Finfluencers required to be licensed

[bruiser69]

Is Loo Cheng Chuan of 1M65 considered these days as a finfluencer or durian seller? These days almost all his financial videos all peppered with selling durians, exotic high cost tcm products to spice up your love life and other premium cost fruits

I find it super irritating that he threatens and demands arrogantly a minimum 300 likes from his livestream beedios before he says he will proceed.

The demand for thumbs up only serve to benefit his monetization attempts instead of his altruistic rant of benefitting more viewers, so at the minimum he should request humbly from his viewers mah

 

[Mephist0pheLes]

Is Loo Cheng Chuan of 1M65 considered these days as a finfluencer or durian seller? These days almost all his videos selling durians or other fruits

I find it super irritating that he threatens and demands arrogantly a minimum 300 likes from his livestream beedios before he says he will proceed.

The demand for thumbs up only serve to benefit his monetization attempts instead of his altruistic rant of benefitting more viewers, so at the minimum he should request humbly from his viewers mah

Can jus don't watch his video. His content now much value anyway

 

[bruiser69]

Can jus don't watch his video. His content now much value anyway

Yes, I seldom tune in now. Or maybe the first 5-10 mins max when he talks about finance matters. The remaining 90% is a total waste of time

 

[s0crates]

Can believe them? Afterall MAS not going to make public

At this point I believe them more than MAS. In principle I don't believe in enforcement through fear and lack of transparency. The guidelines are very straightforward - again why is MAS only acting now when these advertising guidelines etc are all public information. And why don't disclose if there's flagrant inadherence to guideline??

MAS and the government is slow in managing the threats of social media and the advertising that goes behind it. The least they can do is acknowledge that they can't police any tiktok xmm with 1k followers that can post advertisment masquerading as an "authentic" user experience, and social media users have to dyodd.

 

[bruiser69]

At this point I believe them more than MAS. In principle I don't believe in enforcement through fear and lack of transparency. The guidelines are very straightforward - again why is MAS only acting now when these advertising guidelines etc are all public information. And why don't disclose if there's flagrant inadherence to guideline??

MAS and the government is slow in managing the threats of social media and the advertising that goes behind it. The least they can do is acknowledge that they can't police any tiktok xmm with 1k followers that can post advertisment masquerading as an "authentic" user experience, and social media users have to dyodd.

Agreed

MAS is always behind the curve

 

[CrashWire]

Kelvin learns investing, sgbudgetbabe, honeymoneysg and financial coconut stepped out and said they weren't warned lol. Anyone still think MAS being aboveboard with the entire process?

Wow, some of those finfluenza that in my opinion should have been warned didn't get warned?

Some of them were borderline unethical in their recommendation of products that pay the highest affiliate fees.

Maybe MAS regulation is a joke. (Remember, they took years to clamp down on crypto companies that were given in-principle approval, and that caused a lot of Singaporean capital to be scammed away.)

 

[s0crates]

Wow, some of those finfluenza that in my opinion should have been warned didn't get warned?

Some of them were borderline unethical in their recommendation of products that pay the highest affiliate fees.

Maybe MAS regulation is a joke. (Remember, they took years to clamp down on crypto companies that were given in-principle approval, and that caused a lot of Singaporean capital to be scammed away.)

https://sgbudgetbabe.com/mas-guidelines-for-finance-content/

Budgetbabe behind the scenes with MAS.

 

[iphone88]

Should able to guess or narrow down who are the 5 content creators soon.
Those content creators not received warning had came out to make clear.

 

[reddevil0728]

Should able to guess or narrow down who are the 5 content creators soon.
Those content creators not received warning had came out to make clear.

But there are so men though?

 

[Shion]

Is Loo Cheng Chuan of 1M65 considered these days as a finfluencer or durian seller? These days almost all his financial videos all peppered with selling durians, exotic high cost tcm products to spice up your love life and other premium cost fruits

I find it super irritating that he threatens and demands arrogantly a minimum 300 likes from his livestream beedios before he says he will proceed.

The demand for thumbs up only serve to benefit his monetization attempts instead of his altruistic rant of benefitting more viewers, so at the minimum he should request humbly from his viewers mah

How many people cursing and swearing at his 1M65 movement...?

 

[bruiser69]

How many people cursing and swearing at his 1M65 movement...?

