- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 10,021
- Points
- 113
past decades of bad investments all written off.............why crucify RoY Ngerng if everything so rosy n bright????
may darkness be with her forever
may darkness be with her forever
-
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.
Serious Temasek Holdings Portfolio Had A 25% Bull Run Increase In FY2020! Madam Ho Ching Can Now Retire In Glory! PAP! PAP!
- Thread starter JohnTan
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,215
- Points
- 83
Them are sick never include government transfers?
why confuse AUM with risk and return.
Fuck Up.
why confuse AUM with risk and return.
Fuck Up.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 29,390
- Points
- 113
Temasek's 24.5% return greatly underperformed against benchmark MSCI World Index - The Online Citizen Asia
Last Sat (17 Jul), a member of the public, Mr Alfred Chan Hock Yuen, wrote to ST Forum commenting on the recent seemingly superb financial performance of Temasek Holdings (‘ST Forumer calls for more public discourse on how well has Temasek really been doing over the years‘).
Temasek reported that it achieved a 24.5% shareholder return last year, the highest since 2010. This was also reported by Straits Times (ST) last week (14 Jul). In fact, Temasek even took out a full 2-page advertisement on the Straits Times announcing its success:
In its report, ST praised Temasek, “Singapore investment company Temasek’s shareholder return climbed smartly in its latest financial year.”
“Temasek’s portfolio was valued at a record $381 billion as at March 31, up from $306 billion a year before,” it added.
However, Mr Alfred Chan wasn’t impressed. He revealed, “A one-year return of 24.5 per cent sounds impressive until one realises that, over the same one-year period to March 31, the MSCI World Index went up by about 45 per cent.”
“The world markets have recovered massively over the past year or so and, as they say, a rising tide lifts all boats,” added Mr Chan.
“What was also interesting was that Temasek’s total shareholder return for the 10 years to end-March last year was 5 per cent per annum. Over this same period, the MSCI World Index went up by an average of about 7 per cent per annum.”
“How well has Temasek really been doing over the years? Is it reasonable to expect Temasek to at least beat the relevant market indices over the long run?” he asked. “I hope there can be more public discourse on these questions.”
MSCI World Index went up more
The MSCI World Index is a market cap weighted stock market index of 1,583 companies throughout the world. It is maintained by MSCI, formerly Morgan Stanley Capital International, and is used as a common benchmark for global stock funds intended to represent a broad cross-section of global markets.
The index includes a collection of large and mid-cap stocks across 23 markets of developed countries, and covers approximately 85% of the free float-adjusted market capitalization in each country. The index was started back in 1969 by Capital International to mirror the international markets outside the US. When Morgan Stanley bought the licensing rights to Capital’s data in 1986, it began using the acronym MSCI.
In fact, actual data from MSCI World Index revealed a whopping 57.9% increase from 1 Apr 2020 to 31 Mar 2021 in the same reporting period as Temasek’s:
1 Apr 2020 – 1781.27
31 Mar 2021 – 2811.70
That is to say, if one was to buy into one of those exchange-traded funds (ETF) that track the MSCI World Index, one would be able to get similar gain in roughly the same order of magnitude, since ETFs simply copy a market index one-to-one, and can be traded any time on the stock exchange like a share additionally. However, due to the various management fees and expenses, ETFs’ gain would not be exactly the same as the index gain.
As can be seen in one of the popular MSCI World Index ETFs managed by HSBC, the one year return over the same period was 50%. In other words, if one was to buy into the HSBC ETF on 1 Apr last year and sold on 31 Mar this year, one would have realised a return of 50%, twice that of Temasek’s:
Few fund managers could beat the market
In investment, the phrase “beating the market” means earning an investment return that exceeds the performance of a stock market index. In the case of international investors, their performance is typically pegged to the famous MSCI World Index. Many have tried but few can succeed.
According to an article from Financial Times, research has found that fewer than a quarter of active equity funds beat benchmarks in 2018. In the Equity World segment, which included analysis of 700 global funds, only just 22 per cent beat the MSCI World index in 2018. The study was based on the outperformance ratio, which measured by peer group the share of actively managed funds that beat their respective benchmark over the period under analysis.
A Forbe’s article published in Sep last year also stated that beating the market is hard. Forbe quoted a study by Vanguard which found that only 18% of active fund managers beat their benchmarks over a 15-year period.
It remains to be seen if Temasek can beat the MSCI World Index in the long run but it is safe to say that if Temasek has invested all its money in MSCI World Index ETFs in the last financial year, it would have achieved twice their reported return of 24.5 percent, even accounting for ETF management fees and other expenses.
