What is the purpose of this fare raising exercise? To increase profits,
to buy equipment, to buy trains, to increase salaries or bonuses?
There could be some justifications to increase salaries as part of the
annual increments and to off set some inflationary cost. This cost could
easily be absorbed by the profits from its operations. As for bonuses,
the workers could still deserve the usual but for top management, how
many think they should deserve more than the normal? Working extra to
solve all the problems they created cannot be justifications for more
bonuses for working so hard. Management cannot be rewarded for self
inflicted injury.
How much is needed and to be raised from the fare increases for capital expenditure? $100m enough? Or is it $200m?
Didn’t the govt already give a cash injection of $1.1b for capex? This
is equivalent to 5 or 10 times the expected funds to be raised, assuming
its target is between $100m to $200m. Even if the fare hike is to raise
$1.1b, this is already given. Or is the SMRT thinking of raising more
after the $1.1b windfall?
This is a private company with the public as shareholders. The
shareholders are as good as being given a cash top up of $1.1b and they
shouldn’t be complaining. In fact the public non shareholders should be
asking why the SMRT/shareholders should be rewarded with the public’s
money for failing to provide a satisfactory service in recent years. The
shareholders have been amply rewarded and SMRT can’t be thinking of
raising more funds to account to them and reward them with more
dividends.
A $1.1b windfall still not enough? Even if it has to go into the red
this year, it should accept it for their less than satisfactory service
compares to past years. Oh, the $1.1b not counted. This is equivalent to
how many years of profts? This sum has saved SMRT from diverting a big
sum of money for its capital expenditure. The rest of the expenditure
are chicken feat, aren’t they
11/21/2013
11/20/2013
TRE finding a formula for self destruct?
I am unable to gain access to TRE this morning. From what I have
gathered, you need to pay to get in. I hope I am wrong. If this is the
formula that TRE has chosen to finance its operation, I think it will
meet a premature death soon.
The game plan in cyberspace is quite different. Many great sites are all free access to viewers. They have to find other sources of revenue, mainly advertisers or selling some products. The monetary contribution is always voluntary. TRE may want to set up a team to canvas for advertisements or seek the experts on how to generate some income.
Even in a blog like mine that is quite well received, I would not dare to ask for contributions. Even lifting the fingers to exercise, to buy me kopi (OPM some more) is often difficult and too much an inconvenience, or simply too easy to forget.
TRE should leave the monetary contributions to those who are willing. There will be some who will contribute quite generously but many would not for some other reasons. There are many students or non working adults and retirees reading the articles and may not be able to contribute. Turning them off would reduce a big chunk of the readership and that is very bad.
TRE, are you reading this? I hope I am wrong and you are not doing so. Richard, what saying you? Or you have a mole telling you this is the best way to raise fund? Remember WTSAWTD? The mole will not tell you that TRE will be obsolete, will be history. You are not the only site in cyberspace doing the same thing.
The game plan in cyberspace is quite different. Many great sites are all free access to viewers. They have to find other sources of revenue, mainly advertisers or selling some products. The monetary contribution is always voluntary. TRE may want to set up a team to canvas for advertisements or seek the experts on how to generate some income.
Even in a blog like mine that is quite well received, I would not dare to ask for contributions. Even lifting the fingers to exercise, to buy me kopi (OPM some more) is often difficult and too much an inconvenience, or simply too easy to forget.
TRE should leave the monetary contributions to those who are willing. There will be some who will contribute quite generously but many would not for some other reasons. There are many students or non working adults and retirees reading the articles and may not be able to contribute. Turning them off would reduce a big chunk of the readership and that is very bad.
TRE, are you reading this? I hope I am wrong and you are not doing so. Richard, what saying you? Or you have a mole telling you this is the best way to raise fund? Remember WTSAWTD? The mole will not tell you that TRE will be obsolete, will be history. You are not the only site in cyberspace doing the same thing.
WTSAWTD
This is a slight variation from WYSIWYG. WTSAWTD means What They Said
And What They Don’t. A couple of years back, we were told that big funds
would be invited to trade in the stock market, to provide liquidity so
that the market will be active and investors can buy or sell easier.
