20161211 Mainstream media should not engage in half truths to mask Temasek’s pock kai investments

I hope the PAP will stop engaging in half-truths and be upfront with citizens when it comes to Temasek.  Every human being makes mistakes and it should not try to cover up those made by PAP elites, unless they are non human.

To survive in the investment game, you win more but will always lose some.  However, the MSM has always painted a false picture of the “superior” performance of scholars and elites who have been parachuted into Temasek.

An example is ST article, “GIC eyes large minority stake in Irish telecoms group EIR: Reports”, which it briefly reported on Temasek’s purchase of a stake in Eir through Singapore Technologies Telemedia (STT) 6 years ago. link

However, that stake was wiped out in 2012 and this was stately clearly in the foreign press but not our government mouthpiece.

Foreign press: “Four years after Singapore’s ST Telemedia lost its 61% stake, sister fund GIC to buy 16% for Euro 230 million.” link

ST: “But STT exited its investment in 2012 after Eir’s senior lenders rejected it restructuring plan at the height of the euro debt crisis …”

ST should not try to throw smoke, cut short the long story – Temasek had invested Euro 140 million in 2010 and lost the entire investment in 2 years.  ST should not play with words like “STT exited its investment” – don’t try to redefine a spade.

Temasek has other epic losses but it does not have epic gains to offset them.  It’s claims of phenomenal returns are therefore suspect.

There are billion-dollar unrealised losses such as Standchart but where are the similar-sized investments to offset Standchart?
Standchart shares before the last rights issue

There are many so-so investments such as Intouch Holdings, formerly Shin Corp, which has been going nowhere for more than a decade.
Hello  Intouch, you going somewhere or nowhere?
intouch
intouch-1
And there are really really bad investments which should have got off Temasek’s book years ago, eg Pakistani NIB Bank
nib1
NIB shares last traded at 1.66 Pakistani rupee which is equivalent to … 2 Singapore cents! (I rupee = 1.4 cents)  Lelong nobody also want.

One of the blunders Temasek made when it almost owned the entire bank was the acquisition of PICIC asset management for Rs20.5 billion which it recently sold for Rs4.1 billion.

It is interesting to note that Temasek has appointed Singaporeans as directors on NIB’s board.
nib2
Perhaps this is what PM Lee meant by how foreigners create good jobs for Singaporeans.  But a $1 billion investment to create a handful of jobs is clearly not right.

What about debt-laden Chinese banks trading below their book values?  Were they not about to implode, necessitating 6 rate cuts since 2014?

Statistically, it is not possible for Temasek to have zero good investment.  But after offsetting all the profitable ones with losers, it is impossible for the remaining companies to achieve Temasek’s return claims.  Impossible.

And we can also see that most of the profits and dividends earned by Temasek are from local companies.  Which means foreign ones have performed very badly.

The government should be transparent and not resort to half truths. Pock kai investments throw smoke for what? 😦

Advertisements
This entry was posted in TEMASEK. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to 20161211 Mainstream media should not engage in half truths to mask Temasek’s pock kai investments

  1. Maker says:

    I wonder what happen to the “independent sg”. ur blogs no longer shared by them. This is a very good article to demonstrate why LHL and familee must go. We should share to more Singaporeans.

    • Phillip Ang says:

      I am very vocal. They probably think they may get into trouble one day even though I don’t have any ability to make a dent in PAP’s power. 🙂
      Please help to share and rest assured there’s no personal gain. I am an open book and even if you want to share this on any PAP ministers’ FB, go ahead. 🙂 Seriously.
      I am just lending my voice to bullied citizens and demanding my right to a transparent and accountable government. Thanks.

  2. Confused says:

    Whether GIC or Temasek? The moment they leave home, they are likely to get hit. Not only hit but badly hit.

    Either way, we lose heavily.

    For our CPF,

    Firstly, we are losing big in millions or billions to feed the GIC gigantic board.

    Secondly, we lose even bigger in those bad investments. The recent performance must be bad enough for our DPM to report our GIC return as ober long term investment over 5, 10, 20 years. Again it’s simple maths.

    Say 20 years ago, they have been making average 6% out of $100 billions fund, that would be around $6b, as our fund grow too fast by the 20b every year in the last 6 years and reach $300b so easily, the good return cannot catch up and may stay at $6b had it not had any bad investment. However, if the additional fund of $200b attract negative returns, the net net return would be below $6b or even -ve one day? This is celarly demonstrated by the reported returns recently at numbers much lower than the used reported average of 6%. A reported 3% return would mean a drop of 50% of the performance and would be alarming.

    Should Singaporeans continue to let GIC manages its CPF fund if such under performance is true? Or should CPF members reclaim its own right to let true professional fund managers to manage its fund with more guaranteed return at even lower cost? The only way to judge is for GIC to be fully transparent to prevent any wild or second guess.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s