GIC Chairman MM Lee continues his judgmental blunders
-
Singaporeans do not query their premature jumping in to acquire bank assets which have caused a big dent in our surpluses.
It is because they do not query due to many years of abuse of power of such nature that MM Lee can continue to talk like this - more acquisition to make wrong decisions in premature jumping in look better.
In the first place Warren Buffet with better judgmental faculty will never jump in to get burned for years hoping for eventual recovery.
This kind of thinking is power or rash decision making based on gut feel and the fact the surpluses are not his own monies.
A better and more mature judgmental decision is at least to wait for the dust to settle in big financial crisis to see where one can pick and choose good buy and not straightaway assume that what goes down must come up automatically.
This is MM Lee's big mistake in both Shin Corp and UBS buys and he did not even understand enough such simple investment strategy and has the cheek to ask the people to try to make a second guess or make two wrongs to have one right.
What brain or ability has he to sit as an investment guru on board of GIC with this type of bad record anyway? -
let me drop a few lines beefore the mod decides to lock it.
It had already being explained that certain issue are so complex that news worker and even MP may not even understand the policies, and you expected it to be explained?
let's move on
-
Can private sector MNCs and giant companies also follow the same 'no need to be too transparent' policy? Reason was given for no need to be too complacent. If all companies adopt the same reason,
What is Sarbanes Oxley ? How effective could it be? Does it serve its purpose?
What is Enron and Worldcom fiasco?
i no no so i asking can or nots?
-
All the judgmental rashness happens in the same pattern of sorts. No need to explain about Suzhou it is a right decision. Then Suzhou got into a bind from which he finally had to extricate with loss of face by alluding that Zuzhou district authority does not have right like JTC to sell its industrial lands or properties to any later new comers.
The same pattern has happened in Shin Corp calling it strategic long-term decision. UBS and Citibank all are strategic good long-term investments using people's hard-earned monies and not his own monies.
The plain fact is with the experiences of previous rash judgment in Shin Corp he could have waited until all dusts settle and bought UBS three months after crisis at a much lower price using the insight of people like Warren Buffet.
Now after losing so many billions of people's hard-earned monies in such a rash manner he is still not seeing his own folly and beginning to give excuses. If he had been more insightful UBS would be indeed a good long-term buy but not the purchase he had made which is rash.
We will continue to hear excuses after excuses something like the US Sub-prime is something beyond the expectations of anyone ...
-
...thot we were alreadi brainwashed to think it's ok to lose or kapo a few million. they said must think big picture...of the billion earned for the country
*counting the precious 200 buck i jus withdrawn from atm* -
MM said that GIC (or "we are") long term investors (10-30 year span) while Warren Buffet has shareholders to answer to (so a short term of 1-2 years)
Actually aren't we the citizens of Singapore, who provide tax revenues that serve as the fund for GIC kinda like shareholders to GIC?
As a shareholder, I would like to see returns within my life span too... I guess I can still see the returns if it comes after 30 years; but how abt the older folks? do they have 30 years to wait? Also, how about the time value of money? A quick return of 5% now is better than a 20% return in 30 years, assuming inflation and interest rates constant.
-
Long term investing means if anything screws up during that 1, 5, 10 year period, you can still use "long term investing" as an excuse to hold on to losing investments.
Plus, who will be around to explain the losses after 30 years?
They have already .... moved on.
-
I am waiting for Lee Kuan Yew to die.
Hope he doesn't disappoint me.
-
GIC's record of investing is nothing to boast about. Any Tom Dick and Harry in the street can beat GIC performance easily with an index fund.Its not like if we let GIC be less transparent, they can be like berkshire hathaway. (Ironically berkshire hathaway is a transparent public company)
If GIC has a record of producing stellar returns, maybe his words has some weight.
LKY has no authority in investment unlike Warren Buffet or Jim Rogers and now the banking investments are in deep red, he shoudnt talk big about making many folds on investments .
-
I think Lee Kuan Yew should shut his fucking mouth.
People public holiday happy happy, suddenly Lee Kuan Yew open his fucking mouth, people hear also du lan.
Fuck off lah Lee Kuan Yew.
Go and die.
-
Long term investing means if anything screws up during that 1, 5, 10 year period, you can still use "long term investing" as an excuse to hold on to losing investments.
My friend who lost quite a lot investing in the penny stocks is now a long term investor too..
She cant bear to sell at such a huge loss... -
Originally posted by kilua:
Long term investing means if anything screws up during that 1, 5, 10 year period, you can still use "long term investing" as an excuse to hold on to losing investments.
My friend who lost quite a lot investing in the penny stocks is now a long term investor too..
