GIC is one of BP's largest shareholders, holding more than a 1% stake in the company's shares.
On Apr 20, when the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded and sunk, GIC's stake was worth about US$1.9b. Since then, BP's share price has plummeted and GIC's stake is now worth about US$1b. This is a loss of about US$900b or S$1.3b of market value since the disaster began.
The Disaster was an unexpected by the oil industry, but in hindsight should have been avoided.
Showing posts with label GIC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GIC. Show all posts
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Lee Kuan Yew is Full Of Crap
Lee Kuan Yew is all over the news today, talking about GIC's 25% loss. In particular, he has been defending GIC's investments in the banks. I've written extensively about these investments, but MM Lee's latest attempts and defending GIC are some of the crappiest shit I've seen in a while.
Damn it - I'm just absolutely fed up with Lee's crap. For goodness sake already, just own up and admit that GIC did not have a clue.
MM Lee was quoted today in the Business Times, saying:
Here's the octogenerian politician, trying to wriggle his way out by claiming that GIC could not have known the extent of the damage. He blames the big-name bankers for ruining their careers, and says its all "part of the ride".
Well, thats a bucketload of bullcrap.
You want to know how you could have "known the extent of the damage", Mr Lee?? I'll Tell You HOW!!!
Damn it - I'm just absolutely fed up with Lee's crap. For goodness sake already, just own up and admit that GIC did not have a clue.
MM Lee was quoted today in the Business Times, saying:
'We became cash-rich and when the market fell, we went into UBS and Citi,' he said. 'But we went in too early. That's part of the ride.'
...
'How could we have known this was the extent of the damage? You look at all the big-name banks - they have gone down, misjudged the situation, ruined their careers,' Mr Lee said.
Here's the octogenerian politician, trying to wriggle his way out by claiming that GIC could not have known the extent of the damage. He blames the big-name bankers for ruining their careers, and says its all "part of the ride".
Well, thats a bucketload of bullcrap.
You want to know how you could have "known the extent of the damage", Mr Lee?? I'll Tell You HOW!!!
Labels:
GIC,
Lee Kuan Yew,
Subprime
Sunday, March 01, 2009
GIC's Conversion from Preferred to Common Marks the Beginning of the End
In news just out, GIC has agreed to convert its preferred stake in Citigroup to Common Equity, to go along with the US government's continued bailout plan for the company.
GIC converts preferred notes in Citigroup to common shares
By May Wong, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 27 February 2009 2026 hrs
SINGAPORE: The Government of Singapore Investment Corp (GIC) has said it will convert its convertible preferred notes in the US lender Citigroup to common stock in a bid to help shore up the troubled US lender.
The exchange price is US$3.25 a share – a 32 per cent premium to Citigroup's closing price on Thursday. The price is way under the conversion price of US$26.35 a share under the original terms of the investment.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
"Substantial Long-term Returns" From Bank Investments? Fat Hope, GIC
Well well, things are getting exciting. All of us know that GIC is reported to have incurred losses of US$33 Billion. All of us know that the government keeps on saying that GIC & Temasek are long term investors. And guess what, the press reported that GIC expects long-term returns from its bank investments (and I think, that's what Temasek expects as well)
Singapore’s GIC Loses $33 Billion as Assets Tumble, WSJ Says
By Andrea Tan and Chris Peterson
Feb. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Government of Singapore Investment Corp., one of two sovereign wealth funds owned by the island, lost as much as S$50 billion ($33 billion) in 2008, the Wall Street Journal said, citing two people familiar with the matter.
The fund doesn’t plan to get rid of its investments including in Citigroup Inc. and UBS AG even as asset values plummet, the newspaper said. GIC expects the two banks to provide substantial long-term returns, according to the report.
Sovereign wealth funds in Asia and the Middle East have pumped money into global financial institutions to help replenish capital eroded by writedowns and losses that have topped $1 trillion globally. GIC, overseeing more than $100 billion of reserves, has invested about $18 billion in UBS and Citigroup since December 2007.
Labels:
GIC,
Temasek Holdings
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Vikram Pandit is a Loser; Berkshire Hathaway 2 - GIC 0
In the latest development of what must be the most eventful year in the history of banking, Warren Buffett's Wells Fargo has snatched Wachovia bank from Vikram Pandit's Citigroup. In what must be the most humiliating and daring bank acquisition to date, Wells bid and closed a $16b deal for Wachovia, an offer that trumped Citi's pathetic $2.1b and that has Pandit and his minions crying foul, or whining, rather.
But Pandit seriously doesn't have much of a chance. Wells Fargo is paying much more and is not requiring any assistance from FDIC, in contrast to Citigroup's relatively pathetic bid which involved "FDIC agreeing to absorb up to $42 billion in losses should Wachovia's $312 billion pool of loans later turn sour." The withdrawal of FDIC involvement will surely mean a goodbye to Citi's bid for Wachovia, but Pandit must have known better than to expect that his paltry offer would have been the best in the market.
Labels:
Citigroup,
GIC,
Goldman Sachs,
warren buffett,
Wells Farg
Friday, July 04, 2008
Singapore's SWFs and the 3 Behemoths of Mass Implosion
What do UBS AG, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup have in common?
A. They're all banks which have received significant cash infusions from Singapore's Sovereign Wealth Funds, GIC and Temasek.
