GIC makes profit?
-
Another example is Joe Wilson who called Obama a liar during his Healthcare speech. You know what, Joe Wilson might just be right abt Obama being a liar, who knows. But what happens? He is heavily criticised for that outburst. Made to apologise. And Obama wins, because he came out, accepted the apology and says that both parties must come to a point where they can have a conversation where there are no name callings and the assumption of the worst in other people's motives. Out of this episode, Obama came out the greater man while Joe Wilson will be remembered as the congressman who heckled Obama unprofessionally. And through all these, Joe Wilson may just be right but everything he tries to say is discredited because of an unprofessional and unconstructive outburst.
-
gasband,
Please quote me throughout my posts to you when did i do what you mentioned below?
==> You stand up suddenly and shout "you asshole. You liar." You know what, you might just be right that he is an asshole and a liar but by standing up in front of everyone else in a corporate announcement, it shows a lack of professionalism and because of that, i can almost be sure that your credibility goes down the drain. If I have learned anything about making a point, its that I can still call someone an asshole albeit the right way.
-
bu yong ban qing gao
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Go on to defend them subtlely but always remember that you will not succeed in shutting people's mouths to speak the reality and facts of the ruling party.
Please quote me throughout my posts to you when did i do what you mentioned below?
==> You stand up suddenly and shout "you asshole. You liar." You know what, you might just be right that he is an asshole and a liar but by standing up in front of everyone else in a corporate announcement, it shows a lack of professionalism and because of that, i can almost be sure that your credibility goes down the drain. If I have learned anything about making a point, its that I can still call someone an asshole albeit the right way.
Err.... when i say..."YOU" I did not mean... YOU literally. I just mean "YOU" as a person.
And I am not interested to defend them. I am not allowed to have any inclinations towards any political parties anyway, at least not publicly.
-
You can go on your mission to quote what you want, you will never be able to stop the way people are responding to the PAP. Ruo yao ren bu zi, chu fei ji mo wei!
hahahah!
-
Originally posted by gasband:
Err.... when i say..."YOU" I did not mean... YOU literally. I just mean "YOU" as a person.
And I am not interested to defend them. I am not allowed to have any inclinations towards any political parties anyway, at least not publicly.
Too bad, your words don't match up with your actions. -
Originally posted by Fantagf:
You can go on your mission to quote what you want, you will never be able to stop the way people are responding to the PAP. Ruo yao ren bu zi, chu fei ji mo wei!
hahahah!
Wow...ok...thanks for that insight.
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Too bad, your words don't match up with your actions.Thanks for that assessment of me. Although I wonder how much you know me to make that assessment, I will accept it for now.
-
"Given the roller coaster ride that Singapore’s fund suffered before banking their $1.6 billion profit, we don’t begrudge them their gain. But it’s worth noting that it’s likely that Citigroup would have gone to zero without the support of the U.S. government."
"If you’re sure Citi can stand on its own two feet, you might want to hold onto its shares. But if you’ve got your doubts, you may want to emulate Singapore and take a bit of money off the table. Investors don’t seem to be thinking that way though. Citigroup shares are up more than 4% today."
-
citigroup share prices have climbed up so much from the lows in march, but still lower than the peak in 2007.
i thought temasek said its investment objectives is for the long term like 30 years time frame. selling after 2 years albeit for a 2b profit is short term.
If Temasek wants to invest in good companies, pls invest in brick and mortar companies such as GE, Warren Buffet's bershire hathaway or google. before investing in companies, it would be prudent for the CEO of Temasek to pay a visit and have a chat with the CEO of the company it plans to invest in. Jim Roger once said, he paid UBS CEO a visit and asked him a series of questions, one of which, is on the annual report that showed UBS is losing money. The CEO then reassured Jim that the revenue stream at UBS are good, couldnt be better in future. Jim felt that the CEO is not telling him the truth and he couldnt trust him to invest his own money in UBS. If you couldnt trust someone else with your own money, dun invest. He then took out his money from UBS and invested elsewhere. Warren Buffet also mentioned about the CEO and chairman of the company, whether they are capable and trustworthy.
