Business Cycles, Fiscal Policies and Monetary Policies.

I have always maintained that having some knowledge of Economics is useful in the modern world.  A reader, Paul, happens to be a student of the subject at a higher level.  He has kindly emailed me some essays which he has given me permission to publish.  I hope you find them as interesting as I have.

Business Cycles, Fiscal Policies and Monetary Policies

Business cycle refers to economic expansions and recessions. Developed economies normally have a 3-5% GDP growth annually. USA's potential GDP growth is about 2.5%. A recession happens when an economy has 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. Depression is a recession on a larger scale. It refers to a period when the GDP output falls by more than 25% and when there is high unemployment rate of about 20%. Depressions are longer in duration, often lasting more than 4 quarters.

Economic recessions could be the result of internal shocks and external shocks. In a recession, there is a lack of effective demand for goods and services. Some economists view recession as a natural occurrence as the economy goes through structural changes, as moving from sun-set industries to sun-rise industries. A recession could also be caused by structural failures such as the banking system. In short, the economy has to shed its excesses to be healthy again.

In the years prior to the recent financial crisis, Robert Lucas and Ben Bernanke declared that the central economic problem had been solved, business cycles were tamed and severe recessions were things of the past. We all know what happened in 2008.

After the Great Depression in 1930s, governments worldwide actively tried to tame the business cycles. USA went through a strong period of recovery powered by the industrial sector. The recessions were short and mild, while the recoveries were strong and sustained. This led to questions if the business cycle was obsolete? The next depression in the US was in 1970s, caused by external shocks such as the high oil prices. In the 1990s, the world again went through another period of small recessions and strong economic growth, which led to the comments made by Robert Lucas and Ben Bernanke. Is complacency one of the causes of the recent financial crisis?

Fiscal and monetary policies are employed by governments trying to tame the business cycle. Fiscal policies refer to the G component, which is the government. In times of economic expansion, governments would raise taxes, and cut their spending to prevent overheating of the economy. These are called contractionary fiscal policies which could lead to a budget surplus. In recessions, governments have to lower taxes and increase spending to stimulate demand in the economy. These are called expansionary fiscal policies which could lead to a budget deficit. For example, lowering taxes for both consumers and producers would increase their real income, and increase their spending respectively, all else being equal. This would result in a higher C and I component which increase the national income.

Monetary policies involved using the money supply to influence the interest rates. When money supply increases, interest rates will fall. When interest rates fall, cost of borrowing for both consumers and producers will fall. For example, this could lower mortgage interest payment for consumers and make it cheaper for producers to borrow money from the banks. This would again boost demand through C and I. Lower interest rates would also weaken the currency of the country, which would be positive for the country's trade balance, all else being equal.

Central Banks would normally be responsible for monetary policies in a country and they are supposed to be independent from the government with the main objective of achieving price stability, with an inflation target of 1-3%. In the recent crisis, Central Banks around the work also resorted to different methods to increase the money supply, such as quantitative easing and the use of reserve ratios for commercial banks.

As mentioned earlier, adopting expansionary fiscal policies could lead to deficits. Budget deficits could be funded by surpluses from previous budgets or the issuance of bonds to borrow from the market. As mentioned in earlier blog posts, most governments resorted to the issuance of bonds to finance budget deficits in the recent crisis. These bonds can be bought by domestic or foreign investors. Hence, we have the figures of debt to GDP ratio. When foreign investors are involved, it would cause movements in the exchange rates, due to changes in demand and supply of the home currency. This is one of the reason why Japan is upset when the Chinese government bought much more Japanese government bonds( JGBs) recently.

These policies are called demand side management policies, as they are used to stimulate demand in the economy. If fiscal spending is carried out to improve supply in the economy, for examples, through education and infrastructure spending, which would increase the future productivity of the country, then, these would be called supply side policies. The Singapore government has been constantly engaging in supply side policies through retraining programs for workers, investments in the education system, construction of new infrastructure such as metro rails, implementation of tax incentives for engaging in R&D activities etc. This would boost the country's productivity and competitiveness in the future.

