"We're Back" - Part II: "Back to the Future"

Two Unnamed Lenders Unsuccessfully Attempt to Retrieve Their Loan

We're back indeed!

Seems Limitless needs another six months. 

Guess lenders should have figured out that when the borrower's name is Limitless, there could be all sorts of related problems with amounts and repayment.

I can't wait for the sequel.  This plot has got at least a couple more runs.

Limitless Limits Its Exposure: Pulls Out of Haute Development Malaysia

On 8 July Bandar Raya Developments Berhad announced that its subsidiary had entered into a conditional sales agreement with Limitless to buy its 60% stake in Haute Property SDN.  Haute was set up with UEM  (who own 40%) to develop luxury homes in Johor State.

Ardent will pay Limitless:

1. RM1.0 (roughly US$0.31) for Limitless' 60% stake in Haute.  (The company's unaudited financials show negative shareholders' funds).
2. RM 75 million (US$22.9 million) to reimburse Limitless for partial payment of development rights.  The amount will be converted to US$ at the FX rate at time of payment RM3.27 = US$1.00.  While the RM/US$ rate is currently RM3.196, this will not represent a loss to Limitless as it should get back the exact amount of US$ it paid.
3. RM1 million representing full and final compensation to Limitless for the RM10 million it advanced Haute for operating and development expenses.

The project is still in the development stage.  It's expected that there will be revisions to the development plan.

For those interested in a trip back to the original Limitless announcement, here is the link.

This move allows Limitless to exit the project with minimal losses and eliminates potential cash calls.  And no doubt not the last step by the various companies in Dubai Inc to reduce foreign projects to concentrate now limited resources at "home".

BTW anyone out there able to cite a single instance of such a comprehensive announcement on a GCC exchange?

More Signs of Real Estate Woes in the UAE

According to Bradley Hope at The National, Sorouh Real Estate has introduced a "rent-to-buy" scheme for commercial tenants at its Sky Tower on Reem Island.  The plan is apparently designed to "fill out" the remaining 20,000 square meters of commercial space.  Previously, Sorouh had offered a below market rate of 4.99% to first time buyers at its Sky and Sun Towers in the Shams Gate project on Reem.

This follows the announcement earlier this week that Dubai had given Nakheel's Board control over Limitless.    I suspect this is the first step towards combining the two companies as a way of reducing costs as well as adjusting capacity to realistic prospects for demand.

As you'll notice from this article also from The National, Limitless' problems were caused by the "global" (financial) crisis.   On a personal note, I was gratified to see that TN did not use the term "Global Financial crisis" using the SAM stylebook with all lower case letters.  There are some sensitive folks up North as AA knows only too well.

Limitless - First DIFC Case

Here's a report from Maktoob Business that a former employee has filed a case against Limitless at the DIFC Courts.

As you'll recall (and if you don't, here's the link), if a company owes US$2,000 and does not pay for a period of three weeks, it may be wound up.   Chapter 5 Articles 50 and 51 are the place to look.

Presumably a tactic by the former employee to secure a payment.  It's highly unlikely the Court will put Limitless in compulsory liquidation.

Dubai World - When is a Haircut Not a Haircut? Apparently, When We Say It Isn't.

The National has an article describing the various options to be offered creditors of Dubai World which contains some real howlers:

Creditors will be offered "new debt".  

While I'll admit this is conventional "banker speak", a rescheduled loan is about as new as that recycled left over on your dinner table.  It's the same old debt in a slightly different package..  It's like the dinner from Saturday that you quite didn't finish that turns up on your plate on Sunday.  It's not a new meal even if your wife has added Hamburger Helper.  A new loan would be a voluntary extension of credit.  Trapped money is the financial equivalent of a leftover.

But the real gem is the following.

“Receiving 100 per cent of the principal and zero per cent interest is better than taking a 30 to 40 per cent haircut. On this basis, the banks involved will not have to incur a loss other than the time value of money which is not insignificant but may be better than the alternative,” said Jawad Ali, the managing partner of the Middle East offices of the law firm of King and Spalding.

If you get back less money from a debtor than you advanced after taking into consideration the time value of money, it's a haircut.  A loss is a loss.  Pretending it is something else makes as much sense as saying that Dubai World wanted to help banks have solid earning assets on their books so its extending the maturities on its loans to help them out. 

As I pointed out in an earlier post, equal amortization of a loan over five years at a 5% interest rate is equivalent to a 13% haircut and at 10% a 24% haircut if one were being paid back immediately.   

