Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Guaranteed rates due to GIC pooling of funds

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Southbank
    Posts
    9,575

    Default Guaranteed rates due to GIC pooling of funds

    If the GIC managed CPF funds as a separate pool, and not together with other government assets, the interest rates that the Government has committed to would be unsustainable, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam told Tuesday's CPF forum. Mr Tharman was responding to questions from blogger Roy Ngerng, who is being sued by the Prime Minister for defamation. Mr Ngerng fired off four questions and Mr Tharman, who is also Finance Minister, answered them in turn. Here is an edited transcript of the exchange.
    ROY NGERNG: Now that we know that the CPF is invested in the GIC, is it also possible to know what is the interest earned in Singapore dollar terms since inception?
    Second, Temasek Holdings has said that it does not invest our CPF. The GIC was set up only in 1981, so prior to 1981, how was the CPF used and was it invested in Temasek Holdings?
    Third, how much has the Government earned in absolute monetary terms from the excess returns of the CPF and will the Government consider returning some of them to Singaporeans?
    Finally, the GIC has said before June this year that it does not know if it invests our CPF because it is not made explicit to GIC. But in June, the Government admitted that it does. So in the public interest, is it possible to know why the Government made an about-turn?
    DPM THARMAN: You asked some factual questions. Did Temasek manage the CPF funds in the past? No. It has never managed CPF funds. Temasek started off with a set of assets which were transferred by the Government at the time of inception - I don't have the exact figure in my head - but about $400 million worth of assets in the form of a set of companies. It has never received CPF monies to invest.
    Before we amended the Constitution in 1992, CPF monies, which were invested in Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS), could be used by the Government to finance infrastructure - such as road infrastructure, Singapore's economic infrastructure and social infrastructure. Just like (other) Singapore Government Securities (SGS), the Government was allowed to use borrowings in addition to the revenues it got in its Budget, to finance infrastructural investments. That was the old system.
    That changed in 1992. Together with constitutional amendments, we introduced the new Government Securities Act, which disallowed the Government from using borrowings for spending. From then onwards, all borrowings - the SGS, SSGS - have had to be invested.
    How are they invested? Prior to the formation of the GIC, it was the MAS (Monetary Authority of Singapore). It was an old-fashioned, central bank investment system. Dr Goh (Keng Swee) changed that, explained why, explained that these are basically longer-term assets, and we should invest them for the longer term. And a significant chunk of reserves that were managed by the MAS was passed back to the Government, which then had the GIC manage them.
    After the GIC was set up in the early 80s, it was essentially the GIC that managed CPF assets, but not as CPF assets. It is managing government assets: all government assets put together.
    GIC knows it is managing government assets. That is the Government's mandate for the GIC. The mandate is irrespective of the source of funds it manages, which comprise the SSGS, the SGS, government surpluses, the proceeds from land sales - all government funds. The GIC (hence) pays no regard to what the source of funds is. It just has to meet its mandate: to invest for the long term, take risks, in the hope of achieving good long-term returns, significantly above global inflation.
    And that is a real strength of our system, that besides the CPF, we have unencumbered government assets - government assets that don't have liabilities like the CPF. If the GIC was just managing CPF funds as a CPF fund manager, it would be managed quite differently. To provide a guaranteed interest rate of 4 to 5 per cent of the Special Account, or 2.5 to 3.5 per cent of the Ordinary Account, capital guaranteed and interest rate guaranteed, it would be a very different fund that it would be managing. It would be invested largely in bond securities, and earning returns that are very different from what it is able to earn by investing for the long term in higher-risk assets. Plus, it would mean the interest rates that the Government has committed to would be unsustainable, because it is no longer possible to earn these interest rates on a guaranteed basis, using a bond portfolio. It's very difficult.
    So the GIC manages a pool of government assets, irrespective of sources of the funds. It is the Government that then takes the risk. The Government takes the risk that the performance of the GIC from year to year, sometimes even over five-year periods, may not be adequate for it to meet commitments to the CPF.
    The strength of the system is we have assets that exceed our liabilities, that enable us to meet our commitments. And that's why we're not just triple-A rated, but we're able to provide CPF members with a very fair return on a guaranteed basis.
    Next question had to do with excess returns. The GIC publishes five-year, 10-year, 20-year returns, and they are easily computed into Singapore dollars. Over the last five years it earned 0.5 per cent in Singdollar terms, over the last 10 years it earned 5 per cent in Singdollar terms, over the last 20 years it earned 5 per cent in Singdollar terms. So those are the facts, but that's not returns gained from investing CPF monies. That's returns gained from investing all government assets, including the unencumbered assets. It's returns gained from investing in higher-risk portfolios for the long term. If it was just CPF monies, it will be a different portfolio and a different set of returns. Every serious financial professional knows that.

