Yah! I gave you process loss of 50%, if you think it's 95% then
we have been severely overcharged for our electricity. Singapore
Power makes about 26% return on equity (ROE) for 2005.
Just for comparison:
Some sources claim the National Development and Reform Commission
(NDRC) will increase electricity prices by an average of 2.52 fen
(0.31 of a US cent) per kilowatt-hour (kwh).
Electricity prices in China currently average about half a yuan per
unit.
Half a yuan (RenMinBi) per Kwh is about 10 Singapore cents.
Singapore Power charges us 20 Singapore cents.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2006-05/09/content_585299.htm
The loss is based on a 16mm^2 (AWG 5), which has a resistance of
0.3134 Ohms/ 1000 ft. We don't use thin cross sectional area wires
to carry high voltages. You can use 107.2mm^2 (AWG 4/0), which has
a resistance of 0.04901 Ohms/ 1000ft. Either that or you use bus
bars.
Whatever it is, the return on equity for Singapore Power is still
26% for 2005. If they lose so much electricity. Do you think they
will have this amount of returns?
Obviously you know nothing about accounting. When you install
this plant you take a loan from bank or purchase it from your own
funds.
Fixed Assets: Debit $2 billion
Loan (if you borrow from bank): Credit $2 billion
End of Year:
Fixed Assets: Debit $2 billion
According to the Financial Statements Plants are depreciated over
20-50 years
(say average of [25+50] / 2 = 35 years) About $57 million a
year
Provision for Depreciation: Cr $57 million
In the income statement, you will charge an expense of $57 million
to provide for the depreciation. At the end of the day, your income
statement will have less profit of $57 million. The $57 million is
not a cashflow. At the end of the year when the payment of loan to
the bank comes, you just Credit your Bank Account and Credit the
Loan Account with the $57 million (if say your loan from bank is 35
years).
Simple logic, if they didn't make money. Why are they getting over
22% to 26% return on equity every year.
It would be logical if the government does that, they can
explain that the extra taxes is to provide for other services. Like
I said, it's not logical if your company makes clothing and TV, if
you don't make profits on clothing, you charge consumers more for
TV. It doesn't make sense at all.
Like I explain in the previous post, government sells the land
to the company to set up factory. Say, they get $1 million, invest
it somewhere (maybe) bonds, at the end of it, they will get the
same exact sum to recover back the cost of the land. There are not
many HDB housing which used to be factories.
Very smart!! You have showed me that you can search on Wikipedia
for interest rates.
Now show me the calculation for this simple bond: what is the price
of a zero coupon, 30 year maturity, current interest 5% per annum,
the bond is non-continuously compounding? Simple enough?
In February 1994, Lee Kuan Yew and Chinas Vice-Premier Lee
Lanqing
formally signed an agreement to develop a seventy-kilometre
industrial
park based on Singapores Jurong Industrial Park experience. The
total
cost of the SIP was estimated to be about US$20 billion, to be
fully developed in twenty years and based on a Singaporean style of
industrial, residential,
recreational community with a population of six hundred
thousand
providing employment for three hundred and sixty thousand workers.
(45)
Abstract from page 16 of:
Singapore-China Special Economic Relations: In Search of Business
Opportunities
45) Asia Times, 22 August 1996. See also Henry Wai-chung Yeung,
Local Politics and Foreign Ventures in Chinas Transitional
Economy: The Political Economy of Singaporean Investments in
China, Political Geography, Vol. 19 (2000), p.830.
This is a report written by Professor SHEE Poon Kim*
RITSUMEIKAN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS Vol.3, pp.151-176 (2005).
* Visiting Professor, Faculty of International Relations,
Ritsumeikan University. I am grateful to the East Asian Institute,
National University of Singapore for providing the research
facilities for writing this paper and to Dr. Lam Peng Er for his
valuable comments.
So unless you have a study to disprove it, I will take my source as
credible. Even your own source said $20 billion to $30 billion in
20 years.
By September 1999, it was reported that the SIP project would have
accumulated losses of US$60 million by the end of the year 2000;
the incurred financial loss would be about US$77 millions.
I added US$77 million with US$10 million, which is US$87 million. I
gave them a profit of US$100 million (approx.) a year. They
investing US$20 billion, won't it take 200 years to recover the
original investment.
It would be helpful if someone from Finance can tell stupidissmart
if bonds interest are compounded.
What is "total shareholder return by market value of 18%
compounded annually"? I don't understand this statement, maybe you
can shed some light and help me understand.
Of the portfolio Temasek has, 44% are companies based in Singapore.
Shareholder equity of Temasek is around $90 billion, Singapore
Power alone is $5 billion in equity. Singapore Power has return on
equity of 26% in 2005.
Looking at the income statement is useless, when you don't know
anything about the balance sheet.
http://politics.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=235957&page=0
Can you explain the losses at Global Crossing? Maybe you can come
up with a smart answer. I would love to hear your reply, keeps me
amused.
Can you tell me who is the ultimate shareholder of Temasek? Who
gets all those dividends and capital gains(if there are any at
all)?
You example showed:
1) The example you provide was a country with low tax and a country
with high tax. Say maybe Singapore (low tax) and China (high
tax).
2) You showed that the company operating in the country with high
tax (China) will never move to Singapore despite it's low tax rate,
else it would make losses.
Proves my point that what the government is doing is not going to
attact investments.
My original point:
"Lower corporate taxes is not a major factor that influence
investment decisions"
Thanks. I could not have come up with a better example.
The try to emulate developed country's form of taxation, but do
no provide welfare. I would recommend that they tax us less, since
they not providing sufficient welfare.
Like I said the intra company is used to inflate prices. I
already rebutted all your points, you go search all my posting to
find it. All you gave was army has cost, police has cost, etc. But
these cost are already provided for in taxes. There is no
connection between housing and these services. I gave you example
of company producing clothing and TV, if clothing is making a loss,
do you pass the cost of your clothing to your TV? There is no
connection at all!!!
Another example, say you have a company doing graphic design and
you teach part time tuition. You cannot cover your cost in doing
graphic design. Do you go and tell your students you need to
increase 100% of their fees so that you can cover your graphic
design business? Makes no sense, or it's nonsense.
You said nobody would buy that silly product. How fast you
change your words.
I am not bullshitting, it's just you have a very narrow
perspective of the world. Pollution is a big issue with global
warming now!!! Haven't you noticed the freaky weather patterns
around the world? That's why the Kyoto Proctocol was aimed at
reducing emssions.
Let me get this straight:
If you run a company, your company has a small sales figure(tax
from small population like Singapore), you can work with 50
managers (salary of managers). You want 84 managers so that the
other 34 managers can shake leg and get money? Have you shown that
policies made by these 84 managers are better than those made by 50
managers? I have already shown that with the reduction in 34
managers, it will result in cost savings to the company. PAP is the
system! I guess we have another party sharing the government? Small
group of people cost more problems? Obviously you haven't been
managing people. Is it easier to manage a group of 1,000 or manage
a group of 100? I am not against them, I used to support their
policies afew elections back, but I find that their policies are
abit self defeating and self promoting. More MP doesn't mean good,
less MP doesn't mean bad. If you think more MP is good, then we
should have 1,000 MP, but the policies will be the same. Why?
Simple, because some things are not within a mortal's grasp. You
cannot fight a wave of Tsunami, you can only run. Likewise, having
more MPs does not help the situation, because it only increase the
burden on tax payers. Even their plan to reduce CPF contribution
for employee, I thought of it last election ago, I am not even a
graduate.
Remember to show me the calculation for the price of the bond. I am
not against them, I just don't support a majority of their
policies, I think their policies are selfish, aim at maintaining
eternal dominance at the expense of Singaporeans. I used to support
them 100% in the past, but, that was the past.
