Why is Temasek expenses unbelievably high?

Newsgroups: soc.culture.singapore
From: yansimon52
Subject: Re: Is Temasek funds being siphoned thru expenses ?
On Mar 19, 8:04 pm, "truth" wrote:

> Temasek expenses is very high. $31.17 billion which is made up of:

> Selling and Distribution $5.042 billion
> Administrative $8.068 billion
> Finance Charges $2.727 billion
> Others $15.333 billion

> I am very suspicious of the Admininstrative and other expenses.
> They can very easily siphoned money away and hide it under these items.
> Of course they can also hide under other expenses.

> Singaporeans must ask the pap mps and multi$million nincompoops to
> account for all these.

Look likes they use money to buy fren and support.

Anyway we sgian give them a blank cheque for these selected few (by
old man) to write those nos on the cheque....Iswaran is sure one of
them...he not only benefit monetary term...he oso rose in his
political rank...

Temasek ready to invest as rally reverses losses

Temasek ready to invest as rally reverses losses

Temasek, the parent of Singapore Technologies Telemedia (STT) which is poised to take over Eircom, recovered from most of its portfolio losses this year as markets rallied, giving it firepower for new deals.

Chief executive Ho Ching said any dip in markets could be a buying opportunity for the $122bn (€83bn) investment firm that is still open to buying financials and investing in emerging markets.

Temasek, which has telecoms investments across the globe, lost over an estimated $4bn on selling its stakes in Bank of America and Barclays, but said it had benefited from investing in rights issues for its portfolio firms such as Standard Chartered, since these investments more than doubled by the end of July.

"We are in a very good cash position," Ms Ho said at Temasek's annual review yesterday. "We think there are lots of opportunities in (China and India) over the long term."

The review showed Temasek's portfolio slumped S$55bn or around 30pc to S$130bn in the year to end-March. Its portfolio then rose 32pc to S$172bn by end-July, and its August performance was in line with market indexes, Ms Ho said.

The firm's value-at-risk was S$28bn at the end of March, meaning it had a 16pc probability it would lose that amount or more this financial year, down from a value-at-risk of S$40bn a year earlier, the review said.

"We believe the worst of the global meltdown risks are behind us," said Ms Ho. "While there are some green shoots of growth, some structural risks still remain for the medium term," she said.

Temasek is Singapore's second biggest sovereign wealth fund after the Government of Singapore Investment Corp.

Differences

Ms Ho, the wife of Singapore's prime minister, said Temasek's board would still search for her successor after chief executive-designate and former BHP Billiton chief Chip Goodyear unexpectedly resigned in July over strategic differences.

The investment company, whose sole shareholder is Singapore's Ministry of Finance, said net profit for the financial year fell two-thirds to S$6.2bn, as it was hit by losses on financial stocks and lower contributions from earnings by its portfolio firms, like DBS Group.

"Like investors everywhere they're just relieved that the market pulled back from the brink," said David Cohen of Action Economics in Singapore.

Eircom is preparing for its fifth change of ownership since its flotation to STT.

Eircom's parent company, Australian fund Eircom Holdings (ERC), has recommended shareholders accept the AU$225m (€133m) cash and shares offer made by STT.

The deal involves the transfer of the entire share issue of ERC to the new entity called Emerald Communications (Cayman) SPC (ECC) and values the firm at just over €132.5m.

Independent.ie, 18 Sep 2009

Temasek robbing Singaporeans of their wealth

From: "kingkong"
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:07:19 +0800
Local: Fri, Sep 11 2009 8:07 am
Subject: Re: Temasek robbing Singaporeans of their wealth

Do Singaporean knew why Chip Goodyear left Temasek Holdings after 5 months ?

Temasek Holdings recent selling of Singapore Food Industry to SATS and then
SIA selling SATS back to Temasek Holdings is a good example.

In the end, they just shuffle things around without much.

In addition, MOF provide them with cheap source of funding from CPF and
taxpayer. In addition, where do most Temasek Holdings dividend came from ?
They are mostly from Singapore based companies.

"Zanzibar" wrote in message

On Sep 10, 11:56 am, "truth" wrote:

> Recently Temasek wrote to the WSJ to say that they don't
> manage Singaporeans money. Whose $ r they managing then ?
> Or are they slowly trying to psycho Singaporeans into this
> idea that the money in Temasek is not theirs. Thus laying the
> groundwork for some other people to take over ownership
> of the funds.
> To me this is an extremely dangerous warning to what is
> developing behind the secretive walls of the papist leegime.
> Singaporeans better watchout and be on guard. Better still
> vote in some checks and balances. Otherwise one of these
> days they will wake up to find that all their reserves have been
> spirited away.

Strangely speaking, if they dont manage singaporeans money, where did
they get the physical money from in paying for their capital to invest
and so on...


From: "lobert"

Lau Lee has the de facto rights to own anything he likes. He can manipulate
anything at his whim. He can screw you up. He can bankrupt you and also can
put you in jail. He jailed a man he branded as "communist" for 23 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chia_Thye_Poh
The late Lim Chin Siong was also branded a communist and was also jailed.

Chee Soon Juan was in a way lucky. He was politically and monetarily
bankrupted and was legally forced to abstain from election. JBJ was
bankrupted and was discharged after paid up hefty sums to The Father - The
Son - and the Holy Goh. Unfortunately he died shortly after that.

Lee Kuan Yew is formidable. He can be compared to great leaders like the
present Burmese ruling warload of the present Military Junta in power and
the great leader of communist North Korea.

Correcting Temasek Misperceptions

sna247 wrote:
Letter To The Wall Street Journal, 8 Sep 2009

Correcting Temasek Misperceptions

We wish to correct some fundamental misperceptions in your Aug. 31 editorial "Temasek's Revised Charter."

First, Temasek is an investment company set up as an asset owner to seek returns by taking investment risks. While our sole shareholder is the Singapore government, we are not a "fund," and do not manage Singapore "citizens' earnings." It is factually wrong to imply that Singaporeans have no choice but to "keep their money with the fund."

