CPF after 55

[iMac]

If you have not send your mails, question CPF on reply received by vsvs24 -

As part of the Board’s ongoing efforts to ensure our administrative practices are aligned with the market practice, we have revised our practice such that only the savings in your CPF accounts can be withdrawn.​

What rubbish statement is that? Effort to squeeze further?

The Board has all along set their rules differently from the market. On the contrary, with the change, the Board is deviating further from market practice and make it worst for members. Before the change, members are already short changed in that deposit/withdrawal during the month earns no interest.

Market practice by all banks except POSB with passbook is to credit interest monthly and interest is based on daily rest and so issue of withdrawing principal or interest in the following month is non-existence.

The change will upset those who build up their OA/SA (especially those who make VC every year if not everyday) and plan to withdraw interest to fund their retirement before withdrawing the principal balance.

Wah...uncle henry...near 2am already....you still replying....go sleep already lar...goodnite....

 

[henrylbh]

Now Sunday ok. You better not do same. For me, regular and I still wake up at 4.50am on weekdays

 

[reddevil0728]

If you have not send your mails, question CPF on reply received by vsvs24 -

As part of the Board’s ongoing efforts to ensure our administrative practices are aligned with the market practice, we have revised our practice such that only the savings in your CPF accounts can be withdrawn.​

What rubbish statement is that? Effort to squeeze further?

The Board has all along set their rules differently from the market. On the contrary, with the change, the Board is deviating further from market practice and make it worst for members. Before the change, members are already short changed in that deposit/withdrawal during the month earns no interest.

Market practice by all banks except POSB with passbook is to credit interest monthly and interest is based on daily rest and so issue of withdrawing principal or interest in the following month is non-existence.

The change will upset those who build up their OA/SA (especially those who make VC every year if not everyday) and plan to withdraw interest to fund their retirement before withdrawing the principal balance.

reckon most wouldn't realise

 

[cscs3]

After reading thru last few pages, I now find I am more confused with CPF Policies.

The best place is ask CPF directly. Some may have different "experience" level here. Especially those whole never like CPF system. Actually, is quite a similar system to pensions system implement in some other country.

 

[windwaver]

Maximize bequest by going for max SA shielding (40K cannot be shielded) and OA shielding (20K cannot be shielded). Then your RA balance will be at 60K at 55.
Invest OA in something that returns more than 4% over the long term.

SA/OA/MA balances as bequest are better than CPF LIFE premium as bequest given that the interest on LIFE premium is contributed to the pool and interest for the SA/OA/MA are retained in their accounts after 55 if FRS was met.

Basic plan is superior to the other 2 LIFE plans for bequest because the excess RA after the 10-20% LIFE premium deduction retains the interest (and extra interest for the 60K) within RA.

Returning the excess payout between Standard plan to Basic plan back to RA will indeed boost the LIFE premium and for Standard plan, any unpaid premium forms the bequest but the retained RA interest from Basic plan makes it a better bequest vehicle against the other 2 plans.

So in other words, Standard is best for people without bequest and Basic is for those with bequest?

 

[andyhtc]

If you have not send your mails, question CPF on reply received by vsvs24 -

As part of the Board’s ongoing efforts to ensure our administrative practices are aligned with the market practice, we have revised our practice such that only the savings in your CPF accounts can be withdrawn.​

What rubbish statement is that? Effort to squeeze further?

The Board has all along set their rules differently from the market. On the contrary, with the change, the Board is deviating further from market practice and make it worst for members. Before the change, members are already short changed in that deposit/withdrawal during the month earns no interest.

Market practice by all banks except POSB with passbook is to credit interest monthly and interest is based on daily rest and so issue of withdrawing principal or interest in the following month is non-existence.

The change will upset those who build up their OA/SA (especially those who make VC every year if not everyday) and plan to withdraw interest to fund their retirement before withdrawing the principal balance.

I had already sent the earlier enquiry.

The interest should have been paid out in early Jan to form part of the saving.

Technically, it looks alright to me if you withdraw from the saving, which already includes the previous year's interest payment.

At system level, it will be a bell curve in which one tail end subsides the other tail end to ensure everything adds up to self sustaining.

To live longer to enjoy more payout, you need to have better rest cycle

 

[andyhtc]

So in other words, Standard is best for people without bequest and Basic is for those with bequest?

