Our hard-earned CPF savings...
-
The CPF board has consistently said it only invests funds in "risk-free" government bonds and bank deposits, but both opposition and PAP politicians have contradicted those claims. Opposition politicians, including Low Thia Khiang, have questioned whether the funds paid into the CPF actually provide a de facto cheap source of finance for GIC in particular to invest abroad.
GIC officially acknowledges that it invests overseas some of the proceeds raised from government bonds. However, the government does not publicly release information on assets held abroad or data on the position of the consolidated public sector, according to the IMF. That's historically raised criticisms that could intensify in the months ahead as the economy weakens. Opposition MP Low was quoted in the Straits Times in September 2007 asking in parliament whether the "government short-changes Singaporeans by giving CPF members 3.5% of the interest rate while the GIC makes 9% and pockets the balance of 5.5%".Read More: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/KC20Ae02.html
The Singapore Story: 50 Years of Nation Building
Trailer 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsZdxqRIj24
Trailer 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3HexM_yOuY
The Singapore Story: 50 Years of Nation Building
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtA3yjSigX4
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlVupJlxaXs
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfwJU06vqr8
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKTzGjzI49o
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6wxA9i_nNU -
The people are really stupid.Anything goes in here!
-
Originally posted by Bio-Hawk:
The people are really stupid.Anything goes in here!
-
since it is hard earn, it is better that the govt keep it safe for you, otherwise, as most of our oldies do not have good financial planing knowledge, they may spent the hard earn money away..for those that are soft earn, the govt allow you to spend whatever you like, it is the hard earn that they are caring for you.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
since it is hard earn, it is better that the govt keep it safe for you, otherwise, as most of our oldies do not have good financial planing knowledge, they may spent the hard earn money away..for those that are soft earn, the govt allow you to spend whatever you like, it is the hard earn that they are caring for you.
Angel you write more and more like an angel. I reward you with this song from Celine Dion, listen carefully to the lyrics, if you can't just enjoy the song from this 1990 album, probably most here not born yet then. -
I find nothing wrong with GIC earning 9% with risks (if they can achieve it), and giving 2.5%~4% to Singaporeans risk-free.
If you think you are so good to achieve at least 9% p.a. with you money, you don't even need to bother about CPF funds anymore. A 100k investment by you would double in 8 years. If you are really that financially savvy, the first 100k wouldn't be a problem at all.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
I find nothing wrong with GIC earning 9% with risks (if they can achieve it), and giving 2.5%~4% to Singaporeans risk-free.
If you think you are so good to achieve at least 9% p.a. with you money, you don't even need to bother about CPF funds anymore. A 100k investment by you would double in 8 years. If you are really that financially savvy, the first 100k wouldn't be a problem at all.
Wouldn't it be nice if everybody was able to achieve 9% pa?
There would be no poor in the world.
World peace.
-
Every form of investment carries with it a certain amount of risk lah..... where got 0 risk one? Perhaps TS is mistaken? Can TS show where he has derived his opinion from?
-
Originally posted by charlize:
Wouldn't it be nice if everybody was able to achieve 9% pa?
There would be no poor in the world.
World peace.
It seems like those who complained think GIC can earn 9% risks free... and they can work for free.Win money, people complain. Lose money, people also complain. Whole day complain and do nothing, then pocket empty, then continue to complain. As if when they complain enough, all their wishes will be fulfilled.
-
Originally posted by troublemaker2005:
Angel you write more and more like an angel. I reward you with this song from Celine Dion, listen carefully to the lyrics, if you can't just enjoy the song from this 1990 album, probably most here not born yet then.that's my grandma song, it dun move me at all. how about you listen to the pussycat doll. You will feel younger, go hip hop ai mai??
-
Originally posted by eagle:
It seems like those who complained think GIC can earn 9% risks free... and they can work for free.Win money, people complain. Lose money, people also complain. Whole day complain and do nothing, then pocket empty, then continue to complain. As if when they complain enough, all their wishes will be fulfilled.
told you all already, singaporeans all like this one,Cannot shit, blame govt, cannot give birth, blame govt, wife run away, blame govt, miss the bus, blame govt, cannot afford to buy car, blame govt, paid low, blame govt, paid high, blame govt, get a ugly or not handsome partner, blame govt, no toilet paper, blame govt....not just about money hor
-
Don't you find it an anomaly that despite one of the highest savings rates in the world most Singaporeans do not have enough retirement? Its not that because Singaporeans are not saving enough, but rather Singaporeans are not taking enough risks. Yet the govt is forcing Singaporeans to take lower risks.