B. They're the 3 largest casualties of the ongoing credit crisis.
Behemoths of Mass Implosion
Meredith Whitney, one of the most prominent Wall Street bank stock analysts, recently put out research notes either downgrading or cutting financial estimates for the three banks:
Citigroup leads the pack, with UBS and Merrill trailing close behind. But the gap between these three banks and the rest is extremely large - HSBC is the next closest with about half of Merrill's damage.
The same three banks lead in another key statistical metric: writedowns/market cap ratio:
This time, Merrill leads the charge. UBS and Citigroup fare better on this ratio, but still are way higher than the rest of the pack.
The stock markets have, in turn responded to the financial carnage the banks have inflicted on themselves: Merrill, Citigroup and UBS are amongst the top 5 % decliners in stock price:
Meanwhile, the 1-year performance of the stocks have indeed been nothing to envy:

The Dubious Wisdom of Lee Kuan Yew
Lee Kuan Yew just a month ago made some comments about GIC's splendid investments in Citigroup and UBS:
How about Citigroup's "enormous spread worldwide as a retail bank"? Well, it seems that is turning out to be a liability, rather than an asset.
Suffering the Consequences
Who is taking the brunt of all this financial damage? Ultimately, it is the shareholders of these banks. And although GIC and Temasek have incorporated some sort of short term guaranteed returns for their investments in the banks, ultimately, these investments will convert into equity and suffer the effects of dilution:
The writedowns at the banks have resulted in corresponding losses in stock price. And dilution of shareholders returns due to capital raisings only add to these woes. These are real losses that Singapore's SWFs will suffer; the supposed downside protection they built into their investments are but a short-term illusion.
Were these investments a good idea? We will only know for sure in a few years time when we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
But the way things are going, the prospects for these investments simply don't look good at all.
A. They're all banks which have received significant cash infusions from Singapore's Sovereign Wealth Funds, GIC and Temasek.
B. They're the 3 largest casualties of the ongoing credit crisis.
Behemoths of Mass Implosion
Meredith Whitney, one of the most prominent Wall Street bank stock analysts, recently put out research notes either downgrading or cutting financial estimates for the three banks:
Merrill, rated “underperform,” faces “headwinds of deleveraging and the next disruptive step of restructuring.” ...Whitney's pessimisim is not without good reason. UBS AG, Citigroup and Merrill Lynch, have been the banks with the largest total bank writedowns to date, far and ahead of the rest of their peers:
Ms. Whitney says she continues to “be negative in our outlook on Citigroup due simply to the fact that the company has seriously constrained earnings power, in addition to the writedowns seen in 2Q08,” which she estimates will hit $12.2-billion. ...
UBS is rated “underperform” by Oppenheimer because the Swiss bank “faces a difficult task of navigating through its risk exposures from the investment bank and rebuilding its damaged wealth management franchise.”
The same three banks lead in another key statistical metric: writedowns/market cap ratio:
The stock markets have, in turn responded to the financial carnage the banks have inflicted on themselves: Merrill, Citigroup and UBS are amongst the top 5 % decliners in stock price:
The Dubious Wisdom of Lee Kuan Yew
Lee Kuan Yew just a month ago made some comments about GIC's splendid investments in Citigroup and UBS:
"The franchise of the banks, the expertise that they have, under proper leadership, they will be able to recover and rise again ... Will there be another Swiss bank like UBS for wealth management? I doubt it, we doubt it, that is why we invested in it." Citigroup, he added, had "an enormous spread worldwide as a retail bank".These statements have indeed turned out to be questionable, if not downright wrong. UBS' 'unparalleled' wealth management franchise appears to be undergoing an unparalleled tax evasion investigation:
UBS shares hit by talk of further losses, tax evasion caseThe subprime damage and the suspected tax evasion has had severe consequences for the top leadership of the bank:
Jun 23, 2008
ZURICH (AFP) — Shares in Swiss banking giant UBS plunged on Monday amid talk of further losses and as investors worried that a US tax evasion case around a former employee could widen to the bank itself.
At the close, UBS shares showed a fall of 4.42 percent to 22.06 Swiss francs on the Zurich stock exchange, after a loss of 3.27 percent on Friday. The overall market was down 0.60 percent.
In a note to investors, an analyst at Credit Suisse warned that UBS's wealth management could come under "significant pressure" if the tax evasion investigations broadens to a case directly impacting the bank.
"In a worst case scenario, UBS could lose its banking license which could have adverse effects on the global private banking franchise," she wrote.
On Sunday, Swiss newspaper Sonntag reported that US law enforcement officials had made a formal request to come to Switzerland to investigate a tax evasion case involving UBS.
The move has been sparked by the confession of former UBS banker Bradley Birkenfeld to a Florida court last week that he conspired to help US clients dodge millions of dollars in taxes.
Swiss officials from the justice and finance ministries have already travelled to Washington for talks with their US counterparts amid concern the case could damage the overall reputation of Switzerland's financial industry.
UBS AG (UBS) was at the center of a tornado of crushing news Tuesday, as it announced major changes to its board amidst pressure from the U.S. Department of Justice to reveal the names of top clients taking advantage of the bank’s tax breaks.So, not only has UBS taken a severe beating in the subprime mortgage crisis, its wealth management business is undergoing severe pressures as well.
