MPF survey: 30% ignored their accounts, yet 80% backed higher contributions

This article is a rewrite of a report from September 2012.

(Note: parts of the original text were garbled; they have been conservatively reconstructed from context.)

With semi-free choice approaching, MPF was the hot topic. A consultancy surveyed 200 employers and 1,000 employees, with some surprising results.

Did workers want fewer fund choices?

Over 55% of employees didn’t want more than 10 fund choices in an MPF scheme — too many funds made choosing confusing. A scheme only needed enough options to cover different risk levels: quality over quantity. And 46% cared most about whether guaranteed funds were offered, reflecting a conservative, capital-preservation mindset.

How many misunderstood semi-free choice?

67% of respondents didn’t know which part of their contributions could be moved under the scheme, and over 10% wrongly believed the employer’s portion could move too. Nearly 40% said they wouldn’t switch providers because of the reform.

Why did 80% support higher contributions?

Many workers grumbled about “forced savings”, yet a major bank’s survey found 80% thought monthly contributions should rise. The logic was simple: at the then-statutory level, retirement would bring only limited security. For middle-class earners, the 5% rate on income capped at HK$25,000 meant at most HK$1,250 a month in mandatory contributions — unlikely to sustain pre-retirement living standards.

How long would MPF savings last?

Members expected to exhaust their MPF savings in just 4.7 years on average, two years shorter than a survey two years earlier — blamed on inflation fears and weak market performance breeding pessimism.

The real question: knowing MPF falls short, would members actually make voluntary contributions? Surveys consistently found nearly 30% had never reviewed their MPF portfolio — that “couldn’t care less” attitude was the bigger problem.