The readings below focus on debt issues, and fiscal, monetary policies.

Sovereign Debt
http://www.economist.com/node/16397110?story_id=16397110
http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2010/06/indebtedness_after_financial_crisis
http://www.economist.com/node/16397098?story_id=16397098
http://www.economist.com/node/16397086?story_id=16397086

Corporate Debt
http://www.economist.com/node/16397174?story_id=16397174

Consumer Debt
http://www.economist.com/node/16397124?story_id=16397124

Fiscal and Monetary Policies
http://www.economist.com/node/16943569?story_id=16943569

Related posts:
Hope this helps to refresh your "A" Level Economics!
USA, a rock and a hard place: Paul opines.

Daiwa House Logistics Trust: Good or not?

I woke up to not one, not two, not three but four comments from readers regarding Daiwa House Logistics Trust and I took that as a sign that I would have to take some time off from gaming to blog.

Daiwa House Logistics Trust's IPO ends this Wednesday (24th Nov.)

IPO? I usually avoid IPOs because they are usually priced well for the seller and not for the buyer.

IPO stands for "it's probably overpriced?"

Is it more of the same in this case?

Looking at the information available, as an investment for income, Daiwa House Logistics Trust is not overly attractive to me.

For someone who is new to investing for income and who is just starting to build a portfolio, this could have a place.

However, with a distribution yield of 6.3% to 6.5% which is similar to what my two largest investments in REITs, AIMS APAC REIT and IREIT Global, are offering, Daiwa House Logistics Trust just isn't that attractive to me.

If I do invest in Daiwa House Logistics Trust, it would probably be because I would like more diversification.

However, it would be just geographical diversification which is less meaningful than diversifying into non-REITs.

This is especially so since my wish is to build a more resilient income generating investment portfolio.

Increasing the size of my investments in the local banks, DBS, OCBC and UOB, I believe would be more meaningful and Singapore banks make decent investments for income too.

Bear in mind that the banks pay only a fraction of their earnings as dividends while REITs distribute 90% to 100% of their income to their investors.

In this light, we could even say that the banks are more attractive than Daiwa House Logistics Trust as investments for income as what would be their dividend yields if the banks were to pay 90% of their earnings as dividends? 

Banks also benefit from rising interest rates and while REITs can still perform well with higher interest rates when compared to bonds, they might experience some downward pressure.

Having said this, if Daiwa House Logistics Trust should see a significant decline in unit price, I might buy some.

The better investments I have made in REITs have almost always been post IPOs and that is saying something.

If I am wrong, it wouldn't be a tragedy as not making money is not the same as losing money.

Anyway, why am I not excited about this IPO other than the fact that I usually avoid IPOs?

After all, Daiwa House Logistics Trust is Japanese and some of my better investments were Saizen REIT, Croesus Retail Trust and Accordia Golf Trust.

The trio were all Japanese too and delisted subsequently, netting me some very nice gains.

I will continue to talk to myself.

1. Land lease.

Saizen REIT had only freehold Japanese residential buildings.

Croesus Retail Trust and Accordia Golf Trust had mostly freehold Japanese assets.

Daiwa House Logistics Trust will start with mostly leasehold Japanese assets.

Having more leasehold Japanese assets for their IPO helps to bump up their distribution yield as leasehold assets are usually cheaper while still commanding prevailing market rents.

This is especially the case for assets with much shorter remaining land leases.

VIVA Industrial Trust, anyone?

It helps to make the IPO look more attractive to investors.

Having mostly leasehold assets, the distribution yield really should be higher than the 6.3% at IPO.

The impression I get is that the IPO is probably priced more dearly.

If we look at past IPOs of S-REITs with mostly leasehold assets, most of their distribution yields were higher, if I remember correctly.

2. Japanese focus.

The Japanese focus of Daiwa House Logistics Trust might not last long since they have right of first refusal (ROFR) over 11 assets in Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia.

They market this as a good thing but one reason why I liked Saizen REIT, Croesus Retail Trust and Accordia Golf Trust was their focus on underappreciated and undervalued Japanese assets.

The Japanese market is probably more stable and less risky when compared to Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia.

