Posts: 3,474
Threads: 95
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
17
(09-07-2014, 05:35 PM)freedom Wrote: (09-07-2014, 05:25 PM)aspeed Wrote: (09-07-2014, 04:49 PM)freedom Wrote: I haven't heard anyone saying that he/she would give up his/her return from CPF or be willing to pay if GIC can't make adequate return or worse, if GIC makes a loss.
Yet, we keep hearing demand that CPF's return should be better?
where do you think the money will eventually come from, assuming GIC has been making loss until it drop below all CPF balance.
The government can fire the current fund managers and hire better ones. The government can borrow. The government can divert its tax revenue to pay CPF return. The government can adjust the expected return of CPF.
There are many ways before the government can inflate it away. Why so difficult?
All G has the printing press ma like someone had mentioned. The only thing is by then what is the value of our $ viz-a-viz to other countries?
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
(09-07-2014, 05:46 PM)Temperament Wrote: (09-07-2014, 05:35 PM)freedom Wrote: The government can fire the current fund managers and hire better ones. The government can borrow. The government can divert its tax revenue to pay CPF return. The government can adjust the expected return of CPF.
There are many ways before the government can inflate it away. Why so difficult?
All G has the printing press ma like someone had mentioned. The only thing is by then what is the value of our $ viz-a-viz to other countries?
This kind of politically incorrect statement does no good to this forum.
Posts: 3,474
Threads: 95
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
17
(09-07-2014, 05:54 PM)freedom Wrote: (09-07-2014, 05:46 PM)Temperament Wrote: (09-07-2014, 05:35 PM)freedom Wrote: The government can fire the current fund managers and hire better ones. The government can borrow. The government can divert its tax revenue to pay CPF return. The government can adjust the expected return of CPF.
There are many ways before the government can inflate it away. Why so difficult?
All G has the printing press ma like someone had mentioned. The only thing is by then what is the value of our $ viz-a-viz to other countries?
This kind of politically incorrect statement does no good to this forum. And may i know why my statement is incorrect whether it's political or not is only your opinion only.
Can you deny US, EURO, etc.... have been QE-ing(printing money) all the way. So much so stock markets and assets have been "flooded" with money. 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: 2,113
Threads: 19
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
5
09-07-2014, 06:05 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2014, 06:10 PM by freedom.)
Because the government has not done anything that make your statement near any truth.
Just because someone does it, it does not mean everybody is doing the same. Even more, the US has not done it yet. It is only some people that claim the Fed has done something no one is sure of.
One of the many roles of the FED is to print money. It is performing its designated duty. What's wrong with it? But to link the FED's behavior to undetermined government behavior is something entirely different.
Posts: 456
Threads: 9
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation:
21
(09-07-2014, 05:15 PM)nsengkia Wrote: I am one of those strange ones who have just transferred $ from my CPF OA to my CPF SA to max out the new higher limit of the latter.  To me 4% risk free (AAA rated) in today's environment is a really great deal.
Even the 2.5% CPF OA is good as I can use it to hold my cash buffer as I gradually raise my stock holdings to 100% of my net worth (this makes sense because I am only 3 years away from 55).
Same as me. I transferred every available $ from OA to SA early. I use CPF as a riskless cash buffer.
Posts: 3,474
Threads: 95
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
17
i am saying All G has the printing press ma like someone had mentioned. i am not saying all G has QE by printing money. STOP! Please don't make matters more complicated and political.
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: 3,727
Threads: 6
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation:
95
09-07-2014, 06:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2014, 06:50 PM by specuvestor.)
(09-07-2014, 01:53 PM)HitandRun Wrote: (09-07-2014, 01:35 PM)specuvestor Wrote: The liquidity management of the CPF members is done by CPF Board. The Finance minister is not going to care about CPF liquidity per se as it is an independent unit unless CPF calls for help 
Lukong simi? So if CPF member needs money, what does CPF Board do => sell SSGS. Who is the joker that is buying or selling SSGS to CPF Board on a on-call basis? He does not need a cash float? What if he says all the money is locked up with GIC and Temasek earning the wonderful returns? How?