Share this:
Last Sat (17 Jul), a member of the public, Mr Alfred Chan Hock Yuen, wrote to ST Forum commenting on the recent seemingly superb financial performance of Temasek Holdings (‘ST Forumer calls for more public discourse on how well has Temasek really been doing over the years‘).
Temasek reported that it achieved a 24.5% shareholder return last year, the highest since 2010. This was also reported by Straits Times (ST) last week (14 Jul). In fact, Temasek even took out a full 2-page advertisement on the Straits Times announcing its success:
In its report, ST praised Temasek, “Singapore investment company Temasek’s shareholder return climbed smartly in its latest financial year.”
“Temasek’s portfolio was valued at a record $381 billion as at March 31, up from $306 billion a year before,” it added.
However, Mr Alfred Chan wasn’t impressed. He revealed, “A one-year return of 24.5 per cent sounds impressive until one realises that, over the same one-year period to March 31, the MSCI World Index went up by about 45 per cent.”
“The world markets have recovered massively over the past year or so and, as they say, a rising tide lifts all boats,” added Mr Chan.
“What was also interesting was that Temasek’s total shareholder return for the 10 years to end-March last year was 5 per cent per annum. Over this same period, the MSCI World Index went up by an average of about 7 per cent per annum.”
“How well has Temasek really been doing over the years? Is it reasonable to expect Temasek to at least beat the relevant market indices over the long run?” he asked. “I hope there can be more public discourse on these questions.”
MSCI World Index went up more
The MSCI World Index is a market cap weighted stock market index of 1,583 companies throughout the world. It is maintained by MSCI, formerly Morgan Stanley Capital International, and is used as a common benchmark for global stock funds intended to represent a broad cross-section of global markets.
The index includes a collection of large and mid-cap stocks across 23 markets of developed countries, and covers approximately 85% of the free float-adjusted market capitalization in each country. The index was started back in 1969 by Capital International to mirror the international markets outside the US. When Morgan Stanley bought the licensing rights to Capital’s data in 1986, it began using the acronym MSCI.
In fact, actual data from MSCI World Index revealed a whopping 57.9% increase from 1 Apr 2020 to 31 Mar 2021 in the same reporting period as Temasek’s:
1 Apr 2020 – 1781.27
31 Mar 2021 – 2811.70
That is to say, if one was to buy into one of those exchange-traded funds (ETF) that track the MSCI World Index, one would be able to get similar gain in roughly the same order of magnitude, since ETFs simply copy a market index one-to-one, and can be traded any time on the stock exchange like a share additionally. However, due to the various management fees and expenses, ETFs’ gain would not be exactly the same as the index gain.
As can be seen in one of the popular MSCI World Index ETFs managed by HSBC, the one year return over the same period was 50%. In other words, if one was to buy into the HSBC ETF on 1 Apr last year and sold on 31 Mar this year, one would have realised a return of 50%, twice that of Temasek’s:
Few fund managers could beat the market
In investment, the phrase “beating the market” means earning an investment return that exceeds the performance of a stock market index. In the case of international investors, their performance is typically pegged to the famous MSCI World Index. Many have tried but few can succeed.
According to an article from Financial Times, research has found that fewer than a quarter of active equity funds beat benchmarks in 2018. In the Equity World segment, which included analysis of 700 global funds, only just 22 per cent beat the MSCI World index in 2018. The study was based on the outperformance ratio, which measured by peer group the share of actively managed funds that beat their respective benchmark over the period under analysis.
A Forbe’s article published in Sep last year also stated that beating the market is hard. Forbe quoted a study by Vanguard which found that only 18% of active fund managers beat their benchmarks over a 15-year period.
It remains to be seen if Temasek can beat the MSCI World Index in the long run but it is safe to say that if Temasek has invested all its money in MSCI World Index ETFs in the last financial year, it would have achieved twice their reported return of 24.5 percent, even accounting for ETF management fees and other expenses.
Share this:
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 29,390
- Points
- 113
Temasek: We have lower returns cause we don't want to see an unliveable planet - The Online Citizen Asia
Last Sat (17 Jul), a member of the public, Mr Alfred Chan Hock Yuen, wrote to ST Forum commenting on the recent seemingly superb financial performance of Temasek Holdings (‘Temasek’s 24.5% return greatly underperformed against benchmark MSCI World Index‘).
Temasek reported that it achieved a 24.5% shareholder return last year, the highest since 2010. However, Mr Alfred Chan wasn’t impressed. He said, “A one-year return of 24.5 per cent sounds impressive until one realises that, over the same one-year period to March 31, the MSCI World Index went up by about 45 per cent.”
