Post Reply
81-100 of 566
So we expecting price to go up or down?
taggart ( Date: 18-May-2016 16:44) Posted:
just checked with IR (ms tammy teo) - results out 26 May after market closes
|
|
just checked with IR (ms tammy teo) - results out 26 May after market closes
Need to expect 7mil. If 11mil aims for spec div. Below 6mil bye bye.
ecekca ( Date: 14-May-2016 11:53) Posted:
That good
think maybe net profit $4mio again
sheerluck ( Date: 12-May-2016 22:52) Posted:
CA Q4 should be their strongest because of year-end bonus and CNY effect. That' s also the reason why they end FY in March.
Growth wise they have been flat for quite some years now. They cannot grow during good times, I dont think they can grow during these bleak times. Their expansion plan may take some time to see benefit if any.
I dont think CA will be in red.
|
|
|
|
That good
think maybe net profit $4mio again
sheerluck ( Date: 12-May-2016 22:52) Posted:
CA Q4 should be their strongest because of year-end bonus and CNY effect. That' s also the reason why they end FY in March.
Growth wise they have been flat for quite some years now. They cannot grow during good times, I dont think they can grow during these bleak times. Their expansion plan may take some time to see benefit if any.
I dont think CA will be in red.
ecekca ( Date: 12-May-2016 21:56) Posted:
Hmm, think they should be flat but maybe with indon growth
|
|
|
|
CA Q4 should be their strongest because of year-end bonus and CNY effect. That' s also the reason why they end FY in March.
Growth wise they have been flat for quite some years now. They cannot grow during good times, I dont think they can grow during these bleak times. Their expansion plan may take some time to see benefit if any.
I dont think CA will be in red.
ecekca ( Date: 12-May-2016 21:56) Posted:
Hmm, think they should be flat but maybe with indon growth
Qanghoo ( Date: 12-May-2016 20:29) Posted:
Will CA suffer the same fate?
|
|
|
|
Hmm, think they should be flat but maybe with indon growth
Qanghoo ( Date: 12-May-2016 20:29) Posted:
Will CA suffer the same fate?
|
|
Will CA suffer the same fate?
I sure think they got a very compelling reason to do so but will they risk reputation and very unlikely to relist a third time and still expect people to fall into their trap. Fool me once shame on me, Fool me twice shame on you. Fool me third time? No way.
Qanghoo ( Date: 07-May-2016 21:48) Posted:
Thx, brother. I took my info from the coy' s last annual rpt. Anyway, for a delisting, one single shareholder, or group acting in concert, must hold at least 90%. Here we have a few diverse grps. Also, the Spore RG has been a substantial shareholder probably for > 25 yrs. They had listed, delisted n relisted Courts already. So, unless they have very compelling reasons (which they may) doubt if they abt to do another privatisation anytime soon.
nngeeh ( Date: 07-May-2016 21:19) Posted:
SGX website shows Singapore Retail Group-73.13%, Target Value Fund-5.64%, Target Asset Management Pte Ltd-5.64%, Terence O' connor-3.34%. These four adds up to be 87.75%. The target value fund and target asset management are both fund house... I don' t think they operate like brokage house where it' s showing multiple nominees. Not sure if the Sgx website is up to date.
What will happen if their shareholding exceed 90%?
|
|
|
|
Brought up to share.
sheerluck ( Date: 12-Apr-2016 12:53) Posted:
Courts majority shareholder is SRG owned by ARG ownd by BPE (Barring Private Equity Fund). PE don' t do charity. Previously, they delisted COURTS at 55cts and relisted in 2012 at 77cts. So already pocket 22cts differences. Then for the relisting they raised $137mil. $86mil out of that goes into BPE pocket. The rest which is less than half goes into the business.
COURTS is now trading at 40% discount to NAV and SRG own over 70% of COURTS. If they want to repeat telecast again, who can stop them. Everything is done according to the so-called laws, rules and regulations.
If they do wnat to take it private, the lower the trading price the better it is. Paid $6 to get $10. Only bug fund can get this type of lobang. But how come despite COURTS aggressive share buyback, price only goes one direction?
If I self direct own acting, I can control the ending.
