Back

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

Post Reply

EAGLE Hosp Reit US$ @$0.780 cents Post Reply Rate topic
chengwh1 Elite	28-Oct-2019 10:30        chengwh1 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Bros,... that' s the reason we are debating so hard here these few days,... because no mkt these few days !!! After final discussions today,... we start queueing tonight for tomorrow open ! WE are investors,.... Decisions should come by tonight for queueing already. Otherwise,... everybody who keeps holding here may end up like holders of Sabana REIT and Noble,... don' t know-lar,.... First mission of investing is : PROTECT YOUR CAPITAL !!!
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Goldfinger Supreme	28-Oct-2019 10:14        Goldfinger About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Alamak - Public Hol - take a break and enjoy all our millions yah!
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
danger Supreme	28-Oct-2019 10:08        danger About Contact  Quote this Post! Style: Combined   Mood:
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	NOT 68 CENTS ? That time you posted around 9.5% yield about that price ? So open short tomorrow all the way to 48.5 ? laksaman57      ( Date: 28-Oct-2019 00:00) Posted: 48.5cts safe to buy ?
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
laksaman57 Supreme	28-Oct-2019 00:00        laksaman57 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	48.5cts safe to buy ?
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
chengwh1 Elite	27-Oct-2019 20:17        chengwh1 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	The more surprising thing to me is that UC has not been diligent enough when deliberating the agreement to cover itself against claims as such by a local council. I would be more diligent in drafting whatever papers I make when dealing with this authority, for,... things are very liquid when dealing with an elected gov' t body. A simple election can just change things overnight. uk1234      ( Date: 27-Oct-2019 19:58) Posted: > The City Council is not a profit oriented organisation. It is your local municipal...pretty much like your town council....but on a much bigger scale of course...looking after half a million residents. All your utilities > and essentials, medical and fire services, affordable housing and so on are handled by them. The mayor and council members are elected.  No doubt but it is not so relevant. The issue here is: does the city have grounds to make UC pay for the " repair" of a " sinking ship" , which the city itself acquired in the 60' s hoping it could bring fortune to the city ?  even Disney was unable to salvage this ship.  UC was the last (of a long list of lessors) the city got trying to revive it.  And now City is using the lease to ask UC to pay 280m to repair otherwise the ship will be " inoperable" ? It was the city' s fault to buy this ship hoping to make it a star attraction.  As you said, the city is not profit driven. But it made a profit driven decision to acquire an asset hoping it brings in revenue.  When it didn' t turn out well, it seeks to push the duty to the next tenant. > You should refer to all the memorandum by the City of Long Beach from the granting of the lease to the recent warning of default...to have a clearer picture. Actually the most important doc should be the actual lease contract, esp what are the conditions attached.  I find it hard to believe a tenant needs to repair the property.  UC' s acquisition plan was very obviously land based.  All the 250m is about land side development.  It' s like the city lured UC onto the lease (which was not chearp, 100m, btw why did you say it was free earlier ?) , and is now using the contract to force UC to pay for the repair.  UC is not stupid, he found one prominent engineering firm to say it is safe, no need to repair.  This fight is going to last.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
chengwh1 Elite	27-Oct-2019 20:12        chengwh1 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	I am aware of the gov' t machinery. I participate in local council activities in a few countries. I am also aware of the different ' names for a council' , depending on the size of the city or town that it looks after. So, no worries along that line. On top of what you claimed of me,.. I am also aware that any amount that the city council is able to generate from trade is also treated as a revenue by the city council. It is not necessary for a city council to generate revenue from taxes and from fines only. Keeping closely to a memorandum is of course, honourable, but,... having any further claims towards another party to further improve the situation would not be ignored by any party, especially the claim is towards a party that is finally able to pay. Otherwise, why did the USD289m ' urgent repair' suddenly came about ? So, you are saying it' s a matter of coincidence ? I can accept this too,... so, too bad for current investors then. Dusktilldawn      ( Date: 27-Oct-2019 13:55) Posted: --- Post Removed by User ---
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
uk1234 Member	27-Oct-2019 19:58        uk1234 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	> The City Council is not a profit oriented organisation. It is your local municipal...pretty much like your town council....but on a much bigger scale of course...looking after half a million residents. All your utilities > and essentials, medical and fire services, affordable housing and so on are handled by them. The mayor and council members are elected.  No doubt but it is not so relevant. The issue here is: does the city have grounds to make UC pay for the " repair" of a " sinking ship" , which the city itself acquired in the 60' s hoping it could bring fortune to the city ?  even Disney was unable to salvage this ship.  UC was the last (of a long list of lessors) the city got trying to revive it.  And now City is using the lease to ask UC to pay 280m to repair otherwise the ship will be " inoperable" ? It was the city' s fault to buy this ship hoping to make it a star attraction.  As you said, the city is not profit driven. But it made a profit driven decision to acquire an asset hoping it brings in revenue.  When it didn' t turn out well, it seeks to push the duty to the next tenant. > You should refer to all the memorandum by the City of Long Beach from the granting of the lease to the recent warning of default...to have a clearer picture. Actually the most important doc should be the actual lease contract, esp what are the conditions attached.  I find it hard to believe a tenant needs to repair the property.  UC' s acquisition plan was very obviously land based.  All the 250m is about land side development.  It' s like the city lured UC onto the lease (which was not chearp, 100m, btw why did you say it was free earlier ?) , and is now using the contract to force UC to pay for the repair.  UC is not stupid, he found one prominent engineering firm to say it is safe, no need to repair.  This fight is going to last.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