Four of the No. 1 Swiss bank’s board members - Stephan Haeringer, Rolf Meyer, Peter Spuhler and Lawrence Weinbach - will step down at the bank’s Oct. 2 shareholder meeting.
...
The bank has been the biggest European casualty to the U.S. subprime-mortgage crisis. It has written down more than $38 billion in the last three quarters, and its stock has dropped more than 57% year-to-date.
Continuing that trend, the bank will likely post a second-quarter loss with another markdown of about $4.9 billion, according to Bloomberg News estimates.
UBS said it will immediately submit board-member recommendations to the governance committee and will explore redefining directors’ and management’s responsibilities.
How about Citigroup's "enormous spread worldwide as a retail bank"? Well, it seems that is turning out to be a liability, rather than an asset.
Citigroup plans to sell $400 billion in assetsAs it turns out, Vikram Pandit is trying to get rid of many of Citigroup's assets. Citigroup's worldwide sprawl made it a giant behemoth to big to manage. On top of that, Vikram Pandit has absolutely no experience running a consumer bank. Does Lee Kuan Yew really like such a person managing Citigroup's wide retail sprawl?
International Herald Tribune
By Eric Dash; Friday, May 9, 2008
Vikram Pandit is doing some serious spring cleaning at Citigroup.
Since becoming chief executive in December, Pandit has been clearing out the corporate attic of weak businesses and unloading worrisome assets at bargain-basement prices.
In an effort to streamline the sprawling company and placate restive shareholders, Pandit has sold or closed more than 45 branches in eight states. He has also disposed of Citigroup's headquarters building in Tokyo and its investment-banking base in New York and ditched more than $12.5 billion in loans used to finance corporate buyouts. And he has jettisoned the Diners Club credit card franchise, Citi's commercial leasing divisions and a big pension administration unit.
Pandit is not done yet. After months of false starts, Citigroup is now trying to sell Primerica Financial, a life insurance and mutual fund company, according to people close to the situation. He is also looking to sell its back-office outsourcing unit in India and its Smith Barney brokerage firm in Australia. Some speculate he also may try to sell 340 bank branches in Germany, possibly to Deutsche Bank.
On Friday, at Pandit's first major presentation to investors and analysts, Citigroup said that it planned to sell about $400 billion in assets in the next two to three years.
Suffering the Consequences
Who is taking the brunt of all this financial damage? Ultimately, it is the shareholders of these banks. And although GIC and Temasek have incorporated some sort of short term guaranteed returns for their investments in the banks, ultimately, these investments will convert into equity and suffer the effects of dilution:
Shareholders take brunt of banks' capital raisingThe end of the credit crisis is no where in sight, and the banks have yet to see the light at the end of the tunnel. And from how things are going right now, that light seems quite far away.
Saturday June 21, 7:26 am ET
By Joe Bel Bruno, AP Business Writer
Banks cutting dividends, diluting shares to raise badly needed capital
NEW YORK (AP) -- America's banks and brokerages are scrambling to raise badly needed cash, but it may be at the expense of shareholders.
Since the subprime mortgage market imploded, financial companies caught in the fallout have been raising capital in two major ways -- cutting dividends and issuing more shares. Both methods erode shareholder value; analysts believe the industry is poised for more.
"The market is now seeing a substantial increase in financial companies issuing common and convertible instruments in an effort to shore up liquidity," said Standard & Poor's senior index analyst Howard Silverblatt. "The additional financing gives them immediate breathing room, with the payback being longer term dilution."
Put plainly, their gain is your pain.
Just this past week, Fifth Third Bancorp Chief Executive Kevin Kabat needed a cash infusion of $2 billion to bail out his struggling regional bank, while KeyCorp CEO Henry Meyer needed $1.5 billion. Both will issue stock to boost their balance sheets.
Banks have raised more than $60 billion this year by selling common and preferred shares.
The issuance of new stock acts to dilute the value of current shareholders because profit gets split among more shares. It's like having the family over for a turkey dinner and at the last minute grandpa invites the neighbors, too. There'll be less for everybody.
The writedowns at the banks have resulted in corresponding losses in stock price. And dilution of shareholders returns due to capital raisings only add to these woes. These are real losses that Singapore's SWFs will suffer; the supposed downside protection they built into their investments are but a short-term illusion.
Were these investments a good idea? We will only know for sure in a few years time when we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
But the way things are going, the prospects for these investments simply don't look good at all.
Labels:
Citigroup,
GIC,
Lee Kuan Yew,
Merrill Lynch,
Temasek Holdings,
UBS
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Lee Kuan Yew Wrong Again! This Time, It's Oil.
Two months ago, Lee Kuan Yew, Minister Mentor of Singapore and Chairman of GIC, made the following statements about oil prices, as reported by the Straits Times:
Oil prices 'unlikely to rise further'Well, shortly after Lee Kuan Yew's pronouncement, Oil prices shot up above $110, and today is trading at above $125.
March 8, 2008 (Straits Times)
OIL prices are not likely to go higher, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said yesterday.
As crude oil prices hit US$105 (S$145) per barrel, MM Lee believes it is not likely to creep further up to US$110.
'The oil suppliers are testing the limits. They believe that China and India now form a new long-term base demand. They may be right,' he said.
'I don't think it can go up US$110, US$120, US$150 and the world economy goes on. Inflation will go through the roof.
