Did China learn from mistakes made by S'pore Temasek ?
-
Gazelle, your long time associate showed us facts?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:A typical cop out when you cannot deal with the facts
He just posted lots of companies, with no information about profit and losses for the companies.
Maybe he can substantiate his post by posting these companies and the main country where the profits are derived. -
correction
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:You have been doing that each time you open your mouth, from your very first post
A typical cop out when you cannot deal with the facts
It was never a good idea for Ho Ching to head Temasek. She will never be able to do a good job, no matter how good she may be. If she did something well, people will say it's her husband who blows her trumpet. If she does badly, people will say her husband hides her faults.
In contrast, Lee Hsien Yang is smart to step down whilst the going is good. He leaves at a time when Singtel has made lots of profits and he has plenty of bonus in his bank account. Ho Ching has left it too late but rather late than never.
However the Shin Corp issue will pan out, Temasek is likely to lose money and even her husband has said that if Temasek loses money over Shin Corp, they will have to be held to account. Having her husband, being Minister of Finance, as effectively the regulator of Temasek is a bad idea from the start. Whatever fault is attributed to Temasek eventually, LHL cannot escape responsibility as the regulator. The question will be raised as to why the Minister for Finance had been sleeping on the watch. He can hardly distance himself from the CEO, as he could if someone else held that position. The fact that his wife is head of Temasek will no doubt cast suspicion on his independence whilst carrying out his duties, even if he is beyond reproach.
Justice has to be done and seen to be done. In view of Ho Ching's relationship to LHL, any mistake she makes will have an adverse impact on her husband, the ruling party and the entire government. In other words, she is becoming a liability for the government. Get rid of her before it is too late.
What happened to you recently???
Did you knocked yourself on the head again, or, did you take my advice and went for a lobotomy???
You felt very strongly against Ho Ching being the CEO for Temasex, then you took a 180 degrees turn here. Something serious must have happened to your head these past few months.
-
profit RP1325B not 268.91B...........
-
Perhaps you will consider reading the thread - and understand its direction - before jumping ahead of your ability to slant your sniff towards your own preferred whiff.Originally posted by Gazelle:Here are a list of companies which Temasek has directly interests. Maybe TS or his kah kia M13, would like to run through them and tell us which investment is not making money.
PT Bank Danamon Indonesia
ICICI Bank
PT Bank Internasional Indonesia
China Construction Bank
DBS Group Holdings
E.Sun Financial Holding Company
Standard Chartered
Bank of China
Hana Financial Group
MediaCorp
Singapore Telecommunications
Singapore Technologies Telemedia
Shin Corporation
PSA International
Singapore Airlines
Neptune Orient Lines
SMRT Corporation
Mapletree Investments
CapitaLand
Singapore Technologies Engineering
Keppel Corporation
SembCorp Industries
PowerSeraya
Singapore Power
Senoko Power
Tuas Power
Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing
STATS ChipPAC
Wildlife Reserves Singapore
Fraser and Neave
Singapore Food Industries
From the list above, how many companies from your list are considered to be ''Foreign Sovereign Assets'' - if you can appreciate the term ?
Would you consider Shin Corp to be producing profitable returns for Temasek since the takeover in late 2006 ?
From the entire list of 31 companies, only 8 are foreign.
The success of the Singapore GLCs - operating in Singapore - are entirely due to the backing from the Government in awarding its own companies the necessary environment to be successful.
Price fixing ensures that these GLCs are profitable at the expense of the Cost of Living to most Singaporeans - ultimately affecting the Standard of Living.
How many of these Singapore government owned overseas investments have actually made good Return On Investments - {ROI} - for the amount that has been paid to enable Temasek - or any Singapore GLC - to have majority control of the foreign assets ?
There were much publicity in 2002 given to SingTel's overpaying for its purchases of Telcos in Australia and Indonesia over a period of ''..12 months - and in rapid succession, SingTel spent US$10 billion on Optus, US$200 million on Bharti and US$1 billion on PT Telekomunikasi Selular (Telkomsel).''
