Temasek selling Merrill Lynch at a loss
-
Originally posted by O o O:
If it is coming from someone who can claim the following, I think everybody here would have to be very careful when is starts to talk about financial and economicsMaurizio economic rule no. 1 = Property price will move inline with inflation.
E.g. if you property is value is $1m and inflation is 10%, your property will worth $1.1m next year.
Maurizio finance rule no. 1 = Changing shareholders structures will reduced taxable income.
E.g. if a company taxable income is $1m, the owner give 50% of the company shares to his wife, the taxable income will become $500,000.
I thought I already answered all of that (except the tax), you suppose to call IRAS or the Big 4s to clarify. When I answered why real estate make good hedge against inflation, the response I garnered from you was,Originally posted by 0 o 0:
Property price can be affected by many factors, it includes location, supply and demand, natural disaster, economic growth and stability, government policies etc,
While inflation on the other hand can be affected by war, market liquidity, industrial cartel, currency fluctuation, interest rate, taxation etc.
By claiming that inflation is a function of property price, you are simply showing your lack on understanding in what you are talking about.
No foundation in Economics? I think you should keep this statement for yourself instead.
Your reply was equivalent to me stating, "water does not necessarily boil at 100 degrees celsius" and you saying "water as a liquid has a density of 1 ton per meter cube". Alot like me talking about the sun and you rebutting me telling me about the moon. You should also write an email to the Associate Professor Dr. Sing Tien Foo of Real Estate Studies in NUS, tell him that real estates are not good hedges against inflation. His email is [email protected].
http://www.rst.nus.edu.sg/staff/singtienfoo/cvdetails-stf.pdf
You have no foundation in Economics?
If you want to look at housing prices versus inflation, you cannot take only 1 specific year and compare, take the historical price against inflation.
In the past housing prices have been speculative in US, housing prices increase higher than the inflation rate, therefore prices of houses are extremely inflated. If you mark year to year of housing prices to inflation, at current levels the house prices are not supported, that's why prices corrected itself. But if you look at the figures provided, the growth rate of US housing prices far surpasses that of the inflation rate.
Housing prices have been growing at an annualised rate of approximately 5.7%, but has CPI (inflation) increased at 5.7% every year? (A property bought in 1975 has increased to 6 times it's value in 32 years.) Go look at the CPI change column.
If you had bought a house in 1975 and kept it till 2008, you will still have make gains against inflation. It's an effective hedge against inflation.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vodkajim/housingbubble/US%20Median%20House%20Prices.xls
Some folks still don't understand that property makes good hedges against inflation.
Despite showing him all the reports.
http://www.rst.nus.edu.sg/staff/singtienfoo/dollarDEX%20seminar%20-%203%20Aug.ppt
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Somebody needs to get some facts right first.
1) ST Telemedia overpaid for Indosat's shares, ST Telemedia overpaid by 50.58% for Indosat.
....Current Losses
1) Global Crossing
2) Shin Corp
3) Optus
4) Suzhou Industrial Project
5) Merrill Lynch(capital and dilution protections in place----no worry)
6) UBS----(lion note:loan only)
7) Citibank(lion note:loan only)
Can u guys do some home work before u post?
Temasek's investments on UBS and Citi are ,until now, loans to them.
The movement of share price are not affecting the interest to be
collected from these two giants.
Temasek have 2 to 3 years to observe and decide if Temasek
convert the bonds to shares.
2.Merrill investment is also protected by front and back---
capital protection and dilution of share protections.
Yes,share price drops half since investment.
But The loss of US$2.5 b has been compensated by Merrill!!
Further,the dilutuion in share issued at lower price than Temasek
's prices is also compensated.
Temasek:
Under this week deal of US$3.4 b,Temasek only need come out $900 million
from his pocket.The 2.5 billion is the rebate paid by Merrill to Temasek
to compensate the loss in share price for the initial $5 b investment.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=afLXSzkJAY9U&refer=home
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fdf35c0e-5d8f-11dd-8129-000077b07658.html Investment banking
Temasek ploy pays off at bank’s cost
By Sundeep Tucker
Published: July 29 200
The only way not to loss monsy is never invest,
but your purchasing power will be eaten by inflation
and exchange rate.
NO RISK.NO GAIN.
Temasek ---what a genius!!
-
lionnoisy,
You got your facts wrong again, it's not never invest, but to invest wisely taking into account the current and future economic situation.
It's even possible to make profits in a bear market if you know how to.
It's clear cut that government authorities who were never in the investing industry should never seek to make investment decisions. It's tantamount to asking a plumber to do a heart bypass surgery, doomed to failure and death.
Would you ask a plumber to do a heart bypass for you?
-
I think they managed to put a clause to protect themselves in ML.
