They are practically able to self insured. But the irony is that extra money freed up means very little to them if they are that rich and probably make sense financially to get at least FRS
Also ironic that, on average, the minority of CPF members who can genuinely self-insure against longevity risk are also more likely to live longer. (Lifespan is loosely positively correlated with wealth.)
But yeah, there are more than a few people who'd rather hoard vast quantities of dollars in predictably low yielding fixed deposits, T-bills, SSBs, other SGSes, and CPF OA instead of putting a relatively small portion of that big pile in CPF RA at age 55. (Oh the "horrors" of 15 years of 4.0% p.a. interest, thence a superb life annuity from age 70.) It doesn't make any logical or financial sense, but "whatever."
Yes I meet. I am more kpo to know after meet FRS there exist a way to downgrade to BRS and it exist but come with strings attached. E.g cpf monies after 55 go back into RA since it is now half of FRS.
No, it doesn't work that way. The portion of compulsory contributions (and VC3As for that matter) earmarked for RA stops flowing into RA once it's "adequately" funded. "Adequately" means you've met at least the Full Retirement Sum, and up to half the FRS can be met with a qualifying property pledge or charge. If you've met this threshold, the RA part automatically flows into OA.
Bro, it's auto one, once you reach age 55 with property to last till age 95. You are auto with property pledge.
No, there's nothing automatic about a property
pledge. However, if you've used OA dollars to pay for a home, you likely have a valid property
charge in place already. I believe that's what you mean in this context.
You would only ever pledge your property if you don't already have a property charge
and you want to make a lump sum withdrawal from your RA. There's no point to a property pledge otherwise. I suppose you could pledge your property as part of a S$1 lump sum withdrawal from your RA (if you want to see how it works).
