Our hard-earned CPF savings...
-
Originally posted by eagle:
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.
The highest I have seen when I was tracking it was 8.5%.It's not really difficult to make good money, so long as one knows very clearly that putting money in Singapore (aside from properties) is a really bad choice. My dad once put his money into a DBS guaranteed mutual fund for a mandatory period of 3 years . The 1st year, he got 5%, the subsequent years the bank wrote him a letter telling him due to market conditions (blah blah), there will be no returns
I just find that our banks have it really easy. Getting cheap money and giving nothing much back to its creditors.
-
Originally posted by Calvin86:
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 If there's a deficit, money will be withdrawn from the reserves as well.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 =)
Actually arrogance does not equal overconfidence. I for one, am still appropriately arrogant, though I am about a year older than you. With what I have achieved today, I think its nothing really wrong to have arrogance in me, so long as I do not hurt anyone else.
For eagle, he's probably enjoying the phase where he has found that walking the talk really reaps rewards. Far too many of our fellow countrymen simply sit back, complain endlessly, and think that someone is going to come save them. I may not be a Christian, but I concur with a saying "God helps those who help themselves"
I am a pro-opposition supporter, and I am not afraid to say it. I just wonder how many Singaporeans complain online about how bad life is with the PAP dictating matters, and then, at the end of the day, still vote for the PAP, because they are cowards and do not dare to walk the talk. Looking at the number of vocal complaints online, versus the results of the last election (66% vote for PAP), I wonder if history will repeat itself in the next round of elections.
Today, I am outside of Singapore, living and working in the USA, enjoying every bit of life. I may not be a super rich guy, but I have great benefits, good pay, and am making every bit of effort to achieve my goal of retirement at 40. I have friends who think I am plain lucky, but I just have to tell you, luck plays only so much in my journey. Most times, its my courage to take decisions, and make moves, that reap the rewards I have today.
How many of our fellow countrymen dare to say that they have the courage to make moves that will change the course of their lives? Many just sit back, and find excuses to continue in inertia, and then come here to complain and complain and complain...
-
By far, the stupidiest comment I heard so far is about escalating property prices, especially some idiot that demanded the govt sells a HDB flat at cost to him/her.
The idiot obviously doesn't know that if that happens, the entire Singapore property market will implode, and cause even more problems to the Singapore economy.
That's one place which I do not comment about. I believe the true context of the problem is stagnating salaries, NOT property prices.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
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.
This is the way i see it - the current system places a significant individual responsibility on retirement planning. When i look at people around me, some have poor financial discipline, some take excessive risks, others take too little by buying endowment products. Its likely that many in our generation would not retire comfortably.
The retirement savings of Singaporeans would be much higher and sufficient if there was some form of mandatory e.g. 10% of the savings at much higher yields of 8%. Currently, the special account savings are being locked in 30 years or more. So why is it not possible to set up an agency similar to GIC and try to achieve 8% over 30 years?
My view is that the current system is like an implicit tax on the retirement savings by not setting up an agency to maximise the long term returns of the special account. We can spend 10 pages debating whether it is or is it not a tax and there is still no answer.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
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..
If i am not wrong SA can only be used on amount in excess of $40,000. Very few individuals would get to invest using their SA account.
http://www.singwealth.com/portal/index.php/life-and-family/54-retirement/86-cpf-special-account-investment-threshold-raised
For CPF members under 35 years of age, only 14.49% of CPF contributions go to the special account. This rises to 17.39%, 20.28% and 24.56% at ages 35, 45 and 55 respectively. Therefore, most people would be unlikely to attain balances of $30,000 or even $40,000 in their SA. Indeed, only about 2.7% of all CPF members are said to be affected by the new ruling.
-
Originally posted by soul_rage:
Actually arrogance does not equal overconfidence. I for one, am still appropriately arrogant, though I am about a year older than you. With what I have achieved today, I think its nothing really wrong to have arrogance in me, so long as I do not hurt anyone else.
