GIC invests $14 billion in Swiss bank UBS
-
guys look at this investment in a more positive way at least they know that the goats at the moment cannot be squeeze anymore, or can be squeeze in other areas...
so parking the milk in some stable investment with low volatility and rather fixed returns would be a great choice... as long as the milk don't become cheese can already. -
It is a stupid mistake that people like Nick Leeson (that caused the collapsed of Britain's oldest bank) and CAO (China aviation oil that lost US$550 million in oil options) did and that is.... to pour in good money after bad money....Originally posted by Gazelle: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.
So what is your opinion on Temasek investment at UBS? Is that a fair price?
... their original UBS position was suffering heavy losses and what did they do? They buy some more...
This is how Nick Leeson collapsed Barings Bank.... -
Why dont you quote that stupid AndrewYap who try to predict the mother of all black mondays?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:It is a stupid mistake that people like Nick Leeson (that caused the collapsed of Britain's oldest bank) and CAO (China aviation oil that lost US$550 million in oil options) did and that is.... to pour in good money after bad money....
... their original UBS position was suffering heavy losses and what did they do? They buy some more...
This is how Nick Leeson collapsed Barings Bank.... -
That's hardly a fair comparison.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:It is a stupid mistake that people like Nick Leeson (that caused the collapsed of Britain's oldest bank) and CAO (China aviation oil that lost US$550 million in oil options) did and that is.... to pour in good money after bad money....
... their original UBS position was suffering heavy losses and what did they do? They buy some more...
This is how Nick Leeson collapsed Barings Bank....
Your examples were involved in fraud. Rogue elements within the companies were hiding trading losses in their books.
It was notesworthy that for Barings at least, ING bought in at a token sum at that time and took over their liability. The business was eventually broken up and sold seperately to ABN AMRO, Mass Mutual and Northern Trust.
There was gold left in the supposed "mess".
I see GIC's buy-in to UBS as being similar to a "fire-sale" of a distressed asset. Except that this is a company that still has a great deal of long term potential.
Citibank is in a similar situation now. Are we to say that their entire business is no longer viable? -
I am talking about the underlying principle of putting in good money after bad....Originally posted by CX:That's hardly a fair comparison.
Your examples were involved in fraud. Rogue elements within the companies were hiding trading losses in their books.
It was notesworthy that for Barings at least, ING bought in at a token sum at that time and took over their liability. The business was eventually broken up and sold seperately to ABN AMRO, Mass Mutual and Northern Trust.
There was gold left in the supposed "mess".
I see GIC's buy-in to UBS as being similar to a "fire-sale" of a distressed asset. Except that this is a company that still has a great deal of long term potential.
Citibank is in a similar situation now. Are we to say that their entire business is no longer viable?
... not about fraud or whether after Barings Banks collapsed, there were scarp metal to pick from the rubble...
I am talking about putting in more money after losing a bundle in UBS...
In investing, you always look for the best place to park your funds.... and putting in money to salvage your losses is one of the stupidest things that people can do and that attitude of trying to salvage their losses, Nikkei Futures in Nick Leeson case and Oil Options in CAO case... is what kills off people....
I am not saying that GIC will be pouring in more and more into UBS (I hope not anyway...) but the fact that they did, pour money into a money losing position to try to salvage their losses is idiotic behavior... -
failing to computeOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:I am talking about the underlying principle of putting in good money after bad....
... not about fraud or whether after Barings Banks collapsed, there were scarp metal to pick from the rubble...
I am talking about putting in more money after losing a bundle in UBS...
In investing, you always look for the best place to park your funds.... and putting in money to salvage your losses is one of the stupidest things that people can do and that attitude of trying to salvage their losses, Nikkei Futures in Nick Leeson case and Oil Options in CAO case... is what kills off people....
I am not saying that GIC will be pouring in more and more into UBS (I hope not anyway...) but the fact that they did, pour money into a money losing position to try to salvage their losses is idiotic behavior...
variables do not match -
Actually, if UBS now came forward and said that they now believe that 100% of their sub-prime exposure will need to be written off (which is an absurd hypothesis) and they need another 5 billion from GIC, I would think that its not a bad idea to buy in some more.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:I am talking about the underlying principle of putting in good money after bad....
