A simple way to guesstimate the reserves

The non transparent secret of the country’s reserves, speculated to be worth $1 trillion has been subjected to many queries as to what is really there. As it is a closely guarded state secret, no one really knows, even the President that holds the second key to guard the reserves. In a way, the reserves could be like a mirage of a mountain of gold. The people could imagine or were told that it is large and is there, but cannot feel or touch it. The big question in many people’s mind is whether this is true. It is only fair for any reasonable man to have doubts about something that is like what the salesman told them, and they have to believe his words, to trust him.
 
When the people are kept in the dark, it is very difficult to know the truth. The more the govt tries to hide this info, the more suspicious will be the people who want to know the truth. And the more the govt is frantically trying to raise taxes, even very unpopular measures, the more worried would be the people as to the health of this gold mountain mirage. Simple, got so much money no need to panic to raise so many taxes. The reason that the reserves cannot be touched, to be kept for the rainy day, is hogwash. It was touched many times during Nathan’s days.
 
Let’s see what we can extrapolate from some of the official statistics provided by Heng Swee Kiat to figure out how much is there in the reserves. The estimated NIRC for FY2018 is $15.9. I am not sure this is profit earned for the whole year prior to FY2018 or the estimated returns for FY 2018, ie not earned yet. But putting this aside let’s just use this number as a basis to extrapolate the reserves gold mountain.
 
The $15.9b is net return, ie after paying 2.5%/4%/5% interest to CPF members, estimated at $400b borrowed. If we use a 3% interest paid to CPF, this would work out to be $12b. The gross profit from the funds invested, less expense other than CPF interest, would be $12b + $15.9b +15.9b = $43b. Assuming NIRC is 50% of net income and balance 50% went into the reserves.
 
The govt has been using a 3.5% figure as the returns from investing our reserves. Thus if $43b is the gross return or 3.5%, the reserves should be $1.23 trillion. If we use just the $31b as net return, the reserves should be $886b. Could have use $32b ie 15.9 +15.9
 
But 3.5% return is supposed to be an average. The estimated return of $31b could be 5%, 7.5% or 10% over the years. These would give the reserves as $620b, $413b and $310b respectively. I use the different percentages to show that the higher the rate of return, the lower would be the reserves.
 
Alternatively if we use $43b as the gross return and 5%, 7.5% and 10% return, the reserves could be $860b, $573b and $430b respectively.
 
The good news, the reserves could be as high as $1.23t or $886b. The bad news, it could be as low as $310b or $430b.
 
If the funds are not performing that well, ie making a 3.5% return, then the reserves could be in the region of $886b to $1.23t. Someone said the interest rate for long term interest, risk free is about 3%. What is the point of paying hundreds of millions to fund managers to bring in 3.5% with high risk of losing the capital. Sack the whole bunch if they cannot bring in more than 5% returns.
 
Extrapolating from the rate of returns based a given NIRC of $15.9b, the paradox is that higher the percentage of returns means lower reserves and vice versa. If the funds are doing well, ie making returns of 5%, 7.5% or 10%, then the reserves could be quite scary, like a glittering golden mountain but not all gold.
 
What is the real thing, when would this be made known, or forever be in the unknown?
 
PS. MOF stats stated that GIC has a 20 year annualized return of 3.7% while Temasek’s annualized return from 2002 to 2014 is 15%.

Parking up the wrong tree

I knew it would come, sooner rather than later. No, I am not talking about the GST hike - that one would come later rather than sooner (you have the Government’s word on that). I am talking about the Parking Places (Amendment) Bill that was introduced in Parliament to curb indiscriminate bicycle parking. When I saw the unsightly mounds of two-wheelers dumped (rather than parked) like scrap heap across the island, I knew the end was nigh - “How long can the Government tahan when even I cannot tahan!?”

So as sure as night follows day, up popped the proposed scheme to license bike-sharing firms and hold them accountable for their customers’ sins. Under this scheme, the size of the operators’ bicycle fleet would be reviewed every six months, based on how well they manage the illegal parking problem and how often their bikes are used. Other details include data-sharing with the authorities and removing illegally parked bikes in a timely manner. Failure to meet the authorities’ standards would attract fines (max $100K) and even cancellation of licence.

