(27-03-2013, 09:34 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]I'm gonna stick my neck out and say HitandRun is right. Nothing to do with the person or opinions, but we have to be objective
The issue has been discussed at length. Makes sense that governments should not use land sales as revenue to balance their budget. I would be surprised and skeptical if companies sell fixed assets to fund their operations, unless they are developers or asset traders. Look at the Chinese local governments facing budget crisis because land sale has been curbed.
What doesn't make sense is a small technical detail that they changed which is to transfer reserves from government entities horizontally rather than vertically. That was just before HDB was privatised. And that was how the reserves of HDB was being raided.
Doesn't it make sense? Private company also "raided" (?) the cash reserve before IPO. Is this a ethical move? IMO yes. The future owner doesn't participate in the previous effort, so it is up to the previous owner to decide the offer in the IPO. As long as no misleading info, it is perfectly sound IMO.
The same applies to privatization IMO
The reserves was not given back to the people or the treasury.. there's a big difference between the IPO scenario you quoted
IIRC it was actually a constitutional change
Aiyo! all of you are highly IQ. For low to average IQ people (man-in-the-street) they just know if ministers can be paid $millions (LHL=$2.2 million bonuses excluded hoh!) then all Singaporeans should have better welfare. And not keep on taxing & taking from the people. Perhaps Papies are worried or calculated that there is simply not enough money to pay their $million salaries + Bonuses if stop taking more & more from the people.
i remember not long ago, some Papies said, "You (common people) want better welfare, then GST will have to go up sooner than later."
So Kopitiam-man or man-in-the-street actually knows what is going on in Singapore in their own ways.
(27-03-2013, 09:57 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]The reserves was not given back to the people or the treasury.. there's a big difference between the IPO scenario you quoted
IIRC it was actually a constitutional change
I don't see the difference in principle.
If the concern is on "suka-suka" constitutional changes to suit preference, then it is a political issue, i will stop here, before i get warned.
If the discussion is on economic merit, then i didn't see any technical fault here.
Issue is who benefits with whose money. Same issue I have with the Natsteel fiasco.
Major shareholders and OWNERS take out their OWN money before IPO.
Throughout history, the wealthy earns more that the middle and lower class.
The key is to minimise the rich and poor gap through education and stringent welfare (eg. disabled).
Who benefits from a larger population? In my humble opinion, all Singaporeans will benefit as the economy should be more robust with the increase talent.
We should have non-Singaporeans who are able to contribute to our future economy by creating jobs and those who are less skilled to do the jobs that Singaporeans shun (eg. construction).
(27-03-2013, 10:31 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]Issue is who benefits with whose money. Same issue I have with the Natsteel fiasco.
I might have missed something but can you please share what is your gripe with Natsteel? Incidentally, do you have idea why Temasek would choose to partner OBS to buy over Natsteel? Coincidentally, Gan Kim Yong was also with Natsteel during that point in time. Is anybody aware of his role in the Natsteel/98/99 holdings saga? Thank you sir!
(27-03-2013, 09:34 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]What doesn't make sense is a small technical detail that they changed which is to transfer reserves from government entities horizontally rather than vertically. That was just before HDB was privatised. And that was how the reserves of HDB was being raided.
HDB was privatized? When did that take place?
(27-03-2013, 09:13 PM)HitandRun Wrote: [ -> ] (27-03-2013, 10:31 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]Issue is who benefits with whose money. Same issue I have with the Natsteel fiasco.
I might have missed something but can you please share what is your gripe with Natsteel? Incidentally, do you have idea why Temasek would choose to partner OBS to buy over Natsteel? Coincidentally, Gan Kim Yong was also with Natsteel during that point in time. Is anybody aware of his role in the Natsteel/98/99 holdings saga? Thank you sir!
OBS Of Nassim fame was a facade. The prize was supposed to go to ang kong hua but Oei came in and spoil the party. Otherwise Ang would have been laughing to the bank.
(27-03-2013, 10:20 PM)egghead Wrote: [ -> ] (27-03-2013, 09:34 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]What doesn't make sense is a small technical detail that they changed which is to transfer reserves from government entities horizontally rather than vertically. That was just before HDB was privatised. And that was how the reserves of HDB was being raided.
HDB was privatized? When did that take place?
http://www.redas.com/einformation/pu/ga/...b%2003.doc
IIRC the restructure cost for the year alone was more than $700m based on HDB AR, mainly from golden handshakes to move them from HDB to HDB corp
As value investors we know cash flows are very important. There is a difference between transferring cash upwards and then down vs horizontally, of issuing rights after declaring special dividend vs straight bonus stock issues, etc, though academically it may make no difference at all. Neither did HDB lost money on a cash flow basis though the PnL was bleeding
This is a restructuring of HDB. If I understand it correctly, previously HDB was involved in the construction of flats; whereas the restructuring removed that part of the HDB so that construction is outsourced to private enterprises. This is not the same as privatizing HDB.
I suppose the word privatize is used loosely. E.g. a privatization of a public listed entity means that it becomes the asset of a few private investor; whereas when you said privatization you likely meant corporatization.