MPs offer ideas to improve CPF

(07-06-2014, 03:45 PM)Temperament Wrote: Actually i feel the G. no longer care about regaining our trust quite sometimes ago. i think the white paper on population times onwards or even earlier. It is like a given mandatory thing PAPies will rule forever in Singapore.

Well, if anyone knows how to skin a cat -> skin it!

The motivation was never in doubt. We all want the best, whether it's CPF or whatever that we (don't) lack the necessary "skills" or know-how.

Majority of the views written online are just pure noise... complains with no substance, sometimes without understanding the actual issue, joining the choir and so on... A lot of views express they can do a better job, but no alternatives are expressed.

I am not for or against any "side", but I feel without constructive views, and just saying " me too" in multiple forms isn't really helping anyone but just adding to the noise .

Unlike in the past, with the current social media, it is very easy to take a half truth and make it sound as if it is true by just propagating it through viral marketing....

As citizens of this country, we need to be more discerning of the views expressed by everyone especially new voices that might have other agenda. The world is now more grey than black and white as before.... With Globalization, social engineering can be used to bring a country down, so it is up to us the citizen to be aware and understand before we agree or disagree with any political views be it the current govt , opposition, or external blogs that might seem to be saying for the good of everyone, but you never know unless you dig deeper.

It is very much like that Roy case, if the PM did not make it a libel case, the issue would be that what Roy said would have been taken as truth as not much people challenged it . But in fact, it was a lie acting as if it was the truth.

I hope everyone considers carefully what they are saying, before saying it as it can be detrimental to the future of you and me.

^^ agree with flinger totally. Catherine Lim brought up the same trust issue highlighted by nsengkia. As much as i respect her views, they are short in implementation

What should LHL do that will please the netizens? Keep quiet? For all fairness he gave Roy prewarnings and the guy tried to be funny by taking down the original post and uploaded other subsequent post and video on the same issue. I would have sued him myself. I dont fault LHL on his action, i fault him of failing politically to paint the right picture.

His debate will Low highlighted how Low sidestepped the issue that LHL Is bringing up: WP has changed her view but it never came out of Low's mouth. It is a pragmatic conclusion that even PAP has moderated on their foreigner policy but WP understood the political implication better. Low never answered the question directly. Similarly should LHL stake his political capital on a nobody like Roy? There are many other ways to skin a cat.

There are no policies that will please 100% of people. There are no such thing as freedom of information. There is no such thing that socialism is right way or capitalism is right. Like i wrote in another post, absolutes are political propaganda in a world taking comfort in heuristic certainty, but of little application value. The optimal path is somewhere in between. A policy that satisfies 80% of people or a law that deters 90% people are already VERY GOOD.

50k people can criticise 22 people running around with the soccer ball. Constructive criticism is to come up with alternatives and follow up on how it could have been done better. Talking in rhetorics with no solution is just noise as flinger pointed out correctly

That said, I agree with sgd that having ⅓ opposition may not be a bad idea for a vibrant democracy at our level of societal progress. Contrary to popular belief, i don't believe in a democracy when u cant even fulfill basic human needs to survive.

Well this cpf issue is a hot patato. Talk about the people money all eye pop out bigbig.
But the fact is no transparency on people money.why?
cpf money managed by gic but the fact is gic is controlled by lee family.
They used our money to make money..why dun return some of the profit to us...or otherwise they have loss all our money no money to pay us.

Look look now union has to step in to give sweet..let see.

Which part do you feel there is no transparency?
Source : Business Times Singapore.

[Image: CPF_How_it_works.jpg?1402040476]

(07-06-2014, 07:37 PM)koh_52 Wrote: Well this cpf issue is a hot patato. Talk about the people money all eye pop out bigbig.
But the fact is no transparency on people money.why?
cpf money managed by gic but the fact is gic is controlled by lee family.
They used our money to make money..why dun return some of the profit to us...or otherwise they have loss all our money no money to pay us.

Look look now union has to step in to give sweet..let see.

Finally someone who posts this figure so clearly! Here are my comments

From GIC's website, they have been capable of producing 6.5% per annum over 20 years. On the contrary, CPF members are offered a coupon rates of 2.5% to 5.00%.

Lets now compare this to the insurance analogy, to be exact Tokio Marine. From Tokio marine's track record, I remember the group has been able to yield 7% for policyholders in its diversified portfolio and has a record of returning 5.25% (the advertised amount on their policy sheet). I am sure many forumers here will know the advertised 5.25% is never the real figure and the actual returns are closer to 4.75%. In the process of doing so, Tokio Marine has earn good profits and remunerated thousands of insurance agents and their supervisors commission for getting naive people to sign up life policies.

Using this analogy, I will like to ask: Do you think the coupon rates currently are fair to CPF members? Discuss.

(07-06-2014, 07:37 PM)koh_52 Wrote: They used our money to make money..why dun return some of the profit to us...

I have seen this comment countless times on social media.

There are many instances where organisations use our money to earn a higher return but in the process compensate us back with low interest rate:

- interest rate on your savings account (banks take money from depositors and lend out at prime rate)

- endownment policies from insurance companies (they take the premium you paid and invest in equities to get higher return)

In both instances above the customers always get very low return on their money.
If this is not the logic that should be applied, then why stop at cpf? Just because the government is a good punching bag?

I would like to see those who criticise the cpf returns asking their banks to pay an interest of 5% on their savings account for a start.

I think it's fair.
I am not willing to take a -ve return.

To me, I am very happy with the 5% CPF-SA plus 3.5% CPF-OA (risk-free).

I will be very keen to know any of our Value Buddies prefers a -ve return.

LC


Earth day - save the world everyday.

I think it will be difficult to get a gauge here on the -ve return issue. Many of us (excluding me) are seasoned investors who are unlikely to not mind getting -ve returns on a bad year as long as we outperform the market (getting alpha). For me, the aim is always to generate alpha.

In my view, the general population may be unwilling to stomach a negative return. However, Insurers are aware of this and this is why their returns are smoothed to ensure policyholders think they are getting positive returns annually over the long run. However, this results in a low but consistent yield of below 5% p.a.

(07-06-2014, 09:31 PM)CY09 Wrote: I think it will be difficult to get a gauge here on the -ve return issue. Many of us (excluding me) are seasoned investors who are unlikely to not mind getting -ve returns on a bad year as long as we outperform the market (getting alpha). For me, the aim is always to generate alpha.

In my view, the general population may be unwilling to stomach a negative return. However, Insurers are aware of this and this is why their returns are smoothed to ensure policyholders think they are getting positive returns annually over the long run. However, this results in a low but consistent yield of below 5% p.a.

CY,
You must also search thru the interest rate history.

Find out how did we arrived at such a low rate.

A significant event happen, I think around 1987, where "WE" force the G to change CPF interest rate to be what happen today.

*** We need more love. Without love, we will die.

LC


Earth day - save the world everyday.