Tuesday, March 28, 2017

OCBC won't cheat you anymore! LOL


Apparently I heard from my father that there was a 3 page advertisement on this. I don't know because I'm a millennial and I read news online.

Anyway, LOL.

I have to say though, they were very tricksy in the past. Examples? Their Bonus+ account with up to 2.35% pa!


Sneaky? Yes, very much so becauase the T&Cs state you only get 1.18% pa, which was another lie, because there were hoops to jump through for that. In the end the real interest rate was 0.768%.

Anyway, it looks like they have of course updated their website since coming up with their new promise.


As a customer, I think it's pretty good that they have all the actual proper information clearly stated and simply put. It's a good progression for the industry for banks to just lay it out straight, instead of using pumped up numbers to trick stupid people.

But honestly though, they do manage to trick lots of stupid people. I'm sure they received tons of complaints about their crappy misleading ads, which is probably why they are doing this stunt. It definitely isn't out of the kindness of their golden hearts.

For people who are bad at math, rejoice with this change and hope that it becomes a norm that all banks adopt. Once the info by all the banks can be easily read and understood by all, then it is easy to compare products and switch around to get the best deal.

For most of us, pretty much no change at all.

I guess it's a good thing that OCBC has decided to stop tricking people? LOL.

I still hate the new OCBC360 though, and I'm willing to jump ship at the drop of a hat and bail if I can find a better account + credit card combo. I really like the SCB cashback card, but too bad SCB is too dumb to allow it to be used with their Bonus Saver account.

IS THERE NO ONE ELSE? AM I STUCK WITH OCBC, THE GUILTY LIAR?

Saturday, March 25, 2017

99-YEARS REALLY MEANS 99 YEARS? NOT FREEHOLD?!?!


Okay, I think it's good that MND Lawrence Wong has finally clarified AGAIN for all the stupiak people out there that are not so sure what "leasehold" means.

Some good quotes from the Straits Times article, but I highlighted my favourite one and it's the more important thing to note:

"... for most HDB flats, their leases will eventually run out and the flats returned to HDB, which in turn surrenders the land the flats are on to the State."

"SERS is only offered to HDB blocks locaited with high redevelopment potential"

"... only 4% of HDB flats have been identified for SERS since it was launched in 1995."


What is Lawrence Bro talking about SERS this SERS that? Very confusing hor?

Okay, let me break it down for you:

Outcome 1: 96% chance
You buy a HDB flat. Maybe resale, maybe BTO, it doesn't matter.
When the lease ends, your property is worth $0. You need to move out by then.

Outcome 2: 4% chance
You buy a HDB flat. Maybe resale, maybe BTO, it doesn't matter.
The lease can have 99-1 year remaining and the government thinks that the plot of land your HDB flat is built on could be better utilized. You tio SERS. Sian you lose your flat. Shiok you get priority for new one.

Fantasty Outcome 3: 0% chance
You buy a HDB flat. Maybe resale, maybe BTO, it doesn't matter.
When the lease ends, you kpkb a lot and complain that "new HDBs these days are all very expensive". The government hears your pleas and anger. You are so poor thing, aiyoooooooooo.
They renew your lease for another 99 years.
lol.


I was just talking to someone recently about what happens when the leases of property goes to 0. I don't understand why some people think that at the end of the leasehold period, THEY have the CHOICE to CHOOSE if they want to EXTEND OR NOT.

Er, hello? No?


It's up to the landowner that the land returns to to decide what they will do with the land. If the plot ratio is already being maximized, it would make sense to allow the existing residents to cough up money to extend their tenure. How much money? Roughly the same amount of profits if they smashed everything down, re-build brand new and sell it all. That's just logic.

If you really have a problem about leasehold and how "your flat is not really your flat", you are more than welcome to enter the private market and purchase a freehold property. Even better, can go overseas freehold market. Not only "freehold", but also very cheap! In Bolehland, I saw some listings selling freehold condos only $100 SGD PSF. Sell HDB, migrate! Property prices in Malaysia sure damn huat long-term. Don't just believe me. I triple check with my bomoh already.

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Today I Defeated an Insurance Agent. Can You?

"Excuse Sir, can you help me do a survey? Only 3 questions"

Sorry, I'm really urgent, I need to pee.

"Oh okay Sir, nevermind then..." *sad, dejected face*

When I came out of the toilet, he was still lingering around, so I went up and told him I'll do his 3 question survey.

"Ok, thanks! Are you working?"

