Singapore Land

[opmi]

GO price can be any price as long as highest price bought by
Buyer in six months.

Whether it is fair, depends on IFA and ID opinion.

[DP28]

GO price can be any price as long as highest price bought by
Buyer in six months.

Whether it is fair, depends on IFA and ID opinion.

Thanks for sharing, does that mean that if I buy SP land at higher than offer of $9.40 piror to last 6 months. I will be offered at my Buy price?

I must say reputable bosses these days are hard to find. You may identify a worthy undervalue stock but they may not offer you whats its real worth.

[Tiggerbee]

GO price can be any price as long as highest price bought by
Buyer in six months.

Whether it is fair, depends on IFA and ID opinion.

Thanks for sharing, does that mean that if I buy SP land at higher than offer of $9.40 piror to last 6 months. I will be offered at my Buy price?

I must say reputable bosses these days are hard to find. You may identify a worthy undervalue stock but they may not offer you whats its real worth.

There are so many other better commercial property stocks in HK that are priced at steeper discounts than Singland and has more cash than Singland. HK listed property stocks are down about 5% today while Capitaland and Keppel Land with big China exposure are only down less than 1%. Which is more undervalued?

[opmi]

GO price can be any price as long as highest price bought by
Buyer in six months.

Whether it is fair, depends on IFA and ID opinion.

Thanks for sharing, does that mean that if I buy SP land at higher than offer of $9.40 piror to last 6 months. I will be offered at my Buy price?

I must say reputable bosses these days are hard to find. You may identify a worthy undervalue stock but they may not offer you whats its real worth.

Jialat. the BUYER i meant was the Offeror, UIC. the minimum offer price must be the highest price UIC paid for its shares for previous 6 months.
UIC dont care what price you paid...haha...

Low ball offer is part and parcel of takeovers. the guardians are supposed to be independent directors and IFAs. But in reality, may not be. Good example of IDs doing their jobs is FNN IDs. But these guys got reputation to protection.

[greengiraffe]

UIC's offer for SingLand 'too low'

Published on Apr 01, 2014



By Melissa Tan

THE second-largest investor in mainboard-listed Singapore Land has thrown a spanner into United Industrial Corporation's (UIC) takeover bid for the firm.

Investment fund Silchester International Investors, which holds 8.16 per cent of SingLand shares, said in a statement yesterday that UIC's offer was "too low".

It added that an independent financial adviser that had called the offer "fair and reasonable" should have considered more factors.

UIC, which is linked to banking tycoon Wee Cho Yaw, already owns 80.36 per cent of SingLand. It offered $9.40 apiece in February for the rest, which totals up to $761 million.

UIC wants to delist SingLand from the Singapore Exchange if its offer succeeds, to give it more flexibility and to optimise the use of its management and capital resources.

Delisting the company would also help to save expenses incurred to maintain SingLand's listing status, UIC said earlier.

Its offer got the thumbs-up last month from independent financial adviser ANZ, which said it was "fair and reasonable".

However, Silchester said that ANZ only evaluated the offer on financial terms and should have also looked at the offer's commercial risks or merits.

These "are important issues, especially since shareholders are being asked to give away all these commercial, strategic and long-term rights", it said.

"No attempt has been made to look at the underlying business and evaluate its commercial opportunities."

SingLand's strong finances were also "a very considerable advantage" and ANZ should have taken this into account, Silchester said.

It added that if it does not see a "full and fair offer" by UIC for SingLand shares, it may sell part of its client's holdings such that its stake falls below 5 per cent.

"This is likely to significantly impair the efforts of UIC to delist the company. Taking these steps helps to safeguard part of our client's interests," it said.

In Singapore, shareholders who own 5 per cent or more of a company are considered substantial shareholders and not part of the public float.

If Silchester's stake falls below 5 per cent, its shareholding percentage will get added to SingLand's public float, which is at 11.38 per cent.

UIC needs the public float to fall below 10 per cent before it can take SingLand private.

SingLand owns Singapore Land Tower, Clifford Centre in Raffles Place and about 280,000 sq ft at SGX Centre in Shenton Way. It also owns The Gateway in Beach Road and Abacus and Tampines Plaza in Tampines Central.

Its shares closed flat at $9.43 yesterday. UIC's offer is due to close on April 7, or later if so announced.

[email protected]

[opmi]

Let the negotiations begin...

Nothing on UIC and Sp Land Anncs leh...I thought I miss it.

[SpeedingBullet]

If Silchester garners an additional 2% more people to hold off that 10% threshold to take Singland private, what can UOB do (being the majority shareholders, >70%) apart from raising the offer (which I doubt will happen)?

[opmi]

Silchester cannot get another 2%. That will trigger 'Minimum free float' suspension.
Which UIC is counting on that so that minority investors will give up to the Offer.
(Any shareholders holding more than 5% is counted as 'non free float")

Silchester said will REDUCE to less than 5% so it's holdings will NOT
count as non public free float. Foiling UIC's possible threat of suspension.

SGX should change this stupid free float rule. 10% of SingLand is $400m.
Some mkt cap of new IPO is less than $30m. Why SGX let listed companies with value
of free float is less than $6m while forcing delisting of companies with $400m of free float?
Why har?? (Read http://webb-site.com/articles/hobsonschoice.asp)

[ngcheeki]

Game over, Silchester pare down their stake below to 5%. I thought they proclaimed that the "UIC's offer for SingLand 'too low'"??

http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/_form3si...eID=289608

[opmi]

If Silchester garners an additional 2% more people to hold off that 10% threshold to take Singland private, what can UOB do (being the majority shareholders, >70%) apart from raising the offer (which I doubt will happen)?

Since Silchester already 带头 to speak up, the rest of minority will not tender their shares for this UIC Offer.

This is not an delisting exercise so 10% rejection resolution dont come into play. The only concern in this Offer is the free float suspension as described above post.

For UIC to compulsory acquire Sing Land, UIC need to acquire 98%. Which is impossible with Silchester 8% or (slightly less than 5%).