Friday, March 20, 2009

Meet the man whose big idea felled Wall Street

Meet the man whose big idea felled Wall Street

University of Waterloo statistician David Li is shown in this handout photo, along with his statistical formula for modeling the behaviour of several correlated risks at once.

HOW THE FORMULA WORKS

A description of the Gaussian copula function from an article in Wired magazine by Felix Salmon:

Consider something simple, like a kid in an elementary school: Let's call her Alice. The probability that her parents will get divorced this year is about 5 per cent, the risk of her getting head lice is about 5 per cent, the chance of her seeing a teacher slip on a banana peel is about 5 per cent, and the likelihood of her winning the class spelling bee is about 5 per cent. If investors were trading securities based on the chances of those things happening only to Alice, they would all trade at more or less the same price.

But something important happens when we (also look at) the girl she sits next to, Britney. If Britney's parents get divorced, what are the chances that Alice's parents will get divorced, too? Still about 5 per cent: The correlation there is close to zero. But if Britney gets head lice, the chance that Alice will get head lice is ... about 50 per cent – which means the correlation is probably up in the 0.5 range. If Britney sees a teacher slip on a banana peel, what is the chance that Alice will see it, too? ... It could be as much as 95 per cent, which means the correlation is close to 1. And if Britney wins the spelling bee, the chance of Alice winning it is zero, which means the correlation is negative: -1.

If investors were trading securities based on the chances of these things happening to both Alice and Britney, the prices would be all over the place, because the correlations vary so much.

Math whiz proposed applying this statistical formula to credit risk, and financial meltdown ensued
Mar 18, 2009 04:30 AM


STAFF REPORTER

Note: This article has been edited to correct a previously published version.

Former University of Waterloo statistician David X. Li didn't burn down the American economy. He just supplied the matches.

As economists and market watchers cast about for people to blame for the U.S. market meltdown, Li has surfaced as a scapegoat. Recently, Wired magazine ran an article on Li's work subtitled, "The Formula That Killed Wall Street."

The formula in question is the so-called Gaussian copula function. On the most basic level, the formula allows statisticians to model the behaviour of several correlated risks at once.

In a scholarly paper published in 2000, Li proposed the theorem be applied to credit risks, encompassing everything from bonds to mortgages. This particular copula was not new, but the financial application Li proposed for it was.

Disastrously, it was just simple enough for untrained financial analysts to use, but too complex for them to properly understand. It appeared to allow them to definitively determine risk, effectively eliminating it. The result was an orgy of misspending that sent the U.S. banking system over a cliff.

"To say David brought down the market is like blaming Einstein for Hiroshima," says Prof. Harry Panjer, Li's mentor at the University of Waterloo. "He wasn't in charge of the financial world. He just wrote an article."

When David X. Li first arrived from China in 1987, he was known as Xiang Lin Li. He already held a masters in economics from Tianjin's Nankai University. He was one of a group of the faculty there who won a scholarship to study business in Canada through CIDA. In order to claim his prize at Quebec City's Laval University, Li was given four months to master French.

"We were all highly motivated," says Jie Dai, who was in the program with Li. "He was from a small town in the south of China. A small family, very ordinary, not poor or rich. There wasn't anything distinguished about his personality."

Li graduated with an MBA in 1991. Most of his Chinese classmates were bound for academia. Li saw a more worldly future. Says Dai: "I clearly remember him mention that if you are an actuarial guy, you can earn a lot more money."

Li had recently married a colleague from Nankai when he decided to study at Waterloo's department of statistics and actuarial sciences. He was drawn by the work of Panjer, a world leader in the study of loss modelling, especially as it applies to the world of insurance.

"He had the ability to take ideas from different fields and synthesize them," Panjer says.

In Waterloo, Li lived the hand-to-mouth life of a grad student. He anglicized his name. He and Panjer became close, and still correspond. Over six years, he earned his third masters and a PhD.

After graduation in 1997, Li taught briefly. He worked for CIBC World Markets. But his ambition quickly drove him to New York. He tore up the corporate ladder. By 2000, he was a partner in J.P. Morgan's RiskMetrics unit, trying to find ways to leverage a new generation of risk-based financial assets.

His breakthrough was an article published that year entitled, "On Default Correlation: A Copula Function Approach."

