TR EMERITUS

When it comes to Reits, I'm almost like Pussy Lim saying the PAP is doomed (since 1990s), though she recently nuanced her remarks and Roy on the govt "stealing" (my take on what he is claiming, not his word) CPF. Same old messages. Here's a variation on my Reits tale. I'm looking at a Reits' strategy to guard against the effects of likely interest rate rises*. I'm looking at a“core plus” or “value add” strategy: Reits that buy underperforming assets, for example a building with empty space, and focuses on improving returns, for instance by increasing occupancy. Or Reits outside traditional core commercial real estate include student housing, medical offices, storage and even social housing. I'll be looking at the Jap Golf Reit. If I find Reits that are executing this “core plus” or “value add” strategy competently, I'll switch to them even if their yields are lower. Let you know my conclusions after I do the switches. BTW, Bank of S'pore, OCBC's private bank, is recommending Reits and other income plays. Sounds like what I've been doing, suggesting the last few yrs. Maybe I can be Bank of Singapore's strategist? Singapore equities will remain range-bound for the short term, but dividend plays will continue to attract interest, said BoS's CIO on July 3. "... certain interesting themes in the Singapore market, and one of which ... there are many opportunities in the dividend yielding sector, 'REITs', some of those Temasek-linked companies** do give you a very nice yield in the context of a very low yielding environment in the world," said Chief Investment Officer Hou Wey Fook. BOS says the impact of a slowing Chinese economy on Singapore's growth will likely be offset by the pick-up in the developed economies. This combined with the steady performance of emerging economies will deliver the best global economic outlook in 2014, since three years ago. (BT report) BoS, like me, says it prefers equities to fixed income due to falling bond yields and soaring stock market indices. It also expects the improving growth momentum to spur companies into increasing their capital expenditure and M&A activities. ------- *Keep an eye on the junk bond market. It's going through a serious correction that could turn into a collapse given that many say the junk bond is a bubble. **http://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/temaseks-fab-5-spore-blue-chips/ ------- Cynical Investor [Source]: Thoughts of a Cynical Investor  Read More →

A TR Emeritus reader asked its editor to forward the following questions (edited by us) to Roy Nerng and Leong Sze Hian - and hope that either you can help to answer or get "the Government to answer": 1. What are the year-on-year returns of GIC and Temasek from inception? 2. What are the year on year compensation to officers and directors of GIC and Temasek? 3. How much has been the year on year extraction of NIRC from inception? 4. On what basis does the Finance Minister consider the present near zero real yield of the 30-year Singapore government Securities (SGS) a good return, given international real yields are much higher? If he points to the exchange rate policy delivering additional returns to foreign investors, then why should it matter or mean to Singaporeans? 5. On what basis does the Finance Minister consider the low real return of combined OA and SMRA - a good return considering the length of investment and the illiquid nature of that investment? 6. What is the legal basis for the Government's non-transparency and the retention of excess returns when CPF monies are kept in trust and are used to buy what is now considered artificial securities, Special Singapore government Securities (SSGS) which then do not transfer trust monies into "real" debt issuance proceeds? 7. As such, then CPF has an equal right to returns from wherever the trust monies are allocated from SG Government Treasury, i.e. GIC and Temasek? What is the legal basis for not doing that? 8. Further, how can the investment relationship between the CPF Board and the Government via SSGS be regarded as "arms length", since the Government is essentially dealing with itself - further compounded by Government ministers and officials serving as trustees for CPF? Is this is not "arms length" - how can SSGS be considered a bona fide investment? Note: The reader is an experienced banker working in the finance industry. We will discuss this together on National Day! Dear Singaporeans, An event has been created for people who failed to get tickets to the national day parade. This event aims to raise awareness about how Singapore has changed over the past 49 years and how we should make Singapore’s 50th birthday a memorable one. We’re looking for 30 concerned Singaporeans to speak about anything related to Singapore on 9 August as national day belongs to all Singaporeans. There will be 3 speakers every half an hour, check out the event page here: https://www.facebook.com/events/271583499702725   Roy Ngerng and Leong Sze Hian    Read More →

