Cpf special account

[endlssorrow]

I tell my insurance agents that my priority is to pay off my housing loan rather than buying investment-related policies. It is not good to buy these long-term policies anymore once we hit the 50s because the breakeven period is typically 15 years.

I believe these funds is it similar like ILP?
Housing loan too big la.. no point keep thinking how to clear asap.. if not won’t have money to invest liao

 

[endlssorrow]

you invest to break even? you take 15 years to break even? have you tried khong guan biskuit tin or pillow case? you break even immediately

I tot funds can be faster right?

 

[reddevil0728]

I tot funds can be faster right?

can also faster go south lor

 

[andyhtc]

I believe these funds is it similar like ILP?
Housing loan too big la.. no point keep thinking how to clear asap.. if not won’t have money to invest liao

Yes, they are very similar to life policies.

I'm staying away from more insurances and investments until I clear my loan over the next few years using cash and OA if the loan interest rate is >2.5%.

Thereafter, I will continue to build up my OA and SA/RA from my investment returns and company contributions until I fully retire.

 

[andyhtc]

you invest to break even? you take 15 years to break even? have you tried khong guan biskuit tin or pillow case? you break even immediately

When the policies are very close to maturity or have matured (typically 25 years), the returns are about 4% p.a., which is decent.

The advantage is there is an insurance component while the disadvantage is it takes about 15 years to break even.

For someone who is young and not investment savvy and also wants some insurance protection, these life insurances are a safer alternative.

 

[dork32]

When the policies are very close to maturity or have matured (typically 25 years), the returns are about 4% p.a., which is decent.

The advantage is there is an insurance component while the disadvantage is it takes about 15 years to break even.

For someone who is young and not investment savvy and also wants some insurance protection, these life insurances are a safer alternative.

yeah 25 years, even if you are young how many 25 years do we have?

and if you want insurance, go buy saf insurance, damn cheap.

 

[endlssorrow]

If need to take more than 1 years to break even of 4% then not worth liao siaz

coz SA itself one year is 4% liao
Needless to say need min 15 or 25 yr to break even? Hahaha
Like that lose a lot liao

 

[reddevil0728]

If need to take more than 1 years to break even of 4% then not worth liao siaz

coz SA itself one year is 4% liao
Needless to say need min 15 or 25 yr to break even? Hahaha
Like that lose a lot liao

CAGR matters lor

 

[andyhtc]

yeah 25 years, even if you are young how many 25 years do we have?

and if you want insurance, go buy saf insurance, damn cheap.

SAF insurance policies are indeed cheap and I have already bought the maximum for them. However, not everybody can buy. Life policies are useful if one starts early and there is an insurance component, so it is not a pure investment product.

 

[hwmook]

SAF insurance policies are indeed cheap and I have already bought the maximum for them. However, not everybody can buy. Life policies are useful if one starts early and there is an insurance component, so it is not a pure investment product.

The insurance component is pure rubbish with the low insured amount. 25 years at 4% PA is so little especially when you consider inflation.

 

[andyhtc]

The insurance component is pure rubbish with the low insured amount. 25 years at 4% PA is so little especially when you consider inflation.

Different people have different risk appetite

 

[dork32]

Life policies are useful if one starts early and there is an insurance component, so it is not a pure investment product.

to me this is and insurance agent gimmick this statement is true. but they do not complete the sentence.

eg you start at 20. at 20, bullet hit you, you also wont die. at 20 if you really die, you dont have children that requires your salary to support them. you dont really need the insurance.

when you are in your 50s, your kids are in the uni. they need your money. you must not die until you graduate. now you are a lot more frail than before. ride bicycle fall down also may die. it is at this time that you need the insurance. yes if you start at this time, your premium will be much higher. but if you have start at 20, you would have paid a lot more premium over the years for the coverage that you do not really need.

anyway this is my own personal analysis. i have not done any maths on it. so i could be wrong.

 

[sohguanh]

to me this is and insurance agent gimmick this statement is true. but they do not complete the sentence.

eg you start at 20. at 20, bullet hit you, you also wont die. at 20 if you really die, you dont have children that requires your salary to support them. you dont really need the insurance.

when you are in your 50s, your kids are in the uni. they need your money. you must not die until you graduate. now you are a lot more frail than before. ride bicycle fall down also may die. it is at this time that you need the insurance. yes if you start at this time, your premium will be much higher. but if you have start at 20, you would have paid a lot more premium over the years for the coverage that you do not really need.

anyway this is my own personal analysis. i have not done any maths on it. so i could be wrong.

