CPF OA

[BBCWatcher]

the moral of the story is my mom "lost" 400k in this transaction. it is same as wiseguy's mom "losing" 350k in the transaction

No, it's not at all the same. There's a gigantic difference between trading down to make a large gift, while still having a home, and trading away everything including the whole home. Or, if you prefer numbers, something like:

$700K to $300K
versus
$350K to $0K

Those are completely different scenarios in terms of life impact and risk to the parent. A parent can live in a $300K HDB unit he/she owns, and any legal misfortune that befalls the child does not result in the parent losing his/her home. In the latter scenario, no, it's a world apart.

However, Dork32, if you're determined to join Wisely98 in the Terrible Child with Terrible Ideas Club, you can if you wish. I just don't think your maneuver is that, because it had a much different outcome for the parent.

I am utterly aghast at the notion Wisely98 is pushing. No, no, no, a thousand times no. I wouldn't even dream of asking any parent to sacrifice his/her only home in order to transfer money to me. Wow, the mind reels.

Now, if Wisely98 would like to amend this idea such that the parent trades down from a $350K unit (a 3 room unit let's suppose) to a $200K unit (a 2 room unit let's suppose), and if the parent is willing to do that (and competent to make that decision), that strikes me as perfectly fine for all parties concerned.

 

[wisely98]

So it's like a sale and lease back? And it's assumed the discount of $y is her or your personal discretion for God knows how many years she is going to or allowed to stay there

$y is of course at her discretion.

IF mom doesn't want a single cent, she is prima facie not lucid

For love, mom will explicitly agree to anything for the sake of her only child, even though in the back of her mind she certainly holds anxiety even in her sleep till she uplorry

Why place mom in such a situation?

That's why I say for the nth time, IF and ONLY IF. Instead of locking the $ in the house, now she has $x and that is the amount she solely decided. Nothing changes except the change in ownership.

This was even suggested by her, so I guess she would have gone through hundreds of times within her.

 

[wisely98]

However, Dork32, if you're determined to join Wisely98 in the Terrible Child with Terrible Ideas Club, you can if you wish. .

Now this is getting personal. Like I said before, there are many details that I left out in my post that I deem personal. If you are not in my situation, it's not fair for you to pass judgement. So peace out xxx

 

[BBCWatcher]

If you are not in my situation, it's not fair for you to pass judgement.

I'm not passing judgment -- that's between you and whomever -- but I am offering an opinion, a strong one.

Dork32 has offered an alternative scenario that would mitigate the significant risk your mother would take if you were to spin out of control. It involves a trade down, not her total liquidation of her only home. I urge you to reconsider your plan and, if you must raise cash in this rather expensive way, you do it in the way Dork32 outlined. It's a much better idea.

 

[henrylbh]

Whatever agenda or design, he exploring the situation and he is not telling all. For all you know, he could be thinking of buying a condo in his mum's name But that would be quite a dumb move.

 

[dork32]

No, it's not at all the same. There's a gigantic difference between trading down to make a large gift, while still having a home, and trading away everything including the whole home. Or, if you prefer numbers, something like:

$700K to $300K
versus
$350K to $0K

Those are completely different scenarios in terms of life impact and risk to the parent. A parent can live in a $300K HDB unit he/she owns, and any legal misfortune that befalls the child does not result in the parent losing his/her home. In the latter scenario, no, it's a world apart.

However, Dork32, if you're determined to join Wisely98 in the Terrible Child with Terrible Ideas Club, you can if you wish. I just don't think your maneuver is that, because it had a much different outcome for the parent.

I am utterly aghast at the notion Wisely98 is pushing. No, no, no, a thousand times no. I wouldn't even dream of asking any parent to sacrifice his/her only home in order to transfer money to me. Wow, the mind reels.

Now, if Wisely98 would like to amend this idea such that the parent trades down from a $350K unit (a 3 room unit let's suppose) to a $200K unit (a 2 room unit let's suppose), and if the parent is willing to do that (and competent to make that decision), that strikes me as perfectly fine for all parties concerned.

yeah, i am a terrible child. but everyone is happy. like i said, there are no real losses. everything remains the same. on the whole, unit benefited..

i am all for wisely to go for it. he is freeing up cash, there is nothing wrong with it. 350k in the oa of a 55 year old is very much better than 350k in the oa of a 30 yr old. if one can do that transfer, he should do it.

it is only when he kicks his mom out of the house that he is terrible kid. Otherwise he is just a smart kid.

 

[dork32]

I'm not passing judgment -- that's between you and whomever -- but I am offering an opinion, a strong one.

Dork32 has offered an alternative scenario that would mitigate the significant risk your mother would take if you were to spin out of control. It involves a trade down, not her total liquidation of her only home. I urge you to reconsider your plan and, if you must raise cash in this rather expensive way, you do it in the way Dork32 outlined. It's a much better idea.

it is unfair to think that wisely can spin out of control

wisely has 350k in his oa. this shows that he has quite good earning capabilities. what makes you think that he is going to abscond the money and leave the mother with nothing?

 

[dork32]

and wats makes u think that my mom is staying in the hdb. she is still staying with me at our condo. why should i be so mean as to kick her out of my condo and leave her alone at the HDB? like i said, nothing changes as long as the son keep his part of the deal.

i feel that i am reliable. i will not be the unfillial trash that you have mentioned. we have no right to believe that wisely is going to be that trash.

