Both Chris Kuan and Leong Sze Hian picked this interesting claim by Temasek. So are the unlisted assets in a parallel universe and a completely different global economy. Temasek never did clarify and knowing their reticence to disclose anything no will be any wiser. Leads of lots of speculation. Did their venture capital assets performing well? Are these the usual gifts from the government similar power stations?
I always wondered why they picked a corporate lawyer with absolutely no back ground or exposure in finance, investment and economics or any business related or even basic qualification nations in any of these was picked to lead marque portfolio in Temasek. Dilhan Sandrasegara's parents also have no background. Both lawyers and both worked in Pubic Service.
http://theindependent.sg/temaseks-one-year-total-shareholder-return-at-negative-9/Business & Economy
Temasek’s one-year total shareholder return at negative 9%
By The Independent - July 7, 2016 10 1317
Share on Facebook Tweet on Twitter
By: Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the article “Temasek’s portfolio value declines to $242 billion; one-year total shareholder return at negative 9%” (Straits Times, Jul 7). It states that “Its one-year total shareholder return came in at a negative 9.02 per cent, reflecting share price declines of its listed investments, the firm said on Thursday (July 7) in its annual review.”
12% Singapore Dollar return in last 3 years?
The rolling one-year total shareholder return for the last three years was 12 per cent (2, 19 and -9%).
Benchmark against other Sovereign Wealth Funds?
Instead of just reporting the returns – perhaps we should also try to compare it with other sovereign wealth funds.
Norway: 25% (not S$) last 3.25 years?
For example, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund had a simple total return of 25.64 per cent (not in S$ like Temasek) the last three years plus the first quarter of this year (not exactly the same 3-year time period as Temasek).
According to Chris Kuan’s article “Temasek’s declared losses problematic” (The Independent Singapore, Jul 7) – “Temasek saying the decrease reflects share price declines of its listed investments, which was offset by the performance of unlisted assets.
I find this statement problematic. It is not fully conceivable at least in my view that there is such a divergence between the change in values between listed and unlisted assets. If there is a general downturn in asset values and especially since Temasek admits to the volatility and difficult investment environment, then these conditions affects both listed and unlisted assets in more or less the same way, notwithstanding special circumstances that may result in some assets holding up or even appreciating compared to others.
Nevertheless, to find losses in listed assets being offset in a significant extent given the portfolio size by unlisted assets then the question that pops to mind is how robust are the valuation or the assumptions under the valuation of the unlisted assets since being unlisted there is no transparent, quantifiable market price for them?”
I always wondered why they picked a corporate lawyer with absolutely no back ground or exposure in finance, investment and economics or any business related or even basic qualification nations in any of these was picked to lead marque portfolio in Temasek. Dilhan Sandrasegara's parents also have no background. Both lawyers and both worked in Pubic Service.
http://theindependent.sg/temaseks-one-year-total-shareholder-return-at-negative-9/Business & Economy
Temasek’s one-year total shareholder return at negative 9%
By The Independent - July 7, 2016 10 1317
Share on Facebook Tweet on Twitter
By: Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the article “Temasek’s portfolio value declines to $242 billion; one-year total shareholder return at negative 9%” (Straits Times, Jul 7). It states that “Its one-year total shareholder return came in at a negative 9.02 per cent, reflecting share price declines of its listed investments, the firm said on Thursday (July 7) in its annual review.”
12% Singapore Dollar return in last 3 years?
The rolling one-year total shareholder return for the last three years was 12 per cent (2, 19 and -9%).
Benchmark against other Sovereign Wealth Funds?
Instead of just reporting the returns – perhaps we should also try to compare it with other sovereign wealth funds.
Norway: 25% (not S$) last 3.25 years?
For example, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund had a simple total return of 25.64 per cent (not in S$ like Temasek) the last three years plus the first quarter of this year (not exactly the same 3-year time period as Temasek).
According to Chris Kuan’s article “Temasek’s declared losses problematic” (The Independent Singapore, Jul 7) – “Temasek saying the decrease reflects share price declines of its listed investments, which was offset by the performance of unlisted assets.
I find this statement problematic. It is not fully conceivable at least in my view that there is such a divergence between the change in values between listed and unlisted assets. If there is a general downturn in asset values and especially since Temasek admits to the volatility and difficult investment environment, then these conditions affects both listed and unlisted assets in more or less the same way, notwithstanding special circumstances that may result in some assets holding up or even appreciating compared to others.
Nevertheless, to find losses in listed assets being offset in a significant extent given the portfolio size by unlisted assets then the question that pops to mind is how robust are the valuation or the assumptions under the valuation of the unlisted assets since being unlisted there is no transparent, quantifiable market price for them?”
