What is KJ's problem?

[londontrader]

The last sovereign debt crisis left the IMF nearly bankrupt

Which part of the IMF's financial accounts indicates this?????

 

[steffychun]

The IMF can't print money or so the last time I checked

The IMF can raise money through capital market trading

 

[cass888]

Meng Seng, your twisting and turning is embarrassing you. "Obliged" but not "required"? You writing a new book on legal interpretation?

Agree on the point on the mini bonds. i am using it to illustrate that this is not a straight forward bank deposit as some here are claiming. The point here about getting the money back on demand in inaccurate based on MAS statement. Singapore first has to demonstrate a "balance of payments need". IMF also is only obliged rather than required to return the money. Given that the money is going to bailout Europe, it would be unrealistic for us to expect that we will be able to get it back as and when we like.

 

[steffychun]

Meng Seng, your twisting and turning is embarrassing you. "Obliged" but not "required"? You writing a new book on legal interpretation?

Loans, grants pledges--the best way is to read the IMF wbsite

 

[londontrader]

No they did not. Where is your proof?

Read the link

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...es-additional-10bn-towards-IMF-war-chest.html

Here is the key part:

Controversially, though, the Government will not have to put the extra funding to a Parliamentary vote because headroom was built into the last agreement.

GOT IT NOW????
Remember to check your facts before wasting time here

 

[londontrader]

The IMF can raise money through capital market trading

And that's like printing USD???? Duh!

 

[steffychun]

THe UK House of Commons debated (not voted on) the UK's contribution to the IMF AFTER the pledge was made.

 

[londontrader]

It is a no brainer! If such loans is recallable so easily, then most likely IMF doesn't really need our money at all!

It's for an emergency crisis mgt fund, there funds transferred as and when needed.
It's also a confidence booster for the global community to know that such an arrangement exists
so you're right, the IMF doesn't need our money because the crisis hasn't started yet

 

[steffychun]

Read the link

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...es-additional-10bn-towards-IMF-war-chest.html

Here is the key part:

Controversially, though, the Government will not have to put the extra funding to a Parliamentary vote because headroom was built into the last agreement.

GOT IT NOW????
Remember to check your facts before wasting time here

That is no proof. No voting, no bill pushed through

What about South Korea, Australia Germany and others?

 

[londontrader]

If you look at IMF's history, it has always gone back to members for bailout money when it runs out of $.

The three largest are typically the US, Europe and Japan.

For what's happening now, we can safely rule out Europe since the money is being used to bail out Europe.

Given the current state US finances and economic performance since the 2007 crisis, you have got to wonder if the US can come in in any meaningful way to bail the IMF out.

As for Japan, they have a moribund economy. Their capital city got hit by an earthquake and they had a nuclear reactor meltdown. They are currently thinking of opening casinos to help with their public finances.

In the past, China has never been a big contributor to the IMF. Kee chiu anyone who thinks that China will dump billions to bail out Europe and the IMF.

The risks are much greater than many people think.

The IMF doesn't go anywhere bankrupt because it can choose to limit the kind of help it extends
I ask you again for the financial accounts that indicate near the IMF's financial distress
BTW China is now a major contributor to the IMF

 

[londontrader]

THe UK House of Commons debated (not voted on) the UK's contribution to the IMF AFTER the pledge was made.

YOU CAN"T READ EITHER!
The UK Parliament voted and approved a total of 40 billion for the IMF
30 billion was previously pledged
the last 10 billion was the pledge that caused the recent debate
got it?????

 

[londontrader]

That is no proof. No voting, no bill pushed through

What about South Korea, Australia Germany and others?

Can't read English???

Controversially, though, the Government will not have to put the extra funding to a Parliamentary vote because headroom was built into the last agreement.

Last agreement = last time the commons debated + voted + approved the agreement for a ceiling of 40 billion to the IMF

GOT IT NOW?

 

[steffychun]

YOU CAN"T READ EITHER!
The UK Parliament voted and approved a total of 40 billion for the IMF
30 billion was previously pledged
the last 10 billion was the pledge that caused the recent debate
got it?????

You produced no bill or vote regarding this

 

[steffychun]

Can't read English???

Controversially, though, the Government will not have to put the extra funding to a Parliamentary vote because headroom was built into the last agreement.

