WTF !! Temasek to Buy AIG/AIA

[Papsmearer]

Wah lan, enough is enough. This proves to me that Ho Jinx was just a figurehead at Temasek. The new Aussie CEO does not seem capable of steering the BOD away from buying financial companies. Cheebye, lose so much money in this sector, still want to invest somemore. AIG is the worse performing insurance company, wait until the recession really hits Asia, and see how much their Asian unit will be worth. Why pay $20 billion now, when it will be worth half that at the end of the year? And guess who are the advisors on this sale. Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, a couple of Temasek buddies and fellow losers. I predict another $2 -$3 billion lost for taxpayers if they buy this. I don't understand why Temasek does not buy real estate, as it is a much better buy now, in terms of pricing and yields.
HONG KONG (MarketWatch) -- Singaporean state investment company Temasek Holdings Pte. Ltd., U.K. insurer Prudential PLC (PRU.LN) and Toronto-based insurance company Manulife Financial Corp. (MFC:Manulife Financial Corporation
, two people familiar with the situation said Wednesday.
The three companies will submit their bids by Friday's deadline for final offers, one of the people said.
A third person familiar with the situation said Temasek is "seriously considering" a bid for AIA.
"There are talks going on now and the size Temasek would go for if the bid is materialized is not yet decided," the person said.
"Price will be paramount in the decision," he said.
Temasek and Prudential declined to comment. Manulife couldn't immediately be reached for comment. AIG declined to comment.
AIG initially intended to sell 49% of AIA, which is Asia's largest life insurer with operations in 10 countries, but it has since signaled it was open to selling the whole unit.
AIG is seeking bids that value AIA between US$20 billion and US$30 billion. One person familiar with the situation said AIG would look into an initial public offering of the Asian unit if bids fall below this range, while another said there was no certainty that the bids would be within that range. The Wall Street Journal also said Wednesday the Obama administration could take ownership of the rest of the company and hold onto the stake until market conditions permit an initial public offering of stock.
If AIG receives unsatisfactory bids, the insurer would consider bringing in a partner, or "toe-hold" investor, who would take a minority stake in the business at what AIG considers a fair market valuation.
"I wouldn't expect bids to be so high," the third person said.
A December report by CreditSights, an independent debt research firm, illustrated the difficulty of placing a value on AIG's subsidiaries amid the economic tumult. The report said that in a "best case" scenario, a 50% stake in AIA's Asian life-insurance operations outside Japan would be worth US$29.5 billion, but said the "worst case" scenario was a 70% discount, or US$8.9 billion.
AIG is operating under emergency loans from the U.S. government and is seeking to offload a range of businesses as part of its restructuring efforts.
Citigroup Inc. (C:C
News , chart , profile , more
Last:

 

[The_Latest_H]

Two options: either Temasek buys AIA wholly with two other partners, or the Obama administration takes partial control of AIG and deals with AIA soon enough.

Both are not good options, but I prefer the latter than the former.

 

[Papsmearer]

Two options: either Temasek buys AIA wholly with two other partners, or the Obama administration takes partial control of AIG and deals with AIA soon enough.

Both are not good options, but I prefer the latter than the former.

I agree with you, I don't see why the hell temasek want to involve itself in that mess. U can expect AIA to lose loads of money.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear PAP

It is because they are selling of the good assets of AIG. The unit that got AIG into so much trouble was the AIG Financial Products Unit. Its a good buy by Temasek.




Locke

 

[Papsmearer]

Dear PAP

It is because they are selling of the good assets of AIG. The unit that got AIG into so much trouble was the AIG Financial Products Unit. Its a good buy by Temasek.




Locke

Whatever. Have u learned nothing from this financial meltdown? What is AIA's biggest business? Life insurance? How many people going to stop paying premuims because they cannot afford it? How many companies going out of business and therefore do not need insurance any more? Its going to hit them. There are much better companies to buy now. Resource companies are badly hit. They are a good buy now. Simply buying physical assets like real properties, whether commercial or apt buildings will provide a better yield from rental, plus upside capital gains when the economy improves. Lots of options out there. Temasek must break its stupid love affair with financial companies.

