Union Gas Holdings

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
#11
Coincidentally, i just changed my gas cylinder yesterday. What we did was simply call the number in the sticker on the gas cylinder. And of course, it came from the same supplier and I had already paid an earlier deposit. Unless the whole thing explodes, i don't believe we will change the supplier again. If the supplier gets bought out - i am agnostic to it as long as someone picks up the phone when i refer to the sticker.

Of course, unless someone starts some sort of gas cylinder sharing (pun), I believe Towkay Teo's LPG business is pretty sticky in a sense for the retail customer (at least until the day where gas cylinder buying gets e-commericalized). Of course, there are corporate clients (eg. coffee shops and restaurants) but this is where prices and the scale of the distribution network comes in. Prices and scale becomes an advantage as one gets larger.

From pg134 of the prospectus, excluding its shrinking CNG taxi customers and single diesel kiosk station, Union Gas wants to grow via acquiring existing LPG cylinder competitors - something which it has done with the announcement on 12/29. So it wants to get bigger in an overall market that is stagnant/shrinking - From the textbook case, it may become a case of "Efficient Scale" here where the market is not attractive to new participants. The upside comes when the pool of existing participants get less with M&A, and then the remaining players improve their bottom-line and then become more and more "efficient" in extracting profits from customers.

The bad is obvious in Union Gas and the IPTs make the "structure" part of ABS (asset/business/structure) of analyzing the company, worrying. But interesting to see Towkay's next steps to see whether there is any good to out-trumps the bad.
I am not a certified financial advisor and so nothing of what I say should be construed as financial advice. Please consult a certified financial advisor for advice instead.
Reply
#12
The 'sponsor' is selling its assets to Union Gas, with the latter paying the former mainly in shares.

http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/2018-03-...eID=493412

Union Gas gearing up to the incoming competition from GasHub?

https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/compani...ia-listing

'The Singapore gas piping firm plans to start selling liquefied natural gas (LNG) to industrial users in small cylinders...'
Reply
#13
A 2x increase in director fees' is surely a lot. Looking at UGH's annual report, only 4 out of the 5 in the BOD take director fees. So 242k/4 = 60k per director was probably still ok for a 120mil cap company.

With the new fee structure, each of the 4 director's remuneration would now be ~180k per annum in FY24. That would be quite comparable to the fees that a NEID on Keppel's BOD received in FY23. And mind you, Keppel Ltd's market cap is 100x more than UGH.

MINUTES OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

Could the Chairman provide insight on the notable rise in the Director fees from S$242,678 to S$773,686, amounting to a half-million-dollar increase as compared to last year?

The Chairman addressed that the Company had minimum adjustment on Directors’ fee for the past years. He acknowledged the Shareholders' concerns in relation to the magnitude of the fee increase, he is in the view that with the leadership of the
Board and extensive experience in the industry, the Company's performance could be able to justify the increase.

https://links.sgx.com/FileOpen/UGHL-AGM-...eID=805129
I am not a certified financial advisor and so nothing of what I say should be construed as financial advice. Please consult a certified financial advisor for advice instead.
Reply
#14
(31-05-2024, 12:05 PM)weijian Wrote: A 2x increase in director fees' is surely a lot. Looking at UGH's annual report, only 4 out of the 5 in the BOD take director fees. So 242k/4 = 60k per director was probably still ok for a 120mil cap company.

With the new fee structure, each of the 4 director's remuneration would now be ~180k per annum in FY24. That would be quite comparable to the fees that a NEID on Keppel's BOD received in FY23. And mind you, Keppel Ltd's market cap is 100x more than UGH.

MINUTES OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

Could the Chairman provide insight on the notable rise in the Director fees from S$242,678 to S$773,686, amounting to a half-million-dollar increase as compared to last year?

The Chairman addressed that the Company had minimum adjustment on Directors’ fee for the past years. He acknowledged the Shareholders' concerns in relation to the magnitude of the fee increase, he is in the view that with the leadership of the
Board and extensive experience in the industry, the Company's performance could be able to justify the increase.

https://links.sgx.com/FileOpen/UGHL-AGM-...eID=805129

The issue of high director fees have been asked again in the AGM. Back in FY23, only bands were given but thanks to the change in CG code, the exact remuneration has been revealed.

From AR25's remuneration report, 4 out of the 5 directors were paid director fees - Founder Teo (non executive chairman) was paid 600k and the other 3 NEDs were each paid ~59k-66k. So of the 800k director fees, Founder Teo gets the lion share. This fee structure where the chairman garners a comparatively larger fee than the remaining NEDs, is actually quite common as many SGX listed TLCs like Keppel/Capitaland Investment/SGX/ST Engineering have similar fee disparity.

FYI, these NED chairman of these TLC companies each command fixed fees of ~750k and so I suppose Founder Teo, been founder still has some way to match them. Smile

MINUTES OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

A Shareholder mentioned that he has raised questions on directors’ fee three years ago. The Chairman responded that the directors’ fees of S$800,000 were intended to reward the directors for their contributions. The shareholder reminded that directors’ fees is not binary. Banks directors’ fees are very high as they have 10 to 15 directors. He opined that as the Company has only five directors, with directors’ fees of S$800,000 is considered high.

Based on his observation, if the public or shareholder or potential investors see that the directors have been providing new projects and property
development that benefit the Company, the share price will go up but not vice versa. He quoted an example of another listed company for information. He hoped that the Chairman will not take this personally as this is just his comments and everybody is working for the benefits of the Company.

MoM: https://links.sgx.com/FileOpen/20260429-...eID=890666
I am not a certified financial advisor and so nothing of what I say should be construed as financial advice. Please consult a certified financial advisor for advice instead.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)