Friday, September 14, 2012

MSWG Wants SC To Mandate Property Revaluation Prior To Privatisations

Just posted this morning: Glenealy: Sad Day For Investing

  • Ok, one of the questions raised was Glenealy did not carry a property valuation of their plantations during this privatisation.

    If that was true, then this privatistion offer was simply absurd.

    How could SC allow an offer to be made without any proper valuation?

On the Edge:
  • Watchdog wants authorities to mandate property revaluation prior to privatisations Written by Cindy Yeap of 
    Friday, 14 September 2012 18:27

    KUALA LUMPUR (Sept 14): Authorities should make it compulsory for public listed companies to revalue their assets prior to any privatisation exercise so that minority shareholders can better evaluate buyout offers, a shareholder watchdog group said Friday.

    "We reiterate our call to authorities to mandate the revaluation of PROPERTIES [] prior to any privatisation exercise," Rita Benoy Bushon, the CEO of the Minority Shareholder Watchdog Group (MSWG) wrote in a weekly newsletter dated Friday.

    Her comment was in reference to the privatisation of Glenealy PLANTATION []s Bhd, which was passed by shareholders at a court-convened meeting earlier this week, where Bushon said some queries by minorities weren't sufficiently addressed.

    "The most apparent was on the issue of the group's landed properties, comprising mainly plantation land which have not been re-valued since 1998," she wrote in the newsletter.

    On Wednesday, Bushon told The Edge Financial Daily that an updated valuation report on assets like plantations land would make it easier for minority shareholders to make educated decisions with regards to takeover offers. The valuation reports should be within a six month period prior to the privatisation exercise to ensure validity of the numbers, she added in an emailed reply.

    "Though the law is silent on the revaluation of land in cases of privatisation, we urge companies to embrace transparency by undertaking such revaluations especially when most assets are land-based," Bushon said.

    In Friday's newsletter, Bushon also asked that independent advisors "play their role in advising minority shareholders with greater sense of responsibility". When advising minority shareholders, Bushon said advisors should, for instance, "be transparent" about material parameters such as how the absence of an up-to-date asset revaluation exercise could impede decision-making.
I am shock to read that SC doesn't have such a mandate.

How can?

Without such a mandate, minority shareholders are going to be screwed if another company follows what Glenealy did to its shareholders.


    Mun Wai said...

    Well.... in other words, companies that refrain from doing revaluation exercises plus having great potential of being taken private could well hinting something to watch out for.

    Agree ? Moo....

    Mun Wai said...

    And....pertaining to the advisor thingee....would anyone ever link their fee and the payor ?

    Perhaps by lacking of more meaningful roles of our regulators offers some leeway in terms of working around the concept of 'enabling the deal', and hence tend to leave out , somewhat, the 'crucial', controversial aspects .

    Moolah said...

    It's a bad misunderstanding.

    I am not the person you think I am.