Lgtm2001 ( Date: 12-Apr-2016 12:00) Posted:
Oh no...maybe u r right. Suddenly no demand. Sell pressure increased.
|
|
|
|
If you look at the recent announcement of Indiabulls property trust, it is stated that the public float is less than 10% and SGX may suspend the counter. If you look up the ownership, it is made up of a few substantial shareholders. Initially, one of the major shareholder triggered the mandatory offer because when they acquired 1% which increased the shareholding from 47.5% to 48.51%. Somehow, in the most recent announcement, it was also announced that the public float has reduced to below 10% and could be suspended. I am curious on the definition of public float. If Indiabulls trust could face suspension even though the main shareholder increased their shareholding to 48.51%, this could happen to courts too. I am interested to know the delisting rule... The Indiabull trusts offer a good case study.
Qanghoo ( Date: 07-May-2016 21:48) Posted:
Thx, brother. I took my info from the coy' s last annual rpt. Anyway, for a delisting, one single shareholder, or group acting in concert, must hold at least 90%. Here we have a few diverse grps. Also, the Spore RG has been a substantial shareholder probably for > 25 yrs. They had listed, delisted n relisted Courts already. So, unless they have very compelling reasons (which they may) doubt if they abt to do another privatisation anytime soon.
nngeeh ( Date: 07-May-2016 21:19) Posted:
SGX website shows Singapore Retail Group-73.13%, Target Value Fund-5.64%, Target Asset Management Pte Ltd-5.64%, Terence O' connor-3.34%. These four adds up to be 87.75%. The target value fund and target asset management are both fund house... I don' t think they operate like brokage house where it' s showing multiple nominees. Not sure if the Sgx website is up to date.
What will happen if their shareholding exceed 90%?
|
|
|
|
Thx, brother. I took my info from the coy' s last annual rpt. Anyway, for a delisting, one single shareholder, or group acting in concert, must hold at least 90%. Here we have a few diverse grps. Also, the Spore RG has been a substantial shareholder probably for > 25 yrs. They had listed, delisted n relisted Courts already. So, unless they have very compelling reasons (which they may) doubt if they abt to do another privatisation anytime soon.
nngeeh ( Date: 07-May-2016 21:19) Posted:
SGX website shows Singapore Retail Group-73.13%, Target Value Fund-5.64%, Target Asset Management Pte Ltd-5.64%, Terence O' connor-3.34%. These four adds up to be 87.75%. The target value fund and target asset management are both fund house... I don' t think they operate like brokage house where it' s showing multiple nominees. Not sure if the Sgx website is up to date.
What will happen if their shareholding exceed 90%?
Qanghoo ( Date: 07-May-2016 17:48) Posted:
Singapore Retail Group Ltd which is part of the Asia Retail Group Ltd, which is in turned partly owned by a private equity fund owns 71% of CA. Think the rest are probably in public hands, some held through nominee accounts of various broking houses probably because investors purchase their shares via margin financing.
|
|
|
|
SGX website shows Singapore Retail Group-73.13%, Target Value Fund-5.64%, Target Asset Management Pte Ltd-5.64%, Terence O' connor-3.34%. These four adds up to be 87.75%. The target value fund and target asset management are both fund house... I don' t think they operate like brokage house where it' s showing multiple nominees. Not sure if the Sgx website is up to date.
What will happen if their shareholding exceed 90%?
Qanghoo ( Date: 07-May-2016 17:48) Posted:
Singapore Retail Group Ltd which is part of the Asia Retail Group Ltd, which is in turned partly owned by a private equity fund owns 71% of CA. Think the rest are probably in public hands, some held through nominee accounts of various broking houses probably because investors purchase their shares via margin financing.
nngeeh ( Date: 07-May-2016 16:42) Posted:
The substantial shareholders are made up of private funds....not brokeage firm. I Guess if it is private funds, it should be counted as single entity, right?
|
|
|
|
when the result coming out?
so if the % holding own by PE are around 71%, there might be a possibility of takeover at a premium i guess
Qanghoo ( Date: 07-May-2016 20:26) Posted:
Haha, brother, I like ur post, really.
sheerluck ( Date: 07-May-2016 20:19) Posted:
Normally, Q4 is their best quarter. If this trend continues, 1.75cts and above possible. But if Courts feels bad that they let down their shareholders, they can always consider another 1cts spec div.
|
|
|
|
Haha, brother, I like ur post, really.
sheerluck ( Date: 07-May-2016 20:19) Posted:
Normally, Q4 is their best quarter. If this trend continues, 1.75cts and above possible. But if Courts feels bad that they let down their shareholders, they can always consider another 1cts spec div.
