QUOTE(yok70 @ Jan 3 2012, 01:03 PM)
private placement is usually at discount price to market price, so it's actually worse for shareholders than RI. With RI, at least every shareholder has the chance to neutralize the dilution if they invest more by subscribing to all RI offered.
However, as long as the diluted % is less or equal to the % of the new income by newly injected assets per year, it's not a bad idea for long term investor as it just required 1 year for break even.

It depended how private placement being carried out.
I preferred private placement over RI.
I won't care about dilution in shareholding, as reit is not as same as ordinary company, whereby stake or dilution is important.
In reit, what we care is about as fixed income instrument.
As long as the private placement doesn't cause dilution on EPS, DPU, aka yield of the reit, it is a miles better way than RI.
For eg. What Axreit did with its private placement, although stake within Axreit is diluted, we are getting higher DPU and with more diversified asset in its portfolio.
Have a stake of 10% with 5 properties vs 5% in 10 properties is no different if view from fixed income purposes.
Instead the later is better.
On the other hand, private placement can be a better indicator that the company has little difficulty to raise money than RI.