Five Cents Ten Cents

Financial freedom, one realistic step at a time.

Volatility is the name of October


Flickr image Dancing Child and Bear by tasteful_tn

October brings back images of stock market crashes, the falling of the sky and other doomsday scenarios on the scale of apocalypses. It is not surprising that weak employment data last Friday in the US has made equity markets jumpy.

Currently, I’m adopting a nimble strategy of being overweight in cash and eyeing the bluest of blue chips for medium to long term growth and not over-committing to having up to 80-90% of my investible capital in equities (as I used to in the past) as I’ve learnt the value of having some portion of your investible capital in cash and cash equivalents because the world changes too fast. Even quick punts can net one returns exceeding 2 x fixed deposits.

What is your current strategy in the light of October volatility?

Share with Panzer in the comments page.

Be well and prosper.

»crosslinked«

A Tale of Two Cities: Hong Kong and Singapore’s Regulatory Response to the Lehman Minibonds


Hong Kong and Singapore.

These two countries are often compared because of similar geopolitical situations, racial compositions, approaches to economic growth and competitors to be the regional (if not world) class financial markets.

However, the recent Lehman mini-bonds fiasco has shown very different regulatory approaches in resolving the losses suffered by investors.

Hong Kong Monetary Authority: 1

Hong Kong’s recent actions by the Hong Kong Monetary Authorities as well as their Securities and Futures Commissioned has resulted in Lehman mini-bond holders who would be compensated as much as 70% of their principal amounts invested with the banks. About USD 1.6 b (SGD 2.4 b) was invested by Hong Kong investors in Lehman mini-bonds and around USD 800m or (SGD 1.2 b) or roughly 50% would be compensated.

Monetary Authority of Singapore: 0

Singapore’s banks on the other hand are compensating around SGD 107m (USD 71m) out of around SGD 508m (USD 352) or roughly 21% would be compensated. This is half the proportion that the Hong Kong authorities have managed to help broker for their own investors.  Interestingly enough, if the percentage paid by each financial institution in Hong Kong is similar, I suspect DBS in Hong Kong would likely be paying out a higher proportion than DBS Singapore for selling virtually the same product.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore on the other hand, had its Deputy Chairman and Minister for Trade and Industry, Mr. Lim Hng Kiang defending its actions in its supervision and not accepting that it had been lax in supervision.

Different Jurisdictions – Different Outcomes

The compensation obtained by Hong Kong investors is double that of Singapore for the same product and very similar circumstances. Why are Singapore investors suffering more than those in Hong Kong. Based on the news reports about the Lehman mini-bonds fiasco in these two countries, it appears that the Hong Kong authorities was more proactive in being an advocate for the retail investor compared to MAS’s more hands-off approach urging retail investors to avail themselves to first lodge their complaints to the banks and financial institutions before going to FIDReC.

While investors in the ill-fated Lehman related minibonds and other derivative products have suffered, the way their suffering unfolded has been quite different.

On one hand, banks in Hong Kong have to put up a US 200m fund “to help pay legal costs of trying to recover collateral that was backing many of the investments, possibly increasing the payout for investors“.

There were no such reports of similar initiatives in Singapore.

It seems ironic that Hong Kong, better known for its free-market type of approach to financial markets, has emerged to be seen as a stronger proponent for the retail investor.

Singapore, with its reputation of being tops in Corporate Governance in the region and in laws and regulations appear to be letting the Financial Institutions get away with a ban (ranging from six months to two years) on selling these structured notes that no-one aged 9 to 90 with a breath would touch with a ten-foot bamboo pole.

I guess the morale of this story is that perhaps one is better off investing in Hong Kong financial market because you seem to have more protection than as a retail investor in Singapore.

Be well and prosper.

CPF Life: Money May Not Be Enough (Singapore Edition)


I read Minister Gan Kim Yong’s remarks relating to the amendments to CPF Life with incredulity and shock.

The article by the Straits Times “CPFLife payouts for Life” is very misleading as the content of the article focuses on the questions raised by Mdm Halimah Yacob. Her concern is expressed here:

The remark was directed at Madam Halimah, chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Manpower, who noted that the law allows the CPF Board to stop CPFLife payments unless the Lifelong Income Fund is solvent. ‘While I can understand the legal basis for this provision, I find it quite disturbing to have it reflected in the Bill,’ she said.

The Government never giveth but the Government can taketh away

So it appears that the Government is able to legally STOP paying you out of YOUR savings accumulated from YOUR hardwork and locked by a portion of YOUR MINIMUM SUM CPF balances if the Lifelong Income Fund is insolvent.

