Finance ministry says SRS withdrawal process ‘can be improved', will work with banks on this
[SINGAPORE] The government will work with Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS) bank operators to smoothen account holders' process of withdrawing funds from their account.
The response comes shortly after The Straits Times published a forum letter on Monday (Jun 16) by account holder Francis Yeoh, who described the current process as inconvenient, as it requires an individual to be physically present at a bank.
The SRS is a voluntary scheme that was created to complement the Central Provident Fund (CPF) to help Singaporeans save more for their retirement by allowing them to contribute up to a maximum of S$15,300 into accounts operated by DBS, OCBC and UOB.
In late 2024, a proposed framework aimed at expanding and streamlining the SRS was shelved after the three local banks withdrew their joint application. This prompted the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore to halt a review it was to undertake on the framework, which sought to improve access to SRS products and boost competition among providers.
Unlike withdrawals, contributions to SRS, which are eligible for tax relief, can be processed digitally.
In his letter, Yeoh noted that the process of requiring individuals to be physically present at a bank to withdraw funds from their SRS accounts was time-consuming, and described the process as 'surprisingly outdated and frustrating' – particularly given that CPF withdrawals can already be done online.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
Sign Up
Sign Up
He added that this seems 'misaligned with Singapore's push for digitalisation'.
'As our population ages, more retirees will seek access to their SRS funds,' said Yeoh. 'Requiring them to queue for hours to manage their retirement savings is inefficient, inconvenient and, frankly, unnecessary.'
He added that he hopes the banks and the authorities can review this process.
In response to Yeoh's letter, the Ministry of Finance's director of communications and engagement, Farah Abdul Rahim, acknowledged on Friday that the current withdrawal process 'can be improved for greater convenience'.
She said, however, that the current process of requiring account holders to be physically present at a bank when making a withdrawal enables SRS operators to give customised advice to the individual.
'This helps ensure that members are aware of their eligibility for tax concessions and/or penalties, if any, relating to the nature of their intended transaction.'
The Business Times has sought a comment from the Association of Banks in Singapore, of which the three local banks are members.
Financial advisers told BT that the feedback was valid, and highlighted the need for more flexible withdrawal options.
Dr Ben Fok, chief executive of Bill Morrisons Capital, noted that since both CPF and SRS are designed to provide retirement income, their withdrawal processes should be aligned to promote clarity and ease of use.
He added that integrating both schemes into a single digital interface could help reduce confusion and ensure they work more seamlessly together – minimising the need for physical visits and improving overall user experience.
'This approach would support retirees in managing their retirement funds more efficiently, offering a seamless and convenient way to access their savings,' he said.
Christopher Tan, group chief executive of Providend, suggested that banks offer three tiers of access to cater to varying user preferences.
The first would be a fully digital option, through which account holders can use the bank's mobile application or an online portal to transfer funds from their SRS account into their preferred bank account.
A second option could involve submitting a physical application form, with the funds either sent by cheque or credited directly.
The third option is for those who are less digitally inclined or prefer face-to-face service. For them, visiting a bank branch should remain an option.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
an hour ago
- Business Times
Japan won't fixate on July 9 in US trade talks
[TOKYO] Japan won't fixate on the looming date for so-called reciprocal tariffs to go back to higher levels, Tokyo's top trade negotiator said, signalling that the Asian nation stands ready for the possibility that talks will drag on. 'To avoid any misunderstanding, I would like to confirm that I have not said at all that July 9 is the deadline for negotiations between Japan and the US,' Economic Revitalisation Minister Ryosei Akazawa told reporters on Friday (Jun 20) in Tokyo. 'Japan and the US are in regular communication through various channels, and we will continue to consider what is most effective and engage in appropriate consultations.' Akazawa deflected a question over whether Japan will seek an extension of the deadline for the across-the-board tariffs. The US is poised to return the duties to their original levels on July 9 for many nations, which would mean an increase to 24 per cent from 10 per cent at present for Japan. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has indicated the US may grant an extension to countries that are negotiating in good faith. Asked what Japan would do if the levy returns to 24 per cent or the US puts out a different level unilaterally past the deadline, Akazawa hinted at optimism for an extension. 'We are proceeding with the negotiations in good faith and so we understand that various matters will proceed under that premise,' he said after attending a ruling Liberal Democratic Party's tariff task force meeting. The task force didn't urge him to seek an extension of the July 9 deadline, either, Akazawa said. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up 'In negotiations, setting a deadline and trying to wrap things up by a certain date weaken your position,' he said. 