“The world markets have recovered massively over the past year or so and, as they say, a rising tide lifts all boats,” added Mr Chan.
“What was also interesting was that Temasek’s total shareholder return for the 10 years to end-March last year was 5 per cent per annum. Over this same period, the MSCI World Index went up by an average of about 7 per cent per annum.”
Learn more
“How well has Temasek really been doing over the years? Is it reasonable to expect Temasek to at least beat the relevant market indices over the long run?” he asked.
In fact, if one was to invest in any ETFs tracking the MSCI World Index, one would get even nearly twice of Temasek’s return over the same period.
Temasek: We choose to lean in on carbon abatement and other goals for planet, people and prosperity
Today (21 Jul), Temasek replied on ST Forum, claiming that they have “confidence in the long-term potential of Asia”.
Mr Nagi Hamiyeh, the Joint Head of the Investment Group of Temasek, criticised that with the MSCI World Index, Temasek would be over-weighting US and other developed markets, with less than 10 per cent exposure to the Asian economies and certainly less than half a per cent to Singapore.
“Temasek has chosen not to do so. Fundamentally, we have confidence in the long-term potential of Asia,” Hamiyeh said.
“At the same time, we have been deliberately reshaping our portfolio towards longer term structural or secular trends like digitisation, sustainable living, the future of consumption, and longer lifespans.”
“Temasek’s current portfolio is the aggregate result of our bottom-up investment approach,” he explained. “We believe this is a resilient portfolio that can provide sustainable, long-term returns. Our portfolio value has quadrupled over the last 17 years, excluding any net new capital.”
Hamiyeh also added that Temasek has deployed capital to stimulate innovation and growth; develop human capital to uplift capabilities and enhance potential; enable natural capital to foster sustainable solutions; and seed social capital to transform lives for a more inclusive and resilient world.
Using carbon abatement and other goals as reasons, Hamiyeh said that Temasek returns may not necessarily be high but it helps the planet.
“Various key markets will likely see marginally better returns during the next decade or so if the world chooses to do nothing to abate carbon. However, the trade-off is an unliveable planet within our lifetime, and lower returns beyond the next 15 to 20 years,” he said.
“Going for high climate ambition may dent returns marginally for the next 10 to 15 years, but the payoff is a more liveable planet for all – alongside higher long-term returns. The choice is clear. Temasek has chosen to lean in on carbon abatement and other goals for planet, people and prosperity.”
“That’s why Temasek chooses to work with companies on their carbon transition journey,” he concluded.
In any case, according to information on Temasek’s website, it explained why Temasek was established in the first place:
“Temasek was incorporated under the Singapore Companies Act in 1974 to own and commercially manage investments and assets previously held by the Singapore Government. This allowed the Ministry of Finance to focus on its core role of policymaking and regulations, while Temasek would own and manage these investments on a commercial basis.”
That is to say, Temasek was incorporated as a profit and loss company to begin with, and not for “carbon abatement” or achieving any other goals for “planet, people and prosperity”.
This is supported by Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat’s written reply to Workers’ Party Member of Parliament Leon Perera back in 2016 where he wrote:
“The individual investments of GIC and Temasek are the responsibility of their respective management teams, while the Government monitors the performance of their overall portfolio. GIC and Temasek operate on a purely commercial basis in order to maximise long-term risk-adjusted returns, and the individual investment decisions are fully independent of any Government interference or influence. This is an important governance principle that we seek to maintain.”
No set hard carbon targets
Temasek in a press conference on 13 July, said that it does not set hard carbon targets that its portfolio companies must meet to avoid divestment.
Nagi Hamiyeh, Temasek International’s investment group joint head and head of portfolio development noted that Temasek’s carbon-avoidance approach differs from Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, which divested from five global coal firms in May 2020 based on stricter coal criteria.
Business Times quoted Mr Hamiyeh, “If our investee companies are trying to decarbonise and we can be helpful, we’d rather do that, because being serious about sustainability is not pushing the problem to somebody else. We’d rather deal with it ourselves,”
It remains “open” to investing in carbon-emitting firms where appropriate, “as long as we have a clear line of sight to the decarbonisation journey”, said Mukul Chawla, Temasek International’s joint head of TMT and joint head of North America.
“The journey is in fact what we would like to partner with companies on. We would like to support them there,” he added.
Share this:
Last Sat (17 Jul), a member of the public, Mr Alfred Chan Hock Yuen, wrote to ST Forum commenting on the recent seemingly superb financial performance of Temasek Holdings (‘Temasek’s 24.5% return greatly underperformed against benchmark MSCI World Index‘).