But still they have huge losing postitions in Barings and UBS (forced conversion in 2 years time)
-
Judging from Temasek's past investments, it seems to be highly concentrated in a few sectors. Not sure how much diversification it has.
A question lingers in my mind: Has Temasek been blinded by its pursuit for fat profits (by taking large bets in few companies) at the shareholder's (SG government's) expense?
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
I thought I already answered all of that (except the tax), you suppose to call IRAS or the Big 4s to clarify. When I answered why real estate make good hedge against inflation, the response I garnered from you was,Your reply was equivalent to me stating, "water does not necessarily boil at 100 degrees celsius" and you saying "water as a liquid has a density of 1 ton per meter cube". Alot like me talking about the sun and you rebutting me telling me about the moon. You should also write an email to the Associate Professor Dr. Sing Tien Foo of Real Estate Studies in NUS, tell him that real estates are not good hedges against inflation. His email is [email protected].
http://www.rst.nus.edu.sg/staff/singtienfoo/cvdetails-stf.pdf
You have no foundation in Economics?
If you want to look at housing prices versus inflation, you cannot take only 1 specific year and compare, take the historical price against inflation.
In the past housing prices have been speculative in US, housing prices increase higher than the inflation rate, therefore prices of houses are extremely inflated. If you mark year to year of housing prices to inflation, at current levels the house prices are not supported, that's why prices corrected itself. But if you look at the figures provided, the growth rate of US housing prices far surpasses that of the inflation rate.
Housing prices have been growing at an annualised rate of approximately 5.7%, but has CPI (inflation) increased at 5.7% every year? (A property bought in 1975 has increased to 6 times it's value in 32 years.) Go look at the CPI change column.
If you had bought a house in 1975 and kept it till 2008, you will still have make gains against inflation. It's an effective hedge against inflation.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vodkajim/housingbubble/US%20Median%20House%20Prices.xls
Some folks still don't understand that property makes good hedges against inflation.
Despite showing him all the reports.
http://www.rst.nus.edu.sg/staff/singtienfoo/dollarDEX%20seminar%20-%203%20Aug.ppt
Maurizio, please take my advice and go back to school to learn about REAL economics and finance, instead of giving us all that stupid economics and finance theories which you cant back up with FACTS. I repeat YOU CANT, back up with FACTS.
Everytime when you are confronted with facts you will always end up asking me to check with this and that, e.g. IRAS, Big 4 accounting firms, and misquoting and abusing research articles to repackage your bullshit.
Like I said before, I have already lost the thrill and excitement of making a fool out of you in this forum and I am sure many other forummers who have been reading what you post will know that you are only empty vessel trying to look "statistically smart" by using all sort of distorted statistic and misquote.
Please dont shame yourself further by questioning my knowlegdge on economics, because what your wrote in this forum will speaks for itself.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
I thought I already answered all of that (except the tax), you suppose to call IRAS or the Big 4s to clarify. When I answered why real estate make good hedge against inflation, the response I garnered from you was,Your reply was equivalent to me stating, "water does not necessarily boil at 100 degrees celsius" and you saying "water as a liquid has a density of 1 ton per meter cube". Alot like me talking about the sun and you rebutting me telling me about the moon. You should also write an email to the Associate Professor Dr. Sing Tien Foo of Real Estate Studies in NUS, tell him that real estates are not good hedges against inflation. His email is [email protected].
http://www.rst.nus.edu.sg/staff/singtienfoo/cvdetails-stf.pdf
He's definitely not that smart. Saying that property price is a function of inflation (although he got confused and posted vice versa) does not equate at all to "property price depends solely on the variable inflation". This is simple secondary school maths which he seems not to understand at all, especially when he tells that property price depends on other factors. Gazelle self-pwnage once again.
It's similar to saying that it is wrong to claim that the time taken by water to boil is a function of heat supplied, because it is also dependent on factors like pressure and impurities in the water => he just don't understand what is a function.
-
Originally posted by O o O:
Maurizio, please take my advice and go back to school to learn about REAL economics and finance, instead of giving us all that stupid economics and finance theories which you cant back up with FACTS. I repeat YOU CANT, back up with FACTS.
Everytime when you are confronted with facts you will always end up asking me to check with this and that, e.g. IRAS, Big 4 accounting firms, and misquoting and abusing research articles to repackage your bullshit.
Like I said before, I have already lost the thrill and excitement of making a fool out of you in this forum and I am sure many other forummers who have been reading what you post will know that you are only empty vessel trying to look "statistically smart" by using all sort of distorted statistic and misquote.
Please dont shame yourself further by questioning my knowlegdge on economics, because what your wrote in this forum will speaks for itself.
If those links I posted aren't substantive proofs about inflation and real estate prices, then what is?
Like I said, for the tax cases, you can call or email IRAS to clarify, since you are not knowledgeable about taxes. I already told you it's possible, so has jojobeach.
