The ST should be careful on how they report their facts. Lest they become even more unreliable and independent.
The title of the article states unquivocally that "No bonuses for Temasek staff". Now there is nothing unclear about "No bonuses" is there? Well when you read on you will discover that a Temasek employee's bonus is drawn from a pool that is paid out over a number of years. When the company does well, the pool gets bigger and the individual's share along with it.
Hence when Ho Ching announced "negative bonuses" it could either mean each employee will get no money from the pool, or the value of the overall pool shrinks. With the latter, negative bonuses means less bonuses and not no bonuses.
The reason why i think it is more likely to be the latter is because of Ho Chings own words: "It is a tough challenge to share negative bonuses". You can't share zero but you can share less.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 30, 2009
No bonuses for Temasek staff
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_410035.html
THE entire staff of Temasek Holdings are taking personal financial hits, with annual bonuses likely to be slashed in the wake of the investment firm's losses over the past year.
Part of every Temasek employee's bonus goes into a pool that is paid out over a number of years rather than at the end of each year.
When Temasek meets its internal performance benchmarks with higher-than-targeted returns, the pool of bonuses to be distributed grows and each employee gets a bigger slice.
But when it fails to do so, employees get 'negative bonuses': They get no money from the pool, or the value of the overall pool shrinks.
This compensation structure is based on a key principle of having staff 'share in the institution's performance, both for positive and negative results', said chief executive Ho Ching yesterday.
In her speech at the IPS Corporate Associates Lunch, she said: 'We share gains and pains alongside our shareholder. This is in essence having an owner's approach to our business and operations.'
Temasek came in below its targets last year as well as this year, which means staff get 'negative bonuses'.
'From CEO to office attendants, all our staff were allocated negative bonuses last year, and will be allocated more negative bonuses this year,' said Ms Ho.
If Temasek achieves above-target returns, known as Wealth Added and reported in the annual Temasek Review, it will have gains to share with its staff.
'It is a tough challenge to share negative bonuses...it is even tougher to deliver a positive Wealth Added every year,' she said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other related stories:
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
AG Report - MDA Conflicts of Interest & Financial Mismanagement
Media reprint
GOVT AGENCIES' RESPONSE TO AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT
MDA backed mentors' stakes in start-ups
By Nur Dianah Suhaimi
July 19, 2009
It was no secret.
The Media Development Authority (MDA) was fully aware several of the mentors it appointed to recommend interactive and digital media start-ups for funding held stakes in the companies they rooted for.
The mentors had declared their stakes before funding was approved. In fact, MDA not only approved the funding, but it also viewed the mentors' stakes in the companies favourably.
MDA revealed this when asked to comment on the Auditor-General's (AG) report released last week, which faulted the way MDA handled the Microfunding Scheme.
The scheme allows MDA to disburse $40 million to start-ups in the interactive digital media (IDM) sector over five years, as part of the Government's drive to boost the industry. Each approved start-up can get up to $50,000 each.
The AG report noted how four start-ups which got grants were founded and co-owned by their mentors. There was also a conflict of interest in the evaluation of applications for funding.
In 10 approved cases, one of the three experts appointed by MDA to evaluate the applications was either a shareholder of the company he evaluated or a business partner of the mentor.
Responding to the report, Mr Michael Yap, the agency's executive director for the IDM research and development programme office, said MDA's efforts over the last two to three years have focused on encouraging experimentation and supporting young start-ups and entrepreneurs in their innovations.
'Critical to their success is matching them with more experienced incubators, that is mentors, who can value-add, provide networks and advice on their growth,' he said.
'This being a young industry, the pool of incubators is small and it is common for incubators to have ownership in start-ups. This can help further the growth of the industry as it gives them a stake in the success of the IDM ventures.'
On the four start-ups in question, 'the incubators had fully declared their involvement with the start-ups during the application process', he said. 'Their applications were approved on their own merits and the participation of the incubators was viewed as positive.'
MDA said it will be strengthening its application procedures and will also require the evaluation panel members, who are volunteers, to declare their independence.
The Microfunding Scheme is expected to benefit some 750 to 1,000 projects over the next five years. So far, 200 start-ups have received funding from MDA. The mentors, or incubators as they are referred to, get $10,000 for each project for providing services such as mentoring, legal guidance and matchmaking with venture capitalists.
According to the scheme's website, there are nine mentors, including NUS Enterprise and Singapore Infocomm Technology Federation.
These mentoring companies are usually represented by their heads.
Lapses by MDA filled nine pages in the 40-page AG report. Other salient lapses included overcollecting $6.06 million in radio and TV licence fees from some 684,000 households since 2005. The money has yet to be refunded.
It did not collect $844,600 in licence fees from a broadcaster and almost $10 million of sales revenue from films it co-invested in.
MP Zaqy Mohamad, Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) chairman for Information, Communications and the Arts, declined to comment on the matter as he was part of the Public Accounts Committee.
The committee, comprising eight MPs, pores over financial statements of government agencies and the AG's annual report, and seeks written explanations from agencies concerned.
