KINV

Buy @ $0.41. Take a risk, Yield = 13.1%. Whatever the outcome of today’s MI-REIT vote, their stake will still be yield accretive (I think better than if they’d make new acquisitions or assets enhancements). Seller ’21’ – Kim Eng. 😀

10:58:42 0.405 405,000 Sell Down
10:48:28 0.410 20,000 Buy Up
10:47:42 0.410 781,000 Sell Down
10:40:39 0.415 3,000 Buy Up
10:36:39 0.415 1,000 Buy Up
10:35:54 0.415 5,000 Buy Up
10:27:07 0.415 25,000 Buy Up
10:21:01 0.410 30,000 Sell Down
10:19:18 0.410 10,000 Sell Down
10:17:40 0.415 100,000 Buy Up
10:15:55 0.415 100,000 Buy Up
10:14:01 0.410 37,000 Buy Up
10:13:27 0.410 25,000 Buy Up
10:12:50 0.410 13,000 Sell Down
10:12:29 0.410 12,000 Buy Up
10:12:19 0.410 10,000 Buy Up
10:11:27 0.410 15,000 Buy Up
10:10:40 0.410 475,000 Sell Down

May be Mr Yap Chin Kok (YCH) who’d also sold down his stake last week.

Additional Comments
Their 25Mil Units stake in MI-REIT is now in limbo. When they purchased at $0.40, Yield = 19.39%. But, if the MI-REIT recap vote goes through today, Cambridge will have to come up with another $6.5Mil (less div 1.939ct + 0.95ct) for 50Mil rights units, which’ll also dilute the yield to 10%+ (lower than Cambridge yield). It’s still yield accretive though as these are using $$ raised from an earlier private placement.

IMO, the biggest blunder made by CITM CEO was in the press interview where he ruled out a merger (I think a merger would have been the best outcome), which by law, rule out any merger proposal for another 6 mths. He was left with no choice but to propose CITM running both REITs, which was further ruled out by MAS. This allowed MI-REIT to go on the offensive.

At the end of the day, the inexperience of a young (38?) CITM CEO shows, losing (??) out badly to the shrewdness and experience of George Wang (AIMS boss who has a 100% stake in MI-REIT manager and who made his fortune in Australia).

BUT, the vote may still not go through as they need a simple majority (50%) for ALL the resolutions as CITM may have successfully highlighted to shareholders on the value destruction of the large private placement (huge discount at $0.28) and the bad decision in the purchase of AMP’s assets (not at a good discount to market valuations).