Bloomberg English News "Japan's Government Pension Fund to Diversify to Avoid Erosion of Asset Value"; Bloomberg Japan "Government Pension Fund Will Have Positive Return This Year"

It's about the same news, written by the same reporters.

It was quite common for both the Japanese news outlets that also have English language service and the US news outlets that also have presence in Japan to report different stories for their Japanese audience in Japan and for their foreign audience in English language when reporting on the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant accident.

When it comes to bad news for the economically clueless Japanese citizens, Bloomberg News seems to be doing the same as it reports on the decision by the Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF) to start planning for diversification of their JGB-heavy portfolio.

I first saw the article in English at Zero Hedge, and looked for the same article in Japanese Bloomberg News to tweet to my Japanese followers. I found the Japanese article, written by the same reporters based in Tokyo, but I was completely confused. Instead of quoting the manager of GPIF warning the potential erosion of asset values because of the new LDP administration's policies as in the English article, the Japanese article starts out by saying:

The return will be positive two years in a row due to cheaper yen, says the manager of GPIF.

Huh?

So, here are the opening paragraphs of Bloomberg English (2/3/2013) titled "Japan Pension Fund’s Bonds Too Many on Abe Plan, Mitani Says", by Anna Kitanaka, Toshiro Hasegawa & Yumi Ikeda:

Japan’s public pension fund, the world’s biggest manager of retirement savings, is considering the first change to its asset balance as a new government’s policies could erode the value of $747 billion in local bonds.

Managers of the Government Pension Investment Fund, which oversees about 108 trillion yen ($1.16 trillion) in assets, will begin talks in April about reducing its 67 percent target allocation to domestic bonds, President Takahiro Mitani said in a Feb. 1 interview in Tokyo. The fund may increase holdings in emerging market stocks and start buying alternative assets.

The GPIF, created in 2006, didn’t alter the structure of its holdings during the worst global financial crisis in 80 years or in response to the 2011 earthquake and nuclear disaster. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and the Bank of Japan (8301) have pledged to restore economic growth and spur inflation, which will mean higher interest rates, Mitani said.

“If we think about the future and if interest rates go up, then 67 percent in bonds does look harsh,” said Mitani, who was appointed in 2010 after serving as an executive director at the Bank of Japan. “We will review this soon. We will begin discussions for this in April-to-May. Any changes to our portfolio could begin at the end of the next fiscal year.”

GPIF, one of the biggest buyers of Japanese government bonds, held 69.3 trillion yen, or 64 percent of total assets, in domestic debt at the end of September, according to its latest quarterly financial statement. That compares with 12 trillion yen, or 11 percent, in Japanese stocks; 9.6 trillion yen, or 9 percent, in foreign bonds; and 12.6 trillion yen, or 12 percent, in overseas stocks.

The fund, which took over management of government employee retirement savings when it was set up, returned to profit in the three months ended Dec. 31 from a 1.4 percent loss in the first six months of the fiscal year, Mitani said. He declined to be more specific. It needs to raise about 6.4 trillion yen this fiscal year through March 31 to meet payments.

And here's my translation of the opening paragraphs of the Japanese Bloomberg article (2/4/2013) by the same reporters:

世界最大の資産規模を持つ日本の年金積立金管理運用独立行政法人（ＧＰＩＦ）は、昨年12月以降の円安進行や株高基調を背景に、今年度の運用収益率が２年連続でプラスとなる見通しを明らかにした。

Japan's Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF) that holds the world's beggest assets revealed that this fiscal year's return will be positive, two years in a row, thanks to cheaper yen and higher stock market since December last year.

三谷隆博理事長は１日、ブルームバーグとのインタビューで、2012年度の運用状況について、「昨年12月以降、株価が上昇し、円安方向に振れたのでかなりプラスが出ているのではないか。７－９月期までの年度収益率はマイナスだったが、これを取り戻してプラスになっていることは間違いない」と語った上で、11年度の2.32％に続いてプラスになるとの見通しを示した。

President Takahiro Mitani said in a February 1 interview with Bloomberg about the fund performance in the fiscal 2012 [which ends in March 31, 2013], "Stock prices have gone up and Japanese yen has gone down since December last year, so I assume the return has turned positive in a significant way. The annualized return up to the July-September quarter was negative, but I have no doubt that the return has turned positive." In the fiscal 2011, the return was 2.32%.

ＧＰＩＦの今年度の収益率は、４－６月期にマイナス1.85％だったが、７－９月期は外国株式の上昇が寄与してプラス0.49％。４－９月累計ではマイナス1.39％だった。

The rate of return at GPIF this fiscal year was minus 1.85% in the April-June quarter [1st quarter of the fiscal year], but in the July-September quarter the rate turned positive to 0.49% thanks to the rise in foreign stocks. The cumulative rate of return from April to September was minus 1.39%.

Rejoice, the government pension fund will make money this year!

Later, the Japanese article talks about Mr. Mitani's concern about the Japanese Government Bonds which makes up more than 60% of their portfolio, but in a much more subdued way; there is no talk of change in portfolio possibly starting at the end of the next fiscal year.

Let's see, GPIF has 108 trillion yen, and Mr. Mitani says the fund will make money. How much money will be the question, as Bloomberg English article says the fund has to raise 6.4 trillion yen to meet the payment obligations. That would be the equivalent of almost 6% return on the total asset.