For eagle, he's probably enjoying the phase where he has found that walking the talk really reaps rewards. Far too many of our fellow countrymen simply sit back, complain endlessly, and think that someone is going to come save them. I may not be a Christian, but I concur with a saying "God helps those who help themselves"
I am a pro-opposition supporter, and I am not afraid to say it. I just wonder how many Singaporeans complain online about how bad life is with the PAP dictating matters, and then, at the end of the day, still vote for the PAP, because they are cowards and do not dare to walk the talk. Looking at the number of vocal complaints online, versus the results of the last election (66% vote for PAP), I wonder if history will repeat itself in the next round of elections.
Today, I am outside of Singapore, living and working in the USA, enjoying every bit of life. I may not be a super rich guy, but I have great benefits, good pay, and am making every bit of effort to achieve my goal of retirement at 40. I have friends who think I am plain lucky, but I just have to tell you, luck plays only so much in my journey. Most times, its my courage to take decisions, and make moves, that reap the rewards I have today.
How many of our fellow countrymen dare to say that they have the courage to make moves that will change the course of their lives? Many just sit back, and find excuses to continue in inertia, and then come here to complain and complain and complain...
Its good to have "confidence" as long as it does not impairs judgment. There is a recent story on Oei Hong Leong losing 1 billion on investments recently. That fella was a very astute investor who was right on too many calls. He got overconfident and 1 wrong one.... tada! Thats one story that is doom to be repeated many times in history.
-
Originally posted by Calvin86:
Its good to have "confidence" as long as it does not impairs judgment. There is a recent story on Oei Hong Leong losing 1 billion on investments recently. That fella was a very astute investor who was right on too many calls. He got overconfident and 1 wrong one.... tada! Thats one story that is doom to be repeated many times in history.
Cannot agree more.The greatest danger to smart people is that of being too "ya-ya" of one's own capabilities
There is a thin line between overconfidence and appropriate arrogance :)
Anyway, being where I am today, all the more I know that I cannot underestimate any endeavor. I treat each endeavor with the greatest of respect, and I always give my all, with the intention of maximizing success and minimizing failure. I have never been mediocre, always excelling in what I do.
Anyway, coming back to your views, I concur that our generation (and the generations after us) will suffer from the lack of retirement funds, stagnation of pay, job insecurity, etc, where these problems will manifest themselves in the next 20-30 years. That's when the country (and our people) will start to suffer from the consequences of short-term myopic planning, and the govt overrewarding itself.
-
Originally posted by Calvin86:
This is the way i see it - the current system places a significant individual responsibility on retirement planning. When i look at people around me, some have poor financial discipline, some take excessive risks, others take too little by buying endowment products. Its likely that many in our generation would not retire comfortably.
The retirement savings of Singaporeans would be much higher and sufficient if there was some form of mandatory e.g. 10% of the savings at much higher yields of 8%. Currently, the special account savings are being locked in 30 years or more. So why is it not possible to set up an agency similar to GIC and try to achieve 8% over 30 years?
My view is that the current system is like an implicit tax on the retirement savings by not setting up an agency to maximise the long term returns of the special account. We can spend 10 pages debating whether it is or is it not a tax and there is still no answer.
True, a lot has poor financial discipline. I'm indeed apalled by the credit bureau's statistics that 7+% of the people in my age group are in credit card debt.
Then again, which country in the world has their government force saving for them at 8% yield consistently?
It's true that special account savings are locked in for 30 years or more most of the time. But as I have mentioned, why not compare with least risk government bonds or rather risk free corporate bonds? 4% yield is indeed comparable then. Why compare with equities?
You run the risk of getting less than 4% compounded over 30 years if you have invested at the peaks and start retiring at the bears. i.e. compare STI from Dec 1987 to May 2010. Say you retire this month.
STI in Dec 1987 is 823.20, in May 2010 is 2752.6 (from yahoo finance). So it's about 3.3 times gain. ==> This is about 5.5% compounded.