The GPC's vice-chairman, Mr Baey Yam Keng, said the approval process in the Microfunding Scheme should be fine-tuned such that mentors are not put in the position that they are able to recommend their own interests.
However, he does not think the funds which have been disbursed to the four start-ups should be returned.
'Ultimately, the whole purpose of the scheme is to look out for good start-ups. So if the companies are really deserving of funding, then it's fine,' he said.
On MDA's failure to collect $10 million in revenue from the films it invested in, Mr Baey said MDA has probably not fine-tuned this process as the programme started only some years back. He was less forgiving on the agency's overcollection of some $6 million in radio and TV licence fees.
He said: 'MDA has been collecting licence fees for many years. There is no reason why the system is not robust enough to prevent this from happening. By now, there should not be any problems with this simple task.
'MDA should really look into how it can close the gaps.'
GOVT AGENCIES' RESPONSE TO AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT
MDA backed mentors' stakes in start-ups
By Nur Dianah Suhaimi
July 19, 2009
It was no secret.
The Media Development Authority (MDA) was fully aware several of the mentors it appointed to recommend interactive and digital media start-ups for funding held stakes in the companies they rooted for.
The mentors had declared their stakes before funding was approved. In fact, MDA not only approved the funding, but it also viewed the mentors' stakes in the companies favourably.
MDA revealed this when asked to comment on the Auditor-General's (AG) report released last week, which faulted the way MDA handled the Microfunding Scheme.
The scheme allows MDA to disburse $40 million to start-ups in the interactive digital media (IDM) sector over five years, as part of the Government's drive to boost the industry. Each approved start-up can get up to $50,000 each.
The AG report noted how four start-ups which got grants were founded and co-owned by their mentors. There was also a conflict of interest in the evaluation of applications for funding.
In 10 approved cases, one of the three experts appointed by MDA to evaluate the applications was either a shareholder of the company he evaluated or a business partner of the mentor.
Responding to the report, Mr Michael Yap, the agency's executive director for the IDM research and development programme office, said MDA's efforts over the last two to three years have focused on encouraging experimentation and supporting young start-ups and entrepreneurs in their innovations.
'Critical to their success is matching them with more experienced incubators, that is mentors, who can value-add, provide networks and advice on their growth,' he said.
'This being a young industry, the pool of incubators is small and it is common for incubators to have ownership in start-ups. This can help further the growth of the industry as it gives them a stake in the success of the IDM ventures.'
On the four start-ups in question, 'the incubators had fully declared their involvement with the start-ups during the application process', he said. 'Their applications were approved on their own merits and the participation of the incubators was viewed as positive.'
MDA said it will be strengthening its application procedures and will also require the evaluation panel members, who are volunteers, to declare their independence.
The Microfunding Scheme is expected to benefit some 750 to 1,000 projects over the next five years. So far, 200 start-ups have received funding from MDA. The mentors, or incubators as they are referred to, get $10,000 for each project for providing services such as mentoring, legal guidance and matchmaking with venture capitalists.
According to the scheme's website, there are nine mentors, including NUS Enterprise and Singapore Infocomm Technology Federation.
These mentoring companies are usually represented by their heads.
Lapses by MDA filled nine pages in the 40-page AG report. Other salient lapses included overcollecting $6.06 million in radio and TV licence fees from some 684,000 households since 2005. The money has yet to be refunded.
It did not collect $844,600 in licence fees from a broadcaster and almost $10 million of sales revenue from films it co-invested in.
MP Zaqy Mohamad, Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) chairman for Information, Communications and the Arts, declined to comment on the matter as he was part of the Public Accounts Committee.
The committee, comprising eight MPs, pores over financial statements of government agencies and the AG's annual report, and seeks written explanations from agencies concerned.
The GPC's vice-chairman, Mr Baey Yam Keng, said the approval process in the Microfunding Scheme should be fine-tuned such that mentors are not put in the position that they are able to recommend their own interests.
However, he does not think the funds which have been disbursed to the four start-ups should be returned.
'Ultimately, the whole purpose of the scheme is to look out for good start-ups. So if the companies are really deserving of funding, then it's fine,' he said.
On MDA's failure to collect $10 million in revenue from the films it invested in, Mr Baey said MDA has probably not fine-tuned this process as the programme started only some years back. He was less forgiving on the agency's overcollection of some $6 million in radio and TV licence fees.
He said: 'MDA has been collecting licence fees for many years. There is no reason why the system is not robust enough to prevent this from happening. By now, there should not be any problems with this simple task.
'MDA should really look into how it can close the gaps.'
Friday, July 3, 2009
Are our Friendly Skies ... Safe?
UPDATE: ST Aerospace President Tay Kok Khiang has responded to my query on the legitmacy of the claims. Here is his response (emphasis are mine):
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In lieu of the tragic Air France and Yemeni air crashes, aircraft safety is very much in the foreground of our thoughts as we embark on holidays or send love ones of at the terminal.
When I spoke of my concerns to a relative that was flying off to London, she confidently replied that if iwas scared I should just pay more and fly SQ. I felt reassured then, but now I am not so sure.
