Ho Jinx's Estimated Pay - $8M - $24M?!

[h=1]PAP MUST DISCLOSE HOW MUCH WAS PAID TO GIC/TEMASEK BOARD OF DIRECTORS[/h]
<!-- /.block --> <style>.node-article .field-name-link-line-above-tags{float: right;}.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;}</style> Post date:
7 Aug 2014 - 3:54pm





<ins id="aswift_1_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_1_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_1" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_1" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>


GIC manages about US$ 320 billion of CPF monies and our reserves. Temasek’s portfolio is currently valued at S$ 223 billion.

Although these 2 SWFs manage a total of S$623,000,000,000 of public funds, none have been accountable to the public for more than 3 decades. The government has encouraged both investment companies not to disclose the remunerations/fees of directors/external fund managers. (Ministers who are directors of GIC do not receive fees)
The government says it wants to engage citizens but in reality, it doesn’t. On 10 July, I queried the PMO on the non-disclosure of the remuneration of Temasek Holdings directors. ( “Good corporate governance at Temasek Holdings?”) It has yet to reply after almost 1 month.

In my email, I highlighted Norway’s SWF (GPFG) with about S$1.087 TRILLION managed by NBIM. Its CEO earns about $1.4 million annually and the remunerations of ALL its directors are disclosed to the public. (below)

Why does our government continue to allow GIC and Temasek to operate without any accountability to the public? What is the government trying to prevent the public from knowing bywithholding factual information?
Temasek Holdings

The directors of TH include CEO Ho Ching, wife of the prime minister, Lim Boon Heng, Bobby Chin, Teo Ming Kian and eight others. TH directors count the Chairman of NTUC, Vice Chairman of NTUC Enterprise, CEO of ComfortDelgro, Deputy Chairman of SBS Transit, Chairman of Mediacorp, etc.onits board. Are these directors, who do not have any related experience in the fund management industry, able to contribute to TH?

TH CEO’s remuneration should not be a secret

NBIM manages GPFG funds which are more than 4 times the size of TH’s. It has no issue with the disclosure of directors’ remunerations.

Even our government does not conceal the salaries of our million-dollar ministers and highest-paid civil service. All other government-linked corporations such as DBS bank, Singtel, SIA, etc alsodisclose the salaries and outsized bonuses of CEOs. There is no reason for the government not to encourage good corporate governance at TH.

I came across an interesting article on Yawning Bread which I believe is a very good estimate of the pay package of TH CEO. It was estimated that Ho Ching could be getting between $8 million and $24 million, depending on bonuses pay out. This was based on TH shortest serving CEO, Charles Goodyear’s base pay of GBP 3.7 million in his previous company BHP before joining TH. For a more detailed explanation, read Alex Au’s article on Yawning Bread.

But that was in 2010, 4 years ago, when TH was just recovering from losses after the financial crisis. TH’s portfolio was then S$186 billion. Fast forward 4 years and TH would of course justify an increase in ints CEO’s pay package due to a bigger portfolio valued at $223 billion and inflation. And not forgetting the 2 CEOs of local banks are already earning close to S$10 million. They have less responsibilities than TH CEO.
Good corporate governance demands TH discloses the remunerations of its directors to ALL Singaproeans who collectively own all TH assets. If an exact figure is not available, perhaps the pay package could be disclosed in bands, eg:
etc.
GIC
Although GIC does not compensate the PM, 2 DPMs and 2 ministers, it must disclose the pay package of all other directors eg Ang Kkong Hua, Peter Seah, Chew Choon Seng, Raymond Lim (ex minister), etc If absolute figures are not to be disclosed, it could also do so in salary bands similar to TH.

External fund managers

External fund managers also manage about 20% of GIC’s S$400 billion or S$80 billion. A 1% management fee translates into S$800 million annually! Perhaps this may have contributed to the low returns which CPF members have been getting for 2 decades?

GIC must also disclose the fees and names of the fund managers. Eg:
On 3 Apr, The Straits Times reported that “GIC is reportedly seeding a start-up fund helmed by its former chief investment officer”. Ex-CIO Ng Kok Song had resigned from GIC after 27 years “but stayed on as an adviser as the chair of global investment”.



<ins id="aswift_2_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_2_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_2" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_2" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>


Questions:
- Is it in the best interest of CPF members when a GIC employee resigns, starts up a fund to compete with other funds with total support from GIC using our CPF and tax dollars?
– Why was such a convenient arrangement not an issue in parliament when tens of billions of public funds are at stake?
Conclusion
Temasek and GIC have paid tens of millions to their board of directors, possibly more. Hundreds of millions are also paid to external fund managers whose performance is really nothing to shout about.
The continued non disclosure of what should have been publicly-available information breeds distrust of the government. The government is managing hundreds of billions belonging to CPF members and citizens. GIC and Temasek cannot be managed like any mom and pop shop where decisions are made by only a handful of politicians instead of parliament.
The handful of politicians cannot simply decide on the framework to invest using OUR money, publish their intentions in the press and pretend stakeholders do not exist. This is clearly wrong and would not have occurred in any truly democratic country. Parliament has the responsibility to correct this error.

