Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Topic Closed RSS Feed

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 REIT, real estate investment...

views
     
constant
post Nov 20 2008, 06:29 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
171 posts

Joined: Sep 2008
QUOTE(cherroy @ Nov 20 2008, 05:16 PM)
Slap your own face twice, to see whether you are dreaming or not. Haha.

Lai lai lai, 1.20 cheap cheap, 12.5% gross yield. biggrin.gif

Buy at your own risk.  tongue.gif
*
Hi cherroy,

How do you derive 12.5% gross yield? klsetracker showing only about 10+%?
constant
post Jul 24 2009, 10:55 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
171 posts

Joined: Sep 2008
Hi,

How do we account for dividends from Reits for tax purpose? Does the company give it net of 10% tax? Do we have to pay tax on the net proceeds received again? I remember for share was like we declare the gross dividends as income and then claim back the tax rebate or something? thx
constant
post Jul 25 2009, 04:16 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
171 posts

Joined: Sep 2008
Hi Jordy,

What do you mean by increase net yield by 2%? How? Magic ah?


Added on July 25, 2009, 4:26 pm

Do you guys own properties personally for investments? It is true that it is less liquid but investing personally allows you to have higher leverage provided you get some high yield properties. If you have rm100k, you can invest in properties up to a million. Imagine the leverage when capital appeciation is factored in. For REITS, the higher yields are partly from the leverage employed by the REITs itself so in that sense, reits is interest rate sensitive too, just like bonds. If you own properties directly, you can have fixed rate loans removing the interest rate risk in case there is a sudden spike up like in Asian Fianancial crisis. Looking for some views here. Personally, I like reits for its convenience because I don't have to do anything like property owner but I am also thinking hard again which way is better.

This post has been edited by constant: Jul 25 2009, 04:26 PM
constant
post Jul 26 2009, 05:57 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
171 posts

Joined: Sep 2008
Is there something wrong with ARREIT. Its price stays so low even when all the REITS have gone up so much? Maybe investors are not confident with the either the quality of the management or the properties they are holding. Anyone has any idea?


Added on July 26, 2009, 6:13 pm
QUOTE(SKY 1809 @ Jul 25 2009, 12:44 PM)
REITS in Singapore generally are highly geared, some are facing cashflow problems at current moment.

Investors dump, hence share prices drop.

So returns look attractive as compared to low share prices.

On the other hand , the risk of going under is equally high.

That reminds  me those days where the co-operatives gave 10% int for FD , much higher than the banks.

That attracted a lot of investors to park their hard earned money with them, subsequently all went bust.

Our REITS as I understand are of low gearings, with higher capital base.

So knowing your own risk profile is important. besides the returns.

Just my opinion only.
*
Actually, the gearing of our local REITS are not that low either. That is why I have also considered investing in SREITs because for the same amount of risk, the returns are about 50% better for some of the Sreits. Cherroy mention the quality of the earnings (not depreciation) but I do not know what he means. Some of their reits are trading at much lower than NAV price. So, instead of being satisfied with the 10% yield in local reits, why not invest in sreits and get 13%-15% returns.



This post has been edited by constant: Jul 26 2009, 06:13 PM
constant
post Jul 26 2009, 11:43 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
171 posts

Joined: Sep 2008
QUOTE(ante5k @ Jul 26 2009, 10:35 PM)
regarding the NAV, i think  , for example, if a company go under, property sold, the money will be used to pay off the loan first, only the rest returned to shareholder.

by that, it means if a company have NAV higher then the current share value, we need to take into consideration its borrowings/gearing.

example, if the current NAV at RM1.00 per share and gearing at 40%, share price at RM0.90, if company goes under, shareholder get back only RM0.60. Thua losing additional RM0.30 even though trading RM0.10 below NAV per share.

it's always, bondholder first, shareholder second.

do correct me if i'm wrong.
*
I think NAV is just like NTA and is already net of loans.
constant
post Jul 26 2009, 11:51 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
171 posts

Joined: Sep 2008
QUOTE(Jordy @ Jul 26 2009, 09:21 PM)
"Is there something wrong with ARREIT"

I have commented on ARREIT's holdings when panasonic88 brought up this counter. Basically, they are holding on to aged buildings which they do not care to refurbish I think. Location wise, they're mostly unstrategic. I only like one of their holdings (out of a possible 14), which is SEGi Kota Damansara.

"So, instead of being satisfied with the 10% yield in local reits, why not invest in sreits and get 13%-15% returns"

Compare their previous years of returns with the current ones. The yield which you are looking at is backwards yield. Property prices in Singapore has fallen very badly (in the region of 30% - 60%) because they have created a mini property bubble there. So as valuations fall, their stock prices will definitely fall. That is why you see their yields are higher.

We want consistent returns of 10%, not a one-time return of 13%.
*
Sorry, I am not clear on what you say. Are you saying the DPU is "artificially high" for the SREits because there was a bubble before collapse? So, you think the DPU for these Reits will come down and make yields lower?



Topic ClosedOptions
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0367sec    0.55    7 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 8th December 2025 - 05:21 AM