The loss by the trader Kweku Adoboli, has ballooned to $2.9b. GIC is demanding that UBS takes firm action to deal with the problem. The CEO, Oswald Gruebel is asking the board of directors for permission to restructure the banks investment arm. This is like after Mas Selamat had escaped and everyone responsible was calling for corrective actions when the actions should have been taken before it happened.
In the case of banking frauds from rogue traders, it is not something new. It happened and happened and happened. Why are banks paying millions and millions for assholes to run them and allow such a simple crime to be repeated over and over again? It beats me.
The root of the problem runs deeper in the whole financial industry. It is all grounded on greed, to make quick billions to pay themselves. The banks were once an icon of stability and security, rock solid. Banks were conservative, managing wealth. Now banks want actions too, to make quick billions, to pay big bonuses. So engaging in gambling is just another means to achieve such an objective. No, they don’t gamble, they invest in risky products, invented risky products, trade in risky products.
We have seen Barings Bank at ground zero, and a few more strong and solid American financial institutions on the ground too. No one is taking heed. When banks and financial institutions are all gambling in risky products, it is only a matter of time when they go under. This will include DBS, UOB and OCBC, if they are not careful. It will include GIC, Temasek and the SGX. With our SWFs placing their big chips everywhere in such a risky time, a financial collapse could wipe off everything.
The financial institutions and industry have gone far too deep into the abyss of gambling. They don’t even see the difference. It is like drug addicts or the drunkards, without knowing what is happening to them. Only the people watching from outside the fishbowl can see clearly what is happening.
Gambling, taking high risk, conflict of interests, are now part and parcel of the financial industry. More will fail, and fall real hard, if the real problem is not treated. The greed to be big, to be a world player, comes at a big cost, while the ego gets bigger. All cautions were thrown out of the window. Selling of toxic products is fair game, creating an unfair system is fair game, conflict of interests, trading against clients, against small investors is fair game. Making small innocent investors to gamble in useless derivatives is fair game. Paying hundreds of millions of debt of badly run companies, like Manchester United, is fair game.
The road down is very slippery. When will the banks be stopped from risky trading and gambling? When will the financial system be overhauled and toxic products be stopped?
9/21/2011
9/20/2011
Taking feedback seriously
Wildlife Reserves Singapore is taking feedback very seriously and cancelled a multi million dollar event with 1,000 tickets sold and only less than a fortnight to go. I think this is a progressive spirit to adopt given that Singaporeans are now more outspoken and more willing to give feedback. And sure, feedback must not only be taken seriously but follow up actions must be taken to mean business.
Kudos to the CEO for taking immediate action to cancel the event after negative feedback from the public. I am sure she must have acted on strong feedback, definitely more than the 1,000 ticket holders who wanted to attend the event. I don’t think she would have done so if there were 999 or 99 negative comments to overrule the pleasure seeking 1,000.
After the last Presidential Election, it is obvious that many people are unhappy with the obscene salary that is paid to this office. Nothing got to do with Tony Tan or Nathan. Nothing to do with the office either. It is just that the office is seen as doing too little to justify that kind of ridiculous, out of this world, obscene, nonsensical, insensitive, unjustifiable, unspeakable, shameless… joking pay. This is just my view and I am sure that there are people out there who think that the office is deserving of every cent that is provided for, and the pay is very reasonable for the huge responsibilities of the office. I just want to differ.
Would this office be disbanded, cancelled, just like the Halloween Night event if there is enough negative feedback calling for its dissolution? And how many negative votes will be needed to disband this office?
I am putting up another poll here to ask the people if they think this office of the President should be disbanded or replace with simply a ceremonial one with an honorarium of not more than $250k annually. And I hope everyone here can get their friends to vote this time to give the poll more credence. I don’t think we will get a few hundred thousand votes, but a big enough negative votes should be a good indicator, perhaps, for the main media or govt organization to do a serious poll, maybe even a referendum, whether to scrap this office at all.
Are the people pissed off with such a waste of public money, so many millions, for this office?
