EN
EnglishРусскийDeutschFrançaisEspañol

← All portfolios

GIC Singapore 65/35

GIC Reference Portfolio (Singapore): 65% global equities, 35% global bonds

GIC Private Limited, on the instruction of its client, the Government of Singapore (represented by the Ministry of Finance) · 1 April 2013 (announced 2 August 2013); in 2026 GIC began replacing the 2013 three-tier framework with a 'Strategic Portfolio'

Live account on this site. This portfolio is also tracked here with a virtual $100,000 since 21.10.2026. Live account on this site →

Where it stands today

Data through 2026-09. Updated every month.

Since January+7.2 %
Last 12 months+10.0 %
Last 5 years, per year+7.2 %
Now below the peak−1.6 %
Place by 12 months30 / 60

Our calculation, 1926-07 – 2026-09

Per year8.6 %
Real (after inflation)5.4 %
Volatility12.1 %
Worst drop−65.1 %
Worst year−28.1 % (1931)
Best year38.7 %
Worst 12 months−45.7 %
Positive years74 %

37 % of this history is calculated with stand-ins for asset classes that did not exist yet (see “How we model it” and the page about data). Without stand-ins the history starts in 1990.

Growth of $10,000

$4,147$35,740$308,016$2,654,584$22,878,060$197,170,5081930194019501960197019801990200020102020
GIC Singapore 65/35: $37,507,841S&P 500: $196,488,890

Where it came from

GIC was incorporated in 1981 as a private company wholly owned by the Government of Singapore. The reserves it manages came from decades of balance-of-payments and budget surpluses after independence in 1965. By the late 1970s the reserves had grown larger than the central bank needed to run its currency-board and exchange-rate system, so part of them was handed to GIC to invest for longer-term, higher-yielding returns. The reserve was initially seen as a 'rainy day' fund; part of the returns now supplements the national budget. GIC says it manages the money but does not own the assets, and its mandate is to achieve good long-term returns above global inflation within specified risk limits, measured over a 20-year horizon.

According to a CFA Institute feature article by GIC authors (undated in the file; it cites GIC's 2015/16 report, so around 2017-2019), the investment approach evolved in three stages: a conservative first two decades with a bond-heavy, mostly public-market portfolio and a focus on building the organisation; a shift in the 2000s to an endowment-style approach, with greater tolerance for risk and lower liquidity needs, more private markets and emerging markets, and the beginning of real estate and private equity; and, in 2013, a framework focused on long-term drivers of return.

In 2012 GIC carried out a comprehensive review of its investment framework in response to the growing complexity of managing a multi-asset, multi-strategy portfolio after the global financial crisis. The result took effect on 1 April 2013 and was announced publicly on 2 August 2013. It has three tiers. First, the Reference Portfolio, specified by the client: 65 percent global equities and 35 percent global bonds. GIC describes it as a generally accepted alternative that is consistent with the client's risk tolerance and as an expression of the overall risk the Government is prepared for GIC to take, and explicitly not a short-term performance benchmark. Second, the Policy Portfolio: the long-term asset allocation, simplified to six core asset classes, which can be changed only with Board approval. Third, the Active Portfolio: skill-based strategies layered on top of the Policy Portfolio within risk limits set by the Board, funded by selling part of the passive Policy Portfolio exposure ('cost of carry' approach, per the CFA article).

The idea of the Reference Portfolio is therefore a measuring stick and a risk limit rather than something GIC owns. Both the Government and GIC expect the real GIC portfolio, built from the Policy and Active layers, to outperform the Reference Portfolio over 20 years. The CFA article says that in the five years before it was written the more diversified Policy Portfolio had underperformed portfolios with more developed-market equity, such as the Reference Portfolio, because of the strong bull run in US equities, while stating that the Policy Portfolio is expected to outperform in a bear market. The six asset classes of the Policy Portfolio are not named in the sources fetched; the weights of the Policy Portfolio are not disclosed.

In the report for 2025/26 (published July 2026) GIC announced that since 1 April 2026 it has started transitioning to a refreshed framework. At its heart is a Strategic Portfolio, again representing the client's risk appetite and long-term return expectations, but made of three broad asset groups: equities (growth), fixed income (income) and real assets (inflation), replacing the six-asset-class Policy Portfolio and the old split between public and private equity. The report describes the 2013 Reference Portfolio as 'a market-based representation of the Client's risk appetite' and lists it as part of the existing framework; it does not say whether the 65/35 mix continues as the Strategic Portfolio's basis. The GIC Portfolio is now designed to outperform the Strategic Portfolio over the long term within approved risk limits.

What is in it

Global equities65%Reference Portfolio set by the client; passive, not a short-term benchmark.
Global bonds35%Reference Portfolio. The reference index composition (for example government versus aggregate) is not stated in the sources opened.