Similarly, DBS Bank has made monumental errors in the taking over of Thai Danu bank at above market prices, and very much later only to make two separate discoveries of unauditted losses - with the discovered losses amounting to 75% of the capital injected by DBS.
DBS Bank overpriced takeover of Hong Kong's Dao Heng Bank was 3.3 times over the book value, and followed by a write-off to the goodwill valued at US$3.3 billion from the books which will be amortised over 20 years.
From the annual nett profits that have been announced, can you believe that these overpriced stable of investments will be paying good return on investments; or are we being blindsided by clever book keeping ?
A process that is not unfamiliar to SingTel, who had previously indulged in selling off its assets considered no longer profitable, resulting in a boost to its annual year result for that single year.
While this Singapore Government will have the shameless audacity to takeover the strategic assets that the citizens of other countries see as their sovereign assets, this Singapore Government will not relinquish its own control over Singapore's strategic assets even as it embark on a ''pseudo-privatisation'' program. -
............
-
In 2005, Temasek took up a 30% stake in Vietnam's Pacific Airlines at a value of US$50.1 Million, after placing Pacific Airlines at a market value of US$167milion.
How did they come to this value when the company had no assets that it can call its own - with only two units Boeing 767 aircrafts that were leased - and suffering cumulative loss of US$13.7 million that is more then its capital of US$5 million ?
The initial stake holders of Pacific Airlines were the Vietnamese Government through Vietnam Airlines, and some private Vietnamese investors.
Since taking over the company in 2005, the Vietnamese Government has been consistently revaluing its Vietnam Dong currency downwards, to keep its export competitive vis-a-vis a declining US Dollar. This Vietnam Government policy of keeping its Vietnam currency at lower exchange rates has caused heavy losses to many companies operating within Vietnam.
Pacific Airlines seems to have gone under the radar screen, with not even a blip appearing in the annual report on the World Airline Financial Results for 2006.
What has happened to Temasek's investment in Vietnam's Pacific Airlines since 2005 ?
Read from the other thread about the shocking loss in value in Temasek's investment in China Eastern Airlines. -
personally I do not think that it was a mistake to put percentage of surplus to reinvest into regional asset.
The prolong growth of capital surplus into SG that exceeded its national budget without reinvestment does not do small SG economy any good.
The whole idea was to transfer capital and reinvest to maintain growth for Sg that means the immediate region have to growth. Since SEA is already on a growth path, Investing in infrastructures isnÂ’t a bad idea. The spill over benefit would help the region with the resources to continue sustaining growth in the long term. Unfortunately how it was done and the way it was done did not take national Asset into consideration. large institution such as Temasek allow large direct surgical transferring of capital into specificied sector with the concept of substainable economic growth for the region.
Bare in mind it is not just about net profit.... -
Kudos for some fresh angle of opinion.Originally posted by Arapahoe:personally I do not think that it was a mistake to put percentage of surplus to reinvest into regional asset.
The prolong growth of capital surplus into SG that exceeded its national budget without reinvestment does not do small SG economy any good.
The whole idea was to transfer capital and reinvest to maintain growth for Sg that means the immediate region have to growth. Since SEA is already on a growth path, Investing in infrastructures isnÂ’t a bad idea. The spill over benefit would help the region with the resources to continue sustaining growth in the long term. Unfortunately how it was done and the way it was done did not take national Asset into consideration. large institution such as Temasek allow large direct surgical transferring of capital into specificied sector with the concept of substainable economic growth for the region.
Bare in mind it is not just about net profit....
Would you not consider that this Government has seldom been generous to Singaporeans when money is concerned - {giving with one hand and taking back with two} - can they be less altruistic when dishing our billions in Singaporean public funds in foreign acquisitions of whole companies or partial stock participation ?
The whole idea of transferring capital and reinvest the continuous burgeoning of an over accumulated Singapore Reserves is to ensure that the money will not depreciate in value over time, but will instead grow faster and larger in value.
