Record highs?

Today, the Straits Times reported that 'Temasek's portfolio rises to record $198b'. But on closer look, the article also mentioned that 'net profit fell 16 per cent to $10.7 billion from $12.7 billion', and that shareholder return 'fell to 1.5 per cent from 4.6 per cent a year earlier'. It also stated that it 'fell short of its internal performance target by $12.6 billion'.

It is obvious that the article is structured to make Temasek look better by choosing to emphasise on their portfolio's record highs on the headlines. But does this tell us anything?

If Temasek were to switch their entire portfolio to low risk investments, they would essentially be able to report this piece of news every year. 'Temasek's portfolio rises to record $200b' in 2013, and perhaps 'Temasek's portfolio rises to record $202b' in 2014. Is this an accurate portrayal of its investment return?

An article title, in essence, can be used to convey the summary and intent of the whole article. And in this case, I find it a bit misleading as it gives the idea that Temasek made superior investment returns for the past investment period. Of course, they did disclose the details in the article, but what matters most is public impression - people who just skim through the papers, read the article title only, or fail to think more would interpret this as a piece of good news.