She cant bear to sell at such a huge loss...
hehehe....my friend who lost lots of money during 1997, also became a long term investor.
the thing is, if a financial savy person has all the market information, would hold off purchases until the market takes a dip.
like the recent dip in Merril Lynch when it fell to USD38, instead of paying USD48 (discounted) for it in December 2007.
-
it is not the best time yet...
But it can be said that GIC invested because they want to keep the bank alive.... maybe we could see it as a lifeline for the bank... Those small time investors do not have the sufficient financial muscle to be a lifeline to the bank at all
-
Simple reason.
If you park all your bones in a store room, you die die have to keep the store room alive.
If you have elected a arny retired guard dog with no investment experience and business mind, what kind of investment foresight are you talking about ? Buy and Hold ?
The old man is just eroding his reputation in practising nepotism within his own family and trying to cover a very obvious loss with a bigger lie of cannot be transparent and LONG term investment.
Not forgetting that all this while, he using the peasants money for all his blunders.
-
Why can't he just die, that Lee Kuan Yew?
Just die lah.
Die Die Die.
Lee Kuan Yew just Die Die Die.
-
I dont understand - longer term why dont just buy over UBS and etc. and merge with DBS. Isnt that the goal or No Enough Money at the moment?
-
MM Lee might be the founding father of Singapore, but surely as founding father he should still practise full accountability for whatever over-zealous rash acts of throwing people's monies at UBS and all by his top guys as founding father of true greatness often would hold himself responsible.
He should not push such major loss or mistakes in premature rash buy-out of UBS or Citibank of which he is the advisor to his top guys because top guys were often influenced by his policies as well and as such are only doing his bidding.
If he is a great man as he is going all out in promoting of himself everywhere he goes it is time for him to prove his true greatness by accepting responsibility for such rashness and not claim some imaginary greatness.
<!--
if ( navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase().indexOf('mozilla') != -1 && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('5.') == -1 && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('6.') == -1 )
document.write(' ');
else
document.write('</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td valign="top" nowrap="nowrap"><div style="position:relative"><div style="position:absolute"></div><div style="position:absolute;left:3px;top:-1px"></div></div>');
//-->
-
Originally posted by robertteh:
MM Lee might be the founding father of Singapore, but surely as founding father he should still practise full accountability for whatever over-zealous rash acts of throwing people's monies at UBS and all by his top guys as founding father of true greatness often would hold himself responsible.
He should not push such major loss or mistakes in premature rash buy-out of UBS or Citibank of which he is the advisor to his top guys because top guys were often influenced by his policies as well and as such are only doing his bidding.
If he is a great man as he is going all out in promoting of himself everywhere he goes it is time for him to prove his true greatness by accepting responsibility for such rashness and not claim some imaginary greatness. Back to top Sir Stamford Raffles was born earlier and founded Temasek.
-
If USD goes even more cheap, what happens to investments?
-
Hey....dont go overboard please...
robertteh, you are losing more and more of your sight. Your argument is just mish-mashing and lumping everything together. Just because you have a dislike towards LKY, which I agree is rather authoritarian, but it doesnt mean it is relevant or logical to turn this critisism into the GIC performance.
First of all, GIC performace is not bad.
Not bad at all.
Didnt u all remember some time ago, the performance was made public? Performance of the past 25 years. I remember it was pretty good.
Some people here said its not much better than index.
But, a time period spanning 25 years, a quarter of century, of course it is not odd that it follows the index. The index IS the market. Do you wish to see a government investment arm choosing risky investment with the aim to beat the market aggressively, something like hedge funds..? Dont forget government authority has a serious responsibility, and cannot be expected to operate like private money managers, many of whom, by the way, cannot beat the index, especially in the long term, 25 years.
So that is one.
Secondly and most importantly, I dont understand how you can quote some cases of underperforming investments and assign the blame to LKY.
Who is LKY...? Do you really believe he spent his time assessing those investments and made the decisions..?
Even a layman like me can guess, that kind of work is done by the middle managers and upper managers. At most LKY is given a briefing and asked for approval. Or maybe not. At most LKY is giving his direction. Actually what is his position..? If Im not wrong he is the chairman. Chairman, 80+ years oldman, in an investment firm. He is just like an honorary person. Do you seriously believe it is logical to quote these cases to assign blame to LKY? Do you think a big firm like GIC works based on individual decision making, by a LKY, or by collective decision making..?
So I guess, you are just making something out of nothing. Or maybe mixing too much ingredients into your soup, that u confuse urself, cannot differentiate anything anymore, whether your argument actually has any logic or merit in it.
Meat Pao.
