BREAKING: 154th RANKED CAUGHT Spinning Very BADLY

[ahleebabasingaporethief]

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4" class="msgleft" width="1%">
</td><td class="wintiny" align="right" nowrap="nowrap">20212.1 </td></tr><tr><td height="8">
</td></tr> <tr><td class="msgtxt">Look at the three reports below,can you imagine that they are referring to the same IMF report?
IMF: S'pore 2009 GDP Will Be Worse Than What Govt Predicted
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-mar...dp-may-fall-8%
Nasdaq, 31 Aug 2009
SINGAPORE -(Dow Jones)- The International Monetary Fund Tuesday said that Singapore's economy is likely to shrink by about 8% this year as the global economic crisis has pushed the export dependent nation into its worst economic downturn since the 1965.
In its report, after talks with Singapore authorities in May, the IMF said that Singapore's economy is expected to pick up modestly in 2010 as the global economy recovers and that Singapore's gross domestic product will rise by 2.5% that year.
The IMF's assessment of Singapore's GDP for 2009 is worse than the government's estimate of a 4% to 6% contraction.
The IMF said that Singapore's monetary policy remains "appropriate" and that it "should stay the course" until a recovery is well established.
The central bank uses the exchange rate rather than interest rates as its policy tool to maintain price stability and support growth due to the economy's big reliance on overseas demand for growth.
"There was agreement that, once a recovery is well established, a return to a trend appreciation for the nominal effective exchange rate would safeguard price stability as slack in the economy is taken up," the IMF said.
It also aid that "inflation would fall to about zero in 2009, on the back of lower food and energy prices and a widening output gap."
-By P.R. Venkat and Costas Paris, Dow Jones Newswires;
--------------------------
The Straits Times-1st September 2009
IMF gives S'pore the thumbs-up
MEASURES taken by the Singapore Government during the recession have won high praise from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
CNA-1st September 2009
IMF expects Singapore economy to grow 2.5% next year
By Mok Fei Fei, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 01 September 2009 1345 hrs




SINGAPORE: The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is projecting that Singapore's economy would grow 2.5 percent next year.
This was unveiled in its latest report following a recent consultation with Singapore.
IMF also describes Singapore's policy response to its worst recession since independence as being "forceful".
Such policy measures include a large fiscal stimulus, an easing of monetary policy and moves to stabilize the financial sector.
IMF notes that the "skilful implementation of a broad range of policy instruments has helped lessen the impact of the shocks".
It also considers monetary policy settings to be broadly appropriate, supporting domestic demand without undermining exchange rate stability.
On Singapore's financial sector, IMF says the industry "has shown remarkable resilience".
It expects the sector to be able to withstand an even deeper and more prolonged global downturn.
Going forward, IMF says priority should continue to be given to rigorous stress-testing as asset quality is likely to deteriorate.
- CNA/ir

</td></tr> <tr><td> </td></tr> </tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="msgleft" width="1%"> </td><td class="msgopt" width="24%" nowrap="nowrap"> s</td><td class="msgrde" align="center" width="50%" nowrap="nowrap"> Reply</td><td class="wintiny" align="right" width="25%" nowrap="nowrap"> </td></tr><tr><td class="msgbfrbot"> </td><td colspan="3"> </td></tr></tbody></table> <!--PostMsgHTML--> <script language="JavaScript"> <!-- if (adPosition == 1){ GA_googleFillSlot("DF_ROS_inline_BTF_1"); } //--> </script> <!--/PostMsgHTML--> <!--PreMsgHTML--> <!--/PreMsgHTML--> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr class="msghead"><td class="msgbfr1" width="1%"> </td><td> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr class="msghead"> <td class="msgF" align="right" width="1%" nowrap="nowrap">From: </td><td class="msgFname" width="68%" nowrap="nowrap">bushtucker (yzfr1kong) <nobr></nobr> </td><td class="msgDate" align="right" width="30%" nowrap="nowrap">8:39 pm </td></tr> <tr class="msghead"><td class="msgT" align="right" width="1%" height="20" nowrap="nowrap">To: </td><td class="msgTname" width="68%" nowrap="nowrap">Bright90 <nobr></nobr> unread</td> <td class="msgNum" align="right" nowrap="nowrap"> (2 of 3) </td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4" class="msgleft" width="1%"> </td><td class="wintiny" align="right" nowrap="nowrap">20212.2 in reply to 20212.1 </td></tr><tr><td height="8">
</td></tr> <tr><td class="msgtxt">From -8% to 2.5% !
Telling lies and inflating economy by 10.5% to satisfy their masters.
Good job
</td></tr></tbody></table>

 

[denzuko1]

Actually nothing is wrong with the 2 reports. On says that the growth shrink by 8% while the other growth of 2%. So 2% is 92% which means that it would be 2.17% if without the shrink of 8%, mathematically speaking.

 

[ahleebabasingaporethief]

Growth of 2.5% the following year from a negative growth of -8% is still NEGATIVE:

-8% minus 2.5%= -5.5%
​

 

[denzuko1]

Growth of 2.5% the following year from a negative growth of -8% is still NEGATIVE:

-8% minus 2.5%= -5.5%
​

The first article did not mention a negative growth but growth shrink by 8%. This means that it is 8% down from the original growth forecast. If the Original Forecast is OF, then the formula should be

(1-0.08)OF=0.025

Then OF is 0.025 / 0.92 = 0.0272

 

[halsey02]

The first article did not mention a negative growth but growth shrink by 8%. This means that it is 8% down from the original growth forecast. If the Original Forecast is OF, then the formula should be

(1-0.08)OF=0.025

Then OF is 0.025 / 0.92 = 0.0272

A rose is a rose, by any other name...shrank, increase, decrease, rises....the dept of statistics...the min of trade...the whatever, the whoever, the whomever...will not dare release true figures, unless vetted by 'his mater's voice'...in other words...the 'sausage' will be squeezed to look inflated when deflated...and bigger when it is already inflated....it is called 'massaging the figures'...the 154th ranked..is completely untransparent....:p

 

[denzuko1]

There is nothing wrong with the report. However, you will find that forecast is never right.

For instance, March 2009 LHL reportedly said that recovery no where in sight. In fact, the market turned up at that point of time. In August 2009 during NDP, he said that Singapore is out of recession, now the market turn south. If you want to be successful in stock market listen to what LHL says and do the opposite.

 

[jim007jimmyboy]

:oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo:

 

[TeeKee]

你们知道俺耳盜鈴的故事吗?

 

[bryanlim1972]

There is nothing wrong with the report. However, you will find that forecast is never right.

For instance, March 2009 LHL reportedly said that recovery no where in sight. In fact, the market turned up at that point of time. In August 2009 during NDP, he said that Singapore is out of recession, now the market turn south. If you want to be successful in stock market listen to what LHL says and do the opposite.

there's everything wrong with the report - its cherry picking the "best" parts and omitting the rest. this is journalism at its worst. its an insult to the readers.

 

[ahleebabasingaporethief]

there's everything wrong with the report - its cherry picking the "best" parts and omitting the rest. this is journalism at its worst. its an insult to the readers.

What to do.

They spin so we as noble citizens must correct for all to see.

 

[bryanlim1972]

"The Ministry of Finance had clarified to media that the 8% GDP figure in the IMF report was outdated and requested for us not to use the figure because the consultations were done in May, when the more updated economic figures were not yet unavailable. I'm sure whoever carried the figure was contacted by MOF later on. In the IMF report the IMF staff also never stated that their figures were in contrast to the official government figures as the below report seems to imply. In fact these figures were based on consultations with Singapore's economic officials so there should be no discrepancy. Hope that clarifies."