As usual, I continue to be personally very dissappointed with Najib's response which got coverage in The Star. I find his statements in the press quite unacceptable in many parts, and not befitting the future leader in this country. Let me share my thoughts here:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/8/11/nation/22052853&sec=nation
_____________
Najib: Bar Council’s persistence caused extreme reaction
KUALA LUMPUR: The Bar Council’s persistence in going ahead with a forum on conversion to Islam has triggered extreme reaction from certain quarters, which in turn would threaten the country’s harmony.
(Seng comment: I find it ridiculous and unacceptable, that the Star can be so quick to blame this on the "Bar Council's persistence". The Star once again became the "Judge, Jury and Executioner" in the court of government propoganda.
It is obvious to me that if The Star wants to point a finger, point it at the 300+ protestors. They were invited to participate, but for some reason chose to protest - PKR must look into this issue promptly. Sadly, these protests do more harm than good.
Notwitstanding the protestors whom in my mind are the chief culprits, what exactly did the Bar Council do wrong?
Their main objective was to discuss the present conflicts of laws pertaining what's currently happening on conversion to Islam. These are current conflicts that will continue to exist, even if there is / isn't discussion. So, what is so wrong to discuss solutions to improve present conflicts?
I am puzzled. Does any of the Star Readers know what was the Bar Council's objectives in setting up these meetings, if every information that they know about came from The Star only and nowhere else? Did the Star tell its readers these objectives?
If not, was it a balanced article?
Or is The Star merely government propoganda?
Do you think this particular article by the Star has the effect of further promoting racial unity? Or to keep Malaysians further divided?)
Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said he had expected the extreme reaction to occur as the council ignored advice to call off the forum.
“We had expected this to happen. I’ve already said this before, don’t make it an open forum, do it behind closed doors. There will surely be some form of extreme reaction that will occur (if it was held openly).
(Seng comment: What does Najib means when he said to do it behind "closed doors"? Wasn't the present meeting "behind closed doors"? I mean, it's not exactly in an open padang right?
So, how does Najib define, determine and decide whether it is "open door" or "closed door"?
Is it based on the publicity of such meetings? Yes, the Bar Council announced the existence of this meeting to the public well before they held such meetings. Is this so wrong?
Personally, I thought it was a very good thing for the Bar Council to announce publicly that such a meetingis going to be held. This is because it would allow all stakeholders to participate in the meeting. This is a lot better than the Bar Council ass-u-me-ing who are the stakeholders and who are not. Such decisions should be left to the society. Announcing such meeting in advance with the purpose of inviting stakeholders to the discussion is a good and commendable thing.
Ok. Since Najib thinks this is wrong way, what is the solution that Najib proposes? Surely it's not to do nothing? The government already knows of this problem for an extremely long time, but what has the government done so far? Nothing?
Unfortunately, when the status quo is perpetuated, this becomes unacceptable to the society over time.
Ok. Perhaps Najib wants to do it behind "closed doors", and let's ass-u-me his definition is to not announce its existence. So, if we don't announce, how do we know and how do Najib know all stakeholders views will be represented fairly? Does Najib claim to "know it all"?
This is obviously a political tool and a political statement by Najib, to further entrench his political power in public through mass media intimidation and propoganda. He's basically saying - you can't hold this meeting without my approval. Yes, you have the Police permit, but you must have my endorsement first. So, what he's saying is that the Bar Council cannot go to the toilet without Najib's endorsement first.)
“We’ve expected the incident to happen because the issue that was to be discussed is sensitive,” he said after launching the Federation of Malay Economic Bodies (Gabem) exhibition and convention at the PWTC here yesterday.
(Seng comment: To me, Najib did not sufficiently explain why. Why is a civil discussion on legal matters pertaining to conversion to Islam sensitive?
In fact, he could have done the opposite, which is to support the Bar Council and Bar Council's aim to resolve present law conflicts. But he didn't.
Instead, questions must be asked - does Najib want the present legal conflicts to perpetuate and to continue?
For example, Najib could have condemned the extreme reaction, saying that Malaysia is a moderate country, and the government do not tolerate fanaticism. He could have taken the position that in Malaysia sensitive issues can be discussed openly in a civilised and respectful manner by all parties involved. But he didn't.