... not about fraud or whether after Barings Banks collapsed, there were scarp metal to pick from the rubble...
I am talking about putting in more money after losing a bundle in UBS...
In investing, you always look for the best place to park your funds.... and putting in money to salvage your losses is one of the stupidest things that people can do and that attitude of trying to salvage their losses, Nikkei Futures in Nick Leeson case and Oil Options in CAO case... is what kills off people....
I am not saying that GIC will be pouring in more and more into UBS (I hope not anyway...) but the fact that they did, pour money into a money losing position to try to salvage their losses is idiotic behavior...
Ceteris paribus, their business model is, after all, fundamentally sound. Their wealth management business, barring their exposure to CDO, is world class and their brand equity is second to none. -
duplicate post
-
-
... people get sentimental when they are holding on to money losing positions... they will look at straws to clutch... they become subjective...Originally posted by CX:Actually, if UBS now came forward and said that they now believe that 100% of their sub-prime exposure will need to be written off (which is an absurd hypothesis) and they need another 5 billion from GIC, I would think that its not a bad idea to buy in some more.
Ceteris paribus, their business model is, after all, fundamentally sound. Their wealth management business, barring their exposure to CDO, is world class and their brand equity is second to none.
... if UBS is as excellent as you say... why did they make that 10s of billions of dollars losses?
... is UBS the best place to park your funds at this time?
... are the despots parking their money in UBS because they have become emotionally attached to their position?
... most likely... because the people in-charge are put there by despots practicing nepotism and cronyism... -
You mean his thai asset?Originally posted by will4: -
Correct but his children asset also kena confiscated. The trouble is the junta will not allowed his party to be elected as the winner in the comingOriginally posted by Gazelle:You mean his thai asset?
election. -
UBS is not the only bank to lose money in collateralised debt obligations.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:... people get sentimental when they are holding on to money losing positions... they will look at straws to clutch... they become subjective...
... if UBS is as excellent as you say... why did they make that 10s of billions of dollars losses?
... is UBS the best place to park your funds at this time?
... are the despots parking their money in UBS because they have become emotionally attached to their position?
... most likely... because the people in-charge are put there by despots practicing nepotism and cronyism...
Deutsche Bank analysts estimates total losses from the subprime crisis will reach about $400 billion.
Is UBS the best place to park money now? Hmmm... I don't know...
Its a question that can only be answered perfectly with hindsight. And doing that makes us no better than the weekly 4-D and TOTO punters: If only I knew ah, I box then sure tio liao ah...
Sure, they were warning signs. Analysts spilled ink and some of the smarter investors and institutions did damage control early and limited their exposure... Mind you: LIMITED their exposure. No one got away untainted.
And I don't see how the issue of whether the government is despotic or not will impact on what seems to be, by most measures, a sound, long term investment. -
i believe this is about the right time to scope up banking share when banks are now going through credit crunch and opportunities like this is hard to come by, especially if you talking about bluechip like UBS.Originally posted by CX:UBS is not the only bank to lose money in collateralised debt obligations.
Deutsche Bank analysts estimates total losses from the subprime crisis will reach about $400 billion.
Is UBS the best place to park money now? Hmmm... I don't know...
Its a question that can only be answered perfectly with hindsight. And doing that makes us no better than the weekly 4-D and TOTO punters: If only I knew ah, I box then sure tio liao ah...
Sure, they were warning signs. Analysts spilled ink and some of the smarter investors and institutions did damage control early and limited their exposure... Mind you: LIMITED their exposure. No one got away untainted.
And I don't see how the issue of whether the government is despotic or not will impact on what seems to be, by most measures, a sound, long term investment.
watch out for the middle east and china investment funds, they are all waiting at the sideline for USA to go into recession. Once that starts, billions of funds will go into US to acquire companies.
