GIC invests $14 billion in Swiss bank UBS
-
You seem to have a hard time deciding what you want your case to be, don't you?Originally posted by Gazelle:walesa, since you are so critical about Temasek and GIC investment strategy, I am asking you.
1) Would you have predicted that RBS will pip Barclays in acquiring ABN Amro during the time when Temasek was planning to make the investment?
2) Have you done any calculation to show that Barclays investment in only worthwhile if they acquire ABN AMRO.
3) Will Barclays be in better position if they have up their offer to out bid RBS?
4) Other than Barclays, what is your opinion about their investment in UBS?
5) What about China Construction Bank?
6) What about Bank of China investment?
I am sure you must have done your calculation before criticising on Temasek and GIC's investment isnt it? So assuming you are the chairman of Singapore investment arm, who sort of companies do you think it worth acquiring now and what will you consider a fair value for both seller and buyer.
Over to you sir!!
From your post, am I supposed to infer you actually concur Temasek's stake in Barclays wasn't exactly the most prudent decision? If that were so, that's more than sufficient to drive home your lot of drivel about any investment being worthwhile so long as one held a long-term stake in the investment. -
The only thing funny about your post is your insanity...Originally posted by sgdiehard:none of your posts make sense in any tangible sense imaginable. It is funny when you think they are humourous. 
-
You might want to wait for the indecisive drone to make up his mind as to whether all long-term investments are necessarily worthwhile before you "move on" (pardon the pun used so loosely by the fascists)...Originally posted by TS Kan:Points taken ...... now can we have some really positive and exciting ideas as to how our government should run Singapore better (not that they are not doing a-hell-of-a-good-job already!)
-
1.just the oppsiite.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:... and to do that, they will need to raise GST to help the poor again...
If not for Temasek,GIC good return,we will have pay higher GST..
SG receive $1 billion pa from investment retumn.. -
I noticed your have the tendency of always trying to express my view on my behalf to suit your argument. The fact is, I see the Barclays as a good investment for Singapore and their failure to out bid RBS might be a blessing disguise because going to a bidding war will means paying too much of premium and that RBS has now inherited billions of subprime debt from ABN.Originally posted by walesa:You seem to have a hard time deciding what you want your case to be, don't you?
From your post, am I supposed to infer you actually concur Temasek's stake in Barclays wasn't exactly the most prudent decision? If that were so, that's more than sufficient to drive home your lot of drivel about any investment being worthwhile so long as one held a long-term stake in the investment.
So what is your opinion about Temasek stake in UBS? -
It's not what I think about Temasek that matters. It's your incoherent logic that warrants concern.Originally posted by Gazelle:I noticed your have the tendency of always trying to express my view on my behalf to suit your argument. The fact is, I see the Barclays as a good investment for Singapore and their failure to out bid RBS might be a blessing disguise because going to a bidding war will means paying too much of premium and that RBS has now inherited billions of subprime debt from ABN.
So what is your opinion about Temasek stake in UBS?
By the above logic, what you're saying is no different from suggesting it'd be worthwhile to buy USD at a rate of USD1=SGD3 so long as you're prepared to hold on to it forever. Really, are you sure you aren't suffering from some psychiatric ailment?Originally posted by Gazelle:If you dont intend and need to cash out your investment, there is really no need to worry about that. Companies like UBS and Barclays are very well run companies and they will be able to ride out the storm.
As Warren Buffet said, when he buy into the company, he would like to hold on to it forever and his company's result speaks for itself.
Apparently, in a later post, you then claim that I'm an armchair critic criticising Temasek's failings which you have blatantly alluded to. So given the two seemingly contradictory stance of yours, which stance would you rather take to engage in a civil discourse? -
Originally posted by walesa:
walesa,
By the above logic, what you're saying is no different from suggesting it'd be worthwhile to buy USD at a rate of USD1=SGD3 so long as you're [b]prepared to hold on to it forever. Really, are you sure you aren't suffering from some psychiatric ailment?
Apparently, in a later post, you then claim that I'm an armchair critic criticising Temasek's failings which you have blatantly alluded to. So given the two seemingly contradictory stance of yours, which stance would you rather take to engage in a civil discourse?
[/b]
please dont use your silly forex example as a comparison to buying equity stake in a company such a Barclays. Barclays is a business, it give dividends, it is openly traded company and the value of the company is in this market capitalisation. If you look at the 5 year trend of most bluechip stocks, over time they will rise, thats the fact.
What I am telling you is that it is easy for arm chair critics like you to TCSS about Temasek investment in Barclays after things have been unfolded.
when I ask you for your opinion of UBS and other questions related to Temasek and GIC investment, you couldnt make a single comment.