Secondly, the editorial confused the role of the president of Singapore. Under the Singapore Constitution, the president has a critical role to safeguard the past reserves which have been accumulated prior to the current government's term of office in designated organizations such as Temasek. This reflects Singapore's philosophy of fiscal discipline in not spending beyond our means for each generation.

For Temasek, any excessive expenditure exceeding our current reserves would constitute a draw on our past reserves. This is why our chairman and CEO report the position of our reserves to the president every half year, and are required to seek his concurrence for any draw on our past reserves.

The president's concurrence is also required for the appointment or removal of Temasek's CEO and board members, so that no government can remove these key officers at will. These constitutional powers of the president do not involve him in our operational or business decisions.

As a progressive and professionally disciplined institution, Temasek provides full disclosures on its special relationship with the president annually in its Temasek Review.

Myrna Thomas
Managing Director, Corporate Affairs
Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited
Singapore

-----------------
niceguyisBack wrote:

funny...

1) Where does the monies come from ? Just drop from the sky?
2) If president's concurrence is also required for the appointment or removal of Temasek's CEO and board members, yet president do not involve him in our operational or business decisions. Then how is he able to make sound decision?

Temasek is full of contradictions

From: "truth"
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 03:37:03 GMT
Local: Tues, Sep 1 2009 11:37 am
Subject: Temasek is full of contradictions

Temasek released a revised charter last week that emphasized that the
Singaporean state-owned fund is managed on "commercial principles" and
eradicated any reference to government investment. That's a commendable
goal, but it skirts the basic conflict of interest between the public
interest of protecting citizens' earnings and the private-market imperative
of taking risks to seek returns.

This issue of transparency has come to the fore in the city-state of late
because the approximately 127 Singaporean dollar ($88 billion) fund lost a
bundle in last year's financial crisis and the new CEO-designate, Chip
Goodyear, inexplicably resigned in July. The public uproar is loud enough
that even legislators from the ruling People's Action Party have asked for
more disclosure.

Temasek released a raft of accompanying documents alongside the one-page
charter last week to help clarify its goals. "Temasek is a
commercially-driven investment company and is responsible to its sole
shareholder, the Singapore Government, for delivering sustainable long-term
returns," the company said. But nowhere did Temasek explain what a
"sustainable long-term return" is, who sets that goal, or how it is set.

Temasek adds it has "institutionalized its financial discipline" by issuing
an annual report since 2004, maintaining a credit rating and issuing bonds.
These steps are commendable, but they are also incomplete. The annual report
doesn't give complete historical financials, nor does it say how much
Temasek pays in dividends to its 100% owner, the Ministry of Finance. A
credit rating is one guide to financial health, but given the agencies'
recent track records, it's not infallible. As for the bonds, they are only
lightly traded, meaning the market signal they send about Temasek's
performance is weak, at best.

The fund's relationship with government is equally confused. The
accompanying documents say the government "does not involve itself in the
operations and business decisions of Temasek" or "direct or influence the
investment or divestment decisions of Temasek." Yet the President of
Singapore must concur with board member and CEO appointments or removals and
has to approve any transactions in which Temasek draws on "past reserves."
The fund's Chairman and CEO also report to the President twice a year.

Temasek might gain more public acceptance as a "commercially driven
investment company" if it separated itself fully from government and gave
Singaporeans the option to keep their money with the fund or take it
elsewhere. That's called competition and free choice, and it's the only true
test of commercial success.

Temasek’s big blunder as BOA and Barclays rebound

The mouth-piece of the ruling party, the Straits Times has declared unilaterally today that the state Sovereign Wealth Fund, Temasek Holdings has “recouped a big part of its portfolio losses since a low point in March”. (read full article here)

In an lengthy editorial splashed on the front page, the Straits Times tried desperately to exonerate Temasek’s beleaguered CEO Ho Ching from any blame in the investment losses by hailing her decisions to purchase financial heavyweights such as India’s ICICI Bank, China Construction Bank and Standard Chartered Bank.

The Straits Times “findings” show that much of Temasek’s gains since the end of March have been driven by its exposure to financial firms:

“Take DBS Group Holdings, which has rallied 64.3 per cent during the four-month period. Temasek, which owns 27.8 per cent of the local lender, made a paper gain of more than $2 billion as a result.

Then there is Bank of China, which has surged 50.2 per cent and contributed around US$1.7 billion (S$2.4 billion) in gains to Temasek’s portfolio. The Singapore firm has a 13.8 per cent stake in the Chinese bank.”

However, the Straits Times is surprisingly muted on the share prices of Bank of America and Barclays which have since rebounded.

Temasek under Ho Ching bought shares in Merrill Lynch (later sold to Bank of America) and Barclays at a high last year before selling them at a low somewhere in mid-March this year leading to a catastrophic loss of a few billion dollars.

Temasek’s loss on BoA alone is estimated around US$4.6 billion, or roughly US$1,000 for every single Singaporean citizen. (Source: Asian Sentinel)

A simple calcuation shows that the stock value of Bank of America has increased by more than 200%.

Temasek says portfolio falls by $40 billion

Wed, Jul 29, 2009
Reuters

SINGAPORE - Singapore state investor Temasek said on Wednesday its portfolio had fallen by $40 billion (US$27.80 billion) as of end-March 2009 from a year ago.

'In our Temasek Review last year, we reported an annual value-at-risk of almost $40 billion last March. This meant a 16 percent probability for our portfolio value to drop more than $40 billion by March this year. Indeed, it has turned out to be so, and more,' CEO Ho Ching said in a speech.

Temasek had $185 billion in assets as of end-March 2008, which fell to $127 billion as of November 2008. Ho did not give the exact portfolio level.

This was the first public comment by Ho after Temasek said last week that Charles 'Chip' Goodyear will not become CEO due to differences over strategy.

