PAP moves to counter criticism of party, govt in cyberspace
-
I know what I need to succeed in Singapore. I need to be pro establishment. I need to be in their good books. I know! Join the RC, carry a few more b*lls but somehow I just cannot make myself to do it.Originally posted by robertteh:Siao Ren is the right word to describe the whole set-up. It is sad that the scholars and the educated could deteriorate to siao ren with education.
I know that I am shooting myself in the foot. I am a writer, it is so much easier to write pro P*P stuff and try to get them to endorse my books.
Call me stooopid if you want. I will not stoop so low and support people that oppress and suppress others forever taking more while they draw million dollar salaries set by themselves. -
Mmh, your argument DOES NOT apply in Singapore.
I totally agree on the part where the gov should not stop the upgrading of flats for potong pasir and hougang. If u write on tis issue, I will not stop u
Don't the people in Hougang and Potong Pasir contribute tax and serve NS as well?
Let's face it, the MIW can change the rules to suit themselves, we don't even know how much reserves they have so let's not talk about openness. They are afraid of the public outcry once it is revealed.
I don't need to quote anyone or give any figures to tell you the public outcry will be massive. It's common sense.
But then in the hypothetical example of giving free land to people, tis is an issue tat need to be examinedThere is a maximum gross household income for each HDB unit type thus you will not find a family with a gross monthly household income of $10000 purchasing say a 3 room flat.
The income ceiling is at the point when u buy the flat. If u become a millionaire after, u can still live in HDB
The income ceiling does not permit such a thing to happen.It is a warped argument, distorted to support your argument. It does not do this stupid thing call simple mathematics justice.
U need to know wat is capital and labour intensive industries. A company with 2000 staff can be a textile company while a company with 200 staff can be a biomedical company. Is textile company necessary gonna earn more money than biomedical company ?
If I have a company with 2000 staff as compared to 200 staff, the production output will be higher, generating more produce thus contributing to my coffers. The profit in the case of country B going to country A should be higher.Actually my biggest beef is that they take the money to invest in "Shin Corps" instead of redistributing it back to the people just so that the people become heavily in debt and have no choice but to work for them.
temasek have been heavily investing in all sectors and most of them r earning money. Overall it help singapore economy.You have simply regurgitated all the government hypocrisy here without replying to reasons and logics. So I don't see how you could cyber-counter anyone's criticisms or feedbacks to the public. Let the public decide whether the cyber-countering has succeeded ...or is the government in desparation now starts to ban people from internet posting.
I think the pot is calling the kettle black bah. I have always give out points and logic in my discussion. But for yours, almost all your reply just border a one line statement "Why gov make life so hard for us". It is an emotional statement but it does not make it a debatable or have any argument in it. When I cite tat singapore is the country tat have the highest quality living in asia, u repeat "why gov make life so hard for us". When I tell u the social problems of charging free for land, u repeat "why gov make life so hard for us". WHen I tell u suzhou earn money, u repeat "why gov make life so hard for us". When I tell u why your suggestion of ballotting for houses is wrong, u then accuse me of "regugitate all gov hipocrisy without replying to reason and logic". U r the one tat "regugitate hipocrisy without replying to reason and logic". Tat is why people r asking u to cut short your reply because most of them r simply "why gov make life so hard for us".
I pity your plight tat u r ban from the forum, though I do not know the other side of the story. And I have to repeat myself I am not a cybuster (if u know SRW
) or anything. 
-
Thank you for proving my point that TAX IS NOT THE ONLY FACTOR IN INVESTMENT DECISIONS OF MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES.Originally posted by stupidissmart:U r sure wasting my time on tis stupid thing
company A, take in profit before tax and labour cost = 10 million
- tax = 9 million
- labour = 9 million - 2000*1000
= 7 million
I have mentioned tat the cost of labour is after tax cut to simplify matter
company B, take in profit before tax and labour = 10 million
- tax = 5 million
- labour = 5 million - 200*10000
= 3 million
If we make company B go to country A
take in profit = 10 million
- tax = 9 million
- labour = 9 million - 2000*10000
= a lost of 11 million
U got to know wat is labour intensive. China labour is cheap. Enough said.
From you example it can be seen that company B will never move to country A, though country A has a lower tax rate of 10% as compared to country B's tax rate of 50%!!!!
Hahahaha!!!!!
Your argument displays your unsubstantiated logic again.Originally posted by stupidissmart:It is easy to say reduce spending Defense weopons r more ex, so we reduce or increase spending ? Police need more equipment to deal with terrorist. Need to reduce or increase spending ? More teachers needed to enable smaller classroom size. Increase or decrease spending ?
It is always desirable to reduce spending but it is a no brainer and every organisation, individual and country know tis theory. U can always say "reduce reduce reduce" but how do we know we had reduce untill it cannot be reduced ?
You will know when there is still room for reduction when, a job that can be performed by 50 is performed by 84. This means there is still alot of slack in the system. In a company, when change is not possible when it is required, so as to bring the company back to profits again; the management team and CEO is normally replaced with new ones with a corporate takeover. Because they have run out of ideas on how to improve on the company, staying on with the same management team will only bring about chapter 7 filing.
Hahaha.....You are very funny!!! I quote "U can waste air by breathing more air if u want". I would rather they tax from income. That will provide better comparison to developed countries, you tax so much from the citizens yet you don't provide a comparable social support system like the developed countries.Originally posted by stupidissmart:U can waste air by breathing more air if u want. As said, it is free and abundant and there is no need for economy. But u r talking about land which is limited, especially singapore. If u r talking about giving free land for housing, I have shown so many point why it will give many social problems. (tax from other area, increase rich and poor divide, unfair to people allocated lousy region etc)
If we follow your suggestion on bugalow and condo, u will be unfair to them because u r forcing them to live in HDB which they do not like. They do not mind paying a bit more for condo because of the amenities, but now u r forcing all of them to live in HDB because of the great difference in the price and make the whole world a worse place.
Since when did my statements say that "because u r forcing them to live in HDB which they do not like"?
There is no demand for air? They are selling it all over 7-11 in Japan! Who knows when the government will impose a breathing tax. They have imposed property tax, when living on the land is free in the past. Kyoto Proctocol has a close nexus to air, pollution an air is related. The amount of pollution defines the quality of air that you breathe. When pollution is so bad, then good quality air becomes an important commodity.Originally posted by stupidissmart:U r talking rubbish here. U can breath now right ? No one charges u to breath right ? U can breath a few million time per second but the air is still around u right ? There is no economy because its supply is much greater than the demand. I don't know why u drag the kyoto protocol into tis argument. Pollution is a different matter. The amount of air u r allowed to breath in is another matter
Since when have you proved that a few hundred senators have come out with good policies? Did you cite any references or examples? Obviously when I suggested reducing the amount of repesentation in parliament to 50, it did not mean reducing it to "afew" as so stated by you. Have you not heard the proverbial "too many cooks spoil the broth"? I have proven my point that having 50 MPs that does the job of 84 MPs, there is a reduction in cost of 34 MPs. Since the formation of Singapore, the MPs was around that number, the number was increased to 84 MPs was the old man's way of maintaining his dominance. Simple logic, if you have 50 MPs, you would need 26 opposition MPs to form the government. But with an MP base of 84, you would need an opposition of 43 to form the government. You would need an extra 17 MPs to form the new government. With their techniques of stiffling the opposition, where would such numbers ever be possible.Originally posted by stupidissmart:The point is a few hundred senators is an example tat more people can still come out with good policies etc. There is no problem with having more people in an parliament. An obvious problem is too few MP will result in weaker brainstorming, detection of problems and questioning of policies. If we have too little MPs, we may face problems because each MP has too large a stake in the whole vote. Lets say there is a cranky guy in the parliament and he vote all the lousy policy. He already have a 3% pursuasion power if there is only 33 people. In the case of 100 people, he only have 1 %. The more people there r, the more likely the people inside follow normal distribution and thus can come out with policy tat r of value.
Now it is your turn to show why do lesser people inside the MP is a good thing ?
Your logic bemuses me!!!
Are you trying to justify that maybe having 1,000 MPs in parliament is productive, because each MP will only carry a weightage of 0.1% repesentation? It can be shown that other developed countries like the UK, Korean, Taiwan and Hong Kong have a population to MP ratio of around 100,000 : 1, whereas Singapore maintains a population to MP ration of 50,000 : 1.
Following your logic and argument, statistically if you have 3% of non performing MPs in the population size of 33 MPs, statistically with 100 MPs, the non performing size of MPs will increase to 100 x 3% = 3. With 3 more non performing MPs, won't that lead to more mayhem?
Having 84 MPs farting to the same tune Beethoven's 5th Symphony is no different than having 50 MPs farting to the same tune of Beethoven's 5th Symphony. The 84 MPs or 50 MPs has the same conductor. -
Originally posted by bigmouthjoe:It is a warped argument, distorted to support your argument. It does not do this stupid thing call simple mathematics justice.
If I have a company with 2000 staff as compared to 200 staff, the production output will be higher, generating more produce thus contributing to my coffers. The profit in the case of country B going to country A should be higher.
Actually his example proves that tax is not a major factor in investment decisions of companies.Originally posted by stupidissmart:U r sure wasting my time on tis stupid thing
company A, take in profit before tax and labour cost = 10 million
- tax = 9 million
- labour = 9 million - 2000*1000
= 7 million
I have mentioned tat the cost of labour is after tax cut to simplify matter
company B, take in profit before tax and labour = 10 million
- tax = 5 million
- labour = 5 million - 200*10000
= 3 million
If we make company B go to country A
take in profit = 10 million
- tax = 9 million
- labour = 9 million - 2000*10000
= a lost of 11 million
U got to know wat is labour intensive. China labour is cheap. Enough said.
