Temasick' Return
-
126239.5 in reply to 126239.1
>>>Dec. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Temasek Holdings Pte, Singapore's
state-owned investment company with $83 billion of assets under
management.....
Temasek reported full-year profit surged 71 percent to S$129
billion ($83.7 billion) in the year to March 31.<<<
..
Kind of suspicious if the above figures are ACCURATE.
The supposed profit of S$129 BILLION is GREATER than the asset under management of $83 BILLION.
Even if the $83 BILLION is in US $, and assuming that the US-Sing exchange rate was around $1.60, results in a return of almost 100%.
They have handsome profits annually....where are the profits ? -
creative accounting.
-
put tax under assets,
expenses to equity,
interest written off,
depreciation tweak a little,
gross profit include expenses,
net profit minus interest
interest, rebate,commision minus minus plus plus..
blah, blah...a company making losses also can become a VERY profitable company...go learn some accounting...creative accounting i mean... -
i love creative accounting...
-
if the return is so good then why do they need to keep increasing taxes?
-
maybe the 'return' not enuff so need to raise more taxes..
-
Isn't it great? They are making jolly much money, while we have to cover our own rear-ends in medical and healthcare in our old age.... -
you think bloomberg won't have typos ? ....
-
i dun tink it is net profit.... It could be net assets... It's assets could consists of mainly shares of listed companies... if this is so... the STI cheong from 1800 frm the start of the yr to 2800++ level now... hence that explains the increase in net assets ... I seriously dun tink is net profit ...
-
looks more like a typo error to me
-
Oh Just Temasek profits is 40% of all spore govermnet expenses(operational plus capital expenses) of some S$30 billions!!
Originally posted by Lowclassman:
2.a click can clarify all the figures and Bloomberg's reporter dunt hAVE
126239.5 in reply to 126239.1
>>>Dec. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Temasek Holdings Pte, Singapore's
state-owned investment company with $83 billion of assets under
management.....
Temasek reported full-year profit surged 71 percent to S$129
billion ($83.7 billion) in the year to March 31.<<<..
Kind of suspicious if the above figures are ACCURATE.
common sense and too lazy too check if s/he dispatch this report!!Profits before exceptional items is S$14.90 billions for year ended 31.03.2006
may be s/he over looked the decimal point.
net profits attribuable to equity holders is S$12.80 billions
-
common sense must also reside in the readers too, neh ? ...Originally posted by lionnoisy:Oh Just Temasek profits is 40% of all spore govermnet expenses(operational plus capital expenses) of some S$30 billions!!
may be s/he over looked the decimal point.
but of course ... one sees only what one wants to see ....
-
Excellent article as usual! Thanks~
though the PAP government should also clarify EXACTLY how much of the tax revenues will be used to help the poor people (1%? 5%? how much exactly?) and in the wake of the NKF scandal, EXACTLY how efficient this avenue is going to be. (just as NKF's only $0.10 out of every dollar went to help the patients? the rest go into "administrative costs"?)
There is no point in raising revenue for any cause if the process is so inefficient that only a pathetic miniscule fraction of the amount actually helps the people who needs it.
Even then, the PAP must provide details on how much of the aid is disbursed to the poor. Remember the SP power vouchers for the needy which end up sitting in the town councils' offices? It is easy to pledge money for any cause and through bureaucratic processes, make it extremely difficult for the people who needs it to claim them - which drives them to eventually give up, just like the MRT suicide Mr Tan Jee Suan, who mysteriously stopped seeking aid before he committed suicide.
Also, they need to answer why in their opinion, they feel the need to raise GST to provide capital for investments? Isn't our singapore reserves sufficient by now? If the returns are as good as the PAP claims, then why is there a further need to increase the tax burden on the people? In fact, the GST tax should be LOWERED with the additional lurcrative income from their excellent investments! -
Yesterdays, Met Thai friends on business trip here.....
They were joking and teasing calling me ''Shamegaporean'' for shincorp issue.KNN
-
Can you blame them?Originally posted by Lowclassman:Yesterdays, Met Thai friends on business trip here.....
They were joking and teasing calling me ''Shamegaporean'' for shincorp issue.KNN -
We suffer for the sins of the fathers.
-
A man did all this?Originally posted by LazerLordz:We suffer for the sins of the fathers. -
a woman.Originally posted by charlize:A man did all this? -
and you still can call them "friend"?? obviously their joke was not on singapore.. but on you.. they probably think your d*ck cant stand...Originally posted by Lowclassman:Yesterdays, Met Thai friends on business trip here.....