'Economies of the West will go down, hyper-inflation in many developing countries. So it will go into reverse. There's no projection right to the end.'
On top of that, just a few days ago, respected Goldman Sachs Analysts have predicted that oil could spike up towards $150 and even maybe $200!
Goldman Says Oil `Likely' to Reach $150-200 a BarrelWell well, wrong again, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew.
By Nesa Subrahmaniyan
May 6 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil prices may rise to between $150 and $200 a barrel within two years because of a lack of adequate supply growth, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. analysts led by Arjun N. Murti said in a report.
``The possibility of $150-$200 per barrel seems increasingly likely over the next six-24 months, though predicting the ultimate peak in oil prices as well as the remaining duration of the upcycle remains a major uncertainty,'' the Goldman analysts wrote in the report dated May 5.
Global fuel demand growth is outpacing gains in output. China, the world's fastest growing major economy, has more than doubled oil use since New York crude dropped to this decade's low of $16.70 a barrel on Nov. 19, 2001. That's soaked up most of the world's spare capacity amid supply cuts in Nigeria, Iraq and Venezuela.
Wrong on energy, and wrong on banking.
Not only are the industry's most respected analysts holding opinions diametrically opposite to you, the world's most respected investors, such as Warren Buffett and Jim Rogers, have also made the opposite investment decisions compared to you.
Seriously, what is Lee Kuan Yew doing as the Chairman of GIC, Singapore's $300 billion investment fund? The man isn't qualified for the post!
----------------
Related:
Lee Kuan Yew vs Warren Buffett: Part 2
Lee Kuan Yew Ain't No Warren Buffett
GIC, UBS & Jim Rogers
Labels:
Energy,
GIC,
Goldman Sachs,
Lee Kuan Yew,
Oil and Gas,
Sovereign Wealth Funds
Monday, May 05, 2008
Lee Kuan Yew vs. Warren Buffett - Round 2
Some time last week, Lee Kuan Yew made a few comments about GIC's investments in the big banks, and also about Warren Buffett. He said in a Bloomberg interview:Singapore's GIC May Seek More Bank Assets, Lee SaysThis week, Warren Buffett, the wealthiest man in the world, gets his chance to give his take on the credit crunch and the banking sector:
By Haslinda Amin and Linus Chua
April 30 (Bloomberg) -- Government of Singapore Investment Corp. may add more bank assets to its $18 billion of investments in UBS AG and Citigroup Inc. as it chases stable returns over periods as long as 30 years, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said.
The Singapore sovereign wealth fund, which manages more than $100 billion, bought stakes in the two banks as they sought to repair balance sheets after writedowns linked to U.S. subprime mortgages. GIC, as the fund is known, may hold the stakes for two to three decades, said Lee, who's GIC's chairman.
``If there are other banks of the quality of the two that we bought into, with the promise and the capabilities and inherent capabilities to recover, we have got the liquidity to meet it, to make such an investment,'' Lee, 84, said in a Bloomberg Television interview late yesterday. ``We will not rule it out.''
Buffett says U.S. in recession; banks to face painIs Lee Kuan Yew listening?
Sun May 4, 2008 7:51pm EDT
OMAHA, Nebraska (Reuters) - Warren Buffett on Sunday said he does not expect financial markets to panic as write-downs and losses for bad debts mount in the financial services industry, but said those losses were not over "by a long shot."
The world's richest person, who runs Berkshire Hathaway Inc, said at a press conference the Federal Reserve brought markets back from a precipice in March in helping broker JPMorgan Chase & Co's purchase of Bear Stearns Cos, which was on the brink of bankruptcy.
"There's going to be more pain, sure," Buffett said. "The action of the Fed, in terms of Bear Stearns, prevented in my opinion the contagion where you're essentially going to have bank runs on the investment banks ... The idea of a financial panic ... has been pretty well taken care of. That was a watershed event."
He added, though: "That doesn't mean the losses are over by a long shot ... We've looked at some of the investment banks, and it's clear some more losses are going to be incurred."
He showed he clearly didn't listen to Jim Rogers by making comments about GIC possibly buying into more banks. And he most probably isn't listening to Warren Buffett either. Hell, Lee doesn't even really understand Warren Buffett's investment philosophy.
Buffett was speaking at his annual shareholder meeting, and had more to add:
In a question-and-answer session at the shareholder meeting, Buffett said that from a risk perspective, some banks got ``too big to manage.''Sound familiar? What's the biggest bank in the world? I think it's one of the banks that Lee Kuan Yew's GIC invested in: Citigroup! which according to LKY, has
"an enormous spread worldwide as a retail bank".Well, now we really know what an "enormous spread" is - it's a liability.
To finish off, be sure that it's not just about words, but it's also about making prudent investment decisions. Warren Buffett, like LKY & GIC, had the chance to pick up a stake in the banks. But Mr Buffett chose differently:
And Mr Buffett said banks need better risk management. He said he recently considered the prospects of a large investment bank, which he did not identify, by reading its 270-page annual report. He said he highlighted 25 pages where he did not understand what he had read.Lee Kuan Yew and GIC, however, decided to plonk billions into Citigroup and UBS, now two of the greatest loss making banks since the credit crunch began.
'I decided not to pick that one,' Mr Buffett added.
