Temasek rated as high risk by S&P

Temasek is now at war with S&P rating agency for grouping it together with countries like Greece and Jamaica. These two names, Greece and Jamaica, send shivers down the spine of any organisation or country when they are seen as like them. How can Temasek be like Greece and Jamaica? Sure Temasek cannot tahan and must respond, to get out of this bad neighbourhood. If only our govt could get out of the 3rd world neighbourhood and stop stuff more 3rd worlds into this island. You cannot be 1st world filled with 3rd world bodies, like you cannot be AAA when in the company of Greece and Jamaica.

Why would S&P make such a drastic move, is it motivated by some sinister agenda? Even a layman would be wondering how come Temasek is down there right at the bottom of the pile of shit. The reason is logical. It is the criteria used in the assessment, or selective use of data. Some people used data selectively to search their agenda. I will write about this latter. In this case it is unlikely that S&P is targeting Temasek or Hongkong by this move though highly possible given the western agenda.

According to our Singaporean foreign talent, Chris K, an executive director in the finance industry but not wanted here, probably not good enough in the local context but good enough to be in London and Toyko, the rating is based on Standalone Rating and Asset Liquidity. His full article on this subject is posted in TRE.

Standalone Rating means rating the agency as a separate entity, divorced from its association with its mother organisation, like assessing the son on his own merit and not be affected by the halo of his father, or in Temasek’s case, not to be affected the Singapore as a country. With Singapore as a backing, like the trumpet they were blowing, there is no risk. What is losing a few hundred billions? We can sell power stations, hotels, banks, airlines, and even the whole island if needed be. See how safe Temasek is?

The second point is Asset Liquidity. Temasek is big, very big, and owners of very big assets. This can be a plus or negative depending on the situation. Big assets are not readily and easily disposable at short notice unless selling at a discount. Big assets are not easily bought as the buyer needs big and deep pockets. So buying big assets should be cheaper right, like bulk purchasing. Only fools will buy big assets and pay a premium for it when there are no other buyers with the same deep pockets. There is a story that some big banks and funds have been aggregating assets to make them big, like a monster, to dupe the fools with deep pockets to pay for them with OPM. Anyway that is just a story.

Chris K also added that some organisations with AAA rating are tempted to take unnecessary risk, as they think they are too big to fall. With their huge financial bankings, they act and behave like a monster, stomping around and grabbing anything they could lay their hands on, with OPM in their pockets. Such risky behaviour is implicit, like a philandering son out on a rampage to show how much money he has.

So, does Temasek has a case against S&P for being shafted into the wrong hole with the wrong company? Or should Temasek’s rating be AAA as it is owned by the Singapore Govt and has the whole island and the Govt assets, and the CPF also, a source of cheap fund, to fall back on? A prodigal son is AAA because his father is a tycoon.