-
Originally posted by gasband:
Another example is Joe Wilson who called Obama a liar during his Healthcare speech. You know what, Joe Wilson might just be right abt Obama being a liar, who knows. But what happens? He is heavily criticised for that outburst. Made to apologise. And Obama wins, because he came out, accepted the apology and says that both parties must come to a point where they can have a conversation where there are no name callings and the assumption of the worst in other people's motives. Out of this episode, Obama came out the greater man while Joe Wilson will be remembered as the congressman who heckled Obama unprofessionally. And through all these, Joe Wilson may just be right but everything he tries to say is discredited because of an unprofessional and unconstructive outburst.
everybody if not all, lie, even presidents and politicians. how often have we seen all politicians cover up and told lies after lies. in the business world, CEO's and chairmans also often lies. its human nature to lie. what's new.
-
does the CEO of Temasek read the biography and investment strategies of warren buffet and other gurus?
If you are investing, surely you need to read their books for knowledge, inspiration and the reasons why they are so successful in their investments. I wonder why Temasek doesnt consider investing in warren buffet company bershire hathaway. The CEO of Temasek also can bid to have lunch with buffet for 3 hours, of which the proceed is donated to a few charities, not to mention the yearly dividends the company is giving.
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
does the CEO of Temasek read the biography and investment strategies of warren buffet and other gurus?
If you are investing, surely you need to read their books for knowledge, inspiration and the reasons why they are so successful in their investments. I wonder why Temasek doesnt consider investing in warren buffet company bershire hathaway. The CEO of Temasek also can bid to have lunch with buffet for 3 hours, of which the proceed is donated to a few charities, not to mention the yearly dividends the company is giving.
Warren Buffet's 2 stock investing rules are :
1) Never lose money.
2) Never forget Rule number 1.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
Warren Buffet's 2 stock investing rules are :
1) Never lose money.
2) Never forget Rule number 1.
ya. he also said dun invest in anything you do not understand.
-
warren Buffet always quote
invest when others are fearful~~
-
Originally posted by noahnoah:
warren Buffet always quote
invest when others are fearful~~
yes and pick up bargains when others treat them as rubbish in downturn.
the CEO of Temask or GIC, you cant pick a newbie or a beaureacrat to head it. you need an experienced CEO working in the investment or wall street for decades. even though the CEO has an army of advisors, the CEO also must have insider knowledge and investment acumen. if jim rogers is the CEO of Temasek, he would have blasted all these advisors with impressive academic credentials, but not really investment acumen. all these so called advisors all combined are not even worthy for Jim Rogers insight. maybe can invite rogers to sit on the board with no executive powers, but sort of advisor's role, since he is living in Singapore now.
he railed against the FED and the US treasurer that printing money isnt going to solve the problems and is going to lead to high inflation in future.
-
Originally posted by gasband:
Thanks for that assessment of me. Although I wonder how much you know me to make that assessment, I will accept it for now.
Hey gasband, save your breath. Nothing you say will convince fantagf. She is only good at complaining, complaining, complaining..... Nothing logical or constructive ever come out from her. -
Are we supposed to be impressed with the profits that GIC is supposed to have made with its "partial" pare down of its stake in Citigroup to a smaller stake ?
Should we look at this as a profit ?
Has everyone's memory fallen short to the events that unfolded since January 2008 ?
15 Jan 2008 – GIC pumps S$9.8 Billion into Citigroup (*1)
In the report, the press release to Singaporeans had clearly and loudly boasted the following claims
That is exactly what the company is doing with its latest purchase into Citigroup. The two companies took just eight days to seal the deal.
GIC's investment is done through a financial instrument called convertible preferred securities. This will effectively give GIC some form of protection.
For example, if Citigroup's stock price falls, GIC does not have to convert its securities into shares and will continue to earn dividends of 7 percent.
But such a prudent investment, with lower risks, will also mean that GIC will see relatively lower returns.When the good news broke out in Singapore on 15 January 2008, there was a corresponding press release by Citibank in the USA :
15 Jan 2008 – Citibank reports huge losses in last Quarter of 2007 (*2)
The company, the largest banking group in the US, said revenues during the fourth quarter fell 70% from a year earlier to $7.2bn. Mr Pandit has pledged to turn around Citigroup's fortunes.
