Newbie
Thanks Cbsh for sharing.Originally Posted by cbsh38584
Buying new issue at 100 has not much gain potential. But of course one can argue it is investment grade. When krisenergy 6.25% was issued on June 2014 it was 8x oversubscribed. Now is trading at 90 and left 11 mths before mature. The ROI is about 20%. Any comments?
Junior
Jun 6, 2016
=========
Swiber Holdings Ltd, which helps build offshore oil platforms, said it has redeemed in full the S$130 million of 5.125 per cent bonds due Monday.
The payment "is not expected to have a material impact on the net tangible assets or earnings per share" for the financial year ending 31 December,
the company said in a filing with the S'pore stock exchange. Swiber has another bond deadline on July 6 2016, when its S$75 million of 7% securities mature.
Swiber is worst than Kris energy.
Kris energy has Keppel corp as a substantial shareholder (29%?). Should not be a problem for the bond mature in 2017. I try to get my RM to get a pricing.
But No seller & no buyer.
The US has given Asia 40 yrs of normal peaceful enviroment to allow Asia to grow. After the Lehman crisis in 08/09, the US decides to give the
the world a "Abnormal enviroment". If the South China sea become very unstable & short war break out between China Vs US/Japan. It will be bad.
I think it will lead to another crisis. Taiwan Tai Ping island become a ROCK. Cant believe . US/Japan just want China to collaspe to stop their growth.
Newbie
Thanks for your comment and advice.
Junior
Latest : A truck plowed into a crowd during Bastille Day celebrations in Nice, France. Loud bangs feared to be gunshots followed
French national Day La fête nationale ,the storming of Bastille, 74 killed.
China warns Australia: stay out of the South China Sea or risk damage to bilateral relations
Global recession is coming....
minority,
More than 4 days already..........
so I am right that you won't dare to accept the challenge, ha ha ha!
minority,
Show you?
How about this, If I can show you, you would admit that you are like what you said:
"U CAN WRITE SO MUCH CRAP! GOES TO SHOW A SHIT FART LIKE YOU IS ALL 99% SHIT! 1% AIR!"
minority,
I can SURELY BET you won't dare to accept the challenge, , ha ha ha!
Global recession is coming....
minority,
You have nothing to add about Temasek's 17% return?
Ha ha ha!!!!!!!
minority,
Don't be bloody stupid and lying again here!!!!!!!!
cbsh,
You are right,
the actual return is ~3.98% p.a. (if you want to be more precise)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But then you also highlight a very important point: All good schemes with good deals will be sooner or later be removed (if the terms and conditions can be changed unilaterally while you get stuck and you can't say the other party change the terms & conditions and you can then want out especially with no penalty etc)! I don't see this to be any different from CPF, so I prefer my money not to be stuck and I have no control over it while others can keep changing policies and terms and conditions anyway they like........
With global ETFs, the long-term return has historically been 7-10%.
This is probably higher than GIC's long-term return............
Temasek's claimed return of 17% since inception, well, seems incredibly too good, as that would mean Temasek is as good, if not better the world's undisputed and most acclaimed investor Warren Buffett!
According to media statements, we came to know that: Temasek was incorporated in 1974 as an invesment company with initial capital of S$354 Millions; At 31 Mar 2013, Temasek's asset under management was S$215 Billions or total shareholder return (TSR) 17% p.a. since inception (39 years).
As we know, Warren Buffett is the acclaimed world's best investor (with annualized return of about 17+% too) - best because of longest and highest annualized return track record (and whose record is in the open and everybody can independently verify and see for themselves)........ And now Temasek claimed to be of same level as him? Given that there is no transparency before Temasek start releasing their assets and returns and there is no details about the capital injections into Temasek by the Government, and there is no way for people to independently verify, no wonder there are numerous people who openly doubted Temasek's claimed of 17% return since inception.......... People can read about the doubt raised here..........:
http://www.baldingsworld.com/2013/06...lly-earned-17/
http://fifthestate.co/why-ho-ching-wont-respond-to-me/
http://www.baldingsworld.com/2013/04...valued-assets/
http://www.scmp.com/print/article/10...re-tooth-fairy
There are also heated discussions at Hardwarezone (but this thread has since been removed)!:
http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/ea...l#post75806333
(and why did hardwarezone delete the thread totally???)
According to here:
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2013...whats-missing/
more questions were made after MOF clarifications.