uk1234 Member	27-Oct-2019 16:51        uk1234 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	> What are the asset of the remaining $1b? the 17 " normal" hotels. owned, FH.  Total book value is 1.27b, QM is 160m, without QM it' s 1.1bln.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
investshare Supreme	27-Oct-2019 15:44        investshare About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	What are the asset of the remaining $1b? 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
laksaman57 Supreme	27-Oct-2019 15:21        laksaman57 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Seriously 66-yrs lease for zero dollars ? Granted for free ? Dusktilldawn      ( Date: 26-Oct-2019 19:35) Posted: --- Post Removed by User ---
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
chengwh1 Elite	27-Oct-2019 13:20        chengwh1 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Yeah,... I' m afraid, back when we were discussing this as this REIT was abt to IPO, there were too points abt the QM being brought up,... and I read somewhere, this QM is actually a thorn among the roses of signature assets (hotels) held by this REIT which was abt to list. On a separate note,... the city council suddenly imposing these new things after the QM has been ' IPO' ed together with the other assets' is indeed ' tactical' ....' tricky' ,,, uk1234      ( Date: 27-Oct-2019 12:08) Posted: Queen Mary acquisition. It seems UC paid " USD100m" in 2016 to the City for the 66y lease of the ship and adjacent land areas (from the Chinese paper article extract).  UC was talking about developing adjacent land areas to revive this " iconic attraction of the city" this is after the previous lessor (from 2009) failed. http://www.asapholdings.com/acquisition-of-queen-mary-in-long-beach/ This article is more objective : https://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-queen-mary-20160421-story.html UC' s plan of USD250m investment is for developing the adjacent land.  The Mayor " called the deal with Urban Commons the most promising one he&rsquo s seen"   In early 2017 (not long after the lease deal), the City released a survey report that says this ship needs up to USD289m of " urgent repair" .  Prima facie, UC can' t be liable for the major repairs asserted by the owner (City).  The plan of UC is to use land side development to revive the iconinc attraction.  The sinking ship, if it is true, is the problem of the City.  The city is trying to hold the tenant responsible for the the structural integrity of the property it rents from the City.  This is not " maintenance" .  I guess they have been arguing this for 2 years since 2017.  This information was already available in IPO, part of of the reason of the lackluste debut performance.  The " 31 Oct default" story is just another recent development of the same argument, probably why UC or EHT didn' t even take it seriously since 1 Oct, until Edge runs that article.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
bishan22 Supreme	27-Oct-2019 13:19        bishan22 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Techically it looked so bleak......stay away....
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
CheeryVGoh Supreme	27-Oct-2019 12:58        CheeryVGoh About Contact  Quote this Post!   Mood:
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	EHT management should be more open and communicative thereon, if not management credibility would become an issue.....  uk1234      ( Date: 27-Oct-2019 12:08) Posted: Queen Mary acquisition. It seems UC paid " USD100m" in 2016 to the City for the 66y lease of the ship and adjacent land areas (from the Chinese paper article extract).  UC was talking about developing adjacent land areas to revive this " iconic attraction of the city" this is after the previous lessor (from 2009) failed. http://www.asapholdings.com/acquisition-of-queen-mary-in-long-beach/ This article is more objective : https://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-queen-mary-20160421-story.html UC' s plan of USD250m investment is for developing the adjacent land.  The Mayor " called the deal with Urban Commons the most promising one he&rsquo s seen"   In early 2017 (not long after the lease deal), the City released a survey report that says this ship needs up to USD289m of " urgent repair" .  Prima facie, UC can' t be liable for the major repairs asserted by the owner (City).  The plan of UC is to use land side development to revive the iconinc attraction.  The sinking ship, if it is true, is the problem of the City.  The city is trying to hold the tenant responsible for the the structural integrity of the property it rents from the City.  This is not " maintenance" .  I guess they have been arguing this for 2 years since 2017.  This information was already available in IPO, part of of the reason of the lackluste debut performance.  The " 31 Oct default" story is just another recent development of the same argument, probably why UC or EHT didn' t even take it seriously since 1 Oct, until Edge runs that article.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
uk1234 Member	27-Oct-2019 12:08        uk1234 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Queen Mary acquisition. It seems UC paid " USD100m" in 2016 to the City for the 66y lease of the ship and adjacent land areas (from the Chinese paper article extract).  UC was talking about developing adjacent land areas to revive this " iconic attraction of the city" this is after the previous lessor (from 2009) failed. http://www.asapholdings.com/acquisition-of-queen-mary-in-long-beach/ This article is more objective : https://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-queen-mary-20160421-story.html UC' s plan of USD250m investment is for developing the adjacent land.  The Mayor " called the deal with Urban Commons the most promising one he&rsquo s seen"   In early 2017 (not long after the lease deal), the City released a survey report that says this ship needs up to USD289m of " urgent repair" .  Prima facie, UC can' t be liable for the major repairs asserted by the owner (City).  The plan of UC is to use land side development to revive the iconinc attraction.  The sinking ship, if it is true, is the problem of the City.  The city is trying to hold the tenant responsible for the the structural integrity of the property it rents from the City.  This is not " maintenance" .  I guess they have been arguing this for 2 years since 2017.  This information was already available in IPO, part of of the reason of the lackluste debut performance.  The " 31 Oct default" story is just another recent development of the same argument, probably why UC or EHT didn' t even take it seriously since 1 Oct, until Edge runs that article.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
CheeryVGoh Supreme	26-Oct-2019 23:08        CheeryVGoh About Contact  Quote this Post!   Mood:
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Who took the cookie from the cookie jar? prophetjul      ( Date: 25-Oct-2019 08:47) Posted: All hearsay.....who is purposely lying?    Urban, the city, theedge, ?
