Most CPF investors lost money
According to the Straits Times news report “Many CPF investors get their fingers burnt” (Jun 15) – “In the financial year ended Sept 30 last year, 902,300 investors sold their CPFIS investments.
Only 15% made more than 2.5%
Only 15 per cent of them made a profit larger than the guaranteed annual 2.5 per cent interest rate for Ordinary Account savings. Another 45 per cent made profits of up to 2.5 per cent. The remaining 40 per cent made a loss.
47% had realised losses last decade
On the one hand, fewer CPFIS investors are making losses now compared with the past decade. From 2004 to 2013, 47 per cent of them incurred realised losses, more than the 40 per cent who made a loss last year.
On the other hand, more investors used to earn profits above the 2.5 per cent Ordinary Account interest rate.
Only 18% beat 2.5% last decade
From 2004 to 2013, 18 per cent of investors did better, compared with 15 per cent in the last financial year. More than 25 per cent did from 1993 to 2004.”
What percentage of CPF investors had realised returns that were not more then 2.5 per cent, since the inception of the scheme in 1993?
What about unrealised returns?
What about the statistics for the unrealised returns?
If we combine the realised and unrealised returns – what percentage of investors had returns that were not more then 2.5 per cent, since the inception of the scheme in 1993?
In this connection, do soverign wealth funds report just their realised returns, without their unrealised returns?
Statistics disappeared after 11 years?
As I understand that for the first 11 years of the scheme – annual statistics were published as to the percentage that did not beat 2.5 per cent – why is it that apparently now – the statistics are being published again after an absence of about a decade?
As to “the CPFIS-included funds themselves have performed well.
They posted an average return of 5.17 per cent in the first three months of this year, according to a report by research firm Lipper last month” – what is the historical annualised return on the funds since the inception of the scheme?
Piecemeal selective statistics?
Arguably, why do we seem to be getting piecemeal statistics, without the most important ones in order for us to make more meaningful comparisons, analysis and decisions?
As an analogy – if we invest periodically, sell some of our investments periodically – and you only tell us the returns of those that we have sold but not those that we are still keeping – how do we know whether overall we are making money or not?
And then you tell us the returns of “funds” for this year only, without the returns in history – how do we make a meaningful comparison with our investments?
Win battles lose war