So, the doubt of Temasek’s return is as follow:
“Began with $354m in 1974?
In this connection, according to Temasek’s web site – “Value since Inception - Formed in 1974, Temasek began with a portfolio of S$354 million”.
If you compound $354 million for 39 years at 16 %, you get about $116 billion. So, to get to Temasek’s portfolio value now of $215 billion, there were capital injections and "boost" to valuation from listings due to the market valuation of some pre 2002 assets.
With (without data) capital injections & "boost" valuations – how can citizens calculate the return of 16%?
But, here’s where the puzzle or confusion may begin. Since ”The Government injects capital into Temasek from time-to-time as part of the Government’s allocation of fresh flows of funds, and to allow Temasek to plan its future investment strategies” – how can we calculate and analyse the annualised return since inception of 16 % without more information on the capital injections and "boost" valuations?
Why didn’t just give the “capital injections” data?
As if to add to the jigsaw puzzle – the above does not tell you how much these capital injections were? Maybe they are buried somewhere in the last 10 years’ annual reports. As a citizen, or for that matter – no one should have to try to crack his head and try to figure out how much and when the capital injections were made?
To put it simply and bluntly – why didn’t the above just give the “capital injections” data?
$30b capital injection from inception to 2008?
According to a Speech by S Dhanabalan, Chairman (of Temasek), at The Indus Entrepreneurs event on 21 August 2008 – “Since inception, we have received a total injection of a little less than S$30 billion in assets and cash”.
”
However, there is wrong assumption in the above. It is wrong to say “If you compound $354 million for 39 years at 16 %, you get about $116 billion. So, to get to Temasek’s portfolio value now of $215 billion”.
Actually, if you start with $354M and compound monthly for (39*12) months at (16.55%/12) pm, you actually get about $215 Billion! (But if you compound annually you get $116 Billion as mentioned in the article!)
Actually, if you do a Excel XIRR annualized return calculation assuming that there is no capital injection and there is only $354M capital to start with in 1974, and if you have $215B at then end of 31 March 2013, the annualized return rate is actually ~= 17.7% !!!
(See figure "Return1").
For those who don’t know what is annualized return and using XIRR (in Excel) to calculate them, you can read here:
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answ...cagr-excel.asp
However, we were also told by Ministry of Finance that:
“In the case of Temasek, the Government is its sole shareholder. The Government injects capital into Temasek from time-to-time as part of the Government’s allocation of fresh flows of funds, and to allow Temasek to plan its future investment strategies. These capital injections are reflected in Temasek’s accounts and are made public.”.
Also: “According to a Speech by S Dhanabalan, Chairman (of Temasek), at The Indus Entrepreneurs event on 21 August 2008 – “Since inception, we have received a total injection of a little less than S$30 billion in assets and cash”.”.
But hei, like that means Temasek didn’t include all the new capital/asset injection from Government and also the dividends they received along the way from 1974 to 2013 March??? It still comes back to the same question: Why wasn’t capital injection (and dividends received along the way) included in the computation of Temasek’s return???
This is very important because if you exclude those, your portfolio’s return will be inflated, that is, the calculated return will be much larger than it really is!
If you include $30B of capital injection from inception to 2008 mentioned by S Dhanabalan, Chairman (of Temasek), on 21 August 2008 (and spread them out aga-aga since I don’t know when they were done and the exact amount), the we can estimate that Temasek’s return will be LESS than % 10.73% !!!
(See figure "Return2").
But, if that is the case, wonder why they didn't include dividends received, capital injection made and other cash/asset injection made along the way into the return computation?
So if Temasek didn’t include these dividends received and asset/capital injection etc at market value into their return calculation, then their return cannot be compared apple-to-apple to others internationally like Warren Buffett!
And that bring us back to another question: How does GIC compute their return? Does GIC include fresh capital injections into their computation of their annualized return???
So, now we know that Warren Buffett is still the only undisputed investment "GOD" with annualized return of about 17% (which include all fresh capital injections) that the whole world come to know and accept (despite claim of 17% return by Temasek)..............
Junior
Take the risk to buy NOL 4.400% 08Nov2019 Corp (SGD) @92.4.
YTM est 7%. LTV 65% for CS but SC LTV is 30%.
My Vedanate convertable USD 5.5% bond was matured last week. Cant find a USD bond replacement due to
it high price. Decided to take calculated risk to buy NOL SGD bond 4.4% due 2019 instead.
