Monday, September 19, 2016

Another useful article on CPF - CPF Special Account vs Supplementary Retirement Scheme

Another useful article on CPF; 

CPF SA comes out ahead but it locks up your capital. 

SRS provide the liquidity option (but with a 5% penalty). 

Both provides tax deductions.

Image result for cpf special account vs srs



CPF SA vs SRS: Which is better?

Cai Haoxiang
The Business Times
Monday, Sep 19, 2016

The Straits Times

LAST week, we discussed why the irreversible process of transferring Central Provident Fund (CPF) Ordinary Account (OA) monies to the Special Account (SA) might not be that good a deal.

For most people in their 30s and up, the gains from additional interest in the SA are arguably outweighed by how you cannot deploy those OA savings for property. To build up CPF SA monies, an alternative way is to top it up with fresh cash while enjoying tax savings.

Today, we explore a separate retirement savings method called the Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS).

We have written on the scheme in the past two years ("Not just Some Retirement Scheme", "How Supplementary Retirement Scheme works", Nov 24, 2014; "Can you start on the SRS too early?" Oct 26, 2015; "How to max out tax savings via SRS", Nov 23, 2015).

Like the CPF SA top-up, the SRS can give you tax deductions. But what is it exactly? Comparing the two, which one is better?

We conclude that the CPF SA comes out ahead, but only if you are willing to tolerate the lock-up period on your cash.

What is the SRS?

The SRS is a government scheme operated by the three local banks. It is a tax-deferred savings and investment plan. These schemes are common in countries such as the US and Canada. The idea is for you to enjoy tax savings when you contribute money into the scheme, as whatever you contribute will be exempt from tax now.

In the SRS, each dollar you contribute reduces your taxable income in the year by the amount contributed, up to a cap of S$15,300 for Singaporeans. So the first benefit is up front in the form of lower taxes.

Meanwhile, whatever you contribute to the SRS can be invested in local stocks, funds, bonds, and some insurance products.

When you retire, and need the income to supplement your CPF Life annuity, you can begin withdrawals from the scheme. You are still liable for taxes on whatever you eventually take out. This is why the scheme is a "tax-deferred" one.

Withdrawals are treated as income. Withdrawals before the statutory retirement age at the time of your first contribution, currently at 62, will also have a 5 per cent penalty.

But if you use the SRS the "proper way", and withdraw money only after you stop working in your 60s, you are not likely to pay much tax.

Advantages of the SRS

What is important to note for the SRS is how it is primarily a retirement savings vehicle - which just happens to offer you the flexibility to invest the money before you withdraw it many years down the road. The SRS is not primarily an investment plan.

It has two unique characteristics that are meant to entice people to participate.

First, you are only liable to pay taxes on half the amount you withdraw upon retirement age.

Second, upon retirement age, you can space out your withdrawals over a maximum of 10 years, further reducing what you are likely to pay under Singapore's progressive tax system.

These two features combine effectively with the progressive tax system here.

Singapore's tax system is such that if you have little income, you pay minimal tax. The first S$20,000 of income is tax-free.

Because half of what is withdrawn from the SRS is not taxable, retirees can withdraw up to S$40,000 a year tax-free.

Withdrawals, once begun in retirement age, have to be completed within 10 years. Thus a retiree with no other income can have S$400,000 in the SRS and still enjoy tax-free withdrawals provided they are spread out over those 10 years.

If you can claim other tax reliefs from the authorities, you are likely to enjoy tax-free withdrawals on an even larger amount. The additional amount is the relevant tax relief, times two.

For example, if you stay with a dependant parent, you can claim S$9,000 per parent. This means that if you are claiming for one dependant parent, you can withdraw S$40,000 + (S$9,000 x 2) = S$58,000 tax-free every year.

We multiply the relief by two because only half of what you withdraw, S$29,000 in the above case, is subject to tax. After claiming S$9,000 of tax reliefs, you hit the tax-free S$20,000 figure.

So it is possible to have S$500,000 in your SRS and still enjoy tax-free withdrawals over 10 years.

This is an amount that only people who start contributing early, or enjoy decent investment success, will be able to accumulate.

Disadvantages of the SRS

Talk of investment success, and we come to a disadvantage of the SRS known as the "implicit capital gains tax problem".

