Current Affairs
GIC report – ‘significant’ recovery but how much exactly?
I refer to the report “GIC recovers losses from previous year, sees higher returns” (Channel News Asia, Sep 27).
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/1083694/1/.html
It states that “The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) said on Monday that it has significantly recovered its losses from the previous year.
No figures were given, but the comment came in its latest annual report for the year ended March”.
Imagine you ask your stockbroker,”how much money did I make last year?” – and his reply is “You have ‘significantly’ recovered your losses from the previous year, but I can’t give you any figures”!
What would be your reaction? How would you feel?
I find it somewhat puzzling and perhaps rather strange that the custodian of our reserves tells Singaporeans that we did “significantly” well, but sorry no exact figures for you.
Since its “significant”, why not give us the figure?
By the way, since we also don’t know what exactly were the previous year’s losses, how do we figure out how “significant” it was?
May I suggest that the GIC’s annual report be re-written or highlighted with parentheses (my emphasis) as follows:-
“In September last year, GIC said it had recovered more than half (how much exactly) of its losses (how much) then (when – for what period (s) precisely). GIC’s porfolio lost 20 per cent in Sing dollar terms (how come losses are in S$, whereas returns are in US$?) in the financial year to March 2009, compared to the previous year”.
Since the S$ has been strengthening against the US$ over the last 20 years or so, giving “its 20-year nominal average annual rate of return increased to 7.1 per cent in US dollar terms, compared to 5.7 per cent the previous year”, may be akin to “making the picture look brighter”.
So, what was the return in S$ terms?
Has the GIC always reported its returns in the past in US$ terms only?
Can you imagine the Bank of England reporting its returns in US$, without any mention in sterling terms?
Fund managers, sovereign wealth funds, etc, typically always report returns in annualised rates of return.
Whilst there is nothing wrong with reporting returns in “nominal average annual rate of return” or “adjusted for inflation”, the annualised rate of return should not be omitted altogether.
As to “adjusted for inflation”, are we talking about the inflation rate in Singapore, United States or the world, against the US$ or S$ return?
To illustrate this point with an example, if Singapore inflation is used against US$ returns, then the return may look better, because historicial inflation has been relatively lower in Singapore compared to say the United States.
As to “This is the third year that GIC with investments valued at over US$100 billion or about S$132 billion is releasing its annual report”, what does “over US$100 billion” mean? – US$101, 110, 150, 190 billion?
With regards to “The sovereign wealth fund said its real rate of return, adjusted for inflation, was 3.8 per cent, up from 2.6 per cent a year ago”, global equities (MSCI World Index) increased by about 60 per cent from around March 2009 to around March this year (GIC’s report end date is 31 March this year). Global equities increased by about 80 per cent from the 9 March 2009 low point of that year to the high point of this year in April.
Whilst I do not have the exact numbers for an exact time period comparion, it is customary for fund managers to report returns against a benchmark.
In fact, both GIC and Temasek had compared its losses during the recent financial crisis to global equity indexes.
In other words, if we compare ourselves to global equity indexes when we suffer losses, we should also do the same when we make gains, so that there is some consistency in benchmarking returns and performance.
So, what benchmark is GIC using to report its returns now?
In respect to “So its “portfolio is in good shape” now” – compared to what? (benchmark?), to whom (other sovereign wealth funds?), by exactly how much?
“GIC said it will continue to own 3.8 per cent of stocks in Citi and 6.4 per cent in UBS. It added that as a long-term investor, it is prepared to stay with the two institutions because they have weathered the financial crisis and have returned to profitability” – This begs the obvious question – how much has GIC lost on these two stocks and when will they ever “return to pofitability” for GIC?
Whilst almost all fund managers report their annualised rates of return from inception, and for various time periods like 1, 3, 5, 10 and 20 years, I am unable to find these information in the annual report.
The financial regulations in many countries also require such similar reporting standards.
I am also unable to find any detailed financial statements in the 53-page annual report.
By the way, did the Government make any injections of funds into GIC last year, or in previous years?
If there were injections of capital in the past, is there a need to adjust the reported rates of return, or are they (if any) already reflected in the reported returns?
Does GIC stand for ‘Give Information Cannot’?
Current Affairs
Hotel Properties Limited suspends trading ahead of Ong Beng Seng’s court hearing
Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has halted trading ahead of his court appearance today (4 October). The announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at about 7.45am, citing a pending release of an announcement. Mr Ong faces one charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and another charge of obstruction of justice. He is due in court at 2.30pm.
SINGAPORE: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), the property and hotel developer co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has requested a trading halt ahead of the Singapore tycoon’s scheduled court appearance today (4 October) afternoon.
This announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at approximately 7.45am, stating that the halt was due to a pending release of an announcement.
Mr Ong, who serves as HPL’s managing director and controlling shareholder, faces one charge under Section 165, accused of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, as well as one charge of obstruction of justice.
He is set to appear in court at 2.30pm on 4 October.
Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.
The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.
These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.
These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.
Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.
Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.
Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.
On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.
The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.
Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.
According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.
CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.
Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.
Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.
Mr Ong is recognised as the figure who brought Formula One to Singapore in 2008, marking the first night race in the sport’s history.
He holds the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix. Iswaran was the chairman of the F1 steering committee and acted as the chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters concerning the race.
Current Affairs
Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media
Dr Chee Soon Juan of the SDP raised concerns about the S$88 million sale of Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow at Astrid Hill, questioning transparency and the lack of mainstream media coverage. He called for clarity on the buyer, valuation, and potential conflicts of interest.
On Sunday (22 Sep), Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), issued a public statement on Facebook, expressing concerns regarding the sale of Minister for Home Affairs and Law, Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at Astrid Hill.
Dr Chee questioned the transparency of the S$88 million transaction and the absence of mainstream media coverage despite widespread discussion online.
According to multiple reports cited by Dr Chee, Mr Shanmugam’s property was transferred in August 2023 to UBS Trustees (Singapore) Pte Ltd, which holds the property in trust under the Jasmine Villa Settlement.
Dr Chee’s statement focused on two primary concerns: the lack of response from Mr Shanmugam regarding the transaction and the silence of major media outlets, including Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp.
He argued that, given the ongoing public discourse and the relevance of property prices in Singapore, the sale of a high-value asset by a public official warranted further scrutiny.
In his Facebook post, Dr Chee posed several questions directed at Mr Shanmugam and the government:
- Who purchased the property, and is the buyer a Singaporean citizen?
- Who owns Jasmine Villa Settlement?
- Were former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and current Prime Minister Lawrence Wong informed of the transaction, and what were their responses?
- How was it ensured that the funds were not linked to money laundering?
- How was the property’s valuation determined, and by whom?
The Astrid Hill property, originally purchased by Mr Shanmugam in 2003 for S$7.95 million, saw a significant increase in value, aligning with the high-end status of District 10, where it is located. The 3,170.7 square-meter property was sold for S$88 million in August 2023.
Dr Chee highlighted that, despite Mr Shanmugam’s detailed responses regarding the Ridout Road property, no such transparency had been offered in relation to the Astrid Hill sale.
He argued that the lack of mainstream media coverage was particularly concerning, as public interest in the sale is high. Dr Chee emphasized that property prices and housing affordability are critical issues in Singapore, and transparency from public officials is essential to maintain trust.
Dr Chee emphasized that the Ministerial Code of Conduct unambiguously states: “A Minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests.”
He concluded his statement by reiterating the need for Mr Shanmugam to address the questions raised, as the matter involves not only the Minister himself but also the integrity of the government and its responsibility to the public.
The supposed sale of Mr Shamugam’s Astrid Hill property took place just a month after Mr Shanmugam spoke in Parliament over his rental of a state-owned bungalow at Ridout Road via a ministerial statement addressing potential conflicts of interest.
At that time, Mr Shanmugam explained that his decision to sell his home was due to concerns about over-investment in a single asset, noting that his financial planning prompted him to sell the property and move into rental accommodation.
Mr Shanmugam is said to have recused himself from the decision-making process, and a subsequent investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) found no wrongdoing while Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean confirmed in Parliament that Mr Shanmugam had removed himself from any decisions involving the property.
As of now, Mr Shanmugam has not commented publicly on the sale of his Astrid Hill property.
-
Comments1 week ago
Christopher Tan criticizes mrt breakdown following decade-long renewal program
-
Comments5 days ago
Netizens question Ho Ching’s praise for Chee Hong Tat’s return from overseas trip for EWL disruption
-
Current Affairs2 weeks ago
Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media
-
Singapore1 week ago
SMRT updates on restoration progress for East-West Line; Power rail completion expected today
-
Singapore1 week ago
Chee Hong Tat: SMRT to replace 30+ rail segments on damaged EWL track with no clear timeline for completion
-
Singapore6 days ago
Lee Hsien Yang pays S$619,335 to Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan in defamation suit to protect family home
-
Singapore7 days ago
Train services between Jurong East and Buona Vista to remain disrupted until 1 Oct due to new cracks on East-West Line
-
Singapore2 weeks ago
Major breakdown on East-West Line: SMRT faces third service disruption in a month