Who do you think made the correct decision? Mr. Buffett or Mr. Lee?
I seriously think there's no debate!
----------------
[Update - A reader has kindly informed:
"LKY is a senior advisor to Citigroup which means that he get millions off from Citigroup from deal, salary and payment every month, every year.
http://www.citigroup.com/citigroup/press/2006/060905c.htm
Please add this important disclosure as it might shred light why LKY is so eager to invest in frailing banks."]
------
Related Posts:
Lee Kuan Yew Ain't No Warren Buffett
GIC, UBS & Jim Rogers
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Lee Kuan Yew Ain't No Warren Buffett
GIC a few months ago took significant stakes in global banking giants UBS and Citigroup. The share prices of these companies have since taken a tumble due to the impact of the credit crisis, but according to GIC, that's no worry, since GIC has taken these investments with a 'long term view.' In addition to GIC's existing investments in those banks, Lee Kuan Yew, Chairman of GIC and Minister Mentor of Singapore, has gone on the record as saying:
Singapore's GIC may invest in more banksAfter throwing in billions of dollars into credit-crunch battered financial institutions, Lee Kuan Yew is prepared to deploy more capital into this area. Ever confident about GIC's investments, the octogenarian further defended GIC's decisions:
Reuters, April 30
The Government of Singapore Investment Corp may invest in more banks in Europe and the United States if it gets the chance, adding to its stakes in beleaguered bank UBS and Citigroup, its chairman told Bloomberg TV.
"If there are other banks of the quality of the two that we bought into, with the promise and the capabilities and inherent capabilities to recover, we have got the liquidity to meet it, to make such an investment," Lee, 84, said in a Bloomberg Television interview late yesterday. "We will not rule it out."
"We are buying something that we intend to keep for the next two to three decades and grow with them", he said, adding that GIC was a long-term investor.
"The franchise of the banks, the expertise that they have, under proper leadership, they will be able to recover and rise again ... Will there be another Swiss bank like UBS for wealth management? I doubt it, we doubt it, that is why we invested in it." Citigroup, he added, had "an enormous spread worldwide as a retail bank".Interesting rationale. According to Lee Kuan Yew, UBS and Citigroup have "inherent capabilities to recover" from the credit crisis. Well, this is quite a debatable statement.
Just a few months after GIC's investments, recovery of the banking sector is far from sight. Instead, the banks are scrambling to raise more capital to deal with the damage the credit crunch has dealt them:
Citigroup, Merrill Lead Record Week of Bond OfferingsAn inherent ability to recover from the crisis? Not without a lot of additional capital - extra capital which is going to dilute your existing stakes.
By Bryan Keogh and Gabrielle Coppola
April 25 (Bloomberg) -- Citigroup Inc. and Merrill Lynch & Co. led $45.3 billion of U.S. corporate bond offerings, the busiest week on record, as financial companies sold debt at the highest yields since April 2001.
Sales compare with $31.2 billion last week and an average this year of $18 billion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Citigroup, the biggest U.S. bank by assets, sold $6 billion of hybrid bonds in the company's largest public debt offering, while New York-based securities firm Merrill Lynch raised $9.55 billion by issuing debt and preferred securities.
Bond offerings soared as investors grew more optimistic financial companies can recover from $309 billion of writedowns and credit losses tied to the collapse of the subprime-mortgage market. Banks and securities firms sold 85 percent of investment- grade debt this week, Bloomberg data show. High-yield bond issuance swelled to the most since November.
The debt issuance is not the end of the story. Citigroup is issuing equity as well:
Citigroup Sells $3 Billion of Stock to Boost CapitalCitigroup's issuance of equity financing is implicit acknowledgement that it won't be able to deal with the upcoming problems in the credit markets without substantial help. Add to that a weakening US economy and a looming recession, the clouds on the horizon are only getting darker.
By Bradley Keoun
April 29 (Bloomberg) -- Citigroup Inc., the U.S. bank hit with writedowns on subprime mortgages and bonds, is selling $3 billion of stock two weeks after reporting its second straight quarterly loss.
The shares are being sold in a public offering, New York- based Citigroup said today in a statement. Citigroup already has raised more than $30 billion of capital since December. A weakening U.S. economy and rising consumer delinquencies forced Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit to rescind assurances earlier this year that the bank didn't need to raise more funds.
"This was extremely disappointing," William Fitzpatrick, an equity analyst at Optique Capital Management in Racine, Wisconsin, said in a Bloomberg Television interview. "We were hoping they wouldn't have to go the equity markets like this."
Morgan Stanley realised this in its latest research report on the banking sector, painting a very bleak picture of the road ahead. This is in stark contrast to investors (including GIC) who have been calling an end to the banks' credit woes:
Morgan Stanley sees big bank woes just beginningJust for the record, a baseball game usually has nine(9) innings. Morgan Stanley's declaration that we are only in the third inning of the credit cycle, simply says we're not even a third of the way through the game. A Seeking Alpha contributor has also observed:
Monday April 28, By Joseph A. Giannone
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Morgan Stanley analysts on Monday told clients to "sell the rally" in financial stocks, slashing forecasts for big bank earnings and warning that the current credit crunch is only just beginning.
In aggregate, Morgan Stanley reduced its estimates for 2008 large bank earnings by $17 billion, or 26 percent, and reduced 2009 forecasts by $13 billion, or 15 percent. The analysts expect higher loan losses and expenses, offset by higher net interest income, though profits could fall further still if the Federal Reserve stops lowering interest rates.