Admittedly, this is a "happy problem". If you start contributing in your early 20s and become extraordinarily successful in picking undervalued stocks to invest in with your SRS money, it is possible to end up with more than a million in the account by the time you hit withdrawal age.

You will then end up effectively getting taxed quite a bit on the capital gains and dividends you received. Whatever you withdraw is treated as income, and with such a large amount, you are likely to be taxed. If you had invested the money outside of the SRS, you wouldn't be taxed at all.

This might not be a big deal, as discussed in previous columns.

The tax rate you eventually end up paying is still likely to be small percentage-wise given Singapore's low tax regime and your ability to spread withdrawals over 10 years.

Investment success might come as the early withdrawal penalty is a psychological deterrent against trading rashly.

Another related issue is the "implicit estate tax" problem. Singapore does not have an estate tax. But if you kick the bucket while having a large amount of money in the SRS, the balances form part of your estate. Half of that sum is subject to income tax. You can't spread it out over many years. It will be taxed at one go. Your beneficiary is unlikely to complain, though.

Another issue might occur when prices have risen substantially by the time you retire, but tax policy has not caught up. For example, your ideal standard of living might be achieved by withdrawing S$40,000 a year tax-free from the SRS today.

Half a century later, maybe the same standard of living that you need to have costs S$100,000 a year, such that you want to withdraw more from the SRS. But to do so, you might have to pay more taxes on withdrawals. Hopefully, by then, the income bracket for tax-free withdrawals would have risen to match inflation.

How much should you put in the SRS, then?

The question is tricky because it depends on what your estimate of inflation is, and whether you have other retirement savings plans.

If you don't like the fact that your capital gains and dividends will potentially be taxed by investing through the SRS, don't put too much in it. You can stop contributing to it or actively managing the account once you are around the S$400,000 mark needed for 10-year tax-free withdrawals. Or don't invest the money and merely use it as unemployment insurance, as explained later.

If you think there will be some inflation, as seems likely, then you can aim to have more than S$400,000 in the account by the time you retire.

As tax brackets adjust to incomes, you are likely to be able to withdraw most of your money tax-free still.

What is more important is that the SRS should not be used to gamble in overpriced stocks or companies with dodgy balance sheets.

Finally, the biggest threat to the viability of the SRS is rising taxes. If taxes are far higher in the future than today, such that even the first S$20,000 of income earned will be taxed, then SRS savers will be up in arms. Their tax savings now will be meaningless. One has to hope this situation will never come to pass.

Key differences

With two separate schemes which one can enjoy tax savings from, you might ask which one is preferable: contributing cash to the CPF SA, or to the SRS. Both, after all, are very long term investment and savings vehicles.

Tax reliefs are limited to S$7,000 a year in the SA and S$15,300 a year in the SRS.

But the SA offers a far better rate of return when you adjust for risk.

It currently returns the current floor of 4 per cent a year. By contrast, cash left in the SRS merely earns the bank deposit rate, which is currently a paltry 0.05 per cent.

Not only do you enjoy a better rate in the SA, you can withdraw the money earlier.

At age 55, once you set aside the relevant retirement sum, you can withdraw the excess from the SA.

Whether you will have an excess amount of money in the SA by then, of course, depends on whether you can build up a sufficiently large sum earlier on. If you can, the snowballing effect is likely to cause your SA to compound beyond the inflation-adjusted minimum retirement sum by the time you hit 55.

So if you don't plan to withdraw the money anyway till you are in your 50s or 60s, the SA is better.

Either way, after you hit the full retirement sum cap on CPF SA, currently at S$161,000, you will not be able to contribute more into it.

Investors who want more flexibility, however, might prefer the SRS. Money in the SRS is not locked up. You can actually withdraw it at any time, though you face an onerous 5 per cent penalty.

Nevertheless, should you need the money to survive in an emergency before you hit retirement age, the 5 per cent penalty will still be worth paying - provided you contribute to the SRS from a marginal tax bracket of 7 per cent and above.

If you are comfortably in the 7 per cent bracket, making say S$70,000 a year and up, you will still come out ahead if you suddenly become unemployed and need some SRS money.

You can withdraw S$20,000 as tax-free "income" a year and pay the 5 per cent penalty. The penalty will still be lower than the tax you saved from contributing from the 7 per cent marginal income tax bracket.