3. Fund raising.

There are two things here.

We have been seeing some issuance of perpetual bonds by REITs to raise funds and the most notable is probably Lippo Mall Trust.

While perpetual bonds do not increase the gearing level of REITs, all else remaining equal, since they are treated as equity instead of debt, it is a form of financial engineering to make numbers look better.

Still, as long as the funds raised will help to improve performance and generate more income in a sustainable fashion for shareholders, it is a good thing.

I could be wrong but it is the first time I see a REIT having perpetual bonds issued at IPO and that makes me somewhat curious.

The second thing is that with the REIT being relatively small and with a relatively long list of ROFR assets, there could be more fund raising before long especially when the manager says they want to keep gearing below 40%.

Why start with only 14 Japanese assets and mostly leasehold ones with average remaining land lease of about 38 years?

Why not start with a larger portfolio and include most of these ROFR assets of which 17 are mostly Japanese freehold assets instead?

I have a couple of guesses but they are just guesses.

So, Daiwa House Logistics Trust, good or not?

As it is, Daiwa House Logistics Trust might seem decent enough for some as an investment for income but it isn't something I feel I must have in my portfolio.

It isn't screaming "BUY."

References:
1. VIVA Industrial Trust: 9% yield.

2. Saizen REIT.

3. Croesus Retail Trust.

4. Accordia Golf Trust.

5. Cutting losses in S-REITs.

6. Dividends from DBS, OCBC and UOB.

How to have enough for retirement and to do charity?

In many ways, this is a heartwarming email from a reader:

Hey AK,

I am going to retire at Age 27!!!!! 

Just kidding. I am 27 and if I retire now, I'm gonna hafta eat grass for half my life. :D:D

Nevertheless, I emailed to say how your recent blog posts on retirement and financial freedoms came at a time when I was just putting some of my "how to retire at 55" strategies to paper! 

Gave me quite a few ideas I could work on.

But first, I had some thoughts after reading your "Wake them up before they get financial nightmares" post. 

You shared how a reader saw how his friends were wasting money and tried to get his friends interested in investing. 

But they basically bo hiew him. And he felt very dejected about it. 

Actually, I want to say to him: 

There's no need to feel affected about how others are spending their money or feel dejected that you feel your friends are not exercising enough financial prudence. 

Everyone came from a different starting point and everyone is on their own journeys in life. 






For instance, my mum came from a poor family of 10, worked hard to see her siblings through school, sacrificed her own material comforts when young. 

Now that I have grown up and have earning power, I don't begrudge her anything, e.g. so she travels comfortably, I got her a car; supp cards etc. 

If someone had nothing growing up and when he wanted to blow his money on things he never had, during those young careful years, who are we to stop them or judge them you see? 

If someone wanted to zhng his house or car cos he derives great pleasure from it, who are we to say they are "wasting" money? 

I think the best way is to simply share rather than scare people into financial prudence. But that's just me thinking lah.

Okay, onwards to retirement strategies. 

I have a more realistic plan of easing off (semi-retiring) at age 55, so hopefully when 55 hits I will have multiple streams of monthly income. 

My target income streams are 

1. Sharebuilding, 
2. Dividend stocks, 
3. corporate bonds, 
4. Annuities.

I wanted to seek your advice (or thoughts if you are scared of the word advice, haha) on 2 matters:

Annuities - Is it too early to start at Age 27? I only want to start drawing at age 55. At my age now, would it be better to use the cash going to pay premiums to instead accumulate shares or buy corporate bonds? 

Or do you think it is more feasible to accumulate a basket of shares now and use their dividends at age 40 to pay off the premium for the annuity? 

Would you recommend annuities even?

Another way I thought of was using SRS money to buy annuities and draw down from 62...

Cash flow - each mth combined my husband and i will have 16.5k of cash savings (nett of everything) I don't do anything with it, just put into CIMB star saver. 

In your opinion, do you think given our age profile, we should be a tad more adventurous?

I know what you will say, haha. Hard to analyse cos nothing is said of my debt situation right? You are right, I am still paying off a HDB home loan. 