Trading activities would increase and good business for everyone. Bid
sizes were also reduced for the same purpose. Expensive stocks would be
split to make it easier for the small traders to buy one or two units at
lower capital outlay, ie more business also. Computer tradings would be
introduced and facilitated to improve liquidity and volumes. Everything
was done for the good of the market and small investors. Then lunch
breaks were even removed and the carrot, more trading hours mean more
business, at least another ten per cent increase in business.
Derivatives are good, sophisticated instruments for the sophisticated
fools. With all these changes, the stock market would fly to the moon.
All this has come to past. The volumes get thinner and thinner. The small traders were wiped out, sent to the cleaners. Who made the money was obvious. The stock market is a zero sum game. One makes another must lose.
Many good things were said and many not good things were not said. No one talks about how dangerous the big funds and their computers were to the small traders. No one says anything about redesigning the trading system to facilitate the computer traders to clean up the small traders. No one says anything about the unfair advantages of the computer traders and the trading system against the small traders. No one says that no lunch break was to allow the computers to keep trading without having to square and reopen their positions. No one says smaller bid size allows the computers to trade at lower cost and can move faster or can manipulate the stocks more efficiently against the small traders. No one says the losers were the small and big traders not using computers. No one says anything about who are the absolute winners in the market. No one says the number of genuine traders in the market has drastically been reduced and that if the computers stop trading, the market will come to a stand still or turn into a grave yard.
No one is going to say that the market is dying. And they are still saying the market is doing very well, in the pink of health. And to make it looks pinker, bring in the makeup artist for the dead, HFT will be introduced to increase volume and liquidity again. Now, what are they saying about HFT and are they not saying about HFT this time?
All this has come to past. The volumes get thinner and thinner. The small traders were wiped out, sent to the cleaners. Who made the money was obvious. The stock market is a zero sum game. One makes another must lose.
Many good things were said and many not good things were not said. No one talks about how dangerous the big funds and their computers were to the small traders. No one says anything about redesigning the trading system to facilitate the computer traders to clean up the small traders. No one says anything about the unfair advantages of the computer traders and the trading system against the small traders. No one says that no lunch break was to allow the computers to keep trading without having to square and reopen their positions. No one says smaller bid size allows the computers to trade at lower cost and can move faster or can manipulate the stocks more efficiently against the small traders. No one says the losers were the small and big traders not using computers. No one says anything about who are the absolute winners in the market. No one says the number of genuine traders in the market has drastically been reduced and that if the computers stop trading, the market will come to a stand still or turn into a grave yard.
No one is going to say that the market is dying. And they are still saying the market is doing very well, in the pink of health. And to make it looks pinker, bring in the makeup artist for the dead, HFT will be introduced to increase volume and liquidity again. Now, what are they saying about HFT and are they not saying about HFT this time?
Health of citizens is health of nation
We need more babies. Our TFR is falling and this is bad. Why is it bad
and why do we need more babies? It is to replace the ageing population
and to keep the GDP growing, period. Can we not let the population fall
naturally and let the GDP shrink proportionally? Cannot, must have more
babies to provide the workforce to keep the economy healthy. Babies are
important to the economy. Then why should bringing up babies be the
responsibility of their parents, to pay for their growing up, medical
and social expenses, including education? If the govt or country needs
the babies, why shouldn’t the govt pay a portion of their upbringing,
including healthcare?
There is a 20 to 25 years of cost to grow a baby into a productive worker to feed the economy. No babies, no workers, no economy. The babies are important and so are their growing and productive years. The only time they are less productive, not useless to the economy, is when they are in their retirement years. But not working does not mean not contributing to the economy. They consume goods and services and have to pay for them. They are still contributing to the economy.
If the people are so important to the govt and the economy why shouldn’t the govt take care of their health and well being? Without a healthy population, there is no healthy economy. Actually, like it or not, ultimately the people pay for their health and well being. There is no other way, but only a matter of nuances. Either the people pay directly or the govt pays from the taxes collected. The taxes are public money, not someone’s money, not OPM but TPM, The People’s Money.
To put things simply, the govt needs the people to be healthy to contribute to the economy, to produce goods and services, to consume goods and services, to pay taxes and to pay the thing called the govt. Why should the people pay for their good health to feed the economy and to pay the govt to be the govt? It is the govt and the system that needs the people, not the other way round.
