Thursday, July 16, 2015


Extract from 1MDB Annual Report 2014 signed on 5 November,

"The fair value of these investments amounted to US$2.33 billion as at 31 March 2014. As at the date of this report, the Group had received redemptions amounting to US$1.22 billion with the remaining redemption amounts of US$1.23 billion (including a dividend of US$131.7 million), to be received before end of November 2014, as advised by the investment manager of the SPC."
But US$1.22 billion + US$1.23 billion = US$2.45 billion NOT US$ 2.33 billion.

However, US$2.45 billion - US$131.7 million (dividend) = the magical number US$2.318 billion!

We'll come back to the magical number later on or some may have already seen a blip.

Note again,
"As at the date of this report, the Group had received redemptions amounting to US$1.22 billion.."
For the Record, on 23 December 2014 in a Statement by Tan Sri Dato Seri Lodin Wok Kamaruddin, Chairman of the Board of Directors, 1MDB said,
"However, the company has already redeemed a significant portion, US$1.4 billion, of the fund and expects to redeem the remaining amount in the coming months."
 Lodin Wok got it wrong? I believe so.

On 13 Jan 2015, the 1MDB Chairman's newly appointed CEO, Arul Kanda, announced the Final redemption of funds from Cayman Islands with the following numbers,
"Following a commitment made by the Chairman of the Board of Directors in a statement dated 23 December 2014, 1MDB can confirm that it has now redeemed in full the US$2.318 billion invested by the company in a Cayman Islands registered fund.
These funds originated from the repayment of a loan provided to PetroSaudi in 2011, in the form of Murabaha notes, following the termination of an earlier agreement to enter into a JV with the company. The notes, which were paid back in full - with interest, were subsequently invested in a fund under the regulatory supervision of the Cayman Monetary Authority.
1MDB had previously redeemed US$1.215 billion, representing 60% of the funds invested, and has now redeemed an additional US$1.103 billion, representing the remaining balance of the total US$2.318 billion that was originally invested.
1MDB hopes that the redemption of these funds, in full, draws a line under this matter.”
No, Arul Kanda, did not lawan towkay. His "1MDB had previously redeemed US$1.215 billion" corresponds Deloitte's number rounded up, US$1,22 billion.

And the magical number, "1MDB can confirm that it has now redeemed in full the US$2.318 billion invested by the company"

Hello? Not a full redemption, the US$131.7 million dividend is missing! Lost in plain sight.

From the 1MDB Annual report extract, Deloitte in the second paragraph states,

As at the date of this report, the amounts received from the redemption of investments of US$1.22 billion in the SPC above have been substantially utilised for the purpose of debt interest payment, working capital and payments to Aabar as refundable deposits pursuant to a Settlement Agreement to extinguish the Options Agreements as disclosed in Note 41(ii)(j)
Lets pause for a moment or you may seen another blip or two.

On 13 May 2015 when the Star, quoting from the Singapore Business Times, reported "Lenders led by Deutsche Bank seek early repayment from 1MDB: Report" with the final lines,
"The money from the US$975mil loan was used by 1MDB to pay Abu Dhabi’s International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC) to terminate an option to subscribe for the future listing of 1MDB’s power asset, Edra Energy, the report said."
Then on 16 June 2015, in and attempt to knock Tun Mahathir, 1MDB came out with their "Facts in relation to blog posting entitled “More Investments by 1MDB” by Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad", came out with,
"In September 2012, 1MDB sold its shares in PetroSaudi Oil Services Limited for USD2.318 billion and received fund units in a Cayman registered fund. The Cayman registered fund is managed by Bridge Partners, a Hong Kong-based fund manager. These fund units were owned by 1MDB via its 100% subsidiary, Brazen Sky, and held through BSI Bank Singapore as custodian"
Summing up Deloitte's second para above of the first "redemption of investments of US$1.22 billion in the SPC above have been substantially utilised", juxtaposed to the Star report and 1MDB's facts, 3 questions arise.
  1. Were the "debt interest payment, working capital and payments to Aabar", as audited by Deloitte, paid in cash or "fund units"?
  2. If in cash, how and where was the cash repatriated to?
  3. If Deloitte stated that there was "payments to Aabar as refundable deposits pursuant to a Settlement Agreement to extinguish the Options Agreements", what was the US$975 million syndicated loan from Deutsche Bank for?
Then there is a not so small matter of the second redemption US$1.103 billion.