Feedback from the lunatic fringe is also feedback.
Kudos to the CEO for taking immediate action to cancel the event after negative feedback from the public. I am sure she must have acted on strong feedback, definitely more than the 1,000 ticket holders who wanted to attend the event. I don’t think she would have done so if there were 999 or 99 negative comments to overrule the pleasure seeking 1,000.
After the last Presidential Election, it is obvious that many people are unhappy with the obscene salary that is paid to this office. Nothing got to do with Tony Tan or Nathan. Nothing to do with the office either. It is just that the office is seen as doing too little to justify that kind of ridiculous, out of this world, obscene, nonsensical, insensitive, unjustifiable, unspeakable, shameless… joking pay. This is just my view and I am sure that there are people out there who think that the office is deserving of every cent that is provided for, and the pay is very reasonable for the huge responsibilities of the office. I just want to differ.
Would this office be disbanded, cancelled, just like the Halloween Night event if there is enough negative feedback calling for its dissolution? And how many negative votes will be needed to disband this office?
I am putting up another poll here to ask the people if they think this office of the President should be disbanded or replace with simply a ceremonial one with an honorarium of not more than $250k annually. And I hope everyone here can get their friends to vote this time to give the poll more credence. I don’t think we will get a few hundred thousand votes, but a big enough negative votes should be a good indicator, perhaps, for the main media or govt organization to do a serious poll, maybe even a referendum, whether to scrap this office at all.
Are the people pissed off with such a waste of public money, so many millions, for this office?
Feedback from the lunatic fringe is also feedback.
GIC’s total portfolio value back to pre crisis levels
Responding to a letter calling for more disclosure for the UBS investment, Jennifer Lewis, Head, Corporate Affairs and Communications, GIC, wrote a reply in the Today paper and also reported in the ST. She said that GIC’s time frame for investment is 20 years. Anyway, all the fears of losing money are unfounded as the total portfolio value of GIC is back to pre crisis levels. No need 20 years to make back the losses.
What this means is that all the losses incurred in UBS and the purchase of American and European banks, and all and sundry investments, have been recovered. At that time it was reported that the total losses were in the region of tens of billions.
Given the assurance from Jennifer Lewis, Singaporeans can now sleep in peace that the super talents in the organization have done their job well and made back all the losses. How much were the losses, and how much were recovered, how were they recovered were not explained. But this is acceptable as such information is probably covered under the Official Secrets Acts or a trade secret that may undermined our security and survival, like not having enough babies.
What perhaps the public may be comforted is for GIC to list out a few of the big gains from its investments that saw the recovering of tens of billions of dollars lost during the financial crisis. It would be very convincing if GIC could just name 5 investments with each making at least $10b profits to assuage the public’s fear of money down the drain. It would be a great public relations exercise to communicate with the people, to explain and inform the people that their money in GIC is safe. Oops, it is not their money as the GIC did not borrow money from the people but from the govt.
Anyway, please tell the people how some of the big losses were recovered and the people will have no reasons to be suspicious of what is happening. Quell the rumour mongers and raise the credibility of the organization, I think, is a good thing to do. It will absolve Tony Tan from all the perceived negative impressions of his watch while in GIC, that there is no more losses, and free Tony to do his unifying job as the Elected President.
What this means is that all the losses incurred in UBS and the purchase of American and European banks, and all and sundry investments, have been recovered. At that time it was reported that the total losses were in the region of tens of billions.
Given the assurance from Jennifer Lewis, Singaporeans can now sleep in peace that the super talents in the organization have done their job well and made back all the losses. How much were the losses, and how much were recovered, how were they recovered were not explained. But this is acceptable as such information is probably covered under the Official Secrets Acts or a trade secret that may undermined our security and survival, like not having enough babies.
What perhaps the public may be comforted is for GIC to list out a few of the big gains from its investments that saw the recovering of tens of billions of dollars lost during the financial crisis. It would be very convincing if GIC could just name 5 investments with each making at least $10b profits to assuage the public’s fear of money down the drain. It would be a great public relations exercise to communicate with the people, to explain and inform the people that their money in GIC is safe. Oops, it is not their money as the GIC did not borrow money from the people but from the govt.