Ho said Temasek would continue to look at internal and external candidates for her replacement.
----------------------------------------------------
From: "AleXX"
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:45:11 +0800
Local: Wed, Jul 29 2009 7:45 pm
Subject: Temasek lost S$40 billion within one year

Temasek, under the brilliant leadership of Ho Jinx just lost a tiny sum of
S$40 billion with a year. If this amount are given to every citizen (of 3
million people), each citizen will get S$13,333.
S$40,000,000000 divided by 3,000000 = S$13,333.00

They can actually do away with the GST....

---------------------------------
I just can't understand why so much fuss about getting a CEO for Temasek. What is the role of CEO in Temasek? What about the Board? What are their roles in making investment decisions? If Temasek as a SWF focuses on its objective of getting good return for public fund, its role and performance should not be that different from an individual investing his own money, except for the size of fund. They are many savvy, successful and disciplined private investors in Singapore who had proven themselves again and again through many economical cycles that were able to earn descent returns for their investments. May I ask what kind of return our highly paid CEO or executives were able to deliver so far? Why so difficult to get a CEO here? Why need to pay so much? Something else must be wrong here. I believe all we need is someone .....
Posted by: SKB2009 at Wed Jul 29 20:58:10 SGT 2009

---------------------------------
Not to worry. Its only ..OUR money.
Posted by: sharlynrj at Wed Jul 29 20:56:13 SGT 2009

----------------------------------
Most Companies would have sacked the manager whose prediction of 16% became 100%.
-----------------------------------
Cut the crap, its is simply poor judgment, just admit it
Posted by: micky2008 at Wed Jul 29 14:37:43 SGT 2009

Foreigners will shun Temasek

From: "lobert"
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:44:04 +0800
Local: Mon, Jul 27 2009 7:44 pm
Subject: Re: Foreigners will shun Temasek

Mr. Tooth
No need to hunt. Locally, the respectable Ho Jinx can continue to lead
Temasek. With the help from her husband and father-in-law, she would bring
Temasek forward to the next financial lap.

"truth" wrote in message

> With such bad reputation, Temasek will find it very
> difficult to get talented foreigners to come on board.
> If they do succeed in getting foreigners it will not
> be the top calibre. Most likely the second liners. This
> is a lose-lose situation for Temasek. So Temasek has
> little choice but to rely on internal resouces in their
> hunt for the next executive.
> Temasek stinks in the world.

You are talking cock. More and more foreign talent will still queue up
to join Temasek because of the handsome pay package plus months of
performance bonus even if they are not performing.

Why can't GIC or Temasek do something like this

From: Frankie
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 02:23:39 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Sat, Jul 25 2009 5:23 pm
Subject: Re: Why can't GIC or Temasek do something like this

> LKY claimed that they are the best.
> If so they should be doing not only as good as
> Warren Buffet but better than him.
> As far as GIC and Temasek actual performances
> are concerned, Warren Buffet has outperformed
> them by miles.
> So LKY is a fraud who make unsubstantiated
> claimed. LHL is telling lies when he claimed that
> the pap has provided extraordinary leadership.
> These people are liars and cheats and cannot
> be trusted. They have been deceiving Singaporeans
> for ages and about time Singaporeans exposed
> them.

> "Frankie" wrote in message

***I suppose your bitterness blinds the truths.LKY is a very great
leader,and he couldn't be a fraud or can he cheats Singapore.His
achievements cannot be gainsay upon,no matter what grudges one may
hold against him.
Let's make a simple comparison of him and the rest of any leaders in
our world.Can we honestly say he is no statesman?The way you
destructively criticized him only discredit your own credibility.

LKY is one of the most marvelous individuals our world has ever known.
He is very old,and any time now,you know it.No one can really fault
him for his deep love for this land,and I strongly believe what he did
is really for the good of this nation,however with imperfections of
course.

Singaporean as a whole respect him,except Oppositions where he
seriously dealt them with the hardest blow.Again,if others become the
figure head,you think they would be as kind as a saint?To him and his
family?When one see the ugliness of this world,how can we not justify
for what he had done,fair or unfair to Oppositions?If one becomes his
enemy,can he not treat them as one?Many good Christians expect LKY to
offer the other cheeks,but how could he,for he has since been a known
gnostic.

What he did was never thinking about the after life Judgment,but just
for mere survival as a political party,and he did well.Any true born
again Christian,live by the conscience and integrity,and a clean live
so as to meet God one day to give an account.People who has nothing to
account for the next Eternal life,will forever sees no need to live by
the Conscience, and purity, and obedience to God's words.

It is better to live your remaining lives at peace with yourself than
to bog down with hatred and in the deep galls of bitterness,obviously
given by him.If you don't savor every moment of your life,but keeps
having deep grudges,you are real losers in life.

Goodyear vz Temasek

Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:15:20 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Thurs, Jul 23 2009 11:15 pm
Subject: Goodyear vz Temasek

Yesterday on the Straits Times photo showing Danabalan/Ho Jinx and
Goodyear holding a press release announcing Goodyear sudden departure.

Look at Goodyear's stern face......I think he must be very pissed off
by Danabalan and Ho Jinx.

What's happening over at Temasek....events leading to Goodyear
departure

1) Temasek made a very big hoo haa announcement on this
transition........handpicked and Goodyear past achievement such as
turn around BHP to a multi billion company.

2) With all these hoo haa........Goodyear's head swell..

3)Once ang moh head swell.......he thot he is the one calling the
shot...........so, he start restructuring the whole management and
looking into Temasek fund.
4) So, when once, Goodyear look into Temasek financial
status....Danabalan and Ho Jinx told Goodyear....this area is
restricted to you.

5) So, Goodyear replied back...then, what's the hell I am doing here
as CEO huh?

6) Danabaln replied........sori......CEO is just for show show only
mah.......just get your salary monthly and dont probe into this
sensitive money matter....