Phillip Ang
*The writer blogs at http://likedatosocanmeh.wordpress.com/

You ask too much, you will be told , " my father-in-law" is the boss, you ask the other one, " my father is the boss", you want to meet him at the cup de sac?? when he is being carried in a box, he will get up & still meet you at the cup de sac...so?

It would take a zillion man years to come up with their salaries.

She may be getting substantial bonuses but she is worth every penny considering the sterling performance that Temasek has achieved over the years.

Leongsam said:

She may be getting substantial bonuses but she is worth every penny considering the sterling performance that Temasek has achieved over the years.

Click to expand...

LOL - good one! :p

typical, give with one hand and take back with the other

no wonder pinky can cut his own pay but take back more through whorejinx,

Leongsam said:

She may be getting substantial bonuses but she is worth every penny considering the sterling performance that Temasek has achieved over the years.

Click to expand...

The Next in line will be another FamiLee, will he or she be able to give a sterling
performance or lose Billions like Ho Ching.

Investing in S&P can get you at least 7 percent.

Get rid of Temasek and reduce GIC to 1/10 of its present size will save at least a few hundred million dollars, if not a billion.

Leongsam said:

She may be getting substantial bonuses but she is worth every penny considering the sterling performance that Temasek has achieved over the years.

Click to expand...

On what basis do you considered it sterling performance?

Charlie99 said:

On what basis do you considered it sterling performance?

Click to expand...

Based upon the returns that Temasek has achieved.

http://www.temasekreview.com.sg/en/overview/ten-year-performance-overview.html

Not bad. 1.5 per cent. Better still bank in your money into CPF with its 2.5 percent return guaranteed without risk according to my grassroots leaders.

Debonerman said:

Not bad. 1.5 per cent. Better still bank in your money into CPF with its 2.5 percent return guaranteed without risk according to my grassroots leaders.

Click to expand...

Temasek - a company that outdoes Buffett

Frank Kane
August 10, 2011



Vision 2030: Abu Dhabi Model Economies

A capital future Read all of the features in The National's Abu Dhabi Model Economies series. Read articles

For Mubadala and ADIA in Abu Dhabi, in Singapore read Temasek Holdings and GIC.

The island state, used by the UAE as a model for economic development, has its own government-owned investment groups, which have become a vital part of its financial and economic life.

Although the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) is bigger, Temasek is arguably better known in the financial world.

Temasek (it derives from the old Javanese word for "sea town") caused a stir when it appeared to "call" the market in the Chinese financial sector, selling stakes in two of China's biggest banks - sending a shiver through world markets early last month.

The Singaporean fund, an investment company owned by the government, was the biggest foreign investor in the Chinese banking sector, with multibillion-dollar stakes in the Bank of China and China Construction Bank, but it sold down about US$3.6 billion (Dh13.2bn) of its total holding, for a tidy profit of about $1.2bn.

Nagi Hamiyeh, the managing director of Temasek's investment unit, says the sales were purely investment decisions, and pointed out that it retained substantial holdings in the Chinese financial sector. "We've still got $13bn in Bank of China."

But the market effect showed the increasing power of Temasek as a global investing force. The Singaporean company had won important political points with Beijing when it bought the stakes in 2009, just as cash-strapped western banks were offloading their interests in China. Just as with its Abu Dhabi counterparts - Mubadala Development, a strategic investment company owned by the Government, and the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority - Temasek is wary of the phrase "sovereign wealth fund" (SWF), and likes to call itself simply "a government-owned investment company".

In fact, its origins are very similar to the Abu Dhabi companies, if somewhat older.

Temasek's seed capital came from the grant of government-owned assets more than 30 years ago, mainly in airlines and telecommunications, rather than oil revenues, as in the UAE. The privatisation of the SingTel communications group in the 1990s also gave Temasek another injection of assets.

Temasek has adopted strictly commercial criteria as its basic business philosophy, and gets top marks on the transparency scales drawn up by investing institutions in their dealings with SWFs. It was a party to the Santiago Principles agreed between western institutions and global SWFs in 2009.

But the comparison Temasek likes to make, rather than the SWF league, is a more telling one: at its recent annual financial report presentation in Singapore, it showed a chart of its performance compared with Berkshire Hathaway, the company run by Warren Buffett, the legendary US investor dubbed the Sage of Omaha for the shrewdness of his financial dealings.