If you are not an example of an armchair critic, then what is? -
For all the garb you've been espousing and terrible lack of knowledge in forex, you've still yet to clarify how paying over the top justifies a failed investment. Perhaps, you could start by shedding some light on clearing your amnesia-induced self-contradiction which you don't seem to understand?Originally posted by Gazelle:walesa,
please dont use your silly forex example as a comparison to buying equity stake in a company such a Barclays. Barclays is a business, it give dividends, it is openly traded company and the value of the company is in this market capitalisation. If you look at the 5 year trend of most bluechip stocks, over time they will rise, thats the fact.
What I am telling you is that it is easy for arm chair critics like you to TCSS about Temasek investment in Barclays after things have been unfolded.
when I ask you for your opinion of UBS and other questions related to Temasek and GIC investment, you couldnt make a single comment.
If you are not an example of an armchair critic, then what is? -
walesa,Originally posted by walesa:For all the garb you've been espousing and terrible lack of knowledge in forex, you've still yet to clarify how paying over the top justifies a failed investment. Perhaps, you could start by shedding some light on clearing your amnesia-induced self-contradiction which you don't seem to understand?
1) Please show me the discuss about forex as I am very interested to discuss it further with you.
2) On what basis are you saying that it is a failed investment?
3) Instead of asking armchair critics questions, can you tell me if Temasek and GIC investment in UBS, BOC and CCB are considered fair value?
Instead of beating around the bush with silly and baseless accusation, I would appreciate if could take the initiative to answer some of the questions I have posted to you.
(Thats only if you are capable, but to be fair, I dont expect much from armchair critics) -
I think I'll take this one.Originally posted by walesa:For all the garb you've been espousing and terrible lack of knowledge in forex, you've still yet to clarify how paying over the top justifies a failed investment. Perhaps, you could start by shedding some light on clearing your amnesia-induced self-contradiction which you don't seem to understand?
From an investment point of view, there was nothing wrong with the deal. You're basing your judgment on the investment itself on hindsight bias.
The reason for any overpayment in these scenarios is because of the mass involved. They aren't paying market rate because they aren't buying from the market.
So the investment went south. That happens all the time. When we speak of long run, we're really talking about looking at the big picture. This move is a loss negated by many successful gambits made in the same portfolio. Any money made above expectations in the past/future is simply variance. Any losses/underachievers are to be treated as the same.
That is why you cannot expect dividends to be paid out when there is a "bumper year", and instant accountability when something goes wrong. It's all part of variance. -
I think you need to view whatever you've quoted from me in the right context. This is not a discussion about the risks that invariably come with a part of M&A's, rather it was just to address the following :Originally posted by deathbait:I think I'll take this one.
From an investment point of view, there was nothing wrong with the deal. You're basing your judgment on the investment itself on hindsight bias.
The reason for any overpayment in these scenarios is because of the mass involved. They aren't paying market rate because they aren't buying from the market.
So the investment went south. That happens all the time. When we speak of long run, we're really talking about looking at the big picture. This move is a loss negated by many successful gambits made in the same portfolio. Any money made above expectations in the past/future is simply variance. Any losses/underachievers are to be treated as the same.
That is why you cannot expect dividends to be paid out when there is a "bumper year", and instant accountability when something goes wrong. It's all part of variance.
Go over the above and tell me if it makes sense just by interpreting the logic of the part in red without making any veiled reference to Temasek and Barclays in detail (we could go on making a case for Temasek's stake in Barclays and what exactly constitutes "long term" in economics). I cited Temasek as an example to address the above, but could have very well done with other examples to disprove the above notion.Originally posted by Gazelle:If you dont intend and need to cash out your investment, there is really no need to worry about that. Companies like UBS and Barclays are very well run companies and they will be able to ride out the storm.
As Warren Buffet said, when he buy into the company, he would like to hold on to it forever and his company's result speaks for itself. -
Originally posted by Gazelle:walesa,
1) Please show me the discuss about forex as I am very interested to discuss it further with you.
Further self-contradiction from the resident idiot? How much lower can your idiocy get?Originally posted by Gazelle:please dont use your silly forex example as a comparison to buying equity stake in a company such a Barclays.
Given your stupendous ability to misinterpret and misread information at face value, it'd be amazing you could comprehend anything that constitutes a part of my views without contradicting yourself further if you didn't first establish just what stance you're actually taking in this discourse.Originally posted by Gazelle:2) On what basis are you saying that it is a failed investment?
3) Instead of asking armchair critics questions, can you tell me if Temasek and GIC investment in UBS, BOC and CCB are considered fair value?
Instead of beating around the bush with silly and baseless accusation, I would appreciate if could take the initiative to answer some of the questions I have posted to you.
