Jim Rogers : Temasek and GIC will LOSE money
-
Jim Rogers, a former partner of George Soros in the famed Quantum Fund.
The fund manager, who has traveled extensively in emerging markets and lives part of the year in Asia, says sovereign wealth funds in Abu Dhabi and Singapore that recently made large investments in Citigroup and UBS AG (UBS, news, msgs) are likely to lose a lot of money on their ploys. "They're making a big mistake; these banks have many more problems still ahead. They should wait until these companies are really on the ropes a few years from now . . . and trading at $5 a share."
But aren't they supposed to be the smart money? Maybe not. "I know these people, and they have never given me the impression that they're smarter than anyone else," Rogers says. "They have gigantic amounts of money, but they've made a bad judgment in these cases."
Source
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/SuperModels/StockMarketWinterIsMovingIn.aspx?page=1 -
get ready. soon they will lock in more of ur CPF money.
or milk more money from u to make up for the shortfall. -
Poor judegment in business, bad governance as a government, what the fark are they good at???
-
they r gd for NOTHING.
ccb our $ again. -
People who have never been,
1) trained in economics, accounting and finance,
2) never worked in private investment companies,
3) does not possess the necessary criteria to work in private investment companies,
4) attain position through the use of family relations (cronyism)
should not be made to manage public funds.
From past records, they have shown to made bad investment decisions. -
And what good is our President - who is in NO position to question their money "management" ways?Originally posted by maurizio13:People who have never been,
1) trained in economics, accounting and finance,
2) never worked in private investment companies,
3) does not possess the necessary criteria to work in private investment companies,
4) attain position through the use of family relations (cronyism)
should not be made to manage public funds.
From past records, they have shown to made bad investment decisions. -
it's for investment...
and there are other rewards apart from mere monetary rewards.. if the MIW can see beyond that...
for goodness knows, you idiots in SC can't see beyond your noses
-
Dear Guru Bear,Originally posted by the Bear:it's for investment...
and there are other rewards apart from mere monetary rewards.. if the MIW can see beyond that...
for goodness knows, you idiots in SC can't see beyond your noses
Huh?
I thought the basis of investment is to get a good return for the capital invested.
Maybe you can tell us what other rewards are there.
We are all daft there.
Thank you. -
Our President is a very very very expensive hua ping (flower vase).Originally posted by HyperFocal:And what good is our President - who is in NO position to question their money "management" ways? -
I thought I read one of the forumers say before that one of the reasons might be injecting funds to boost external economies, so that the Singapore economy may be able to benefit from it in the long run.Originally posted by maurizio13:Dear Guru Bear,
Huh?
I thought the basis of investment is to get a good return for the capital invested.
Maybe you can tell us what other rewards are there.
We are all daft there.
Thank you.
Another forumer also said that injecting funds might help in relations, though I failed to see how it was done well in the takeover for one of Thailand's telecom -
SG won't invest unless they are sure they will benefit. In one way or another. Don't just look at money.
The Thailand case was a flop, they probably underestimated something which made us lose money as well as created lots of bad ties between our neighbours. -
And a well worned/sunned one tooOriginally posted by maurizio13:Our President is a very very very expensive hua ping (flower vase). -
and there are other rewards apart from mere monetary rewards.. if the MIW can see beyond that...
Can you give some examples? -
The Greed Stampede
by Eric Margolis
NEW YORK – Western nations have been rightly scourging China for flooding world markets with toxic food, toys, nutritional products, clothing and other tainted goods. China’s government closed its eyes to this malefaction.
But meanwhile, Wall Street was exporting toxic financial instruments called sub-prime mortgages around the globe. WashingtonÂ’s regulatory monkeys saw no more evil than those in Beijing.
Here’s how the sub-prime mess developed. A single mother, say in East St Louis, was peddled an initially low interest adjustable mortgage by a flim-flam broker. When rates rose sharply, she couldn’t pay and was forced to abandon the home she should never have bought to begin with. Multiply this little human tragedy by hundreds of thousands, and, voilà , the spreading sub-prime mortgage crisis.
Meanwhile, the worldÂ’s leading financial institutions built a $500 billion to $1 trillion house of cards based on these sleazy mortgages. They were bundled, chopped up like stolen cars, and peddled everywhere as secure, high-yielding American securities.