Company B will never move operations to Country A, although Country A has a tax rate of 10% and Country B has higher tax rate of 50%.
Even his warped logic supports my argument. Goes to show you can't argue with facts. -
Thank you for proving my point that TAX IS NOT THE ONLY FACTOR IN INVESTMENT DECISIONS OF MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES.
I think u miss the original point of tis discussion is tat gov can still form policy tat pull in investor such as cutting tax. Company A will not go to country B because they will lose profit. Tat is why reducing tax pulls certain industries to singapore
From you example it can be seen that company B will never move to country A, though country A has a lower tax rate of 10% as compared to country B's tax rate of 50%!!!!
Hahahaha!!!!!Your argument displays your unsubstantiated logic again.
Ahh... but how do u know these job for 50 people is peformed by 84 now ?
You will know when there is still room for reduction when, a job that can be performed by 50 is performed by 84. This means there is still alot of slack in the system. In a company, when change is not possible when it is required, so as to bring the company back to profits again; the management team and CEO is normally replaced with new ones with a corporate takeover. Because they have run out of ideas on how to improve on the company, staying on with the same management team will only bring about chapter 7 filing.
If I am not wrong, tis is just a feeling u have. And again if I am not wrong, u r probably mentioning about the army.
IMO, yang jun qian ri bi yong yi shi. It is a job where u need a lot of manpower when the need arises but in peace time the work is not optimalHahaha.....You are very funny!!! I quote "U can waste air by breathing more air if u want". I would rather they tax from income. That will provide better comparison to developed countries, you tax so much from the citizens yet you don't provide a comparable social support system like the developed countries.
The countries tat offered welfare r mostly facing difficulties nowSince when did my statements say that "because u r forcing them to live in HDB which they do not like"?
Tis is an inference I made, when u require land for HDB to be free but land for condo must still be charged. Condo people will have to live in HDB because the price differs too greatly. They would have prefer to live in condo with a slight different in costThere is no demand for air? They are selling it all over 7-11 in Japan! Who knows when the government will impose a breathing tax. They have imposed property tax, when living on the land is free in the past. Kyoto Proctocol has a close nexus to air, pollution an air is related. The amount of pollution defines the quality of air that you breathe. When pollution is so bad, then good quality air becomes an important commodity.
I think u r realy barking up the wrong topic because air is a classic economic example tat do not require economic. Selling at 7-11 ? My impression r most japanese don't buy tat silly product. Japanese r also buying a sticker where u stick on your feet tat can reduce your body weight. Talking about pollution, u don't talk about it now when it isn't tat serious a problem. As said, u can breath all u want and nobody is charging u. U don't need management for how much each individual breath because it is enough for everybodySince when have you proved that a few hundred senators have come out with good policies? Did you cite any references or examples? Obviously when I suggested reducing the amount of repesentation in parliament to 50, it did not mean reducing it to "afew" as so stated by you. Have you not heard the proverbial "too many cooks spoil the broth"? I have proven my point that having 50 MPs that does the job of 84 MPs, there is a reduction in cost of 34 MPs. Since the formation of Singapore, the MPs was around that number, the number was increased to 84 MPs was the old man's way of maintaining his dominance. Simple logic, if you have 50 MPs, you would need 26 opposition MPs to form the government. But with an MP base of 84, you would need an opposition of 43 to form the government. You would need an extra 17 MPs to form the new government. With their techniques of stiffling the opposition, where would such numbers ever be possible.
Maybe because almost all countries have more than 100 MPs ? so u think all these countries made lousy policies ? U want me to name the countries ? Swiss, america, french, germany, japan, italy etc etc. DO they all made lousy policies ?
The question here should be on the system and not on the people. I have stated before more people means more feedback, more brainstorm and more questioning while lesser people do the opposite. Looking at the system itself, if the opposition is strong, more seats represent more people from each party can do the debating.
But your point is simply u want to make things difficult for PAP. I do not disagree with u tat lesser people make a single opposition voice have more weight, or require lesser people to overthrow the gov. But then system-wise it is too little, especially when they need to allocate seats for certain races in the country. -
U need to know wat is capital and labour intensive industries. A company with 2000 staff can be a textile company while a company with 200 staff can be a biomedical company. Is textile company necessary gonna earn more money than biomedical company ?
Unfortunately you did not state whether it was a capital intensive or labour intensive.U r sure wasting my time on tis stupid thing
I have read your post over and over numerous times but somehow I've always reached the same understanding. Your calculations were based on the assumption that company B was made to go to country A with a labour force of 2000 after being in country X with a labour force of 200. Correct me if I am wrong.
company A, take in profit before tax and labour cost = 10 million
- tax = 9 million
- labour = 9 million - 2000*1000
= 7 million
I have mentioned tat the cost of labour is after tax cut to simplify matter
company B, take in profit before tax and labour = 10 million
- tax = 5 million
- labour = 5 million - 200*10000
= 3 million
If we make company B go to country A
take in profit = 10 million
- tax = 9 million
- labour = 9 million - 2000*10000
= a lost of 11 million
U got to know wat is labour intensive. China labour is cheap. Enough said. -
The countries tat offered welfare r mostly facing difficulties now.
Unfortunately so because the load of taking care of the old folks falls upon the shoulders of the government, however fortunately in Singapore, there are always numerous drink cans and cardboards to be picked up so not a problem at all.Tis is an inference I made, when u require land for HDB to be free but land for condo must still be charged. Condo people will have to live in HDB because the price differs too greatly. They would have prefer to live in condo with a slight different in cost
The current demand in Condominiums are due to the falling prices of Condominiums and the rising prices of HDB resale flats (supposedly an affordable form of housing). This should never be happening, condominiums (in the past) used to be for those who can afford to be staying in multi-million dollar units, now with prices as low as $500,000, people are taking the options of paying slightly more for the condominium unit and giving up their HDB flats.
Should land prices be kept high for private developers, the exclusitivity of condominium units would remain thus keeping the prices of private developments high. This would in turn compensate for the low prices of HDB flats. Of course proper planning must be made by the URA to avoid the over providence of affordable residential housing areas (HDB flats). But somehow the government seem to be more concerned about keeping prices of condominiums low... -
I have read your post over and over numerous times but somehow I've always reached the same understanding. Your calculations were based on the assumption that company B was made to go to country A with a labour force of 2000 after being in country X with a labour force of 200. Correct me if I am wrong.
No, u have to read with the earlier reply. The 200 is the pay of the people in country B but 2000 is the pay of the people from country A. I get confused myself here as well..
The conclusion is tat company B should stay at country B because of the cheap labour while company A should to go country A because of the low tax rate. In short, labour intensive country should go to a place where labour is cheap while a company which do not demand a lot labour will look at factors such as tax rate of the country.Unfortunately so because the load of taking care of the old folks falls upon the shoulders of the government, however fortunately in Singapore, there are always numerous drink cans and cardboards to be picked up so not a problem at all.
Sad but true. The fact goes tat problem of capitalism is gonna be tougher and competition stiffer tat make life more and more harder.
The work done by the old folks here r commendable and make the whole world a better place by recycling.The current demand in Condominiums are due to the falling prices of Condominiums and the rising prices of HDB resale flats (supposedly an affordable form of housing). This should never be happening, condominiums (in the past) used to be for those who can afford to be staying in multi-million dollar units, now with prices as low as $500,000, people are taking the options of paying slightly more for the condominium unit and giving up their HDB flats.
I guess a possible reason is because the people want to live in condo than HDB and as such gov allow more of these buildings to be built. Tis policy is good for people who like to live in condo and not HDB. Furthermore for the same size at same location, HDB is still comfortably 2 times cheaper. -
No, u have to read with the earlier reply. The 200 is the pay of the people in country B but 2000 is the pay of the people from country A. I get confused myself here as well..
I see. Haha I hate maths.
The conclusion is tat company B should stay at country B because of the cheap labour while company A should to go country A because of the low tax rate. In short, labour intensive country should go to a place where labour is cheap while a company which do not demand a lot labour will look at factors such as tax rate of the country. -
Are you dense or something?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Com'on, the water cycle is impossible to generate 95% efficiency. U need to boil the water, make it go high pressure before it can turn the turbine. The escape water itself have heat and tis energy is obviously wasted. The boiler itself is heated up and heat also lost to the environment through convection and radiation. If I am not wrong, the efficiency never go beyond 70%. Furthermore, electricity going down to your home is again not 100% efficient. The copper wire heat up, the electricity leaks etc.
A power plant cost about 500 million. So tis cost have to come down to the consumers. Furthermore how about the transportation ? More multi million dollar equipment of have to pay shipping for transportation ?
Didn't I show you the calculation for process loss of 50%? There you go telling me efficiency is 70%!!!
There must be a certain nexus to relate the expense of a certain to another product. If you run a company, say you manufacture clothing and television. If your clothing line is not making money. Do you charge all your clothing related expenses to your television set and charge a higher price for the television? All your points are laden with misconceived logic.
Go read the financial statements from Singapore Power.
This calculation was done on 02 Dec 2006, before Singapore Power adjusted their tarffis, should not affect calculation because I used the current spot price for natural gas on NYMEX on that date.
Natural Gas Trade In The Market Without Government Subsidies.
Current Spot Price for Natural Gas NYMEX.
