What is your original goal for this money? - Yield - End Goal Amount - Purpose of Spending What do you understand from recessions? - Duration of a recession - Standard drops in a recession - Extreme drops in a recession - Factors that foretell a recession and how reliably - Why you think a recession will happen How is the current performance of your funds? - Is it anywhere close to its all time high, and is that a cause for concern? - Is it in a climbing trend, stagnation or downward trend? And for how long? - Are any of these movements unprecedented? - Has the volatility spiked beyond the time you first looked at the fund? Personal Considerations: - How long is your investment duration? (refer back to ‘Original Goal for this Money’). Do you risk compromising the portfolio by switching out to something less aggressive? - How long are you willing to wait for a recession to happen? - At what price are you looking at switching to cash? - At what price are you looking at switching back to your original portfolio? Or a different one, and if so, why? - Your Alternatives: Do you understand each of the characteristics, strengths and weaknesses, potential costs of these alternatives? - Savings Accounts - Fixed Deposits - Global Bond Funds - Local Bond Funds - Local Bonds - Short Term Endowments - Gold - Money Market Funds - SSBs

There are a couple of reasons, but I'll try to keep it simple. Index Funds are based on the Efficient Market Theory, which supposes that prices are...well, accurate from efficiency. With USD as the global currency and the SNP500 having most of the companies we know by name - this holds mostly true in the US, and is backed by SPIVA - the Standard and Poor Indices vs Active where most fund managers can't outperform their benchmarks, even in a range of categories. But it's simply not the same story in Singapore. As a result, our MSCI Singapore and STI ETF counterpart is almost equally risky (statistically speaking, e.g. standard deviation/beta) but it has hardly any yield compared to the SNP500. So it kind of sets the standard for passive investing here, which is why some people turn to robos etc. As a general rule, it's better news for you if you're an active stock market picker, a value investor or if you like to experiment outside the US like myself. https://www.facebook.com/themoneymaverickofficial/

The following does not constitute advice nor is a recommendation. I sell this fund, so I'll tell you several things about it. 1) The dividend yield is extremely high 2) The Bond Fund has a decently high credit rating. 3) The Bond Fund is superior to its benchmark in its history net of fees 4) The Bond Fund is available in many variations for Forex as well as dividend payout format 5) The Fund Manager takes deliberate action not to pay out of the NAV Similarly 1) The Bond Fund dividend yield has fluctuated quite a bit, from as low as 5%+ to as high as 9%+. This can result in both volatility and short term unsustainability. 2) The Bond Fund prices recently took a hit. It's a good fund if you're looking for high dividend yields in the manner of someone retiring. It may be okay if you are looking for capital preservation (I did not say 'good). It certainly provides significant passive income for the risk you're taking, which is not tremendous historically. I typically complement it with other funds to help my clients retire. You can view an example here: https://www.moneymaverickofficial.com/post/on-teaching-financial-literacy-to-kids-and-giving-back Do nudge me back if you're interested in this fund, and maybe I can help you. https://www.facebook.com/luke.ho.54

The most recent, award-winning one is Manulife's ReadyMummy. It has the most features, is technically standalone (meaning you have no obligation to buy another policy at the same time) but you also preserve your child's future insurability AND you can buy the follow up policies at a discount if you do opt to buy them (e.g. Life Plan). You'll notice I didn't actually answer the question, because best is subjective. But worth a consideration! https://www.manulife.com.sg/our-solutions/health/maternity/ready-mummy.html https://www.facebook.com/luke.ho.54

