Back

Latest Forum Topics / Eagle HTrust USD    Last:0.137 --

Post Reply

EAGLE Hosp Reit US$ @$0.780 cents Post Reply Rate topic
uk1234 Member	28-Oct-2019 21:43        uk1234 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	drama drama :) the UC clarification just posted today lah, before tomorrow open.  It' s in EHT website. the 2 letters from City look most interesting.  It is almost as if UC told the city to explicitly write a letter to rebut the  default  assertion.  " considered a request for information ..... formal documentation is .. normal practice of good lease management.. does not establish default" , so City has to write 2 letters, one just to confirm that the other is for the real business " we receive your quote,  we are consulting with 3rd party to verify" . The Edge was never known to be a reputable news source.  It linked a recent letter with a 2 yr old 287m assertion and made its own sensational reporting.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Goldfinger Supreme	28-Oct-2019 21:42        Goldfinger About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Retail investors who sold out of panic could have a case against The Edge for possibly misleading reporting.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
laksaman57 Supreme	28-Oct-2019 21:31        laksaman57 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	The BT corroborated publishing vs The Edge publishing definitely warrant action by the relevant authority to pay The Edge a visit. Goldfinger      ( Date: 28-Oct-2019 21:08) Posted: BT has also published a corrobrative article.  https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/companies-markets/sponsor-will-pay-for-queen-mary-repairs-says-eagle-hospitality-trust
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
learn2fish Member	28-Oct-2019 21:28        learn2fish About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Noted this too and wondering what can be done to hold the Edge author accountable because some material facts were left out and he would have known the impact the article would have had on the share price. laksaman57      ( Date: 28-Oct-2019 20:38) Posted: The Edge glaring failure to interview either UC or EHT for comment, when they pick up the LB news and re-wrote it, show their lack of integrity. Most unfortunate for retail investor who sold because of  The Edge, uverified publication.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
learn2fish Member	28-Oct-2019 21:26        learn2fish About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	https://www.theedgesingapore.com/news/sgx-query/ehts-manager-says-ship-repair-cost-us235-million-grossly-inaccurate-units-trade-huge?fbclid=IwAR0tE1FeMS9ieugB3cosFlPaOzmLd9n1qzZ3p-PUiBagBlSdb0NXUaBijiE
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Goldfinger Supreme	28-Oct-2019 21:08        Goldfinger About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	BT has also published a corrobrative article.  https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/companies-markets/sponsor-will-pay-for-queen-mary-repairs-says-eagle-hospitality-trust
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Goldfinger Supreme	28-Oct-2019 21:03        Goldfinger About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	I think there is a strong case for the relevat authorities to investigate into The Edge and whether anyone in the know there had shorted this stock before the article. It would be a form of insider trading or misconduct.  Hope no one sold based on this. But, also not saying one should buy, since mistrust once incurred - takes a long time to rebuild. laksaman57      ( Date: 28-Oct-2019 20:48) Posted: Share price has been progressively declining without much news and then came The Edge publication, which caused the price crashing, should warrant a deep dive by the relevant authority.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
raptor87 Member	28-Oct-2019 21:00        raptor87 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Would you risk not being able to enter at a very favourable price, just because you wanted additional safety margin of 2 cents?   laksaman57      ( Date: 28-Oct-2019 19:17) Posted: worst-case plus 2cts safety marging ...... 48cts  raptor87      ( Date: 28-Oct-2019 17:32) Posted: Unlikely to be a complete write-off. Worst-case scenario to my mind is $0.50 valuation floor. And current price is not far from it. Its a good risk-reward trade. Recommend to accumulate.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
laksaman57 Supreme	28-Oct-2019 20:48        laksaman57 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Share price has been progressively declining without much news and then came The Edge publication, which caused the price crashing, should warrant a deep dive by the relevant authority.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
laksaman57 Supreme	28-Oct-2019 20:38        laksaman57 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	The Edge glaring failure to interview either UC or EHT for comment, when they pick up the LB news and re-wrote it, show their lack of integrity. Most unfortunate for retail investor who sold because of  The Edge, uverified publication.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Goldfinger Supreme	28-Oct-2019 20:27        Goldfinger About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	This is another relevant press release today, response to SGX queries with Exhibits.  Looks like UC and EHT have a case to sue The Edge for what may ultimately prove to be a highly misleading article.  USD289million to USD7million in repairs, is not a small difference. https://links.sgx.com/FileOpen/EHT-Responses%20to%20SGX%20Queries.ashx?App=Announcement& FileID=583246​
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Goldfinger Supreme	28-Oct-2019 20:17        Goldfinger About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	OMG - How come no one picked up on this important clarification announcement today??? https://links.sgx.com/FileOpen/EHT-Further%20Update%20on%20The%20Queen%20Mary.ashx?App=Announcement& FileID=583247​
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
laksaman57 Supreme	28-Oct-2019 19:32        laksaman57 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Wow , after so many info (fake & real) dug up now & here by so many veterans ,you deduced that the IPO undersubscription  was bcos many public already know in advance. That' s simply amazing. investshare      ( Date: 28-Oct-2019 17:47) Posted: Now we know why? Berani      ( Date: 24-May-2019 07:15) Posted: 0.4 time nia.... ke lia
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
laksaman57 Supreme	28-Oct-2019 19:17        laksaman57 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	worst-case plus 2cts safety marging ...... 48cts  raptor87      ( Date: 28-Oct-2019 17:32) Posted: Unlikely to be a complete write-off. Worst-case scenario to my mind is $0.50 valuation floor. And current price is not far from it. Its a good risk-reward trade. Recommend to accumulate.    Goldfinger      ( Date: 28-Oct-2019 17:28) Posted: I think any potential liability could be borne by the sponsor, UC, and not EHT. But, EHT will have to deal with loss of revenue if they should lose the lease.  That said, I think that is a less likely scenario given that the City of Long Beach seems quite dependent on the Queen as a key attraction. It is like losing RWS and Unversal for Sentosa.  Would be a major loss for Long Beach to lose the Queen - also which other brainless firm would dare to take it over, given the stance taken by Long Beach???.  SO there will likely be a 50-50 compromise, with both sides committing to share cost and repairs over a period of time.  My 2 cents only..
