Temasek Holdings posts $7.6b profit
-
will Singaporeans get a share of it ?
Temasek Holdings posts $7.6b profit
Tuesday • September 13, 2005
TEMASEK Holdings, Singapore's investment company, posted a 3.8-per-cent rise in group net income to $7.6 billion in the year ended March 31, according to bond offer documents.
Sales rose 22 per cent to $68.7 billion, according to the sale prospectus. Contributions from STT Communications, Neptune Orient Lines and Singapore Power helped boost revenue, Temasek said.
Temasek is preparing to sell about US$1 billion ($1.67 billion) of global bonds, its first such sale, to help fund investments in foreign companies such as Bank of China. Temasek, which last year revealed its financial performance for the first time, has been trying to boost returns by lifting overseas investments to about two-thirds of total assets.
"They're increasingly more transparent, which is good," said Mr Tan Chong Koay, chief executive of Pheim Asset Management in Singapore. "You can't make money forever but they have done well so far, riding on the growing economy."
Temasek chief executive officer, Ms Ho Ching, 52, is expanding investment outside of Singapore in a bid to lift returns, which averaged 3 per cent a year in the decade ended March 2004.
Temasek's portfolio value rose to $103.5 billion from about $90 billion. About 86 per cent of its total portfolio value comprised publicly-listed securities and other liquid assets. The company had total assets of $199.1 billion, according to the prospectus.
The investment company is planning a sale of 10-year bonds, according to emails sent to investors by the sale's arrangers. The company may price the bonds to yield more than 40 basis points, or 0.4 percentage point, more than United States Treasuries of a similar maturity, one of the emails said.
Temasek's earnings will be released "soon", said Ms Eva Ho, a spokeswoman for Temasek, declining further comment on the prospectus and bond sale.
The sale will help fund acquisitions by Temasek, which in the past two years has taken stakes in ICICI Bank, China Minsheng Banking Corp, South Korea's Hana Bank, and Indonesia's PT Bank Danamon and PT Bank Internasional Indonesia. — Bloomberg -
Expect to collect more revenue from Cark Park summon $$
-
i think not $7.6 billion profit, it was stated as income. not yet less expenses, including the big time salaries....
-
Yes, if GE is coming. After that they will take every cents back from you + interest.
-
"Temasek chief executive officer, Ms Ho Ching, 52, is expanding investment outside of Singapore in a bid to lift returns, which averaged 3 per cent a year in the decade ended March 2004. "
Returns increasing at 3% a year?
WoW! -
Off-topic, ani idea how much is Ms Ho Ching paid as CEO???
-
so what if they make 100 billion?
-
good for singaporeans what. they might decide to share with taxpayers 100 cents more eachOriginally posted by dragg:so what if they make 100 billion? -
Ho Ching's Salary?
No idea.
But it must be worth more than peanuts annually.
-
someone need a brain scan. or maybe you've seen a flying pig?Originally posted by boy in blues:good for singaporeans what. they might decide to share with taxpayers 100 cents more each -
Anyway,
dun like her way of doing biz..
Say REiT cannot think of short term return, yet she is doing it herself -
An extract from the Economist, 12 August 2004
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw04/040812e1.htm
TEMASEK : First Singapore, next the World
Following the appointment of Ms Ho, Temasek has been rapidly building up its "external wing". Ms Ho sees banking, telecoms, transport, education and healthcare as areas ripe for consolidation.
Since her arrival, Temasek has spent $1.5 billion buying stakes in banks in Indonesia, South Korea and India, a 5% holding in Telekom Malaysia, a controlling 62% stake in Global Crossing, an American telecoms firm, and a chunk of Quintiles, an American clinical-drug trial company.
But there may be less to Temasek's track record than meets the eye.
A study earlier this year by LEK, a consultancy, found that Temasek's 22 major listed companies had made an average return of only 1.7% a year since their respective listings. And Ms Ho herself has admitted that Temasek's return had dropped to 13% a year over the past decade.
By contrast GE, which does not receive the same favourable treatment from a friendly government, managed 27% a year over the same period.