7) What the heck..........my name is Goodyear you knowwwwww......I got
international reputation in turning around an ailing company into a
multi billion company and you 2 want me to sit down draw 5 figure
monthly salary and shake leg?
Halo my reputation is at stake

From: baldeagle
Good Simoni...

Ha ha ha ha ha..... a good one.

Goodyear is the sucker....He is being used by Ho Chin..
to show Singaporean that Temasek cannot do without her...

I almost can hear her said: "See, this Any Moh failed his
probation...cannot do the job. I will stay on as CEO"

With a short mama at the back to support her.... Goodyear
had no chance at all !

Poor woman..... lost money big time in Temasek...
husband health (rumours say cancer relapse)...
domestic problems...no real close friends....
Wouldn't be surprised if she gone kuku...and
squat in the middle of express way !

From: Superbee
There is a story about a goat named, "Scape".

When times are bad, "Scape" moves to the front to get all the shots.

When the storm clears, the people come out of their hiding and "Scape"
is no longer needed.

From: "kingkong"
Goodyear should know by now Temasek Holdings often practice double standard.

From: yansimon52
If you ask Ho Jinx to put on a pyjamas and sit at one of those HDB's
void deck in early morning............do you think its a familiar
figure to you?............LOL.........LOL....

Ppl usually say when you are very filthy rich...those around you
usually put on a false front la.............go after your money what?.

Heard that Freedy Lee (LKY's bro) went over to a newly opened casino
ship..'Asia Star'...but, he play for fun with small stake......I think
he enjoy himself more in those luxurious cabins that come with prono
films...girls from Korea and Japan..........not those ang moh with big
big lobang.....LOL........LOL...

This casino ship is being managed by the former singapore lawyer with
the nick name of 'Tua Pui Loo'...Fatty Loo..made himself a name in the
horse racing world.

Temasek is a DANGER to Singaporean future

From: "truth"
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:22:11 GMT
Local: Fri, Jul 24 2009 9:22 pm
Subject: Temasek is a DANGER to Singaporean future

Same Old Temasek Again
An article from Today:

Did somebody forget this thing called culture?
by PN Balji

AS THE buzz about Mr Charles Goodyear's sudden departure from Temasek
Holdings continues to dominate discussions, one can't help but ask this
question: Could a no-nonsense CEO who bulldozed his way through a traumatic
merger to form mining giant BHP Billiton, retrenching thousands in the
process, have fitted into a Singapore culture, which for all its outward
glow of modernity, is essentially conservative?

Temasek is no ordinary company. To run it, having good business acumen is
not enough. You need to understand not just the dynamics of the company, but
that of its associate companies, the Ministry of Finance, the Cabinet and
the people of Singapore. It is a jewel in Singapore's crown and the person
protecting and growing it must have the clout to push through his
initiatives. If not the clout, then at least the savvy to win over its
stakeholders.

Pity Mr Goodyear. It looks like he did not even have the time to go on a
charm offensive, assuming that plan was in his briefcase at all.

Just four months after he was appointed to the Temasek board and just
two-and-a-half months before becoming the CEO of the sovereign wealth fund,
the 51-year-old American businessman is leaving with questions being asked
about not only his style but about Temasek's ability to pick the right
person and about whether a foreigner can ever run an outfit like Temasek.

His credentials are impeccable, they have been talking to him for two
years, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew described him as one who had an affinity
for Temasek's values, yet Temasek and Mr Goodyear are parting ways.
Strategic differences was given as the official reason. How could that be?
PN Balji, you'll never know. You can speculate, and make your guesses. Maybe
from somewhere within your personal network, you might even hear some
rumours of the "inside" story. But you'll never know for sure.

Why? Because this is Temasek. You know their style. Through all these years,
it has not changed. Basically, Temasek will never tell you anything, except
perhaps the reasons why it will never tell you anything. And even those
reasons will be vague and obscure.

Take Goodyear's departure, for instance. It is revealed that he left because
there were "strategic differences". No further details. This kind of answer
could mean anything and everything, and therefore means nothing.

Except one thing. It means - Temasek doesn't want to tell you, lah.

Perhaps one day, Singaporeans will understand - how risky it is, for so much
of the nation's money to be managed in this way.

Posted by Mr Wang Says S

President and Cabinet and Temasek Board failed badly

Andrew Loh

Anyone expecting Temasek Holdings to shed further light on the departure of
Mr Charles Goodyear will be disappointed. Don't hold your breath. Despite
calls for more transparency and openness in its dealings, the state
sovereign wealth fund (SWF) is notoriously secretive.


Singaporeans will be left to speculate on the reasons for the sudden and
unexpected exit of Mr Goodyear.


Having said that, lets take a look at the selection process adopted by
Temasek through which it appointed Mr Goodyear to take over Ms Ho Ching,
wife of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, as Chief Executive from October 1st.


In the Parliamentary sitting of 4 March 2009, then-second Minister for
Finance, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, stoutly defended Mr Goodyear's appointment. She
explained how Mr Goodyear came to be offered the position of CEO of Temasek:


Mr Charles Goodyear was identified and approached by the Temasek Board as
a potential CEO candidate in 2007. Once he agreed to be considered as a CEO
candidate, Mr Goodyear was interviewed by the Board members, individually
and as a group. The Board engaged with him for over a year before it
finalised its decision. Temasek picked Mr Goodyear as its next CEO because
its Board assessed that he was the best person for the job, based on merit..
The Board was also satisfied that he shares Temasek's values and is
committed to building long-term sustainable value.


As Temasek is a Fifth-Schedule Company under the Singapore Constitution,
Mr Goodyear's appointment both as a Board member and as a CEO successor was
subject to the concurrence of the President. Cabinet first discussed the
Temasek Board's nomination of Mr Goodyear. Cabinet decided that the
Government should have no objection to Temasek appointing a foreigner as CEO
if he was assessed by the Board to be suitable and the best candidate
available. Cabinet, therefore, endorsed Mr Goodyear's nomination, but also
reaffirmed the need for the Board of Temasek to remain in the effective
control of Singaporeans.


