CPF Account Value Thread 2025

[BBCWatcher]

what if for the sake of my own knowledge, i want to keep it simple to the scenario i am referring to just to make sure my understanding is correct?

If you put $8,000 in your SA now, then beat the Full Retirement Sum at age 55 at least a little, you end up with $8,000 more in your OA plus the extra interest you earned on that $8,000 compared to later “natural“ flow into your SA. Plus the tax relief up front, if eligible. So yes, with typical assumptions you get that $8,000 back (and more) at age 55 in the form of liquid OA (and maybe even before age 55 in more OA that you can use for housing and/or investments).

SA top ups simply accelerate funding of your RA, something you ordinarily must do anyway. When you fund your RA earlier, any surplus at age 55 is that much bigger, and with some interest.

However, if you never reach the Full Retirement Sum, or if you aspire to yank as many dollars out of CPF as soon as you can, then things get more complicated perhaps. Of course nobody would ever be so foolish that they’d torpedo their own baseline retirement income security, right? Everyone is surely smart enough to nail down their baseline retirement income security as soon as they practically can, right?

 

[reddevil0728]

If you put $8,000 in your SA now, then beat the Full Retirement Sum at age 55 at least a little, you end up with $8,000 more in your OA plus the extra interest you earned on that $8,000 compared to later “natural“ flow into your SA. Plus the tax relief up front, if eligible. So yes, with typical assumptions you get that $8,000 back (and more) at age 55 in the form of liquid OA (and maybe even before age 55 in more OA that you can use for housing and/or investments).

SA top ups simply accelerate funding of your RA, something you ordinarily must do anyway. When you fund your RA earlier, any surplus at age 55 is that much bigger, and with some interest.

However, if you never reach the Full Retirement Sum, or if you aspire to yank as many dollars out of CPF as soon as you can, then things get more complicated perhaps. Of course nobody would ever be so foolish that they’d torpedo their own baseline retirement income security, right?

sorry when you add other stuff not necessary for the illustration here. it becomes complicated.

maybe can just keep it simple.

My understanding is that any amount topped-up into SA gets Locked away including their interest right?

but what it does is, CPF will use those locked away amount as first dollar for making up the FRS, and hence those amount that comes from employment contribution will then now be above FRS and can be withdrawn (once transferred to OA) right?

hence technically what's topped-up can in effect be withdrawn just indirectly since money is fungible. in some sense (but to CPF not all are)

 

[BBCWatcher]

I think the government has a compelling offer here. Actually, at least two offers. Early in a working career I would make Voluntary Contributions to MA (with tax relief) since MA dollars are a little more liquid, and the “spillover” effects are nice. And transfer OA dollars into SA. That’s assuming you don’t need these particular cash and OA dollars for other needs, that you’ll maintain adequate liquidity throughout.

I haven’t met anyone who’s upset they have “too many” CPF dollars at age 55+, or that their CPF LIFE income is too high.

So why do so many people seem to agonize over these decisions? Just figure out if you’ll have sufficient (not excessive) liquidity after the VC and/or top up. If so, why not take the deal?

 

[ericcsn]

I think the government has a compelling offer here. Actually, at least two offers. Early in a working career I would make Voluntary Contributions to MA (with tax relief) since MA dollars are a little more liquid, and the “spillover” effects are nice. And transfer OA dollars into SA. That’s assuming you don’t need these particular cash and OA dollars for other needs, that you’ll maintain adequate liquidity throughout.

I haven’t met anyone who’s upset they have “too many” CPF dollars at age 55+, or that their CPF LIFE income is too high.

So why do so many people seem to agonize over these decisions? Just figure out if you’ll have sufficient (not excessive) liquidity after the VC and/or top up. If so, why not take the deal?

SO and I have reached ERS 4x BRS in RA and BHS in MA (and with no loans).

I am one of those upset - on my own have $1M in my OA (currently in Tbills) but agonising over what next for them.

 

[BBCWatcher]

sorry when you add other stuff not necessary for the illustration here. it becomes complicated.
maybe can just keep it simple….

You’re saying the same thing. I’m writing it more carefully I think (since care is merited), but you’ve got the gist.

If you’re meeting and keeping the Full Retirement Sum, more cash (and more transfers from OA) earlier works really well. Any surpluses will be that much bigger, and with some interest too since you’re earlier. At 55 your bigger surplus will be in OA, liquid for anything you want.

If you aren’t meeting or keeping the FRS, it gets more complicated. But of course nobody would be so foolish to miss or fail to keep at least the FRS if they can avoid it, right?

 

[reddevil0728]

You’re saying the same thing. I’m writing it more carefully I think (since care is merited), but you’ve got the gist.