Many of the ideas contained within it were drawn from statistics research Li had observed firsthand at Waterloo. His insight was to transfer the work to financial models.

Li's model sidestepped the problem of trying to correlate all the variables that determine risk. Instead, it based its assumptions on the historical dips and swells of the market itself. In essence, Li used the past to map the future.

"It was a very simple mathematical answer almost anyone could use," Panjer says "And when you've got a hammer, everything suddenly looks like a nail. They jumped on it."

Through the lens of Li's theorem, even the shakiest investments suddenly looked viable. The Gaussian cupola created the sort of financial alchemy that made high-risk mortgages and credit card debt look like triple-A rated gold.

Money poured into CDSs (credit default swaps), a financial device that acts as an insurance policy against defaults. By the end of 2007, the total investment in credit default swaps had swelled to $62 trillion (U.S.), a 6,700 per cent increase in only six years.

Li didn't make money directly off the idea, but it made him famous.

Maybe he sensed the danger inherent in the system he'd help establish. By 2005, Li was among those warning about the limitations of his model. "The most dangerous part is when people believe everything coming out of (the model)," he told The Wall Street Journal.

What Li's theorem could not do was predict what might happen in extreme economic environments, what experts call "tail dependency." And one was arriving.

The 2008 collapse of the U.S. housing bubble rendered Li's model useless. Defaults that the model had not predicted piled up, rippling through U.S. banks and wiping out trillions of dollars in investment.

But Li's colleagues say he's not to blame. "We have a saying in statistics, `All models are wrong, but some are useful,'" says Panjer. "He supplied something, a tool kit, for financial analysts. They took one small part of it and used it in ways he had never intended."

Li since moved to Beijing, where he heads the risk management department for the China International Capital Corp., a major investment bank. He has not commented on the meltdown or his role in it.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24658.1

Will crisis be catalyst for anarchist?

Will the ongoing crisis be the catalyst for anarchist views?

SINGAPORE - Anarchism goes back a long way before the dawn of the common era. Quotes such as “There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind” and “A petty thief is put in jail. A great brigand becomes a ruler of a State” can be found in the works of Taoist sages Laozi and Zhuangzi. In the big screen, the anarchist theme is explored through the portrayal of the dagger wielding V in V for Vendetta.

What do anarchists believe in? Basically, they do not see the necessity of compulsory governance. In other words, they envision a society that is free from a governing authority. There is a prevalent misconception that anarchism is synonymous with violence. Whilst some forms of anarchism advocate the use of violence, pacifist-anarchism rejects the use of violence. Mahatma Gandhi is the embodiment of such an ideal.

On the economics front, it is not unusual for anarchists (particularly the anarcho-capitalists) to support a free market that typefies a laissex-faire economy. They dismiss the notion of any form of governmental intervention within the economy.

The pertinent question is what conditions in Singapore’s context can serve as the breeding ground for anarchist views? Actually, one need not look any further for answers - our monochromatic political landscape that is dominated by a single entity. Since the 1950s, it has always been the lightning symbol that represents the PAP pervading throughout the entire political landscape.

There hasn’t been much opposition to the PAP. Since the 90s, the opposition contested at most half of the seats that are up for grabs. More often than not, the PAP is returned to power on Nomination Day. Thus, Singaporeans basically have to stomach whatever the PAP has offered on the platter.

Whilst it is the norm for governments of other countries to have an alternative cabinet, which is also known as the shadow cabinet, there hasn’t been any alternative to the PAP government so far. If the PAP is perceived to be failing to perform up to mark and the situation is exacerbated by the absence of alternatives, wouldn’t this provide a fertile setting for the belief in rejection of a state (government)?

When the country is on the backfoot as a result of an international crisis, the PAP government would always point to the fact that we will always be affected by externuating factors beyond our control and it is beyond their powers to prevent such a thing from happening. With just the PAP in charge and just as helpless in the face of the crisis, some individuals might perceive that the country will still be affected even if the PAP government is absent. Wouldn’t this serve as an attractive foreground for such individuals to reject the relevance of governance, especially during such trying periods?

The typical anarchist would find a governing authority undesirable. For a local who has lost his job to his foreign counterpart and is therefore affected by the pro-foreigner policies (such as issuing work permits, awarding permanent residentship) pursued by the PAP government even during such trying times, wouldn’t the former perceive the latter as undesirable and, a liability? The affected local will feel the same as the anarchist, no?