Newbie
Bought the nol 4.4 2019 at 85 and sold 93, 2 weeks ago pick up nol 4.65 2020 at 70 and krisenergy 6.25 2017 at 79. Hopefully both wont default.
Global recession is coming....
minority,
Already 2 weeks and You have nothing to add about Temasek's 17% return?
So quiet!
Looks like you agree with SCMP and the others that Temasek's 17% return is not real after all?????
minority,
Don't be bloody stupid and lying again here!!!!!!!!
cbsh,
You are right,
the actual return is ~3.98% p.a. (if you want to be more precise)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But then you also highlight a very important point: All good schemes with good deals will be sooner or later be removed (if the terms and conditions can be changed unilaterally while you get stuck and you can't say the other party change the terms & conditions and you can then want out especially with no penalty etc)! I don't see this to be any different from CPF, so I prefer my money not to be stuck and I have no control over it while others can keep changing policies and terms and conditions anyway they like........
With global ETFs, the long-term return has historically been 7-10%.
This is probably higher than GIC's long-term return............
Temasek's claimed return of 17% since inception, well, seems incredibly too good, as that would mean Temasek is as good, if not better the world's undisputed and most acclaimed investor Warren Buffett!
According to media statements, we came to know that: Temasek was incorporated in 1974 as an invesment company with initial capital of S$354 Millions; At 31 Mar 2013, Temasek's asset under management was S$215 Billions or total shareholder return (TSR) 17% p.a. since inception (39 years).
As we know, Warren Buffett is the acclaimed world's best investor (with annualized return of about 17+% too) - best because of longest and highest annualized return track record (and whose record is in the open and everybody can independently verify and see for themselves)........ And now Temasek claimed to be of same level as him? Given that there is no transparency before Temasek start releasing their assets and returns and there is no details about the capital injections into Temasek by the Government, and there is no way for people to independently verify, no wonder there are numerous people who openly doubted Temasek's claimed of 17% return since inception.......... People can read about the doubt raised here..........:
http://www.baldingsworld.com/2013/06...lly-earned-17/
http://fifthestate.co/why-ho-ching-wont-respond-to-me/
http://www.baldingsworld.com/2013/04...valued-assets/
http://www.scmp.com/print/article/10...re-tooth-fairy
There are also heated discussions at Hardwarezone (but this thread has since been removed)!:
http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/ea...l#post75806333
(and why did hardwarezone delete the thread totally???)
According to here:
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2013...whats-missing/
more questions were made after MOF clarifications.
So, the doubt of Temasek’s return is as follow:
“Began with $354m in 1974?
In this connection, according to Temasek’s web site – “Value since Inception - Formed in 1974, Temasek began with a portfolio of S$354 million”.
If you compound $354 million for 39 years at 16 %, you get about $116 billion. So, to get to Temasek’s portfolio value now of $215 billion, there were capital injections and "boost" to valuation from listings due to the market valuation of some pre 2002 assets.
With (without data) capital injections & "boost" valuations – how can citizens calculate the return of 16%?
But, here’s where the puzzle or confusion may begin. Since ”The Government injects capital into Temasek from time-to-time as part of the Government’s allocation of fresh flows of funds, and to allow Temasek to plan its future investment strategies” – how can we calculate and analyse the annualised return since inception of 16 % without more information on the capital injections and "boost" valuations?
Why didn’t just give the “capital injections” data?
As if to add to the jigsaw puzzle – the above does not tell you how much these capital injections were? Maybe they are buried somewhere in the last 10 years’ annual reports. As a citizen, or for that matter – no one should have to try to crack his head and try to figure out how much and when the capital injections were made?
To put it simply and bluntly – why didn’t the above just give the “capital injections” data?
$30b capital injection from inception to 2008?
According to a Speech by S Dhanabalan, Chairman (of Temasek), at The Indus Entrepreneurs event on 21 August 2008 – “Since inception, we have received a total injection of a little less than S$30 billion in assets and cash”.
”
However, there is wrong assumption in the above. It is wrong to say “If you compound $354 million for 39 years at 16 %, you get about $116 billion. So, to get to Temasek’s portfolio value now of $215 billion”.
Actually, if you start with $354M and compound monthly for (39*12) months at (16.55%/12) pm, you actually get about $215 Billion! (But if you compound annually you get $116 Billion as mentioned in the article!)