    This article was first published on July 26, 2014.
    Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.
    - See more at: http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapo....T4wOkrk1.dpuf

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Southbank
    Posts
    9,575

    Default


  3. #3
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    GIC return figure is really perplexingly confusing..........
    I remember for year 2012-2013, they are saying they earn 6-9%? Why suddenly so fast drop to 5% and less when global equities have gone up by so much?
    Why "Over the last five years it earned 0.5 per cent in Singdollar terms"?
    Over last 5 years, global equities have gone up by so much, 50% or even more! Even though S$ has dropped but it is definitely much less than this amount!

    It seems that without real raw figures of asset number, gains/losses, we have really no idea why GIC return figure is as such, very confusing. Did they calculate wrongly or they really did such a lousy job investing Singapore assets? Oh my gosh! The past 5 years had been the most profitable time for me even when converted to S$ term (and mind you, my invested assets are mostly NOT in S$ instruments and S$ has depreciated by almost 30% over the past 5 years period)!

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcachon View Post
    If the GIC managed CPF funds as a separate pool, and not together with other government assets, the interest rates that the Government has committed to would be unsustainable, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam told Tuesday's CPF forum. Mr Tharman was responding to questions from blogger Roy Ngerng, who is being sued by the Prime Minister for defamation. Mr Ngerng fired off four questions and Mr Tharman, who is also Finance Minister, answered them in turn. Here is an edited transcript of the exchange.
    ROY NGERNG: Now that we know that the CPF is invested in the GIC, is it also possible to know what is the interest earned in Singapore dollar terms since inception?
    Second, Temasek Holdings has said that it does not invest our CPF. The GIC was set up only in 1981, so prior to 1981, how was the CPF used and was it invested in Temasek Holdings?
    Third, how much has the Government earned in absolute monetary terms from the excess returns of the CPF and will the Government consider returning some of them to Singaporeans?
    Finally, the GIC has said before June this year that it does not know if it invests our CPF because it is not made explicit to GIC. But in June, the Government admitted that it does. So in the public interest, is it possible to know why the Government made an about-turn?
    DPM THARMAN: You asked some factual questions. Did Temasek manage the CPF funds in the past? No. It has never managed CPF funds. Temasek started off with a set of assets which were transferred by the Government at the time of inception - I don't have the exact figure in my head - but about $400 million worth of assets in the form of a set of companies. It has never received CPF monies to invest.
    Before we amended the Constitution in 1992, CPF monies, which were invested in Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS), could be used by the Government to finance infrastructure - such as road infrastructure, Singapore's economic infrastructure and social infrastructure. Just like (other) Singapore Government Securities (SGS), the Government was allowed to use borrowings in addition to the revenues it got in its Budget, to finance infrastructural investments. That was the old system.
    That changed in 1992. Together with constitutional amendments, we introduced the new Government Securities Act, which disallowed the Government from using borrowings for spending. From then onwards, all borrowings - the SGS, SSGS - have had to be invested.
    How are they invested? Prior to the formation of the GIC, it was the MAS (Monetary Authority of Singapore). It was an old-fashioned, central bank investment system. Dr Goh (Keng Swee) changed that, explained why, explained that these are basically longer-term assets, and we should invest them for the longer term. And a significant chunk of reserves that were managed by the MAS was passed back to the Government, which then had the GIC manage them.
    After the GIC was set up in the early 80s, it was essentially the GIC that managed CPF assets, but not as CPF assets. It is managing government assets: all government assets put together.
    GIC knows it is managing government assets. That is the Government's mandate for the GIC. The mandate is irrespective of the source of funds it manages, which comprise the SSGS, the SGS, government surpluses, the proceeds from land sales - all government funds. The GIC (hence) pays no regard to what the source of funds is. It just has to meet its mandate: to invest for the long term, take risks, in the hope of achieving good long-term returns, significantly above global inflation.
    And that is a real strength of our system, that besides the CPF, we have unencumbered government assets - government assets that don't have liabilities like the CPF. If the GIC was just managing CPF funds as a CPF fund manager, it would be managed quite differently. To provide a guaranteed interest rate of 4 to 5 per cent of the Special Account, or 2.5 to 3.5 per cent of the Ordinary Account, capital guaranteed and interest rate guaranteed, it would be a very different fund that it would be managing. It would be invested largely in bond securities, and earning returns that are very different from what it is able to earn by investing for the long term in higher-risk assets. Plus, it would mean the interest rates that the Government has committed to would be unsustainable, because it is no longer possible to earn these interest rates on a guaranteed basis, using a bond portfolio. It's very difficult.
    So the GIC manages a pool of government assets, irrespective of sources of the funds. It is the Government that then takes the risk. The Government takes the risk that the performance of the GIC from year to year, sometimes even over five-year periods, may not be adequate for it to meet commitments to the CPF.
    The strength of the system is we have assets that exceed our liabilities, that enable us to meet our commitments. And that's why we're not just triple-A rated, but we're able to provide CPF members with a very fair return on a guaranteed basis.
    Next question had to do with excess returns. The GIC publishes five-year, 10-year, 20-year returns, and they are easily computed into Singapore dollars. Over the last five years it earned 0.5 per cent in Singdollar terms, over the last 10 years it earned 5 per cent in Singdollar terms, over the last 20 years it earned 5 per cent in Singdollar terms. So those are the facts, but that's not returns gained from investing CPF monies. That's returns gained from investing all government assets, including the unencumbered assets. It's returns gained from investing in higher-risk portfolios for the long term. If it was just CPF monies, it will be a different portfolio and a different set of returns. Every serious financial professional knows that.

