'Not the time' for environment tax on SIA during crisis, says Transport Minister Ong Ye Kung to WP's Jamus Lim

[Lethalstrike]

6 minutes ago, Wind30 said:

I compiled some numbers from SIA annual reports. You can roughly tell when SIA increased/decreased their hedging from row Fuel hedging sensitivity.

Unfortunately, SIA tend to increased their hedging a LOT before the oil price crashed or reduced it (2009-2010) before it went up. They were "betting" by dynamically changing the amount they hedge over the years and they seem to bet wrongly quite a few times.... 

 



Good breakdown.

Its absolutely horrendous in 2016 when fuel hedging loss amount to 1.17 billion. From 2007 to 2020 (over 13 years), its basically a net fuel hedging loss of 2.44 billion.

Its not wrong to hedge fuel costs considering how big it is in terms of total expenditure, so as to maintain a degree of predictability in terms of earnings. But to make so much losses, they should have known better and to be ready to re-think their strategy to hedge for 5 years. If other airlines are hedging at a shorter time frame, why SIA didn't do it then? I can only say nobody in the management would have predicted a doomsday scenario, when there are zero customers to offset against the hedging losses. Myopic, ignorant or simply arrogance in decision making? 

The current CEO certainly doesn't deserves any pay now, if the past losses happen under his watch. 

[Kklee]

5 hours ago, Philipkee said:

Stop population ponzi.   Make do with what we have.

You cant have a clean environmental friendly society that is also overpopulated.

And what do we have ? 

[Kklee]

5 hours ago, Philipkee said:

Actually that's a problem.

Cos while bailing out SQ and trying to keep it afloat, funds that could be used more productively elsewhere are not used cos they are.spent on SQ

So people will still lose jobs.  It's just a matter of which company.

IMHO.   We probably gotten too used to SIA and Changi Airport that the intended purpose is forgotten.
I hope people else where knows SIA and Changi Airport even though they probably do not know where is Singapore. 
 

Edited October 9, 2020 by Kklee

[Kklee]

5 hours ago, Mockngbrd said:

Simpur, go Nuclear. But don't let LTA/NCS/MHI do the bid/design.

IMHO.
The timeline and the news in my memory, SG  wanted.  The unfortunate is that Fukushima got in the way.

[inlinesix]

3 hours ago, Lethalstrike said:

Good breakdown.

Its absolutely horrendous in 2016 when fuel hedging loss amount to 1.17 billion. From 2007 to 2020 (over 13 years), its basically a net fuel hedging loss of 2.44 billion.

Its not wrong to hedge fuel costs considering how big it is in terms of total expenditure, so as to maintain a degree of predictability in terms of earnings. But to make so much losses, they should have known better and to be ready to re-think their strategy to hedge for 5 years. If other airlines are hedging at a shorter time frame, why SIA didn't do it then? I can only say nobody in the management would have predicted a doomsday scenario, when there are zero customers to offset against the hedging losses. Myopic, ignorant or simply arrogance in decision making? 

The current CEO certainly doesn't deserves any pay now, if the past losses happen under his watch. 

For FY14/15, hedging loss is $562.5m while fuel cost is $5.58bn.

For FY15/16, hedging loss is $1.2bn while fuel cost is $4.5bn.

Is hedging loss of $1.2bn really that bad?

===========================================

For FY/14/15, average per barrel fuel cost is $111.60.

For FY15/16, average per barrel fuel cost is $86.10.

How much is it higher than market average cost?

[inlinesix]

6 hours ago, Lethalstrike said:

Speaking of this, if I'm not wrong, SIA is the ONLY airline to hedge up to 5 yrs ahead. Many of its competitors simply don't or just hedge at a much shorter time frame. 

I think this 5 yr hedging thing could be a legacy way of doing things within the SIA. In normal times, the revenues could probably be able to cover the hedging losses, if any. It could also be a kiasee strategy to stablize SIA's share price, as it's a known fact that when oil prices increases, airline shares will tend to go down and vice versa, since fuel expenses are the largest cost component of any airlines. 

Those guys at the top probably just auto pilot until Covid-19 caught them with their pants down big time. A very hard and expensive lesson for the SIA.

Are you sure hedge up to 5 years?

[inlinesix]

5 hours ago, Philipkee said:

Stop population ponzi.   Make do with what we have.

You cant have a clean environmental friendly society that is also overpopulated.

Then you have to tell govt to make preparation for aging population including shrinking workforce & NS man.

[Philipkee]

27 minutes ago, Kklee said:

And what do we have ? 

An educated population and a good port and good infrastructure. And I believe singaporeans are very smart and entrepreneurial if the situation allows them to do so..

2 minutes ago, inlinesix said:

Then you have to tell govt to make preparation for aging population including shrinking workforce & NS man.

IMHO, these are real problems that maybe require creative solutions rather than just population increase.

We had a smaller population last time with greater productivity.  I wonder what happened.  And is our population really too small or we have just gotten used to an increased population.  

