SG top in foreign reserve per capita
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Without transparency and proper independent audit, and with all activities treated as 'STATE SECRET' - is there any use to discuss how much PROFIT GIC, Temasek. etc make during the past few decades ?
2.While we shall discuss the lessons of the above,
will it be more fair we also calculate how much PROFITS GIC,
Temasek etc make during the past few decades.
So,you guys think SG shall not invest at all?
Or like some wise men or women here propose,just to invest the
low risks or sure-make -money biz?
With Temasek established in 1974, how much was lost from the initial input, and could the amount lost - (as in the situations given in the preceding posts) - have been avoided ?
MICROPOLIS was avoidable - as even from within its ranks, the 'Minority' was told to quit a profit declining and highly competitive 'hard disk drive' market.
What about the loss of US$3 Billion in Shin Corp deals, which was based on a shadowy arrangement of 100 per cent ownership through proxy companies that are totally against Thai Law - and is the cause of the present weak ground that Temasek's investment is standing on now ?
If Temasek had started with $100, lost $80 in the first decade; and more money is pumped during the second decade to bring its capital back to $200 but losing another $90 and some $30 without performance, and with a questionable 7 per cent return on the amount invested, can this be considered stellar performance ?
Its performance and continued existence seems assured only due to the fact that an unending source of money is made available through the wealth creamed off from a quiet and hard working population.
The anticipated 2% increase in GST will reap in at least S$1 Billion PLUS annually and by itself will replenish the US$3 BILLION Shin Corp lost in less then three years - at current exchange rates.
With the GST in place, the ERP will allow money to flow into the State Treasury at every single minute of every economic activities of Singaporeans that remains awake, purchasing and travelling.
These money harvesting tools are supported further by the COE system, artificially high prices of public housing, artificially high priced of land sales that affect private and commercial developments - all of which will affect the cost of living and the cost of operations to SMEs.
Can this Government understand the value of money, when money is so easily available with the passing of a Bill, and with a population that is politically docile and asleep ?
Without transparency, any discussion can only be based on the few information that is available; but the fact remains true that a boastful high Per Capita income based on National Reserves is nothing more then self-delusionary. -
So what? Does that make us the king of the universe?
-
We already lost "US$3 Billion in Shin Corp deals"?Originally posted by Atobe:
What about the loss of US$3 Billion in Shin Corp deals, which was based on a shadowy arrangement of 100 per cent ownership through proxy companies that are totally against Thai Law - and is the cause of the present weak ground that Temasek's investment is standing on now ? -
The real question that needs a definate answer in this topic is, so how does that help the common man in the streets?
It's like telling everyone your father's friend's cousin's sister-in-law's student is freaking rich...SO?! -
In Singapore, it pays only when you are a GLC or MNC...
'New startups are being killed off... from what I've heard from my friends, assistance given to SMEs are slow to start with.
One good example is the Local Enterprise Technical Assistance Scheme (LETAS) by EDB that my friend applied for. He applied for it March last year and his application was only approved this year Jan... Should the government bodies be more sincere in helping our local SMEs we should be seeing more entrepenuers sprouting out and blooming, instead we are now witnessing the deaths of many small businesses and many others struggling to survive.
It's sad. -
2.you seem contradict.On one hand u suspect GIC ,Temasek lose heavly.Originally posted by Atobe:Without transparency and proper independent audit, and with all activities treated as 'STATE SECRET' - is there any use to discuss how much PROFIT GIC, Temasek. etc make during the past few decades ?
......
If Temasek had started with $100, lost $80 in the first decade; and more money is pumped during the second decade to bring its capital back to $200 but losing another $90 and some $30 without performance, and with a questionable 7 per cent return on the amount invested, can this be considered stellar performance ?
.....
Without transparency, any discussion can only be based on the few information that is available; but the fact remains true that a boastful high Per Capita income based on National Reserves is nothing more then self-delusionary.
But on another hand,''a boastful high Per Capita income based on National Reserves ''.What is your stand?Have u read the year book or Review
of GIC and Temasek?
3.Pl tell mme if Temasek is losing or making $$ all these years??Total Shareholder Return (%)
---http://www.temasekholdings.com.sg/news_room/press_speeches/TR06%20Media%20Release.pdf
Years.. By Market Value..By Shareholder Funds
1................ 24 ..........................28
2................ 20.......................... 19
3................ 28........................... 18
5 ................10........................... 13
10.............. 6............................. 11
30............. 18............................. 15
32............ 18 ..............................17
He( Mr S. Dhanabalan, Chairman of Temasek),added: “Total shareholder return since inception in 1974 remains
a healthy 18% per year by market value,
and 17% per year by shareholder funds,
including an average annual dividend yield
of more than 7% to our shareholder.”