Moreover, many of Temasek's best-performing investments are either monopolies or operate in protected markets with favourable regulation.
The capital costs of the city's metro system, for example, have been borne directly by the government, allowing SMRT, the operator, to undercut its private-sector rival ComfortDelgro.
Chartered Semiconductor, Singapore's attempt to get into making microchips, has been given lots of tax breaks.
Given such support, the crown jewels in its portfolio, the zealousness with which they have been protected, and the rapidity with which Singapore grew in the 1970s and 1980s, it should have made much more money.
Worse, when Temasek or its subsidiaries have ventured overseas or had serious competition, they have often flopped.
DBS overpaid for its purchase of Hong Kong's Dao Heng Bank, argue analysts, while SingTel's acquisition of Optus, an Australian telecoms company, and NOL's of American President Lines, a rival shipping company, have taken years to come right.
Singapore Airlines's investment in Air New Zealand was a disaster and had to be written off after the latter went bankrupt, as was SingTel's in C2C, an underwater-cable operator.
The biggest lossmaker, however, has been Chartered Semiconductor which, with inferior technology to Taiwanese rivals, has bled money for much of the past three years and had to be bailed out by Temasek in 2002.
Fed up with complaints from outside shareholders, and concerned that her chastened executives would no longer seize opportunities, Ms Ho has started using 100%-owned subsidiaries to expand.
The NOL bid is the latest example.
The container-shipping industry is consolidating and NOL, as the seventh largest, is too small to survive on its own. Owning the whole company will make it easier for Temasek to control its destiny.
But buying out other shareholders and delisting companies' shares fly in the face of the privatisation strategy espoused a few years ago. They also sit oddly with Temasek's talk of becoming more open.
Buying up entire companies rather than investing in listed ones will, if anything, make Temasek more opaque, not less. And even the rating agencies are struggling to understand what goes on at the company, which will not obviously reassure outside investors nor, indeed, Singapore's taxpayers.
Temasek says it is becoming a competitive and transparent global investment company. But at heart it is still a prime example of Asia's paternalistic capitalism: a government-owned collection of assets that operate largely in protected markets with a whiff of nepotism, and one that will find its addiction to secrecy very hard to break. -
30 peanuts per annum.Originally posted by BillyBong:Ho Ching's Salary?
No idea.
But it must be worth more than peanuts annually. -
Perhaps Temasek can consider buying its own bonds which pay a return of 4+%.
-
alright...... 24 months bonus? 36 months bonus?
-
When Durai sued his critics for defamation, he made it look like he was defamed but truths eventually came out in SPH case. Legal suits can be very subjective and do not settle issues of truths. What is at stake is basic principle of accountable corporate governance at Temasek. Is it accountable or not to prevent wrong doings of diverse nature. That is the issue we will have to wait to see what will be done. If problems are not solved at fundamentals, they will be entrenched and surface one day like the NKF.
-
how are they going to pay 4+ % when their return is only 3 % ?Originally posted by Cindyfeh:Perhaps Temasek can consider buying its own bonds which pay a return of 4+%. -
bonds returns are not guarenteed i think
-
Buying shares in China banks definitely do not guarenteed returns too. The risk ratings for those banks are much worse than AAA bonds.Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:bonds returns are not guarenteed i think -
bonds returns ARE guarenteed.Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:bonds returns are not guarenteed i think
-
Bonds are bought and traded mostly by institutions like pension funds, insurance companies and banks. Most individuals who want to own bonds do so through mutual funds. Still, in the U.S., nearly 10 percent of all bonds outstanding are held directly by households.