Instead, he seemed to relish on the fact that this protest had occured. The Police also seemed not interested in protecting the rights of the Bar Council participants.
This is seriously not right.)
Najib was commenting on the abrupt conclusion of the Bar Council’s controversial forum on conversion to Islam on Saturday, in which groups of protesters held a noisy gathering outside the Council’s headquarters demanding that the organisers stop the function.
Asked if the Internal Security Act would be used against the forum’s organisers, he said that would be up to the police and Home Ministry.
Najib also said that the basic pillars of the Constitution should be accorded full respect if Malaysians wanted to live peacefully and harmoniously.
(Seng comment: Najib and UMNO should adhere to this advise, especially with regard to the Judiciary - see my previous article on the Petition here - http://fusioninvestor.blogspot.com/2008/08/important-read-this-petition-and-sign.html).
He added that Malaysians of different races should respect the sensitivities of each racial group and the basic tenets of the Constitution.
“As a society comprising different races, Malaysians have displayed the spirit of tolerance and respect to the other races.
“If we try to dissect or argue against the basic terms that was agreed upon in the Constitution, then it will surely cause endless arguments which can affect our country’s peace and stability,” he added.
(Seng comment: Now, this is simply nonsensical! Najib's imaginary accusations are unfounded! Instead, he throws more fuel to the fire of fear further.
At no time did the Bar Council intends to change the Constitution. It's a silly accusation, because the Constitution can only be changed in Parliament anyway, and the Bar Council will definitely be unable to muster the necessary 2/3rds majority! The Opposition do not have 2/3rd majority! The Opposition do not even have a majority! It is silly for Najib to say this!
In fact, because the Constitution is safe, it is an excellent opportunity for the government to use this platform to explain to the public why it holds the position that it holds.
A true leader who has its entire nation's heart should be someone who continually find ways to make Malaysia a better place for all Malaysians to live in. Daily.
There are currently serious problems pertaining to matters of law, when someone converts to Islam. What is so wrong to want to discuss and resolve this conflicts of law? What is so wrong, if after the discussion ends, the council then submits a report to the government for government's consideration?
So, what's the worst thing that can happen with such a discussion?
What does Najib fear from these discussions?
Lack of representation from UMNO? If so, why not just send UMNO representatives? If one person is not enough, send 2. If 2 is not enough, send a team! The government has the most money in the country, surely they can afford the best minds?
The focus is legal conflicts - is UMNO a legal expert? What is really the fear?
Or is Najib merely being opportunistic to enhance his personal and political goals? We are right in the middle of UMNO elections season, so, does Najib now wants to throw his weight around with "Islam issues"?
Or does Najib wants to continue to keep Malaysians divided? A divided society makes it easier for the government to control. A united society makes it difficult to control. And yet, we know that divisions especially along racial lines are not in the best interest of Malaysians.
Do we seriously want a future Prime Minister who does not have Malaysians' best interests at heart?)
Monday, August 11, 2008
Sunday, August 10, 2008
ICAP vs icapital: Fund Manager vs Advisory Service Provider
As you may be aware, fellow blogger, Moolah, has been blogging on ICAP and icapital for some time.
For clarity, ICAP refers to the Fund which is listed in Bursa.
Whereas icapital refers to the subscription based / paid investment advisory service which is available in print form or via Internet - http://icapital.biz/english/).
The two are not the same thing, even though they are related, since ICAP fund is managed by Mr Tan Teng Boo, who is also the Managing Director of icapital.
...
In my opinion, Moolah's two latest postings are very good, extremely thought provoking, and are worth reading:
- http://whereiszemoola.blogspot.com/2008/08/more-on-icapital-transparent-issue.html
- http://whereiszemoola.blogspot.com/2008/08/icapital-how-independent-is-advice-when.html
The reason is because it highlighted very clearly a potential conflict of interest issue.
This has important implications for investors who subscribed to icapital's services for a fee.
...
In this article, I wish to highlight just one situation where this conflict of interest has arisen.
The situation is when ICAP owned the same stock that icapital has a specific Buy (or Buy/Hold) recommendation on.
