Showing posts with label Land Banking Investment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Land Banking Investment. Show all posts

Monday, June 18, 2012

Land-banking firm Walton says it's not like scam-tainted firms

Land-banking firm Walton says it's not like scam-tainted firms and has never lost clients' money. By Felda Chay

IT'S been a year since landbanking firms in Singapore were brought to their knees following a widely publicised scandal where one company lost its clients' money, and land investment firm Walton International Group Inc was no exception. The company, which received a flurry of calls from worried investors seeking reassurance in the immediate aftermath of the industry fiasco, has had to deal with the suspicion shrouding investments in raw land since. Type 'Walton International' into the Google search engine, for instance, and phrases such as 'Walton International scam' and 'Walton International complaints' appear.

But Walton is not like them, said the group's chief executive Bill Doherty to Singapore media, in reference to the company that had gone under with its investors' money. 'We have never lost our clients' money.' This is a point that he, and Walton's top management, reiterated numerous times during a three-day visit made in early September to the company's headquarters in Calgary, Canada, which was paid for by the company.

Lands that Walton has bought with its investors, for instance, have been sold to developers who see potential in the plots. Its investors have also been duly rewarded with returns on their investments.

According to Walton, the annualised total return for projects it exited from late 1998 to end 2010 amounted to between 5.2 per cent and as high as over 50 per cent. These numbers were audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers according to generally accepted standards in Canada.

Walton markets land in Canada and the United States, and has been in Singapore since 1996. Some 18,000 of its 74,000 investors are located here. The group is owned by Mr Doherty's family, and was established under the Walton name in 1986.

Mr Doherty said that scandals involving raw land investment firms have popped up not just in Singapore, but also in Canada. The company now has to grapple with the belief that anything which sounds too good to be true, is too good to be true; if such investments were so lucrative, companies would be better served by keeping these deals to themselves.

Not true, said Mr Doherty. Land investment firms partner investors to buy land because it allows them to free up capital and purchase more and bigger plots, widening their reach. So it makes sense to bring in investors who are willing to plough their money into land.

'We have a strong cash position,' said Mr Doherty. Walton said that it has seen a 196 per cent jump in the amount of cash held in 2010 from 2008, though it did not give figures on the actual amount of cash it is sitting on.

Unlike some of its now-defunct peers, Walton does not promise investors a handsome yearly dividend on their land investments. Instead, returns are paid out when its investors exit a project. 'The system of paying a yearly dividend doesn't make sense because holding land doesn't pay you an income. It doesn't,' said Mr Doherty. 'It is not a cash-flowing, income-producing asset, so it makes no sense.'

Scandals aside, critics of raw land investment have pointed out that it is an unlicensed product in Singapore and therefore does not fall under the purview of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). This means that investors may have few avenues through which to seek recourse, raising the risk factor of raw land investment.

Raw land investment is also an illiquid venture. Walton's investors have had to sit on their investments for as long as 19 years - the longest they had to wait to see returns from the pre-development projects they put money in. Even the shortest wait took about two years. On average, Walton's investors have had to wait about seven years before their investments bore fruit. There is also the worry that key assumptions of the land investment firm do not hold: In other words, the purchased land may never undergo development.

Mr Doherty acknowledged that the investment is illiquid, but believes that the firm's value proposition is its track record in delivering returns. 'Our track record is this: No one has ever lost money when investing with Walton if they had stuck with our programme. Our returns, on average, are 15 per cent compound after fees,' said Mr Doherty.

On raw land investment being an unlicensed product, Leslie Fryers, Walton's executive vice-president of law, said: 'There is no legal requirement for us to be licensed in Singapore.'

Also, investing in land 'is like buying a house, a piece of property', she said.

'We've certainly had legal opinions delivered to us that there is no requirement from MAS for a regulation on our product.

'It's our land that we are selling and we control it and we have very, very disciplined, very focused procedures to ensure that the purchase and sale agreements are properly registered and titled back to investors.' She added that the group gives client regular updates on their investments. Still, Walton would consider licensing its product 'if that is the way Singapore would like the product to be sold', said Ms Fryers. 'We already have the necessary processes in place both in Canada and the United States. It wouldn't worry us but from our perspective, it is certainly cleaner for the purchaser to have a direct ownership of the land as opposed to having an interest in an entity which has registration ownership of the land'.

The group also tries to minimise the risk of its land investments never undergoing development. Key to its investment strategy is strong research into the development potential of the ground it is eyeing, which takes years to complete. This involves looking into 'anything related to urbanisation', said Walton's executive vice-president of land research and acquisitions, Sean Cooney.

'Market statistics, political analysis, environment analysis, financial analysis. You name it, we are researching it. It is a very comprehensive view. The job is done on the ground in the truck. You can read any spreadsheet, you can read any headline, but if you're not in your truck looking at how the market is growing on a day-to-day measurement, you are completely oblivious to that market,' said Mr Cooney.

Thorough research

People and groups that Walton talks to as part of its research include landowners, bankers, real estate brokers, engineering companies and law firms, basically 'any group that is an active participant in development', said Mr Cooney. 'If you talk to enough people over a period of time, usually two years, you then get a sense of the long-term vision of growth in that area'.