Whether the first redemption of US$1.215 billion was in cash or "fund units", alarm bells were ringing for the second.

Saving the worst for last, just before 1MDB's "facts"and after its near fatal cascading loan default fiasco, on 26 May 2015, the cash or "fund units" became a cause of serious doubt by its own custodian bank when "Bank Negara confirms told about 1MDB-BSI ‘cash’ issue by Singapore"
 Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) today confirmed receiving a report from its Singapore counterpart on a complaint lodged by BSI Bank about 1Malaysia Development Bhd’s (1MDB) account that the Swiss bank was handling. 
BNM Governor Tan Sri Dr Zeti Akhtar Aziz said the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) had furnished its report on its investigations into the account, which recently caused controversy here when it was revealed that the US$1.103 billion (RM3.985 billion) kept in it was in “units” and not cash as previously claimed.
The final question is, how and when will these 1MDB "fund units" worth US$1.103 billion become hard cash and repatriated?

Even when it does happen, there is truly no redemption for 1MDB in this whole infamy.

Sunday, July 12, 2015


3 days ago 9/7/2015, the Auditor-General had submitted its interim report to the PAC.

The Sundaily "1MDB failed to serve relevant docs to AG for audit: PAC" reported and quotes PAC Chairman Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed, as follows,
Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chairman Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed urged 1MDB to submit all relevant documents like bank statements and agreements to the AG to enable the audit to be completed by year end. 
"There is still no good cooperation from 1MDB in terms of providing documents to the AG. 
"We asked AG what is the hindrance in its works and AG explained that 1MDB have not submitted the documents yet," 
When asked why 1MDB has not submitted its bank accounts and agreement documents despite being asked, Nur Jazlan said "they have yet to provide the documents, maybe tomorrow they might."
Note that the relevant docs as reported are "bank statements and agreements".

"Maybe tomorrow they might." We have a local saying which goes "esok-lusa, esok-lusa saja" when something promised is not delivered.

The Sundaily reporters must have left the press conference early and failed to report a very crucial or pertinent statement attributed to the PAC Chairman.

New Straits Time Online, gave a positive outlook for 1MDB with its headline, "Nothing suspicious in 1MDB interim report: PAC". The headline summed it up very nicely for 1MDB when it stated,
“There is nothing suspicious in the interim report,” said Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed, chairman of the bi-partisan Public Accounts Committee (PAC) said today
However, Nur Jazlan is reported to have made similar statements as in the Sundaily,
“There were hindrances faced by the auditor-general during the three-month probe into the state-owned fund when 1MDB was not forthcoming in revealing some of the crucial documents needed for the investigation,” he said in a press conference after Auditor-General Tan Sri Ambrin Buang presented a 70-page interim report to PAC.
And that documents were crucial when he is reported to have said said in the same NST report,
"However, he called on 1MDB to provide crucial documents requested by the auditor-general for its investigation. Nur Jazlan said these included bank statements and agreements pertaining to its investments."
The question arises is, how did the PAC chairman come to the conclusion that there was "“There is nothing suspicious in the interim report”" when in the same breath saying the A-G was hindered in its audit of 1MDB and 1MDB had failed to provide "crucial documents" including "bank statements and agreements pertaining to its investments"? The answer in a little bit later.

This significant "nothing suspicious" quote was mysteriously omitted by the Sundaily report above as well as the MalayMail online "A-G hands interim report on 1MDB to PAC" (dead link see cached copy) and "PAC: Final A-G report on 1MDB only ready by year-end"  both datelined 9 July.

