-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
GIC lost 41%? Accountabiliity please!
- Thread starter Goh Meng Seng
- Start date
Our president should not be sleeping anymore. He has been sleeping soundly on his million dollars pillow. It is time he speaks up and not keeping silence.
If I need a dog to safeguard my safebox and the dog is seen sleeping everyday it is time I kicked him out and fetched a new barking dog that bites because I was aware my safebox was tampered.
If I need a dog to safeguard my safebox and the dog is seen sleeping everyday it is time I kicked him out and fetched a new barking dog that bites because I was aware my safebox was tampered.
Dear GMS
Errr if GIC was acting like a hedge fund when they made such a bet, they would have
a. leveraged on the initial bet 30 times
b. sold CDS on the debt outstanding in the banks
c. bought the debt of the banks trading below par
All they did was make an investment. Mistimed yes, turned south yes, but it comes with the territory of investing in stocks. I just had a look at the most transparent of them all ...the Norwegian Pension Fund, and their 60% portfolio will largely mirror the overall decline globally.
Was Warren Buffet making a bad bet when he invested in GE and Goldman ? IF the risk profile should be conservative as you say then the Norwegians who have dumped everything into bonds. They however have a 60% Equity Forty percent Bond split. Are u advocating a straight bond portfolio ? Do u see Berkshire shareholders calling for Warren's blood because of his bad bets or because he did not get out in time ? I am all for transparency which will further the debate and improve information for Singaporeans the ultimate shareholders.
Locke
Errr if GIC was acting like a hedge fund when they made such a bet, they would have
a. leveraged on the initial bet 30 times
b. sold CDS on the debt outstanding in the banks
c. bought the debt of the banks trading below par
All they did was make an investment. Mistimed yes, turned south yes, but it comes with the territory of investing in stocks. I just had a look at the most transparent of them all ...the Norwegian Pension Fund, and their 60% portfolio will largely mirror the overall decline globally.
Was Warren Buffet making a bad bet when he invested in GE and Goldman ? IF the risk profile should be conservative as you say then the Norwegians who have dumped everything into bonds. They however have a 60% Equity Forty percent Bond split. Are u advocating a straight bond portfolio ? Do u see Berkshire shareholders calling for Warren's blood because of his bad bets or because he did not get out in time ? I am all for transparency which will further the debate and improve information for Singaporeans the ultimate shareholders.
Locke
Dear Locke,
You are still trying to avoid my simple question. Never mind if the timing is right or wrong. Never mind if on hindsight or backside or front side the investment will make money or not. IS THE DECISION TO BET ON DYING BANKS RISKY? No answer? That does it.
Goh Meng Seng
Dear GMS
Honestly did Citigroup, Merrill or even UBS look like dying back then ? It really depends on how much one saw or forsaw the severity of the crisis one year ago. Yours is a loaded question, and if there is anything I have learnt is never answer a loaded question from a politician of any stripe but unload the question :_))
Do answer my question :_)) Would you prefer a totally bond and t bill model :_)) or is investing in equities ok for you for an SWF :_))
Locke
Honestly did Citigroup, Merrill or even UBS look like dying back then ? It really depends on how much one saw or forsaw the severity of the crisis one year ago. Yours is a loaded question, and if there is anything I have learnt is never answer a loaded question from a politician of any stripe but unload the question :_))
Do answer my question :_)) Would you prefer a totally bond and t bill model :_)) or is investing in equities ok for you for an SWF :_))
Locke
Dear Ramseth
Sigh just a sales slut and not a scholar can't qualify
Locke
Sigh just a sales slut and not a scholar can't qualify
Locke
Dear Locke,
Banks don't just get into trouble just like that. If GIC and Temasek did not take a good look at the banks accounts before they BET on them then all of us should worry. And the signs are already there. Do you think these banks will ask for such hefty investment funds if they are not in trouble AFTER the subprime has already been made known?
GIC and Temasek basically WALK IN WITH THEIR EYES OPEN and again, I have to ask you again, do you think such BETS are RISKY? HIGH RISK?
Nevermind if it turns out some of the banks go bust and have to be taken over by the respective governments. But WITH THE AVAILABLE PUBLIC INFORMATION AS WELL AS INFORMATION that are possibly available in these banks' accounts, DO YOU THINK they are RISKY BETS?
More precisely put, would a CONSERVATIVE investor invest in these entities with such information in the know?
