Monday, December 05, 2022

Return from Temasek Holdings


Temasek holdings was formed in 1974. The portfolio size is now $403 billion.

Its annual report showed a 10 year TSR (total shareholder return) of 7%, 20 year TSR of 8% and a 40 year TSR of 12%. These numbers appear impressive, compared with the inflation rate.

I believe that the TSR are inflated, due to their accounting practice.

I believe (but not verified) that SingTel was transferred to Temasek Holdings at its book value before 1994. It was listed in 1994 at a huge gain. This was probably included in the calculation of the 40 year TSR.

In July 2009, Changi Airport was transferred to TH for $2 billion. I suppose that it was the book value, and that the airport was highly profitable at that time. The real value of the asset should be much higher than the book value.

Some time in the future, Changi Airport will be listed in the stock exchange and the market valuation would probably be much higher than the book value. This gain would probably be counted in the TSR of TH.

It is possible to make special adjustment to remove the Sing Tel gain from at the time of listing from the computation of the TSR. I do not know if this was done.

My comment would also apply to the future listing of Changi Airport.

I do not have access to the actual numbers, so my perception and analysis could be wrong. We have to wait for clarification, if it ever comes.

Tan Kin Lian

http://tklcloud.com/Feedback/feedback2.aspx?id=5553

WOTC - Pharmacies

 Wisdom of the Crowd: 42% of the respondents prefer Guardian Pharmacy, followed by Watson (40%) and Unity (19%).

https://tklcloud.com/Crowd2/chart3.aspx?id=2761

Sunday, December 04, 2022

A possible bad year for Temasek Holdings

Temasek Holdings had written off US $275 million in its investment in FTX.

During the past 15 years, TH had incurred large losses in some of its investments. In 2008, TH wrote off its $400 million investment in ABC Learning Centers in Australia.
There were other bad investments, which raised much concern in the past.
Personally, I was not concerned about these large losses. For a large fund, there will always be some bad investments. They would be covered by the gains on good investments.
The correct approach is to look at the performance of the entire portfolio, and to compare it with the market indices or with the performance of other similar state owned funds.
The latest annual report of TH was for the year ended 31 March 2022. The total portfolio was $403 billion. The 10 year average return was 7%. This would be acceptable.
However, the performance for the current year, which will close on 31 March 2023, and reported a few months after, will probably be very bad.
I read a recent news report from a managing director of TH that the investments in technology, media and telecoms industry had dropped by 50% and the China stocks had dropped by 20%. These two sectors probably account for 40% of the total portfolio.
I would estimate that the portfolio values could be written down by 25% in March 2023. The write-down could amount to $100 billion, based on a portfolio of $403 billion. (This is my guess only).
This could bring down the 10 year average return to 4%, which is not so impressive.
Although the loss on FTX looks quite bad, the actual amount may appear to be small, when compared to the possible loss on the entire portfolio.
We have another four months before the close of the financial year. A possible saving grace could come from a recovery of the global stock market. This would reduce the loss for TH.

How did Temasek Holdings made its investment in FTX?

 Many people in Singapore were disappointed that Temasek Holdings invested and wrote down US$275 million in its investment in FTX.          

There were surprised and shocked to learn, after the collapse, that FTX was run by a team of young, inexperienced people, and there were no proper governance, accounting and risk management practices in place. 

How did TH carry out its due diligence, and invested a large sum into a a badly run business?

This is my understanding of how the venture capital industry works.

The people in this industry that invest large funds into startup companies, such as FTX, form a closely knit community. They know each other personally through attendance at international conferences, business introductions and joint investments in ventures. 

Often, a leading VC capitalist gets to know a startup entrepreneur and decides to fund the startup business. This VC capitalist introduces the startup to the their close contacts in the industry, and probably describes it as "an opportunity not to be missed". 

The other VC investors line up to get a share of this opportunity. They would probably not carry out their own due diligence, as it would take time, and the opportunity might go to other investors who are willing to decide promptly.

I have spent a few decades of my working career in the insurance industry. This is also how the big insurers spread their risk through reinsurance. They follow the leader and take a share of the big risks, often based on trust that the leader has carried out the proper due diligence.

The problem with this approach is that the leading VC capitalist that brings to "opportunity" to other investors might have a vested interest, e.g. they are paid a finder's fee based on the investments made by new investors.

I do not know for certain if this is the case for FTX, but it might be. The  finder fees can be quite hefty, and the payment would probably be considered legal.