Qanghoo ( Date: 20-Apr-2016 07:32) Posted:
If result improves further, can get 1.5c div?
|
|
|
|
Normally, Q4 is their best quarter. If this trend continues, 1.75cts and above possible. But if Courts feels bad that they let down their shareholders, they can always consider another 1cts spec div.
Qanghoo ( Date: 20-Apr-2016 07:32) Posted:
If result improves further, can get 1.5c div?
|
|
Singapore Retail Group Ltd which is part of the Asia Retail Group Ltd, which is in turned partly owned by a private equity fund owns 71% of CA. Think the rest are probably in public hands, some held through nominee accounts of various broking houses probably because investors purchase their shares via margin financing.
nngeeh ( Date: 07-May-2016 16:42) Posted:
The substantial shareholders are made up of private funds....not brokeage firm. I Guess if it is private funds, it should be counted as single entity, right?
edwinjup ( Date: 07-May-2016 12:44) Posted:
| The nominees maybe consists.of hundreds shareholders.....eg margin acc etc...will register under nominees |
|
|
|
The substantial shareholders are made up of private funds....not brokeage firm. I Guess if it is private funds, it should be counted as single entity, right?
edwinjup ( Date: 07-May-2016 12:44) Posted:
The nominees maybe consists.of hundreds shareholders.....eg margin acc etc...will register under nominees
nngeeh ( Date: 07-May-2016 11:44) Posted:
Can anyone share the rules of delisting? I understand that six might suspend the trading if the public float is less than 10%
From the sgx website, the public float is reflected as 26.46%, but when you add up the total share of all substantial shareholders, the total is 88.22%.
What is the definition of public float, and does it include all the substantial shareholders?
What will happen if courts keep buyback until all substantial shareholders hold more than 90% and the form together as a single " concert party" that holds more than 90%? In this scenario, as it has crossed 90%, they can enforce compulsory aquisition of all shares. At what price will they buy the rest of the 10% since they will not even need to table any offer?
|
|
|
|
The nominees maybe consists.of hundreds shareholders.....eg margin acc etc...will register under nominees
nngeeh ( Date: 07-May-2016 11:44) Posted:
Can anyone share the rules of delisting? I understand that six might suspend the trading if the public float is less than 10%
From the sgx website, the public float is reflected as 26.46%, but when you add up the total share of all substantial shareholders, the total is 88.22%.
What is the definition of public float, and does it include all the substantial shareholders?
What will happen if courts keep buyback until all substantial shareholders hold more than 90% and the form together as a single " concert party" that holds more than 90%? In this scenario, as it has crossed 90%, they can enforce compulsory aquisition of all shares. At what price will they buy the rest of the 10% since they will not even need to table any offer?
|
|
I meant sgx might suspend the share trading. The spell check keep changing it to " six" instead of sgx.
nngeeh ( Date: 07-May-2016 12:32) Posted:
Sorry, I meant six might suspend trading if the public float falls less than 10%
nngeeh ( Date: 07-May-2016 11:44) Posted:
Can anyone share the rules of delisting? I understand that six might suspend the trading if the public float is less than 10%
From the sgx website, the public float is reflected as 26.46%, but when you add up the total share of all substantial shareholders, the total is 88.22%.
What is the definition of public float, and does it include all the substantial shareholders?
What will happen if courts keep buyback until all substantial shareholders hold more than 90% and the form together as a single " concert party" that holds more than 90%? In this scenario, as it has crossed 90%, they can enforce compulsory aquisition of all shares. At what price will they buy the rest of the 10% since they will not even need to table any offer?
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I meant six might suspend trading if the public float falls less than 10%
nngeeh ( Date: 07-May-2016 11:44) Posted:
Can anyone share the rules of delisting? I understand that six might suspend the trading if the public float is less than 10%
From the sgx website, the public float is reflected as 26.46%, but when you add up the total share of all substantial shareholders, the total is 88.22%.
What is the definition of public float, and does it include all the substantial shareholders?
What will happen if courts keep buyback until all substantial shareholders hold more than 90% and the form together as a single " concert party" that holds more than 90%? In this scenario, as it has crossed 90%, they can enforce compulsory aquisition of all shares. At what price will they buy the rest of the 10% since they will not even need to table any offer?
|
|