Yes I am working now. Okay 1 question done. 2 questions left.

"No no Sir, that wasn't the survey question! Give chance can?"

Okay, can can. Faster, what's the first question?

"Which bank do you have an account with?"

*I peep over at his paper. The only choices were DBS, POSB, OCBC, UOB and others*

Erm... DBS, OCBC, SCB, Citibank, Maybank...

"Wa, so many? I just tick DBS and OCBC...."

Sure, whatever you want to do.

"Do you know what is your interest rate from your bank account?"

Yup, 1.85%.

"Oh, the OCBC 360 right? Well did you know if you save $300 every month blah blah blah.... you can get $1000 instead of $60?! Do you want to hear more about it?"

Oh really now. What kind of product is that?

"A savings product!"

You mean an endowment plan?

"Ah yes, an endowment plan"

No thanks. I don't need an endowment plan.

"Oh... Why is that?"

I do my own investments.

"What kind of investments do you do?'

Shares, ETFs, unit trusts, other stuff.

"Actually I also have unit trusts that pays out 7-8% annually, as cold hard cash. COLD HARD CASH! Not re-invested, so you can take that money and spend".

Erm. No thanks, it's okay, I don't need to pay someone to pick a unit trust for me. I buy my unit trust through POEMS with 0% fees.

"Erm okay, what about insurance? Do you have insurance?"

Yes, I have insurance.

"Okay, by who?" *He is wearing a Prudential shirt, by the way*

Aviva, AXA.

"Shall we review your insurance? Maybe we can get you some cheaper insurance."

Erm, I don't think so. I have the MHA group insurance.

"Oh... okay. What about health insurance?"

Yeah, I'm with AXA for my health insurance.

"Is your insurance for B wards? We can upgrade your insurance to a better ward."

It's for private hospitals.

"Oh... Can I ask why AXA and not the others?"

AXA has the Basic rider that covers for any deductibles and co-payments.

"Prudential has the same thing too!"

No, not really. Prudential's one has extra stuff like daily hospital cash and other things that I think are useless. Prudential's health insurance is about 10-20% more expensive than AXA.

*Insurance agent stunned with mouth open*

Anyway, I think that should be about it, right?

"Sorry, what kind of work do you do? Are you in Finance? Do you work in a bank?"

Haha, no I don't work in a bank. Anyway, I'll go now then.

"Okay... bye."

Endowment: FAILED
ILP: FAILED
General Insurance: FAILED
Shield Plan: FAILED

In all honesty, they are asking the right questions. It just so happened that I had all the right answers.

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

"Easing" is a Good Sign... for Buyers?


One of the people in the local scene that I quite admire is Vina Ip aka Property Soul. Many people might not agree with me and attribute her success to luck and timing, but it takes massive stones to take the calculated risks that she did and walk away from everything a glowing success. Anyway I feel that her book about buying property in Singapore is a true gem - focused specifically to buyers of Singapore property and littered with wise and time-tested financial advice.

In her latest post, she talked about the recent "easing" of the cooling measures that were just announced. Let me quickly point out the 3 changes:


  1. SSD has 1 tier removed, and hence 1 year less, and a lower rate
  2. TDSR doesn't apply to MWL if LTV is 50% or less
  3. "ACD" is the new acronym that plugs the QC/ABSD loophole that is being abused

Why do these 3 things actually means worse times for the property market?

Lowering the SSD will help all those stuck with properties to unload it off at the market quicker. It might *spark* demand speculation since properties can now be sold off easier and quicker, but it seems like this is to allow those with bleeding bank accounts to save themselves.

If they had really wanted to stimulate buying demand, they would have reduced or removed the ABSD. What I infer from this action (lowering SSD) and inaction (of the ABSD) is that the Gov doesn't think that more houses need to be bought; they think more of the investment properties of multiple owners should be off-loaded instead.

I would imagine that there is pent-up demand for private homes. But with prices these ridiculous, people like me just continue staying rent-free with our parents until these "property investors" finally decide to stop their monthly bleeding by biting the bullet of reality.

The MWL for LTV of 50% and below is rather neutral, but I can see the rationale behind that. Basically, if you can cough up a 50% deposit, your don't need the TDSR framework to "guard you from overconsumption". 

The ACD plug is good news. There was all this crap nonsense going around recent about some rich ass guys buying tons of expensive properties here and there to prevent the ABSD surcharge. Now developers have to cut price or pay the charges.

I think they are gonna cut prices.

