Please refer to Temasek Holdings website for the Income statement as well as Balance Sheet:
My addition to the analysis below is that there is an unusual 76% jump in "Other Operation Expenses".
The following is Written By PAPsmearer
This could be a long thread, but I want to focus on mainly just this, and not on the well documented Temasek losses, etc.
Temasek Bloated bureaucracy – What many people fail to understand is that Temasek is a fund manager incorporated as a Pte Ltd. In this sense, they are similar many other mutual fund companies around the world. They build a portfolio of companies for their investor, which in this case is MOF. And they try to earn them a return.
The overhead and fixed costs at Temasek are outrageous. In its 2009 financial statements and balance sheets, Temasek had $140.953 billion in assets (table 1). This was down from $169.844 billion in 2008. However, total expenses were $31.170 billion dollars or a whopping 22.11% of assets (percentage of assets is usually how funds are judged). Why was it only $25.7 billion in 2008, a year in which Temasek’s net profit was almost 3 times that of 2009!! So, how is it that in a year when net profit was 3 times less than in 2008, it incurred 21.28% in higher expenses!!
The expenses for 2009 (table 2) are broken down as follows:
Selling and Distribution $5.042 billion or 3.57% of assets
Administrative $8.068 billion or 5.72% of assets
Finance charges $2.727 billion or 1.93% of assets
Other operating expenses $15.333 billion or 10.88% of assets
The thing that really jumped out to me was the administrative expenses. This is expenses for salaries, rents, etc. How can a staff of only 350 incur $8 billion in administrative expenses! Do they have their own private jets, gold water faucets, etc?
Also, the selling and distribution expense is incredibly high too. In the US, mutual funds are restricted to just 0.75% for distribution fees, and most expense ratio in international funds are around 1%. Generally speaking, management fees in total can fluctuate depending on the type of fund. if a fund actively buys and sell, and we are talking hundreds, maybe thousands of stocks a year, the MER (Management expense ratio) can be high. This is not the case for Temasek. Worldwide, mutual funds are able to charge a 1% fee and this fee pays for its admin costs, salaries, etc. and still affords them a profit. In Temasek`s case, this is 22.11%. An astounding number. The taxpayer has no problem 22% of assets as an expense if Temasek management produced a say 150% increase in assets. But this is a year when Temasek lost $40 billion. It is very hard to justify.
The fact is that Temasek is out of control. There is no reign or oversight on its expenses. the truth of the matter is the PAP would have been better off parking Singapore’s money with 50 of the best fund managers in the world. Not only would they not have lost billions on Shincorp, Merrill Lynch, barclays, etc., their management expenses would have been much lower than what Temasek is charging the public. I am very interested in the salary component of Temasek`s expenses but I am sure it will not be revealed. In addition, if Singapore has its money with 50 top funds, the lowest 20% of performing fund managers can be culled every year, and replace with other fund managers. Well, when was the last time any underperforming personnel was culled at Temasek?
Its obvious that Temasek is a huge golden feeding trough for the PAP elite, a trough that the BOD is not overseeing, and may even be participating in. I am sure they make NKF look like peanuts. Temasek should be dismantled and the funds parked with the best reputable fund managers around the world. The taxpayer does not need a shiny new building, and $8 billion a year in administrative costs. Politically, the PAP should do that. Its obvious the antiquated and unprofessional way that Temasek is run reflects badly on them when such large sums of money are lost. At least if the money was with a fund manager, and he lost that much, the PAP can deflect the blame to the fund manager. But money is power, and the PAP wants to hold all the money.
Anyway, just my 2 cents on something that I don`t think the public is too aware of.
My addition to the analysis below is that there is an unusual 76% jump in "Other Operation Expenses".
The following is Written By PAPsmearer
This could be a long thread, but I want to focus on mainly just this, and not on the well documented Temasek losses, etc.
Temasek Bloated bureaucracy – What many people fail to understand is that Temasek is a fund manager incorporated as a Pte Ltd. In this sense, they are similar many other mutual fund companies around the world. They build a portfolio of companies for their investor, which in this case is MOF. And they try to earn them a return.
The overhead and fixed costs at Temasek are outrageous. In its 2009 financial statements and balance sheets, Temasek had $140.953 billion in assets (table 1). This was down from $169.844 billion in 2008. However, total expenses were $31.170 billion dollars or a whopping 22.11% of assets (percentage of assets is usually how funds are judged). Why was it only $25.7 billion in 2008, a year in which Temasek’s net profit was almost 3 times that of 2009!! So, how is it that in a year when net profit was 3 times less than in 2008, it incurred 21.28% in higher expenses!!
The expenses for 2009 (table 2) are broken down as follows:
Selling and Distribution $5.042 billion or 3.57% of assets
Administrative $8.068 billion or 5.72% of assets
Finance charges $2.727 billion or 1.93% of assets
Other operating expenses $15.333 billion or 10.88% of assets
The thing that really jumped out to me was the administrative expenses. This is expenses for salaries, rents, etc. How can a staff of only 350 incur $8 billion in administrative expenses! Do they have their own private jets, gold water faucets, etc?
Also, the selling and distribution expense is incredibly high too. In the US, mutual funds are restricted to just 0.75% for distribution fees, and most expense ratio in international funds are around 1%. Generally speaking, management fees in total can fluctuate depending on the type of fund. if a fund actively buys and sell, and we are talking hundreds, maybe thousands of stocks a year, the MER (Management expense ratio) can be high. This is not the case for Temasek. Worldwide, mutual funds are able to charge a 1% fee and this fee pays for its admin costs, salaries, etc. and still affords them a profit. In Temasek`s case, this is 22.11%. An astounding number. The taxpayer has no problem 22% of assets as an expense if Temasek management produced a say 150% increase in assets. But this is a year when Temasek lost $40 billion. It is very hard to justify.
The fact is that Temasek is out of control. There is no reign or oversight on its expenses. the truth of the matter is the PAP would have been better off parking Singapore’s money with 50 of the best fund managers in the world. Not only would they not have lost billions on Shincorp, Merrill Lynch, barclays, etc., their management expenses would have been much lower than what Temasek is charging the public. I am very interested in the salary component of Temasek`s expenses but I am sure it will not be revealed. In addition, if Singapore has its money with 50 top funds, the lowest 20% of performing fund managers can be culled every year, and replace with other fund managers. Well, when was the last time any underperforming personnel was culled at Temasek?
Its obvious that Temasek is a huge golden feeding trough for the PAP elite, a trough that the BOD is not overseeing, and may even be participating in. I am sure they make NKF look like peanuts. Temasek should be dismantled and the funds parked with the best reputable fund managers around the world. The taxpayer does not need a shiny new building, and $8 billion a year in administrative costs. Politically, the PAP should do that. Its obvious the antiquated and unprofessional way that Temasek is run reflects badly on them when such large sums of money are lost. At least if the money was with a fund manager, and he lost that much, the PAP can deflect the blame to the fund manager. But money is power, and the PAP wants to hold all the money.
Anyway, just my 2 cents on something that I don`t think the public is too aware of.
