One GLC buys shares from another GLC and pay 52% above market price!!

[po2wq]

ah jinx has 2 b made 2 rook goot! ...

 

[Papsmearer]

My friend told me over kopi this morning;

1. By % of shareholding, DBS is not considered a subsidary of Tamasick.

2. Unless, there is management control beside % of share ownership

3. Otherwise, considered an associate or just an investment, where Tamasick has no management control on the former, so paying 52% has been decided at arms-length.

.............:o

Temasek is a major shareholder and the govt. controls the BOD. The BOD sets the direction of the company and can hire or fire the CEO. Hence, if the BOD directs the CEO to buy shares of PT Danamon from Temasek, he better do so, or he will lose his $8 million a year job. Temasek, in addition to owning 12% of the shares, controls another 15% owned by its subsidiaries, such as maju Holdings, etc. In addition, many DBS shares are held by nominee companies that in effect hide the real stockholder. For example, Citibank Nominees own 19%. Who are the share holders of Citibank nominees? No one knows. Is there a good chance that the Familee and its cronies are majoe shareholders of Citibank Nominees? Yes. Will they exercise their voting rights in conjunction with Temasek? yes.

 

[Simbian]

Its like SLA selling land to HDB at"market price" and then HDB selling the flats the contractors built with subsidies that assist in cutting into that market price. And they don't even bat an eyelid to exclaim that they are still subsidized.

Of course the public can recognize this kind of blatant monkeying behind the scenes. But they buy into it anyway in the hope that they will not become the greater fool.

You must understand when this kind of behaviour becomes acceptable, anything goes.

 

[Zombie]

Temasek is a major shareholder and the govt. controls the BOD. The BOD sets the direction of the company and can hire or fire the CEO. Hence, if the BOD directs the CEO to buy shares of PT Danamon from Temasek, he better do so, or he will lose his $8 million a year job. Temasek, in addition to owning 12% of the shares, controls another 15% owned by its subsidiaries, such as maju Holdings, etc. In addition, many DBS shares are held by nominee companies that in effect hide the real stockholder. For example, Citibank Nominees own 19%. Who are the share holders of Citibank nominees? No one knows. Is there a good chance that the Familee and its cronies are majoe shareholders of Citibank Nominees? Yes. Will they exercise their voting rights in conjunction with Temasek? yes.

For direct link, Temasek is a major shareholder (ie influence) but not the majority shareholder (ie control >50% stake). Also, I believe it is difficult to establish that there is a formal agreement between the Temasek and other shareholders that voting power has been assigned to Temasek, in order to control the board. At most, you can prove influence, but that is not enough.

For indirect link, I agree with you that no one knows whether Temasek has control (>50% stake) on other shareholders (ie those XXX Nominees Pte Ltd), in order to show that Temasek has indirect control on more shares (ie DBS's) through those companies. Again it is difficult to prove control, since the information is private.

 

[Papsmearer]

Its like SLA selling land to HDB at"market price" and then HDB selling the flats the contractors built with subsidies that assist in cutting into that market price. And they don't even bat an eyelid to exclaim that they are still subsidized.

Of course the public can recognize this kind of blatant monkeying behind the scenes. But they buy into it anyway in the hope that they will not become the greater fool.

You must understand when this kind of behaviour becomes acceptable, anything goes.

Yes, that is exactly the right example. I supposed if every one look hard enough, there will be more examples.

 

[Papsmearer]

For direct link, Temasek is a major shareholder (ie influence) but not the majority shareholder (ie control >50% stake). Also, I believe it is difficult to establish that there is a formal agreement between the Temasek and other shareholders that voting power has been assigned to Temasek, in order to control the board. At most, you can prove influence, but that is not enough.

For indirect link, I agree with you that no one knows whether Temasek has control (>50% stake) on other shareholders (ie those XXX Nominees Pte Ltd), in order to show that Temasek has indirect control on more shares (ie DBS's) through those companies. Again it is difficult to prove control, since the information is private.

Yes, but I bet u they have control via the nominee companies. The question still begs to be asked why of all the banks in all of Asia, DBS must have the shares of this bank owned by their major shareholder Temasek. And not only that, want it so badly that they will pay 52% over premuim. I tell this shit will never fly in the US. the SEC will fuck them up oneside and down the other, as well u will see multiple lawsuits by DBS shareholders against the pruchase.

 

[Unrepented]

Safer bet to use the term "related party transactions", or risk being bombarded with technicalities from the you kno who, in the first round. Then they will show there is "independence" as well as "check and balances" in the second round of bombardment to make opps look stupid. What I am getting at is, know the correct definitions, practices etc. before raising it if opps wants to raise it, and be expectant of the rebuttals.

Yes, but I bet u they have control via the nominee companies. The question still begs to be asked why of all the banks in all of Asia, DBS must have the shares of this bank owned by their major shareholder Temasek. And not only that, want it so badly that they will pay 52% over premuim. I tell this shit will never fly in the US. the SEC will fuck them up oneside and down the other, as well u will see multiple lawsuits by DBS shareholders against the pruchase.