Unfortunately, with so much lack of transparency, and with so much clever efforts at book keeping to present a positive year end Annual Reports - the details of disastrous losses are gloss over by clever window dressings.
Your statement that ''The prolong growth of capital surplus into SG that exceeded its national budget without reinvestment does not do small SG economy any good'' has been said many times by too many economists that the Government is taking too much money from Private Hands, and is part of the reasons for the inability for private enterprise to take off.
Compared to HongKong and Taiwan there seems to be more private initiative in starting up small and medium enterprises, when money is in private hands that encourages entrepreneurial eagerness.
The continued burgeoning size of the Singapore Treasury is not a result of the Government activities in benefitting from revenues generated through exports of Singapore's enterprise.
The Singapore Treasury is expanding from the continued economic consumpition activities of Singaporeans in a captive environment with all essential services provided by Government Linked Companies, whose excess revenues find its way back to the State.
It is fine if the overseas investments helped our neighbors to improve their living conditions - but has this been the case ?
How has it help the living environment of our neighbors, when our GLC takeover their national assets that include satellites and mobile phone services, airlines, banks, and even participating in bakeries ?
It was sheer greed to own the sovereign assets of the neighboring countries through short sighted profit driven objectives that has resulted in little consideration to political fall-outs - as is now happening in Indonesia and Thailand.
If our Singapore overseas investments were above board and were intended to project our generosity in helpiing improve the lives of our neighbors, is there a need to contravene local laws that prevent full ownership of public listed companies - as was found out by the Thais, and now Indonesia ?
Singapore has a long way to go before this Singapore Government will be generous towards our neighbors, as generosity has yet to begin at home - as seen in the poor attitude of this Government towards the aged Singaporean community. -
Temasek is reported to be buying over another sovereign asset, this time the London Stock Exchange - with its initial interest in taking over the 30% share holding of LSE that is currently held by the New York Stock Exchange.
With increasing number of cash rich State Owned Investment Coroporations appearing - such as those coming from China and Singapore - to wholly take over of strategic assets owned by private corporations in countries practising open political and economic systems, it is raising concern towards the dealings of these governments that operate in their closed systems.
Temasek approaches Nasdaq to buy LSE stake: report - 26, Aug 2007
LONDON (Reuters) - Singapore's state-owned Temasek Holdings (TEM.UL) has approached Nasdaq (NDAQ.O) to buy its 30 percent stake in the London Stock Exchange (LSE.L), a newspaper reported on Sunday.
The Sunday Times said in an unsourced report that Temasek had made the approach in recent days and the deal could lead to a full takeover of the LSE by the Singaporean investor.
On August 20, Nasdaq Stock Market said it might sell its stake in the LSE, worth 800 million pounds ($1.6 billion), to bolster its chances of buying Nordic exchange operator OMX (OMX.ST) and it was already in touch with interested parties.
The U.S. exchange company said later in the day in a statement that it would not sell its LSE stake to a single buyer.
The reported interest by Temasek, which owns stakes in UK banks Barclays (BARC.L) and Standard Chartered (STAN.L), comes amid growing protectionism in Europe and the United States towards sovereign wealth funds making aggressive overseas investments in search of higher returns.
The International Monetary Fund said in June it was growing uneasy about the trillions of dollars managed by largely secretive sovereign wealth funds because it fears their activities could disrupt financial markets.
Government-owned investment vehicles such as Temasek and its sister agency Government of Singapore Investment Corp control about $2 trillion -- roughly the size of France's economy -- and are expected to grow to $12 trillion by 2015.
The newspaper said several parties, including the New York Stock Exchange and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CEM.N), may enter the fray as well as investment and infrastructure funds, while the Observer newspaper said that Nasdaq was seeking to sell up to half of its LSE stake to Deutsche Boerse (DB1Gn.DE).
Temasek and Nasdaq were not immediately available for comment, while Deutsche Boerse declined to comment.
