To transfer CPF to homemaker wife, or not?

BBCWatcher

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
20,119
Reaction score
3,014
What's the point of having illiquid funds locked in cpf annuity which you can only start drawing down from 65 years old, which is at least more than 10 years ahead.
If you plan to die with no heirs at age 65 or younger, then there's no point. Otherwise, the point is that the yields are attractive.

Savings is all about deferred consumption. If your savings grow faster and bigger, you can consume more in the future. Many people want to do that! It's quite rational. (And, at the level of savings CPF LIFE entails, it's never a huge amount in absolute terms. If you have a million or three, you'll have to find some other options for most of those dollars anyway.)

What is a home purchase, by the way? Why on earth would you take highly liquid cash, put it in a down payment, and tie it up in a hunk of real estate that's much less liquid -- and that attracts tax (not tax relief)? Now THAT would be foolish, right? ;)

And why on earth would you spend any time at a university? That's a waste of time since you could be earning cash, cash, CASH -- now, now, NOW! ;) ;)
 
Last edited:

culture_counter

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
646
Reaction score
10
you can withdraw balances above 83k if you pledge your home. your wife is not working. it is very difficult to hit 83k for her just by transferring to her along.

eg, if you have 153k in oa + sa. by right you can withdraw 70k at age 55.

but if you transfer 30k to her, your oa +sa left 123k. her oa+sa now have 30k. you can only withdraw 40k.

the question is do you need this extra 30k cash at 55 or do you want a higher stable monthly payout when you hit 65.

Agree to this......
 

henrylbh

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
15,777
Reaction score
702
Trying to seek the opinion of this group's members...
My wife is not working (so practically has almost nothing in her CPF). I'm wondering, whether or not I should transfer some of my CPF to her.
Some of my consideration points :
1) If I accumulate only in my own CPF, let's say the retirement payout in the future is $2000 for me to share with her. But if I transfer my CPF to her, and each of us get $1000 in the future, then the outcome is just the same ?
2) If I (as sole breadwinner) passed away, she will also get my CPF, so whether or not I transfer to her, doesn't make difference ?
3) If anything, transferring to her CPF will win with the extra 1% interest rate because mine is already >$60k now.
4) Obviously if a divorce ever happens, it totally makes a difference, so no need to discuss about that point here.

Is there anything else to be considered in this situation ? Thanks for sharing!

If above are your only concerns, I say transfer to spouse.

If you have 166k, your payout is $1330 on average.

If you split it with spouse, for the same 166k, you and wife get 725x2=1450.

So you decide, if you really need to withdraw amount above BRS or for spouse to get life payout when you not around as wife may not know how to handle bequest.
 

BBCWatcher

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
20,119
Reaction score
3,014
If you split it with spouse, for the same 166k, you and wife get 725x2=1450.
And it's even better than that because spouses rarely die at exactly the same time. The surviving spouse still receives his/her monthly payout, for life.
 

culture_counter

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
646
Reaction score
10
Whatever scheme (even if Ponzi), new money needs to be continuously injected to sustain the payout of old money. That's why this scheme has been made compulsory in order for it to be sustainable in the long run. Hopefull, All's Well That Ends Well!!!
 

henrylbh

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
15,777
Reaction score
702
And it's even better than that because spouses rarely die at exactly the same time. The surviving spouse still receives his/her monthly payout, for life.

You trying to clarify what I said in my last sentence - life payout for spouse?

But longevity payout is adjusted according gender. So it's not exactly 725X2, meaning husband gets 750 and wife 700 for life.
 

BBCWatcher

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
20,119
Reaction score
3,014
You trying to clarify what I said in my last sentence - life payout for spouse?
It's pretty simple, really. If the husband has a CPF LIFE annuity and the wife does not, then the total annuity payout amount is (a) less, and (b) drops to zero when the husband dies. If the husband predeceases the wife, then the wife is screwed.

