Lee Kuan Yew Says GIC Earned Average 9.5% Over 25 Years
-
Unfortunately, a passive indexing would have yielded 9.9% in the same time period.
The Morgan Stanley Capital International World Index, a free-float weighted equity index that includes developed world markets, gained 9.9 percent between 1981 and 2005, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
But.......still not bad la..... -
there is nothing to prove whether wat he said is true anot.. he can say anything he wans n we dunno..
-
...
The company has invested in 50 hedge funds to date and started investing in commodities 2 1/2 years ago, he said. These include oil, metals and soft commodities, Ng said.
...
ohhh, i see, i see. Not bad. Didn't know they also dare to play the commodities. Btw they must have taken a small hit since last May. But should be managable for them I guess.
What is the relationship between Temasek with the GIC? -
9.5% since it inception twenty-five years ago - meaning 1981 - 2006 ?Originally posted by #$%^&*:Unfortunately, a passive indexing would have yielded 9.9% in the same time period.
The Morgan Stanley Capital International World Index, a free-float weighted equity index that includes developed world markets, gained 9.9 percent between 1981 and 2005, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
But.......still not bad la.....
Can we be certain when there is no clear corporate auditing and clear accounting all through these years ?
From the archive of Singapore Windows, there was this report :
How should we conclude if this 9.5% performance is supposed to be good or bad ?
On the eve of Temasek’s historic first annual report, Standard & Poor’s contended that Singapore’s investment strategy—largely in the hands of Temasek and the GIC—had produced “markedly inferior” returns (between 1.7% and 4%) in the last five years as compared to those achieved by comparable institutions in Hong Kong. Temasek’s report responded by pointing to a string of adverse factors in the last 10 years that held returns down, including the Asian financial crisis and the impacts of SARS and the 9/11 attacks in the US. It also declared that over the last 30 years Temasek has delivered a “robust” total shareholder return of 18%.
If we compare the 9.5% with the Standard & Poors 2004 report of 1.7% - then we have a remarkable recovery in 2005.
However, if Temasek claim that for the last 30 years its total shareholder return was 18% - then this 9.5% is a regression - as Temasek's profits are transferred to the GIC.
Was Temasek formed earlier about 30 years ago - before GIC was formed 25 years ago ?
Did someone get their dates wrong ?
This is a paradoxical dilemma for the Lee's to resolve. -
I think it's average annual returns, over 25 years, of GIC only.
Average annual return of 9.5%.
Don't know what's the relationship between GIC and Temasek exactly. -
Both Temasek and the GIC are owned by the Singapore Government.Originally posted by #$%^&*:I think it's average annual returns, over 25 years, of GIC only.
Average annual return of 9.5%.
Don't know what's the relationship between GIC and Temasek exactly.
Temasek is incorporated to invest and develop strategic industries in Singapore, and also to venture abroad in joint-venture businesses or takeovers of business entities.
GIC is not allowed to invest within Singapore, and manages it funds that consist entirely of the foreign exchange in the Singapore Reserves by investing this funds overseas.
Surplus from Temasek is returned to the Finance Ministry, who in turn will transfer to GIC, the foreign currencies earned by Temasek. -
This is a meaningless statistic released by the govt, meant to qwell claims that GIC operates with impunity and without accountability to Singaporeans, whose tax-paying cash is being used without knowledge, for quiet investments with an indeterminate profit-loss margin because of deliberate refusal to declare annual asset worth.
In truth, the figure raises far more questions that it answers.
This is typical of the govt. They think cluttering the battlefield with cannon fodder will allow them a home run.
They forget that more and more Singaporeans rank among the EDUCATED, and are less than likely to be convinced by such poor wayang kulit. In other words, they take us for fools.
Such arrogance.
My only wish is that our alternatives attract more candidates from the finance industry; who are astute at analysing statistics and figures and can hold their own against those in the ruling party. Else the ruling elite will delude themselves into thinking they can continue to swamp us with the incomprehensible language of globalisation and financial analysis.
In this aspect, Steve Chia's stepping down from politics is a significant blow. -
wow looks like ah lee is getting richer. good for him.
-
That old man can say anything he wants, say it as and when he decides to say it and get the kind of reactions (from all the top V V I P) he expects.
Good old man.....very few at the helm in planet earth, if any, are qualified to do just that.
Say what you like, but that is a really successful master, leader and politician.
Here is a Harry, when comes such another ? -
9.5% growth is far better than what many private investors get for their money. If the funds had been handled by Opposition Parties, judging from their tax and spend policies, we would probably have 9.5% nationa debt over this period or worse.
-
-
And how would you know that?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:9.5% growth is far better than what many private investors get for their money. If the funds had been handled by Opposition Parties, judging from their tax and spend policies, we would probably have 9.5% nationa debt over this period or worse.