4.Secrecy is part of Economic Defense
Billions or cash or cash convertiables are the main targets of many
out there,on the pretext to promote democracy and freedom in SG.
They will be very happy if we disclose to them how,where,what we
manage assets!
Even sand supply is cut off in order make us say YES.
What happen if they can read us all nake??
5.These are the targets of potential enemy,
who may be near or far away,big or small countries!!Portfolio value : S$129 billion
---http://www.temasekholdings.com.sg/news_room/press_speeches/TR06%20Media%20Release.pdf
Since our inception, we have grown from managing a few billion dollars, to well above US$100 billion today.
---http://www.gic.com.sg/index.htm
TOTAL
S$290 billion
or $290,000,000,000----many greedy eyes over SG assets!! -
Have you selectively taken my words out of context ?Originally posted by lionnoisy:2.you seem contradict.On one hand u suspect GIC ,Temasek lose heavly.
But on another hand,''a boastful high Per Capita income based on National Reserves ''.What is your stand?Have u read the year book or Review
of GIC and Temasek?
The high Per Capita income was the product of your boastful post on behalf of the Government.
Are you having difficulty in understanding simple English, perhaps I should underline the part that needs emphasis ?
"the fact remains true that a boastful high Per Capita income based on National Reserves is nothing more then self-delusionary. "
There are other nations with similar or even larger size cash values, and with the "brilliance" of our scholars, is there a need for external attacks to our Reserves ?
3.Pl tell mme if Temasek is losing or making $$ all these years??
[/quote]
What is the $$ amount that have been made all these years, compared to the amount of Reserves spent to make these $$ ?
There is a difference when one spent $100 to make $7, compared to $100 spent and lost PLUS another $100 thrown in to make the $7.
How will anyone of us know how much actually is spent and lost, when there is so much secrecy and NON-transparency in the dealings of Temasek ?
Only a parrot and a tape recorder can repeat what is said so accurately; and a simple mind will mix sand with money.
4. Secrecy is part of Economic Defense
Billions or cash or cash convertiables are the main targets of many
out there,on the pretext to promote democracy and freedom in SG.
They will be very happy if we disclose to them how,where,what we
manage assets!
Even sand supply is cut off in order make us say YES.
What happen if they can read us all nake?? [/b]
Sand again ? It is funny that you should be so fascinated with sand like some mushroom in this sgForum.
Comparing country size, Singapore can claim vulnerability by revealing its National Reserves, yet countries of near similar physical or population size find no necessity to keep such matters secret.
The Singapore Government arrogantly believe in the necessity of secrecy to the extent that it even refuse to inform the Elected President - who has been legislated to look after Singapore's National Reserves.
Ironically, the Elected President's position and duties are the creation of this Singapore Ruling Party aka the Government.
Secrecy cuts both ways, it benefits those who have reasons to conceal and keep all things secret till infinity; and there are those with genuine interest of the immediate security but will allow revelation after a statutory period that pose no further threat to present security.
Unfortunately, Singapore has no interest to open up the archives of secrecy even for academic research.
[quote]
5.These are the targets of potential enemy,
who may be near or far away,big or small countries!!
[quote]Portfolio value : S$129 billion ---http://www.temasekholdings.com.sg/news_room/press_speeches/TR06%20Media%20Release.pdf
Since our inception, we have grown from managing a few billion dollars, to well above US$100 billion today.
---http://www.gic.com.sg/index.htm
TOTALS$290 billion
or $290,000,000,000 ----many greedy eyes over SG assets!!
More likely, the danger is from within - all the scholars employed with the inablity to even attend to issues with due diligence, showing their inexperience and poor business acumen - as in the many losses from all the investments made. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
''the fact remains true that a boastful high Per Capita income based on National Reserves is nothing more then self-delusionary. "
National reserves means wildlife parks or nature reserves which are protected by the government. I think you mean monetary reserves.
I know that per capita income is a measure of wealth of a country. I roughly know the functions of foreign exchange reserves but I don't understand how you can link per capita income with foreign exchange reserves or monetary reserves.
I also don't understand how lionnoisy can calculate the per capita of reserves of foreign exchange and gold and whether it is an accepted economic measure of the wealth of the country. Does per capita of reserves of foreign exchange and gold make any sense?
Without a basic understanding of these economic terms and measures, it's quite useless to talk about such a complex economic subject and trying to link it to gov spending.
Better let someone who is more knowledgeable about economics to do the talking, I'm not an expert on economics either, so i can't simply draw theories and conclusions between foreign exchange reserves and gov spending. -
Originally posted by saffron60:
What possibly could have made you re-interprete the present discussion of National Reserves in an economic sense in this thread, to be one involving Wild Life Parks ?
Originally posted by Atobe:
[b]''the fact remains true that a boastful high Per Capita income based on National Reserves is nothing more then self-delusionary. "
National reserves means wildlife parks or nature reserves which are protected by the government. I think you mean monetary reserves.