Temasek Board's recommendation was then put to the President for approval,
and the President met Mr Goodyear before giving his concurrence.
(Parliament)


So, the president, the cabinet and Temasek's Board of Directors all had a
hand in assessing and approving the appointment of Mr Goodyear over an
extended period of time. He was identified as a potential CEO in 2007 - two
years before he was offered and took up the job in March 2009.


In its news release on 6 February 2009, where Temasek announced Mr Goodyear's
appointment, its chairman, Mr S Dhanabalan, said: "Ho Ching has been
instrumental in bringing Chip on board. We have been working on this
appointment for more than a year." (Temasek website)


Less than three months before he was to replace Ms Ho Ching as CEO, Temasek
announces Mr Goodyear will no longer be its CEO come October 1st - and that
Ms Ho Ching will continue as its chief. The problems seem to have started
immediately after Mr Goodyear was designated as the new Temasek CEO.
According to the Associated Press, "Goodyear. had been working alongside
outgoing chief executive Ho Ching since March." One would imagine that in
the four months since, the two may not have got along as well as what has
been reported.


So, what happened?


The reason given by Temasek in its news release of 21 July 2009 said that
"there are differences regarding certain strategic issues that could not be
resolved." However, this runs counter to what Minister Lim had said, that
Goodyear "shares the values of Temasek and its position as a long-term
investor committed to delivering sustainable returns."


It therefore raises the question: Did not the president, the cabinet, Ms Ho
Ching and the BOA of Temasek ask Mr Goodyear about his strategy for Temasek
before appointing him as CEO? And what does Temasek mean by "strategic
issues? Did not Minister Lim say Goodyear "shares. the values" and its
long-term position?


More curiously, on 21 July, Ms Ho Ching said: "I am sorry he is unable to
continue with the leadership transition, and hope to complete the
initiatives that he has started."


If Temasek cannot reconcile Mr Goodyear's ideas on "strategic issues" with
its own, why is Ms Ho Ching going to "complete the initiatives" which
Goodyear started? What are these initiatives? And how sure is Temasek that
Ms Ho Ching is up to the tasks, given that she herself admitted, in
February, that "Chip brings capabilities that I don't have"? (Straits Times)


So, is there more to Mr Goodyear's departure than meets the eye?

The New York Times:

"This is not good news for Temasek," said Carl Linaburg, co-founder of the
Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute in Roseville, Calif., which tracks data on
the investment funds. "Prior to Chip's arrival, Ho Ching had been widely
criticized for Temasek's major losses in financials. Chip's departure makes
people wonder why Temasek can't seem to make firm decisions with sound
judgment, which is essential for managing the assets of a country."

Some have suggested that it is a clash of culture - according to the
Financial Times (FT):

". there has been intense speculation since Mr Goodyear's appointment was
announced about how he would deal with Temasek's senior management, and the
close-knit community of Singapore business executives in charge of the
Temasek-owned companies that dominate the city-state's corporate landscape.
These include Singapore Airlines, Singapore Telecommunications and DBS Bank.

Many observers said that Mr Goodyear might encounter a culture clash if he
attempted to shake up the management of Temasek and its affiliated
companies."

The FT also reported that "Nomura Securities, in a recent research report,
suggested that Mr Goodyear might increase Temasek's borrowings to make new
acquisitions in an effort to rebalance its portfolio. Such a move would have
been a break with Temasek's conservative cash management."

We will probably never know the true reasons for Goodyear's departure. But
perhaps that is not the real or important question we should ask. What
should be of concern to Singaporeans is the process of selection adopted by
Temasek and the seemingly rubber-stamp approval which the president and
cabinet gives to Temasek's actions. This is especially important given that
Temasek guards and invests billions of dollars which belong to Singaporeans,
which have resulted in monstrous losses in the past year or so.

Another important point to note is the question raised by Workers' Party
chairman, Ms Sylvia Lim, in Parliament in March. She had asked why the
hiring practice of the Civil Service, which restricts access to state
secrets to Singaporeans, was not applied to Temasek Holdings. (Parliament)

In her reply, Minister Lim said, "Temasek is not part of the Civil Service
or the public sector. It is a commercial company that is wholly-owned by
Government." Turning to Mr Goodyear's appointment, Minister Lim said, "As
Temasek CEO, Mr Goodyear would be privy to information about the company's
operations." Her only defence regarding the question of keeping state
secrets to Singaporeans was that Mr Goodyear is bound by the Official
Secrets Act (OSA). But as the WP chairman said, what good is the OSA given
the fact that Mr Goodyear may leave and never return to Singapore? "Does the
OSA really help us?" asked Ms Lim.

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has always rejected calls for Singapore's two
sovereign wealth funds - Temasek and the Government of Singapore Investment
Corporation (GIC) - to reveal its investments. Indeed, in a letter to the
Wall Street Journal on 27 June 2007, the press secretary to the Prime
Minister said "it is not in Singapore's interest to publish the details or
reveal their size." (Wall Street journal)

Mr Goodyear, now no longer taking up the CEO position, has such confidential
information about Temasek's investment strategy, as Minister Lim Hwee Hua
admitted in her parliamentary reply.

How will the government ensure that this is not used to compromise Temasek's
investment strategy, besides relying on the OSA, which may be useless
anyway?

'We hired the best," MM Lee said in June, referring to Mr Goodyear. (Source)

While Mr Goodyear's credentials may indeed be impeccable, perhaps the more
important question lies with the selection process itself. Clearly, despite
having been intensely interviewed by the president, the cabinet, the BOA of
Temasek and Ms Ho Ching herself, the exit of Mr Goodyear has shown that the
selection process has flaws.

And the flaw seem to be a fundamental one - the selection process failed to
determine Mr Goodyear's stand on "strategic issues" which Temasek now says
is the reason why he will no longer be chief.

