GIC invests $14 billion in Swiss bank UBS

last SG · 2007-12-12T22:13:51+00:00

i'm thinking of buying some UBS shares, what do u folks think?I asked for advice at www.secondopinion.asia and was told they do not advise on specific stocks...

Gazelle SG

what is the point of calling others idiot and making up story here? Another wanker in the making?

An armchair critics will always be one who is only capable to making accusation without quantifiable facts and figures to support his arguement.

If you are so smart, why dont you tell us why UBS and Barclays is not a good investment for Temasek and GIC and what other investment would you suggest.,

Over to you walesa!!

walesa SG

Wanker? That's what you're - and a pretty good one at that. Laughing

It must have been great foresight by Temasek to throw the weight behind Barclays in their anticipation of its takeover of ABN Amro, only to see the consortium led by RBS pip them to it, eh? So what sort of delusional advice could you offer the idiots of your calibre who engineered those decisions? Laughing Or was that the biggest coup of the century in your shallow books?

AndrewPKYap SG

... and to do that, they will need to raise GST to help the poor again...

Gazelle SG

Armchair critics are people who are only capable for commenting after the event has unfold and by doing so, they will always feel that they are smart and their so call "prediction" is always right.

As for the Barclays investment, would you have predicted that RBS will pip Barclays in acquiring ABN Amro during the time when Temasek was planning to make the investment?

Plus, have you done any calculation to show that Barclays investment in only worthwhile if they acquire ABN AMRO. And Barclays wont paying too much if they up their offer to out bid RBS?

So now that you have quoted BARCLAYS investment, what about UBS? What about China Construction Bank? What about Bank of China investment?

Over to you sir!!

walesa SG

Self-proclaimed wankers are adept at doing precisely what you do. Laughing

So on the back of your drivel, are you still suggesting investments are worthwhile regardless of the prevailing market prices at which they are made so long as they are made for the long term? You've done spectacularly well to fire the first salvo at your own feet...

For your preposterous claim to hold and your mindless analogies to stand, that's akin to saying putting an idiot like you in the company of the Alex Fergusons will make you one of 'em someday... Laughing

Gazelle SG

walesa, since you are so critical about Temasek and GIC investment strategy, I am asking you.

1) Would you have predicted that RBS will pip Barclays in acquiring ABN Amro during the time when Temasek was planning to make the investment?

2) Have you done any calculation to show that Barclays investment in only worthwhile if they acquire ABN AMRO.

3) Will Barclays be in better position if they have up their offer to out bid RBS?

4) Other than Barclays, what is your opinion about their investment in UBS?

5) What about China Construction Bank?

6) What about Bank of China investment?

I am sure you must have done your calculation before criticising on Temasek and GIC's investment isnt it? So assuming you are the chairman of Singapore investment arm, who sort of companies do you think it worth acquiring now and what will you consider a fair value for both seller and buyer.

Over to you sir!!

sgdiehard SG

none of your posts make sense in any tangible sense imaginable. It is funny when you think they are humourous. Laughing

robertteh SG

Is there a mandate given under the law or the constitution to allow the Temasek or GIC or the government to use citizens' monies in this manner?

Is it not the role of the elected president to stop the government from spending away or investing people's monies in risky investments and losing by the billions as has happened in Shin Corp or Global Crossing ?

If there is a mandate or legal basis for exercise of such power is there an independent internal audit check to ensure that there will be no abuses or irregularities as has happened in cases like Sembawang Maritime on the choice of investments or making of decisions ?

If there are shortcomings resulting in past losses in billions should there be some forms of independent internal audit checks which can be made available to acceptable people-watchdog agencies for greater accountability and transparency.

TS Kan SG

Points taken ...... now can we have some really positive and exciting ideas as to how our government should run Singapore better (not that they are not doing a-hell-of-a-good-job already!) Question

walesa SG

You seem to have a hard time deciding what you want your case to be, don't you? Laughing

From your post, am I supposed to infer you actually concur Temasek's stake in Barclays wasn't exactly the most prudent decision? If that were so, that's more than sufficient to drive home your lot of drivel about any investment being worthwhile so long as one held a long-term stake in the investment.

walesa SG

The only thing funny about your post is your insanity... Mr. Green

walesa SG

You might want to wait for the indecisive drone to make up his mind as to whether all long-term investments are necessarily worthwhile before you "move on" (pardon the pun used so loosely by the fascists)... Laughing

lionnoisy SG

1.just the oppsiite.
If not for Temasek,GIC good return,we will have pay higher GST..