CEO of LTA, Chew Hock Yong. He has held appointments in the MINDEF, the Ministry of Communications, MHA, MOF, and MCDYS. He was a key member of the Bid Committee that won the right for Singapore to host the inaugural YOG in 2010 and played a key role in hosting the Games. He graduated from the University of Tokyo with a Bachelor of Engineering (Naval Architecture) and received a Master of Science in Management from Stanford University. A new car test required by LTA to verify the engine power of cars before they can be sold in Singapore is turning into a potential trade issue between Singapore and Germany. The media reported today (29 Jul) that German carmakers are raising concerns with the Singapore Government about the so-called dynamometer test, which the Germans said runs counter to a proposed free trade agreement (FTA) between Singapore and the EU. According to a draft of the EU-Singapore FTA, "Singapore shall accept on its market as compliant with its domestic technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures, without further testing or... requirements to verify" vehicles that have already been approved by EU regulators. But LTA is imposing the extra dynamometer test to ascertain the power of the vehicles themselves, even though the carmakers and dealers have already submitted the specifications of their car models. Spokesman for the Singapore-German Chamber of Industry and Commerce's (SGC) automotive committee Klaus Landhaeusser said, "We don't understand why this dynamometer test is necessary." He said it will delay the arrival of new cars and add to costs. Each dynamometer test is expected to cost between $500 and $1,000, and 30 to 40 cars are expected to be tested each year. "As businesses, we're concerned with how the new regulation was introduced, and what else will come later," he added. Mr Jeff Mannering, managing director of Audi Singapore, which is a member of the SGC, said, "Basically, we're being called liars." Members of SGC and a senior German government official are in talks with MTI. However, MTI pushed the matter to MOT and MOT to LTA. Mr Landhaeusser said, "(Trade and Industry) Minister Lim (Hng Kiang) was very supportive. He referred us to the Ministry of Transport, which told us the Land Transport Authority (LTA) will get back to us on this." MTI told the media that the engine power verification requirement "is consistent with Singapore's FTA obligations". Dynamometer test may affect budget cars In June, LTA announced that cars meant to be classified under the Category A certificate of entitlement (COE) will need to be tested to verify the engine power outputs declared by their manufacturers. From October, cars producing between 81kW and 97kW in engine power will have to undergo Dynamometer test to ascertain their power. The current Category A classification states that besides a 1,600cc cap on engine size, cars in Category A must not produce more than 97kW. Some budget car dealers are worried that their cars may be classified as premium models (Category B) after going through the test. This will affect the selling prices of budget cars since a Category B COE is usually pricier than the Category A one. The budget car dealers are worried because their engine power output is close to the 97kW cap. Category A cars whose engine power is close to 97kW include: Kia Forte K3 Hyundai Elantra Hyundai i30 Toyota Corolla Altis Honda Civic Honda Jazz Ford Focus Volkswagen Jetta LTA instituted the test after some premium European car models, including Mercedes, brought in by dealers produced slightly less than 97kW. The dealers were attempting to circumvent the Category A's power regulation so as to get these premium models qualify for Category A. This is the first time that vehicle data has been challenged this way. As a result, it will take up to four months before a new model can be approved for sale - against one to four weeks previously. Car dealers described the move as "disruptive", "arbitrary" and "unilateral". They also warned that some budget cars might fail to meet the power cap and would thus be placed in Category B. This would nullify efforts to separate budget cars from premium ones. One car dealer said, "How did we end up in this blind alley? We all gave feedback that engine power was not a suitable criterion, and now, we're trying to find fixes." Dealers said the process would also raise operating costs, as cars would spend more time in storage before they could be sold. Moreover, there is still the cost of the dynamometer test which will definitely be passed on to the consumers in the end. Others said that the dynamometer test results could vary depending on the type of fuel, tyres, wheels and gearbox. Even the air temperature and how warmed up the engine is can affect the test results. Thus, for budget cars whose engine power is close to 97kW, they may fail the Category A's power regulation during the tests. With regard to LTA's move to test the power of cars, TRE readers commented ('LTA’s criterion for categorising cars deeply flawed'): OMV should be used: Stupid to use power to categorise cars. If the objective is to put the more pricey continental cars or larger cars in Cat B then it is best to use OMV categorise cars. LIONS: LTA – LAME TRANSPORT AGENCY thinks too highly of itself. The MIWs there are no more smarter than those in other agencies? Useless & hippocrate: This lta has the worst attitude workers inside where all Engineer/managers always trying to suck citizens dry when they can to show their boss how much they are worth. Infact they are useless and worst ppl you can find. What euro 1 to 4 then 5 then 6. All craps design to come up but infact we know all cars/trucks etc still giving black smoke like them. What coe la, also another crap when all road also jams by now. VOTE out the TOXIC PAP please!: These are the sort of super talents and EXTREME brains the letter is directing his comments too. And mind you USELESS PAP policies are subjected to changes and changes, which they CALLED as fine tunings or refinements. leveller: Who is in charge of LTA = Liu TUCK Yew,Liu should TUCK all his useless forkers in LTA those drawing a huge salary & contribution nothing of economic value but causing & adding to the high costs of owning vehicles in Singapore! Nabeh: Only people as goondu as Lui and his schoolars in LTA have not heard of after-market engine enhancement and engine tuning. This new scheme will encourage car manufacturers to dump their less efficient and more pollutive engines and components on the Singapore market. No wonder Lui got chased away from the Moulmein condo like a ***** *** during the last GE.  Read More →