Have Temasek calculate with the amount of money they lose for BoA and Barclays , if they distribute evenly to every Singaporean. How many local can they help?
Originally posted by deepak.c:
I still don't understand their investment strategies, can't figure out why they kept Global Crossing despite losing around US$300 million every year since acquisition.
May be name sake, sound better than Many Pinch or Mudclay Bank.
Have Temasek calculate with the amount of money they lose for BoA and Barclays , if they distribute evenly to every Singaporean. How many local can they help?
But that will be mollycuddling the people.
It is better to lose the billions.
Global Crossing was purchased in 2003, since acquisition they made losses every year, each year it's "like" capital injection of US$300 million to sustain the company.
http://politics.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/235957
The current first quarters 2009, they made a loss of US$59 million, looks like they have to maintain the losses in order not to disappoint the market.
Goes with rule #1 of accounting my lecturers taught me. A company won't go bankrupt even if they make losses year after year for decades, provided there is a dumb stock holder behind who is willing to pump in more money to make good the losses.
Originally posted by Ah Chia:But that will be mollycuddling the people.
It is better to lose the billions.
We don't lose billions, we help the world economy, if not how to be world class.
Singapore faces long haul back
By R M Cutler
Woe to pee ay pee, pui!
Lose lose lose, Temasek, GIC lose lose lose, billions after billions, lose lose lose!
Originally posted by Ah Chia:Lose lose lose, Temasek, GIC lose lose lose, billions after billions, lose lose lose!
Told you before : We don't lose billions, we help the world economy, if not how to
be world class.
Even if supporters say "sometimes it goes up, sometimes, it goes down" that it is expectable to lose money in investment sometimes, the fact remains that it is the right thing to do to Disclose ALL the Losses however it came about.
Its only basic due diligence in my opinion.
If the Private Sector wages are used as a benchmark for our Political Elites that take up Ministerial Posts - then it is only reasonable that the same "fiduciary responsibilities and accountability" practiced in the Private Sector should also be applicable too.
Unfortunately, it is simply politically inconvenient for MM LKY and his well paid underlings to submit themselves to this same standards.
Take/profit from Singaporeans and lose to the ang mos..... PAP is foreigners sucking government.
UNCERTAINTY may have been one of the reasons behind Temasek Holdings'
decision to sell off its stake in British bank Barclays in December and
January despite the huge loss it would make, fund managers said on
Thursday.
Reacting to reports that the state investment agency had offloaded
its entire 2 per cent stake at an estimated loss of 500 million pounds
to 600 million pounds (S$1.2 billion to S$1.4 billion), they said
Temasek could have been concerned that Barclays would be nationalised
by the British government.
Nationalisation would have made the shares almost worthless and was
'one of the fears that all investors had at the time', said Mr Wong Kok
Hoi, chairman and chief investment officer of APS Asset Management.
'There was extreme concern about the viability of the banks. Most Western banks were technically bankrupt.'
Other analysts noted that Barclays was facing potential cash calls
at the time, which would have forced existing investors to pay up to
keep the bank solvent.
Fund managers offered other suggestions as to why Temasek sold the
shares in the volatile December-January period, when the shares swung
from 47.3 pence to 190.6 pence. On Wednesday, they closed at around 260
pence.
Temasek paid 720 pence a share or 975 million pounds for its
Barclays stake in July 2007. The purchase was meant to help Barclays
take over Dutch bank ABN Amro in a deal that would have created the
world's No. 6 bank by market value.
But Barclays eventually lost out to a consortium led by the Royal
Bank of Scotland. A few weeks later, the sub-prime crisis surfaced, and
Temasek lost £150 million on its Barclays investment in just a
month, reports said then.
If Temasek had hung on, its paper losses would have been trimmed in
the recent market rally. Reports say the Abu Dhabi-based International
Petroleum Investment Co made a windfall profit of US$2.5 billion (S$3.6
billion) on its Barclays investment after seven months.
But it would have been impossible for Temasek to know back then that the markets would rebound, said fund managers
Short term wise, they have definitely made a lot of wrong moves.... like a gambler, a punter, certainly not like what a long term investor should behave
But.... let's hope 20 years down the road, we look back and see that it was a brillant move.... Cuz.... Market could possibly come down by around Sep to Dec to retest the lows of March, and perhaps even break the lows to be lower....
But then again.... I doubt Temasek would ever be able to wipe off this shame.... I mean.... me and colleagues and friends as new players who do not have the resumes of top brass in TH, can still make a little bit... know not to panic sell off in March.... how come TH sell off???
June 5, 2009
From The Newsroom Room
The Straits Times has swung into full damage control mode to limit the fallout from Temasek’s disastrous sale of its stake in Barclays Bank which may cause it to lose up to 500 million pounds or more.
