-
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.
The Problem with Temasek Holdings in 3 Pictures
- Thread starter neddy
- Start date
It's not conclusive you know. If 17% CAGR is true, there may be three explanations which are not mutually exclusive. The first is the use of leverage on the holding level, the second being unlisted subsidiary companies accounting for the largest gains, and finally the transfer/sale of state assets to Temasek at book value (at cost) instead of some estimation of its possible market value. Personally I believe the third accounts for most of the supernormal returns enjoyed by Temasek. To say that the state achieved 17% CAGR under the stewardship of Temasek seems disingenous but that is just semantics to fool the masses. No biggie.
Using excessive leverage for private investments on the other hand... things can turn sour pretty fast.
Using excessive leverage for private investments on the other hand... things can turn sour pretty fast.
The masses deserved to be fooled.
The law is a very subjective thing. It is like Polytetrafluoroethylene coating, as long as it is allowed under law, and the side effects are hidden, no consumer protection lawsuit will stick.
I love book value, leveraging and and use of unlisted vehicles, makes things easy to cook and digest by the ignorance.
The problem with Temasek is Ho Ching.
She is not a trained asset manager. She was an engineer. She would not have become the CEO of Temasek (or even worked for Temasek) had it not been for who she married, this is a commonly-held public opinion that even the experts will not disagree with.
She is not a trained asset manager. She was an engineer. She would not have become the CEO of Temasek (or even worked for Temasek) had it not been for who she married, this is a commonly-held public opinion that even the experts will not disagree with.
If you want to delve deep into it, it is the Old Man's "hard truth" that you do not need to do, just know what others are doing in order to lead them. This is an extrapolation of the scholarship system he created - PSC, etc - and I believe he used the orchestra conductor analogy when defending it.
There's nothing really wrong about what LKY said. That is not the problem.
The problem is that Ho Ching is a pretty shitty orchestra conductor.
This sovereign wealth fund model is not really very good for the Singaporean citizen. Its financial might is based on monopoly power, and it works to the detriment of citizens. If, in spite of the monopoly advantages, it's not even performing as well as some other capital markets, then that makes the ruling party look very bad.
The following is a long read but it talks about how SWFs rule Singapore:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/240320...-true-mercantile-state-in-the-world-analysis/
Last edited:
To the guy who just zapped me:
How can LKY be the problem?
Will Singapore solve all its problems when the old man drops dead? No.
Is he influencing anything? No.
Is an 80+ year old man who is no longer in the cabinet able to do anything? No.
He belongs to the previous generation and is no longer relevant. People other than him are running things now. Get used to it.
How can LKY be the problem?
Will Singapore solve all its problems when the old man drops dead? No.
Is he influencing anything? No.
Is an 80+ year old man who is no longer in the cabinet able to do anything? No.
He belongs to the previous generation and is no longer relevant. People other than him are running things now. Get used to it.
