Someone asked how much was needed to serve the people. The answer, $15k a month should be enough. What, that’s impossible! How to live a dignified lifestyle with that kind of pittance? This is what Chen Show Mao and Sylvia Lim needs to be a MP full time. They have both quitted their full time jobs. For Chen Show Mao, who was used to earning many times more, he would have a lot of adjusting to do. He may even have to take public transport or buy a HDB flat, downgrade his lifestyle to suit his smaller pay check. Another important question pops up? Would he be tempted to be corrupt if he is not being paid in the millions?
Chen Show Mao’s presence in the home political scene has disturbed the status quo of high paying sacrifices in politics. Do I make sense in this statement? Nevermind, it is not meant to make sense anyway. But you will get what I mean.
When Chen Show Mao returned to stand for the GE, some questioned his motives and sincerity as if he was a wolf in sheepskin. The doubts cast on him were full of skepticism and ill intent. They raised questions about his family, his children, why he spent so many years out of the country, even his accent.
Today, we heard that he had resigned from a high profile and very high paying job, to be an ordinary MP, to serve the people in the tropical heat of a void deck. No more designer suits, no more air conditioned comfort, no more fine dinings with the sikit atas and nice people, but plenty of kopitiam talks and shoulder rubbing with the losers.
Again, the skeptics and those with private agenda would be wagging their tongues about this new kid in the block. What is he up to? Is he up to any no good? Or is he of unsound mind? Such chivalry and sacrifice for a cause, a higher calling, is just too idealistic and can only be found in children’s fairy tales story books. Is he serious in what he is doing and would he quit after one term?
By the way, Chen Show Mao has never used the word ‘sacrifice’ in the all the things he is doing. He just came in from the cold and doing what many would demand a fortune to do. He is a man with a mission, a man of the moment, dispelling all the myths that we have all made to believe in. Would Times Magazine want to put his face on their front page?
Please pour more cold water on my head. This kind of things cannot be true. It is just not practical, not real. Or is he a freak, an alien? What is his belief? What kind of odd upbringings did he receive to do such things that normal people will scorn upon? Shall he be praised or shall he be shunned, to upset the impeccable window dressings in the expensive Orchard Road department stores?
Oh, time will tell, so they said.
7/04/2011
7/03/2011
When Boon Wan is doing the kpkb
Things are getting interesting when Boon Wan is doing the kpkb himself. Kpkb is going to take on a very special meaning now. He is infuriated with the BT report on the obscene profit that Sim Lian was supposed to make from Centrale 8. ‘I am working my guts out to try to calm the market, for the good of all Singaporeans. But I can’t do it alone. I need all to help.’
And Boon Wan has only been on the job for 5 weeks and found himself having sleepless night trying to solve an enormous problem that was non existence before he took office. His predecessor was having a cake walk then. Everything was going on smoothly according to plans, and Singaporeans got to be thankful for his skilled management of the housing problems. Oops, cannot call it a problem as there was no problem at all.
Perhaps Boon Wan may want to have tea with his predecessor and get a few good advices on how to manage a problem that was not a problem in the first place. Then he can have an easier life. Imagine him rushing out all the BTOs and pushing all the contractors to build in double quick time, cannot sleep, and the prices still uncontrollable. And he needs everyone to help him when all he needed is Mah Bow Tan to show him the ropes.
Or could it be that all the so called problems were imaginary. Look at the riotings in Hongkong. They have a real problem, and one of which is soaring property prices. The people are really getting hit and are walking the streets. Here, where got problem? I can’t see any problem. You can’t find more than 200 angry people at Hong Lim and you called it a problem?
And Centrale 8 is still very well received by the people. Many young people are finding the location and facilities excellent and willing to pay the asking price. You cannot call that a problem. The people are just too happy to pay. Stop imagining? The answer is very simple. Just tell yourself that there is no problem and the problem will disappear. If people come to kpkb about problems, tell them it is they themselves that are the problems. Other people, in fact at least 60% of the population, are very happy people. Or adopt the deaf frog approach, just believe that what you are doing is right and the best way to go. Your conscience will then be clear and you will be at peace with yourself, and the million dollar salary.
