Comments on: Losses but not “indisreputable”

By: How did our SWFs manage to invest in the 3 worst performing CDO issuing banks??? | Under The Willow Tree

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:12:12 +0000

[...] I still can’t understand how our Government can characterise GIC’s and Temasek’s performance as “not disreputable”. [...]

By: red_dot

red_dot — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:09:56 +0000

“Over the 20-year period up to March 31 2008, GIC earned annualised US dollar returns of 7.8 per cent, while Temasek earned 19 per cent.”

So what now, the earnings of the last 20 years ALL lost in 12 months!!!!!!!!!

Great that was a very very long term investment strategy – “ZERO” returns and
most probably “NEGATIVE” returns after 20 years!

By: Talk is cheap

Talk is cheap — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:03:09 +0000

15) Yogi Bear on February 26th, 2009 10.38 pm
“While the annualized returns of 7.8% in the past, as reported by GIC, were positive, it was not a spectacular performance relative to funds of similar sizes.”

Any expert here. Namely because of investment activities on local turf or foreign adventures (misadventures) ?

A 3-year or 5-year moving average since inception of funds giving breakdown of both local and foreign activities would give a clearer picture whether the record “is not a disreputable record” or not.

By: Anniversary Celebration!

Anniversary Celebration! — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:55:55 +0000

Mas Selamat’s great escape is disreputable, NO?

Ode To Mas Selamat Kastari

Dear, Oh dear! Mas Selamat Kastari,
Today is your first year anniversary,
Since you left Whitley Road Detention Centre
And disappeared mysteriously ever after.

http://amortal.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/mas-selamat-kastari-please-surrender-lah/

By: feb

feb — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:10:07 +0000

In any business investment, in good times and bad times, companies bound to incur profit and losses accompany by certain degree of risks. Our government should have cap the investment limit for Temasek in the first place to contain investment loss which would have prevented the huge loss today. Think the loss would be more than sufficient for our elderly to have truly affordable and quality nursing home in Singapore.

By: Tee Jiu Seah

Tee Jiu Seah — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:04:00 +0000

Whole the investments may not be “disreputable”,
i believe the people are interested to know how respectable are their investments with a list showing for each investment what are the gains and losses. ;) why not impress the people with more clarity? no harm right?

By: SZ

SZ — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:00:48 +0000

‘In Denial’ and they will go back to the same formula and the cycle will continue

By: TheTruth

TheTruth — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:28:18 +0000

This is not a disreputable record – The PM’s press secretary, on Temasek and the GIC’s performance.

Funny thing everybody I spoke to, even a guy I know and have not seen for over 10 years and his friends are talking about the 100 Billion unrealised loss,

This nightmare will not go away.

Our ruling party always preaches continue Good Governance
But the process by which decisions are implemented is in actual fact ‘In Denial’

By: I Am Your Man

I Am Your Man — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:21:30 +0000

Yeh, I am doing well – if anything otherwise , everyone is suffering too in this financial crisis!

The ego trips, the western media allure, western consultants and the western seduction are somethings the current government are suckers to.

Everybody knows that the king is naked but he insists he is fully clothed quite unlike and like to the naked ang mo guy and his naked Singapore girlfriend – perhaps they may not get charged as the psyche is quite the same.

By: Yogi Bear

Yogi Bear — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:38:43 +0000

Dear Lee Hsien Loong,

Being the prime minister and the deputy chairman of GIC, you have the inalienable responsibility to report to your shareholders, i.e. the People of Singapore, the true state of GIC. Separately, I look forward to the next Temasek Review, due to be presented by your wife.

While the annualized returns of 7.8% in the past, as reported by GIC, were positive, it was not a spectacular performance relative to funds of similar sizes.
The People are understandably very angry to have paid excessive taxes and hyper-inflated land costs and for an extended lock-in to their CPF monies, only to have GIC make massive losses in unwise investments. Nobody should buy the “who would have known” excuse; the writing was already all over the wall.

Many stakeholders would want to know the composition of the balance sheet: capital injection (budget surplus from excessive taxes, land sales, HDB sales, etc.), investment Profit and Loss, liability (e.g. bonds sold to CPF Board), etc.
Of course, there are many ways to do this without giving the shop away, so no more lame excuses.

WE DEMAND TO KNOW NOW.

By: RookieLim

RookieLim — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:56:39 +0000

Instead of owning up to the mistake, apologize and move on, the press secretary give a stupid incomprehensible argument. If such a reply is given by my child, I would have given him a tight slap and wake up his f___ing idea.

The investment in ABC can be considered an honest mistake. Even the investment in Shin Corp can be forgiven. But, how can any professional investment house that is suppose to invest in an diversified portfolio argue with a straight face that the significant investment in 3 major financial institutions over such a short time be “not in disrespect”?

By: tiredsingaporean

tiredsingaporean — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:39:45 +0000

Anything said or mentioned on the net that are not in favour to the ruling party is considered anti-govt. They simply talk as though they are the eternal govt of singapore, so confident that they are really the immortals?

By: magugu

magugu — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:16:01 +0000

Isn’t the press secretary a civil servant? What is he doing talking on behalf of the PAP? Correct me if I’m wrong.

By: smallvice585

smallvice585 — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:10:37 +0000

Wow.. the Prime Minister’s Office attempts to demonise the website that hosted the online poll cited in the Financial Times' Crisis Spoils Singapore's Celebration article by saying it is an anti-government website. There is somewhat a persecution agenda in the PMO's letter because anti-government can be argued as sedition while anti-PAP cannot be argued as sedition. The PMO's response on Financial Times can only be said to politically motivated and not factually justified.

By: Where the Proof

Where the Proof — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:09:01 +0000

Temasek earned 19 per cent, the last 20 years,, yah sure..

Show Singaporean the proof !!!!!

By: blackfeline

blackfeline — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:08:05 +0000

no shame

By: theonlinecitizen

theonlinecitizen — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:31:17 +0000

To the commenter whose nickname/handle begins with “tew”.

If you want your comments to be allowed to be posted, please change your nuckname/handle to something which is not vulgar.

By: CPF

CPF — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:25:03 +0000

Er…. “Over the 20-year period up to March 31 2008, GIC earned annualised US dollar returns of 7.8 per cent, while Temasek earned 19 per cent.” Somehow I really wonder where the country revenues goes to, do they go to country reserve which is Temasek Holding or GIC?

Probably the growth is from the growth of contribution such as CPF, ERP, IRAS, GST and etc over the years.

By: Get Real

Get Real — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:51:34 +0000

When I was in Primary School in the “Black and White TV” days, whenever my father wants to cane me for a bad exam results in my report book, I will tell him in desperation that I did well for the last few years’ exams wat and if that did’nt work I will tell him that I did better than half the people in my class wat…Guess wat? I still kana cane…too bad my dad had passed away and I cannot find out why those excuses did not work for him.

By: Old wise man

Old wise man — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 05:05:14 +0000

Try to pacify and play a nice, soothing song for the public to hear. No doubt the PAP will win and rule this country after the coming election with the”unpopular” tactics, however we hope those people who are suffering under this money face govt (top paid ministers in the world) will vote wisely for a brighter tomorrow.