I know that per capita income is a measure of wealth of a country. I roughly know the functions of foreign exchange reserves but I don't understand how you can link per capita income with foreign exchange reserves or monetary reserves.
I also don't understand how lionnoisy can calculate the per capita of reserves of foreign exchange and gold and whether it is an accepted economic measure of the wealth of the country. Does per capita of reserves of foreign exchange and gold make any sense?
Without a basic understanding of these economic terms and measures, it's quite useless to talk about such a complex economic subject and trying to link it to gov spending.
Better let someone who is more knowledgeable about economics to do the talking, I'm not an expert on economics either, so i can't simply draw theories and conclusions between foreign exchange reserves and gov spending.
[/b]
If you intend to be entertaining with a display of wit, I doubt if anyone is laughing - considering the absence of any follow-on posts after yours at 04.29a.m.
Since you are unable to grasp basic economic terms in this simple discussion, at least allow others to have their say instead of attempting to prevent lionnoisy from displaying his misplaced pride in Singapore's achievements - with this thread.
You may wish to refresh your memory in economic terms learnt during your days in college by logging on to Googles. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
What possibly could have made you re-interprete the present discussion of National Reserves in an economic sense in this thread, to be one involving Wild Life Parks ?
If you intend to be entertaining with a display of wit, I doubt if anyone is laughing - considering the absence of any follow-on posts after yours at 04.29a.m.
You are someone who is either in deep deep denial or you are superbly arrogant. You're too arrogant to admit your mistake. What you did was a silly silly mistake, and you kept saying national reserves throughout your posts!!!!! But you are someone who only believes that his facts is correct even though in english, the use of the term ''national reserves' is completely different. i guess it is you against the english language eh? and you so incredibly petty, why do you care what time i do my posts????? I could be working until the wee hours of the morning for all you know.
Since you are unable to grasp basic economic terms in this simple discussion, at least allow others to have their say instead of attempting to prevent lionnoisy from displaying his misplaced pride in Singapore's achievements - with this thread.
You may wish to refresh your memory in economic terms learnt during your days in college by logging on to Googles.
You still haven't answer my question about the link between per capita income with foreign exchange reserves, this diversionary tactic you are using to counter my argument is useless. You don't have the knowledge to answer my question about economics either; don't claim to know something when you clearly do not. -
Originally posted by saffron60:
Are you experiencing a high from sniffing too much saffron that prevent you from discerning the words 'National Reserves' being discussed in the context of this thread that is dealing with economics and finance ?
Original post by Atobe:
What possibly could have made you re-interprete the present discussion of National Reserves in an economic sense in this thread, to be one involving Wild Life Parks ?
If you intend to be entertaining with a display of wit, I doubt if anyone is laughing - considering the absence of any follow-on posts after yours at 04.29a.m.
You are someone who is either in deep deep denial or you are superbly arrogant. You're too arrogant to admit your mistake. What you did was a silly silly mistake, and you kept saying national reserves throughout your posts!!!!! But you are someone who only believes that his facts is correct even though in english, the use of the term ''national reserves' is completely different. i guess it is you against the english language eh? and you so incredibly petty, why do you care what time i do my posts????? I could be working until the wee hours of the morning for all you know. [/b]
Me arrogant? Perhaps you should look at the mirror when these words are written? You could be forgiven for simply being childishly disrespectful towards others with your own misplaced assuredness of your own arrogant position.
Can you appreciate these words 'National Reserves' spoken in different circumstances can mean different meanings - if not used within the context of this thread started by lionnoisy ?
Have you not heard of the National Reserves in the Military ?
With your intelligence and command of English, we can expect you to assume it to be the piece of green real estate that is reserved for military training.
What you do in the wee hours of the morning is 'no skin off my nose' - and your response clearly shows your lack of understanding to simple English stated in my post.
Did I show any interest in the timing of your post at 04.29a.m. ?
Or was I referring to the lack of interest in your silly attempt to be humorous - with no follow-on postings over the entire Thursday ?Since you are unable to grasp basic economic terms in this simple discussion, at least allow others to have their say instead of attempting to prevent lionnoisy from displaying his misplaced pride in Singapore's achievements - with this thread.
It seems that you have not click on the referenced Googles sites ?
You may wish to refresh your memory in economic terms learnt during your days in college by logging on to Googles.
You still haven't answer my question about the link between per capita income with foreign exchange reserves, this diversionary tactic you are using to counter my argument is useless. You don't have the knowledge to answer my question about economics either; don't claim to know something when you clearly do not. [/b]
Can we blame you for your inability to grasp such terms - even at the basic levels ? No wonder you barged into this thread even as you claim your own shallow depth in understanding economics.
