Insurance
A Geek’s take on Finance Redundancy
By Derek  •  March 2, 2015
I read LP's blog post on redundancy and it triggered the geek in me to blog about Finance redundancy. Pardon me as I will be using some IT terms and concept but I will try to keep it simple for non IT readers. Every IT guy knows that Redundancy is very important when designing and building a system, and is usually broken down into Hardware (e.g. servers, network switches etc) and Software (e.g. clustering, vmotion etc). When I designed my financial plan, I have also incorporated some sort of redundancy into it unknowingly (职业病). The hardware in my financial plan refers to my cash and any physical items of value e.g. jewelry, watch etc and the software refers to my lifestyle, insurance etc. I agree with LP that disasters usually occur one after another if not together (祸不单行). Take for an example a very possible scenario that has been playing in my mind. What if both my parents fall sick? The medical expenses will be huge and my cash (hardware) will be severely tested. I have an emergency fund but it is meant to cover basic expenses only. While I can always use it to cover my parents bills, it is definitely not going to last long. Hence a few years back, I set up an emergency fund for my parents. Think of it as a personal Medisave for them except that I cannot match CPF 6% risk free interest. In addition, I also 'force' my parents to contribute a token sum each month. Most companies use a combination of hardware and software to achieve redundancy. Some may ask why do we need software? The simple reason is cost. Hardware is very expensive as compared to software. In my case, to save up enough to cover my parent's hospital bills is going to be a tall order and I have to complement it with insurance (software). A software cannot run without a hardware. While I've an Integrated Shield plan to cover the bulk of the medical bills, I will still need cash to pay for the deductible and co-insurance. This will come from my parent's emergency fund. Even with both hardware and software in place, no IT company will be able to guarantee 100% redundancy. This is where customer's expectations come into play and in my case my parent's expectations. I've discussed with my parents and they are fine with a B1 ward in a government hospital. A B1 ward makes sense because 1) Anything lower than a B1 ward will mean wasting my money on a private shield plan and 2) a B1 ward will offer almost the same benefits of a private hospital but at a lot less. Take flying for an example, I may not be able to afford business class but premium economy isn't too shabby either. I'm afraid this isn't the end of it. In IT we always talk about multiple redundancies. In my case, I will look at using my parent's as well as my own CPF Medisave to reduce the amount of cash I have to pay. I will also be improving my software by increasing my top up into my Dad's CPF Medisave to take advantage of the extra 1% interest. I still have many doomsday scenarios running in my head 'credit' again to my job, but I'm not going to lose sleep over this because I know that if it really happens, at least I will not be totally 'defenseless'. If you have something similar to share, I would love to hear from you and how you prepare for it.
Read the full article
By Derek
Derek is an investor who follows Peter Lynch style of investing. He prefers to use simple and straight forward information for stock analysis. He started TheFinance.sg with the intention to bring together all bloggers and professionals who are interested or already in the area of Finance and Investing, and to create a community where everyone is free to write and to share their articles, experience and opinions.
LEAVE A COMMENT
LEAVE A COMMENT

Your email address will not be published.

*

Your Email Address will not be published
*

2 Comments

2 responses to “A Geek’s take on Finance Redundancy”

  1. La papillion says:

    Hi Derek,

    Nice segregation of the funds! I think the more we think about our doomsday scenario and the more we assign specific roles for our money, the better we will survive any disasters.

    I see it from an engineering point of view. If you have a building, each and every column is supposed to take its own set of forces acting on it. If there’s extra loading on any particular column, it will transfer some of it over to other columns, so everybody survives.

    If you have one column only, no matter how gigantic it is, and you assign it to take the ENTIRE load of the building, you’re going to wish that no extra load is applied. The moment you stress the column, the entire column will fail, and not only do your extra load tumble, your entire building will tumble. You’re almost testing fate to see if shit will happen to you.

    Robustness refers to how much abnormal stress you can apply to a system so that it can still operate fairly normally. I think we can apply the test of robustness to see if our own financial system passes it. But to thrive even when there’s abnormal stress, and thrive IN SPITE of abnormal stress, there’s no such words for it. We have to borrow Nicholas Nassim Taleb’s terminology of ‘anti-fragile’ and apply it to our system. To be anti-fragile, we have to get even better during abnormal stress situations, not merely to survive it.

    That, my friend, is the goal that the financially inclined should all strive towards.

    • Derek Lim says:

      Hi LP,

      Thanks, I’ve also learned something from you. We now have an IT and Engineering view point. Let’s see if there are others.

      I like your column analogy. This can also be applied to life. Life is supported by many pillars, parents, friends, career etc but no matter how many pillars there are, they may still collapsed eventually. Only faith is strong enough is withstand the rigors of time. Is there a similar pillar in our financial planning? One that can withstand economic volatility?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Read More Articles
More from thefinance
%d bloggers like this: