CPF SA Shielding hack - RIP (Obsolete)

[Guojing88]

dude, you're already wrong there.
what you stated is invalid.

withdrawal is from SA, then OA.

Isn't that reflected in my step 3 and 4?

 

[Value.Matrix]

No I am saying the order is like that when it comes to withdrawal

1. SA interest
2. OA interest
3. SA
4. OA

So unless your plan is to only withdraw an amount that is equal to 1 + 2, your SA principal will be lower.

So there is no way a shielded OA will grow, the moment you are at step 3. I am still waiting for him to explain how that can happen.

This is your logic. You are saying I cannot retire because I set my expense to $20,000. But you set yours to $18,000. Huh? Why should I set my expense to $20,000 when it is $18,000 only?

Why you force your logic of withdrawal more on me when I only want $18,000 and say shielding is stupid? Who is the one that is using their logic and force me to accept to withdraw $20,000 when you only withdraw $18,000?

You are saying OA has less time to grow interest. But you ignore the fact that the shielded amount has more SA. So if we total up, when SA is depleted, and OA remains only. The total networth for shielded is much higher than total networth for non-shielded.

Why are you only seeing OA amount, when in fact you should see the NETWORTH. Total asset left.

Compare the networth and compare apple to apple plz.

 

[aeng]

Isn't that reflected in my step 3 and 4?

there is no such thing as step 1 and 2.
CPF doesn't allow this.

why you can't seem to accept this?

 

[Okenba]

Yes, I see your point.

If you have the numbers, do present them. I want to see how much difference that really make

okay noted thanks. Maybe I should change my name to HuangRong.

Nah. Don't think we are that close....

Hokay, back to trolling edmw!!

 

[Guojing88]

wo shielding	OA	interest	SA	interest	total interest	withdrawal	total
55​	700,000.00	17,500.00	64,000.00	2,560.00	20,060.00	20,000.00	784,060.00
56​	717,500.00	17,937.50	46,560.00	1,862.40	19,799.90	20,000.00	783,859.90
57​	735,437.50	18,385.94	28,422.40	1,136.90	19,522.83	20,000.00	783,382.73
58​	753,823.44	18,845.59	9,559.30	382.37	19,227.96	20,000.00	782,610.69
59​	762,610.69	19,065.27	-	-	19,065.27	20,000.00	781,675.96
60​	761,675.96	19,041.90	-	-	19,041.90	20,000.00	780,717.86
61​	760,717.86	19,017.95	-	-	19,017.95	20,000.00	779,735.80
62​	759,735.80	18,993.40	-	-	18,993.40	20,000.00	778,729.20
63​	758,729.20	18,968.23	-	-	18,968.23	20,000.00	777,697.43
64​	757,697.43	18,942.44	-	-	18,942.44	20,000.00	776,639.86
65​	756,639.86	18,916.00	-	-	18,916.00	20,000.00	775,555.86

shielding	OA	interest	SA	interest	total interest	withdrawal
55​	554,000.00	13,850.00	210,000.00	8,400.00	22,250.00	20,000.00	786,250.00	2,190.00
56​	567,850.00	14,196.25	198,400.00	7,936.00	22,132.25	20,000.00	788,382.25	4,522.35
57​	582,046.25	14,551.16	186,336.00	7,453.44	22,004.60	20,000.00	790,386.85	7,004.11
58​	596,597.41	14,914.94	173,789.44	6,951.58	21,866.51	20,000.00	792,253.36	9,642.67
59​	611,512.34	15,287.81	160,741.02	6,429.64	21,717.45	20,000.00	793,970.81	12,294.85
60​	626,800.15	15,670.00	147,170.66	5,886.83	21,556.83	20,000.00	795,527.64	14,809.78
61​	642,470.15	16,061.75	133,057.48	5,322.30	21,384.05	20,000.00	796,911.69	17,175.89
62​	658,531.91	16,463.30	118,379.78	4,735.19	21,198.49	20,000.00	798,110.18	19,380.98
63​	674,995.21	16,874.88	103,114.98	4,124.60	20,999.48	20,000.00	799,109.66	21,412.23
64​	691,870.09	17,296.75	87,239.57	3,489.58	20,786.34	20,000.00	799,895.99	23,256.13
65​	709,166.84	17,729.17	70,729.16	2,829.17	20,558.34	20,000.00	800,454.33	24,898.47

Okay so from the figures you are showing here, I should switch my step 2 and 3?

The correct order is

SA interest
SA
OA interest
OA

Is that the correct one?

 

[aeng]

Okay so from the figures you are showing here, I should switch my step 2 and 3?

The correct order is

SA interest
SA
OA interest
OA

there is no such thing as SA interest or OA interest alone.
withdrawals are from SA (entire balance), then OA (entire balance).

gosh... what is so difficult to understand?

I'm thinking you're trolling.

 

[Guojing88]

Withdrawal rule changed from Jan 2022.

Now is simply SA balance then OA balance.

No more withdrawal of accrued interest before it is added to the SA and OA balance.

Interesting, is there a link to the CPF site or anywhere else that states this change?

 

[vsvs24]

Withdrawal sequence was never in CPF website in the first place.

It was an email reply from CPF that indicates SA interest, OA interest, SA balance, OA balance. Members above 55 verified it by withdrawal or comparing the withdrawal limits to the SA and OA balance (difference is accrued interest not posted).

Likewise, the change of withdrawal sequence in 2022 was confirmed by an email reply from CPF. Members above 55 verified it by comparing the withdrawal limits to the SA and OA balance. Now both are the same. More members then wrote in to verify and got the same reply from CPF.

 

[Guojing88]

Withdrawal sequence was never in CPF website in the first place.

It was an email reply from CPF that indicates SA interest, OA interest, SA balance, OA balance. Members above 55 verified it by withdrawal or comparing the withdrawal limits to the SA and OA balance (difference is accrued interest not posted).

Likewise, the change of withdrawal sequence in 2022 was confirmed by an email reply from CPF. Members above 55 verified it by comparing the withdrawal limits to the SA and OA balance. Now both are the same. More members then wrote in to verify and got the same reply from CPF.

Thanks, in that case, the figures provided in that post https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/...g-hack-fully-explained.6132953/post-144168978

is more or less correct?

 

[Guojing88]

This is your logic. You are saying I cannot retire because I set my expense to $20,000. But you set yours to $18,000. Huh? Why should I set my expense to $20,000 when it is $18,000 only?

Why you force your logic of withdrawal more on me when I only want $18,000 and say shielding is stupid? Who is the one that is using their logic and force me to accept to withdraw $20,000 when you only withdraw $18,000?

You are saying OA has less time to grow interest. But you ignore the fact that the shielded amount has more SA. So if we total up, when SA is depleted, and OA remains only. The total networth for shielded is much higher than total networth for non-shielded.

Why are you only seeing OA amount, when in fact you should see the NETWORTH. Total asset left.

Compare the networth and compare apple to apple plz.

I did not say shielding is stupid, I was saying its "overrated".

I trust you understand the difference.

 

[Value.Matrix]

I did not say shielding is stupid, I was saying its "overrated".

I trust you understand the difference.

I understand the difference. If you have already said that and not throw in another ST columnist article to further fudge, I would have appreciated it. You should not even mention Tan's Article.

But long enough, SA compounds at 60% more than OA. If its overrated, it's because the increase is only 1.5% extra. I would have appreciated you saying this directly. (But others have point out it can last much longer).

Maybe $2,000 is small money to you.

And OA interest is super overrated right.

 

[Guojing88]

I began this discussion with this post, perhaps you missed the wording?

https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/...g-hack-fully-explained.6132953/post-144156336

 

[BBCWatcher]

Maybe $2,000 is small money to you.

$2,382 in the first full year alone, less the cost of shielding. That's based on the 2023 Full Retirement Sum of $198,800 and thus the 1.5% of additional interest on $158,800 ($198,800 - $40,000) less one month of SA interest on the amount above $40,000. (Shielding costs of 2 months of lost interest are also possible.)

This maneuver is often worth $20K+ of additional pre-retirement interest. Not bad for an hour or so of effort.

 

[Okenba]

$2,382 in the first full year alone, less the cost of shielding. That's based on the 2023 Full Retirement Sum of $198,800 and thus the 1.5% of additional interest on $158,800 ($198,800 - $40,000) less one month of SA interest on the amount above $40,000. (Shielding costs of 2 months of lost interest are also possible.)

This maneuver is often worth $20K+ of additional pre-retirement interest. Not bad for an hour or so of effort.

