- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 25,138
- Points
- 113
Only shits like GIC can defend this kind of investments. Lose money like shit, poor institutional control of it traders, steps away from bankruptcy, etc. This kind of company is good to invest? TT, what you say about this? How can you oversee the national reserves when u cannot even oversee the GIC investments? The best investor in the world Warren Buffet, will willingly admit the investment mistakes that he had made. But GIC is infallible, better than any investor, never makes mistake. Uniquely singapore. Dare to say its timing could be better? U think? What happens to other CEO who had bad timing? They get fired, along with the BOD who signed off on the UBS investment.
SINGAPORE: The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) has defended its investment in Swiss bank UBS.
This was in response to a forum letter in TODAY newspaper, which called for GIC to be more transparent with its losses.
The letter came after a US$2.3 billion loss was made by a rogue trader at UBS.
GIC is the largest shareholder of UBS with a stake of more than six per cent.
In a letter to the media, GIC said its investment in UBS was made before the onset of the global financial crisis of 2008.
Bullshit, all savvy investors were already staying away from banks and investment houses, the writing was on the wall. The subprime mortgage started already in late 2006 with the number of foreclosures going way up. By 2007, the 1st phase of the global financial crisis was already well under way. GIC invested $14 billion into UBS on Dec 11 2007. So, the subprime/global financial meltdown was already well under way by than when it may its investment in UBS. Note too, more significantly, no other pension funds, mutual funds, banks, etc. came to UBS's rescue. Why? They know a dog went they see one, and they knew the coming storm on the horizon. But here we have GIC trying to rewrite history. Sounds familiar in Singapore?
It reiterated that in retrospect, the timing for the investment could have been better.
GIC also pointed out that during the same period, it had made good investment decisions and these have offset the losses on UBS.
GIC said its total portfolio has fully recovered to its value prior to the global financial crisis.
Typical PAP bullshit. Tried to siam the question with some misdirection to another topic. This is 2 separate issues. Your investment in UBS is under analysis, not any other investments. But they point to other things that say they did a good job. Well, the fuckers forgot they are paid to win all the time, not half the time. If you say your portfolio has fully recovered to prior the crisis, that means in the last few years since 2008, you have made no money overall. An unacceptable situation. Even putting the cash in the bank would have yielded a better return. GIC conveniently sets its own standards, and breaking even is ok. They should use Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway as the standard against which they should compare themselves.
The firm added that it does not disclose strategies or details of specific investments to preserve its competitive edge.
It reiterated that its investment objective, as set out by the government, is to achieve good long-term returns over a 20-year investment horizon.
GIC said its performance is assessed based on "our overall portfolio and not on individual investments".
As of 31 March 2011, the firm's 20-year annualised real rate of return, in excess of global inflation, was 3.9 per cent.
GIC also pointed out that more information is available in its annual report, which is posted on its website.
It had bought into the bank's ordinary shares at a conversion price of 47.7 Swiss francs or $67.60 per share.
The shares closed at around 20 per cent of that value the day the loss was announced.
This means that since its original investment of around 11 billion Swiss francs in 2008, it made an estimated paper loss of about six to seven billion Swiss francs at today's price.
SINGAPORE: The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) has defended its investment in Swiss bank UBS.
This was in response to a forum letter in TODAY newspaper, which called for GIC to be more transparent with its losses.
The letter came after a US$2.3 billion loss was made by a rogue trader at UBS.
GIC is the largest shareholder of UBS with a stake of more than six per cent.
In a letter to the media, GIC said its investment in UBS was made before the onset of the global financial crisis of 2008.
Bullshit, all savvy investors were already staying away from banks and investment houses, the writing was on the wall. The subprime mortgage started already in late 2006 with the number of foreclosures going way up. By 2007, the 1st phase of the global financial crisis was already well under way. GIC invested $14 billion into UBS on Dec 11 2007. So, the subprime/global financial meltdown was already well under way by than when it may its investment in UBS. Note too, more significantly, no other pension funds, mutual funds, banks, etc. came to UBS's rescue. Why? They know a dog went they see one, and they knew the coming storm on the horizon. But here we have GIC trying to rewrite history. Sounds familiar in Singapore?
It reiterated that in retrospect, the timing for the investment could have been better.
GIC also pointed out that during the same period, it had made good investment decisions and these have offset the losses on UBS.
GIC said its total portfolio has fully recovered to its value prior to the global financial crisis.
Typical PAP bullshit. Tried to siam the question with some misdirection to another topic. This is 2 separate issues. Your investment in UBS is under analysis, not any other investments. But they point to other things that say they did a good job. Well, the fuckers forgot they are paid to win all the time, not half the time. If you say your portfolio has fully recovered to prior the crisis, that means in the last few years since 2008, you have made no money overall. An unacceptable situation. Even putting the cash in the bank would have yielded a better return. GIC conveniently sets its own standards, and breaking even is ok. They should use Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway as the standard against which they should compare themselves.
The firm added that it does not disclose strategies or details of specific investments to preserve its competitive edge.
It reiterated that its investment objective, as set out by the government, is to achieve good long-term returns over a 20-year investment horizon.
GIC said its performance is assessed based on "our overall portfolio and not on individual investments".
As of 31 March 2011, the firm's 20-year annualised real rate of return, in excess of global inflation, was 3.9 per cent.
GIC also pointed out that more information is available in its annual report, which is posted on its website.
It had bought into the bank's ordinary shares at a conversion price of 47.7 Swiss francs or $67.60 per share.
The shares closed at around 20 per cent of that value the day the loss was announced.
This means that since its original investment of around 11 billion Swiss francs in 2008, it made an estimated paper loss of about six to seven billion Swiss francs at today's price.