SSGS is a special non tradeable tranch so I assume the government will buy it back at designated yield. The "He" you refer to is the MoF.
CPF like any fund management company, will keep a certain cash buffer to meet liquidity needs. Ditto for Temasek and GIC. That's why runs and loss of confidence is critical: it saps up the buffers and give false impression of insolvency. That's also why accusation on CPF has to be addressed
(09-07-2014, 05:35 PM)freedom Wrote: (09-07-2014, 05:25 PM)aspeed Wrote: (09-07-2014, 04:49 PM)freedom Wrote: I haven't heard anyone saying that he/she would give up his/her return from CPF or be willing to pay if GIC can't make adequate return or worse, if GIC makes a loss.
Yet, we keep hearing demand that CPF's return should be better?
where do you think the money will eventually come from, assuming GIC has been making loss until it drop below all CPF balance.
The government can fire the current fund managers and hire better ones. The government can borrow. The government can divert its tax revenue to pay CPF return. The government can adjust the expected return of CPF.
There are many ways before the government can inflate it away.
IIRC Spore govt is not authorised to issue debt to fund operational needs.
Before you speak, listen. Before you write, think. Before you spend, earn. Before you invest, investigate. Before you criticize, wait. Before you pray, forgive. Before you quit, try. Before you retire, save. Before you die, give. –William A. Ward
Think Asset-Business-Structure (ABS)
Posts: 3,474
Threads: 95
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
17
(09-07-2014, 06:14 PM)tanjm Wrote: (09-07-2014, 05:15 PM)nsengkia Wrote: I am one of those strange ones who have just transferred $ from my CPF OA to my CPF SA to max out the new higher limit of the latter. To me 4% risk free (AAA rated) in today's environment is a really great deal.
Even the 2.5% CPF OA is good as I can use it to hold my cash buffer as I gradually raise my stock holdings to 100% of my net worth (this makes sense because I am only 3 years away from 55).
Same as me. I transferred every available $ from OA to SA early. I use CPF as a riskless cash buffer. We (my wife) had been doing the same to the maximum allowed during our employment time, though we had also CPFIS. At that time, no extra 1% for the first 60,000.0
(My wife still has CPFIS OA, SA, MA + RA ).
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: 11
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation:
0
You must be trolling. There are countless data from multiple sources demonstrating that the Fed's inflation of its balance sheet to offset the sheer drop in private demand is crippling the business cycle.
Just because the government does not announce its action, it does not mean that they are not doing it.
(09-07-2014, 06:05 PM)freedom Wrote: Because the government has not done anything that make your statement near any truth.
Just because someone does it, it does not mean everybody is doing the same. Even more, the US has not done it yet. It is only some people that claim the Fed has done something no one is sure of.
One of the many roles of the FED is to print money. It is performing its designated duty. What's wrong with it? But to link the FED's behavior to undetermined government behavior is something entirely different.
Posts: 34
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
1
26-03-2015, 01:15 PM
(This post was last modified: 26-03-2015, 01:16 PM by SincereKen.)
An inaugural revamped cpf system - It is more about the government's expectations and alignment of interests towards stakeholders. The Minimum Sum is one of the many sources to make ends meet.
At the very least, Singapore is doing its part to promote financial literacy such as investments, savings and insurance. It's really up to (us) citizens to shoulder such responsibilities. The noises out there, usually without sensible solutions, are not intimidating as rationals can maintain peace.
After digesting 15 pages of diplomatic cpf-debates, (my) eyes went blurry. Judging from sensible rationalizations & experiences, (most) VB audiences can be (my) Papa :p
Hint: still in ns here, serve to protect all of you including foreigners
Question: How can (we) VB reached out to more Singaporeans with a good purpose of promoting financial literacy?
|
Homepage
PR Newswire