Now, how can the media help Boon Wan? To report that there were profiteering and that the prices were too high? Or to report that the prices are reasonable with very little profit? I think, just the personal opinion of a simple layman, if the buyers are told that developer’s costs are so high and the pricing is just right with minimum profit, then they can never expect the price to come any lower. You cannot expect the developer to build at a lost. So I think the buyers will buy up the whole Centrale 8 at the asking price. If the price is excessively high as reported, would it not put fear to the buyers and to pressure other developers to bring the price down?
On the one hand it was worrying that the price was too high. Now it is claimed that it is reasonable, with little profit? Which view will create more problems?
Maybe the media shall not report on those rich interviewees who said the prices are affordable or reasonable. And then report on those who are complaining that the prices are too high, cannot afford them? There is a choice in reporting, really. The Hongkong demonstration was reported to have 200,000 participants by the organisers and only 50,000 by the police. And the readers also have a choice to read what they want to believe in the media.
So, is the price of Centrale 8 high or low? Is there a housing problem here? Now who is to say that a $1m Ferrari is expensive? It all depends on whether you can afford it. To some it is cheap, cheap, cheap.
By the way, what is the hooha about? The market forces will set the property prices. Those who can afford, buy, those who cannot, downgrade their expectations. Problem solved already.
And Boon Wan has only been on the job for 5 weeks and found himself having sleepless night trying to solve an enormous problem that was non existence before he took office. His predecessor was having a cake walk then. Everything was going on smoothly according to plans, and Singaporeans got to be thankful for his skilled management of the housing problems. Oops, cannot call it a problem as there was no problem at all.
Perhaps Boon Wan may want to have tea with his predecessor and get a few good advices on how to manage a problem that was not a problem in the first place. Then he can have an easier life. Imagine him rushing out all the BTOs and pushing all the contractors to build in double quick time, cannot sleep, and the prices still uncontrollable. And he needs everyone to help him when all he needed is Mah Bow Tan to show him the ropes.
Or could it be that all the so called problems were imaginary. Look at the riotings in Hongkong. They have a real problem, and one of which is soaring property prices. The people are really getting hit and are walking the streets. Here, where got problem? I can’t see any problem. You can’t find more than 200 angry people at Hong Lim and you called it a problem?
And Centrale 8 is still very well received by the people. Many young people are finding the location and facilities excellent and willing to pay the asking price. You cannot call that a problem. The people are just too happy to pay. Stop imagining? The answer is very simple. Just tell yourself that there is no problem and the problem will disappear. If people come to kpkb about problems, tell them it is they themselves that are the problems. Other people, in fact at least 60% of the population, are very happy people. Or adopt the deaf frog approach, just believe that what you are doing is right and the best way to go. Your conscience will then be clear and you will be at peace with yourself, and the million dollar salary.
Now, how can the media help Boon Wan? To report that there were profiteering and that the prices were too high? Or to report that the prices are reasonable with very little profit? I think, just the personal opinion of a simple layman, if the buyers are told that developer’s costs are so high and the pricing is just right with minimum profit, then they can never expect the price to come any lower. You cannot expect the developer to build at a lost. So I think the buyers will buy up the whole Centrale 8 at the asking price. If the price is excessively high as reported, would it not put fear to the buyers and to pressure other developers to bring the price down?
On the one hand it was worrying that the price was too high. Now it is claimed that it is reasonable, with little profit? Which view will create more problems?
Maybe the media shall not report on those rich interviewees who said the prices are affordable or reasonable. And then report on those who are complaining that the prices are too high, cannot afford them? There is a choice in reporting, really. The Hongkong demonstration was reported to have 200,000 participants by the organisers and only 50,000 by the police. And the readers also have a choice to read what they want to believe in the media.
So, is the price of Centrale 8 high or low? Is there a housing problem here? Now who is to say that a $1m Ferrari is expensive? It all depends on whether you can afford it. To some it is cheap, cheap, cheap.
By the way, what is the hooha about? The market forces will set the property prices. Those who can afford, buy, those who cannot, downgrade their expectations. Problem solved already.
7/02/2011
Citizen’s savings become Nation’s reserves
According to Ngiam Tong Dow’s article, the country’s reserves comprise CPF contributions, budget surpluses, revenue from land sales and dividends from GLCs. I would believe all the profits made by the ministries and stats boards would also be included in the reserves under surpluses.
