Some readers told me I should let my hair down and try blogging with a more local flavour. Should I try to inject some local flavour into my blog? Hmmm...
REITs have been getting a lot of attention lately and, generally, I think it is a good thing. However, I would like to see more balanced write ups which would do the subject justice.
Recently, another article in the newspapers was brought to my attention. The article is by Teh Hooi Leng, titled "The REIT myth busted." With a title like this, despite any claims to the contrary, the immediate impression given is a negative one.
At least two bloggers I know of have referred to the article and one highlighted that "Whatever Reits pay out in dividends, they will take back a few years later in the form of rights issues". A statement like this is not just simple, it is simplistic.
Indeed, a reader commented on the same newspaper article and expressed his displeasure. I replied to his comment in my usual fashion. See it here.
Now, let me see if I could inject some local flavour into this blog post with a somewhat simplistic analogy since being simplistic seems to be in vogue:
Once upon a time in Singapore, there was a father and son investment team. They invested in a condominium unit next to Bedok reservoir. Every year, the father would distribute 90% of the income from the rental collected from the condominium unit.
Ten years later, the father told the son that he wanted to invest in another condominium unit and asked the son if he would like to put down some capital for this new investment. The son did some calculations and realised that he would have had to "give back" all the money his father had distributed to him from the rental collected from the Bedok reservoir condominium unit over the last ten years!
"Wah, lao peh, how can liddat one?! You taking back all the money you gave me in the last ten years! You cheat my money izzit?", the son was indignant.
The father smiled indulgently at his son and explained that, with the proposed investment, he would be able to double the income distributed every year to him from rental collected from two condominium units instead of one but, of course, the son could choose not to be a part of the second investment. The son had a choice.
The father was not taking back whatever he had paid out to the son in the last ten years as the father didn't have the right to do so. The father was offering the son the right to either accept or refuse a part in the new investment.
Remember: When asked for money, ponder on the reason why. This is more important than the money involved. Looking at only the money involved is myopic.
With so many voices against REITs and their rights issues, it is easy to sing in a choir but to sing solo, that is much harder. OK, what do I know? I am just a retail investor.
Related posts:
1. REITs and rights issues: Dilutive or not?
2. Investing in REITs: A flawed strategy?
-->