By splitting the annuity payout then the actuarial value is higher and the wife is not screwed in the event her husband predeceases her. Both factors are important.

The private annuity market and some other countries offer what are called "joint survivor" annuities, meaning that the annuity pays a monthly benefit for as long as the longest surviving spouse lives. Unfortunately CPF LIFE doesn't offer that option, but the next best alternative is to transfer funds to a spouse's CPF Special Account.
 
Last edited:

henrylbh

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
15,777
Reaction score
702
No need to think further. Just do it, unless you think divorce is quite possible or you think you can sure do better with money in excess of BRS.

If above are your only concerns, I say transfer to spouse.

If you have 166k, your payout is $1330 on average (edit 1380 for male).

If you split it with spouse, for the same 166k, you and wife get 725x2=1450 (edit male $750 and femal $700).

So you decide, if you really need to withdraw amount above BRS or for spouse to get life payout when you not around as wife may not know how to handle bequest.

It's pretty simple, really

Simple no doubt (and superfluous to add pretty and really) and sometimes I wonder why you need to add more words than necessary and sometimes adding irrelevant comments to the subject, like your last para.
 

BBCWatcher

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
20,119
Reaction score
3,014
Henry, one of my few frustrations with the information you post is that you're often ignoring the important insurance-related aspects of lifetime annuities and, for example, bonds. And I don't know why you keep doing that -- perhaps you don't understand them? -- but for most people these important differences are extremely, well, important.
 

dork32

Supremacy Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
9,133
Reaction score
1,333
Henry, one of my few frustrations with the information you post is that you're often ignoring the important insurance-related aspects of lifetime annuities and, for example, bonds. And I don't know why you keep doing that -- perhaps you don't understand them? -- but for most people these important differences are extremely, well, important.

why are you whacking henry? which part of his post says he does not understand with the insurance aspect of cpf life?

both of you are saying the same thing. he is just saying that you are blabbing too much to get a simple message across.

i am the one that do not want the insurance aspect of cpf life. we have fought so much that i do not want to argue anymore.
 

dork32

Supremacy Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
9,133
Reaction score
1,333
And it's even better than that because spouses rarely die at exactly the same time. The surviving spouse still receives his/her monthly payout, for life.

depends on how you look at it. if i dont transfer and my spouse die first, then i will be getting 1.4k every month instead of 700.
 

BBCWatcher

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
20,119
Reaction score
3,014
depends on how you look at it. if i dont transfer and my spouse die first, then i will be getting 1.4k every month instead of 700.
The vast majority of people are risk averse, not risk neutral or risk loving. This is an important understanding! Fail to understand it, and you're not providing good advice -- it's just that simple.

Option 1: $1,330/month for one spouse's life from age 65, $0/month for the other.

Option 2: $750/month for one spouse's life from age 65, $700/month for the other spouse's life from age 65.

All figures are in current Singapore dollars and are CPF LIFE estimated payouts, excluding the 2% annual increase option available from 2018 (which I recommend for most people, actually). And these figures don't really include bonus interest, which would tend to increase Option 2 payouts even further.

Option 2 is clearly superior for anybody who is either risk neutral or risk averse -- which is practically everybody! -- and with some basic, reasonable assumptions (both spouses in reasonably good health or better, the spouses care about each other at least to some degree).

You're not married to somebody you care about, are you? :D
 

henrylbh

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
15,777
Reaction score
702
Henry, one of my few frustrations with the information you post is that you're often ignoring the important insurance-related aspects of lifetime annuities and, for example, bonds. And I don't know why you keep doing that -- perhaps you don't understand them? -- but for most people these important differences are extremely, well, important.

Easier to understand annuities than your frustrations. Just because I am not parroting you?
 

dork32

Supremacy Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
9,133
Reaction score
1,333
The vast majority of people are risk averse, not risk neutral or risk loving. This is an important understanding! Fail to understand it, and you're not providing good advice -- it's just that simple.

Option 1: $1,330/month for one spouse's life from age 65, $0/month for the other.