Nasdaq, eager to expand its presence in overseas markets, is locked in a $4 billion bidding war with Borse Dubai for OMX, which owns exchanges in Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland and the Baltic states. -
Originally posted by Atobe:Kudos for some fresh angle of opinion.
Would you not consider that this Government has seldom been generous to Singaporeans when money is concerned - {giving with one hand and taking back with two} - can they be less altruistic when dishing our billions in Singaporean public funds in foreign acquisitions of whole companies or partial stock participation ?
The whole idea of transferring capital and reinvest the continuous burgeoning of an over accumulated Singapore Reserves is to ensure that the money will not depreciate in value over time, but will instead grow faster and larger in value.
Unfortunately, with so much lack of transparency, and with so much clever efforts at book keeping to present a positive year end Annual Reports - the details of disastrous losses are gloss over by clever window dressings.
Your statement that ''The prolong growth of capital surplus into SG that exceeded its national budget without reinvestment does not do small SG economy any good'' has been said many times by too many economists that the Government is taking too much money from Private Hands, and is part of the reasons for the inability for private enterprise to take off.
Compared to HongKong and Taiwan there seems to be more private initiative in starting up small and medium enterprises, when money is in private hands that encourages entrepreneurial eagerness.
The continued burgeoning size of the Singapore Treasury is not a result of the Government activities in benefitting from revenues generated through exports of Singapore's enterprise.
The Singapore Treasury is expanding from the continued economic consumpition activities of Singaporeans in a captive environment with all essential services provided by Government Linked Companies, whose excess revenues find its way back to the State.
It is fine if the overseas investments helped our neighbors to improve their living conditions - but has this been the case ?
How has it help the living environment of our neighbors, when our GLC takeover their national assets that include satellites and mobile phone services, airlines, banks, and even participating in bakeries ?
It was sheer greed to own the sovereign assets of the neighboring countries through short sighted profit driven objectives that has resulted in little consideration to political fall-outs - as is now happening in Indonesia and Thailand.
If our Singapore overseas investments were above board and were intended to project our generosity in helpiing improve the lives of our neighbors, is there a need to contravene local laws that prevent full ownership of public listed companies - as was found out by the Thais, and now Indonesia ?
Singapore has a long way to go before this Singapore Government will be generous towards our neighbors, as generosity has yet to begin at home - as seen in the poor attitude of this Government towards the aged Singaporean community.
My thoughts are:
I think the notion of greed and taking too much monies are simply a human nature. When do we ever agreed we have enough money! Its the same all over the world. Gov takes from private citizens. You are saying that too little capital has been injecting into domestics economy. how much it can inject before inflation kicks in, and bare in mind which sector are absorbing the surplus? i believe some funds already inject into private sector by releasing some CPF into banking lenders for HDB flats and insurance. To maintain the incremental rate of higher income faster than the incremental rate of inflation is not easy.
The surplus capital has to keep up inflation rate and finance domestics consumption. given the size of SG economy, lack of domestics economy n import everything under the Sun. Surplus capitals are thus channel back into the system to finance consumption. The alternative way to finance doemestics consumption is thus thru off shore lending or accqusition of asset.
As said, how it was done and the way it was done was in question. i did not disagreed the lack of transparency due to the fact that a prolong single party in power, such as political appointees n spouses and cultivating a system of elites etc. But does not necessary implied that the approach to treatment or strategy to deal with surplus were wrong or the intend was corrupted.
As mention oversea capital investment were to maintain regional growth so that SG can substain growth path. Spillover benefit intend to be comparative advantage with the region. It was not intended as AIDs. Channeling of funds thru gov agency are done throughout globally. As for any investment there are Risk, Even for top investment bank they too suffered the lost of such as Sub Prime.
what is lack by Sg gov is a basic system of social welfare program that helps if a person fall off the economic cliff and i think over the last 40 years it has crowd out the private human resources and cannibalized social resources.
Failure by GCK to reform the government in separating civil servant and political party afflation resulted in an ever expanding size of government role. The continuing perception of Talent for gov vs Talent for private sectors are identical will continue to spiral inward for SG economies.