Source of the shares: GIC, 'GIC's New Investment Framework' (2 August 2013) and CFA Institute feature article 'Managing Singapore's Financial Reserves for the Long Term' — www.gic.com.sg. Both state a Reference Portfolio of 65 percent global equities and 35 percent global bonds, in force since 1 April 2013; the CFA article is at https://www.gic.com.sg/uploads/2021/04/gic-managing-singapores-financial-reserves-for-the-long-term_cfa.pdf. The 2025/26 GIC report (July 2026) describes this 2013 framework (Reference, Policy and Active portfolios) in the past tense and presents a Strategic Portfolio of three asset groups as its anchor from 1 April 2026, without repeating the 65/35 figures or giving any weights. A Ministry of Finance parliamentary reply dated 8 September 2026 says the same: the old Reference Portfolio expressed the Government's risk appetite and was not a performance benchmark, and the new Strategic Portfolio is the baseline GIC is expected to beat.

How we model it

US large companies (S&P 500)39%
US bond market (aggregate)35%
Developed markets outside the US18%
Emerging markets8%

APPROXIMATION. 'Global equities' (65 percent) are split roughly 60/28/12 into us_large / intl_dev / em as a proxy for a global cap-weighted index (our assumption; GIC does not publish the index in the sources opened). 'Global bonds' (35 percent) are mapped to bond_agg (US aggregate, intermediate); the real global bond index is currency-diversified and may be hedged, which we cannot model. This is the Reference Portfolio only, not the actual GIC portfolio (56 percent equities, 22 percent fixed income, 22 percent real assets at 31 March 2026, which includes private equity, real estate and infrastructure that we do not have). The Reference Portfolio is the client's statement of acceptable market risk, not a list of holdings and not a short-term performance benchmark; the 65/35 mapping therefore describes the 2013-2026 risk anchor only. Since April 2026 the anchor is the Strategic Portfolio, whose weights are not published, so no mapping of the current policy is possible.

For a euro investor

The same portfolio bought with euros, without currency hedging: monthly returns converted at the end-of-month rate (German mark before 1999), inflation of the euro area. History in euros from 1953-10 to 2026-09.

Per year in euros8.0 %
After euro inflation5.2 %
Worst drop in euros−46.4 %
Worst year in euros−25.7 % (1974)
Safe withdrawal, 30 years, dollars3.78 % (1968-12)
Safe withdrawal, 30 years, euros2.78 % (1968-12)

The largest first-year withdrawal, then growing with inflation, that lasted 30 years from every monthly start. Test withdrawals for this portfolio →

How to build it with European funds

Examples of UCITS funds sold in the EU for each part of the portfolio. They track similar markets, not exactly the indices of our calculation.

PartShareExample funds (ISIN)
US large companies (S&P 500)39%iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD (Acc) IE00B5BMR087
Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF (USD) Distributing IE00B3XXRP09
US bond market (aggregate) (closest match)35%iShares Core Global Aggregate Bond UCITS ETF EUR Hedged (Acc) IE00BDBRDM35
iShares Core Global Aggregate Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) IE00B3F81409
Developed markets outside the US (closest match)18%iShares Core MSCI Europe UCITS ETF EUR (Acc) IE00B4K48X80
iShares Core MSCI Japan IMI UCITS ETF IE00B4L5YX21
Emerging markets8%iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) IE00BKM4GZ66

These are examples, not recommendations. Check the fund's key information document, costs and taxes with your broker before buying. Names and ISINs checked on justETF on 4 November 2026; Udak receives nothing from these funds.

The idea

The client wants a simple, transparent expression of how much market risk Singapore's reserves should carry. A 65/35 stock-bond mix is described by GIC as a generally accepted alternative consistent with the Government's risk tolerance. It sets a long-term risk anchor from which the Policy and Active layers can deviate and against which their added value is judged over 20 years. The Policy Portfolio, in turn, is built for robustness across plausible scenarios, diversification, good long-term return potential and compliance with risk limits (four principles listed in the CFA article), and the Active Portfolio separates skill-based return (alpha) from the systematic return of the Policy Portfolio.

How people buy it

A private investor can approximate the Reference Portfolio with a global equity index fund and a global bond fund in a 65/35 ratio, accepting that the exact bond index and currency treatment are not published. GIC itself does not offer this: it implements the real portfolio with in-house and external managers across public and private markets, and does not provide investment services to the public.

Rebalancing as published

Not published for the Reference Portfolio: it is a risk-setting concept, not a traded portfolio. Changes to asset class weights in the Policy Portfolio are approved by the Board on management's recommendation (CFA article). Performance is judged on a rolling 20-year basis.