As for Temasek and GIC, we are in good position both financially and politically to take advantage of the situation, as long as we dont get into a major bidding war with other major sovereign funds. -
all well and good... except for the fact that they lost a billion dollars in three days..
... think how much returns they could have gotten with the $1billion dollars... if only they have put it in the right place instead of chasing after their losses in UBS... -
Andrew, please dont bored us with what we already know. If you want to call youself a smart investor, you should at least demostrate to us you smell where are the opportunties during a crisis because that is really the best time to invest.
-
Gazelle, are you sure you know what you are talking about and are you sure you are not confused like in the last thread, quote me as saying I bought Thai Bahts in November and stupidly ask me when in July I bought it?Originally posted by Gazelle:Andrew, please dont bored us with what we already know. If you want to call youself a smart investor, you should at least demostrate to us where are the opportunties during a crisis because that is really the best time to invest. -
Just a thought: If Microsoft announced record losses following the flop of their latest software products and defects leading to product recalls of their x-box consoles, how do we expect the market to react?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:all well and good... except for the fact that they lost a billion dollars in three days..
... think how much returns they could have gotten with the $1billion dollars... if only they have put it in the right place instead of chasing after their losses in UBS...
If they announced in the same press release that they had found a strategic partner willing to pump is tons of dollars into the company to make good the losses and bring the company to new heights, would the market react any different?
My answer to both question is "NO"... pple will panic at the sight of bad news and sell, sell sell...
The long term profitability and viability of the company however, is a totally separate matter altogether. -
The issue is whether the despots should be chasing after their losses in UBS or made an conscientious well thought out investment that has nothing to do with their losses in UBS and do not end up with a billion dollars loss in three days... the billion dollars loss in three days could be better spent buying something else...Originally posted by CX:Just a thought: If Microsoft announced record losses following the flop of their latest software products and defects leading to product recalls of their x-box consoles, how do we expect the market to react?
If they announced in the same press release that they had found a strategic partner willing to pump is tons of dollars into the company to make good the losses and bring the company to new heights, would the market react any different?
My answer to both question is "NO"... pple will panic at the sight of bad news and sell, sell sell...
The long term profitability and viability of the company however, is a totally separate matter altogether.
Chasing after losses is what big time losers like Nick Leeson and CAO does...
... they see their positions making losses and they pile in more money to try to recover their losses instead of taking a step back and asking themselves where they should put their money.... -
... you buy a $1000 TV and the despots take $70 in GST...
... a $1billion dollars loss means that they took $70/- out of 14,285,714.28 in the number of $1000 TV sets that Singaporeans bought...
... and lost it to foreigners in 3 days flat... the money could have been better spent investing elsewhere instead of chasing after their UBS losses... -
So... where should they put their moneyOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:The issue is whether the despots should be chasing after their losses in UBS or made an conscientious well thought out investment that has nothing to do with their losses in UBS and do not end up with a billion dollars loss in three days... the billion dollars loss in three days could be better spent buying something else...
Chasing after losses is what big time losers like Nick Leeson and CAO does...
... they see their positions making losses and they pile in more money to try to recover their losses instead of taking a step back and asking themselves where they should put their money....
-
what a stupid question... you think I am paid millions to make that decision?
.... they should be honorable like the Japanese and if they dare to take the public money, then they should ready to kill themselves if they make a mistake... -
Try reconciling your hopelessly incoherent logic of judging their track records under the circumstances that their stock price is immaterial.Originally posted by Gazelle: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.
So what is your opinion on Temasek investment at UBS? Is that a fair price?
Just what spin are you trying to sell here? Your argument is getting more self-contradictory and senseless as you try to skirt round your ridiculous propositions. -
... the despots should have killed themselves many times over if they are honorable like the Japanese, for their stupid mistakes and for talking as much of Singaporeans' money as possible...Originally posted by CX:So... where should they put their money
... they dare to take so much public money? They should have no qualms killing themselves for their mistakes... -
u need not be too sad.
GIC is not holding the share yet.This is subject to the approval of UBS shareholders at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) which will take place in mid-February 2008.
share price here.check here 5 years later.
Dividend payment history
few_figures.