Temasek made only 3% for 10 years.
-
Finally, Temasek Holdings reveals the figures. The first time .
Straits Times, as usual, was quick to praise Temasek Holdings 'achievements' . This followed news about Temasek closing down Singapore Technologies Pte Ltd. All ST companies will be taken over by Tamasek.
Foreign financial experts however contradicts Straits Times celebrity comments about Temasek earnings -
"The foreign press took a different tack. The UK's Financial Times looked at Temasek's 10-year annual average shareholders' return of 3 per cent and described it as 'poor'. A South China Morning Post commentary, looking at the same number, said Temasek would have made more simply by investing in US treasury bonds..." (quote)
I wonder how GIC (Government Investment Co) is performing with our CPF money? Is it loosing or making money? -
Which is why my first reaction is to go to their website and take a look at the report myself. You can retrieve the report at
http://www.temasek.com.sg/2004review/AR_Secured.pdf
ST obviously reported in a bias manner on this.
-
aiyoh! i looked at the report quickly. i looked at the graph on page 9 of acrobat which appear....miong chose to highlight the worst stat which he probably copy from ST anyway:
10 year returns = 3%
BUT
30 year returns= 18%
5 year return = 6%
3 year return =4%
2 year return =8%
and 1 year return = 46%!
how come miong chooose to point out worst stat...but neber the other better stats leh?
oso the explanations for not so good performance after 8 years of financial crisis, sars, iraq war, poor economy quite true what. people in singapore oso experience it! -
Originally posted by miong:
Where did you get this quote from? Which press? Do you have a link?
Foreign financial experts however contradicts Straits Times celebrity comments about Temasek earnings -
"The foreign press took a different tack. The UK's Financial Times looked at Temasek's 10-year annual average shareholders' [b]return of 3 per cent and described it as 'poor'. A South China Morning Post commentary, looking at the same number, said Temasek would have made more simply by investing in US treasury bonds..." (quote)
[/b] -
Quote from http://www.temasek.com.sg/2004review/AR_Secured.pdf page 9 line 8, "Over the last ten years, shareholder's return average 3% per annum."
-
Dear SilverKris,Originally posted by SilverKris:aiyoh! i looked at the report quickly. i looked at the graph on page 9 of acrobat which appear....miong chose to highlight the worst stat which he probably copy from ST anyway:
10 year returns = 3%
BUT
30 year returns= 18%
5 year return = 6%
3 year return =4%
2 year return =8%
and 1 year return = 46%!
how come miong chooose to point out worst stat...but neber the other better stats leh?
oso the explanations for not so good performance after 8 years of financial crisis, sars, iraq war, poor economy quite true what. people in singapore oso experience it!
I think you do not see the point!
In fact, Temasek holding is LEAST affected by the financial crisis, sars, iraq war and poor economy!
Most of the above happens for the last few years! Ok, let's see, last year got SARS but it has 46% return! Why? Basically, they just keep selling off assets and that is why they got so much revenue and profits! This is not "SUSTAINABLE" at all!
911 happens in 2001, 3 years ago. But it still got 4% return. 5 years back, 1998-1999, that's the worst hit of economic down turn but they have even higher return of 6%!
Now, what does that mean? 1997 is such a bad year that would pull Temasek down so much? 1993 to 1996 are supposed to be the BOOM years!
I hope you get the picture now.
Goh Meng Seng -
duplicate
-
The Business Times (Oct 15 2004)
"The critics are right to point out that a 3% annual return over 10 years is hardly good enough for a commercial asset manager of Temasek' standing,
The Fortune 500 list of the biggest companies in the US showed corporate giants in the country had a median 10-year total shareholders' return of 10.5 per cent a year....." (Quote)
I am unconcerned about Temasek, after all we have no share in it, more worried about our CPF money that Government is holding for us. -
Well, this is why we need to read more widely. Both reports the truth - half-truths. And the best information is always to get it from the source rather than read up commentaries. Commentaries tend to start with a bias objectives. So, they will only quote figures which favors their arguments.Originally posted by SilverKris:aiyoh! i looked at the report quickly. i looked at the graph on page 9 of acrobat which appear....miong chose to highlight the worst stat which he probably copy from ST anyway:
10 year returns = 3%
BUT
30 year returns= 18%
5 year return = 6%
3 year return =4%
2 year return =8%
and 1 year return = 46%!
how come miong chooose to point out worst stat...but neber the other better stats leh?
oso the explanations for not so good performance after 8 years of financial crisis, sars, iraq war, poor economy quite true what. people in singapore oso experience it!
So, both reports are bias. And I can see why. ST wants to put Temasek in good light, while external reports tends to criticised other economies while boasting how good their own economy are.