-
Originally posted by Meat Pao:
Hey....dont go overboard please...
robertteh, you are losing more and more of your sight. Your argument is just mish-mashing and lumping everything together. Just because you have a dislike towards LKY, which I agree is rather authoritarian, but it doesnt mean it is relevant or logical to turn this critisism into the GIC performance.
First of all, GIC performace is not bad.
Not bad at all.
Didnt u all remember some time ago, the performance was made public? Performance of the past 25 years. I remember it was pretty good.
Some people here said its not much better than index.
But, a time period spanning 25 years, a quarter of century, of course it is not odd that it follows the index. The index IS the market. Do you wish to see a government investment arm choosing risky investment with the aim to beat the market aggressively, something like hedge funds..? Dont forget government authority has a serious responsibility, and cannot be expected to operate like private money managers, many of whom, by the way, cannot beat the index, especially in the long term, 25 years.
So that is one.
Secondly and most importantly, I dont understand how you can quote some cases of underperforming investments and assign the blame to LKY.
Who is LKY...? Do you really believe he spent his time assessing those investments and made the decisions..?
Even a layman like me can guess, that kind of work is done by the middle managers and upper managers. At most LKY is given a briefing and asked for approval. Or maybe not. At most LKY is giving his direction. Actually what is his position..? If Im not wrong he is the chairman. Chairman, 80+ years oldman, in an investment firm. He is just like an honorary person. Do you seriously believe it is logical to quote these cases to assign blame to LKY? Do you think a big firm like GIC works based on individual decision making, by a LKY, or by collective decision making..?
So I guess, you are just making something out of nothing. Or maybe mixing too much ingredients into your soup, that u confuse urself, cannot differentiate anything anymore, whether your argument actually has any logic or merit in it.
Meat Pao.
Surely, you do not believe that a decision to invest US$10 Billion is left to upper and middle managers only ?
Do you believe that an investment of US$10 Billion do not involved any final say from MM LKY and perhaps involving the advise and nod from fellow Board of Directors - all handpicked and received the nod from MM himself, which include Dr Tony Tan.
From past release of statements made by the other Founding Fathers who were Ministers in LKY's cabinet - LKY will often debate his ideas with his trusted ministers that included DPM Toh Chin Chye, Finance Minister Dr Goh Keng Swee, Foreign Minister Rajaratnam, and later this inner circle include Hon Sui Sen,
For the last 50 years, the final say rest with LKY.
Even when he is now an MM, his blessing was needed before PM LHL could announce that Singapore will have two Integrated Resort facilities - and this hard rule of not having any dealings with casino operation for the last 50 years was finally broken.
MM LKY not involved ?
He even claimed that from his grave, he will even rise up to settle any deals that he felt was wrong.
With all these wrong dealing that come nto place one after another for the last ten years, he will surely have to answer to all the others who will rise up from their graves.
-
He even claimed that from his grave, he will even rise up to settle any deals that he felt was wrong.
Hahahaha
-
Ex-citigroup CEO Charles Prince brought in MM LKY as special advisor to Citigroup but what happened?
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
Ex-citigroup CEO Charles Prince brought in MM LKY as special advisor to Citigroup but what happened?
how many years already he engaged by them? -
I disagree.
For instance maybe we can compare to something similar, a big company:
Microsoft.
Bill Gates now has become a chairman. What does he do? Shake leg, sing song, appear at media events. Actually now he spend more time doing something else, charity.
Microsoft is a very big organization, and not directed or decided by Bill Gates alone. Do you agreee with me?
Recently Microsoft made a bid to Yahoo.
It is a collective decision making, and whether the bid goes through or not, and whether it will be sucessful or not in terms of business strategy, it is not a blame or a glory attributable to a single person, named Bill Gates. It is an organizational decision.
This is what I dont like when I read these kind of exaggerated claims, LKY is at fault for Shin Corp etc.
Firstly, organizational decision doesnt mean u can pinpoint the fault to the chairman.
Secondly, actually in balance, the performance is not bad, which means, if u want to pinpoint blame, where are your other fingers pointing praise for the past successes?
Personally for me, just as I dont believe LKY is at fault for Shin Corp, Shenzen etc, I also dont believe LKY is a hero for the past GIC successes.
And that is why I say, the robertteh's argument is abit like mixing too much ingredients in a soup that he confuse himself.
Unless if he bring forward a concrete example of LKY individual wrongdoing, for instance that LKY has shown a 'lone ranger' judgement and veto-ed his whole board, or his managers recommendations. Then in that case we can logically say, LKY, yes, individually he is at fault and has shown 'judgemental blunders' against the collective wisdom.
In absence of such thing, then Im afraid robertteh viewpoint does not carry much validity.
Meat Pao.