Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

10415Fwd: Jake Van Der Kamp -- Singapore’s open door to billionaires shuts out logic

Expand Messages
  • Robert Ho
    Sep 22 6:15 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
      From: Robert Ho <robert.ic019@...>
      Date: 10 July 2013 10:54

      Subject: Jake Van Der Kamp -- Singapore’s open door to billionaires shuts out logic

      Singapore’s open door to billionaires shuts out logic

      DMCA.com  July 9th, 2013 |  Author: Online Press

      BG (res) Lee hsien Loong

      Indeed, if he [Lee Hsien Loong] could persuade another 10 billionaires to move to Singapore, he would, even if that led to higher income inequality “because they will bring business, they will bring opportunities, they will open new doors, they will create new jobs”.

      Straits Times interview
      July 6

      Brigadier general Lee Hsien Loong (Singapore army, retired.) may appear to some observers as being on a mission since being elected Prime Minister of Singapore.

      Mission: Raise Singapore’s gross domestic product per capita to the highest level to be seen anywhere within 10,000 miles. That’ll learn ‘em who has the right way of running things.

      Plan of Attack: GDP per capita means money. Billionaires have money. Thus bring billionaires in. You have your orders, men. Zero-hour is now! Dismissed!

      If only it were as simple as it is in the army.

      But let’s go through the story of the foreign billionaire (we shall assume that the brigadier general means US dollar billionaire) who has been attracted to park his money in the city state.

      Our man cannot do anything directly with his billions in Singapore. The problem is that in Singapore one must pay for things with Singapore dollars and he has only US dollars.

      But this is no big problem. Off to one of the big Singapore banks he goes and for starters gives it US$1 million, for which the bank in turn gives him S$1.25 million that he puts back on deposit with the bank.

      He can now spend in Singapore to his heart’s delight.

      Notice, however, that this transaction has not increased the stock of Singapore dollars.

      A Singapore bank now has a S$1.25 million liability to a foreign client whereas it previously had that S$1.25 million liability to a resident client. The money changed hands but did not grow in the process.

      What we have here is a brigadier general who suffers from a very common misunderstanding of the workings of the balance of payments.

      International money transfers do not increase the stock of money. If they did so we would be able to double the world’s wealth overnight.

      Everyone would be matched with a foreigner of equal wealth and each pair would swap wealth.

      Do it again and we would triple the world’s wealth. How convenient. I would very much like that kind of economics.

      And, because the stock of money does not rise, the amount of business the money brings also does not necessarily rise.

      Business is created when people spend money.

      They may indeed spend more when a foreigner comes in, being encouraged by this sign of confidence in Singapore’s economy.

      Then again, they may spend less if they think the confidence is misplaced.

      Either way, the fact that a foreigner has swapped US dollars for Singapore dollars does not have to mean there is more business in Singapore.

      Ditto jobs. They are created, like business, when people spend money.

      It makes little difference that the foreign holder of Singapore dollars may spend his money in different sectors of the economy than the previous resident holder of that money would do. It may create jobs in different sectors but is unlikely to affect the overall number of jobs.

      With a Singapore unemployment rate of less than 2 per cent, which is probably as low as the figure can get, you have to wonder why the brigadier general is worried about jobs anyway.

      And it surprises me that he thinks his people need foreign input in order to find opportunities and open doors. I was not aware that they are so deficient in initiative as not to be able to do it themselves.

      But here is the truth of the matter.

      Singapore’s economy, like Hong Kong’s, thrives because it is a parasite on neighbouring economies, doing what they do not want to do or, for various reasons of administrative incompetence, cannot yet do.

      Singapore doesn’t need immigrant billionaires. It feeds on them quite well outside its borders.

      Jake Van Der Kamp

      *This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as Singapore’s open door to billionaires shuts out logic


      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
      From: Robert HO <robert.ic019@...>
      Date: 15 February 2013 09:34

      Subject: MUST READ: PROF BALDING EXPLAINS HOW HE HAPPENED TO INVESTIGATE UNBELIEVABLE RETURNS AND ACCOUNTING FRAUDS OF CAR SCRATCHING LIEgime's SGIC AND TEMASEK HOLDINGS

      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
      From: Robert HO <robert.ic019@...>
      Date: 7 February 2013 15:50

      Subject: MUST READ: HK's SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST FIRST NEWSPAPER TO QUESTION TEMASEK FALSE RETURNS HIDING POSSIBLE LIE KY 2A1B famiLEE THEFT OF $1.3T


      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
      From: Robert HO <robert.ic019@...>
      Date: 2 August 2012 15:08