Bonds are generally viewed as safer investments than stocks, but this perception is only partially correct. Bonds do suffer from less day-to-day volatility than stocks, and bonds' interest payments are higher than dividend payments that the same company would generally choose to pay to its stockholders. Bonds are liquid — it is fairly easy to sell one's bond investments, though not nearly as easy as it is to sell stocks — and the certainty of a fixed interest payment twice per year is attractive. Bondholders also enjoy a measure of legal protection: under the law of most countries, if a company goes bankrupt, its bondholders will often receive some money back, whereas the company's stock often ends up valueless. However, bonds can be risky:
Fixed rate bonds are subject to interest rate risk, meaning they will decrease in value when the generally prevailing interest rate rises (the opposite is true for bonds with negative convexity e.g bonds that allow for prepayment such as mortgage backed securities). When the market's interest rates rise, then the market price for bonds will fall, reflecting investors' improved ability to get a good interest rate for their money elsewhere — perhaps by purchasing a newly issued bond that already features the newly higher interest rate. This drop in the bond's market price does not affect the interest payments to the bondholder at all, so long-term investors need not worry about price swings in their bonds.
However, price changes in a bond immediately affect mutual funds that hold these bonds. Many institutional investors have to "mark to market" their trading books at the end of every day. If the value of the bonds held in a trading portfolio has fallen over the day, the "mark to market" value of the portfolio may also have fallen. This can be damaging for professional investors such as banks, insurance companies, pension funds and asset managers. If there is any chance a holder of individual bonds may need to sell his bonds and "cash out" for some reason, interest rate risk could become a real problem. (Conversely, bonds' market prices would increase if the prevailing interest rate were to drop, as it did from 2001 through 2003.) One way to quantify the interest rate risk on a bond is in terms of its duration.
Bonds can become volatile if one of the bond rating agencies like Standard and Poor's or Moody's upgrades or downgrades the credit quality of the issuing company or government. A downgrade can cause the market price of the bond to fall. As with interest rate risk, this risk does not affect the bond's interest payments, but puts at risk the market price, which affects mutual funds holding these bonds, and holders of individual bonds who may have to sell them.
A company's bondholders may lose much or all their money if the company goes bankrupt. Under the laws of the United States and many other countries, bondholders are in line to receive the proceeds of the sale of the assets of a liquidated company ahead of some other creditors. Bank lenders, deposit holders (in the case of a deposit taking institution such as a bank) and trade creditors may take precedence.
There is no guarantee of how much money will remain to repay bondholders. As an example, after an accounting scandal and a Chapter 11 bankruptcy at the giant telecommunications company Worldcom, in 2004 its bondholders ended up being paid 35.7 cents on the dollar. In a bankruptcy involving reorganization or recapitalization, as opposed to liquidation, bondholders may end up having the value of their bonds reduced, often through an exchange for a smaller number of newly issued bonds.
Some bonds are callable, meaning that even though the company has agreed to make payments plus interest towards the debt for a certain period of time, the company can choose to pay off the bond early. This creates reinvestment risk, meaning the investor is forced to find a new place for his money, and the investor might not be able to find as good a deal, especially because this usually happens when interest rates are falling. -
rate of return of bond is fixed/guarenteed. price of the bond is depending on the mkt interest rate.Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:bonds returns are not guarenteed i think -
Very simple, when shares market going up, bond will come down.Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:Bonds are bought and traded mostly by institutions like pension funds, insurance companies and banks. Most individuals who want to own bonds do so through mutual funds. Still, in the U.S., nearly 10 percent of all bonds outstanding are held directly by households.
Bonds are generally viewed as safer investments than stocks, but this perception is only partially correct. Bonds do suffer from less day-to-day volatility than stocks, and bonds' interest payments are higher than dividend payments that the same company would generally choose to pay to its stockholders. Bonds are liquid — it is fairly easy to sell one's bond investments, though not nearly as easy as it is to sell stocks — and the certainty of a fixed interest payment twice per year is attractive. Bondholders also enjoy a measure of legal protection: under the law of most countries, if a company goes bankrupt, its bondholders will often receive some money back, whereas the company's stock often ends up valueless. However, bonds can be risky:
Fixed rate bonds are subject to interest rate risk, meaning they will decrease in value when the generally prevailing interest rate rises (the opposite is true for bonds with negative convexity e.g bonds that allow for prepayment such as mortgage backed securities). When the market's interest rates rise, then the market price for bonds will fall, reflecting investors' improved ability to get a good interest rate for their money elsewhere — perhaps by purchasing a newly issued bond that already features the newly higher interest rate. This drop in the bond's market price does not affect the interest payments to the bondholder at all, so long-term investors need not worry about price swings in their bonds.