As blogger Lucky Tan put it:

"Gee, nobody bothered to ask him about what his strategies were and his
views on key issues when he was interviewed for the job? Is that how we hire
people to manage billions of tax payers' money?"

Temasek is a JOKE

From: Zanzibar
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Jul 22 2009 12:26 am
Subject: Re: Temasek is a JOKE

On Jul 22, 12:00 am, "truth" wrote:

> What type of organisation is this ? Flip flop on investment
> decisions. Flip flop on ceo appointment.
> Temasek is a JOKE.

This guy was supposed to be the fall guy to take the "pan cake
beating" Not only that, he maybe has seen something or that he cannot
not agree to "eating" it, or that he saw something which he was not
supposed to "see". And maybe now he was asked to go.

When was the last time Temasek was in the headlines? That was the time
it was revealed that Temasek has sold all the shares in Americans
banks to invest in developing economies. Most likely the decisions had
not gone well with Goodyears and now see what happened? Citi,
Merrillyn etc have done well in terms of share prices.

Most likely santa was the one who came out with this new formula 4 - 4 -2
( or something like that) and most like they had lost billions in emerging
markets by now too. Goodyears would not want to be associated with
this money losing scheme from santa

Newsgroups: soc.culture.singapore
From: hu
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Jul 22 2009 12:31 pm
Subject: Re: Temasek is a JOKE

On Jul 22, 12:00 am, "truth" wrote:

Probably Goodyear found out he was set up to take the blame for all
that gone wrong with Temasek under Dowager Ho Jinx. Question is how
much was paid to this fella for breaking his contract. Was he bounded
with a non disclosure agreement?

From: Superbee
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Jul 22 2009 12:33 pm
Subject: Re: Temasek is a JOKE

On Jul 22, 12:19 pm, .•:*¨¨*:•. ® George Ramayah ™ .•:*¨¨*:•.

wrote:
> On Jul 22, 12:00 am, "truth" wrote:

> > What type of organisation is this ? Flip flop on investment
> > decisions. Flip flop on ceo appointment.
> > Temasek is a JOKE.

> When was the last time Temasek was in the headlines? That was the time
> it was revealed that Temasek has sold all the shares in Americans
> banks to invest in developing economies. Most likely the decisions had
> not gone well with Goodyears and now see what happened? Citi,
> Merrillyn etc have done well in terms of share prices. Most likely
> santa was the one who came out with this new formula 4 - 4 -2 ( or
> something like that) and most like they had lost billions in emerging
> markets by now too. Goodyears would not want to be associated with
> this money losing scheme from santa

Most likely Goodyear was asked to leave because the Board has major
difference with strategic issues. Now Goodyear say Goodbye and Ho
Ching says "Ching Ho"!

Intentionally or not, Goodyear had been a proxy shelter for the fall-
outs. Temasek has lost much credibility in the comic episode.
Dedefining long term as "shock" term with massive loss. Having spent a
year and I don't know how much money to look for the Goodyear guy and
then reversing it does not speak well of the management no matter how
you look at it.

Many questions on Temasek

From: "Zai Zai"
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:55:12 GMT
Local: Fri, Jun 5 2009 9:55 pm
Subject: Re: Many questions on Temasek

Hello, what has it got to do with you? Why do you even bother, what happened
to Temasek's investments? These money aren't yours, it is ah kong's money,
to make it very clear you have nothing to do with it. Please, these are not
your money, if tomorrow Temasek makes 100 billions in profit you will not
even get a cent from it. So, please mind your own business, complain and
complain will only make the police and ISD to come after you. You want to
end up like that panda and sent to IMH?


"Zanzibar" wrote in message

> There are many pulbic questions came from the gavevines in coffeeshop
> talks.

> First of all, they all asked why all the losses by Temasek were
> created between December 209 and March 2009. And all the losses were
> resulted from its sales at its low prices.

> Was the sales at low prices as "deliberate" act by those investment
> gurus inside of Temasek?

> Was this carried out with their intention "to do Singapore in"

> Who are thse investment gurus employed by Temasek?

> Was this a internal sabotage that was schemed by insiders to damage
> Temasek?.

> Was there a plan by insiders to milk Temasek from its sales of share
> at low pirces to other buyers who may be friends or insiders of
> Temasek?.

> Was there a purpose of plans by those foreign investment executives in
> managing those failed investments aimed to turn Temasek into losing
> all of our foreign reserves?.

> And was there any scheming action by insiders in Temasek in their
> making of money from the sharing of brokerage fee on their sales of
> shares to the buyer?.

> Who was the broker who handled the sales of Temasek shares that
> resulted in those losses?.

> Who benefited from the commission of the sales of these shares?

> Can anyone provide answers on this?.

Temasek hiding the truths from Singaporeans - shamefully

From: "truth"
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:03:24 GMT
Local: Fri, Jun 5 2009 9:03 pm
Subject: Singapore: Buy High, Sell Low 2

http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=191...

Home Economics/Business Singapore Singapore: Buy High, Sell Low II
Written by Our Correspondent
Friday, 05 June 2009
Bailing out on Barclay's with massive losses, Temasek forgets to tell
Singapore's citizens about it

Singapore officials' sense of superiority has taken another beating. A
behind-the-curve bunch of sheep with MBAs may now be the truer image. While
the sovereign wealth fund of Abu Dhabi has cleaned up on its investment in
Britain's Barclays Bank, Temasek Holdings, still headed until October by Ho
Ching, wife of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, has bailed out at a loss
estimated at around US$850 million.

The news didn't come out of Singapore, where embarrassments involving
the first family get the minimum attention, but from analysts in London and
New York studying the movement of major shareholders in Barclays. The
citizens of Singapore were apparently not worthy of being told of how their
money is being mismanaged.

Not content with buying into Barclays at a time when the banking
sector was viewed as the way to easy riches, Temasek sold out close to the
bottom of the market. The Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Investment Corp
meanwhile bought in when Barclays was desperate and sold out just this week
when the Barclays share price had recovered, netting a profit of £1.45
billion sterling (US$ 2.2 billion) in just seven months.