Quite a few in the various TGs. I think he has since moved way far away from his original noble intentions from a decade ago. Can't entirely fault him though. His original premise of making more money faster exhorting all his viewers to transfer their OA funds to SA account fell through in 2024.

I too have been doing that, albeit quietly. But Mr Loo talked so big and in so loud decibels that the govt heard him and decided to plug the loophole.

So yes, many peepur are still cursing him for that, and not just because of him veering from his supposedly financial insights into upselling durians and tcm supplements and his various usual clickbaits

 

[BBCWatcher]

His original premise of making more money faster exhorting all his viewers to transfer their OA funds to SA account fell through in 2024.

No it hasn’t.

Special Accounts closed (for members age 55+) in January, 2025, not in 2024. More importantly, higher interest is still higher interest — that hasn’t changed. You’ll end up with more total CPF savings if you earn 4.0+% longer on more dollars instead of only 2.5%. Third, hiking the ERS allows members who wish more monthly retirement income from CPF to get it — and transferring OA to SA makes it that much easier to obtain more retirement income.

What’s changed for “1M65” fans is that their liquid age 55+ CPF dollars will earn 2.5% instead of a blended rate below 4.0% (typically) — with “gating” (SA had to be withdrawn first). But the dollars are still liquid, and making or beating the FRS is still that much easier if you make OA to SA transfers. As always you can take ”extra” age 55+ dollars and spend them, give them away, invest them, or some combination. But that rule change doesn’t undermine the value of OA to SA transfers. If anything, it bolsters the comparative value.

I too have been doing that, albeit quietly. But Mr Loo talked so big and in so loud decibels that the govt heard him and decided to plug the loophole.

SA shielding has gone away, but the value of OA to SA transfers hasn’t.

 

[bruiser69]

No it hasn’t.

Special Accounts closed (for members age 55+) in January, 2025, not in 2024. More importantly, higher interest is still higher interest — that hasn’t changed. You’ll end up with more total CPF savings if you earn 4.0+% longer on more dollars instead of only 2.5%. Third, hiking the ERS allows members who wish more monthly retirement income from CPF to get it — and transferring OA to SA makes it that much easier to obtain more retirement income.

What’s changed for “1M65” fans is that their liquid age 55+ CPF dollars will earn 2.5% instead of a blended rate below 4.0% (typically) — with “gating” (SA had to be withdrawn first). But the dollars are still liquid, and making or beating the FRS is still that much easier if you make OA to SA transfers. As always you can take ”extra” age 55+ dollars and spend them, give them away, invest them, or some combination. But that rule change doesn’t undermine the value of OA to SA transfers. If anything, it bolsters the comparative value.

SA shielding has gone away, but the value of OA to SA transfers hasn’t.

Read what I wrote again. I wrote "fell through" and "not closed in 2024" as you wrongly assumed. You must learn to be more savvy when reading stuff and not be so straight and dogmatic

The announcement to close CPF SA for those 55yrs and above was made in 2024. Kapish?

The rest of your long elaboration is valid, except for the ERS part, but that is a topic for another day. Who wants to lock up massive amounts in ERS when it is so inflexible and you will never the the lump sum again but in drips and drabs?

But I digress. Back to the earlier topic, so folks knowing how SA shielding works would already be aware, but thanks for highlighting how SA works

 

[BBCWatcher]

The rest of your long elaboration is valid, except for the ERS part, but that is a topic for another day. Who wants to lock up massive amounts in ERS when it is so inflexible and you will never the the lump sum again but in drips and drabs?

First, adding funds to a CPF Retirement Account never reduces lump sum withdrawal options you already have. It may increase the amount you can withdraw in a lump sum, and it’ll make lump sum withdrawals more tolerable.

Second, OA to SA transfers make future lump sum withdrawals possible at all or bigger, and they may make lump sum withdrawals more tolerable. Higher interest is higher interest; more money is more money.

Third, there’s never any obligation to add funds to a CPF Retirement Account above the Full Retirement Sum. However, the 2025 increase in the Enhanced Retirement Sum (from 3XBRS to 4XBRS) is unambiguously a good thing. Those who felt constrained by the former ERS are at least less constrained with the new ERS. And those who weren’t constrained still aren’t constrained. Raising the ERS (on its own) benefits some people and does no harm to anyone — except possibly to private life annuity salespeople, at the margins.

As it happens, in my household one spouse is 55+ and already pegging at the new ERS(es), and the other is planning (and well positioned) to do so. Obviously the 2025 ERS increase has some value to this household.