In an age of globalisation, the only thing that spreads across national borders faster than information and goods, is greed and incompetence.
I saw the article attached below in the 3in1kopitiam Forum and needless to say i was dissappointed. In a nut shell, aircraft mechanics, yes the ones supposed to do the safety checks, were being 'imported' into the US by companies that are subsidiaries or direct entities of ST Aerospace, a company of ST Engineering. And in order to cut costs and maximize margins, their qualifications, such as their ability to read the english instruction manuals, are being overstated.
I am not well informed enough to known the level of direct involvement of ST Aerospace in this hiring policy, but I do think they have a responsibility to respond and clarify their position.
I will be sending this post to the ST Engg management, Our Labour Chief and to The Press
==========================================================
Aircraft repair jobs sold to foreign workers, resumes not important
02:12 PM CDT on Wednesday, July 1, 2009
By BYRON HARRIS / WFAA-TV
A News 8 investigation found that hundreds of aircraft mechanics have been brought into the United States to work at aircraft repair facilities.
Insiders say the companies that are importing the mechanics are so eager to save money, they’re overstating their qualifications. The result may be a threat to safety, abetted by lax enforcement of immigration law.
At daybreak any morning at San Antonio Aerospace, hundreds of workers amble through the gates for the day shift. They repair big jets like Airbuses, Boeing 757s and MD-11s. But, despite the fact that it's a huge facility in the middle of the San Antonio International Airport, a large number of the mechanics are only temporary workers from foreign countries.
News 8 found they’re from Mexico, the Philippines and Chile, among other places. They have been brought specifically to the United States to work for San Antonio Aerospace (SAA). News 8 followed a special bus San Antonio Aerospace, used to pick up foreign workers every morning. Workers riding on the bus were from the Philippines. The workers, who wouldn’t say how much money they make, are part of a stream of imported mechanics brought to this country at cut-rate wages, according to several sources familiar with the business.
Jada Williams used to work for one of the contracting companies, Aircraft Workers Worldwide (AWW), based in Daphne, Alabama. AWW supplied workers for two facilities, Mobile Aerospace Engineering (MAE) in Mobile, Alabama and San Antonio Aerospace, which are both controlled by ST Aerospace. San Antonio Aerospace is a division of ST Aerospace, the largest aircraft repair company in world.
"They’ve employed over 200 since I left,” said Williams, who said she was unfairly fired by the contractor last fall. "And I know we had over a hundred when I was in there, just in Mobile.”
She said in San Antonio, AWW supplied 600 workers. The workers stay in the United States and come from various countries because of the different kinds of visas available in those places.
San Antonio Aerospace uses several contracting companies to supply it with workers. It can be a high-profit business for the contractors. They can make $3 to $12 an hour for every worker hired by SAA, contractors say.
The drive for profits is so big, Williams and other insiders said, that the contractors often falsify the qualifications of the imports.
"We had two,” she said. “One of them was a female. She was about 16. It was a brother and a sister. One guy was a grocery bagger, one was a security guard in Puerto Rico. Their ages were between 18 and 22.”
Their ages are important because it takes years of experience or schooling to learn how to repair a big jet, experience they couldn’t have had.
"There had been padded resumes at SAA before,” said an administrator at another contractor. “That’s why another contract house was kicked out (of SAA).”
One former SAA mechanic, who spent years learning his trade before being laid off, said foreign workers got their training on the job from the Americans they worked with.
"The more experienced mechanics, we would get paired up with either one or two of these guys,” he says. “And they would watch us for a month or so. And that’s how they would get their training.”
Williams is suing her former boss, Daniel Harding, for unlawful termination and racial discrimination. She has a computer full of company documents that were acquired accidentally when AWW got new computers for its office and gave her an old one. Spreadsheets, resumes and payrolls revealed many company practices, from interviews, to trips to the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City for visas, charts marked the progress of Mexican workers to the United States. Documents also showed workers were charged $3,500 each by AWW to get into the United States.
Williams also has an e-mail trail from AWW president Harding to Moh Loong Loh, the President of San Antonio Aerospace. He described one candidate as having “ 25 percent English skills.” Workers need English to communicate with their supervisors and to read repair manuals, so this is a key safety issue. American SAA workers said many imports cannot speak English at all.
In another e-mail, Harding described a group of imported workers from Mexico, just like a commodity.
“I hope to be able to bring increments no larger than ten at a time,” he wrote to Loh.
While this was happening, SAA former wokers said they got laid off.
WFAA-TV The companies involved may face serious questions, said a former judge.
“I feel like we are being betrayed in our own country,” said one who was terminated. “And I feel it is not right.”
“These big layoffs of 20 to 30 people would go out,” said the contract administrator. “The very next Monday, 30 or 40 [imports] would be coming in.”
Williams said in Mobile the numbers were even bigger. She said she picked up a group of 60 people from Puerto Rico at Mobile Regional Airport last February. Since Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory, its residents are U.S citizens. For the contractors, this is a bonus because they can pay the Puerto Ricans low wages without having to deal with foreign immigration requirements.
