the Independent Directors recommend that the Unitholders ACCEPT the Offer unless Unitholders are able to dispose the Offer Units in the open market and realise their investments at prices higher than the Offer Price (and after considering, inter alia, related expenses). Unitholders should be aware that any trading of the Units is subject to possible market fluctuations and accordingly, the recommendation of the Independent Directors on the Offer does not and cannot take into account the future trading activities or patterns or price levels that may be established for the Units since these are governed by factors beyond the ambit of the recommendation of the Independent Directors. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The above recommendation would be more relevant to larger shareholders who might be unable to dispose of their desired quantum of AI REIT stock on the open market due to limited liquidity. However, if you go through Clause 5.11 on Page III-3 of the Offeree Circular the directors have clearly stated their stand on their personal holdings as stated below: 5.11 Intentions of the Directors in respect of their Units The Directors who have a beneficial interest in the Units, namely Mr. Bhavik Umesh Doshi, Mr. Saha Anshuman Manabendranath, Mr. Lim Hock Chuan, Mr. Jan Frederic Moermann and Mr. Havard Chi Cher Pan,  intend, as at the Latest Practicable Date, to reject the Offer in respect of their Units. I hope the above gives all a more balanced view on the recommendations made. Alignment      ( Date: 06-Mar-2026 12:09) Posted: Looking back at the independent board recommendation of the Volare offer, I find it troublng and disappointing that they decided to recommend the offer. The IFA' s conclusion that the offer price was not fair but reasonable was based on two separate points: not fair because on a fundamental basis the offer price undervalued the company, but reasonable effectively because the offer price was higher than what it had been in the recent past (to be clear I don' t have any dispute with the underlying analysis although I am not sure the words " not fair" and " reasonable" are the exact words that summarise the analysis). The independent board then has a duty based on this feedback to give a yes or no answer as to whether to recommend (perhaps there is a third option which is not to opine). On balance, should they give more weight to what fundamentally the company is worth, or what the share price was in the past (especially when one bears in mind that the internalisation only happened recently and hence the historic share price beyond a certain period is arguably not relevant to the value of the share in our hand today)? In my mind the former should be far more relevant in terms of thinking about whether I should be selling my shares at the offer price or not. I hope at the upcoming AGM this topic is raised with the board members who gave the recommendation. If they still believe that shareholders should have sold their shares at that offer price, I would want to ask if perhaps they really have the appropriate perspective and ambition to be board members for this company. To be clear this would not be a criticism as such, more a matter of fit/suitability. If one is not hopeful and ambitious for the future of one' s employer perhaps a change is for the best.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Alignment Elite	08-Apr-2026 14:03        Alignment About Contact  Quote this Post! Style: Fundamental
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	There' s definitely a lot of low hanging fruit here to increase the DPU, which was why I was disappointed the independent board recommended the Volare offer. The future is bright if management are properly focused.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
asianguy Senior	08-Apr-2026 11:03        asianguy About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	I received my 4 digit dividends too. i have bought more past 2 years at 36,44,45,47 cents to bring down my cost to near NAV 53 cents now. The dividend rate of 8% now is very good. Look forward to reaping the full benefits of internalisation going forwards. Congrats to all who hang on and thanks again to those heros that made internalisation possible.  We need more such heros for other poorly mananged REITs.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Hzwusr Member	01-Apr-2026 21:46        Hzwusr About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Received dividend few days back, congrats to all unit holders. Shares are all now rebouncing, that said the share price did not dip too much. Hang on tight and let's ride this wave.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Alignment Elite	06-Mar-2026 12:09        Alignment About Contact  Quote this Post! Style: Fundamental
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Looking back at the independent board recommendation of the Volare offer, I find it troublng and disappointing that they decided to recommend the offer. The IFA' s conclusion that the offer price was not fair but reasonable was based on two separate points: not fair because on a fundamental basis the offer price undervalued the company, but reasonable effectively because the offer price was higher than what it had been in the recent past (to be clear I don' t have any dispute with the underlying analysis although I am not sure the words " not fair" and " reasonable" are the exact words that summarise the analysis). The independent board then has a duty based on this feedback to give a yes or no answer as to whether to recommend (perhaps there is a third option which is not to opine). On balance, should they give more weight to what fundamentally the company is worth, or what the share price was in the past (especially when one bears in mind that the internalisation only happened recently and hence the historic share price beyond a certain period is arguably not relevant to the value of the share in our hand today)? In my mind the former should be far more relevant in terms of thinking about whether I should be selling my shares at the offer price or not. I hope at the upcoming AGM this topic is raised with the board members who gave the recommendation. If they still believe that shareholders should have sold their shares at that offer price, I would want to ask if perhaps they really have the appropriate perspective and ambition to be board members for this company. To be clear this would not be a criticism as such, more a matter of fit/suitability. If one is not hopeful and ambitious for the future of one' s employer perhaps a change is for the best.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Hzwusr Member	04-Mar-2026 10:08        Hzwusr About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Not sure, speaking of Quarz they have been quite quiet. Based on results, not many paper hand, congrats to those who held on, looking ahead for better dividends. Sreits still going strong IMO, despite some selloffs due to the recent geopolitical events.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Alignment Elite	28-Feb-2026 12:46        Alignment About Contact  Quote this Post! Style: Fundamental
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	So it does not look like Quarz sold any shares into the offer?
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
pkli899 Supreme	25-Feb-2026 15:37        pkli899 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Yes, at least for the next half year, unlikely to see another offer. Meanwhile, we shall see any further improve performance.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Alignment Elite	25-Feb-2026 13:52        Alignment About Contact  Quote this Post! Style: Fundamental
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	I don' t think we will see another offer any time soon. In the first instance Volare is restricted from coming back with a new offer for 6 months I believe. In the meantime we will see where the share price goes from here - if it goes up a lot in the next 6 months it may not be worthwhile for Volare to make futher offers because they would need to offer an appropriate premium to get people to sell. And everyone who did not sell this time round is presumably a bull, so the appropriate premium would need to be... appropriate...
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
BillionX Senior	25-Feb-2026 11:59        BillionX About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	The level of acceptance as of 24/2 is about 54% . Hopefully a better offer price will be made.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
eddyeddy Master	24-Feb-2026 13:32        eddyeddy About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	GO close today ?
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Alignment Elite	15-Feb-2026 11:21        Alignment About Contact  Quote this Post! Style: Fundamental
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	The IFA thinks the company is worth S$0.649 a share based on the relative value of other S Industrial REIT share prices. And the IFA did not have access to the just announced results which has shown a significant improvement in performance.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
BillionX Senior	15-Feb-2026 09:51        BillionX About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Because the manager is working for the interests of the majority E Shang and not for the interests of the retail investors. We must petition to remove the manager and internalise it. Sabana is a good example.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me

                                                         First   1-20 of 1690   Older>   Last