Someone took the trouble to sieve through the old newspaper and came up
with a copy of the ST dated 9 Jul 86 with Yeo Ning Hong announcing the
opening of the MRT. He said that ‘One thing was certain…Because the Govt
will be paying for the construction of the stations and lines, fares on
our MRT will be lower than fares in other MRT countries where commuters
will have to repay the capital cost and financing of the construction
of their systems…He pledged that the private company which will be set
up to operate the MRT will not be allowed to profit at the expense of
the public. The principle for fare setting was clear. Fares will be
kept as low as possible, consistent with collecting enough revenue to
meet the running cost of the MRT, replace parts and equipment regularly
and provide company shareholders with a reasonable return.’
How far have the govt and the SMRT deviated from this original pledge
with their new formula for fare increases? The cost of building the MRT
was borne by public fund, not from the shareholders. The principles of
lower fares, enough to repay capital cost and financing of construction
should be fairly clear. The part about replacement of cost for parts and
equipment is also not difficult to understand. Only the last part,
provide company shareholders with a reasonable return can be subject to
different interpretations. What is reasonable? From whose perspective?
What is interesting to note is that the current formula to adjust fare
hikes which is directly linked to returns to shareholders does not
include parts and equipment replacement cost and financing cost. The
formula has been changing over the years with no reference to the
original position and pledge.
Is the pledge another nice to have aspiration not meant to mean
anything? What were the factors in the latest formula? The 2012 formula
which was also used for the 2014 fare hike includes the consumer price
index, wage index and productivity gains. There was no direct reference
to replacement cost of parts and equipment or profits for shareholders.
Obviously the 1986 pledge was not in the radar of the Fare Review
Mechanism Committee. The 1986 pledge and the principle of lower fares
were no longer factors for consideration. Forgotten, not important any
more, dumped into the waste bin?
Does it matter if the pledge by the former Transport Minister and the
original principle are disregarded and ignored or discarded? Or they are
actually following closely to those principles pledged by a past
minister?
Kopi level - Yellow
2/18/2014
Iskandar Economic Zone – early signs of things to come
Iskandar Economic Zone could be a very compelling story for Sinkie
companies to relocate with abundant cheaper land and labour cost. Both
factors were right up in the list of potential investors. Sinkies also
could buy up big landed properties that they cannot afford in Sin City.
Many have made the move and are happy with their decisions.
When these comparative advantages are gone, or even close to the Sin level, there is no reason to risk life and investment in Johore.
Just as the attractive story of Iskandar is capturing the imagination of Sinkies, all the signs of greed and impatience are rising to undermine this great potential. New rules and regulations, higher taxes and cost, higher land prices etc etc are oozing out from all the orifices. The risk of these getting out of hand and becoming incompetitive when the funds are sunk in is so high that many new and potential investors and Sinkie home buyers are getting cold feet.
What assurance that things will not go against these investors when the comparative advantages are wiped away in due time and the investments become sunk negative assets that can only be gotten rid of at huge losses like what happened a few years back?
Would the Johore govt think long term and make Johore a desirable alternative to the outrageously expensive Sin City? Or would greed and impatience and a short sighted policy kill the golden goose? Would history repeat itself and prove that Sinkies are just willing suckers that never learnt?
A property seminar was conducted last Saturday byMyPaper with three Malaysiann property experts giving tips on buying properties in Malaysia. Malaysia by all counts is a very attractive place to buy properties for own use or for investments. The only thing missing in the formula is political risk. This is getting more treacherous by the day.
In Today paper on 17 Feb there is an article on Utusan Malaysia warning the non Malays about crossing their limits for ‘insulting Islam, Muslims and Malay rulers…. It is because we are…too afraid to take action against those who have insulted Malays and Islam…it appears as if non Malays are the landlords and Malays are the tenants, immigrants and the minority in our own country….It is just a matter of time before the hornets who are attempting to defend their nerst against intruders will retaliate…Malays will not be so tolerant anymore.’
Though there were contrarian views by other Malay leaders about this paranoid and the fact that Malays are the absolute majority, controlling all the powers in govt and the military, such paranoid views are very emotional and can be hysterical and mobilized to turn the country upside down, with threats of bloodshed like in May 13.
Property hunters must not ignore this political risk if buying properties or investing in Malaysia. This political risk and threat are very real and imminent.
When these comparative advantages are gone, or even close to the Sin level, there is no reason to risk life and investment in Johore.
Just as the attractive story of Iskandar is capturing the imagination of Sinkies, all the signs of greed and impatience are rising to undermine this great potential. New rules and regulations, higher taxes and cost, higher land prices etc etc are oozing out from all the orifices. The risk of these getting out of hand and becoming incompetitive when the funds are sunk in is so high that many new and potential investors and Sinkie home buyers are getting cold feet.
What assurance that things will not go against these investors when the comparative advantages are wiped away in due time and the investments become sunk negative assets that can only be gotten rid of at huge losses like what happened a few years back?