      Subject: MUST READ: HONG KONG's SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST FIRST NEWSPAPER TO QUESTION TEMASEK FALSE RETURNS HIDING POSSIBLE LIE KY 2A1B famiLEE THEFT OF $1.3T

      RH:  2 articles from [http://www.baldingsworld.com/] in PURPLE headlines and joined-up Comment posting of Jake van der Kamp's article in Hong Kong's South China Morning Post, posted in TRE [click], in ORANGE bolded:--

      South China Morning Post Questions Temasek Returns

      Posted on August 2, 2012

      Yesterday I received an email from a loyal reader that Jake van der Kamp, the well known columnist from the South China Morning Post wrote a column questioning the returns of Temasek.  Though I can’t find an ungated copy of the column and can’t repost the entire column, he makes a couple of great points about what Temasek is claiming.

      “If you were a private investment fund manager with this sort of record, you would have every investor in the world getting down on his knees to you and bowing every time you showed your face in public. You would be venerated as a deity. The world would be at your doorstep asking you to manage its money.”

      Investors today are lauded for much smaller returns much less keeping up 17% for 38 years.  I have been unable to find any other investor that claims to have earned a similar return over a similar time frame.  Furthermore, I cannot even find Temasek companies that earn the rates of return claimed by Temasek!!

      He goes on to say “And if Temasek’s touted total shareholder return is much, much higher than the overall Singapore market’s, it exceeds that of foreign markets by an even wider margin. If it’s a stretch to get to 17 per cent in Singapore investments since 1974, we are looking at new properties of the elastic band to see it in markets abroad.”  In other words, if Temasek beat the Singaporean market by such a wide amount it must beat foreign markets by a similarly large amount.

      However, as he notes “And then you get that byword for loss, Chartered Semiconductor, Singapore’s foray into the wafer fab business. Temasek finally rid itself of this deadweight but its loss in chasing yesterday’s technologies tomorrow was likely in the billions….Also timed injudiciously were investments in Merrill Lynch and Barclays Bank. The timing of the exits from these acquisitions was equally injudicious. I cannot quantify the losses, but informed opinion generally agrees the figure ran into the billions.”

      This means that Temasek’s winning investments must have earned significantly morethan 17% annually since 1974 to produce the types of returns they are claiming.  These are simply fantasy level returns.

      Given that the South China Morning Post has now broken the cone of silence around questioning Temasek and Singapore, I wonder if others in the major press outlets will also begin to question Singaporean numbers?

      ///////////////////////////

      Jake van der Kamp's article in TRE Comment:

      Temasek Holdings
      This one number stands out from all the others in the 2012 review highlights of Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund. Temasek claims that it has achieved an average total shareholder return of 17 per cent since inception in 1974, or 19 per cent in US dollar terms.


      In response to this claim I shall now enter my own cryptic statement:


      ?
      Let’s first get it straight what a 17 per cent annual total return gain means. It says that net profits on Temasek’s investments, taking in only market price appreciation and real capital gain plus interest and dividend income, was an average of 17 per cent of the market value of these investments across every year of the entire 38 years of this fund’s existence.


      Let’s put it another way. If you were a private investment fund manager with this sort of record, you would have every investor in the world getting down on his knees to you and bowing every time you showed your face in public. You would be venerated as a deity. The world would be at your doorstep asking you to manage its money.


      Take, for instance, that return figure of 19 per cent in US dollars. It implies that a US$100 investment on 1974 would be worth US$74,000 now. Yes, some people have done it in lotteries, I repeat, in lotteries. The figure implies that US$360 million invested in 1974 would be worth the entire gross domestic product of Singapore today.


      So let’s examine things a little more closely.


      It was only 10 years ago that Temasek started making investments outside of Singapore and by far the bulk of its portfolio is still in Singapore. We shall thus compare its 20-year record with the performance of the Singapore stock market. I have made this a 20-year comparison as I cannot immediately lay my hands on index data back to 1974.


      The chart shows you the result. Temasek claims a 15 per cent total shareholder return over the past 20 years. Assuming we started with S$100 in 1992, the Temasek gain would now stand at about $1,600. The Singapore market gives you only S$260.


      Of course, you can say that Temasek, being government, had its choice of the juiciest plums on the Singapore market and that is why it outperformed.


      It seems, however, to have picked the overripe ones. Going by a piece of recent research from Christopher Balding of the HSBC Business School in Shenzhen, the average annualised earnings per share growth of Temasek’s largest holding, Singapore Telecom, was -2 per cent between 1990 and 2010. Another great sluggard was Singapore Airlines with -1 per cent. Temasek owns 56 per cent of that one.


