Singaporean Inflows Down Sharply, Says Boi

[Mid]

Singaporean inflows down sharply, says BoI

ARANEE JAIIMSIN

Investment from Singapore to Thailand faced a dramatic drop by 88% in the first month of this year in light of various confrontations between the two countries, according to the Board of Investment (BoI).

nope , nothing to see here , move along

[alexth]

Why do I feel like Nostradamus here? Of course I wasn't expecting that %, but hey...they should have seen it coming

[pete_r]

According to the same article, the total investment by Singapore in Thailand for 2006 was 28.92 billion Bahts, on average 2.41 billion Bahts per month.

January 2006 was more than double that average with 5.26 billion Bahts, and January 2007 was well below average with 0.619 billion Bahts. Logically the year on year comparison looks very bad (88% drop as announced), but comparing with the monthly average of 2006 (2.41 billion Baht/month) makes the numbers look a bit less dramatic. That said, it's still quite a big drop.

[chuchok]

Singapore is the top investor in Thailand among Asean countries and has been among the top five overall for many years. Singapore invested 28.92 billion baht in Thailand last year, a 104% rise from the previous year, putting it in third place behind Japan (110.47 billion) and the United States (37.06 billion).

interesting.These guys are big players.Thailand is the one that could loose here.

[OlRedEyes]

According to the same article, the total investment by Singapore in Thailand for 2006 was 28.92 billion Bahts, on average 2.41 billion Bahts per month.

January 2006 was more than double that average with 5.26 billion Bahts, and January 2007 was well below average with 0.619 billion Bahts. Logically the year on year comparison looks very bad (88% drop as announced), but comparing with the monthly average of 2006 (2.41 billion Baht/month) makes the numbers look a bit less dramatic. That said, it's still quite a big drop.

That looks slightly more than 'quite a big drop' to me....

[Temporaneo]

Really, I am quite astonished there was still an inflow....if I were the Singaporeans, would OUTFLOW everything double quick.....

[tingtong]

First the fantastic financial policies, then this Shin story to make investors to feel good there....sothern violance is only the iceing on the cake!

Why any Singaporean should rush to invest in Thailand right now? They aren't the one famously brainless when comes to investing and money.

[steveromagnino]

Why any Singaporean should rush to invest in Thailand right now? They aren't the one famously brainless when comes to investing and money.

The Temasak deal with Shin would suggest otherwise. No due diligence, no genuine effort to value or comply with Thai law, simply a personal guarantee that the then PM 'would look after things' and a very amateurish poorly disguised nominee structure.

Yeah, just the kind of person I would want looking after my money 55555555555555

[samran]

temasek is just an extension of the lee family.

[alexth]

Well, maybe Thailand has made it's point. If you don't like it, leave...and the singaporeans did, WITH their money too

[Prakanong]

Why any Singaporean should rush to invest in Thailand right now? They aren't the one famously brainless when comes to investing and money.

The Temasak deal with Shin would suggest otherwise. No due diligence, no genuine effort to value or comply with Thai law, simply a personal guarantee that the then PM 'would look after things' and a very amateurish poorly disguised nominee structure.

Yeah, just the kind of person I would want looking after my money 55555555555555

I am pretty sure Temasek went into it with more than just a nod and a wink - I know you have to stick up for Thailand but do not let cloud your judgement.

This is of course unless Temasek and their spokesmen are lying in interviews and to the Singaporean people

Temasek are hardly some mickey mouse player on the world stage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temasek_Holdings

Edited February 27, 2007 by Prakanong

[Prakanong]

temasek is just an extension of the lee family.

Yeah but only in the way you could say Singapore and its govt is the extension of the Lee family.

The drop in inward investment though is quite stunning.

[samran]

temasek is just an extension of the lee family.

Yeah but only in the way you could say Singapore and its govt is the extension of the Lee family.

The drop in inward investment though is quite stunning.

no doubt. Overall, it is a very extensive and impressive enterprise.

but, when I say it is an extension...it means that with all these things, analysis and judgement can become lax. They would have jumped through all the hoops to buy say, Optus in Australia, but do you really think they go to the same lengths as they would when dealing with Thailand, Cambo, or maybe even Burma?

[Old Man River]

According to the same article, the total investment by Singapore in Thailand for 2006 was 28.92 billion Bahts, on average 2.41 billion Bahts per month.

