-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Temasek return to shareholders only 1.5% last year, but S & P 500 increase 26.6%
- Thread starter Papsmearer
- Start date
Here's something to think about:
Ho Ching is brilliant & knows that the PAP's days are numbered
So she pawns everything including the kitchen sink & gets a kick back on these items, even though the tax payers are losing out.
Is this a possibility
Definitely. Including the toilet bowl too !!
what was lehman brothers and bear stearns credit rating before they collapsed?
She share a single cent with you?
Definitely. Including the toilet bowl too !!
Plus all the sanitary pads thrown inside.....that were used to stuff the mouth of those who protested about her great investment skills!!
Of course. The strong Singapore dollar and the increase in property values and rentals have benefited me immensely.
Sharing does not mean giving away money. It means creating an economic environment where everyone can prosper if they take advantage of the opportunities that she has created for all.
And the whole of Sinkiepore can drink it all up in Newater.
What high pay in the engineering sector? She would have been retrenched by now by a cheaper pinoy or apuneh FT.
No point arguing with a PAP cock sucker. Its good that they come up with all these stupid comments. People who read this thread can see what kind of moronic arguments unsupported by real facts that the PAP IB has to come up with. They can decide for themselves.
that is correct. The S & P started making index linked mutual funds available in 1976. If you had put all the GIC and Temasek money into the index, you would be fine. No need to have the overhead and perks for Whore Jinx and gang. U know this is such a sensitive issue when the PAP cocksucker Sam puts in 8 out of the first 18 posts to this thread trying to refute my original post. LOL.
You din add the compounded interests would have been 2000%!!!
S&P is shit! SINGAPOREANS ALL KENA CONNED BY POOR INVESTMENTS DECISIONS BY THE HAKKA LEE REGIME. NOW GOT TO PAY FOR THEIR FAILURES THROUGH MIN SUM.
AND GUESS WHAT NOW THAT CHOBLAN CRYBABY LIM B.S. IS CHAIRMAN OF TEN MASAK MASAK HOLDINGS!!
S&P is shit! SINGAPOREANS ALL KENA CONNED BY POOR INVESTMENTS DECISIONS BY THE HAKKA LEE REGIME. NOW GOT TO PAY FOR THEIR FAILURES THROUGH MIN SUM.
AND GUESS WHAT NOW THAT CHOBLAN CRYBABY LIM B.S. IS CHAIRMAN OF TEN MASAK MASAK HOLDINGS!!
Don't forget too that Christopher Balding already refuted Temasek's claim of 16%. the 16% return included the transfer of state owned GLCs to temasek at below market costs. Temasek than publicly listed these companies for a huge gain. eg SMRT, Keppel, etc. Since Balding has not been sued for libel, I am assuming that the PAP does not want to test his claims in court. So, he must be correct.
Sam, u are such a dumb shit, u must be working overtime on this thread. LOL. doing all the research and posting all the "results" to refute my original post? U still failed. No one believes your shit articles.
Show me a study that says that this happened for sure elsewhere in the world. Otherwise, its just a theory. Just like u having brains is also a theory.
The ratings mean nothing, in fact, all these rating companies rated the subprime mortgages as AA or better and investment grade. Even AIG was rated highly before they collapsed. All the debt that was rated highly by these Moodys, S & P, etc. were all junk. After the collapse and the subprime crisis, the US investigated and basically concluded companies paid Moodys and S & P for a favourable rating. These 2 companies have been sued by investors for their rating fiasco. Companies who relied on their ratings and bought investments that were junk are bringing them to court. Of course, SAmLeong will have you believe that somehow their rating of Temasek is 100% accurate when their past track record proves otherwise.
(Reuters) - Standard & Poor's asked a federal judge to split up the U.S. government's $5 billion civil fraud lawsuit accusing it of lying about its credit ratings, saying it would be unfair to have to defend against a case of such "unmanageable scope" all at once.
In a court filing on Tuesday, the McGraw Hill Financial Inc unit proposed holding a trial in two phases, with the first focusing on just the 17 securities where Citigroup Inc is alleged to have suffered losses.
