atans1

Posts Tagged ‘BoA’

Role Reversal for Bank of America and Citigroup

In Banks, GIC, Temasek on 11/04/2012 at 7:22 pm

Going into the earnings season, these two big banks have reversed roles: Bank of America, which last year faced concerns about its health, has rallied this year, while Citigroup now confronts doubts.

NEW YORK TIMES

For the record:

– Temasek dumped its stake in BoA in 2009 when hedgies were buying, losing, it is estimated US$4.6bn;

– GIC is now sitting on paper losses on its remaining stake in Citi (stake was profitable last July, see link below); and

– one LKY said in 2008 that these (and UBS, where GIC still has unrealised losses) were beyond long-term investments. There were 30-year investments.

Citi’s a US bank in name only

In Banks, Emerging markets, GIC, Temasek on 19/03/2011 at 6:04 am

More than 50% of its profits come from emerging markets juz when emerging markets are losing their attractiveness to global investors.

Given Cit’s record of losing serious money by jumping into markets late (think sub-prime, and lending to finance LBOs, US property (in the 80s) and Latin America (in the 80s too), S,poreans should be concerned., given GIC’s 5%(?) odd stake in Citi,

Article

The Fed notified financial institutions that passed a second round of stress tests that they can begin returning money to their shareholders, The results are confidential but already some US banks are saying they will raise dividends this year. Among them are Citi rivals JPMorgan and Wells Fargo. Citi says that only in 2012, will it consider raising its dividends, It got a lousy rating?

And I now know why the executive director of GIC is looking to increase US exposure. Read the rest of this entry »

Better at destabilising than investing?

In Temasek on 06/03/2010 at 6:12 am

Reading the local MSM last week on Thailand’s supreme court ruling that former PM Thaksin Shinawatra’s family should be stripped of more than half a contested US$2.3bn fortune* had me wondering if senior Temasek staffers involved in that deal missed their true vocation.

It was his family’s decision to sell its shares in one of Thailand’s biggest telecom groups, Shin Corp, to a Temasek-led consortium that led to his downfall. So one way of looking at things is that the decision by Temasek to lead a consortium to buy Shin was the cause of his troubles.

The early 2006 sale netted his family and friends US$1.9bn, angering many urban, educated Thais: the Thaksins had avoided paying tax and had sold a strategic asset to another country.

There were street demonstrations and he called a snap general election for April 2006. But the main opposition parties boycotted the polls and many voters chose to register a “no vote”.

Faced with the threat of further protests, he stepped down for a few weeks, but returned to office in May. In September that year, the military seized power while the prime minister was out of the country.

I’m  sure that the Temasek executives who made the decision to invest in Shin would easily get top jobs in the “black ops” section of the CIA, KGB or MI6.  Overthrowing an unfriendly government is hard enough to do (ask the CIA about Castro and Chavez) but overthowing a friendly government can only be done by geniuses.

After all they failed as Buffetts: an ST article kindly reminded readers that Temasek paid 49.25 baht for each Shin share and the present share price is about 28.   The offer price was so gd that brokers advised their clients to tender their shares. The Temasek-led consortium ended up with so many shares, that Shin shld have been delisted.  For some unknown reason it wasn’t.

And they failed as hedgies. John Paulson was buying BoA, just as Temasek was selling out. In BoA and Barclays with hindsight,  Temasek sold around “maximum pessimism” ,  losing an estimated U$4.6 billion

And Temasek’s Seatown wants to be a hedgie?http://atans1.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/temasek-the-significance-of-seatown/

Talking of kids with toys using our money.

So working for the CIA might be best for Singapore, and the world. Obama needs help in Iran, Afganistan and Pakistan against some pesky Muslims.

And thinking abt it, they can also put on their CVs  how they made S’poreans angry with their government, and doubting its competency and compassion.

Many S’poreans are angry at the Shin, ML, and Barclays losses, and the growing perception here that the losses are a sign that the S’pore government “does” and tolerates  incompetency, within the government and state agencies.

Worse the govmin cannot answer the critics of its welfare policies that it is being prudent. These subversives (from PAP perspective) can answer back,”Prudence, what prudence losing a few billions here and a few billions there?”

——

*because the court said US$1.4bn  of the assets were gained illegally through conflict of interest when Mr Thaksin was prime minister (The funds were frozen after Mr Thaksin’s elected government was overthrown in a military coup in 2006),

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 204 other followers