Sammyboy RSS Feed
03-08-2013, 07:00 PM
An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:
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$, like in the past, be “confusing”?
Do you see any logic in this?
- http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2013...-no-s-returns/ (http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2013/08/gic-some-real-some-nominal-no-s-returns/)
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?158788-Uncle-Leong-Annual-Reports-Confusing-for-GIC-but-not-for-Temasek&goto=newpost).
Minus 3.46% real return in S$?
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...-no-s-returns/ (http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2013/08/gic-some-real-some-nominal-no-s-returns/)
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?158788-Uncle-Leong-Annual-Reports-Confusing-for-GIC-but-not-for-Temasek&goto=newpost).