It is this "nothing suspicious" NST report the 1MDB must have then referred to when they responded thru another New Straits Time Online report 36 minutes later "1MDB will continue to cooperate with A-G" with added attraction,
“1MDB refers to media reports today quoting the Public Accounts Committee (PAC Chairman), who confirmed that nothing suspicious had been discovered in the interim investigation by the Auditor-General"
1MDB now quotes "media reports" that the "Public Accounts Committee (PAC Chairman)" has now "confirmed that nothing suspicious had been discovered in the interim investigation by the Auditor-General"

How clever! The 1MDB lying game protrudes its ugly head. The more you lie the greater the chance of getting caught.

In the same NST report above 1MDB specifically states,
1MDB confirms that all documents in its possession have been submitted to the National Audit Department. As the interim report has not yet been shared with 1MDB, we are unable to comment on the PAC Chairman’s statement that certain documents appear to have not been submitted"
So, the Auditor-General must be lying when his audit was hindered and "bank statements and agreements" were not forthcoming from 1MDB. Surely, formal requests must have been made by the A-G's office for those specific documents.

The question of how Nur Jazlan came to the conclusion "nothing suspicious" in the A-G interim report is answered by Bloomberg, "Malaysia Auditors Find Nothing Suspicious in 1MDB’s Finances" which is misleading, it quoted the PAC Chairman saying
“This is an interim report and there is nothing suspicious at this moment,” Public Accounts Committee Chairman Nur Jazlan Mohamed told reporters. “It is still too early to come to any conclusion as the A-G will take till the end of the year to complete his work.” 
1MDB lied again when it said that the Nur Jazlan confirmed that nothing suspicious had been discovered by the A-G. 1MDB lied in the context of what was actually said by Nur Juslan.

It must be said that Bloomberg and NST are both guilty of misleading headlines.

While the A-G is reported to complete its task by the end of the year, the audit must ascertain the following, which should not take much time, in regards to the PetroSaudi joint venture with 1MDB:

1. The valuation of the PetroSaudi assets. Whether the assets were truly independently valued and by whom. PetroSaudi had offered its the valuation by its own valuers.

 2. (i)   Minutes of Directors' Meeting and Resolution ratifying the joint venture agreement
     (ii)  Minutes of Directors' Meeting and Resolution dissolving the joint venture and converting investment into murabaha notes
     (iii) Minutes of Directors' Meeting and Resolution for further investments of US$500 million and US$330 million of murabaha notes
     (iv) Minutes of Directors' Meeting and Resolution ratifying murabaha notes conversion into PetroSaudi shares.
3. The necessary documents to and approval from Bank Negara for the remittance of US$1 billion to the JV CO
4. The necessary documents to and approval from Bank Negara for the remittance of US$500 million and US$330 further investments in murabaha notes.
5. Minutes of Directors' Meeting and Resolution accepting PetroSaudi shares in "fund units"
6. Exact details of PetroSaudi shares totaling US$2.318 billion "fund units" and 1MDB plans in regards to the "fund units" 

*Reference 1MDB press statement "Facts in relation to blog posting entitled “More Investments by 1MDB” by Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad"

Saturday, July 11, 2015



Just a teaser. 

Now that I got your attention, 

My thoughts on the latest 1MDB related controversy, with alleged millions of Ringgit Malaysia deposits, of another personal bank account this time belonging to first to claim First Lady of Malaysia, Rosmah Mansor.

Unlike, however, husband and Malaysia's No 1, PM Datuk Seri Najib, the "legal'" response was, SWIFT.

But just like DS Najib, there was no firm, specific and in your face denial. 

In fact, her lawyers admitted that the account did indeed belong to First Lady Rosmah!

Just like DSN, there was no denial to sums, totalling  RM2 million as reported, allegedly deposited into the account.