Anyway, please tell the people how some of the big losses were recovered and the people will have no reasons to be suspicious of what is happening. Quell the rumour mongers and raise the credibility of the organization, I think, is a good thing to do. It will absolve Tony Tan from all the perceived negative impressions of his watch while in GIC, that there is no more losses, and free Tony to do his unifying job as the Elected President.
9/19/2011
The only real reason for having more babies
No, it is not about the pleasure of bringing up children, about families and love for children. It is not even about old age security or filial piety where children would look after their ageing parents.
Some mentioned that with low TFR, the young will have to shoulder the burden of looking after their parents. And if there are not enough children, they need to bring in more foreigners. How does that help our young to lessen their burden to look after their parents? Would the foreigners take over to look after them? The logic and reasoning leave me flabbergasted.
You want economic growth or you want stagnation? What a powerful argument! Without more head counts, the economy will slow down, so will the quality of life. The Japanese and many developed countries have been experiencing zero birth rate for decades and the quality of life is getting better, or no worst. Who is kidding who? Are the numbers of headcount the only way to boost productivity and the economy, and a better life?
The truth is out. The reason for more babies is to be cogs to the economy, to keep the economy going. I am saddened that parents are sweet talked into having more babies all because of economic numbers. Holy shit, what is life becoming? Are the future generations being here only to ensure that the economic numbers look good?
Does anyone care if they have a better quality of life, a good living condition, enough space to play, and not having to work till they drop dead?
'The sooner nations reject Ponzi demography and make the needed gradual transition from ever-increasing population growth to population stabilization, the better the prospects for all of humanity and other life on this planet.' Read Joseph Chamie's article, Is population Growth a Ponzi Scheme? in www.theglobalist.com/
Some mentioned that with low TFR, the young will have to shoulder the burden of looking after their parents. And if there are not enough children, they need to bring in more foreigners. How does that help our young to lessen their burden to look after their parents? Would the foreigners take over to look after them? The logic and reasoning leave me flabbergasted.
You want economic growth or you want stagnation? What a powerful argument! Without more head counts, the economy will slow down, so will the quality of life. The Japanese and many developed countries have been experiencing zero birth rate for decades and the quality of life is getting better, or no worst. Who is kidding who? Are the numbers of headcount the only way to boost productivity and the economy, and a better life?
The truth is out. The reason for more babies is to be cogs to the economy, to keep the economy going. I am saddened that parents are sweet talked into having more babies all because of economic numbers. Holy shit, what is life becoming? Are the future generations being here only to ensure that the economic numbers look good?
Does anyone care if they have a better quality of life, a good living condition, enough space to play, and not having to work till they drop dead?
'The sooner nations reject Ponzi demography and make the needed gradual transition from ever-increasing population growth to population stabilization, the better the prospects for all of humanity and other life on this planet.' Read Joseph Chamie's article, Is population Growth a Ponzi Scheme? in www.theglobalist.com/
How not to repeat investment mistakes
Fund managers with a lot of cash are eager to make a killing to show off their talents, plus earning big bonuses. The fact that they are paid a huge salary also makes doing nothing unacceptable. They must show that they can make a difference to justify their indecent pays. Sometimes, some investment professionals ran out of ideas and would even forget the mistakes of yesteryears. To want to prove their worth, cautions are thrown to the winds. Take risk, go for quick results, quick fixes, no matter how silly and hazardous the investment is, never mind, just hope for the best. After all, it is other people’s money. At worst, quit, take the severance bonuses and go for a rich and bountiful retirement. And if lucky, people will say how smart he is, money well spent, every cent of it.