This is in stark contrast to the Abu Dhabi-based International Petroleum Investment Co made a windfall profit of US$2.5 billion (S$3.6 billion) on its Barclays investment after seven months.
As usual, none of the Temasek executives, including its CEO and wife of Prime Minister Lee, Madam Ho Ching, are called upon to account for Temasek’s decisions.
Instead, it is left to the spin doctors at SPH to extricate Temasek from its current quandrary, not that it will ever be made to pay for its mistakes.
According to external analysts the Straits Times spoke to, ”uncertainty” may have been one of the reasons behind Temasek Holdings’ decision to sell off its stake in British bank Barclays in December and January despite the huge loss it would make.
Reacting to reports that the state investment agency had offloaded its entire 2 per cent stake at an estimated loss of £500 million to £600 million (S$1.2 billion to S$1.4 billion), they said Temasek could have been concerned that Barclays would be nationalised by the British government. (read article here)
What is the probability of Barclays being nationalized?
If this is indeed high, why did Abu Dhabi investment corp decide to pour in a few billion dollars into the beleaguered U.K bank 7 months ago in the midst of the economic turmoil?
Apparently, Temasek executives are not aware of this report by The Times on 22 January 2009:
Abu Dhabi has cleverly purchased “insurance” for itself when a stake in Barclay to minimize the risk of nationalization by the British government.
[Source: The Times]
Even if the Barclays were to be nationalized, the British government would have to pay a price above the market value to acquire the shares from Abu Dhabi, thereby ensuring that the latter will not suffer a loss.
Did Temasek insist on this clause being added to the contract when it purchase a 2% stake in Barclays then?
Why did Temasek cash out so soon when it is obvious that the Barclays is unlikely to be nationalized as long that Abu Dhabi continues to hold stakes in it?
The political fallout from any possible deal at the expense of taxpayers will certainly crippled the Labor government led by Gordon Brown which is facing a backlash from the voters.
Then again, the political repercussions are of significance in the United Kingdom where a relatively free media, educated electorate and robust opposition ensure that the government is held accountable to its actions.
In Singapore, Temasek can afford to lose BILLIONS of dollars without anybody taking responsibility for it. Somehow, its CEO can still “ya-ya”, claimed she has “no regrets” and is given a “May Day Award” by NTUC!!!
Maybe people need to ask if they sold off their citibank stake too.
BoA and the Barclay investments were all sold off quietly in the past few months.
Maybe they did they same thing for their citi stake too.
Central government cannot make proper investment decisions, just like the central planned governments (production) of Russia and China past.
world class government but always making wrong decision with the people money.
so whats the point
Originally posted by charlize:Maybe people need to ask if they sold off their citibank stake too.
BoA and the Barclay investments were all sold off quietly in the past few months.
Maybe they did they same thing for their citi stake too.
Maybe if they lose alot of money on the Citibank stake, they can state that they didn't lose as much as their Merrill Lynch turned BoA investment. Which might be a good thing depending on how you look at it, afterall you didn't lose as much as the other investment, it should be a good thing.
Originally posted by eagle:Short term wise, they have definitely made a lot of wrong moves.... like a gambler, a punter, certainly not like what a long term investor should behave
But.... let's hope 20 years down the road, we look back and see that it was a brillant move.... Cuz.... Market could possibly come down by around Sep to Dec to retest the lows of March, and perhaps even break the lows to be lower....
But then again.... I doubt Temasek would ever be able to wipe off this shame.... I mean.... me and colleagues and friends as new players who do not have the resumes of top brass in TH, can still make a little bit... know not to panic sell off in March.... how come TH sell off???
I dun understand why Temasek have recent times keep making the wrong move. Why they dun look at Asia stocks such CHina or India rather than the west? Is it that they get burnt by China oil and thai tomyam line that they thot asia is not safe?? Even laywomen like me also gain abit in asia stocks by using grandma name (tax free)
Originally posted by angel7030:
I dun understand why Temasek have recent times keep making the wrong move. Why they dun look at Asia stocks such CHina or India rather than the west? Is it that they get burnt by China oil and thai tomyam line that they thot asia is not safe?? Even laywomen like me also gain abit in asia stocks by using grandma name (tax free)
I think those ah ma and ah peks who bought stocks these past few months made more money percentage wise than TH by buying low and selling high.
Temasek's investment philosophy, buy high, sell low.
It's Philanthropic Investing.
Old man is not known for being a benevolent dictator outside SG for nothing, he lives up to his title.
Originally posted by deepak.c:
Temasek's investment philosophy, buy high, sell low.
It's Philanthropic Investing.
Talk about redistribution of wealth.
Old man is not known for being a benevolent dictator outside SG for nothing, he lives up to his title.
He is now overseas, don't dare to show face in Singapore.
Originally posted by charlize:Talk about redistribution of wealth.
He taxes Singaporeans hard, then redistribute wealth to the poorer countries. He is a man that commands respect.