If you will relook at the thread started by lionnoisy, this "Per Capita Income with foreign exchange reserves' was his topic and based on his interpretation of what he has read from the referenced CIA site - Reserves of foreign exchange and gold - that he gave in his opening post.
Was he incorrect ? -
Originally posted by Atobe:
2.thanks help me to clarify.
It seems that you have not click on the referenced Googles sites ?
.....
If you will relook at the thread started by lionnoisy, this [b]"Per Capita Income with foreign exchange reserves' was his topic and based on his interpretation of what he has read from the referenced CIA site - Reserves of foreign exchange and gold - that he gave in his opening post.
Was he incorrect ?[/b]
we cant link CIA site.pl post the link here
www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2188rank.html
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html#2188 -
I am proud that our government has managed to accumilate so much wealth for this tiny country with no natural resources. This will definitely come in handy when the country is in crisis.
-
-
[quote]Originally posted by Atobe:
Can you appreciate these words 'National Reserves' spoken in different circumstances can mean different meanings - if not used within the context of this thread started by lionnoisy ?
Wow, you must really think that you are the smartest person on earth, and that those who are challenging you are lesser beings..it seems to me, you use the term 'national reserves' without even knowing the true meaning of the term...you simply like to use it as and when you feel like it, as though you are the person who invented the term. You seem to use 'national reserves' for all types of meaning except for the actual meaning....how arrogant is that?
First you said:
''high Per Capita income based on National Reserves is nothing more then self-delusionary.''
In this context, what do you mean? monetary reserves or military reserves? (in english, it doesn't mean either), but since you are so smart you can come up with different meanings of the same term. In your post you went on and on talking about gov losing money in projects, so it's only natural that i assume that you are talking about monetary reserves.
in your next post you said:
''What is the $$ amount that have been made all these years, compared to the amount of Reserves spent to make these $$ ?''
''Comparing country size, Singapore can claim vulnerability by revealing its National Reserves, yet countries of near similar physical or population size find no necessity to keep such matters secret.''
in this context, you seem to change the meaning of the term to ''military reserves''.
''The Singapore Government arrogantly believe in the necessity of secrecy to the extent that it even refuse to inform the Elected President - who has been legislated to look after Singapore's National Reserves.''
military reserves or monetary reserve?
''There are other nations with similar or even larger size cash values, and with the "brilliance" of our scholars, is there a need for external attacks to our Reserves ?''
military reserves or monetary reserve? you are not clear in your own unique usage of that term and end up confusing the readers as well.
If you can't get your head around to use the correct term to explain your ideas and theories, who's going to believe the rubbish you write? Only those gullible ones out there as usual.
lionnoisy may have said:
"Per Capita Income with foreign exchange reserves'
but you in turn said:
''high Per Capita income based on National Reserves is nothing more then self-delusionary.''
until now, you can't explain what that means...tsk..tsk..some people will never learn -
Yes, that is quite true, will be useful (knock on wood) if there's another currency crisisOriginally posted by Gazelle:I am proud that our government has managed to accumilate so much wealth for this tiny country with no natural resources. This will definitely come in handy when the country is in crisis. -
Just wanna point out some facts...
1) Temasek have opened its account for some years now
2) Overall the investment made earn profit than made loss
3) The initial amount of money given to Temasek is 350 million and gov never top up tis amount after tat
4) Shincorp deal doesn't seem positive but the final outcome is still unknown. We shouldn't assume it will result in complete loss yet
5) The story of marina bay renaming seems interesting but the fact is the team is in charge of the strategy making for Marina bay, not just the naming
6) Suzhou loss is recuperated
7) Actually u r right in loses such as micropolis, virgin airline etc
However in fields such as airline (tiger airline, jetasia) banking (indo, india, china, korea, malaysia) telecommunication (indo, india, malaysia, phillipines) land (capitaland spans 79 cities around globe) , they r performing very well
Do u think it is a wrong policy to invest the money outside singapore, a very small country with limited market ? -
Originally posted by saffron60:
Why do you insist on thinking on my behalf - as if you are capable to psycho-analyse me ?
Original post by Atobe:
Can you appreciate these words 'National Reserves' spoken in different circumstances can mean different meanings - if not used within the context of this thread started by lionnoisy ?
Wow, you must really think that you are the smartest person on earth, and that those who are challenging you are lesser beings..it seems to me, you use the term 'national reserves' without even knowing the true meaning of the term...you simply like to use it as and when you feel like it, as though you are the person who invented the term. You seem to use 'national reserves' for all types of meaning except for the actual meaning....how arrogant is that?
How have you come to the conclusion that '' I... must really think that... I am ... the smartest person on earth, and that those who are challenging... me ... are lesser beings'' ?
