Just musing

Is it possible that a 5 rm HDB flat costs less than one year’s combined income of two young graduates? Young graduates refer to those working less than 5 years after graduation. And this could also be extended to mean any two young executives with the same income. Definitely. At one time a 5 rm flat cost only $27,500 in Holland Village. If the couple were earning $1,500 pm each, that’s $3k pm or about $40k pa inclusive of bonuses. I know some of you are shaking your heads. KNN. How could this be possible when we are supposed to better off than before? Those people then could pay off the whole $27k with less than a year’s income and with plenty to spare. And they could set aside some money as savings in their CPF or in their bank accounts. Better still, with that kind of price, today the same flat could have appreciated and may be valued at $600k! Damn nice feeling huh. Using the same magic formula, a $400k flat today could well be valued at $8m in the future, using a multiple of 22 times. But things are not that easy now. In the first place, an average young couple would have a combined income of $6k pm or an annual income of $90k. This would not even be enough to pay for half the price of a 3 rm flat. So it would be a no go to begin with. Buying a 4 rm flat will probably eat into all their CPF savings for the next 20 years, leaving very little as savings. Can things be the same again? Can they really believe that their $400k flat be worth $8m in the future? The catch is that many workers, especially the CBF workers, would not be able to see their salary go up in leaps and bounds to be able to pay for a 4 rm flat. Who can afford an $8m public flat? If a public flat is selling at $8m, then a plate of char kway teow would likely cost $100 and an average young couple should be paid like $30k pm. Maybe, just maybe, when everyone is using banana currency.

The Evil Trinity

The Evil Trinity is led by the Madman of the 21st Century. One member is the beast of the 20th Century and the other is the psychopath in South Korea. The Madman is infamous for starting wars everywhere and killing innocent people to satisfy its lust for power and control. It could do it as it could deliver the most destructive power to its victims and knowing very well that the victim could not hit back. And it will continue to attack any country on this basis until someone stands up to give it a bloody nose before it would stop. To continue what it is doing in a bigger scale it is pandering to the lust for glory of the old Japanese empire in the beast. It is encouraging the beast to take on a bigger and more belligerent role in world affairs by expanding its military capability to wage wars. And the psychopaths in South Korea were given full military support to provoke the North Koreans to start a war. The 21st Century is going to be a precarious century with the Evil Trinity out to conquer and dominate the world. The only hope to push back this evil force is an alliance between China, Russia and North Korea. A better balance would be to include India, Brazil and even the European Union. The latter is a far fetch hope as they are likely to join the Evil Trinity instead and become an Evil Gang of Four. All peace loving nations should unite against this force of evil and voice their opposition to what they are doing. They cannot allow them to go on setting the world, country by country, on fire. The rest of the world cannot continue to be divided and duped into complacency and be controlled by the neo colonialists and be victims of a new formula of oppression. Every country has to stand up to oppose this evil trend or risk losing their independence and become subservient to the Evil Empire, fronted by the Evil Trinity.