Actually, if you do a Excel XIRR annualized return calculation assuming that there is no capital injection and there is only $354M capital to start with in 1974, and if you have $215B at then end of 31 March 2013, the annualized return rate is actually ~= 17.7% !!!
(See figure "Return1").
For those who don’t know what is annualized return and using XIRR (in Excel) to calculate them, you can read here:
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answ...cagr-excel.asp
However, we were also told by Ministry of Finance that:
“In the case of Temasek, the Government is its sole shareholder. The Government injects capital into Temasek from time-to-time as part of the Government’s allocation of fresh flows of funds, and to allow Temasek to plan its future investment strategies. These capital injections are reflected in Temasek’s accounts and are made public.”.
Also: “According to a Speech by S Dhanabalan, Chairman (of Temasek), at The Indus Entrepreneurs event on 21 August 2008 – “Since inception, we have received a total injection of a little less than S$30 billion in assets and cash”.”.
But hei, like that means Temasek didn’t include all the new capital/asset injection from Government and also the dividends they received along the way from 1974 to 2013 March??? It still comes back to the same question: Why wasn’t capital injection (and dividends received along the way) included in the computation of Temasek’s return???
This is very important because if you exclude those, your portfolio’s return will be inflated, that is, the calculated return will be much larger than it really is!
If you include $30B of capital injection from inception to 2008 mentioned by S Dhanabalan, Chairman (of Temasek), on 21 August 2008 (and spread them out aga-aga since I don’t know when they were done and the exact amount), the we can estimate that Temasek’s return will be LESS than % 10.73% !!!
(See figure "Return2").
But, if that is the case, wonder why they didn't include dividends received, capital injection made and other cash/asset injection made along the way into the return computation?
So if Temasek didn’t include these dividends received and asset/capital injection etc at market value into their return calculation, then their return cannot be compared apple-to-apple to others internationally like Warren Buffett!
And that bring us back to another question: How does GIC compute their return? Does GIC include fresh capital injections into their computation of their annualized return???
So, now we know that Warren Buffett is still the only undisputed investment "GOD" with annualized return of about 17% (which include all fresh capital injections) that the whole world come to know and accept (despite claim of 17% return by Temasek)..............
Global recession is coming....
Looking at this news:
SCMP CEO Robin Hu to join Temasek in December
Is this a confirmation that SCMP article in 2012 is true after all?
That is, according to the SCMP article on 17 July 2012, "there is a tooth fairy" in Temasek's 17 per cent annual total return gain..................
minority,
Don't be bloody stupid and lying again here!!!!!!!!
cbsh,
You are right,
the actual return is ~3.98% p.a. (if you want to be more precise)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But then you also highlight a very important point: All good schemes with good deals will be sooner or later be removed (if the terms and conditions can be changed unilaterally while you get stuck and you can't say the other party change the terms & conditions and you can then want out especially with no penalty etc)! I don't see this to be any different from CPF, so I prefer my money not to be stuck and I have no control over it while others can keep changing policies and terms and conditions anyway they like........
With global ETFs, the long-term return has historically been 7-10%.
This is probably higher than GIC's long-term return............
Temasek's claimed return of 17% since inception, well, seems incredibly too good, as that would mean Temasek is as good, if not better the world's undisputed and most acclaimed investor Warren Buffett!
According to media statements, we came to know that: Temasek was incorporated in 1974 as an invesment company with initial capital of S$354 Millions; At 31 Mar 2013, Temasek's asset under management was S$215 Billions or total shareholder return (TSR) 17% p.a. since inception (39 years).
As we know, Warren Buffett is the acclaimed world's best investor (with annualized return of about 17+% too) - best because of longest and highest annualized return track record (and whose record is in the open and everybody can independently verify and see for themselves)........ And now Temasek claimed to be of same level as him? Given that there is no transparency before Temasek start releasing their assets and returns and there is no details about the capital injections into Temasek by the Government, and there is no way for people to independently verify, no wonder there are numerous people who openly doubted Temasek's claimed of 17% return since inception.......... People can read about the doubt raised here..........:
http://www.baldingsworld.com/2013/06...lly-earned-17/
http://fifthestate.co/why-ho-ching-wont-respond-to-me/
http://www.baldingsworld.com/2013/04...valued-assets/
http://www.scmp.com/print/article/10...re-tooth-fairy
There are also heated discussions at Hardwarezone (but this thread has since been removed)!:
http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/ea...l#post75806333
(and why did hardwarezone delete the thread totally???)
According to here:
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2013...whats-missing/
more questions were made after MOF clarifications.
So, the doubt of Temasek’s return is as follow:
“Began with $354m in 1974?
In this connection, according to Temasek’s web site – “Value since Inception - Formed in 1974, Temasek began with a portfolio of S$354 million”.
If you compound $354 million for 39 years at 16 %, you get about $116 billion. So, to get to Temasek’s portfolio value now of $215 billion, there were capital injections and "boost" to valuation from listings due to the market valuation of some pre 2002 assets.
With (without data) capital injections & "boost" valuations – how can citizens calculate the return of 16%?
But, here’s where the puzzle or confusion may begin. Since ”The Government injects capital into Temasek from time-to-time as part of the Government’s allocation of fresh flows of funds, and to allow Temasek to plan its future investment strategies” – how can we calculate and analyse the annualised return since inception of 16 % without more information on the capital injections and "boost" valuations?
Why didn’t just give the “capital injections” data?
As if to add to the jigsaw puzzle – the above does not tell you how much these capital injections were? Maybe they are buried somewhere in the last 10 years’ annual reports. As a citizen, or for that matter – no one should have to try to crack his head and try to figure out how much and when the capital injections were made?
To put it simply and bluntly – why didn’t the above just give the “capital injections” data?
$30b capital injection from inception to 2008?
According to a Speech by S Dhanabalan, Chairman (of Temasek), at The Indus Entrepreneurs event on 21 August 2008 – “Since inception, we have received a total injection of a little less than S$30 billion in assets and cash”.
”
However, there is wrong assumption in the above. It is wrong to say “If you compound $354 million for 39 years at 16 %, you get about $116 billion. So, to get to Temasek’s portfolio value now of $215 billion”.
Actually, if you start with $354M and compound monthly for (39*12) months at (16.55%/12) pm, you actually get about $215 Billion! (But if you compound annually you get $116 Billion as mentioned in the article!)
Actually, if you do a Excel XIRR annualized return calculation assuming that there is no capital injection and there is only $354M capital to start with in 1974, and if you have $215B at then end of 31 March 2013, the annualized return rate is actually ~= 17.7% !!!
(See figure "Return1").
For those who don’t know what is annualized return and using XIRR (in Excel) to calculate them, you can read here:
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answ...cagr-excel.asp
However, we were also told by Ministry of Finance that:
“In the case of Temasek, the Government is its sole shareholder. The Government injects capital into Temasek from time-to-time as part of the Government’s allocation of fresh flows of funds, and to allow Temasek to plan its future investment strategies. These capital injections are reflected in Temasek’s accounts and are made public.”.
Also: “According to a Speech by S Dhanabalan, Chairman (of Temasek), at The Indus Entrepreneurs event on 21 August 2008 – “Since inception, we have received a total injection of a little less than S$30 billion in assets and cash”.”.
But hei, like that means Temasek didn’t include all the new capital/asset injection from Government and also the dividends they received along the way from 1974 to 2013 March??? It still comes back to the same question: Why wasn’t capital injection (and dividends received along the way) included in the computation of Temasek’s return???
This is very important because if you exclude those, your portfolio’s return will be inflated, that is, the calculated return will be much larger than it really is!
If you include $30B of capital injection from inception to 2008 mentioned by S Dhanabalan, Chairman (of Temasek), on 21 August 2008 (and spread them out aga-aga since I don’t know when they were done and the exact amount), the we can estimate that Temasek’s return will be LESS than % 10.73% !!!
(See figure "Return2").
But, if that is the case, wonder why they didn't include dividends received, capital injection made and other cash/asset injection made along the way into the return computation?
So if Temasek didn’t include these dividends received and asset/capital injection etc at market value into their return calculation, then their return cannot be compared apple-to-apple to others internationally like Warren Buffett!
And that bring us back to another question: How does GIC compute their return? Does GIC include fresh capital injections into their computation of their annualized return???
So, now we know that Warren Buffett is still the only undisputed investment "GOD" with annualized return of about 17% (which include all fresh capital injections) that the whole world come to know and accept (despite claim of 17% return by Temasek)..............