If you’re meeting and keeping the Full Retirement Sum, more cash (and more transfers from OA) earlier works really well. Any surpluses will be that much bigger, and with some interest too since you’re earlier. At 55 your bigger surplus will be in OA, liquid for anything you want.

If you aren’t meeting or keeping the FRS, it gets more complicated. But of course nobody would be so foolish to miss or fail to keep at least the FRS if they can avoid it, right?

no doubt care might be merited. but it depends on the circumstances and the outcome.

if the outcome is just wanted clarity to understand in a quick and simple way, the quick and simple answer achieves the outcome vs the opposite.

so the gist is there?

 

[BBCWatcher]

SO and I have reached ERS 4x BRS in RA and BHS in MA (and with no loans).

Congratulations. We plan to do the same, and one spouse already can/does.

I am one of those upset - on my own have $1M in my OA (currently in Tbills) but agonising over what next for them.

Invest them consistent with your overall retirement-oriented portfolio, typically. OA isn’t a bad savings account either, so you can reduce bank account balances earning <2.5% interest (and invest more of those dollars) since you can tap OA any time you wish.

 

[BBCWatcher]

so the gist is there?

The gist is there. If you’re “FRS+,” your SA top ups and transfers come back to you at age 55 as liquid OA funds, and with some more interest thanks to the earlier infusion into SA. Assuming also no material change in CPF‘s rules.

Imagine for example you’re age 48, will beat and keep at least the Full Retirement Sum, and have $8,000 you could deposit in your SA since you have some room. That’s basically like buying a 7 year endowment plan with a virtually guaranteed 4.0%/year yield, and with tax relief and asset protection benefits. Why wouldn’t you take that deal, assuming (as with the endowment plan) you won’t need that $8,000 for bread, electricity, or underwear (as examples) before your 55th birthday? It’s a great deal!

 

[reddevil0728]

The gist is there. If you’re “FRS+,” your SA top ups and transfers come back to you at age 55 as liquid OA funds, and with some more interest thanks to the earlier infusion into SA. Assuming also no material change in CPF‘s rules.

Imagine for example you’re age 48, will beat and keep at least the Full Retirement Sum, and have $8,000 you could deposit in your SA since you have some room. That’s basically like buying a 7 year endowment plan with a virtually guaranteed 4.0%/year yield, and with tax relief and asset protection benefits. Why wouldn’t you take that deal, assuming (as with the endowment plan) you won’t need that $8,000 for bread, electricity, or underwear (as examples)? It’s a great deal!

ok so basically it's not wrong to say that technically the amount topped up to SA which is technically locked away, can be withdrawn because money is fungible. hence it's the $ from other portions that gets to be withdrawn?

 

[Nicholas92]

sorry when you add other stuff not necessary for the illustration here. it becomes complicated.

maybe can just keep it simple.

My understanding is that any amount topped-up into SA gets Locked away including their interest right?

but what it does is, CPF will use those locked away amount as first dollar for making up the FRS, and hence those amount that comes from employment contribution will then now be above FRS and can be withdrawn (once transferred to OA) right?

hence technically what's topped-up can in effect be withdrawn just indirectly since money is fungible. in some sense (but to CPF not all are)

I see what you mean, and I believe you are correct at 55.

But for the full picture, have you also considered what happens at 65?

To my knowledge, the 'locked away' portion will not be included in the 20% RA that you can withdraw.

 

[reddevil0728]

I see what you mean, and I believe you are correct at 55.

But for the full picture, have you also considered what happens at 65?

To my knowledge, the 'locked away' portion will not be included in the 20% RA that you can withdraw.

actually i am just more curious about this "lock away" of topped up $ which is mentioned on their portal. like how does it impact anything

i see it as it just become the first dollar to make up FRS. freeing up other money for withdrawal

 

[BBCWatcher]

ok so basically it's not wrong to say that technically the amount topped up to SA which is technically locked away, can be withdrawn because money is fungible. hence it's the $ from other portions that gets to be withdrawn?

Again, if you’re “FRS+.” That’s a requirement for SA/RA fungibility. But sure, you can meet/keep at least the FRS using any combination of voluntary and/or compulsory dollars. If you meet/keep at least the FRS with more voluntary dollars then more compulsory dollars are liquid for you at 55.

 

[reddevil0728]

Again, if you’re “FRS+.” That’s a requirement for SA/RA fungibility. But sure, you can meet/keep at least the FRS using any combination of voluntary and/or compulsory dollars. If you meet/keep at least the FRS with more voluntary dollars then more compulsory dollars are liquid for you at 55.

can you technically say those topped up money will make up the first dollar of FRS?

