Singapore's Temasek hit by first loss in 7 years

[Ray168]

IIRC, Temasek and GIC has different focus, Temasek is more focused towards investing locally (astake in strategic assets e.g. SP powers, NCS, ST group, DBS, Certis Cisco, CPG)  while GIC's focus is more towards overseas (e.g GLP)

I realize that. But I think it is right that Temasek look more outward.

I would rather that GIC focus on capital preservation (i.e. less risk in trade weighted currency terms and against inflation) and Temasek as a regular go-go global investor. I might even welcome Temasek listing on one or more stock exchanges.

Temasek portfolio: 
http://www.temasekreview.com.sg/overview...-geography


SG - 29%
Asia ex-SG - 40%
Rest of world - 31%

[tanjm]

I guess my point is that both Temasek and GIC should focus outward as much as possible. Temasek has historically (in the early years) been seen as "supporting" GLCs. Happy to see that in the last 10 years, this has reduced, but may still be a bit too much.

Singapore (and by extension, the Singapore dollar on which we bank so much of our personal and national savings) has no intrinsic value. Our only capital is "human capital". Much better we hedge ourselves for the long term.

[specuvestor]

Temasek and GIC HAD different focus. I'm not sure I know what's their difference now.

Temasek focus was on starting companies that didn't have mass or funding in the beginning, or where market forces are not functioning properly. It cannot be measured in just PnL terms: Think SMRT or power... These are assets that cannot fail and say it's market force determined.

That's why I think Temasek should continue to focuse more on national interest and leave the "outward looking" (for lack of better term as strategic evaluation also consist of external factors considerations) to GIC. For example investing into biotech or natural gas storage, or encouraging startups or SME. That's where Natsteel, ST Group, Singtel, Development Bank came from. Instead of leveraging and go into secondary markets

[tanjm]

With the exception of things like bus/rail or power (for which there are natural reasons to pervert market forces even now), there is no such excuse for a non-functioning market in Singapore today. So historically, I'd say yes. But now, no - we are a mature economy now.

If Temasek wants to do "National Service", perhaps they can take strategic stakes in companies outside Singapore that may benefit Singapore but on the whole, I don't think it even should do that. I have been at the receiving end of such largesse in the tech industry many years ago - a waste of money to the public purse. It should just try to be the best investment manager it can.

As for the difference between GIC and Temasek, I would segregate them based on investment style. I'd prefer GIC to simply invest more cautiously and to preserve our purchasing power in trade weighted currency terms. Nothing wrong with having diversity of investment styles. The asset sizes are so large that they are almost unwieldy anyway.