Option 2: $750/month for one spouse's life from age 65, $700/month for the other spouse's life from age 65.

All figures are in current Singapore dollars and are CPF LIFE estimated payouts, excluding the 2% annual increase option available from 2018 (which I recommend for most people, actually). And these figures don't really include bonus interest, which would tend to increase Option 2 payouts even further.

Option 2 is clearly superior for anybody who is either risk neutral or risk averse -- which is practically everybody! -- and with some basic, reasonable assumptions (both spouses in reasonably good health or better, the spouses care about each other at least to some degree).

You're not married to somebody you care about, are you? :D

too lazy to argue. yeah i dont care about my spouse. you just see things from your side
 

BBCWatcher

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
20,119
Reaction score
3,014
yeah i dont care about my spouse. you just see things from your side
No, I'm merely pointing out that most people care about their spouses at least to some extent, and vice versa. If you and your spouse are exceptions, then you would consider exceptional CPF optimization approaches. That's not a "side." That's reality! In the real world, most married people care about their spouses, at least to some extent.

As I've said many times, I practice what I preach. I care about my spouse (hugely), and so I'm making sure my spouse's CPF balances are ratcheting up along with mine. That approach also maximizes bonus CPF interest. (Bonus interest is calculated based on the first $60K per individual. If only one individual is earning bonus interest, that's less interest for the household.) I also have a "joint survivor" annuity in the pipeline, already, something I wish CPF LIFE offered. Since CPF LIFE does not, it's all the more important (for spouses that care about each other) to make sure that both spouses have their own lifetime annuities.
 

dork32

Supremacy Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
9,133
Reaction score
1,333
No, I'm merely pointing out that most people care about their spouses at least to some extent, and vice versa. If you and your spouse are exceptions, then you would consider exceptional CPF optimization approaches. That's not a "side." That's reality! In the real world, most married people care about their spouses, at least to some extent.

As I've said many times, I practice what I preach. I care about my spouse (hugely), and so I'm making sure my spouse's CPF balances are ratcheting up along with mine. That approach also maximizes bonus CPF interest. (Bonus interest is calculated based on the first $60K per individual. If only one individual is earning bonus interest, that's less interest for the household.) I also have a "joint survivor" annuity in the pipeline, already, something I wish CPF LIFE offered. Since CPF LIFE does not, it's all the more important (for spouses that care about each other) to make sure that both spouses have their own lifetime annuities.

i am not transferring one cent to my wive's account. i am going for brs at 83k or whatever the sum is.

if i die now, i will leave my wife my condo, my hdb, my car, my cash/insurance of 700k. if she sells my condo, she will have 1.8 mil. She stays in the hdb and draws 3000 a month, the 1.8 mil can last for 50 years if interest is 0%. if interest is 2%, it can last forever. my wife is the low maintenance type.

you tell me that my wife needs cpf life payout?

if you transfer cpf to my wife, the amount stuck is more than 83k. if either of us die at 75, we are going to lose big time. we are dumping more money into something that i dont want. what is the use of high interest if they are going to take all back if you die at 75.

the fact that i can accumulate money despite my lousy salary means that i can accumulate more if i dont die so young.

if i dont transfer, i will not risk the loss of the money if i die at 75. i also know how to put my money to good use. i am very cautious with my investment and i will not lose money.
 

BBCWatcher

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
20,119
Reaction score
3,014
you tell me that my wife needs cpf life payout?
If I were in your shoes, yes, I would.

You're assuming your asset base is invincible. No, it really isn't, sorry to say. You f**k up (or events f**k you up, or both), with a creditor or court judgment for example, and your spouse is utterly f**ked. For the pittance that is CPF LIFE (relative to what you describe), and for the excellent deal that it is, I'd grab it, some of it. And I am grabbing/have grabbed it, for both of us -- I practice what I preach.

"Zero (longevity insurance) is the wrong answer," unless you're in poor health. We can perhaps quibble about the correct number, but zero is not the correct number....