Would the Johore govt think long term and make Johore a desirable alternative to the outrageously expensive Sin City? Or would greed and impatience and a short sighted policy kill the golden goose? Would history repeat itself and prove that Sinkies are just willing suckers that never learnt?
A property seminar was conducted last Saturday byMyPaper with three Malaysiann property experts giving tips on buying properties in Malaysia. Malaysia by all counts is a very attractive place to buy properties for own use or for investments. The only thing missing in the formula is political risk. This is getting more treacherous by the day.
In Today paper on 17 Feb there is an article on Utusan Malaysia warning the non Malays about crossing their limits for ‘insulting Islam, Muslims and Malay rulers…. It is because we are…too afraid to take action against those who have insulted Malays and Islam…it appears as if non Malays are the landlords and Malays are the tenants, immigrants and the minority in our own country….It is just a matter of time before the hornets who are attempting to defend their nerst against intruders will retaliate…Malays will not be so tolerant anymore.’
Though there were contrarian views by other Malay leaders about this paranoid and the fact that Malays are the absolute majority, controlling all the powers in govt and the military, such paranoid views are very emotional and can be hysterical and mobilized to turn the country upside down, with threats of bloodshed like in May 13.
Property hunters must not ignore this political risk if buying properties or investing in Malaysia. This political risk and threat are very real and imminent.
More records being claimed in Sin City
Yesterday’s media reported two more records, one is bankruptcy has
reached an all time high. The second record is that the issuing of taxi
driving licence has also reached a new high of 100,000. Just wondering
if this is a good thing.
From the comments made, it is. Singaporeans enjoyed the flexi hours of this occupation. And they can be their own boss too. What were not spoken is that many could not find a suitable job as their jobs were taken over by foreigners. Many of them were highly qualified ex professionals that could be gainfully employed and earning much more as a corporate employee. And many would love to go back to the corporate world, to be respectable PMEs and not be drivers of foreign workers and maids and to carry their luggages and hoping for a good tip from them is they are nice to their passengers. And if they are unlucky, could be beaten up by the foreigners or scolded by the maids.
Driving taxi is now being seen as another good occupation like crane drivers, hawkers and carpenters. The best part, there is no need to waste so much money and time acquiring a tertiary education to be a taxi driver.
Parents would now have another attractive option for their children, as taxi drivers and be their own boss when they cannot find employment with their degrees and diplomas. Next time when on boards a taxi, it is good to address the taxi driver as boss, just like calling a bus driver as captain. It will make their day.
Kopi level - Green
From the comments made, it is. Singaporeans enjoyed the flexi hours of this occupation. And they can be their own boss too. What were not spoken is that many could not find a suitable job as their jobs were taken over by foreigners. Many of them were highly qualified ex professionals that could be gainfully employed and earning much more as a corporate employee. And many would love to go back to the corporate world, to be respectable PMEs and not be drivers of foreign workers and maids and to carry their luggages and hoping for a good tip from them is they are nice to their passengers. And if they are unlucky, could be beaten up by the foreigners or scolded by the maids.
Driving taxi is now being seen as another good occupation like crane drivers, hawkers and carpenters. The best part, there is no need to waste so much money and time acquiring a tertiary education to be a taxi driver.
Parents would now have another attractive option for their children, as taxi drivers and be their own boss when they cannot find employment with their degrees and diplomas. Next time when on boards a taxi, it is good to address the taxi driver as boss, just like calling a bus driver as captain. It will make their day.
Kopi level - Green
2/17/2014
6.35% dividend for EPF!
Can you believe it? The Malaysian govt has announced a payout of 6.35%
dividend for their national savings scheme. And this is flat rate for
all. How could the Malaysian govt pay such a high dividend? There must
be a mistake. Or they must be announcing high dividends but they come
out with new regulations so that their EPF members can feel rich but
money no touch, cannot witdraw. Or they may benefit for high oil and
commodity prices so can afford to pay high dividends. This cannot be
true right?
No, the Malaysians simply did very well in their investments, earning RM35 billion in the process. And their investments in equities brought in RM19.5 billion. Holy cow, how could they do it? They must have been employing world class fund managers to make such money to pay out such high dividends.
I can’t believe our world class fund managers paid world class salaries could not do better. Maybe we just need to wait a while longer for them to make the announcements. Our fund managers must be many times better than the Malaysians. If they cannot do better, maybe we should go over and employ the whole Malaysian team to replace what we have. And they are definitely cheaper and more productive.
I am very envious of their ability to make so much money and hoping and hoping that our world class fund managers with world class pay could do better. I have high hopes, very fat hopes.
No, the Malaysians simply did very well in their investments, earning RM35 billion in the process. And their investments in equities brought in RM19.5 billion. Holy cow, how could they do it? They must have been employing world class fund managers to make such money to pay out such high dividends.
