Friday, December 5, 2008

Is Macquarie International Infrastructure Fund a good buy for the Beefy Barber?

Whenever the Beefy Barber wants us to help him, we notice his biceps start bulging slightly. Barber wanted to know if Macquarie Infrastructure is a good buy as the price has dropped from an all time high of $1.23 to $0.295. He also mentioned about the very high dividends yield of about 24.5% (based on dividends of 7.25cents on market price of $0.295). But he is confused, he says. Lately, instituitions such as Capital Group has been reducing their stake from 7.0159 % To 6.9547 % . Macquarie has been reducing from 11.08 % To 10.71 %. BUT Directors such as Lee Suet Fern and Heng Chiang Meng are buying up shares. So what's up? We decided to go together to the Macquarie Seminar on 4 Dec 2008 to learn more. Frankly, we came out non the wiser. What was mentioned is exactly what has been announced on the SGX website and we won't elaborate more. We remembered only the speaker saying that the Catalyst of the plunge was due to Hedge funds who dumped around 10% late last year and Lehman's collaspe and something of a conservative estimate that the dividends will be expected to be 6 cents next year ( 20.3% dividend yield) and that once corporate debt has been repaid, MIIF will start to increase dividends again and that there is going to be a change of depreciation method from a straight line method to a units of production method for Hua Nan Expressway. Hiyah...don't understand the Australian Dudes slang!!! Anyway, as the Barber was more interested in the dividends, which is the meat of this investment, we decided to compile a chart, showing the Distributions of each of the underlying compared with the risk ( gearing) of each of this business. We reasoned that this would be helpful to Barber as any collaspe of any one of the businesses will mean no distributions from that business and therefore a reduction in dividends.

Please note that the distributions used above in the chart is based on operational dividends, excluding special, one -off ones. As can be seen from the diagram above, if Miao Li or Hua Nan were to collaspe, since their distribution contribution is so minute there should not be a material impact to the dividends received. (assuming fees and charges remain the same),especially Miao Li with the highest gearing.CAC and MEIF is quite risky and their distributions to MIIF is quite substantial.

We wanted to compare with what an appropriate infrastructure gearing is. And found this article.

Quote Gearing is higher for unlisted than listed infrastructure. One of the advantages of unlisted infrastructure is an owner’s control of the capital structure. Hence, gearing levels in privately held infrastructure range from 50% at the lower end, for higher risk infrastructure such as airports, to 90% for social infrastructure (schools, hospitals, etc) for which the revenue stream is typically backed by government or semi-government payments. On average, gearing for listed infrastructure companies is around 40%. However, it varies significantly across companies and across regions. For example, gearing for some of the Australian listed funds is quite high (above 50%) while the European infrastructure companies have a low level of gearing (around 30%). Unquote

Since MIIF underlying businesses are unlisted and the consolidated average gearing is roughly 60% and its within the gearing range of unlisted infrastructure as stated in the article above ( 50% - 90%), no glaring problem seen.

We have not heard from Barber since we left the seminar whether he would still want to invest in it. He owes us each an "ARMANI" haircut for accompanying him to this seminar.
Important: The objective of the articles in this blog is to set you thinking about the company before you invest your hard-earned money. Do not invest solely based on this article. Unlike House or Instituitional Analysts who have to maintain relations with corporations due to investment banking relations, generating commissions,e.t.c, SGDividends say things as it is, factually. Unlike Analyst who have to be "uptight" and "cheem", we make it simplified and cheapskate. -The Vigilante Investor, SGDividends Team

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Did Singapore Airport Services Really Pay A High Price for Singapore Food? Don't be fooled!

TODAY published an article on 3 December 2008 on the sale of Singapore Food Industries to Singapore Airport Terminal Services ( SATS). . The Editor used the market capitalisation of Singapore Food to state whether the sale price was at a discount or premium.So is market capitalisation a good measure of whether an acquisition is cheap or expensive?

Let's give an example, if 2 slaves each cost $4. ( just for simplicity sake lah...we hate slavery...don't be soooo uptight!). If one slave has a debt of $1 but another has a debt of $3. If a master was to buy a slave and he has to pay back the debt owed by the slave, which is actually a more expensive buy? Of cos the slave who has a debt of $3 is the more expensive buy. On the same token, if one slave has $1 dollar in his pocket and the other has $2 in the pocket. When you buy a slave, you get his dollar in the pocket. So in this instance, the slave who has $2 in the pocket is a cheaper buy as you get to pocket the $2. So let's use this concept to measure whether the buy price of Singapore Food is cheap or not, shall we?It is actually a well used concept with a jargonic name called Enterprice Value. It is a measure of the theoretical takeover price that an investor would have to pay in order to acquire a particular firm.It is better intepreted as the true cost of the acquistion in the market place ( See Opinions at the bottom of the article by CC for more insight. )Read Here to find out more about Enterprise Value.


Enterprise Value ( EV) = Market Cap + Debt - Cash



Debt = $74,968,000 (ABOVE)

Cash = $17,428,000 (ABOVE) From above, it is stated that 69.68% represents 359,731,154 shares. This means the number of shares outstanding for Singapore Food is 516,261,702 (100%)

Calculating...........

Enterprise value = 516,261,702 X 0.89( Using the price given in the above TODAY article) + 74,968,000 - 17,428,000 = 517,012,915

Therefore, the theoretical cost of the acquisition if we based on market-determined price of 89 cents listed on the Singapore Stock exchange in TODAY's article should be $517,012,915. If we divide it by the total number of shares = 517,012,915 / 516,261,702 = $1.0015 per share.
Today stated that 93 cents is a 4.5% premium to the 89 cents of Singapore Food. At first glance, it seems Singapore Airport Terminal has paid a premium. But based on Enterprise value, it seemed SATS did have a good deal after all, paying 93 cents instead of $1.0015, a 7% discount!
The cost of the acquisition to SATs if they are able to acquire all the shares in the market place based on last done market- determined price of 89 cents on the Singapore Stock Exchange in the TODAY paper above is therefore theoretically ( academically) actually $1.0015 per share. Mainstream media states 93 cents as the price paid per share.
But what is the true true true true true true true cost that it paid? Since SATs paid 93 cents. Based on the below calculation,
516,261,702 X 0.93+ 74,968,000 - 17,428,000 = 537663382.86
537663382.86/ 516,261,702 (shares)=$1.04 per share!!
(This article has been heavily edited after contributions from readers. SGDividends SUCKS!! )
Important: The objective of the articles in this blog is to set you thinking about the company before you invest your hard-earned money. Do not invest solely based on this article. Unlike House or Instituitional Analysts who have to maintain relations with corporations due to investment banking relations, generating commissions,e.t.c, SGDividends say things as it is, factually. Unlike Analyst who have to be "uptight" and "cheem", we make it simplified and cheapskate. -The Vigilante Investor, SGDividends Team