      And then you get that byword for loss, Chartered Semiconductor, Singapore’s foray into the wafer fab business. Temasek finally rid itself of this deadweight but its loss in chasing yesterday’s technologies tomorrow was likely in the billions.


      We therefore turn to the foreign forays, and one of the first names that comes up here is Shin Corporation, which was affiliated with Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who then lost his job, to Temasek’s embarrassment.


      Also timed injudiciously were investments in Merrill Lynch and Barclays Bank. The timing of the exits from these acquisitions was equally injudicious. I cannot quantify the losses, but informed opinion generally agrees the figure ran into the billions.


      And if Temasek’s touted total shareholder return is much, much higher than the overall Singapore market’s, it exceeds that of foreign markets by an even wider margin. If it’s a stretch to get to 17 per cent in Singapore investments since 1974, we are looking at new properties of the elastic band to see it in markets abroad.


      So let’s just make it simple. I simply don’t believe it and I can’t imagine that any investment professional does. Prove it, fellas.


      Yes, dear investor, there is a tooth fairy.


      Temasek stretches more than our imagination with claim of stunning average shareholder return.


      JAKE’S VIEW
      Jake van der Kamp
      Jul 17, 2012

      South China Morning Post

      jake.vanderkamp@...



      The $158 billion Singapore Budget Accounting Fraud: Part I

      Posted on July 12, 2012

      In the past decade, we have become all to used to corporate accounting scandals.  Respected companies like Olympus, Lehman Brothers, AIG, and the most notorious fraudster Bernie Madoff have all been caught blatantly manipulating accounting statements dating back many years.  As a result of their behavior, those responsible lost their jobs or went to prison.

      What happens when arguably the largest accounting restatement in the history of human existence due to fraudulent accounting practice takes place in the Singaporean government?  Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  No Singaporean public official to the best of my knowledge has even commented on a $158 billion SGD accounting restatement of Singaporean public finances.

      We have been working with official Singaporean general and operational budget revenue, expenditure, and surpluses.  The general and operational data comes from both Statistics Singapore and the International Monetary Fund.  The results of each type of government surplus while all different, all produce generally similar numbers regardless of source.

      Table 1-Singapore Cumulative Surpluses September 2011

      As we can see in Table 1, the Singaporean surpluses from all sources while quite large produce broadly similar numbers with a low of $225-300 billion SGD since 1990 whether we take our numbers from Statistics Singapore or the IMF September 2011 World Economic Outlook or their International Financial Statistics databases.

      However, in April 2012 the government of Singapore restated its public finance statistics going back to 1990.  Given the history and size of the restatement it would probably go back further and increase even more, but the IMF World Economic Outlook only provides Singaporean public finance data back to 1990.  The restatement of Singaporean public finances was not small, short, or insignificant in anyway.

      Table 2—Cumulative Surpluses April 2012

      Between September 2011 and April 2012, the government of Singapore restated its public finances raising it cumulative surplus from 1990 to 2010 from $271 billion SGD to $429 billion SGD.  Through an unannounced accounting restatement which Statistics Singapore data does not reflect, the cumulative surplus between 1990 and 2002 increased from $189 billion SGD to $311 billion SGD.  In other words, due to an accounting restatement of its own public finances, Singapore increased the size of its budget surplus by $158 billion SGD.

      While a restatement increasing the size of the Singaporean surplus may at first seem like a good thing, it is in fact not a good thing.  The last Singaporean balance sheet listed $705 billion SGD in assets but also $359 billion SGD in debt giving it only $346 billion SGD in net assets.  In other words, through the investment magic of Temasek Holdings and GIC, Singapore managed to turn $428 billion SGD in government surpluses into $346 billion SGD in net equity.  The larger the surpluses in Singapore means the larger the losses and discrepancies in Temasek and GIC.

      This restatement as a couple implications.  First, given the historical length and size of the accounting restatement, the government should be held accountable to provide detailed information about restated items.  $158 billion SGD restatements destroy any credibility and demand a public explanation.  Second, those responsible at the highest levels should be held accountable for accounting manipulation dating back more than twenty years.  $158 billion SGD is not an accounting rounding error.   A restatement of $158 billion is a deliberate manipulation.  Third, given the restatement, there is absolutely no way Temasek and GIC claims of long term returns can be considered accurate.  $428 billion SGD in surpluses does not turn into $346 billion in net equity by earning 7-17% over more than twenty years.