I won't teach you how to do tax planning, let you pay more taxes, it helps the government and the poor ministers.
You can't dispute the tax claim because you don't have evidence to proof otherwise.
Seriously, go consult a tax accountant or IRAS to clarify. If you are not autistic like everybody here said you are, you should be able to understand.
Teaching you tax planning is akin to teaching an ass to dance, I have neither the need nor the inclination.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
If those links I posted aren't substantive proofs about inflation and real estate prices, then what is?
Like I said, for the tax cases, you can call or email IRAS to clarify, since you are not knowledgeable about taxes. I already told you it's possible, so has jojobeach.
I won't teach you how to do tax planning, let you pay more taxes, it helps the government and the poor ministers.
You can't dispute the tax claim because you don't have evidence to proof otherwise.
Seriously, go consult a tax accountant or IRAS to clarify. If you are not autistic like everybody here said you are, you should be able to understand.
Teaching you tax planning is akin to teaching an ass to dance, I have neither the need nor the inclination.
You can post whatever damn link you want, but none of them will prove your stupid theories right.
Please dont try to make yourself look good by hiding your stupid face behind a cloud of smoke (links). It doesnt work on me.
Maurizio13, stop embarrassing yourself. The only person who believe what you said is your guard DOG, call Eagle, who have been sniffing and barking harmlessly in this forum day and night
-
Originally posted by O o O:
You can post whatever damn link you want, but none of them will prove your stupid theories right.
Please dont try to make yourself look good by hiding your stupid face behind a cloud of smoke (links). It doesnt work on me.
Maurizio13, stop embarrassing yourself. The only person who believe what you said is your guard DOG, call Eagle, who have been sniffing and barking harmlessly in this forum day and night
So you don't agree with the NUS Associate Professor's findings that real estate are good inflation hedges?
-
Originally posted by eagle:
He's definitely not that smart. Saying that property price is a function of inflation (although he got confused and posted vice versa) does not equate at all to "property price depends solely on the variable inflation". This is simple secondary school maths which he seems not to understand at all, especially when he tells that property price depends on other factors. Gazelle self-pwnage once again.
It's similar to saying that it is wrong to claim that the time taken by water to boil is a function of heat supplied, because it is also dependent on factors like pressure and impurities in the water => he just don't understand what is a function.
Well....just to say that wasnt an apt analogy....A function could be a muti-variable one...so, it can have other factors as variable....just as in muti-variable calculus.
I am not taking any side.....but just to say ur analogy is slightly off....
-
hahaha......
you want to discuss maths with eagle?
good luck to you.
-
Originally posted by Mostwanted5125:
Well....just to say that wasnt an apt analogy....A function could be a muti-variable one...so, it can have other factors as variable....just as in muti-variable calculus.
I am not taking any side.....but just to say ur analogy is slightly off....
You must have misunderstood my post. In no part of my post did I mention that a function cannot be multi-variables.
In short, I'm saying that by telling us it is wrong to say A is a function of factor B just because factors C and D are involved definitely shows an insufficient understanding of functions.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
So you don't agree with the NUS Associate Professor's findings that real estate are good inflation hedges?
Maurizio, I believe I have told you many many times before that what the article said about using property as a hedge for inflation (OVER TIME) will not prove your stupid theory about property prices will automatically appreciate at the same rate as inflations.See your stupid commment below
Originally posted by maurizio13:The second element is inflation, the property you bought for $1,400,000 with an inflation of 6.7% a year, would have been priced at $1,493,800 at the end of 1 year
http://lahcc.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/317706?page=1
What this idiot was trying to tell us is, suppose 2008 inflation is 6.7%, his $1,400,000 property will worth $1,493,800 next year (1,400,000 x 1.067 = 1,483,800)
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
So you don't agree with the NUS Associate Professor's findings that real estate are good inflation hedges?
Let's see Gazelle self-pwnage again
Maurizio13, stop embarrassing yourself. The only person who believe what you said is your guard DOG, call Eagle, who have been sniffing and barking harmlessly in this forum day and night
Originally posted by O o O:
Please dont try to talk yourself up by calling other names because this sort of behavior are always linked to sore losers who are running out of facts to support his argument.I guess he just showed himself to be a sore loser.
-
Originally posted by O o O:
Maurizio, I believe I have told you many many times before that what the article said about using property as a hedge for inflation (OVER TIME) will not prove your stupid theory about property prices will automatically appreciate at the same rate as inflations.See your stupid commment below
http://lahcc.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/317706?page=1
What this idiot was trying to tell us is, suppose 2008 inflation is 6.7%, his $1,400,000 property will worth $1,493,800 next year (1,400,000 x 1.067 = 1,483,800)
Please refer to the 1st post in this page.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
You must have misunderstood my post. In no part of my post did I mention that a function cannot be multi-variables.