The prevalent thinking now is to make the people pay for their healthcare directly. Can other ways be found? The govt will claim that it has no money to pay except to increase taxes. That unfortunately is true. So how? Ask the people who are being paid millions for the solution lah. So simple also dunno. Pay them millions for what? Heheh, they will tell you the best solution is for you to pay. Problem solved.
Gambling income for healthcare
We don’t have the two casinos before. Can the taxes from the casinos be applied to provide healthcare for the people? Why should this new and additional income be spread to other uses? Why not devote this source of income to care for the people’s medical well being? Why cannot? And if not enough, why can’t we take some from the Tote Board? The health of the people is key to the health of the economy and to generate revenue to pay the people called the govt.
Self Insured to take away insurance cost
The other point is to self insure at the national level. No need to pay to a huge organization and staff to manage an insurance scheme. No need to worry about paying for the middle men and profits for the shareholders and fat bonuses to the top management. This should do away with the unnecessary insurance cost.
National Healthcare must be basic and limited
A national health scheme must be limited in nature, nothing extravagant. Such a scheme must be limited to C class equivalent of services and care. Anyone who wants better services must pay for it. And it should all be about healthcare and not cosmetic care or frivolous medical treatments. The medical professionals can list out what to be excluded from the scheme. The medicine and equipment can also be generic if available. Anything better should be over and above and be paid by the patients that demanded for them.
Lower cost to those who need healthcare/Pay for use
The operating cost of a national healthcare scheme should avoid the costly frills of extravagance. The people can then be at ease of being assured of a basic healthcare plan and they need only to pay a small fee, at outpatient poly clinics or when hospitalized. There is No need to pay upfront whether they need or do not need through insurance premiums or minimum sums in the Medisave. Free the people’s savings for more immediate needs. A national healthcare scheme should not be entirely free to avoid waste, but not so prohibitive and costly. With the bulk of the cost coming from the casinos, the amount to be paid by the patients on needs basis can be greatly reduced.
Option to pay for more
The people would also have the choice of paying for higher level of services and the frills that come with the higher fees. What should come under the national health scheme and what should not can be worked out by the professionals.
Recompute healthcare costing/No ransom from the sick
Another area to review is the computation of cost. As a national health system, items like land cost need not be included or at least not marked to market. Without a profit motive, the cost should be more of consumption, recurring operating cost and cost of replacement. No market forces or mechanism nonsense.
These are just some general thoughts for input into a national healthcare scheme. The health of the people is the concern and interest of the state and not just the individuals. The details can be worked out by the people who are paid to do the job. At the moment the minds seem fixated to a particular model already. Can the authorities explore the unbeaten path, to take a plunge into uncharted waters? No insurance premiums to be paid up front, (paid by gambling revenues) free the people from their worries of huge medical bills without ripping their pockets by all kinds of funny schemes that boils down to the same thing…make the people pay?
Give people the choice
Give the people the CHOICE to pay, not the choice on how much and when to pay or compulsory to pay with eyes fixed on the money in the Medisave of citizens? A basic national healthcare system supported by gambling revenue and without having to tax on everyone who may not need to use it must be the way going forward. The people cannot be held captive by insurance and insurance and insurance and nothing else. The people cannot be forced to pay and pay and pay, compulsory some more with no option to opt out.
What is the point of paying out of this world salary if they cannot come out with out of this world solution? Is it too much for the people to expect or even demand out of this world solution? Some of the features mentioned above are not even out of this world, just plain commonsense and better utilization/allocation of funds with no wasteful payments into a nation wide insurance scheme when every daft Sinkie is made to pay like Santa Claus. Paying insurance is like making everyone pay for a few who are in need. We need a scheme where the sick need not be bankrupt by hefty hospital bills and the healthy need not have to pay. Are we so bankrupt of ideas? Shall we send a few teams overseas to learn from those that are not so talented than our top talents?
See, no need to make everyone pay insurance premiums, no need to lock people’s savings in the Medisave Minimum Sum scheme, no need to waste manpower to have a big organization to collect and manage the money. Unless of the course the whole objective is to take more money from the people, another devious taxation under a ‘for your own good’ scheme, then no need to waste time on feedbacks or CONversation with the people. Just make Medishield Life COMPULSORY. PERIOD.