January 2006 was more than double that average with 5.26 billion Bahts, and January 2007 was well below average with 0.619 billion Bahts. Logically the year on year comparison looks very bad (88% drop as announced), but comparing with the monthly average of 2006 (2.41 billion Baht/month) makes the numbers look a bit less dramatic. That said, it's still quite a big drop.

I can't access the original article, but would be very surprised if the BOI explained the drop off only to conflicts between the two countries. The primary reason for the large drop off in investment is that last year Temasek bought SHIN, which we all know was a very large Singaporean investment in Thailand. This size investment doesn't happen every year, so it was expected that Jan. 2007 would show a large drop off from the previous year.

[slimdog]

OMR

Article, (or one very much like it) can be found at:

http://www.asianewsnet.net/biz.php?aid=8145

Hope of some help

[jumnien]

There was an interesting article in the Nation today that said that Japan has 6,000 companies in Thailand and that Japanese companies in Thailand are the most profitable Japanese companies in the world. I don't think anyone is leaving Thailand.

[Prakanong]

temasek is just an extension of the lee family.

Yeah but only in the way you could say Singapore and its govt is the extension of the Lee family.

The drop in inward investment though is quite stunning.

no doubt. Overall, it is a very extensive and impressive enterprise.

but, when I say it is an extension...it means that with all these things, analysis and judgement can become lax. They would have jumped through all the hoops to buy say, Optus in Australia, but do you really think they go to the same lengths as they would when dealing with Thailand, Cambo, or maybe even Burma?

I would assume they do actually.

Their stated goal is to reduce the % of holdings in Singapore from 75% to 33%

33% more in developed countries and 33% in developing - I can not imagine why they would have lax standards for developing countries regarding say 33 billion USD investment.

It may not be the most open sociaty but they are accountable and the returns help keep Singapore where it is.

[steveromagnino]

Their stated goal is to reduce the % of holdings in Singapore from 75% to 33%

33% more in developed countries and 33% in developing - I can not imagine why they would have lax standards for developing countries regarding say 33 billion USD investment.

It may not be the most open sociaty but they are accountable and the returns help keep Singapore where it is.

The SIngapore Zoo is a typical example of the 'shadier' side of Temasek that some Singaporeans don't like. A major investment and a major asset for the country...except for the extremely unprofitable bird park which loses money hand over fist. Also not popular.

So why keep it?

It happens to be run by the husband of one of the Lee family, and is the passion of said husband. Alledgedly.

One of my former bosses consulted to Temasek; you can believe all you want about their professionalism. I think they are pretty good, for a government department, but compared to a genuine investment house, they don't exactly deliver worldclass performance; look at their return numbers, look at their approach to passive investment. It is like they want to invest, but are too risk averse to risk running what they buy. They underperform the Singapore stock exchange index.

So why have it? Read some interviews; the purpose is to get private sector like efficiency, using a vehicle that prevents strategic assets (Singtel, the port, etc etc) from being taken over by foreigners. However, the returns of Singtel, DBS and others are behind their privatised rivals; they in effect are subsidised by Singapore govt 'cheap money' and that annoys many Singaporeans. Temasek's non privatised businesses tends to vaccuum up many of the good graduates, supposedly stifling innovation. And lastly, some Singaporeans feel that their money (the govt investment vehicle) should be used to develop local private sector business to expand abroad, rather than supporting extravagent loss making exercises such as:

- futile multiple bids for Quantas

- overpaying for Optus

- overpaying for Shin

- overpaying for Global Crossing

- losing money on semi conductors hand over fist (share price has dropped 90% in last 8 years)

If it is so well run, you would have expected the head of Temasek to be kicked out for the spectacular failure of the Shin deal where it is well known they did not do proper due diligence at the recommendation of the senior statesman of Singapore; this isn't going to happen however since it is the PM's wife. You would expect overall that Temasek to at least match the Strait index returns over the last 5 years, rather than underperforming it.

To use your analogy, it would seem evident that either they jump through many hoops ineptly, or perhaps do not even bother jumping through some hoops at all.

If it is so transparently run and so trustworthy, why would South Korea, Indo, China, Australia, India and others block various Temasek proposed deals mostly of the basis that it is a Singaporean government proxy rather than a legimate Asian investment house that it claims it is? Why would they even bother offering if they knew they wouldn't get through the hoop at all?

I consider them to be the classic idiot bozo with the cash, like the fat kid at school who will give you half their toys, just so you will be friends with them. They add limited knowledge and expertise to their overseas investments, because they seem so keen to just sit around and watch the locals run it on their own. In the case of Shin...They didn't do their homework, they got burned in Thailand, and it isn't their first major f&*k up. 'There is something rotten in the state of Denmark,' remarked Hamlet, well perhaps in this case 'there is some sort of hoop jumping related phobia when Temasek does a deal in the state of Siam.'