Variants

Criticism

Through the eras

EraDatesTotalPer yearWorst dropS&P 500
Roaring Twenties boom1926-07 – 1929-08+95.1 %+23.5 %−3.7 %+153.7 %
Wall Street crash and Great Contraction1929-09 – 1932-07−59.0 %−26.3 %−65.1 %−78.2 %
New Deal recovery1932-08 – 1937-02+159.0 %+23.1 %−18.6 %+268.7 %
Recession within the Depression1937-03 – 1938-03−32.9 %−30.8 %−32.9 %−49.5 %
Rearmament and World War II1938-04 – 1945-09+125.4 %+11.4 %−18.4 %+205.8 %
Postwar expansion1945-10 – 1965-12+576.1 %+9.9 %−16.2 %+1212.9 %
Golden age of the 1950s1950-01 – 1959-12+228.2 %+12.6 %−9.4 %+438.8 %
Go-go years and nifty-fifty1966-01 – 1968-12+24.1 %+7.5 %−10.6 %+34.0 %
The Great Inflation (stagflation)1969-01 – 1982-07+99.2 %+5.2 %−31.3 %+84.6 %
1973-74 oil shock and bear market1973-01 – 1974-12−26.1 %−14.1 %−31.3 %−41.7 %
Second oil shock and the Volcker disinflation1979-01 – 1982-08+48.3 %+11.3 %−10.7 %+59.2 %
Great bull market in stocks and bonds1982-08 – 1999-12+1105.2 %+15.4 %−20.9 %+2060.4 %
Black Monday1987-08 – 1987-12−14.7 %—−20.9 %−21.8 %
Savings-and-loan crisis and 1990 recession1990-07 – 1991-03+4.8 %—−11.9 %+7.4 %
1994 bond market massacre1994-02 – 1994-12−3.4 %—−5.5 %−3.2 %
Asian and Russian financial crises1997-07 – 1998-10+9.1 %+6.8 %−10.6 %+22.4 %
Dot-com bubble and crash2000-03 – 2002-10−19.1 %−7.6 %−24.3 %−37.2 %
Recovery and housing boom2002-11 – 2007-09+98.5 %+15.0 %−3.9 %+97.0 %
Global financial crisis2007-10 – 2009-03−28.9 %−20.3 %−34.8 %−44.7 %
The decade after the crisis2009-04 – 2019-12+198.2 %+10.7 %−11.6 %+411.2 %
Fourth-quarter 2018 sell-off2018-09 – 2018-12−8.2 %—−8.2 %−14.4 %
Covid crash and stimulus boom2020-02 – 2021-12+28.2 %+13.8 %−12.9 %+53.6 %
Inflation shock and rate hikes2022-01 – 2022-12−16.5 %−16.5 %−21.6 %−19.9 %

Calendar years

-28%39%1927: +22.5%1928: +25.9%1929: -7.6%1930: -17.6%19301931: -28.1%1932: -3.4%1933: +38.7%1934: +4.2%1935: +30.7%1936: +21.8%1937: -21.3%1938: +19.8%1939: +2.9%1940: -3.1%19401941: -7.5%1942: +11.4%1943: +19.2%1944: +15.0%1945: +26.6%1946: -3.5%1947: +2.5%1948: +2.4%1949: +14.0%1950: +19.7%19501951: +14.0%1952: +9.3%1953: +2.2%1954: +33.8%1955: +16.1%1956: +4.7%1957: -4.0%1958: +28.5%1959: +7.5%1960: +4.8%19601961: +18.2%1962: -4.5%1963: +14.2%1964: +11.7%1965: +9.7%1966: -4.0%1967: +17.6%1968: +10.0%1969: -9.0%1970: +6.5%19701971: +14.4%1972: +11.8%1973: -11.4%1974: -16.7%1975: +26.9%1976: +22.9%1977: -1.8%1978: +5.1%1979: +15.9%1980: +21.2%19801981: -0.3%1982: +27.8%1983: +15.5%1984: +7.7%1985: +31.6%1986: +18.1%1987: +1.6%1988: +14.3%1989: +25.2%1990: -2.0%19901991: +23.6%1992: +3.9%1993: +20.3%1994: -0.1%1995: +21.9%1996: +11.3%1997: +14.2%1998: +13.9%1999: +21.4%2000: -6.0%20002001: -5.4%2002: -8.0%2003: +26.2%2004: +12.4%2005: +9.1%2006: +14.6%2007: +10.1%2008: -23.5%2009: +24.8%2010: +13.0%20102011: -0.9%2012: +12.3%2013: +17.2%2014: +5.9%2015: -0.8%2016: +7.6%2017: +17.7%2018: -5.5%2019: +20.2%2020: +15.4%20202021: +11.1%2022: -16.5%2023: +16.3%2024: +11.4%2025: +17.5%

Any N-year period

Any N-year periodWorst10 % worse thanMedian10 % better thanBest
1 y (1192)−45.7 %−7.1 %+10.7 %+24.6 %+87.3 %
3 y (1168)−27.5 %−0.5 %+9.1 %+16.5 %+30.2 %
5 y (1144)−10.2 %+2.8 %+8.6 %+14.5 %+24.9 %
10 y (1084)−0.9 %+4.7 %+8.4 %+13.3 %+16.5 %
15 y (1024)+1.8 %+5.8 %+8.6 %+13.2 %+15.6 %
20 y (964)+3.1 %+6.4 %+8.9 %+12.4 %+14.8 %
30 y (844)+6.4 %+7.8 %+9.2 %+10.8 %+12.1 %

How it behaved in history

Published results (by others)

What we could not verify

Sources

Open in the builder

Put this card on your site →

Calculated on historical data. Past results do not predict the future. Models before the 1990s use stand-ins for classes that had no index yet; fees, taxes and fund costs are not included. This is mathematics, not an investment recommendation.