Did China learn from mistakes made by S'pore Temasek ?
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Atobe, again, I suggest you stop playing with numbers because it will only make you look more like a noisy trumpet!!
[/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]
The news report is saying that it represents 2% of Temasek total holding in the CCB bank, not 2% of CCB.
do not let the loud and noisy trumpets shroud common sense -
Originally posted by Gazelle:
Which crap news were you reading after taking your deep sniff of it ?
[quote]Originally posted by Atobe:
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, again, I suggest you stop playing with numbers because it will only make you look more like a noisy trumpet!!
The news report is saying that it represents 2% of Temasek total holding in the CCB bank, not 2% of CCB.
do not let the loud and noisy trumpets shroud common sense
Have you been so blurred by the whiff of your crap that you are afraid of numbers ?
Now it seems that you cannot even read simple English besides the inability to understand numbers.
Read slowly again before you get into your habitual wank after sniffing the slightest whiff that you believe is your exotic crap. -
Atobe, this is not a name calling competition, so there is not need to be so hostile here...
China Construction Bank
Total shares in the market : 220,000 million shares
Total shares Temasek was holding : 5.9% = 12,980 million shares
Total shares Temasek sold : 280 million shares = 2.16% of 12,980 m shares for US$255m
Are we ahead with the original investment paid ?
Atobe, if you need help with the calculation, please let us know. -
from your originally quoted article:
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.
these are your conclusions: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 ?
can you answer your own question?
your last reply sounds apt to describe you too:Now it seems that you cannot even read simple English besides the inability to understand numbers.
Atobe, calm down and read the articles properly before lashing out at people trying to stop you from making a fool of yourself. Those were primary school level problem sums that you just fracked up. You need to do them again. -
Originally posted by deathbait:
Great to know that you have been able to read between the lines, while others were only too eager to sniff the whiff - only keen to find the crap that is placed to attract the best sniffer - always.
Atobe, calm down and read the articles properly before lashing out at people trying to stop you from making a fool of yourself. Those were primary school level problem sums that you just fracked up. You need to do them again.
You should know by your own nick.
The beauty is to allow the information to come from the worst, instead of allowing simple blind reliance on the interpretation by others. -
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. -
oh..now Atobe has a new "trick" it is call read between the lines...haha...Originally posted by Atobe:Great to know that you have been able to read between the lines, while others were only too eager to sniff the whiff - only keen to find the crap that is placed to attract the best sniffer - always.
You should know by your own nick.
The beauty is to allow the information to come from the worst, instead of allowing simple blind reliance on the interpretation by others.
You are begining to sound more like AndrewYap... -
gaz has a point atobe. You started off well, but now u're sounding like Andrew.Originally posted by Gazelle:oh..now Atobe has a new "trick" it is call read between the lines...haha...
You are begining to sound more like AndrewYap...
ok, even with your misunderstanding of the sentences, your math is STILL wrong.
5.9 percent - 2 percent is not even close to half of 5.9 percent.
Add to the fact that it's LESS THAN 2% of 5.9% and now your math is seriously screwed up.
I'm trying to help you here. -
Hi Gazelle, we got ur point, so further degrading statement make to atobe is pretty uncalled for.Originally posted by Gazelle:oh..now Atobe has a new "trick" it is call read between the lines...haha...
You are begining to sound more like AndrewYap...
It sometimes pay to be nice u see...
-
you mean like this?Originally posted by lagrangian1125:Hi Gazelle, we got ur point, so further degrading statement make to atobe is pretty uncalled for.
It sometimes pay to be nice u see... Originally posted by Atobe:Which crap news were you reading after taking your deep sniff of it ?
Have you been so blurred by the whiff of your crap that you are afraid of numbers ?
Now it seems that you cannot even read simple English besides the inability to understand numbers.
Read slowly again before you get into your habitual wank after sniffing the slightest whiff that you believe is your exotic crap. -
Ha ha...be more forgiving lah, who knows atobe may be less hostile to u in future.
-
If the whiff has affected your hearing to believe that it sounds like Andrew, it is your own perception that you wish to encourage.Originally posted by Gazelle:oh..now Atobe has a new "trick" it is call read between the lines...haha...
You are begining to sound more like AndrewYap...
Unfortunately for you, the difference with a Gazelle compared to an Andrew Yap, or Atobe - is that unlike a Gazelle, Andrew and Atobe do not slink away and avoid the TRUTH.
How often have you preferred to slink away with the tail behind you ?
Is it any wonder that a Gazelle has no more tail left ? -
Do not let loud and noisy trumpets shroud your common sense - AtobeOriginally posted by Atobe:If the whiff has affected your hearing to believe that it sounds like Andrew, it is your own perception that you wish to encourage.
Unfortunately for you, the difference with a Gazelle compared to an Andrew Yap, or Atobe - is that unlike a Gazelle, Andrew and Atobe do not slink away and avoid the TRUTH.
How often have you preferred to slink away with the tail behind you ?
Is it any wonder that a Gazelle has no more tail left ? -
What I noticed from Gazelle is that he will only harp on a single
mistake/misjudgement/wrong choice
and avoid all other valid points that will make his arguments go haywire.