In fact, you can even withdraw up to S$45,000 a year. At that amount, your effective tax rate will be 2 per cent. Combined with the 5 per cent penalty, you would have broken even on your participation in the SRS.

If you can claim tax reliefs, you will be able to withdraw even more.

However, the 5 per cent penalty will not be worth paying if you are already working, haven't turned 62, and plan to use the money to, say, buy a property. This is because withdrawals will bump you up to even higher tax brackets. It does not make sense to pay taxes from a marginal tax bracket higher than what you contributed into the scheme.

Hence the SRS can be used as an "unemployment insurance" account, where you contribute some money every year to guard against the scenario of having no income in your 40s or 50s.

Retirement first, investment second

Ultimately, to make sense of both the SRS and CPF SA, one should treat them as retirement schemes first and investment schemes second.

The retirement imperative - the idea of saving money in your youth to be withdrawn after you retire - should outweigh the investment imperative of making a quick buck.

You are likely to be satisfied only if you contribute to these schemes with retirement in mind.

When comparing the SA with the SRS, the main thing to note is that the SA lets you take less risk with your money for guaranteed returns. The tradeoff is that you cannot touch the money till you are 55 and have met the requisite retirement sums then.

By contrast, the SRS is not likely to yield much other than the initial tax savings.

You have to take risks with that money to grow it. For the SRS, achieving a consistent 4 per cent a year, which is what you get in the CPF SA, is a tough hurdle to beat.

So what should a young person do? From the standpoint of saving for retirement, you can first put S$7,000 in the SA every year until the account is maxed out. I wouldn't invest SA money, but if you want to, there will be schemes such as the upcoming Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme and the existing CPF Investment Scheme for you to do so.

Then, if you have spare cash, put some money in the SRS, with the intention of guarding against periods of unemployment.

After building up a temporary "unemployment cash fund", the rest of the money in the SRS should be put to work prudently.

To get more yield, at a higher risk, it is best to stick the money in low-cost exchange-traded funds (ETFs). You can use SRS funds to buy ETFs listed on the Singapore Exchange.

If you want to partake in the risky business of stock-picking, one place to start is the strongest real estate investment trusts backed by the Temasek-linked names.

Personally, I've put a portion of my SRS money in a couple of cyclical stocks with strong balance sheets. They are trading at depressed valuations now, but will hopefully pick up when the global economy gets better. But much of my SRS is in cash, to be deployed in a bigger downturn.

To sum up, there are a number of strategies through government vehicles to save for retirement or get higher yields. The guiding principle to remember is to be conservative and avoid over-reaching for yield or high returns.

First, you can transfer your CPF OA to the SA. But as I am still saving for my first property, I prefer not to do so.

However, the SA offers a decent interest rate. I will use my cash to top it up first, and enjoy tax savings. Some cash will then go into the SRS for more tax savings. Some SRS monies will be invested.

The SRS is ultimately "supplementary". It is meant to complement the CPF OA and SA, not replace them.

It is nice to have. But you should only put in cash you don't need.

How much should you put in the SRS?

WHEN figuring out how much you should put into the Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS), have an idea of how much you need from the scheme first.

Then figure out how many years you want to contribute to it. To maximise tax savings, you should contribute while you are working. For most people, this period spans between 10 and 35 years.

There is no age limit for contributions to the SRS.

But if you have hit the statutory retirement age fixed at the time of your first contribution, currently at 62, and have started withdrawing, you can no longer contribute.

After figuring out how many years you plan to contribute, use the table as a guide for how much you need to contribute a year, assuming a yield of 0, 2 or 4 per cent.

If you are in your 40s and just want a bit of spending money when you are not working, say S$150,000, you need to put in S$6,200 a year for 20 years, assuming a 2 per cent yield.

By contributing S$6,200 a year from an 11.5 per cent tax bracket, you can save S$713 of taxes a year.

If you aspire to hit the S$400,000 target for tax-free withdrawals of S$40,000 a year over 10 years, assuming no other income, you have to start contributing earlier.

If you are in your early 30s, you can hit the target by contributing S$13,400 a year, even if you do not make any returns on the money.

Finally, those who just entered the workforce, with a 35-year contribution period, can aim for even larger sums at the time of withdrawal.