However, price changes in a bond immediately affect mutual funds that hold these bonds. Many institutional investors have to "mark to market" their trading books at the end of every day. If the value of the bonds held in a trading portfolio has fallen over the day, the "mark to market" value of the portfolio may also have fallen. This can be damaging for professional investors such as banks, insurance companies, pension funds and asset managers. If there is any chance a holder of individual bonds may need to sell his bonds and "cash out" for some reason, interest rate risk could become a real problem. (Conversely, bonds' market prices would increase if the prevailing interest rate were to drop, as it did from 2001 through 2003.) One way to quantify the interest rate risk on a bond is in terms of its duration.
Bonds can become volatile if one of the bond rating agencies like Standard and Poor's or Moody's upgrades or downgrades the credit quality of the issuing company or government. A downgrade can cause the market price of the bond to fall. As with interest rate risk, this risk does not affect the bond's interest payments, but puts at risk the market price, which affects mutual funds holding these bonds, and holders of individual bonds who may have to sell them.
A company's bondholders may lose much or all their money if the company goes bankrupt. Under the laws of the United States and many other countries, bondholders are in line to receive the proceeds of the sale of the assets of a liquidated company ahead of some other creditors. Bank lenders, deposit holders (in the case of a deposit taking institution such as a bank) and trade creditors may take precedence.
There is no guarantee of how much money will remain to repay bondholders. As an example, after an accounting scandal and a Chapter 11 bankruptcy at the giant telecommunications company Worldcom, in 2004 its bondholders ended up being paid 35.7 cents on the dollar. In a bankruptcy involving reorganization or recapitalization, as opposed to liquidation, bondholders may end up having the value of their bonds reduced, often through an exchange for a smaller number of newly issued bonds.
Some bonds are callable, meaning that even though the company has agreed to make payments plus interest towards the debt for a certain period of time, the company can choose to pay off the bond early. This creates reinvestment risk, meaning the investor is forced to find a new place for his money, and the investor might not be able to find as good a deal, especially because this usually happens when interest rates are falling. -
hey ya'all watched 'the apprantice'?well,I think if ho ching isn't making be bucks,she shld be 'fired' or to be less-thick skin,she should fire herself as she really isn't up to mark-sg ministers are paid so much that they are so thick skin that they don't wanna leave their titles and money,just look at other nations,even like a simple mistake made,the MP would fire him/herself,what about sg MPs?they only say sorry,we appreciate your co-operation yet they don't reciprocate enough! Also,I've heard peeps saying that the govt. has a high tendancy to blame the global market if they don't make big bucks saying that its highly competitive out there!
I also can do that you know! tell me lar SG PEEPS coz if u dont mind govt peeps to be like that,then VOTE ME into the parliament-I also can make tough laws and make wad?3% interest,I think I can make more lor,haha put in other nations bonds! haha,laugh pls! also,I can blame the peeps in the world market for being so competitive,well,realistically,see our govt.
world market is naturally competitive so if u can't make it big,don't point fingers unless u want to stay in the job coz NEVER MAKE BIG BUCKS=FAIL BIG TIME! coz other nations have won us time and again so,winners takes it all,and we just take the crumps coz of WHO?our GOVT. also,look at our casino and F1 racing toots,by the time we come in,peeps already not so facinated by casino coz by the time we come in,other global casino can bleed also won't lose money but our sg casino cannot afford to bleed like others coz they've yet to make any profits!!!
its kinda dumb but at least there'll be more crime thus keeping the MAN IN BLUE UNIFORMS relavant once again enforcing the gd peep and govt vision,ahaha!also,more crimes means more police will be busy,then maybe we can go out try crime ourself! the police will be too busy to catch us haha!kiddin only!any1 played GTA:VICE CITY? You'll know wad I mean! -
aunty ho shd just stay at home be housewife.