Thus, when individuals start questioning the relevance of the government especially in periods of great crisis, they are in effect a few steps closer to the boundaries of anarchism. The route to anarchism is finally complete when they progress to rejecting the notion of a government. Of course, not all progress to that stage.

Classic mistakes by our government in the past make good ammunition for the anarchist to use against the former. Recall that years ago, a group of entrepreneurial individuals pioneered the “meals on wheels” (mobile food van) concept which allows them to sell food and beverage in certain areas. They approached the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) to obtain the latter’s permission to operate the business. And what did URA do? Instead of keeping the business concept between itself and its pioneers, the former implemented the concept on a wide scale, opening it to the general public. They even had a balloting system for the allocation of permits. The best part was that the hours the vendors were allowed to operate were restricted. When intellectual property should be respected, URA did otherwise. What happened in the end? The mobile food van was finally phased out. So much for entrepreneurship.

The anarchist, particularly the anarcho-capitalist, would use this URA saga to show the undesirable effects of government intervention and promote the benefits of a free-wheeling laissez-faire market. And suggestions for our government to privatize the economy in a laissez-faire approach and let entrepreneurs run the show has the word “anarcho-capitalism” written all over them.

It has been well-documented that Singaporeans are politically apathetic. Do they really display political apathy or they have reached the stage where they have become nonchalant about anything and everything with regards to our governance, which effectively makes them closet anarchists?

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24651.1

The missing forum threads

CDC Bonus Fiasco Part 2: The missing forum threads

 
I didn't believe it at first when someone commented that SPH's AsiaOne forums had locked and deleted a lively thread discussing the Northwest CDC 8-month bonus issue. I mean, yes I can see the news articles disappearing from ST and CNA, but forum threads too?

This forum post entitled "Northwest CDC 8-month Bonus" was started at 3.36pm on Thursday, 19 March on AsiaOne forums, that's yesterday.

Asiaone2a

This is what the forum post said:

Asiaone1a

As of last night, there were two pages of comments on this thread but if you went back this morning, with this URL, http://forums.asiaone.com/showthread.php?t=226046, you got nothing.

Asiaone5

Then this morning, there is already a third thread started on the AsiaOne forum, entitled "CDCs giving out 8 month bonuses?", and people are wondering when it will be deleted.

Asiaone4

Oh wait. It's already gone. That was even faster.

So SPH, why ah? Dowan people to discuss the CDC 8-months bonus topic ah? Or read anything about it ah?

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24645.2

 

Foreigner's Action Party

Foreigner's Action Party

The Singapore Tourist Board (STB) has volunteered - without having even been asked - to represent and act on behalf of an American tourist in the small claims court, in the matter of an alleged over-pricing incident at Newton Hawker Centre. (Note that the American did not initiate the court case. STB did on its own accord!)

Against this backdrop, Singaporeans must be wondering why not a single government statutory board is representing and acting on behalf of Singaporeans in the matter of alleged mis-selling by DBS bank in the minibond saga? (Note that literally thousands of Singaporeans have asked for the government's assistance in commencing legal action against DBS)

My standard Young Pay-And-Pay answer to these blur-fuck 66.6% Singaporeans is simple:


Do you know what the real name and logo of our party is?



Hint: Read the title of this post

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24644.1

Profit-driven vs reasonable care for employees

Profit-driven vs reasonable care for employees

Friday, 20 March 2009

The following is a letter from Tan Liping

In a Today article, “When layoffs are rooted in opportunity” (Mar 18, 2009), it talks about companies taking the opportunity in this slowdown to restructure and consolidate their operations, even though some of these firms are still having healthy cash flows.

No doubt it is necessary for businesses to constantly improve on its efficiency. It is also understandable for those encountering difficulties in this economic slowdown to trim down and cut costs, though unfortunately, sometimes it involves laying off workers.

But what about those companies which are still doing fine? Is it ok for some of these opportunistic companies to ‘take advantage’ of this time to make redundant some staff? Yes, businesses are meant to be profit-driven, but does that mean businesses being heartless to people who have worked for and contributed to the company, using ‘Oh times are bad, your skills are not needed anymore” as an excuse? In other words, is it reasonable to treat human resources the same as other depreciable assets like a sofa or a computer?