At the end of the day it takes 2 hands to clap, gov are made up of people; both citizen and gov too fail to rise to meet the expectation. Hopefully diversify Sg demographics will help to transform some of its weakness in the system. -
i am sure no countries would dare do to china what they did to us.
-
Barclay is making loss from the subprime crisis.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071115/ap_on_bi_ge/earns_britain_barclays;_ylt=AgQBbGGrc8KxTOA37sWxF96yBhIF -
Surely, China has based her decision not to allow its China Investment Corporation to be involve in ''sovereign owned Telcos'' must be due to the disastrous Shin Corp fiasco experienced by Temasek.
Jakarta's decision to fine Temasek will certainly reinforce onto China the high price lessons that Temasek is repeatedly paying.
This time US$2.8 MIILLION for breaching Indonesia's - {fair} - competition law.
Indonesia's KPPU fines Temasek US$2.8m for competition law breach
By Channel NewsAsia's Indonesia Bureau Chief Sujadi Siswo
Posted: 19 November 2007 2155 hrs
JAKARTA: Indonesia's anti-trust agency, KPPU, has fined Singapore's Temasek Holdings 25 billion rupiah (US$2.8 million) or some S$4 million for breaching Indonesia's competition law.
The watchdog has also ordered Temasek to sell its stakes in either PT Indosat or PT Telkomsel – two major Indonesian mobile phone companies – within two years.
And potential buyers can only buy up to 5 percent of the shares and must not have any links to Temasek Holdings.
Eight other Singapore companies linked to Temasek have also been fined S$4 million. The Singapore companies plan to appeal the decision in Indonesia's district court.
The five-member panel from Indonesia's anti-monopoly agency took more than three hours to read out its verdict on a case closely watched by foreign investors in the country.
The panel said Singapore investment firm Temasek Holdings and its subsidiaries were guilty of monopoly practices through their cross ownership of two of Indonesia's largest mobile phone companies – Telkomsel and Indosat.
Temasek owns 56 percent of SingTel, which has a 35 percent stake in Telkomsel.
And Singapore Technologies Telemedia, which Temasek fully owns, controls 75 percent of Asia Mobile Holdings (AMH). AMH, in turn, owns 40 percent of Indosat.
Indonesia's competition law stipulates that a foreign company or business group cannot have more than a 50 percent share in an Indonesian business outfit.
Temasek has argued that it does not directly hold majority shares in each of the Indonesian mobile phone companies.
But the panel is maintaining that Temasek had violated cross-ownership regulations and, as a result, dominates 80 percent of the market.
According to the panel, Temasek and its units have control over appointments of key posts and have access to sensitive information from the two companies. Therefore, they are able to dictate the market.
Temasek has maintained that the Indonesian government actually holds majority stakes in Telkomsel and a golden share in Indosat.
But the panel rejected this notion, saying the government is not a business entity and its shareholding is in the national interest.
TemasekÂ’s lawyer said the decision has plunged Indonesia into a crisis of confidence in the country's legal system.
Lawyers from Temasek and ST Telemedia said the watchdog's decision is not final and they plan to file an appeal to the country's district court within two weeks.
In a statement, Temasek's executive director Simon Israel said the decision "makes no sense" and "ignored the facts".
He added that the charge is groundless because Temasek has no shares in Indosat and Telkomsel, and has played no role in business decisions and operations of both companies.
And as the Indonesian government controls Telkomsel and has a golden share in Indosat, Mr Israel said it is inconceivable that the government and telecomm regulator would allow prices to be fixed.
Channel NewsAsia spoke to a political analyst who believes the ruling sends caution and concern for all investors.
Simon Tay, Chairman of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs, said: "This kind of signal can be badly read by the international community.
"I think companies need to invest in political risk, invest in goodwill so it really benefits the Indonesian people or whichever country you're investing in, as well as the shareholders." -
Will Temasek really paid the fine? This is the crux of the matter.