USD 10.77/MMbtu
1 MMbtu = 1,000,000 btu
1 Kwh = 3413 btu
1,000,000 btu / 3413 btu = 292.99 Kwh
USD 10.77 X 1.56 = SGD 16.80
which means SGD 16.80 will produce 292.99 Kwh of electricity. I am not sure what is the process loss (of if there is any) during the conversion from natural gas to electricity, but let's say it's 10%. So we end up with (292 Kwh X 90%) = 263.69 Kwh.
If you divide the cost by the 263.69 Kwh, you get:
6.37 cents/Kwh as compared to 21.64 cents/Kwh for Singapore Power
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/ngw/ngupdate.asp
We can have a process loss during conversion of up to 50% and still make a hefty profit when we sell at 15 cents/Kwh.
292.99Kwh x 50% = 146.50Kwh
SGD 16.80 / 146.50 Kwh = 11.47 cents/Kwh
I check my earlier posting and research, the return on equity for Singapore Power should be 22% to 26% for the last 3 years, not 35% as stated by me earlier. During these 3 years, the price of electricity has gone up from approximately 15 cents to 21 cents. The increase in returns is probably due to increase in price.
http://www.singaporepower.com.sg/index.html
Seriously, a return of equity of 22% to 26% on a blue chip stock is extremely rare in the stock market. For the price you pay for the stock, you only need to 4-5 years to make back the value you pay for the stock.
[/quote]
Electricity leak? You need a positive and negative end, if there is a break in the wire, electricity won't flow through. The potential difference along a conducting wire is always constant. Electricity don't leak!!! Current is always constant throughout the wire.
Power plant cost $500 million? Do you have data to substantiate your claims? Or is this another one of your stylised creations?
[quote]Originally posted by stupidissmart:As said, u r not paying a substantial amount for utility. It is not enough to generate enough income to cover the gov expenditure or the tax from land etc. U think u spend a lot but in the grand scale of a country, it is little compared with the overall expenditure.
Huh? Digging hole in your backyard is "low class" and insulting?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Com'on, your points r getting more and more low class and u r adding in insults to your points. Singapore reclaim land. Singapore pay to reclaim land. It released land from other areas of singapore (if no reclamation, factories may set up in previously residential area). The cost of land is not zero.
I think you mean is, if previous factory was set up there, government reacquire the land for a price.
Which factory resides in residential areas?
Ermmm... The price is already indicative of the bond's compound interest rate.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I still do not see why u say the gov bond is giving compound interest. Can u show me the evidence tat bond give compound interest and not interest on the principle
following your suggestion, in the worse scenario
1950: 1 US$ = sing$3.06
2007: 1 US$ = sing$1.53
If interest is not compunded u get US 3.5 million back. But u spend Sing 3.06 million in the past and u get Sing 4.55 million now. Not the miracle fiancial plan u suggested. Even if u invest in suzhou u earn much more for 50 years.
It's already in the link, if you have problems understanding discounts, seek a financial experts help to unravel the mysteries of basic finance. You didn't pay me to be your teacher!
Suggest you get your butt to SMU, NUS or NTU, get someone from the finance department to explain to you bond pricing.
http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates/index.html
For the last time, Suzhou is making a loss, at the current US$10 million dividend it makes, it will take 2,000 years to recover the initial investment of US$20 billion. If it pays US$100 million, it will take 200 years to recover the initial capital outlay. -
All the major investments are losing money, Global Crossing, Shin Corp, Suzhou and Optus.Originally posted by stupidissmart:temasek have been heavily investing in all sectors and most of them r earning money. Overall it help singapore economy.
I have brought up the thread on Global Crossing. Maybe you can prove to me that they are making money? I am not very good with accounting, barely passed my principle of accounts. Do visit the links I have posted to substantiate my analysis, tell me if there are any misrepresentations on my part.
I think you lack the logic or the impartiality to analyse the data.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I think u miss the original point of tis discussion is tat gov can still form policy tat pull in investor such as cutting tax. Company A will not go to country B because they will lose profit. Tat is why reducing tax pulls certain industries to singapore
U r sure wasting my time on tis stupid thing
company A, take in profit before tax and labour cost = 10 million
- tax = 9 million
- labour = 9 million - 2000*1000
= 7 million
I have mentioned tat the cost of labour is after tax cut to simplify matter
company B, take in profit before tax and labour = 10 million
- tax = 5 million
- labour = 5 million - 200*10000
= 3 million
If we make company B go to country A
take in profit = 10 million
- tax = 9 million
- labour = 9 million - 2000*10000
= a lost of 11 million
U got to know wat is labour intensive. China labour is cheap. Enough said.
You already showed that despite Country A's low tax rate of 10%, Company B will not move to Country A because Tax is not the only factor a company would analyse to make investment decisions.
Hahaha......
Thanks for proving my point.
My original point:
"Lower corporate taxes is not a major factor that influence investment decisions"
Whose talking about the army? Doh!!! 84 and 50? You can't figure out it's MP, the whole issue was about MP all this while.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Ahh... but how do u know these job for 50 people is peformed by 84 now ?
If I am not wrong, tis is just a feeling u have. And again if I am not wrong, u r probably mentioning about the army.
IMO, yang jun qian ri bi yong yi shi. It is a job where u need a lot of manpower when the need arises but in peace time the work is not optimal
Whose talking about providing welfare? I just say, they tax so much but don't provide comparable social support system. I'd rather they tax from income so that it would provide better comparison, because other countries provide social support.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Hahaha.....You are very funny!!! I quote "U can waste air by breathing more air if u want". I would rather they tax from income. That will provide better comparison to developed countries, you tax so much from the citizens yet you don't provide a comparable social support system like the developed countries.
When will this get in through your thick skull? The HDB need not pay for land, it acquires from government, it's an intra group trading account. It's eliminated when you prepare accounts. If you own company A and company B, company A sells company B $100 million worth of stock $200 million, then company B sells back the same stock to company A for $100 million. Then company A sells back $100 million of the same stock to company B for $200 million. At the end of the day, company A has $400 million sales and makes a profit of $200 million. Does this make sense to you? This is what HDB is doing intra-trading.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Tis is an inference I made, when u require land for HDB to be free but land for condo must still be charged. Condo people will have to live in HDB because the price differs too greatly. They would have prefer to live in condo with a slight different in cost
Don't understand what you mean by "classic economic example tat do not require economic"? If they don't buy that "silly product" then it shouldn't be in 7-11 isn't it? You mention Japanese are buying therapeutic stickers for the foot. First you say Japanese don't buy that "silly product", then you justify that your points by saying that Japanese buy therapeutic stickers. What points do you want to put across?Originally posted by stupidissmart:I think u r realy barking up the wrong topic because air is a classic economic example tat do not require economic. Selling at 7-11 ? My impression r most japanese don't buy tat silly product. Japanese r also buying a sticker where u stick on your feet tat can reduce your body weight. Talking about pollution, u don't talk about it now when it isn't tat serious a problem. As said, u can breath all u want and nobody is charging u. U don't need management for how much each individual breath because it is enough for everybody
Pollution is not a major problem? Are you sure? Haven't you seen the recent weather anomaly? You have a very "frog in the well" view, you don't seem to know anything about global events. Heard of Global Warming, Greenhouse Effect, El Nino, Ozone, etc?
Firstly, these countries have large MPs or representation is because these countries have a large population, going by the yardstick of 100,000 : 1 (population to MP) from UK, South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Naturally with a larger population you will have a larger representation. Lousy policies? First you tell us that some of these countries provide welfare and are in dire consequence, then you ask me to justify if these countries made bad policies. Goes to show, having a large MP representation does not necessary produce good policies.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Maybe because almost all countries have more than 100 MPs ? so u think all these countries made lousy policies ? U want me to name the countries ? Swiss, america, french, germany, japan, italy etc etc. DO they all made lousy policies ?
The question here should be on the system and not on the people. I have stated before more people means more feedback, more brainstorm and more questioning while lesser people do the opposite. Looking at the system itself, if the opposition is strong, more seats represent more people from each party can do the debating.
But your point is simply u want to make things difficult for PAP. I do not disagree with u tat lesser people make a single opposition voice have more weight, or require lesser people to overthrow the gov. But then system-wise it is too little, especially when they need to allocate seats for certain races in the country.
More MPs farting to the same Beethoven's 5th Symphony in perfect synchronisation with the Maestro. Opposition will never be strong because of the tactics employed by the ruling party. Are you really that stupid? Or have you been paid to argue for them at whatever consequence. Either you are very naive or you are being paid to do this. Anybody who has lived in Singapore for a few years will know the political climate here. -
Are you dense or something?
I did not tell u it is 70%. I tell u it can be as high as 70%. And it is to reply to your mail below which question whether it can reach 95% or not
Didn't I show you the calculation for process loss of 50%? There you go telling me efficiency is 70%!!!Do you know? It could be as high as 95% for all we know.
Electricity leak? You need a positive and negative end, if there is a break in the wire, electricity won't flow through. The potential difference along a conducting wire is always constant. Electricity don't leak!!! Current is always constant throughout the wire.
Look like u need to know more about EEE engineering. Electricity can be lost as heat as the current heat up the wire. ELectricity is also wasted as it goes through transformers at power station. Electricity can also leak if the insulator is torn and it literally leak to the ground.
http://www.cda.org.uk/megab2/elecapps/pub116/sec4.htm
U r wasting my time to help u do your study
While the installation and use of much energy-efficient equipment is being well considered and actioned, the energy losses in undersized power cables are frequently ignored. If cables are installed with a conductor size that is the minimum allowed to avoid overheating, energy losses can be very significantPower plant cost $500 million? Do you have data to substantiate your claims? Or is this another one of your stylised creations?