Lesson again is to read more widely and never trust information from only one source. I would even doubt the source if necessary when I see reason for them to have an agenda of their own. -
TO goh meng seng
aiyer!! why u keep winking at me after every sentence.....! like u have ulterior motive or intention...give me goosepimples.
i dun know how much of an impact global events have affected temasek, but what i know is that no company in this world which invests globally can shield itself from global events...and temasek has more than 50% of its investments abroad.
report oso say they liberalised many sectors, property prices globally fell, global economy bad oso....surely these affect them too? dont understand why u say they not affected..
even locally when they have investments here, poor local economy affect them wat. like sars so no tourists..they have stake in sia, so sia affected due to sars, they affected too. common sense right?
besides, those ratings agencies standard and poor/moodys oso give it aaa/AAA wat....less than 10 companies in the entire world got such rating.
and your method of equating returns every 3 or 5 years based on what events happened on a particular year oso not correct wat...some effects take few years to affect investments fully.
besides hor, investments already show positive returns...not negative. how much more positive u want before u happy? 20% every year for the next 10 years meh? got earn money laugh oready...wah! still complain not enough!
ok lah...going back to books now. -
Dear SilverKris,
It would mean that either in 1997 financial crisis alone, Temasek would have lost Billions, maybe at least $7 billion dollars or more, depending on whether the performance prior to 1997 is bad or good.
Goh Meng Seng -
Hi miong
Do you have the link to South China Morning Post? Would appreciate if you could provide. Thanks
raihan -
Dear SilverKris,
TO goh meng seng
It would mean that either in 1997 financial crisis alone, Temasek would have lost Billions, maybe at least $7 billion dollars or more, depending on whether the performance prior to 1997 is bad or good.
Goh Meng Seng
I oso dunno why u picked out 1997 for particular mentionÂ…or how u reached the figure of $7 billion. And even then, u indicated in your words u donÂ’t really know, and arent sure of those numbers osoÂ…Â….so really just guessing rite, or to put it nicely, educated guess, since u have econs degree.
As for profits and losses:
i havent looked at the entire report. but from page 46 onwards of my acrobat reader are details of each listed company's performanceÂ…..and there are a lot of them! as i scroll through, there are details of profits and losses for particular years. If u really interested to know, read and calculate lor..Â…..
frankly i think when doing business and making investments, there will be times when profits are made, and times when losses are made. that is the nature/risks of business and investments...cannot expect every year more and more money made, and the profit graph only going up, but never down.
world economy changes, industries oso change, property prices can oso go up or down, demand for particular goods/services can oso go up or down..... as the report indicates, even in the same year, some temasek companies made money, some lost moneyÂ…..depends on which industry and industry conditions then.
Besides hor, my sister reading news reports oso said temasek has national goalsÂ….they do not operate just based on purely commercial goals. So temsek may invest in say some high tech manufacturing company even though it may not always offer the best returnsÂ…..just so that singapore can gain a foothold in that industry in the future.
when losses made, people shouldnt scream and accuse the company of being evil lah, cheating money lah, losing taxpayer's money lahÂ…...all that very unreasonable rite. wah! and when people STILL complain when profits made.....i dunno wat to say.
no businessman even if he just owns a provision shop can guarantee business will always be good and NEVER bad. always risks involved..Â….
even calculated risks are not 100% guaranteed or accurate.
and bottomline: they still make profits in last ten years!....people only disagree only whether MORE profits could have been made.
Ok dinner time lor!!! -
I would encourage all to read the report yourself before making conclusions. There is a lot of information in there and I am trying very hard to digest the information now.
The information within includes the breakdown of the investment by industry and Country.
Also, it seems everyone choose to quote the Total shareholder's return (TSR) by market value instead of TSR by shareholder fund. The former seems to be a bad measurement to me since it depends on how the stock market is doing at that time. This could also explain why the 10 years comparison is low since it is compared to a good year in stock exchange. The latter is more stable since it depends on the actual performance in those invested companies.
TSR by Market Value (I.e. X year Versus Y year market value)
30 years - 18%
10 years - 3%
5 years - 6%
3 years - 4%
2 years - 8%
1 year - 47%
TSR by shareholder fund (I.e. X year total asset Versus Y year total asset)
30 years - 16%
10 years - 10%
5 years - 9%
3 years - 8%
2 years - 8%
1 year - 15%
Still reading. So, that is all I can see so far. Will read more before giving further reports. Your local non-expert, trying very hard to understand the figures reporting here.
If any of my understanding is wrong, feel free to correct. -
Simple logic: They sold NOL shares at $0.90+ now buy back at $2.80, what rational is that?[/list]
-
They sold for 90 cents ?>?? When!!!?? Last time the share got drop to 65 cents, I tell my ah mah and lau bu to quickly buy buy!! now we make handsome profit!!Originally posted by sbst275:Simple logic: They sold NOL shares at $0.90+ now buy back at $2.80, what rational is that?[/list]
-
Bef the share plunged further to 60+ centsOriginally posted by shade343:They sold for 90 cents ?>?? When!!!?? Last time the share got drop to 65 cents, I tell my ah mah and lau bu to quickly buy buy!! now we make handsome profit!! -
Hi raihanraihan
Unfortunately, you have to subscribe to South China Post to access their archives.
rgds