Have you suddenly become an overnight expert in financial analysis that you immediately whitewash an alternative govt in blind favour of a ruling party who clearly revealed these statistics to qwell complaints from the people?
With the purported 'profits' of 25 years declared at 9.5%, what were the failed ventures and investments over the years that accounted for the potential losses that could have earned GIC an even greater statistic? Were any of these declared to balance the sheets?
As always, the ruling party has published 'gloss' over their print to stun the eyes of the naive and perpetuate self-belief. Instead of authorising a full review of the figures over the years and 'come clean', what they have insightfully offered is a mere peek-a-boo, a quick glance at their accounts.
And unsurprisingly, they serve up only the 'good stuff'. -
I have invested long enough to know that there are good and bad investments...and 9.5% is damn good already.Originally posted by BillyBong:And how would you know that?
Have you suddenly become an overnight expert in financial analysis that you immediately whitewash an alternative govt in blind favour of a ruling party who clearly revealed these statistics to qwell complaints from the people?
With the purported 'profits' of 25 years declared at 9.5%, what were the failed ventures and investments over the years that accounted for the potential losses that could have earned GIC an even greater statistic? Were any of these declared to balance the sheets?
As always, the ruling party has published 'gloss' over their print to stun the eyes of the naive and perpetuate self-belief. Instead of authorising a full review of the figures over the years and 'come clean', what they have insightfully offered is a mere peek-a-boo, a quick glance at their accounts.
And unsurprisingly, they serve up only the 'good stuff'.
Opposition supporters have always wanted to increase taxes to fund their election promises...More spending on welfare, healthcare, transport...but they have never shown they can make a single cent, just tax the middle classes more. -
dun really give a damned.........in the end, the most impt thing is still the paycheck and expenditures.
If the paycheck is constant or drops and if expenditures keep on rising, all these statistics of this company performing, dat part of the economy doing well blah blah is useless. It only enlarges the already bulging pockets of the CEOs and directors. -
Same news, different package.
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Where would a good doctor have the money to invest except by overcharging patients ? Can one expect the good doctor to make enough money from serving the hardpressed Singapore Community ?
I have invested long enough to know that there are good and bad investments...and 9.5% is damn good already.
Fortunately for the good doctor, there are the rich upper income group - who will pay a price for private consultation, at appointed times and without the queues.
Serving the long queues of the middle-income or lower-income mass can hardly provide the money nor the time to indulge in any alternative investments.
The question once asked was "can a good doctor be any good as a lawyer ?" - the next question is "If the doctor is dedicated to his patients, will he have enough time in becoming a good investor - while cloistered in a clinic and visiting hospitalised patients ?".
Must be having alot of free time on hand - juggling between consultations, investments, and attending to arguments in forums.
Ironically, it seems that your accusations about "opposition supporters" are more appropriately levelled at the Government formed by the present Ruling Political Party and its supporters - are you certain that you are in the right frame of mind making your mistaken accusations ?
Opposition supporters have always wanted to increase taxes to fund their election promises...More spending on welfare, healthcare, transport...but they have never shown they can make a single cent, just tax the middle classes more.
As soon as the incumbent Political Party had won Election 2006, Singaporeans have seen a slew of price increases for essential services.
Since the Election in May 2006, cost of welfare has gone up - with utilities rates revised, hospital fees increased, transport fares revised upwards - and all offering the same level of service quality.
The price increases have been allowed to go up despite the high revenues given in the Annual Reports of these providers of public essential services, as the services are all being operated as Private Enterprises - ALL being Government Own and Funded.
The National Healthcare Group had reported increase of their million dollar revenues in their healthcare service; if we compare the Annual Reports for 2004 - with that from 2003.
Despite the hardship faced by Singaporeans, the Government allowed transport fares to go up, even as the Chairman of Comfort-Delgro had reported "revenue had increased by 8% from the proform figure of $1.7 BILLION to $1.88 BILLION - as taken from the PDF printout on Page 7 of 158 of its Annual Report 2004",
Even when Singapore Power Annual Report FY2002/03 had boasted net profit $749 MILLION - it is allowed to increase rates chargeable to households.but they have never shown they can make a single cent, just tax the middle classes more
Give any one of the Alternative Parties a chance, and their supporters - mainly from the Middle Class ??? (should it not correctly be Middle Income Group) - will know how to guide the Alternative Party to look after the interest of this Middle Income Group.
If you have not been given a chance to prove your abilities, will anyone know of your true potential ?
Is it fair for anyone to judge your ability by looking at your external appearance, your mannerism in conversation, body language, the shape of your face, body and limbs ?