It's not a great investment strategy for the following reasons 1) Serious lack of diversification 2) Huge opportunity costs, even relative to if you want to invest strictly in indices only https://www.moneymaverickofficial.com/post/why-you-should-invest-aggressively-now-and-how-you-still-can-have-peace-of-mind 3) Low yields 4) High risk for the yield that you're getting (low risk-return ratio, even though the beta isn't very high - the yield is even lower). There are some common reasons why people stiil insist on the STI ETF or tout it as a good investment (or worse, a safe investment) - to look at it objectively. 1) Lack of Forex Risk, which is common with better performing indices 2) Lack of withholding tax 3) Low costs 4) Local market exposure with companies whose information is readily available and whose services you utilize (which creates a sense of security and generally decreases the odds that the stock will plunge horribly, being a consumer) 5) Convenient investment instrument - in relation to both accessibility (how you can invest and how quickly) and liquidity (how quickly you can sell your shares if required). I'd advise people to aim higher because you can, which I can help with - but it's not a horrible investment strategy, I just wouldn't go as far as saying its a good one. You can always drop me a PM if you'd like exposure to instruments that are both safer and higher yielding. https://www.facebook.com/luke.ho.54

I'm writing answers on a Sunday whilst traveling around Singapore for an appointment, so hello Zhi Rong. It's hard to comment on Minterest and Capital March, since I've never spoken to them. I was fairly impressed with the Funding Societies crowd at the Seedly Convention, they seemed to really know their stuff, which is important. CoAssets tends to be a bit more personal, which is good if you like Consultants. It's not like there's an additional price for talking to them, anyway. I've not found their yields to be as high as I would like, but they do tend to have decent safety measures in place. SeedIn is similar to CoAssets but in a more impersonal way - its almost entirely digital and you have to DIY it. There are obvious pros and cons to this, but some people would be very comfortable and find it very efficient to do so compared to a longer sales pitch. Most importantly, all 3 platforms have claimed to have 0% default so far, even with the updated definition for default. If I'm not wrong (I could be), default refers to both Time and Return on Investment, and nothing to do with whether it actually defaults or not. So you have a traditional definition for default: 1) Failure to repay loan according to the required payment on their debt obligation And then you have the P2P definition 1) Failure to repay loan regardless of the initial requirement payment structure within a specific time frame (3 - 6 months). The definition difference suggests that what does tend to happen is that P2P companies do actually default on their loans in the traditional sense. As you may know, Bonds are technically not security backed (e.g. its not like a mortgage where they can take your house away). But P2P platforms like CoAssets/SeedIn/FS do have measures to do something similar even if that isn't TECHNICALLY the case, so a P2P company will typically end up finding a new way to pay for the loan and within the period I stated (within 3 - 6 months). To me, that's the primary reason why anyone should invest in P2P - how effectively they keep their default rate and the methodology for doing so. That is why you should choose a particular company over their competitors. Look at that long answer. Do your own due dillgence, but drop me a message if you'd like! (haha) https://www.facebook.com/luke.ho.54 Luke

Offhand, I have no idea where you got any idea that you were going to find experts in the Financial World here. You're not. What you're really going to get is a very mixed set of comments and you're going to lean in towards what you feel makes more sense, compared to what may actually do so. The worst advice are people who tell you you should go study and acquire knowledge entirely on your own. Thats inefficient and about as valuable as the advice. Which is free. And worthless. If you really believed this or had any interest in this prior to posting your message, you'd probably have studied very differently, or already have the capacity to figure out what you want. You have a guy who doesn't think he helped people in his job and yet he was perfectly comfortable pocketing money for 10 years. That definitely seems like a good place to take ideas from, returns or otherwise. I would literally send you off to MoneyOwl even though I clearly work in conflict with them. Them, or literally any other Finanacial Advisor can give you far more specific and valuable advise than a couple of paragraphs. Whats the purpose of the 5 -10 year timeframe? Is there a need, or is it a feeling? How about the 10+ years? Why 10+? Why not a very specific number towards a very specific goal? And if you didn't want to share those specific goals from the beginning, why would you think that answers based on the limited parameters and information would be any good? If you're looking for an expert in the Financial World to get advice from, go to someone with a license to give that advice. https://www.moneyowl.com.sg/ https://www.moneymaverickofficial.com/

Really depends on your goals. People are a little obsessed with the idea of $100,000 for some reason. I'm not sure why. Just try to associate it with your own personal life and then figure out how to get there. If I'd like to build a life with my girlfriend, I need about 2.2 million. So by 30 it has to be like...at least $400,000. Whew. :(