-
would the accusation made my the Indo applies in our MAS regulations if the shares are in Singapore companies?Originally posted by will4:Will Temasek really paid the fine? This is the crux of the matter. -
i hope my Fund manager make more mistakes like Temasek:
Profits at book value HK$34.2 billions..
Temasek holding of Bank of China shares
Cost:HK$1.34 per share on average
Last closed:HK$4.24---sold at HK$4.09-4.12 at bulk.at 3 % discount.
Bank of China shares skid after Temasek trims stake
Tue Nov 27, 2007
2.Remember LKY recently said:High flyers in Temasek earns 10 times of his salary,or 5 times of PM.
Peanuts can feed monkeys.Big banana attract big elephants. -
Is T-MASAK a private or public entity?
If Private. What does this imply?
Public vs Private.
What is the diff. -
Where did you get the propaganda feed that Temasek bought the Bank of China shares at HK$1.34 per share ON AVERAGE ?Originally posted by lionnoisy:i hope my Fund manager make more mistakes like Temasek:
Profits at book value HK$34.2 billions..
Temasek holding of Bank of China shares
Cost:HK$1.34 per share on average
Last closed:HK$4.24---sold at HK$4.09-4.12 at bulk.at 3 % discount.
Bank of China shares skid after Temasek trims stake
Tue Nov 27, 2007
2.Remember LKY recently said:High flyers in Temasek earns 10 times of his salary,or 5 times of PM.
Peanuts can feed monkeys.Big banana attract big elephants.
In a 2005 report by Internation Herald Tribune - Temasek was reported to have paid US$3.1 Billion for a small 10% stake in Bank of China - despite the fact that it was well known that China's State-owned Commercial Banks {SCB} were all insolvent or heavily in debt.
Do you expect us to seriously believe that Temasek has been offered its 10% stake at a cost of HK$1.34 per share, when the Shareholder's Equity in 2004 was estimated to be CNY205 Billion {ADB Report PDF Page 26 of 36} ?
At a 2005 exchange rate of between CNY8.28 to CNY8.11 for a US Dollar - the total shareholder equity at CNY205 Billion will amount to USD24.76 Billion.
How did the US$3.1 Billion paid for a 10% stake, now turn out to be HK$1.34 per share ?
Is someone monkeying around with numbers after only two years ?
Are we not led to believe that investments in banks should be for the long haul ?
After all the hassle to gain a foothold in China's banking industry, and paying such a high price for a 10% stake - why will Temasek now sell its stake after holding it for only two years ?
Was the ADB wrong in its 2005 assessment, which had given such a glowing outlook for China's banking industry {see reference ADB report above} ?
Have Singaporeans again been taken for a ride by the hype and propaganda without the total picture being revealed ?
Note: In the same International Herald Tribune Report, it was mentioned in passing that Temasek had also at the same time invested US$1 Billion for a small stake in China Construction Bank {CCB} - not much is known about Temasek's involvement in this Bank, which has an even bigger equity value than the Bank of China.
It looks like the noisy Singapore Lion is being made to look like a noisy monkey as it is being choked by a banana fed by a Chinese Elephant, which has learnt to be more discerning and circumspect with its choice of diet. -
I think they need to raise cash urgently .... hmmmm never a good sign... forced to sell when the markets are crashing left and right...
The unaccountability and non-transparency allows them to say anything they like and it is better to think that they are TT Durai types...
Smart people sell at the height... and stupid people buy when smart people sell....
Chit Chat >
BTW you people know that the market crashed today?
... and that was when Temasek bought Barclays Bank... -
The earlier some people understand that the ruling party has its good and bad points the better...as with any other political party..
-
yes,temasek bought at hk$1.34 and now sold HK$4.
the news confirmed by bloomberg.com.
1.the news come from Ming Pao www.mingpao.com of HKOriginally posted by Atobe:Where did you get the propaganda feed that Temasek bought the Bank of China shares at HK$1.34 per share ON AVERAGE ?
