Want better transport? Pay for it

(27-05-2014, 06:48 PM)specuvestor Wrote: Don't tell me you are naive enough to believe that all listed companies are "solely" profit driven. If this axiom is true we wouldn't even need watch-dogs. Even if they are "profitable" some retain profits to benefit certain stakeholders. I happen to be in the investment profession so I probably can say that not all companies are aiming for profit, hence caveat emptor. In fact during the dot com days VCs anlayse companies based on cash-burn rate and not "profit" per se.

You keep looking at matters as binary: either all or nothing, profit vs non-profit, socialism vs capitalism, there vs now, me vs you... there is no continuum in your analysis. Even when analysing a company there is hardly ever a binary "must buy" or "must sell" stock. Reason is simple: For every pro there is usually an associated con. Missing the big picture is often the reason why value investors get stuck in value traps or even frauds.

Your Amazon example explains what I was saying: It is about your timeline, your objective, your stakeholders, etc. Amazon had been having lousy ROI since the dot com days and it is open secret that their objective is not making money, for NOW. So why people still invest in it? Because they believe mindshare and market share is still most important now. So when will they finally have ROI above their WACC? Your guess is as good as mine but their strategy is different because their objective is different. Google is another example of innovations that does not focus on profits per se... from digitising books to email to maps

Similarly government objectives and policies looks at the entirety rather than a small part of the economy. If they lose money in certain parts for example transport and infrastructure but entice other businesses and eco-systems to set up in Singapore, that's where they get their payback. That's hardly called squandering. It's the same idea from non-profitable Education to Defence. Objection to a policy just because it by itself is non-profitable is myopic.

ESM Goh has done a good job brain-washing the younger generations, just as he done on asset enhancements and rising property values. People should revisit his policies and think hard whether they make long term sense or just a smoke-bomb.

I am "naive" enough to believe that all listed companies are "solely" profit driven, the matter is profit to whom only. They are aiming for profit eventually, not necessary always at the moment. Again, cash burn or whatever other thing still aims for eventual profit. Unless you have strong evidence that the so called "investors" are throwing money at things they knew NEVER profit, would you call them "investors" or "fools"?

Okay. Amazon again. What is market share or mindshare for? Is Amazon run as a charity? So still eventual profit. Though Amazon has not make much profit for most of its shareholders. It made Bezos a billionaire. and many more millionaires and many traders a lot of profit. of course, a lot of "long term investors" are still looking for profit eventually.

I always stay out of government investment if you can call it investment. Please leave me out of it. I am merely talking about private investment and private investors.

BTW, the government can do whatever it pleases for its socialist needs. But nothing would stop me from criticizing how silly some of its ideas are, such is the takeover of operator ship of the public transport service(if it ever thinks about it as suggested by many unhappy with the current public transport operators). The oppositions will be very happy to see that happen some day(as the PM probably would apologize each and every year).

(27-05-2014, 11:04 AM)freedom Wrote: I can't believe that many "investors" in this forum are preaching non-profit kinda of corporations here. Without profit, why would there be any investment in the first place?

No public companies should be run as non-profit driven. If non-profit driven is the idea, please don't ever ask capital from private investors. The government can fund whatever its non-profit driven ideas, but please stay away from private investors.

The market and private investors have shunned companies lack of satisfied return, the government does not need any more proof for it.

Perhaps we should privatise national defence? Saf can consider IPO.

Think IPO and privatisation. Are they primarily concerned with "profits"? Ask some investment bankers. Are REITS more concerned with profits or more importantly the managers are incentivised otherwise? Are some family owned companies more concerned about profits or staying in control?

Finance 101 is not the same as the real world.

Eventually we will all die. Amazon as a listed company has a strategy of profit in the VERY LONG RUN. Why is that not applicable to govt policies, except that the benefit and profits are generated to other segments with job creation so that the economy AS A WHOLE benefits in the LONG RUN? Like I said if govt didn't start Telecoms, POSB, DBS, JTC, science parks, build up infrastructure, education, defence which were "unprofitable", what do you think will become of an island of zero natural resources? This is not an academic exercise, see our neighbours' policies, including Vietnam and even East Timor. You sure asking them to focus on profitable ventures are the way to go?

Put in another way: does a highly profitable transport system equates to higher GDP per capita? Which G7 nation has transport system focused on profits rather than cost plus at most subsidised by govt ie utility? Have you seen the growth in profits of our transport sector in the decade before GFC? What good does it help the body if the bloodstreams are clogged with profit laced fats?