Incidentally, I worked in Singapore. None of my Singaporean friends like Temasek, they are run like most govt departments the world over as a fifedom of the Lee family, and many Singaporeans know it. Maybe better than most, but still a far cry from a private sector IB type company which delivers superior returns to shareholders (the ministry of finance of Singapore, and therefore effectively the Singaporean people).

But then again, I just might have the wrong end of the stick? What a hoopla!

Edited February 27, 2007 by steveromagnino

[ThaiGoon]

[samran]

straight off the meat of the bat, into the top level of the members stand, steve.

[steveromagnino]

straight off the meat of the bat, into the top level of the members stand, steve.

and for you two, no more eating with the crew, you will be dining tonight at the Captain's table!

hooray for Singapore!

hooray for the port!

hooray for the Singapore Straight!

and hooray for the Singapore alternative lifestyles, illegal though they may be not that there is anything wrong with that.

[ThaiGoon]

[chuchok]

Their stated goal is to reduce the % of holdings in Singapore from 75% to 33%

33% more in developed countries and 33% in developing - I can not imagine why they would have lax standards for developing countries regarding say 33 billion USD investment.

It may not be the most open sociaty but they are accountable and the returns help keep Singapore where it is.

The SIngapore Zoo is a typical example of the 'shadier' side of Temasek that some Singaporeans don't like. A major investment and a major asset for the country...except for the extremely unprofitable bird park which loses money hand over fist. Also not popular.

So why keep it?

It happens to be run by the husband of one of the Lee family, and is the passion of said husband. Alledgedly.

Stevo,

If that's actually is the shadier side of Singapore,then it's a pity Thailand is not like that.

Personally,I like the place and the way they do business.(Even though they are never "wrong".. )

They own one of the largest well run ports in the world and a shipping line that is in the top ten.Their Airport and Airline are perhaps the best on this planet...plus one of the better logistics companies.

Their investments in this field..all tie in. The same might be said for their telecomunications business.

I've never known a Sing company to pay too much for something,unless they need it for a particular reason and they can make money out of it.Be that in one year or five.

They are certainly not perfect,but for a little island country of 4 million people,they have done very,very well.It wasn't that long ago,that they had many of the same problems that Thailand have.

The one thing that Harry Lee and his cronies worked out,was that the way forward was to educate the people.It the Thai Government decided to do this one thing,imagine how much better this country would be.

Singapore is somewhat sterile and is not everybodies cuppa,but you can't deny how well they have done.

Edited February 27, 2007 by chuchok

[chuchok]

straight off the meat of the bat, into the top level of the members stand, steve.

That would imply a straight shot over the bowlers head.I think it's more like a hook, from a short,quickish wayward delivery.....

[steveromagnino]

Stevo,

If that's actually is the shadier side of Singapore,then it's a pity Thailand is not like that.

Personally,I like the place and the way they do business.(Even though they are never "wrong".. )

They own one of the largest well run ports in the world and a shipping line that is in the top ten.Their Airport and Airline are perhaps the best on this planet...plus one of the better logistics companies.

Their investments in this field..all tie in. The same might be said for their telecomunications business.

I've never known a Sing company to pay too much for something,unless they need it for a particular reason and they can make money out of it.Be that in one year or five.

They are certainly not perfect,but for a little island country of 4 million people,they have done very,very well.It wasn't that long ago,that they had many of the same problems that Thailand have.

The one thing that Harry Lee and his cronies worked out,was that the way forward was to educate the people.It the Thai Government decided to do this one thing,imagine how much better this country would be.

Singapore is somewhat sterile and is not everybodies cuppa,but you can't deny how well they have done.

Chuchok me ol' cobber

Actually I enjoyed living there for many aspects; and indeed it is very well run. I personally think that it is capable of more than this if SIA and others were flicked rather than staying in the Temasek umbrella; they have incubated them and now it is time to let them fly.