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
investshare Supreme	28-Oct-2019 17:47        investshare About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Now we know why? Berani      ( Date: 24-May-2019 07:15) Posted: 0.4 time nia.... ke lian teeth53      ( Date: 24-May-2019 06:44) Posted: Eagle Hospitality Trust prices IPO offering@US$0.78 cents.    Eagle Hospitality Trust (EHT), is same as    Ara US H-Trust    in similar ways.  Los Angeles-based property investor and developer Urban Commons, has launched it listing on the mainboard of SGX Exchange. Comprising....... International placement  of 535.7 million stapled securities, including to institutional, and Public offering, 44.9 million stapled securities in Singapore.  EHT public offer of 26,562,900 stapled securities. No applications were received. It  Public subscription is under-subscribed. Is approximately 0.4 times. A total of 580.6 mil stapled securities are being offered.  Note: Public offer offering price in Sing dollars is, S$1.071, (exchange rate US$1.00 to S$1.3731.) EHT is a stapled group comprising  Eagle Hospitality Real Estate Investment Trust (EH-Reit) and Eagle Hospitality Business Trust (EH-BT). It has an initial portfolio of 18 full-service hotel properties, with a total of 5,420 rooms and an aggregate valuation of about US$1.27 billion. It assets span states in California, Texas, Colorado, Utah, Georgia, Florida, New Jersey and Connecticut. Seventeen of the 18 assets are freehold. Projected  -    annualised yield of 8.2% for the period from May 1, 2019 to Dec 31, 2019.  Post-IPO  -    Wealth mgt clients,  Gold Pot Developments Limited and  Ji Qi have are onboard as cornerstone investors, which will give them a collective stake of 16.7%.  IPO-ed gross proceeds of  US$565.8 million, will be used for  payment to vendors for purchase price of the initial portfolio, payment of the related acquisition costs of the initial portfolio, payment of issue and debt-related costs, as well as working capital. Trading will commence on 24 May 2019 at 2 pm.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
raptor87 Member	28-Oct-2019 17:32        raptor87 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Unlikely to be a complete write-off. Worst-case scenario to my mind is $0.50 valuation floor. And current price is not far from it. Its a good risk-reward trade. Recommend to accumulate.    Goldfinger      ( Date: 28-Oct-2019 17:28) Posted: I think any potential liability could be borne by the sponsor, UC, and not EHT. But, EHT will have to deal with loss of revenue if they should lose the lease.  That said, I think that is a less likely scenario given that the City of Long Beach seems quite dependent on the Queen as a key attraction. It is like losing RWS and Unversal for Sentosa.  Would be a major loss for Long Beach to lose the Queen - also which other brainless firm would dare to take it over, given the stance taken by Long Beach???.  SO there will likely be a 50-50 compromise, with both sides committing to share cost and repairs over a period of time.  My 2 cents only.. raptor87      ( Date: 28-Oct-2019 17:23) Posted: Apologies, got a mistake. Total valuation is US$1.2b. QM is 13% of total valuation.  But does not change the $0.50 floor
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Goldfinger Supreme	28-Oct-2019 17:28        Goldfinger About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	I think any potential liability could be borne by the sponsor, UC, and not EHT. But, EHT will have to deal with loss of revenue if they should lose the lease.  That said, I think that is a less likely scenario given that the City of Long Beach seems quite dependent on the Queen as a key attraction. It is like losing RWS and Unversal for Sentosa.  Would be a major loss for Long Beach to lose the Queen - also which other brainless firm would dare to take it over, given the stance taken by Long Beach???.  SO there will likely be a 50-50 compromise, with both sides committing to share cost and repairs over a period of time.  My 2 cents only.. raptor87      ( Date: 28-Oct-2019 17:23) Posted: Apologies, got a mistake. Total valuation is US$1.2b. QM is 13% of total valuation.  But does not change the $0.50 floor. raptor87      ( Date: 28-Oct-2019 16:55) Posted: From the IPO prospectus, total valuation of their properties are about US$2.06b. QM is just $159.4m of that (8%). If we assume its $0, then NAV per share is about $0.71 using a quick and dirty way of valuing EHT (not very accurate way to value as we don' t take into account possible liabilities for QM).  Taking a discount of 30%, that is $0.50. I see that as a floor for EHT.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