I’m not saying that all retrenchments are totally wrong but they should be justified and should be the last resort. Problem employees aside, if an employee’s skill is obselete, is it possible to send them for training eg. through government’s PREP-UP or SPUR schemes? Isn’t training and cultivating staff part of an employer’s responsibility? If retrenchment is the only solution, is it possible to give employees advice and aid them in finding new jobs elsewhere?

When times are bad, the impact of losing a job will be more magnified. Should the employer say bye bye and that’s it, or offer some kind of help?

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24643.1

UK and US printing money 'out of thin air' to fight credit crunch

UK and US printing money 'out of thin air' to fight credit crunch
New worry is hyper-inflation
By Zhen Ming
March 20, 2009

BACK in 1991, when a group of us launched Money Mind (a TV programme still telecast on Channel NewsAsia), I was allowed to film De La Rue Currency's ultra-secretive banknote manufacturing facilities in Singapore.

De La Rue Currency - the world's largest commercial currency printer, involved in the production of more than 150 currencies - closed its Singapore factory in 2002 after finding it difficult to cope with rising costs.

During my visit, I saw the firm's banknote design and production facilities.

A line of 300 Singaporeans were inspecting sheet after sheet of freshly printed $2 banknotes to spot errors (none on that day).

These days, however, most of the money that flows around an economy is created electronically rather than printed physically.

Quantitative easing

And as the world's ailing financial systems continue to remain immobile, central banks everywhere are introducing what's known as 'quantitative easing' (QE) - the modern equivalent of printing more money - as a desperate measure of last resort.

Under QE, a central bank creates new money literally 'out of thin air', which it then uses to buy what are essentially IOUs from ordinary banks.

The banks, in turn, use this money to create even more new money in a process known as deposit multiplication, where the amount of money (or loans) in circulation is further increased to stimulate additional spending.

The impact of QE is not very different from dropping paper money from a helicopter - as Mr Ben Bernanke himself once described this policy before he became chairman of the US Federal Reserve (Fed).

This idea (first mooted by US economist Milton Friedman) won Mr Bernanke the nickname 'helicopter Ben'.

The Fed is effectively practising QE - except, for ideological reasons, the Fed prefers to call it 'credit easing' instead.

To date, total QE assets held by the Fed stand at US$1.9 trillion ($2.9 trillion) - 2.4 times the size of the stimulus package sponsored by US President Barack Obama.

The US, not unlike the UK, has just signalled that it will continue to print more new money (that is, embark on further QE) in order to re-inflate its flagging (or deflating) economy. The Fed is scheduled to issue its statement on QE later today.

Mr Bernanke's view is that if the Fed provides liquidity, credit will flow and lower the price of loans, feeding pent-up demand for homes, cars, credit-card borrowing and capital expenditures by business in the depths of the worst recession in living memory.

Will QE work?

But will QE work? Or will triple-A sovereign borrowers like the US and the UK risk destroying their solvency, as they use QE to rescue over-indebted private sectors?

This possibility of a botched-up QE programme could be nightmarish for surplus countries like China, Japan and Singapore.

These countries currently hoard mountains of foreign reserves denominated in Western currencies like the US dollar and the British pound.

These hard-earned reserves actually stand the risk of dramatically losing their value in real terms because QE, if mismanaged, could trigger runaway inflation or hyper-inflation.

In some extreme examples of old-fashioned money printing, the results were disastrous. Think of the Reichsmarks in Germany after World War I, Japanese banana money in colonial Malaya during World War II, Russian roubles after the fall of communism, and the current hyper-inflation in Zimbabwe.

That's why Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is 'worried' about the safety of China's US$1 trillion investment in US government IOUs.

Singapore should be too.

# Zhen Ming, a Harvard-trained economist based in Singapore, is a freelance contributor.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24631.1

Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

An interview with the BBC’s Asia Business report was aired on Thursday. South-east Asia correspondent Jonathan Head asked Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong some pointed questions, and the Straits Times reported the following parts of the Q&A:

JONATHAN HEAD: Your own family has been quite involved in two of these funds. Your wife until recently ran Temasek, your father’s deeply involved in GIC. Is there a risk that when the news is bad, as it has been over the past year for these funds, that people will tend to blame your family rather than look at the institutions?