It was also announced that Citigroup is going to get a cash injection of $6.88bn from Singapore government investment agency GIC.Obviously GIC had gone into the investment with their eyes wide opened, as they had arranged for their investment in Citi stocks to have "air tight protection" - even at the cost of lower returns.
Even a savvy property agent had written in her blog on: 17 Jan 2008 – “The GIC-Citi deal: Opportunistic, (almost) completely safe” (*3)
Too good to pass up: Had GIC declined the Citibank deal, another big investor would have gladly grabbed it
The deal is almost risk-free. GIC (together with the other big investors in the private placement, totalling US$12.5 billion) stands to earn a 7 per cent yield regardless of what happens to Citigroup’s share price - not at all bad for downside protection.
As for the potential upside, GIC and the others can convert their preferred perpetual securities to Citigroup shares at a 20 per cent premium to a reference price (yet to be determined, but reckoned to be around the average of the next few days’ trading prices) any time they want.
After the January investments were completed, the financial teaser began to raise temperatures with the raising of hemlines, more statements of faith and sound judgments were made:-
20 Apr 2008 – Singapore GIC reiterates faith in UBS, Citigroup (*4)
"We regard our investments in UBS and Citicorp as long-term investments which will give us good returns when markets stabilise and economic conditions return to normal levels," GIC deputy chairman and executive director Tony Tan said.
GIC in December announced it would inject 11 billion Swiss francs (10.8 billion US dollars) into UBS. A month later it said it would pump 6.88 billion US dollars into Citigroup.
Both UBS and Citigroup have revealed multi-billion-dollar writedowns related to a crisis in the US subprime, or higher-risk, mortgage sector that began in August. The crisis has wreaked havoc in financial markets and led to a credit squeeze that is stifling growth in the global economy.
Should we be surprised that as events unfolded through the year, other lay persons were already wondering if the decision was sound ? Through the electronic media, the discussions continue unabated even as the worrying picture is unfolding:
11 Nov 2008 – Citigroup : Should we follow Abu Dhabi Investment Authority and GIC ? (*5)
From the comparison table above, both ADIA and GIC would have the option to convert the Citigroup ( Citibank) share to a common stock at the price of around $31.83 - $37.24 ( around 2010 - 2011) and $31.2 respectively, given the assumptions and assuming no adjustments.
Therefore from the above, an inference can be made that GIC or ADIA could be expecting Citigroup's share price to be roughly at $31-$37 by late 2010. The price of Citigroup share now is hovering around $11-$12. So, is this a good buy now since GIC and ADIA has already invested in it?10 Feb 2009 – Bailout Plan: US$2.5 Trillion and a Strong U.S. Hand (*6)
With the Obama Administration swinging into action immediately after taking the Oath of Office, rescue plans were hurriedly made to stop the complete meltdown of the US Banking System.
Stringent demands were made by the Administration as part of the conditions for using US Tax Payers' money to bail out the US Banks that needed help - this included all Sovereign Funds and Preferred Shareholders to renounce their positions
-
continuation:
17 Feb 2009 - GIC loss is estimated at roughly US$33 Billion (*7)
After December 2008, the clanger fell as the market split open and caused panic across the globe.
"The loss on the investment portfolio last year is estimated at around S$45 billion to S$50 billion," one of the people said. "But GIC has no thoughts to sell down any of its major investments. They'll wait until they recover."
A second person said GIC's investment loss last year was "recently estimated to be similar to Temasek's."
Temasek Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore's other sovereign wealth fund, saw its investment portfolio fall 31%, or S$58 billion, to S$127 billion in the eight-month period ended Nov. 30, Senior Minister of State for Finance Lim Hwee Hua said last week.
GIC spokeswoman Jennifer Lewis said the sovereign wealth fund won't comment on individual investments.
GIC, whose portfolio is more than US$200 billion even after the losses, has invested heavily in distressed financial institutions Citigroup Inc. and UBS AG, expecting that in the long term the two banks would provide substantial returns.