 

[Nicholas92]

actually i am just more curious about this "lock away" of topped up $ which is mentioned on their portal. like how does it impact anything

i see it as it just become the first dollar to make up FRS. freeing up other money for withdrawal

Yes it is locked away, and will never form any part of lump sum withdrawl. It will only be streamed out after 65 to boost your monthly payouts.

The idea that money is fungible is a separate thing and is another way of viewing it. But its not a 1:1 ratio.

 

[reddevil0728]

Yes it is locked away, and will never form any part of lump sum withdrawl. It will only be streamed out after 65 to boost your monthly payouts.

The idea that money is fungible is a separate thing and is another way of viewing it. But its not a 1:1 ratio.

oh? hmmm

why is it not at least $1 to $1.

u replace employment contribution dollar by your top-up dollar. then technically the employment contribution 1 can withdraw right?

 

[BBCWatcher]

I see what you mean, and I believe you are correct at 55.
But for the full picture, have you also considered what happens at 65?
To my knowledge, the 'locked away' portion will not be included in the 20% RA that you can withdraw.

Nobody who meets and keeps at least the FRS cares or should care about whether you can withdraw $5,000 or $10,000 below the FRS. You don’t willingly shoot your retirement self in both your feet if you can possibly avoid it.

If you’re aiming below the FRS and want to plan around a far too basic retirement, OK, worry all you like I suppose. Your worry will probably be expensive. (Has anyone looked at the FRS-level CPF LIFE payouts and the price of eggs, chicken, electricity, and other necessities of life? Come on, get real. Trying to yank $5,000 or whatever out of your Retirement Account will be about the last thing you’d ever voluntarily want to do.)

This is the liquidity hill to die on? Seriously? Please never buy a house in Singapore (especially not a HDB flat) if this is the liquidity hill you’re worried about.

 

[reddevil0728]

Nobody who meets and keeps at least the FRS cares or should care about whether you can withdraw $5,000 or $10,000 below the FRS. You don’t willingly shoot your retirement self in both your feet if you can possibly avoid it.

If you’re aiming below the FRS and want to plan around a far too basic retirement, OK, worry all you like I suppose. Your worry will probably be expensive. (Has anyone looked at the FRS-level CPF LIFE payouts and the price of eggs, chicken, electricity, and other necessities of life? Come on, get real. Trying to yank $5,000 or whatever out of your Retirement Account will be about the last thing you’d ever voluntarily want to do.)

This is the liquidity hill to die on? Seriously? Please never buy a house in Singapore (especially not a HDB flat) if this is the liquidity hill you’re worried about.

i think you misunderstood the intention. the intention is to understand how it works. doesn't mean knowing how it works means you want to do certain action.

sometimes is by knowing how it works, then you avoid doing it.

 

[BBCWatcher]

oh? hmmm
why is it not at least $1 to $1.
u replace employment contribution dollar by your top-up dollar. then technically the employment contribution 1 can withdraw right?

It‘s more than 1:1 as long as you’re a “FRS+” person. The “more than” comes from the additional interest you earn because you have more dollars in SA that much sooner.

I don’t think anyone with a decent or better income over a working career in Singapore should aim for anything less than an “FRS+” future. I think that’d be very foolish, in fact. So more than 1:1 applies. But, for those who disagree, you can agonize over liquidity “constraints“ that would plunge you into relative or actual elder poverty if you ever tapped that particular liquidity. I think that’s all pretty ridiculous, but it’s up to you!

 

[reddevil0728]

It‘s more than 1:1 as long as you’re a “FRS+” person. The “more than” comes from the additional interest you earn because you have more dollars in SA that much sooner.

I don’t think anyone with a decent or better income over a working career in Singapore should aim for anything less than an “FRS+” future. I think that’d be very foolish, in fact. So more than 1:1 applies. But, for those who disagree, you can agonize over liquidity “constraints“ that would plunge you into relative or actual elder poverty if you ever tapped that liquidity. I think that’s pretty ridiculous, but it’s up to you!

so it's at least 1:1 right?

i think you misunderstood the intention.

again it is just wanting to be educating about how it works.

don't jump to the conclusion that it's what others want to have it done

 

[BBCWatcher]

i think you misunderstood the intention. the intention is to understand how it works. doesn't mean knowing how it works means you want to do certain action.

If you are below “FRS+” participation in CPF/CPF LIFE whether by choice, design, fate, or accident then yes, you might bump into some marginal age 55+ liquidity constraints on your $8K SA top up.

In summary, with SA top ups:

”FRS+”: no age 55+ liquidity constraints. The money is fungible, and with more interest (“more than 1:1”).
”Below FRS+”: might be marginal age 55+ liquidity constraints.

Is the second scenario even worth worrying about for most people? I vote no.