Is the "good" doctor now giving up to be a "lawyer", and now attempting to be a political commentator ? -
No relationship. They are both seperate as stated in the TH website below.Originally posted by #$%^&*:...
The company has invested in 50 hedge funds to date and started investing in commodities 2 1/2 years ago, he said. These include oil, metals and soft commodities, Ng said.
...
ohhh, i see, i see. Not bad. Didn't know they also dare to play the commodities. Btw they must have taken a small hit since last May. But should be managable for them I guess.
What is the relationship between Temasek with the GIC?
Temasek and GIC are completely separate entities. We each have our own separate boards and management teams. We are an active shareholder in a stable of operating companies in Singapore, and we focus on managing our investments in these companies. We adopt a more long-term view when we make investments. Our mission is to grow these companies to become regional and international businesses.
GIC manages the foreign reserves of Singapore and is a pure financial investor. They invest mainly in the public markets and real estate. -
And which opposition 'supporter' wanted to increase taxes to fund election promises? Have you suddenly confused fact with fiction?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:I have invested long enough to know that there are good and bad investments...and 9.5% is damn good already.
Opposition supporters have always wanted to increase taxes to fund their election promises...More spending on welfare, healthcare, transport...but they have never shown they can make a single cent, just tax the middle classes more.
I only recall Low Thia Khiang and Steve Chia asking the govt to open the accounts of the national reserves so Singaporeans can view for themselves the status of the balance sheets and perhaps offer more payouts than just the 'progress package'. Again i have no idea whether they were misquoted, since our controlled media will warp alternatives comment to suit the needs of their master. More so since i hardly believe Low Thia Khiang to make such foolish remarks.
But your comments are rather dismissive: just because a few said it, you whitewash the entire alternatives as out to 'loot' the national reserves for personal benefit.
So in that regard, since Irene Ng made such foodhardy comments that the alternatives are out to 'cause trouble' in parliament, along with PM's famous outburst against the alternatives (and subsequent apology through his press secretary), can i assume the entire ruling party are brigands who frequent gutter-politics? -
well, since GIC is not a publically-listed company, it can say whatever it wants and no one can verify
-
From your comments it shows thatOriginally posted by oxford mushroom:I have invested long enough to know that there are good and bad investments...and 9.5% is damn good already.
Opposition supporters have always wanted to increase taxes to fund their election promises...More spending on welfare, healthcare, transport...but they have never shown they can make a single cent, just tax the middle classes more.
medical expertise does not translate into financial nor political expertise.
You missed what the poster of the thread had to say about GIC returns.
"a passive indexing would have yielded 9.9% in the same time period"
This is to say any Tom, Dick and Harry can beat GIC by buying an index fund and sleep for 25 years.
The benchmark of good performance is to beat the index which GIC failed to do. -
perharps oxford mushroom intend to go into politics..
-
Certainly didn't do any worse than your index fund, if your figure is correct. One big difference between private investors and national funds though...GIC has the mission to preserve our national reserves and there are probably limits on the more risky (but potentially more profitable) investments.
-
I dont believe in what our PAP politicians say,becoz if our GIC or other government-linked companies really doing that well in foreign countries investment,why the hell do they still need to raise all cost of living in Singapore.
It is like if i own a company,if my company is doing well.Definitely i will increase my workers pay n bonus,to share profit with them n gain their respect n thus motivate them to stay in my company n work along with me.But if my company is losing money,i will cut the pay n bonus of my workers,n you will see many workers leaving my company.
Singapore government is actually losing money in foreign investment.That is why they raise cost of living to fill in the loses they have make.Moreover,the general workers salary has decreased.And that is why more n more Singaporeans is leaving this country for good.All these signs are showing the government linked companies are losing money.It is exactly like a scenario of a poorly managed n making losses company. -
I can agree that national reserves should be conservative nature, but so it should not trumpet it performance as good.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Certainly didn't do any worse than your index fund, if your figure is correct. One big difference between private investors and national funds though...GIC has the mission to preserve our national reserves and there are probably limits on the more risky (but potentially more profitable) investments.
A good fund would be Magellan Fund which yielded 30% average over the 30 years beating other funds and index by miles. The fund size is close to $100 billion USD which is comparable to Singapore's fund size
http://mutualfunds.about.com/cs/fundfamilies/p/magellan.htm
In fact they were too successful that they had to stop people from investing in their fund.
I think it cuts both way. Being an institutional investor also gives it access to investment otherwise not possible like buying banks in China. I dont know if its an excuse for bad performance. I heard the same excuse for Temasek funds performance.
If the hiring top managers and paying world class salaries cannot deliver performance, the GIC should do passive indexing.
if its performance of GIC is average, its should be recognized as average and not blow it own trumpet by claming good returns.