- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
Today’s Bloomberg showcase an article that easily boils Singaporeans’ blood and would very much have hurt the ruling party’s general election and presidential election results if the recent financial crisis is to happen a few months earlier.: That GIC has lost billions and billions of dollars with their recent investments in the banks, notably UBS and Citibank. It’s a joke that it requires the elected president to approve $4 billion to cope with the economic downturn (disclosed in the last PE) while the GIC can easily lose twice as much (not counting Temasek, Bank of America, and Citibank’s losses). Where’s the risk management? Where’s the financial controls? Where’s the diversification? [For the article, click here]
But the one point that I really cannot stand is the government’s and GIC’s inability to address the nation that they have made a mistake, that they have made a wrong investment move, that they have lost a lot of money.
This, is, totally, bullshit. If we always use a long-term measurement, going by historical records and because the world is not ending, almost ANY investment would become a gain in the long run. But of what use is it using a hyper-long horizon? In the long run, says Keynes, we’re all dead! There’s no point! The question I would ask is, if GIC always takes in a long-term view in investment, why not Temasek? Why did Temasek realize the losses on Citibank, Bank of America etc? And did Temasek say anything about their loses? It only illustrates how stubborn the ruling party is!
- http://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/more-money-lost-via-our-sovereign-funds/
But the one point that I really cannot stand is the government’s and GIC’s inability to address the nation that they have made a mistake, that they have made a wrong investment move, that they have lost a lot of money.
This, is, totally, bullshit. If we always use a long-term measurement, going by historical records and because the world is not ending, almost ANY investment would become a gain in the long run. But of what use is it using a hyper-long horizon? In the long run, says Keynes, we’re all dead! There’s no point! The question I would ask is, if GIC always takes in a long-term view in investment, why not Temasek? Why did Temasek realize the losses on Citibank, Bank of America etc? And did Temasek say anything about their loses? It only illustrates how stubborn the ruling party is!
- http://sgpublicpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/more-money-lost-via-our-sovereign-funds/