Compounding at 4%, 1.04^22 is about 2.3, so it might seem better.
But this is a good case scenario. What if you start retirement in 1999 at STI 800 or 2003 at STI 1200 or 2009 at STI 1600? Your returns are definitely super low.
All these are excluding the extra 1% in interest rate for the first say $20k (roughly there) in SA , which would take nearly 5~7 years for someone to accumulate at a starting salary of say $3k. 5% risk free?
We have yet to include that the extra 1% of interest in the OA for it's first 20k would be credited into the SA.
So what's wrong exactly?
If it is that simple that everyone can indeed achieve 8% compounded by being inside equities for the long term, companies would all have to ensure that their ROE or ROA exceeds 8% consistently, else they might as well just buy equities for long term and not run their own business.
You may also tell that to shareholders of Chartered Semiconductor at its peak.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
True, a lot has poor financial discipline. I'm indeed apalled by the credit bureau's statistics that 7+% of the people in my age group are in credit card debt.
Then again, which country in the world has their government force saving for them at 8% yield consistently?
It's true that special account savings are locked in for 30 years or more most of the time. But as I have mentioned, why not compare with least risk government bonds or rather risk free corporate bonds? 4% yield is indeed comparable then. Why compare with equities?
You run the risk of getting less than 4% compounded over 30 years if you have invested at the peaks and start retiring at the bears. i.e. compare STI from Dec 1987 to May 2010. Say you retire this month.
STI in Dec 1987 is 823.20, in May 2010 is 2752.6 (from yahoo finance). So it's about 3.3 times gain. ==> This is about 5.5% compounded.
Compounding at 4%, 1.04^22 is about 2.3, so it might seem better.
But this is a good case scenario. What if you start retirement in 1999 at STI 800 or 2003 at STI 1200 or 2009 at STI 1600? Your returns are definitely super low.
All these are excluding the extra 1% in interest rate for the first say $20k (roughly there) in SA , which would take nearly 5~7 years for someone to accumulate at a starting salary of say $3k. 5% risk free?
We have yet to include that the extra 1% of interest in the OA for it's first 20k would be credited into the SA.
So what's wrong exactly?
If it is that simple that everyone can indeed achieve 8% compounded by being inside equities for the long term, companies would all have to ensure that their ROE or ROA exceeds 8% consistently, else they might as well just buy equities for long term and not run their own business.
You may also tell that to shareholders of Chartered Semiconductor at its peak.
Then again, which country in the world has their government force saving for them at 8% yield consistently?
They do it via pension fund. Those risks you mentioned about retiring at the bottom can also be solved by pooling the risks.
Why not compare with least risk government bonds or rather risk free corporate bonds? 4% yield is indeed comparable then. Why compare with equities?
If a large group of people in a continous stream can save and locked their savings for 30 years or more, its better to put the money in equities. Taking lower risks also has its problem. It means a much larger saving is needed for retirement.
We have yet to include that the extra 1% of interest in the OA for it's first 20k would be credited into the SA.
i didnt include the 1% for the SA because its not guaranteed, but subjected to renewal in the near future.
STI in Dec 1987 is 823.20, in May 2010 is 2752.6 (from yahoo finance). So it's about 3.3 times gain. ==> This is about 5.5% compounded.
I think the number excludes dividends, and reinvestment of the divdends, so the actual return should be much higher.
Currently, there is CPF Life, which forces CPF members to buy into an annuity to collect payouts for life. Merge that with the SA account, our current system functions very similar to a pension fund.
A pension fund make its easier for everyone to achieve 8% returns. Because a pension fund can use the receipts to make the annuity payments, it can have a "float" just like an insurance company.
If receipts = withdrawals, there is always a float that can generate income for the fund. Even if the withdrawals are greater than the receipts, the dividends received by the float can be used to pay the withdrawals.
