Reply
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Like Tree12Likes

Scrap the MPF

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    360

    This'll have 'em queuing up to invest – HSBC lowers the management fees on two MPF funds ... from 1.35% to 1.30% pa:

    HSBC MPF Completes Merging Plans, Lowers New Charges AASTOCKS Financial News - Top News

    shri likes this.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    920

    we also need to put a stop to that middle man culture. Every bank have a specific partnership with insurance and MPF provider, they will lie to you saying you basically don't have a choice but go through their partner, just so they can collect the fees.
    Even brokerage fees in HK are too expensive. The whole system need a revamp, now that they're going to redesign the legco after some incident, they might as well redesign that whole corrupt Asia World City!


  3. #13

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    薄扶林
    Posts
    25,368
    Even brokerage fees in HK are too expensive. The whole system need a revamp, now that they're going to redesign the legco after some incident, they might as well redesign that whole corrupt Asia World City!
    To be fair, I got some nice brokerage promotional-refunds in my June statement from HSBC. (Essentially HK buy orders are comission free using their app or whatever else - not 100% sure).
    Have a GeoExpat related problem - please create a support ticket.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    60
    Lucky seven for MPF holders as HSBC cuts fee - The Standard

    Are the "journalists" at HK Standard for real?
    "Lucky seven for MPF holders as HSBC cuts fee"
    Lucky that the fees go from 1.35% to 1.3%?
    Lucky that you can guy the tracker through them for your MPF at 0.8% or 0.9% while it costs 0.1% if bought directly?
    Can they have some journalist doing proper reporting instead of silly headlines like "lucky 7". What a bunch of amateurs. Maybe put the HSBC fee reduction in the context of the overall issues of MPF fund being way too expensive and how they are robbing us? Maybe ask for David Webb's comment ? or at least quote him? etc. etc.
    traineeinvestor and pin like this.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    1,889

    It shouldn't be mandatory because it involves profit making companies. It just encourages some sort of corruption/cronyism because the law forces people to pay these fees.

    It's similar to the window safety checks. The government makes laws which require it (which I am supportive of), but the problem is these checks are done by private companies. So they will make up some sort of problem which costs money to fix (carried out by these companies), otherwise they won't pass your windows.

    It stinks!

    Either the government operates a pension scheme for the benefit of the public (haha) or treat it like a private pension which people can choose to pay into or not.


  6. #16

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    360

    Given the demographics of Hong Kong and the number of people who tend not adequately save for their retirement, a compulsory savings scheme is a must for all working adults (including our overpaid and pampered civil servants - no special deals).

    But not the piece of $%$ that we call MPF. There needs to be an ultra low cost default option such as a target date retirement fund invested in an appropriate mix of equites and debt and the flexibility to invest in as wide a range of investments as possible and, if you wish, set up a self-managed fund. The Australian model has worked well (for the most part) and Australia is well on its way to having one of the most robust and sustainable retirement systems in the world.

    And, yes, there should be a safety net for those whose savings run out and/or were unable to save for legitimate reasons.

    The alternative is an unsustainably large number of people demanding money from future taxpayers + a lot of people having a needlessly impoverished retirement.


  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sai Kung
    Posts
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by UK/HKboy
    It shouldn't be mandatory because it involves profit making companies. It just encourages some sort of corruption/cronyism because the law forces people to pay these fees.

    It's similar to the window safety checks. The government makes laws which require it (which I am supportive of), but the problem is these checks are done by private companies. So they will make up some sort of problem which costs money to fix (carried out by these companies), otherwise they won't pass your windows.

    It stinks!

    Either the government operates a pension scheme for the benefit of the public (haha) or treat it like a private pension which people can choose to pay into or not.
    Of course it should be mandatory. If you don’t force people to provide then the state or realistically the tax payers end up providing because people won’t do it for themselves. There’s nothing wrong with profit making companies being involved. What is wrong is the excessive charges they are levying and lack of strong regulation to cap it.

    I’d happily see an alternative that forces these schemes to top up the pension pot of those that have contributed through their lifetime but don’t have enough to sustain themselves post retirement. In monetary terms such companies would still be better off.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    1,889
    Quote Originally Posted by ByeByeEngland
    Of course it should be mandatory. If you don’t force people to provide then the state or realistically the tax payers end up providing because people won’t do it for themselves. There’s nothing wrong with profit making companies being involved. What is wrong is the excessive charges they are levying and lack of strong regulation to cap it.
    Thats basically what I said. The problem is making something mandatory which forces people to go through profit making companies. We can't blame these companies for, well, looking to make a profit.

    I agree we should force people to save because most people are not responsible enough. But these should be through non-profit making channels. For example in the UK, people pay more tax and get a state pension (which tends to be at a liveable rate compared to HK pension). This is mandatory. However, people have the choice to take a private pension too and they can choose whether those fees are worth it or not.

Reply
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2