The Temasek debacle followed hard on the heels of massive losses on a
Bank of America stake mostly acquired near the top of the market and sold
close to the bottom. Temasek's loss is estimated at US$4.6 billion, or
roughly US$1,000 for every Singaporean citizen. After the sale, presumably
in March, the share price promptly rose by 66 percent.

Singapore Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam has claimed that
despite recent losses Temasek has made gains averaging a respectable 15
respectable a year. However, this was during a sustained global bull market
and also reflected the fact that some of its assets were state-owned
companies whose shares had been transferred at non-market prices. These
included power stations which have been sold off over the past two years,
generating large gains which cannot be replicated.

Some aspects of Temasek are also so obscure that no proper analysis is
possible. One black hole looks to be a leveraged investment in a series of
private equity funds at the top of the market.

Having bought into financials near the top - making them 40% of its
total portfolio -- and sold off near the bottom, it is now focusing on
commodities, most recently buying a stake in locally listed agriculture
company Olam international. It got a 13.76 percent stake at an 18 percent
discount to the market, nonetheless it had already almost doubled in price
this year thanks to a rebound in commodities which may or may not be
sustained.

Not that it is completely neglecting financials. It is considering a
stake in a consortium to buy AIG's asset management business. But potential
partner in this is the high-profile Hong Kong businessman notorious for
losing shareholders' money - Richard Lee of PCCW.

Nor can Temasek ignore the problems of Singapore state enterprises
which must compete internationally. It has just had to inject equity to
reduce the massive debt of money-losing ship-owner NOL. Meanwhile it is
trying to offload loss-making manufacturer Chartered Semiconductor.

In short, Temasek's bad news is unlikely to be over. But don't expect
to hear about it first in the local media.

From: rainbow12345...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 07:54:09 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Jun 5 2009 10:54 pm
Subject: Re: Singapore: Buy High, Sell Low 2

It is the fucking result of putting our reserve in the hand of so
called foreign experts' hands who don't even care about our reserve?
Why can't Temasek and GIC trust our local expertise? At least we will
be loyal to our reserve. I strongly suspect there is a plot behind the
forieng experts to sabotage Singaporean reserves.


From: "Zai Zai"
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:47:05 GMT
Local: Fri, Jun 5 2009 11:47 pm
Subject: Re: Singapore: Buy High, Sell Low 2

Hello, initially we put Mdm Ho a local there you complain and now we put an
ang moh there you also complain. Frankly, even if we put an ape there you
will also complain lar. You want us to put you there incharge? If so, you
can wait long long.

Temasek has just slapped on the face of LKY

From: rainbow12345...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 08:09:22 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Jun 5 2009 11:09 pm
Subject: Temasek has just slapped on the face of LKY

Our MM Lee has repeated so many times last year that our investment in
all the big banks were for a long term investment. Why then those
suckers in Temasek has made such a stupid acts to bail out those
investment at Barclay and BoA at rock bottom prices?

Temasek sold Barclays at a LOST... yet again!

From: "truth"
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:18:43 GMT
Local: Wed, Jun 3 2009 9:18 pm
Subject: Temasek sold Barclays at a LOST

This is shocking.

The Arabs make $billions investing in Barclays. They hold on
until the market recover and take they well earned profit.
On the other hand our "brilliant" scholars at Temasek have
no lumpar and liquidated Barclays around the bottom of the
market resulting in a huge LOST.
Yet the pap multi$million nincompoops are still saying that
they are doing a good job looking after our wealth.
Singaporeans when are u going to take actions against these
bunch of pap LOSERS ?

Quote:
Wed, Jun 03, 2009
Reuters

LONDON, ENGLAND - Singapore state investor Temasek sold its stake in
British bank Barclays Plc several months ago at a big loss, people familiar
with the matter said on Wednesday.

After spending over 1 billion pounds on the shares in the last two
years, unlisted Temasek may have lost over $1.89 billion (800 million
pounds) on the investment, according to calculations by Reuters.

Temasek's sale of shares in Britain's second-biggest bank at a loss is
in sharp contrast to Abu Dhabi which sold more than 11 per cent of the
bank's shares on Tuesday, making a US$2.5 billion profit from its investment
in just seven months.

Temasek sold its near 2 percent stake in Britain's second biggest bank
in December and January, one of the sources said. The sources declined to be
named due to the confidential nature of the investment.

Temasek and Barclays declined to comment, and details of the price it
sold at were not known.

By 0915 GMT Barclays shares were down 4.9 percent at 260 pence, with
the European bank sector down 2 percent.

Temasek paid 975 million pounds buying Barclays shares at 720 pence
apiece in July 2007. It pledged to spend up to 200 million pounds last July
to buy more shares at 282p each as part of bigger fundraising, but it never
disclosed how many it bought. It would have spent about 90 million pounds to
maintain its holding at around 2 per cent, giving it 167 million shares.

Only investors with more than 3 per cent need to disclose changes in
their holdings.

Barclays shares traded between 136p and 167.8p in December and between
47.3p and 190.6p in January, when the shares crashed to a 24-year low on
fears Britain's government would need to inject funds to boost its capital.
The weighted average for the shares was 148p in December and 105p in
January.

Based on the average of those prices, Temasek would have lost about
850 million pounds ($1.89 billion) on its investment.

Barclays shares have soared more than five-fold from its January low
after Britain's regulator said its capital was adequate and business and
sentiment across the sector improved.

Temasek owns stakes in a number of financial firms, and losses in
several of them last year hit the value of its portfolio.

It invested over US$5 billion in Merrill Lynch in late 2007 and took a
hit of at least US$3 billion when it sold its stake in Merrill's new parent
Bank of America in the first quarter.

It still holds large stakes in banks such as DBS, Standard Chartered
and India's ICICI.