Also as I noted, reputable firms of accountants working in reasonably developed  markets would apply IFRS (or US GAAP) and require a bank to  recognize an impairment against the asset.  And guess what, the loan would be written down using present value techniques - which recognize the time value of money.

However, in this matter I will defer to learned counsel's assessment of the firms and markets he practices in.  Financial institutions from developed countries will see right through this transparent scenario.

Dubai World - Debt Rescheduling Proposal - Just A Maturity Extension?

According to Gulf News, recent discussions suggest that the rescheduling may just an extension of maturities with no haircuts or other features which would offend the sensibilities of DW's lenders or investors.

Time will tell.  Until then we're all still free to speculate.

Dubai World to Meet With Local Creditors - No or Low Interest Repayment Option?

The National reports that DW is planning meetings with local creditors - Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank and Emirates National Bank.  These meetings follow ones held earlier this week in London with "international" banks.

The goal of this series of meetings is probably twofold.

First to test some restructuring ideas with these major banks to get feedback.   Second as a way of managing the process - trying to influence future negotiations by framing the bankers' expectations.  

One of the options that apparently is being considered is a low or no interest repayment of 100% of the principal over some extended period.

Let's look at some examples to see what sort of discounts one can achieve through this device.

1. A bullet repayment 10 years from now of 100% of principal equals a present value of 61% of face at a 5% annual discount rate.  Changing just the repayment to 5 years from now raises the present value to 78%.
2. Using the same two scenarios above but applying a 10% discount rate, the 10 year bullet has a present value of 39% of face and the 5 year bullet is worth 62%.
3. Amortizing the loan in 5 equal yearly installments gives present value of 87% at 5% and 76% at 10%.
4. If there is unequal amortization of 0%, 10%, 15%, 25%, and 50%, then the present value of at 5% discount rate is 82% and 68% with a 10% discount rate.

What's the bottom line?  One can achieve quite a hefty "haircut" through this tool.

The Nation suggests that banks might want the zero interest or low interest option as a way of avoiding taking the "hit" to income up front.  I think it is highly likely that any reputable accounting firm is going to let a client who uses IFRS as the basis for financial reporting "get away" with carrying the loan at its nominal value.  This is clearly a restructured loan. 

The relevant Chapter and Verse are IAS #39 Paragraphs 58 and 59 which deal with impairments in value.  Haircuts, no interest or below market interest rates,  tenor extensions, other concessions that a lender would not normally agree to along with several other items are cited as evidence of  potential "impairment" in Paragraph 59.  

Paragraphs 63-65 deal with calculating impairments for assets held "at cost".   Present value the projected cash flows at the original interest rate on the instrument.  Any shortfall between original cost and present value is an impairment loss which must be taken immediately to the income statement.

Paragraph 66 deals with impairments on assets "held as available for sale".  There the discount rate is the "market" rate for that asset at present. Since this is an impairment not a fair value adjustment, it also goes through the income statement.

Limitless Seeks to Negotiate Multi-Year Contractor Payments

The National reports that Limitless is approaching contractors reportedly seeking four year payment terms.

As well it seems Limitless is scaling back or perhaps canceling other projects.

What's also interesting is the comment that despite earlier talk about Nakheel settling with contractors no payments have been made.

When you don't have cash, you can't pay.  And then it makes eminent sense to scale back or halt current or new projects.

On the topic of Nakheel, I posted last December on how contrary to what one might expect it was actually a source of cash to the DW Group rather than a cash drain as it apparently upstreamed loans within the Group.  If the funds used to pay its recently matured Sukuk are treated as replacement debt rather than a return of funds owed it by the Group, then its financial position will not have really improved.  It will just be a case of rotation of creditors.

Limitless US$1.2 Billion Debt - Limitless Maturity?

Reuters reports that Limitless' US$1.2 billion "Islamic Loan" due next month is likely to be rolled over.  It's noted that lenders have been rolling over significant amounts of Dubai World and Nakheel debt - billions it seems.

The major additional bits of news from this article:

1. Limitless' lenders want to negotiate the repayment of their loan separate from the DW rescheduling.
2. They are currently valuing Limitless' holdings.
3. The loan is from 2008.  It was led Emirates Bank (now part of Emirates NBD),  Emirates Islamic Bank, Arab National Bank, and National Bank of Abu Dhabi.  The syndicate also includes Royal Bank of Scotland, Hypo Real Estate (Germany) well as banks in Malaysia, Pakistan and Taiwan.
4. I see the lenders have decided they'll try an amortizing loan this time.  A very wise move.  In fact an extremely wise move.   One that helps limit one's exposure and keep it from becoming limitless.