Usually Singapore's success is named as 3 things:

- port (a fortuitous location and pretty much the exchange earner supporting the next two)

- HDBs (cost effective well built government housing, that meant workers became entrepreneurs instead of tying their money up in slum property)

- worldclass education system

I would add one other; a city state does very well when located next to high population areas that are less developed but somewhat stable; INdo and Malaysia make ideal neighbours. Well, Indo perhaps less so, but still fairly bearable. Philipines a bit further away, but certainly a mandatory requirement now that Singaporeans are unable to clean/cook/raise kids etc without a maid. A bit like Bangkok in that regard; Thailand could learn a huge amount from Singapore; hel_l NZ could learn a huge amount from Singapore; back in the late 60s a NZ dollar/pound bought a whole handful of notes in Singapore, now Singapore has raced ahead of NZ and most other OECD countries income/currency wise. There is something to be said for a wise ruler who is not democratically elected, it is the real secret of Singapore's success.

True story. When I was young, my mum always wanted me to move there and marry Vanessa Mae; probably just as well I didn't, as I wouldn't probably object to the sex even though she is a bit flat chested, but I prefer women to wear g-strings rather than hacking away at them on those stupid electric violins. Mae? I don't think so - Mae not more likely.

Incidentally, I think it was more of a straight cover drive off a full toss into the stands right over the bowler's head. My favourite shot, what a pity I never managed to get a 6 that way. Stupid oversize fields.

Edited February 27, 2007 by steveromagnino

[lannarebirth]

Their stated goal is to reduce the % of holdings in Singapore from 75% to 33%

33% more in developed countries and 33% in developing - I can not imagine why they would have lax standards for developing countries regarding say 33 billion USD investment.

It may not be the most open sociaty but they are accountable and the returns help keep Singapore where it is.

The SIngapore Zoo is a typical example of the 'shadier' side of Temasek that some Singaporeans don't like. A major investment and a major asset for the country...except for the extremely unprofitable bird park which loses money hand over fist. Also not popular.

So why keep it?

It happens to be run by the husband of one of the Lee family, and is the passion of said husband. Alledgedly.

One of my former bosses consulted to Temasek; you can believe all you want about their professionalism. I think they are pretty good, for a government department, but compared to a genuine investment house, they don't exactly deliver worldclass performance; look at their return numbers, look at their approach to passive investment. It is like they want to invest, but are too risk averse to risk running what they buy. They underperform the Singapore stock exchange index.

So why have it? Read some interviews; the purpose is to get private sector like efficiency, using a vehicle that prevents strategic assets (Singtel, the port, etc etc) from being taken over by foreigners. However, the returns of Singtel, DBS and others are behind their privatised rivals; they in effect are subsidised by Singapore govt 'cheap money' and that annoys many Singaporeans. Temasek's non privatised businesses tends to vaccuum up many of the good graduates, supposedly stifling innovation. And lastly, some Singaporeans feel that their money (the govt investment vehicle) should be used to develop local private sector business to expand abroad, rather than supporting extravagent loss making exercises such as:

- futile multiple bids for Quantas

- overpaying for Optus

- overpaying for Shin

- overpaying for Global Crossing

- losing money on semi conductors hand over fist (share price has dropped 90% in last 8 years)

If it is so well run, you would have expected the head of Temasek to be kicked out for the spectacular failure of the Shin deal where it is well known they did not do proper due diligence at the recommendation of the senior statesman of Singapore; this isn't going to happen however since it is the PM's wife. You would expect overall that Temasek to at least match the Strait index returns over the last 5 years, rather than underperforming it.

To use your analogy, it would seem evident that either they jump through many hoops ineptly, or perhaps do not even bother jumping through some hoops at all.

If it is so transparently run and so trustworthy, why would South Korea, Indo, China, Australia, India and others block various Temasek proposed deals mostly of the basis that it is a Singaporean government proxy rather than a legimate Asian investment house that it claims it is? Why would they even bother offering if they knew they wouldn't get through the hoop at all?

I consider them to be the classic idiot bozo with the cash, like the fat kid at school who will give you half their toys, just so you will be friends with them. They add limited knowledge and expertise to their overseas investments, because they seem so keen to just sit around and watch the locals run it on their own. In the case of Shin...They didn't do their homework, they got burned in Thailand, and it isn't their first major f&*k up. 'There is something rotten in the state of Denmark,' remarked Hamlet, well perhaps in this case 'there is some sort of hoop jumping related phobia when Temasek does a deal in the state of Siam.'

Incidentally, I worked in Singapore. None of my Singaporean friends like Temasek, they are run like most govt departments the world over as a fifedom of the Lee family, and many Singaporeans know it. Maybe better than most, but still a far cry from a private sector IB type company which delivers superior returns to shareholders (the ministry of finance of Singapore, and therefore effectively the Singaporean people).