Anyway, this doesn't really affect me directly. New leasehold launches are punching way above anything I would want to pay. I believe that there is PLENTY of blood left that has yet to flow onto the streets, especially from recent buying speculators (2012 onwards). I have high hopes for some of the resellers in my targetted developments to not to be able to stand the heat of the market and let go at a price which is still profitable to them (due to their longer holding period), but at a much more realistic market price. 

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Financial Cyber Security: The Series

Dear all,

This topic has actually been something that I feel quite passionately about. I think cyber security is a very serious issue, and unfortunately, the people that are the least able to effectively deal with cyber security are individuals.

Why? Individuals are the most likely to lack time, resources (including money) and technical knowledge to effectively deal with cyber security. Compare this to an organization, where there are dedicated staff with the technical knowledge and the enterprise-grade software and hardware to help them prevent costly cyber attacks. Companies spend money on cyber security, not because they want to, but because succumbing to a cyber attack can be very costly. Obviously, this applies to individuals as well, but it is somehow very rarely talked about.


While cyber security is actually a VERY BROAD problem affecting pretty much almost everybody that you can think of, the reason why I want to talk about it here, on my personal finance blog is because cyber security also has a real, direct effect to your financial security.

Have you never seen or felt any cyber security failures before?

Friends who have got hacked send out virus emails, or have weird activities and requests from their social media?

Emails appear in your inbox asking you to follow the link to reset your password?

Your own device, or others' device that have been locked by ransomware?


I'm sure you have definitely experienced some of this first-hand. Let's be honest here, I have too. Recently a hacker from Venezuela hacked my password and gained access into one of my accounts. I had a real-life online battle with him about who could take control of the account faster. He had sneakily replaced my mobile number and authenticated his device so that he could take over my account with his new "authentication". It was lucky that I was checking my email at the time of the hacking, or else my account would have been lost. Not only did my account have personal information about me, it also had my credit card details!

I've also seen phishing + malware attacks happen in real life, where an attacker directed the target over the phone through a phony website to get scammed. I recognized the weird behaviour and I stopped the target and took over the phone and engaged the attacker. It was clearly an foreign voice. Upon further investigation, the target's computer was found to be infected and the scam was prevented and reported. The funny thing about the police's reponse? "Since no money was actually stolen, it is very hard for us to pursue this case because nothing is missing".

The morale of the story: Cyber attacks can originate from anywhere (internal and external) and can come from anywhere in the world!


At the end of the day, it's not the police's fault for not being able to recover money or information lost during a cyber attack. The responsibility lies entirely with the person who owns those assets to protect it properly.

Your ibanking login credentials? Your email account? Your email account linked to your ibanking that is used to reset your password?

The responsibility of all of that belongs to you.

If someone is able to log into your account from the username and password you wrote down on a post it note and transfer away your money, it is really hard to blame anyone except yourself.

I hope that with this series of post that I am planning to do, I can share with everyone what are the things that I personally have done to improve my cyber security, along with useful suggestions. I've been wanting to do this for a long time and I first talked about it back in Nov 2015.. wow, blast from the past!

What do you guys think of this series? Let me know if there are any things that you would like me to blog about and I'll see if I can include it! Kind in mind, I'm not a technical expert in this field, but I'll try my best!

Monday, March 13, 2017

Bye EZ Link, Bye NETS Flash Pay, Hello MasterCard?

A while back ago, there was a news piece that quietly slipped past the radars of most people, but I read it with quite some keen interest. It was an article about how it was going to be possible to pay for public transport directly with your contactless credit card and charged through the credit card network instead of going through a stored value wallet.

I recently saw a Facebook campaign by POSB asking ppl to sign up for this service, although they did have a promotion to have 3 free rides if you register before the... 12th. But today is the 13th, oh well.

Anyway, I still signed up for the service.

Why do I think that it is good?

1) No more stored value wallets
2) No more top-up charges
3) Possibly free up 1 card space in your wallet

Personally, as much as I like the ATU / Reload function of the EZ and NETS cards, I don't like that I have to top up like $50 into my card and slowly draw it down over the next month or two.

I also don't like paying a small admin fee to have this top-up service every single time. Of course I understand that there is some cost involved, but of course free would be better, right?

With this new change, hopefully I can refund the balance in my NETS Flashpay stored wallet, retire that card, and just use my newer card that is linked to this direct deduction service.

I really don't like having so many cards in my wallet. Now all I need to do after this is to figure out which credit card do I want to keep, and which do I want to ditch for good...