It’s ingenious. In one fell swoop, the authorities have put the onus of tidying up the mess on the operators. And they may well succeed. Monetary caning in Singapore seldom fails, let alone the threat of business closure. But is this really the end of the problem? Have we answered the larger question of what’s behind inconsiderate parking? In the same way that litter bugs treat our island like a gigantic dustbin, bikers are treating it like an unregulated bike-park. But why?

I cast my mind back to a 2015 article by The Straits Times’ Han Fook Kwang who lamented on the declining standards of cleanliness in Singapore. Han’s article was inspired by PM Lee Hsien Loong’s FB post of a photo of the rubbish left behind after a music festival at Gardens by the Bay. A sampling of the comments that followed PM’s post included (a) schools should develop the right values instead of focusing only on academic achievements (b) too many Singaporeans are brought up in households where maids do all the cleaning (c) Singapore society looks down on cleaners, so children grow up thinking cleaning up is beneath them. But the one comment that hit the nail well and truly on the head is ownership and responsibility. When you consider yourself as part of the community and not a community apart, you will take ownership and responsibility of the public space in a way that many bike-sharing riders have so far failed to do.  The authorities should not just stop at fixing illegal parking. Our sense of community needs fixing too. Miss out on that and we would simply be parking up the wrong tree.  

How can Singaporeans compete with more skilled, experienced and cheaper foreigners?

The above is the title of an article by Leong Sze Hian in the TRE. The content of the article argued against the policy of inviting foreigners to steal the jobs from Singaporeans, which to me is a very disgusting and deplorable thing to do to the citizens of a country. In general I quite agree with what Leong Sze Hian wrote. But I would like to take issue with the way the title is written which gives an impression that foreigners are really more skilled and experienced than Singaporeans, cheaper in some cases but not all. Do you know how much are they paying to the foreign CEO of local banks and other GLC linked companies?

Many of the foreigners came from third world countries that are less developed than ours. If these foreigners are that good, if their education system are that good, their countries would not be in such deplorable state and condition.

Two, many of the foreigners are rejects and failures or unemployed in their countries. The good ones will be employed. How can we compare our able workers with these failures and claimed that they are more skilled and more experienced than our own workers?

Third, many of their paper qualifications and the experience they put down in their CVs are fake. How to compare our people's qualifications and experience with fakes and claiming that they are better? At least half of them are fakes or have faked qualifications and experience.

There are exceptions, but in general, the foreigners coming here are the average at best and mostly the rejects and the fakes. Do a proper screening of their qualifications and experience and you will be shock to find out what and who they really are, what kind of education they got.

Singaporeans should not assume that the foreigners are better than them. If they are they would not be here but holding high appointments in their own countries or in the West. Even in the West, many companies are being run down by these foreigners and they are starting to fire them. The West have been sleeping for a while and hired a lot of the half bakes and fake foreigners. More of these companies in the West and also in Singapore will be run down by these foreigners in a matter of time. Some have already gone to dust or are on the way.

Do not take it for granted that the foreign fakes and half bakes are better than our workers.

The fakes and half bakes cannot cheat and fool everyone all the time. Even in IT, the signs are everywhere that the quality are half baked as well. Look at Creative Technology, after Sound Blaster, they went into incubation for a while but has reemerged with another earth shattering product in Super X-Fi Audio Holography, a product that would revolutionise the sound of headphones and mobile phones. This is home grown innovation that you don't get in third world countries.

Would there be more money to support Creative Technology into another international giant or would our money be poured into third world half baked companies and run down bankrupt western companies because we don't believe in our own talents, our own companies but in foreign fakes?

Article by Concerns of a Heartland Sinkie - Part 2...

The immigration policy is probably a stop gap measure than a long term solution. Old fart had acknowledged during the 2010/ 2011 interviews for the launch of his "Hardtruths" that the TFR of naturalised immigrants was even worst than indigenously born sinkies ...?

In other words, the (short term) solution provided by the stop gap immigration policy would in time to come as the earlier immigrants aged morph into another problem instead of being a solution and greatly aggravate the precarious demographic development unfolding in peesai ...? The ratio of aged in the population could shoot up exponentially in the near future and onwards ...? Then what next?