To the best of my knowledge, there are so many participants in this Speakers' Corner, and since the date of my joining this sgForum; and over the five odd years, I had some fun grinding four or five frauds - who are no better than parrots. Yet I have no problems with quite a few regular contributors, who have shown their brilliance in ORIGINAL THINKING; and have largely not challenged the personal views of the larger population of regular contributors.
By the way, parrots are still quite intelligent - insofar as rote learning, but can be quite single minded, so you cannot possibly say that those who challenge me have been treated as lesser beings - can you ?
As much as I am opening myself to ridicule if my position cannot be defended, I will expect others to have the same attitude, if they have the desire to challenge me with their own fire brand controversial points.
If you do not like my attitude, nobody asked for your opinion; and you probably have an attitude problem too, if you cannot tolerate others.
The trend of your thoughts certainly reveal your own persona - keep it up and we will soon get a sharper focus of a blurr person suffering from some kind of insecurity complex.
You seem to be very single minded too with your insistence on only a single term with the words 'national reserves' and will refuse to see the statement that NATIONAL RESERVES in your interpretation is an alternative to the words NATIONAL PARKS or NATIONAL RESERVATIONS as commonly found in the USA.
The same words when used in the financial and economic context - as in this thread - will be taken as Nation's Reserves.
Am I the only person on earth using this term 'National Reserves' in this narrow Financial context ?
The following was found in ChannelnewsAsia report - "Another change will be the amending of the Constitution to allow the government to tap the capital gains received from investing the national reserves." - this statement was reported made by PM LHL.
If you know nothing much about the English language, one can only wonder if you even know the attributes of the word saffron - which is commonly associated with some pungent and acrid smell or taste ?
Is it any wonder that your attitude displayed towards others is reflected in your persona?
Are you asking for a lesson in English ?
First you said:
''high Per Capita income based on National Reserves is nothing more then self-delusionary.''
In this context, what do you mean? monetary reserves or military reserves? (in english, it doesn't mean either), but since you are so smart you can come up with different meanings of the same term. In your post you went on and on talking about gov losing money in projects, so it's only natural that i assume that you are talking about monetary reserves.
The problem began with your own preferred and SINGLE MINDED INSISTENCE on interpreting and understanding the term - NATIONAL RESERVES - as in NATIONAL PARK, NATIONAL RESERVATION.
The words per capita would already have drawn anyone's attention that this is referring to ECONOMICS, and when put together in the opening post by lionnoisy - ''Per capita of TOP 10 Reserves of foreign exchange and gold in absolute value'' my post of NATIONAL RESERVES was referring to a NATION's RESERVES.
Only in your preferred SELF-IMPOSED restrictive understanding of the English Language - and with a SINGLE MINDED NARROW INTERPRETATION - will prevent you from accepting NATIONAL RESERVES being interpreted - UNDER DIFFERENT CONTEXT - to be either monetary reserves or military reserves of A NATION.
Is it brilliant on your part that suddenly it dawn on you to state that - ''In your post you went on and on talking about gov losing money in projects, so it's only natural that i assume that you are talking about monetary reserves'' ?
Since when in your replies have you ever accepted that I am talking about monetary reserves - when even up to the above paragraphs, you insist that NATIONAL RESERVES has only to do with NATIONAL PARKS as in NATIONAL RESERVATIONS ? -
continuation
What should we call a person who is dishonest enough NOT to quote in full, but prefer to 'bastardize' someone else's writing, inter-laced it with his own words into the sentences written by others, and twist the outcome of the entire paragraphs to read differently ?
Just to humor you - lets begin from your starting point:
Which part of these two paragraphs have given you the impression that I ''seem to change the meaning of the term to ''military reserves'' ?
in your next post you said:
''What is the $$ amount that have been made all these years, compared to the amount of Reserves spent to make these $$ ?''
''Comparing country size, Singapore can claim vulnerability by revealing its National Reserves, yet countries of near similar physical or population size find no necessity to keep such matters secret.''
in this context, you seem to change the meaning of the term to ''military reserves''. [/quote]
Why are you reading two separate paragraphs that were extracted from two separate answers which were addressing two separate issues of your earlier post ?
Both of these separate paragraphs came from my post of 21 February 2007 03.48a.m. - the first paragraph had addressed your question:
and the second paragraph had addressed your statement -
''3.Pl tell mme if Temasek is losing or making $$ all these years?? ''4. Secrecy is part of Economic Defense
Billions or cash or cash convertiables are the main targets of many
out there,on the pretext to promote democracy and freedom in SG.
They will be very happy if we disclose to them how,where,what we
manage assets!
Even sand supply is cut off in order make us say YES.
What happen if they can read us all nake??
[quote]
''The Singapore Government arrogantly believe in the necessity of secrecy to the extent that it even refuse to inform the Elected President - who has been legislated to look after Singapore's National Reserves.''
military reserves or monetary reserve?Try reading again, and you tell me what you make out of it
It seems that the only one that is being confused is the one bearing the name [i]''saffron60'', who prefer to read in an oblique manner the simple statements written in simple English.