The question is - if ICAP owned the stock, and icapital called the same stock a Buy, is this stock worth buying?
Superficially, one would think so isn't it?
After all, ICAP owned the stock.
And at the same time, icapital also called a Buy.
Isn't that's consistency?
...
However, recent events has shown that this might not be the wisest thing to do.
Why?
Because as Moolah has shown in both his articles - earlier this year, ICAP has been selling stocks that they previously owned - like Boustead, Integrax, LionDiv, Poh Kong, etc. - even though the Advisory Service still has a Buy/Hold Call on them.
Huh?
Macam ini pun boleh?
Why didn't the Advisory Service change their call to Sell?
...
In fact, you may even have already asked this related question.
Which should happen first? Should ICAP "sell" first, then, "call" a Sell?
Or should icapital do the reverse? I.e. Call Sell first, then, ICAP sells?
(Perhaps some of you thinks that ICAP and icapital can do both at the same time? But is this possible? Chances are if they try to do both at the same time, the result will be ICAP sell first, and icapital advise later ... )
So, what should it be? Sell first / call later? or Call first / sell later?
...
Notwitstanding this question, another question to ponder is are there any laws that says that this is wrong?
Or is this action - Sell a stock, when Advisory Service says Buy - is simply not wrong?
Well, this situation is not exactly new.
It has happened many, many times in the past.
It has also happened many, many times not just for ICAP/icapital, but at many other places.
And not just in Malaysia, but also in many markets around the world.
In fact, many brokers who manage monies on behalf of their clients (e.g. OSK, etc.) also provides investment advisory services.
And many, many times, the broker side will Sell the stock, when, the advisory side says Buy. And vice versa.
Is there anything wrong with this? If you accept it is wrong, what actions should be taken and done? By whom? When?
...
So, coming back to icapital - in the past, icapital claimed and explained more than once, that their advise is actually for a different purpose and a different time-horizon. For example, if I'm not mistaken in my recollection, they claimed their advise is fundamental based intended for value investors (where lower prices usually represents better value) who intends to own stocks for a long-term (where price falls are usually a friend than an enemy).
Whereas, the ICAP fund works differently. The purpose of the ICAP fund is maximize shareholder value, i.e. if the Manager thinks prices will fall, then, they will sell, since trading potentially enhances the Fund returns if done properly. In other words, ICAP fund should not claim to be value investors who intends to own stocks for the long-term ...
But unfortunately, ICAP Annual Report didn't say this. If you look at the Chairman's Letter (page 1) dated 11 June 2008 in the Annual Report, he said this "Your Fund is a value investor, and hopefully its owners are as well." And this ... "As I explained in last year’s report, I have constantly referred all of you as share owners and not shareholders. Holding implies something transitory while owning implies a more permanent state of affairs."
Hmmnn ... so, how does one reconcile these 4 things - (a) what ICAP Chairman says, (b) ICAP's Selling, (c) icapital's Buy Call and (d) icapital's explanations to justify its buy call?
And let's not forget our entire industry practices too, as well as global practices ...
...
Can we rely on our regulator to fix this apparent anomaly up?
For example, has icapital crossed the line that allows regulator to take action?
And what about icapital subscribers - have they suffered losses holding on to their stocks because icapital continued to call them a Buy/Hold?
They paid good money for the services.
Should all of these subscribers be made aware of this apparently anomalous action - that when icapital calls a Buy, the ICAP fund can also be actually Selling the same stock at the same time?
Should regulators insist on this "Disclosure"?
Would the public accept such Disclosure?
Or whould they think it is "too confusing"?
If the public thinks it's "too confusing", is this a bad thing?
Can such an anomaly ever be fully resolved by our regulators alone?
...
Or do we have to simply accept that "Buyer's Beware"?
I.e. the "onus" is on the "newbies" to smarten up themselves through hard and expensive lessons and tuition fees to Mr Market, without additional disclosure?
...
To me, the regulator and the industry should take the lead to resolve this apparently contradictory action.
It is obvious that this is an industry policy issue.
Or a policy neglect issue?
...
