GIC claims it “recoups†most of its losses,no actual figures
-
Temasek Review
GIC claims it “recoups” most of its losses, but no actual figures given
With the next general election looming ahead, the PAP regime has gone on a massive propaganda overdrive to “address” the concerns of Singaporeans and soothe frayed nerves to the extent of pulling a wool over their eyes in cahoots with the sycophantic media.
Sovereign Wealth Fund GIC which came under fire for its massive losses incurred during the global financial crisis now proclaims that it has “recouped” most of its losses, according to a Straits Times article today with the most misleading title: “GIC recoups most financial crisis losses.” (read more here)
GIC had released a report yesterday showing that its 20-year nominal annual rate of return in US dollar terms jumped from 5.7 percent to 7.1 percent for the last 12 months which is hardly impressive considering the fact that the Dow Jones Industrial Average is now up 8.44 percent and the S&P 500 index has increased by 9.5 percent in the month of September alone. (read more here)
Furthermore, NO figures were released on the percentage it has recouped nor the actual amount of money made or lost.
It doesn’t take an economist to realize that the so-called “rate of returns” make little sense as it is simply a rebound from earlier losses incurred during the global financial crisis as admitted by GIC chief investment officer Ng Kok Song himself:
“The recovery in our 20-year nominal average rate of return is not surprising, given the rebound in global equity markets in the last financial year.”
GIC was reported to have lost a shocking SGD 59 billion dollars in the last financial year, the bulk of its losses coming from the untimely purchase of shares in banking giants UBS and Citigroup.
A Bloomberg report in March quoted an experienced fund manager at Siwsscanto Asset Management in Zurich as saying that GIC may like more than a decade to recoup its initial investment in UBS.
“The game turned out not as easy as it may have seemed. It will take probably more like a decade than three years for UBS shares to return to 2007 levels.”
GIC should reveal the exact figure of the amount it has “recouped” from its disastrous SGD 59 billion dollar loss instead of using fudgy figures to mislead Singaporeans.
For example, even if it recouped 98 percent of its initial losses, it will still suffer a SGD 1 billion or $1,000,000,000 loss which can be used to help the poor and needy in Singapore.
Despite being a fund owned by the Singapore government and charged with managing our national reserves, much of GIC”s accounts remain enshrouded under a veil of mystery which runs contrary to the PAP regime’s claims that it is a “transparent” government.
The Chairman of GIC is PAP strongman Lee Kuan Yew, who is a lawyer by training. Singapore’s other sovereign wealth fund Temasek Holdings is headed by his daughter-in-law Ho Ching whose husband is the Prime Minister of Singapore.
With no opposition in parliament to hold the ruling party accountable, Singaporeans will have little choice but to accept Finance Minister Tharman’s warped logic that the entire system is “based on trust”.
Related articles:
>> Bloomberg: GIC to take more than a decade to recoup UBS losses
-
recoup does not imply making profit, so why need to show u the facts and figures, if you want, go for their IPO of 3.2 billion lah, those banks who underwrite for them will be more than happy to provide you a soft copies of their report annually. So stupid one
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
recoup does not imply making profit, so why need to show u the facts and figures, if you want, go for their IPO of 3.2 billion lah, those banks who underwrite for them will be more than happy to provide you a soft copies of their report annually. So stupid one
U so angry for what. You have a part to contribute to the losses? -
not only me, all of us contributed in one way or the other, so why be angry, just stating the fact only mah
-
Dont angry dont angry, profit or losses, we gain nothing.
-
yalor, whatever they gain or loss, still have to sell papaya and banana, pay this and that..
-
When they lost, they used your money to cover up the loss.
When they gained, they pay themselves fat bonus and claimed that it is their credit.
So, any significance in this piece of news ?
Just like they have alway demanded evidence when they fight their case, what is the proof in this case ?
-
We have to trust them.
-
We trust them too much that they start buy laborgini and crashing ferarri.