When the FAA came to inspect San Antonio Aerospace, the company got a one-hour warning, said a former employee.
“And a lot of guys who were not able to read English, they would hide those guys or send them home for the evening," the former employee said.
News 8 submitted written questions to both SAA in San Antonio and MAE in Mobile. The questions asked how many foreign workers they employ and what they are paid. The response from each said “we are an equal opportunity employer.” Another question was whether AWW is owned by ST Aerospace. The terse answer was no, “AWW is an independent contractor.”
AWW did not respond to questions. An attorney retained by the company and Daniel Hardin said “Mr. Hardin is a responsible businessman who has greatly benefitted his community and his country.”
In Dallas, former judge David Finn, now in private practice, told News 8 that all the companies involved may face serious questions.
“Federal prosecutors would probably look at making false statements, material false statements," he said. "That’s a federal offense, a felony ... Mail fraud, wire fraud, there are any number of statues on the books that would apply to a situation like that.”
Thank you for your interest and feedback.
You are assured that the allegations being made by the wfaa are untrue. We have the highest regard for safety of our products and would notcompromise that. Our customers are also fully aware of our exacting qualitystandards and are with us.
Have a good day.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In lieu of the tragic Air France and Yemeni air crashes, aircraft safety is very much in the foreground of our thoughts as we embark on holidays or send love ones of at the terminal.
When I spoke of my concerns to a relative that was flying off to London, she confidently replied that if iwas scared I should just pay more and fly SQ. I felt reassured then, but now I am not so sure.
In an age of globalisation, the only thing that spreads across national borders faster than information and goods, is greed and incompetence.
I saw the article attached below in the 3in1kopitiam Forum and needless to say i was dissappointed. In a nut shell, aircraft mechanics, yes the ones supposed to do the safety checks, were being 'imported' into the US by companies that are subsidiaries or direct entities of ST Aerospace, a company of ST Engineering. And in order to cut costs and maximize margins, their qualifications, such as their ability to read the english instruction manuals, are being overstated.
I am not well informed enough to known the level of direct involvement of ST Aerospace in this hiring policy, but I do think they have a responsibility to respond and clarify their position.
I will be sending this post to the ST Engg management, Our Labour Chief and to The Press
==========================================================
Aircraft repair jobs sold to foreign workers, resumes not important
02:12 PM CDT on Wednesday, July 1, 2009
By BYRON HARRIS / WFAA-TV
A News 8 investigation found that hundreds of aircraft mechanics have been brought into the United States to work at aircraft repair facilities.
Insiders say the companies that are importing the mechanics are so eager to save money, they’re overstating their qualifications. The result may be a threat to safety, abetted by lax enforcement of immigration law.
At daybreak any morning at San Antonio Aerospace, hundreds of workers amble through the gates for the day shift. They repair big jets like Airbuses, Boeing 757s and MD-11s. But, despite the fact that it's a huge facility in the middle of the San Antonio International Airport, a large number of the mechanics are only temporary workers from foreign countries.
News 8 found they’re from Mexico, the Philippines and Chile, among other places. They have been brought specifically to the United States to work for San Antonio Aerospace (SAA). News 8 followed a special bus San Antonio Aerospace, used to pick up foreign workers every morning. Workers riding on the bus were from the Philippines. The workers, who wouldn’t say how much money they make, are part of a stream of imported mechanics brought to this country at cut-rate wages, according to several sources familiar with the business.
Jada Williams used to work for one of the contracting companies, Aircraft Workers Worldwide (AWW), based in Daphne, Alabama. AWW supplied workers for two facilities, Mobile Aerospace Engineering (MAE) in Mobile, Alabama and San Antonio Aerospace, which are both controlled by ST Aerospace. San Antonio Aerospace is a division of ST Aerospace, the largest aircraft repair company in world.
"They’ve employed over 200 since I left,” said Williams, who said she was unfairly fired by the contractor last fall. "And I know we had over a hundred when I was in there, just in Mobile.”
She said in San Antonio, AWW supplied 600 workers. The workers stay in the United States and come from various countries because of the different kinds of visas available in those places.
San Antonio Aerospace uses several contracting companies to supply it with workers. It can be a high-profit business for the contractors. They can make $3 to $12 an hour for every worker hired by SAA, contractors say.
The drive for profits is so big, Williams and other insiders said, that the contractors often falsify the qualifications of the imports.
"We had two,” she said. “One of them was a female. She was about 16. It was a brother and a sister. One guy was a grocery bagger, one was a security guard in Puerto Rico. Their ages were between 18 and 22.”
Their ages are important because it takes years of experience or schooling to learn how to repair a big jet, experience they couldn’t have had.
"There had been padded resumes at SAA before,” said an administrator at another contractor. “That’s why another contract house was kicked out (of SAA).”
One former SAA mechanic, who spent years learning his trade before being laid off, said foreign workers got their training on the job from the Americans they worked with.
