Not realistic for GIC to avoid losses

[makapaaa]

<TABLE id=msgUN border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>

Coffeeshop Chit Chat - Not realistic for GIC to avoid losses</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right>

Subscribe </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead vAlign=top><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>Guestman551 <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>12:51 am </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 20) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>29880.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>Lim Hwee Hwa said that GIC takes it "very seriously" everytime there is a decline in the value of its portfolio or an individual investment. But it is "not realistic" to avoid losses on every investment as that would require GIC to be completely risk-averse. Responding to MP Ho Geok Choo's request in Parliament for an update on GIC's investments, Lim said that while GIC had made losses on some investments, it had made gains on others.
GIC's portfolio slumped 20 per cent in the financial year ended March last year, but it said in September that it had recovered more than half of thoses losses.
Mrs Lim reiterated that that the Government will not judge GIC's performance by individual deals but rather on how well its overall portfolio has done across market cycles. She said that both GIC and Temasek Holdings have so far delivered creditable returns on their portfolios over the long term as well as during the six-year cycle between March 2003 and March last year - that is, from the trough of the dot.com bust to the trough of the credit crisis.
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%"> </TD><TD class=msgopt width="24%" noWrap> Options</TD><TD class=msgrde width="50%" noWrap align=middle> Reply</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[makapaaa]

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>The key question is why could those obvious losses not been avoided? And how have Sporns benefitted from any gain if any?</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead vAlign=top><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>Kiasu Seng (TanKimSeng) <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>1:08 am </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>Guestman551 <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (2 of 20) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>29880.2 in reply to 29880.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>Its true that its unrealistic for GIC to avoid losses.
But then its is highly abnormal and out of line that leaders of big companies can stay in power after making huge losses.
Losses made by Temasek and GIC are in the billions.... the leaders however remain unrepentant, unapologetic and are still hanging on to their positions.
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%"> </TD><TD class=msgopt width="24%" noWrap> Options</TD><TD class=msgrde width="50%" noWrap align=middle> Reply</TD><TD class=wintiny width="25%" noWrap align=right> </TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgbfrbot> </TD><TD colSpan=3> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[makapaaa]

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"></TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead vAlign=top><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>dragonclaws2 <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>1:40 am </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>Guestman551 <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right>(3 of 20) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"></TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>29880.3 in reply to 29880.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>>>>>>But it is "not realistic" to avoid losses on every investment as that would require GIC to be completely risk-averse<<<<
Is she saying that losing billions after billions is the realistic modus operandi?
Silly woman! the plebians are not SO STUPID As to expect windfall profits with every investment hor! For God Sakes don't purposefully misinteprete hor!
It's the quantum and absolute consistent losses over a period of critical timing when GIC saw it fit to still race into the burning bush when and where both angels and devils feared to tread!
Oh and by the way it's not only about GIC it about all the other GLcs too!

<HR SIZE=1>Edited 3/10/2010 4:41 am ET by dragonclaws2</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%"></TD><TD class=msgopt width="24%" noWrap> Options</TD><TD class=msgrde width="50%" noWrap align=middle>Reply</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead vAlign=top><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>AAAAAA50 <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>1:54 am </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>Guestman551 <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (5 of 20) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>29880.5 in reply to 29880.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>Well, well, well
Did any of the mighty PAP ministers and MPs raised this possibility of GIC and Temasek LOSING MONEY when they approved in parliament to transfer our Singapore Reserves to them?
Did ANY of THEM?
Did ANY of THEM informed Singaporeans of the RISKS and gain their approval for doing so?
Did ANY of THEM?
No.
They went ahead WITHOUT the approval nor referendum of the people and now they have the cheek to say the losses are "UNAVOIDABLE"?
This is the sort of "Credibility", "Responsibility" and "Good Governance" PAP stands for.
Vote for PAP!
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%"> </TD><TD class=msgopt width="24%" noWrap> Options</TD><TD class=msgrde width="50%" noWrap align=middle> Reply</TD><TD class=wintiny width="25%" noWrap align=right> </TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgbfrbot> </TD><TD colSpan=3> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[DrPanacea]

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"></TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead vAlign=top><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>dragonclaws2 <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>1:40 am </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>Guestman551 <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right>(3 of 20) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"></TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>29880.3 in reply to 29880.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>>>>>>But it is "not realistic" to avoid losses on every investment as that would require GIC to be completely risk-averse<<<<
Is she saying that losing billions after billions is the realistic modus operandi?
Silly woman! the plebians are not SO STUPID As to expect windfall profits with every investment hor! For God Sakes don't purposefully misinteprete hor!
It's the quantum and absolute consistent losses over a period of critical timing when GIC saw it fit to still race into the burning bush when and where both angels and devils feared to tread!
Oh and by the way it's not only about GIC it about all the other GLcs too!

<HR SIZE=1>Edited 3/10/2010 4:41 am ET by dragonclaws2</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%"></TD><TD class=msgopt width="24%" noWrap> Options</TD><TD class=msgrde width="50%" noWrap align=middle>Reply</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead vAlign=top><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>AAAAAA50 <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>1:54 am </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>Guestman551 <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (5 of 20) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>29880.5 in reply to 29880.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>Well, well, well
Did any of the mighty PAP ministers and MPs raised this possibility of GIC and Temasek LOSING MONEY when they approved in parliament to transfer our Singapore Reserves to them?
Did ANY of THEM?
Did ANY of THEM informed Singaporeans of the RISKS and gain their approval for doing so?
Did ANY of THEM?
No.
They went ahead WITHOUT the approval nor referendum of the people and now they have the cheek to say the losses are "UNAVOIDABLE"?
This is the sort of "Credibility", "Responsibility" and "Good Governance" PAP stands for.
Vote for PAP!
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%"> </TD><TD class=msgopt width="24%" noWrap> Options</TD><TD class=msgrde width="50%" noWrap align=middle> Reply</TD><TD class=wintiny width="25%" noWrap align=right> </TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgbfrbot> </TD><TD colSpan=3> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

If I recall correctly funds can be transfered directly to Temasek and GIC directly without the approval of Parliament since some years back.

Can anyone please help confirm this. Thanks.