~by: Leong Sze Hian~

I refer to the article “CNB miscalculated statistics since 2008, releases correct figures” (see HERE).

Following this revelation, the blogs have been abuzz as to whether other statistics may have problems too.

According to the annual reports of the Government Investment Corporation (GIC), it  was reporting its 20-year nominal returns in both US$ (5.7%) and S$ (4.4%), in its 2009 report (see HERE).  It also gave the real return in Singapore Dollars (S$), at 2.6 per cent, but not in United States of America Dollars (US$).

However GIC’s 2010 and 2011 reports only gave returns in US$. Which means that the report went from reflecting no real US$ returns in 2009, to only real US$ returns in 2010 and 2011, being 3.8 per cent and 3.9 per cent respectively (see HERE), and no longer in S$.  Why is this so?

What was the return in S$? Since the S$ has been appreciating against the US$, was the S$ return much lower? In this connection, one reason that has been cited for the declining returns was the appreciation of the S$ against the US$.

In its latest 2011 report, GIC has disclosed the 5 and 10-year nominal US$ returns (being 6.3 per cent and 7.4 per cent respectively), instead of just the 20-year returns in previous reports. However, the new 5 and 10-year returns are only given in nominal and not real terms? And again why are the returns not reflected in S$? Are the S$ returns much lower than the US$ ones?

Why is there so much inconsistency in GIC’s reporting? Is this another computer error like Central Narcotic Bureau’s?

Mr Chua Soo Kiat’s in his letter published in the Today newspaper ‘Disclosure is important’ (see HERE) asked why the GIC does not disclose the amount of funds it manages and its annual profit and loss, unlike the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and Temasek Holdings,  Instead of a straight forward answer to Mr Chua’s simple question as to how much it has lost on its UBS investment (in the light of the recent UBS rogue trader’s US$2.3 billion scandal), GIC has once again harped on its 20-year returns (see HERE).

Given the apparent “comedy of (computer) errors” in its inconsistent reporting described above, is the GIC’s consistent refusal to disclose more information when asked by Singaporeans and in Parliament, reasonable and acceptable?

 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

The country that celebrates meritocracy like no other

In the name of meritocracy, the son of Lee Kuan Yew became…

Transparent and public Commission of Inquiry should be formed to investigate DBS’ sale of securities by Hyflux to prevent retail investors from getting hurt so badly again

by Khush Chopra The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has declared that…

总理周四晚发表劳动节献词

配合本周五的劳动节,总理将在本月30日晚7点半,透过多个社交媒体平台直播,发表劳动节献词。 相信有鉴于当前疫情,今年劳动节群众大会现场集会也取消,改以视讯会议方式进行。劳动节奖章颁奖仪式也取消。

希腊与马国船只相撞 海港局调查结果:希腊货船转弯失误

针对上月9日发生的马国浮标船和希腊货船相撞事故,我国海事及港务管理局公布调查结果,指出事故肇因乃希腊货船转弯时操作失误所致。 马国船只为该国海事局的浮标船“北极星号”(POLARIS),而涉事希腊散货船则是比雷埃夫斯(Piraeus)。当时,比雷埃夫斯正航向马来西亚丹绒帕拉帕斯(Tanjung Pelepas)港口,却在当天时间下午2时28分,在途中与停泊中的北极星号浮标船相撞。 海港局则表示,已经对有关希腊船只的船长予以严厉警告。 该局也提醒船运业者,在我国港口界限内应遵守条规。该局也重申,关注那些未经授权出现在我国港口海域的船只,因为这可能造成其他船只的混淆,威胁航海安全。 根据2月10日马国外交部的文告,指希腊货船是在当天下午2时15分驶入有关港口海域。 两船事前进行沟通后决定由比雷埃夫斯散货船“让道”给北极星号,但还是发生了碰撞,较后希腊船只在2时36分离开。 相关文告也指出,马国海事局依据《1952年大马商务海运法令》第334(1)条文,扣留了比雷埃夫斯散货船及其船员进行调查。 至于我国海岸卫队(PCG)见证有关事故的发生。希腊比雷埃夫斯散货船也向我国海港局的港口控制中心报告了有关事故,并表示无人因此伤亡。