Tabulated summary:

Comparison of real returns from 1999-2009

In order to provide an adequate perspective on how real CPF returns measure up against that of the other countries, I’ve crunched all the above tabulated data and graphed them for better visualisation (click to enlarge) of real returns by the provident funds over the period of 10 years as follows.

Click to enlarge

Tan Kin Lian said...

July 26, 2011 4:35 PM

Post a Comment

http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2011/07/statement-by-tan-kin-lian-ensure-cpf.html

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

http://opposethetrend.blogspot.com/2011/07/ilp-performance-to-date.html?utm_source=feedburner& utm_medium=feed& utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OpposeTheTrend+%28Oppose+the+trend%29

Thursday, 28 July 2011

Best Bargain Must BUY: ILP

I had just received my ILP half yearly statement today.

I bought this policy from my friend when I first graduated from Uni when I have zero financial knowledge.
I was told that is good as it incorporate both investment and protection. It sound so wonderful to me then.

Let me share how " wonderful" this ILP is.

It is the " best" investment that I had ever invested in.

Policy Title: Manulife Flexi Aggressive portfolio.

Started from Aug 08, deducted $200 every month.
Change to $150/mth on Dec 09

Total premium paid to date: $6250
Current cash value as of July 2011: $1801.45
% gain/(loss): -71.18%

Where can you find such marvellous investment? Even my healthway which is currently at 40% loss cannot fight the 71.18%. Furthermore, you have no control over it.

This is the best investment cum protection plan that you can ever have. Please remember to sign up for it and get free 71.18%!

Posted by OT83 at 23:30

Lim Hwee Hua joins Jardine Cycle & Carriage

Four months in jail, penalty for GST offences

SINGAPORE

Suharry Abdullah, who worked at the now-defunct Republic Beverages Company, was also ordered to pay a penalty of about S$140,000 for creating false GST entries and fictitious invoices to defraud the Comptroller of GST.

The company, which stopped operating in 2009, was fined S$40,000 and ordered to pay the same penalty amount.

Suharry made false entries in his company’s GST returns from March 2008 to August 2008, resulting in net GST refund claims to which he was not entitled.

The total amount of false GST claims that he made was about S$32,000.

Suharry, who is now a taxi driver, had also created six fictitious purchase invoices when the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) requested supporting documents.

The IRAS also uncovered six forged suppliers’ invoices in Suharry’s attempt to mislead it into thinking his GST refund claims were genuine.

The total amount of GST involved for the forged invoices was nearly S$20,400.— A company director was sentenced to four months jail yesterday for Goods and Services Tax (GST) offences.

Rules can be set for new transport operators, too

Letter from Young Pak Nang

I refer to the report “Multiple transport operators could see commuters paying more, says Lui” (July 29).

Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew’s main argument against allowing multiple transport operators appears to be that new operators might “cherry-pick” lucrative routes, possibly resulting in loss-making routes costing more in fares.

He points out that the SMRT and SBS Transit are required to run a mix of profitable and loss-making routes under their universal service obligations.

What is there to stop the Government from imposing similar service requirements on new transport operators to prevent the “cherry-picking” that he views as unfair and unacceptable?

It is for the authorities to set the terms and conditions and for potential new entrants to decide whether to enter the business on those terms.

No reasonable commuter would expect the authorities to allow new operators a blank cheque to “cherry-pick” routes everyone recognises there must be a public-service factor in the public transport business.

WHY  they do not know HOW to do WHAT they TEACH  ? ? ? ?

Bosses’ packages have more than doubled in value over that period, while share prices have barely changed.

Furore as the boss’ pay cheque

As employee incomes stagnate, the earnings of their bosses are on the rise once more

Brian Groom

Britain’s outspoken Business Secretary Vince Cable is fulminating about “outrageous” executive pay awards and threatening government action. Across the developed world, bosses’ earnings are bouncing back as profits recover from the recession.

The political temperature is rising.

“There’s a serious problem, because executive pay has got way out of line with company performance and you’re getting rewards for failure, and the average of high-level pay has gone far ahead of share prices,” growls Mr Cable. “We’re looking at various ways of dealing with it.”

After a pause during the recession, bosses’ earnings are now increasing at the most sensitive time — just as tax rises and public spending cuts are eating into the already stagnant incomes of low and middle earners. Even some corporate leaders are worried about the damage this could do to already low levels of public trust in business.

Eighteen months ago, Sir Richard Lambert, at the time director-general of the United Kingdom’s CBI employers group, warned that “if leaders of big companies seem to occupy a different galaxy from the rest of the community, they risk being treated as aliens”. Now, Sir Richard says: “I think what’s happening is damaging and ultimately unsustainable.”

Chief executives at FTSE 100 companies saw their median earnings rise 32 per cent last year, treble the rise in share prices and well above workers’ average 2 per cent pay award, according to MM& K, a reward consultancy, and Manifest, a proxy voting agency.

In the United States, where top pay is also bouncing back, shareholders have been using new “say on pay” rules to stage protest votes during this year’s annual meeting season.

Executive pay packages have been rejected in at least 39 companies, including Hewlett-Packard and Jacobs Engineering.

Controversy is raging over a clause in the Dodd-Frank corporate governance reforms, due to come into effect over the coming months, which requires companies to publish the ratio of the boss’s pay to that of the median worker.

Congress is under pressure to scrap the rule — passed while the Democrats were in charge — while the Securities and Exchange Commission, which must draft the regulations, has been inundated with objections from companies warning of a “logistical nightmare”.

In Europe, the financial crisis and growing shareholder activism have helped to propel the issue up the agenda. “Say on pay” rules are spreading, as are disclosure requirements.

A green paper by Michel Barnier, the European Union’s Internal Market Commissioner, asks whether disclosure of remuneration policies and individual board members’ earnings should be made mandatory, and whether it should be obligatory for such policies to be put to shareholders for approval.