Does it mean that the funds managed by the GIC and Temasek Holdings are not part of the reserves but funds managed by them from the govt? Technically that could be the case as it would lead to double entry and recognition.
What I am curious is the assigning of the people’s savings in the CPF as the country’s reserves. Aren’t this money the people’s money? The govt’s money is money it generated from its services, profits and surpluses. There cannot be any misunderstanding that the people’s savings is not the country’s money. It is a more acceptable general description that the country’s savings or wealth is the people’s money as the people is the ultimate owner of the country. Definitely the country cannot claim that the money the people saved belong to the country and become its reserves. If that be the case, it has an additional reason to boost up the savings in the CPF to inflate the reserves. Have all the lockup schemes got anything to do with this?
This distinction must be clearly defined or else it is easy for the administrator of the people’s saving to think that it is their money and they can do anything they want with the money. The often changes in the withdrawal date and amount to be withdrawn and what or how the people can use their savings are manifestations of a mindset that puts questions to the ownership of the people’s savings in the CPF.
The people cannot take it lying down that the govt can dictate how and what it wants to do with their savings, locking it up in all kinds of schemes. Should this be a time to redefine the people’s savings in the CPF as the people’s savings and not the nation’s reserves? As a reserves it is good to know and to see but cannot touch except by the govt. Does not seem very right is it? It is better to remove the people’s saving from the definition of reserves so that no one will harbour wild ideas about them.
Your money is my money and my money is my money.
Does it mean that the funds managed by the GIC and Temasek Holdings are not part of the reserves but funds managed by them from the govt? Technically that could be the case as it would lead to double entry and recognition.
What I am curious is the assigning of the people’s savings in the CPF as the country’s reserves. Aren’t this money the people’s money? The govt’s money is money it generated from its services, profits and surpluses. There cannot be any misunderstanding that the people’s savings is not the country’s money. It is a more acceptable general description that the country’s savings or wealth is the people’s money as the people is the ultimate owner of the country. Definitely the country cannot claim that the money the people saved belong to the country and become its reserves. If that be the case, it has an additional reason to boost up the savings in the CPF to inflate the reserves. Have all the lockup schemes got anything to do with this?
This distinction must be clearly defined or else it is easy for the administrator of the people’s saving to think that it is their money and they can do anything they want with the money. The often changes in the withdrawal date and amount to be withdrawn and what or how the people can use their savings are manifestations of a mindset that puts questions to the ownership of the people’s savings in the CPF.
The people cannot take it lying down that the govt can dictate how and what it wants to do with their savings, locking it up in all kinds of schemes. Should this be a time to redefine the people’s savings in the CPF as the people’s savings and not the nation’s reserves? As a reserves it is good to know and to see but cannot touch except by the govt. Does not seem very right is it? It is better to remove the people’s saving from the definition of reserves so that no one will harbour wild ideas about them.
Your money is my money and my money is my money.
7/01/2011
The phones stop ringing
More shocks than stocks as brokers take a belting and the phones stop ringing
June 28, 2011
Bill Shorten and some key federal politicians are about to be lobbied hard and loud by Australia's retail brokers who are fighting for their lives against a backdrop of depressed trading volumes, falling commissions and tougher regulation.
The latest body blow relates to a set of recommendations in the Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) reforms which came about following the collapse of some financial planning companies, notably Storm Financial.
Industry submissions recently closed, but some blue-chip stockbrokers and their lobby group, the Stockbrokers' Association of Australia, will go direct to politicians to try to overturn a set of proposals before they are put to the Parliament….
In the past few years, more than 20 brokers have either collapsed, nearly collapsed or merged.
Most have culled staff or instigated hiring freezes. More recently, BBY bought Stonebridge Group, formerly known as Tricom Securities.
Most brokers remain unlisted and out of the public gaze, but the few that decided to list on the ASX have found the experience humbling.
Austock Asset Management's shares trade at 12¢ which is a far cry from the high of $2.10 in December 2007. Wilson HTM is at 67¢ a share after trading above $4 in June 2007 and Bell Financial Group is at 78.5¢ after trading at more than double that in 2007.
With thin volumes on the ASX, it is becoming a war of attrition in stockbroker land, with questions over who can survive the longest under the strain.