Instead of focusing on writing the grammatically correct English devoid of meaning or on native-like pronunciation of English words and sentences (native in where is a good question, but), the Japanese people should really study English, so that they can read and understand the Bloomberg English article.

But even before their English lessons, they probably need economic lessons (and need to stop adoring Krugman, for a start).

Tweet

Stanford University Researchers: "#Fukushima Radiation May Cause 1,300 Cancer Deaths Around the World"

"The best estimates of cancer cases resulting from the Fukushima disaster is 180, and range from 24 to 2,500", according to the Bloomberg News article below.

(180 cases?)

Further, the article says:

The most likely number of cancer deaths is 130 and estimated to range from 15 to 1,300, the authors said, adding that the ranges reflect uncertainties about emissions and the methods the researchers used to calculate their impact.

(130 deaths?? Worldwide?)

The paper by the Stanford researchers further says 2 to 12 cases of cancer may happen among the plant workers.

From Bloomberg News (7/17/2012; part, emphasis is mine):

Fukushima Radiation May Cause 1,300 Cancer Deaths, Study Finds

By Jason Gale - Jul 17, 2012 3:15 PM PT

Radiation from the Fukushima nuclear plant may cause as many as 1,300 cancer deaths globally, according to a study that showed fallout from Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s (9501) crippled reactors may be deadlier than predicted.

The March 2011 nuclear disaster may cause as many as 2,500 cases of cancer, mostly in Japan, Stanford University scientists said. They incorporated emission estimates into 3-D global atmospheric modeling to predict the effects of radiation exposure, which was detected as far away as the U.S. and Europe.

Cancer cases may have been at least 10 times greater if the radiation hadn’t mostly fallen in the sea, said Mark Z. Jacobson, co-author of the first detailed analysis of the event’s global health effects. Identical emissions from a hypothetical accident at California’s Diablo Canyon Power Plant would be 25 percent deadlier because of differing weather patterns, according to the study published yesterday in the journal Energy & Environmental Science.

“There was a lot of luck involved,” said Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford, in a telephone interview. “The effects vary significantly with the meteorological conditions and the only reason this wasn’t a lot worse was because 81 percent of all the emissions were deposited over the ocean.”

The failure of backup power at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant, located 135 miles (220 kilometers) north of Tokyo, caused the worst atomic accident since Chernobyl in 1986.

Radiation fallout forced the evacuation of about 160,000 people surrounding the plant. It also left about 132 square kilometers as a no-go zone, some of it uninhabitable for decades. Prolonged exposure to radiation in the air, ground and food can damage DNA, causing leukemia and other cancers.

The best estimates of cancer cases resulting from the Fukushima disaster is 180, and range from 24 to 2,500, yesterday’s study said.

The most likely number of cancer deaths is 130 and estimated to range from 15 to 1,300, the authors said, adding that the ranges reflect uncertainties about emissions and the methods the researchers used to calculate their impact.

“They have demonstrated there are no significant public health effects” from radiation exposure, said Evan Douple, associate chief of research at the Hiroshima Radiation Effects Research Foundation. “Their best estimate of 130 cancer deaths in Japan would be lost in the background wash of the hundreds of thousands of cancer deaths that would be occurring in the million or so people in the population exposed.”

The biggest health effects were psychological, said Douple, whose team is studying the impact from Fukushima. Stress from the earthquake, tsunami and meltdown may cause a range of health effects, including cancer, he said.

(Full article at the link.)

Excellent. Bloomberg even quotes in the last two paragraphs above the researcher at the institution whose antecedent is the infamous Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission.

Only 130 deaths worldwide (though mostly from Japan) from 3 core melts and 900,000 terabecquerels of radioactive materials (iodine equivalent).

The abstract from Energy & Environmental Science also says that radiation exposure to workers at the plant may result in 2 to 12 cases of cancer:

This study quantifies worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident on 11 March 2011. Effects are quantified with a 3-D global atmospheric model driven by emission estimates and evaluated against daily worldwide Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) measurements and observed deposition rates. Inhalation exposure, ground-level external exposure, and atmospheric external exposure pathways of radioactive iodine-131, cesium-137, and cesium-134 released from Fukushima are accounted for using a linear no-threshold (LNT) model of human exposure. Exposure due to ingestion of contaminated food and water is estimated by extrapolation. We estimate an additional 130 (15–1100) cancer-related mortalities and 180 (24–1800) cancer-related morbidities incorporating uncertainties associated with the exposure–dose and dose–response models used in the study. We also discuss the LNT model's uncertainty at low doses. Sensitivities to emission rates, gas to particulate I-131 partitioning, and the mandatory evacuation radius around the plant are also explored, and may increase upper bound mortalities and morbidities in the ranges above to 1300 and 2500, respectively. Radiation exposure to workers at the plant is projected to result in 2 to 12 morbidities. An additional [similar]600 mortalities have been reported due to non-radiological causes such as mandatory evacuations. Lastly, a hypothetical accident at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in California, USA with identical emissions to Fukushima was studied to analyze the influence of location and seasonality on the impact of a nuclear accident. This hypothetical accident may cause [similar]25% more mortalities than Fukushima despite California having one fourth the local population density due to differing meteorological conditions.

*Definition of "morbidity": The rate of incidence of a disease.

One of the researchers, Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson, is a Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University, California. I can see that he may be good at radioactive materials dispersion modeling. But at putting the numbers on cancer cases and deaths?

Tweet