In January 2008, it invested US$6.88 billion in convertible preferred securities of Citigroup, which at the time would have given it a 4% stake in the bank if converted to common stock.
According to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing in late January, GIC owns a beneficial 5.3% stake, or 303.8 million shares, in Citigroup. These include preferred shares that can be converted into 261.1 million common shares. Based on Citi's US$3.49 last closing price Friday, the stake is worth US$1.06 billion.
Beneficial ownership entitles GIC to all the benefits of Citigroup stock, such as dividends, rights and proceeds from a sale, regardless of whether it is the registered owner.23 Feb 2009 – GIC wants to keep Preferred Stock. (*8)
A major Singaporean investor in Citigroup Inc. doesn't currently plan to convert its preferred shares into common stock as part of a potential U.S. government effort to help the ailing bank, according to people familiar with the matter.
24 Feb 2009 - GIC hangs on tenaciously (*9)
GIC is sticking to its strategy of holding on to its preferred shares that earns interest and therefore income. In Citigroup, the interest is 7% per annum. Citigroup, in self-preservation mode and looking for funds from anywhere, seems intent on a US government bailout this time.
Once Uncle Sam sticks his hands inside the pie and nationalises banks in one way or another, common stocks are arguably less an investment compared to preferred stocks. If the Northern Rock nationalisation and share buy back by the UK government is anything to go by, GIC is better taking the risk of clinging on to its 7% per annum income to weather any fluctuating share price.
28 Feb 2009 - GIC convert Citi Stocks (*10)
From CNA
SINGAPORE: The Government of Singapore Investment Corp (GIC) has said it will convert its convertible preferred notes in the US lender Citigroup to common stock in a bid to help shore up the troubled US lender.The exchange price is US$3.25 a share – a 32 per cent premium to Citigroup’s closing price on Thursday. The price is way under the conversion price of US$26.35 a share under the original terms of the investment.With the conversion, GIC’s stake in Citigroup will rise to an estimated 11.1 per cent, without any injection of additional funds.
In January 2008, the Singapore sovereign wealth fund bought about US$6.88 billion worth of perpetual, convertible notes in Citigroup. These preferred stocks would pay a 7 per cent annual dividend.
With the original price of Citi's share costing Singapore a sum of US$6.5 Billion for a 5.3% stake or 303.8 million shares, an additional 11% allotment is given to GIC as "compensation" for the 7% dividend that came with the Preferred Shares, and now to be converted to Common Stocks at a conversion price of US$3.25 per share.
The original price paid in January 2008 was estimated to be above US$20 per share, and which was hoped to be able fetch at least US$31 to US$32 by end 2010 when the economy improves.
Towards the end of 2008, the share price of Citigroup had fallen to US$11 - which resulted in the original US$6.8 Billion shares immediately devalued by 50%.
22 Sep 2009 - GIC makes US$1.6 Billion Citigroup sale (*11)
Considering the tortured events that GIC had experienced with the Citigroup shares - did GIC actually make any profit ?
The GIC exchanged $6.88bn of convertible preferred shares in Citigroup for ordinary shares this summer as part of a wider share exchange, and the sovereign wealth fund ended up with a holding in excess of 9pc, while the US government holds 34pc.
On Sept. 11, GIC exchanged its $6.88 billion holdings of convertible preferred stock for Citigroup common stock, together with the U.S. government and other private investors, it said in a statement.
The conversion price was $3.25 per share.
"The exchange resulted in GIC having a shareholding stake exceeding 9% in Citigroup," GIC said.
Following the exchange, the sovereign wealth fund reduced its stake through open market sales, it said.
It didn't disclose the price at which it sold the stake and how many shares it sold.
Citigroup shares closed at $4.61 on Sept. 11
Everyone seem to have forgotten the price paid for supposedly air-tight secure shares regardless of circumstances.
Should the US$1.6 Billion be realised as Profit ?
Or should the sum of US$1.6 Billion be treated as partial recovery of the original investment of US$6.88 Billion - which was devalued by 50 percent following the financial meltdown that burst into prominence by November 2008 ?