"The more experienced mechanics, we would get paired up with either one or two of these guys,” he says. “And they would watch us for a month or so. And that’s how they would get their training.”
Williams is suing her former boss, Daniel Harding, for unlawful termination and racial discrimination. She has a computer full of company documents that were acquired accidentally when AWW got new computers for its office and gave her an old one. Spreadsheets, resumes and payrolls revealed many company practices, from interviews, to trips to the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City for visas, charts marked the progress of Mexican workers to the United States. Documents also showed workers were charged $3,500 each by AWW to get into the United States.
Williams also has an e-mail trail from AWW president Harding to Moh Loong Loh, the President of San Antonio Aerospace. He described one candidate as having “ 25 percent English skills.” Workers need English to communicate with their supervisors and to read repair manuals, so this is a key safety issue. American SAA workers said many imports cannot speak English at all.
In another e-mail, Harding described a group of imported workers from Mexico, just like a commodity.
“I hope to be able to bring increments no larger than ten at a time,” he wrote to Loh.
While this was happening, SAA former wokers said they got laid off.
WFAA-TV The companies involved may face serious questions, said a former judge.
“I feel like we are being betrayed in our own country,” said one who was terminated. “And I feel it is not right.”
“These big layoffs of 20 to 30 people would go out,” said the contract administrator. “The very next Monday, 30 or 40 [imports] would be coming in.”
Williams said in Mobile the numbers were even bigger. She said she picked up a group of 60 people from Puerto Rico at Mobile Regional Airport last February. Since Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory, its residents are U.S citizens. For the contractors, this is a bonus because they can pay the Puerto Ricans low wages without having to deal with foreign immigration requirements.
When the FAA came to inspect San Antonio Aerospace, the company got a one-hour warning, said a former employee.
“And a lot of guys who were not able to read English, they would hide those guys or send them home for the evening," the former employee said.
News 8 submitted written questions to both SAA in San Antonio and MAE in Mobile. The questions asked how many foreign workers they employ and what they are paid. The response from each said “we are an equal opportunity employer.” Another question was whether AWW is owned by ST Aerospace. The terse answer was no, “AWW is an independent contractor.”
AWW did not respond to questions. An attorney retained by the company and Daniel Hardin said “Mr. Hardin is a responsible businessman who has greatly benefitted his community and his country.”
In Dallas, former judge David Finn, now in private practice, told News 8 that all the companies involved may face serious questions.
“Federal prosecutors would probably look at making false statements, material false statements," he said. "That’s a federal offense, a felony ... Mail fraud, wire fraud, there are any number of statues on the books that would apply to a situation like that.”
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Losing touch and sense of proportion
While Temasek is losing its investment touch, Alvin Foo of the ST is losing his sense of proportion and reality (as you will see from his article attached below). With great conviction it is declared that Temasek out performed nearly very index and person worth noting (Buffet no less), but it comes with a caveat: "assuming the value of its portfolio remained unchanged since November last year".
What value is there in making a comparison for a 10 yr period that ends in March 2009 when the data is only updated to November 2008??
It is also quite convenient that the period of comparison ended at march 2009; a period that many analysts consider to be the bottom of this economic downcycle. Temasek's recent investment disasters were offload either prior to or during this period. This meant that they did not benefit from the vicious rebound since the march lows to date. Would Temasek still beat the street if the months of april to june were included? It probably would if you continue to only consider their holdings as of Nov 2008.
The first 3 months of 2009 were torrid times for ALL investors, including Buffet that earnestly came out and declared he had make big investment mistakes in late 2008 and apologised to his sharehlders.Did Mdm Ho make such public apologies for her countless blunders? No. She had no regrets and picked up an award for it.
We must also understand that Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway is unlike Temsasek which has constant captial injection (tax payers money). This naturally puts Temasek at an advantage as we all know the market moving power of big money. And without fear of losing this captial injection, Temasek can basically throw caution to the wind and place their bets at the roulette table knowing full well that their chips will be replenished every month at a rate of 33% of gross salary.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_392459.html
SINGAPORE investment agency Temasek Holdings may have taken a hit recently on some of its high-profile banking investments, but over the longer term it has outperformed key global benchmarks.
Figures obtained by The Straits Times show that over a 10-year period to March this year, Temasek outgunned several closely-watched equity indexes.
It also beat other notable long-term investors such as Berkshire Hathaway, a top US investment company headed by billionaire Warren Buffett.
Temasek's performance has come under scrutiny in recent months after it suffered significant losses earlier this year on investments in Western banks Barclays and Bank of America (BoA).
The state investment house delivered an annualised total shareholder return by market value of 5.4 per cent from March 1999 to March this year, assuming the value of its portfolio remained unchanged since November last year. That is the date of the last available update of the value of its investments.
This compares with a return of 4.5 per cent in the same period for the MSCI Asia Pacific excluding Japan index, 3.1 per cent for the MSCI Singapore index, and -3 per cent for the MSCI World index, according to figures obtained by The Straits Times.
MSCI indexes are key indicators commonly used by institutional investors to see how well they are doing relative to the market.