"More capital hikes and dividend cuts (are) coming as our credit deteriorates and forward earnings decline," analysts led by Betsy Graseck wrote in a report. "We think we are only in the third inning of the credit cycle and expect this credit cycle will be worse than (the slump in) 1990-91."
The credit markets have improved, in terms of increased liquidity, with the Fed opening up the discount window for investment banks. However, the real economy, which has had only a minimal impact on the financial markets thus far, is deteriorating rapidly. Home prices are continuing to decline, costs of living are continuing to increase (look at the price of oil and food for examples), and the job market is reeling. The real economy will come back around and hit the financial institutions far harder than the freeze in the credit markets did. The Fed put out one fire, but threw gasoline on the other - through massive inflation - and we have not even begun to witness the effects this will have on our economy.Well, well, it appears Lee Kuan Yew doesn't seem so wise any more. Certainly not as wise as Warren Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway has stayed away from picking up stakes in these big banks. And its just as well that we clearly see the difference here, as GIC and Temasek have been repeatedly using slogans to "invest for the long term," to parade themselves as value investors of the Buffett kind.
But Lee Kuan Yew doesn't really understand Warren Buffett. He also said in the interview with Bloomberg:
'[Buffett] has a different view. He has to give returns to his investors year by year. We don't have to. We have to think in terms of the next 10, 20, 30 years. We are buying into something which we intend to keep for the next two, three decades and grow with them.'But I think anybody who knows Warren Buffett knows that Buffett's favourite investment horizon is forever, and that the investment legend has repeatedly stressed that Berkshire's focus is not on the quarter-to-quarter or year-to-year earnings. In all his writings to shareholders, one can clearly discern that Buffett has his eye on the long term future. Furthermore, Buffett's track record of consistently outperforming the market spans a good 50 years... Thus, for Lee to say the Buffett is narrowly focused on the year-to-year performance of his company, is to demonstrate a gross and fundamental misunderstanding of Buffett's investment philosophy - and thus it was ridiculous for Lee Kuan Yew to claim that GIC has significantly different obligations to its shareholders compared to Berkshire.
Finally, let's not forget Jim Rogers' warning to Singapore's Sovereign Wealth Funds earlier this year:
"It grieves me to see what Singapore is doing. They are going to lose money," he added, referring to investments by Government of Singapore Investment Corp and Temasek in Citigroup, Switzerland's UBS and Merrill Lynch.I think that just about sums up what is going to happen.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
GIC, UBS & Jim Rogers
Back on 10th December 2007, the following was reported on Channel News Asia regarding GIC's investment in UBS.
Well, of course, GIC and Temasek would say that their investments are 'for the long term' and that the performance of these investments cannot be evaluated simply on the basis of their performance in a few short months.
After all, a 40% drop in stock price in 4 months can't be that bad... right?
Well, in any case, it looks like Jim Rogers is far out in the lead in this race as to who will eventually turn out to be right (click for full images):


The Government of Singapore Investment Corp (GIC) is injecting 11 million Swiss francs, or nearly US$10 billion, into the troubled Swiss banking giant UBS.A few months later, on March 5th, 2008, the following was reported on many news sources, including reuters, about Jim Rogers' comments that Singapore was going to lose money on its investments in investment banks. (For those who don't know, Jim Rogers is one of the most successful investors of all time, and partnered George Soros when the two ran their Quantum Fund)
This will give GIC an almost 9 percent stake in UBS.
The deal comes as UBS announced that it was making further multi-billion dollar writedowns for its US sub-prime exposure.
"It grieves me to see what Singapore is doing. They are going to lose money," he added, referring to investments by Government of Singapore Investment Corp and Temasek in Citigroup, Switzerland's UBS and Merrill Lynch.Just today (April 1st, 2008) UBS has announced massive losses and is again trying to raise capital, just a few months after its massive capital raising exercise that involved GIC. Reuters reports:
UBS AG doubled its writedowns from the subprime crisis, parted company with its chairman and asked shareholders for more emergency capital on Tuesday in a second dramatic attempt to reverse its fortunes.But what is interesting about GIC's 'investment' is that UBS has been characterised as requesting more 'emergency capital' to 'reverse its fortunes'. I'm not sure I'd really put money in such a company and call it an investment.The Swiss bank wrote down an additional $19 billion on U.S. real estate and related assets, causing a net loss of 12 billion Swiss francs ($12.03 billion) in the first quarter, and said it would seek 15 billion francs through a rights issue of shares.
Well, of course, GIC and Temasek would say that their investments are 'for the long term' and that the performance of these investments cannot be evaluated simply on the basis of their performance in a few short months.
After all, a 40% drop in stock price in 4 months can't be that bad... right?
Well, in any case, it looks like Jim Rogers is far out in the lead in this race as to who will eventually turn out to be right (click for full images):
Labels:
Credit Crunch,
GIC,
Investment Banking,
Jim Rogers,
Subprime,
UBS
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Govt Investment De-linked from CPF funds?
In the ST Forum letter appended below, Jacqualine Poh, an executive from the Ministry of Finance, says that the CPF funds are invested in government securities, of which the proceeds go to fund part of Temasek's and GIC's investment activities. Ms Poh calls this "complete de-linking."