On one hand, you're blatantly making a case for any long term investment to be sound and worthwhile so long as you're prepared to "hold on to it" forever, yet you seem to share the same propensity for acknowledging Temasek's follies in their Barclays' deal? Which side are you on, really? -
Originally posted by TS Kan:Points taken ...... now can we have some really positive and exciting ideas as to how our government should run Singapore better (not that they are not doing a-hell-of-a-good-job already!)
-
Will they be announcing the need to raise GST to help the poor anytime soon for the bailout of UBS? -
... a little tit-bit about Gaz in support of your sentiments here, walesa...Originally posted by walesa:Given your stupendous ability to misinterpret and misread information at face value, it'd be amazing you could comprehend anything that constitutes a part of my views without contradicting yourself further if you didn't first establish just what stance you're actually taking in this discourse.
On one hand, you're blatantly making a case for any long term investment to be sound and worthwhile so long as you're prepared to "hold on to it" forever, yet you seem to share the same propensity for acknowledging Temasek's follies in their Barclays' deal? Which side are you on, really?
... that chap quoted me as saying I did something in November and and for pages insists that I did it in July....
... yes, he quoted me saying I did it in November in one of his posts insisting that I did it in July...
.. and he used the words... "remember what you said...", quoted me saying I did it in November, (sell S$ for Thai Baht on November 15th) and then ask me how I made money buying Thai Baht............... in July!
... I had so much fun making a fool out of him and I think you would too... -
and oh... the link is here...
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=290788&page=27
and the next few pages! -
hmmOriginally posted by walesa:Go over the above and tell me if it makes sense just by interpreting the logic of the part in red without making any veiled reference to Temasek and Barclays in detail (we could go on making a case for Temasek's stake in Barclays and what exactly constitutes "long term" in economics). I cited Temasek as an example to address the above, but could have very well done with other examples to disprove the above notion.
Like i said in my last post. Sometimes you make money, sometimes you lose money. If you have the staying power to buy and hold as in this case, your loss is a paper loss.
Plus, buying stakes in huge institutions are generally not for the kind of profits individual investors look for. Big stakes in these institutions can generally mean many non-monetary benefits that we do not understand.
When you treat big investments such as this one as the same kind of investments that we individuals make, you'll often find some of them don't make sense at all.
Not to say that Temasek would have bought in then if they knew the price was about to crash. But then again, who knew, really? -
1.do u think warren Buffet will look at his shares every dayOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:...image for share price drop
December 10th was the day of announcement... and within three days the total losses are more than $1 billion dollars?
Will they be announcing the need to raise GST to help the poor anytime soon?
and cry while it drop.
This is long tern investment,unlike those small or medium players.
They just earn little profits and sell.
But they hold on even the price drop 50 %!
Blue chips,which hardly be manipulated by big players,
seldom drop so much in so short...
Short term gain need not be too happy.
Short term loss also remain cool. -
I know what you're driving at, mate. Just to sidetrack for a moment and revert to the Temasek-Barclays mess for a moment, what is undeniable (at least, in the view of anyone with a sane and rational mind) would be the fact that Temasek had purchased the stake in Barclays banking on the latter's takeover of ABN Amro to proceed. On the basis of that, it's not exactly the greatest foresight from an investors' perspective, is it? On the back of that, could you really say that deal is sound? Whether anyone could have foreseen what (how anyone has the audacity to give credit to a futile investment is beyond me to begin with) ensued is another matter. You could start a thread on M&A for that if you like...Originally posted by deathbait:hmm
Like i said in my last post. Sometimes you make money, sometimes you lose money. If you have the staying power to buy and hold as in this case, your loss is a paper loss.
Plus, buying stakes in huge institutions are generally not for the kind of profits individual investors look for. Big stakes in these institutions can generally mean many non-monetary benefits that we do not understand.
When you treat big investments such as this one as the same kind of investments that we individuals make, you'll often find some of them don't make sense at all.
Not to say that Temasek would have bought in then if they knew the price was about to crash. But then again, who knew, really?
If you need any further insight, check out Barclays' share prices over the last 6 months - Temasek joined the fray at £7.20 per share in late July. In barely a month, its shares had plummeted to a level below £6.00 indicating Temasek's loss to be in excess of £150 million. Given its £975 million investment, £150 million works out to a 15.4% loss in barely a month. So much for a good investment indeed - I'm sure Warren Buffet didn't become the third richest men on the planet by making such investments.
That said, much of the above is peripheral and academic to what you'd planned to address by quoting my original post directed at the resident drone's audaciously foolish claims which challenges the most rudimentary logic comprehensible to man. As I know, he has enough trouble dealing with basic arithmetic if his antics in another thread is anything to go by... -
... it is a question of stupidity.... or something even more sinister that this happens again and again... buy Shin Corp and within months lose 30%...Originally posted by lionnoisy:1.do u think warren Buffet will look at his shares every day
and cry while it drop.