 

[sky1978]

Should able to guess or narrow down who are the 5 content creators soon.
Those content creators not received warning had came out to make clear.

When I read the following, the first thing that comes to mind is those who did portfolio reviews for others and made a video out of it. They sit down and go through every stock/counter, then comment. I am not sure how many of them are licensed. I would generally think such activities would fit the MAS published advisory note of tailoring information to individual circumstances and making recommendations.

Quote
3. When do I need to have a licence for providing financial advice?
You may need a licence by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) when you:

• Recommend to buy, sell or hold specific investment products; or
• Tailor the information to an individual’s circumstances.

https://www.straitstimes.com/busine...have-given-financial-advice-without-a-licence
Unquote

 

[BBCWatcher]

There’s a popular YouTuber who spends about 75% of each video cursing at spendthrift individuals (with their permission) mired in 20+% credit card, BNPL, car, and sometimes even payday loan debt. About 20% of each video is advertising (mainly his own budgeting app and cookbook, ostensibly to encourage lower cost and better nutrition meals), and the other 5% is fairly random. Yes, he goes through credit card statements, Amazon order histories, and other individual information.

Should his videos require licensing? His advertising interests seem clearly disclosed, and he advocates spending well within your means and avoiding high cost debt. I don’t see the harm in that. It seems like a good message, actually. Lots of people and corporations don’t need licenses to try to sell you crap you don’t need.

That’s why I keep coming back to focusing on disclosure rules first. Traditional RMs and IFAs don’t necessarily clearly and consistently spell out what their interests are. But IMHO they also must.

I remember when online blogs started. Some offline journalists got upset and attempted to hold bloggers to standards they didn’t meet. Many online bloggers did (and do) good work, and good work should be encouraged.

 

[BBCWatcher]

There’s also this constraint: YouTube (and other social media platforms) are global. If someone sitting in Vienna offers financial advice to someone in Joo Koon, how could that interaction be regulated even assuming regulation is a good idea?

Also, is it wise to regulate Singaporean content creators too heavily, leaving other content creators to fill any vacuum(s)? The other content creators could offer worse financial advice than what unregulated or lightly regulated Singaporeans would offer.

 

[sky1978]

There’s also this constraint: YouTube (and other social media platforms) are global. If someone sitting in Vienna offers financial advice to someone in Joo Koon, how could that interaction be regulated even assuming regulation is a good idea?

Also, is it wise to regulate Singaporean content creators too heavily, leaving other content creators to fill any vacuum(s)? The other content creators could offer worse financial advice than what unregulated or lightly regulated Singaporeans would offer.

The regulation is already there, so there is no question as to whether they should be heavily regulated; it is a matter of enforcement and the capacity to detect and enforce. Put it this way, it is not the content creators that are being regulated, it is the activities of dabbling into providing financial advice that are regulated, which have all along been regulated for decades. The thought of not extending existing regulations will mean enacting new laws to have a special carve-out for them.

What happens if someone reports an illegal act, which is backed by video evidence uploaded, can the regulator turn a blind eye and not do anything? How much discretion does a regulator have in a place famous for its rule of law when they are made aware of an illegal act? All content creators have their friends and foes, and when more and more people get accustomed to what are regulated activities, we cannot rule out the possibility that enforcement can be triggered by a report or complaint. If actual prosecution begins, those prosecuted might also start to single out their peers who may be engaging in similar activities, and it will likely come to the point where, why me and not them.

The problem of someone sitting in Vienna providing financial advice is easy to resolve. If the content is largely targeted at Singaporeans, the regulator can simply ask the platform to shut it down or block access to those with a local IP address. I doubt those big platform providers will waste time or take the risk to challenge the regulators because, at the end of the day, if they are operating in a country, the platform will still have to comply with local laws.

 

[royalmix]

https://www.straitstimes.com/busine...have-given-financial-advice-without-a-licence

1. How do I share responsibly?​

• Present accurate information, explain both risks and rewards clearly.
• Be mindful of your impact; don’t exploit FOMO or induce panic.
• Consider your followers’ financial interests and well-being.

I suspect that guy who caused panic at CF recently, somehow triggered tighter controls?

 

[bruiser69]

I suspect that guy who caused panic at CF recently, somehow triggered tighter controls?

Sethisfy and kelvin