1.04^ 30 = 3.24 times ( compounded returns over 30 years at 4%)
1.08^30 = 10.06 times ( compounded returns over 30 years at 8%)
Because most Singaporeans take lower risks, they may have to save 3 times more to get a similar retirement payout compared to countries that invests in equities.
The govt advocates individuals taking their own responsbility for retirement, yet its not possible equip majority of Singaporeans with financial knowledge. Many end up buying lower risks products such as endowment plan or unit trusts with high fees and sales charge instead of ETFs. Worst still, some may end up losing large sums of money speculating.
Why does the govt force Singaporeans to save for housing (via CPF) when working Singaporeans would probably have saved for housing (a near term need) ?
On the other hand, most Singaporeans do not save enough for retirement because it is a good 20-30 years away.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
I find nothing wrong with GIC earning 9% with risks (if they can achieve it), and giving 2.5%~4% to Singaporeans risk-free.
If you think you are so good to achieve at least 9% p.a. with you money, you don't even need to bother about CPF funds anymore. A 100k investment by you would double in 8 years. If you are really that financially savvy, the first 100k wouldn't be a problem at all.
So you think its alright for the govt to pocket the difference, and the govt has no moral obligation to optimise the returns of it citizens like Malaysian's EPF, which gives part of its earnings declared as dividends back to its citizens?
-
Originally posted by Calvin86:
So you think its alright for the govt to pocket the difference, and the govt has no moral obligation to optimise the returns of it citizens like Malaysian's EPF, which gives part of its earnings declared as dividends back to its citizens?
Yes, it is perfectly alright for the govt to pocket the difference.
The difference is used to pay the salaries of civil servants, not to mention growth dividends to you and CPF top-ups for the elderly during the boom years.
-
Originally posted by Calvin86:
Don't you find it an anomaly that despite one of the highest savings rates in the world most Singaporeans do not have enough retirement? Its not that because Singaporeans are not saving enough, but rather Singaporeans are not taking enough risks. Yet the govt is forcing Singaporeans to take lower risks.
1.04^ 30 = 3.24 times ( compounded returns over 30 years at 4%)
1.08^30 = 10.06 times ( compounded returns over 30 years at 8%)
Because most Singaporeans take lower risks, they may have to save 3 times more to get a similar retirement payout compared to countries that invests in equities.
The govt advocates individuals taking their own responsbility for retirement, yet its not possible equip majority of Singaporeans with financial knowledge. Many end up buying lower risks products such as endowment plan or unit trusts with high fees and sales charge instead of ETFs. Worst still, some may end up losing large sums of money speculating.
Why does the govt force Singaporeans to save for housing (via CPF) when working Singaporeans would probably have saved for housing (a near term need) ?
On the other hand, most Singaporeans do not save enough for retirement because it is a good 20-30 years away.
You think it is that easy to compound at 8% p.a. for 30 years with minimal risks and effort????
If you are that good to compound your money at 8% or more, you do not even need your CPF monies at all.
Financial knowledge has to be personally acquired. You talk as if everyone should and have to know it. You think ETFs are that great? Based on? Just because all the books are talking about how great ETFs are compared to Unit Trusts? You are believing the perpetrators of these ETFs who has specific interests in getting you to buy?
You do not save enough simply because you do not work hard enough. Ask yourself if you have put in the effort and energy to earn more while young, so that the power of compounding (since you like it) can have greater effect.
Btw, not using a lot of effort at all, I received another $170 cheque from google adsense. And remember all your time spent in complaining in this forum by typing can actually translates to even more income elsewhere, but you chose to spend it here.
-
When surplus get extremely large there is a risk of generating negative return on the surplus reserved as such there is a need to re-investing the surplus financial capital for that i think it is not wrong.
The notion of "risk free" is provided that financial capital are standing on sound footing. These days most govts are standing on "billion dollars" deficit spending. How much "Risk Free" can one gets.
Stock market slided 1000 points within half a day of total selling depict that institutions investors are holding stock not for investment but speculative. The true nature is that institution who held large stocks really don't have much confident in stocks.