Temasek's 6-year report card shows $56b gain

From: makapa May-29 11:43 am

While ignoring that they are the BEST PAID in the world and how Sporns could have benefitted from these $58B! And god knows how they compute these gains, which probably are derived from sucking from Sporns' CPeeF!

Published May 29, 2009

Temasek's 6-year report card shows $56b gain
This is in spite of last year's setback that wiped out half the gains of 5 preceding years in just 8 months

(SINGAPORE) Temasek Holdings's portfolio grew $56 billion since March 2003 - as its $58 billion loss last year came after 'a much greater gain' of $114 billion in the five preceding years.

Providing these figures in Parliament yesterday, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said that Temasek has 'performed respectably', and that 'the only reasonable way' to evaluate its performance was to see 'how the losses and gains add up, and how its overall portfolio performs over time'.

Responding to MPs' questions on Temasek's recent loss-making divestment of Bank of America (BoA) shares, Mr Tharman also said that its early exit does not detract from its position as a long-term investor.

Temasek dumped BOA shares when its share prices was at the lowest?

From: Siansiansian
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 07:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, May 26 2009 10:17 pm
Subject: Temasek dumped BOA shares when its share prices was at the lowest?

Report saying that Tamasek dumped the Bank Of American shares during
1st quarter in which its share was at the lowest. Temasek must have
lost billion at today's share price.

I am not an fianancial expert, but I bought just 1 thousand BOA
shares in 1st Quarter, and I made about US$10,000 in less 2 months.

I am not sure those "expert" in the GIC and Tamasek deserved to be
paid millions of dollars and months of performance bonuses?

From: "Zai Zai"
This is to let you people know that you should be very appreciative of madam
Ho while she was the CEO, at least she wouldn't make such harsh decision and
wouldn't lose so much. Since you people complain and complain and again you
want to complain about this new CEO.

Why Temasek sold its stake in BoA : Temasek explained

Why Temasek sold its stake in BoA
I REFER to recent reports and commentaries on Temasek's divestment of its Bank of America (BoA) stake. We would like to clarify some of the points raised.
Temasek invests with the objective of delivering sustainable returns over the long term. This means our investment strategy is not aimed at delivering target returns on a year-by-year basis. This is why we report our portfolio returns not just for a single year, but for various time horizons in our annual Temasek Review.

To achieve our investment objectives, we constantly review our portfolio and rebalance it from time to time. We may choose to divest an investment, even at a loss, to optimise our risk or portfolio exposures, or if there are better opportunities elsewhere or later. We may also choose to hold or increase our existing investments.

Ultimately, the aim is to ensure that our portfolio delivers returns that are higher than the cost of capital employed on a risk-adjusted basis, or what we call Wealth-Added.

Our investment in Merrill Lynch was made in December 2007. This was exchanged into BoA shares in January this year following BoA's completion of its September 2008 offer to buy Merrill.

Our investment thesis had changed from Merrill's specific businesses to the more diversified BoA linkage to the broader US economy. The risk-return environment had also changed substantially.

We decided to divest our BoA stake after considering all relevant factors.

This move to balance risks against opportunities is part and parcel of our discipline of investing and divesting to deliver sustainable long-term returns on our entire portfolio.

We are mindful of the risks we face as we invest. We reinforce this risk-return balance through a compensation framework which puts the institution above the individual, emphasises long term over short term, and aligns employee and shareholder interests for both the upside and downside, over the medium and long term.

While we do our best to mitigate risks, the reality is that not every one of our investments will be equally successful. We recognise that only time will tell if we have made the right decisions to deliver sustainable returns on our portfolio as a whole.

Myrna Thomas (Ms)
Managing Director,
Corporate Affairs Temasek Holdings


I referred to this report for explanations on why Temasek dumped BofA's shares. And I literally vomitted blood reading this whole load of cr4ps. It seems like this Managing Director has totally forgotten the how much risk Temasek is taking when they dumped billions into this investment bank...

Just read this article from CNN dated NOV 2007
Quote:

Merrill under the microscope
Merrill Lynch, for example, predicted a $4.5 billion subprime loss for the third quarter, then jolted investors and analysts three weeks later by announcing that its real deficit was $7.9 billion - or 76% more than the initial estimate. (Oops!)

In fact, Wall Street banks are sitting on rotting piles of highly suspect, thinly traded securities no one wants to touch. "Whenever the market turns against you, you take the biggest losses in illiquid securities," says Richard Bookstaber, former head of risk management at Salomon Bros. "Because there are so few buyers, you're forced to sell at a discount that is both huge and highly unpredictable."

What really spooks investors is the fog surrounding the future. One problem is that they can't trust management's estimates of future losses. Citi, for example, says it will take additional write-downs of $8 billion to $11 billion in the fourth quarter.

But it's impossible to know whether those numbers have any relation to reality. Presumably, they are based on a theoretical model, but such models have proved highly unreliable. When Citi actually brings the securities to market, it may have to slash their prices to unload them, forcing it to take a much bigger write-down.

The banks are also far from forthcoming with detailed information on their positions, making it difficult for analysts to assess what the future holds. "The risk to investors is far greater because we're getting so little information," says Michael Mayo, an analyst at Deutsche Bank.

Backed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Bank of America, Citi, and J.P. Morgan are trying to establish a giant fund that would buy distressed debt so that investors who own it don't have to unload it at fire-sale prices. The hope is that the market will rebound before too long and that the bonds will regain much of their value. But there's no guarantee that the bonds will ever bounce back, and the bailout fund may simply delay the day of reckoning, pushing losses further into the future.

Just how big could those losses be? Both Mayo and analyst Meredith Whitney of CIBC project that write-downs could total $50 billion or more by the end of the year. Longer term, Mayo sees losses climbing to $70 to $100 billion. The wide range simply underscores the uncertainty surrounding subprime. "This will take two to three years to play out," says Mayo, explaining that it will take that long for lenders to foreclose on troubled mortgages and sell the collateral - in this case, hundreds of thousands of homes - to recoup part of their loans.