Temasek reported that it achieved a 24.5% shareholder return last year, the highest since 2010. However, Mr Alfred Chan wasn’t impressed. He said, “A one-year return of 24.5 per cent sounds impressive until one realises that, over the same one-year period to March 31, the MSCI World Index went up by about 45 per cent.”
“The world markets have recovered massively over the past year or so and, as they say, a rising tide lifts all boats,” added Mr Chan.
“What was also interesting was that Temasek’s total shareholder return for the 10 years to end-March last year was 5 per cent per annum. Over this same period, the MSCI World Index went up by an average of about 7 per cent per annum.”
Learn more
“How well has Temasek really been doing over the years? Is it reasonable to expect Temasek to at least beat the relevant market indices over the long run?” he asked.
In fact, if one was to invest in any ETFs tracking the MSCI World Index, one would get even nearly twice of Temasek’s return over the same period.
Temasek: We choose to lean in on carbon abatement and other goals for planet, people and prosperity
Today (21 Jul), Temasek replied on ST Forum, claiming that they have “confidence in the long-term potential of Asia”.
Mr Nagi Hamiyeh, the Joint Head of the Investment Group of Temasek, criticised that with the MSCI World Index, Temasek would be over-weighting US and other developed markets, with less than 10 per cent exposure to the Asian economies and certainly less than half a per cent to Singapore.
“Temasek has chosen not to do so. Fundamentally, we have confidence in the long-term potential of Asia,” Hamiyeh said.
“At the same time, we have been deliberately reshaping our portfolio towards longer term structural or secular trends like digitisation, sustainable living, the future of consumption, and longer lifespans.”
“Temasek’s current portfolio is the aggregate result of our bottom-up investment approach,” he explained. “We believe this is a resilient portfolio that can provide sustainable, long-term returns. Our portfolio value has quadrupled over the last 17 years, excluding any net new capital.”
Hamiyeh also added that Temasek has deployed capital to stimulate innovation and growth; develop human capital to uplift capabilities and enhance potential; enable natural capital to foster sustainable solutions; and seed social capital to transform lives for a more inclusive and resilient world.
Using carbon abatement and other goals as reasons, Hamiyeh said that Temasek returns may not necessarily be high but it helps the planet.
“Various key markets will likely see marginally better returns during the next decade or so if the world chooses to do nothing to abate carbon. However, the trade-off is an unliveable planet within our lifetime, and lower returns beyond the next 15 to 20 years,” he said.
“Going for high climate ambition may dent returns marginally for the next 10 to 15 years, but the payoff is a more liveable planet for all – alongside higher long-term returns. The choice is clear. Temasek has chosen to lean in on carbon abatement and other goals for planet, people and prosperity.”
“That’s why Temasek chooses to work with companies on their carbon transition journey,” he concluded.
In any case, according to information on Temasek’s website, it explained why Temasek was established in the first place:
“Temasek was incorporated under the Singapore Companies Act in 1974 to own and commercially manage investments and assets previously held by the Singapore Government. This allowed the Ministry of Finance to focus on its core role of policymaking and regulations, while Temasek would own and manage these investments on a commercial basis.”
That is to say, Temasek was incorporated as a profit and loss company to begin with, and not for “carbon abatement” or achieving any other goals for “planet, people and prosperity”.
This is supported by Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat’s written reply to Workers’ Party Member of Parliament Leon Perera back in 2016 where he wrote:
“The individual investments of GIC and Temasek are the responsibility of their respective management teams, while the Government monitors the performance of their overall portfolio. GIC and Temasek operate on a purely commercial basis in order to maximise long-term risk-adjusted returns, and the individual investment decisions are fully independent of any Government interference or influence. This is an important governance principle that we seek to maintain.”
No set hard carbon targets
Temasek in a press conference on 13 July, said that it does not set hard carbon targets that its portfolio companies must meet to avoid divestment.
Nagi Hamiyeh, Temasek International’s investment group joint head and head of portfolio development noted that Temasek’s carbon-avoidance approach differs from Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, which divested from five global coal firms in May 2020 based on stricter coal criteria.
Business Times quoted Mr Hamiyeh, “If our investee companies are trying to decarbonise and we can be helpful, we’d rather do that, because being serious about sustainability is not pushing the problem to somebody else. We’d rather deal with it ourselves,”
It remains “open” to investing in carbon-emitting firms where appropriate, “as long as we have a clear line of sight to the decarbonisation journey”, said Mukul Chawla, Temasek International’s joint head of TMT and joint head of North America.
“The journey is in fact what we would like to partner with companies on. We would like to support them there,” he added.
Share this:
Similar threads