Wednesday, March 8, 2017

SCB's Unlimited 1.5% Cashback Credit Card

Okay, here's the quick rundown.


SCB has just launched a new cashback card:

  • 1.5% cashback
  • NO MINIMUM SPEND
  • NO CASHBACK CAP
  • $30,000 annual income requirement

Personally, I think it looks great so far. Let's look at current its REAL competitors:

AMEX True Cashback: 1.5%, no minimum spend, no cap, BUT ITS AMEX
CIMB Visa Infinite: 1%, no minimum spend, no cap, $120,000 annual income
CIMB World MasterCard: 1%, no minimum spend, no cap, $120,000 annual income
SCB Manhattan: 0.5% - 3% cashback tiers, $200 quarter cap

Personally, I'm getting really, really sick of jumping through hoops and doing little dances for the banks so that they toss me some interest rate bonuses. The one that I hate the most is a minimum amount of monthly credit card spending. 

This card is perfect for:
  • your first starting credit card
  • people with erratic spending habits (as opposed to regularly spending habits)
  • people who don't want to be stress to spend MORE to earn back SOME 
  • people who want to simplify their life

With the bloody simple features of the card, eating free cashback has never been easier and better.

I personally like the EZ-reload feature. From what I understand, there is a $0.25 charge, but you earn back $0.75 as cashback, so you actually get $0.50 for every $50 top-up. If you have never linked your EZ link card for automated top-ups, then you are living in the dark ages. Automated top up is the best shit in the world. I can't even remember the last time I had to queue up to put money in my EZ Link card. I had always thought only tourists and ignorant people do that, but I actually realized that most people are either ignorant about it, or are too lazy to set it up. Mmm.... okay. What can I say to that? Lol.

For people with no credit card with SCB before, sign up and get freaking $138 cash rebate!!!
For people with a SCB card already, sign up and still get $20. Well, better than nothing, right?

With all the banks making me dance like a crazy monkey to qualify for some meager cashback, it's products like these that remind me that personal finance can be both simple and rewarding.

Want a fuss-free way to manage your finances? Get a CIMB Fast Saver account and pair it up with this SCB Cashback card. You'll be looking at 1% interest to your bank balance and 1.5% reduction to your expenses because of the cashback.

Sometimes simplicity and peace of mind is worth paying for, wouldn't you agree?

Friday, March 3, 2017

Integrated Shield Plans... Co-Pay or No-Pay?

having health insurance is like having clothes... do you want to be running around naked?
if you have health insurance, you have swag, trust me (okay, maybe not)

First thing first, I am considering changing my Shield plan. Why? I just received a letter notifying me of premium increases and I have realized that there are objectively better shield plans out there.

I currently have the NTUC Enhanced Income Shield (Preferred) with the Assist Rider. The rider covers all hospitalization expenses except a 10% co-pay up to $3000, and has a daily cash benefit.

You can see what insurance I have at the time of Oct 2016. Since then, I have thought about my critical illness coverage and I have added a standalone plan with Aviva. 

Probably once I finalize the switching of my shield plan, I will do an insurance update for 2017 and that will probably be it for a very long time.

I've never been hospitalized before, but if nurses looked like this...

Co-Pay or No-Pay?

Now there are 6 insurers offering shield plans. GE, Aviva, AXA, Pru, NTUC and AIA.

All 6 insurers have Shield plans that covers up til private hospitals, and all of them offer "No-Pay" riders as supplements to the base Shield plan.

"No-Pay" riders means that if you need to claim this insurance, the usual deductible and co-insurance will be completely covered by the rider. This means $0 out of pocket expense for hospitalization and surgeries.

Only 2 of the insurers have a "Co-Pay" option, and that is NTUC and Prudential.

"Co-Pay" riders mean that if you need to claim the insurance, you will only be liable up to a certain amount, which is so far up to a maximum of $3,000.

The "Co-Pay" Options

As mentioned, there are only 2 insurance providers with a "Co-Pay" option, and they are NTUC with their Assist Rider and Prudential with their Extra Lite rider.

They are slightly different in the way that things are calculated. NTUC looks at the total claimable amount, and 10% is payable up to $3000. For Prudential, the amount payable for the co-pay is simply 50% of the deductible, up to $1,750. 

So correct me if I am wrong, but this means for a person covered with NTUC, his final out of pocket expenses for being hospitalized will be slowly increasing until the claimable amount is over $30,000, and which point his maximum liability is $3,000.