The S$2 billion, 2,670 MW Tuas Power Station is located at the western end of Singapore. Contributing to 25 per cent of Singapore's electricity needs, the station's generation output is produced by four natural gas fired combined cycle plants. The Station also owns two highly reliable fuel oil fired steam sets.
http://www.tuaspower.com.sg/about1.asp
I am so sorry. It is indeed not 500 million. It is 2 billion.There must be a certain nexus to relate the expense of a certain to another product. If you run a company, say you manufacture clothing and television. If your clothing line is not making money. Do you charge all your clothing related expenses to your television set and charge a higher price for the television? All your points are laden with misconceived logic.
Frankly speaking I do not know wat u r talking about here. If I have to make a guess, I should answer "gov can push budget deficit to raise the GST to 20% if it cannot charge the people the price of land". Gov is not your company.Huh? Digging hole in your backyard is "low class" and insulting?
As said, there r factories set up on the reclaim land as we speak. If the land is not reclaimed, these factories may very sit in residential estate in jurong or ang mo kio. Because of the ase to have land for development, including housing, reclamation work is done and tis free up space for housing
I think you mean is, if previous factory was set up there, government reacquire the land for a price.
Which factory resides in residential areas?Ermmm... The price is already indicative of the bond's compound interest rate.
No no no.. I have been educating u on certain figures and facts. I back up my argument. I admit I do not know much about fiance but when I am in the U, I always though bond is interest on the principle. If u claim tat it is compound interest, u prove it out. U say the website got the data, then copy and paste out the wordings where is say it give compound interest. I have a website tat suggest bond give interest on the principle, not compounded.
It's already in the link, if you have problems understanding discounts, seek a financial experts help to unravel the mysteries of basic finance. You didn't pay me to be your teacher!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest
To calculate: Add up all the interest paid/payable in a period. Divide that by the principal at the beginning of the period. E.g. on $100 (principal):
credit card debt where $1/day is charged. 1/100 = 1%/day.
corporate bond where $3 is due after six months, and another $3 is due at year end. (3+3)/100 = 6%/year.For the last time, Suzhou is making a loss, at the current US$10 million dividend it makes, it will take 2,000 years to recover the initial investment of US$20 billion. If it pays US$100 million, it will take 200 years to recover the initial capital outlay.
U have failed your english. The accumulated loss is cleared in 2003. The 20 billion is probably the expected investments and profit from the park.
He rejected a claim by a Singapore opposition leader that billions of dollars in taxpayers' money was wasted in the SIP project, saying investment in it from statutory boards and government-linked companies so far was US$147 million.
...
At the end of May, 133 projects worth $3.76 billion had been committed to the SIP, which it is estimated will cost $20 billion to $30 billion over 20 years.
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw99/90803af1.htm
I think there is a real problem with u... u inflate figures (upgrade fees), give wrong info (compound interest for bond), claim credit over your own miscalculation (calculation of example )and rebuke infos tat r right (efficiency of cables, cost of power station), read wrongly (suzhou). Can u differentiate truth and lies ? -
All the major investments are losing money, Global Crossing, Shin Corp, Suzhou and Optus.
I said overall.
I have brought up the thread on Global Crossing. Maybe you can prove to me that they are making money? I am not very good with accounting, barely passed my principle of accounts. Do visit the links I have posted to substantiate my analysis, tell me if there are any misrepresentations on my part.
http://www.temasekholdings.com.sg/2006review/files/06%20Our%20Investments.pdf
To date we have delivered a total shareholder return (TSR) by market value of 18% compounded anually since inception, including an average annual dividend yield of more than 7% to our shareholder. Our total portfolio value stands at 129 billion as at 31 march 2006, up from $350 million at our corporation 32 years ago.
U can read more from their fiancial reportI think you lack the logic or the impartiality to analyse the data.
U r the one tat lack the logic bah. I have shown company A do best at country A while company B do best at company B BECAUSE THEY R LABOUR INTENSIVE. It is to illustrate tat profit companies tat is not labour intensive will be pulled to invest in singapore like biomedical. But i think u cannot differentiate logic and truth so if u still do not understand the example, so be it. Let the readers decide
You already showed that despite Country A's low tax rate of 10%, Company B will not move to Country A because Tax is not the only factor a company would analyse to make investment decisions.Whose talking about providing welfare? I just say, they tax so much but don't provide comparable social support system. I'd rather they tax from income so that it would provide better comparison, because other countries provide social support.
Wat is social support system ? Isn't tat another word for welfare ?When will this get in through your thick skull? The HDB need not pay for land, it acquires from government, it's an intra group trading account. It's eliminated when you prepare accounts. If you own company A and company B, company A sells company B $100 million worth of stock $200 million, then company B sells back the same stock to company A for $100 million. Then company A sells back $100 million of the same stock to company B for $200 million. At the end of the day, company A has $400 million sales and makes a profit of $200 million. Does this make sense to you? This is what HDB is doing intra-trading.
U think u r the one with the thick skull. I have always say gov give free land. The whole issue has nothing to do with intra company transfer etc. I show u tat there r many social problems if gov give free land etc but wat is your comment on it ? Nothing. And nobody is asking u about intra company transfer.Don't understand what you mean by "classic economic example tat do not require economic"? If they don't buy that "silly product" then it shouldn't be in 7-11 isn't it? You mention Japanese are buying therapeutic stickers for the foot. First you say Japanese don't buy that "silly product", then you justify that your points by saying that Japanese buy therapeutic stickers. What points do you want to put across?
I trying to put across the point tat there r always silly product in the world. Almost everybody in japan breath by just breathing the air around them. But again u r a terrible readerPollution is not a major problem? Are you sure? Haven't you seen the recent weather anomaly? You have a very "frog in the well" view, you don't seem to know anything about global events. Heard of Global Warming, Greenhouse Effect, El Nino, Ozone, etc?
I am telling u pollution is a different issue with the air u r breathing. It is only relevant when u can't breath the air around u and tat is when pollution become drastically serious. Now it is not the case and u r just bullsh!ting your way throughFirstly, these countries have large MPs or representation is because these countries have a large population, going by the yardstick of 100,000 : 1 (population to MP) from UK, South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Naturally with a larger population you will have a larger representation. Lousy policies? First you tell us that some of these countries provide welfare and are in dire consequence, then you ask me to justify if these countries made bad policies. Goes to show, having a large MP representation does not necessary produce good policies.
They have large population and have large MP. And they work fine. U want a very small group of people like 40 to come out with singapore policy. Tat is not fine. I am talking about system. U can think about PAP farting or anything but the point we r debating is the system, not PAP. The question is whether does a small group of MPs cost problem such as brainstorming etc which u never mention. U just want to blast PAP. U r not here to talk about whether is more MP good or bad. U r just not sincere and u do not know how to read. -
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I think we are going off topic. This is supposed to be about online "counter-insurgency", not whatever we can see fit to talk about on a loose relation to this.
I believe the question was: is this covert "counter-insurgency" really proper for an offical government? is it working? should they be spending their efforts on others things proven to be more effective? and what have you not.
As much as all the rest of the talk is interesting, one can create threads for that... I mean if even rather silly flame threads like racism in australia can carry on for over 20 pages still on topic... we need more talk on such a more important issue in here.
I agree with the cretacious theropod.
OK, so.. so far their online "counter-insurgency"strategies seem to be :
- Banning people who raise too many good points w/ evidence
- Distracting people from the topic to prevent further fruitful discussion
- Trying to discredit the other party by twisting words
What else?
-
Yah! I gave you process loss of 50%, if you think it's 95% then we have been severely overcharged for our electricity. Singapore Power makes about 26% return on equity (ROE) for 2005.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I did not tell u it is 70%. I tell u it can be as high as 70%. And it is to reply to your mail below which question whether it can reach 95% or not
Just for comparison:
Some sources claim the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) will increase electricity prices by an average of 2.52 fen (0.31 of a US cent) per kilowatt-hour (kwh).
Electricity prices in China currently average about half a yuan per unit.
Half a yuan (RenMinBi) per Kwh is about 10 Singapore cents. Singapore Power charges us 20 Singapore cents.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2006-05/09/content_585299.htm
The loss is based on a 16mm^2 (AWG 5), which has a resistance of 0.3134 Ohms/ 1000 ft. We don't use thin cross sectional area wires to carry high voltages. You can use 107.2mm^2 (AWG 4/0), which has a resistance of 0.04901 Ohms/ 1000ft. Either that or you use bus bars.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Look like u need to know more about EEE engineering. Electricity can be lost as heat as the current heat up the wire. ELectricity is also wasted as it goes through transformers at power station. Electricity can also leak if the insulator is torn and it literally leak to the ground.
http://www.cda.org.uk/megab2/elecapps/pub116/sec4.htm
U r wasting my time to help u do your study
While the installation and use of much energy-efficient equipment is being well considered and actioned, the energy losses in undersized power cables are frequently ignored. If cables are installed with a conductor size that is the minimum allowed to avoid overheating, energy losses can be very significant
Whatever it is, the return on equity for Singapore Power is still 26% for 2005. If they lose so much electricity. Do you think they will have this amount of returns?