Over a 20-year period, Temasek outperformed Mr Buffett, with a total return of 15 per cent compared with his 13 per cent; over the past two years, the Singaporeans have raced away, with a 22 per cent return against Berkshire Hathaway's 9 per cent.

After Singapore, where Temasek holds 32 per cent of its assets, the investment policy is distinctly slanted towards emerging markets, and firmly anchored in Asia. Some 45 per cent is in Asian assets outside Singapore, with a large proportion in Malaysia. Only 20 per cent is in the West (including Australia and New Zealand).

Like many investors in the UAE, Temasek is becoming increasingly attracted by investment opportunities in Africa. "There are potential problems there, of course, like governance and lack of transparency, and we are cautious by nature, but things are improving, especially in South Africa, " says a Temasek executive.

Temasek has announced a new venture in partnership with South Africa's wealthy Oppenheimer family, setting up a $300 million fund to invest in African consumer and agricultural businesses.

The biggest chunk of Temasek's portfolio is invested in financial services, followed by transport, industrials, telecoms and life sciences.

"Real estate forms only a small part of the Temasek portfolio,"says the executive. "We have equity stakes in real estate companies in Singapore and joint ventures with the Malaysian government, but property is not a big component."

The investment policy has been an undoubted financial success. Apart from a blip in crisis-gripped 2009, the portfolio value has risen in every one of the past eight years, and stood at S$193bn (Dh582bn) at the end of March.

Profits have also recovered quickly over the past 12 months, following two years of downturn in the aftermath of the financial crisis. In the year to March, net profits amounted to S$12.7bn, up from S$4.6bn a year earlier. Debts were reduced by nearly half in that period, to S$9.5bn.

Temasek executives say they come across their Abu Dhabi counterparts as competitors in the international investment circuit, and are aware of "strategic relationships" at the highest levels of Singapore-UAE relations.

One significant link is the role of Baroness Shriti Vadera, a former British government minister, as an adviser to Temasek. She also advised the Dubai Government at the most sensitive stages of the negotiations over Dubai World's restructuring.








Read more: http://www.thenational.ae/business/...-a-company-that-outdoes-buffett#ixzz39m69DFEN
Follow us: @TheNationalUAE on Twitter | thenational.ae on Facebook

Anyone who can outperform Warren Buffet deserves $100 million a year or more. In fact, the sky's the limit.

Leongsam said:

Anyone who can outperform Warren Buffet deserves $100 million a year or more. In fact, the sky's the limit.

Click to expand...

I am going to a dinner buffet.

Leongsam said:

Anyone who can outperform Warren Buffet deserves $100 million a year or more. In fact, the sky's the limit.

Click to expand...

rubbish warren buffet's salary is only 50,000.why does he need a salary for?he manages billions of his own money.

frenchbriefs said:

rubbish warren buffet's salary is only 50,000.why does he need a salary for?he manages billions of his own money.

Click to expand...

Warren manages his own money so he does not need a salary.

Ho Ching selflessly manages Temasek's funds for the benefit of all Singaporeans and not herself. She therefore deserves reasonable compensation.

Leongsam said:

Warren manages his own money so he does not need a salary.

Ho Ching selflessly manages Temasek's funds for the benefit of all Singaporeans and not herself. She therefore deserves reasonable compensation.

Click to expand...

that means shes weak!!!!!is she truly is greater than warren buffet she would have grown her money to billions by now(warren buffet was a million by 1962,back when a million bucks truly meant a million bucks,it meant u were insanely rich,those were the days when a cup of coffee was only 10 cents).....the fact she depends on temasek to give her a salary means someone is a charlatan,a soothesayer,leeching on your hard earned money!!!!

why Sinkies ask questions like if the Lee Clan deserve high pay or not...............??

we all know the answer................the question we should be asking is...............what are we gonna do about it ?

if can do nothing.............don't dare to vote Oppo.................then just keep mouth shut lor.............

Leongsam said:

Warren manages his own money so he does not need a salary.

Ho Ching selflessly manages Temasek's funds for the benefit of all Singaporeans and not herself. She therefore deserves reasonable compensation.

Click to expand...

Singaporeans are indeed blessed to have such a kind woman. She always thinks of the welfare of the people and never misses any opportunity to make money for the sake of the people. and the country. An extraordinary woman indeed.

Leepotism said:

Singaporeans are indeed blessed to have such a kind woman. She always thinks of the welfare of the people and never misses any opportunity to make money for the sake of the people. and the country. An extraordinary woman indeed.

Click to expand...

i know that her basic is around 100k per month. Bonuses from 1 to 2 million