In short, I'm saying that by telling us it is wrong to say A is a function of factor B just because factors C and D are involved definitely shows an insufficient understanding of functions.
Well...u see a function could be explicit or implicitly dependent on certain variables. Just like the Hamitonian function in quantum mechanics, it is definitely wrong to say Hamiltonian is a function of time and stopping there. It is an incomplete portray of what Hamitlonian Function is.
Rather in advance mathematical logic, we use the word "relation" in set theory to specified the meaning.
I am not trying to say u re wrong...but it is just not precise enough at the level of post graduate.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
hahaha......
you want to discuss maths with eagle?
good luck to you.
Talking about EAGLE the DOG, I believe he fell for you stupid property-inflation theory didnt he?
Originally posted by eagle:Property goes up in price with inflation. You forgot about that.
-
In short, it means to say If a function having several factors was only said as F is a function of A and stopping there is incomplete.
And using the fact that the function have other variables to pick fault on the definition of that fuction is mathematically insufficient.
In short, both are just not stringent enough to be considered correct.
-
Originally posted by O o O:
Talking about EAGLE the DOG, I believe he fell for you stupid property-inflation theory didnt he?
AND how can eagle be a dog??? Ur definition is definitely screwed up....maybe u need a lesson in mathematic logics. MA 1100 in NUS will do u some good.
-
Originally posted by Mostwanted5125:
Well...u see a function could be explicit or implicitly dependent on certain variables. Just like the Hamitonian function in quantum mechanics, it is definitely wrong to say Hamiltonian is a function of time and stopping there. It is an incomplete portray of what Hamitlonian Function is.
Rather in advance mathematical logic, we use the word "relation" in set theory to specified the meaning.
I am not trying to say u re wrong...but it is just not precise enough at the level of post graduate.
I think you misunderstood eagle's post. -
Originally posted by Mostwanted5125:
AND how can eagle be a dog??? Ur definition is definitely screwed up....maybe u need a lesson in mathematic logics. MA 1100 in NUS will do u some good.
-
Originally posted by O o O:
COOL!!!A Gryphon!!!
Mythical Creature.
-
Originally posted by Mostwanted5125:
Well...u see a function could be explicit or implicitly dependent on certain variables. Just like the Hamitonian function in quantum mechanics, it is definitely wrong to say Hamiltonian is a function of time and stopping there. It is an incomplete portray of what Hamitlonian Function is.
Rather in advance mathematical logic, we use the word "relation" in set theory to specified the meaning.
I am not trying to say u re wrong...but it is just not precise enough at the level of post graduate.
Here, we were discussing about inflation and property price, so it is not wrong to say that property price is a function of inflation. The mathematical concept of a function is to express relationship and dependence between variables. Effectively, saying property price is a function of inflation merely means that there is a relationship and dependence between property price and inflation. It does not in any way says that it excludes other factors.
Similarly, saying that Hamiltonian function is a function of time tells there is a relationship between Hamiltonian and time. Yes, it does not portray completely what it is, but it is not wrong to say that it is a function of time because, again, the mathematical concept of a function is to express relationship and dependence between variables; there's a relationship and dependence between the two.
Let me give you a mathematical example.
We can say that y = g(x,z), and f(x) = g(x,z).
This means y = f(x)Thus, it is also not wrong to say y = f(x)
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Here, we were discussing about inflation and property price, so it is not wrong to say that property price is a function of inflation. The mathematical concept of a function is to express relationship and dependence between variables. Effectively, saying property price is a function of inflation merely means that there is a relationship and dependence between property price and inflation. It does not in any way says that it excludes other factors.
Similarly, saying that Hamiltonian function is a function of time tells there is a relationship between Hamiltonian and time. Yes, it does not portray completely what it is, but it is not wrong to say that it is a function of time because, again, the mathematical concept of a function is to express relationship and dependence between variables; there's a relationship and dependence between the two.
Let me give you a mathematical example.
We can say that y = g(x,z), and f(x) = g(x,z).
This means y = f(x)Thus, it is also not wrong to say y = f(x)
Oh dear, I did not say u are wrong but rather incomplete.
1stly, a function is sufficient condition to ensure relationship. A relation is neccesarry condition for function but not sufficient though.
So, it is really incomplete to say that a function is a function of "x" say if other variables are also of importance.
From ur post about temperature of water, pressure and stuff are equally important physical variables.
y = g(x,z), and f(x) = g(x,z).means y = f(x) is correct only if "z" is not an explicit variable or the set "x" is capable of spanning the set "z" . In short, if 2 variables are independent, then it must be explicitly stated to give the true image.
And pressure cannot be span by the basis of "heat supplied" set. That is why I say there is a need for greater clarification.
BTW, this are not of importance now...I am way digressing too much. Sorry...