....And most developed countries, and even some developing countries, don't allow zero as the answer, even for Bill Gates and his spouse. They put a bedrock lifetime retirement annuity income stream underneath practically every one of their citizens, rich (currently) and poor alike. Bill Gates will receive roughly US$3,000/month starting at age 70 (I assume he'll defer since he seems to be in good health, although he has the option to start collecting a lower monthly figure as early as age 62, which is only months away as I write this) for the rest of his life from U.S. Social Security, and his wife Melinda Gates will receive the same. Those figures will be adjusted for U.S. inflation annually. To pick another example, the formerly wealthy Bernie Madoff, currently age 79 and in prison, is now receiving that approximate level of monthly income from U.S. Social Security. He screwed up (and how), but he's not destitute. Nor is his spouse, even if she were to divorce him.

I like that bedrock income stream, and I like that for my spouse, too. I sleep well. A couple countries are now even experimenting with lifetime guaranteed basic income, from cradle to grave.
 
Last edited:

henrylbh

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
15,777
Reaction score
702
Can have the beginning and ending as close together as possible. Less pain reading :s13:
 

dork32

Supremacy Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
9,133
Reaction score
1,333
If I were in your shoes, yes, I would.

You're assuming your asset base is invincible. No, it really isn't, sorry to say. You f**k up (or events f**k you up, or both), with a creditor or court judgment for example, and your spouse is utterly f**ked. For the pittance that is CPF LIFE (relative to what you describe), and for the excellent deal that it is, I'd grab it, some of it. And I am grabbing/have grabbed it, for both of us -- I practice what I preach.

"Zero (longevity insurance) is the wrong answer," unless you're in poor health. We can perhaps quibble about the correct number, but zero is not the correct number....

....And most developed countries, and even some developing countries, don't allow zero as the answer, even for Bill Gates and his spouse. They put a bedrock lifetime retirement annuity income stream underneath practically every one of their citizens, rich (currently) and poor alike. Bill Gates will receive roughly US$3,000/month starting at age 70 (I assume he'll defer since he seems to be in good health, although he has the option to start collecting a lower monthly figure as early as age 62, which is only months away as I write this) for the rest of his life from U.S. Social Security, and his wife Melinda Gates will receive the same. Those figures will be adjusted for U.S. inflation annually. To pick another example, the formerly wealthy Bernie Madoff, currently age 79 and in prison, is now receiving that approximate level of monthly income from U.S. Social Security. He screwed up (and how), but he's not destitute. Nor is his spouse, even if she were to divorce him.

I like that bedrock income stream, and I like that for my spouse, too. I sleep well. A couple countries are now even experimenting with lifetime guaranteed basic income, from cradle to grave.

i mentioned bill gates is receiving because he is forced to, not because he needs it. you just dont learn. the gates eg is also total rubbish.

you predicted that i am going to be a destitute. i am not. this is groundless. this is not going to happen. my net assets has been increasing since i started work. it is going to increase further. i still got many years to work. i work in civil service. iron rice bowl.

just like i am going to say your pension fund is going to collapse to you are going to get nothing from it.

you say longevity insurance to me, i will say rubbish.

but if you say medical insurance, i am more acceptable. if i die, the family will have more than enough. if i dont die, and require a lot of medical bills, then my family is in deep sheet. that is why i am not complaining too much about medical insurance.

you still refuse to accept that not all people needs longevity insurance. you are one stubborn idiot.
 

dork32

Supremacy Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
9,133
Reaction score
1,333
Can have the beginning and ending as close together as possible. Less pain reading :s13:

this guy does not bother to read anything else. he just believes in himself.

i do not agree with your advice to transfer to wife account.

you do not have to agree with mine. both have their merit. diff people have diff needs.
 
Last edited:
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts.

Please refer to our Community Guidelines and Standards, Terms of Service and Member T&Cs for more information.
Top