S&P said this would cover over 30 percent of alleged losses suffered by financial institutions on the 158 securities in the February 2013 lawsuit, and limit the risk of juror confusion.
In contrast, a single trial would force jurors to balance government claims that S&P's ratings lacked "independence" and "objectivity" against "an overwhelming amount of information regarding the actual securities at issue and the detailed process by which S&P determined its ratings," S&P said.
And it could have been negative if not for the constant injection of the blood and coffin money from the SG peasants! Kena conned once in Suzhou and kena conned again by the bankrupt PRC banks:
Ho Jinx LOST BIG on Bet on China Banks
Lacklustre performance expected for Temasek
July 7th, 2014 |
Author: Editorial
The media reported today (7 Jul) that Temasek Holdings
would likely be reporting a lower performance in terms of its returns for last
financial year.
This is due to the lacklustre performance by Singapore stocks and Chinese
bank counters over the past year. Presently, Chinese banks and Singapore stocks
make up a major component of Temasek’s portfolio.
According to CIMB Research, Temasek may have increased the value of its
holdings by about 4 percent to a record $224 billion in the year to March
31.
=> From inflow of CPeeF?
China Construction Bank and Industrial & Commercial Bank of China are
among the top four bank stocks in Temasek’s portfolio. The share prices of
Chinese banks declined as China’s economy heads for the weakest expansion in 24
years amid rising debt and a clampdown on shadow banking.
China Construction Bank lost 13% in Singapore dollar terms, while Industrial
& Commercial Bank of China fell 11%. Standard Chartered lost 18%. Temasek’s
stake in China Construction Bank alone was valued at $17.8 billion as of March
31 and comprises 8% of its total portfolio.
Analysts estimated that financial firms made up 31% of Temasek’s total
holdings as of March 2013. “They (Temasek) built up very big stakes in the
Chinese banks, and it’s now going to be very difficult to divest that without
making a loss,” one analyst said.
Also, Singapore’s Straits Times Index (FSSTI) lost 3.6% in the 12 months
through March. Temasek is the biggest shareholder in about a third of the 30
members in the index. Its biggest listed holding by value, Singapore
Telecommunications Ltd, rose 1.7%. DBS gained 1.1%. SIA lost 3.7% during the
period.
China accounts for 23% of Temasek’s portfolio, second only to Singapore’s 30%
in terms of country mix, according to its annual report last year.
According to Temasek’s website [Link],
its Total Shareholder Return (TSR), which measures compounded annual returns,
including dividends but not capital injections, for the financial year ended 31
March 2013 (in Singapore dollar terms):
Average risk-adjusted hurdle rates for Temasek have been around 8-9% through
the years. Annualised core inflation in Singapore has been about 2.0% over the
past 10 years, its website said.
However, Temasek had a negative return of 30% in the year ended March
2009.
According to the website of the Institutional Investor’s Sovereign Wealth
Center, Temasek is the world’s 10th-biggest state investor. GIC ranks 5th. The
world’s biggest is Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global, with an estimated
US$869 billion of assets under management.
Olam International
In March this year, Temasek offered to take over Olam International valued at
$5.3 billion at the time. When the offer closed, Temasek and its related parties
own or control 80% of Olam.
However, prior to the takeover announcement, Olam’s share price had run up
considerably since the first week of February 2014, when the stock market
re-opened after a short break for Chinese New Year. From a low of $1.425 (4
Feb), Olam went up almost in a straight line to $2 (12 Mar), taking a 2-week
breather (21 Feb – 4 Mar) only at the $1.70 – $1.80 level. For the 3 months
prior to its run, Olam actually saw a deterioration in share price from $1.58 to
$1.42.
Olam ran up despite less than stellar results. On 14 February 2014, Olam
released their results for the second quarter and half year ended 31 December
2013 [Link]
which showed that profit dropped 12.5%.
Trading volume jumped along with the jump in share price. For the 3 months
prior to Olam’s price rise, average daily volume was a mere 3 million shares.