'Once you try to wrap up negotiations, you will have no choice but to accept the outcome.' Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and US President Donald Trump failed to reach a deal earlier this week on the sidelines of the Group of Seven leaders' summit in Canada, despite holding three phone calls to discuss the tariffs prior to their in-person meeting. Akazawa on Friday said he's yet to schedule the next round of negotiations with his US counterparts and that Japan won't set a specific deadline for the talks. He once again described the trade discussions as similar to 'walking through fog,' a phrase he used before the G-7 gathering. The Japanese trade negotiator also hinted at some trouble in vying for time with the US when various matters including rising tensions in the Middle East compete for Washington's attention. 'It is also possible that the US side may find it difficult to allocate sufficient time domestically to make substantial progress in the Japan-US negotiations,' Akazawa said. 'This is truly the case for both sides. We are not solely doing the tariff negotiations.' Akazawa spoke a day after Ishiba met with opposition party leaders, who came away from the conference with the notion that Japan's trade surplus in autos with the US is a sticking point between the two sides. As with other nations, Japan has also been slapped with a 25 per cent tariff on cars and related parts as well as a 50 per cent levy on steel and aluminium. 'Both Japan and the US have national interests that can't be compromised,' Akazawa said. 'Protecting the profits of the automotive industry, which is our key industry, is in Japan's interest.' BLOOMBERG
Business Times
2 hours ago
- Business Times
Who are the world's best investors?
IF FINANCE has a single rule, it is that arbitrage should keep prices in line. If they do stray from fundamentals, so the argument goes, savvy investors should step in to correct them. All good in theory. In practice, less so. Markets can be swept by sentiment, detaching valuations from fundamentals. Economists have surgically documented persistent distortions. Purely mechanical flows, for instance, move markets even when they are known to investors in advance and unrelated to earnings prospects. When a stock is added to an index, its price inflates. Predictable dividend reinvestments also push up prices. Why does this happen? And who, in time, might correct the market? Ask on Wall Street for the identity of such arbitrageurs, and you get the usual suspects. Hedge funds and quant shops, armed with analysts and algorithms, are the most natural candidates. The industry has ballooned from overseeing US$1.4 trillion to US$4.5 trillion in assets over the past decade, and is well positioned to spot mispricings. Others suggest short-sellers, ever alert to signs of froth, or retail investors, now keen dip-buyers. One candidate gets mentioned rather less often: staid corporates. Such businesses are normally seen as passive capital-raisers, not active market participants and certainly not market disciplinarians. Even though they can act on perceived mispricings, firms typically focus more on expanding their own business than on searching for alpha. Bosses have operational backgrounds. They are more fluent in capital spending than capital markets. And when financial officers do wade into the market – to issue or buy back shares, for example – valuation is just one of many considerations, alongside avoiding taxes, ensuring a healthy credit rating and making sure the firm does not take on too much leverage. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up And yet, a growing body of work suggests that corporations, far from being passive observers, are some of the market's most effective arbitrageurs. In 2000, Malcolm Baker of Harvard University and Jeffrey Wurgler, then of Yale University, found a tight connection between firms' net equity issuance and subsequent stock-market returns. Years in which companies issued relatively more stock were typically followed by weaker market performance. More tellingly, companies seemed to issue precisely when valuations were rich, and especially when other frothy signals, such as buoyant consumer sentiment, were drawing attention. Timing the market is impressive; out-trading the professionals is even more so. Yet, firms that issue or retire their own shares routinely do exactly that. In 2022, David McLean of Georgetown University and co-authors showed that corporate-share sales and buy-backs forecast future returns more accurately than the trades of banks, hedge funds, mutual funds and wealth managers. What explains this prowess? Part of the answer lies in firms' access to private information. Few are better placed to forecast a company's future cashflows than insiders. When a company begins buying back its own shares – or employees convert their options into stock-holdings – investors should pay attention. But informational advantages go only so far. They do not explain why firm-level issuance predicts aggregate stock-market returns. And firms' decisions are publicly disclosed: if they were merely signals of private insight, copycat investors quickly ought to arbitrage away any return. Instead, the success of companies may reflect not just what they know, but what they are able to do. They are unusually well-placed to act on mispricings. Start with short-selling. Firms have a natural way to take a contrarian view: when they believe their shares are overpriced, they can issue more of them. For a hedge fund to express a similar view, it must sell short the stock or purchase more complex products, such as put options. These strategies are not only expensive, requiring the payment of borrowing fees or option premiums, but also expose the investor to large losses and margin calls if the stock price rises. Risks become particularly acute during bouts of