''There are other nations with similar or even larger size cash values, and with the "brilliance" of our scholars, is there a need for external attacks to our Reserves ?''
military reserves or monetary reserve? you are not clear in your own unique usage of that term and end up confusing the readers as well.
If you can't get your head around to use the correct term to explain your ideas and theories, who's going to believe the rubbish you write? Only those gullible ones out there as usual.
Which part of the paragraph which you had extracted from my post made you confused enough that you cannot decide if I am referring to military reserves or monetary reserves ?
Was there any other paragraphs preceding this extracted piece that could have been linked to, and allow for an entire understanding ?
If you had followed this thread from the beginning, and have some small idea about economic or financial terms and concepts, perhaps you would not have been asking the obvious.
lionnoisy may have said:
"Per Capita Income with foreign exchange reserves'
but you in turn said:
''high Per Capita income based on National Reserves is nothing more then self-delusionary.''
until now, you can't explain what that means...tsk..tsk..some people will never learn
You did say previously that
Do you not agree that empty boast of HIGH Per Capita income based on National Reserves is NOTHING more then DELUDING ourselves ?
Can you understand the same statement as above but re-written in a simpler form ?
Will the NATIONAL RESERVES ever be shared amongst all Singaporeans - on a per head count basis ?
What is the purpose of such an empty boast that our PER CAPITA is US$29,963 - as if every Singaporeans has the opportunity to see such an amount ?
The following was posted on 20 February 2007 02.31a.m. - found on Page 1 of this thread
From the following report "Singapore : New Poor and Social Cohesion":
It has been highlighted that the Per capita GDP in 2000 at around US$23,000 was higher that many First World countries [i]but the remuneration received by Singapore workers or wage share in GDP was about 42 percent, which is unusually low compared to developed countries and lowest among the Asian NIEs.
Some economists have therefore remarked that Singapore, while having attained a First World per capita income, in reality has kept in place an income structure that is closer to that of a Third World country (Department of Statistics, 2001). -
These people are fighting over money that will never benefit Singaporeans. Government earn so much also ownself keep.
-
Where did you obtain YOUR ''facts'' from ?
Facts can only be true, and cannot be proven wrong - are you quite certain with what you claim to be ''facts'' ?
Do you want to have a detailed list of grand losses that are publicly known ?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Just wanna point out some facts...
1) Temasek have opened its account for some years now
2) Overall the investment made earn profit than made loss
Losses are not only restricted to those loss making ventures, but also to the payments or purchase of grossly over valued investments that are far above market prices, or beyond reasonable market valuation.
Do we need to make any further guesses as to why the POWER OF ONE insist on maintaining POLITICAL Power ?
What about those that are unknown and well concealed by a SINGLE MONOPOLY Government that stamped every piece of information as STATE SECRET' ?
Are you suggesting that Temasek's current portfolio is a result of its own effort to grow its original capital to the current size in its portfolio ?
3) The initial amount of money given to Temasek is 350 million and gov never top up tis amount after tat
If this is so, Temasek should have been more honest then to report a mere growth of only 18 per cent for last financial year - as it has more then S$500 BILLION under its care.
See the 3rd Paragraph on Page 4 of 38 of the following PDF report ''Enhancing Singapore's Competitivenes : Some Fundamental Rethinking''.
In this paragraph, it states that
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC), and Temasek Holdings Private Limited (Temasek), all report to the Ministry of Finance, are responsible for managing Singapore's government surpluses. Currently, accumulated government surpluses - according to our estimate - amount to S$800 BILLION, of which GIC manages about S$200 BILLION; MAS, which manages shorter-term liquidity under tighter rules, manages probably another S$100 Billion; and Temasek manages the remaining S$500 Billion, through its listed and unlisted equipty shares in GLCs
Singapore has been making surpluses every year, which means that Temasek's account has been topped up every year.
You were saying ''gov never top up tis amount after tat'' ?
The fact is clear that we paid US$3 BILLION for Shin Corp, and since its purchase in early 2006, the investment has been drifting in limbo.
4) Shincorp deal doesn't seem positive but the final outcome is still unknown. We shouldn't assume it will result in complete loss yet
US$3 BILLION in fixed deposit at 0.5 per cent per annum would already have paid for the premium of a National Health and Hospitalisation Insurance Plan; instead of paying for someone's ego trip.
Spending S$400,000 to name the Marina Bay was not so clever as part of the strategy making effort, which merely require brain storming by a team that is probably already paid more then S$400,000.
5) The story of marina bay renaming seems interesting but the fact is the team is in charge of the strategy making for Marina bay, not just the naming
Try harder to sound convincing
These are the corporations that have made public their losses, and they from only the tip of the iceberg of those highly publicized corporate losses.