There is a 20 to 25 years of cost to grow a baby into a productive worker to feed the economy. No babies, no workers, no economy. The babies are important and so are their growing and productive years. The only time they are less productive, not useless to the economy, is when they are in their retirement years. But not working does not mean not contributing to the economy. They consume goods and services and have to pay for them. They are still contributing to the economy.
If the people are so important to the govt and the economy why shouldn’t the govt take care of their health and well being? Without a healthy population, there is no healthy economy. Actually, like it or not, ultimately the people pay for their health and well being. There is no other way, but only a matter of nuances. Either the people pay directly or the govt pays from the taxes collected. The taxes are public money, not someone’s money, not OPM but TPM, The People’s Money.
To put things simply, the govt needs the people to be healthy to contribute to the economy, to produce goods and services, to consume goods and services, to pay taxes and to pay the thing called the govt. Why should the people pay for their good health to feed the economy and to pay the govt to be the govt? It is the govt and the system that needs the people, not the other way round.
The prevalent thinking now is to make the people pay for their healthcare directly. Can other ways be found? The govt will claim that it has no money to pay except to increase taxes. That unfortunately is true. So how? Ask the people who are being paid millions for the solution lah. So simple also dunno. Pay them millions for what? Heheh, they will tell you the best solution is for you to pay. Problem solved.
Gambling income for healthcare
We don’t have the two casinos before. Can the taxes from the casinos be applied to provide healthcare for the people? Why should this new and additional income be spread to other uses? Why not devote this source of income to care for the people’s medical well being? Why cannot? And if not enough, why can’t we take some from the Tote Board? The health of the people is key to the health of the economy and to generate revenue to pay the people called the govt.
Self Insured to take away insurance cost
The other point is to self insure at the national level. No need to pay to a huge organization and staff to manage an insurance scheme. No need to worry about paying for the middle men and profits for the shareholders and fat bonuses to the top management. This should do away with the unnecessary insurance cost.
National Healthcare must be basic and limited
A national health scheme must be limited in nature, nothing extravagant. Such a scheme must be limited to C class equivalent of services and care. Anyone who wants better services must pay for it. And it should all be about healthcare and not cosmetic care or frivolous medical treatments. The medical professionals can list out what to be excluded from the scheme. The medicine and equipment can also be generic if available. Anything better should be over and above and be paid by the patients that demanded for them.
Lower cost to those who need healthcare/Pay for use
The operating cost of a national healthcare scheme should avoid the costly frills of extravagance. The people can then be at ease of being assured of a basic healthcare plan and they need only to pay a small fee, at outpatient poly clinics or when hospitalized. There is No need to pay upfront whether they need or do not need through insurance premiums or minimum sums in the Medisave. Free the people’s savings for more immediate needs. A national healthcare scheme should not be entirely free to avoid waste, but not so prohibitive and costly. With the bulk of the cost coming from the casinos, the amount to be paid by the patients on needs basis can be greatly reduced.
Option to pay for more
The people would also have the choice of paying for higher level of services and the frills that come with the higher fees. What should come under the national health scheme and what should not can be worked out by the professionals.
Recompute healthcare costing/No ransom from the sick
Another area to review is the computation of cost. As a national health system, items like land cost need not be included or at least not marked to market. Without a profit motive, the cost should be more of consumption, recurring operating cost and cost of replacement. No market forces or mechanism nonsense.
These are just some general thoughts for input into a national healthcare scheme. The health of the people is the concern and interest of the state and not just the individuals. The details can be worked out by the people who are paid to do the job. At the moment the minds seem fixated to a particular model already. Can the authorities explore the unbeaten path, to take a plunge into uncharted waters? No insurance premiums to be paid up front, (paid by gambling revenues) free the people from their worries of huge medical bills without ripping their pockets by all kinds of funny schemes that boils down to the same thing…make the people pay?
Give people the choice
Give the people the CHOICE to pay, not the choice on how much and when to pay or compulsory to pay with eyes fixed on the money in the Medisave of citizens? A basic national healthcare system supported by gambling revenue and without having to tax on everyone who may not need to use it must be the way going forward. The people cannot be held captive by insurance and insurance and insurance and nothing else. The people cannot be forced to pay and pay and pay, compulsory some more with no option to opt out.