Obviously you know nothing about accounting. When you install this plant you take a loan from bank or purchase it from your own funds.Originally posted by stupidissmart:The S$2 billion, 2,670 MW Tuas Power Station is located at the western end of Singapore. Contributing to 25 per cent of Singapore's electricity needs, the station's generation output is produced by four natural gas fired combined cycle plants. The Station also owns two highly reliable fuel oil fired steam sets.
http://www.tuaspower.com.sg/about1.asp
Fixed Assets: Debit $2 billion
Loan (if you borrow from bank): Credit $2 billion
End of Year:
Fixed Assets: Debit $2 billion
According to the Financial Statements Plants are depreciated over 20-50 years
(say average of [25+50] / 2 = 35 years) About $57 million a year
Provision for Depreciation: Cr $57 million
In the income statement, you will charge an expense of $57 million to provide for the depreciation. At the end of the day, your income statement will have less profit of $57 million. The $57 million is not a cashflow. At the end of the year when the payment of loan to the bank comes, you just Credit your Bank Account and Credit the Loan Account with the $57 million (if say your loan from bank is 35 years).
Simple logic, if they didn't make money. Why are they getting over 22% to 26% return on equity every year.
It would be logical if the government does that, they can explain that the extra taxes is to provide for other services. Like I said, it's not logical if your company makes clothing and TV, if you don't make profits on clothing, you charge consumers more for TV. It doesn't make sense at all.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Frankly speaking I do not know wat u r talking about here. If I have to make a guess, I should answer "gov can push budget deficit to raise the GST to 20% if it cannot charge the people the price of land". Gov is not your company.
Like I explain in the previous post, government sells the land to the company to set up factory. Say, they get $1 million, invest it somewhere (maybe) bonds, at the end of it, they will get the same exact sum to recover back the cost of the land. There are not many HDB housing which used to be factories.Originally posted by stupidissmart:As said, there r factories set up on the reclaim land as we speak. If the land is not reclaimed, these factories may very sit in residential estate in jurong or ang mo kio. Because of the ase to have land for development, including housing, reclamation work is done and tis free up space for housing
Very smart!! You have showed me that you can search on Wikipedia for interest rates.Originally posted by stupidissmart:No no no.. I have been educating u on certain figures and facts. I back up my argument. I admit I do not know much about fiance but when I am in the U, I always though bond is interest on the principle. If u claim tat it is compound interest, u prove it out. U say the website got the data, then copy and paste out the wordings where is say it give compound interest. I have a website tat suggest bond give interest on the principle, not compounded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest
To calculate: Add up all the interest paid/payable in a period. Divide that by the principal at the beginning of the period. E.g. on $100 (principal):
credit card debt where $1/day is charged. 1/100 = 1%/day.
corporate bond where $3 is due after six months, and another $3 is due at year end. (3+3)/100 = 6%/year.
Now show me the calculation for this simple bond: what is the price of a zero coupon, 30 year maturity, current interest 5% per annum, the bond is non-continuously compounding? Simple enough?
In February 1994, Lee Kuan Yew and ChinaÂ’s Vice-Premier Lee LanqingOriginally posted by stupidissmart:U have failed your english. The accumulated loss is cleared in 2003. The 20 billion is probably the expected investments and profit from the park.
He rejected a claim by a Singapore opposition leader that billions of dollars in taxpayers' money was wasted in the SIP project, saying investment in it from statutory boards and government-linked companies so far was US$147 million.
...
At the end of May, 133 projects worth $3.76 billion had been committed to the SIP, which it is estimated will cost $20 billion to $30 billion over 20 years.
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw99/90803af1.htm
I think there is a real problem with u... u inflate figures (upgrade fees), give wrong info (compound interest for bond), claim credit over your own miscalculation (calculation of example )and rebuke infos tat r right (efficiency of cables, cost of power station), read wrongly (suzhou). Can u differentiate truth and lies ?
formally signed an agreement to develop a seventy-kilometre industrial
park based on SingaporeÂ’s Jurong Industrial Park experience. The total
cost of the SIP was estimated to be about US$20 billion, to be fully developed in twenty years and based on a Singaporean style of industrial, residential,
recreational community with a population of six hundred thousand
providing employment for three hundred and sixty thousand workers. (45)
Abstract from page 16 of:
Singapore-China Special Economic Relations: In Search of Business Opportunities
45) Asia Times, 22 August 1996. See also Henry Wai-chung Yeung, “Local Politics and Foreign Ventures in China’s Transitional Economy: The Political Economy of Singaporean Investments in China,” Political Geography, Vol. 19 (2000), p.830.
This is a report written by Professor SHEE Poon Kim*
RITSUMEIKAN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS Vol.3, pp.151-176 (2005).
* Visiting Professor, Faculty of International Relations, Ritsumeikan University. I am grateful to the East Asian Institute, National University of Singapore for providing the research facilities for writing this paper and to Dr. Lam Peng Er for his valuable comments.
So unless you have a study to disprove it, I will take my source as credible. Even your own source said $20 billion to $30 billion in 20 years.
By September 1999, it was reported that the SIP project would have accumulated losses of US$60 million by the end of the year 2000; the incurred financial loss would be about US$77 millions.
I added US$77 million with US$10 million, which is US$87 million. I gave them a profit of US$100 million (approx.) a year. They investing US$20 billion, won't it take 200 years to recover the original investment.
It would be helpful if someone from Finance can tell stupidissmart if bonds interest are compounded.
What is "total shareholder return by market value of 18% compounded annually"? I don't understand this statement, maybe you can shed some light and help me understand.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I said overall.
http://www.temasekholdings.com.sg/2006review/files/06%20Our%20Investments.pdf
To date we have delivered a total shareholder return (TSR) by market value of 18% compounded anually since inception, including an average annual dividend yield of more than 7% to our shareholder. Our total portfolio value stands at 129 billion as at 31 march 2006, up from $350 million at our corporation 32 years ago.
U can read more from their fiancial report
Of the portfolio Temasek has, 44% are companies based in Singapore. Shareholder equity of Temasek is around $90 billion, Singapore Power alone is $5 billion in equity. Singapore Power has return on equity of 26% in 2005.
Looking at the income statement is useless, when you don't know anything about the balance sheet.
http://politics.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=235957&page=0
Can you explain the losses at Global Crossing? Maybe you can come up with a smart answer. I would love to hear your reply, keeps me amused.
Can you tell me who is the ultimate shareholder of Temasek? Who gets all those dividends and capital gains(if there are any at all)?
You example showed:Originally posted by stupidissmart:U r the one tat lack the logic bah. I have shown company A do best at country A while company B do best at company B BECAUSE THEY R LABOUR INTENSIVE. It is to illustrate tat profit companies tat is not labour intensive will be pulled to invest in singapore like biomedical. But i think u cannot differentiate logic and truth so if u still do not understand the example, so be it. Let the readers decide
1) The example you provide was a country with low tax and a country with high tax. Say maybe Singapore (low tax) and China (high tax).
2) You showed that the company operating in the country with high tax (China) will never move to Singapore despite it's low tax rate, else it would make losses.
Proves my point that what the government is doing is not going to attact investments.
My original point:
"Lower corporate taxes is not a major factor that influence investment decisions"
Thanks. I could not have come up with a better example.
The try to emulate developed country's form of taxation, but do no provide welfare. I would recommend that they tax us less, since they not providing sufficient welfare.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Wat is social support system ? Isn't tat another word for welfare ?
Like I said the intra company is used to inflate prices. I already rebutted all your points, you go search all my posting to find it. All you gave was army has cost, police has cost, etc. But these cost are already provided for in taxes. There is no connection between housing and these services. I gave you example of company producing clothing and TV, if clothing is making a loss, do you pass the cost of your clothing to your TV? There is no connection at all!!!Originally posted by stupidissmart:U think u r the one with the thick skull. I have always say gov give free land. The whole issue has nothing to do with intra company transfer etc. I show u tat there r many social problems if gov give free land etc but wat is your comment on it ? Nothing. And nobody is asking u about intra company transfer.
Another example, say you have a company doing graphic design and you teach part time tuition. You cannot cover your cost in doing graphic design. Do you go and tell your students you need to increase 100% of their fees so that you can cover your graphic design business? Makes no sense, or it's nonsense.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I trying to put across the point tat there r always silly product in the world. Almost everybody in japan breath by just breathing the air around them. But again u r a terrible reader
You said nobody would buy that silly product. How fast you change your words.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I think u r realy barking up the wrong topic because air is a classic economic example tat do not require economic. Selling at 7-11 ? My impression r most japanese don't buy tat silly product. Japanese r also buying a sticker where u stick on your feet tat can reduce your body weight. Talking about pollution, u don't talk about it now when it isn't tat serious a problem. As said, u can breath all u want and nobody is charging u. U don't need management for how much each individual breath because it is enough for everybody
I am not bullshitting, it's just you have a very narrow perspective of the world. Pollution is a big issue with global warming now!!! Haven't you noticed the freaky weather patterns around the world? That's why the Kyoto Proctocol was aimed at reducing emssions.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I am telling u pollution is a different issue with the air u r breathing. It is only relevant when u can't breath the air around u and tat is when pollution become drastically serious. Now it is not the case and u r just bullsh!ting your way through
Let me get this straight:Originally posted by stupidissmart:They have large population and have large MP. And they work fine. U want a very small group of people like 40 to come out with singapore policy. Tat is not fine. I am talking about system. U can think about PAP farting or anything but the point we r debating is the system, not PAP. The question is whether does a small group of MPs cost problem such as brainstorming etc which u never mention. U just want to blast PAP. U r not here to talk about whether is more MP good or bad. U r just not sincere and u do not know how to read.
