No massive CPF investment losses but GIC cannot be transparent?

Hundreds/thousands of transactions annually but GIC has preferred to keep information which belongs in the public domain private.

Any government which conceals such information from the people does it to prevent embarrassment. Fact: Over more than 3 decades, GIC’s realized and unrealized losses amount to tens of billions of tax/CPF dollars.

After the disclosure of epic blunders like the UBS investment, GIC has not disclosed sufficient ‘winners’ to convince CPF members that its ‘6% long term return’ is not plucked out of thin air.

Many investments – especially those prior to the financial crisis – have been wiped out and Singaporeans will never know. Massive losses have been concealed with the blessings of elected MPs who have pretended to be dumb.

Look at the ridiculously-small number of transactions disclosed by GIC before the financial crisis. A $200-plus billion fund made only 6 transactions in 2006? (Edited images from GIC website.)

Only 8 in 2007?

And the same number in 2008?

And guess what? ​In 2009, GIC disclosed only one transaction, ie its Citigroup stake was reduced to below 5%.

Even an idiot is able to sense that something is very wrong somewhere. Are elected MPs idiots, or worse? 😦 😦

If Parliament continues to sleep, the hole that GIC has dug CPF members into will only get deeper.

Isn’t the number of transactions disclosed by GIC unbelievable for a fund manager with more than $200 billion in assets?


GIC had invested billions of our CPF/government reserves near market highs from 2006 to 2008. Similar to UBS, a number of these investments are deeply submerged or have gone pock kai.  GIC has the figures.

At or near market bottoms, GIC would have also cut massive losses and it has again concealed these transactions to prevent embarrassment.

It is logical for Singaporeans to suspect the PAP government has been increasing the CPF Minimum Sum and delaying the withdrawal age to enable GIC to recoup very large investment losses.

Recently, GIC has been making billion-dollar bets and is no longer interested in diversifying risks. Like the $14 billion UBS speculation, these billion-dollar bets have no plan B. Not trying to recoup losses?

If there are no massive CPF investment losses, why does GIC fear transparency?

This entry was posted in CPF, GIC. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to No massive CPF investment losses but GIC cannot be transparent?

  1. Sinkie says:

    No worries, CPF will not collapse. Big Daddy can change the rules anytime to prevent a single cent from being withdrawn at 55 or 65. Rules can be amended for CPF Life to only start paying at 70 or 75. Sinkies don’t complain. You voted for it.

    Unlike real commercial annuities, CPF Life doesn’t have contract to guarantee minimum payouts and guaranteed starting age, and also no inflation increments. If Big Daddy thinks not enough money, or money stuck in GIC investments and cannot liquidate, he can order payouts to be reduced to $50 or $1 a month. And for starting age to be increased to 70 or 75 or older.

    In worst case scenario, Big Daddy already explained in parliament that CPF Life can simply be shut down with zero payouts.

    Like that how CPF can collapse?!?! Sure win one!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s