Value of monies is becoming more like regular paper.
The key is how do you maintain the value of your surplus. and what is a reasonable loss of valuation during the crisi?
Singapore is still not as Transparent as we like to see...because transparent reflect the true reality of the investment portfolio maybe a threat to the establishment.
Our CPF return of 2.5% considered after tax. And if CPF is tax upon withdrawer than considered double, or triple taxation.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
Wouldn't it be nice if everybody was able to achieve 9% pa?
There would be no poor in the world.
World peace.
ha ha ha than you have to considered World financial Inflation...... Remember reading about WWII in Singapore the Japanese started to print Bananas monies to the point that it was worthless....Economics is a pain.....i think the best is that cost of living to maintain low. Cheap housing and food, transport. Than surplus cash goes into saving for retirement.
people are satisfied and happy.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
I find nothing wrong with GIC earning 9% with risks (if they can achieve it), and giving 2.5%~4% to Singaporeans risk-free.
If you think you are so good to achieve at least 9% p.a. with you money, you don't even need to bother about CPF funds anymore. A 100k investment by you would double in 8 years. If you are really that financially savvy, the first 100k wouldn't be a problem at all.
You are correct in the sense that not everyone would know how to invest in financial products that yield 9% if the monies were return to the population.
fundamental thinking.....
I sometime ponder the notion of "correct goods to consume" and that it is the "protector" that knows more vs let it to the private establishment to make that decision.
But i think there should be a choice given for the population. If individual choose to Remain in CPF, they enjoy an after tax returned of 2.5% or pull out the monies to private establishment to manage the fund at market risk. But i think there would still be taxed on the private returned.
Personnally i see alot more benefit in private sector getting a pie of the CPF retail investment because
1) it will relief the demand inflation pressure on property especially on HDB.
2) Our private investment market will operate in a more efficient manner. Create Jobs in private investment sector. Rather than restrict to insurance/unit trust and an over crowded of property agents ....
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Yes, it is perfectly alright for the govt to pocket the difference.
The difference is used to pay the salaries of civil servants, not to mention growth dividends to you and CPF top-ups for the elderly during the boom years.
Thats the difference between you and me.Morally i think its not right for a govt to tax heavily on Singaporeans's savings when they are already insufficient. CPF tops up is merely a fraction of the returns the invesment earned. For your info, the salaries of the civil servants are paid by taxes, whereas gains by Temasek and GIC are mostly kept in reserves.
You think it is that easy to compound at 8% p.a. for 30 years with minimal risks and effort?
Most pension funds target at least 8%, even the conversatives ones. Its a realistic target. Historically, stocks yield 12% on average.
Financial knowledge has to be personally acquired. You talk as if everyone should and have to know it. You think ETFs are that great? Based on? Just because all the books are talking about how great ETFs are compared to Unit Trusts? You are believing the perpetrators of these ETFs who has specific interests in getting you to buy?
I see the importance of teaching financial knowledge in school because several of my friends are earning low interest rates on their savings or going for risks adverse products. If the govt wants to advocate individual responsibility for retirement, schools should equip them with the financial skills, otherwise, most will have difficulty retiring earning paltry returns on low interest rates.
I am for ETF because i read the original work on efficient market hypothesis by Eugene Fama. Its not because i agree with the theory, but its the empirical results that makes me agree passive indexing is better most of the time, after accounting for management fees and sales charge.
You do not save enough simply because you do not work hard enough. Ask yourself if you have put in the effort and energy to earn more while young, so that the power of compounding (since you like it) can have greater effect.
Btw, not using a lot of effort at all, I received another $170 cheque from google adsense. And remember all your time spent in complaining in this forum by typing can actually translates to even more income elsewhere, but you chose to spend it here.
You sound pretty young and arrogant. If you really want to know i draw on average $1800/month on starhub dividends alone. As for passive business income, its defintely way way bigger than what you are getting.
-
Originally posted by Calvin86:
Thats the difference between you and me.Morally i think its not right for a govt to tax heavily on Singaporeans's savings when they are already insufficient. CPF tops up is merely a fraction of the returns the invesment earned. For your info, the salaries of the civil servants are paid by taxes, whereas gains by Temasek and GIC are mostly kept in reserves.