Last agreement = last time the commons debated + voted + approved the agreement for a ceiling of 40 billion to the IMF

GOT IT NOW?

When was the last time?

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Yes, China has made 43 times more money than Singapore but wait, what's the size of China's population as compared to Singapore?

Goh Meng Seng

China made a 43 billion USD IMF pledge on the same terms!
And you need to get it thru your head that this is NOT AN INVESTMENT
It's a pledge to fund an emergency crisis mgt pool, if and when needed

That's because Lehman went BANKRUPT and every investor/lender (small or big) stopped being repaid
So the risk here is that the IMF goes bankrupt

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

You must not look at things in such a simplistic manner.

Let's say a PRC came with US$1million. He bought a condominium with that money by changing it into S$1.2million. 1 year later, he sold off the condo for S$2.4million and he cash out. This will turn into US$2million.

Now, can you tell me whether the initial good balance of US$1million is an asset to Singapore when Singapore has to repay him US$2million two years later?

Goh Meng Seng

Lau Goh, assets = liabilities + equity + reserves.

There is no such thing as a liability which is also considered as reserves.
If a loan is given to IMF, it is considered as an asset to SG, because it is future money that will be received from IMF. (and this asset constitutes part of our reserves)
It is similarly considered as a liability to IMF, because it is future money that will be repaid by IMF.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Track records not only based on whether there are defaults on the part of IMF but rather, on the types of loans it puts up. There are quite a bit of bad debts, some of them written off. And these loans are in the hundreds of millions to billions.

Goh Meng Seng

Lau Goh, your 2 sentences above don't make sense.

The loan to the IMF is not risk free or totally safe, but it should not be considered risky either.
But when the IMF makes a request to the world and Singapore responds by wanting to commit 1% of IMF's total requirement, that is not unreasonable.
It's not simply about getting the best returns on this investment, otherwise just give it to the swf to invest, hahaha.
What we also want to do is to be a cooperative global citizen of the world. And if the terms and conditions of the loan are comparable to all the other countries, and it is within the country's means to lend, we should.

Btw, I guess that you want to join RP and be their candidate at the next election. Half right or two thirds right?

 

[aurvandil]

Like any organization that extends credit, the IMF loses money when the money does not get repaid. In the history of the IMF, there have been plenty of write offs and hair cuts. If you look at the current IMF loan portfolio, you can see an abundance of loans which look as if they will never get paid back. Without looking too far back, let's look at the loans which have been extended since the crisis of 2007. Do you think all of the money will be repaid?

The IMF avoids bankruptcy not because it is anything special. It does so because when things get bad, they can always pass the can around to raise more money. And in the past, the US, Europe and Japan have always come up with the $.

The world has however changed since 2007. Europe, one of its 3 largest contributors, is now the party in need of aid. The US and Japan are in bad fiscal condition. China has $ but they have an agenda which wants a rewriting of the world order in their favor which means that any money they cough up is going to come with some serious strings.

The IMF doesn't go anywhere bankrupt because it can choose to limit the kind of help it extends
I ask you again for the financial accounts that indicate near the IMF's financial distress
BTW China is now a major contributor to the IMF

 

[Cruxx]

The IMF can't print money or so the last time I checked

The IMF isn't a government the last time I checked. Why the hell do you even bother responding if you can't even read?

 

[jw5]

You must not look at things in such a simplistic manner.

Let's say a PRC came with US$1million. He bought a condominium with that money by changing it into S$1.2million. 1 year later, he sold off the condo for S$2.4million and he cash out. This will turn into US$2million.

Now, can you tell me whether the initial good balance of US$1million is an asset to Singapore when Singapore has to repay him US$2million two years later?

Goh Meng Seng

You are a joker not because you don't know these basic concepts, but because you don't know and still want to talk shit.

In your example, the country of Singapore is not involved in this transaction with the PRC at all.
The PRC now has US$2 Million of cash (an asset), he made a capital gain (profit) of US$1 Million from the sale of his condo.
The person who bought the condo from him took out S$2.4 Million in cash to buy the condo and in return got a condo with market value of presumably
S$2.4 Million (an asset).
The PRC's money never went into Singapore's balance sheet at all.

Please don't make anyone with basic knowledge of finance, accounting and business, laugh at your ignorant comments.