In a 2005 report by Internation Herald Tribune - Temasek was reported to have paid US$3.1 Billion for a small 10% stake in Bank of China - despite the fact that it [color=red]was well known that China's State-owned Commercial Banks {SCB} were all insolvent or heavily in debt.
Do you expect us to seriously believe that Temasek has been offered its 10% stake at a cost of HK$1.34 per share, when the Shareholder's Equity in 2004 was estimated to be CNY205 Billion {ADB Report PDF Page 26 of 36} ?
At a 2005 exchange rate of between CNY8.28 to CNY8.11 for a US Dollar - the total shareholder equity at CNY205 Billion will amount to USD24.76 Billion.
How did the US$3.1 Billion paid for a 10% stake, now turn out to be HK$1.34 per share ?
Is ....
2.can u tell me if it is true the average cost of China Construction Bank stake
by Temasek is HK$2.35,now selling in bulk $7?
also from Ming PaO!
China Construction Bank stake sale in English.
If both news from Ming Pao is true,then Temasek's profits on face
value is HK$100 billion (HK$100,000,000,000.oo)
or S$18.5 billion.SG budget is only S$30 b pa.
Now u know why SG can afford to upgrade so many schools.
3.u guys dunt believe news in Chinese or from far east .
But i think u trust this source:
Bank of China Shares Tumble on Temasek Stake Sale (Update3)
By Luo Jun----bloomberg.com,Nov. 27 (Bloomberg)2007.Temasek, which owns its BOC stake through its unit Asia Financial Holdings Pte, now known as Fullerton Financial Holdings Pte, is Bank of China's fourth-largest shareholder ......
Asia Financial held 11.79 billion BOC shares, or a 4.6 percent stake, at the end of June, according to the first-half results statement of the Chinese bank. Selling at the high end of the range will yield the Singapore firm more than triple the amount it paid per share for its initial investment in August 2005.
See.Pl tell me if bloomberg.com is wrong.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Why will an intelligent person depend on others to interpret events for oneself ?
yes,temasek bought at hk$1.34 and now sold HK$4.
the news confirmed by bloomberg.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Originally posted by Atobe:
Where did you get the propaganda feed that Temasek bought the Bank of China shares at HK$1.34 per share ON AVERAGE ?
In a 2005 report by Internation Herald Tribune - Temasek was reported to have paid US$3.1 Billion for a small 10% stake in Bank of China - despite the fact that it [color=red]was well known that China's State-owned Commercial Banks {SCB} were all insolvent or heavily in debt.
Do you expect us to seriously believe that Temasek has been offered its 10% stake at a cost of HK$1.34 per share, when the Shareholder's Equity in 2004 was estimated to be CNY205 Billion {ADB Report PDF Page 26 of 36} ?
At a 2005 exchange rate of between CNY8.28 to CNY8.11 for a US Dollar - the total shareholder equity at CNY205 Billion will amount to USD24.76 Billion.
How did the US$3.1 Billion paid for a 10% stake, now turn out to be HK$1.34 per share ?
Is ....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.the news come from Ming Pao www.mingpao.com of HK
2.can u tell me if it is true the average cost of China Construction Bank stake
by Temasek is HK$2.35,now selling in bulk $7?
also from Ming PaO!
China Construction Bank stake sale in English.
If both news from Ming Pao is true,then Temasek's profits on face
value is HK$100 billion (HK$100,000,000,000.oo)
or S$18.5 billion.SG budget is only S$30 b pa.
Now u know why SG can afford to upgrade so many schools.
3.u guys dunt believe news in Chinese or from far east .
But i think u trust this source:
Bank of China Shares Tumble on Temasek Stake Sale (Update3)
By Luo Jun----bloomberg.com,Nov. 27 (Bloomberg)2007.
[quote] Temasek, which owns its BOC stake through its unit Asia Financial Holdings Pte, now known as Fullerton Financial Holdings Pte, is Bank of China's fourth-largest shareholder ......
