“GIC does not use CPF funds to invest”
-
technically they are saying the money gic makes does not belong to the people, only the government....it is ridiculous to say the mof or the govt bears the liabilities....first off where did the 'seed' money come from? the people...this is not a private enterprise, it's public money which they had harvested through the largely inflated 'subsidised' hdb flats and other sources coming from the citizens...
-
Of course they will deny it. Typical.
-
Originally posted by kilua:Unfortunately CPF is a retirement fund and not a bank. Imagine how much profits a bank can make if they can force every Singaporean to "save" $20,000 at 3.5% and $40,000 at 4% on a long term basis with regular contribution.
I don't think CPF has ever hold itself as a bank. So your 'unfortunate' thingy is out of place. Without having to repeat tirelessly, CPF is also not a pension fund. It is simply a compulsory savings scheme with contributions from employers. The original aim still remains - that is as a providence after retirement. However, retirement is no longer seen as 55. It has been pushed to 62 or 65? That's because SGreans are having so good a life that their life-span has also increase. With the exception of a few fit and trim who died suddenly at marathons, the general populace are now living longer. So as a retirement scheme, it has to be able to support the 'extended life'. If it can be ascertain that every CPF member will definitely died at age 65, then withdrawal at 55 is no problem - 10 years to witttle away 30-35 years of savings is still OK.
If a person earned 4% compounded interest over 30 years, his 1 dollar would have been 1.03^30 = $2.427 dollars.
If a bank can achieve 8 % returns over 30 years, the bank would have made 1.08^30 = $10.06 dollars for every dollar invested.
If such a bank exist, they can earn ($10.06 - $2.427) $7.635 per dollar saved by Singaporeans.Now thats profits! I am sure you agree the govt can keep them because its like a bank.
And if you think CPF is paying good guaranteed rates, you should look at AVIVA big E . They can pay 3.5% interest with guaranteed returns yet make a profit from it.
If there is a bank that can force people to save like the way CPF board does, let me know. I would be first to buy shares of such a bank.
You seemed good at figures but poor in logic. Do banks share their profits with you, the depositor? How much interest do you get from your savings bank? Do you know how CPF rate is pegged? Go research that!
You should search your conscience and think if its right making all these profits from the retirement savings of Singaporeans. The pioneer batch of Singaporeans in the CPF scheme were only allowed to invest in unit trusts in 1999 and were earning "risk free interest". Now many of them do not have enough to retire and have to postpone retirement despite Singapore having one of the highest savings rate of 40% in the world.
Your statement about making profit is subjective. You should apply the same yardstick to banks where you put your savings if you don't leave it with CPF. Therefore, I think your conscience is muddle up here!
I understand the reason for unlocking CPF savings is to enable members to buy homes, and if they don't or got spare beyond the minimum sum, they can invest in approved securities. What you failed to realise is this: there is a minimum sum to ensure there is enough for retirement. There are many CPF members who got millions in their accounts. These people want to use it for property and stocks! These people have certainly more than they need for retirement. Your concern should be those who don't earn high incomes and their retirement savings in CPF is meagre. It is this very group of CPF members that the gahmen is worried about! -
Originally posted by Ponders:Penal Code legalised homosexuality?
-
Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:
Aren't you contradicting yourself by saying CPF is not a bank and yet argued that profit from CPF don't belong to the ppl cause bank don't share their profit with the depositor?
"I don't think CPF has ever hold itself as a bank. So your 'unfortunate' thingy is out of place. Without having to repeat tirelessly, CPF is also not a pension fund. It is simply a compulsory savings scheme with contributions from employers. The original aim still remains - that is as a providence after retirement. However, retirement is no longer seen as 55. It has been pushed to 62 or 65? That's because SGreans are having so good a life that their life-span has also increase. With the exception of a few fit and trim who died suddenly at marathons, the general populace are now living longer. So as a retirement scheme, it has to be able to support the 'extended life'. If it can be ascertain that every CPF member will definitely died at age 65, then withdrawal at 55 is no problem - 10 years to witttle away 30-35 years of savings is still OK. "
"You seemed good at figures but poor in logic. Do banks share their profits with you, the depositor? How much interest do you get from your savings bank? Do you know how CPF rate is pegged? Go research that! "
So I can assume that if one day I approached you and offered you to pay me 20% of monthly your salary and I promise you that I am going to return you one lump sum when you reach 65 at 4% interest per year, you will be extremely grateful to me for providing such an attractive offer? (I will properly approach another financial adviser and use your money for other investments, packeting the difference ) -
O reaally?