You are correct. Young no dependent buy insurance give who? But premium much cheaper. Older got dependent buy insurance but premium much more expensive. So I guess each individual will make their own judgement accordingly.

But what I find it strange is nowadays parents buy life insurance for their kids since premium is cheap and for limited premium whole life kind, parents can actually finish paying for the kids life insurance even before kids enter the workforce and start to work. This strategy I don't really agree. Why need to take this approach those monies saved should protect more of your ownself. Kids want life insurance when they start to work they pay themselves. But medical and hospitalization insurance for kids parents better buy this I agree.

 

[tkdboi]

to me this is and insurance agent gimmick this statement is true. but they do not complete the sentence.
eg you start at 20. at 20, bullet hit you, you also wont die. at 20 if you really die, you dont have children that requires your salary to support them. you dont really need the insurance.
when you are in your 50s, your kids are in the uni. they need your money. you must not die until you graduate. now you are a lot more frail than before. ride bicycle fall down also may die. it is at this time that you need the insurance. yes if you start at this time, your premium will be much higher. but if you have start at 20, you would have paid a lot more premium over the years for the coverage that you do not really need.
anyway this is my own personal analysis. i have not done any maths on it. so i could be wrong.

one big consideration is underwriting and coverage. if u buy when Much older, not just the higher premiums but a lot of existing conditions etc likely will be declared or identified and these will be excluded. that's why sometimes no choice but young and pay first

 

[iceblendedchoc]

Just go FSMOne Fund Selector and choose show only SA approved funds. From there you narrow down. It is not a secret and the funds have been around for many many years. I like your phrase teach ppl to fish instead of give them the fish.

First Sentier Bridge A DIS SGD

UT

SGD

6

Balanced

General

Asia Pacific Exc. Japan

SGD 3,758.60

1.38%

4.46%

H

Y

Y

Y

Y

Eastspring Investments Unit Trusts - Asian Balanced SGD

UT

SGD

6

Balanced

General

Asia Pacific Exc. Japan

SGD 776.60

1.44%

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Schroder Multi-Asset Revolution A Dis SGD

UT

SGD

6

Balanced

General

Global

SGD 583.62

1.50%

3.94%

Q

Y

Y

Y

Y

PineBridge Acorns of Asia Balanced Fund SGD

UT

SGD

6

Balanced

General

Asia excluding Japan

SGD 113.12

1.51%

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

i only see 1 global after filtering off the fixed income and bond.

 

[iceblendedchoc]

Looking at the annualized returns over 10 years.

Eastspring Investments Unit Trusts - Asian Balanced SGD

2.010%

PineBridge Acorns of Asia Balanced Fund SGD

5.340%

Schroder Multi-Asset Revolution A Dis SGD

5.780%

Schroder Multi-Asset Revolution A Dis SGD

5.780%

 

[sohguanh]

Looking at the annualized returns over 10 years.

Eastspring Investments Unit Trusts - Asian Balanced SGD

2.010%

PineBridge Acorns of Asia Balanced Fund SGD

5.340%

Schroder Multi-Asset Revolution A Dis SGD

5.780%

Schroder Multi-Asset Revolution A Dis SGD

5.780%

Just take note current bear market has put a big dent on their performance so ppl still want to use SA think abit guaranteed 4% vs fund returns moving forward

 

[iceblendedchoc]

Just take note current bear market has put a big dent on their performance so ppl still want to use SA think abit guaranteed 4% vs fund returns moving forward

their expense ratio and annual management charges (not counting FSM platform fees yet) are around 1.25% to 1.51% each, won't that eat into the returns for 10 years annualised returns?

There is even a mother fund annual management charge , on top of the annual management charge ,for Eastspring which is ridiculous. If taking in the charges, Eastspring is technically negative returns on annualised returns over 10 years.

 

[reddevil0728]

their expense ratio and annual management charges (not counting FSM platform fees yet) are around 1.25% to 1.51% each, won't that eat into the returns for 10 years annualised returns?

There is even a mother fund annual management charge , on top of the annual management charge ,for Eastspring which is ridiculous. If taking in the charges, Eastspring is technically negative returns on annualised returns over 10 years.

I believe the Annual Management Charges is baked into the unit price. and then annualised returns would have taken that into account.

 

[BBCWatcher]

Standard 1/3/5/10 year performance figures are ordinarily expressed with the following assumptions:

nominal
annualized
distributions reinvested
after management fees
pre-tax (this part doesn't generally matter for unit trusts in Singapore)
commissions/sales charges..."it depends"

But you have to read the fine print to make sure. Yes, 1.XX%+ annual management fees seriously impair fund performance. However, the published performance figures should already reflect these fees.