PM LEE: I think the way you put it is not the way things work in Singapore. The Minister Mentor is chairman of GIC not because he is my father. It’s because he is the best man for the job and he has been chairman since he was Prime Minister.
And Ho Ching is CEO of Temasek not because she’s my wife but because the chairman of Temasek, who’s Mr Dhanabalan, and the board decided that they wanted to appoint her as CEO.
And they are there as long as they are effective, performing, and if they don’t perform, well, they have to take the consequences.

JONATHAN HEAD: Perception is important in politics and in difficult times like this, do you think, in retrospect, it might have been better if your family had a lower profile?

PM LEE: (laughs) Life would be much easier for me if the Minister Mentor was not my father and Ho Ching was not my wife. But they are there. This is the way Singapore has worked. I think Singaporeans have understood that this is how the system works and they will render judgment when elections come.

Now listen to the complete audio for yourself.

Some of the bits left out by the local press:

Asked if he anticipated some shows of public anger or displeasure, PM Lee said: “I think it’s quite understandable that in a situation like this Singaporeans will be quite anxious, will be worried about their future. And I think they have seen what the government has been doing. We had a very decisive budget this year. The package was not only a big one but a very directly focused one on saving jobs and helping people to see through the downturn.”

Querying PM Lee on his take home pay, Jonathan Head put it thus: “Finally, Prime Minister, I read that you are apparently the highest paid head of government in the world. Your salary is about four or five times what President Obama gets. Are you worth all that money?”

PM Lee laughed and said: “I am not comparing myself and I don’t look at these rankings.We go on a system which is open, honest, transparent – what is the job worth, what is the quality of the person whom you want. We need the best people for the job and these are jobs where you make decisions which are worth billions of dollars. And you cannot do that if you are pretending and you just say, ‘Well, we are all in it for the love of King and Country’. We want it to be honest, we want people not to come in for the money. But at the same time the sacrifice cannot be too great. And at times like this, you want the best possible government you can have.”

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24623.1

Council confusion

Council confusion

Friday, 20 March 2009


The Mayor of Northwest Community Development Council (CDC) and MP for Bukit Panjang, Dr Teo Ho Pin, appears to be developing an unfortunate penchant for attracting controversy. After it was disclosed late last year that ruling party-controlled town councils lost money on Lehman-related financial products, Dr Teo drew flak for saying that, rather than questioning the losses, Singaporeans should have been “thankful” for the profits the town councils had made in better years.

Dr Teo recently found himself under an uncomfortable spotlight again, after rumours surfaced that two of his CDC staff might have received 8 months’ worth of bonuses this year. The innuendo, coming during a severe recession and with simmering unhappiness over high ministerial wages, was political dynamite in the local blogosphere. When Dr Teo was first asked about the bonuses, he gave an ill-advised reply. When the mainstream media got wind of the matter, Dr Teo told reporters that he did not know how much his staff was paid. This remark seemed to contradict his initial answer when he reportedly said that such information was “confidential”.

Nevertheless, Dr Teo’s latter reply is probably technically correct. The combined annual financial statement for all five CDCs (which incidentally showed an 18% rise in wages from 2007 to 2008) is signed off by the CEO of the People’s Association (the PA, a statutory body of the government and the ruling party’s de facto grassroots organisation) rather than the Mayors. Furthermore, the CDCs’ staff is provided by the PA, though they report to the Mayor.

Even so, Dr Teo’s reply is somewhat disconcerting. It raises the question of the responsibilities of his Mayoral office, given that he seems to be absolved from staff and wage issues. To some extent, that is akin to saying that a Cabinet minister is not responsible for administrative matters in his ministry. The real issue should be over the question of accountability in the CDCs rather than the embarrassing size of the bonuses doled out.

The episode also highlights how the CDCs are awkward devices. They were launched by then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in 1997 as a means of “democratic decentralisation”. However, it is unclear to what degree such autonomy extends to Mayoral control over the CDCs when their offices are run by the PA and most of their funding is made up of operating grants from the government.

These days, CDCs serve to dispense largesse from government programmes at the grassroots level as well as to encourage community activism. These are useful political and social functions for the ruling party, though it is doubtful whether an Opposition MP would be made a Mayor should his party happen to win the constituencies that fall under a CDC’s ambit.