Nevertheless, I consider it to be a bad practice for an institution to make a big investment based on this practice of following the leader blindly. 

Many large hedge and institutional funds are involved in FTX. Temasek Holdings was not the leading investor and not the largest investor. 

I expect that the decision to invest in FTX was not made by the portfolio manager on his own. It probably had to be approved by an investment committee. I would expect that the investment committee would include members of the non-executive board. 

I found that Temasek Holdings have a Senior Divestment and Investment Committee (SDIC) that comprised solely of the full time management. It does not appear to include the non-executive board directors. The annual report did not disclose the names and positions of members of SDIC. 

I think that this is a bad practice that needs to be corrected. Some non-executive members of the board should sit in the SDIC. Their role is to check that the full time managers are doing their work diligently.

My above view is based on my the information that I was able to obtain, and that information may be incomplete or inaccurate. 

The government has announced that they will carry out an investigation into this matter. I will wait to read the findings of this investigation. I hope that it will be released in full and quite promptly. 

Tan Kin Lian

http://tklcloud.com/Feedback/feedback2.aspx?id=5551

WOTC - Vote on world leaders

 Here are the results of the votes on world leaders.

https://tklcloud.com/Crowd2/view_perf.aspx

Wisdom of the Crowd - New Issues


1. Why were there protests against the covid lockdown in China?
2. Will Anwar's government be stable?

Vote in
https://tklcloud.com/Crowd2/vote.aspx

WOTC - Food court

 Wisdom of the Crowd: 59% of respondents prefer Kopitiam, followed by Food Junction (22%) and Koufu (17%).


https://tklcloud.com/Crowd2/chart3.aspx?id=2760

Saturday, December 03, 2022

WOTC - Supermarkets in Singapore

 Wisdom of the Crowd: 49% of respondents preferred to shop at Fairprice supermarkets, 40% at Sheng Siong and 12% at Cold Storage.


https://tklcloud.com/Crowd2/chart3.aspx?id=2759

Thursday, December 01, 2022

WOTC - Harmful content on social media

 Wisdom of the Crowd: 60% of the respondents said that harmful contents on social media should not be moderated as it is difficult to make a judge what are harmful and the content should be left to the discretion of the reader.

https://tklcloud.com/Crowd2/chart3.aspx?id=2758

The dangers of Decentralized Finance (DeFi)

 I read a chapter in the book Megatrends by Nouriel Roubini. Here are his key points about cryptocurrency:


1. The rush to DeFi (decentralized finance) is premature and ultimately misguided. The rush to bitcoin, ethereum, dogecoin and thousands of fledging cryptocurrencies since 2010 expose our collective wilting faith in fiat currencies.

2. There are no signs that crypto-assets are performing any useful social or economic functions. They are not generally used for retail or wholesale payments and do not fund consumption or investment.

3. The blockchain alternatives are not able to perform five essential functions of a currency - unit of account, scalable, stable store of value, stable value relative to prices, be a benchmark to compare value of goods and services.

4. Cryptocurrencies are subject to risks that can become systemic. They are widely used for criminal and terrorist activities and to hide income from tax authorities.

5. One study suggests that 80% of ICO (initial coin offerings) were scams in the first place that flouted security laws.

6. There are evidence of widespread market manipulation - pump and dump schemes, illegal wash trading, fake transactions and front running.

7. Unlike regulated banks, the purveyors of cryptocurrencies furnish almost no protection. If private keys are forgottoen, lost, hacked or stolen, crypt wealth can vanish with no way to recover it.

8. Free riding DeFi flouts the supervision and regulation that traditional financial institutions face, such as AML (anti-money laundering) and KYC (Know your customer) tracking that impose heavy compliance cost. This is unfair competition. 

9. A regulator said - DeFi is most certain illegal. It flouts securities laws, lacks investor protection, preys on regulatory arbitrage against regulated financial institutions, fails to provide the essential services that financial intermediaries provide. Decentralisation is more a myth than reality.

10. If we want to revamp a centralized financial system with safeguards and supervision, we don't need crypto or blockchain. There are tools that the firms can use to collect and process financial data at blistering speeds without the use of blockchain.

TKL has been skeptical of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies right from the start. But the experts in MAS held a different view and were optimistic about the future of decentralized finance and blockchain technologies.

Several cryptocurrencies and crypto exchanges have collapsed due to unsustainable values of the tokens and to fraudulent operations.