Secondly, Ms Poh says that the government is not using CPF as a cheap source of funds because "the Government does not need more funds to invest. Even if it did, it could raise funds more cheaply by issuing treasury bills and government securities, instead of using CPF funds."
Thirdly, she says that "we cannot assume that GIC and Temasek will do as well in future. The past two decades have been an exceptional period for global financial markets. Looking ahead, we cannot rule out protracted market downturns, lasting several years. Most CPF members have small balances and will not welcome these risks. "
Fourthly, Ms Poh says that Temasek's & GIC's returns above the CPF interest rate is not 'earning a spread at the people's expense.' She claims that what the government earns above the CPF interest rate is used for the benefit of the people through the annual government budget.
Well, issuing bonds to the CPF is not 'complete de-linking.' The risk of government default, however small, still exists. CPF members' returns are intrinsically linked to the stability of the Singapore government.
Also, implicit in the current structure of the CPF is the assumption that Singaporeans want to invest their pension monies in government securities. In other words, the government has IMPOSED on Singaporeans that their CPF monies have to go towards purchasing the government securities. The CPF may not be a 'cheap source of funds,' but it is an IMPOSED source of funds. Singaporeans' CPF savings are wrested from them by the force of law into the hands of government and its investment bodies.
Ms Poh also assumes that everyone would automatically choose the fixed-rate interest on their CPF funds. And then she extrapolates that because the majority would choose this, therefore everyone else has to accept the same fate. Talk about the tyranny of the majority. Or maybe it's the tyranny of the handful in power.
Finally, again she assumes that Singaporeans want the spread on the returns to be given back to them through the annual budget, at the government's whim and fancy. Well guess what, Ms Poh, I want my pension returns to be the way I want it. Not the way you and your ministry deem right.
The CPF issue is simple. It's about who retains the power to manage the people's savings. And why should it be the government's by default? Who gives them the right to say what should and should not be done with our pension money?
If Singaporeans don't stand up for their rights to decide how their savings should be managed, then the government will take it from them with glee.
read more about this issue here.
-------------------
GOVT INVESTMENT DE-LINKED FROM CPF FUNDS
IN 'CPF finances: Clarity needed to clear the cloud of confusion' (ST, Sept 20), Ms Chua Mui Hoong questioned whether the CPF provides a cheap source of funds for the Government's investments. Subsequent Forum letters also raised the matter of how the return on CPF funds is calculated, and what constitutes a fair return.
The interest members receive for their CPF money should reflect what they could earn by investing in the financial markets, in investments which have comparable risk and duration. All CPF balances are guaranteed by the Government and hence free of risk. Hence the Special, Medisave and Retirement Account (SMRA) interest rates will now be pegged to long-term government-bond yields. Furthermore, the first $60,000 of each person's CPF balances, to be held for the long term, will attract an extra 1 percentage point in interest. This means that they will always earn at least 3.5 per cent interest.
No commercial bank or fund manager offers more generous terms on such investments. Members seeking higher returns can take out their funds to invest through the CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS). However, 83 per cent of CPF members who invested their OA savings in the CPFIS from 2002 to 2006 realised less than 2.5 per cent returns - the base rate of the OA. Half of all members who invested experienced negative returns, losing some part of their capital sum.
The CPF Board invests members' savings in special securities issued by the Government, which pay the CPF Board the same interest rates that its members receive. The Government pools the proceeds from issuing these securities with the rest of its funds, and invests them professionally for long-term returns. This is completely de-linked from the CPF Board and CPF members. Were this not so, CPF members would be exposed to the investment risks and could not receive guaranteed minimum interest rates.
Up to now, both GIC and Temasek Holdings have earned returns that exceeded CPF interest rates, on average over the years. But this does not mean that the Government is making use of the CPF as a 'cheap source of funds', or earning a 'spread at people's expense'.
First, the Government does not need more funds to invest. Even if it did, it could raise funds more cheaply by issuing treasury bills and government securities, instead of using CPF funds.
Second, Temasek and GIC achieve higher returns on average only by taking on more investment risks. Hence these returns are volatile - they can be low or even negative in some years. Furthermore, we cannot assume that GIC and Temasek will do as well in future. The past two decades have been an exceptional period for global financial markets. Looking ahead, we cannot rule out protracted market downturns, lasting several years. Most CPF members have small balances and will not welcome these risks. Neither will older members waiting to withdraw their retirement funds.
Third, Singaporeans benefit when GIC and Temasek investments do well. Every year, the Government draws part of these investment returns to fund the annual Budget. The revenue is spent on worthwhile investments and social needs, including subsidies for housing, education and health care. And from time to time, the Government distributes accumulated budget surpluses to citizens through CPF top-ups and other schemes.
The Government does not rule out the possibility of introducing private pension plans for those with balances above $60,000 and a higher capacity to take risk. However, it would be unwise for members with low balances to take excessive risks on their basic retirement savings.
The current arrangement thus enables all CPF members to earn fair and risk-free returns on their retirement savings, while benefiting from the good performance of GIC and Temasek through the annual Budget. This is the right way to help Singaporeans save for their old age, and enjoy peace of mind in their golden years.
