CPF was "100 per cent safe''

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
#87
(27-06-2014, 09:54 AM)Freenasi Wrote:
(27-06-2014, 09:45 AM)freedom Wrote: No return comes without risk. The CPF is already offering higher than the risk-free rate can afford. Just compare the risk-free yield of Singapore government bonds and the return of CPF.

The higher return could result in economic loss of the government, in which case, the government will have no other way but to inflate it away. Is that some people want?

The higher return not neccessary result in economic loss. There is alr lotta surplus from the investment made with the cpf money. Its a matter of return some of this surplus to the people, or keeping and spending within the G. With the super high salary of the ministers and I dunno who else, this may not go well with many.

CPF money invests into Singapore government securities. What's surplus are you talking about? It isn't a lot according to financial statements from CPF.

The Singapore government takes the risk and enjoys the return. CPF does not take any risk, why should it demand higher return?

part of government surplus goes into reserve. However, the reserve does not just belong to the current generation of Singaporean. It belongs to the future generations, too. The government is not at its liberty to deplete the reserve.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Lancelot - 23-06-2014, 01:54 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by specuvestor - 23-06-2014, 02:18 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by GPD - 23-06-2014, 03:25 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by weijian - 23-06-2014, 04:00 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by DP28 - 23-06-2014, 04:08 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Freenasi - 23-06-2014, 05:05 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by tanjm - 23-06-2014, 11:21 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by LionFlyer - 23-06-2014, 05:33 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by weijian - 23-06-2014, 10:26 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 24-06-2014, 09:35 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by kagemusha - 23-06-2014, 03:20 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by GPD - 23-06-2014, 03:28 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by touzi - 23-06-2014, 11:34 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 24-06-2014, 09:39 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 23-06-2014, 05:37 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 24-06-2014, 09:46 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 24-06-2014, 09:38 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by corydorus - 24-06-2014, 11:06 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by specuvestor - 24-06-2014, 12:29 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by investor101 - 24-06-2014, 03:05 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by izam - 24-06-2014, 07:38 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Zelphon - 24-06-2014, 07:58 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by WolfT - 24-06-2014, 08:13 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by izam - 24-06-2014, 10:53 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by corydorus - 24-06-2014, 11:37 PM
CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by ksir - 24-06-2014, 12:37 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by specuvestor - 24-06-2014, 03:03 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 24-06-2014, 03:35 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by ksir - 24-06-2014, 04:05 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 24-06-2014, 04:29 PM
CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by ksir - 24-06-2014, 03:21 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 24-06-2014, 03:30 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by kagemusha - 24-06-2014, 04:43 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Lancelot - 24-06-2014, 04:55 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 24-06-2014, 04:58 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by GPD - 24-06-2014, 05:04 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 24-06-2014, 05:10 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by GPD - 24-06-2014, 05:29 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 24-06-2014, 08:46 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by egghead - 24-06-2014, 09:17 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Freenasi - 25-06-2014, 02:42 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by kagemusha - 25-06-2014, 01:30 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 25-06-2014, 10:08 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by ksir - 24-06-2014, 05:07 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by thefarside - 25-06-2014, 08:00 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 25-06-2014, 10:34 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 25-06-2014, 10:52 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by chialc - 25-06-2014, 04:30 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 25-06-2014, 04:34 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Freenasi - 25-06-2014, 08:13 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 26-06-2014, 11:34 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 26-06-2014, 02:07 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 26-06-2014, 03:02 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Freenasi - 26-06-2014, 03:27 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 26-06-2014, 03:37 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Freenasi - 26-06-2014, 04:19 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 26-06-2014, 03:42 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by corydorus - 26-06-2014, 02:23 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 26-06-2014, 03:30 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 26-06-2014, 03:43 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by specuvestor - 26-06-2014, 07:08 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 26-06-2014, 03:54 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by kagemusha - 27-06-2014, 02:01 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 27-06-2014, 04:12 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 26-06-2014, 04:03 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 26-06-2014, 04:22 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 26-06-2014, 04:41 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 26-06-2014, 05:02 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 26-06-2014, 04:33 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 26-06-2014, 04:40 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 26-06-2014, 04:49 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 26-06-2014, 05:14 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 26-06-2014, 05:40 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 26-06-2014, 05:58 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 27-06-2014, 09:42 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 27-06-2014, 02:20 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 26-06-2014, 09:33 PM
CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by chialc88 - 26-06-2014, 10:35 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 26-06-2014, 10:56 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by egghead - 27-06-2014, 08:31 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 27-06-2014, 08:40 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by egghead - 27-06-2014, 09:33 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 27-06-2014, 09:45 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Freenasi - 27-06-2014, 09:54 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 27-06-2014, 10:06 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by egghead - 27-06-2014, 10:22 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 27-06-2014, 10:26 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by egghead - 27-06-2014, 11:13 AM
CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by chialc88 - 27-06-2014, 12:21 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 27-06-2014, 09:56 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CY09 - 27-06-2014, 10:47 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 27-06-2014, 10:52 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 27-06-2014, 11:02 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 27-06-2014, 11:03 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 27-06-2014, 11:21 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by egghead - 27-06-2014, 11:40 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 27-06-2014, 11:58 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by egghead - 27-06-2014, 11:46 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by yeokiwi - 27-06-2014, 12:58 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by corydorus - 27-06-2014, 01:20 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by egghead - 27-06-2014, 01:23 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by tanjm - 27-06-2014, 10:35 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 27-06-2014, 02:00 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 27-06-2014, 02:30 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 27-06-2014, 02:42 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CY09 - 27-06-2014, 10:44 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by tanjm - 28-06-2014, 12:10 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by egghead - 28-06-2014, 09:43 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by specuvestor - 28-06-2014, 11:35 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by corydorus - 28-06-2014, 12:08 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by NTL - 28-06-2014, 12:27 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by corydorus - 28-06-2014, 12:35 PM
CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by chialc88 - 28-06-2014, 12:35 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by NTL - 28-06-2014, 12:59 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Porkbelly - 28-06-2014, 01:57 PM
CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by chialc88 - 28-06-2014, 02:33 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 29-06-2014, 11:43 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by NTL - 29-06-2014, 12:08 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Fish Head - 29-06-2014, 12:10 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Freenasi - 30-06-2014, 12:18 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by corydorus - 09-07-2014, 09:27 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 09-07-2014, 09:32 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by HitandRun - 09-07-2014, 09:39 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 09-07-2014, 10:10 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by HitandRun - 09-07-2014, 01:27 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by specuvestor - 09-07-2014, 01:35 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by HitandRun - 09-07-2014, 01:53 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by specuvestor - 09-07-2014, 11:03 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 09-07-2014, 03:45 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Freenasi - 09-07-2014, 04:32 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by CityFarmer - 09-07-2014, 05:04 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 09-07-2014, 04:49 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by nsengkia - 09-07-2014, 05:15 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by tanjm - 09-07-2014, 06:14 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 09-07-2014, 06:50 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by aspeed - 09-07-2014, 05:25 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 09-07-2014, 05:35 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 09-07-2014, 05:46 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 09-07-2014, 05:54 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 09-07-2014, 06:01 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by specuvestor - 09-07-2014, 06:49 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by freedom - 09-07-2014, 06:05 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 09-07-2014, 06:40 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by SincereKen - 26-03-2015, 01:15 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by NTL - 27-03-2015, 04:23 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by vesfreq - 27-03-2015, 11:36 AM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by SincereKen - 01-04-2015, 05:49 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Porkbelly - 26-03-2015, 08:41 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by Temperament - 27-03-2015, 05:22 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by tikam tikam - 27-03-2015, 05:50 PM
RE: CPF was "100 per cent safe'' - by SincereKen - 01-04-2015, 06:01 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)