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
CheeryVGoh Supreme	26-Oct-2019 22:10        CheeryVGoh About Contact  Quote this Post!   Mood:
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	As shown in Eagle Website :  DBS ceased to be Substantial Shareholder on 27/06/2019 No. of shares BEFORE the transaction :  Direct Interest : 49,560,450  As a percentage of total no. of shares : 5.7% Deemed Interest : 13,500,000 As a percentage of total no. of shares : 1.55% Total : 62,960,450 As a percentage of total no. of shares :  7.25% No. of shares AFTER the transaction :  Direct Interest : 25,460,450  As a percentage of total no. of shares : 2.93% Deemed Interest : 0 As a percentage of total no. of shares : 0% Total :  25,460,450  As a percentage of total no. of shares : 2.93%   CheeryVGoh      ( Date: 26-Oct-2019 16:33) Posted: Week of 16th Sep : Top 10 institution nett sell : 11.9mil Top 10 retail nett buy : 11.5mil CheeryVGoh      ( Date: 26-Oct-2019 16:20) Posted: Week of 2nd Sep : Top 10 institution nett sell : $ 2.6mil Top 10 retail nett buy :$2. 4mil
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
uk1234 Member	26-Oct-2019 21:32        uk1234 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 1   x 0  Alert Admin	thanks Dusktilldawn for the details of that ship. so UC sign up for free and assume the liablility to maintain it.  It spent 160m in last 3 years and the site is deemed operational.  The city thinks otherwise, and demands UC to spend another 280m now, otherwise it' s a breach of contract for " failing to maintain it" , is that right ?  " Failing to maintain it" to what standard ?  Safe to operate, or back to original glorious days ? This to me is a very disingeneous scheme from the city.  As of now, if the site is unfit to operate, the hotel would have stopped operation.  It hasn' t.  So it looks to me UC has fulfilled at least its minimal obligation, but the city wants more.    UC has a structural enginering firm certifying the site is safe to operate,  city has an independent contractor that says otherwise.  If this goes to court, the outcome will be based on facts, that whether the site is genuinely unfit to operate, and whether UC has severely underestimated the cost of the maintenance on its own, with expert opinion , or the city deliberately misleads/hides the fact that it intends to ask the operator to spend 500m to  " maintain" , so to get UC to sign on the lease, as knowing this fact, no one will sign up the lease.  (To me it' s none of the above.  The city is just not happy UC is making money out of this with minimal investment putting in.) This is US, a legal case like this will drag for years.  Of course big name sponsor counts.  KIT has Basslink, this one has this ship.  KIT claims Basslink is " completely ringfenced and non recourse" , this one better, the " maintenance cost is completely bound by sponsor, not the reit" .  KIT' s basslink story has ran for years.  This one has just started.  In investment , everything has a fair price.  It' s not about how good an asset is. It' s about at what price.  Opportunity comes when something is mispriced. Do you own DD.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Goldfinger Supreme	26-Oct-2019 20:27        Goldfinger About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Best is MINT and MCOT and AHT - I made heaps and heaps from those - enough to buy FOC 5 room BTO.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
uiop1223 Supreme	26-Oct-2019 19:51        uiop1223 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Agree.. own CMT and never had such issues Dusktilldawn      ( Date: 26-Oct-2019 19:35) Posted: --- Post Removed by User ---
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Goldfinger Supreme	26-Oct-2019 19:44        Goldfinger About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	So the obligation is on UC and Eagle can walk away... Dusktilldawn      ( Date: 26-Oct-2019 19:35) Posted: --- Post Removed by User ---
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me

                                                         First   < Newer   3021-3040 of 3380   Older>   Last