On November 3, 2016, Jacobs Douwe Egberts (JDE) launched a bid for Singapore-based food and beverage company Super Group Ltd. (Super). JDE had already acquired 60 per cent of the shares but needed another 30 per cent in order to delist the company and take it private. The minority shareholders of Super faced the task of evaluating whether the offer from JDE was reasonable and whether they should tender or hold on to their shares. Their decisions would depend on the valuation of Super’s shares, based on financial and other relevant and available market information.
On February 24, 2016, HTL International Holdings Ltd (HTL), a Singapore-based furniture company, announced that it had entered into a purchase agreement with Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co. Ltd (Yihua). According to the agreement, which was subject to approvals, Yihua would pay SG$1.00 for each share of HTL. However, the agreement required that HTL meet set profit targets in each of the next three years. A compensation agreement between HTL’s controlling shareholder and Yihua stipulated that if HTL did not make its profit targets, HTL’s controlling shareholder would make up the shortfall to Yihua. When the agreement was announced, HTL’s share price was at $0.70, and the $0.30 gap signalled uncertainty about whether Yihua’s shareholders would agree to the acquisition. Minority shareholders and potential investors, who were not bound by the profit guarantee, needed to decide whether they should buy, sell, or hold HTL’s shares.
Mary Chia Holdings Limited (MCH) was a provider of lifestyle and wellness services for women and men in Singapore and Malaysia. Listed on the Singapore Catalist, the company had experienced a decline in financial performance and share price. On August 24, 2017, MCH announced that its founder would sell her 60.98 per cent stake to Suki Sushi Private Ltd., an unlisted company tightly controlled by the daughter and son-in-law of MCH’s founder. Suki Sushi’s offer was at SG$0.111 per share, which was almost double the closing price. Should current MCH shareholders accept Suki Sushi’s offer and sell their shares, and does Suki Sushi’s offer constitute an investment opportunity for investors not currently holding MCH shares?
On April 14, 2014, CapitaLand Limited, a Singapore-based real estate company, launched a voluntary conditional cash offer of SG$2.22 for each share (SG$3.06 billion in total) of its subsidiary commercial property development and management company, CapitaMalls Asia Limited (CMA). CMA’s principal business strategy was to invest in, develop, and manage a diversified portfolio of real estate used primarily for retail purposes in Asia. CapitaLand’s offer represented a 22.3 per cent premium over CMA’s closing price of SG$1.815 on April 11, 2014. The intention was to delist CMA and fully integrate it into CapitaLand.<br><br>As an investor in CMA, you are seeking a reasonable valuation of CMA based on its past financial performance and other relevant market information. You also need to compute the premium, net present value (NPV), and synergy of the acquisition.
On March 8, 2017, Singapore-based food outlet operator Kimly Limited (Kimly) announced its intention to go for an initial public offering (IPO). Through this IPO, it aimed to raise SG$43.5 million. Altogether, 173.8 million new shares would be issued at SG$0.25 per share, comprising a retail tranche of 3.8 million shares and a placement tranche of 170 million shares. The chances of successfully getting Kimly’s IPO shares were slim, given the small retail tranche. In addition, the controlling shareholder and other key shareholders were subject to lock-up periods, which would prevent a short-term overhang of the shares. These factors implied that the supply of Kimly’s shares would be scarce in the initial six months after the IPO, which could have a positive impact on the share price. A retail investor, drawn to the issue because of Kimly’s identity as a family firm, applied for the IPO and was also considering purchasing shares in the aftermarket later in March. Was this a worthwhile investment, and if so, what should this investor’s maximum price be? Should such an investor plan to sell immediately or hold for the long term?
This exercise places the reader in the position of an investor, who, before 2017, had invested for almost 20 years. Since the financial crisis in 2008–09, this investor had stayed away from the US market. The investor’s return from the previous year stood at a mere 2 per cent. Given that many political events would likely occur in 2017, the investor hoped to revise their investment strategies at the time by developing a more internationalized portfolio. Specifically, the investor was considering how to allocate capital among the existing 10 broker-recommended exchange-traded funds traded on the Singapore stock exchange and two exchange-traded funds in alternative assets traded in the US market. The investor also needed to provide additional cash flows for the education of their two daughters from year two onward for a total of four years. The investor was also willing to reshuffle the investment portfolio to put more weights into the US market. However, before making the revised investment decision, the investor needed to consider the expected returns and risks.
In early 2014, Standard Chartered PLC, a British multinational banking and financial services company headquartered in London, England, announced its restructuring plan. The announcement triggered positive reactions in both stock and bond markets. Nevertheless, the eventual profitability was not what was expected. Moving forward into 2015, how would a rational investor have taken advantage of such a corporate restructuring event?