Five Cents Ten Cents

Financial freedom, one realistic step at a time.

How movable is your net-worth?


Flickr image Apartments Croatia by Kavanjin Croatia Apartments

Flickr image "Apartments Croatia" by Kavanjin Croatia Apartments

The more I experiment and try out different ways to achieve financial freedom, the more I learn about real concepts of financial management of my own money.

Moving from One Asset Class to Another

As you live within your means, you start to have savings. Most personal finance books advise you to keep some buffer or emergency funds enough for 3 to 6 months of expenses or income. The additional savings you should invest in fixed deposits, mutual funds, stocks and shares or other asset classes that fit your risk-reward profile.

Different asset classes have different liquidity. Liquidity refers to how easy it is to sell your assets and convert it to cash. Sounds simple but can be fraught with challenges as I found out now that I’m selling most of my equity portfolio into the currently rising market to move into property investment.

Why am I moving most of my net-worth out of equities at this point in time? Continue reading

»crosslinked«

A Bird in the Hand is Worth Two in the Bush


Flickr image Sunset at Petroleum Field by Fabio Pinheiro

Flickr image "Sunset at Petroleum Field" by Fabio Pinheiro

We all encounter situations like this now and then in our journey towards financial freedom.

The company of the shares you bought has been acquired by an even larger company. You can now exit at a price that gives you a premium over your average cost, i.e. you will definitely lock in some profits if you sell to the mandatory general offer by the acquirer. But other investors in the same company suggest that we should reject the general offer so that you can hold out for a higher price.

So what should you do?

Continue reading

A Tale of Two Cities: Hong Kong and Singapore’s Regulatory Response to the Lehman Minibonds


Hong Kong and Singapore.

These two countries are often compared because of similar geopolitical situations, racial compositions, approaches to economic growth and competitors to be the regional (if not world) class financial markets.

However, the recent Lehman mini-bonds fiasco has shown very different regulatory approaches in resolving the losses suffered by investors.

Hong Kong Monetary Authority: 1

Hong Kong’s recent actions by the Hong Kong Monetary Authorities as well as their Securities and Futures Commissioned has resulted in Lehman mini-bond holders who would be compensated as much as 70% of their principal amounts invested with the banks. About USD 1.6 b (SGD 2.4 b) was invested by Hong Kong investors in Lehman mini-bonds and around USD 800m or (SGD 1.2 b) or roughly 50% would be compensated.

Monetary Authority of Singapore: 0

Singapore’s banks on the other hand are compensating around SGD 107m (USD 71m) out of around SGD 508m (USD 352) or roughly 21% would be compensated. This is half the proportion that the Hong Kong authorities have managed to help broker for their own investors.  Interestingly enough, if the percentage paid by each financial institution in Hong Kong is similar, I suspect DBS in Hong Kong would likely be paying out a higher proportion than DBS Singapore for selling virtually the same product.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore on the other hand, had its Deputy Chairman and Minister for Trade and Industry, Mr. Lim Hng Kiang defending its actions in its supervision and not accepting that it had been lax in supervision.

Different Jurisdictions – Different Outcomes

The compensation obtained by Hong Kong investors is double that of Singapore for the same product and very similar circumstances. Why are Singapore investors suffering more than those in Hong Kong. Based on the news reports about the Lehman mini-bonds fiasco in these two countries, it appears that the Hong Kong authorities was more proactive in being an advocate for the retail investor compared to MAS’s more hands-off approach urging retail investors to avail themselves to first lodge their complaints to the banks and financial institutions before going to FIDReC.

While investors in the ill-fated Lehman related minibonds and other derivative products have suffered, the way their suffering unfolded has been quite different.

On one hand, banks in Hong Kong have to put up a US 200m fund “to help pay legal costs of trying to recover collateral that was backing many of the investments, possibly increasing the payout for investors“.

There were no such reports of similar initiatives in Singapore.

It seems ironic that Hong Kong, better known for its free-market type of approach to financial markets, has emerged to be seen as a stronger proponent for the retail investor.

Singapore, with its reputation of being tops in Corporate Governance in the region and in laws and regulations appear to be letting the Financial Institutions get away with a ban (ranging from six months to two years) on selling these structured notes that no-one aged 9 to 90 with a breath would touch with a ten-foot bamboo pole.

I guess the morale of this story is that perhaps one is better off investing in Hong Kong financial market because you seem to have more protection than as a retail investor in Singapore.

Be well and prosper.

CPF Life: Money May Not Be Enough (Singapore Edition)


I read Minister Gan Kim Yong’s remarks relating to the amendments to CPF Life with incredulity and shock.

The article by the Straits Times “CPFLife payouts for Life” is very misleading as the content of the article focuses on the questions raised by Mdm Halimah Yacob. Her concern is expressed here:

The remark was directed at Madam Halimah, chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Manpower, who noted that the law allows the CPF Board to stop CPFLife payments unless the Lifelong Income Fund is solvent. ‘While I can understand the legal basis for this provision, I find it quite disturbing to have it reflected in the Bill,’ she said.

The Government never giveth but the Government can taketh away

So it appears that the Government is able to legally STOP paying you out of YOUR savings accumulated from YOUR hardwork and locked by a portion of YOUR MINIMUM SUM CPF balances if the Lifelong Income Fund is insolvent.

However, given that the Lifelong Income Fund is mandatory for most CPF members and that you don’t really have much of a choice, if the fund is at risk of being insolvent, that would speak volumes about the quality of the people paid to run it. If you were given a monopoly and could control how much expense (payouts) to incur and can take other people’s money to invest (unlimited upside), some risk takers may use that money to make bets on the market. If the bets turn out well, 8 month (or more bonuses). If the bets turn sour, quit and find a new job while the members payouts get cut?!

Is the scenario I imagine realistic? Did we go through the last year or so since the sub-prime where we learnt nothing about putting people in such scenarios?

Minister Gan didn’t mention what happens if it is the CPF Board itself that makes investment mistakes that causes the Lifelong Income Fund to be insolvent in the first place or if the CPF Board is unable to generate sufficient income from its investments using YOUR portion of MINIMUM SUM locked away for CPF Life.

Those are very real possibilities for the Lifelong Income Fund to be insolvent and to be unable to fund future payouts. Even MAS can lose $9 billion in 1 year from investments and Temasek/GIC can lose BILLIONS in a year. What happens if CPF Board makes use of GIC to invest and they lose millions (not to say BILLIONS) in a “bad” year.

Would CPF members be screwed because of the mistakes made by the CPF Board?

Would CPF members be deprived of their right to their CPF Life income payouts that come from their OWN SAVINGS that they have NO CHOICE but to participate as opposed to private insurance/annuities?

And more importantly, Minister Gan’s promise as stated:

MANPOWER Minister Gan Kim Yong has assured Singaporeans they will receive a monthly payout from the CPFLife annuity scheme for the rest of their lives, despite a ‘disturbing’ provision in the new law.

But I am not sure if our esteemed Minister is aware that even if the payout is reduced to $1 a month (which the CPF Board is legally empowered to do so under these amendments to keep the Lifelong Income Fund solvent), he would still be honouring his promise while CPF Life members starve to death?

I cannot understand how we have a system where our forced savings from contributing to the Central Provident Fund is being managed with the risk borne by members. Not only do we lose the ability to decide what we want to do with our retirement monies, we’ve given the Government so much power that even if they make mistakes with our hard-earned savings, we will have to suffer for it.

If the CPF Board cannot generate sufficient income from CPF Life, we the CPF members are well and royally SCREWED.

If this doesn’t convince you to save for retirement OUTSIDE the CPF system, nothing else will.

Be well and prosper.

Taking pleasure in simple things


Flickr image Singapore Botanic Gardens by chooyutshing

Flickr image "Singapore Botanic Gardens" by chooyutshing

I brought my family (spouse + 16 month old daughter) to the Botanic Gardens for a leisurely walk on Sunday afternoon.

It was a relatively inexpensive excursion, just the price of petrol to get there and $0.54 parking fee and some drinks at the basement food court.

The older my daughter gets and the more I can bring her out to public parks and places of nature, the more I realise the simple pleasures of life in Singapore can really be had for a small price. Continue reading