So what could be the actual "Hardtruths" instead ...?

For what is to come, just look at the recent release of the 2017 A Level results and the ensuing flurry of annoucements by the recruiting unis ...?

In the face of declining enrollment now and in the coming years, many are repackaging their courses with double degrees, double majors etc etc ... no?

To make up for the short fall further down the road, are they going to repackage and offer triple degrees, triple majors & even quadruple degrees and quadruple majors ...?

Again the language used is fantastic and not unlike sweet nothings into the dafts ears ...?

The repackaging is for the ever changing job market and thus young undergraduates, (EVEN before their first premanent job) have to equip themselves with 2 degrees (skills) instead of one to ensure higher employability when they try to get their first job upon graduating?

Now, old fart admitted long ago in the early years that the IQ profile of a people does not change much over one or two generations ... did he not?

So how could up to 50% of each cohort suddenly be blessed with such increased (mental) ability to excel in 2 degrees or 2 majors when many in the past cohorts struggled even to manage with one ...?

What has changed?

Think deeper ...?

Think deeply ...?

What has changed?

Wake up (daft) sinkies ...?

See (and think) deeper beyond what you are being told or what appears on the surface ... pls?

For the sake of the future viability and sustainability of our beloved peesai, the place many are born, bred, educated, brainwashed, trained and conditioned like dog (& bitches) etc etc ..., wake up now and immediately ... will you NOT from your deep slumber ...?

Still snoring away ...?

Good luck ...

Article by Concerns of a Heartland Sinkie - Part 1

As reported in the past week, the latest Peesai TFR has plunged to 1.16 (in 2017) despite Herculean efforts by the garberment since 2004 to reverse a trend that was aggravated by GoaLaonomics (unsustainable) short term policy of aggressively increasing asset prices since the early 1990s ...?

The cascading effects (cancer) of this short sighted policies are far reaching and probably have progressed into mid stage ...?

Many pri and sec schs were merged last year & 4 JCs out of 16 (excluding those 6-yr IP schs) were closed down and "merged" with 4 others ...

The downtrend of the TFR probably has not seen its last and at this rate, as mentioned by old fart in his 2010/ 2011 interviews at the launch of his "Hardtruths" book, the indigenously-born population would be halved in one generation.

In other words, the approximately 3 million locally born & bred sinkies brought up from cradle and educated under the peesai system could be below 2 million in one generation's time ...?

In view of the increasingly obvious pitfalls and grave consequences, ask yourselves is this not the "FOOLISHNESS" of GoaLaonomics & in turn TakBonomics ...?

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that as asset prices (housings etc) FAR OUTSTRIPPED the incremental marginal edging up of real wage (since the early 1990s), the ratio of the real cost in raising a child relative to the real wage is ever increasing for aspiring young couples/ parents (despite the futile and ineffective INTERVENTIONS by the garberment in various financial forms to limit the irreversible and pernicious damage caused by the unsustainable GoaLaonomics & TakBonomics)?

Ironically both the "economic architects" behind GoaLaonomics and Takbonomics are first class honours economics graduates but failed to recognise the simple demand and supply maxims that as prices and costs of a "good" increase, the equilibrium quantity has to fall, & fell it did ...?

In short, the short term "mirage" success of GoaLaonomics & TakBonomics had come at an extremely heavy price of long term failure ... (not unlike a marathon runner trying to pull wool over the audience eyes of over achievement by running the initial phase of the race at breakneck pace more akin to a sprint or short distance race but ultimately giving way before the middle of the race and ended up finishing last ...?

The early lead in the marathon race running at unsustainable breakneck pace has to be vomitted back and gradually such (unsustainle early) lead would find this crazy runner dropping further & further behind as the early fast pace effect take a toll on him and making him run slower and slower, even eventually slowing to a tortoise strolling pace and thus continuously being over taken ...?

Economic & social developments are akin to a marathon race and CANNOT defy gravity and natural laws ...?

Any UNSUSTAINABLE policy such as GoaLaonomics & TakBonomics would be exposed over time (as seen by what are unfolding right in front of our eyes unless the dafts' eyes paste.

PS. Will post Part 2 tomorrow.