But then again, I just might have the wrong end of the stick? What a hoopla!

One of your best posts ever. Every word rings true.

[seagull]

Their stated goal is to reduce the % of holdings in Singapore from 75% to 33%

33% more in developed countries and 33% in developing - I can not imagine why they would have lax standards for developing countries regarding say 33 billion USD investment.

It may not be the most open sociaty but they are accountable and the returns help keep Singapore where it is.

The SIngapore Zoo is a typical example of the 'shadier' side of Temasek that some Singaporeans don't like. A major investment and a major asset for the country...except for the extremely unprofitable bird park which loses money hand over fist. Also not popular.

So why keep it?

It happens to be run by the husband of one of the Lee family, and is the passion of said husband. Alledgedly.

Stevo,

If that's actually is the shadier side of Singapore,then it's a pity Thailand is not like that.

Personally,I like the place and the way they do business.(Even though they are never "wrong".. )

They own one of the largest well run ports in the world and a shipping line that is in the top ten.Their Airport and Airline are perhaps the best on this planet...plus one of the better logistics companies.

Their investments in this field..all tie in. The same might be said for their telecomunications business.

I've never known a Sing company to pay too much for something,unless they need it for a particular reason and they can make money out of it.Be that in one year or five.

They are certainly not perfect,but for a little island country of 4 million people,they have done very,very well.It wasn't that long ago,that they had many of the same problems that Thailand have.

The one thing that Harry Lee and his cronies worked out,was that the way forward was to educate the people.It the Thai Government decided to do this one thing,imagine how much better this country would be.

Singapore is somewhat sterile and is not everybodies cuppa,but you can't deny how well they have done.

How aptly put, chuchok. Well said and you spoke my mind. Uh oh! I sense a tornado coming this way, quick hide!

[chuchok]

Vanessa Mae ....strewth,did you know her? flat chests can be fixed.Saline or Silicone..A womans right to choose!

If you knew her and you turned her down,then I think you should be batting for the other side old son .

[Mid]

The one thing that Harry Lee and his cronies worked out,was that the way forward was to educate the people.It the Thai Government decided to do this one thing,imagine how much better this country would be.

ding , ding ,ding .........

we have a winner

[Prakanong]

Their stated goal is to reduce the % of holdings in Singapore from 75% to 33%

33% more in developed countries and 33% in developing - I can not imagine why they would have lax standards for developing countries regarding say 33 billion USD investment.

It may not be the most open sociaty but they are accountable and the returns help keep Singapore where it is.

The SIngapore Zoo is a typical example of the 'shadier' side of Temasek that some Singaporeans don't like. A major investment and a major asset for the country...except for the extremely unprofitable bird park which loses money hand over fist. Also not popular.

So why keep it?

It happens to be run by the husband of one of the Lee family, and is the passion of said husband. Alledgedly.

Stevo,

If that's actually is the shadier side of Singapore,then it's a pity Thailand is not like that.

Personally,I like the place and the way they do business.(Even though they are never "wrong".. )

They own one of the largest well run ports in the world and a shipping line that is in the top ten.Their Airport and Airline are perhaps the best on this planet...plus one of the better logistics companies.

Their investments in this field..all tie in. The same might be said for their telecomunications business.

I've never known a Sing company to pay too much for something,unless they need it for a particular reason and they can make money out of it.Be that in one year or five.

They are certainly not perfect,but for a little island country of 4 million people,they have done very,very well.It wasn't that long ago,that they had many of the same problems that Thailand have.

The one thing that Harry Lee and his cronies worked out,was that the way forward was to educate the people.It the Thai Government decided to do this one thing,imagine how much better this country would be.

Singapore is somewhat sterile and is not everybodies cuppa,but you can't deny how well they have done.

How aptly put, chuchok. Well said and you spoke my mind. Uh oh! I sense a tornado coming this way, quick hide!

A bit of perspective might be in order as pointed out.

If an unprofitable bird park and zoo is the shadier side of Singapore - well then nuff said.

Obviously we can talk about the ruling family's of Singapore's shortcomings on here but reciprocality can not be offered.

There are plenty of things wrong about Singapore and its not long since they were jailing people for many many years without trial but shadier side?

BTW I have no particular allegience to Singapore although I have taken a permie job here after contracting in different locations for years.

Whether I will stay after my initial EP or not I do not know (I could go for PR right now given the industry I am in). It may well be I am off whoring again on a contract for a pimp (recruitment agent) ;-)))

Edited February 27, 2007 by Prakanong