They were joking and teasing calling me ''Shamegaporean'' for shincorp issue.KNN
grab a few thai girl and show them your manhood lah... -
I'm still not convinced that 'she' is in fact a womanOriginally posted by Ito_^:a woman. -
no.. can only blame their parents and country for poor upbringing...Originally posted by charlize:Can you blame them? -
the sins of the father we must bear.. because we all share in the loots that our father brings home..Originally posted by LazerLordz:We suffer for the sins of the fathers. -
my father had no part nor indulged in the loots as 'they' did.. so i'm 'retribution free' for now i guess..Originally posted by tripwire:the sins of the father we must bear.. because we all share in the loots that our father brings home.. -
PM's Office insists iTV must pay fine in 45 days
Bangkok Post
Attorney-general calls for talks on penalty
POST REPORTERS
The Prime Minister's Office, a contract partner with the iTV station, is determined to impose a 45-day deadline for iTV to pay the office its concession fee and fine amounting to 99.97 billion baht. ''At this stage, we must only abide by the Supreme Administrative Court's ruling and implement it quickly,'' said Chulayut Hiranyawasit, permanent secretary of the PM's Office, at a press conference in response to the Wednesday verdict by the Supreme Administrative Court.
Mr Chulayut said payment must be made within 45 days, but noted that the office is willing to extend the deadline by another 45 days if iTV is unable to pay.
He said his office submitted the dispute on the calculation method of annual fee and fine to the Office of the Attorney-General shortly after the ruling in May by the Central Administrative Court.
At the same time, he said the cabinet will consider the fate of iTV on Tuesday.
The Office of the Attoney-General yesterday gave some hope to iTV by saying it has the right to appeal and the dispute will be ruled upon by an arbitration panel.
Attorney-General Pachara Yutidhammadamrong said the contract between the PM's Office and iTV requires disputes over fees and penalties to be settled by an arbitration committee.
The PM's Office puts the penalties as of May this year at about 94 billion baht while the station argues it should not exceed 300 million baht, saying the PM's Office calculation, which relies on a news/entertainment programme ratio agreement on a daily basis was unacceptable.
But Mr Pachara said that if after 45 days of negotiation in the arbitration stage no solution could be reached, his agency would seek the court to declare iTV bankrupt. ''The pressing issue is that both parties must find a solution soon. If they fail, the station is likely to be restored as a state asset,'' he said.
Deputy Attorney-General Poramet Intarachumnum said a new arbitration panel will be set up to rule on the case if the station objects to the PM's Office's demand. He said Thongchai Prasatvanich, director-general for conflict resolution and arbitration, is examining the PM's Office document before taking the next step.
He urged both parties to negotiate on the penalty.
''The government has a reconciliation approach. If both parties feel negotiation will benefit the state, they should negotiate,'' he said.
He noted that it would be too early to discuss a bankruptcy lawsuit against the station.
iTV chairman Niwatthamrong Boonsongpaisal yesterday assured his staff that their salary and welfare benefits would not be affected and he would do his best to keep the station going. He said the board would meet on Dec 29 to discuss the penalty payment and consider options.
Kongkiat Opaswongkarn, chief executive of Asia Plus Securities, has suggested iTV negotiate with the government to stay afloat rather than going bankrupt and becoming a burden on the state.
Asia Plus Securities was iTV's financial adviser during the station's market listing several years ago.
''In my opinion, the only solution for iTV is to negotiate and seek a compromise to solve this financial difficulty. The station should seek to revise its concession to make it more competitive when compared to the other players,'' he said.
If the government buys out iTV, the cost would be relatively low given the current stock price. Authorities could then delist the firm from the market and transform it into a non-profit organisation.
Shares of iTV fell the maximum 30% yesterday on the Stock Exchange of Thailand, following a 25% decline on Wednesday. The stock closed at an all-time low of 1.47 baht, down 63 satang, in trade worth 287.2 million baht.
Academic Surapol Sriwittaya, of Rangsit University, has advised that the government revoke the concession and enact a law decreeing the station as a national public television station.
Bonds should be issued to the station staff and the general public to raise funds. The 99-billion-baht penalty should be used to rehabilitate the station, he said.
''This is to free the station from the concession and monopoly and ownership by Singapore's Temasek in a legitimate way,'' he said.
He also called for removal of iTV senior board members appointed by Shin Corp.
A source at the Administrative Court yesterday doubted that the PM's Office could impose the penalty.
According to the source, the station had complied with a separate arbitration ruling made in 2004 and immediately revamped its programmes after the Supreme Administrative Court's verdict given on Wednesday.
''All the court did was revoke that arbitration committee's ruling. It doesn't obligate iTV to pay the penalty. As a matter of fact, the station didn't breach the contract. It simply complied with the arbitration,'' said the source.
Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont was reserved about speculation the government would revert the station to state control. He also played down speculation the matter would be considered by the cabinet next Tuesday. -
yeah ..i read that article also...pls dun tell me they going to use our $$$ to bail that thing out???