If you run a company, your company has a small sales figure(tax from small population like Singapore), you can work with 50 managers (salary of managers). You want 84 managers so that the other 34 managers can shake leg and get money? Have you shown that policies made by these 84 managers are better than those made by 50 managers? I have already shown that with the reduction in 34 managers, it will result in cost savings to the company. PAP is the system! I guess we have another party sharing the government? Small group of people cost more problems? Obviously you haven't been managing people. Is it easier to manage a group of 1,000 or manage a group of 100? I am not against them, I used to support their policies afew elections back, but I find that their policies are abit self defeating and self promoting. More MP doesn't mean good, less MP doesn't mean bad. If you think more MP is good, then we should have 1,000 MP, but the policies will be the same. Why? Simple, because some things are not within a mortal's grasp. You cannot fight a wave of Tsunami, you can only run. Likewise, having more MPs does not help the situation, because it only increase the burden on tax payers. Even their plan to reduce CPF contribution for employee, I thought of it last election ago, I am not even a graduate.
Remember to show me the calculation for the price of the bond. I am not against them, I just don't support a majority of their policies, I think their policies are selfish, aim at maintaining eternal dominance at the expense of Singaporeans. I used to support them 100% in the past, but, that was the past. -
Yah! I gave you process loss of 50%, if you think it's 95% then we have been severely overcharged for our electricity. Singapore Power makes about 26% return on equity (ROE) for 2005.
I told u many times tat singapore power also invest in other areas. Tat is why it explains the profit. Wat have u got to say to tis ? U have been avoiding tis question yet repeat on the increase in equity. If u cannot answer tat, then u have nothing to talk about.Just for comparison:
I thought u r the one tat says we shouldn't compare with country like chian with the 3 gorges, cheap coal and hydroelectric power ? Now u start to compare them again. Do u have a problem with memory ?
Some sources claim the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) will increase electricity prices by an average of 2.52 fen (0.31 of a US cent) per kilowatt-hour (kwh).
Electricity prices in China currently average about half a yuan per unit.
Half a yuan (RenMinBi) per Kwh is about 10 Singapore cents. Singapore Power charges us 20 Singapore cents.The loss is based on a 16mm^2 (AWG 5), which has a resistance of 0.3134 Ohms/ 1000 ft. We don't use thin cross sectional area wires to carry high voltages. You can use 107.2mm^2 (AWG 4/0), which has a resistance of 0.04901 Ohms/ 1000ft. Either that or you use bus bars.
U don't use thin cable, but it effectively show u the problem tat power is lost through transmission which u yourself again do not know the figures. The return or equity can simply be a reflection of its gowing investment in places like Indo, korea, taiwan
Whatever it is, the return on equity for Singapore Power is still 26% for 2005. If they lose so much electricity. Do you think they will have this amount of returns?In the income statement, you will charge an expense of $57 million to provide for the depreciation. At the end of the day, your income statement will have less profit of $57 million. The $57 million is not a cashflow. At the end of the year when the payment of loan to the bank comes, you just Credit your Bank Account and Credit the Loan Account with the $57 million (if say your loan from bank is 35 years).
I think u r just making people confuse. The 2 billion is going to go to the 4.5 million singaporean eventually. Tis fixed cost is included into the electricity bill of the people and therefore the overall price per kwh have to increase
Simple logic, if they didn't make money. Why are they getting over 22% to 26% return on equity every year.
The increase in equity is simply a reflection of its investment in other regions. They make money, doesn't means u r charge at un unfair price
If talking about your example, then it is illogical to carry on operating the clothing market instead of shutting it down or selling if off. They can simply concentrate on the TV market. U want the gov to wash its hands off public housing
It would be logical if the government does that, they can explain that the extra taxes is to provide for other services. Like I said, it's not logical if your company makes clothing and TV, if you don't make profits on clothing, you charge consumers more for TV. It doesn't make sense at all.Like I explain in the previous post, government sells the land to the company to set up factory. Say, they get $1 million, invest it somewhere (maybe) bonds, at the end of it, they will get the same exact sum to recover back the cost of the land. There are not many HDB housing which used to be factories.
U r talking as though investment can make u an impossible sum of money within a short time. After 50 years of investment u may get back the sum of only 1 year of leasing out the land
But is shows how stupid u r in giving facts and figures
Very smart!! You have showed me that you can search on Wikipedia for interest rates.Now show me the calculation for this simple bond: what is the price of a zero coupon, 30 year maturity, current interest 5% per annum, the bond is non-continuously compounding? Simple enough?
I have already show u an example previously. Go back and read
No one is saying your source is not credible. It is your reading tat is not credible. I have already shown u an earlier reference tat clarify wat is the losses (in above u put 87 million) and wat is the expected investment into suzhou (from investors)
So unless you have a study to disprove it, I will take my source as credible. Even your own source said $20 billion to $30 billion in 20 years.
By September 1999, it was reported that the SIP project would have accumulated losses of US$60 million by the end of the year 2000; the incurred financial loss would be about US$77 millions.
I added US$77 million with US$10 million, which is US$87 million. I gave them a profit of US$100 million (approx.) a year. They investing US$20 billion, won't it take 200 years to recover the original investment
He rejected a claim by a Singapore opposition leader that billions of dollars in taxpayers' money was wasted in the SIP project, saying investment in it from statutory boards and government-linked companies so far was US$147 million.
...
At the end of May, 133 projects worth $3.76 billion had been committed to the SIP, which it is estimated will cost $20 billion to $30 billion over 20 years.
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw99/90803af1.htmIt would be helpful if someone from Finance can tell stupidissmart if bonds interest are compounded
Why don't u do your own study ? U have been spoonfed by the gov too much ? -
What is "total shareholder return by market value of 18% compounded annually"? I don't understand this statement, maybe you can shed some light and help me understand.
U put 100, next year u get 118. Then the interest is compounded 1.18*118 which is 139.24. So u can guess tis is much better than putting in yur bond thingOf the portfolio Temasek has, 44% are companies based in Singapore. Shareholder equity of Temasek is around $90 billion, Singapore Power alone is $5 billion in equity. Singapore Power has return on equity of 26% in 2005.
Com'on, the report show its expenditure and income. Global make a loss, but other companies made a killing. Overall they make money. Get it ?
Looking at the income statement is useless, when you don't know anything about the balance sheetCan you tell me who is the ultimate shareholder of Temasek? Who gets all those dividends and capital gains(if there are any at all)?
Tis shows u know nothing of Temasek. There is only 1 shareholder. The gov. ANd the dividend goes directly into the budget1) The example you provide was a country with low tax and a country with high tax. Say maybe Singapore (low tax) and China (high tax).
3) My example prove tat for some investors like company A, they will invest in singapore rather than china because of the low tax.
2) You showed that the company operating in the country with high tax (China) will never move to Singapore despite it's low tax rate, else it would make losses.
4) It concludes tat singapore tax rate manage to pull in investors which has earn much more profit compard with the use of labour
U r wasting my time to guide u every step of the analysisLike I said the intra company is used to inflate prices. I already rebutted all your points, you go search all my posting to find it. All you gave was army has cost, police has cost, etc. But these cost are already provided for in taxes. There is no connection between housing and these services. I gave you example of company producing clothing and TV, if clothing is making a loss, do you pass the cost of your clothing to your TV? There is no connection at all!!!
I think u felt money drop from the sky. Now gov have money from tax and land. Lets give it a figure of 70-30. If u remove the land charge of 30, then gov is left with 70 of its original revenue. He have to find other ways and means to get back tis 30 %. I have already told u 1 million and 1 times tat if u deprive the gov from taxing from land, then have to find other means to get back the moneyAnother example, say you have a company doing graphic design and you teach part time tuition. You cannot cover your cost in doing graphic design. Do you go and tell your students you need to increase 100% of their fees so that you can cover your graphic design business? Makes no sense, or it's nonsense.
Don't do graphic design lah !You said nobody would buy that silly product. How fast you change your words
I didn't change the word. I am illustrating to u how many silly products r there and u cannot rely on the silliest of them all to give an argument.I am not bull**@!ting, it's just you have a very narrow perspective of the world. Pollution is a big issue with global warming now!!! Haven't you noticed the freaky weather patterns around the world? That's why the Kyoto Proctocol was aimed at reducing emssions.
Pollution is a problem BUT IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH YOUR BREATHING NOW. GET IT ? NO COUNTRY PEOPLE CANNOT BREATH BY JUST BREATHINGIf you run a company, your company has a small sales figure(tax from small population like Singapore), you can work with 50 managers (salary of managers). You want 84 managers so that the other 34 managers can shake leg and get money? Have you shown that policies made by these 84 managers are better than those made by 50 managers? I have already shown that with the reduction in 34 managers, it will result in cost savings to the company. PAP is the system! I guess we have another party sharing the government? Small group of people cost more problems? Obviously you haven't been managing people. Is it easier to manage a group of 1,000 or manage a group of 100? I am not against them, I used to support their policies afew elections back, but I find that their policies are abit self defeating and self promoting. More MP doesn't mean good, less MP doesn't mean bad. If you think more MP is good, then we should have 1,000 MP, but the policies will be the same. Why? Simple, because some things are not within a mortal's grasp. You cannot fight a wave of Tsunami, you can only run. Likewise, having more MPs does not help the situation, because it only increase the burden on tax payers. Even their plan to reduce CPF contribution for employee, I thought of it last election ago, I am not even a graduate.
