Posts: 349
Threads: 32
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation:
7
25-06-2014, 04:30 PM
(This post was last modified: 25-06-2014, 04:31 PM by chialc.)
(25-06-2014, 04:07 PM)Harvest Time Wrote: Likewise if CPF min sum is set too high, a lot of people cannot meet it, they will need to re-examine the policy.
Harvest,
This is how I feel too.
I see it happening already.
In fact, it's changing at a velocity that a little bit out of my comfort zone.
My faith (as well as what I had read so far),
Value Buddies are a bunch of red, hot blooded soul.
Whether we are Singaporean or foreigner,
our heart is to build a better tomorrow and for a better Singapore.
Keep up the good words/work buddies.
Keep the fire burning high for you are my (our) future.
![[Image: Live-beautifully-and-Dream-passionately.jpg]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10699681/Live-beautifully-and-Dream-passionately.jpg)
 Love Compassion
Live with Passion, Lead with Compassion
2013-06-16
Posts: 3,474
Threads: 95
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
17
(25-06-2014, 04:07 PM)Harvest Time Wrote: Illustration:
If an exam paper set too many difficult questions, a lot people fail, they will modulate to allow more people to pass.
For normal schools, you cannot set and fail 50% of the students.
Likewise if CPF min sum is set too high, a lot of people cannot meet it, they will need to re-examine the policy. Ha! Ha!
As far as matching MS $ value to today inflation's value, MS may be reasonable. The main problem is today pay has not catch up with inflation for so many years already.
To want to know more from one of the Experts, go and google "LEONG SZE HIANG".
Actually you don't have to do that. You know already at any heartland food center or coffee shop, minimum cost of any bowl of rice or mee is $3 onwards. Some even minimum $4 onwards. Which use to be $2 onwards just one or two years ago. No?
WB:-
1) Rule # 1, do not lose money.
2) Rule # 2, refer to # 1.
3) Not until you can manage your emotions, you can manage your money.
Truism of Investments.
A) Buying a security is buying RISK not Return
B) You can control RISK (to a certain level, hopefully only.) But definitely not the outcome of the Return.
NB:-
My signature is meant for psychoing myself. No offence to anyone. i am trying not to lose money unnecessary anymore.
Posts: 146
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation:
1
Being typical of the way things are managed here, i think they w err on the "safe" side by making the min sum higher than neccessary. Many who cannot meet it will just be forced to continue to work longer. At the same time, the value of money inside cpf will cont' to be eroded. Perhaps the outcome is that many old folks w continue to work till into the old age. As Mr Lim has mentioned, gov will help the old folks to be employed longer into the silver yrs. Hopefully better jobs than picking up cardboards and selling tissues at food courts.
Posts: 2,113
Threads: 19
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
5
26-06-2014, 11:34 AM
(This post was last modified: 26-06-2014, 11:38 AM by freedom.)
If you look at CPF as a company, it is very safe. It has a much better financial statements than almost all companies in the world.
http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/NR/rdonlyres/275...ements.pdf
The balance sheet is clean with no debt. Most of the investments are in Singapore government bonds, AAA rated.
So what's there "not safe"?
Plus, the investment is into Singapore government bonds, not "PAP" bonds. Even if PAP is voted out, the Singapore government should continue to honor the bonds, or it would not be voted in.
Posts: 3,474
Threads: 95
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
17
(26-06-2014, 11:34 AM)freedom Wrote: If you look at CPF as a company, it is very safe. It has a much better financial statements than almost all companies in the world.
http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/NR/rdonlyres/275...ements.pdf
The balance sheet is clean with no debt. Most of the investments are in Singapore government bonds, AAA rated.
So what's there "not safe"?
Plus, the investment is into Singapore government bonds, not "PAP" bonds. Even if PAP is voted out, the Singapore government should continue to honor the bonds, or it would not be voted in. Ha! Ha!
Wait a minute! "or it would not be voted in"-
-What do you mean?
You have to vote the new G in before you know what the new G going to do with the SGP bonds.
For that matter, many of us have this scary thoughts whether the new G will find some skeletons in the closets?
After all it is going to be 50 years with the same G. that we have trusted with out demanding "complete transparency" in whatever G has done. imo.
WB:-
1) Rule # 1, do not lose money.
2) Rule # 2, refer to # 1.
3) Not until you can manage your emotions, you can manage your money.
Truism of Investments.
A) Buying a security is buying RISK not Return
B) You can control RISK (to a certain level, hopefully only.) But definitely not the outcome of the Return.
NB:-
My signature is meant for psychoing myself. No offence to anyone. i am trying not to lose money unnecessary anymore.
Posts: 1,767
Threads: 14
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
15
Maybe the challenge will be is the min sum growing faster than the rate of official inflation. If so, we can demand an answer.
Posts: 2,113
Threads: 19
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
5
(26-06-2014, 02:07 PM)Temperament Wrote: (26-06-2014, 11:34 AM)freedom Wrote: If you look at CPF as a company, it is very safe. It has a much better financial statements than almost all companies in the world.
http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/NR/rdonlyres/275...ements.pdf
The balance sheet is clean with no debt. Most of the investments are in Singapore government bonds, AAA rated.
So what's there "not safe"?
Plus, the investment is into Singapore government bonds, not "PAP" bonds. Even if PAP is voted out, the Singapore government should continue to honor the bonds, or it would not be voted in. Ha! Ha!
Wait a minute! "or it would not be voted in"-
-What do you mean?
You have to vote the new G in before you know what the new G going to do with the SGP bonds.
For that matter, many of us have this scary thoughts whether the new G will find some skeletons in the closets?
After all it is going to be 50 years with the same G. that we have trusted with out demanding "complete transparency" in whatever G has done. imo.
Then who should be blamed? The voters vote in the government who does not honor its liabilities.
If the new government finds any wrongdoing with previous government, it can press charges against those who misuse the money and get back the money. However, dishonoring the liabilities of the government is not the way to go.
Have the Republic party honored the debt incurred by the Democratic government in the US even if it does not agree with the policies?
Will you ever trust a company when its new CEO disregards the debt incurred by previous CEO?
Posts: 146
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation:
1
(26-06-2014, 11:34 AM)freedom Wrote: If you look at CPF as a company, it is very safe. It has a much better financial statements than almost all companies in the world.
http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/NR/rdonlyres/275...ements.pdf
The balance sheet is clean with no debt. Most of the investments are in Singapore government bonds, AAA rated.
So what's there "not safe"?
Plus, the investment is into Singapore government bonds, not "PAP" bonds. Even if PAP is voted out, the Singapore government should continue to honor the bonds, or it would not be voted in.
As I know, the cpf money is used to invest in SGS bonds and in returned this money is used to invest in various companies, some locals (eg, dbs, Singtel etc) and some overseas (Citibank, china banks etc). Who can surely say the fund managers who helped to invest will not make mistake. So its cannot be 100% safe. Maybe 70~90% safe.
"The balance sheet is clean with no debt." - I hope u dun detemine a company is safe base on this condition alone.
Posts: 3,474
Threads: 95
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
17
So far historically, how many SWG Fund had defaulted?
i mean any G can default is no surprise to us.
Some people even thinking one day US may default on it's bonds or debts.
But the point is:-
Nevertheless, you still have to vote in a new G before you know what they going to do with the former G's bonds or debts or any other things.
WB:-
1) Rule # 1, do not lose money.
2) Rule # 2, refer to # 1.
3) Not until you can manage your emotions, you can manage your money.
Truism of Investments.
A) Buying a security is buying RISK not Return
B) You can control RISK (to a certain level, hopefully only.) But definitely not the outcome of the Return.
NB:-
My signature is meant for psychoing myself. No offence to anyone. i am trying not to lose money unnecessary anymore.
Posts: 2,113
Threads: 19
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
5
(26-06-2014, 03:27 PM)Freenasi Wrote: (26-06-2014, 11:34 AM)freedom Wrote: If you look at CPF as a company, it is very safe. It has a much better financial statements than almost all companies in the world.
http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/NR/rdonlyres/275...ements.pdf
The balance sheet is clean with no debt. Most of the investments are in Singapore government bonds, AAA rated.
So what's there "not safe"?
Plus, the investment is into Singapore government bonds, not "PAP" bonds. Even if PAP is voted out, the Singapore government should continue to honor the bonds, or it would not be voted in.
As I know, the cpf money is used to invest in SGS bonds and in returned this money is used to invest in various companies, some locals (eg, dbs, Singtel etc) and some overseas (Citibank, china banks etc). Who can surely say the fund managers who helped to invest will not make mistake. So its cannot be 100% safe. Maybe 70~90% safe.
"The balance sheet is clean with no debt." - I hope u dun detemine a company is safe base on this condition alone.
No. The risk of investment in companies is borne by the Singapore government, not the CPF. So as long as Singapore government honors its debt, CPF is safe. Whether Singapore government loses money or not, it is the government's concern, not CPF's.
If you don't understand what's called "clean" balance sheet, you should not judge me.
|
Homepage
PR Newswire
