Homepage
PR Newswire
10-02-2011, 02:20 PM
Thanks arthur for the nice "summary" on SWFs, putting it all together. Had somehow missed this thread earlier. Now i am more convinced why SWFs need to appear transparent.
As a listed equity investor i am interested in Temasek because of the many companies it has stakes in. DBS, Keppel, NOL, SMRT, non-listed quasi govt entities etc etc. And these companies in turn hold stakes in others. I imagine many forummers have interests in the telcos, and i believe each is being owned in/directly owned by a GLC. Even if one does not directly own any shares in GLCs, you are probably holding a counter dealing with it as a vendor, customer, sub-contractor or competitor.
I see this huge "conglomerate" managing a huge chunk of businesses in Singapore. One sneeze (read as minor change in direction) and many will catch cold. It seems to have not happened because of pledges of "non-interference" although that's probably hard to prove one way or other. A close look at the BODs and you can see the same capable members on many boards. The Indonesians did not agree that different holdings would work independently. For a while, I had wondered about how so and so ended up in F&N's board, thinking it was a private company (so the connection would be tenuous although not necessarily not arms-length), only to realise i was wrong. ...but i don't want to be caught in an OB marker or political discussion.
Understanding how Temasek goes about its business, pays its officers, appoints subsidiary board members and gets its profits might offer indications about how its web of business holdings will act. eg. if it decides that airline is no longer a strategic business SIA price sure drop, or decides its profits are too low... Of course, the same applies to other SWFs as well. If Temasek had a share in Parkway, Khazanah (another SWF) may not have gotten it or maybe need to pay shareholders a higher buyout. What I try to opine is that the motivations, welfare, activities and directions of the parent companies are always good to know and understand. All the more so for huge SWFs.
On a different slant
It was interesting to be reminded of the motivations of the different SWFs and the golden guano. It seems to be that many power hungry persons could find it tremendously more desirable to be the leader of a country with a huge SWF rather than, say Ireland. That was probably why the the second key to the country's reserves was added. Still, with wealth comes power one way or other. One may not dispense at will and transparently in a democratic country, but still the ability/authority to allocate to areas that one deems is more deserving is the exercise of power in any sovereign. Business just can't avoid politics.
As a listed equity investor i am interested in Temasek because of the many companies it has stakes in. DBS, Keppel, NOL, SMRT, non-listed quasi govt entities etc etc. And these companies in turn hold stakes in others. I imagine many forummers have interests in the telcos, and i believe each is being owned in/directly owned by a GLC. Even if one does not directly own any shares in GLCs, you are probably holding a counter dealing with it as a vendor, customer, sub-contractor or competitor.
I see this huge "conglomerate" managing a huge chunk of businesses in Singapore. One sneeze (read as minor change in direction) and many will catch cold. It seems to have not happened because of pledges of "non-interference" although that's probably hard to prove one way or other. A close look at the BODs and you can see the same capable members on many boards. The Indonesians did not agree that different holdings would work independently. For a while, I had wondered about how so and so ended up in F&N's board, thinking it was a private company (so the connection would be tenuous although not necessarily not arms-length), only to realise i was wrong. ...but i don't want to be caught in an OB marker or political discussion.
Understanding how Temasek goes about its business, pays its officers, appoints subsidiary board members and gets its profits might offer indications about how its web of business holdings will act. eg. if it decides that airline is no longer a strategic business SIA price sure drop, or decides its profits are too low... Of course, the same applies to other SWFs as well. If Temasek had a share in Parkway, Khazanah (another SWF) may not have gotten it or maybe need to pay shareholders a higher buyout. What I try to opine is that the motivations, welfare, activities and directions of the parent companies are always good to know and understand. All the more so for huge SWFs.
On a different slant
It was interesting to be reminded of the motivations of the different SWFs and the golden guano. It seems to be that many power hungry persons could find it tremendously more desirable to be the leader of a country with a huge SWF rather than, say Ireland. That was probably why the the second key to the country's reserves was added. Still, with wealth comes power one way or other. One may not dispense at will and transparently in a democratic country, but still the ability/authority to allocate to areas that one deems is more deserving is the exercise of power in any sovereign. Business just can't avoid politics.