The greedy immoral despots role in the crash of Singapore
-
it's cute andrew
first of all, it didn't crash. Not by a long shot. Any crash forecast is projected into the next few months, EXACTLY into the time frame where you're now encouraging ppl to buy strongly.
I've been advising friends and family to hold money these few months. I'll like to see you put your savings in the market now. That oughta be fun to watch.
-
What an idiot. I warned people to be careful in July 2007 and it was documented. I warned people in on November 10th and it was documented. I warned people in January and it was documented.
You were one of the idiots that was consistently making comments contrary to my warnings (documented) and now you say (undocumented) that you were warning your friends and family.
I guess you were warning them in your insane, delusional state.
-
Originally posted by deathbait:
it's cute andrew
first of all, it didn't crash. Not by a long shot. Any crash forecast is projected into the next few months, EXACTLY into the time frame where you're now encouraging ppl to buy strongly.
I've been advising friends and family to hold money these few months. I'll like to see you put your savings in the market now. That oughta be fun to watch.
What an idiot. I warned people to be careful in July 2007 and it was documented. I warned people in on November 10th and it was documented. I warned people in January and it was documented.
You were one of the idiots that was consistently making comments contrary to my warnings (documented) and now you say (undocumented) that you were warning your friends and family.
I guess you were warning them in your insane, delusional state.
-
I can see why you're confused Andrew.
You're so used to "documenting" your exploits AFTER the event has already happened you forget how real documentation works.
All your "documented" stuff were pretty much "documented" after the fact. Eg, you claim to have bought the baht AFTER it had already risen. Nostradamus reborn indeed.
Anyone with a brain will of course note that I'm currently documenting my prediction and warning about FUTURE events, which is how the documenting process should work.
-
Originally posted by deathbait:
I can see why you're confused Andrew.
You're so used to "documenting" your exploits AFTER the event has already happened you forget how real documentation works.
All your "documented" stuff were pretty much "documented" after the fact. Eg, you claim to have bought the baht AFTER it had already risen. Nostradamus reborn indeed.
Anyone with a brain will of course note that I'm currently documenting my prediction and warning about FUTURE events, which is how the documenting process should work.
Wow, it is amazing how delusional you are. I recommended people to buy Thai Baht "after" it has risen?When I issued the warnings in July 2007, the 10th of Nov and in early Jan, it was "after" the market had crashed?
Don't forget to take your psychotic medications or you might start issuing insane threats again.
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Wow, it is amazing how delusional you are. I recommended people to buy Thai Baht "after" it has risen?When I issued the warnings in July 2007, the 10th of Nov and in early Jan, it was "after" the market had crashed?
Don't forget to take your psychotic medications or you might start issuing insane threats again.
I'm so sick of having to unravel your tangled webs of deceit.
Yes, you indeed recommended people buy thai baht just before it rose. It should however be noted that the reasons you gave for buying it were ridiculous. It should also be noted that you gave random predictions every other week, most of which fizzle and never come true.
What matters is the fact that you never claim to have lost money in your bad predictions, but the moment the thai baht rose, you instantly claimed to have invested in it. The claim came AFTER the fact, which you have repeatedly tried to use as proof of "documentation".
Again, I must point out to you that predicting a market dip after an all time high is not exactly the work of a fortune teller. You predicted a CRASH, however, which has yet to come about.
Here, I'm simply pointing out to you that your idea of documentation is eroneous at best, downright deceitful at worst.
My forecast for the first quarter is filled with uncertainty. Huge variance. That's why I'm advising my friends and loved ones to stay out of the swings. I'm not going to stop you if you want to put your savings in the markets now. Like I said, I would have great fun watching you most likely losing it all.
Note that the above paragraph is valid documentation. If months from now the markets do indeed crash, this is considered valid documentation. Learn the difference.
I'm sure calling your opponents insane works for you in that playground you play in. But here in the grown up world, we actually use valid arguments to make our stand. When you lose an argument, calling your opponent(s) insane isn't exactly a winning move. -
Originally posted by deathbait:
I'm so sick of having to unravel your tangled webs of deceit.
Yes, you indeed recommended people buy thai baht just before it rose. It should however be noted that the reasons you gave for buying it were ridiculous. It should also be noted that you gave random predictions every other week, most of which fizzle and never come true.
What matters is the fact that you never claim to have lost money in your bad predictions, but the moment the thai baht rose, you instantly claimed to have invested in it. The claim came AFTER the fact, which you have repeatedly tried to use as proof of "documentation".
Again, I must point out to you that predicting a market dip after an all time high is not exactly the work of a fortune teller. You predicted a CRASH, however, which has yet to come about.
Here, I'm simply pointing out to you that your idea of documentation is eroneous at best, downright deceitful at worst.
My forecast for the first quarter is filled with uncertainty. Huge variance. That's why I'm advising my friends and loved ones to stay out of the swings. I'm not going to stop you if you want to put your savings in the markets now. Like I said, I would have great fun watching you most likely losing it all.
Note that the above paragraph is valid documentation. If months from now the markets do indeed crash, this is considered valid documentation. Learn the difference.