Yet these are also functions that could just as easily be replicated by town councils or administered directly by the central government. The budgets of the five CDCs are relatively small (their combined expenditure is roughly equivalent to that of one of the larger town councils), so town councils should have little trouble absorbing a CDC’s job. It is little wonder that CDCs sometimes appear as a superfluous layer of bureaucracy. Perhaps that is the genuine grievance that Singaporeans have over the current episode.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24615.1

Review GRC system, so more can vote

Review GRC system, so more can vote

I WISH to address the problem of group representation constituencies (GRCs) which stymies one's opportunity to vote.

In theory, the motley group of opposition parties should contest every constituency, making and, lo and behold, the constitutional right and duty to vote will become very real for every eligible voter. If only opposition parties here were more credible and capable, and had the financial and other resources to work the ground long before the elections, many citizens like myself would not end up as frustrated spectators, come election time.

But are the opposition parties solely to blame? The GRC system was first formulated to help minority candidates. Then it became a way for young and clever but untried candidates to win a seat. Their chances of winning in single-seat wards are comparatively slimmer than in a GRC.

I feel that the GRC system obstructs my right and duty to vote, and appears discordant with the Government's stated policy 'to ensure the maximum possible participation by our citizens in the electoral process'.

I last voted (for the PAP, by the way) in the 1980s when Braddell was a single-seat constituency. Later, it was absorbed into an expanded Marine Parade GRC, defying the logic of contiguity.

I am now in my 60s and I fear I will continue to remain a mere observer unless GRCs are made fewer or smaller, and more single-seat constituencies are created. I want to vote - to exercise a fundamental right and duty of citizenship - and thereby manifest my affiliation with fellow Singaporeans.

One's vote in a general election is not incidental to having a good job, raising a family, living the good life...It is no longer a liberal Western notion. Iraqis and Afghans risk suicide-bombers when they attempt to vote. But here, in prosperous, peaceful Singapore, many are often denied the chance to vote.

It was reported that voter turnout in the last election was a high 95 per cent. What is an equally important statistic is the percentage of eligible voters who could not vote in the past five elections against the total number in the electoral register.

Tan Chak Lim

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24610.1

Singapore's GIC RE unfazed by $360m hit

Singapore's GIC RE unfazed by $360m hit

Florence Chong | March 12, 2009
Article from: The Australian

IN less than a year, one of the world's top 10 property investors, the Singapore-based GIC Real Estate (GIC RE),has lost more than $360 million in just two investments in Australia.

The losses stem from the collapse in the unit prices of GPT Group and Mirvac Group. GIC RE invested a total of about $585 million in these two listed entities.

With a property portfolio worth more than $3.5 billion in Australia, GIC has yet to crystallise potential losses in its direct property holdings in Australia.

Its losses from investment in listed entities in Australia have come as part of its $S50 billion ($51 billion) writedown across all GIC investments, including real estate.

The Singapore behemoth took up 300 million GPT securities at the issue price of 60c a piece in addition to a $250 million placement last October.

It has already acquired a 1.9 per cent stake in the trust at prices ranging from $1.96 to $1.45 a share.

GIC RE is now the single largest shareholder in GPT, with a stake of more than 13 per cent.

It also has a holding of about 6 per cent in Mirvac, accumulated over several months last year, and took part in its $500 million capital raising last November.

When contacted by The Australian for comment on its Australian holdings, a spokeswoman for GIC said: "GIC Real Estate does not comment on the specifics of our investments."

At the time of its investment in GPT, GIC RE president Seek Ngee Huat said: "We see this partnership with GPT as a good fit, and an important part of ourinvestment strategy in Australia."

Dr Seek added: "The investment we have made is through convertible preferred securities and participation in the rights issue, which will give us appropriate downside protection as well as the opportunity for upside in capital appreciation."

Mostly, GIC RE's exposure in Australia is in direct property, including a half share in Westfield's Parramatta shopping centre, in Sydney's west, and a third share in the purchase and redevelopment of the Myer department store site in central Melbourne.

Industry experts said property values across the board would inevitably fall by at least 10-15 per cent, possibly more, in the current downturn.

According to its joint venture partner Westfield Group in its full-year results last month, the value of its half share in the Westfield Parramatta shopping centre had fallen from $753 million at the end of 2007 to $711.1 million a year later.

GIC acquired a third share in the purchase of the former Myer department store in Melbourne for $276 million.

Its total investment upon completion of the redevelopment would be close to $500 million, according to sources close to the project.