 

[dork32]

scenario 1 if wisely did nothing
wisely would have 350k in his oa
the hdb is under the mother's name.
wisely has no cash
wisely and mother live happily every after in the hdb

scenario 2, if wisely did as he has planned
wisely would have nothing in the cpf
hdb is under his name
wisely has 350k cash
wisely and mother live happily every after in the hdb

what is the difference?

 

[dork32]

scenario 1.
i have 400k cash
mom own 80% of condo
i own 20% if condo
me and mom live happily ever after in condo

scenario 2
i have 0 cash
mom own 0% of condo
i own 100% condo
mom own 1 hdb
me and mom live happily ever after in condo

 

[BBCWatcher]

he is freeing up cash, there is nothing wrong with it. 350k in the oa of a 55 year old is very much better than 350k in the oa of a 30 yr old. if one can do that transfer, he should do it.

You don't seem to understand the deal construction wisely98 has in mind. It's not that.

 

[cheongmanz]

it is unfair to think that wisely can spin out of control

wisely has 350k in his oa. this shows that he has quite good earning capabilities. what makes you think that he is going to abscond the money and leave the mother with nothing?

Here's the thing, TS clearly mentioned about "returning" the money. Here is a classic example of using the word "returning".

I lend $100 to my friend today.
He returns $100 to me the next day.

But TS's mom is not returning the money to him if she decided not to keep the money. She is actually "giving" the money to him instead. But this is how I interpret TS's intention when he mentioned his mom "returning" her money to him, which means he thinks that theoretically those are his money. But in reality those are not his money.

I'm not against whether TS should go for this approach (in fact I have not rights also) but the intention doesn't sound good to me.

 

[dork32]

Here's the thing, TS clearly mentioned about "returning" the money. Here is a classic example of using the word "returning".

I lend $100 to my friend today.
He returns $100 to me the next day.

But TS's mom is not returning the money to him if she decided not to keep the money. She is actually "giving" the money to him instead. But this is how I interpret TS's intention when he mentioned his mom "returning" her money to him, which means he thinks that theoretically those are his money. But in reality those are not his money.

I'm not against whether TS should go for this approach (in fact I have not rights also) but the intention doesn't sound good to me.

i have no intention of returning the 400k my mom lost. i have also no intention of kicking her out.

by law, she has nothing to do with my condo. but to me, she retains her share. it is like you have not solemnize but have done your customary. According to the law you are not married. according to yourself, you have

it is because of laws like absd and max one hdb per person that make me go into this.

you people have this impression because you watch too many movies. it is not fair to state that ts intention is not good. he does not have to reveal anything. he is here to check if this could be done.

if he is using the 350k such that his brother can do a medicine degree in the UK, it that really bad?

 

[dork32]

a lot of things do not have to go law by law.

eg, my mom can only afford 50k in her uob1 account. i put 25k more into her account so that she can earn the full interest.

at the end of the month i will just withdraw the $50 from the account as interest.

By law, mom own's the full 75k deposit. To her, she only has 50k. I hold the other 25k. As long as my mom dont chao kuan, everything is fine. who cares what the law says?

The law is there to protect innocent people as against chao kuan. if you know that the other party is safe, you do not have to follow the law.

imagine me going to lawyer to get an iou on the 25k, such that i protect myself from my mom.

I work this way, i view my mom, wife, kids and myself as one entity. as long as this entity benefit as a whole, i will do it. who cares what the stupid law states. My mom, wife and myself are reliable. we do not sabo each other. the same cannot be said about my kids because they are still too young.

 

[cheongmanz]

you people have this impression because you watch too many movies. it is not fair to state that ts intention is not good. he does not have to reveal anything. he is here to check if this could be done.

So you're saying that it is fair for TS to say his mom is "returning" her money to him while in reality she is "giving" her money to him?

 

[item2sell]

wisely is the only son, all mum's asset will be pass to him anyway.

 

[item2sell]

So you're saying that it is fair for TS to say his mom is "returning" her money to him while in reality she is "giving" her money to him?

sounds more like give HDB flat to him?

Is wisely mum going to get the 2 room flat for old people ? Then wisely and mum stay in 2 room flat, and rent out the HDB.

 

[Mecisteus]

scenario 1 if wisely did nothing
wisely would have 350k in his oa
the hdb is under the mother's name.
wisely has no cash
wisely and mother live happily every after in the hdb

scenario 2, if wisely did as he has planned
wisely would have nothing in the cpf
hdb is under his name
wisely has 350k cash
wisely and mother live happily every after in the hdb

what is the difference?

In scenario 2, what happens if wisely and mother don't live happily ever after one not so good day?

scenario 1.
i have 400k cash
mom own 80% of condo
i own 20% if condo
me and mom live happily ever after in condo

scenario 2
i have 0 cash
mom own 0% of condo
i own 100% condo
mom own 1 hdb
me and mom live happily ever after in condo

For scenario 2, mom can live in HDB and you can live in condo if you and mom don't live happily ever after one not so good day.

 

[Mecisteus]

dork of course there is no issue if you are at the win-win situation.

 

[henrylbh]

dork of course there is no issue if you are at the win-win situation.

What got win-win in the trade if both are considered separate entities, though as a whole there is a win?