Singapore Land

[kbl]

Good afternoon everyone.

Trading halt for UIC and SpLand.

[kbl]

http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/Extensio...eID=290146


EXTENSION OF OFFER PERIOD-Accordingly, the Offer shall close at 5.30 p.m. (Singapore time) on 21 April 2014, or such later date(s) as may be announced from time to time by or on behalf of the Offeror.
No price increase and the Offeror will not be allowed to subsequently amend the terms of the Offer, including the Offer Price, in any way

<vested><not a call to buy or sell>

[safetyfirst]

It seems like the boss doesnt really care if sp land get delisted or not! If can, good, if cannot so be it

[greengiraffe]

We are dealing with the ultimate godfather - Emeritus Banker Wee who have already seen through literally all the ups and downs of life...

He will not be held ransom for anything except perhaps (the ultimate ending for anyone...)

Minorities don't surrender, the company will keep going and probably outlive anyone.

GG

It seems like the boss doesnt really care if sp land get delisted or not! If can, good, if cannot so be it

[sgd]

what I see the strength of the wee empire lies in the various company cross holdings making it very hard to take down but there in lies the weakness also because to delist you need to unwind undo some of these holdings, the main thing against wee now is time 83yo already, health?

how many more years can play cat and mouse with not only summit but temasek also who could be interested.

[kbl]

What The Fish! Trading Halt again.

[kbl]

What The Fish! Trading Halt again.

Lifting of Trading Halt-1500hrs.

[specuvestor]

First time see SGX query ID on offer price. SGX growing backbone..

http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/Response...eID=290085

Maybe it's just because it is Wee....

[greengiraffe]

Is UIC's offer for SingLand fair?

BYLYNETTE KHOO
lynkhoo@sph.com.sg
PRINT |EMAIL THIS ARTICLE
Sglanduicoffer1104

While UIC will still be able to seek a voluntary delisting of SingLand if it does not garner sufficient shares in SingLand, the move by Silchester has raised the question of whether the exit offer was fair - PHOTO: UIC LIMITED
application/pdf iconOffer premiums for SingLand
WHEN United Industrial Corp (UIC) made a takeover offer for its 80.36 per cent subsidiary Singapore Land (SingLand), it seemed to be a breeze to cross the 90 per cent threshold for compulsory acquisition to take place.
All was well and good when UIC's independent financial adviser ANZ termed the offer as "fair and reasonable" and shareholders were advised by independent directors to accept the offer.
But many eyebrows were raised when SingLand's second-largest shareholder, Silchester International, threw a spanner into the takeover bid by selling 13.25 million SingLand shares on the open market.
The transaction lowered the US-based fund's holding to about 4.95 per cent, down from a substantial 8.16 per cent. The move by Silchester also meant UIC having to acquire more than 9 per cent of outstanding shares for the delisting to take place.
Earlier, UIC would need to secure only just above one per cent of the shares from the free float as Silchester's substantial 8.16 per cent stake was not deemed to be part of the public float under SGX listing rules. Under Singapore rules, it is deemed that a company needs to delist if less than 10 per cent of its shares are in the public float.
While UIC will still be able to seek a voluntary delisting of SingLand if it does not garner sufficient shares in SingLand, the move by Silchester has raised the question of whether the exit offer was fair.
Looking at the way the share price of SingLand has responded to the offer, it would appear that investors do not agree with the offer price of $9.40 a share. SingLand shares have been trading above the offer price on most days since the offer date. This would defy logic given that UIC has already said it will not revise the offer price.
When considering the fairness of a takeover offer, the independent financial adviser typically looks at past transactions over one year.
While this is common market practice, the outcome in this case is a list of companies across vast industries that are not exactly comparable. The delisting of some Chinese companies last year also skewed the list somewhat with their lower offer premiums.
Even going by this not-all-perfect list of comparables, the offer premium for SingLand is lower than the median seen for successful delisting offers and privatisation offers last year.
Offer premiums
If one were to narrow the list to purely Singapore-based developers that have delisted in the past few years, the companies making the list would be MCL Land, Allgreen, and SC Global.
By comparing the offer premium for SingLand with the offer premiums for these companies, it would appear that UIC's offer price for SingLand represents a measly premium of 11.2 per cent over the last transacted price before the offer date, compared with the takeover offer premiums of 25.6 per cent for MCL, 39.13 per cent for Allgreen and 49.4 per cent for SC Global.
The premium gap would be wider when we look at the offer premium over a one-year volume weighted average price (VWAP). It would be 7.85 per cent for SingLand, compared with 30.2 per cent for MCL, 43.2 per cent for Allgreen and 71.1 per cent for SC Global.
Arguably, market conditions are now different from those prevalent when the takeover offers for the other property companies were made. But the softening property market sentiment should already have been priced into the share price of SingLand. Hence, it would not be fair to say that a smaller offer premium is justified because of weaker market conditions.
The starkly smaller premium for SingLand becomes less justifiable when one considers that shares of MCL, Allgreen and SC Global all had a strong run-up of more than 50 per cent over the preceding one year prior to their offer dates - this again reinforces the argument that stronger market conditions then were priced into the shares of those property counters.
It could be that MCL, Allgreen and SC Global's larger free floats at the time of their delistings meant that a more compelling offer was required to gain sufficient acceptances from shareholders.
But the rather small pool of public investors in the case of SingLand should still deserve their fair share of returns for having stuck with the company through past property cycles.
Minority shareholders of SingLand risk being worse off holding illiquid stocks if they choose not to accept UIC's offer by the close of the offer. They are perhaps better off accepting the offer and use the cash to buy into a higher yielding property stock.
More time
Yet, at the same time, they are finding the exit offer from UIC less appealing, relative to the gains of shareholders of other property developers that delisted.
UIC probably realises that minority shareholders need more time to decide on the offer when it extended the closing date for the offer from April 7 to April 21.
But whether it realises how its offer is viewed by other investors remains a big question mark. Hopefully, the exit of SingLand from the Singapore bourse will not leave shareholders with a bitter aftertaste when it is within UIC's means to make the parting sweeter.

[opmi]

How the article never mention there is only ONE independent director
evaluating the Offer? The rest of SL independent directors are also UIC IDs.
Why was the SL Board composition like that? As it is shown by
this Offer, the interests of the holding and subsidiary may not be aligned. Therefore,
IDs of holdings and subsidiary companies should be different to ensure all shareholders
interests are looked after.

This is not just for Wee companies. Keppel also has the issue. .