When Olam’s price went up, daily volume rose to as high as 18.29 million shares
(11 Mar) and averaged 9 million shares, 3 times its average volume of 3 million
shares for the previous 3 months.
There has been a general rise in farm commodity prices recently. The S&P
GSCI Agricultural Index has advanced 13% this year, with price surges in coffee
and cocoa. But even given this scenario, the outsized gains enjoyed by Olam on
the back of hefty volume cannot be explained.
At 6.52 a.m. on 14 March 2014, Olam announced through SGX that it was the
subject of a takeover bid by Temasek Holdings subsidiary Breedens Investments at
$2.23 per share. It is very disquieting that Olam only chose to request a
trading halt as it was putting the finishing touches to the bid, and not earlier
when the price ran up on heavy volume for over a month.
Even more disquietingly, SGX never once queried Olam on its trading activity.
In other words, SGX never once publicly asked Olam if it knew of any reason(s)
for the surges in price and volume, which SGX is supposed to do as a responsible
regulator.
Facing mounting criticisms and market talk in social media, SGX finally
issued the following “lacklustre” statement on 16 March, titled “SGX clarifies
Olam International issue” [Link]:
Market commentaries noted that in the six weeks from 3 Feb 2014, Olam’s share
price increased 34.8%, higher than those of its peers such as Wilmar
International which rose 11.2% and Noble Group which rose 12.6% over the same
period. During the period, the Straits Times Index rose 2.3%.
Such comparisons should be conducted with care as the financials and outlook
of individual companies may differ even if they are within the same industry.
While we do not prescribe a view of value or pricing of stocks, we note that of
the 13 analysts who issued reports on Olam in February 2014, seven raised their
target price by an average of 10.4% with the highest increase being 21.4%.
The 13 analysts had target prices of $1.50 to $2.00 for Olam. In the case of
Wilmar, eight analysts raised their target price by an average of 2.6% with the
highest increase being 4.8%. For Noble, one analyst raised the target price in
February. Trading in these three stocks were within the price ranges set out in
the research reports, suggesting they were trading within the general market
view of these stocks with Olam shares reflecting a more positive market view.
would likely be reporting a lower performance in terms of its returns for last
financial year.
This is due to the lacklustre performance by Singapore stocks and Chinese
bank counters over the past year. Presently, Chinese banks and Singapore stocks
make up a major component of Temasek’s portfolio.
According to CIMB Research, Temasek may have increased the value of its
holdings by about 4 percent to a record $224 billion in the year to March
31.
=> From inflow of CPeeF?
China Construction Bank and Industrial & Commercial Bank of China are
among the top four bank stocks in Temasek’s portfolio. The share prices of
Chinese banks declined as China’s economy heads for the weakest expansion in 24
years amid rising debt and a clampdown on shadow banking.
China Construction Bank lost 13% in Singapore dollar terms, while Industrial
& Commercial Bank of China fell 11%. Standard Chartered lost 18%. Temasek’s
stake in China Construction Bank alone was valued at $17.8 billion as of March
31 and comprises 8% of its total portfolio.
Analysts estimated that financial firms made up 31% of Temasek’s total
holdings as of March 2013. “They (Temasek) built up very big stakes in the
Chinese banks, and it’s now going to be very difficult to divest that without
making a loss,” one analyst said.
Also, Singapore’s Straits Times Index (FSSTI) lost 3.6% in the 12 months
through March. Temasek is the biggest shareholder in about a third of the 30
members in the index. Its biggest listed holding by value, Singapore
Telecommunications Ltd, rose 1.7%. DBS gained 1.1%. SIA lost 3.7% during the
period.
China accounts for 23% of Temasek’s portfolio, second only to Singapore’s 30%
in terms of country mix, according to its annual report last year.
According to Temasek’s website [Link],
its Total Shareholder Return (TSR), which measures compounded annual returns,
including dividends but not capital injections, for the financial year ended 31
March 2013 (in Singapore dollar terms):
- 1-year TSR was 8.86%
- 3-year TSR was 4.94%.
- 10-year TSR was 13%
- 20-year TSR was 14%
- 30-year TSR was 15%
- since inception in 1974, TSR was 16%
Average risk-adjusted hurdle rates for Temasek have been around 8-9% through
the years. Annualised core inflation in Singapore has been about 2.0% over the
past 10 years, its website said.
However, Temasek had a negative return of 30% in the year ended March
2009.
According to the website of the Institutional Investor’s Sovereign Wealth
Center, Temasek is the world’s 10th-biggest state investor. GIC ranks 5th. The
world’s biggest is Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global, with an estimated
US$869 billion of assets under management.
Olam International
In March this year, Temasek offered to take over Olam International valued at
$5.3 billion at the time. When the offer closed, Temasek and its related parties
own or control 80% of Olam.
However, prior to the takeover announcement, Olam’s share price had run up
considerably since the first week of February 2014, when the stock market
re-opened after a short break for Chinese New Year. From a low of $1.425 (4
Feb), Olam went up almost in a straight line to $2 (12 Mar), taking a 2-week
breather (21 Feb – 4 Mar) only at the $1.70 – $1.80 level. For the 3 months
prior to its run, Olam actually saw a deterioration in share price from $1.58 to
$1.42.
Olam ran up despite less than stellar results. On 14 February 2014, Olam
released their results for the second quarter and half year ended 31 December
2013 [Link]
which showed that profit dropped 12.5%.
Trading volume jumped along with the jump in share price. For the 3 months
prior to Olam’s price rise, average daily volume was a mere 3 million shares.
When Olam’s price went up, daily volume rose to as high as 18.29 million shares
(11 Mar) and averaged 9 million shares, 3 times its average volume of 3 million
shares for the previous 3 months.
There has been a general rise in farm commodity prices recently. The S&P
GSCI Agricultural Index has advanced 13% this year, with price surges in coffee
and cocoa. But even given this scenario, the outsized gains enjoyed by Olam on
the back of hefty volume cannot be explained.
At 6.52 a.m. on 14 March 2014, Olam announced through SGX that it was the
subject of a takeover bid by Temasek Holdings subsidiary Breedens Investments at
$2.23 per share. It is very disquieting that Olam only chose to request a
trading halt as it was putting the finishing touches to the bid, and not earlier
when the price ran up on heavy volume for over a month.
Even more disquietingly, SGX never once queried Olam on its trading activity.
In other words, SGX never once publicly asked Olam if it knew of any reason(s)
for the surges in price and volume, which SGX is supposed to do as a responsible
regulator.
Facing mounting criticisms and market talk in social media, SGX finally
issued the following “lacklustre” statement on 16 March, titled “SGX clarifies
Olam International issue” [Link]:
Market commentaries noted that in the six weeks from 3 Feb 2014, Olam’s share
price increased 34.8%, higher than those of its peers such as Wilmar
International which rose 11.2% and Noble Group which rose 12.6% over the same
period. During the period, the Straits Times Index rose 2.3%.
Such comparisons should be conducted with care as the financials and outlook
of individual companies may differ even if they are within the same industry.
While we do not prescribe a view of value or pricing of stocks, we note that of
the 13 analysts who issued reports on Olam in February 2014, seven raised their
target price by an average of 10.4% with the highest increase being 21.4%.
The 13 analysts had target prices of $1.50 to $2.00 for Olam. In the case of
Wilmar, eight analysts raised their target price by an average of 2.6% with the
highest increase being 4.8%. For Noble, one analyst raised the target price in
February. Trading in these three stocks were within the price ranges set out in
the research reports, suggesting they were trading within the general market
view of these stocks with Olam shares reflecting a more positive market view.
"Everyone can prosper" ...rubbish. Median takehome pay is $1700!!!!!
She didn't create any opportunity. If she hadn't lost a few hundred billions of our money, we would have opportunity.
It's quite amusing and pathetic that Leongsam tries to defend the indefensible. I wonder whether he enjoys playing Devil's advocate in his own forum. Or perhaps maybe it's his attempt to rebalance the anti PAP sentiment. I really don't know...