However, for someone with Prudential, they are looking at a $1,750 bill every single hospitalization, unless the total bill is under $3,500.

Theoretically, if you have a $500 payable amount, you will pay $50 with NTUC, or $250 with Pru.
Theoretically, if you have a $5,000 payable amount, you will pay $500 with NTUC, or $1,750 with Pru.
Theoretically, if you have a $25,000 payable amount, you will pay $2,500 with NTUC, or $1,750 with Pru.
Theoretically, if you have a $50,000 payable amount, you will pay $3,000 with NTUC, or $1,750 with Pru.

Looking at it this way, NTUC seems better than Prudential if you are hospitalized frequently for minor stuff (total bill under $17,500). Prudential is better than NTUC if you are only hospitalized for major stuff, where the total bill would be over $17,500.

MOH data shows that at private hospitals, the 50% to 90% percentile of hospital bills is roughly between $13,000 and $28,000.

Of course, with medical inflation being one of the world's great constants, we should expect that number to slowly rise over time and that would make the Prudential offering more attractive, pari passu.

However, all things are NOT equal between the 2 insurers.

NTUC only covers 90 days pre and 90 days post hospitalization.
Prudential covers 180 days pre and 365 days post hospitalization.

NTUC annual max limit is $1m while Prudential is $1.2m


And finally, Prudential has a lower premium. Pru is about 10% cheaper until age 40, and the discount rises up to almost 20% at age 50, and the gradually falls down to 6% cheaper at age 80. For someone covering themselves from 30 to 80, the difference is roughly about 10%.

Mind you, this is AFTER NTUC has "buffed" up their offering, which is what they are using to justify their premium increase.

For me, it seems like a no-brainer that Prudential is the better choice when it comes to "Co-Pay" options.

The "No-Pay" Options

The "No-Pay" options are plentiful. You have 6 insurers and each of them have one to a few choices of riders to give you "additional benefits".

Personally, I hate bundling of insurance coverage. I don't need daily cash, ambulance fee is really not very expensive at all, extra bedding is usually restrictive to immediate family, I wouldn't want to go for TCM treatment and if I really need prosthesis, I would just pay for it out of pocket.

I don't find any of these extra benefits as real benefits that I want to be paying for year after year. For some people in special circumstances, it may be necessary or a good bonus to have such options, but for me, I really don't see them as necessary at all. 

Strangely, only AXA has prescence of mind to have a truly Basic and no-frills options with their Base Care rider which will just simply and honestly cover all the liable co-payment and deductibles. I really like this option.

With the removal of all those redundant (at least to me) bells and whistles, it isn't surprising that the premiums of AXA is a very significant 20% discount to other "No-Pay" options. 

Okay, so the "best" Co-Pay vs. No-Pay face-off

Both AXA and Prudential has 180 days pre and 365 days post operation. Prudential has an annual limit of $1.2m while AXA is $1m. AXA is more modular, meaning that you can add on the additional riders or remove them without affecting your Basic rider. Prudential allows for planned overseas treatments. There are slight pros and cons to each, but the fundamental difference of co-pay vs no-pay is really the main differentiator.

Finally, the premium difference between the Prudential "Co-Pay" option and the AXA "No-Pay" option is actually 10%.

Of course the conclusion is rather easy. A healthy person would go for the "Co-Pay" option. Not only would they visit the hospital less frequently, their treatment cost might not be high if their problems are not severe.

For someone who is prone to medical issues, the "No-Pay" option allows them to effectively limit their medical expenses, regardless of how ill they might be. This option is "more worth it" if you are always in and out of the hospital.

Someone with the Pru "Co-Pay" option could get hospitalized once at 41, twice at 51, thrice at 61, up to 4 times at 65... up to 6 times at age 78 and they would still breakeven with someone on the AXA "No-Pay" option. Of course, if they don't, they will have quite a fair bit of extra cash saved!

So... perhaps the best choice is to just be very healthy, go for the "Co-Pay" option, pray that nothing happens to you, but have an emergency fund just in case?

Conclusion

This dilemma is a real one for me. I will be deciding which route to go by the end of next week.

'Scus mi Nurse, I need some help ar ...
"Sure, I am totally qualified to give you personalized financial advice about health insurance"

I know many people go for the "No-Pay" route. After all, it was only a while ago that NTUC was the only insurer offering a "Co-Pay" option and it wasn't even widely known. Most people don't know that there is such a rider that limits your co-pay and gives you a cheaper insurance premium for your rider.

