Temasek Holding and GLCs - from Left Pocket to Right
-
Hi Atobe,
Keep up e gd work... Tks for e info.... Have read sum of ur posts and feel e same sentiments. Need not mind those argumentative replies aimed at nothing...To me they might be from pap ass lickers... Even if they are not, the posts from em warrants no attention as they dun exibit any significant level of EQ to make our attention worthwhile. Let em do all e chicken or duck running to add abit of comical drama to ur posts (But of cos we all know they are jus nonsensical opposition
). -
Psssssst. The secret is out. Atobe and scorps125 were in the same ward when they were in IMH. There is unconfirmed rumours that Idwar is in the same ward too.....
-
Forgot to add. JusticeLegal has only been discharge recently.
-
Originally posted by paperchicken:
Psssssst.....
Psssssst. The secret is out. Atobe and scorps125 were in the same ward when they were in IMH. There is unconfirmed rumours that Idwar is in the same ward too.....
'paperchicken' was supposed to have been gassed and somehow managed to escape from one of the plastic bags that were used in the culling of all the chicken farms.
This must be the cause of his unhealthy attitude towards Humans, who are able to bring sense and logic to current issues, and his deep psychological fantasy with being the feathery kind - chickens and ducks.
Now I wonder who is a mental nut ?
Must be the gas used in the culling that affected the "Bird Brain".
Or is it simply the "Bird Flu" ? -
Only one of them is. I think Neo has given a clear explanation of the share buy-back.Originally posted by raihanraihan:Hi Neo & Atobe
The 2 of you seem rather well versed with corporate businesses! A version I heard was that Temasek was trying to churn the market for the benefit of LHL's ascension. What do you think?
regards
raihan -
Dear Neo,
I am not convinced by your analysis.
Temasek will not buy back shares if there is nothing in for them.
As Atobe has rightly pointed out, there is always a catch in such buy back; the retail shareholders could have benefited more if they hold on to their shares instead of selling them back to Temesek.
However, you are right about business intelligence. Temasek, being the largest shareholders of almost all GLCs and with its links to the govt, has more information than the normal shareholders on the street. The case study of Keppel Shipyard is one prominent case whereby unleveled playing ground has provided Temasek the edge of making more money. If the plans of turning Keppel into a property developer has been disclosed prior to the buy back, do you think Temasek could have bought back the shares at that price?
Basically, you do not need to own 100% of a company to control the company to fight off any adverse foreign competition. Temasek's buying back of local GLCs' shares is anything but "strategic".
But I do agree with you that buying foreign companies may prove strategically sound; the only problem is, AT WHAT PRICE? Most of the time, Temasek, through its control of GLCs, have overpaid for foreign companies; Optus is one fine example. Bad investment in Global Crossing is another example.
Whether the cost justify the amount of business intelligence gathered is something that we could not possibly evaluate without insider information.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by [ Neo ]:Technically speaking, the buying back of shares could be a part of an expansion strategy. I mean companies will naturally seek to first increase on their degree of influence and control over any entity that has a vital role to play in some grand plan.
The policy of GLC privatization may have announced, but having played the role of the ‘Guiding Hand’ in these companies for so many year, divesture moves would also have vital concerns e.g the competence, track record and ability of a potential new buying company to safely maintain and ensure on the continuous going on concern of a Temasek sell off company.
If privatization has to be made at the expense of the management incompetence by a new buying company just for the surface meeting of the privatization objective, then I would rather see Temasek to continue holding on to all of its current portfolio than to hear news of further retrenchment exercise or layoffs - resultant from declining business or bad management though I would personally also hope to see more privatization cases to go on.
And if it is any consolation to us, at least we have seen the sell off of at least one company, CIAS, by the holding company this year.
Back to the recent purchase made by Temasek, most of these targets were actually aimed at corporations which have already had plans mapped out for business growth in promising industries overseas.
If Temasek’s recent increased involvement in these purchases could provide a helping hand be it – business intelligence sharing, corporate expertise or resource sharing, all leading to the creation of more jobs for the local scene, then why not support this move?
As for the disclosure of financial statements and performance, that I guess we may only be able to make assessment upon only after we have seen what has been made know to public when the annual reports have been published. -
No prob. Differences in opinions arise when people talk about issues.Originally posted by Atobe:
[Neo] many thanks for your keeness in this topic, and the points raised in Temasek's agenda. Somehow, it seems a very heavy price to pay, simply to garner information, or gain an insight to the plans of foreign government, or for that matter to invest in foreign countries with the long term view of getting some companies to relocate into Singapore - and hence, creating jobs in Singapore.
As much as these COULD POSSIBLY be the objectives of Temasek Holding, it is unfortunate that my cynical nose smell something deeper in the manner that Temasek has thrusted its investment overseas.
For a different angle to reading Temasek's methods, perhaps this article may help this discussion further.
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/021107at.htm
I'm perfectly comfortable with that. -
Dear Meng Seng,Originally posted by goh meng seng:Dear Neo,
I am not convinced by your analysis.