There is no excuse for not knowing that these banks will be writting down on their assets and earnings due to losses just a few months after GIC's investment. If you say GIC won't know that they are going to write down such losses just within a few months of their intended investment, then it will not only be a problem of WRONG RISK PORTFOLIO strategy for a SWF, it would plain incompetence and negligence. It just means that they walk in with their eyes closed! Heavy write downs of losses don't just happen overnight or even a few months.
We know Warren Buffet won't and he is a medium risk taker, never mind if some of his investment went wrong but we know he will not buy something that he don't understand, that's medium-low risk profile.
If Warren Buffet, with his medium-lower risk profile, will not jump into putting such bets, do you think such BETS are high risks or not?
I would say, your apologist perspective of GIC and Temasek is really misplaced. You are not looking at them from the right perspective of being a SWF.
No doubt, SWFs do invest in equity but they would never take unnecessary high risk. Making bets on these banks at that moment with the available of public information on subprime problems, is nothing but high risk.
Goh Meng Seng
When GIC/Temasek invested in Citi, ML and UBS it was already widely know that US financials were in deep trouble. How else can a SWF come in and sapu more that 5% stake. HSBC took in a $10B loss in household into its balance sheets.
In fact at the time of the purchase there were new articles asking Buffet if he was interested. He mentioned being approached by the banks but he was not salivating (btw he started buying financial a full 12 months later and bought Goldman - bluest of the blue chip financial stock).
I think local transplanted Jim Rogers mentioned that GIC folks are "not too bright". But then that is typical Rogers.
GIC is not a hedge fund but they probably invested in hedge funds.
In fact at the time of the purchase there were new articles asking Buffet if he was interested. He mentioned being approached by the banks but he was not salivating (btw he started buying financial a full 12 months later and bought Goldman - bluest of the blue chip financial stock).
I think local transplanted Jim Rogers mentioned that GIC folks are "not too bright". But then that is typical Rogers.
GIC is not a hedge fund but they probably invested in hedge funds.
old faggot BobDog should take refuge in his mother's sarong!
unemployed parasite old fart faggot fake monk PAP dog Bob Sim Kheng Hwee,
temple thief, swindler, fraudster, cheat, con-artist, liar, hypocrite, deceiver, all rolled into one!
every time you post your pals got SMS message asking to support your thread
like that you call clones might as well you take refuge under your mother's sarong!
fucking bo lumpar coward!!!
LOL
they can multiply into clones and start a CLONES WAR. why now? it's happening here
unemployed parasite old fart faggot fake monk PAP dog Bob Sim Kheng Hwee,
temple thief, swindler, fraudster, cheat, con-artist, liar, hypocrite, deceiver, all rolled into one!
every time you post your pals got SMS message asking to support your thread
like that you call clones might as well you take refuge under your mother's sarong!
fucking bo lumpar coward!!!
LOL
Goh,
U have written a succint and accurate account of what is going on with GIC and Temasek. U have asked for transparency and accountability. I think these are rectorical things u are asking. Everyone in S`pore is running around, throwing their hands up in the air and fretting about losses in the national reserves, FT policies, cost of living, joblessness, etc. THIS IS WHAT THE PAP WANTS. As long as the masses are in distress and confused, and gutkess, they do not have to change the course of their acion. WHAT THE PAP DOES NOT WANT is 5000 people taking to the streets in peaceful protest ala Thailand, phillippines, etc. This will be a huge culture shock to them. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO GALVANISE THE PAP INTO ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY. Its very nice that u and Locke and debate this here, but what u don`t seem to know is that the time for talk has long pass. The time for action is now. Everyone, i.e. Chee, Yap, Locke, u, etc, need to use modern electronic means (texting, etc), and your respective databases, to organize a thousands strong street protest. THEY CANNOT ARREST ALL THOUSANDS OF PROTESTERS. Its a logical and physical impossibility. Make sure that its recorded and than distributed on the internet. Someone has to start the ball rolling.
Its time that the people of SIngapore woke up. THEIR COUNTRY WAS HIJACKED DECADES AGO BY THE LEES, raped, pillaged, and oppressed. Its time to take it back!!!