    This article was first published on July 26, 2014.
    Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.
    - See more at: http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapo....T4wOkrk1.dpuf
    Last edited by teddybear; 26-07-14 at 23:12.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,569

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    GIC return figure is really perplexingly confusing..........
    I remember for year 2012-2013, they are saying they earn 6-9%? Why suddenly so fast drop to 5% and less when global equities have gone up by so much?
    Why "Over the last five years it earned 0.5 per cent in Singdollar terms"?
    Over last 5 years, global equities have gone up by so much, 50% or even more! Even though S$ has dropped but it is definitely much less than this amount!

    It seems that without real raw figures of asset number, gains/losses, we have really no idea why GIC return figure is as such, very confusing. Did they calculate wrongly or they really did such a lousy job investing Singapore assets? Oh my gosh! The past 5 years had been the most profitable time for me even when converted to S$ term (and mind you, my invested assets are mostly NOT in S$ instruments and S$ has depreciated by almost 30% over the past 5 years period)!
    We will never know... until some other party takes control of the house.

    In any case, returns can vary considerably if they take different way of measuring it..

    http://www.investopedia.com/exam-gui...ted-return.asp

    Or they could have told you they were using IRR last time..

    Whatever, ...i just know.. if you are making good money.. as politicians ...they will make a big hoo-haa over how good they are... So if they are not, they could be humble or they could be? ..lol..

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Southbank
    Posts
    9,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by focus View Post
    We will never know... until some other party takes control of the house.

    In any case, returns can vary considerably if they take different way of measuring it..

    http://www.investopedia.com/exam-gui...ted-return.asp

    Or they could have told you they were using IRR last time..

    Whatever, ...i just know.. if you are making good money.. as politicians ...they will make a big hoo-haa over how good they are... So if they are not, they could be humble or they could be? ..lol..
    The return good or not just compare SGD to MYR.

    1 Singapore Dollar equals 2.56 Malaysian Ringgit 27 July 2014.


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    how much GIC make or don't don't matter. The Rates they guarantee are realistic to the risk. Want more return? then have to bear more risk. Investment 101.
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    335

    Default

    GIC return 0.5% over past 5 years is terribly low! What's went wrong? GIC return matters to all Singaporeans because they are investing money belonging to all Singaporeans! The way you talk is like GIC managing money that does not belong to Singaporeans, and if so belong to who?

    I reckon many people like me want more options to get higher returns, and more risk does not mean higher return example gambling. On other hand, low risk for sure means low return.

    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    how much GIC make or don't don't matter. The Rates they guarantee are realistic to the risk. Want more return? then have to bear more risk. Investment 101.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heehee View Post
    GIC return 0.5% over past 5 years is terribly low! What's went wrong? GIC return matters to all Singaporeans because they are investing money belonging to all Singaporeans! The way you talk is like GIC managing money that does not belong to Singaporeans, and if so belong to who?

    I reckon many people like me want more options to get higher returns, and more risk does not mean higher return example gambling. On other hand, low risk for sure means low return.
    Well if people want no risk n very flexabole access to funds n higher return I also want . Question is got such things bo?
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    335

    Default

    I find it difficult to having meaningful discussion with you because when did I say I want no risk and high return?

    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    Well if people want no risk n very flexabole access to funds n higher return I also want . Question is got such things bo?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heehee View Post
    I find it difficult to having meaningful discussion with you because when did I say I want no risk and high return?
    Well I didn't say you ask for no risk either. I am saying the general ask from the people. People are saying the 2.5-4% are no good. So with that will come with its draw back. More risk. less flexibility access to the funds for housing or education etc.

    Frankly do people even know whats the risk they have to take to get 4% out there ? even that is it a guarantee?
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    -: 04-04-14, 21:51
  2. Robin suites - 10% p.a. rental guaranteed by developer?
    By princess_morbucks in forum Coffeeshop Talk
    Replies: 6
    -: 25-01-14, 18:13
  3. QE3 is almost guaranteed
    By hyenergix in forum Coffeeshop Talk
    Replies: 1
    -: 03-09-12, 08:16
  4. Guaranteed Rental Yield
    By carbuncle in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 17
    -: 21-05-12, 15:09
  5. ERA seeks to offer guaranteed sale to HDB flats
    By mr funny in forum HDB, EC, commercial and industrial property discussion
    Replies: 0
    -: 09-02-07, 10:26

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •