Originally posted by [ Neo ]:
Technically speaking, the buying back of shares could be a part of
an expansion strategy. I mean companies will naturally seek to
first increase on their degree of influence and control over any
entity that has a vital role to play in some grand plan.
The policy of GLC privatization may have announced, but having
played the role of the Guiding Hand in these companies for so
many year, divesture moves would also have vital concerns e.g the
competence, track record and ability of a potential new buying
company to safely maintain and ensure on the continuous going on
concern of a Temasek sell off company.
If privatization has to be made at the expense of the management
incompetence by a new buying company just for the surface meeting
of the privatization objective, then I would rather see Temasek to
continue holding on to all of its current portfolio than to hear
news of further retrenchment exercise or layoffs - resultant from
declining business or bad management though I would personally also
hope to see more privatization cases to go on.
And if it is any consolation to us, at least we have seen the sell
off of at least one company, CIAS, by the holding company this
year.
Back to the recent purchase made by Temasek, most of these targets
were actually aimed at corporations which have already had plans
mapped out for business growth in promising industries
overseas.
If Temaseks recent increased involvement in these purchases could
provide a helping hand be it business intelligence sharing,
corporate expertise or resource sharing, all leading to the
creation of more jobs for the local scene, then why not support
this move?
As for the disclosure of financial statements and performance, that
I guess we may only be able to make assessment upon only after we
have seen what has been made know to public when the annual reports
have been published.
Frankly, I do not see how the buying back of shares from the
Public can be seen as an act expansion.
If anything at all, it is utilising precious financial resources to
pay to the Public for the shares that they have, when the same
financial resources could have the Company by being put into better
investment use elsewhere.
The buying back of the shares can only be seen in the most cynical
view - in that after using the private funds of Singaporeans to
build up the GLC, and having grown the GLC to a certain size, the
Government now decide to dispense with the Singapore Citizens'
money - by seemingly returning a higher value for the shares that
they have held for so long.
Why not let the Singapore Citizen hang on to these shares and sell
it at a later date to the open market - especially if the growth
prospect can see the Company Share value reaching ever higher
levels in the Stock Exchange ?
Keppel Shipyard bought back the shares from mainly Singaporean
Shareholders, at a price that give only a slight premium above the
prevailing market price.
After having gain 100 percent control of the Company, Keppel
Shipyard changed its name into Keppel Corporation, and went into
property development - using the asset endowed land on which the
Shipyard had been sitting, to gain higher revenue from the sale of
an upmarket property development.
Could the Singapore Citizen Shareholder have benefitted more by
hanging on to those shares ?
With regards to the many overseas acquisition of shares to allow
Temasek a stake in the foreign business entities, it can hardly
generate any new jobs in Singapore unless the foreign business
entities happen to open a subsidiary unit in Singapore.
Does Temasek have any say or influence on the Board of these
foreign companies, when Temasek's shareholding is just a bean size
when compared to the humongous share values of these Companies
?
