How much is enough for retirement in Singapore?

[starlight1968sg]

kyith:

there is this fear that if the sum is below minimum sum, you will never see your money. it just means that you have less money at age 65 to convert to CPF Life, which is an annuity that distributes $X annually until the assured passed away.


if you get all the money out, you will need to think about how to spend wisely till your last days. the theoractical safe method by academics: still points back to an annuity.

If I am not wrong, we can defer the buying of CPF Life to even after age 65?

[kyith]

starlight1968sg:

kyith:

there is this fear that if the sum is below minimum sum, you will never see your money. it just means that you have less money at age 65 to convert to CPF Life, which is an annuity that distributes $X annually until the assured passed away.


if you get all the money out, you will need to think about how to spend wisely till your last days. the theoractical safe method by academics: still points back to an annuity.

If I am not wrong, we can defer the buying of CPF Life to even after age 65?

there seem to be some changes, such at the enhanced cpf life would be better funded and higher payout.

this is not special. in the USA social security, there is a recommendation that if you can delay the moment u start drawing social security from 65 to 70 years, your payout is larger.

essentially, the longer you delay the larger the amount for annuity, but your 'return on investment' may be lower. but make no mistake, when you are de-accumulating you are not worried about the return but the cash flow

[starlight1968sg]

Kyith

My concern is if the cpf member dies while yet to hop into the cpf life, does this mean the cpf money will go to his beneficiaries listed in the cpf nomination?

[kyith]

i think so starlight, though i cannot confirm. even in the old days there is this part of cpf life that bequest a certain amount to beneficiaries.


theoractically have not ‘bought into’ cpf life at that point.

[starlight1968sg]

I was relooking at the title of this thread.

To be more objective, I think the age at which one amass the specific amt of money is relevant. In other words, if one is at age 45, having 1 mil is not enough. But if one is at age 65, then having 1 mil with no debts except the unforeseen medical expenses is probably enough for a simple lifestyle.

[zbear]

starlight1968sg:

I was relooking at the title of this thread.

To be more objective, I think the age at which one amass the specific amt of money is relevant. In other words, if one is at age 45, having 1 mil is not enough. But if one is at age 65, then having 1 mil with no debts except the unforeseen medical expenses is probably enough for a simple lifestyle.

I think bottom line is what kind of lifestyle, any financial commitments (children) and any passive income will determine at what age you can retire or rather not receiving anymore income from a job.

I still find it hard to believe financial gurus saying that S1m is not enough for 1 person to retire if you live a simple lifestyle. After all when you are in yr 50s or 60s, do you still need branded stuff, do you eat a lot?

[starlight1968sg]

zbear:

I still find it hard to believe financial gurus saying that S1m is not enough for 1 person to retire if you live a simple lifestyle. After all when you are in yr 50s or 60s, do you still need branded stuff, do you eat a lot?

Precisely!
At age 55, if one has 1 mil and can live till 90 (well above the average of 80 for men), then he has 1mil/35 years which means he has 2.3k per mth to spend, ignoring the inflation of cse.
The uncertainty would be the medical costs.

[MrsKiasu]

starlight1968sg:

I was relooking at the title of this thread.

To be more objective, I think the age at which one amass the specific amt of money is relevant. In other words, if one is at age 45, having 1 mil is not enough. But if one is at age 65, then having 1 mil with no debts except the unforeseen medical expenses is probably enough for a simple lifestyle.

Good for thinking exercise..

Only if the person stopped working/accummulating wealth at the age of 45? If this person continues to grow his nest, he will probably has more than $1m by the time he reaches 65..

Or if we want to compare who will have a more comfortable lifestyle after retirement...maybe at which age they could accumulate their first $1m (think it's abt the same as what you wrote in your first sentence)..provided they have same lifestyle, same commitment, same earning pattern etc..

But who knows, life always have surprises..today you may be having lesser than most of your friends.. and one day, you hit a TOTO jackpot and suddenly, you will be so much wealthier than many of your friends

[kyith]

When I saw the results, I think the folks here need $1 to 2 mil. The thing to think about is whether the retirees now need this amount of money.


When I went to the CPF Focus Group, they lead us through an exercise to determine why $1300/mth is adequate if you are retiring tomorrow. The exercise was quite useful for all to see if they have enough for retirement.

In my research on retirement, financial independence there are some interesting findings.

Most interesting about recent research is that expenses instead of inflated, tend to go down in retirement

[starlight1968sg]

I am most worried abt medical expenses. Although I have the Private Shield plan, I am not confident that it will cover ALL related expenses. This is the biggest unknown and fear factor in my case.