 

[The_Latest_H]

Dear PAP

It is because they are selling of the good assets of AIG. The unit that got AIG into so much trouble was the AIG Financial Products Unit. Its a good buy by Temasek.




Locke

While we cannot stop Temasek from investing in such companies- good or not- I think we should also make it clear that principally, we should not support Temasek in such investments in light of the current market.

Temasek should only be the parent company of SMRT, SBS, SP and Singtel, and that's about it, and not be an international SWF. Its a matter of accountability and that should be in the DNA of our thinking.

Therefore on principle, supporting Temasek in their investments good or bad is doubtful, simply because there's no accountability. It should be in everyone's interest to rein in Temasek's overseas ventures with time, if and when an alternative government is elected into power.

 

[singveld]

Wah lan, enough is enough. This proves to me that Ho Jinx was just a figurehead at Temasek. The new Aussie CEO does not seem capable of steering the BOD away from buying financial companies. Cheebye, lose so much money in this sector, still want to invest somemore. AIG is the worse performing insurance company, wait until the recession really hits Asia, and see how much their Asian unit will be worth. Why pay $20 billion now, when it will be worth half that at the end of the year? And guess who are the advisors on this sale. Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, a couple of Temasek buddies and fellow losers. I predict another $2 -$3 billion lost for taxpayers if they buy this. I don't understand why Temasek does not buy real estate, as it is a much better buy now, in terms of pricing and yields.
HONG KONG (MarketWatch) -- Singaporean state investment company Temasek Holdings Pte. Ltd., U.K. insurer Prudential PLC (PRU.LN) and Toronto-based insurance company Manulife Financial Corp. (MFC:Manulife Financial Corporation
, two people familiar with the situation said Wednesday.
The three companies will submit their bids by Friday's deadline for final offers, one of the people said.
A third person familiar with the situation said Temasek is "seriously considering" a bid for AIA.
"There are talks going on now and the size Temasek would go for if the bid is materialized is not yet decided," the person said.
"Price will be paramount in the decision," he said.
Temasek and Prudential declined to comment. Manulife couldn't immediately be reached for comment. AIG declined to comment.
AIG initially intended to sell 49% of AIA, which is Asia's largest life insurer with operations in 10 countries, but it has since signaled it was open to selling the whole unit.
AIG is seeking bids that value AIA between US$20 billion and US$30 billion. One person familiar with the situation said AIG would look into an initial public offering of the Asian unit if bids fall below this range, while another said there was no certainty that the bids would be within that range. The Wall Street Journal also said Wednesday the Obama administration could take ownership of the rest of the company and hold onto the stake until market conditions permit an initial public offering of stock.
If AIG receives unsatisfactory bids, the insurer would consider bringing in a partner, or "toe-hold" investor, who would take a minority stake in the business at what AIG considers a fair market valuation.
"I wouldn't expect bids to be so high," the third person said.
A December report by CreditSights, an independent debt research firm, illustrated the difficulty of placing a value on AIG's subsidiaries amid the economic tumult. The report said that in a "best case" scenario, a 50% stake in AIA's Asian life-insurance operations outside Japan would be worth US$29.5 billion, but said the "worst case" scenario was a 70% discount, or US$8.9 billion.
AIG is operating under emergency loans from the U.S. government and is seeking to offload a range of businesses as part of its restructuring efforts.
Citigroup Inc. (C:C
News , chart , profile , more
Last:

maybe just part of aig only
if not sink city might just sink

 

[batman1]

Something wrong and sickening with this country.Throwing money into the drain.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear PAP

If AIA policy holders stop paying subscriptions aka Chia Ti Lik etc etc etc its AIA which will earn because policy holders get screwed for early terminations. For what its worth AIA seperate from AIG are pretty decent buys. One shouldn't discount the fiance sector or staples like insurance. If there is value in a downturn, there will be value in an upturn



Locke

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Radio

Ok fine so what if GIC decides to invest in AIA and not Temasek, left hand or right hand does it make a diff. Btw Temasek is infinitely more transparent than GIC, 90 0r 95% of its assets are listed companies.

Transparency yes, accountability yes but decisions and investment still have to be made unless we as a nation decide that we should only invest in 100% bonds.



Locke

 

[The_Latest_H]

Dear Radio

Ok fine so what if GIC decides to invest in AIA and not Temasek, left hand or right hand does it make a diff. Btw Temasek is infinitely more transparent than GIC, 90 0r 95% of its assets are listed companies.

Transparency yes, accountability yes but decisions and investment still have to be made unless we as a nation decide that we should only invest in 100% bonds.



Locke

Well, how about not investing taxpayers' monies in these companies or the bonds of these companies at all? Do you see the Australian federal government doing the same, putting their foreign reserves into American banks?

The fact is that foreign reserves are only used for annual budgets, to be spent on the people, businesses and in turn, the economy. Not for reckless investments overseas.

In this aspect, I think no matter how transparent Temasek is, the basic fact is that Temasek should not use foreign reserves- and allegedly CPF funds as well- for reckless investments. I am all for Temasek being the parent company of several natural resources/production monopolies, such as in power, water and landlines. Temasek can exist as such in an entity as that- which was what it was created for originally.

But Temasek as an SWF, and using taxpayers money to buy Citibank, Merill Lynch and others are something which I pretty much oppose. Foreign reserves, all taxpayers money, should not be used by Temasek and GIC for purchase of private sector entities, period. It should be used for the annual budget- and with accountability, US Treasury bonds if it comes to that.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Radio

Foreign Reserves are what is held by MAS for supporting the currency and ensuring its functioning under a currency board system. That is the official amount and seperate from everything else. GIC and Temasek invests globally and locally between them, the accumalated land sales of the SG GOV, SG Budget Surpluses, accumalated profits of GLCs, and the CPF reserves.





Locke

 

[The_Latest_H]

Dear Radio

Foreign Reserves are what is held by MAS for supporting the currency and ensuring its functioning under a currency board system. That is the official amount and seperate from everything else. GIC and Temasek invests globally and locally between them, the accumalated land sales of the SG GOV, SG Budget Surpluses, accumalated profits of GLCs, and the CPF reserves.





Locke

There's still no disputation by you that it isn't taxpayers money. As long as its taxpayers money, regardless of whether is it in the foreign reserves or in the bank accounts of the two entitles, the principle remains that these two companies, especially GIC, should not remain as SWFs.

Period.

 

[Papsmearer]

Well, how about not investing taxpayers' monies in these companies or the bonds of these companies at all? Do you see the Australian federal government doing the same, putting their foreign reserves into American banks?

The fact is that foreign reserves are only used for annual budgets, to be spent on the people, businesses and in turn, the economy. Not for reckless investments overseas.

In this aspect, I think no matter how transparent Temasek is, the basic fact is that Temasek should not use foreign reserves- and allegedly CPF funds as well- for reckless investments. I am all for Temasek being the parent company of several natural resources/production monopolies, such as in power, water and landlines. Temasek can exist as such in an entity as that- which was what it was created for originally.

But Temasek as an SWF, and using taxpayers money to buy Citibank, Merill Lynch and others are something which I pretty much oppose. Foreign reserves, all taxpayers money, should not be used by Temasek and GIC for purchase of private sector entities, period. It should be used for the annual budget- and with accountability, US Treasury bonds if it comes to that.

The big problem is that Temasek and GIC are actually "rainy day funds", akin to pension and retirement money. The PAP is always harking on this point. If this is the case, the investments must be in conservative instruments such as bonds and notes from soveriegn countries. If they had done that, they will be earning boring interest every year. They may suffer some currency fluctuations on the bonds, probbaly on the upside as the Sing dollar has gone down, but they would have preserved their capital, and not have suffered the 40% and tens of billions in losses due to their equity investment. I think most people are missing this point.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear PAP

Globally SWF's, Pension Funds etc are following the direction set by GIC in in a divestment away from a purely 100% bond portfolio. Historically Equities have always outperformed Bonds. I believe that that issue should be debated again but I believe that as the numbers go, if one calculates the lost of portfolio value today versus a complete 100% bond portfolio starting from day one. both including the yearly surpluses going in. The final number would still be larger.


