Our hard-earned CPF savings...
-
You guys are missing the whole point.
CPF money is your own money and you should be able to receive all of it back when you retire at 55.
The issue of generating a return is secondary only to the issue of getting all of it back at 55.
I ask again, why can't the people get back all their CPF money when they are 55?
-
Originally posted by charlize:
You guys are missing the whole point.
CPF money is your own money and you should be able to receive all of it back when you retire at 55.
The issue of generating a return is secondary only to the issue of getting all of it back at 55.
I ask again, why can't the people get back all their CPF money when they are 55?
Well, I din miss the point.
If you notice what I said, I think 4% guaranteed returns is fine. The issue I have is on them regulating the amount of $$$ we can get (our own money) once we retire. It is our own retirement nest, and I disagree with the sort of nanny controls that they are putting up
-
Originally posted by charlize:
You guys are missing the whole point.
CPF money is your own money and you should be able to receive all of it back when you retire at 55.
The issue of generating a return is secondary only to the issue of getting all of it back at 55.
I ask again, why can't the people get back all their CPF money when they are 55?
i agree with you.
we want our money back at 55. enough of those rules on minimum sum.
-
Originally posted by soul_rage:
Well, I din miss the point.
If you notice what I said, I think 4% guaranteed returns is fine. The issue I have is on them regulating the amount of $$$ we can get (our own money) once we retire. It is our own retirement nest, and I disagree with the sort of nanny controls that they are putting up
Exactly my thoughts too. :)
I mentioned the point of contention earlier as well.
-
its ok for cpf in their hands....but what pissed me off is the feminist policies that make us pay out to sluts and retaining our money.....
they r more than crazy....chee hong is the word - FCUKPAP!
-
Eagle and soul rage have agreed 4% guaranteed returns is fine ( over 30 years or more). 4% is like buying 30 years govt bonds, guaranteed to be safe.
Yet one man's meat is another man's poison. George Soros or Jim rogers may scoff at 4% guaranteed over 30 years. They might do the opposite, that is borrowing 30 years at 4% to invest. ( which is what temasek and GIC is doing)
Do we want minimal risks or optimal risks over 30 years? My yardstick is that there is need to strike a balance between taking risk and returns. Earning 4% guaranteed returns over 30 years may mean insufficient funds or having to save a lot more for retirement. Hence my conclusion that investing in a good mix of equity and bonds over 30 years as a pension fund to pool the risks on the ups and down of the market is better than earning guaranteed returns of 4%. This has been the prefered solution for many countries as well.
-
How fast the tune changed.
First, you talk about your friends who are not financially well trained. Then you take out George Soros and Jim Rogers to compare. Your think your comparison is fair?
If you want a good mix of equity and bonds over 30 years, I have already given you the calculations which I will summarize:
1) 5.5% compounded, or if you want dividends, let's say 8% compounded interest. But take note I have not included any fees for managing the funds, not extra interest rates being given to you.
2) You cannot be 100% invested, so you will never be able to achieve the full potential of 8%. This is one point you failed to look out for.
3) A mix of equity and bonds? That will bring your 8% average even lower. Your 8% is for equities only, bonds traditionally give much lesser.
Combining points 1, 2, and 3, I fail to see how 4% guaranteed is unfair.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
You guys are missing the whole point.
CPF money is your own money and you should be able to receive all of it back when you retire at 55.
The issue of generating a return is secondary only to the issue of getting all of it back at 55.
I ask again, why can't the people get back all their CPF money when they are 55?
You are missing a big point, there are gals here too ya..not just guys or gays.I try to answer yr Q,
Firstly, the retirement age had extented from 55 to 60 to now 62, and maybe later 65yo, therefore the withdrawer of CPF monies had also extended in line with retirement age
Secondly, due to an aging population, we expect people to work older and also live longer due to good care on health and medicines. As such the life span of Singaporean have increased to 76yo for guys and 80yo for gals whereas 20 years ago, it was at 60s for both gender.
Thirdly, which is more frank then the above 2 points, the govt need the CPF funds to invest, so they make it in a way that you cannot even take out the CPF completely, add in the curry flavor of 4% interest to stimulate individual greedy brain which in a way, or actually, you also cannot take it out, so if you got a $100k inside, 4% will become 104k and so on, and if you look at it on your statement, you feel so happy that it went up, and the govt is also happy, infact more happier to use the 104k to reinvest and earn more for themselves and so on. So, it is a kind of win win situation where one look at the statement, one is happy, and the other looks at the investment opportunity with excess funds, one is also happy.
O by the way, now you cannot get back your CPF at all...the so called eternal living
-
Originally posted by soul_rage:
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.
Haha 40 .... good aim... lets see who reach first....evil grin*Actually i very sian
Kind Regards
Genie
-
Originally posted by eagle:
How fast the tune changed.
First, you talk about your friends who are not financially well trained. Then you take out George Soros and Jim Rogers to compare. Your think your comparison is fair?
If you want a good mix of equity and bonds over 30 years, I have already given you the calculations which I will summarize:
1) 5.5% compounded, or if you want dividends, let's say 8% compounded interest. But take note I have not included any fees for managing the funds, not extra interest rates being given to you.