Despite what has happened, even today, here are still some investors - especially new investors - who are probably unaware of this apparent anomaly.
The "reasonable expectation" is still consistency in Sell Action = Sell Call.
Not a contradictory Sell Action <> Buy Call at the same time.
Especially when the Advisory Service charges a fee for it.
...
And until the regulator & industry takes positive steps to resolve this, all we can do is to be aware ourselves of this practice.
And to keep repeating and spreading this message around.
And hopefully, noone will say that this industry is full of unethical people, who are always trying to legally steal your money when you least expect it.
That would give our industry a poor reputation.
And that would be bad for business.
For clarity, ICAP refers to the Fund which is listed in Bursa.
Whereas icapital refers to the subscription based / paid investment advisory service which is available in print form or via Internet - http://icapital.biz/english/).
The two are not the same thing, even though they are related, since ICAP fund is managed by Mr Tan Teng Boo, who is also the Managing Director of icapital.
...
In my opinion, Moolah's two latest postings are very good, extremely thought provoking, and are worth reading:
- http://whereiszemoola.blogspot.com/2008/08/more-on-icapital-transparent-issue.html
- http://whereiszemoola.blogspot.com/2008/08/icapital-how-independent-is-advice-when.html
The reason is because it highlighted very clearly a potential conflict of interest issue.
This has important implications for investors who subscribed to icapital's services for a fee.
...
In this article, I wish to highlight just one situation where this conflict of interest has arisen.
The situation is when ICAP owned the same stock that icapital has a specific Buy (or Buy/Hold) recommendation on.
The question is - if ICAP owned the stock, and icapital called the same stock a Buy, is this stock worth buying?
Superficially, one would think so isn't it?
After all, ICAP owned the stock.
And at the same time, icapital also called a Buy.
Isn't that's consistency?
...
However, recent events has shown that this might not be the wisest thing to do.
Why?
Because as Moolah has shown in both his articles - earlier this year, ICAP has been selling stocks that they previously owned - like Boustead, Integrax, LionDiv, Poh Kong, etc. - even though the Advisory Service still has a Buy/Hold Call on them.
Huh?
Macam ini pun boleh?
Why didn't the Advisory Service change their call to Sell?
...
In fact, you may even have already asked this related question.
Which should happen first? Should ICAP "sell" first, then, "call" a Sell?
Or should icapital do the reverse? I.e. Call Sell first, then, ICAP sells?
(Perhaps some of you thinks that ICAP and icapital can do both at the same time? But is this possible? Chances are if they try to do both at the same time, the result will be ICAP sell first, and icapital advise later ... )
So, what should it be? Sell first / call later? or Call first / sell later?
...
Notwitstanding this question, another question to ponder is are there any laws that says that this is wrong?
Or is this action - Sell a stock, when Advisory Service says Buy - is simply not wrong?
Well, this situation is not exactly new.
It has happened many, many times in the past.
It has also happened many, many times not just for ICAP/icapital, but at many other places.
And not just in Malaysia, but also in many markets around the world.
In fact, many brokers who manage monies on behalf of their clients (e.g. OSK, etc.) also provides investment advisory services.
And many, many times, the broker side will Sell the stock, when, the advisory side says Buy. And vice versa.
Is there anything wrong with this? If you accept it is wrong, what actions should be taken and done? By whom? When?
...
So, coming back to icapital - in the past, icapital claimed and explained more than once, that their advise is actually for a different purpose and a different time-horizon. For example, if I'm not mistaken in my recollection, they claimed their advise is fundamental based intended for value investors (where lower prices usually represents better value) who intends to own stocks for a long-term (where price falls are usually a friend than an enemy).
Whereas, the ICAP fund works differently. The purpose of the ICAP fund is maximize shareholder value, i.e. if the Manager thinks prices will fall, then, they will sell, since trading potentially enhances the Fund returns if done properly. In other words, ICAP fund should not claim to be value investors who intends to own stocks for the long-term ...
But unfortunately, ICAP Annual Report didn't say this. If you look at the Chairman's Letter (page 1) dated 11 June 2008 in the Annual Report, he said this "Your Fund is a value investor, and hopefully its owners are as well." And this ... "As I explained in last year’s report, I have constantly referred all of you as share owners and not shareholders. Holding implies something transitory while owning implies a more permanent state of affairs."