Temasek's main investments are in stocks, with the bulk of its assets in Singapore and Asia, so these indexes are regarded as a useful gauge of its performance.
Temasek's returns were also better than that of long-term investors like Swedish investment firm Investor AB, which delivered 3.7 per cent, and Berkshire Hathaway, which yielded 0.7 per cent.
Last month, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam told Parliament that Temasek has performed 'respectably' compared to relevant market indexes and reputable institutional investors.
What value is there in making a comparison for a 10 yr period that ends in March 2009 when the data is only updated to November 2008??
It is also quite convenient that the period of comparison ended at march 2009; a period that many analysts consider to be the bottom of this economic downcycle. Temasek's recent investment disasters were offload either prior to or during this period. This meant that they did not benefit from the vicious rebound since the march lows to date. Would Temasek still beat the street if the months of april to june were included? It probably would if you continue to only consider their holdings as of Nov 2008.
The first 3 months of 2009 were torrid times for ALL investors, including Buffet that earnestly came out and declared he had make big investment mistakes in late 2008 and apologised to his sharehlders.Did Mdm Ho make such public apologies for her countless blunders? No. She had no regrets and picked up an award for it.
We must also understand that Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway is unlike Temsasek which has constant captial injection (tax payers money). This naturally puts Temasek at an advantage as we all know the market moving power of big money. And without fear of losing this captial injection, Temasek can basically throw caution to the wind and place their bets at the roulette table knowing full well that their chips will be replenished every month at a rate of 33% of gross salary.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_392459.html
SINGAPORE investment agency Temasek Holdings may have taken a hit recently on some of its high-profile banking investments, but over the longer term it has outperformed key global benchmarks.
Figures obtained by The Straits Times show that over a 10-year period to March this year, Temasek outgunned several closely-watched equity indexes.
It also beat other notable long-term investors such as Berkshire Hathaway, a top US investment company headed by billionaire Warren Buffett.
Temasek's performance has come under scrutiny in recent months after it suffered significant losses earlier this year on investments in Western banks Barclays and Bank of America (BoA).
The state investment house delivered an annualised total shareholder return by market value of 5.4 per cent from March 1999 to March this year, assuming the value of its portfolio remained unchanged since November last year. That is the date of the last available update of the value of its investments.
This compares with a return of 4.5 per cent in the same period for the MSCI Asia Pacific excluding Japan index, 3.1 per cent for the MSCI Singapore index, and -3 per cent for the MSCI World index, according to figures obtained by The Straits Times.
MSCI indexes are key indicators commonly used by institutional investors to see how well they are doing relative to the market.
Temasek's main investments are in stocks, with the bulk of its assets in Singapore and Asia, so these indexes are regarded as a useful gauge of its performance.
Temasek's returns were also better than that of long-term investors like Swedish investment firm Investor AB, which delivered 3.7 per cent, and Berkshire Hathaway, which yielded 0.7 per cent.
Last month, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam told Parliament that Temasek has performed 'respectably' compared to relevant market indexes and reputable institutional investors.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Temasek Losing Its Touch?
Today marks the 20th anniversary of the Tianamen massacre. Today also brought a news update of yet another massacre; a financial massacre.
It was announced that Temasek Holdings sold its stake in British banking giant Barclays in December and January, at an estimated loss of between 500 million pounds (S$1.2 billion) and 600 million pounds.
Guess we can’t be too shocked by this news as the MSM was preparing us for it by softening the sentiment with ‘good’ news the day before:
Once again thanks to ‘astute’ investment timing, Temasek chose to offload its stake just as the stock hit its lowest levels since 1985. It is rumoured that this round of panic selling was over fears that Barclays could be nationalised. That didn’t happen in the end but they would argue that at that time, it was a very real threat. With that said, shouldn’t then GIC be worried about its investment in CitiGroup? Or will the excuse be that the investment thesis changed as it did for its investment in Merril?
There are ways to divest can still make a profit. Just look at the Abu Dhabi government which unlike Temasek, made a killing in its Barclays investment. It invested into Barclays last October sold out for a US$2.5 billion profit only last month.
Jeremy Warner of The Independent questions if Temasek is losing its touch. He adds “Temasek's loss on a similar investment in Bank of America was an even more jaw-dropping $3bn. If they haven't been already, someone, somewhere, is going to get fired.”
If there were a silver lining to be found, perhaps the decision makers at Temasek would be more cautious before they run head in and dump millions into another company laden with financial woes and uncertainty. Ooopss ... spoke too soon. Now they are looking at AIG.
It was announced that Temasek Holdings sold its stake in British banking giant Barclays in December and January, at an estimated loss of between 500 million pounds (S$1.2 billion) and 600 million pounds.
Guess we can’t be too shocked by this news as the MSM was preparing us for it by softening the sentiment with ‘good’ news the day before:
Once again thanks to ‘astute’ investment timing, Temasek chose to offload its stake just as the stock hit its lowest levels since 1985. It is rumoured that this round of panic selling was over fears that Barclays could be nationalised. That didn’t happen in the end but they would argue that at that time, it was a very real threat. With that said, shouldn’t then GIC be worried about its investment in CitiGroup? Or will the excuse be that the investment thesis changed as it did for its investment in Merril?