6) Suzhou loss is recuperated[/color]
With infrastructural costs planned to be US$20 Billion since it was first planned in 1994, can this amount be recoup in such a short time that begin since 2004, when it was ready to receive men.
Now that the Singapore side has reduced its stake to a smaller share, can the Singapore Government hoped to extract anything more than what is already allocated by the Hyatt staffs.
[quote][b]
7) Actually u r right in loses such as micropolis, virgin airline etc
There are other losses that originate from the overwhelming high prices paid by Temasek for some of the targetted asset acquisition plans.
Don't count your chickens before they are hatched. However in fields such as airline (tiger airline, jetasia) banking (indo, india, china, korea, malaysia) telecommunication (indo, india, malaysia, phillipines) land (capitaland spans 79 cities around globe) , they r performing very well
The losses that are known are already well publicized and happily forgotten, there remains the losses that are securely kept secret from a supposedly 'all inclusive society'.
There are many opportunities for investment, but it requires business acumen and experience to judge the potential of opportunities.
Do u think it is a wrong policy to invest the money outside singapore, a very small country with limited market ?
Sadly, after so many disasters experienced, we could have been more careful, more astute, and more diligent in the background preparation works.
Still, these are mere spoken words, and require a game plan to put into action. -
1) Accounts can be manipulated, as with Texaco, Enron, Global Crossing, Adelphia, Kmart, NTL, WorldCom, UAL, and Conseco. These are all big companies, but they managed to keep the real state of affairs of the company from outside eyes. They provide a set of financial statements for SEC, it doesn't prove that there is nothing wrong within the company then.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Just wanna point out some facts...
1) Temasek have opened its account for some years now
2) Overall the investment made earn profit than made loss
3) The initial amount of money given to Temasek is 350 million and gov never top up tis amount after tat
4) Shincorp deal doesn't seem positive but the final outcome is still unknown. We shouldn't assume it will result in complete loss yet
5) The story of marina bay renaming seems interesting but the fact is the team is in charge of the strategy making for Marina bay, not just the naming
6) Suzhou loss is recuperated
7) Actually u r right in loses such as micropolis, virgin airline etc However in fields such as airline (tiger airline, jetasia) banking (indo, india, china, korea, malaysia) telecommunication (indo, india, malaysia, phillipines) land (capitaland spans 79 cities around globe) , they r performing very well
Do u think it is a wrong policy to invest the money outside singapore, a very small country with limited market ?
2) Investment may make profit, but you don't know how healthy is the balance sheet. There are numerous ways to shuffle around your figures to let your financial statements look good, it's called window dressing.
3) I am not even sure if it's ever any additional capital injection. But hell, they charge us so high for transport, utilities and phone charges. Maybe they don't need to have additional capital injection.
4) No comments.
5) No comments.
6) Loss is separate from the initial capital outlay. If you start a business you invest $100 million, your initial profit and loss account is zero. Let's say first year you lose $1 million, second year you earn $2 million, all you have done is reverse the loss from first year and made $1 million. You have not recovered the cost of $100 million for the investment.
7) No comments.
8.) Did you analyse their financial statements? I didn't, so I won't go around speculating whether it's good or bad.
It's not wrong to invest in other countries, but the person doing the investment has no financial sense. The CEO was put there because of her relationship. You can't put people from government in the private sector, because they are attune to a different set of values while in public service.
Simple explanation, it's not her money. Whether you like it or not, nobody can fire her, she'll still be in office even though she made billion dollar losses. It's the same attitude with traders of hedge fund, you asked them if they feel stress about the millions they handle for clients, wondering if the price will go up or down. They tell you, "NO! Because it's not my money!". -
Where did you obtain YOUR ''facts'' from ?
From the account of temasek. I don't think it is not a figure not to be trusted since it has legal obligations. And I think most of your accusation comes without any evidence or based on any studies.Do you want to have a detailed list of grand losses that are publicly known ?
there r loses which I agree. But there r profit which u have to agree. Tis is investment. Sometime u win, sometime u lose. Overall they make profit for their investments. Tat is the bottom line
Losses are not only restricted to those loss making ventures, but also to the payments or purchase of grossly over valued investments that are far above market prices, or beyond reasonable market valuation.Are you suggesting that Temasek's current portfolio is a result of its own effort to grow its original capital to the current size in its portfolio ?
Yes. And I cannot open up your link. Furthermore I do not think tat singapore has 800 billion to play with. EVen in the para itself it already say they r estimates. In the annual report, they say tat singapore only give them 350 million in assets full stop.
If this is so, Temasek should have been more honest then to report a mere growth of only 18 per cent for last financial year - as it has more then S$500 BILLION under its care.Singapore has been making surpluses every year, which means that Temasek's account has been topped up every year.