Hmmnn ... so, how does one reconcile these 4 things - (a) what ICAP Chairman says, (b) ICAP's Selling, (c) icapital's Buy Call and (d) icapital's explanations to justify its buy call?
And let's not forget our entire industry practices too, as well as global practices ...
...
Can we rely on our regulator to fix this apparent anomaly up?
For example, has icapital crossed the line that allows regulator to take action?
And what about icapital subscribers - have they suffered losses holding on to their stocks because icapital continued to call them a Buy/Hold?
They paid good money for the services.
Should all of these subscribers be made aware of this apparently anomalous action - that when icapital calls a Buy, the ICAP fund can also be actually Selling the same stock at the same time?
Should regulators insist on this "Disclosure"?
Would the public accept such Disclosure?
Or whould they think it is "too confusing"?
If the public thinks it's "too confusing", is this a bad thing?
Can such an anomaly ever be fully resolved by our regulators alone?
...
Or do we have to simply accept that "Buyer's Beware"?
I.e. the "onus" is on the "newbies" to smarten up themselves through hard and expensive lessons and tuition fees to Mr Market, without additional disclosure?
...
To me, the regulator and the industry should take the lead to resolve this apparently contradictory action.
It is obvious that this is an industry policy issue.
Or a policy neglect issue?
...
Despite what has happened, even today, here are still some investors - especially new investors - who are probably unaware of this apparent anomaly.
The "reasonable expectation" is still consistency in Sell Action = Sell Call.
Not a contradictory Sell Action <> Buy Call at the same time.
Especially when the Advisory Service charges a fee for it.
...
And until the regulator & industry takes positive steps to resolve this, all we can do is to be aware ourselves of this practice.
And to keep repeating and spreading this message around.
And hopefully, noone will say that this industry is full of unethical people, who are always trying to legally steal your money when you least expect it.
That would give our industry a poor reputation.
And that would be bad for business.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
DSAI Sodomy Charge, Syed Hamid, Saiful, Key Witness
I'm sure by now all of you are aware of this Star Article ... - http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/8/8/nation/22033038&sec=nation
Let me reproduce the contents here first.
____________
Syed Hamid: Saiful not charged because he is key witness
KUALA LUMPUR: Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan is not being charged because he is the key witness in the sodomy case against PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, said Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar.
He said that in a criminal justice system, when a person comes forward to report on a matter, the person would be protected.
“Usually, the victim is given protection,” Syed Hamid said after the MoU signing ceremony between Malaysian and Australian Governments on immigration cooperation here yesterday.
He also said that Anwar was innocent until proven guilty by the court.
“However, it doesn't mean that we can't take action against him just because he is a VIP.” He also advised the public not to jump to conclusions before the case is decided by the court.
Asked on former US vice-president Al Gore's statement issued in Nashville, Tennessee, Syed Hamid said the was not surprised.
“He has been criticising us all this while. He should be happy that the case is now going to court. Even so, Anwar has been granted bail and he can stand in the Permatang Pauh by-election.
“Let the court decide. The bottom line is, justice will be served,” he said.
Earlier, Syed Hamid had briefed the Australian delegation on the case.
According to Australian Immigration and Citizenship Minister Senator Chris Evans, the Australian Government had been assured that proper judicial process would be followed.
At the Jalan Duta courts, immediately after he was released on bail, Anwar had asked why Saiful had not been charged as well since the alleged sodomy act was said to be consensual.
“If it is “suka sama suka” (consensual), why was I the only one being charged? If it is consensual, both should be charged,” he added.
______________
To me, this entire episode is simply stupid, silly, time-wasting, a complete waste of taxpayers funds, and makes Malaysia a fool in the eyes of the international world!
And for Syed Hamid to come out with the statement that Saiful is not charged because he is a key witness is further proving to the entire world of his international stupidity!
Why?
Well, how can Saiful be a witness when he is a party to the crime?
The silly charge is now "consensual" act is it not?
If it's consensual, why is he not a party but a witness?
Let's look at this from another angle.
