SembCorp Industries and SembCorp Marine: Recovery?

Here are a couple of interesting chart formations:

SCI. A long white candle formed on a high volume day.
It could be a double bottom formation.
The MACD has formed a higher low.
Neckline approximates $4.50
If that should break, eventual target is provided by the declining 200d MA (the light blue line) which is approximating $5.00 now.

SMM. Another long white candle formed on a high volume day.
Looks like it could be a double bottom formation too.
The MACD has formed a higher low.
Neckline approximates $3.30.
If that should break, the declining 200d MA is the eventual target.
Currently, the 200d MA approximates $3.70.

Based on TA, SCI and SMM look promising.

CPF: A simple case of so near and yet so far?

My reply to a comment by a reader: here.




Hi politicalwritings,

When something is significant enough, such as retirement planning, I think for the government to have an active hand is a good thing and, for some of us, it is a necessity so that the risk of growing old and destitute is reduced, if not eliminated. 

Of course, not everyone agrees.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to pinpoint who are the financially responsible ones and who are not amongst CPF members. 

So, a minimum safety net that covers everyone works. It helps to ensure basic retirement funding for everyone.




What we eat and how much we eat is not of the same level of significance as whether we would be able to achieve retirement adequacy. 

So, I don't think the example you used is appropriate.

When should we have government intervention?

When we cannot reasonably rely on everyone to act responsibly on a matter that has tremendous importance in everyone's lives, especially if irresponsible behaviour would result in the burden being shifted from such individuals to the rest of society.

Best wishes,
AK



This is something I feel strongly about. So, I decided to blog about it instead of just replying in the comments section.

Talking ever so loudly to myself here. Tsk, tsk.

AK, you are so boorish (and psychotic)!

Related post:
CPF Life.

Lump sum CPF withdrawal suggestion by NTUC is myopic.

I am very disturbed by NTUC's suggestion to let CPF members "withdraw a lump sum - of at least 20 per cent of the balances - from their retirement accounts, even if they do not meet the Minimum Sum." Reference: Today Online.

In an open letter to PM Lee on 11 June 2014, I made 3 points. One of these was to allow members with genuine needs to "micro-tap" their CPF savings (presumably from age 55 to 64). A lump sum withdrawal of at least 20% is not micro at all and I am very worried that the suggestion says "at least 20%" which means that the percentage could be higher.

Although certainly not always the case, I am sure that many CPF members who are not able to meet the minimum sum at age 55 are not financially savvy. I am not sure that letting them withdraw a bigger lump sum (even with financial counselling) is the way to do it. Once the money is gone, it is gone.

A much smaller sum that is left in the CPF-RA as a result would mean a much smaller monthly income from CPF Life from age 65. How does this help the affected members' retirement adequacy?

So, I am against this suggestion by NTUC although I would like to see more compassion and understanding in the system.

What would I suggest then?

Like I suggested before, a micro tapping of CPF-RA savings from age 55 could be considered. The actual mechanics would, of course, need more thought.

Perhaps, a withdrawal rate of 2% per annum from age 55 to 64 could be allowed. If a member did not take advantage of this allowance in the first 5 years, he would be allowed to micro-tap up to 12% of his CPF-RA savings in the 6th year if there is a need to. Of course, in the first 5 years, the money that was not withdrawn would have earned some interest (compounding at 4% a year).

This would give money in the CPF-RA a better chance (i.e. more time) to accumulate so that there would be more money to be given out on a monthly basis from CPF Life from age 65.

Although we want to be understanding and compassionate, we should not give in so much as to compromise on a CPF member's retirement funding adequacy.

Related post:
An(other) open letter to the Prime Minister.