New CPF LIFE Estimator

[a4973]

The fundamentals are not the same in terms of total wealth though. Basic Plan is very different to Standard and Escalating in terms of total wealth leftover.

There is now lack of information to decide what is the best for different context and scemario.

I remember in other threads, Basic Plan had been analysed to give the most bequest. Now that the CPF LIFE estimator has changed its presentation does this mean that the above is no longer the case? Thanks

 

[fr33d0m]

Yes. I now have less information to make an informed decision.

As i mentioned before, a half truth is way more difficult to detect than a complete lie.

What you believed as truth provided by CPF estimator does not make it a truth.

Maybe CPF removed it because it offered half truth.

You don’t have the truth in the beginning to judge what is truth…

 

[fr33d0m]

Some with serious health conditions or who know their family medical/lifespan history may opt for this as they know they may not live a long life. There are also many who want to empty their CPF to enjoy life first or give to their mistress.

it is still true that they need to adjust their lifestyle to tolerate lower payout just in case that they outlive their expectations.

people can be dying for decades.

 

[fr33d0m]

I remember in other threads, Basic Plan had been analysed to give the most bequest. Now that the CPF LIFE estimator has changed its presentation does this mean that the above is no longer the case? Thanks

A lot of analysis was around the no-one-knows-how-accurate-it-is CPF LIFE estimator.

Now they just have to do the real analysis themselves.

 

[zoneguard]

I remember in other threads, Basic Plan had been analysed to give the most bequest. Now that the CPF LIFE estimator has changed its presentation does this mean that the above is no longer the case? Thanks

I believe now this change is deliberate.
I cannot find any information now for bequest value in the estimator, in the website write-up , in the FAQ and in the retirement handbook.

You may have to write in to CPF for official written answer on the bequest before you make any decision on plan choices.

 

[zoneguard]

A lot of analysis was around the no-one-knows-how-accurate-it-is CPF LIFE estimator.

Now they just have to do the real analysis themselves.

All versions of the estimator come with a disclaimer.

Quantitative analysis is no longer possible since the information is not available.

 

[reddevil0728]

What you believed as truth provided by CPF estimator does not make it a truth.

Maybe CPF removed it because it offered half truth.

You don’t have the truth in the beginning to judge what is truth…

This one serious allegation worx.

 

[reddevil0728]

The fundamentals are not the same in terms of total wealth though. Basic Plan is very different to Standard and Escalating in terms of total wealth leftover.

There is now lack of information to decide what is the best for different context and scemario.

I think poster is wondering is there a change in fundamentals of each of the 3 plans but just how they present it

 

[zoneguard]

I think poster is wondering is there a change in fundamentals of each of the 3 plans but just how they present it

My view now: the fundamentals may well have changed since there is no way to ascertain the full benefits of each plan for comparison. If the information isn't there anymore, any of the earlier analysis is moot.

If anybody is in a position to make a decision on plan choice soon, I think it will be prudent to get written confirmation from CPF before proceeding. I know I would.

 

[BBCWatcher]

There’s no evidence of any change in the plans.

It’s an entirely fair question to ask a CPF member, in effect, “What’s your plan to combat inflation?” Evidently the government sees retirement income adequacy rocks ahead (or worse).

 

[zoneguard]

There’s no evidence of any change in the plans.

What's your basis for your claim?

 

[reddevil0728]

My view now: the fundamentals may well have changed since there is no way to ascertain the full benefits of each plan for comparison. If the information isn't there anymore, any of the earlier analysis is moot.

If anybody is in a position to make a decision on plan choice soon, I think it will be prudent to get written confirmation from CPF before proceeding. I know I would.

that's why cannot anyhow make allegation, need to write to confirm.

What's your basis for your claim?

i think by virtue of them only removing, but not indicating there is a change...

because they can also say you can go ask them.

 

[a4973]

I would like to write in to CPF on behalf of this thread's participants interests, myself included.
Please advise how should I phrase the question so that we get on point answers rather than template answers?
I will report back to this thread with the replies. Thanks

 

[reddevil0728]

I would like to write in to CPF on behalf of this thread's participants interests, myself included.
Please advise how should I phrase the question so that we get on point answers rather than template answers?
I will report back to this thread with the replies. Thanks

why don't just ask them is the previous calculator still available as you find that the previous calculator is more meaningful. see what they say first?

no point making it complicated and they may not know what you are driving at.

 

[fr33d0m]

My view now: the fundamentals may well have changed since there is no way to ascertain the full benefits of each plan for comparison. If the information isn't there anymore, any of the earlier analysis is moot.

If anybody is in a position to make a decision on plan choice soon, I think it will be prudent to get written confirmation from CPF before proceeding. I know I would.

That’s quite an accusation from a mere removal of a part of an estimator.

Even with the previous estimator, it’s merely an estimator. It is not binding on CPF to provide the said payout or bequest.

It has always been a moving target based on actual mortality experience and adjust accordingly.

CPF merely removes the part with higher speculation.

 

[zoneguard]

Even with the previous estimator, it’s merely an estimator. It is not binding on CPF to provide the said payout or bequest.

It has always been a moving target based on actual mortality experience and adjust accordingly.

The interest rates and mortality experience disclaimers were in both versions and there's no change.

The old version has 3 sets of data in chart form: payout, bequest and total payout by age.

New version has 3 payout values at age 65,85 and 95.

Is that sufficient information to make a decision? I leave it to individuals to decide. If you think you want more, please write in to CPF.

 

[reddevil0728]

The interest rates and mortality experience disclaimers were in both versions and there's no change.

The old version has 3 sets of data in chart form: payout, bequest and total payout by age.

New version has 3 payout values at age 65,85 and 95.

Is that sufficient information to make a decision? I leave it to individuals to decide. If you think you want more, please write in to CPF.

is 2 different things leh.

one is to say they moved the goal post, the other is how they present the goal post.

 

[andyhtc]

Though the bequest information are no longer visible but as long as the fundamentals of the 3 plans remain the same, there will still be bequests right? Thanks

The bequest portion now becomes an uncertainty.

This is perhaps to prepare the stage for another policy change.

 

[zoneguard]

one is to say they moved the goal post, the other is how they present the goal post.

I used to be able to see the goal post clearly enough.
Now I cannot see the goal post through the 'fog'. I need to write in now so that I can see the goal post clearly again.

 

[reddevil0728]

I used to be able to see the goal post clearly enough.
Now I cannot see the goal post through the 'fog'. I need to write in now so that I can see the goal post clearly again.

yep. but that doesn't mean it has changed.