26 March, 2019
SINGAPORE — The Securities Investors Association Singapore (SIAS) has written an open letter to national water agency PUB about its move to take over Hyflux’s Tuaspringdesalination plant — if Tuaspring cannot fix its defaults by April 5 — after the firm’s investors raised “serious concerns”.
In its letter on Monday addressed to PUB chief executive officer Ng Joo Hee, SIAS president David Gerald said Hyflux’s retail investors were caught in a predicament, as the company possibly faces liquidation.
The SIAS is Singapore’s retail investor watchdog.
Mr Gerald added that the only hope for the 50,000 or so Singaporeans mired in the ailing firm’s saga is the “entry of the white knight” — SM Investments, made up of Salim Group and Medco Group. The Indonesian consortium agreed in October last year to buy a 60 per cent stake in Hyflux.
PUB’s move could throw this into disarray, as Hyflux said previously that its restructuring agreement with SM Investments might be terminated due to Tuaspring’s defaults.
While Mr Gerald said SIAS fully appreciates that the PUB has to safeguard the country’s water security, its recent announcements and actions, such as serving a default notice on Tuaspring, have caused “serious concerns to investors and stakeholders, quite a number of whom have raised (these) concerns with SIAS”.
TODAY has contacted the PUB for its response to SIAS’ letter.
ABOUT PUB’S ANNOUNCEMENT
Announcing its planned takeover of the plant, the PUB said that it issued the default notice to Tuaspring for failing to keep its desalination plant “reliably operational” under a water purchase agreement.
This deal requires Tuaspring to deliver up to 70 million gallons of desalinated water daily to PUB from 2013 to 2038.
The plant was understood to have been facing operational issues since early 2017 and Tuaspring was unable to replace the facility’s poor-performing membranes promptly, which affected the quality and quantity of its water. There were also occasions when Tuaspring could not supply the PUB with the 70 million gallons of desalinated water required.
The PUB also said earlier that an independent valuer had put the water plant’s purchase price in the negative and Tuaspring would have to pay the PUB compensation under the water purchase agreement.
But PUB told Tuaspring that it was willing to buy the water plant for “zero dollars” and waive the compensation. It had done so because it was unlikely to recover the sum given Tuaspring’s financial position, said the water agency.
With the default notice, Tuaspring is supposed to have until April 5 to consult with the PUB on the steps it must take to resolve its defaults. Otherwise, the water agency has the right to terminate the contract by giving Tuaspring written notice of at least 30 days.
If this is done, the PUB is expected to take over the plant in early May.
In SIAS’ letter to the PUB, Mr Gerald laid out 16 questions from investors, including the following:
WHAT IS PUB’S ROLE
Investors want to know what the PUB’s role is in relation to Hyflux, how it manages private-public contracts and in what instances the agency can intervene.
[From earlier in this report:
HOW PUB ARRIVED AT PURCHASE PRICE
They also want the PUB to explain how it arrived at its offer to buy the plant at zero cost. “Shouldn’t the purchase price be the equivalent replacement cost of (the) building or an equivalent plant?” the SIAS letter asked.
[Earlier in this report, and also reported in an earlier article:
WHY PUB CHOSE TO ACT AS IT DID
The investors also questioned why the PUB chose to issue the default notice when it had already been aware of the situation at Tuaspring and Hyflux since 2017.
They also asked why the PUB could not have waited until after Hyflux’s rescue plan is put to a creditors’ vote in a scheme meeting on April 5.
“Wouldn’t that be helpful to the plight of the 50,000 Singapore citizens who have ploughed their money into Hyflux to avoid further uncertainty?” the SIAS asked.
SINGAPORE — The Securities Investors Association Singapore (SIAS) has written an open letter to national water agency PUB about its move to take over Hyflux’s Tuaspringdesalination plant — if Tuaspring cannot fix its defaults by April 5 — after the firm’s investors raised “serious concerns”.
In its letter on Monday addressed to PUB chief executive officer Ng Joo Hee, SIAS president David Gerald said Hyflux’s retail investors were caught in a predicament, as the company possibly faces liquidation.
The SIAS is Singapore’s retail investor watchdog.
Mr Gerald added that the only hope for the 50,000 or so Singaporeans mired in the ailing firm’s saga is the “entry of the white knight” — SM Investments, made up of Salim Group and Medco Group. The Indonesian consortium agreed in October last year to buy a 60 per cent stake in Hyflux.
PUB’s move could throw this into disarray, as Hyflux said previously that its restructuring agreement with SM Investments might be terminated due to Tuaspring’s defaults.
While Mr Gerald said SIAS fully appreciates that the PUB has to safeguard the country’s water security, its recent announcements and actions, such as serving a default notice on Tuaspring, have caused “serious concerns to investors and stakeholders, quite a number of whom have raised (these) concerns with SIAS”.
TODAY has contacted the PUB for its response to SIAS’ letter.
ABOUT PUB’S ANNOUNCEMENT
Announcing its planned takeover of the plant, the PUB said that it issued the default notice to Tuaspring for failing to keep its desalination plant “reliably operational” under a water purchase agreement.
This deal requires Tuaspring to deliver up to 70 million gallons of desalinated water daily to PUB from 2013 to 2038.
The plant was understood to have been facing operational issues since early 2017 and Tuaspring was unable to replace the facility’s poor-performing membranes promptly, which affected the quality and quantity of its water. There were also occasions when Tuaspring could not supply the PUB with the 70 million gallons of desalinated water required.