But suffice to say that after accounting for home loan, we will be 50k positive. 

Given this, would you have any advice for me on my above 2 queries?

Lastly, I have been inspired by your frequent calls to give back to society. 

I always read in the papers how the poor and elderly Singaporeans cannot benefit from Singapore's growth (inequalities widen in Singapore etc etc). 

Even though now they have lowered the lot size so that lesser well off can participate in the stock market, 

1) The commission fee is still geared to benefiting those who buy more than 1000 and 

2) I don't think the elderly destitute have any notion of the stock market. 

So I have decided I am going to do it for them. 

I will use 5k seed money of my own, perhaps with yearly top ups. 

And I will distribute the dividend money each time I see the truly poor e.g. buy them a hot meal when I see them foraging for scraps. 

If this "fund" grows, I will realise the profits as well and distribute them as and when needed. 

I know this is probably a drop in the ocean and very geographically limited, but this is as best as I thought of on how I can help the elderly poor participate in the growth of Singapore. Any better ways you reckon? 

Do you have any recommendations on what stock to buy for this "fund"?

Thanks and regards,

T

See: To be a happy peasant!

My reply:

Hi T,

First, a general impression. You are young and your income is definitely way above average. You have time on your side and the resources to plan for a very comfortable retirement by age 55. It is definitely good to have advantages. :)

OK, this is where I talk to myself.

Annuities. In Singapore, I believe that the best annuity money can buy is actually the CPF Life. 

4% risk free returns and a monthly pay-out for life? Sign me up! 

Max out our CPF-SA early if we have the resources to do so and we are set for a nice lump sum withdrawal at age 55 and a lifetime monthly pay-out from age 65. 

I like low hanging fruits.





Having time on my side in my 20s also means that I am able to ride the ups and downs in the stock market. 

So, after making sure that I have a sensible emergency fund and necessary insurance in place, I will put aside money to invest in equities for greater returns instead of having all my money in fixed deposits or bonds. 

After all, in the long run, equities outperform bonds.

Of course, if we have spare money to invest in the stock market, we are considered very fortunate. 

We should not forget the less fortunate amongst us. 





Is our effort just a drop in the ocean? I think every drop helps. :)

In the past, I would give a portion of my income to a list of charities that I support but starting this year I am putting such money away in a charity fund which I will not be taking much risk with. 

This is consistent with my idea that we should not risk money that has been earmarked for purposes other than for investment.

As I make money from my investments, crossing fingers, and as I make more public appearances, I will put more money into this fund. 

It will hopefully grow to a size that is big enough for me to do what I want to do with it in a few years from now. 

In the meantime, I will probably park money in the charity fund in fixed deposits or the Singapore Savings Bonds.





This email exchange took place quite some time back. Should have been published earlier. 

I only discovered that I overlooked this when I was clearing my mailbox. Terrible.

Bad AK! Bad AK!

Related posts:
1. Wake them up before they get financial nightmares.
2. Retiring before 60 is not a dream.

How should we approach REITs as investments for income now?

All good things come to an end and although it is debatable whether the many rounds of quantitative easing (QE) by The Federal Reserve have been good for us, they are definitely coming to an end as the Fed cut their bond buying program to US$15 billion a month and indicated that QE will end in October. That's next month. Money supply will stop growing and interest rates could rise 6 months later.

Of course, for quite a while now, this is something that I have been talking about too and how I have been taking action to have a portfolio of investments that is going to be less easily affected by rising interest rates. How is this being achieved? Simply, it latches upon the idea that companies which have less debt will have a relatively lighter debt burden when interest rates rise, which they will.

Having said this, I am not saying that companies which have more debt will not do well when interest rates rise. Heavily leveraged companies which are growing their earnings rapidly could still overcome their higher cost of debt and deliver good results. These are probably some high growth companies.

However, as I am investing mostly for income and maybe a little bit of growth, I would like to have more predictability and I like companies with less debt which have shown themselves to be consistent payers of meaningful dividends. I like them even more now that interest rates are set to be higher in the near future.

Now, what about REITs?

REITs have conventionally been looked upon as an asset class that is somewhere in between stocks and bonds. The regular income distributions make them bond-like but when we hold REITs, we are investors and not lenders. When we hold bonds, we are actually lenders of money. This is, of course, an interesting bit of trivia for most people and what they are probably more interested in knowing is how rising interest rates would affect their investments.

Well, if interest rates should rise, as investors in REITs, we want to think of the following:

1. Cost of debt.
2. Distributable income.
3. Unit price.

Quite simply, if interest rates go up, the cost of debt goes up. More income will have to go to servicing debt. When this happens, the amount of income available for distribution to unit holders will reduce, everything else remaining equal. If distribution per unit (DPU) should reduce, then, unit price would fall accordingly as Mr. Market demands a distribution yield that makes sense to him.

So, does this mean that as interest rates rise, REITs become pariahs and we should avoid them at all costs? I am inclined to believe that if we are income investors, REITs remain relevant assets to own. However, we will have to pay more attention to the issue of debt. Specifically, we want to be mindful of the following:

1. Percentage of debt with fixed interest rates.
2. Debt maturity profile.
3. Average cost of debt.

In an environment of rising interest rates, home owners who have loans with fixed interest rates will worry less about the possibility of a higher cost of debt. For REITs, similarly, if a bigger percentage of their debt are of the fixed interest rate type, then, they have less to worry.

Eventually, all REITs will have to refinance but those which have most of their debt due for refinancing in the next 12 to 18 months will see their cost of debt increasing ahead of the pack. Of course, this will put downward pressure on their available income for distribution, all else remaining equal.

Finally, REITs with very low average cost of debt now would probably see a big percentage jump in their cost of debt when they refinance eventually. So, investors in such REITs must be mindful of this as the REITs' interest cover ratio (i.e. the ability of a REIT to pay interest on its debt) could take a relatively big hit.

Basically, a higher interest rate will result in weaker cash flow and balance sheet, all else remaining equal.

However, remember that REITs are not bonds. REITs could improve the amount of income available for distribution by getting cheaper loans which are less likely in future but they also have the ability to improve income by raising asking rents.

The question is whether the health of the economy and the sector which the REITs are found in will support higher rental rates or not although it is believed that in an inflationary environment (which is why interest rates should increase), asking rents should rise too.

So, there you have it. How should we approach REITs as investments for income in an environment of rising interest rates? We should be thinking about debt.

Related posts:
1. ST Engineering: Wealth accumulation.
2. NeraTel: What is a sustainable dividend?
3. SATS: A nibble.
4. SPH: Mystery of extra money.
5. Building an income portfolio is like building a house.
6. Gear up and receive more passive income.
7. Bonds, REITs and the instant gratification of yield.

Lucky to have Singapore Savings Bonds.

Stock market is crashing.

Bond market is crashing.

Crypto market is crashing.

Suddenly, everyone is rushing for the exits and looking for safe harbors to park their money.

So, quickly now, withdraw all our money and stack them up at home (and pray that there are no termites.)

Alamak, I believe in keeping some cash at home for convenience but this is too much lah.

Of course, jokes aside, all of us know about the risk free and volatility free CPF we lucky Singaporeans have.

What about risk free and volatility free Singapore Savings Bonds or SSBs?

Well, long time readers of my blog might remember that I blogged about SSBs donkey years ago.

However, I hardly talk about them compared to how much I talk about the CPF.

I am blogging about the SSB now because many readers left comments about the SSBs in my blog and even my YouTube channel in recent days.

Whether something is good for us or not will depend on what we need and how well it fits that need.

The SSB is designed as another way for risk averse people to save money (up to a maximum of $200K at any one time) for the medium term.

We can tell this is the case because to get the maximum coupon, we have to hold the SSB for the full 10 years.

If our motivation is not to save money for the medium term, then, we have to accept the possibility of receiving smaller coupons if we should make premature redemptions.

The SSB is also safe because there is no penalty for premature redemption although there is a waiting time before we can get our money back.

So, it isn't the nearest of money which means it isn't the best way to store our emergency fund.

An easy solution is to park only a portion of our emergency fund in a SSB if we really want to use it that way.

This might not work if someone has a relatively small emergency fund in which case I think leaving the money in a fixed deposit might be a better idea.

I blogged about this way back in 2015 and if you are interested in what I said back then, read:

Singapore Savings Bonds: Good?

Now, having said this, with interest rates rising, if the SSB should offer an average coupon of 4% eventually, it might be a no brainer to park some money in SSBs for the full 10 years as it would mimic the CPF-SA.

It really is not easy to get a consistent 4% risk free and volatility free return especially in a strong currency like the Singapore Dollar.

It is utter mayhem in some markets and things could get worse before they get better.

Who knows?

Things could even get worse for longer if we get stagflation.

Still, as long as we are financially prudent, have a large enough emergency fund and are invested in bona fide income producing assets so that we receive passive income to cover a good portion of our expenses, we should do better than most. 

The aim is to be always prepared for winters.

I do not doubt that other than those who are super rich, most of us would have to make adjustments in the event of a longer winter even so.

Be pragmatic.

If AK can do it, so can you!

Recently published:

1. Buy Bitcoin at long term support.
2. Reallocate as interest rate rises...

Relevant video from AK's YouTube channel:

Borrow $100,000 to buy a car in Singapore?

Hi AK, 

When I get back to Sg next year, i'm planning on getting a car (depreciating asset boohoo!)

Now, on my previous car purchase, I felt i made a mistake of buying too early and had to take a full car loan. It ate up a lot of my monthly pay. So this time round, I wanted to do my sums right before diving in. 

I do have enough to pay upfront for a car (eg 100k). But could you talk to yourself if paying upfront for a car is a good idea? 

My alternative could be taking this 100k and throwing it into the Sg savings bonds/safer type of bonds, and earning the interest. As long as this "bond interest" is more than the "car loan interest", this would make it worthwhile? Am I missing a blind spot here? 

Can I just compare a 2% car loan interest vs a 3% interest earned from bonds and conclude that I will earn 1% interest? 

Could you talk to yourself on this issue? I will be eavesdropping!

thank you!!!

Hi,

You have to understand that when they say your car loan interest rate is X.X%, it is really more than that:

http://singaporeanstocksinvestor.blogspot.sg/2014/04/a-car-loan-is-different-from-home-loan.html

I don't like the idea of borrowing money to fund consumption and if we have to borrow money to buy a car, keep the loan quantum as small as possible:

http://singaporeanstocksinvestor.blogspot.sg/2016/05/what-new-mas-rules-for-car-loans-mean.html

Welcome back to the land of expensive cars!

Best wishes,
AK

Fundamental Analysis: The Cash Flow Statement

Cash Flow Statement quite obviously describes whether cash is flowing in or out of a company.  There are three sections.  

Firstly, Cash Flow from Operations.  

Secondly,  Cash Flow from Investments.  

Lastly, Cash Flow from Financing Activities.




Cash Flow from Operations is an aggregate of Net Income and any depreciation or amortisation put back.  

Depreciation and amortisation represent money which was spent years ago and must be added back to give us an accurate picture of the company's Cash Flow from Operations.  

Here, not only do we want to see a positive cash flow, the higher the cash flow, the better.

Next, we examine Cash Flow from Investments.  

Businesses make investments in income producing assets such as production equipment.  

Any money spent making such investments are labelled Capital Expenditures (CAPEX).  

It is also possible for companies to sell such investments and we might therefore get a positive figure under Others.  

However, here, cash flow is usually a negative figure.  

Companies which consistently have very high CAPEX should show that they are able to fund this through internal resources as far as possible and that they should be able to generate higher returns on such expenditures.




Lastly, we look at Cash Flow from Financing Activities.  

Money used in the payment of dividends or in the buy back of shares results in negative cash flow.  

Shareholders like dividend payouts.  They also like to see the value of their shares rising which happens when a company does a share buy back.  

So, negative cash flow here is actually good for shareholders.

Money gained from selling new shares or issuing bonds provides positive cash flow.  Here, again, we get a bit of a twist.  




The company might get positive cash flow through the issuance of new shares or bonds but it is actually bad for the shareholders as their shareholdings are diluted and bonds have to be repaid with interest.  

Unless the company is able to demonstrate that it will be able to use the funds raised to increase value for its shareholders, it has to be looked at most cautiously.

This post ends the quick introduction to Fundamental Analysis which I set out to blog starting with The Income Statement and followed by the Balance Sheet.  




I hope you have found these posts informative and if you are not already doing FA, I hope these have made you interested enough to look into the subject in greater detail.

I will be going away for a short holiday over the next few days with my family and will return mid week.  I wish everyone the very best and I will talk to you again soon.

Related posts:
1. Fundamental Analysis: The Income Statement.
2. Fundamental Analysis: Balance Sheet.
3. Why is Warren Buffet the world's greatest money maker?

Singapore Savings Bond: Mission accomplished.

How did my recent application for Singapore Savings Bond go?

The application used the remaining $14,000 I originally earmarked for CPF voluntary contribution in 2023?

The results are out.

Fully allotted.

No need to carry forward any remaining money into the new year.

Nice!

So, money which was meant for CPF voluntary contribution in 2023 went into three Singapore Savings Bonds this year.

1. $10,000 with 10 year average yield of 3.21% p.a.

2. $14,000 with 10 year average yield of 3.47% p.a.

3. $14,000 with 10 year average yield of 3.26% p.a.

So, no voluntary contribution will be made to my CPF OA and SA in 2023.

For readers who do not know why I am doing this or if you want to refresh your memory, see:

Singapore Savings Bond or CPF?

Regular readers know that my plan was to continue with voluntary contributions to my CPF OA and SA at least till I turn 55 years old.

Although I still consider the CPF to be a risk free and volatility free investment grade bond that pays a reasonably attractive coupon, with higher yields, recent Singapore Savings Bonds were more attractive.

I plan to continue putting aside money at least until I turn 55 years old in order to add to this bond component in my portfolio.

However, the money might not go to my CPF account but the Singapore Savings Bond as long as the latter's 10 year average yield remains higher than 3% per annum.

In 2023, I will still top up my CPF Medisave Account (MA) because that pays 4% per annum.

If Singapore Savings Bond's 10 year average yield should exceed 4% per annum, then, I might not top up the MA either.

However, if such 10 year bonds should pay a coupon of more than 4%, we could see the CPF SA getting its interest rate pegged to long term bond yields and not remain at 4%.

How like that?

Cross the bridge if we come to it.

Speculating now is like "on paper discuss soldier."

I am also too lazy to think too far.

Yes, I know I think a lot but that is a bit too much even for me especially in my old age.

So, does AK mean he would continue applying for Singapore Savings Bond in 2023 with money which was supposed to be for CPF voluntary contribution?

Yes, that is the long and short of it.

Source: MAS

I might even frontload and apply for Singapore Savings Bond from 1Q 2023 with money which would have been earmarked for CPF voluntary contribution in 2024.

For example, if I should have a spare $5K on hand early in the year, I could apply for Singapore Savings Bond with that $5K in 1Q 2023.

I don't have to wait till 4Q 2023 to make applications like what happened this year.

I will have more fixed income by frontloading.

I could even do more extreme frontloading by getting more than $38K of Singapore Savings Bond in 2023 if the 10 year average yield stays relatively high.

Basically, I should have another 4 times of $38K meant for CPF voluntary contribution.

That makes a total amount of $152K which could be frontloaded into Singapore Savings Bond.

This is a clue as to the number of years left before I turn 55.

Another $152K is pretty demanding and would not happen all at once. 

It would happen gradually as and when I have some spare cash on hand.

Frontloading is something that the CPF would not allow, of course, with its annual contribution cap.

Anyway, that is the plan with regards to money meant for CPF voluntary contribution (for now.)

Next blog will be on my passive income for the full year 2022 and also what to do in 2023.

Likely to be published only in the new year.

Happy New Year!

Recently published:
4.28% yield T-bill.

13 blog posts for a sharing session on investing for income.

I participated in a sharing session earlier today on investing for income in the local stock market. The group was made up of experienced real estate investors who are possibly interested in diversifying their passive income stream by investing in the local stock market.

So, I shared with them my little ideas regarding bonds and stocks and, to a large extent, drew upon past blog posts for this purpose. These were the ones in the notes I gave out:


1. Nobody cares more about our money than we do.

2. Perpetual bonds: Good or bad?

3. Leverage up and buy investment properties now?

4. Gear up and receive more passive income.

5. Bonds, REITs and the instant gratification of yield.


In the course of my rather long winded discourse, I also made verbal references to several other blog posts and I am listing them here for easy reference. Yes, I know it is a chore to comb my blog. I find it a bit demanding myself but thank goodness I still have a fairly good memory:


6. How should we approach REITs as investments for income now?

7. AIMS AMP Capital Industrial REIT: Making money.

8. Saizen REIT: Sell the entire portfolio or find a bigger partner.

9. A simple way to a double digit yielding portfolio.

10. Motivations and methods in investing.

11. Save 100% of your take home pay. What?

12. Recommended books for FA and TA.

13. How to be "One Up on Wall Street"?


It was invigorating as I fielded questions from participants and got to make some pocket money at the same time. :)

Related post:
Two blog posts I would like the recovery group to read.

Reemployed with lower pay and worried about retirement.

Reader says...
I have been a reader of your blog for many years now.

Similar to your childhood experience - my parents also went thru bankruptcy during my teens and bad memories of money lenders coming to the old house.

I am Malaysian and coming to 55 years old. I was made redundant middle of last year, was unemployed for 4 months and have since resumed working.






My current gross salary is just enough to cover my household expenses + medical insurance for the whole family. (wife+ 3 kids.)

My fear of becoming destitute in the old age has created self-stress, as I continue to have interrupted sleep & tension with family members as I continue to delay/disapprove of their wants.

I currently have > RM3.3Mil in Malaysia Bonds, EPF & fully paid-up endowment policies. I park SGD$0.57Mil in a Singapore bank and have 2 fully paid-up landed property (one for my parents and the other for my family worth a total of RM2.5Mil).

AK pls talk to yourself, How should this person 'live life' going forward?






AK says...
All of us need to plan for the day when we stop working either voluntarily or involuntarily.

Usually, it means saving some money first and then putting it to work.

Hopefully, by the time we stop working, we would be able to receive a regular and meaningful income to have a comfortable retirement.

If your gross salary is enough to only cover your expenses, it means that you do not have any money left to grow your savings. So, I can understand your worry.






However, I can see that you were prudent in your younger days. 

Having 2 fully paid homes, $0.6 million in savings and RM3.3 million in bonds, EPF and endowment, I feel that you could possibly have a comfortable enough retirement if you have a modest lifestyle.

Having said this, I agree that you should continue to be prudent when it comes to wants because your earned income does not have room for wants. 

To satisfy the wants, you would probably have to dig into your savings.





Assuming the old folks at home are financially independent, I would continue to work till my 3 children are financially independent.

If my parents depend on me financially, then, I would continue to work till they pass on and when all my children are financially independent.

Maybe, I could switch to part time work and have more leisure time when fewer people depend on me financially.






You could rent out one house when your parents pass on in future. 

The rental income plus the interest income from your bonds and EPF savings mean you would have a more meaningful passive income.

Money from your fully paid endowments and savings in the bank could be put to work when Mr. Market goes into a depression or whenever there is a good investment opportunity. I would think of these as your war chests.





If you are risk averse, you could think of purchasing a few annuities to fund your retirement. 

You might want to do this sooner than later so that you could start receiving another stream of passive income sooner.

At your age, your balance sheet is definitely not weak but with dependents, it could be exhausted quite quickly if you are not careful especially when you are not able to grow your savings meaningfully.






As long as you stay prudent when it comes to expenses, when you no longer have dependents, all else remaining equal, I believe that your retirement will still be a comfortable one.

Related posts:
1. Advice on saving.
2. Needs and wants.
3. To retire, have a plan.
4. Have an annuity?
5. Too late to plan at 57?