-
This just further affirms that PAP, has and will never provide Straight Answers.Originally posted by kilua:In reply to a question by opposition MP Low Thia Khiang (Hougang) on whether the GIC uses funds from the CPF funds to invest, Dr Ng said: “The answer is no.”
Using a banking analogy, he explained,
“You put money in a bank and you agree that you put it there and you get 2 per cent. The bank publishes a report and says of all its earnings, it earned 8 per cent. You go to the bank and say, I want 8 per cent. It doesn’t work.”
He said that the Government bears the liabilities in the same way that the bank does.
“The Ministry of Finance has taken our liabilities. What the Ministry of Finance does with its money is (its) consideration. But… the CPF Board… promises a risk-free rate to (CPF) members. And that is how it works.”
Either that, or a question in return as an answer...
Very typical, very predictable... best is don't ask them anything.. we know the truth is there under all those "icing" of hogwash anologies...
It is commonly understood that when one is deep in crappy deeds, giving straight answers is a total No-No... -
what's the point saying so much here?
nobody listen... we are fighting a losing bettle
-
what's the point saying so much here?
nobody listen... we are fighting a losing bettle
think positive, we are not fighting for a losing cause. as long as you believe in knowing the truth, not to surrender at all cause. you will never lose! -
Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:I don't think CPF has ever hold itself as a bank. So your 'unfortunate' thingy is out of place. Without having to repeat tirelessly, CPF is also not a pension fund. It is simply a compulsory savings scheme with contributions from employers. The original aim still remains - that is as a providence after retirement. However, retirement is no longer seen as 55. It has been pushed to 62 or 65? That's because SGreans are having so good a life that their life-span has also increase. With the exception of a few fit and trim who died suddenly at marathons, the general populace are now living longer. So as a retirement scheme, it has to be able to support the 'extended life'. If it can be ascertain that every CPF member will definitely died at age 65, then withdrawal at 55 is no problem - 10 years to witttle away 30-35 years of savings is still OK.
I have never said CPF is a pension fund, only a retirement fund. Its sole purpose was to help Singaporeans to retire. Compare that against a bank whose the sole purpose is to maximize profit. The govt shouldnt behave like a bank and has a duty to help Singaporeans to get optimal returns on their retirement savings
Take a simple Malaysia's EPF's link
They invested a portion of the funds in and declared dividends to their members. So why cant Singaporeans have a system like Malaysia to improve their yields? Is it because PAP cannot admit a policy failure? or are they afraid to lose votes?
various instruments link
Quote
In a 2006 paper[1], two NUS economists argued that “CPF members have not benefited from the power of compound interest”. They estimated that from 1987 to 2004, the real rate of return credited to CPF members was only 1.2% per annum. This was contrasted with an equivalent rate of 3.39% for EPF members in Malaysia.
You seemed good at figures but poor in logic. Do banks share their profits with you, the depositor? How much interest do you get from your savings bank? Do you know how CPF rate is pegged? Go research that!
You cant seem to comprehend the simple logic that in the case of CPF board, both the stake holders and the depositor are the same. Now who is weak in logic?
Your statement about making profit is subjective. You should apply the same yardstick to banks where you put your savings if you don't leave it with CPF. Therefore, I think your conscience is muddle up here!
I understand the reason for unlocking CPF savings is to enable members to buy homes, and if they don't or got spare beyond the minimum sum, they can invest in approved securities. What you failed to realise is this: there is a minimum sum to ensure there is enough for retirement. There are many CPF members who got millions in their accounts. These people want to use it for property and stocks! These people have certainly more than they need for retirement. Your concern should be those who don't earn high incomes and their retirement savings in CPF is meagre. It is this very group of CPF members that the gahmen is worried about!
The same yardstick would not be used on banks because they are profit making entities. Is CPF a profit making entity? Especially when the stakeholders are different? You say there are many CPF members with millions in their account. how many percent??
And you cant comprehend simple figures? The govt makes the difference between what it pays out to the members and what it earns from GIC and Temasek. -
Originally posted by royston_ang:Aren't you contradicting yourself by saying CPF is not a bank and yet argued that profit from CPF don't belong to the ppl cause bank don't share their profit with the depositor?
No contradiction ... you didn't understand what I said. In fact, you are actually saying that CPF is like a bank, not me!
So I can assume that if one day I approached you and offered you to pay me 20% of monthly your salary and I promise you that I am going to return you one lump sum when you reach 65 at 4% interest per year, you will be extremely grateful to me for providing such an attractive offer? (I will properly approach another financial adviser and use your money for other investments, packeting the difference )
Well, your limited understanding is telling: the CPF scheme is not an investment scheme. If you liken it to one, then there is no end to your dissatisfaction. What makes you think that a financial advisor can guarantee you a consistent return about 4%? Name me one and pls provide the contact number. -
I have never said CPF is a pension fund, only a retirement fund. Its sole purpose was to help Singaporeans to retire. Compare that against a bank whose the sole purpose is to maximize profit. The govt shouldnt behave like a bank and has a duty to help Singaporeans to get optimal returns on their retirement savings.Originally posted by kilua:
As long as you are comparing CPF with a bank, you are already making a set of assumptions. In that case, why not compare with other schemes? Also, I donÂ’t get why you say the govt shouldnÂ’t behave like a bank, and yet you are comparing CPF with a bank? Also, you didnÂ’t answer my question on how CPF pegged its rate.
Take a simple Malaysia's EPF's link
They invested a portion of the funds in and declared dividends to their members. So why cant Singaporeans have a system like Malaysia to improve their yields? Is it because PAP cannot admit a policy failure? or are they afraid to lose votes?
I think you are politicizing an issue just bcos CPF scheme is a govt initiative. If your savings are with banks or some other investment schemes, have you been promised that they will do everything to maximize profits and share them with you????
Do you know how CPF funds are invested? It is easy to give an example of MYÂ’s EPF. Tell me what if EPF investments failed or tumbled?
Quote
In a 2006 paper[1], two NUS economists argued that “CPF members have not benefited from the power of compound interest”. They estimated that from 1987 to 2004, the real rate of return credited to CPF members was only 1.2% per annum. This was contrasted with an equivalent rate of 3.39% for EPF members in Malaysia.
Hmmm ….. how often does CPF pays interest? Every month, quarter, half-yearly or annually? I think the NUS economists are wrong in saying “members have not benefited from compounding". The question is how often interest rate is payable. If it is once a year, that is obviously different from 12 times a year! Unless you know the exact meaning of the word ‘real’ you cannot be certain whether inflation has been factored in! However, my common sense tells me this: even if CPF pays 2.5% per year for the next 5 years, my ‘real’ interest rate can never be less than 2.5%, excluding inflation rate, average dividend rate, average SIBOR rate, etc.
Again: you have to answer my question on how CPF pegged its rate.
Your chart on dividend is irrelevant. You are assuming that CPF is an investment scheme or fund!!!! IT IS NOT !!!! If you keep thinking that CPF is an investment scheme and not a provident fund – your arguments will be like someone who said: “I saved $1.00 by not taking the bus.” Why not say - I saved $10 by not taking a cab???
You cant seem to comprehend the simple logic that in the case of CPF board, both the stake holders and the depositor are the same. Now who is weak in logic?
You are mistaken; you have an account with CPF. You donÂ’t have a share in CPF !!!
When you place your savings in the bank – you are the depositor or account-holder. You are not a stakeholder of the bank! Go read up your finance or economics. Maybe you should go to NUS where the professors can’t tell it right.
The same yardstick would not be used on banks because they are profit making entities. Is CPF a profit making entity? Especially when the stakeholders are different? You say there are many CPF members with millions in their account. how many percent??
Now, you are contradicting yourself. On one had you want CPF to be like bank and invest company, and on the other hand you say the same yardstick cannot be applied. Also, what has the number of members with millions in their CPF got to do with your postulation? I merely mentioned them just to compare with those who have little in their CPF. Actually the issue and the on-going debates should be:
1) populace living longer;
2) CPF balance insufficient to see to the end.
The issue is not about returns or investment. Those with low incomes cannot even meet the minimum sum. If you tell this people about investment and the rate of return - they will call you shioa!
And you cant comprehend simple figures? The govt makes the difference between what it pays out to the members and what it earns from GIC and Temasek.
Now, I see what your arguments are about. You are not concern about those earning low incomes, having insufficient CPF to see to their grand golden old age. I am afraid we are on different wavelength. -
Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:
Ya, CPF is not an investment scheme. Just that the gov made it mandatory for all its citizen to contribute to CPF and use the fund to invest. And the gov has absolute control as to amend the terms and conditions as it seem fit.
Well, your limited understanding is telling: the CPF scheme is not an investment scheme. If you liken it to one, then there is no end to your dissatisfaction. What makes you think that a financial advisor can guarantee you a consistent return about 4%? Name me one and pls provide the contact number.
-
I would think its best to leave the government out of the picture and judge CPF on its own merits.Originally posted by royston_ang:Ya, CPF is not an investment scheme. Just that the gov made it mandatory for all its citizen to contribute to CPF and use the fund to invest. And the gov has absolute control as to amend the terms and conditions as it seem fit. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
In every sense of the word, nobody would leave money 'idle' in some 'bank acc' to collect base interest.
If the GIC did not use CPF funds to invest, how does this Government take responsibility for allowing such a big pool of money sitting idle at the CPF ?
What has the CPF done to ensure that the huge accumulation of funds will earn a ''reasonable'' return for every Singaporean contributing into the CPF - especially when other private investments has done better with smaller amounts being managed ?
The amount accumulated is mind boggling even if one is to make a conservative estimate of an average Singaporean employee earning a fixed wage of $2000 per month for the next 35 years without pay increase; and pays 20% into his CPF while the Employer pays 16% - which will result in an assured monthly CPF contribution of $720; or $8,640 p.a.
If this amount earns 2% compound interest per year, by the time this Employee reaches his retirement on the 35th year of working life, he will have approximately $440,591.33.
If the retiring population is 100,000 workers, and each has $440,591.33 in his CPF, there would have been an accumulated sum of [b]$44,059,133,000.
If the entire Singaporean work force of approximately 2,000,000 were to retire over the next 20 years - the Government will have to find $881,182,660,000.00 to pay everyone.
The combined reserves and annual profits made by the GLCs are included can hardly come to such a sum.
Does the CPF alone has this amount to pay out over the next 20 years ?
This question becomes even more pertinent considering that the Government is known to borrow from the CPF for the development of infrastructure.
Can infrastructure provide any return to the borrowings from the CPF ?
It is obvious that there is hardly any such amount to payout to Singaporeans any lump sum based on the original CPF scheme of retirement at 55 years of age.
The Government changing of the CPF scheme by further delays to the CPF draw out age is a clear indication of dishonesty in breaking a social contract of trust with Singaporeans.
[/b]
It would be foolish of our govt NOT to invest our monies to get more returns. As PM Lee once harped: there is no free lunch. So the setting up of the CPF was to generate a nice stash of reserves for the govt to pursue investments, which theoretically would have generated returns for the country.
This plan was probably set up in good faith back in the older days to generate more returns which can translate to better reserves to help the people in their twilight years, but has perhaps been warped and perveted to an extent unrecognizable to the old guard; the late Hon Sui Sen must be turning in his grave about now...
In any case, it is the returns i question, not the intrinsic use of our CPF monies. What is the valid reason for extending the withdrawal limit time and again? Is the govt echoing the sentiments of MP Sin Boon Ann? That the general population have no clue how to manage their own finances? Which automatically implies that in this nanny state, the govt must 'step in' for the good of the people and make 'unpopular decisions'?
The very need to extend repeatedly the withdrawal limit and get the people to buy into this unconvincing 'annuity scheme' simply fuels further suspicion that our govt has not been completely candid with the people concerning CPF investments; have we been paying for more undeclared tuition fees in the mould of Ho Ching?
This is a question cleverly sidesteped by our ministers during parliament, and our alternatives lack the guile to persist and press home this point. -
This plan was probably set up in good faith back in the older days to generate more returns which can translate to better reserves to help the people in their twilight years, but has perhaps been warped and perveted to an extent unrecognizable to the old guard; the late Hon Sui Sen must be turning in his grave about now...
In any case, it is the returns i question, not the intrinsic use of our CPF monies. What is the valid reason for extending the withdrawal limit time and again? Is the govt echoing the sentiments of MP Sin Boon Ann? That the general population have no clue how to manage their own finances? Which automatically implies that in this nanny state, the govt must 'step in' for the good of the people and make 'unpopular decisions'?
The very need to extend repeatedly the withdrawal limit and get the people to buy into this unconvincing 'annuity scheme' simply fuels further suspicion that our govt has not been completely candid with the people concerning CPF investments; have we been paying for more undeclared tuition fees in the mould of Ho Ching?
This is a question cleverly sidesteped by our ministers during parliament, and our alternatives lack the guile to persist and press home this point.
well said!! i am neither economist or business professors.! But what you said make sense and touch my heart!!! -
Originally posted by Ponders:Nope. I believe GIC does not use CPF funds to invest.
But nothing is stopping CPF to invest in GIC
From NMP Siew's blog:
19. Indeed, it seems that the GIC may already be managing CPF balances. It is just that CPF members are not benefiting from it. The CPF Board invests the bulk of CPF balances in Government bonds. These bonds pay a rate equal to the rate that the CPF Board has to pay members. But what does the Government do with the funds it raises?
20. According to a 2002 paper published by the Asian Development Bank Institute[2], the Government invests those funds with the GIC. -
Complain what?
Singaporeans allowed good things to happen to them. No one forced them to do anything they dun like. They DECIDED and MADE that DECISION.
Congratulations. Especially to the MAJORITY. You are the cutest! -
the point is that CPF is not a sustainable option for retirement funds. there are wide income gaps, which results in people not being to have a standardize the amount of savings they have upon reaching retirement age.
-
Originally posted by BillyBong:
Surprisingly, the CPF was started originally by the British Colonial Government as a Nationally Funded Pension Scheme and was never intended as a National Social Security in the manner understood.
In every sense of the word, nobody would leave money 'idle' in some 'bank acc' to collect base interest.
It would be foolish of our govt NOT to invest our monies to get more returns. As PM Lee once harped: there is no free lunch. So the setting up of the CPF was to generate a nice stash of reserves for the govt to pursue investments, which theoretically would have generated returns for the country.
This plan was probably set up in good faith back in the older days to generate more returns which can translate to better reserves to help the people in their twilight years, but has perhaps been warped and perveted to an extent unrecognizable to the old guard; the late Hon Sui Sen must be turning in his grave about now...
In any case, it is the returns i question, not the intrinsic use of our CPF monies. What is the valid reason for extending the withdrawal limit time and again? Is the govt echoing the sentiments of MP Sin Boon Ann? That the general population have no clue how to manage their own finances? Which automatically implies that in this nanny state, the govt must 'step in' for the good of the people and make 'unpopular decisions'?
The very need to extend repeatedly the withdrawal limit and get the people to buy into this unconvincing 'annuity scheme' simply fuels further suspicion that our govt has not been completely candid with the people concerning CPF investments; have we been paying for more undeclared tuition fees in the mould of Ho Ching?
This is a question cleverly sidesteped by our ministers during parliament, and our alternatives lack the guile to persist and press home this point.
When this Ruling Party first came into political power in 1957, they had the option of either starting a Social Insurance scheme for every single citizen - as in the present Annuity proposal, or continuing with the CPF in the form started by the British Colonial Rulers.
The CPF was chosen for the fact that CASH was immediately available from the IMMEDIATE deductions of monthly wages that was urgently needed to fill the EMPTY State Treasury in 1957, after the failed administration of Lim Yew Hock was disposed from politics.
The fast accumulation of CASH was too tempting to resist for the funding of infrastructural development, and the modest monthly contribution of 5% - from Employer and Employee - was raised consistently till it reaches a peak of 30% in total by 1974.
LKY's insistent National Saving Rate of having CPF at 50% of wage was soon achieved by about the early 1980's, when CPF contribution reached 40% - much to the chagrin of businesses and workers.
With the sudden collapse of the economy in 1985 and 1997, the CPF was soon pared down to 30%, and raised again to the present 36%.
If the GIC do not utilise the CPF funds, surely the vast stable of Government Linked Companies - that sprang up since 1965 - must have its capital base being assisted from the huge funds accumulated and sitting idly in the CPF ?
The CPF funds will passed through the Finance Ministry instead of being loan directly to the GLCs, and with the GLCs being held directly accountable to the CPF. In this manner, the CPF is not exposed to the operation risks of the GLCs, while the Financy Ministry guarantees these loans from the CPF at a fixed interest rate.
From the vast stable of GLCs, there were as many failed operations as there were the few gems that were able to remain profitable.
Unfortunately, the profits of those few successful enterprises could not cover the many failed ventures, and with the profits from the successful units seldom returned to the Finance Ministry - as the profits are recycled in these successful corporations to generate its further growth.
Is it any surprise that the CPF must now be continuously tinkered that require more amounts to be held back from the CPF stakeholders ?
Is it any surprise now that after nearly 50 years, the Insurance Scheme - that was first considered in 1957 - is now being revisited, and considered seriously, as there is no longer the need for this Government to be funded by Citizens money ?
Should we be surprised at irony that the Insurance Scheme is a modified one from the scheme that was intended in 1957, which if it had been implemented then would have created the World Biggest Insurance Fund ?
Instead, the present insurance scheme of an Annuity Plan is one to be deducted from one's own savings at this late stage of our lives, and with the remaining balance lost into the general fund - simply to finance the needs of the remaining surviving stake holders of this Annuity.
The present Annuity Scheme is a continued sad reflection of the niggardly principle of a 'No Free Lunch' of this Political Party.
The 'Free Lunch' is only for the Elite Leadership, and will never be for those who pay for the wages of this Elite.
It is amazing that a self-proclaimed Elite as Minister MBT will even dare to suggest the Retirees to finance their later years by re-mortgaging to the HDB their homes that are fully paid, when the Government and the HDB had already profited immensely from the cheap funds used to construct the HDB, which were then sold to Singaporeans at huge profit margins to the HDB ?
This is tantamount to turning on the screws twice over into the pockets of Singaporeans - twice from the Retirees, and once more to the survivors of the Retirees, who will have to redeem the re-mortage - if they wish to keep the memories of the retiree who passed on from this Life. -
Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:As long as you are comparing CPF with a bank, you are already making a set of assumptions. In that case, why not compare with other schemes? Also, I donÂ’t get why you say the govt shouldnÂ’t behave like a bank, and yet you are comparing CPF with a bank? Also, you didnÂ’t answer my question on how CPF pegged its rate.
If you want to find out how CPF pegged its rate, go goggle it yourself. Dont bother others repeating so many times.
I think you are politicizing an issue just bcos CPF scheme is a govt initiative. If your savings are with banks or some other investment schemes, have you been promised that they will do everything to maximize profits and share them with you???? Do you know how CPF funds are invested? It is easy to give an example of MYÂ’s EPF. Tell me what if EPF investments failed or tumbled?
First of all, if investments failed in EPF, it would only be a small percentage of EPF funds. Malaysia's EPF only invest 20% of their funds in equities. Being a retirement fund, their investments would be more conservative, buying conservative stocks. The EPF fund manager would not buy high risks stocks like shin corp, a telecoms company in an emerging economy.
Anyone with basic investment knowledge knows there are many types of stocks. Risks can be greatly reduced buying defensive stocks such as SMRT. What is the probability of SMRT going bankrupt?They can also diversify their risks by holding a large portfolio of different stocks. If one company fails, it would only constitutes a small percentage of the 20% of the equities they are holding.EPF has beaten CPF hands down as mentioned by the NUS professors.
Hmmm ….. how often does CPF pays interest? Every month, quarter, half-yearly or annually? I think the NUS economists are wrong in saying “members have not benefited from compounding". The question is how often interest rate is payable. If it is once a year, that is obviously different from 12 times a year! Unless you know the exact meaning of the word ‘real’ you cannot be certain whether inflation has been factored in! However, my common sense tells me this: even if CPF pays 2.5% per year for the next 5 years, my ‘real’ interest rate can never be less than 2.5%, excluding inflation rate, average dividend rate, average SIBOR rate, etc.
Again: you have to answer my question on how CPF pegged its rate.
Your chart on dividend is irrelevant. You are assuming that CPF is an investment scheme or fund!!!! IT IS NOT !!!! If you keep thinking that CPF is an investment scheme and not a provident fund – your arguments will be like someone who said: “I saved $1.00 by not taking the bus.” Why not say - I saved $10 by not taking a cab???
This looks like a whole paragraph of gibberish and a weak attempt to string a few unrelated concepts together. The NUS professor's research are published in internationally recognized papers and are reviewed by the peer experts in the field.
EPF is not an investment scheme either and it has beaten CPF hands down. They can use EPF to buy housing and make investments just like CPF. The difference is that they know investing all the returns in bonds would give poor returns and they optimized the returns by investing 20% in equities and declaring dividends to their members
You are mistaken; you have an account with CPF. You don’t have a share in CPF !!! When you place your savings in the bank – you are the depositor or account-holder. You are not a stakeholder of the bank! Go read up your finance or economics. Maybe you should go to NUS where the professors can’t tell it right.