2) You cannot be 100% invested, so you will never be able to achieve the full potential of 8%. This is one point you failed to look out for.
3) A mix of equity and bonds? That will bring your 8% average even lower. Your 8% is for equities only, bonds traditionally give much lesser.
Combining points 1, 2, and 3, I fail to see how 4% guaranteed is unfair.
Wei eagle 4% is after inflation or before inflation?
If after inflation ok lar.
If before inflation then might as well give me the $ lar ... I invest for you better lol waste of peoples time sia
Kind Regards
Genie
-
Originally posted by Genie99a:
Haha 40 .... good aim... lets see who reach first....evil grin*Actually i very sian
Kind Regards
Genie
I aim to secure sufficient for retirement by 35
But continue working instead of retiring.
Maybe a 7 figure portfolio complete with a fully paid up flat and starting on a pte property? Hmm... My BTO flat ready in 2015 (if I can get), then wait 5 yrs = year 2020 = me 37 yrs old... 2 yrs older than 35
-
Originally posted by Genie99a:
Wei eagle 4% is after inflation or before inflation?
If after inflation ok lar.
If before inflation then might as well give me the $ lar ... I invest for you better lol waste of peoples time sia
Kind Regards
Genie
Hey Genie, we are talking about money that we cannot take out anyway.
More than 4% annually isn't a hard thing for me. ;)
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Hey Genie, we are talking about money that we cannot take out anyway.
More than 4% annually isn't a hard thing for me. ;)
Ooo cannot take out then lan lan lor lol.Kind Regards
Genie
-
Originally posted by eagle:
I aim to secure sufficient for retirement by 35
But continue working instead of retiring.
Maybe a 7 figure portfolio complete with a fully paid up flat and starting on a pte property? Hmm... My BTO flat ready in 2015 (if I can get), then wait 5 yrs = year 2020 = me 37 yrs old... 2 yrs older than 35
35!!!! walau .... u must be super lucky sia lol.... but good to have an aim also lar. Wish you best of luck.Don't ferget to rent out and not stay in your properties... reach your aim faster and also make mtoehr(mother spelling fail) happy lol.
Kind Regards
Genie
-
Originally posted by Genie99a:
35!!!! walau .... u must be super lucky sia lol.... but good to have an aim also lar. Wish you best of luck.Don't ferget to rent out and not stay in your properties... reach your aim faster and also make mtoehr(mother spelling fail) happy lol.
Kind Regards
Genie
My life very simple one la, so that's why not that hard.
I aim for this strategy on top of other plans:
![[DivChart.gif]](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MpWUhDNsH98/S0Roh-PVDcI/AAAAAAAAA6M/Kigsb_W9ips/s1600/DivChart.gif)
Completing year 2 soon. Strategy on track :)
35 yrs old is about 8 + more years from now.
-
dream on pal, there are down time to consider...
-
Originally posted by Genie99a:
35!!!! walau .... u must be super lucky sia lol.... but good to have an aim also lar. Wish you best of luck.Don't ferget to rent out and not stay in your properties... reach your aim faster and also make mtoehr(mother spelling fail) happy lol.
Kind Regards
Genie
He's not lucky lar.
He just realized earlier than me that you have to take responsibility for your life. I realized it a little later.
But realizing sooner or later, it's better than never. There are way too many people in this world that rather put the blame of not being able to retire with adequate funds on other people, than realizing that it is him or her who has to work towards that goal.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
How fast the tune changed.
First, you talk about your friends who are not financially well trained. Then you take out George Soros and Jim Rogers to compare. Your think your comparison is fair?
If you want a good mix of equity and bonds over 30 years, I have already given you the calculations which I will summarize:
1) 5.5% compounded, or if you want dividends, let's say 8% compounded interest. But take note I have not included any fees for managing the funds, not extra interest rates being given to you.
2) You cannot be 100% invested, so you will never be able to achieve the full potential of 8%. This is one point you failed to look out for.
3) A mix of equity and bonds? That will bring your 8% average even lower. Your 8% is for equities only, bonds traditionally give much lesser.
Combining points 1, 2, and 3, I fail to see how 4% guaranteed is unfair.
Hi eagle,
1) Your data point for the supposedly 5.5% return for 23 years from 1987 till 2010 only provides a limited view. If you want to ascertain the likely average returns for a dollar cost averaging over 23 years, you have to collect many multiple sample points of 23 years. e.g. 1981 - 2004 or 1982 - 2005. After collecting many 23 years spans and taking returns of different sample points, calculate the overall average, that will give you a true picture of likely average return of investing over 23 years.
1)Then factor in dividends and
2) then effect of reinvesment of dividends.
Currently the STI ETF yields 3% dividends.
2,3) As for why pension funds chose not to buy only 30 year govt bonds, this is because using the sampling technique i mentioned, the long term return of stocks is 12%.
Hence 8-9% is returns based on a composition of both stocks and bonds.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
You guys are missing the whole point.
CPF money is your own money and you should be able to receive all of it back when you retire at 55.
The issue of generating a return is secondary only to the issue of getting all of it back at 55.