There are three parts to a traditional retail business: retail advisory, institutional brokerage and corporate finance. In the current climate, retail advisory has fallen severely, institutional has been butchered, and with few floats and even fewer equity raisings, corporate finance is on life support.
This is not being helped by some tougher regulatory requirements, including the increase in the minimum core capital requirement - from $2 million to $5 million, and going up to $10 million in 2013 - for stockbrokers who clear their own trades. This is a big increase considering the requirement was $100,000 a few years ago.
It is no surprise then that some smaller brokers have already moved to third party clearing while others will need to consolidate.
Times are certainly tough, particularly for the smaller full service retail brokers, with some complaining the phones hardly ring. With more investors going for cheaper online trading and the ASX focused on turnover and speed of transactions, many more will fall by the wayside.
The above is an article in Brisbane
Times on I Jul 11.
The Stock Market has been transformed in the last few years to an animal that is beyond recognition. It is no longer a stock market in the traditional sense where companies list their shares to raise funds for growth and expansion, where investors made profits from long term investments and riding on the growth of profitable companies. And where brokers and broking houses were able to service their clients and earn a commission to support their operation.
Today, the big funds are trying to make money from the fictitious stock market by being faster than the next guy by 1 micro sec or by placing a micro bit of 0.01c. And big funds are able to take full advantage of an unlevel playing field, using their big financial muscles, technology and hardware to squeeze every cent out of the small investors.
Stock exchanges used to take it as their main responsibility, to provide a fair and level trading platform to all players. Today they unashamingly embraced the big funds and accommodate their unfair trading methodologies with no sense of guilt or crime. Small investors thus became victims to the big funds and lost their pants without knowing why, and on one willing to own up for the fiasco in the stock exchanges around the world.
The phones have stop ringging. Soon the brokers will hand up their phones too, and so will be the broking houses. Retrenchment and cost cutting will not do when there is no income to sustain the high overheads. Neither will cutting the razor thin commission make any sense or do any good. The gimmicks of continuous trading with no lunch breaks will not bring in additional business as the small investors will still not have any chance in an unfair trading system. It only benefits the big funds that operate cross boundaries to take advantage of arbitrage opportunities and their sophisticated computer system to scalp every cent there is from the small investors.
Yes, it cannot go on forever as the small investors will not be able to keep paying for their losses. The Brisbane Stock Brokers are barking up the wrong tree like brokers around the world. The key issue is to return to the basics of what a stock exchange is supposed to be, and when trading is fair and level for everyone, and where companies can raise funds and grow, while small investors can invest and grow with the companies.
Making money by being 1 micro second faster is not stock investing. Applying huge funds and technology to win bets in the stock exchange is not stock investing either, but manipulation of the stock market system, cornering of the market, buying and selling without change of ownership which are against the rules and regulations of stock exchanges.
When will the phone go dead for good? The new regulations that the Australian brokers are to put up with are plain stupidity that will do no good to their business. It is shadow fighting, grasping at strawmen. When are they going to open their eyes to see what is going wrong?
June 28, 2011
Bill Shorten and some key federal politicians are about to be lobbied hard and loud by Australia's retail brokers who are fighting for their lives against a backdrop of depressed trading volumes, falling commissions and tougher regulation.
The latest body blow relates to a set of recommendations in the Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) reforms which came about following the collapse of some financial planning companies, notably Storm Financial.
Industry submissions recently closed, but some blue-chip stockbrokers and their lobby group, the Stockbrokers' Association of Australia, will go direct to politicians to try to overturn a set of proposals before they are put to the Parliament….
In the past few years, more than 20 brokers have either collapsed, nearly collapsed or merged.
Most have culled staff or instigated hiring freezes. More recently, BBY bought Stonebridge Group, formerly known as Tricom Securities.
Most brokers remain unlisted and out of the public gaze, but the few that decided to list on the ASX have found the experience humbling.
Austock Asset Management's shares trade at 12¢ which is a far cry from the high of $2.10 in December 2007. Wilson HTM is at 67¢ a share after trading above $4 in June 2007 and Bell Financial Group is at 78.5¢ after trading at more than double that in 2007.