volatility, such as in January 2021, when retail investors sent GameStop's share price to astonishing heights. Hedge funds hesitated to short-sell for fear of making losses as investors piled in. GameStop's boss, by contrast, simply issued new shares. Companies also operate across markets. Almost every business finances itself with some combination of debt and equity. If one becomes unusually expensive, it can easily switch to the other. Yueran Ma of the University of Chicago finds that firms routinely move towards whichever market looks cheap. Such flexibility is rarely available to institutional investors, which are constrained by benchmarks and mandates. Only 28 of Vanguard's 267 funds can trade both bonds and stocks, for instance. Last, businesses benefit from insulation. They may face unhappy shareholders, but they do not face redemptions. When institutional investors mess up, their own investors pull out, forcing them to sell at just the wrong time. Firm hand The agility this engenders makes companies valuable providers of liquidity, too. As passive investing has grown to make up a fifth of the market, so has demand for stocks in the big indices. Who meets that demand, helping anchor prices? Marco Sammon of Harvard and John Shim of the University of Notre Dame suggest it is, once again, companies. Intermediaries such as active managers and pension funds buy alongside their passive peers. Firms step in to take the other side of the trade by issuing new shares. Similarly, when governments flood the market with short-term debt, firms respond by issuing longer-dated bonds. As asset managers become more passive, specialised or tied up by mandates, it is the firms they invest in that keep the market ticking. So thank your nearest chief financial officer. ©2025 The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved
Business Times
7 hours ago
- Business Times
Finance ministry says SRS withdrawal process ‘can be improved', will work with banks on this
[SINGAPORE] The government will work with Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS) bank operators to smoothen account holders' process of withdrawing funds from their account. The response comes shortly after The Straits Times published a forum letter on Monday (Jun 16) by account holder Francis Yeoh, who described the current process as inconvenient, as it requires an individual to be physically present at a bank. The SRS is a voluntary scheme that was created to complement the Central Provident Fund (CPF) to help Singaporeans save more for their retirement by allowing them to contribute up to a maximum of S$15,300 into accounts operated by DBS, OCBC and UOB. In late 2024, a proposed framework aimed at expanding and streamlining the SRS was shelved after the three local banks withdrew their joint application. This prompted the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore to halt a review it was to undertake on the framework, which sought to improve access to SRS products and boost competition among providers. Unlike withdrawals, contributions to SRS, which are eligible for tax relief, can be processed digitally. In his letter, Yeoh noted that the process of requiring individuals to be physically present at a bank to withdraw funds from their SRS accounts was time-consuming, and described the process as 'surprisingly outdated and frustrating' – particularly given that CPF withdrawals can already be done online. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up He added that this seems 'misaligned with Singapore's push for digitalisation'. 'As our population ages, more retirees will seek access to their SRS funds,' said Yeoh. 'Requiring them to queue for hours to manage their retirement savings is inefficient, inconvenient and, frankly, unnecessary.' He added that he hopes the banks and the authorities can review this process. In response to Yeoh's letter, the Ministry of Finance's director of communications and engagement, Farah Abdul Rahim, acknowledged on Friday that the current withdrawal process 'can be improved for greater convenience'. She said, however, that the current process of requiring account holders to be physically present at a bank when making a withdrawal enables SRS operators to give customised advice to the individual. 'This helps ensure that members are aware of their eligibility for tax concessions and/or penalties, if any, relating to the nature of their intended transaction.' The Business Times has sought a comment from the Association of Banks in Singapore, of which the three local banks are members. Financial advisers told BT that the feedback was valid, and highlighted the need for more flexible withdrawal options. Dr Ben Fok, chief executive of Bill Morrisons Capital, noted that since both CPF and SRS are designed to provide retirement income, their withdrawal processes should be aligned to promote clarity and ease of use. He added that integrating both schemes into a single digital interface could help reduce confusion and ensure they work more seamlessly together – minimising the need for physical visits and improving overall user experience. 'This approach would support retirees in managing their retirement funds more efficiently, offering a seamless and convenient way to access their savings,' he said. Christopher Tan, group chief executive of Providend, suggested that banks offer three tiers of access to cater to varying user preferences. The first would be a fully digital option, through which account holders can use the bank's mobile application or an online portal to transfer funds from their SRS account into their preferred bank account. A second option could involve submitting a physical application form, with the funds either sent by cheque or credited directly. The third option is for those who are less digitally inclined or prefer face-to-face service. For them, visiting a bank branch should remain an option.