If fund managers or finance professionals are not in a rush, there are many lessons that they could learn from, and avoid repeating disasters. Many who came before them have laid the walkways with their fiascos to warn the eager beavers not to do the same. Briefly, one of the things that one must not invest in is kindergartens. Never put big money in childish stuff. Big money must be invested in real solid businesses. Investing in brick and mortar is quite sound. Investing in blue chip banks too is a foolproof investment strategy. But never invest in companies that are losing money, including banks, no matter how great their reputations are or were.
Some fund managers are crazy about the Manchester United IPO. It looks like some jokers never learn anything at all, even mammoth failures that are too recent to be forgotten. In the first place, football clubs are nothing but another gambling outfit in a different name. If that is not bad enough, football clubs that are in debt of a few hundred millions must have raised a red flag. Those who are clamouring to invest in such clubs must either be genius or mad, like those who bought into Citibank and all the European banks. No fools would want to put their money in a gambling outfit that is losing money.
If anyone thinks that gambling is a good investment portfolio to have, there are plenty of casinos that are making millions annually, and even closing both eyes, putting money in money making casinos will be a million times saner than to put money in a football club deeply in debt.
And there are two casinos that are making great money at the doorstep. Why not put money into them if kindergarten is bad, if banks that are losing money are also bad? Why so adamant about a football club that is in debt of a few hundred millions? Why put money in a business that one has no clue about and has absolutely no control whatsoever? Why not MBS or Genting, when their businesses are more transparent and under close supervision and regulatory control?
It beats me. Maybe because Peter Lim attempted to buy a football club, and he being the man with the Midas touch, following him cannot be wrong. I will never ask any client to put money in a losing concern, and not a losing concern that is a football club. How could a losing money football club be a good bet when a losing money and reputable bank is high risk?
Are Singaporeans being made to bail out Manchester United? How and when will the club be able to earn that kind of money to pay back to the investors? If the club is capable of mismanaging to such a debt, could it do better? Who is responsible to ensure that Singapore investors are not pushed into another shit hole.
Unbelieveable! Who says it is difficult to find nitwits?
If fund managers or finance professionals are not in a rush, there are many lessons that they could learn from, and avoid repeating disasters. Many who came before them have laid the walkways with their fiascos to warn the eager beavers not to do the same. Briefly, one of the things that one must not invest in is kindergartens. Never put big money in childish stuff. Big money must be invested in real solid businesses. Investing in brick and mortar is quite sound. Investing in blue chip banks too is a foolproof investment strategy. But never invest in companies that are losing money, including banks, no matter how great their reputations are or were.
Some fund managers are crazy about the Manchester United IPO. It looks like some jokers never learn anything at all, even mammoth failures that are too recent to be forgotten. In the first place, football clubs are nothing but another gambling outfit in a different name. If that is not bad enough, football clubs that are in debt of a few hundred millions must have raised a red flag. Those who are clamouring to invest in such clubs must either be genius or mad, like those who bought into Citibank and all the European banks. No fools would want to put their money in a gambling outfit that is losing money.
If anyone thinks that gambling is a good investment portfolio to have, there are plenty of casinos that are making millions annually, and even closing both eyes, putting money in money making casinos will be a million times saner than to put money in a football club deeply in debt.
And there are two casinos that are making great money at the doorstep. Why not put money into them if kindergarten is bad, if banks that are losing money are also bad? Why so adamant about a football club that is in debt of a few hundred millions? Why put money in a business that one has no clue about and has absolutely no control whatsoever? Why not MBS or Genting, when their businesses are more transparent and under close supervision and regulatory control?
It beats me. Maybe because Peter Lim attempted to buy a football club, and he being the man with the Midas touch, following him cannot be wrong. I will never ask any client to put money in a losing concern, and not a losing concern that is a football club. How could a losing money football club be a good bet when a losing money and reputable bank is high risk?
Are Singaporeans being made to bail out Manchester United? How and when will the club be able to earn that kind of money to pay back to the investors? If the club is capable of mismanaging to such a debt, could it do better? Who is responsible to ensure that Singapore investors are not pushed into another shit hole.
Unbelieveable! Who says it is difficult to find nitwits?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)