In 1 year, the difference is $2,382.
By 60yrs old (5 yrs): $13,537
65yrs old (10yrs): $31,785
70yrs old (15yrs): $56,000
75yrs old (20yrs): $87,738

 

[dork32]

https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/...-tan-oei-boon-on-straits-times-3-jan.6441114/
see the above thread that i started last time. tan oei boon just cannot make it. he does not know how to make an apple to apple comparison.

it is not surprised that only an organization sponsored by our garmen will continue to employ him to help spread half truths to ignorant people/

okenba did i wat i would do 4>2.5.

 

[dork32]

This is the entire numerical example from the above link, for those that are keen

Let's look at one such scenario for a member who has $700,000 in his OA, $250,000 in his SA and $63,000 in MediSave now. (Only standard interest rates are used here).

At his 55th birthday this year, $186,000 will be deducted from his SA, leaving him with $64,000. Despite this, he will still earn $17,500 interest from his OA, $2,560 from his SA and $2,520 from MediSave, giving him a total of $22,580.

If he shields his SA, he will have these balances and interest: OA $554,000 ($13,850 interest), SA $210,000 ($8,400) and MediSave $63,000 ($2,520), giving him a total of $24,770.

While shielding gives you $2,190 more initially, this is not sustainable, unless you don't withdraw any money from CPF for your own use, which is a ridiculous notion. So if your plan is to always spend the interest, over $20,000 a year, your balances in the SA will drop and cannot last beyond 10 to 15 years.

From then on, your options are left with either $700,000 or $554,000 in your OA (assuming MediSave balance and interest stay the same for this exercise).

If you have $700,000 in your OA, you can withdraw about $20,000 in interest annually for life without affecting your capital sum and about $16,000 for the lower sum. This means that if you do not shield your SA and instead choose to preserve your funds in the OA, ou stand to gain in the long run, with more interest earned.

this is wat i meant that guy not telling the true story.

without shielding. oa interest is able to 20k withdrawal. this can continue forever

with shielding: sa is depleted with 20k withdrawal. you have to start to use your oa.
what is not stated: while the sa is being depleted, the oa of 554k will be accumulating interest. by the time the sa really runs out, the oa would have more than 700k.

any monkey could post anything they want on the internet. now monkeys can also post on the st. please evaluate every article before accepting it.

anyway thanks for confirming my evaluation that this straits times guy cannot make it

 

[Guojing88]

this is wat i meant that guy not telling the true story.

without shielding. oa interest is able to 20k withdrawal. this can continue forever

with shielding: sa is depleted with 20k withdrawal. you have to start to use your oa.
what is not stated: while the sa is being depleted, the oa of 554k will be accumulating interest. by the time the sa really runs out, the oa would have more than 700k.

any monkey could post anything they want on the internet. now monkeys can also post on the st. please evaluate every article before accepting it.

anyway thanks for confirming my evaluation that this straits times guy cannot make it

My guess is, that article was written based on the order of withdrawal that I stated, which is no longer valid now?

 

[Okenba]

My guess is, that article was written based on the order of withdrawal that I stated, which is no longer valid now?

My gawd. Are you still stuck on that?
You're not Tan Oei Boon by any chance? Or related to him? Because you seem to have an extreme difficulty in admitting he is wrong.
I thought we have already established that the order doesn't matter. 2.5% cannot possibly be larger than 4%.
You / your relative / close friend Mr Tan, has really poor numerical sense to not be able to tell that.

 

[dork32]

My guess is, that article was written based on the order of withdrawal that I stated, which is no longer valid now?

the article is based on the new withdrawal sequence. if it is based on the old sequence, the principal will not never be depleted. reason

for both cases: first year interest is higher than withdrawal. if interest were to withdrawn first, the principal will not be touched in the first year. second year interest will be more than first year because of interest from first year will earn further interest. so the original oa and sa will never be touched

but if sa were to be withdrawn first, sa interest cannot match withdrawal amount. it has to drain on the principal, after some time, the sa is gone

 

[dork32]

My gawd. Are you still stuck on that?
You're not Tan Oei Boon by any chance? Or related to him? Because you seem to have an extreme difficulty in admitting he is wrong.
I thought we have already established that the order doesn't matter. 2.5% cannot possibly be larger than 4%.
You / your relative / close friend Mr Tan, has really poor numerical sense to not be able to tell that.

i used to like fatty lorna of straits times a lot. fatty is smart. fatty talk sense. fatty is the first person that i know confirmed the shielding. so good that dbs poach her. until today i still respect fatty.

now cmi tan wants to come in and break her legacy?

only hopeless and useless people remains. this is why fewer people are willing to pay to read the papers. fewer companies are willing to advertise in them. they can continue to take umbrage when that happens