Plus, I know that there are companies that have medical benefits that "pays" for their employees' personal health insurance. In that case, of course go for the biggest and best. 

Coughing up an extra 10% for that "peace of mind" is a very easy argument to make for the "No-Pay" camp, but remember, the "Co-Pay" option has hard limits on maximum co-payment as well. To me, that is a big peace of mind as well, as compared to the "naked Shield plans" that some people have. I don't need 100% certainty. 95% is good enough for me. I know that I can afford $1,750. It isn't a catastrophe for me to reach into my emergency fund and pay for it. For some people, an unexpected $1,750 bill can really screw up their lives.

I think the question comes back to: What is the main point of an Integrated Shield Plan insurance and insurance riders?

If the answer is to protect yourself from excessively large medical bills, then honestly, both options will do the trick.

Like previously how I thought about this and eventually decided to stick with my NTUC Assist Rider "Co-Pay" option, I am actually leaning towards switching to the Prudential "Co-Pay" option rather than the AXA "No-Pay" option.

But like I said, both plans are great and definitely better than nothing. I might just be splitting hairs, but and I guess it might come down to just personal preference and comfortability with the insurers and working with their respective agents assigned to me.


What do you guys think? Did you know about "Co-Pay" options? What Shield plan and rider do you have and what was the reason you decided on that? Does the "Co-Pay" or "No-Pay" option sound better, and why do you say so?

Regardless though, I have a feeling that in the near future the "No-Pay" schemes might be scrapped (as advised from expert panels) and current policy holders will either be allowed to keep it as a legacy plan, or will be phased into co-pay models. Whatever happens though, I am sure that this isn't going to be the last time I think about Shield plans, although I really wish it was.

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

THE NEW OCBC 360 SUCKS BALLS


Oh that's right, Version 3.0 of the OCBC360 (eff 1 Apr 2017) is finally out, and it sucks!

Version 2 OCBC 360 2.25% on up to $60,000
Version 1 OCBC 360 3.05% on up to $50,000

Guess what is the "real" interest of version 3 of the OCBC 360 account?

Okay, I'll tell you. It's a stinking 1.85% of up to $70,000

1.2% for the salary credit of at least $2,000
0.3% for the GIRO payments of 3 bills of total amount of at least $150
0.3% for credit card spending over $500 a month

0.05% baseline

For the people who have been with OCBC 360 all the way, fulfilling the 3 main basic criteria of salary, GIRO and credit card spending, we have seen our interest given to us DROP from a very generous 3.05% to 1.85%. That's a 40% drop in interest since the account launched!

And of course, they beef up the "Wealth" category, where you get suckered by the banks buying shitty products that no one wants. Please do not get shit from here just to get the bonus interest.

Honestly, this is absolute bullshit. Screw you OCBC.


I'm going to be thinking about what I'll do from 1st Apr onwards. SCB has only salary credit (albeit $3,000) and also $500 credit spending for 1.78% on up to $100,000. Add in 3 GIRO payments and you're back to 2.03%, with the option to jack up that up to 3.03% if you made some big ticket purchases on your credit card that month (over $2000 instead of $500). So there you go, I haven't even really looked around and I already found an alternative which is way better than OCBC.

BOC SmartSaver is 2.35% if I am not wrong (they got tiers, gotta check it in more detail)
UOB One account finally becomes attractive, although the QUARTERLY commitment by the ONE card is a real put off (I doubt I'll ever go with UOB because of this). Its limit is $50,000 also.

Seriously though, open up a Citibank MaxiGain account. After 12 months, you'll probably be getting around 1.85% anyway, but with zero damn hoops to jump through.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I'll try to come up with my new strategy (click to see my old one).

Anyway, the result is simple: OCBC, be ready to see a beautiful flight of cash AWAY from you.


Any ideas? What is your strategy? Let me know!

*The problem is when evaluating everything as a whole, and this includes the credit cards which make up the credit card spending portion... compared to the 365, the other banks don't seem like they can consistently give you cashback on your spending. Think of it as $2000 credit, $500 expense, then add the interest + cashback. Account wise, OCBC360 is lacking, but together with their credit cards, they seem to be doing okay. I think further investigation involving the tweaking of salary credit ($2000, $3000), credit spending amount ($500, $600, $800 etc) and the cashback of the credit cards has to be taken into account before I can conclusively determine which is the best combination. As of now, I'm just pissed that they are back peddling on their main draw.