raptor87 Member	28-Oct-2019 17:23        raptor87 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Apologies, got a mistake. Total valuation is US$1.2b. QM is 13% of total valuation.  But does not change the $0.50 floor. raptor87      ( Date: 28-Oct-2019 16:55) Posted: From the IPO prospectus, total valuation of their properties are about US$2.06b. QM is just $159.4m of that (8%). If we assume its $0, then NAV per share is about $0.71 using a quick and dirty way of valuing EHT (not very accurate way to value as we don' t take into account possible liabilities for QM).  Taking a discount of 30%, that is $0.50. I see that as a floor for EHT.    uk1234      ( Date: 26-Oct-2019 12:49) Posted: The trust assets are ~1.2b.  take out the ship stil have 1b.  with current share price, mcap is 470m.  that' s a massive 50% discount. (even taking out some inflation in valuaiton, the discount is still huge). This is a reit, one should look at it as a reit: the gearing, distributable cash, lease structure. etc.: gearing is at 33% current distribution is from actual net pty income not from debt all are master lease having a floor of 66% of the revenue, with variable upside All of these look completely normal, just like any other normal hotel reit.  Unless this is a total fraud, this stock is clearly oversold.  public offer was merely 44m shares, yesterday one day volume was 33m. shorting is at play. Btw I find it rather odd about this ship' s " lease agreement" claim.  how much did UC pay for the " lease" ?  Let say 200m (roughly the book value of this in the reit. About similar price for a hotel).  Now the city says it has another " maintenance obligation" that is worth 280m.  This would mean this boat cost half a billion ?  Why would any one spend half a b on a " nostalgia" ship ?  My guess is the " 280m maintenane cost" is a projection to maintain this for future years before it is finally written off.  As an business, UC probably just did the minimum that meets the safety requirement to operate (otherwise the ship would have been shutdown by court), and just do the annual maintenance plu anything urgent as and when needed.  This is a long term process and the city even has a stake in it (the various funds created for this).  There is no reason for the city to demand a 280m overhaul now, when you sell it for 200m 3ys ago as an " operatable asset" .  I guess this is US, ppl are playing the game.  I think the city is trying to push UC to do more than just the minimum maintenance , by threatening default. It is in the reit' s interest for UC to strongly defend its position.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
raptor87 Member	28-Oct-2019 16:55        raptor87 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	From the IPO prospectus, total valuation of their properties are about US$2.06b. QM is just $159.4m of that (8%). If we assume its $0, then NAV per share is about $0.71 using a quick and dirty way of valuing EHT (not very accurate way to value as we don' t take into account possible liabilities for QM).  Taking a discount of 30%, that is $0.50. I see that as a floor for EHT.    uk1234      ( Date: 26-Oct-2019 12:49) Posted: The trust assets are ~1.2b.  take out the ship stil have 1b.  with current share price, mcap is 470m.  that' s a massive 50% discount. (even taking out some inflation in valuaiton, the discount is still huge). This is a reit, one should look at it as a reit: the gearing, distributable cash, lease structure. etc.: gearing is at 33% current distribution is from actual net pty income not from debt all are master lease having a floor of 66% of the revenue, with variable upside All of these look completely normal, just like any other normal hotel reit.  Unless this is a total fraud, this stock is clearly oversold.  public offer was merely 44m shares, yesterday one day volume was 33m. shorting is at play. Btw I find it rather odd about this ship' s " lease agreement" claim.  how much did UC pay for the " lease" ?  Let say 200m (roughly the book value of this in the reit. About similar price for a hotel).  Now the city says it has another " maintenance obligation" that is worth 280m.  This would mean this boat cost half a billion ?  Why would any one spend half a b on a " nostalgia" ship ?  My guess is the " 280m maintenane cost" is a projection to maintain this for future years before it is finally written off.  As an business, UC probably just did the minimum that meets the safety requirement to operate (otherwise the ship would have been shutdown by court), and just do the annual maintenance plu anything urgent as and when needed.  This is a long term process and the city even has a stake in it (the various funds created for this).  There is no reason for the city to demand a 280m overhaul now, when you sell it for 200m 3ys ago as an " operatable asset" .  I guess this is US, ppl are playing the game.  I think the city is trying to push UC to do more than just the minimum maintenance , by threatening default. It is in the reit' s interest for UC to strongly defend its position.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Goldfinger Supreme	28-Oct-2019 16:41        Goldfinger About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	I suspect there is a fear and possibility of a rights issue, to repair the rusting Queen - unless Management comes out to refute this possibility, it will be an overhang over the REIT, especially since it has not paid a single cent of dividend yet.  Only for the brave and courageous.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me

                                                         First   < Newer   2981-3000 of 3380   Older>   Last