What big words to claim the NUS professors wrong
! Assuming you are right that CPF members are not the stake holders in CPF,then who is the stakeholder for CPF? If their purpose is not to maximize the CPF member's interest, whose interest is it supposed to maximize? The MAS "Bank"? -
Originally posted by Atobe:
You have given a good account of the beginning and purpose of CPF but I can't follow your later espousals without detecting a hint of your suspicion of the govt.'s intention in the lastest CPF twist. The earlier part was factual, the later part seemed clouded with political overtone. Like I said in some other threads - set aside the personal gripe, political agenda or sympathy and look squarely at the circumstances giving rise (or need) for a change (or twist) to the CPF.
[Is it any surprise now that after nearly 50 years, the Insurance Scheme - that was first considered in 1957 - is now being revisited, and considered seriously, as there is no longer the need for this Government to be funded by Citizens money ?
Should we be surprised at irony that the Insurance Scheme is a modified one from the scheme that was intended in 1957, which if it had been implemented then would have created the World Biggest Insurance Fund ?
Instead, the present insurance scheme of an Annuity Plan is one to be deducted from one's own savings at this late stage of our lives, and with the remaining balance lost into the general fund - simply to finance the needs of the remaining surviving stake holders of this Annuity.
The present Annuity Scheme is a continued sad reflection of the niggardly principle of a 'No Free Lunch' of this Political Party.
The 'Free Lunch' is only for the Elite Leadership, and will never be for those who pay for the wages of this Elite.
It is amazing that a self-proclaimed Elite as Minister MBT will even dare to suggest the Retirees to finance their later years by re-mortgaging to the HDB their homes that are fully paid, when the Government and the HDB had already profited immensely from the cheap funds used to construct the HDB, which were then sold to Singaporeans at huge profit margins to the HDB ?
This is tantamount to turning on the screws [b]twice over into the pockets of Singaporeans - twice from the Retirees, and once more to the survivors of the Retirees, who will have to redeem the re-mortage - if they wish to keep the memories of the retiree who passed on from this Life. [/color]
[/b]
While it is good to question, debate, oppose - one must not be prejudicial, bias, factor in personal agenda or worse still vendatta. I see over and over again an UNDERLYING assertion in all the threads I read: that the gahmen is up to no good, delaying withdrawal so as to profit from poor CPF or rich CPF members, using the fund for personal empire-building, dynastic entrenchment, and a whole lot of unconnected issues and allegations.
The bottom-line is this: Are you against the scheme per se or are you against the gahmen or some political figures? I know this is difficult to segregate cos the annuity scheme is a gahmen initiative not a private one. -
The short answer to you is: Don't believe everthing professors said. I went thru schools and had many opportunities to correct professors. One such: a professor at a Speak Mandarin Campaign said Chinese who cannot speak Mandarin are not Chinese. I stood up and asked him: did his grand cho-kong speak Mandarin? He couldn't answer me and his face changed colour. I was sure he looked like an Indian!Originally posted by kilua: -
GIC does not use CPF money, GIC borrows the money from the CPF and if GIC fails, then the CPF board will sue GIC for the money. If GIC cannot pay then CPF sues GIC for bankruptcy. To prevent GIC from going bankrupt, the gahmen will step in and tax the people so that GIC can pay CPF...
An LPPL case if ever I saw one.
They do it this way to avoid paying CPF members the "profits" from the investments. A large part of the "profits" come from the citizens anyway.
If you want them to stop taking your money and pay you a decent CPF returns... kick out a few ministers but retain the PAP in power.
Otherwise, look at the latest CPI numbers... the CPF interest rate hardly covers inflation. -
Thank you. At least you have answered this part:Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:GIC does not use CPF money, GIC borrows the money from the CPF and if GIC fails, then the CPF board will sue GIC for the money. If GIC cannot pay then CPF sues GIC for bankruptcy. To prevent GIC from going bankrupt, the gahmen will step in and tax the people so that GIC can pay CPF...
An LPPL case if ever I saw one.
They do it this way to avoid paying CPF members the "profits" from the investments. A large part of the "profits" come from the citizens anyway.
If you want them to stop taking your money and pay you a decent CPF returns... kick out a few ministers but retain the PAP in power.
Otherwise, look at the latest CPI numbers... the CPF interest rate hardly covers inflation.
"The bottom-line is this: Are you against the scheme per se or are you against the gahmen or some political figures? I know this is difficult to segregate cos the annuity scheme is a gahmen initiative not a private one."