Locke

 

[Papsmearer]

Dear PAP

Globally SWF's, Pension Funds etc are following the direction set by GIC in in a divestment away from a purely 100% bond portfolio. Historically Equities have always outperformed Bonds. I believe that that issue should be debated again but I believe that as the numbers go, if one calculates the lost of portfolio value today versus a complete 100% bond portfolio starting from day one. both including the yearly surpluses going in. The final number would still be larger.


Locke

Please, no one follows GIC's direction, they are a global joke. The KIO and others have been outperforming Temasek and GIC for years. The KIO, I know for sure, has been investing in asian financial instituitions since the 1980s. U are truly ignorant about the risk strategem. Its ok to invest in equities if u are young and have your working life ahead of u in case these investments don't work out. But if your goal is "rainy day fund" you CANNOT invest in equities. U of all people should know that each country's SWF has its own set of investment objectives. But GIC's is supposed to be the country's emergency "in case" funds. Hence it has to be in Bonds and Fixed instruments. Simple as that.

By the way, I dun know yearly surpluses u are talking about? The govt, keeps injecting money in them, and their small gains from profitable transactions have been wiped out many times by the recent huge losses.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear PAP

I was referring to the Norwegian Oil Fund which does invests in Equities. I believe GIC was started as the first SWF and in that other SWFs followed their direction into equities Are they wrong ? Yearly injections from surpluses does increase asset under management which might not reflect real value gains. In this respects I will agree with you in that more transparency is needed with regards to how their returns are calculated



Locke

 

[The_Latest_H]

The big problem is that Temasek and GIC are actually "rainy day funds", akin to pension and retirement money. The PAP is always harking on this point. If this is the case, the investments must be in conservative instruments such as bonds and notes from soveriegn countries. If they had done that, they will be earning boring interest every year. They may suffer some currency fluctuations on the bonds, probbaly on the upside as the Sing dollar has gone down, but they would have preserved their capital, and not have suffered the 40% and tens of billions in losses due to their equity investment. I think most people are missing this point.

Overseas government bonds would have been a better investment I agree. As I said, I'm opposed to SWFs overseas investments in broken private sector companies- let it be common shares, preference shares or company bonds.

And as for overseas bonds issued by foreign governments, if and as there's transparency by the SG government to ensure that the people know how much the government holds in Treasury bonds, such investments in boring bonds should not be a big problem.

But I would professionally prefer a government body- like the Finance ministry- or a new Reserve bank to buy and hold the bonds, instead of a SWF.

 

[UpYoz_olo]

Well, how about not investing taxpayers' monies in these companies or the bonds of these companies at all? Do you see the Australian federal government doing the same, putting their foreign reserves into American banks?

The fact is that foreign reserves are only used for annual budgets, to be spent on the people, businesses and in turn, the economy. Not for reckless investments overseas.

In this aspect, I think no matter how transparent Temasek is, the basic fact is that Temasek should not use foreign reserves- and allegedly CPF funds as well- for reckless investments. I am all for Temasek being the parent company of several natural resources/production monopolies, such as in power, water and landlines. Temasek can exist as such in an entity as that- which was what it was created for originally.

But Temasek as an SWF, and using taxpayers money to buy Citibank, Merill Lynch and others are something which I pretty much oppose. Foreign reserves, all taxpayers money, should not be used by Temasek and GIC for purchase of private sector entities, period. It should be used for the annual budget- and with accountability, US Treasury bonds if it comes to that.

NaBei, didn't you know Oz is up to their eyeballs with debt? The only reason why the AUD is higher than the Zimbabwe one is Oz is the lucky country at the arse-end-of-the-world!

Oops, forget to:

There you go :oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo:

 

[The_Latest_H]

NaBei, didn't you know Oz is up to their eyeballs with debt? The only reason why the AUD is higher than the Zimbabwe one is Oz is the lucky country at the arse-end-of-the-world!

Oops, forget to:

There you go :oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo:

I find you more amusing than ever really. Did anyone tell you that when they laugh, they are laughing at you, and not with you?