Bernama reports Rosmah's lawyers press statement, "Rosmah Mansor's Lawyers Issue Press Statement On Sarawak Report Claims"
1. The above inferences made by Sarawak Report against my client is serious, malicious, baseless and unsubstantiated 
2. The Bank account referred to in the above report is a personal account of my client. It was opened in 1984 whilst my client was in employment with Island & Peninsular Sdn Bhd (Now known as I&P Group Sdn Bhd) for convenience. 
At the material time the location of the said Company and Perwira Habib Bank Bhd (formerly the name used by Affin Bank Berhad) was situated within the same building of Wisma Equatorial (as it was then) at Jalan Sultan Ismail, KL.
3. Pursuant to the Financial Services Act 2013 (Act 758) on Regulatory Objectives And Powers & Functions of Bank, the principal regulatory objective is to promote financial stability. 
In pursuing this objective Bank shall foster fair, responsible and professional business conduct and strive to protect the rights and interests of consumers of financiers services.
Protection on information and secrecy and restrictions on inquiring specifically into affairs of particular customer are also provided for under the same Act 
4. In an apparent breach of the Bank's function and in view of my client's profile on the national and international level. It is hoped Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) to immediately and/or within 72 hours conduct a probe and issue its findings into the offensive unauthorised disclosure on the part of the said Bank.
5. It is my client's view that failure by BNM to immediately conduct the said probe will erode the trust of investors and consumers of financial institutions.
It will have negative perceptions on the regulations of financial institutions, payment systems, other relevant entities (may include insurances), money markets and foreign exchange markets to promote stability and for related consequential or incidental matters.
The privacy and secrecy restrictions must be strictly adhered, to retain the integrity, security, respect and confidence of the Malaysian banking & financial systems and processes.
Failure to curb the current negative trends may eventually spread to other related entities.
6. The Sarawak Report in the inferences made against my client has conducted itself in the most irresponsible and blatant misrepresentation of its statements with malicious intent to discredit and defame, to reduce the credibility and integrity of my client being the wife of the Prime Minister of Malaysia.
7. In view of the serious inferences by Sarawak Report made against Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) is urged to consider and deemed appropriate should the content be proven to be offensive and in breach of Malaysian Laws, take the necessary action pursuant to the MCMC Act 1998 (Act 588).
8. My client have not committed any criminal offence or any misappropriation of funds and strongly denies any links to the funds being from 1MDB. The report is deemed to be indecent, menacing, false and is intended to annoy or harass my client.
9. Clare Rewcastle Brown is publicly known to be the editor-in-chief of Sarawak Report. By issuing improper and incorrect reporting against my client and in the spirit of responsible journalism must stand and justify by the story it reports.
10. My client appeals for responsible reporting of any facts, to have ethical and moral obligations of fairness and accuracy.
Just like DSN lawyers legal action against the WSJ, the press statement was amateurish, akin to a secondary student assignment paper.

Rosmah's lawyers should immediately make a legal demand to retract all or any specific parts of the report that is injuriosus and sue the pants off Clare Rewcastle Brown and her Sarawak Report as DS Najib had or should have done.

Don't beat merrily around the bush.

Here's some words, to Messrs Noorhajran Mohd Noor being in the other shoe, it a similar plea the rakyat has been begging the relevant authorities in the whole 1MDB sordid affair to act, expediently AND I might add transparently.

Yes, we have become beggars.

Question, Messrs Noorhajran Mohd Noor. Did you advise your client to make a police report?

Maybe you remembered how that fellow now in Sungai Buloh met his downfall.

What is our beloved country coming to? A banana republic and police state?

Despite some allegations cryptically confirmed but with no specific denials coming from DS Najib and Rosmah, the relevant enforcement agencies seem to be taking matters nonchalantly and making cursory statements at best.

Worst still, some agencies and Ministers see it fit to threaten those seeking the truth and nothing but the truth, even those as we Malaysians being what we are in the most troubled times, looking at the lighter side  of things.

Its not as though we are poking fun at any sensitive religious matter.

Are DS Najib aand Rosmah divine beings?

They are human, should and deserve to be treated the same way as every rakyat will be treated, in a given similar situation they both find themselves in.

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
Belated happy birthday Tun. You will always be the best. I firmly believe only Tun can save UMNO, BN and our nation from permanent ruin. May the Almighty continue to shower you with good health and happiness.

