QUOTE(mthc @ Dec 11 2015, 06:51 PM)
If 10% is high risk then all project financing can go longkang already.
Yes 45 mil turnover is very small but it was a 3 times fold from 2010, given that it's the subsidiary of mulpha int. And even if it's a 22 mil paid up capital company, it has a solid TNW of 140mil. So does that mean all the sme with 500k paid up but million of TNW are considerably small also? Lol.. Bro.. this is a developer and their revenue is recognised upon completion of projects. If there are no projects yet to be completed then how would the revenue be big? Some developers recognise their revenue upon progressive billing.
You said that there will be a risk of execution in the events of default plus it's 113mil land cost which is deemed high in yr scenario but mulpha int acts as a guarantor to loans from bank. Given the size of mulpha int, the land cost is nth comparable to its CG"s paid up of 1.3bil or a clearer indicator, it's TNW of 2.4bil. Thriven TNW of 140mil is able to cover lumi tropicana land cost of 113mil already. And also fyi, purchasing the land and securing a contract to finance the project are two different events so ya.
I'm just giving an indicator to yr high land cost in terms of a gdv. Ya I admit I was being sarcastic in comparing. Idk how to calculate bro. Just trying my luck to keep my job with false calculation.
I'm learning too. Cheers buddy
I just pluck 10% out of thin air. To me, 10% risk is too high because it is not worth the reward. If purchasers are willing to take 10% or more risk of abandonment, they should be compensated by rewards in the form of lower pricing compared to the market...but they are not...they are paying future price(whatever that means). They are buying on the assumption everything will be delivered according to plan - to me, that is a big assumption. Even if they get everything delivered according to plan, is the price still too high? that is a question purchasers have to ask themselves(but I know they won't because as satrionex said, there are suckers everywhere)
TNW = total net worth? It does not mean much when a company has liquidity problem. A company can have billions of NTA but still can go bankkrupt or a particular project can be abandoned and the company is still operational. The fact that banks need a CG from Mulpha tell you the stability of the developer right? I don't know of any CG and what does the CG cover(purchasers go find them out themselves). A CG only cover the banks. CG is not everything. You cannot say just because a company has NTA of billions that they can take on any projects. Do you know all of their other financial commitments?
I am just saying comparatively, I would prefer Tropicana to develop the piece of land themselves as their cost is low and they have the track record. I understand that nobody cares much because everybody fully expect things to work out just fine and normally they do. But...in case, it does not, are you prepared to swallow the 1.2mil or lesser loss? Are you able to recover from the loss? Will it put you into financial misery for the rest of your life? Is 10% chance of the happening too high for you? Those are the questions purchasers should be asking.
This post has been edited by Brandon323: Dec 12 2015, 11:22 AM