Walton has spent between two-four years researching each piece of land it purchased, a process that has cost the company up to US$2 million annually, said Mr Cooney. It is such a lengthy process because the firm tries to talk to every single individual living around the area it is keen to own, to ensure that everyone's plans are in sync. 'If you buy one piece of dirt you need to understand what all the neighbours want to do over the long term with their lands,' said Mr Cooney. 'You buy land in a community context you need to understand everyone in the community.'

Once the research team gives its nod of approval, the decision on whether to plough money into a plot falls on the shoulders of Walton's executive buying committee, which has the final say on a purchase. The additional check and balance is meant to ensure that the land can be planned and will be developed eventually.

There were times - and more often than Mr Cooney likes - when the committee decides not to go ahead with a purchase despite the research team's endorsement. According to him, 20 per cent of the pieces of land brought to the buying committee do not get the green light for purchase. He believes that these land parcels ultimately failed to gain approval because of Walton's very stringent standards.

'And that in itself reduces the risk of our investment,' said Mr Cooney. 'It protects Walton, it protects the investors, it protects the various entitles through which we hold these investments under.'

Thursday, February 23, 2012

EDGEWORTH PROPERTIES SINGAPORE, MALAYSIA, PHILIPPINES - CANADA : FAT LIARS

Land investment cum Development

Edgeworth Properties / Edgeworth Ventures / Edgeworth Mortgage Investment Corporation
Edgeworth Properties Inc.
5500 North Service Road
Suite 106
Burlington, On L7L 6W6
CA
http://www.edgeworth.com/


Edgeworth Properties had branches in Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines & Taiwan. It was set up as a so-called development-banking company. It prided itself as a better company than its other Canadian competitor (which Edgeworth copied), by saying that Walton was merely a landbanking company, while Edgeworth a developer.
It sourced land in most of western Canada. Sold units of land in the form of Undivided Interests to Asians in Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines and tried briefly to establish in Taiwan.
Between 2007 to 2011, the company had sold 12 pieces of raw lands through its Asian offices, affecting investors of over 3,000 people, of which a vast 60% from Singapore, 30% Malaysia and the rest in the Philippines (with perhaps very little from Taiwan). Total losses from investors in this region is hovering in the region of Canadian Dollars $73 million / Singapore Dollars $94 million / Ringgit Malaysia $232 million.
Between 3rd and 4th quarters of 2010, Edgeworth had announced its upcoming maturity in 2011, involving 3 maturities. The first would be in June 2011. Canadian Tax forms were filled out by investors of these 3 so-called "maturing" projects.
The bomb was dropped on all investors in June 2011, when the country manager came announcing that the company Edgeworth had "no money", giving excuses that the "economic crisis" had affected them and a bad director in Canada tried to take-over (hence lost money fighting that director).
The Chairman at the time was Donald G. Hurst. The Country Managers in Singapore, Leslie Ng, resigned prior to the "bomb shell" being dropped on investors. So did the Vice President of Asia Pacific at the time, Michael Yap. He was replaced by Edwin Neo, who proudly claimed to have great experiences in landbanking company Walton. In Malaysia, even a sadder case. Its country manager, Lee Kim Haw, used distorted facts to get more investors to buy into Edgeworth's investment. How did he do that? He told investors that following SSM's investigation (end of 2008)/ release of edgeworth properties malaysia (July 2009), a trustee account was set up with cimb bank. He claimed that no money would be sent out of malaysia without any ownership title is received by investors. You guessed it: the money did not stay in Malaysia. If it had stayed in Malaysia, all projects' money collected from sales after July 2009, would be safe. Whose fault? The Malaysian authorities? The country manager?
The sad thing was, in Malaysia, many people were not aware of the situation. The country manager went on to "encourage" his consultants to sell with a newly launched project. He even sent out updates of Edgeworth Properties via printed materials; ie. the newsletter and other official letters.
Since its declaration of "no money", the company kept telling its investors to give it more time to look for buyers to JV in projects, so that it could pay its creditors, and pay investors. Of course, nothing like that happened.
The company actually filed for "bankruptcy protection" in Canada. It was obviously buying time, so that no one could take action against it/him.
In Asia, the investors are betrayed by the top management people. The money paid to the Edgeworth Properties accounts in the various Asian countries are drained, to fill some pockets in "God knows" where!
Why did so many fall victims to Edgeworth Properties of Canada?
They had used big legal firms in Canada to write their agreement. They have used big audit firms to do their accounting. They had used renowned names as their directors in their start-up phase. They had physically done small developments, submitted some development plannings to local authorities,... but alas, most are done half ways, fees in arrears, and many other matters many of us are simply not aware of.
Now, he is using "bankruptcy protection", so victims will remain victims for a looooooooooooong time.


Special Situation Blog :-
I would encourage our reader to be careful when invest "new idea" investment products with no direct-license from bank negara (M'sia) / MAS(Singapore).
There're a lot scams waiting to trick us. Don't trust those high return yield investment. If you want high return, invest in stock market with special situation strategy.