The PUB also said earlier that an independent valuer had put the water plant’s purchase price in the negative and Tuaspring would have to pay the PUB compensation under the water purchase agreement.
But PUB told Tuaspring that it was willing to buy the water plant for “zero dollars” and waive the compensation. It had done so because it was unlikely to recover the sum given Tuaspring’s financial position, said the water agency.
With the default notice, Tuaspring is supposed to have until April 5 to consult with the PUB on the steps it must take to resolve its defaults. Otherwise, the water agency has the right to terminate the contract by giving Tuaspring written notice of at least 30 days.
If this is done, the PUB is expected to take over the plant in early May.
In SIAS’ letter to the PUB, Mr Gerald laid out 16 questions from investors, including the following:
WHAT IS PUB’S ROLE
Investors want to know what the PUB’s role is in relation to Hyflux, how it manages private-public contracts and in what instances the agency can intervene.
[From earlier in this report:
PUB said that it issued the default notice to Tuaspring for failing to keep its desalination plant “reliably operational” under a water purchase agreement.Investors should read the water-purchase agreement. When you invest in a company, you are in effect saying, "I believe this company is in good financial and operational standing and is able to carry out its contractual obligations, efficiently and effectively, and turn a profit and give me good returns on my investment. I am therefore betting on/investing in this company. I expect great returns on my investment." How did investors arrive at their belief that the company is in good standing and poised to make a profit? What if their impression or belief are wrong?]
HOW PUB ARRIVED AT PURCHASE PRICE
They also want the PUB to explain how it arrived at its offer to buy the plant at zero cost. “Shouldn’t the purchase price be the equivalent replacement cost of (the) building or an equivalent plant?” the SIAS letter asked.
[Earlier in this report, and also reported in an earlier article:
The PUB also said earlier that an independent valuer had put the water plant’s purchase price in the negative and Tuaspring would have to pay the PUB compensation under the water purchase agreement.
These investors' questions are childish. These would all be covered by the contract terms and clauses for breach of contract or failure to perform, and the contractual remedies. Their questions shows their naivety.]
WHY PUB CHOSE TO ACT AS IT DID
The investors also questioned why the PUB chose to issue the default notice when it had already been aware of the situation at Tuaspring and Hyflux since 2017.
They also asked why the PUB could not have waited until after Hyflux’s rescue plan is put to a creditors’ vote in a scheme meeting on April 5.
“Wouldn’t that be helpful to the plight of the 50,000 Singapore citizens who have ploughed their money into Hyflux to avoid further uncertainty?” the SIAS asked.
[From earlier in this report:
SIAS fully appreciates that the PUB has to safeguard the country’s water security,
Right. Fully appreciates, and then questions PUBs priorities. Let me ask the childish investors - is PUB main priority to safeguard our water security, or the investments of childish, foolish so-called investors?
So if these investors had Boeing shares, they would have asked the FAA why did they ground the 737-Max 8 instead of waiting for a more "helpful" moment to prevent uncertainty for the investors.]
So if these investors had Boeing shares, they would have asked the FAA why did they ground the 737-Max 8 instead of waiting for a more "helpful" moment to prevent uncertainty for the investors.]
The investors also noted that the PUB buys water from Tuaspring at 45 cents per cubic metre, but charges consumers rates starting from S$2.74 per cubic metre. They asked if the price could have been revised, knowing that the company had been incurring losses year after year.
[Let me guess, you all studied Mahathirism issit? Revised price no need to consider contract one ah? Contract is what? Toilet paper ah? So anytime people lose money in a contract, the buyer has to allow the seller to revise the price ah? You learn that from Mahathir issit? Very clever. Go do business in Malaysia, lah!]
GIVE TUASPRING MORE TIME
The investors asked if the PUB would agree to allow Tuaspring more time to remedy the defaults arising from the water purchase agreement.
“If not, why? Wouldn’t giving more time help all parties to focus on the restructuring process?” they asked.
GIVE TUASPRING MORE TIME
The investors asked if the PUB would agree to allow Tuaspring more time to remedy the defaults arising from the water purchase agreement.
“If not, why? Wouldn’t giving more time help all parties to focus on the restructuring process?” they asked.
[From earlier in the report:
it [PUB] had already been aware of the situation at Tuaspring and Hyflux since 2017.Right. So PUB has been aware since 2017. What do you think Hyflux has been doing since then? What do you think PUB has been giving them time to do? So 2017 until now not enough time ah? All the while (from earlier in this report),
"...Tuaspring was unable to replace the facility’s poor-performing membranes promptly, which affected the quality and quantity of its water. There were also occasions when Tuaspring could not supply the PUB with the 70 million gallons of desalinated water required."In other words, Hyflux has been in breach of contract, failing to perform under the contract, and had been given more than a year to take remedial action. And in the meantime, they have been looking for a "White Knight". And even when the White Knight rides in and takes over, would the operations be restored to standard? Is the Salim Group and Medco experts at desalination or water treatment? Or will the sub-performance continue? For how long?]
PLAN FOR TUASPRING PLANT
As for the plant’s and Tuaspring’s future, the investors wanted to know if the PUB would sell the plant or Tuaspring in future.
[And what an irrelevant question. And stupid question. ]
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please note that this is a "news clipping" blog. Articles may have been authored elsewhere and "clipped" to this blog for ease of reference. The blog "owner" is usually not the author and does not have any means of relaying your comments or questions to the author or authors.
Comments that will drive discussion and explore issues may be kept. Other comments may be deleted.