Did SGP invested in EMRON and made BIG LOSSES ?

• Atobe

  7 Feb 03, 23:56

  It was certainly shocking to learn from Malaysia's PM Mahatir that SGP had made losses in the now defunct US Energy Company - EMRON ?
  
  If the retiree funds in the US have reported losses that run in hundreds of millions in US Dollars, how much were our losses?
  
  What has been the total overseas investment losses incurred during 2001 to 2002 ?
  
  Hopefully some SGP Parliament MPs or Back Benchers will clear this matter with the SGP Government, which clearly should respond to the allegations made by the Malaysian PM.
  
  With the slew of Government policies during 2002 to increase revenue into Government coffers, it is particularly troubling if it is meant to replenish losses incurred due to bad calls in placing our money in all the overseas financial "adventures".
  
  How many more "Micropolis" size losses do we have to suffer before lessons are learnt ?
  
  In any other corporations, the Chairman and CEO would have been asked to account for the losses and resignation would have been asked.
  
  Who will make this representation to the Government for such losses as alledged by a foreign Prime Minister?
  
  Either this foreign PM has better access to information than the Citizens of a Society where information is controlled; or the foreign Prime Minister has seriously breach diplomatic norms in insulting the SGP Government, and this matter has to be responded to.
  
  
• kanzer

  8 Feb 03, 02:06

  investments are full of risks.... risk cannot be avoided but risk can be managed...... there are no sure win investments..... what really matters is that overall the govt investments are making a positive profit over the long term. sure there will be some investments that will be money lossing.... are we going to lose hair everytime an investment goes bad? I believe that the GIC has many portfolios and each portfolios consist or many investments....... so the question should be is the govt making money overall from its overseas investments? so i would not demand answers because this issue of GLC transparency has been debated before the parliament...........
  
  by the way, if anyone knows the theory behind investments, one should be able to know that dr m knows little abt this area judging the way he phrase the sentence.....his economic intelligence should be able to tell him whether GLC is making a profit or a loss overall instead of focusing on losers........
• Gun

  8 Feb 03, 09:11

  Originally posted by Atobe:

  It was certainly shocking to learn from Malaysia's PM Mahatir that SGP had made losses in the now defunct US Energy Company - EMRON ?

  Not at all, these was a known fact back in Jun 1997 prior to
  the financial crisis. There was a join venture in China with Enron
  by SingPower. Everything was looking up and investments risk was
  dimmed low then . No one then, not even the Enron employeed
  http://www.enron.com/corp/pressroom/releases/1997/81ensing.html
  
  In fact, it was a public knowledge that Temasek Holdings and the
  rest of GLC activities involved many overseas financial
  investments which will inevitably expose one's risk enormously .
  Question is is that worth it. Why place had earned S$ and other
  vested interest into non-local enterprises ? The answer isn't simple
  but you can easy see how the GLCs are trying to expand beyond
  the regional shores from AsiaPac to Latin countries, not counting
  W Europe and N America itself considering fact that even
  ASEAN limited market capacity and regional competitors.
  
  Enron's financial bankcrupcy send a global shockwave, not just
  in the US itself. So much so then some even view the collasp
  is in spirit manner and worst then WTC tragedy.
  http://www.vishalmangalwadi.com/articles/Enron.htm
  In the real world however, Singapore has little precious edge over
  other resourceful & cheaper alternatives & her financial "fortress"
  is based on only few foundations: A large foreign reserves.
  
  And this brings me to Dr. M's latest return salvo linking Singapore
  foreign investments with bilateral issues. It is has no relevance what
  so ever! It is a clear attempt of sore-loser's desperate repute while
  trying to channel attention away from the facts relating to the water
  and PB issues. Simple .
  
  
• Atobe

  8 Feb 03, 09:14

  Investments in selected portfolios from a string of choices is akin to picking the right race horses from a stable of choice breeds.
  
  Certainly, one would pick from a winning team of reknown stable, trainer and jockey.
  
  The final risks is a calculated one, given the competition on the track, the track condition, the temperament of the horse and jockey on the challenging day itself.
  
  Investment portfolios are somewhat the same, we pick Companies based on audited accounts, Profit and Loss and Balance Sheets, Records of Past Financial Years, the Potential for Growth, the State of the Market, the State of the Economic Prospects.
  
  At least in a race, the results are quite obvious and immediately known.
  
  In a State managed and funded investment, this becomes a sensitive political issue, especially when the selected "choice horse" do not come home as a winner, but dropped dead mid-way.
  
  If one poor selection out of ten races can affect one's limited funds, how should one react, when eight out of ten races meets with similar results?
  
  How many bad investments should one tolerate, and how much should be bled before it is determined that "enough is enough"?
  
  The Japanese Management Style was once alluded to as being a Prime Example to be emulated, in that the Top Man will accept the responsibility for the failure of the Corporation.
  
  However, it looks like we follow the Japanese Management Style in areas where it is convenient, and although the Corporate Behavior is expected of other Singapore Management, it is not observed by the Singapore Government and its GLCs.