Like the example you mentioned, on an individual basis, some may retire at the bottom of the market, some may retire at the peak of the market. A pension fund does not give higher returns when someone retires at the peak of the market, nor lower returns when a person retire at a bottom of a market. Pooling of risks makes it easier for everyone to achieve 8%. At the end of the 30-35 years, it can function exactly like CPF Life,but with better returns.
So what's wrong exactly?
The current setup of SA account then CPF Life is just like a pension fund. Yet they are deprived of the returns of a pension fund that invests in equity, which can be considered as an implicit tax on the retirement savings.
-
They do it via pension fund. Those risks you mentioned about retiring at the bottom can also be solved by pooling the risks.
And so it is not guaranteed by the government, which is of the least risk as compared to any other financial institution at the moment.
If a large group of people in a continous stream can save and locked their savings for 30 years or more, its better to put the money in equities. Taking lower risks also has its problem. It means a much larger saving is needed for retirement.
You missed the point. This is a guaranteed risk-free 4% compounded interest for you.
This is good because in any portfolio for retirement, a certain amount is to be set for such risk-free ventures.
It's better to put money in equities for 30 years? As I have said and you conveniently left out yet again, tell that to people who put their monies with Chartered Semiconductor.
i didnt include the 1% for the SA because its not guaranteed, but subjected to renewal in the near future.
Fair enough. But it is subjected to market conditions. If the market isn't doing well, equity investments wouldn't do well too.
Currently, there is CPF Life, which forces CPF members to buy into an annuity to collect payouts for life. Merge that with the SA account, our current system functions very similar to a pension fund.
A pension fund make its easier for everyone to achieve 8% returns. Because a pension fund can use the receipts to make the annuity payments, it can have a "float" just like an insurance company.
If receipts = withdrawals, there is always a float that can generate income for the fund. Even if the withdrawals are greater than the receipts, the dividends received by the float can be used to pay the withdrawals.
Like the example you mentioned, on an individual basis, some may retire at the bottom of the market, some may retire at the peak of the market. A pension fund does not give higher returns when someone retires at the peak of the market, nor lower returns when a person retire at a bottom of a market. Pooling of risks makes it easier for everyone to achieve 8%. At the end of the 30-35 years, it can function exactly like CPF Life.
What you mentioned is the ideal case.
Have you not forgotten the purchases of Merrill Lynch, UBS, ShinCorp, ABC, etc?
To give 8% totally risk free? The ponzi scheme will have to be even bigger!The current setup of SA account then CPF Life is just like a pension fund. Yet they are deprived of the returns of a pension fund that invests in equity, which can be considered as an implicit tax on the retirement savings.
As above.
Also, it is not a tax because
1) If as you said, most pple are poor at financial planning, it's actually a boon for most pple.
2) This is what they helped you earn without any effort on your part. What's wrong with taking a small percentage?
3) You are expecting the government to expend energy and effort to help you grow your money at 8% at no extra charge? You mentioned taxes are meant to be paid to civil servants. So, you rather they get you to pay higher income tax and gst etc than take a way a small percentage of what they had helped you earn?
Face it. Our government, we are paying them for everything we see.
4) I have calculated for you that the long running compounded growth of STI is about 5.5%. Let's exclude the regular dividends paid out like we exclude 1% extra interests paid out to us and exclude regular top ups to the SAs and MAs of the elderly.
1.5% management fees for your funds. That's already similar to most other Unit Trusts.
5) 5.5% is not the absolute because it will definitely be lower. As a fund that has to be prepared for withdrawal anytime, you cannot be 100% invested. As such, you will never be able to achieve the full potential of the market.
If it was so easy, Isaac Newton wouldn't have lost in the South Sea bubble. The beauty of a guaranteed 4% interest is that anytime you put your money in, it starts generating 4% compounded immediately. Try putting your money in at the peak of 2007.
Next, another factor you didn't consider is that a time-weighted average would be a much more accurate measure. We don't have 20k to put into SA in 1 day.