By your own admission you should be out of this topic because transport by nature is a public good and closely linked with government investment (you know, the G in GDP expense based calculation). You should stay out of GLCs including Olam, and yes also the Chinese banks. If you need to blame we can only blame why they allow the transport companies to be listed in the first place, so that they can be more "efficient". They have mixed up capital efficiency with operational efficiency or effectiveness. I for one is still against SGX being listed and so never touch it.

And yes a fool is born every minute. They choose to "invest" in these stocks thinking these companies aim to profit maximise, than when you should buy it as a utility and you will do alright. I'm just glad the current Spore govt are not staffed with fools to be so myopic.

(28-05-2014, 12:11 PM)specuvestor Wrote: Think IPO and privatisation. Are they primarily concerned with "profits"? Ask some investment bankers. Are REITS more concerned with profits or more importantly the managers are incentivised otherwise? Are some family owned companies more concerned about profits or staying in control?

Finance 101 is not the same as the real world.

Eventually we will all die. Amazon as a listed company has a strategy of profit in the VERY LONG RUN. Why is that not applicable to govt policies, except that the benefit and profits are generated to other segments with job creation so that the economy AS A WHOLE benefits in the LONG RUN? Like I said if govt didn't start Telecoms, POSB, DBS, JTC, science parks which were "unprofitable", what do you think will become of an island of zero natural resources? This is not an academic exercise, see our neighbours' policies, including Vietnam and even East Timor. You sure asking them to focus on profitable ventures are the way to go?

Put in another way, does a highly profitable transport system equates to higher GDP per capita? Which G7 nation has transport system focused on profits rather than cost plus at most subsidised by govt ie utility? Have you seen the growth in profits of our transport sector in the decade before GFC? What good does it help the body if the bloodstreams are clogged with profit laced fats?

By your own admission you should be out of this topic because transport by nature is a public good and closely linked with government investment (you know, the G in GDP expense based calculation). You should stay out of GLCs including Olam, and yes also the Chinese banks. If you need to blame we can only blame why they allow the transport companies to be listed in the first place, so that they can be more "efficient". They have mixed up capital efficiency with operational efficiency or effectiveness. I for one is still against SGX being listed and so never touch it.

And yes a fool is born every minute. I'm just glad the current Spore govt are not staffed with fools to be so myopic.

You should go and teach economics and finance in school. I think many will benefit.

Really what is your profession? Apologise if people already asked before.

I am afraid so far, as far as i can see, our G only thinks in terms of "NO MONEY NO TALK".

Every G's or Semi G's entreprise must make money at least in the long run.

SO FREEDOM IS RIGHT TO A CERTAIN EXTEND IN SINGAPORE CONTEXT.

(28-05-2014, 11:55 AM)kichialo Wrote:

(27-05-2014, 11:04 AM)freedom Wrote: I can't believe that many "investors" in this forum are preaching non-profit kinda of corporations here. Without profit, why would there be any investment in the first place?

No public companies should be run as non-profit driven. If non-profit driven is the idea, please don't ever ask capital from private investors. The government can fund whatever its non-profit driven ideas, but please stay away from private investors.

The market and private investors have shunned companies lack of satisfied return, the government does not need any more proof for it.

Perhaps we should privatise national defence? Saf can consider IPO.

IPO or not, I am not sure. But Singapore national defense is quite a joke, IMHO. If there is going to be a war, how many Singaporean will trust SAF to defend them? The most likely to happen is to ask for US for help. In this planet, there are only a few countries worth of a defense budget. The rest, it really does not matter. Either no one is interested; or the defense is so weak, it does not matter at all. Such is Ukraine, the fate of the country is not in the hands of the people of Ukraine, but the Russians and NATO.

JP Morgan was not build by the US government. Exxon was not built by the US government. So is AT&T, General Electrics, Ford, IBM and many more. Capitalism might not be perfect, but government directed investments are not a must. Given proper incentives, the capitalism works better every time than any socialism attempt.

If the government and the public only tries to demand without incentives, the public transport system will never work. Bus and future rail financial model could prove to be successful in tackling certain problems.

(28-05-2014, 12:21 PM)GPD Wrote:

(28-05-2014, 12:11 PM)specuvestor Wrote: Think IPO and privatisation. Are they primarily concerned with "profits"? Ask some investment bankers. Are REITS more concerned with profits or more importantly the managers are incentivised otherwise? Are some family owned companies more concerned about profits or staying in control?

Finance 101 is not the same as the real world.

Eventually we will all die. Amazon as a listed company has a strategy of profit in the VERY LONG RUN. Why is that not applicable to govt policies, except that the benefit and profits are generated to other segments with job creation so that the economy AS A WHOLE benefits in the LONG RUN? Like I said if govt didn't start Telecoms, POSB, DBS, JTC, science parks which were "unprofitable", what do you think will become of an island of zero natural resources? This is not an academic exercise, see our neighbours' policies, including Vietnam and even East Timor. You sure asking them to focus on profitable ventures are the way to go?