The view held by Roubini and TKL have proved to be correct. 

https://tklcloud.com/Feedback/feedback2.aspx?id=5550






Wednesday, November 30, 2022

WOTC - Trust in government

Wisdom of the Crowd: 68% of the respondents said that they do not trust the government to act in the best interest of the people. Instead, they act in the best interest of the wealthy and themselves.

https://tklcloud.com/Crowd2/chart3.aspx?id=2756

WOTC - Freedom of speech

 Wisdom of the Crowd: 53% of respondents said that it is important to have absolute freedom of speech. 47% said that it can lead to harmful content and should be controlled.


https://tklcloud.com/Crowd2/chart3.aspx?id=2757

WOTC - University education

 Wisdom of the Crowd: 68% of the respondents said that university education should be subsidized and made affordable for all students.


https://tklcloud.com/Crowd2/chart3.aspx?id=2755

Tuesday, November 29, 2022

Wisdom of the Crowd - New Issues


1. Which is a better vaccine against covid?
2. Will the mRNA vaccine have long term harm?

Vote in
https://tklcloud.com/Crowd2/vote.aspx

WOTC - Book on the economy

 Wisdom of the Crowd: 78% of the respondents prefer my book on economic strategy to be 100 pages or 200 pages. They do not like a longer book.


https://tklcloud.com/Crowd2/chart3.aspx?id=2753

WOTC - Price of major medical procedures

 Wisdom of the Crowd: 97 % of respondents said that the govt should publish the recommended rates for major medical procedures, based on supply and demand in the market.

https://tklcloud.com/Crowd2/chart3.aspx?id=2754

Sunday, November 27, 2022

WOTC - President Biden talks with world leaders at G20 Summit

 Wisdom of the Crowd: 84% of the respondents said that President Biden held few talks with world leaders at the G20 Summit in Bali.

https://tklcloud.com/Crowd2/chart3.aspx?id=2752

Wisdom of the Crowd - New Issues


1. What is the best way to fight the rising cost of living?
2. Will Anwar be able to help the people fight the rising cost of living?

Vote in
https://tklcloud.com/Crowd2/vote.aspx

Is Tharman Shanmugaratnam too old to take over as prime minister?

Senior minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam is now 65 years old. He is 5 years younger than the current prime minister Lee Hsien Loong.


Is Tharman too old to take over as prime minister?

Apart from age, we have to consider his credentials, experience and capability.

Tharman entered politics in 2001 and over a period of 20 years, he held the office of minister of education, minister of finance, deputy prime minister and now the senior minister.

He had also served with distinction as Singapore’s representative in several international bodies, including the G20 Eminent Persons Group, the International Monetary Fund and in the United Nations. He is well known and respected internationally.

He is not a newbie politician who needs several years to learn the ropes of leading a nation.

What about his age? At 65, is he too old to take over the reins of power?

Heng Swee Keat, who was 4 years younger than Tharman, was earlier selected to take over from Lee Hsien Loong. Heng entered parliament in 2011, 10 years later than Tharman.

If Heng was suitable at 61, would 4 years make a lot of difference in considering age?

Donald Trump became President of the United States at the age of 71 years. Joe Biden took over this office at the age of 78 years. Ronald Regan was 69 years when he became president in 1981. He was considered to be quite old then, but he served two terms and retired at 77 years.

Xi Jinping was elected in 2022 to serve the 3rd term as leader of China at the age of 69 years. He will continue as president of China and may serve another 10 years in this office.

By the standards of the presidents of the two most powerful nations in the world, Tharman can hardly be considered as too old to take over from Lee Hsien Loong.

We should rule out age as being an important factor. If Tharman takes over, he should be able to serve at least 10 years as prime minister of Singapore. He looks healthy enough.

The other reason given by the ruling party, that Singapore is not ready for a non-Chinese prime minister, has already been debunked by several public opinion polls.

The current leader selected by the MPs of the ruling PAP party is Lawrence Wong. At the age of 49 years, he is 16 years younger than Tharman.

While we cannot diminish Lawrence Wong based on his younger age, it is generally accepted that he has less political experience and lower international stature, compared to Tharman. For a small country, the international stature of the leader is important.

Was it a wise decision for the ruling party to bypass Tharman as the next leader, in favour of a younger minister? We will know in a few years time.

https://tklcloud.com/Feedback/feedback2.aspx?id=5549

Prime Minister for Singapore

 Is Singapore ready for a non-Chinese prime minister? The answer is "yes" among the ordinary people, not "no" among the PAP.

https://tklcloud.com/Feedback/feedback2.aspx?id=5548

Blog Archive