However, given that the Lifelong Income Fund is mandatory for most CPF members and that you don’t really have much of a choice, if the fund is at risk of being insolvent, that would speak volumes about the quality of the people paid to run it. If you were given a monopoly and could control how much expense (payouts) to incur and can take other people’s money to invest (unlimited upside), some risk takers may use that money to make bets on the market. If the bets turn out well, 8 month (or more bonuses). If the bets turn sour, quit and find a new job while the members payouts get cut?!

Is the scenario I imagine realistic? Did we go through the last year or so since the sub-prime where we learnt nothing about putting people in such scenarios?

Minister Gan didn’t mention what happens if it is the CPF Board itself that makes investment mistakes that causes the Lifelong Income Fund to be insolvent in the first place or if the CPF Board is unable to generate sufficient income from its investments using YOUR portion of MINIMUM SUM locked away for CPF Life.

Those are very real possibilities for the Lifelong Income Fund to be insolvent and to be unable to fund future payouts. Even MAS can lose $9 billion in 1 year from investments and Temasek/GIC can lose BILLIONS in a year. What happens if CPF Board makes use of GIC to invest and they lose millions (not to say BILLIONS) in a “bad” year.

Would CPF members be screwed because of the mistakes made by the CPF Board?

Would CPF members be deprived of their right to their CPF Life income payouts that come from their OWN SAVINGS that they have NO CHOICE but to participate as opposed to private insurance/annuities?

And more importantly, Minister Gan’s promise as stated:

MANPOWER Minister Gan Kim Yong has assured Singaporeans they will receive a monthly payout from the CPFLife annuity scheme for the rest of their lives, despite a ‘disturbing’ provision in the new law.

But I am not sure if our esteemed Minister is aware that even if the payout is reduced to $1 a month (which the CPF Board is legally empowered to do so under these amendments to keep the Lifelong Income Fund solvent), he would still be honouring his promise while CPF Life members starve to death?

I cannot understand how we have a system where our forced savings from contributing to the Central Provident Fund is being managed with the risk borne by members. Not only do we lose the ability to decide what we want to do with our retirement monies, we’ve given the Government so much power that even if they make mistakes with our hard-earned savings, we will have to suffer for it.

If the CPF Board cannot generate sufficient income from CPF Life, we the CPF members are well and royally SCREWED.

If this doesn’t convince you to save for retirement OUTSIDE the CPF system, nothing else will.

Be well and prosper.

Invest in health: Cycle your way to work


Flickr image Bicycle by Julien Hery

Flickr image "Bicycle" by Julien Hery

I’m quite close to starting my “cycle your way to work” project as my workplace is about 10km away from my home. This is a realistic distance for commuting to work by bicycle.

I’ve decided to embark on this project because I don’t drive to work daily as my spouse uses the car to run errands with my daughter so I decided to look for an alternate and healthy mode of transport. There is a direct bus from my home to the workplace but the bus can take up to 45minutes in the morning to get to my destination.

I’ll be posting more on this development as it is a way to save money and to get exercise at the same time. I value my life so I’ll avoid the roads for most of the journey and make use of park connectors for 60-70% of the journey.

More when I get my gear and start my cycling adventures.

Be well and prosper.

Multi-Level Marketing: Stay Away from Me


Flickr image Greed by Muffet

Flickr image "Greed" by Muffet

I recently had lunch to catch up with ex-colleagues from my very first job. It was a pleasant lunch as we caught up with the developments with the organisation and how each of us were doing.

Towards the end of the lunch, one of the colleagues started to talk about a business opportunity. It turned out to be an multi-level marketing opportunity.

Immediately, the red flags and hazard lights in my mind flashed repeatedly!

*Warning* *Warning* *Bullshit filters ACTIVATED*.

The reality behind MLM is that most people do not make money from it. The ones that do are those at the top of the MLM chain who started the entire business so that their downlines are the ones working hard for them. There are many references about MLM and you should make up your own mind. But my personal experience has been horrible.

My spouse was once recruited by an MLM outfit and for the week that she was with them, she was a totally transformed person. She was even “brain-washed” to expect objections from family members to her involvement with such a business.

Thus, I view MLM opportunities with skepticism and cynicism. Most of the evidence I’ve seen points to it being exploitative and driven more by profits rather than genuine regard for customers.

After this experience, I now view my ex-colleague with a degree of suspicion in that does he want to meet up because of our relationship as ex-colleagues or does he see me as another potential recruit for his downline?

Have you ever been approached to join a MLM program?

What did you do and how did you feel?

Share with Panzer in the comments section.