Asia Financial held 11.79 billion BOC shares, or a 4.6 percent stake, at the end of June, according to the first-half results statement of the Chinese bank. Selling at the high end of the range will yield the[b] Singapore firm more than triple the amount it paid per share for its initial investment in August 2005.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See.Pl tell me if bloomberg.com is wrong.
Let us first look at Temasek's involvement with the Bank of China.
Temasek was reported to have paid USD3.1 Billion for a 10% stake in Bank of China, yet it was reported - in your reference piece in English - that ''The deal follows Temasek's sale on Monday of a US$571.5 million stake in Bank of China , and represents just 2 percent of Temasek's holding in China Construction Bank,''.
Considering that Temasek was able to achieve US$571.5 Million by selling only a 2 percent stake, do you think that if the entire stake of 10% amounting to US$3.1 Billion can be recovered ?
The 2 percent stake represent only One-Fifth of the 10% stake, if the entire 10% stake is sold for the same price - Temasek would have recovered only US$2.86 Billion from an investment that it paid US$3.1 Billion.
Looking at Temasek's holding in China Construction Bank, in which Temasek was reported to have paid US$1 Billion for a small stake; Singapore's own Straits Times, Thursday edition 29 November 2007, Page H24 Money section had reported -
TEMASEK Holdings has sold US$255 million {S$368 million} worth of shares in China Construction Bank - the second time this week it has cashed in its mainland bank investment.
Singapore's investment company yesterday confirmed it had sold 280 million shares, paring less than 2 percent of a 5.9 per cent stake in the Beijing-based bank.
For the first time, it is now learnt that we paid US$1 Billion for a 5.9 per cent stake - how should we understand the meaning of ''paring 2 percent of a 5.9 percent stake'' ?
Is it correct to read that this reduction of 2% is almost a 50% reduction from an original stake of 5.9 percent stake in China Construction Bank ?
If the sale of 2 percent shares is worth only US$255 miilion, and with this 2 percent being almost half of the 5.9 percent stake ?
Are we ahead with the original investment paid ?
Do not let the loud and noisy trumpets shroud common sense. -
Atobe, maybe you should consider giving up talking about numbers because there is no second guessing when you deal with quantifiable discussion.Originally posted by Atobe:[/color]
Considering that Temasek was able to achieve US$571.5 Million by selling only a 2 percent stake, do you think that if the entire stake of 10% amounting to US$3.1 Billion can be recovered ?
The 2 percent stake represent only One-Fifth of the 10% stake, if the entire 10% stake is sold for the same price - Temasek would have recovered only US$2.86 Billion from an investment that it paid US$3.1 Billion.
And my advice is that, before you shoot, please take some time to understand what you are talking about and dont always assume the Temasek are as dumb an investor as you think.
Temasek sold only 9.4% of its 5.1% stake in BOC for US$571.5m, which means their total 5.1% stake in BOC is now worth US$5.5b. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
Even if your calculations were correct(and they aren't), or the information was complete and accurate(once again questionable), you can't harp on every loss during a marketdownturn and say it's an indicator of bad investment management.
[/color]
For the first time, it is now learnt that we paid US$1 Billion for a 5.9 per cent stake - how should we understand the meaning of [b]''paring 2 percent of a 5.9 percent stake'' ?
Is it correct to read that this reduction of 2% is almost a 50% reduction from an original stake of 5.9 percent stake in China Construction Bank ?
If the sale of 2 percent shares is worth only US$255 miilion, and with this 2 percent being almost half of the 5.9 percent stake ?
Are we ahead with the original investment paid ?
Do not let the loud and noisy trumpets shroud common sense.
[/b]
There is no 100% success investment. Even when the money's in the bank, there's the minute risk of a run on the bank.
Also, you can't constantly complain about lack of transparancy, then turn around and argue with the assumption that the information leaked by the newspapers are accurate and full. You can't have it both ways.
another thing you shouldn't do is misquote articles. Really nasty habit.