U see, u r making an assumption tat the job can be hande adequately by 50 and not by 84 people. All the other "companies" have more than a few hundred and they r "earning great profits with great policies" showing great management. If u felt tat 50 is enough, maybe u can show an example of great "companies" with 50 or lesser people ?
U can say it lower the cost, but by how much ? by 0.01% of the company profit ? In exchange of wat ? Ideas and contributions ? It can be the idea tat make singapore many times richer u know
There r some things tat r out of human grasp, but most of them r within control. U cannot control tsunamis, but u can have planning wat happen when disaster struck and wat should be the plan to seek assistance etc. They r critical -
If you look at the investment portfolio of Temasek, 44% of it's investments is in Singapore. What other areas you talking about? The losses in Shin Corp, Global Crossing and Optus? Global Crossing is making losses to date, Shin Corp has a return on equity of about 4%, Optus (no information on website).Originally posted by stupidissmart:I told u many times tat singapore power also invest in other areas. Tat is why it explains the profit. Wat have u got to say to tis ? U have been avoiding tis question yet repeat on the increase in equity. If u cannot answer tat, then u have nothing to talk about.
All these low returns has to be is supported by the high charges for utilities, phone charges and transport.
http://www.temasekholdings.com.sg/our_investments/our_portfolio.htm
If you prefer other benchmarks, Australia which has a GDP US$32,030 per capita, charges for electricity is AU$0.13882 per Kwh (SG$0.16797). Singapore Power charges us SG$0.20 (approx.) per Kwh.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I thought u r the one tat says we shouldn't compare with country like chian with the 3 gorges, cheap coal and hydroelectric power ? Now u start to compare them again. Do u have a problem with memory ?
http://www.originenergy.com.au/about/template.php?pageid=1988
In an Efficient Market Hypothesis, it's not possible to achive higher earnings than the market. The only way you can achieve higher earnings is if you have market power. Like in the case of Singapore Power and MRT. Since you say the return on equity can be a reflection of growing investments in other countries, can you show me afew countries that make a return on equity of 26% and above? You need to achieve this return level to support what you claim Singapore Power charges Singaporeans less. If you make 5% return on Singaporeans, you would need to make more than 26% return to cover the shortfall for the 5% return from Singaporeans.Originally posted by stupidissmart:U don't use thin cable, but it effectively show u the problem tat power is lost through transmission which u yourself again do not know the figures. The return or equity can simply be a reflection of its gowing investment in places like Indo, korea, taiwan
Prove you case, instead of making unsubstantiated claims!
I wish you can communicate more coherently. Your standard of English is far too superior, I have problems understanding what you meant by "The 2 billion is going to go to the 4.5 million Singaporean eventually.".Originally posted by stupidissmart:I think u r just making people confuse. The 2 billion is going to go to the 4.5 million singaporean eventually. Tis fixed cost is included into the electricity bill of the people and therefore the overall price per kwh have to increase
The increase in equity is simply a reflection of its investment in other regions. They make money, doesn't means u r charge at un unfair price
You see, there is no reason to allocate the cost to the TV if your clothing line isn't performing well. So it doesn't make sense to pass the charges of other services to housing. There is just no direct connection! Therefore the other charges not relevant to housing should be removed.Originally posted by stupidissmart:If talking about your example, then it is illogical to carry on operating the clothing market instead of shutting it down or selling if off. They can simply concentrate on the TV market. U want the gov to wash its hands off public housing
Ermm.....Maybe I give you the data you "try" to decipher.Originally posted by stupidissmart:U r talking as though investment can make u an impossible sum of money within a short time. After 50 years of investment u may get back the sum of only 1 year of leasing out the land
Average Annual Returns 1926 - 1999
Common Stocks: 13.3%
Small-company stocks: 17.6%
Long-term corporate bonds: 5.9%
Long-term government bonds: 5.5%
Intermediate-term government bonds: 5.4%
U.S. Treasury bills : 3.8%
You stupid that you can't understand how to do the bond calculation?Originally posted by stupidissmart:But is shows how stupid u r in giving facts and figures
Your's was a cut and paste from Wikipedia, it wasn't even a bond. Dumbass!!!!Originally posted by stupidissmart:Now show me the calculation for this simple bond: what is the price of a zero coupon, 30 year maturity, current interest 5% per annum, the bond is non-continuously compounding? Simple enough?
Wahaha......
You have problem understanding how to do a bond calculation?
Sad to hear university students like you have such low understanding abilities.
You telling me that to date, the amount of money they put into SIP is only US$147 million? And within 1-2 years they can reverse all the investment of US$147 million and make a profit of $10 million.Originally posted by stupidissmart:No one is saying your source is not credible. It is your reading tat is not credible. I have already shown u an earlier reference tat clarify wat is the losses (in above u put 87 million) and wat is the expected investment into suzhou (from investors)
He rejected a claim by a Singapore opposition leader that billions of dollars in taxpayers' money was wasted in the SIP project, saying investment in it from statutory boards and government-linked companies so far was US$147 million.
...
At the end of May, 133 projects worth $3.76 billion had been committed to the SIP, which it is estimated will cost $20 billion to $30 billion over 20 years.
Show me the bond calculation since you know how to do it? There are truly no words to describe your stupidity!!!Originally posted by stupidissmart:Why don't u do your own study ? U have been spoonfed by the gov too much ?
Show me the bond calculation, prove me that you are really smart!!!
Now show me the calculation for this simple bond: what is the price of a zero coupon, 30 year maturity, current interest 5% per annum, the bond is non-continuously compounding? Simple enough?
If you can't do it, despite reading everything. You are just a dumbass trying to act smart!!!
I am really questioning your basic intelligence as a human being, prove me wrong by solving it and tell me that the price does not include compound interest.
Wahahaha -
Pity you wrecking your head over figuring out how to calculate the bond.
Here's something to help you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_valuation
Hope you can prove the world academic establishment wrong, by proving that bonds are not priced with compound interest. You might get a Nobel Prize in Economics for your discovery.
Hahahaha
You are very funny!!! -
If you look at the investment portfolio of Temasek, 44% of it's investments is in Singapore. What other areas you talking about? The losses in Shin Corp, Global Crossing and Optus? Global Crossing is making losses to date, Shin Corp has a return on equity of about 4%, Optus (no information on website).
They have invested in banking and telecommunication. But obviously u did nto read the report and obviously u do not know anything about temasek. Why don't u start by reading the whole actual report ? Your link is only some pages
All these low returns has to be is supported by the high charges for utilities, phone charges and transport.
http://www.temasekholdings.com.sg/2006review/files/06%20Our%20Investments.pdfIf you prefer other benchmarks, Australia which has a GDP US$32,030 per capita, charges for electricity is AU$0.13882 per Kwh (SG$0.16797). Singapore Power charges us SG$0.20 (approx.) per Kwh.
I think u need to read back again. U need to pay GST for the power, which add up to 15.144 cents. The cost is 18.36. It is cheaper, but not much. I thought initially u do not want to compare with other countries ? Now u wann start comparison again ?In an Efficient Market Hypothesis, it's not possible to achive higher earnings than the market. The only way you can achieve higher earnings is if you have market power. Like in the case of Singapore Power and MRT. Since you say the return on equity can be a reflection of growing investments in other countries, can you show me afew countries that make a return on equity of 26% and above? You need to achieve this return level to support what you claim Singapore Power charges Singaporeans less. If you make 5% return on Singaporeans, you would need to make more than 26% return to cover the shortfall for the 5% return from Singaporeans
First, I do not know wat is efficient market hypothesis but singapore has expanded to other regions effectively increasing its market share. The growth can simply be a relfection of tis. And again u never mention a single word on tis. And I do not say tat singapore make a loss by providing us power. I am saying it is not making a gross profit as initially thought. U can't prove it up till now.I wish you can communicate more coherently. Your standard of English is far too superior, I have problems understanding what you meant by "The 2 billion is going to go to the 4.5 million Singaporean eventually.".
Someone have to foot the 2 billion dollars spend on the power plant. Who do u think will pay ?You see, there is no reason to allocate the cost to the TV if your clothing line isn't performing well. So it doesn't make sense to pass the charges of other services to housing. There is just no direct connection! Therefore the other charges not relevant to housing should be removed.
U have not shown me if gov revenue decreases, where is he gonna find the replacement for itErmm.....Maybe I give you the data you "try" to decipher
Why don't u decipher for the reader. U just throw a lot of data and u do not elaborate then run away. No matter how u invest, u still not gonna make as much money by leasing the land for housingYou stupid that you can't understand how to do the bond calculation?
The website I show u do the calculation for u to see. I did not do it. And u still can't prove bond is compounded interestYour's was a cut and paste from Wikipedia, it wasn't even a bond. Dumbass!!!!
I think u can't read properly. It states b.o.n.d. U can't even read a 4 letter word ?You telling me that to date, the amount of money they put into SIP is only US$147 million? And within 1-2 years they can reverse all the investment of US$147 million and make a profit of $10 million.
Yes.Show me the bond calculation since you know how to do it? There are truly no words to describe your stupidity!!!
U r the one who suggest buying bond as the ultimate investment tool, u should be the one to show it.