Put in another way, does a highly profitable transport system equates to higher GDP per capita? Which G7 nation has transport system focused on profits rather than cost plus at most subsidised by govt ie utility? Have you seen the growth in profits of our transport sector in the decade before GFC? What good does it help the body if the bloodstreams are clogged with profit laced fats?

By your own admission you should be out of this topic because transport by nature is a public good and closely linked with government investment (you know, the G in GDP expense based calculation). You should stay out of GLCs including Olam, and yes also the Chinese banks. If you need to blame we can only blame why they allow the transport companies to be listed in the first place, so that they can be more "efficient". They have mixed up capital efficiency with operational efficiency or effectiveness. I for one is still against SGX being listed and so never touch it.

And yes a fool is born every minute. I'm just glad the current Spore govt are not staffed with fools to be so myopic.

You should go and teach economics and finance in school. I think many will benefit.

Really what is your profession? Apologise if people already asked before.

(28-05-2014, 12:36 PM)freedom Wrote: JP Morgan was not build by the US government. Exxon was not built by the US government. So is AT&T, General Electrics, Ford, IBM and many more. Capitalism might not be perfect, but government directed investments are not a must. Given proper incentives, the capitalism works better every time than any socialism attempt.

If the government and the public only tries to demand without incentives, the public transport system will never work. Bus and future rail financial model could prove to be successful in tackling certain problems.

You are echoing the US Republican's mantra. They forgot that these companies strive because of the country's socialistic structures from rule of law, standards like transmission and RF and best practices, infrastructure building, NASA R&D, education to safety nets so that people who fail can bounce back up. Heck even the internet (not invented by Al Gore or Kim Jung Il)

"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. ... You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along" - US Senator Elizabeth Warren

Surely government directed investments are not a must, but neither is profit oriented private enterprise a must. I am not binary: they exist both for a purpose and objective, trying to fit a square peg into the round hole and then complain why it doesn't work is missing the point. A real time case study: Do you think Singapore spending money on LNG storage to be an asian exchange is a waste of money? Would private enterprise take this up? Qatar is the largest LNG exporter because they were willing to invest in unprofitable LNG ports and infrastructure in both Qatar and destination countries.

Look no further than India to see capitalism without an effective government involvement. Great companies and entrepenuerial spirits there to build their own generators and infrastructure because the government failed in their social responsibility. The government is only interested in populist and unproductive solutions. Or Ceylon which was once the admin jewel of the British Empire, crumbling after the governments failed. It takes both hands to clap. US is great not only because of capitalistic spirit, but also a strong government and constitution with bonded social & nationalistic spirit that the Texans would be willing to help Wall Street because they are all americans. That is why EU will not be as strong as US.

(28-05-2014, 12:21 PM)GPD Wrote: You should go and teach economics and finance in school. I think many will benefit.

Really what is your profession? Apologise if people already asked before.

(27-05-2014, 06:48 PM)specuvestor Wrote: I happen to be in the investment profession so I probably can say that not all companies are aiming for profit, hence caveat emptor.

I don't think I will be a good teacher because my students probably will fail in Finance 101 Someone suggested polytechnics which probably suits my real world style better.

(28-05-2014, 12:29 PM)freedom Wrote:

(28-05-2014, 11:55 AM)kichialo Wrote:

(27-05-2014, 11:04 AM)freedom Wrote: I can't believe that many "investors" in this forum are preaching non-profit kinda of corporations here. Without profit, why would there be any investment in the first place?

No public companies should be run as non-profit driven. If non-profit driven is the idea, please don't ever ask capital from private investors. The government can fund whatever its non-profit driven ideas, but please stay away from private investors.

The market and private investors have shunned companies lack of satisfied return, the government does not need any more proof for it.

Perhaps we should privatise national defence? Saf can consider IPO.

IPO or not, I am not sure. But Singapore national defense is quite a joke, IMHO. If there is going to be a war, how many Singaporean will trust SAF to defend them? The most likely to happen is to ask for US for help. In this planet, there are only a few countries worth of a defense budget. The rest, it really does not matter. Either no one is interested; or the defense is so weak, it does not matter at all. Such is Ukraine, the fate of the country is not in the hands of the people of Ukraine, but the Russians and NATO.

I feel sore at this post as i am still a serving NSmen and actively training for IPPT every year even though i am reaching 40 soon... though i am just a CPL rank, i feel that i am quite a well trained soldier.

Did you even serve NS to comment on SAF like that?