What is the point of paying out of this world salary if they cannot come out with out of this world solution? Is it too much for the people to expect or even demand out of this world solution? Some of the features mentioned above are not even out of this world, just plain commonsense and better utilization/allocation of funds with no wasteful payments into a nation wide insurance scheme when every daft Sinkie is made to pay like Santa Claus. Paying insurance is like making everyone pay for a few who are in need. We need a scheme where the sick need not be bankrupt by hefty hospital bills and the healthy need not have to pay. Are we so bankrupt of ideas? Shall we send a few teams overseas to learn from those that are not so talented than our top talents?
See, no need to make everyone pay insurance premiums, no need to lock people’s savings in the Medisave Minimum Sum scheme, no need to waste manpower to have a big organization to collect and manage the money. Unless of the course the whole objective is to take more money from the people, another devious taxation under a ‘for your own good’ scheme, then no need to waste time on feedbacks or CONversation with the people. Just make Medishield Life COMPULSORY. PERIOD.
11/19/2013
DBS doing National Service
‘Thousands of HDB homeowners are turning to DBS Bank for a mortgage product that guarantees savings.
Those who took up a POSB HDB loan when it was launched in April could be looking at savings of as much as $1,600 by next month, calculations from DBS showed.…
The first POSB HDB loan pilot launch – where homebuyers enjoyed a floating-rate loan with interest capped below the HDB concessionary rate for 10 years – was fully sold.
The bank is now into its second offering, which charges the same rate but for eight years, said Ms Lui.
The current POSB HDB loan charges for the first eight years the three-month Sibor (Singapore interbank offered rate) plus 1.38 per cent, capped at the CPF Ordinary Account rate. The current CPF Ordinary Account rate is 2.50 per cent.
Thereafter, the loan charges three-month Sibor plus 1.48 per cent. The September three-month Sibor is 0.374 per cent.
The HDB concessionary loan now charges 2.60 per cent, which consists of 0.10 per cent plus the CPF Ordinary Account rate of 2.50 per cent. Based on the three-month Sibor of 0.38 per cent, borrowers who switch from the HDB concessionary loan will pay a lower interest rate of 1.75 per cent.
For a homebuyer refinancing from the HDB in April, based on a loan of $400,000 and 25-year tenor, the potential savings over six months amount to $1,684.
And should interest rates rise over the next eight years, DBS guarantees that it will be capped at the CPF Ordinary Account rate of 2.50 per cent or 0.10 per cent below the HDB concessionary rate….’
The above is posted by Thoughts of a Cynical Investor in his blog. What is obnoxious is that bank housing loan rates have been below the rates charged by HDB for years and why is HDB is charging 2.6%? Making money from daft citizens is so easy as long as they don’t complain.
Those who took up a POSB HDB loan when it was launched in April could be looking at savings of as much as $1,600 by next month, calculations from DBS showed.…
The first POSB HDB loan pilot launch – where homebuyers enjoyed a floating-rate loan with interest capped below the HDB concessionary rate for 10 years – was fully sold.
The bank is now into its second offering, which charges the same rate but for eight years, said Ms Lui.
The current POSB HDB loan charges for the first eight years the three-month Sibor (Singapore interbank offered rate) plus 1.38 per cent, capped at the CPF Ordinary Account rate. The current CPF Ordinary Account rate is 2.50 per cent.
Thereafter, the loan charges three-month Sibor plus 1.48 per cent. The September three-month Sibor is 0.374 per cent.
The HDB concessionary loan now charges 2.60 per cent, which consists of 0.10 per cent plus the CPF Ordinary Account rate of 2.50 per cent. Based on the three-month Sibor of 0.38 per cent, borrowers who switch from the HDB concessionary loan will pay a lower interest rate of 1.75 per cent.
For a homebuyer refinancing from the HDB in April, based on a loan of $400,000 and 25-year tenor, the potential savings over six months amount to $1,684.
And should interest rates rise over the next eight years, DBS guarantees that it will be capped at the CPF Ordinary Account rate of 2.50 per cent or 0.10 per cent below the HDB concessionary rate….’
The above is posted by Thoughts of a Cynical Investor in his blog. What is obnoxious is that bank housing loan rates have been below the rates charged by HDB for years and why is HDB is charging 2.6%? Making money from daft citizens is so easy as long as they don’t complain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)