SG receive $1 billion pa from investment retumn..

Gazelle SG

I noticed your have the tendency of always trying to express my view on my behalf to suit your argument. The fact is, I see the Barclays as a good investment for Singapore and their failure to out bid RBS might be a blessing disguise because going to a bidding war will means paying too much of premium and that RBS has now inherited billions of subprime debt from ABN.

So what is your opinion about Temasek stake in UBS?

walesa SG

It's not what I think about Temasek that matters. It's your incoherent logic that warrants concern.

By the above logic, what you're saying is no different from suggesting it'd be worthwhile to buy USD at a rate of USD1=SGD3 so long as you're prepared to hold on to it forever. Really, are you sure you aren't suffering from some psychiatric ailment?

Apparently, in a later post, you then claim that I'm an armchair critic criticising Temasek's failings which you have blatantly alluded to. So given the two seemingly contradictory stance of yours, which stance would you rather take to engage in a civil discourse?

Gazelle SG

Originally posted by walesa:

By the above logic, what you're saying is no different from suggesting it'd be worthwhile to buy USD at a rate of USD1=SGD3 so long as you're [b]prepared to hold on to it forever. Really, are you sure you aren't suffering from some psychiatric ailment?

Apparently, in a later post, you then claim that I'm an armchair critic criticising Temasek's failings which you have blatantly alluded to. So given the two seemingly contradictory stance of yours, which stance would you rather take to engage in a civil discourse?
[/b]

walesa,

please dont use your silly forex example as a comparison to buying equity stake in a company such a Barclays. Barclays is a business, it give dividends, it is openly traded company and the value of the company is in this market capitalisation. If you look at the 5 year trend of most bluechip stocks, over time they will rise, thats the fact.

What I am telling you is that it is easy for arm chair critics like you to TCSS about Temasek investment in Barclays after things have been unfolded.
when I ask you for your opinion of UBS and other questions related to Temasek and GIC investment, you couldnt make a single comment.

If you are not an example of an armchair critic, then what is?

walesa SG

For all the garb you've been espousing and terrible lack of knowledge in forex, you've still yet to clarify how paying over the top justifies a failed investment. Perhaps, you could start by shedding some light on clearing your amnesia-induced self-contradiction which you don't seem to understand?

Gazelle SG

walesa,

1) Please show me the discuss about forex as I am very interested to discuss it further with you.

2) On what basis are you saying that it is a failed investment?

3) Instead of asking armchair critics questions, can you tell me if Temasek and GIC investment in UBS, BOC and CCB are considered fair value?

Instead of beating around the bush with silly and baseless accusation, I would appreciate if could take the initiative to answer some of the questions I have posted to you.

(Thats only if you are capable, but to be fair, I dont expect much from armchair critics)

deathbait SG

I think I'll take this one.

From an investment point of view, there was nothing wrong with the deal. You're basing your judgment on the investment itself on hindsight bias.

The reason for any overpayment in these scenarios is because of the mass involved. They aren't paying market rate because they aren't buying from the market.

So the investment went south. That happens all the time. When we speak of long run, we're really talking about looking at the big picture. This move is a loss negated by many successful gambits made in the same portfolio. Any money made above expectations in the past/future is simply variance. Any losses/underachievers are to be treated as the same.

That is why you cannot expect dividends to be paid out when there is a "bumper year", and instant accountability when something goes wrong. It's all part of variance.

walesa SG

I think you need to view whatever you've quoted from me in the right context. This is not a discussion about the risks that invariably come with a part of M&A's, rather it was just to address the following :

Go over the above and tell me if it makes sense just by interpreting the logic of the part in red without making any veiled reference to Temasek and Barclays in detail (we could go on making a case for Temasek's stake in Barclays and what exactly constitutes "long term" in economics). I cited Temasek as an example to address the above, but could have very well done with other examples to disprove the above notion.

« Previous Page Next Page »