I think so.

There is also escalating plan for those with super good lifespan genes.

In times of Covid and whatever epidemic, I think it is not advisable to go for escalating plan as the death rate for elderly could be much higher.

 

[dork32]

Mechanically that's closer to what the CPF LIFE Basic Plan does. The Standard and Escalating Plans just draw dollars from the interest earning CPF Lifelong Income Fund.

mechanically you are contradicting yourself again.

you are right in the lifelong income fund does not differentiate your interest and other people's interest

but does the ra differentiate what is interest and wat is principal? does the cpf says anything about drawing principal then interest? no. it just say it draws from the ra then premium then income fund

although there is not differentiation in the income fund, we break it up as part of our analysis of how good the each system is.

notice something, whenever i post something, bbc will come in and add his comments. he tried so hard to put me down that he becomes irrational.

 

[dork32]

So in other words, Standard is best for people without bequest and Basic is for those with bequest?

most of us feel that way

but according to bbc you should not choose basic at all. because he say if you live long enuf there will be no bequest regardless which plan you are in. if you are thinking about bequest you should use other means

for me the reason for choosing basic is not because of bequest. my savings is enuf to feed me till i am 120. i definitely will have some bequest for my kids. to me it is just too painful to lose the 4% interest on 300+k for so many years to the income fund

 

[item2sell]

I think so.

There is also escalating plan for those with super good lifespan genes.

In times of Covid and whatever epidemic, I think it is not advisable to go for escalating plan as the death rate for elderly could be much higher.

I agree with you. Nobody knows 10years later what will happen to those with the vaccine injuries and covid survivors

 

[tangent314]

After reading thru last few pages, I now find I am more confused with CPF Policies.

It's a lot simpler if you simply follow what CPF recommends, because despite all of the stuff in this thread, CPF still gives the best advice:

Choose Escalating Plan if you are concerned about inflation
Choose Basic Plan if you want to leave more money behind for your loved ones
Choose Standard Plan otherwise

 

[sohguanh]

most of us feel that way

but according to bbc you should not choose basic at all. because he say if you live long enuf there will be no bequest regardless which plan you are in. if you are thinking about bequest you should use other means

for me the reason for choosing basic is not because of bequest. my savings is enuf to feed me till i am 120. i definitely will have some bequest for my kids. to me it is just too painful to lose the 4% interest on 300+k for so many years to the income fund

Someone told me change perspective. Instead of so called "lose" the interest, you are indirectly helping ppl the same cohort as you assume if you live short life. A scheme everyone help each other and govt no need pump in monies support.

But of cuz if your perspective is about oneself how we will rugi etc yes I think Basic is better.

Default is Standard is for a reason depending on which perspective you are looking at.

Conclusion please live longer else rugi

 

[BBCWatcher]

Maximize bequest by going for max SA shielding (40K cannot be shielded) and OA shielding (20K cannot be shielded). Then your RA balance will be at 60K at 55.
Invest OA in something that returns more than 4% over the long term.

You're basically assuming you don't touch any dollars in CPF, that other assets will support your lifestyle for all the rest of your days.

However, I still don't understand why you would make a loved one wait until you're dead before this money, and other money, passes to them. What's the point? Be more generous today! And let that person with a longer time horizon earn 6%/year (for example) on their long-term savings, not 4%. Or buy a great university education, or start a business, or make a down payment on a home, or enjoy life more, or all of the above.

Why force your loved ones to wait? I don't get it, I really don't. That seems nuts to me. Do y'all want people wishing you're dead already so that they get a bigger windfall, finally, at long last? WTF is that about?

 

[andyhtc]

You're basically assuming you don't touch any dollars in CPF, that other assets will support your lifestyle for all the rest of your days.

However, I still don't understand why you would make a loved one wait until you're dead before this money, and other money, passes to them. What's the point? Be more generous today! And let that person with a longer time horizon earn 6%/year (for example) on their long-term savings, not 4%. Or buy a great university education, or start a business, or make a down payment on a home, or enjoy life more, or all of the above.

Why force your loved ones to wait? I don't get it, I really don't. That seems nuts to me. Do y'all want people wishing you're dead already so that they get a bigger windfall, finally, at long last? WTF is that about?