I ask again, why can't the people get back all their CPF money when they are 55?
When something belongs to you, I believe you can exercise your rights legally, that is the case with property. If you can't exercise your rights legally, means that thing doesn't belong to you in the first place.
Therefore, those 20% contributions and the employer's contribution doesn't belong to us legally.
-
why didnt the opposition parties use CPF, FT/influx of foreigners, ministers high pay, the failure of our education system as issues for debate when the election comes. opposition parties should use FT/influx of foreigners to tap on locals unhappiness as the no.1 issue to vote for them.
-
Then do something about it this elections lor.
-
yes, but the opposition cannot compete at every ward, that is the sad part. you get walkovers all the time. you want to vote for the opposition also cannot.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
How fast the tune changed.
First, you talk about your friends who are not financially well trained. Then you take out George Soros and Jim Rogers to compare. Your think your comparison is fair?
If you want a good mix of equity and bonds over 30 years, I have already given you the calculations which I will summarize:
1) 5.5% compounded, or if you want dividends, let's say 8% compounded interest. But take note I have not included any fees for managing the funds, not extra interest rates being given to you.
2) You cannot be 100% invested, so you will never be able to achieve the full potential of 8%. This is one point you failed to look out for.
3) A mix of equity and bonds? That will bring your 8% average even lower. Your 8% is for equities only, bonds traditionally give much lesser.
Combining points 1, 2, and 3, I fail to see how 4% guaranteed is unfair.
I am disappointed in you, being a scholar I expected much more from you.
In a long time horizon, most stock markets make returns of 10% to 15% annually.
Insurance companies who receives fix premiums from the insured uses these funds to invest in the stock markets and other investments. When the insurance contract matures, the insurance company pays out the interest of maybe 6% to the insured, the rest of the profits goes into paying out expenses and dividends to shareholders. Insurance contract like CPF is not liquid, if you choose to withdraw early, you might not even get back the initial money you put in.
Who is the ultimate shareholder of CPF? The government or the people?
Who took the risk? The people or the government?
If say tomorrow, all the investments in Temasek and GLC is worth nothing.
Do you think CPF will have problems paying out all the CPF money to retirees as they fall due? Why do you think US has no problems paying out it's mountain of debt? I heard the printers can churn out billions a day.
All they ever need to do is get MAS to increase the money supply (welcome to fiat currency) which raises inflation. Who suffers when inflation is high? The government or the people?
Why have a cap for those with accounts less than $30k from investing to get more returns? Why not have a capped for those whose accounts are in excess of $30k and let them make 3% interest; and those who have less than $30k make 5% interest?
I think Hong Kong's MPFA is a much more equitable organisation, it has finance professional to educate investors about the kind of investments they should take and let the investors make their own choice. The gains and losses are of no consequence to the organisation, they don't make or lose any money from the investment choices of investors. While CPF pays a flat nominal interest rate which is manipulated by itself (In a way, because the government has all the cheap funds it needs from CPF, no need to raise interest rates to obtain funds; who sets the interbank rates in Singapore which in turn dictates the CPF interest rates.) and exploits the CPF balances of the poor. It's like "The Ring" it comes full circle. 厄�循环
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
I am disappointed in you, being a scholar I expected much more from you.
In a long time horizon, most stock markets make returns of 10% to 15% annually.
Insurance companies who receives fix premiums from the insured uses these funds to invest in the stock markets and other investments. When the insurance contract matures, the insurance company pays out the interest of maybe 6% to the insured, the rest of the profits goes into paying out expenses and dividends to shareholders. Insurance contract like CPF is not liquid, if you choose to withdraw early, you might not even get back the initial money you put in.
Who is the ultimate shareholder of CPF? The government or the people?
Who took the risk? The people or the government?
If say tomorrow, all the investments in Temasek and GLC is worth nothing.
Do you think CPF will have problems paying out all the CPF money to retirees as they fall due? Why do you think US has no problems paying out it's mountain of debt? I heard the printers can churn out billions a day.
All they ever need to do is get MAS to increase the money supply (welcome to fiat currency) which raises inflation. Who suffers when inflation is high? The government or the people?
Why have a cap for those with accounts less than $30k from investing to get more returns? Why not have a capped for those whose accounts are in excess of $30k and let them make 3% interest; and those who have less than $30k make 5% interest?
I think Hong Kong's MPFA is a much more equitable organisation, it has finance professional to educate investors about the kind of investments they should take and let the investors make their own choice. The gains and losses are of no consequence to the organisation, they don't make or lose any money from the investment choices of investors. While CPF pays a flat nominal interest rate which is manipulated by itself (in a way, because the government has all the cheap funds it needs from CPF, no need to raise interest rates to obtain funds)
you sure he is a scholar? where?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaIO8auPsHk
listen to Jim Rogers on 6.35 mins. He said all along in America, people worked for 50-60 years and the government will give them their social security, but then Washington changed its law on this and Jim find it outrageous to say the least.
doesnt this sounded exactly the same with the CPF in Singapore? I am wondering if we are learning this from US or vice versa? how can the government keep changing the the CPF policy from time to time to suit them?