You think it is that easy to compound at 8% p.a. for 30 years with minimal risks and effort?
I see the importance of teaching financial knowledge in school because several of my friends are earning low interest rates on their savings or going for risks adverse products. If the govt wants to advocate individual responsibility for retirement, schools should equip them with the financial skills, otherwise, most will have difficulty retiring earning paltry returns on low interest rates.
It's a personal responsibility to learn. You didn't learn it in school, neither did I. Your friends can choose to learn and pick it up after school, they didn't.
You cannot blame everything on the government.
Most pension funds target at least 8%, even the conversatives ones. Its a realistic target. Historically, stocks yield 12% on average.
Financial knowledge has to be personally acquired. You talk as if everyone should and have to know it. You think ETFs are that great? Based on? Just because all the books are talking about how great ETFs are compared to Unit Trusts? You are believing the perpetrators of these ETFs who has specific interests in getting you to buy?
I am for ETF because i read the original work on efficient market hypothesis by Eugene Fama. Its not because i agree with the theory, but its the empirical results that makes me agree passive indexing is better most of the time, after accounting for management fees and sales charge.
You do not save enough simply because you do not work hard enough. Ask yourself if you have put in the effort and energy to earn more while young, so that the power of compounding (since you like it) can have greater effect.
Btw, not using a lot of effort at all, I received another $170 cheque from google adsense. And remember all your time spent in complaining in this forum by typing can actually translates to even more income elsewhere, but you chose to spend it here.
You sound pretty young and arrogant. If you really want to know i draw on average $1800/month on starhub dividends alone. As for passive business income, its defintely way way bigger than what you are getting.
Thats the difference between you and me.Morally i think its not right for a govt to tax heavily on Singaporeans's savings when they are already insufficient. CPF tops up is merely a fraction of the returns the invesment earned. For your info, the salaries of the civil servants are paid by taxes, whereas gains by Temasek and GIC are mostly kept in reserves.
So you think a country should have deficits and not reserves? What's wrong with growing reserves?
Taxes go into reserves too. To me, all are the same source. If there's a deficit, money will be withdrawn from the reserves as well.
Most pension funds target at least 8%, even the conversatives ones. Its a realistic target. Historically, stocks yield 12% on average.
Based on? Historical performance are never a gauge of future performance.
And tell that to those who bought ETFs in 2007.
I am for ETF because i read the original work on efficient market hypothesis by Eugene Fama. Its not because i agree with the theory, but its the empirical results that makes me agree passive indexing is better most of the time, after accounting for management fees and sales charge.
ETFs are still not the most efficient. I prefer direct equities Starhub, like what you mentioned.
I believe you have good reasons for your ETF preference, so I shall rest this portion.
You sound pretty young and arrogant. If you really want to know i draw on average $1800/month on starhub dividends alone. As for passive business income, its defintely way way bigger than what you are getting.
So how old are you?
Not that it matters to me how much you draw. If you want to know, I have grown and managed my portfolio to a 6 figure one within 2 years in the work force. Yes, I'm young, and still <27 yrs old, grossing only $733 per month on dividends. But so? I can't understand how stating basic facts can be considered as arrogant.
And $170 alone for google adsense, without including selling of ad spaces as well, all without doing much extra work from my side. Why not?
-
Actually, there are pretty easy ways to make guaranteed returns of up to 6% or more.
For example, any AUD fixed deposit of 1 year or more can earn you at least 6% pa or more. I think the Kiwi has also really good returns. The only issue is about exchange rate fluctuations.
However, so long as you are in no hurry to extract the cash you put in, the Aussie dollar should do pretty well a few years down the road.
-
Hi soul_rage!
The Aussie economy is still pretty resilient at the moment. 6% or more is definitely possible. In fact, I believe there was 8% before.
-
So you think a country should have deficits and not reserves? What's wrong with growing reserves?
Taxes go into reserves too. To me, all are the same source. If there's a deficit, money will be withdrawn from the reserves as well.
There is nothing wrong with growing reserves. I am just against growing by taxing the retirement savings of Singaporeans. I am sure the govt can still increase reserves easily from other sources such as Singapore Pools or Land Sales and of course, investing.
Based on? Historical performance are never a gauge of future performance.
And tell that to those who bought ETFs in 2007.
Past performance of course is never a guarantee of future performance. But the longer the period, the closer the returns move towards the average. I would reiterate, 8% on 30 years is still a reasonable target.
So how old are you?
Not that it matters to me how much you draw. If you want to know, I have grown and managed my portfolio to a 6 figure one within 2 years in the work force. Yes, I'm young, and still <27 yrs old, grossing only $733 per month on dividends. But so? I can't understand how stating basic facts can be considered as arrogant.
And $170 alone for google adsense, without including selling of ad spaces as well, all without doing much extra work from my side. Why not?
I am 31 this year. I say you are young arrogant because I have gone through a similar phase. Perhaps you have a series of success in life without meeting any major failures or setbacks.
The price of overconfidence….. I hope your lesson would be cheap =)
-
There is nothing wrong with growing reserves. I am just against growing by taxing the retirement savings of Singaporeans. I am sure the govt can still increase reserves easily from other sources such as Singapore Pools or Land Sales and of course, investing.
You are getting confused yourself.
1) Retirement savings are being given between 2.5% to 4% interest. How is that considered taxed? What are you against?
2) They are indeed growing reserves by investing. So what's the problem?
Past performance of course is never a guarantee of future performance. But the longer the period, the closer the returns move towards the average. I would reiterate, 8% on 30 years is still a reasonable target.
Yeah, you need to wait 30 years.
How many people can afford that time period to ensure that their returns indeed fits the average?
There have been talks of 20 year cycles. And if you take the start of the 20 year cycle's bottom to the end of the same cycle (another bottom), the returns is definitely less than 8% per annum.
So far, what were the years that your supposed average has taken for comparison?
And do bear in mind that most of the CPF funds are not kept inside CPF for 30 years. People do take it out for HDB housing, for paying stamp duties, for CPFIS, for education. So why would you want to take 30 years as a comparison?
Why wouldn't you take the least risk govt treasury bond as comparison? Why equities?
I am 31 this year. I say you are young arrogant because I have gone through a similar phase. Perhaps you have a series of success in life without meeting any major failures or setbacks.
The price of overconfidence….. I hope your lesson would be cheap =)
I still do not see how is it arrogant or over-confident by stating mere facts. Your only reply is you have gone through a similar phase. How would you know? Huh?
You are only 4 years older, not much. What makes you think you are much more qualified to comment on me? And how would you generalise that I have any major failure or setback? Do you even know my portfolio or investment style? Do you even know the amount I have set aside as cash reserves?
To comment like this about me without even knowing more about how I go about generating returns is an extremely arrogant behaviour from you.
-
Originally posted by Calvin86:
Don't you find it an anomaly that despite one of the highest savings rates in the world most Singaporeans do not have enough retirement? Its not that because Singaporeans are not saving enough, but rather Singaporeans are not taking enough risks. Yet the govt is forcing Singaporeans to take lower risks.
1.04^ 30 = 3.24 times ( compounded returns over 30 years at 4%)
1.08^30 = 10.06 times ( compounded returns over 30 years at 8%)
Because most Singaporeans take lower risks, they may have to save 3 times more to get a similar retirement payout compared to countries that invests in equities.
The govt advocates individuals taking their own responsbility for retirement, yet its not possible equip majority of Singaporeans with financial knowledge. Many end up buying lower risks products such as endowment plan or unit trusts with high fees and sales charge instead of ETFs. Worst still, some may end up losing large sums of money speculating.
Why does the govt force Singaporeans to save for housing (via CPF) when working Singaporeans would probably have saved for housing (a near term need) ?
On the other hand, most Singaporeans do not save enough for retirement because it is a good 20-30 years away.
in comparing to others, in term of average income of per capital 50,000k per year, we are much better than most countries, even if we do not have enuf saving, we still got saving, many countries average people also dun have any saving at all. Ours is different, at least we got saving, tho it may not be enuf.Well, CPIS thru SA can be use to invest in AAA rated stocks and shares, so CPF is flexible, it allow you to invest and build a bigger nest, so dun come here and talk shit that Singaporeans are not getting more out of it, or got no money for retirement, there maybe a few who just simply splash their money seeking self happiness, so end up no money, that is not a country problem, that is an individual created self problem. We got to be clear about this. Let see, my lion global bonds went up, Sg equity also went up...wah,...make money liao..