Uncle Leong: Annual Reports Confusing for GIC, but not for Temasek?

[Confuseous]

Minus 3.46% real return in S$?

With regard to the nominal annualised rate of return of 2.6 per cent which is lower than last year’s report’s 3.4 per cent in US$ for the last five years, with the US$/S$ exchange rate declining from 1.3799 on 31 March 2008 to 1.2436 on 28 March 2013, I estimate the nominal annualised rate of return in S$ to be about only 0.49 per cent.

After adjusting for annualised inflation in Singapore of about 3.95 per cent from 2007 to 2012 , I estimate the real annualised rate of return in S$ to be about minus 3.46 per cent.

Also, why is it that the GIC’s annual report can give the real annualised return in US$ for 20 years, but not for 5 or 10 years? Only the nominal annualised returns are given for 5 and 10 years.

“More or less” confusion?

If my computed estimates above are correct, I wonder whether Singaporeans are now “more confused” or “less confused” by the decision not to disclose the GIC’s returns in S$ too?

Why would continuing to disclose returns in both US$ and S$, like in the past, be “confusing”?

Do you see any logic in this?

- http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2013/08/gic-some-real-some-nominal-no-s-returns/

 

[winnipegjets]

Obfuscation is the goal, not transparency. Longer term used to show positive results; period can be changed any time to suit the purpose. Few analysts outside sinkapore really bother about the report; it is as credible as Chinese statistics.

Sinkees may think that they are rich based on the report, they should look at the ground for a reality check.

 

[escher]

Not to worry.
Leongsam will bring crystal clarity for all and unconfuse everyone here
He will then sing hosannas to the wisdom of that smear of shit on sole of shoe
and his benevolence to the sun that rises in the East just for his pleasure alone.

Be ready to be astounded by the song and dance of Leongsam as he get about to bring clarity to one and all