Show me the bond calculation, prove me that you are really smart!!! -
If you have the figures. Why don't you tell me what amount is invested in banking outside Singapore? What amount is invested in telecommunication outside Singapore? What amount of profits is attributable to these investments? You need to learn English and basic logic.Originally posted by stupidissmart:They have invested in banking and telecommunication. But obviously u did nto read the report and obviously u do not know anything about temasek. Why don't u start by reading the whole actual report ? Your link is only some pages
http://www.temasekholdings.com.sg/2006review/files/06%20Our%20Investments.pdf
Hahaha
Obviously you don't know what is the meaning of Total Price AU$0.13882 per Kwh. So you add GST to it again. Trying to distort things again.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I think u need to read back again. U need to pay GST for the power, which add up to 15.144 cents. The cost is 18.36. It is cheaper, but not much. I thought initially u do not want to compare with other countries ? Now u wann start comparison again ?
You haven't prove to me either. Why don't you show me which region or investment makes a 26% return on equity? I have shown you Global Crossing and Shin Corp. Go read my thread on Global Crossing. It has losses of up to US$500 million approx. to date.Originally posted by stupidissmart:First, I do not know wat is efficient market hypothesis but singapore has expanded to other regions effectively increasing its market share. The growth can simply be a relfection of tis. And again u never mention a single word on tis. And I do not say tat singapore make a loss by providing us power. I am saying it is not making a gross profit as initially thought. U can't prove it up till now.
The bottom line is, whatever they charged into the price of electricity, they still made a return on equity of 26%. You told me it's from other investments abroad. Can you show me the results of those investments quantitatively.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Someone have to foot the 2 billion dollars spend on the power plant. Who do u think will pay ?
I don't have to show you this. This is not relevant to the discussion. You said charging other cost to HDB to make up the cost of other services. I showed you it's not fair to do that. You accepted it, then now you ask me for solution.Originally posted by stupidissmart:U have not shown me if gov revenue decreases, where is he gonna find the replacement for it
Ludicrous!!
Ermmm. If you still remember, I told you bond calculation is made up of compound interest, you told me NO. So now I have to substantiate your proof? Hahaha.....Originally posted by stupidissmart:Why don't u decipher for the reader. U just throw a lot of data and u do not elaborate then run away. No matter how u invest, u still not gonna make as much money by leasing the land for housing
The website I show u do the calculation for u to see. I did not do it. And u still can't prove bond is compounded interest
Prosecution lawyer: give your accounts of what happened on 22 Feb 2007
Accused: I went over 7-11 in Woodlands and got a can of coke.......
Prosecution lawyer: I dispute that claim, you were at Sentosa at that time
Accused: No, I wasn't
Prosecution lawyer: ok, now prove that you were at 7-11 in Woodlands
You accused someone of a crime, you ask that accused to give evidence to substantiate your reasoning. Makes sense? Ooops..
Forgot that we are in Singapore, the burden of proof is reversed. If I am accused of something, then I have to prove I am innocent. Since you being in the civil service, you are accustomed to such thinking.
Then I have nothing to say on this issue. The government invested US$147 million and within 1-2 years recovered all the investment and made a profit of US$10 million.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Yes.
You are absolute right!
Hehehe
The Suzhou investment seems like a better form of investment than hedge funds.
One last thing, I did not tell you that bonds is "the ultimate investment product", don't put words in my mouth again. I used it as an example because it's a risk free investment product. Do not conjure up false logic then put it in my mouth. -
If you have the figures. Why don't you tell me what amount is invested in banking outside Singapore? What amount is invested in telecommunication outside Singapore? What amount of profits is attributable to these investments? You need to learn English and basic logic.
U a wasting my time
Hahaha
I told u the report is there. If u lazy and don't wanna read. Done. I am not spoonfeeding u, especially when u always read wrongly and come out with invalid facts and figures. U can try starting reading from page 8 onwards
http://www.temasekholdings.com.sg/2006review/files/06%20Our%20Investments.pdf
and page 5 onwards
http://www.temasekholdings.com.sg/2006review/files/09%20Our%20Major%20Portfolio%20Investments.pdfYou haven't prove to me either. Why don't you show me which region or investment makes a 26% return on equity? I have shown you Global Crossing and Shin Corp. Go read my thread on Global Crossing. It has losses of up to US$500 million approx. to date.
I don't know why u do not like a high return of equity u perfer it to lose money ? And u still have not mention a word why can't the rise of singapore power due to its investments overseas.
I have never say singapore investment always made money. But unlike u, I believe overall the investment made money. And u again conveniently forgot tat.The bottom line is, whatever they charged into the price of electricity, they still made a return on equity of 26%. You told me it's from other investments abroad. Can you show me the results of those investments quantitatively.
A simple search of singapore is enough, but u lazy to search.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Power
SP AusNet - Singapore Power International Pte Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Singapore Power Limited, owns a 51% interest in SP AusNet. SP AusNet's electricity transmission and distribution networks, along with the gas distribution assets, enable it to deliver a full range of energy-related products and services to industrial and domestic customers in Victoria, Australia.
Power Automation - a joint-venture company set up by Singapore Power with Siemens in July 1995 to offer engineering services in protection systems, substation control and energy management and information systems across Asia Pacific.
Singapore District Cooling - a joint-venture company set up by Singapore Power with Dalkia in September 2000 as a partner to implement the pilot District Cooling project at Marina South New Downtown. District Cooling is a new urban utility service involving the centralised production of chilled water for distribution to commercial buildings for air-conditioning purposes.
SPI Seosan Co-generation and Water Treatment - Singapore PowerÂ’s investment in South Korea provides electricity, steam and water treatment services to Samsung Total Petrochemicals Co Ltd, one of the largest petrochemical companies in Korea.
EverPower IPP - Singapore PowerÂ’s investment in Taiwan comprises a 25% stake in Ever Power IPP Company, an independent power producer, which supplies electricity to Taiwan Power Company.I don't have to show you this. This is not relevant to the discussion. You said charging other cost to HDB to make up the cost of other services. I showed you it's not fair to do that. You accepted it, then now you ask me for solution.
Why is it not relevant to the discussion ? Tis is the fact of reality and u have to answer fot it. And HDB is making a loss if it do not consider using land as a resource and not paying for it. To break even HDB has to pay the landErmmm. If you still remember, I told you bond calculation is made up of compound interest, you told me NO. So now I have to substantiate your proof? Hahaha.....
U r the one who claim it is compounded. U made the claim first. Furthermore I show u an example from wiki tat show it is not compounded. Wat have u show ? NothingThe Suzhou investment seems like a better form of investment than hedge funds
There r some investment loss, and there r some investment gain. Suzhou is not a loss now -
I know you don't know how to calculate it, you just know how to cut and paste like OM.Originally posted by stupidissmart:U r the one who claim it is compounded. U made the claim first. Furthermore I show u an example from wiki tat show it is not compounded. Wat have u show ? Nothing
I will do the calculation for the continously compounded because it's the simplest, but I don't think you would understand.
maturity [say] = 99 years
interest [say] = 5%
coupons = 0
face value = $1,000,000
value = $1,000,000 exp [-integral (99, 0) 0.05 dt]
= $1,000,000 exp [-0.05t]|(99,0)
= $1,000,000 e^-(4.95-0)
= $7,083.41
Discount rate: the required (annually compounded) yield or rate of return r.
r is the market interest rate for new bond issues with similar risk ratings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_valuation
Understand? Hehehe..... -
I know you don't know how to calculate it, you just know how to cut and paste like OM.
I don't know wat is the whole purpose of u pasting the calculation when the whole argument is whether is bond giving compounded interest or not.
I will do the calculation for the continously compounded because it's the simplest, but I don't think you would understand.
http://www.moneyobserver.net/facts_invst03.htm
The idea of the bond goes like tis. U buy a bond, lets say 1,000,000 for 10 years and 5%. Every year, they will give u 5% cash in coupons. So every year u get 50,000. At the end of the 10 year, they give u your coupon as well as your original 1,000,000 back. So altogether u earn 500,000
Corporate bonds are sold in the same way as shares - a company issues a number of bonds equivalent to the total amount of money it wants to borrow. The issuer sells the bond to a group of investment banks which then sell them on to individual investors. Here are a few definitions:
- The issuer is the borrower.
- The principal is the face value of the bond (ie, the capital amount being lent or borrowed).
- The coupon is a fancy name for the amount of interest paid each year as a percentage of the principal.
- The maturity date is when all the capital must be paid back.
- The yield might sound like the same thing as the coupon, but is very different. Because of interest rate changes, market competition and fashion, the capital value of a bond will vary between issue date and maturity. The coupon, however, does not. A 10 per cent coupon on a bond at face value of £100 will produce interest of £10. If the bond falls in value to only £80, the interest paid will still be £10 but the yield (£10 interest as a return on £80 of current value) will now be 12.5 per cent.
- The redemption yield takes account of both the coupon and the potential for capital gain between now and maturity (in the above case another £20). It can become more complicated than this simple example, but is the measure most used by the professionals in assessing value when buying and selling.
Your example give a very strange type of bond, called the zero coupon bond where they give no coupon, or not interest after a period. Tis zero coupon bond means u give 1,000,000 to buy the bond. U get nothing in between and at the time it matures, like 10 years, they give u 1,800,000 for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_coupon_bond
U don't even know wat is bond, and u dare to give such as thing as compounded bond. The whole point of the discussion is r there any compounded interest for bond, and u found none, and u invent out your own compound bond. I can't believe u... -
Just stop this argument about bond. It is a totally waste of time.
To SIS, you are right about the nature of the bond, but if the investors use the money received from the couple to reinvest in bond, you can get back compounded interest. However it may also means you will never get back your full capital and interest
To maurizio13, strictly speaking the nature of the bond is not compound interest. Your example of US treasury bond is not giving compounded interest.