There are ways to divest can still make a profit. Just look at the Abu Dhabi government which unlike Temasek, made a killing in its Barclays investment. It invested into Barclays last October sold out for a US$2.5 billion profit only last month.
Jeremy Warner of The Independent questions if Temasek is losing its touch. He adds “Temasek's loss on a similar investment in Bank of America was an even more jaw-dropping $3bn. If they haven't been already, someone, somewhere, is going to get fired.”
If there were a silver lining to be found, perhaps the decision makers at Temasek would be more cautious before they run head in and dump millions into another company laden with financial woes and uncertainty. Ooopss ... spoke too soon. Now they are looking at AIG.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
My Thoughts on NMP Siew Kum Hong's Police Report
NMP Siew Kum Hong has come under attack recently for his role a 'legal advisor' for the Aware Old Guard at the last EOGM. More recently, a slew of accusations have perpetuated in online forums, insinuating that he had received foreign funding from a Swedish politician (who allegedly funds the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), and is somehow the SDP's representative or "mole" in Parliament.
Siew has unequivocally denied these allegations and has filed a police report and requested the removal of said posts.
First, I would like to clearly state that i have a tremendous amount of respect for Mr Siew. This respect was formulated from his performance in parliament and his genuine interest in serving society and providing a voice for the disempowered.
Second, I do not, nor have ever, condoned nor encouraged irresponsible and inflammatory comments under the cloak of anonymity on the Net.
Having established these two points, I am slightly perturbed by the potential ripple effects that his legal actions may have. I hate the "slippery slope" argument but unfortunatley, things always have a way of escalating.
Although Alex at yawningbread.org fully supports Siew's actions, he did note that "those who put themselves in the public eye should be more tolerant of public discussion of their activities and motives than truly private citizens." This is just something I hope Mr Siew and other public figures will keep in mind.
Obviously both are lies and as Alex has noted, the burden of proof (in libel law) lies on the person making the allegation.
While we are on the subject of libel, there are some cases to bear in mind:
1) The Lee's defamation suit against the publisher and editor of FEER
http://www.aseanaffairs.com/page/singapore_pm_ups_stakes_in_libel_case
2)The use of defamtion against CSJ
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA36/010/2001/en/dom-ASA360102001en.html
3) Libel suit against Gopalan Nair http://cpj.org/2008/06/singapore-detains-us-blogger-over-libel-commentary.php
Obviously these cases are different from Siew's curretn predicament, but they serve as reminders that what is deemed fair comment is often skewed by those with the power and money to sue.
When the little guy has to watch every single word he uses in fear of being accused of at best innuendo, and at worst libel, the only form in which free speech can take place is ironically in the shape of anonymity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also read: http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=3072
Siew has unequivocally denied these allegations and has filed a police report and requested the removal of said posts.
First, I would like to clearly state that i have a tremendous amount of respect for Mr Siew. This respect was formulated from his performance in parliament and his genuine interest in serving society and providing a voice for the disempowered.
Second, I do not, nor have ever, condoned nor encouraged irresponsible and inflammatory comments under the cloak of anonymity on the Net.
Having established these two points, I am slightly perturbed by the potential ripple effects that his legal actions may have. I hate the "slippery slope" argument but unfortunatley, things always have a way of escalating.
Although Alex at yawningbread.org fully supports Siew's actions, he did note that "those who put themselves in the public eye should be more tolerant of public discussion of their activities and motives than truly private citizens." This is just something I hope Mr Siew and other public figures will keep in mind.
I have to date refrained from taking any legal action in response to the lies and falsehoods that have been levelled at me. But this latest attack goes beyond anything that a reasonable person could possibly perceive as being a valid or legitimate exercise of the right to free speech, and I certainly will not tolerate the latest rounds of character assassination from cowards hiding behind the perceived anonymity of he Internet. -- Siew Kum HongAlthough I am sympathetic to Mr Siew - no one should be subject to the concerted attacks on his person - I do have doubts over a move to track down anonymous netters when and no action was taken against the real life agents of the former Aware New Guard when they operate in the light of day and accuse him of abusing his position as NMP to further a Gay-agenda.
Obviously both are lies and as Alex has noted, the burden of proof (in libel law) lies on the person making the allegation.
While we are on the subject of libel, there are some cases to bear in mind:
1) The Lee's defamation suit against the publisher and editor of FEER
http://www.aseanaffairs.com/page/singapore_pm_ups_stakes_in_libel_case
2)The use of defamtion against CSJ
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA36/010/2001/en/dom-ASA360102001en.html
3) Libel suit against Gopalan Nair http://cpj.org/2008/06/singapore-detains-us-blogger-over-libel-commentary.php
Obviously these cases are different from Siew's curretn predicament, but they serve as reminders that what is deemed fair comment is often skewed by those with the power and money to sue.