      For a government who claims to value accountability and transparency, its attempt to cover up a restatement of $158 billion SGD or approximately 50% of GDP is appalling.  At what point does a restatement become worthy of a public statement by the government: $300 billion, $500 billion, $1 trillion?  If Singapore was a company, people would deservedly have lost their jobs.  Only in Singapore is a $158 billion SGD accounting fraud standard operating procedure.

      Next week, I will detail the accounting restatement, provide examples of how accounting was manipulated by the government, and how this impacts the returns claimed by Temasek and GIC.

      19 Replies

      >>>>>>>>>>  TO HELP ME, COMPLETE THESE STATEMENTS, THANKS:  http://roberthorequestforstatements.blogspot.com/

      My wife, an accountant, then a manager in an MNC drawing a 5-figure salary before she retired, can confirm that I write the Truth in all these.  <<<<<<<<<<

      RH:   LKY LHL WKS ELECTION RIGGINGS EMAILED TO ALMOST ENTIRE GOVT:
      http://i-came-i-saw-i-solved-it.blogspot.com/2010/06/lky-lhl-wks-election-riggings-emailed.html

      ME ON VIDEO DESCRIBING lky lhl wks NUMEROUS ELECTION RIGGINGS + PoBoB and CCTV Ideas:
      http://i-came-i-saw-i-solved-it.blogspot.com/search/label/%22A%20Video%20RH%20on%20LKY%20LHL%20WKS%20cheating%20elections%20%2B%20PoBoB%20and%20CCTV%20Ideas%22

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQCab3QZbBk

      MY ACQUAINTANCE, MR DAVID DUCLOS, A FORMER POLICE INSPECTOR, AND HIS LAWYER FRIEND, EYEWITNESSED LEE KUAN YEW RIGGING THE 1997 CHENG SAN GRC ELECTION.  READ MORE AT MY BLOG ENTITLED "I CAME, I SAW, I SOLVED IT" : 

      b.  SWORN EXHIBIT IN SUPPORT OF AFFIDAVIT:

      c.  SOME LEGAL PRINCIPLES ON WHICH I GROUND MY CASE:

      d.  THE PATTERN OF CRIMINAL WRONGDOINGS THAT PROVES MY CASE;

      e.  3rd EMAIL TO UK PM FOR OBSTRUCTING, PERVERTING JUSTICE:

      "THE PRIMAL FEAR OF A SUPERIOR MIND"

      -- 
      >>>>>>>>>>  TO HELP ME, COMPLETE THESE STATEMENTS, THANKS:  http://roberthorequestforstatements.blogspot.com/

      My wife, an accountant, then a manager in an MNC drawing a 5-figure salary before she retired, can confirm that I write the Truth in all these.  <<<<<<<<<<

      RH:   LKY LHL WKS ELECTION RIGGINGS EMAILED TO ALMOST ENTIRE GOVT:
      http://i-came-i-saw-i-solved-it.blogspot.com/2010/06/lky-lhl-wks-election-riggings-emailed.html

      ME ON VIDEO DESCRIBING lky lhl wks NUMEROUS ELECTION RIGGINGS + PoBoB and CCTV Ideas:
      http://i-came-i-saw-i-solved-it.blogspot.com/search/label/%22A%20Video%20RH%20on%20LKY%20LHL%20WKS%20cheating%20elections%20%2B%20PoBoB%20and%20CCTV%20Ideas%22

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQCab3QZbBk

      MY ACQUAINTANCE, MR DAVID DUCLOS, A FORMER POLICE INSPECTOR, AND HIS LAWYER FRIEND, EYEWITNESSED LEE KUAN YEW RIGGING THE 1997 CHENG SAN GRC ELECTION.  READ MORE AT MY BLOG ENTITLED "I CAME, I SAW, I SOLVED IT" : 

      b.  SWORN EXHIBIT IN SUPPORT OF AFFIDAVIT:

      c.  SOME LEGAL PRINCIPLES ON WHICH I GROUND MY CASE:

      d.  THE PATTERN OF CRIMINAL WRONGDOINGS THAT PROVES MY CASE;

      e.  3rd EMAIL TO UK PM FOR OBSTRUCTING, PERVERTING JUSTICE:

      LEE Kuan Yew, LEE Hsien Loong, Tony TAN, HO Ching corruptions and theft of billions:

      "POWERFUL POLITICIANS WHO CANNOT CREATE, INVENT, SOLVE PROBLEMS AND CHANGE THE WORLD CAN ONLY TAKE SATISFACTION BLOCKING, DEGRADING, THOSE WHO CAN."
    • Show all 2 messages in this topic