This is long tern investment,unlike those small or medium players.
They just earn little profits and sell.
But they hold on even the price drop 50 %!
Blue chips,which hardly be manipulated by big players,
seldom drop so much in so short...
Short term gain need not be too happy.
Short term loss also remain cool.
...buy Barclays and within months lose hundreds of millions..
...buy UBS and within 3 days, lose a billion...
... you really think Warren Buffet became top three world's richest doing that? Don't sully the name of that man by comparing monkeys that tikam tikam with him. -
... and mostly, when Warren buys into a company price shoots up because everyone trusts his judgment and wants a piece of the company that he bought...
When Ho, the Jinx buys anything foreign, time and again, the market price drops... why? Nobody trusts their judgment... because everyone knows of the nepotism in Singapore... -
Walesa,Originally posted by walesa:I know what you're driving at, mate. Just to sidetrack for a moment and revert to the Temasek-Barclays mess for a moment, what is undeniable (at least, in the view of anyone with a sane and rational mind) would be the fact that Temasek had purchased the stake in Barclays banking on the latter's takeover of ABN Amro to proceed. On the basis of that, it's not exactly the greatest foresight from an investors' perspective, is it? On the back of that, could you really say that deal is sound? Whether anyone could have foreseen what (how anyone has the audacity to give credit to a futile investment is beyond me to begin with) ensued is another matter. You could start a thread on M&A for that if you like...
If you need any further insight, check out Barclays' share prices over the last 6 months - Temasek joined the fray at £7.20 per share in late July. In barely a month, its shares had plummeted to a level below £6.00 indicating Temasek's loss to be in excess of £150 million. Given its £975 million investment, £150 million works out to a 15.4% loss in barely a month. So much for a good investment indeed - I'm sure Warren Buffet didn't become the third richest men on the planet by making such investments.
That said, much of the above is peripheral and academic to what you'd planned to address by quoting my original post directed at the resident drone's audaciously foolish claims which challenges the most rudimentary logic comprehensible to man. As I know, he has enough trouble dealing with basic arithmetic if his antics in another thread is anything to go by...
you still dont understand why I am saying that you are only as good as an armchair critics do you?
Have you noticed that so far in this thred, you are only capable to commenting on historical event and you have not take into consideration the sequence of events.
Why dont take up the challenge and comment on UBS instead? Do you think its a fair price? -
With the greatest respect, just because you do not understand does not mean everyone else does not understand.Originally posted by deathbait:hmm
Like i said in my last post. Sometimes you make money, sometimes you lose money. If you have the staying power to buy and hold as in this case, your loss is a paper loss.
Plus, buying stakes in huge institutions are generally not for the kind of profits individual investors look for. Big stakes in these institutions can generally mean many non-monetary benefits that we do not understand.
Put it this way, if you're after non-monetary benefits, Temasek wouldn't be worse off if they bought their stake after their anticipated takeover of ABN Amro fell through, would it? For the same £975 million investment would have enabled them to garner an even bigger stake of Barclays than they had done so at £7.20. Now, if that isn't an investment gaffe, I don't know what is.
The bottomline is that investment was an abject failure as far as meeting their intended objectives were concerned (not like you're ever going to see daylight about that from a press ranked 141st in press freedom) and possessing a long-term interest in Barclays is all but a scant consolation. Given a choice, who would ever want to be the eternal bridesmaid who never becomes the bride? -
Skirting around the topic is hardly going to evade the attention drawn to your ineptitude, is it?Originally posted by Gazelle:Walesa,
you still dont understand why I am saying that you are only as good as an armchair critics do you?
Have you noticed that so far in this thred, you are only capable to commenting on historical event and you have not take into consideration the sequence of events.
Why dont take up the challenge and comment on UBS instead? Do you think its a fair price?
As a matter of fact, I'm still awaiting you to clarify your stance on whether a long-term investment is always worthwhile or if Temasek's follies (which you seemed to have alluded to without wanting to confirm your position) are well-publicised botched jobs? -
Originally posted by walesa:
My stance is simple, if Temasek is still holding on its stake in the company which is not in doubt as a going concern, any fluctuation of stock price is immaterial. And I dont judge Temasek and GIC,s performance on isolated investment failure, I judge them on their portfolio ROI and track records.
Skirting around the topic is hardly going to evade the attention drawn to your ineptitude, is it?
As a matter of fact, I'm still awaiting you to clarify your stance on whether a long-term investment is [b]always worthwhile or if Temasek's follies (which you seemed to have alluded to without wanting to confirm your position) are well-publicised botched jobs? [/b]
So what is your opinion on Temasek investment at UBS? Is that a fair price?