Friday, July 10, 2015


A. Actors in starring role as idiots. Some worthy have to mention

  • Arul Kandasamy - He saw the "cash"
  • Ahmad Zahid Hamidi - "The Edge should know which 1MDB articles landed them in trouble"
  • Nazri Aziz - Uncultured remark to "whack" in reference to  Tunku Mahkota of Johor's presumed  inference of an eventful N2H no show  
  • Abdul Hadi Awang - Ask Ahmad Zahid Hamidi

B. Bullshit

C. Conned

D. Directors or Donkeys

E. Extreme bullshit

F. Forty two billion ringgit (continued to G)

G. Gone or Good as Gone

H. Hall of Shame

I. Insidious or Ingenious (continued to J) 

J. Jho Low or Justo

K. Kaput, our money

L. Laughing Stock worldwide or Lawyer

M. Mother of all scandals

N. Najib, N2H, Nightmare

O. Opaque transactions

P.  Pernicious or PetroSaudi,

Q. Questions more than answers

R. Rogues, Riches to Rags

S. Shit other than Bull

T. Turkey or Turkmenistan

U. Unscrupulous, Units

V. Vipers

W. Worms or Wankers

X. Xavier conveniently

Y. Yes-men 

Z. Zilch or Zero returns fittingly as The End

Readers are welcome to add on.

Wednesday, July 8, 2015


STEP 1 : Go to State Bank of India website here and click "NRI SERVICES"

STEP 2: From NRI SERVICES drop window, click "REMITTANCES"

STEP 3: Top right corner of "REMITTANCES" page, at "Choose your Location" click "Rest of the World"

STEP 4:  On "Rest of the World" page, click "SWIFT / Wire Transfer"

STEP 5: Page will expand and scroll right to the bottom of page, click "Correspondent Bank Accounts"

STEP 6: Expand "Details of Correspondent Bank Accounts maintained by SBI" and scroll right to the bottom



Tuesday, July 7, 2015


21 July 2009

Does anybody know the precise date 1MDB was officially established?

Put another way, what was the precise date that the Terengganu Investment Authority (TIA), a state sovereign wealth entity, converted into a federal entity?

Bloomberg says January 2009. I believe this information is in error.

The Official Website of  Embassy of Malaysia, Abu Dhabi of the Ministry of Foreign affairs carried this Bernama wire, "Abu Dhabi Mulls US1 Bln Investment In Malaysia" has the following statement,
"Najib said the proposed investment would be carried out in partnership with a new Malaysian sovereign wealth fund to be known as "1Malaysia Development Berhad" (1MDB), which is the result of the government's decision to expand the Terengganu Investment Authority (TIA)."
The Bernama report was dated 21 July 2009, screenshot below.

This would mean that 1MDB could only have become the officially named federal entity after 21 July 2009 and not any time before this date.

Supporting this supposition can be found further down the Bernama despatch quoting Datuk Seri Najib,
"I've had discussions with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (DYMM Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin). His Majesty has consented for the TIA to be restructured and federalised to become 1MDB which will be wholly-owned by the Ministry of Finance, reporting directly to the Prime Minister," said Najib.

and (screenshot above),
"In a statement obtained by Bernama, the Prime Minister's Office said 1MDB would drive sustainable, long-term economic development for Malaysia by forging strategic global partnerships and promoting foreign direct investment for Malaysia to further enhance the multiplier effects for the Malaysian economy. 
To a question, Najib said 1MDB was in the process of being finalised and he expected it to be up and running "very soon".
The Star also carried the report the next day 22 July 2009, "Terengganu Investment Authority to be federal body".

So, it cannot be refuted, 1MDB became the legal federal entity after 21 July 2009.

It may be that 1MDB found PetroSaudi's (or vice versa) proposal for that joint venture company deal too good an opportunity to be missed, negotiations were so confidential that from the inception of 1MDB after 21 July 2009, there is no mention whatever anywhere in the world until 30 September 2009.