Anyway that also goes for quite a number of people too. "Hear only the good things". -
If you want to accuse the government of any wrong doing, I expect you to support your argument with facts, not some fabricated lies and some multi billion dollar miscalculations.Originally posted by eagle:What I noticed from Gazelle is that he will only harp on a single
mistake/misjudgement/wrong choice
and avoid all other valid points that will make his arguments go haywire.
Anyway that also goes for quite a number of people too. "Hear only the good things".
btw...who said Atobe made a mistake.....you have to read between the lines. -
Unfortunately for you, the difference with a Gazelle compared to an Andrew Yap, or Atobe - is that unlike a Gazelle, Andrew and Atobe do not slink away and avoid the TRUTH.
I beg to differ sir. -
Gazelle actually got it right this time. It's hardly wrong to repeat someone's error in calculation when the guy refuses to acknowledge it and continue to use it to spread misinformation.Originally posted by Gazelle:If you want to accuse the government of any wrong doing, I expect you to support your argument with facts, not some fabricated lies and some multi billion dollar miscalculations.
btw...who said Atobe made a mistake.....you have to read between the lines. -
I trust figures.
But I inherently distrust the interpretation of the figures. -
I'm talking with respect to my observations of you, not the government right nowOriginally posted by Gazelle:If you want to accuse the government of any wrong doing, I expect you to support your argument with facts, not some fabricated lies and some multi billion dollar miscalculations.
btw...who said Atobe made a mistake.....you have to read between the lines.
But then, who dun like to hear only the good things
-
The problem with a Gazelle is that when you have lost an argument once too often, you remain sore to the core, pathetically petty, and blindly vindictive.Originally posted by Gazelle:
If you want to accuse the government of any wrong doing, I expect you to support your argument with facts, not some fabricated lies and some multi billion dollar miscalculations.
btw...who said Atobe made a mistake.....you have to read between the lines.
[/quote]
Yes, who said Atobe made a mistake.... did you read between the lines - that I have purposefully marked out a second time with underlines ?
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.
My reply was no different in your indulgingly mischevious blustering manner, and was laid out specially for the ''noisylion'' to make his call.
You simply beat 'noisylion' to it, and hooked yourself onto it like a craze Gazelle - after getting the whiff of the crap - without further attempt to ''read between the lines'' except to be crazed with a gloating sense of petty victory.
The current high level of divestment activities from China's state owned banks is an attempt by Temasek at window dressing, after its public statement reported in an earlier August 2007 Reuter's article - ''Temasek reported a 29 percent drop in net profit to S$9.1 billion ($6 billion) for its 2006/07 financial year, from S$12.8 billion a year ago, on lower divestment gains and an impairment charge on Thai telecoms firm Shin Corp , which lost one third of its stock market value during the period''.
If you are as brilliant as you have made yourself out to be, you would have at least responded to my post {as shown below} - instead of quietly slinking away on Page 2 of this thread, after mischeviously attempting to derail this thread in the opening two pages.
Unfortunately, in your usual characteristic ways, you prefer to shy away from further engaging in your own belief to a ''seemingly lost position'' that has been introduced with so much bluster - slinking away as you have done in so many other threads.
Instead of constantly craving for the whiff, you could have learnt some lessons in the Singapore way of political debate that is no different from the DPP present performance as reported in the other thread.Originally posted by Atobe: 12 November 2007 06.13 AM[quote]Originally posted by Gazelle: 11 November 2007 04.05 PM
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
Unfortunately, you probably will be handicapped with your inability to read between the lines.
[quote]Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak: 30 November 2007 - 12.34 PM
Who's lying – DPP or police sergeant? dd 28 Nov 07 -
i'm beginning to suspect you're deliberately misusing quote tags just so others have difficulty quoting you.
Anyway, your point of a reduction of profits is ridiculous. It's hardly a loss when the net PROFIT drops.
Atobe, to even begin to start sounding credible again, you need to realise your evaluation of the numbers were wrong, and recalculate them again. I'm not sure how often gazelle has it wrong, but this time, he has you by the horns.
His reasoning is sound. Yours on the other hand, is not. -
The title should be " Did China profit from the mistakes made by Singapore?"
-
Optus, Telkomsel and the Shin Corp fiasco. That's all the reasoning you need to point out mistakes.Originally posted by deathbait:i'm beginning to suspect you're deliberately misusing quote tags just so others have difficulty quoting you.
Anyway, your point of a reduction of profits is ridiculous. It's hardly a loss when the net PROFIT drops.
Atobe, to even begin to start sounding credible again, you need to realise your evaluation of the numbers were wrong, and recalculate them again. I'm not sure how often gazelle has it wrong, but this time, he has you by the horns.
His reasoning is sound. Yours on the other hand, is not. -
investments gone south yes. mistakes maybe. But to be objective, you have to balance it.Originally posted by fymk:Optus, Telkomsel and the Shin Corp fiasco. That's all the reasoning you need to point out mistakes.
You won't fire your banker because he lost 10% of your portfolio on 3 investments, but made a profit of 20% total in that year. There are wins, and there are losses.
Sure the information released is incomplete. Sure it's not as transparent as we would want. But that's all the more reason to not jump to conclusions over a few published cases. -
Now let's think, if Temasek Holdings was a private ecompany, would Atobe screw it for having such a financial performance even though he is a shareholder of that company?
Sometimes, we view public companies with a pair of glasses and private companies with a different pair of untinted glasses.