Singapore Savings Bonds

[lzydata]

This thread can hibernate awhile already

Well, there were months where the average 10-year yield was below 1% pa

 

[sglandscape]

Those who have FD maturing when rates are cut, would still likely place it in SSB then. But for now T-bills interest still seems high.

 

[vsvs24]

I have a friend turning 55 soon who is shielding SA. After RA created with FRS, still have huge amount in OA. Low risk appetite.

I told my friend to withdraw some OA before unshield SA. As she does not know want to do with too much cash and don't like too many bank accounts and play musical chair, I advise her to place SSB to the max. By the time SSB mature, just nice age 65 can supplement CPF life payout and can retire.

Within this 10 years when need the money can redeem without withdrawing SA. For now, anything better than 2.5% is already better than keeping in OA. If SSB rates improve can redeem and reapply.

She will also place some in FDs.

 

[rachdanon]

Is someone going to post those usual predictions for the next month's SSB? headed downhill ? Got a few 2.7x% allotments that I could redeem if its headed back up above 3%.

 

[vsvs24]

Is someone going to post those usual predictions for the next month's SSB? headed downhill ? Got a few 2.7x% allotments that I could redeem if its headed back up above 3%.

If you bother to scroll back to yesterday's posts you will see it.

 

[reddevil0728]

Is someone going to post those usual predictions for the next month's SSB? headed downhill ? Got a few 2.7x% allotments that I could redeem if its headed back up above 3%.

is not a prediction. is based on formula.

you not aware of the website created by a user here? the ilovessb website.

 

[rachdanon]

If you bother to scroll back to yesterday's posts you will see it.

Oh sorry, I do follow this thread, but guess I lost track what I have and have not read.

is not a prediction. is based on formula.

you not aware of the website created by a user here? the ilovessb website.

Am not aware of the website. Thanks! will check it out. If I have more questions, will ask here.

 

[vsvs24]

Oh sorry, I do follow this thread, but guess I lost track what I have and have not read.


Am not aware of the website. Thanks! will check it out. If I have more questions, will ask here.

https://www.ilovessb.com/projection/SBJUL23

 

[lzydata]

"As at 2 May 2023, just 4.2% of investors hold more than $180,000 worth of SSBs."

https://www.mas.gov.sg/news/letters-to-editor/2023/response-to-letter-singapore-savings-bonds

 

[reddevil0728]

"As at 2 May 2023, just 4.2% of investors hold more than $180,000 worth of SSBs."

https://www.mas.gov.sg/news/letters-to-editor/2023/response-to-letter-singapore-savings-bonds

stats not his side.

 

[luvpraline]

"As at 2 May 2023, just 4.2% of investors hold more than $180,000 worth of SSBs."

https://www.mas.gov.sg/news/letters-to-editor/2023/response-to-letter-singapore-savings-bonds

Oh man... was hoping they would raise the limit

Do they mean only 4.2% of people who hold ssb have more than 180k of it ?

 

[reddevil0728]

Oh man... was hoping they would raise the limit

Do they mean only 4.2% of people who hold ssb have more than 180k of it ?

Yep.
And you are one of the 4.2% it seems

 

[sglandscape]

"As at 2 May 2023, just 4.2% of investors hold more than $180,000 worth of SSBs."

https://www.mas.gov.sg/news/letters-to-editor/2023/response-to-letter-singapore-savings-bonds

Given the inverted yield curve, and choosing a point in time figure is not representative if the cap is high enough.

 

[rachdanon]

"As at 2 May 2023, just 4.2% of investors hold more than $180,000 worth of SSBs."

https://www.mas.gov.sg/news/letters-to-editor/2023/response-to-letter-singapore-savings-bonds

Think most took interest in SSB since 2H2022. Not easy to cough out $180k , and get allotment in the good ones (>3%) from then to now also. I am one such person new to SSB, and only just discovered the ilovessb tool.

 

[luvpraline]

Yep.
And YH are one of the 4.2% it seems

Who is YH?

 

[Happyhappydays]

"As at 2 May 2023, just 4.2% of investors hold more than $180,000 worth of SSBs."

https://www.mas.gov.sg/news/letters-to-editor/2023/response-to-letter-singapore-savings-bonds

If SSBs are issued to demand ie every one who applied S$200k gets S$200k, pretty sure there will be more than 4.2% who would have hit the S$200k cap.

 

[reddevil0728]

Given the inverted yield curve, and choosing a point in time figure is not representative if the cap is high enough.

hence it is important to ask the right qns. if the right qns is not asked, then they can simply ans the qns itself which might not have the intended effect

Who is YH?

you* typo. fixed it thanks!

If SSBs are issued to demand ie every one who applied S$200k gets S$200k, pretty sure there will be more than 4.2% who would have hit the S$200k cap.

yep. but that's factual.

 

[BBCWatcher]

If SSBs are issued to demand ie every one who applied S$200k gets S$200k, pretty sure there will be more than 4.2% who would have hit the S$200k cap.

Why would that follow? The provided figure is 4.2% holding more than $180,000. The percentage of SSB holders holding $200,000 is thus less than 4.2%.

The 4.2% also includes individuals holding more than $200,000 of SSBs. That’s possible via inherited SSBs.

“Be careful what you wish for.” SSBs are close substitutes for bank fixed deposits and to some extent savings accounts. Raise the per person SSB limit and you‘d end up raising mortgage and other borrowing costs for everyone — and for years at a stretch because SSBs are 10 year offers. You’d also end up with more frequent and more aggressive oversubscriptions. Currently oversubscription events are somewhat limited in scope because the few bidders who could be trying to buy $500K, $800K, or more aren’t able to do that. And another nice benefit from a public policy point of view is that one spouse cannot buy $300K of SSBs for example. He/she has to help his/her spouse buy $100K in his/her name if he/she wants $300K of SSBs on a household basis. It’s a really good idea to “spread the wealth” that way. It doesn’t take much imagination to figure out that spouses (often women) with zero assets in their own names can quickly end up in dire circumstances.

 

[sglandscape]

Why would that follow? The provided figure is 4.2% holding more than $180,000. The percentage of SSB holders holding $200,000 is thus less than 4.2%.

The 4.2% also includes individuals holding more than $200,000 of SSBs. That’s possible via inherited SSBs.

“Be careful what you wish for.” SSBs are close substitutes for bank fixed deposits and to some extent savings accounts. Raise the per person SSB limit and you‘d end up raising mortgage and other borrowing costs for everyone — and for years at a stretch because SSBs are 10 year offers. You’d also end up with more frequent and more aggressive oversubscriptions. Currently oversubscription events are somewhat limited in scope because the few bidders who could be trying to buy $500K, $800K, or more aren’t able to do that. And another nice benefit from a public policy point of view is that one spouse cannot buy $300K of SSBs for example. He/she has to help his/her spouse buy $100K in his/her name if he/she wants $300K of SSBs on a household basis. It’s a really good idea to “spread the wealth” that way. It doesn’t take much imagination to figure out that spouses (often women) with zero assets in their own names can quickly end up in dire circumstances.

You're describing the "crowding out" effect. However I believe SSB would not cannibalise the segment for liquid deposits to meet day to day needs.

Also, for the yield seeker and more wealthy, they would rather lock in a credit spread and take a bit more risk to get a higher yield.

 

[BBCWatcher]

You're describing the "crowding out" effect. However I believe SSB would not cannibalise the segment for liquid deposits to meet day to day needs.

OK, but if you're acknowledging that SSBs would crowd out at least fixed deposits then that'll mean higher cost mortgages and other loans.

Also, for the yield seeker and more wealthy, they would rather lock in a credit spread and take a bit more risk to get a higher yield.

They can already do that. Yet a few are complaining that SSBs are limited to $200,000 per person. Either the cap has relevance or it doesn't. And if it's not relevant then why increase or eliminate it?