30 September 2009

On 30 September 2009, 1MDB announced in a joint statement with PetroSaudi, "PETROSAUDI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AND 1MALAYSIA DEVELOPMENT BERHAD IN US$2.5 BILLION JOINT-VENTURE PARTNERSHIP, OPENS NEW DOOR TO FDIS - Partnership to spearhead the flow of FDI from the Middle East for high-impact projects"

What a whirlwind negotiation it must have been, moving at break neck speed, the business model, income/profit projections, opportunities and risks, and hammering out the conditions to formalise and finalise the deal satisfactory to both parties.

It must have been hectic at that time for PetroSuadi setting up a company, having to transfer and/or sell its assets worth US$ 2.7 billion to said company and billing said company US$700 million, for the sole purpose of becoming the JV Co with 1MDB.

1MDB too must have made a supreme effort, validating the PetroSaudi assets valuated by independent valuers provided by PetroSaudi (see screenshot below), consulting its lawyers and  drawing up the necessary financial documents to facilitate the US$ 1 billion transmission to the JV Co. Not mentioning the various official communications with the relevant Ministries, MOF and PMO, at least.

All, of the above for PetroSaudi and 1MDB signed, sealed and delivered, in the space of 2 months.

Assuming, of of course, that 1MDB became official federal entity by end July 2009.

However, in that 30 September announcement this is what we were told,
Malaysia and Saudi Arabia today entered a new era of economic cooperation with the setting up of a US$2.5 billion joint-venture company, which will spearhead the flow of foreign direct investments from the Middle East as well as make strategic investments in high-impact projects here.
It would seem that 1MDB had made an FDI to a Saudi company in that JV Co and no FDI from Saudi Arabia.

16 December 2009

Two and a half months later the Star reported, "1MDB in the process of sealing big deals" carrying excerpts of a StarBiz interview with the then 1MDB CEO Shahrol Halmi,

As the report is quite enlightening being recent at the time in 2009, relevant transcript as reported by The Star is appended below,
It's been months since the inception of 1Malaysia Development Fund Bhd (1MDB) but truth is, the scrutiny (and scepticism to some extent) has been hard to completely shake off.  
Much of it is rooted in its beginnings. It was originally meant to be Terengganu Investment Authority Bhd (TIA) – a state-owned sovereign wealth fund (SWF) with RM11bil in its coffers (indeed, an eye-popping amount considering the country’s recessionary pressures then) – RM5bil to be raised from government-backed debt papers and RM6bil worth of oil royalty.  
But what was known as the country’s first state-owned SWF failed to withstand its most crucial litmus test. 
Meanwhile, RM5bil had already been raised. And so, to avoid “collateral damage” as one observer puts it, a plan was cleverly hatched to turn TIA into a federal-owned entity, this time, called 1MDB. Indeed, a plan which astute observers say, should have been the way from the very start. Also, the much worked on and impressive governance structure has also been retained.
In an interview with StarBiz, 1MDB CEO Shahrol Halmi, who joined the company in the early “TIA days”, admits that the transition from state to federal (government) was a tough period. 
“The biggest hurdle was the transition. Once that was done, the wheels have been turning,” said Shahrol, who pointed out that 1MDB was no longer a SWF but a “strategic development company.” 
For the time being, it appears that things are in motion. In late September, it joined hands with Saudi Arabia’s Petrosaudi International Ltd to set up a US$2.5bil joint investment fund. Under the plan, 1MDB would inject US$1bil while PetroSaudi will plough in the rest. 
Below are excerpts of the interview:
StarBiz: One of 1MDB’s objectives is to “create high-value opportunities in sectors such as energy, real estate and tourism. But 1MDB clearly has no such experience nor expertise. How will it manage this?
Shahrol: Yes, we will invest in these sectors. But because we don’t have the capabilities, for example, in terms of power plants, we will do it with the right partner that has the capital, desire as well as capabilities.
As a co-investor, 1MDB will be forking out capital for these investments correct?
Yes, we are co-investing. We can put in the money or we can work something out with the Government like including a concession or injecting assets and so forth. The idea is to have a 50:50 partnership and because we may not have as much capital as the foreign partner, we have to be smart about it.
You signed up with PetroSaudi two months ago. 1MDB committed US$1bil for the JV but nothing appears to have moved since. Why is that? 
People have incomplete facts. 
But that’s because there has been inadequate disclosure...
We will disclose when the time is right. It also involves the G-to-G (Government-to-government) level and there are elements that reflect that in the cooperation. But I can tell you that it doesn’t just involve the energy sector. They also want to invest in other areas that have synergies and which will benefit the bilateral relationship. We hope to announce something in the first quarter.
We also want to be rigorous with our decisions. We may sign a cooperation but we must make sure these projects make sense from a mandate standpoint. That needs thorough analysis without us jumping in.
The funds have been committed but technically, none has yet been utilised. Is that correct?
Isn’t there a holding cost on the funds that were raised via Government-backed bonds earlier in the year?
Yes, but we’ve factored that in our budget. Every six months we will pay (interest of 5.75% on) the bonds, which means we have to be very disciplined in the projects we invest in as twice a year bankers will come a-knocking. The first one was in November.
Internal accounting wise, we are okay. We have made some paper profit already.
You mentioned that the strategy is not to hold on to investments for a long time but to sell and reinvest. What are the exit options you have in mind - listing, maybe? 
Yes, we don’t plan to stay in and hold on to our investments for years and years. We are going to catalyse the project and then exit and reinvest. 
We can sell down or list. That’s important. We need to list good stuff on Bursa Malaysia. I’m with the Government on this one. 
Our market was dull before the Maxis (Bhd) listing and it is dull after the Maxis listing. There’s very little activity and free float out there. Listing makes sense as it would allow the public to have a stake in the developmental projects or companies. 
But the principal is bring in foreign direct investment and catalyse certain projects and make sure the pieces fit in 