Just that we dunno whether there are any private jet or yacht out there.
-
It's all in the famiLee.
-
GIC recoup most of its losses?How?By 7% GST tax on us,by raising bus n MRT fare,electricity n water fees,cut our salaries n dont set minimuim wages,raise HDB flats prices,increase taxi fares,increase food n beverages cost,and go further to lock up our CPF money by setting minimuim sum n force us to buy CPF Life.
Yes,with all these,the GIC can recoup most of its losses.Like what i said in the past,the PAP government use our money to "Pay Tribute" to foreign countries.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
We have to trust them.
Ya, we had alway trust them, and in turn, they also thrust us. -
Originally posted by Tanrave:
GIC recoup most of its losses?How?By 7% GST tax on us,by raising bus n MRT fare,electricity n water fees,cut our salaries n dont set minimuim wages,raise HDB flats prices,increase taxi fares,increase food n beverages cost,and go further to lock up our CPF money by setting minimuim sum n force us to buy CPF Life.
Yes,with all these,the GIC can recoup most of its losses.Like what i said in the past,the PAP government use our money to "Pay Tribute" to foreign countries.
I have no doubt that they are actually making profit now, just that by putting word like recouping sound more pathetic to the public and also give room for more prices and tax increases. -
Originally posted by angel7030:
Ya, we had alway trust them, and in turn, they also thrust us.
Trust or dont trust them, losses or profts, devidends or red...life still goes on.We can complain and complain for months and years, they still business as usual.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
I have no doubt that they are actually making profit now, just that by putting word like recouping sound more pathetic to the public and also give room for more prices and tax increases.
You said tax increases? Yeah after GE lah. -
Originally posted by likeyou:
Trust or dont trust them, losses or profts, devidends or red...life still goes on.We can complain and complain for months and years, they still business as usual.
there is alot of differences btw TRUST AND THRUST, we trust them, in turn, they thrust us with knife...etc etc -
Originally posted by angel7030:
there is alot of differences btw TRUST AND THRUST, we trust them, in turn, they thrust us with knife...etc etc
Silent knife...bleed you till by the time you know, you already half dead. -
Something reminds me....
In the past, there was someone, a senior elder government official, whom I shall not name, who went on TV interviews exulting the glory of American society, its dynamism, and was so optimistic about its economic prospects, and so on.
And not long after that, the sovereign wealth fund, made an "investment" at some American banks.
They tanked and continued their downward spiral, and was in a stupor, for some time.
What I was curious about is,
Whether there was political interference.
The decision to invest or not invest should be taken by the managers and the professionals, and not by politicians.
Frankly, I am not confident that that happened.
And also,
One should try to ponder about the significance about some past experience, and also the wisdom of the overall strategy of using the reserves in certain ways.
Why are some investments made in ABC learning in Australia, which went bankrupt, or the apartment project in New York, which went brankrupt too.
If those moneys invested in Australian child care company could be invested in a Singaporean company, or even in PAP day care facilities, how much more improvement would the child-care situation in Singapore be made ? It may even boost the birth rate and help the problem with the population figure.
If those moneys invested in New York failed apartment project had been invested in Singaporean housing initiative, how much better would it help for the middle classes, for the people ?
-
Originally posted by Veggie Bao:
Something reminds me....
In the past, there was someone, a senior elder government official, whom I shall not name, who went on TV interviews exulting the glory of American society, its dynamism, and was so optimistic about its economic prospects, and so on.
And not long after that, the sovereign wealth fund, made an "investment" at some American banks.
They tanked and continued their downward spiral, and was in a stupor, for some time.
What I was curious about is,
Whether there was political interference.
The decision to invest or not invest should be taken by the managers and the professionals, and not by politicians.
Frankly, I am not confident that that happened.
And also,
One should try to ponder about the significance about some past experience, and also the wisdom of the overall strategy of using the reserves in certain ways.
