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.
9/20/2011
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?
9/18/2011
Rogue trader lost $2.48 billion
I thought Nick Leeson would be the last rogue trader and all big institutions would have learnt that lesson and all kinds of controls would have been put in place. We are seeing more rogue traders appearing as if no one knows how to prevent such excesses.
This guy in UBS could have walked away smiling if he had done them openly and pass the loss to the bank. Many big institutions have lost billions or hundreds of billions without losing any sleep or anyone being made accountable. It is a game that more than meets the eyes.
In this modern world of high finance, deregulation and minority shareholders all sleeping or unable to do anything, it is so easy to rob a bank or sell off a bank with a ‘rogue’ trader. Some silly big investors even willing to put money in institutions without have any management rights or representation, so trusting, innocent and naïve, believing that the management are all honourable people that will not rob the institutions to line their own pockets.
I got this strange feeling that we are reading Alice in Wonderland, where little innocent children were running around with bags of cash and passing them around like a game of monopoly. But then again I am just too unsophisticated and untrusting of strangers and always think that I can be cheated by decent and respectable men in ties and suits and a string of degrees from the Ivy League universities.
Of course I am wrong. The world is full of honest people. And they get more honest in high places when they are paid their rightful dues. All those rogue traders simply happened by a slip of management supervision. That’s all.
This guy in UBS could have walked away smiling if he had done them openly and pass the loss to the bank. Many big institutions have lost billions or hundreds of billions without losing any sleep or anyone being made accountable. It is a game that more than meets the eyes.
In this modern world of high finance, deregulation and minority shareholders all sleeping or unable to do anything, it is so easy to rob a bank or sell off a bank with a ‘rogue’ trader. Some silly big investors even willing to put money in institutions without have any management rights or representation, so trusting, innocent and naïve, believing that the management are all honourable people that will not rob the institutions to line their own pockets.
I got this strange feeling that we are reading Alice in Wonderland, where little innocent children were running around with bags of cash and passing them around like a game of monopoly. But then again I am just too unsophisticated and untrusting of strangers and always think that I can be cheated by decent and respectable men in ties and suits and a string of degrees from the Ivy League universities.
Of course I am wrong. The world is full of honest people. And they get more honest in high places when they are paid their rightful dues. All those rogue traders simply happened by a slip of management supervision. That’s all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)