Someone once said that "this family is unique".
The funny bone is connected to the middle finger bone.......................
-
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 scores again on Yurun
- Thread starter MightyMouse
- Start date
Someone once said that "this family is unique".
The funny bone is connected to the middle finger bone.......................
no one is so suay. some of these companies she bought would not be touched by a junior account exec, much less some one in charge of a $200 billion fund.
Many hong kong people are wary of china food products. WHore Jinx should eat the food that her company makes.
That is just one example. Everyone knows those Thai banks she bought are jokes too, as is the indonesian banks. This chap eddy groves was one big conman and ABC has been described as Enron-like. I guess if you pay $400 million for the a business that goes belly up 6 months later, and the seller kicks u back $100 million in commissions, every one wins except the real owners of Temasek, the singapore people.
The island republic's premier sovereign wealth fund takes another massive writeoff
Although global markets have stabilized at least temporarily over the last couple of weeks, there is no sign of a letup for Temasek, the Singapore sovereign wealth fund that has already chalked up massive paper losses from its exposure to the world’s ailing banks.
Temasek looks likely to have lost its entire S$400m (US$270m) investment in ABC Learning Centres, the recently-collapsed Australian childcare provider, and there are growing concerns that the fund may have to help bail out the Marina Bay Sands casino project in Singapore as owner Las Vegas Sands creaks under a mountain of debt.
If last year, when Temasek built multi-billion dollar stakes in the once mighty Merrill Lynch and the UK banks Barclays and Standard Chartered, was a bad time to be putting money into the financial services sector, then now is not exactly the ideal moment to be pushed into a big investment in Singapore’s nascent casino industry.
Like other investors enticed by the dramatic gains on offer in a late-stage bull market, Temasek - which is run by Ho Ching, the wife of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong - appears to have had the canny knack of buying right at the top of the market and then watching its investments slide in value. Even as the first warning signs of serious problems in the banking sector appeared in the first half of last year, Temasek continued to pump money into the financial services industry, which now accounts for 40 percent of its S$185 billion (US$124 billion) portfolio.
This fondness for the financial services sector may stem in part from Temasek management’s closeness to the bulge-bracket investment banks. Despite the humbling of the one-time masters of the universe over the last year, Temasek has continued to recruit senior executives from Wall Street, bringing in Morgan Stanley investment banker Michael Dee in August and Rohit Sipahimalani, another Morgan Stanley banker, last month.
But the rapid demise of ABC Learning, which is Australia’s largest childcare provider, shows that Temasek’s poor investment decisions are not limited to the banking sector. Temasek bought into ABC in May last year at a punchy A$7.30 a share and the stock soon headed south as the outlook for the over-hyped operator deteriorated. The shares were suspended at 54 cents each in August but equity investors are likely to lose everything after ABC went into administration because of mounting financial problems.
If Temasek were to bail out Marina Bay Sands, it certainly would not be buying at the top of the market. But it would be an investment decision driven less by financial prudence and more by the need for the Singaporean government to ensure that its casino experiment doesn’t fail.
Nervous about the Singapore economy’s narrow reliance on shipping and financial services, the socially-conservative government took the controversial step of legalizing casinos in 2005, prompting an unprecedented public debate in the usually acquiescent city state.
Having staked its reputation on partnerships with the likes of Las Vegas Sands and Malaysia’s Genting (which won the licenses to operate the two casino resorts), the government is desperate not to let the experiment fail. So Las Vegas Sands’ indication last week that it will not be able to meet the requirements of some of its loans unless it cuts spending will have sent shockwaves running through the corridors of power in Singapore.
While Sheldon Adelson, the tycoon behind Las Vegas Sands, has personally confirmed his commitment to completing the Marina Bay Sands resort, analysts now believe it is increasingly likely that the government may have to step in at some stage, probably in the guise of Temasek or one of its linked companies. Adelson’s gaming empire is such bad shape that Sands has had to stop construction in Macau of its huge Cotai Strip development opposite its Venetian complex which is intended to house various 5-star hotels as well as a casino. The Macau government has said -- according to the Financial Times- that it won’t allow any casinos to close and will take them over if necessary. However it seems that commitment does not extend to helping out partly finished projects.
“If Las Vegas Sands cannot cough up its share of equity, the Singapore government is likely to step in,” said Donald Chua, an analyst at local stock broking firm CIMB-GK, in a research note. “A viable option would be a 49:51 joint venture between the Government and CapitaLand, with CapitaLand taking a controlling stake.”
Singapore-based brokerage UOB Kay Hian added that the syndicate of banks providing the S$5.4bn ($3.6bn) debt facility for the construction of Marina Bay Sands could seek a new investor, hinting that they could turn to 40pc-Temasek-owned CapitaLand, a property group that was involved in unsuccessful bids for both casino licenses.
CapitaLand has insisted that it has not held any talks with Las Vegas Sands but, at the same time, it said that it was “strategically watching the situation and studying opportunities related to distressed companies or assets.” And, despite Las Vegas Sands’ assurances, the Singapore Tourist Board stressed this week that it has a number of options should the project fail, including taking possession of the development site.
While Temasek or CapitaLand may be able to pick up a stake in the Marina Bay casino on the cheap, gambling is one strategic industry that the government did not want end up owning. The government originally opted for international gaming companies like Las Vegas Sands and Genting because it thought they had the experience and clout to build world-class casino resorts that would attract gamblers from around the globe. While the Marina Bay Sands is unlikely to be re-branded as the Temasek Casino, whatever happens, gaming analysts doubt whether a government-backed resort would have the same draw.
With the impact of the financial crisis only just starting to hit the global economy, there are likely to be more disappointments ahead for Temasek in the coming months. But Temasek is not required to disclose regular financial results, as it has been given the status of an exempt private company despite being owned by the Ministry of Finance. So the people of Singapore, whose money Temasek is ultimately controlling, will probably have to wait until summer, when the fund is expected to release its next annual review, to find out exactly how badly it has fared over the past year.
Temasek also leaped heavily into one of China's highest profile, and perhaps more vulnerable, property developers, Country Garden. When it went public in Hong Kong in April 2007, Country Garden was the second largest IPO in Hong Kong history, with Temasek joining local tycoons Lee Shau Kee and
Robert Kuok as key investors. According to the mainland financial magazine Caijing, a subsequent S$800 million convertible bond issue in Singapore in February this year was made on terms which suggest the company is very stretched and badly needs to keep its share price from falling. It is now little more than half its initial price and down 75 percent from its peak.
Australia, once seen as a safe if unexciting location for Singapore cash, has also attracted top of the market deals from Singapore Power. Already well-established in Australia, it paid heavily in cash for the eastern Australia assets of pipeline company Alinta but with values in decline they have been unable now to flip them into their 51 percent owned local subsidiary SP Ausnet leaving SP meanwhile saddled with huge borrowings.
are you sure that singaporeans are the real owners of Temasek? can you cite the official documents pertaining to your assertion? i believe singapore's position is the same as china's. the latter stated categorically that the sovereign wealth funds don't belong to the chinese people.
Temasek is owned 100% by the Ministry of Finance. All assets of the Ministry of Finance belong to the people of Singapore, as it is a state govt. office.
But the 60% when their 'balls' are squeezed by the 'white gorillas' their eyes don't twitch & they can smile & go into 'seventh heaven', amazing! a medical science marvel!!
But the 'toe bone' will tell you, it is connected to another 'body' nothing to do with MOF!! but they are connected by intravenous drips, must can be mobile & easily removed & is undetected!!!
Last edited:
Temasek makes $10.7 billion profit last year
SINGAPORE: Singapore investment firm Temasek Holdings on Thursday said its group net profit in the year ended 31 March fell 16 percent to S$10.7 billion from S$12.7 billion last year.
This was due to lower operating profits from companies in its portfolio. It was also due to a difficult external environment.
The decline comes after a doubling of net profit in the previous year.
Temasek's year-end portfolio value, however, was a record S$198 billion, up from S$193 billion last year.
From the shareholders' perspective, Total Shareholder Return (TSR) for the year was a modest 1.5 per cent.
In the year ended 31 March, Temasek invested a total of S$22 billion and divested S$15 billion. Net investments for the year amounted to S$7 billion.. ....
Tan Chong Lee, Chief Investment Officer and Co-Head of Americas at Temasek, said: "We ended the year with a net cash position, and have full financial flexibility to respond to opportunities ahead. As a long-term investor, we continue to invest in sectors that are proxies for growth economies in Asia and other growth regions."
"It has been a difficult time for investors globally and you're likely to see that replicated across many portfolios globally," said Jason Hughes, head of premium client management with IG Markets Singapore..
Posting an $11 billion net profit "isn't actually as bad as some others would have performed over the same time period", he told AFP, describing it as a "healthy return"..
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/corporatenews/view/1211755/1/.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.13f405e42a7cc10518399520a499d381.351
In the world of financial Giants, $100 million is spare change.
In the world of Midgets, a pin-prick becomes a heart attack.
"A frog in the well sees a big sky as large as the circumference of the well". - myo
The real problem is that Tumasik thinks it gets a bigger bang ( though more often, bigger flops ) with a concentrated portfolio. This requires it to buy
substantial stakes in companies. It has therefore not been recruiting people with conventional fund managers' background but investment bankers ( less
charitably known as greedy wheeler dealers ) who network with corporate big whigs and can show Tumasick deals. The key is due diligence and not the more laborious and rigorous company analysis undertaken by conventional fund managers. One must wonder why Tumasick has to take this unorthodox investment approach ( Bain's key recommendation ? ) more appropriate for wealthy individuals when other SWFs have not and have seen more successful outcomes ( don't for a moment forget that the always touted 18% CAGR over the last 20 years it claims credit for is largely due to legacy investments it inherited which it either privatised or sold off such as Singtel, the power stations etc )...
Yes, u are right, it is an unorthodox investment strategy. Its made even more unorthodox by the fact that Temasek's and the Govt.s stated objective is to treat the money as a national reserve and rainy day fund, yet its being invested in small cap speculative companies like what a venture capitalist does. Hardly the money preservation strategy that should be used. Furthermore, singapore's SWFs are different from many other funds in the world. Other funds like the Kuwait Investment Office, the Norwegians and the Saudis are natural resource oil based. If they lose $1 billion dollar this year, its no big deal, they just pump more oil and make the money back. Whereas Singapore's SWF acutally represent the collective wealth of the country derive from our sweat and tears, and depending on the world economy, any money loss can never made up again.
I can think of 2 reasons for Temasek's investment strategy.
1) Companies that Temasek end up buying, hire brokers and middle men to find a buyer/sucker willing to pay at the best price. Their strategy leads to kickbacks to Temasek execs and other inducements for them to buy the target company. Brokers are paid large commissions for successfully selling a company to Temasek. Who's to say some of these commissions were not kicked back?
2) By targetting specific companies, an opportunity is presented for insiders like the Kwa and Lees to quietly buy shares of the target companies before Temasek makes its announcement to buy the company. Since Temasek always offers a premuim even on the close price of the target company shares, the insiders will cash out and sell their shares to Temasek and pocket the capital gains. Contrast this with the way the Norwegian SWF operate. The Norwegians simply buy shares in the world's 5000 largest companies. No insider can benefit from any inside information. And the Norwegians do not ned to have a large research or stock analyst department. As well, they can get rid of any investment banker and most sund management positions by doing this.
Similar threads