I can’t believe our world class fund managers paid world class salaries could not do better. Maybe we just need to wait a while longer for them to make the announcements. Our fund managers must be many times better than the Malaysians. If they cannot do better, maybe we should go over and employ the whole Malaysian team to replace what we have. And they are definitely cheaper and more productive.
I am very envious of their ability to make so much money and hoping and hoping that our world class fund managers with world class pay could do better. I have high hopes, very fat hopes.
SGX - There is no elephant in the room
Since the announcement of the consultation paper and some proposals by
MAS and SGX, there were a few familiar quips by the stakeholders. We do
not want the SGX to be turned into a casino. Now who is talking? Is
there an elephant in the classroom? They could not see it, didn’t
recognise that the big mass is an elephant and pretending that not to
see the elephant?
How fake or how stupid can things be when no one seems to notice the elephant in the classroom? And an article in the ST on Saturday had this title, ‘Few quibbles over collateral proposal for contra trades’. The introduction of collateral for contra trades is perhaps the biggest thing in the consultation paper and is going to be done for the purpose of reducing exposure and risks of broking houses and remisiers and to strengthen the trading system.
One thing for sure is to hasten the demise of a dying stock market when this measure is implemented. The 5% collateral for all outstanding positions would be a callous sledgehammer smashing down on any tiny nail heads protruding. There would be many procedural problems that would make this recommendation impractical. But top most is that it is not dealing with the real problem but creating new problems. Some refinement is needed and remisier Alvin Yong came up with a logical and practical proposal, to apply the collateral only to trades above the value of $50k. It is the big contra positions that would hurt the remisiers and the brokerages, not the small positions of the small traders. And given the limited size of active traders, such an across the board ruling will simply keep the small traders from trading when their participation is badly needed in a stockmarket with no players except computers.
If MAS and SGX want to bring the stock market to a pre mature and early demise, this is the way to go. Impose the collateral indiscriminately and the last few remaining small traders will say goodbye to punting in the market. Yes they are gambling, but in a small way and with manageable and tolerable risk. It is the big churnings of computer tradings and big time speculators that are raising the risk level in the industry. They should be the targeted group for this 5% collateral. They pose huge credit risk, not the small investors and punters. They are the really gamblers, with the help of a system that is designed for them to gamble.
Is there an elephant in the room? Anyone wants to look at the elephant or choosing to look the other way and spray their little water pistols wildly at shadows? It does not need much intelligence to notice the elephant in the room.
PS. Goh Eng Yeow also wrote a piece in today’s ST explaining why forcing small traders to put up collaterals is skirting the real problem caused by big positions. Come on, who are MAS and SGX kidding, to want small traders to put up collaterals even for trades of $1000 or $10,000 exposure? Would it solve the gigantic loss problem or would it kill the market when small retail traders just stay away, like the removal of teletext on TV?
How fake or how stupid can things be when no one seems to notice the elephant in the classroom? And an article in the ST on Saturday had this title, ‘Few quibbles over collateral proposal for contra trades’. The introduction of collateral for contra trades is perhaps the biggest thing in the consultation paper and is going to be done for the purpose of reducing exposure and risks of broking houses and remisiers and to strengthen the trading system.
One thing for sure is to hasten the demise of a dying stock market when this measure is implemented. The 5% collateral for all outstanding positions would be a callous sledgehammer smashing down on any tiny nail heads protruding. There would be many procedural problems that would make this recommendation impractical. But top most is that it is not dealing with the real problem but creating new problems. Some refinement is needed and remisier Alvin Yong came up with a logical and practical proposal, to apply the collateral only to trades above the value of $50k. It is the big contra positions that would hurt the remisiers and the brokerages, not the small positions of the small traders. And given the limited size of active traders, such an across the board ruling will simply keep the small traders from trading when their participation is badly needed in a stockmarket with no players except computers.
If MAS and SGX want to bring the stock market to a pre mature and early demise, this is the way to go. Impose the collateral indiscriminately and the last few remaining small traders will say goodbye to punting in the market. Yes they are gambling, but in a small way and with manageable and tolerable risk. It is the big churnings of computer tradings and big time speculators that are raising the risk level in the industry. They should be the targeted group for this 5% collateral. They pose huge credit risk, not the small investors and punters. They are the really gamblers, with the help of a system that is designed for them to gamble.
Is there an elephant in the room? Anyone wants to look at the elephant or choosing to look the other way and spray their little water pistols wildly at shadows? It does not need much intelligence to notice the elephant in the room.
PS. Goh Eng Yeow also wrote a piece in today’s ST explaining why forcing small traders to put up collaterals is skirting the real problem caused by big positions. Come on, who are MAS and SGX kidding, to want small traders to put up collaterals even for trades of $1000 or $10,000 exposure? Would it solve the gigantic loss problem or would it kill the market when small retail traders just stay away, like the removal of teletext on TV?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)