In the US, there is growing concern that public pension funds are taking excessive risk to meet their targeted returns. —NYT article.
Our MPs should be asking ministers about the risks our SWFs are taking relative to their returns, not easily batted away questions on losses. In the context of the portfolios, the losses are as Mrs SM could have said (but didn’t),”Peanuts”, and as any CFAer could tell you, “Look at total portfolio return, not individual items”.
And asking if they are aware that Norway’s SWF commissioned a report by three business-school academics—Andrew Ang, William Goetzmann and Stephen Schaefer from Columbia, Yale and London respectively – that found that taking the recent crash into account, the fund’s performance was essentially indistinguishable from that of a passively managed index fund.
And what is the experience of Temasek and GIC in this passive versus active debate.
I don’t expect PAP MPs (hey they can be disciplined for being difficult and anyway there is such a thing as loyalty) or Chiam (he is sick) to make life difficult for ministers. But where is Low (Waiting for pension?), or Sylvia (Waiting to be given Low’s seat?); and NMPs for?
Or for that matter the SDP? I don’t incude RP or KJ because to do the economic analysis they are doing (and put it into understandable language) is not easy, so let’s cut them some slack.
Miss Siew Kum Hong. His ideas of human rights did not only encompass gay and feminist issues like “anal sex is OK”, but also, what the Chinese Communist Party rightly includes as a human right, “economic rights”. He gave a great speech on CPF and asked the right qns on our SWFs.