I'm sure calling your opponents insane works for you in that playground you play in. But here in the grown up world, we actually use valid arguments to make our stand. When you lose an argument, calling your opponent(s) insane isn't exactly a winning move.So you took your medication, realized how delusional you were and now say 'Yes, you indeed recommended people buy thai baht just before it rose.'?
I think you need a stronger dose. You think the newspapers would put on the front page if there was a stock, as you say, 'market dip'? That is just delusional.
I ask people to start thinking, to start considering buying stocks and you say I 'strongly recommend' people to buy.
Let's see, only 1 out of three right. Yes you need a stronger does of your psychotic drugs to come out of your delusion more and don't forget to take them or you might start issuing insane threats again.
-
perhaps you would like to give one of your charts to show right now how the fall last month was a crash instead of a dip?
-
StanChart Leaves Investors Out in the Cold
Another great investment bombed !
Philip Bowring 12 February 2008 Investors are left to fend for themselves in the latest chapter of the global banking mess
Asian investors who thought they could trust Standard Chartered, the venerable old British bank that has been around Asia for a century and a half, are whistling in the wind for their money.
The group, now 19 percent owned by the Singapore government through Temasek Holdings, is walking away from its US$7.2 billion structured investment vehicle (SIV), appropriately named Whistlejacket Capital. This pile of assets was sold in the form of notes to big-name, deep-pocket clients in Asia and the Middle East. But now that Whistlejacket’s assets have fallen sharply in value, today put at around half the level of six months ago, the bank no longer wants full responsibility for it.
That is perfectly legal. StanChart, like other major banks, enticed clients to acquire various debt assets that it claimed were good investments but were not on the bank’s own balance sheet. When trouble first hit the market in collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and similar fancy instruments in the wake of the US sub-prime crisis, StanChart offered to provide liquidity to Whistlejacket — but only so long as its assets were worth 95 percent of their book value.
That is no longer the case, so StanChart has walked away and Whistlejacket is going into receivership. Others could have done the same, but to protect their reputations, rivals such as HSBC and Citicorp volunteered to bring the SIVs onto their own balance sheets, requiring them to provide for some US$40 billion in losses and, in Citi’s case, forcing it to go cap in hand to sovereign wealth funds for more capital.
Some investors in Whistlejacket who held short term notes were able to get out, helped by the liquidity facility. But the rest are locked in and may well, according to London sources, lose half or more of their money. That would come as a shock to investors who thought they were buying AA-rated paper. But such a rating was possible through the financial alchemy (approved by ratings agencies) that enabled asset-backed securities — when suitably re-packaged — to acquire superior ratings while delivering higher yields.
Whistlejacket investors will have to wait and see how the assets look to the receiver, and what assistance StanChart will give in providing some ways of disposing of its assets at other than fire-sale prices.
Unwillingness to put Whistlejacket onto its books raises questions about the strength of StanChart’s own balance sheet. The bank has long been a subject of takeover rumors and may now seem a tempting target. However, with so much financial asset destruction over the past year and with more to come, cash-rich investors are likely to hold back till the extent of losses throughout the system is known. Arab, Singapore and China funds may be regretting the amounts they have already pumped into ailing western institutions now that the size of their combined losses is becoming clearer and many more calls for rescue are likely to be heard in the coming months.
This episode must leave a sour taste in the mouth of Temasek, which only recently increased its stake in Stanchart to 19 percent. It acquired 11.5 percent from the estate of the late Malaysian banker Khoo Teck Puat in 2006. Khoo had helped rescue the bank from a takeover in 1986 following write-offs in Southeast Asia and Hong Kong that forced it to sell landmark city-center buildings, including its Hong Kong head office.
Temasek evidently thought it had a good buy, gradually building on the Khoo stake. But with the latest problems, StanChart’s share price is back to where it was two years ago. Temasek’s stake is now on the threshold where this level of holding is becoming a quasi-political issue. At 20 percent it would bring into question whether StanChart could continue to be a note-issuing bank in Hong Kong – a privilege that is of limited practical value but carries much prestige.
Temasek may want to use the price fall to go above 20 percent, on the assumption that the Hong Kong Monetary Authority would not object. Its stake could rise to 30 percent before being required, under British rules, to make a full offer. That looks unlikely given Singapore’s new sensitivity to foreign suspicion of sovereign wealth funds.
Also, while Temasek probably wants to go above 20 percent, it has splurged so much cash on troubled banks that it may bide its time to see if more troubles are in store for StanChart. Nor can it ignore the damage to StanChart’s reputation among those in the Middle East and Asia who had long trusted it as a stable institution.
Standard Chartered was formed in 1969 from the merger of Standard Bank of South Africa, founded in 1863, and the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China founded in 1853. The South African operations were sold during the apartheid era but Stanchart acquired a big Middle East presence by acquiring Grindlays Bank, another British colonial enterprise.
Today, StanChart has globe-spanning operations and is seen as emerging-market focused. Most of its profit comes from Asia, notably Hong Kong, India and Korea (through its acquisition of Korea First Bank in 2005). It is expanding in the Gulf and has ambitions in China. However it is not the major bank in any significant market and may have been growing too fast for its own good. Even without off-balance-sheet vehicles, its asset base grew 24 percent to $266 billion in 2006. Like so many other financial institutions over the past five years, it may have confused rapid growth in size and profits with its own skill, rather than the era of easy money and buoyant economies.