Colonial First State Retail Property Fund, a one-third shareholder of the property, has taken an impairment charge of $15million for its stake of the project.

The value of GIC RE's prime Sydney investment, including the Queen Victoria Building and Strand Arcade, will almost certainly have softened from the peak of the cycle, but it is unclear to what extent.

All in all, however, the losses GIC RE incurred in Australia are just a small fraction of the sovereign wealth fund's overall losses from its global investment in the past year.

Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) -- the parent of GIC RE -- had lost about 25 per cent of its value from its peak in 2007.

The exact value of GIC's investment is not known, although "about $S200 billion" is a figure often quoted.

And based on that figure, the losses would be about $S50 billion, which was first reported last month when Dow Jones Newswires quoted sources as saying GIC's investment losses were estimated at about $S45 billion to $S50 billion.

GIC, which manages Singapore's foreign exchange reserves, has 23 per cent of its portfolio invested in real estate, private equity and venture capital.

The balance is invested in equities and bonds, mainly in the US (34 per cent), Asia (23 per cent) and Europe (35 per cent).

Mr Lee, the founding leader of Singapore who was behind the creation of GIC, said last week: "We expected the market to go down in equities."

He said GIC reduced equity holdings by 15-16 per cent and was cash-rich and able to pick up stocks such as UBS and Citi when the market fell.

Ironically, it was its investments in Citigroup, and financial institutions such as Merrill Lynch and UBS, which had contributed to the bulk of its losses because of the collapse in their share prices. For instance, it invested $US6.88 billion ($10.73 billion) in Citigroup in January last year. Today, its 5.3per cent stake is worth just over $1 billion.

However, it converted its stake of preferred shares in Citigroup into common stock at $US3.25 per share.

The conversion reduced its paper losses on the investment from 80 per cent to 24 per cent.

It also invested $S14 billion in UBS in December 2007 and $US2 billion in Merrill Lynch.

Sources close to GIC said it was highly unlikely that it would sell its interests in Australia because of the losses incurred.

History has shown that GIC RE is a long-term investor, having sold only a few Australian assets, including 175 Liverpool Street in Sydney.

In 1997, it sold its interest in an AMP office and an AMP shopping centre trusts for a total of $35million. It still has a 25 per cent stake in Lend Lease's billion-dollar inner-city apartment development, Jackson's Landing in Pyrmont, which is currently selling its last 325 units.

But GIC RE is not retreating from property investment.

Two weeks ago, GIC settled a $US1.3 billion acquisition with the cash-strapped Prologis, the US-based industrial property developer/owner.

Prologis sold its assets in China and 20 per cent of its Japan property fund business to GIC to retire debt.

Between 2007 and 2008 alone, GIC RE spent $10 billion on real estate in key markets in Russia, Europe and Japan.

Australia was one of its earliest investment destinations.

This included a 75-25 joint venture with the US-listed Host Hotels and Resorts to invest in hotels in Australia and Asia.

Their set-up capital was $600 million, but with gearing it has a potential investment capacity of $US1.5 billion to $US2 billion.

Despite the odd market rumours that GIC RE is continuing to look at possible investments in Australia, it is almost certainly going to be more conservative in its approach in future.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24592.1

BBC: Singapore struggles with downturn

BBC: Singapore struggles with downturn
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7950129.stm

BBC: Your own family has been quite involved in these funds. Your wife, till recently, ran Temasek. Your father’s deeply involved in GIC. Is there a risk that when the news is bad, as it has been over the past year for these funds, people will tend to blame your family rather than the institutions?

LHL: I think the way you put it is not the way things work in Singapore. The Minister Mentor is chairman of GIC not because he’s my father. It’s because he’s the best man for the job and he has been chairman since he was prime minister. Ho Ching is CEO of Temasek not because she’s my wife but because the chairman of Temasek and the board decided that they wanted to appoint her as CEO. And they’re there as long as they’re effective, performing, and if they don’t perform, well, they have to take the consequences.

BBC: A thing or two about perception. Perception is important in politics. And in difficult times like these, do you think, in retrospect, it might have been better for your family to have a lower profile?

LHL: (Laughs) Life would have been easier for me if the Minister Mentor were not my father and Ho Ching were not my wife. But they’re there. This is the way Singapore has worked. I think Singaporeans have understood this is how the system works. And they will render judgement when elections come.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24550.1