With thin volumes on the ASX, it is becoming a war of attrition in stockbroker land, with questions over who can survive the longest under the strain.
There are three parts to a traditional retail business: retail advisory, institutional brokerage and corporate finance. In the current climate, retail advisory has fallen severely, institutional has been butchered, and with few floats and even fewer equity raisings, corporate finance is on life support.
This is not being helped by some tougher regulatory requirements, including the increase in the minimum core capital requirement - from $2 million to $5 million, and going up to $10 million in 2013 - for stockbrokers who clear their own trades. This is a big increase considering the requirement was $100,000 a few years ago.
It is no surprise then that some smaller brokers have already moved to third party clearing while others will need to consolidate.
Times are certainly tough, particularly for the smaller full service retail brokers, with some complaining the phones hardly ring. With more investors going for cheaper online trading and the ASX focused on turnover and speed of transactions, many more will fall by the wayside.
The above is an article in Brisbane
Times on I Jul 11.
The Stock Market has been transformed in the last few years to an animal that is beyond recognition. It is no longer a stock market in the traditional sense where companies list their shares to raise funds for growth and expansion, where investors made profits from long term investments and riding on the growth of profitable companies. And where brokers and broking houses were able to service their clients and earn a commission to support their operation.
Today, the big funds are trying to make money from the fictitious stock market by being faster than the next guy by 1 micro sec or by placing a micro bit of 0.01c. And big funds are able to take full advantage of an unlevel playing field, using their big financial muscles, technology and hardware to squeeze every cent out of the small investors.
Stock exchanges used to take it as their main responsibility, to provide a fair and level trading platform to all players. Today they unashamingly embraced the big funds and accommodate their unfair trading methodologies with no sense of guilt or crime. Small investors thus became victims to the big funds and lost their pants without knowing why, and on one willing to own up for the fiasco in the stock exchanges around the world.
The phones have stop ringging. Soon the brokers will hand up their phones too, and so will be the broking houses. Retrenchment and cost cutting will not do when there is no income to sustain the high overheads. Neither will cutting the razor thin commission make any sense or do any good. The gimmicks of continuous trading with no lunch breaks will not bring in additional business as the small investors will still not have any chance in an unfair trading system. It only benefits the big funds that operate cross boundaries to take advantage of arbitrage opportunities and their sophisticated computer system to scalp every cent there is from the small investors.
Yes, it cannot go on forever as the small investors will not be able to keep paying for their losses. The Brisbane Stock Brokers are barking up the wrong tree like brokers around the world. The key issue is to return to the basics of what a stock exchange is supposed to be, and when trading is fair and level for everyone, and where companies can raise funds and grow, while small investors can invest and grow with the companies.
Making money by being 1 micro second faster is not stock investing. Applying huge funds and technology to win bets in the stock exchange is not stock investing either, but manipulation of the stock market system, cornering of the market, buying and selling without change of ownership which are against the rules and regulations of stock exchanges.
When will the phone go dead for good? The new regulations that the Australian brokers are to put up with are plain stupidity that will do no good to their business. It is shadow fighting, grasping at strawmen. When are they going to open their eyes to see what is going wrong?
We have plenty of land
We can bring in another few million people and we will still have enough land to build more ugly building blocks to house them. Sure, no problem. We have even more land overseas to train our boys, I mean borrowed land, or leased land. What if the political climate changes? What if our friendly countries got moneywise and want us to pay more for training our boys in their land? And what if we run out of goodwill and borrowed land and have to bring our boys back, and train them in our own land? Would our boys be jumping from one HDB block to another as part of their training?
In our pursuit for more heads for growth, we have used up practically every inch of land we have for all things, including training young men. Can we count on other countries to be always friendly and willing to let us train in their land? It is a possibility that no one will want us one day and we will be truly fixed.
We need to conserve our land and stop the relentless building programme by filling them up with more buildings to house more people. We are painting ourselves into a corner when land is concerned.
In our pursuit for more heads for growth, we have used up practically every inch of land we have for all things, including training young men. Can we count on other countries to be always friendly and willing to let us train in their land? It is a possibility that no one will want us one day and we will be truly fixed.
We need to conserve our land and stop the relentless building programme by filling them up with more buildings to house more people. We are painting ourselves into a corner when land is concerned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)