-
Yes.
We should all dump our entire life savings into the CPF account because it's safe and pays good interest.
Sell off all your stocks and shares, it's risky. CPF is the way to go for your future retirement, provided you live till 80s.
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
Yes.
We should all dump our entire life savings into the CPF account because it's safe and pays good interest.
Sell off all your stocks and shares, it's risky. CPF is the way to go for your future retirement, provided you live till 80s.
A post that totally, really totally, missed the essence.
-
Ok that would be my last long post in this thread.
Spending 20 minutes on the long post to share my thoughts here isn't my cup of tea.
I rather use that 20 minutes better, which can potentially generate $50 to $100 more easily.
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
Yes.
We should all dump our entire life savings into the CPF account because it's safe and pays good interest.
Sell off all your stocks and shares, it's risky. CPF is the way to go for your future retirement, provided you live till 80s.
A very dumb response.
So let me ask you, do you HAVE the guts to invest in high risk products that generate returns of more than 8%? If the govt allows you to take out all your cash, and you lose everything in stocks, will you blame the govt?
In investments, its all about risk. To get 4% guaranteed is already pretty good. I am not against the 4%. I am against the control of how much you can take out when you retire. This is a big issue to me, with regards to regulating how much you can take out during retirement.
I see a significant no. of my fellow countrymen having the ability to 'bitch' endlessly in the forums, but not having the guts to walk the talk.
-
Originally posted by soul_rage:
A very dumb response.
So let me ask you, do you HAVE the guts to invest in high risk products that generate returns of more than 8%? If the govt allows you to take out all your cash, and you lose everything in stocks, will you blame the govt?
In investments, its all about risk. To get 4% guaranteed is already pretty good. I am not against the 4%. I am against the control of how much you can take out when you retire. This is a big issue to me, with regards to regulating how much you can take out during retirement.
I see a significant no. of my fellow countrymen having the ability to 'bitch' endlessly in the forums, but not having the guts to walk the talk.
Hello, that is why forums are popular, if not forum long long close shop liao...and you dun come and teach people what to do, because you are also in the forum bitchy all the way ya.Now, let do a research here, yes, i agree that investment is a risk, infact everything is a risk, from driving to working is a risk to health, safety and mental stress too. But if you will to park your money in some pathetic 0.2% to the most 1% interest rate at some FD, i think your money will grow smaller in term of inflation add on, just like a car, you park at your house and dun drive, it get rusty and causes problem. Therefore, we need to park our money at the right place and occasionally change location to make the best of it.
And if you look at CPF 4% return, where do they get the 4% to return you?? and moreover, are you able to touch or see that 4% return before you die? Let go to Q1, the ability to get a 4% return mean that they can use your CPF monies and invest on a 8% return, take in the 4% by themselve and return the 4% to you. So, in a nutshell, if govt is so caring about us, why not govt give back all the CPF monies to the ah kong and ah ma, teach them how to invest and let them take the return of 8% rather than 4%? I think oldies will be more happy if govt work it that way, compulsory mini sum lock in into a govt bond or trust with a return of 8% - 1% admin fees.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
Hello, that is why forums are popular, if not forum long long close shop liao...and you dun come and teach people what to do, because you are also in the forum bitchy all the way ya.Now, let do a research here, yes, i agree that investment is a risk, infact everything is a risk, from driving to working is a risk to health, safety and mental stress too. But if you will to park your money in some pathetic 0.2% to the most 1% interest rate at some FD, i think your money will grow smaller in term of inflation add on, just like a car, you park at your house and dun drive, it get rusty and causes problem. Therefore, we need to park our money at the right place and occasionally change location to make the best of it.