Temasek will not buy back shares if there is nothing in for them. As Atobe has rightly pointed out, there is always a catch in such buy back; the retail shareholders could have benefited more if they hold on to their shares instead of selling them back to Temesek.
However, you are right about business intelligence. Temasek, being the largest shareholders of almost all GLCs and with its links to the govt, has more information than the normal shareholders on the street. The case study of Keppel Shipyard is one prominent case whereby unleveled playing ground has provided Temasek the edge of making more money. If the plans of turning Keppel into a property developer has been disclosed prior to the buy back, do you think Temasek could have bought back the shares at that price?
Basically, you do not need to own 100% of a company to control the company to fight off any adverse foreign competition. Temasek's buying back of local GLCs' shares is anything but "strategic".
But I do agree with you that buying foreign companies may prove strategically sound; the only problem is, AT WHAT PRICE? Most of the time, Temasek, through its control of GLCs, have overpaid for foreign companies; Optus is one fine example. Bad investment in Global Crossing is another example.
Whether the cost justify the amount of business intelligence gathered is something that we could not possibly evaluate without insider information.
Goh Meng Seng
It doesnÂ’t matter if opinions differ here. What we need is diversity and not blind convergence of views in here.
However given a chance, I would still like to communicate on the angle from which I interpret this issue.
In your first opening words, ‘Temasek will not buy back shares if there is nothing in for them’.
As the investment wing of the Singapore Government, it is only normal and proper for Temasek to operate in such manner. In fact, for any private business organization, everyone in their right mind WOULD be working hard along the line of profit and shareholder maximization.
When we look at your statement, we hence see a politically accurate answer which addresses the share buy-back phenomena as what is really the most logical and natural action any private business would take.
The contradiction for Temasek’s case however, would lie in the fact that although the corporation has been established and functioning in large as a business entity, Temasek Holding irregardless of any restructuring, name changing or even management successions, CAN never run from its other equally important objective – and that is to spearhead, introduce international standards of industries and eventually nurture local enterprises to a relatively acceptable standard for independent venturing out into the global economic arena.
Buy purchasing back the shares, Temasek would certainly have gained a great deal since they would have gotten a great deal ‘in for them’.
However, the interesting and debatable point to note in this instance would be to attempt and identify what the organization would deem to be a better deal ‘in for them’.
Having to gain from the rise of shares purchased back from shareholders would be a great deal.
So would gaining greater influential and control over a group of highly efficient GLCs whom had been honed into regional able competing winners – among the SE region at least.
Now if I belong to the top echelon in the Temasek management, I would certainly find the having of greater influential powers and control over GLCs a far sweeter deal than a mere gain of a one-time extraordinary gain from share prices.
If I wanted short-term gains, I could have jolly well go on a shopping binge and get myself a significant say on the possible use an even greater amount of funds sitting there in a bankÂ’s safe. Or even better, I could even go on a raiding spree on former SESDAX category companies and trade their shares down right flat.
These would be ‘logical’ and ‘natural’ if Temasek is purely motivated like a true blue business entity and its behavior following a full private sector practice.
Due to the tied in economic, governmental as well as social concerns affiliated with Temasek, any decision makers would have to place their priorities in the achieving of objectives which would certainly have to go great miles further apart from mere short-term and one-time wins.
Hence this is why I would tend to believe more in the notion that the buy-back is motivated by a greater strategic framework – aimed at possible near-to-intermediate frame aggressive regional expansion.
The participant in the Expansion Plan that I have mentioned need not have to be just Temasek alone. Prehaps somewhere along the line, the company had spotted opportunities that it thought some of our little own homegrown squad of independently able GLCs would be able to benefit from too, from whatever their game plan may be. -
while u'll ppl still fighting in this thread.........Temasek already gains control of more than 50% of NOL today liao..
-
Dun worry. We're just sharing opinions. I dun reckon anyone in this thread has plans for a Temasek fan club just yet.Originally posted by paperduck:while u'll ppl still fighting in this thread.........Temasek already gains control of more than 50% of NOL today liao.. -
the two company i respect in singapore is temasek and CREATIVE.Originally posted by [ Neo ]:Dun worry. We're just sharing opinions. I dun reckon anyone in this thread has plans for a Temasek fan club just yet.
dont ask me why?i just feel they are so cool . -
Originally posted by paperduck:
What is so cool in comparing two widely divergent companies ?
the two company i respect in singapore is temasek and CREATIVE.
dont ask me why?i just feel they are so cool .
TEMASEK is the creation from Public Money, and its leadership are not entrepreneurs but mere technocrats assigned to manage the Company, with the powers of Government backing to smoothen their path in clearing all administrative and bureaucratic obstructions.
CREATIVE is the creation of PRIVATE EFFORT from private individuals, who dare to put their own money where their belief lies, and take risks into an unknown future, and depending on their own HUMAN INGENUITY to overcome and circumvent all administrative and bureaucratic obstructions.
You must find some better place to cool off your "feather weight" mind before worsening your attempt at belittling PRIVATE ENTERPRISE with such feather weight comparisons.