JACQUELINE POH
DIRECTOR (SPECIAL DUTIES)
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
29 September 2007
Secondly, Ms Poh says that the government is not using CPF as a cheap source of funds because "the Government does not need more funds to invest. Even if it did, it could raise funds more cheaply by issuing treasury bills and government securities, instead of using CPF funds."
Thirdly, she says that "we cannot assume that GIC and Temasek will do as well in future. The past two decades have been an exceptional period for global financial markets. Looking ahead, we cannot rule out protracted market downturns, lasting several years. Most CPF members have small balances and will not welcome these risks. "
Fourthly, Ms Poh says that Temasek's & GIC's returns above the CPF interest rate is not 'earning a spread at the people's expense.' She claims that what the government earns above the CPF interest rate is used for the benefit of the people through the annual government budget.
Well, issuing bonds to the CPF is not 'complete de-linking.' The risk of government default, however small, still exists. CPF members' returns are intrinsically linked to the stability of the Singapore government.
Also, implicit in the current structure of the CPF is the assumption that Singaporeans want to invest their pension monies in government securities. In other words, the government has IMPOSED on Singaporeans that their CPF monies have to go towards purchasing the government securities. The CPF may not be a 'cheap source of funds,' but it is an IMPOSED source of funds. Singaporeans' CPF savings are wrested from them by the force of law into the hands of government and its investment bodies.
Ms Poh also assumes that everyone would automatically choose the fixed-rate interest on their CPF funds. And then she extrapolates that because the majority would choose this, therefore everyone else has to accept the same fate. Talk about the tyranny of the majority. Or maybe it's the tyranny of the handful in power.
Finally, again she assumes that Singaporeans want the spread on the returns to be given back to them through the annual budget, at the government's whim and fancy. Well guess what, Ms Poh, I want my pension returns to be the way I want it. Not the way you and your ministry deem right.
The CPF issue is simple. It's about who retains the power to manage the people's savings. And why should it be the government's by default? Who gives them the right to say what should and should not be done with our pension money?
If Singaporeans don't stand up for their rights to decide how their savings should be managed, then the government will take it from them with glee.
read more about this issue here.
-------------------
GOVT INVESTMENT DE-LINKED FROM CPF FUNDS
IN 'CPF finances: Clarity needed to clear the cloud of confusion' (ST, Sept 20), Ms Chua Mui Hoong questioned whether the CPF provides a cheap source of funds for the Government's investments. Subsequent Forum letters also raised the matter of how the return on CPF funds is calculated, and what constitutes a fair return.
The interest members receive for their CPF money should reflect what they could earn by investing in the financial markets, in investments which have comparable risk and duration. All CPF balances are guaranteed by the Government and hence free of risk. Hence the Special, Medisave and Retirement Account (SMRA) interest rates will now be pegged to long-term government-bond yields. Furthermore, the first $60,000 of each person's CPF balances, to be held for the long term, will attract an extra 1 percentage point in interest. This means that they will always earn at least 3.5 per cent interest.
No commercial bank or fund manager offers more generous terms on such investments. Members seeking higher returns can take out their funds to invest through the CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS). However, 83 per cent of CPF members who invested their OA savings in the CPFIS from 2002 to 2006 realised less than 2.5 per cent returns - the base rate of the OA. Half of all members who invested experienced negative returns, losing some part of their capital sum.
The CPF Board invests members' savings in special securities issued by the Government, which pay the CPF Board the same interest rates that its members receive. The Government pools the proceeds from issuing these securities with the rest of its funds, and invests them professionally for long-term returns. This is completely de-linked from the CPF Board and CPF members. Were this not so, CPF members would be exposed to the investment risks and could not receive guaranteed minimum interest rates.
Up to now, both GIC and Temasek Holdings have earned returns that exceeded CPF interest rates, on average over the years. But this does not mean that the Government is making use of the CPF as a 'cheap source of funds', or earning a 'spread at people's expense'.
First, the Government does not need more funds to invest. Even if it did, it could raise funds more cheaply by issuing treasury bills and government securities, instead of using CPF funds.
Second, Temasek and GIC achieve higher returns on average only by taking on more investment risks. Hence these returns are volatile - they can be low or even negative in some years. Furthermore, we cannot assume that GIC and Temasek will do as well in future. The past two decades have been an exceptional period for global financial markets. Looking ahead, we cannot rule out protracted market downturns, lasting several years. Most CPF members have small balances and will not welcome these risks. Neither will older members waiting to withdraw their retirement funds.
Third, Singaporeans benefit when GIC and Temasek investments do well. Every year, the Government draws part of these investment returns to fund the annual Budget. The revenue is spent on worthwhile investments and social needs, including subsidies for housing, education and health care. And from time to time, the Government distributes accumulated budget surpluses to citizens through CPF top-ups and other schemes.
The Government does not rule out the possibility of introducing private pension plans for those with balances above $60,000 and a higher capacity to take risk. However, it would be unwise for members with low balances to take excessive risks on their basic retirement savings.
The current arrangement thus enables all CPF members to earn fair and risk-free returns on their retirement savings, while benefiting from the good performance of GIC and Temasek through the annual Budget. This is the right way to help Singaporeans save for their old age, and enjoy peace of mind in their golden years.
JACQUELINE POH
DIRECTOR (SPECIAL DUTIES)
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
29 September 2007
Labels:
CPF,
GIC,
Temasek Holdings
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