When the little guy has to watch every single word he uses in fear of being accused of at best innuendo, and at worst libel, the only form in which free speech can take place is ironically in the shape of anonymity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also read: http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=3072
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Temasek and Bank of America - Are we missing something?
Published first at http://singaporeenquirer.sg/?p=3762In December 2007 – the nascent and uncertain times prior to the eventual global credit meltdown – Temasek Holdings placed a strategic US$4.4 billion bet on troubled US investment bank Merrill Lynch. As markets continued to unravel from the subprime crisis and credit squeeze Temasek nearly doubled down with an increased stake of US$ 3.4 billion in July 2008.
In justification of this tremendous capital injection in uncertain times, and perhaps to calm nervy Singaporeans, Temasek declared “great confidence” in then Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain.
MP Lim Hwee Hua – Singapore's minister of state for finance – announced in parliament that “Because our reserves are invested with a long-term horizon, this long-term orientation will keep us from selling in panic in a market downturn” and that “The downturns also offer opportunities for our agencies to invest in good quality assets at prices that are attractive from a long-term perspective.”
History is cruel and unforgiving as less than a month later, Lehman Brothers went bust; setting off a chain of events threatening to take down giant insurers, banks, motor companies, … etc down with it.
Having already suffered heavy loses on initial investments, optimism sprung eternal when Bank of America bought over Merril Lynch to prevent it from going bankrupt.
The conversion of Merril into Bank of America shares promise some long term recovery given that Bank of America is a much bigger franchise.
Had Temasek sold its stake after the Bank of America takeover in Sep 2008, it could have gained US$1.5 billion, according to an estimate by Ilian Mihov, an economics professor at graduate business school INSEAD in Singapore. The stock price of Bank of America ranged from US$26 – US$37 per share in Sep 2008.
Perhaps Temasek believed in its mantra of having a long term investment horizon and sought to retain the Bank of America stock to earn more than what to them was a measly potential 20% return on investment.
That resolve, or foolishness, was short lived and today it was confirmed that Temasek had sold its entire stake by 31 Mar 09. Choosing instead to increase investments in emerging markets and reduce exposure to developed economies.
Market timing is clearly not a strong suit of Madam Ho Ching. Since the end of March, when Temasek completed the sale (at an average price of US$6.73), Bank of America stock has risen 66 percent (presently it is US$11.31).
US$11.31 is not much compared to the US$37 it could have made in Sep, but its obviously much better than US$6.73.
I’m not an economist but I am well aware of the shortcomings of attempting to time markets. It is often described as a fool’s quest and I therefore can appreciate the long term investing philosophy. So why the sudden abandonment of this philosophy? We will probably never know the real reason.
Meanwhile, we continue to reward incompetence over and over, AND over again.
Am I missing something?
In justification of this tremendous capital injection in uncertain times, and perhaps to calm nervy Singaporeans, Temasek declared “great confidence” in then Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain.
MP Lim Hwee Hua – Singapore's minister of state for finance – announced in parliament that “Because our reserves are invested with a long-term horizon, this long-term orientation will keep us from selling in panic in a market downturn” and that “The downturns also offer opportunities for our agencies to invest in good quality assets at prices that are attractive from a long-term perspective.”
History is cruel and unforgiving as less than a month later, Lehman Brothers went bust; setting off a chain of events threatening to take down giant insurers, banks, motor companies, … etc down with it.
Having already suffered heavy loses on initial investments, optimism sprung eternal when Bank of America bought over Merril Lynch to prevent it from going bankrupt.
The conversion of Merril into Bank of America shares promise some long term recovery given that Bank of America is a much bigger franchise.
Had Temasek sold its stake after the Bank of America takeover in Sep 2008, it could have gained US$1.5 billion, according to an estimate by Ilian Mihov, an economics professor at graduate business school INSEAD in Singapore. The stock price of Bank of America ranged from US$26 – US$37 per share in Sep 2008.
Perhaps Temasek believed in its mantra of having a long term investment horizon and sought to retain the Bank of America stock to earn more than what to them was a measly potential 20% return on investment.
That resolve, or foolishness, was short lived and today it was confirmed that Temasek had sold its entire stake by 31 Mar 09. Choosing instead to increase investments in emerging markets and reduce exposure to developed economies.
Market timing is clearly not a strong suit of Madam Ho Ching. Since the end of March, when Temasek completed the sale (at an average price of US$6.73), Bank of America stock has risen 66 percent (presently it is US$11.31).
US$11.31 is not much compared to the US$37 it could have made in Sep, but its obviously much better than US$6.73.
I’m not an economist but I am well aware of the shortcomings of attempting to time markets. It is often described as a fool’s quest and I therefore can appreciate the long term investing philosophy. So why the sudden abandonment of this philosophy? We will probably never know the real reason.
Meanwhile, we continue to reward incompetence over and over, AND over again.
Am I missing something?
--------------------------------
Also read: http://wayangparty.com/?p=9407
Update: Temasek explains BoA sale - http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_380131.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
