GIC and Temasek’s annualised returns revised?

[makapaaa]

[h=2]GIC and Temasek’s annualised returns revised?[/h]

August 1st, 2012 |

Author: Contributions

In the media today, GIC has confirmed that its 20 year annualized rate of return was only 3.9% and Temasek’s was 15%. Who is spreading the misinformation that their returns were 17% annualized? How did people got such a fantastic figure that no fund managers would dare to claim? 17% annualized! Unbelievable, incredible, insanity!
Oh, I remember that Professor Balding was using this number to compute the missing $160b in the national reserves of the island. At 17%, where have the $160b gone, he asked? There is a big dark hole somewhere that is concealing this fat chunk of money.
Now the mystery is solved. With the declared official numbers of GIC at a meagre 3.9%, less than the payout for CPF’s Retirement Account, GIC may be incurring a loss if the money is borrowed from CPF. And CPF’s annualized returns over 20 years must be much more as the earlier returns were much higher. I think if any funds were to park their money with me, I could guarantee 4% return over 20 years too. And I am not a super talent and need no super talented salaries.
Temasek’s 15% is still a stunting number for 20 years. So the mysterious $160b could be lowered to perhaps $60b to $80b unaccounted. This is just a wild guesstimate if there was really a $160b missing in the books.
Prof Balding will now have to justify how he got the 17% number and what would not be the new missing cash hoard. It would definitely be less than the $160b that he came out with after scouring over the two funds past financial statements.
What else is new?
.
Chua Chin Leng aka redbean
*The writer blogs at http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.ca/
.

 

[Cestbon]

[h=2]GIC and Temasek’s annualised returns revised?[/h]

August 1st, 2012 |

Author: Contributions

In the media today, GIC has confirmed that its 20 year annualized rate of return was only 3.9% and Temasek’s was 15%. Who is spreading the misinformation that their returns were 17% annualized? How did people got such a fantastic figure that no fund managers would dare to claim? 17% annualized! Unbelievable, incredible, insanity!
Oh, I remember that Professor Balding was using this number to compute the missing $160b in the national reserves of the island. At 17%, where have the $160b gone, he asked? There is a big dark hole somewhere that is concealing this fat chunk of money.
Now the mystery is solved. With the declared official numbers of GIC at a meagre 3.9%, less than the payout for CPF’s Retirement Account, GIC may be incurring a loss if the money is borrowed from CPF. And CPF’s annualized returns over 20 years must be much more as the earlier returns were much higher. I think if any funds were to park their money with me, I could guarantee 4% return over 20 years too. And I am not a super talent and need no super talented salaries.
Temasek’s 15% is still a stunting number for 20 years. So the mysterious $160b could be lowered to perhaps $60b to $80b unaccounted. This is just a wild guesstimate if there was really a $160b missing in the books.
Prof Balding will now have to justify how he got the 17% number and what would not be the new missing cash hoard. It would definitely be less than the $160b that he came out with after scouring over the two funds past financial statements.
What else is new?
.
Chua Chin Leng aka redbean
*The writer blogs at http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.ca/
.

It only figure no report!
Just can said building XXXX worth $5b but in actuall market value only $2b.
Many false accounting.