The Evil of big banks and monopoly

While the Americans have tasted their own bitter medicine of going big, big and bigger, we are still sleeping like Rip Van Winkle. Big is still good and we are going bigger by killing the smaller ones. Read the article below to see the evil of being too big and the unfair advantage it has in exploiting the small guys. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2010 The Economy Cannot Recover Until the Big Banks Are Broken Up A lot of people still haven't heard that the economy cannot recover until the big banks are broken up. In fact, virtually all independent economists and financial experts are calling for the big banks to be broken up, including: Nobel prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz Nobel prize-winning economist, Ed Prescott Former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan Former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich Dean and professor of finance and economics at Columbia Business School, and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush, R. Glenn Hubbard Former chief IMF economist and economics professor Simon Johnson (and see this) President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Thomas Hoenig (and seethis) President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Richard Fisher (and see this) President of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Thomas Bullard Deputy Treasury Secretary, Neal S. Wolin The President of the Independent Community Bankers of America, a Washington-based trade group with about 5,000 members, Camden R. Fine The Congressional panel overseeing the bailout (and see this) The head of the FDIC, Sheila Bair The head of the Bank of England, Mervyn King The leading monetary economist and co-author with Milton Friedman of the leading treatise on the Great Depression, Anna Schwartz Economics professor and senior regulator during the S & L crisis, William K. Black Economics professor, Nouriel Roubini Economics professor, James Galbraith Economist, Marc Faber Professor of entrepreneurship and finance at the Chicago Booth School of Business, Luigi Zingales Economics professor, Thomas F. Cooley Economist Dean Baker Economist Arnold Kling Former investment banker, Philip Augar Chairman of the Commons Treasury, John McFall Leading bank analyst, Chris Whalen Why do these experts say the giant banks need to be broken up? Well, small banks have been lending much more than the big boys. The giant banks which received taxpayer bailouts have been harming the economy by slashing lending, giving higher bonuses, and operating at higher costs than banks whichdidn't get bailed out. As Fortune pointed out, the only reason that smaller banks haven't been able to expand and thrive is that the too-big-to-fails have decreased competition: Growth for the nation's smaller banks represents a reversal of trends from the last twenty years, when the biggest banks got much bigger and many of the smallest players were gobbled up or driven under... As big banks struggle to find a way forward and rising loan losses threaten to punish poorly run banks of all sizes, smaller but well capitalized institutions have a long-awaited chance to expand. Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/11/justice-department-plans-_n_201409.html So the very size of the giants squashes competition, and prevents the small and medium size banks to start lending to Main Street again. And as I noted in December 2008, the big banks are the major reason why sovereign debt has become a crisis: The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) is often called the "central banks' central bank", as it coordinates transactions between central banks. BIS points out in a new report that the bank rescue packages have transferred significant risks onto government balance sheets, which is reflected in the corresponding widening of sovereign credit default swaps: The scope and magnitude of the bank rescue packages also meant that significant risks had been transferred onto government balance sheets. This was particularly apparent in the market for CDS referencing sovereigns involved either in large individual bank rescues or in broad-based support packages for the financial sector, including the United States. While such CDS were thinly traded prior to the announced rescue packages, spreads widened suddenly on increased demand for credit protection, while corresponding financial sector spreads tightened. In other words, by assuming huge portions of the risk from banks trading in toxic derivatives, and by spending trillions that they don't have, central banks have put their countries at risk from default. Now, Greece, Portugal, Spain and many other European countries - as well as the U.S. and Japan - are facing serious debt crises. We are no longer wealthy enough to keep bailing out the bloated banks. See this, this, this, this, this and this. Indeed, the top independent experts say that the biggest banks are insolvent. Seethis, for example. By failing to break up the giant banks, the government will have to keep taking emergency measures to try to cover up their insolvency. And by failing to break them up, the government is guaranteeing that they will take crazily risky bets again and again, and the government will wrack up more and more debt bailing them out in the future. (Anyone who thinks that Congress will use the current financial regulation - Dodd-Frank - to break up banks in the middle of an even bigger crisis is dreaming. If the giant banks aren't broken up now - when they are threatening to take down the world economy - they won't be broken up next timethey become insolvent either. And see this. In other words, there is no better time than today to break them up). Moreover, Richard Alford - former New York Fed economist, trading floor economist and strategist - recently showed that banks that get too big benefit from "information asymmetry" which disrupts the free market. Indeed, Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz noted in September that giants like Goldman are using their size to manipulate the market: "The main problem that Goldman raises is a question of size: 'too big to fail.' In some markets, they have a significant fraction of trades. Why is that important? They trade both on their proprietary desk and on behalf of customers. When you do that and you have a significant fraction of all trades, you have a lot of information." Further, he says, "That raises the potential of conflicts of interest, problems of front-running, using that inside information for your proprietary desk. And that's why the Volcker report came out and said that we need to restrict the kinds of activity that these large institutions have. If you're going to trade on behalf of others, if you're going to be a commercial bank, you can't engage in certain kinds of risk-taking behavior." The giants (especially Goldman Sachs) have also used high-frequency program trading which not only distorts the markets - making up more than 70% of stock trades - but which also lets the program trading giants take a sneak peak at what the real (that is, human) traders are buying and selling, and then trade on the insider information. See this, this, this, this and this. (This is frontrunning, which is illegal; but it is a lot bigger than garden variety frontrunning, because the program traders are not only trading based on inside knowledge of what their own clients are doing, they are also trading based on knowledge of what all other traders are doing). Goldman also admitted that its proprietary trading program can "manipulate the markets in unfair ways". The giant banks have also allegedly used their Counterparty Risk Management Policy Group (CRMPG) to exchange secret information and formulate coordinated mutually beneficial actions, all with the government's blessings. Again, size matters. If a bunch of small banks did this, manipulation by numerous small players would tend to cancel each other out. But with a handful of giants doing it, it can manipulate the entire economy in ways which are not good for the American citizen. Moreover, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley together hold 80% of the country's derivatives risk, and 96% of the exposure to credit derivatives. Experts say that derivatives will never be reined inuntil the mega-banks are broken up, and yet unregulated derivatives are one of the main risks to the economy. In addition, as everyone from Paul Krugman to Simon Johnson has noted, the banks are so big and politically powerful that they have bought the politicians and captured the regulators. So their very size is preventing the changes needed to fix the economy. PS. My apologies for not accrediting the source. It was emailed to me without the source.

High COE prices going to disrupt family life

Hooray, my old car has appreciated in value. Many old car owners are jubilant and praying that the COE prices will continue to rise, to hit the $100k mark. And in tandem the value of their old cars will rise as well. But beware, this orgasm is short lived. Just one last time. No more orgasm subsequently for many. After the old car’s life span is expired, some would not be able to cough out another $100k for a new COE and a new car. Many have the same experience in owning HDB flats. Prices going up, happy like hell. But don’t ever sell, no chance to buy back unless one still got one more chance with the HDB. What is disturbing in the two great price hikes is how they will eat up the limited disposable incomes of many families. Some families rely heavily on the car for their mobility, to bring children/seniors to schools, to care givers, to all kinds of classes and activities. Minus the car, life is going to be very disruptive and miserable. But there are convenient and easily accessible public transports available, the MRT, buses and the taxis. When time is an issue with tight schedules, shuttling between work, home, schools, tuition centres, parent’s homes etc etc, it is going to be hectic and a frustrating waiting game for taxis even if they can afford to. Our social system is getting to be less caring and less family friendly. Can families who really need the car make do without them? Is the high COE prices really unavoidable, like high HDB prices, high medical prices? Where are we going? For the sake of the poor motorists and those who really need a car, the present COE bidding system must be changed. No more stupid explanation that it is the best system. For one, no bidding by car companies. Two, the bidders shall pay the price they bid and not the lowest. This will prevent the crazily rich from bidding $100k or $200k for his COE knowing that they need not pay for what they bid. And neither can the car companies bid as high as they want while the helpless real buyers suffered in silence. Let’s hope the super talents will use their talents for the good of the motorists. But worst is to come. When more people give up car ownership, the MRT is going to be bursting in the seams. And they would be another good opportunity to hike fares to provide better services!

Lessons from WikiLeaks

When the Americans come a calling, and pretending to be seeking advice and tapping one’s wisdom, the best thing is to shut up. The second best thing is to say only good things, even about your foes. This will save a lot of embarrassment when what is said in confidence is aired in the open. Giving advice is a great honour only reserved for the wise ones. Being asked to give advice and opinion is quite flattering. But beware of the ego and don’t get carried away. What is spoken can be used to compromise one’s position and standing in the eyes of friends and foes. With hindsight, I think all diplomats would be wiser now. The Americans have blown their wicked intent for the last time and never will be given a second chance. But suckers will be born everyday and some will still think very highly of themselves and will continue to offer more advices and more opinions to the Americans. The Americans will be laughing themselves silly that these were given free of charge, and willingly. All they to do is to stroke the ego a little to get it excited.