Temasek 2.7% 2023 Bonds - worth it?

[Tuckie]

Compared with the reopened sgs, which is better?

 

[limster]

Compared with the reopened sgs, which is better?

The fearful are too scared to apply for this because it has higher chance of default compared to SGS.

Its too late to press anyway

 

[Tuckie]

The fearful are too scared to apply for this because it has higher chance of default compared to SGS.

Its too late to press anyway

Ya too late to press, but the reopened sgs is better?

 

[5408854088]

Temasek's first retail bond just over 8 times subscribed
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/co...irst-retail-bond-just-over-8-times-subscribed

 

[dustyRoom]

not bad, 8 times.

Sent from a planet far far away using GAGT

 

[arctician]

think can open 0.3% higher.

 

[chiokcc]

Temasek's first retail bond just over 8 times subscribed
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/co...irst-retail-bond-just-over-8-times-subscribed

Similar to Astrea IV which is 7.4x ... maybe the balloting results will be similar ... will see tomorrow.

 

[lzydata]

Similar to Astrea IV which is 7.4x ... maybe the balloting results will be similar ... will see tomorrow.

Good point

"The Issuer has allocated the Class A-1 Bonds today, with all 25,660 valid applicants receiving some allocation. This reflects the Issuer’s desire to distribute the Class A-1 Bonds to a wider retail investor base.

65% of these bonds are allocated to applicants who subscribed for S$30,000 or less. All applicants who applied for S$4,000 or less receive full allocations..."

http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/Ast...June 2018.ashx?App=Announcement&FileID=510826

 

[limster]

Good point

"The Issuer has allocated the Class A-1 Bonds today, with all 25,660 valid applicants receiving some allocation. This reflects the Issuer’s desire to distribute the Class A-1 Bonds to a wider retail investor base.

65% of these bonds are allocated to applicants who subscribed for S$30,000 or less. All applicants who applied for S$4,000 or less receive full allocations..."

since placement tranche 8x, retail tranche fully expected to be oversubscribed and each will receive a small amount.. even though the allocation is going to be small, still got so much fear ..

 

[chiokcc]

From >> https://www.facebook.com/SingaporeIPOs

This is balloting result for Astrea IV

 

[Mergui219067]

To kiasi , every ipo is perceived to be for the owners to get out / cheat him of his few hundreds / thousands bucks .

The institutions & 25k local who tikam 8x must be very brave indeed .

...even though the allocation is going to be small, still got so much fear ..

 

[Mergui219067]

Glad that I was one of them.

From >> https://www.facebook.com/SingaporeIPOs

This is balloting result for Astrea IV

]

 

[chiokcc]

I regretted never apply more

 

[ponders]

No, there's no duty to show anything. There's no filing or other paperwork required -- nothing that Temasek needs to do. Regulation S tells you what the exemptions are, including the SUSMI safe harbor.

What Temasek and its issuers did do is impose an extra, unnecessary, confusing, double negative question on all retail investors trying to participate in this bond -- including Singaporeans who studied at a U.S. university (for example) and who are scratching their heads trying to figure out whether they fit into the definition of "U.S. person." This is all completely unnecessary and very inappropriate for retail investors.

....Temasek can and should do better next time.

"US Person" is defined in FATCA and IRS determination of a US Person.

A Singaporean studying in US University exceeding 183 days in USA for the current year and 2 years prior PLUS 31 days in the current year is considered a US Person.

HOWEVER, the will be exemptions for students holding F, J, M, Q visa not exceeding 5 year stay in USA but still this does not apply if the student is found to not maintain close connection to home country and or indicated a desire to migrate to USA.

 

[BBCWatcher]

"US Person" is defined in FATCA and IRS determination of a US Person.

A Singaporean studying in US University exceeding 183 days in USA for the current year and 2 years prior PLUS 31 days in the current year is considered a US Person.

HOWEVER, the will be exemptions for students holding F, J, M, Q visa not exceeding 5 year stay in USA but still this does not apply if the student is found to not maintain close connection to home country and or indicated a desire to migrate to USA.

Yes, maybe, but my point is that Temasek and its agents were/are not required to ask this question -- and waste every applicant's time -- for a simple and straightforward retail bond placement in Singapore.

The more I look into this, the more persuaded I am that somebody at Temasek thought their first retail bond placement in Singapore was similar to their previous many rounds of institutional fundraising in global capital markets including Wall Street. So they just copied some boilerplate language and told their agents (DBS, UOB, OCBC) to follow it.

I appreciate Temasek issuing retail bonds, but I'd like to see Temasek fix this next time, that's all. Go back and read SEC Regulation S (the regulation they cite), including the SUSMI part, and stop annoying everybody with an unnecessary and confusing double negative question. Alternatively, if they are going to annoy everybody, then go read securities regulations in ~200 countries including Kenya, Morocco, Albania, and Belize and ask annoying questions to make sure that nobody from those 4 countries buys their next bond in Singapore. I'm making this country list up, but there probably are a few oddball countries -- not the United States in fact -- that have weird regulations about their citizens buying certain things. The point is that this can get REALLY silly really quickly if you start inventing regulatory barriers that don't actually exist in reality for Singapore's wealth fund in a domestic retail bond placement.

 

[ponders]

Yes, maybe, but my point is that Temasek and its agents were/are not required to ask this question -- and waste every applicant's time -- for a simple and straightforward retail bond placement in Singapore.

The more I look into this, the more persuaded I am that somebody at Temasek thought their first retail bond placement in Singapore was similar to their previous many rounds of institutional fundraising in global capital markets including Wall Street. So they just copied some boilerplate language and told their agents (DBS, UOB, OCBC) to follow it.

I appreciate Temasek issuing retail bonds, but I'd like to see Temasek fix this next time, that's all. Go back and read SEC Regulation S (the regulation they cite), including the SUSMI part, and stop annoying everybody with an unnecessary and confusing double negative question. Alternatively, if they are going to annoy everybody, then go read securities regulations in ~200 countries including Kenya, Morocco, Albania, and Belize and ask annoying questions to make sure that nobody from those 4 countries buys their next bond in Singapore. I'm making this country list up, but there probably are a few oddball countries -- not the United States in fact -- that have weird regulations about their citizens buying certain things. The point is that this can get REALLY silly really quickly if you start inventing regulatory barriers that don't actually exist in reality for Singapore's wealth fund in a domestic retail bond placement.

I get what you mean, but I guess because by treaty it is more damaging for a local institution to be found selling products to US persons that is approved for US persons due to FATCA (maybe) reasons.

Would be funny to see a product ad that will list all the prohibitions...

 

[cal3135]

Allocated 6000 on the bonds

 

[chromatin]

Allocated 6000 on the bonds

same here . applied 1.5k.
get 6k only

 

[5408854088]

Allocation results out already?

 

[Calthron]

How do find out? I know it will be out today. Not seeing refund, and allocation not available in CDP yet....