Blogger note: No intention to clutter post with screenshots. Reports have been known to mysteriously or conveniently vanish in otherwise plain sight. Let's just treat it as posterity.

Digressing, the first thing to note is according to ex-CEO, Shahrol Halmi, 1MDB is a NOT a sovereign wealth fund but  a “strategic development company.”

This is in stark contrast to what Datuk Seri Najib had specifically pronounced in Abu Dhabi and the concept from being a state  to federal sovereign wealth fund consented by the then Yang Di-Pertuan Agong, DYMM Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin, that 1MDB was a - new Malaysian sovereign wealth fund to be known as "1Malaysia Development Berhad" (1MDB), as highlighted above.

Then there is a little matter of 1MDB's much maligned IPP purchases.

Shahrol had specifically stated that 1MDB "will invest in these sectors. But because we don’t have the capabilities, for example, in terms of power plants, we will do it with the right partner that has the capital, desire as well as capabilities"

Invest, not purchase outright. With a right partner who has capital, not purchase lock, stock and barrel. And certainly without any inherited and inherent debt.

Back to PetroSaudi

13 January 2015

Finally, some 5 years after ex-1MDB CEO
 saying, "Yes, we don’t plan to stay in and hold on to our investments for years and years. We are going to catalyse the project and then exit and reinvest", 1MDB proudly announced, "FINAL REDEMPTION OF FUNDS FROM CAYMAN ISLANDS" ,
"Following a commitment made by the Chairman of the Board of Directors in a statement dated 23 December 2014, 1MDB can confirm that it has now redeemed in full the US$2.318 billion invested by the company in a Cayman Islands registered fund.
1MDB hopes that the redemption of these funds, in full, draws a line under this matter.”
- Arul Kanda, 1MDB President and Group Executive Director
 "1MDB can confirm that it has now redeemed in full the US$2.318 billion" but two weeks later on 28 January the Star reported "1MDB seeking another loan extension" for,
"1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) is planning to seek another one-month extension on a RM2bil loan" and a A spokesman for 1MDB declined to comment.
7 July 2015

To-date and two months shy of 6 years since the signing on as partner with PetroSaudi, the US$2.318 billion that 1MDB redeemed in full by fund units received in a Cayman registered fund, is still "fund"amentally notes sitting somewhere in the sunny Brazen Sky of the British Virgin Islands in custody of Swiss BSI Bank, Singapore.