Making surplus means making profit. Wat has tat got to do with top up ? Even gov budget has been making surplus. So who top up singapore budget ? America ? I think tat is a need to differentiate between GIC and Temasek
You were saying ''gov never top up tis amount after tat'' ?The fact is clear that we paid US$3 BILLION for Shin Corp, and since its purchase in early 2006, the investment has been drifting in limbo.
it is 1.88 billion USD. And during tat time it is a good idea which can give singapore much more returns than 0.5%. Now it is still providing Thai telecommunication and we do not know it is a good investment or bad investment
US$3 BILLION in fixed deposit at 0.5 per cent per annum would already have paid for the premium of a National Health and Hospitalisation Insurance Plan; instead of paying for someone's ego trip.Spending S$400,000 to name the Marina Bay was not so clever as part of the strategy making effort, which merely require brain storming by a team that is probably already paid more then S$400,000.
http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=346
Try harder to sound convincing
The branding exercise for Marina Bay was not a process to identify a name. Rather, it was an exercise to create a 'competitive strategy' that will guide the development and marketing of Marina Bay. The 9-month long
branding process included the following steps:
a) researching into strategies used by competing cities;
b) interviews with stakeholders, real estate developers, potential investors and tenants both locally and internationally to obtain feedback on a competitive positioning for Marina Bay. Interviews with the broader community to understand what they would like to see at Marina Bay;
c) identifying the differentiating niche of Marina Bay and develop a set of brand identities (which includes validation of the place name "Marina Bay")and to market testing them;
d) design a visual communication system to guide the presentation of marketing collaterals, our communication tone and strategies to give Marina Bay a distinctive identity.With infrastructural costs planned to be US$20 Billion since it was first planned in 1994, can this amount be recoup in such a short time that begin since 2004, when it was ready to receive men.
The 20 billion is the money in invested from the foreign investors. I paste a link for your reading
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.htmDon't count your chickens before they are hatched.
I don't know man, u think singapore investment r all lousy and all will made loss after some time ?
The losses that are known are already well publicized and happily forgotten, there remains the losses that are securely kept secret from a supposedly 'all inclusive society'.There are many opportunities for investment, but it requires business acumen and experience to judge the potential of opportunities.
From the facts gathered, it shows tat the investment made more profit than losses overall. If u do not believe in it, then u r challenging the annual report made by temasek or believe in all words tat show singapore made loss and refuse to believe in any words tat singapore made a profit. Is it really tat difficult to believe singapore make a profit ?
Sadly, after so many disasters experienced, we could have been more careful, more astute, and more diligent in the background preparation works.
Still, these are mere spoken words, and require a game plan to put into action. -
Accounts can be manipulated, as with Texaco, Enron, Global Crossing, Adelphia, Kmart, NTL, WorldCom, UAL, and Conseco. These are all big companies, but they managed to keep the real state of affairs of the company from outside eyes. They provide a set of financial statements for SEC, it doesn't prove that there is nothing wrong within the company then.
Then wat figures do u have to show their accounts r manipulated ? AT least I based my studies on reports tat have legal obligations from the organisation. Where do u based your conclusion from ?Investment may make profit, but you don't know how healthy is the balance sheet. There are numerous ways to shuffle around your figures to let your financial statements look good, it's called window dressing.
Then how do u know they have window dress and not reported on the actual situation ? U got anything to back up your claim ?I am not even sure if it's ever any additional capital injection. But hell, they charge us so high for transport, utilities and phone charges. Maybe they don't need to have additional capital injection
U can accuse them they charge too highly but the fact tat they never received another top up should be true unless proven otherwise.Loss is separate from the initial capital outlay. If you start a business you invest $100 million, your initial profit and loss account is zero. Let's say first year you lose $1 million, second year you earn $2 million, all you have done is reverse the loss from first year and made $1 million. You have not recovered the cost of $100 million for the investment.
The total asset is now in billions and not millions. It means if u sell all your assets now, u get the billions back. Tat is obviously higher than the initial capitalDid you analyse their financial statements? I didn't, so I won't go around speculating whether it's good or bad.
I have study their fiancial statements. It is opened for the public in their website. Overall they made a profit from the investments. I don't agree why ho ching should be CEO though. But the fact is tat they still made a lot of profit and I guess tat is the bottom line.
It's not wrong to invest in other countries, but the person doing the investment has no financial sense. The CEO was put there because of her relationship. You can't put people from government in the private sector, because they are attune to a different set of values while in public service.
Simple explanation, it's not her money. Whether you like it or not, nobody can fire her, she'll still be in office even though she made billion dollar losses. It's the same attitude with traders of hedge fund, you asked them if they feel stress about the millions they handle for clients, wondering if the price will go up or down. They tell you, "NO! Because it's not my money!". -
'deleted'