U have written a succint and accurate account of what is going on with GIC and Temasek. U have asked for transparency and accountability. I think these are rectorical things u are asking. Everyone in S`pore is running around, throwing their hands up in the air and fretting about losses in the national reserves, FT policies, cost of living, joblessness, etc. THIS IS WHAT THE PAP WANTS. As long as the masses are in distress and confused, and gutkess, they do not have to change the course of their acion. WHAT THE PAP DOES NOT WANT is 5000 people taking to the streets in peaceful protest ala Thailand, phillippines, etc. This will be a huge culture shock to them. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO GALVANISE THE PAP INTO ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY. Its very nice that u and Locke and debate this here, but what u don`t seem to know is that the time for talk has long pass. The time for action is now. Everyone, i.e. Chee, Yap, Locke, u, etc, need to use modern electronic means (texting, etc), and your respective databases, to organize a thousands strong street protest. THEY CANNOT ARREST ALL THOUSANDS OF PROTESTERS. Its a logical and physical impossibility. Make sure that its recorded and than distributed on the internet. Someone has to start the ball rolling.
Its time that the people of SIngapore woke up. THEIR COUNTRY WAS HIJACKED DECADES AGO BY THE LEES, raped, pillaged, and oppressed. Its time to take it back!!!
"Honestly did Citigroup, Merrill or even UBS look like dying back then ?"
Dear Locke,
The death throes may not have been evident then BUT the consensus view was that something was very different (compared to typical crisis scenarios) and that we were probably nearer the BEGINNING or MIDDLE of the unfolding crisis.
There was sound evidence that caution should have been the order of the day. What would I have done in Ng KS and Ho Ching's shoes? I would have paid attention to the fact that the largest vulture funds were staying away from what looked like the juciest morsels in decades.
In the fund mgt business, people talk about the "long term" when they screw up their timing and execution. Let's be clear that compensation in this business is very much skewed to the short end of the curve! GIC farms out about 25% of their funds to external managers (I have some first hand experience of this). During the review presentations, the GIC guys were not entertaining any of this "long term" stuff (our usual excuse for screwing up the timing)
Just my 2 cents worth
Regards
Dear Locke,
The death throes may not have been evident then BUT the consensus view was that something was very different (compared to typical crisis scenarios) and that we were probably nearer the BEGINNING or MIDDLE of the unfolding crisis.
There was sound evidence that caution should have been the order of the day. What would I have done in Ng KS and Ho Ching's shoes? I would have paid attention to the fact that the largest vulture funds were staying away from what looked like the juciest morsels in decades.
In the fund mgt business, people talk about the "long term" when they screw up their timing and execution. Let's be clear that compensation in this business is very much skewed to the short end of the curve! GIC farms out about 25% of their funds to external managers (I have some first hand experience of this). During the review presentations, the GIC guys were not entertaining any of this "long term" stuff (our usual excuse for screwing up the timing)
Just my 2 cents worth
Regards
Hi mr goh
remember me?
anyway, a 41% loss for GIC is entirely plausible in my view.
Temasek should have lost more given their risk profile. I would ignore that 31% net portfolio change figure and look out for the 2009 Temasek Review.
Just my 2 cents worth
remember me?
anyway, a 41% loss for GIC is entirely plausible in my view.
Temasek should have lost more given their risk profile. I would ignore that 31% net portfolio change figure and look out for the 2009 Temasek Review.
Just my 2 cents worth
A well-written piece indeed but be puzzled no more, Ah Meng.
Kuwait, a small but wealthy country like Singapore, had no secret about its wealth in the Arab kingdom. What'd happened? Even fellow Arab countries like Iraq eyed its wealth and could not resist looting the country on certain pretexts.
Even neighbouring ASEAN member like Indonesia couldn't resist "asking" Singapore for about US$10 billion dollars when it was in a desperate state during the currency crisis. Fortunately as member ASEAN it did not extort nor use pretexts like Saddam Hussein. CSJ got into trouble because he couldn't believe that the money did not leave Singapore.
And what about that talk about Teng Xiaoping's remark about how wealthy Singapore could "help" China with $10 per cent of its reserves when the country was much poorer than now?
It's good for others to know you have wealth, but it's a different thing to show or tell people you have wealth - or to flaunt it. You are simply inviting temptations and unwanted attention - even the PAP gahment will keep a close eye on you if you are in custody of unusual or excessive wealth. TLH's case comes in mind.
Come things are better left to others to talk about.
That's a good one - "screw up" - some men are wise with words and LKY is one of them.
When Oei Hong Leong scooped up shared at AIG and made a few millions in the process - there was no bullshitting about "long term" investment. He simply sold it and pocketed the money. Investors looking for money don't care a damn about short or "long term". They care about making money - may be government investment has to be more prudent.
Why you keep bullying my wife, Lee Hsien Loong ? I ask my lover lose all your Singapore money !