And if you look at CPF 4% return, where do they get the 4% to return you?? and moreover, are you able to touch or see that 4% return before you die? Let go to Q1, the ability to get a 4% return mean that they can use your CPF monies and invest on a 8% return, take in the 4% by themselve and return the 4% to you. So, in a nutshell, if govt is so caring about us, why not govt give back all the CPF monies to the ah kong and ah ma, teach them how to invest and let them take the return of 8% rather than 4%? I think oldies will be more happy if govt work it that way, compulsory mini sum lock in into a govt bond or trust with a return of 8% - 1% admin fees.
All I can say is, the forum is becoming dumber because of the likes of you.
The above posting is totally worthless and out of sync with reality.
-
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.
my money is mine to lose.
if i lose mine money i have myself to blame. i dont care if you lose yours and vice versa.
it is only right they give us back our cpf money because its ours. how we want to spend it is none of their business.
cpf rule should be removed.
-
Originally posted by soul_rage:
All I can say is, the forum is becoming dumber because of the likes of you.
The above posting is totally worthless and out of sync with reality.
it might be worthless to you, but can be gold to others. Within the dumb ones, there are the bright one living in it...ever heard of the phrase "act dumb" or "act blur" -
Originally posted by angel7030:
it might be worthless to you, but can be gold to others. Within the dumb ones, there are the bright one living in it...ever heard of the phrase "act dumb" or "act blur"the only gold is from your noise....I suggest you keep it to yourself.
-
Originally posted by dragg:
my money is mine to lose.
if i lose mine money i have myself to blame. i dont care if you lose yours and vice versa.
it is only right they give us back our cpf money because its ours. how we want to spend it is none of their business.
cpf rule should be removed.
That is true. But I guess the point of contention here was that since the CPF monies is there to stay, they might as well give 8% guaranteed. That is unfeasible in my opinion because of a multitude of factors.
The money in the SA isn't a lot. For someone with an average of $3k earning, it's only an extra $345 per month into SA and MA (employer's contribution inclusive). MA can be used for medical insurance, and a number of things, so it isn't really there for long to stay unless you are super duper healthy. So SA alone is about $150. For the first 15k, you need 100 months to reach, and 15k isn't even sufficient for a decent portfolio that has its risks well spread out.
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
the only gold is from your noise....I suggest you keep it to yourself.
that's why i win in most negotiation, a good bargainer too, from $50 can talk until $25.Actually i find myself talking lots of logic, and i can see some post referring to my post although they dun wish to be direct, however, as usual singapore people are more people orientated rather than debate orientated
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
that's why i win in most negotiation, a good bargainer too, from $50 can talk until $25.Actually i find myself talking lots of logic, and i can see some post referring to my post although they dun wish to be direct, however, as usual singapore people are more people orientated rather than debate orientated
Never seen a more shameless person before
Do I need to remind everyone again this stupid person posting about not eating chicken wings because of manual injection of antibiotics, when it is a scam article that surfaced way back in 2004? The idiot refused to acknowledge that it was a scam, and continued talking nonsense.
Stupidity rules in this forum, I guess, since this forum is filled with 21000+ postings from a person who is totally stupid and do not make sense most times (mostly one-liner rubbish)
-
Originally posted by soul_rage:
Never seen a more shameless person before
Do I need to remind everyone again this stupid person posting about not eating chicken wings because of manual injection of antibiotics, when it is a scam article that surfaced way back in 2004? The idiot refused to acknowledge that it was a scam, and continued talking nonsense.
Stupidity rules in this forum, I guess, since this forum is filled with 21000+ postings from a person who is totally stupid and do not make sense most times (mostly one-liner rubbish)
scam, well, the west dun eat much wings, that tell u lots of story, anyway, eating meat is not that good, try to eat more vege ya, and also go for the breast, man like you loves chicken breast, as the expert on chicken, they will tell you.
the funny part here is that people like to stand by their post, not flexible at all for people to comment on it, we are all living in a scam, a PAP scam, so what you are you going to say about it. Respect each other believe, nobody is going to take away your $50 from your wallet at the back of your big fat ass ya...so be cool.
-
Wingstop.
-
yes, the new kao merries insert pad without wings