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?
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 ?
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.
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.”
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

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?
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!!
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]
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]
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]
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]
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.
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?
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.
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??
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.
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
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).
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 ?
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 etcHowever 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 ?
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
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
Don'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 injectionU 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 capital
Did 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!".