It is quite common to see kids becoming unfilial after they got their parents' money early.

 

[BBCWatcher]

In times of Covid and whatever epidemic, I think it is not advisable to go for escalating plan as the death rate for elderly could be much higher.

No, it doesn't work that way. If Singaporeans suddenly start dropping dead in greater numbers earlier than expected then the monthly CPF LIFE payouts will be increased because the CPF Lifelong Income Fund isn't getting drained as quickly as it should be. You're always getting a fair actuarial bet from a not-for-profit insurer with every plan so far as anyone who's seriously looked at this can determine.

You might be able to play this mortality game a bit better than average if you have particular personal insight into your own mortality. However, the single most effective way you can play that game is to accept the standard CPF LIFE payout starting age: age 70. If you start payouts at age 65 you have 5 fewer years of information about your own mortality. Also, it's possible that your heir dies before you do in that 5 year period. If you don't have an heir or charity that you particularly care about, you definitely shouldn't choose the CPF LIFE Basic Plan.

 

[BBCWatcher]

It is quite common to see kids becoming unfilial after they got their parents' money early.

Well OK, that's an argument (of sorts) for having *a* bequest. For many/most people that's a home. But I really don't understand why it makes any sense to hoard so much above that amount, especially when elderly people cannot reasonably hoard their assets in higher yielding vehicles.

Thank the deities my grandparent didn't think this way. He was both very generous and lived very comfortably for his entire life, and I'm eternally grateful. And he could be generous because he had a trio of escalating life annuities backing him. I neither received a bequest from him nor expected one, as it happens, but filial? Oh hell yes, not a problem.

 

[zoneguard]

You're basically assuming you don't touch any dollars in CPF, that other assets will support your lifestyle for all the rest of your days.

The suggestion was in response to andyhtc's post and I frankly don't see the need to pick the choice of the word "you" to respond to the suggestion.

Anyway I won't be responding any more as I don't enjoy the tone being used here. I have better things to do with my time.

 

[BBCWatcher]

I think what's really going on is that almost nobody in Singapore has ever had this option before. If you're an elderly individual with a CPF LIFE Escalating Plan that more than covers the lifestyle you desire, and a HDB leasehold (for example) that'll outlast you, you're done. You can live in dignity for the rest of your days, and you're not financially dependent on any children or grandchildren. So what you'd do in the past is hoard some assets (such as a home, small business, or whatever) as a reward for the child or grandchild who kept you afloat financially with an allowance. Your child or grandchild (or plural) was your pension plan. If that child or grandchild abandoned you then you wrote him/her out of your will.

....And sorry, but I think that sad and so unnecessary in most cases. We have a terrific life annuity program now, born in 2009. We can do better. My grandparent wasn't financially dependent on me, he could be generous when it mattered the most (or at all), including the many regular times we enjoyed life together, and whether he left me a bequest or not (he didn't) was immaterial because he already gave me more than I could've ever expected. Isn't that better? I sure think so, but hey, carry on if you think otherwise I guess.

 

[dork32]

Someone told me change perspective. Instead of so called "lose" the interest, you are indirectly helping ppl the same cohort as you assume if you live short life. A scheme everyone help each other and govt no need pump in monies support.

But of cuz if your perspective is about oneself how we will rugi etc yes I think Basic is better.

Default is Standard is for a reason depending on which perspective you are looking at.

Conclusion please live longer else rugi

you want to help people there are other means, eg community chess.

as what amdk has said. cpf is not for helping people. if you want to help people use a scheme that is purely for helping people. if you live long enough, you will not be helping anyone.

you believe in this crap?

 

[dork32]

You might be able to play this mortality game a bit better than average if you have particular personal insight into your own mortality. However, the single most effective way you can play that game is to accept the standard CPF LIFE payout starting age: age 70. If you start payouts at age 65 you have 5 fewer years of information about your own mortality. Also, it's possible that your heir dies before you do in that 5 year period. If you don't have an heir or charity that you particularly care about, you definitely shouldn't choose the CPF LIFE Basic Plan.

no take your money out at 65. because you have a stable payout, you dont have to worry anymore. you can give the rest of your money to your kids to start a business or go uni or buy car...
dont wait until you are 70 then they can enjoy all these