Once the sub-prime crisis broke, banks holding such `Chinese paper,Â’ to use an old Wall Street term, panicked. Not only couldnÂ’t they find any more stupid buyers, the wildly inflated values they gave these securities turned out to be totally bogus. This, in turn, gravely undermined the asset base of lending institutions holding `Chinese paper.Â’
BritainÂ’s Northern Rock (aka `Northern WreckÂ’) suffered a run on the bank and is now clinically dead. CIBC lost up to $2 billion. Two of the worldÂ’s biggest banks, Citicorp and UBS, lost $9 and $10 billion respectively. They nearly capsized, and had to be rescued by Gulf Arabs and Singapore. Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley face $9-10 billion of write-downs. More banks will soon reveal billions of losses, all thanks to `innovate finance.Â’
How could the brightest Wall StreetÂ’s financiers, who claim unrivaled expertise in managing clientÂ’s assets, be so stupid and incompetent?
After the flu and bad taste, few diseases are more contagious than greed. So began the greed stampede as Wall Street bulls charged into the sub-prime Valley of Death.
Blame begins with the Bush Administration. Faced with hugely expensive foreign wars and the dot com bubble, the White House got Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates to nearly nothing. This produced the monster property bubble that is now bursting. Cheap credit became a dangerous drug, financial `speedÂ’ arousing false economic euphoria that helped keep Republicans in power and fueled swarms of unregulated, parasitic hedge funds.
Rock bottom US interest rates made bankers and investors search out higher paying investments. Sub-prime mortgages were Wall StreetÂ’s answer. In a giant Ponzi scheme, new investor money was used to pay off old investors, building a giant pyramid that collapsed this past fall.
The US Federal Reserve, which is supposed to regulate mortgages, failed its duty. So did other US financial regulators, like Treasury and the SEC. They, and auditing firms, allowed banks to egregiously misvalue their mortgage holdings and create `conduitsÂ’ and `off balance sheetÂ’ vehicles that were new forms of accounting fraud.
Many bankers and managers simply failed to understand the mind-numbing complexity of financial derivatives. President George Bush lauded `the new finance’ as the model of Republican economic policy. It turned out to be – the financial equivalent of Iraq. Worryingly, no one knows how much the world’s rickety financial structure now depends on these arcane financial alchemies. We enter 2008 threatened by the prospect of new financial earthquakes and recession.
Instead of facing fraud indictment, CEOÂ’s of the big peddlers of `Chinese paperÂ’ got millions worth of golden handshakes, or raises. While government was busy prosecuting Conrad Black over $3 million, the public was defrauded of tens of billions. No one has yet been prosecuted for these outrageous crimes.
If there was a time for government to justify its existence, itÂ’s now. Prosecute the sub-prime fraudsters, from salesmen to CEOÂ’s. Forget golden handshakes. They deserve steel handcuffs.
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2007/12/the_greed_stamp.php -
sheesh!
look up this word: Goodwill
think.. why would some countries throw loads of money into another country's industries when nothing seems to be gained?
simple.. the other country is suddenly beholden to us...
why do you think countries fight tooth and nail not to let others "bail out" their sinking industries?
why do you think Indonesians not happy, Thailand not happy.. and why the Germans threw money into VW, why the Italians throw money into Aitalia instead of letting others bail them out?
now.. if the MIW goes in and bails out UBS, the Swiss are beholden to us even if they don't say anything.. behind closed doors or political dealings, this is a card to be played..
such basic political things, if you don't even know exist, i suggest you learn what world diplomacy and politics is about first...
p.s. btw.. this Jim Rogers? he probably said this for this very effect.. so that people will make a lot of noise and blow it out into the open so that the effects and impact of the moves made by the politicians by throwing money around will be diminished.... it's all political.. sad to say.. -
another honest mistake again?
-
UBS? this time, no...
if i was doing this for politics, i'd jump at the chance..Originally posted by SevenEleven:another honest mistake again? -
no one knows whether the market is going up or down from here? If it is up, then this thread is dead.
At the moment 27 Dec 2007, the major indexes are trading at near the highs. So the probability that Temasek and GIC make money on their equity investments is higher. For the long term, lets wait ten years to see how this billion dollars investments go. -
Ask Prince Al Waleed... He's laughing all the way to the bank today... after all, he owns a share in one of the most valuable one: Citigroup... Bought in when they were distressed and its one of his most valuable holdings now.Originally posted by Daddy!!:no one knows whether the market is going up or down from here? If it is up, then this thread is dead.
At the moment 27 Dec 2007, the major indexes are trading at near the highs. So the probability that Temasek and GIC make money on their equity investments is higher. For the long term, lets wait ten years to see how this billion dollars investments go.
I'm a little amused cos I thought Jim Rogers was quite close to UBS... seems rather ungentlemanly to slime a former close associate
Anyways, his expertise is on commodities... And UBS does have a strong commodities trading business...
So why is he (a) sliming a bank he was known to be close to before and (b) sliming a bank that does have a strong commodities trading business, exactly the growth area he is so bullish about? -
come on guys. it's easy to sit there and give comments. Comments are free. Actions are not.
Frankly, do u really tink UBS citigroup will drop to US$5 a share?
End of the day if GIC/Temasek losses money, the people here will rejoice, and say they should had done this should had done that. Just how many of you dare to invest in your other "better" solutions? Please dun give the excuse you dun have that kind of money. There are methods in invest, depends on whether u dare to do it.
If in the future UBS/citigrp proved to be good investments, will you stand out and apologise that your comment u had so strongly stand by was wrong? Or will you like those fund managers, give all sort of reasons when their fund made losses, short of saying they farked up?
Just because of some famous investment guy said something, u believe his statements are the truth? If you believe they're so damn good, then why not invest every single cent you've got into their companies? -
i thought both organization had already lost significant amt of money that had priviously park in investment companies. Further injecting of funds into these companies is to prevent further distruction of these investment driven infrastructure.
-
Goodwill?Originally posted by the Bear:sheesh!
look up this word: Goodwill
think.. why would some countries throw loads of money into another country's industries when nothing seems to be gained?
simple.. the other country is suddenly beholden to us...
why do you think countries fight tooth and nail not to let others "bail out" their sinking industries?
why do you think Indonesians not happy, Thailand not happy.. and why the Germans threw money into VW, why the Italians throw money into Aitalia instead of letting others bail them out?
now.. if the MIW goes in and bails out UBS, the Swiss are beholden to us even if they don't say anything.. behind closed doors or political dealings, this is a card to be played..
such basic political things, if you don't even know exist, i suggest you learn what world diplomacy and politics is about first...
p.s. btw.. this Jim Rogers? he probably said this for this very effect.. so that people will make a lot of noise and blow it out into the open so that the effects and impact of the moves made by the politicians by throwing money around will be diminished.... it's all political.. sad to say..
Beholden to the predatory country?
During the 1990s when Japan started grabbing up assets of Australian companies, the Australian there refer to Japs as Nips. A derogatory term, short for Nippon.
When Temasek bought over Indosat and Telkomsel, there were accusations of anti-competitive practices and protest by Indonesians.
When Temasek overpaid for Thaksin's Shin Corp in Thailand, there were protest regarding the takeover of a national asset.
I don't know what kind of goodwill exist and how these protest is interpreted by you to be "beholden" to the predatory country.
If I want to sell my house, due to financial difficulties, current market price is $1 million. If an idiot comes around wanting to pay $2 million for it. I do not know why he wants to pay so much for it, perhaps he thinks there is crude oil where my house resides. But whatever the reasons he has for paying $2 million. Do you think that just because I am in financial difficulties and he is willing to fork out $2 million, I will be beholden to him? I will more or less take him for a sucker, because I know my assets are not worth more than $2 million.
Corporations are run by managers, not politicians, unless you are specifically referring to Singapore (where large corporations are run by ex-P4P politicians or close relatives of our leader). -
Anything is possible in finance. Share price plummeting to it's par value is a possibility. The par value of a share is extremely little, when compared to it's market value. Tsk Tsk...how naive are we?Originally posted by airgrinder:come on guys. it's easy to sit there and give comments. Comments are free. Actions are not.
Frankly, do u really tink UBS citigroup will drop to US$5 a share?
End of the day if GIC/Temasek losses money, the people here will rejoice, and say they should had done this should had done that. Just how many of you dare to invest in your other "better" solutions? Please dun give the excuse you dun have that kind of money. There are methods in invest, depends on whether u dare to do it.
If in the future UBS/citigrp proved to be good investments, will you stand out and apologise that your comment u had so strongly stand by was wrong? Or will you like those fund managers, give all sort of reasons when their fund made losses, short of saying they farked up?
Just because of some famous investment guy said something, u believe his statements are the truth? If you believe they're so damn good, then why not invest every single cent you've got into their companies?
Without the benefit of hindsight, would we have known that big companies like,
Aladdin Gaming, LLC (Las Vegas Hotel Casino) (2001)
ABB Lummus Global, Inc. (Petroleum Refining) (2006)
American Banknote Corporation (1999)
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists / AFTRA (1982)
America Online Latin America, Inc. (2005)
American Restaurant Group, Inc. (2004)
Ameridebt (2004)
AMF Bowling Worldwide, Inc. (2001)
Atkins Nutritionals, Inc. (2005)
Baldwin Piano & Organ Company (2001)
Bethlehem Steel Corporation (2001)
Big Buck Brewery & Steakhouse, Inc. (2004)
Birch Telecom, Inc. (2005)
Burlington Industries Inc. (2001)
Carolco Pictures Inc. (1995)
Chiquita Brands International Inc. (2001)
Continental Airlines Inc. (1967 & 1984)
Converse Inc. (2001)
Dairy Mart Convenience Stores Inc. (2001)
Delphi Corporation (2005)
Delta Airlines Inc. (2005)
Dow Corning Corporation (1995)
Eastern Airlines Inc. (1991)
Enron Corporations (2001)
eToys Inc. (2001)
Excite@Home (2001)
FrankÂ’s Nursery & Crafts, Inc. (2004)
Frederick's of Hollywood Inc. (2000)
Fruit of the Loom Inc. (1999)
Gadzooks, Inc. (2004)
Happy Kids, Inc. (2005)
Hollywood Casino Shreveport (2004)
KB Toys, Inc. (2004)
Kmart Corporation (2002)
Lionel Corporation (1967 & 1984)
Loews Cineplex Entertainment, Inc. (2000)
Maidenform Inc. (1997)
Marvel Entertainment Group (1996)
Montgomery Ward Inc (1997 & 2000)
Motor City Five/MC5 rock group of the 1960s (1970)
Musicland Holding Corp. (2006)
Northwest Airlines (2005)
Orion Pictures Corporation (1992)
Owens Corning Corporation (2000)
Pan Am Corporation (199
Planet Hollywood International Inc.(1999 & 2001)
Polaroid Corporation (2001)
Purina Mills Inc. (1999)
Regal Cinemas Inc. (2001)
Resorts International Inc. (1994)
Schlotzskys Inc. (2004)
Silicon Graphics, Inc. (2006)
Singer Company (1999)
Sizzler International (1996)
Smith Corona Corporation (1995)
Southland Corporation (7-11 stores) (1990)
Sunbeam Corporation (2001)
Swissair Group Inc. (2001)
Texaco
The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Portland, Oregon (2004)
Toysmart.com (2000)
TLC rock group (1995)
Trans World Airlines Inc. /TWA (1995 & 2000)
US Airways Group, Inc. (2004)
US Office Products Company (mail boxes etc. stores) (2001)
Vlasic Foods International Inc. (2001)
Western Union Corporation (1993)
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. (2005)
Zenith Electronics Corporation (1999)
would have fallen?
Although banks like Citibank might be immune to chapter 7, because of the importance Citibank plays in the US market, the US government will most likely come up with a rescue package if they have liquidity problems (much like the bail out of LTCM). The collapse of the banking system will result in dire consequences for the US economy.
Not forgetting the collapse of the Barings Bank, which was finally sold off to ING for only GBP 1.00 (NOT GBP 1.00 per share, the whole bank for 1 quid). -
GIC was deduced to be losing money by people observing that they hired and fired their top people frequently and turn-over there is also quite high. This is known in the market. Till now, little is known about GIC's exposure to what type of investments. With the latest buying of Merril Lynch's stock in such large amount, it is now known openly world wide. If they lose money again, then all Singaporeans lose face. People would indeed vent their anger when they are asked to pay more to subsidize the loss either by their votes or street protests. People would demand accountability, at least some scapegoats would be brought forward to appease the people's anger.
If they make money, then things would be a lot better for everyone except the opposition.
I am not against the UBS and Merril Lynch investments. But i think one would wonder why tumasek and gic are so back-side itchy to go into these investments?
they would be very smart indeed if they have bought an oil-field in 1998 to 2001. something which benefits the country directly since Singapore does not have natural resources. -
there will neva be a time where u can enter the market accurately at its lowest based on precision planning....
but my marder told me tat it makes more sense to grab a robe when it is climbing not dropping....
true u may be a little late and make less money.... but hey, its the pple's money afterall.... its better safe than sori.....