(26-06-2014, 03:27 PM)Freenasi Wrote: [ -> ] (26-06-2014, 11:34 AM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]If you look at CPF as a company, it is very safe. It has a much better financial statements than almost all companies in the world.
http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/NR/rdonlyres/275...ements.pdf
The balance sheet is clean with no debt. Most of the investments are in Singapore government bonds, AAA rated.
So what's there "not safe"?
Plus, the investment is into Singapore government bonds, not "PAP" bonds. Even if PAP is voted out, the Singapore government should continue to honor the bonds, or it would not be voted in.
As I know, the cpf money is used to invest in SGS bonds and in returned this money is used to invest in various companies, some locals (eg, dbs, Singtel etc) and some overseas (Citibank, china banks etc). Who can surely say the fund managers who helped to invest will not make mistake. So its cannot be 100% safe. Maybe 70~90% safe.
"The balance sheet is clean with no debt." - I hope u dun detemine a company is safe base on this condition alone.
To me i always think any AR is as good as the integrity of the company's top Management - Nothin more or nothing less.
(26-06-2014, 03:30 PM)Temperament Wrote: [ -> ]So far historically, how many SWG Fund had defaulted?
i mean any G can default is no surprise to us.
Some people even thinking one day US may default on it's bonds or debts.
But the point is:-
Nevertheless, you still have to vote in a new G before you know what they going to do with the former G's bonds or debts or any other things.
You can always ask the government to be elected whether they are going to honor the liabilities of previous government. If you don't ask, what can I say?
Plus, it is not difficult to vote out a government who is against the interest of most people.
Every voter has responsibility to ensure that the government voted in behaves properly in a democratic environment. Singapore is not North Korea, every citizen has a vote. And you are allowed to ask questions(but not make false accusations). If the voters don't care about the future of the country, what can I say?
Oh! Of course by virtue of being here, i think all of us do care. Only we may have different angles at looking at things. And what we wish our G to be.
Are you old enough to remember a "LIM YEW HOCK", "David Marshall" before LKY. And the "traitor" who sold Christmas island to the Australian?
Sorry that I am not old enough to know them. But if most people think PAP did such a lousy job and the oppositions are going to do a much better job, why is PAP still in power? I wonder.
(26-06-2014, 03:37 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ] (26-06-2014, 03:27 PM)Freenasi Wrote: [ -> ] (26-06-2014, 11:34 AM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]If you look at CPF as a company, it is very safe. It has a much better financial statements than almost all companies in the world.
http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/NR/rdonlyres/275...ements.pdf
The balance sheet is clean with no debt. Most of the investments are in Singapore government bonds, AAA rated.
So what's there "not safe"?
Plus, the investment is into Singapore government bonds, not "PAP" bonds. Even if PAP is voted out, the Singapore government should continue to honor the bonds, or it would not be voted in.
As I know, the cpf money is used to invest in SGS bonds and in returned this money is used to invest in various companies, some locals (eg, dbs, Singtel etc) and some overseas (Citibank, china banks etc). Who can surely say the fund managers who helped to invest will not make mistake. So its cannot be 100% safe. Maybe 70~90% safe.
"The balance sheet is clean with no debt." - I hope u dun detemine a company is safe base on this condition alone.
No. The risk of investment in companies is borne by the Singapore government, not the CPF. So as long as Singapore government honors its debt, CPF is safe. Whether Singapore government loses money or not, it is the government's concern, not CPF's.
If you don't understand what's called "clean" balance sheet, you should not judge me.
No worry, u r not being judged. Anyway, not many people can delink Temesek and the govn. Again, its just a personal thought.
i wonder too. But from different angle. Singapore being a little RED DOT i wonder why can't most of the opposition parties combine to form a strong, viable party that can at least replace 1/3 of the PAP member in Parliament. Until that happens in Singapore, i think there is no chance for the people of Singapore to have a real voice in Parliament.
i suppose everyone want to be the leader, sub leaders of the opposition party is one of the reason.
Let's see how many % of vote for PAPY in this coming GE.
i think PAPY doesn't care or worry too much.
Till then PAPY WAN SUI, WAN, WAN SUI.
Do i really have a choice?
Temasek is such a small part of the Singapore government, yet, it often seems that the only income of Singapore government is from Temasek.
No. The major income of Singapore government is from tax. check the 2014 budget.
http://www.singaporebudget.gov.sg/budget...iture.aspx
Out of 59.51 billion revenue, 13 billion comes from corporate income tax, 8.8 billion from personal income tax, 10.1 billion from GST, etc.
How much does Temasek contribute to government revenue? net investment return contribution(I believe most should come from Tamesek), 8.1 billion.
(26-06-2014, 04:33 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]Temasek is such a small part of the Singapore government, yet, it often seems that the only income of Singapore government is from Temasek.
No. The major income of Singapore government is from tax. check the 2014 budget.
http://www.singaporebudget.gov.sg/budget...iture.aspx
Out of 59.51 billion revenue, 13 billion comes from corporate income tax, 8.8 billion from personal income tax, 10.1 billion from GST, etc.
How much does Temasek contribute to government revenue? net investment return contribution(I believe most should come from Tamesek), 8.1 billion.
Ha! Ha!
It seems our CPF's interest rate should be better soon. No? Especially it's really for our retirement and not so many other , other things like housing....etc..
(26-06-2014, 04:22 PM)Temperament Wrote: [ -> ]i wonder too. But from different angle. Singapore being a little RED DOT i wonder why can't most of the opposition parties combine to form a strong, viable party that can at least replace 1/3 of the PAP member in Parliament. Until that happens in Singapore, i think there is no chance for the people of Singapore to have a real voice in Parliament.
i suppose everyone want to be the leader, sub leaders of the opposition party is one of the reason.
Let's see how many % of vote for PAPY in this coming GE.
i think PAPY doesn't care or worry too much.
Till then PAPY WAN SUI, WAN, WAN SUI.
Do i really have a choice?
You don't sound like people of your age. How could you make such statement that "Until that happens in Singapore, i think there is no chance for the people of Singapore to have a real voice in Parliament."? This is a big accusation of more than 50% of voters who votes for PAP not being the voice of the people of Singapore.
I can understand your frustration, but your statement does no good to you, or the people you vote for.
(26-06-2014, 04:40 PM)Temperament Wrote: [ -> ] (26-06-2014, 04:33 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]Temasek is such a small part of the Singapore government, yet, it often seems that the only income of Singapore government is from Temasek.
No. The major income of Singapore government is from tax. check the 2014 budget.
http://www.singaporebudget.gov.sg/budget...iture.aspx
Out of 59.51 billion revenue, 13 billion comes from corporate income tax, 8.8 billion from personal income tax, 10.1 billion from GST, etc.
How much does Temasek contribute to government revenue? net investment return contribution(I believe most should come from Tamesek), 8.1 billion.
Ha! Ha!
It seems our CPF's interest rate should be better soon. No? Especially it's really for our retirement and not so many other , other things like housing....etc..
Not necessary. check the expenditure of the government.
http://www.singaporebudget.gov.sg/data/b...diture.pdf
table 3.3
11.5 billion to be spent on education, 7.1 billion to be spent on health, 12.6 billion to be spent on defense, 4.2 billion to be spent on home affair and 6 billion to be spent on transport, etc.
I am not sure whether any of the major expenditure should be cut so that the CPF return should be better.
What do you think of it?