Senior
another one bites the dust................................swiber
Junior
It is a surprise as Swiber has just redeemed the Jun 2016 $130m sgd bond which is reported in the money page newspaper
retail stock investors will likely to get ZERO. As for the bond holder, let see any the outcome.
If the long dated Kepple corp SGD 4% bond due 2042 drop to below 90 (now 94). Crisis in Feb16 was around 88.
I may consider to hold for long term fixed income.
Global recession is coming....
2016 to 2042 is like 26 years, and only 4% coupon from Keppel Corp? Think not worth it (too pricey)...........
Newbie
How the private bankers answer to high networth clients?
Ultimate Underdog
They never need to. Business collapse what is there to answer to?
The three laws of Kelonguni:
Where there is kelong, there is guni.
No kelong no guni.
More kelong = more guni.
Newbie
best job, collect big fat bonus and not answerable, kelong
Ultimate Underdog
That's how the world works. Best is to have the investment that you can direct and control.
Earn more earn less, or lose, all at your fingertips and your whim and demand.
Even CPF I find it very hard to trust and deposit in a irrevocable manner much as I trust what bro CBSH says as well as GIC / Temasek.
The three laws of Kelonguni:
Where there is kelong, there is guni.
No kelong no guni.
More kelong = more guni.
Senior
even the directors of swiber also no need to answer. they 拍拍屁股走人！(pat pat backside run road) 3 directors immediately resigned giving reasons of "to pursue greener pastures...i mean...quote "other interests" unquote.
Senior
Swiber chairman also resigned as Vallianz's chairman citing "Due to health reason." http://infopub.sgx.com/Apps?A=COW_Co...5e3cb10f851970
被气死
Junior
I remembered, DBS was the main under-writer for their bonds, and very hot among the retailers..
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ndholders-face
Senior
sounds familair ....
you forgot to add ... " lets move on "....
Global recession is coming....
DBS has exposure of about S$700M to Swiber groups of companies (bonds etc).
When we look at company like this, what do we see?
Portraying the similarities, I see Noble, Olam, ...
Junior
Keppel Corp’s 31.4% shareholding.of Kris energy.
But my never heard of Kris Energy company. But he bought the Kris energy 6.25% (due 2017) high yield junk bond because of KEPPEL CORP.
Junior
Why high risk becos of Keppel?
Junior
Accredit investors buy OLAM beause of Temesak is one of the substantial investor.
Kris Energy one of the substantial shareholder is Keppel corp. That is one of the
major reason why accredit investors bought the Kris energy 6.25% junk bond during
the IPO. It was many times oversubscribe in 2012.
I ask my RM for a indicative price which is 88 (not a firm buy). Many Kris energy bond
investors want to sell but NO BUYER.
When OLAM was accused of acct fraud by Muddy water. The olam bond price drop from 98
to 75+. Many sleepless nite for me but I hold on to it due to Temasek. Luckily, Temasek really
come to the rescue. Price should up to 102 month later from 75+.
Junior
NOL to be delisted after France’s CMA CGM crosses 90% ownership threshold
NOL has announced that that it does not intend to redeem its NOLSP 4.250% 26Apr2017 Corp (SGD) and NOLSP 4.400% 08Nov2019 Corp (SGD) in connection with the change of control event following its acquisition by French shipping group CMA CGM.
This entails a coupon step-up of an additional 1.5% for both bonds, with the new higher interest rate to be accrued from 26 October 2016 onwards for NOLSP 4.250% 26Apr2017 Corp (SGD)s at a rate of 5.75% per annum and paid on its next distribution date on 26 April 2017 (which is also the maturity date).
For the NOLSP 4.400% 08Nov2019 Corp (SGD)s, the coupon rate will be increased to 5.9% per annum, with the new higher interest rate to be accrued starting from 8 November 2016 and on all interest accrual dates thereafter.
Newbie
very siong if bond default cos is $250k per pot
Newbie
Are many retail players affected? May have been bought by corporate players, so thats fine.
Junior
US GDP data very bad.
US preliminary Q2 gross domestic product at 1.2% vs 2.6% expected.
Less likely to raise rate in Dec16.
Newbie
Need your comments.. i am holding on to Unicredit SGD sub bond 5.5% but a bit worried about the Italian and Unicredit debt situation. Should i be worried even though it is an old style T2? Any thoughts will be appreciated! Thinking of selling out.. price has been dropping
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