Don't ask. As ex-1MDB CEO Shahrol Halmi said, we "people have incomplete facts."

Tick, tock. Tick tock.

Sunday, July 5, 2015

The Wall Street Journal Datuk Seri Najib 1MDB "Bomb"

LATEST UPDATE 11.30pm: News is spreading like wildfire. Should the WSJ exposé be found false, Voice of America, Washington Post, AP, Newsweek, will be eating more than humble pie. No amount of apology from WSJ can compensate the damage done on the international image of PM Datuk Seri Najib. The die has been cast. By the way who is Eileen Ng of AP? Who did I say? Don't be surprised.

Original Post

I am averse to any foreign media reports on anything to do with Malaysia and especially when it has nothing good to say.

Most often than not these media have hidden agendas for specific purposes. This is not to say that our local media are free from such hidden agendas and biases. Its a no brainer.

In the present, the issue that has grabbed everyone's attention has been the 1MDB fiasco, if anyone would care to notice, I have quoted mostly local reports and NOT those known to be opposition friendly.

The likes of which include Malaysiakini and The Malaysian insider.

So, when The Wall Street Journal came out with an explosive report on PM Datuk Seri Najib, "Investigators Believe Money Flowed to Malaysian Leader Najib’s Accounts Amid 1MDB Probe (bylined) Prime Minister Najib’s bank accounts are scrutinized during investigation of investment fund 1MDB", I took it with a very large pinch of salt. 

I would be lying if I said that I was angry with such a damaging report and this has to do entirely in how the whole sordid 1MDB affair has been handled, the lack of transparency and the weak responses et al by the parties directly involved in this federal entity. A former 1MDB CEO had stated that 1MDB is NOT a sovereign wealth fund. Something that will be discussed another time and precisely what I mean.

According to the WSJ, their report are based on "investigation documents" reviewed and the expose solid.
"Documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal include bank transfer forms and flow charts put together by government investigators that reflect their understanding of the path of the cash."
The WSJ graphic below sustains its stand on "documents" and "Govt investigation",

Denials, to no one's surprise, was imminent - immediate, late or never.

The immediate denial by 1MDB to the WSJ indictment, as far as I am concerned, means nothing.

The main body of doubt and questions directed to and at 1MDB has been unsatisfactorily responded to-date. In fact 1MDB's various replies, rebuttals and denials has created even more doubts and questions, giving extra munition for those seriously seeking honest to goodness answers.

PM Datuk Seri Najib's denial is convincingly covered by the Scribe A Kadir Jasin and the PM's intention to sue WSJ has Datuk Rocky weighing the legal option.

In regards to Datuk Rocky's posting, with respect I would have liked to have commented there, I can only say of our PM seeking legal recourse - Damn if he did, damn if he don't.

Scribe AKJ put it simply,  "All that is needed is for AmBank to deny the existence of the alleged account". I believe it is easier said than done.

The WSJ named the 4 Govt agencies including the PAC investigations.

They are Bank Negara "Bank Negara probes 1MDB, no special exception for 1MDB", the PAC "PAC starts own probe on 1MDB, says won’t wait for federal audit", the Auditor General "A-G starts 1MDB investigation" and PDRM "PM among those to be investigated over 1MDB, says IGP"

Interestingly, in that Sundaily report of the PDRM investigations, the IGP was reported to have said,
"Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar said today that the special task force to probe 1MDB comprises the police, Attorney-General's Chambers and Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC)"
In effect it would mean 6 bodies, the 5 Govt and the Parliamentary Accounts Committee, actively investigating 1MDB.

Apart from 1MDB and PM Datuk Seri Najib, of these six bodies investigating, none have made any significant denial as to the veracity or existence of the  so-called "investigation documents" as described in the WSJ report.

Only time will tell whether the WSJ report has any truth at all.

Whether it is truly an explosive bomb, a British bomb or a flopping "bomb".

Every which ever way, for everyone involved directly and/or indirectly in this 1MDB saga, it does seem to be, a ticking time bomb.