Dont forget foreigners come with their families as well.  So it is going to be a problem if they settle down here as well.  

If everyone is gainfully employed (as practical cos there will be those who dont want to work) and the foreign labour is just to supplement what is needed, then no one will complain (I think).

[Philipkee]

14 minutes ago, inlinesix said:

Are you sure hedge up to 5 years?

https://www.straitstimes.com/business/sia-bets-on-oil-prices-going-up-as-it-extends-fuel-hedging

[Kklee]

3 minutes ago, Philipkee said:

An educated population and a good port and good infrastructure. And I believe singaporeans are very smart and entrepreneurial if the situation allows them to do so..

IMHO, these are real problems that maybe require creative solutions rather than just population increase.

We had a smaller population last time with greater productivity.  I wonder what happened.  And is our population really too small or we have just gotten used to an increased population.  

Dont forget foreigners come with their families as well.  So it is going to be a problem if they settle down here as well.  

If everyone is gainfully employed (as practical cos there will be those who dont want to work) and the foreign labour is just to supplement what is needed, then no one will complain (I think).

IMHO.

My question very simple. 
You said "made do with what we have". 
What do we have ? 

 

[Philipkee]

8 minutes ago, Kklee said:

IMHO.

My question very simple. 
You said "made do with what we have". 
What do we have ? 

 

An educated population.

A good harbor and a good strategic location.

And I believe an entrepreneurial one.  Not that many but sufficient for growth if the climate is right and not stifling. 

[inlinesix]

Just now, Philipkee said:

IMHO, these are real problems that maybe require creative solutions rather than just population increase.

We had a smaller population last time with greater productivity.  I wonder what happened.  And is our population really too small or we have just gotten used to an increased population.  

Dont forget foreigners come with their families as well.  So it is going to be a problem if they settle down here as well.  

If everyone is gainfully employed (as practical cos there will be those who dont want to work) and the foreign labour is just to supplement what is needed, then no one will complain (I think).

What you said make sense till you realise that this is SINGAPORE INC.

Everything in Singapore has an attached Dollar & Cents.

We have a serious problem with TFR where not enough young ppl to replace old ppl in 50 years.

[Philipkee]

5 minutes ago, inlinesix said:

 

We have a serious problem with TFR where not enough young ppl to replace old ppl in 50 years.

Not quoting the first two paragraphs cos I agree with you. 

For this young people, unless you can ensure we are able to attract young people to Singapore who do not bring their elderly over, or the young people will leave Singapore as they grow old, I worry we are just kicking the problem down the road.

A simple example.  We have an aging population with too few young people.  So we get young people to come over to work.  We dont improve the fundamentals. These young people stay on and make this their homes.

Years later, these young people are going to become old.  And if we never improve the fundamentals like TFR, we will need to bring in even more young people to come to sustain these old people.  And these young people will also grow old....

That is my main issue with population growth by immigration.  It should be a stop gap measure and not an ongoing one which I think is happening. 

Edited October 9, 2020 by Philipkee

[inlinesix]

6 minutes ago, Philipkee said:

Not quoting the first two paragraphs cos I agree with you. 

For this young people, unless you can ensure we are able to attract young people to Singapore who do not bring their elderly over, or the young people will leave Singapore as they grow old, I worry we are just kicking the problem down the road.

A simple example.  We have an aging population with too few young people.  So we get young people to come over to work.  We dont improve the fundamentals. These young people stay on and make this their homes.

Years later, these young people are going to become old.  And if we never improve the fundamentals like TFR, we will need to bring in even more young people to come to sustain these old people.  And these young people will also grow old....

That is my main issue with population growth by immigration.  It should be a stop gap measure and not an ongoing one which I think is happening. 

We have already knee deep in TFR issue which cannot be resolved without immigration policy.

No matter how much $$$ govt throw out, TFR nvr really increase.

On the other hand, we have loads of Single ppl.  Resolving why ppl don't get married is also part of solving TFR issue.

[Kklee]

13 minutes ago, Philipkee said:

An educated population.

A good harbor and a good strategic location.

And I believe an entrepreneurial one.  Not that many but sufficient for growth if the climate is right and not stifling. 

IMHO.   
This is what I call "eat-oneself". 
 

[Philipkee]

16 minutes ago, inlinesix said:

 

On the other hand, we have loads of Single ppl.  Resolving why ppl don't get married is also part of solving TFR issue.

I wanna say....

I have this thread in this forum on a foreign wife.... 

 

[inlinesix]

6 minutes ago, Philipkee said:

I wanna say....

I have this thread in this forum on a foreign wife.... 

All we have are wind.

No action yet.

Are you sure your foreign wife can get used to Singapore life? Especially if you find someone from the jungle.

[Philipkee]

7 minutes ago, inlinesix said:

All we have are wind.

No action yet.

Are you sure your foreign wife can get used to Singapore life? Especially if you find someone from the jungle.

Soon.  Just like my honda city.   Soon.  

But soon is very subjective.