If you can claim tax reliefs for supporting children or parents in your 60s, you will pay very little in taxes even if you have S$600,000 or more in your SRS account to withdraw over the maximum 10-year period.

The gist here is if you are in your 30s or older with still a bit of time in your career ahead, and you want to contribute to the SRS, feel free to contribute up to the maximum of S$15,300 a year with little fear of having to pay significant taxes upon withdrawal.

You might only get taxed a bit more if you make at least a consistent 4 per cent return over 30 years.

Given current market conditions, a 4 per cent yield will be an impressive feat, which essentially doubles what you have put in.


Thursday, September 15, 2016

Effect of compounding and the Dividend Reinvestment Plan (DRP) offered by S'pore REITs

In the course of my interaction with a few friends, I found out that not many are aware of the effect of compounding and that you can apply that when you invest in REITs that offer Dividend Reinvestment Plan (DRP).

Unitholders can enjoy the following benefits from the DRP:
- Can elect to receive Units in lieu of part or all of the cash amount of distribution
- Fully-paid new Units are issued at a discount to volume weighted average price
- No brokerage costs payable by participating Unitholders
- No stamp duty payable by participating Unitholders
- Units issued will be entitled to future distributions declared

You can go to this link that has an useful illustration (http://www.dividend.com/my-money/the-pros-and-cons-of-compound-interest)

So. take advantage of DRP and use compounding to your advantage.



Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Why I won't be transferring my CPF OA to the SA

Why I won't be transferring my CPF OA to the SA

Cai Haoxiang
The Business Times
Monday, Sep 12, 2016

CASH TOP-UP METHOD: You are deploying cash yielding nothing into an account yielding something. The interest rate differential is a lot more significant than what you get by shifting the OA to the SA.

RECENTLY, the media has highlighted the Central Provident Fund (CPF) as a way to build up one's savings. Financial bloggers, too, emphasise the CPF's importance from time to time.

One idea out there is how one can transfer one's monies from the Ordinary Account (OA), meant for housing typically, into the Special Account (SA), which pays a higher interest and is meant for retirement.

The transfer is irreversible. But once transferred, one can enjoy the 4 per cent risk-free annual yield on the SA which is better than anything else out there.

Transfer early enough and you might even be able to build up a S$1 million pot in your retirement account by the time you retire in your 60s.

The million-dollar figure can be hit assuming you keep working and contributing to the account, and do not overpay for a property.

At age 55, some money will be taken out from the SA to form the Full Retirement Sum needed to purchase the CPF Life annuity at age 65.

The remaining money sits in the SA. The account becomes a high-yielding "bank account" that one can withdraw living expenses from anytime.

All this sounds good in theory.

But upon reflection, I realised I should not transfer my OA to the SA. Nor should most people do it.

The opportunity cost of locking a source of liquidity up in the SA in my younger days is too much, compared to what I can do with the money.

The benefits, meanwhile, are limited, if I don't give a very long time for the SA to compound way into my 70s or 80s.

Missing out

The key problem is I will miss out on the chance to use my OA savings for property purchases.

Some might say OA monies should be left untouched to accumulate at 2.5 per cent a year, while cash, currently yielding nothing, should be used instead for property.

But they are thinking only in terms of current economic conditions.

It is not worthwhile to use OA monies to buy property now because we are stuck in a down-cycle. Cooling measures are unlikely to be lifted anytime soon. Rental yields are low. Prices are still relatively high compared to incomes.

It might make sense to leave money in the higher-yielding OA now, when bank accounts yield nothing.

Yet in a true property market downturn, I will be able to buy undervalued properties that have the potential to appreciate far more than 2.5 per cent a year.

If that situation ever strikes Singapore, I want to marshal all the resources at my disposal to make a big buy.

Meanwhile, what is the opportunity cost of not transferring money to the SA and leaving it in the OA?

I will miss out on some interest, sure. But I won't miss out on much in the short run.

The SA pays 4 per cent a year, while the OA pays 2.5 per cent.

Say I have S$100,000 in the OA that I could transfer over.

If I don't transfer, I will miss out on 1.5 percentage points worth of interest on that S$100,000, which is around S$1,500 a year. Due to compounding, this figure will rise every year.

But I'm willing to pay a price to have the flexibility to make a bigger property purchase. The 2.5 per cent a year that I get on my OA monies is still not a small sum. In fact, it is higher than the yield on 10-year Singapore bonds right now.

Because I want the flexibility to use my OA as I please, and because the SA does not yield significantly more than the OA, I'll pass on transferring the OA to the SA.

Thus I don't need to be beholden to the idea of accumulating S$1 million in the CPF. Money is a fungible concept across asset classes and pension monies.

The catch is that I am forgoing safe returns in exchange for a bet on the property market.

Yet because I intend to stay in the property I buy, I will derive intangible benefits beyond the value of the asset.

A better way

In the meantime, I can still build up my SA monies through other means.

The easiest way is to contribute new cash into the SA. It makes sense if there are no better-yielding instruments out there at acceptable risk levels.

Provided one has not hit the Full Retirement Sum (FRS) limit in the SA, one can get an equivalent amount of tax relief by contributing up to S$7,000 a year into one's SA under the Retirement Sum Topping-up Scheme. Tax reliefs are capped at S$7,000 a year.

The cash top-up method of building up the SA allows one to build up SA monies slowly, such that one can enjoy tax savings for many years to come. You won't be able to top up once you hit the FRS cap in the SA.

Thus by hitting the FRS on the SA later and using this method, there are several advantages.

First, you are deploying cash yielding nothing into an account yielding something. The interest rate differential is a lot more significant than what you get by shifting the OA to the SA.

Second, you get tax savings.

Third, by hitting the FRS cap later, you can continue deploying fresh cash to reap those tax savings.

Everybody's circumstances vary. I did the sums for myself, comparing my end result if I were to transfer a substantial sum from the OA to the SA versus leaving it there. In both cases, I continue contributing S$7,000 to the SA every year until I couldn't due to limits hit.

I take into account how in the transfer scenario, I will not be able to contribute S$7,000 after a few years, because I will have hit the FRS cap on my SA.

I also take note that the Medisave Account overflows into the SA once the Basic Healthcare Sum of S$50,000 is hit, and overflows into the OA once the FRS is hit.

I also assume I use my OA to pay a 20 per cent downpayment of a typical resale five-room flat several years down the road.

As it turns out, transferring OA to the SA now, only gives me a S$3,000 boost to combined OA and SA savings at age 55, compared to not doing it and topping up the SA with cash instead. If I account for tax savings, I might even be better off not transferring at all.

It was a surprising result. But it happened because I had to wipe out my OA to pay for the flat in the scenario where I transferred OA monies to the SA.

But I didn't have to do so for the scenario where I didn't do the transfer. The extra OA money I already had was able to snowball over time in a way that negates the extra gains to the SA from transferring money into the account early.

Those extra gains simply weren't big enough, perhaps because I did the transfer in my 30s instead of my 20s, and because my time horizon was only till age 55.

Meanwhile, extra Medisave monies piled into the OA, adding to the snowball effect.

Property prudence

To sum up, I don't think transferring money from the OA to the SA is for most people, unless they are wealthy property-owning youths with cash to spare.

Given how high property prices are in Singapore, and how important property ownership is to the Asian psyche, most people should stock up on dry powder in the OA to deploy to property when the time is right.

But to be clear, leaving money in the OA is the riskier choice, because there is a chance that you can overpay for a property.

Yet transferring OA monies into the SA might not yield as much benefit as people think.

Ultimately, to hit a S$1 million retirement sum without having to start a business, one still has to stay employed for as long as possible, and to be prudent in one's property purchases.

The money that can then accumulate in the CPF will far outweigh whatever you end up transferring into it.

Singapore’s CapitaLand Callable Bond Gets Risky Bets, iFast Says (source: Bloomberg)

Singapore’s CapitaLand Callable Bond Gets Risky Bets, iFast Says
2016-09-13 02:01:47.753 GMT
By David Yong
(http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-13/singapore-s-capitaland-callable-bond-gets-risky-bets-ifast-says)

(Bloomberg) -- Market prices on callable bonds sold by Singapore’s biggest property developer suggest some investors aren’t fully aware of risks associated with the notes’ structure, according to fund researcher iFast Corp.  CapitaLand Ltd.’s S$400 million ($295 million) of securities due in 2022, which the issuer has an option to pay off early at par value on Jan. 12, traded at 102.1 cents on the dollar on Sept. 8, according to Singapore exchange data.  That makes the yield to call, which measures projected gains or losses for investors purchasing the securities now if the firm opts to buy them back in January, minus 0.55 percent.  The bond coupon will rise to 4.5 percent from 3.8 percent if the notes aren’t redeemed on Jan. 12, compared with CapitaLand’s average borrowing cost of 3.4 percent in the first six months this year.  As the firm can redeem or refinance the notes at a cheaper cost, the risk of losses for individual investors is high, according to Terence Lin, an assistant director of bonds and portfolio management at iFast in Singapore.
“It’s a risky bet because CapitaLand has the incentive to redeem the bonds due to the expensive cost of servicing them,’’ Lin said.  “The only logical explanation is that some investors
are betting the bonds won’t be called so as to get the juicy coupon for another year.’’

‘Due Diligence’

CapitaLand had S$4.6 billion of cash and unused lines as of June 30 to support its refinancing and working capital needs, the company said in an e-mailed reply to questions.  It will
finalize funding options related to the bonds “only nearer to date of redemption or repayment," it said.  “The investing public are advised to carry out their own due diligence and consult
their investment advisors before making any investment decisions.”

The last time another local-currency bond faced a similar situation was some three years ago, when perpetual debt issued by Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp. traded at a negative yield
before the lender exercised an option to call it in July 2013, according to iFast’s Lin.
CapitaLand’s 2022 callable notes were issued by a unit called CapitaLand Mall Asia Ltd. in January 2012. CapitaLand took full control of the unit in July 2014 via a S$3.18 billion
takeover offer. Besides the 2022 securities, the unit also has S$350 million of bonds maturing in August 2017, according to Bloomberg data.


Thursday, September 8, 2016

RETAIL BONDS INVESTORS: CapitaLand Mall Asia 10-year Callable Step-up Bond trading at negative yield!!

Should retail bonds investors buy CMA retail bonds in the secondary market?
(CapitaLand Mall Asia 10-year Callable Step-up Bond; Counter Name: CapMallA3.8%b220112)






CapitaLand Mall Asia’s (CMA) retail bonds bearing an annual interest rate of 3.8% that are expiring in 2021, are recently traded at S$1.02.

CMA has the rights to redeem the bonds in Jan 2017 which means that investors can get back principal of S$1.00, lower than the amount they have invested but not including transaction fees. Retail bonds investors may end up with negative rates of returns.

My view is that CMA will LIKELY redeem the bonds at PAR as the coupon rate it has to pay will increase from 3.8% to 4.5% in 2017 if it does not redeem the bonds. I think that the company can refinance this bonds by issuing another bonds for the same tenure at much lower rate than 4.5%.

Do consider carefully if you want to buy this bonds at a premium in the secondary market!!

Saturday, July 9, 2016


Read this article from the straits times a while back. 
Any views out there? 
Useful? Sketchy? 
Do share your views if any. 


How to invest if you have $20k or more

(source: http://www.straitstimes.com/business/invest/how-to-invest-if-you-have-20k-or-more)

Rachael BoonTailor portfolio to risk appetite

What would you do if you had an extra $20,000, $50,000 or even $100,000 sitting in the bank?
You could leave it there to collect meagre interest, or splurge on an exotic holiday trip and lots of new gadgets. Our suggestion is to make your money work hard, and various experts offer some tips that you can mix and match according to your risk appetite.
Mr Marc Lansonneur, DBS Bank's head of investment products in Singapore, says: "Investment strategies should be based on some key guidelines that apply to any investment in general."
CTake some of his advice for a start: Define your investment objectives, the time horizon of different types of investments, aim for your overall savings to yield at least as much as the inflation rate, assess your risk profile and do your homework. Mr Lansonneur adds: "Singapore's inflation forecast for 2016 is around 1.3 per cent - so that would be the minimum yield you should target to achieve for your overall savings to prevent its value from eroding."
Mr Dennis Khoo, UOB's head of personal financial services in Singapore, says investors should always adopt an investment strategy they are comfortable with.
"A younger individual can afford to take on more risk in their investments because they have time on their side, while an older individual may choose to be more risk-averse." He notes that when it comes to investing, investors should follow the general principles of diversification, dividend investing, compounding and time.
WITH $20,000
At this stage, you could very well be new to investing, saving for a few years and are looking to grow that amount in the near future.
Mr Khoo takes the example of an investor with a moderate risk appetite, a 20-year time horizon and seeking a 5 per cent investment return.
  • HOW TO INVEST

  • WITH $20,000 - 100 % Unit trusts
    WITH $50,000 - 40% Stocks And 60 % Unit trusts
    WITH $100,000 - 60% Stocks, 30 % Fixed income assets And 10 % Real estate investment trusts
He says: "For a $20,000 investment, it can be strategic to invest 100 per cent of the sum into unit trusts and reinvest any distributions (payouts), thus accumulating compound interest over time.
"The investor should avoid spreading the small investment sum over a large number of stocks as dealing costs would be too high."
He adds that this way, the investor has the benefit of being invested in a diversified portfolio and getting the specialists to manage the investment - stock and asset selection - and risks or volatility.
Mr Lansonneur says that many investment products - unit trusts, retail bonds, single shares or fixed deposits - are available to beginner or novice investors who start with $20,000 in capital.
"They should start using simple products such as unit trusts to access these asset classes before choosing for themselves individual shares or bonds," he adds.
"Unit trusts are flexible and well-adapted tools to populate investment portfolios. They provide the expertise of a fund manager, diversification - investors can access balanced funds that combine bonds and equities - liquidity and, in some cases, income distribution."
He says that exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are also becoming more popular as they let investors put money in various asset classes and indices.
Mr David Mok, IPP's investment and research head, suggests that a regional unit trust or an ETF that covers a broad geographical area reduces country-specific or firm-specific risks.
He brings up a point about no-vice investors putting all their funds into blue-chip stocks.
"Blue-chip stocks are known for their stability but it can still be risky if an investor does not diversify," he says. For example, you could have invested in a blue chip like Sembcorp Marine. From last August to this month, the share price fell about 32 per cent because of the plunge in oil prices, he notes, adding: "Such risk can be mitigated through diversification, and an effective way to go about it is through unit trusts or ETFs."
He also notes that many Singaporeans invest only in the local stock market, which means they neglect opportunities in foreign markets which have decent returns.
The S&P 500 index, for instance, had a one-year return of 6.5 per cent, while the Nikkei Index's one-year return was 32.48 per cent as at last Monday, says Mr Mok, citing Bloomberg data.
WITH $50,000
Unit trusts still emerge a top choice among experts for a $50,000 cash pile.
Mr Gregory Choy, OCBC Bank's wealth advisory head, explains: "The advantage of investing in unit trusts is that it allows investors to participate in the market with a smaller investment outlay and still be able to have a well-diversified investment, as opposed to investing into direct equities, which generally requires a higher outlay." He suggests that novice investors look into global balanced funds or multi-asset funds.
Such funds usually invest in a good mix of global diversified assets, which in turn helps investors manage market risk effectively.
At this stage, Mr Khoo says, you can afford to allocate a greater proportion to stocks as long as your cash needs are met.
Consider allocating 40 per cent to stocks and 60 per cent to unit trusts, for instance. Mr Mok suggests having five funds, up from three funds if you have only $20,000. These could be regional funds that are globally diversified.
He adds that a larger investment amount would benefit more from diversification.
Mr Mok also points out: "Equity is favoured over bonds for young investors who have a very long investment horizon as they will be able to ride through any volatility in the market.
"On the other hand, bonds are favoured over equity for retirees who do not want excess volatility in their retirement portfolios."
WITH $100,000
Mr Khoo says it could be time to look at an allocation across stocks at 60 per cent, fixed income assets at 30 per cent, and real estate investment trusts at 10 per cent. "Such a diverse portfolio can help reduce market risks and generate steady returns in the long term."
He also thinks that a cost-effective way to achieve portfolio diversification is through global multi-asset mutual funds.
Mr Choy adds that you could look to adding some other asset classes to enhance investment returns on top of unit trusts.
If you do not already have ETFs, consider adding them to the mix, and stocks.
"However, they should keep such investments at no more than 20 to 30 per cent of their investment funds, as single-stock investments do carry a higher level of concentrated risk, which might present volatility more than what the investor could withstand," says Mr Choy, adding that the remaining 70 to 80 per cent of your investment funds should be invested through unit trusts to form the core portfolio.
GENERAL TIPS
Regardless of how much you have, you can also tailor your portfolio according to your risk appetite.
Mr Lansonneur says a low-risk portfolio could have 42 per cent of the total investment amount in fixed-income products such as bonds, 28 per cent in equities and 30 per cent in cash.
For a medium risk portfolio, put 29 per cent in fixed income, 56 per cent in equities, 12 per cent in cash and 3 per cent in alternative investments such as gold.
He suggests people with a high-risk appetite should have 4 per cent in fixed income, 89 per cent in equities, 7 per cent in alternatives and none in cash.
"The riskier the product, the more work you will need to do in learning about its upsides and downsides," says Mr Lansonneur, stressing that you have to understand the products you wish to invest in.
He adds: "For cash investments, investors can choose to place their deposits in principal-guaranteed accounts such as fixed deposits or high-yielding cash accounts."
One helpful resource for those seeking to construct their personal portfolios is DBS Model Portfo-lios (www.dbs.com.sg/treasures-private-client/investments/de-fault.page), which are dynamic asset allocation models that are regularly updated.
You have to review your own investment portfolio regularly as well, says Mr Mok, and do it quarterly or every six months, and rebalance it when needed.
He notes: "While model portfo-lios are important in helping investors diversify within their risk tolerances, there is solid evidence that active asset allocation, as opposed to staying in a static portfolio, tremendously enhances returns during troubled times - which means going defensive in terms of asset allocation."
Mr Choy reminds investors that achieving a higher return entails undertaking a higher level of risk.
"A novice investor should understand his risk appetite in order to understand what return he should expect," he advises.
"The investor should work with his financial adviser to develop the investment plan to achieve the appropriate level of return according to the investor's risk appetite."

Friday, July 8, 2016

Ellipsiz: Mandatory conditional takeover offer @ $0.38

Interesting observation on Ellipsiz. 

Back in 2015, David Lum (Lum Chang) bought a huge chunk of shares at $0.14 (pre-consolidation), post consolidation is about $0.42.

It announced a mandatory conditional cash offer last night.
- Offer price: $0.38
- Conditional: That is holds more than 50% (currently: 34%)
- Note that it has no intention to change anything to the company including its listing status.

What is its intention? Signalling to the market that the company is undervalued? Using this opportunity to increase its stake?

Closed at $0.39.....slightly above offer price.

Some key statistics below could throw some lights:
Latest financials: @ March'16
- NAV: $0.74cents
- Cash: $39M
- Gearing: 4%
- Dividend: 3.68% (source: http://sgx.com/wps/portal/sgxweb/home/company_disclosure/stockfacts?page=1&code=BIX&lang=en-us)

- Probe Card Solutions (contributes two third of its total revenue)
  • Achieved 3Q revenues of approximately $14.3M, a 2% increase when compared to 2Q.
  • Bookings jumped in 3Q, with an increase of 38% QoQ.
  • CMOS Image Sensor (CIS) orders continue to be strong, with revenues up 26% from 2Q


Lum Chang MD and sons launch mandatory cash offer for Ellipsiz

(source: business times: http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/companies-markets/lum-chang-md-and-sons-launch-mandatory-cash-offer-for-ellipsiz)

MEMBERS of the family that controls construction company Lum Chang Holdings have launched a takeover offer for Ellipsiz, a semiconductor equipment provider.
They are offering S$0.38 for each share of the mainboard-listed firm which it does not already own, it said in a Singapore Exchange filing released on Thursday evening.
The offer price values Ellipsiz, which offers products and services to the semiconductor industry, at about S$63.5 million.
Lum Chang managing director David Lum Kok Seng and his two sons, Kelvin Lum Wen-Sum and Adrian Lum Wen Hong, are launching the mandatory cash offer via their vehicle Bevrian Pte Ltd.



Prior to Thursday's acquisition, Bevrian held about 29.35 per cent of Ellipsiz's shares.
The takeover offer was triggered after Bevrian purchased about 7.93 million shares at S$0.38 apiece that resulted in them controlling about 34.10 per cent of Ellipsiz.
Mr Kelvin Lum has been an executive director of Ellipsiz since March 1, 2016.
Bevrian said it intends for Ellipsiz to continue with its existing business activities and maintain its listing status, with no present plans for any major changes to the company businesses.
Ellipsiz shares closed S$0.01 higher at S$0.37 on Thursday.