Why are some investments made in ABC learning in Australia, which went bankrupt, or the apartment project in New York, which went brankrupt too.
If those moneys invested in Australian child care company could be invested in a Singaporean company, or even in PAP day care facilities, how much more improvement would the child-care situation in Singapore be made ? It may even boost the birth rate and help the problem with the population figure.
If those moneys invested in New York failed apartment project had been invested in Singaporean housing initiative, how much better would it help for the middle classes, for the people ?
Some things no need to say.
Just a little bit of thinking will give you the answer.
-
Eh, I thought veggie pao is pro establishment?
How come starting to think and question so much?
Cannot, cannot.
-
The rule of thumb is to be cheeper better and faster than our PRC compatriots and India friends.
PAP has allowed them into Singapore to wake up your idea understand?
Then after realising that you are not cheeper better faster than them .... there is room for improvement.
So strive to be Cheeper still! The cheeperest of them all and conquer the world .... be the first in the world for most exploited human labour force.
Kind Regards
Genie
"Cheeper, better, faster than you..." by charlize.
-
they better recoupe....if theres a hole in pants...the more u walk with it over time....the bigger the hole it will be...and everyone n the werld can see the GIGANTIC HOLE in the end....even if u covered it with a newspaper.
wrong getting china peeps in is not the solution.robots can do things cheaper,faster n far better than chinamen !its already in existence in spore in some high tech industries...spore gov isnt that smart so dun think much of their ability to lead anyone in a battle alive.......it doesnt know its got that kinda high tech stuff in spore even!like they didn know they had built decades ago drainage systems to cope with all levels of flooding.
its spore gov fault!they know it...we know it...so screw all of them !!!!!if u dun do that n correct them...u will BE SCREWED FOREVER!
-
if they dun screw up, where they got job to amend it, you need to understand what is self created job, screw it up and then work on it, and then proclaim they did well is alway the method use by sg govt, they are expert in this, not many countries' govt can do it.
-
US govt exit could leave GIC as top Citi shareholder
THE Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) could well turn out to be the largest shareholder in Citigroup after the United States government said it will sell its remaining stake in the bank.
The US Treasury owns about 2.4 billion Citi shares and will start to sell all of them, said a Bloomberg report yesterday.
Its stake, based on Monday's closing share price of US$4.45, is worth up to US$10.7 billion (S$13.9 billion).
Once the sale is completed, GIC may be left as the biggest stakeholder in the third largest bank in the US, with an estimated 3.8 per cent, based on data from Bloomberg. It is not clear how other key shareholders like Saudi Arabia's Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and Blackrock stack up.
In September last year, GIC exchanged its US$6.88 billion worth of Citi preferred shares that it bought in January 2008 for about 2.12 billion common shares at about US$2.95 each.
Subsequently, GIC sold about half of its holdings for a profit of US$1.6 billion, leaving it with 1.12 billion shares, or a 4.9 per cent stake.
Subsequent new share issues by Citi to boost its capital diluted GIC's stake to around 3.8 per cent.
At US$4.45 apiece, GIC's stake would be worth about US$5 billion, giving an estimated unrealised profit of US$1.7 billion over the US$3.3 billion cost.
The sale by the US Treasury will help Citi exit its US$45 billion bailout, which the government provided in 2008 to keep the bank from collapsing.
'We're seeing a form of governmental handcuffs being released,' Mr Bill Bradway, founder of banking consultant Bradway Research, told Bloomberg.
Citigroup shares have rallied 34 per cent this year, although they are still 92 per cent below their December 2006 high of US$56.41.
The bank may post a US$11.7 billion profit this year, according to the average estimate of 16 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg, after two years of losses totalling US$29 billion.
GIC group chief investment officer Ng Kok Song said in September that the firm is not in a hurry to sell its shares in Citi or Swiss banking giant UBS, as GIC believes the worst is over for both banks.
AARON LOW
Author: