Pension funds: Where's My Nest Egg?
|
Far
Eastern Economic Review . May 25, 2000 By
Ben Dolven/SINGAPORE |
||
| A
CITIBANK SURVEY in 1998 found that more than 50 percent of Singaporeans
believed that their stakes in the government's huge mandatory savings scheme
would provide them with enough money to live on in their retirement. They
were mistaken--badly mistaken. The 45-year-old Central
Provident Fund is Asia's most extensive, and many observers say most successful,
social-security scheme. But in many cases, it's not going to be enough
to provide more than a subsistence living standard for retirees. Strip
out Singapore inflation, and CPF savings grew hardly at all between 1987
and 1998--0.07 percent annually to be precise--according to a recent report
by Tom Snyder and Mukul Asher, economists at the National University of
Singapore. The CPF's basic structure, which pays members low, short-term
interest rates for most of their long-term savings, will make it very hard
to boost returns. Even government leaders
warn that Singaporeans will need to look beyond the fund to finance their
retirement. "The CPF is not sufficient," National Development
Minister Mah Bow Tan said in November. "It should be supplemented.
We should try as much as possible to make it sufficient, but it needs to
be added to by other CPF-type schemes, preferably by the private sector." The CPF has one fundamental
problem: Essentially, it isn't a pension scheme at all. The logic of a
pension scheme is that if you put away savings for the long-term, you get
paid a higher rate of interest. Compound those high long-term returns over
two or three decades and members build a nest egg. But that's not how the
CPF works. It pegs returns on cash balances to short-term bank deposit
rates--an average of interest rates on time deposits and 12-month fixed
accounts. These are lower than interest rates on long-term deposits, reducing
the benefit of compounding. The trade-off for Singaporeans
is that they can use their CPF accounts for major expenses such as housing
and medical treatment. In fact, the CPF works more like a mortgage-finance
scheme than a retirement plan. The vast majority of Singaporeans finance
purchases of public housing flats from their accounts, and these come at
prices well below private housing units. Many people later elect to upgrade--selling
a flat on the secondary market and using the higher price to buy a bigger
public flat or a private one. But you can't eat bricks
and mortar, and the CPF's negligible returns mean many Singaporeans will
hit retirement with an apartment but little cash to draw on. A government-led
committee on ageing noted last year that 24 percent of the CPF members
who reached age 55 in 1998 had less than S$16,000 (US$9,250) in their CPF
accounts--an amount that will run out quickly if the retirees lack family
support. While many Singaporeans
recognize that they're getting poor returns on their CPF deposits, few
truly think the scheme is a bad idea. Arthur Yeo, a 37-year-old engineer
with around S$50,000 in his CPF account, says he knows he's getting little
for his money, but figures that without the CPF he might have squandered
it. "It's a forced saving," he says. "If we didn't have
this I believe it would have gone somewhere, and I don't know where." Singaporean citizens
and permanent residents must contribute 20 percent of their wages to their
CPF accounts. Their employers have to kick in 12 percent, down from 20
percent in 1998, when the government slashed employers' contributions to
boost competitiveness. The bulk of the contributions go into a low-yielding
ordinary account, with just 4 percent going into a higher-yielding special
retirement account, and 6 percent - 8 percent into a medical account. At
age 55, members can move the money into investment annuity accounts that
pay monthly sums. Looking ahead at a
retirement crunch, the authorities realize they will need to allow depositors
to do more with their money. In the past six years, they have allowed members
to invest in a limited but growing range of unit trusts and shares. But
the minimum cash balance needed to take advantage of this greater freedom
is S$60,000. The minimum will gradually rise to S$80,000 in 2003. (Members
can use housing assets to account for part of the sum.) The CPF's board
won't say how many people qualify, but at the end of 1998, just 16.5 percent
of members had moved any money out of the low-return part of their accounts. That won't do, says
Lim Hwee Hua, a ruling-party member of parliament who heads a financial
subcommittee for the government's ageing panel. Lim, a strategic planner
for Jardine Fleming, recognizes that short-term interest rates are no way
to build a retirement kitty, but even so, her committee didn't recommend
raising returns on basic CPF savings, or pegging them to fluctuating market
rates. She figures Singaporeans wouldn't take the risk, even though CPF
rates have consistently been below what people could get on other investments.
"The risk aversion is so high here," she says. With a little savvy,
Singaporeans could do much better than the CPF. Ten-year US Treasury bonds
currently yield an annual 6.47 percent while 10-year corporate bonds issued
by DBS Bank yield 8.84 percent. Equities are riskier, but since January
1995 the S&P 500 Index has had annual returns of 38 percent; the Straits
Times Index has recorded annual returns of 3percent. Investment managers
in Singapore figure an average retiree will need a nest egg of S$2.2 million
to generate an income stream of S$3000 a month for the rest of his life.
That presents plenty of opportunities for private financial planners. The
favourite instruments now are life-insurance products that many use to
top up their monthly post-retirement incomes. The big player is American
International Assurance, which controls more than half the local market.
But others are on the way: Citibank, for instance, plans to start offering
insurance products in June, and hopes to win 20 - 25 percent of the local
market within three to five years, says Eddie Khoo, a vice-president at
the bank's local office. The paltry returns
offered by the CPF don't mean that the money is poorly invested. In fact,
the returns members receive have nothing to do with the way their funds
are ultimately invested. The bulk of CPF deposits are held in nonmarket
government bonds that yield a weighted average of the interest rates at
the four big local banks: 80 percent weighted to 12-month deposits and
20 percent weighted to demand deposits. They are placed with the Monetary
Authority of Singapore, which lends to government statutory boards for
investment in infrastructure. At the end of 1998,
CPF members' accounts had a combined balance of S$85 billion, though that
figure includes amounts deducted for housing purchases. Singapore has recorded
big fiscal surpluses for decades and the fact that it can use CPF balances
to fund infrastructure projects frees other funds for more profitable investment
elsewhere. Many of the country's reserves are invested overseas by nontransparent,
publicity-shy investment vehicles like the Government of Singapore Investment
Corp. There's no way to accurately say what return authorities actually
get on CPF funds. The only thing that's clear is that there's no link between
their returns and what members get. The Review's questions to the CPF board
on the subject went unanswered. The government's ageing
committee recommended several tweaks to the system. It urged that people
be required to put more money--6 percent of contributions, or even 8 percent
-into the higher-yielding CPF accounts. It talked about ways to bring self-employed
people into the plan and urged that people be allowed more options for
investing in insurance annuity plans. Still, these remain just tweaks.
Lim says other ways to make the CPF more market-oriented are being discussed,
but she says it's unlikely that members would be offered a choice between
fluctuating or fixed rates of return. Still, Lim says she
knows something has to change, recalling that many of her panel's sessions
were packed with people who said they expected income from the CPF to take
full care of them in their retirement. "It's sufficient for very basic,
minimal needs," says Lim. "What we are concerned about is that
it may not be enough to meet their expectations." |
||
|
|
|
|