LMIR: Too cheap to sell.

Some who managed to get a meaningful number of excess rights might be thinking of selling these rights for a quick gain. After all, selling at 36.5c today would mean a capital gain of 5.5c or 17.7%. This is more than 18 months' worth of income distribution from the REIT if we were to use my estimate of 3.26c in annual DPU, post rights and acquisitions.

Personally, I wouldn't sell my rights units as I am investing for income. I will be getting 10.5% distribution yield on cost. That is pretty good, especially when we consider the fact that its gearing level is below 10%.

However, if I should consider selling, at what price would I sell? Similar to First REIT, I feel that an 8% distribution yield should be fair. 8% distribution yield is still fairly high but looking at First REIT's unit price, it would seem that Mr. Market is not willing to accept a yield lower than 8% for a REIT with an Indonesian focus.

Some might argue that LMIR traded in excess of 60c a unit not too long ago. Even at just 60c, it would mean it had a distribution yield of 7% (based on the estimated annual DPU of 4.2c back then), a full percentage point lower than 8%. A persuasive argument.

So, when would we see fair value for LMIR? When its units are trading with a distribution yield of between 7 to 8% would be my guess. Assuming that its annual DPU does not change from my current estimate, that would mean a unit price of 41c to 46.5c. It is currently still too cheap to sell.

Risks, risks and risks.

This blog post is in response to a comment by a reader, Temperament: click here.

Hi Temperament,

With my limited knowledge of trading, I know that true blue traders must be emotionless. They cannot fall in love with anything. They should not hate anything either. They do what the charts tell them to do, when to long, when to short, when to take profit and when to cut loss. So, I don't think they truly hedge. Hedging to traders could mean having a looser cut loss so as not to be whipsawed, perhaps.

As for risk management, I am a poor example. By conventional wisdom, we should not have more than 10% (some would say 5%) of our money in any one counter. For me, I allow up to 40% of my money in a single counter sometimes.

For sure, we can and should reduce risks in investments but it is impossible to eliminate risks.

It is very interesting how some seasoned investors would tell me that what I do is very risky, having 40% of my money in a single counter but if they only invest in Singapore equities, they are also exposed to a single country risk and a single asset risk to boot. Are they truly diversifying and reducing risk by having only 5% of their money in any one counter?

Apparently, we have to diversify across asset classes and go global to truly manage risk. How many of us mass market retail investors can do that?

So, there are risks on different levels. What about unit trusts? There would be advocates of unit trusts which are supposedly less risky. Perhaps this makes the lower returns justifiable? OK, I am being cheeky here.

Some would then argue that if we know Asia is where growth is and if we believe in Singapore, why bother with other markets? I shall leave that question open.

At the end of the day, how much risk are we able to stomach depends on the individual. We just have to be better at what we do. If we can thrive in a higher risk environment with higher rewards, that is not such a bad thing, is it?