Let's imagine an analogy which I've used before.
Imagine there are two armed robbers charged with committing a crime such as robbing a bank.
Let's call these 2 robbers Mr A and Mr S.
Firstly, there were NO WITNESSES to this "crime".
Mr S then decided to go to the Police.
First, Mr S claimed that he was "forced" by Mr A to rob the bank.
After many weeks and days, Mr S then changed his mind!
Then, he claimed it was "consensual", that he and Mr A decided to jointly rob the bank! (Already, his integrity is questionable).
And then, despite carefully weighing all available evidence, the government still proceeded to charge Mr A, but let Mr S off because he is considered as "key witness"?
A key witness??? Not a party???
Does this seem logical to you?
Especially when Mr A now says that he has 5 witness that claims that he didn't do it.
To me, this is utter stupidity by the government to even proceed with the charge!
Worse, just look at the nature of the charge!
It is an outdated law that makes it illegal - yes illegal - to engage in the act of both oral sex and anal sex.
Wikipedia definition: "Sodomy (IPA: /ˈsɒdəmi/) is a term used today predominantly in law (derived from traditional Christian usage) to describe the act of anal intercourse, oral intercourse, as well as bestiality.". - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy
Leaving bestiality aside for the moment, and just focusing on oral and anal sex only ...
You and I know that in Malaysia alone, with a population greater than 25 Million people, and with a sexually active adult population of say 10 Million people, there are simply MILLIONS of such "illegal acts" being conducted at ALL WALKS of life over the course of one year, if not one month or one week!
Even today!
Yes, despite this high profile sodomy charge which nearly everyone is aware of, this "crime" is still being committed!
Yes, MILLIONS!
And seriously - do you expect me to believe that our BN leaders and politicians themselves are not guilty of sodomy in their entire life?
Do you think all Rakyat is this stupid?
Malaysia must hold some sort of world record! Surely, we must have the greatest number of criminals per capita in the world!
Don't believe me? Just ask your medical doctor. S/he sees plenty of related medical cases every single day - they have to treat all sorts of diseases arising from this criminal act at the least.
Or ask the Police themselves! They also see plenty of related cases happening every single day!
And miraculously, despite these MILLIONS of illegal acts happening, only 1 person is being charged in Malaysia!
Yes, just 1 person!
And he has the honour of being charged TWICE!
If this is not selective prosecution, then, I shall go and bang my head on the wall very, very hard.
This must be the most stupid case to be prosecuted so persistently by the government that I have ever seen in recent years.
And to think that our government insist to push the DNA Bill so quickly and with such urgency so as to be able to obtain the DNA sample from just one individual!
Why use so much resources? Why so urgent?
Isn't the establishment of the JAC (Judiciary Appointment Commission) much more urgent and of much greater importance to the future of Malaysia?
Why use the entire government's Legislative powers with their majority to pursue just one man?
To me, it is obvious the government simply does NOT have Rakyat's best interest, when they pursue Anwar to such a degree.
The mass media - The Star - should have printed this common sense article for all to see.
And the editorials should have repeated this common sense advice!
Instead, we continue to see rubbish from the mass media.
We continue to see the mass media being used as a government tool like this Syed Hamid's rubbish.
That's how I see it.
Utterly, utterly ridiculous!
Sigh!
Where have common sense and doing what is in Rakyat's best interest gone to?
Let me reproduce the contents here first.
____________
Syed Hamid: Saiful not charged because he is key witness
KUALA LUMPUR: Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan is not being charged because he is the key witness in the sodomy case against PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, said Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar.
He said that in a criminal justice system, when a person comes forward to report on a matter, the person would be protected.
“Usually, the victim is given protection,” Syed Hamid said after the MoU signing ceremony between Malaysian and Australian Governments on immigration cooperation here yesterday.
He also said that Anwar was innocent until proven guilty by the court.
“However, it doesn't mean that we can't take action against him just because he is a VIP.” He also advised the public not to jump to conclusions before the case is decided by the court.
Asked on former US vice-president Al Gore's statement issued in Nashville, Tennessee, Syed Hamid said the was not surprised.
“He has been criticising us all this while. He should be happy that the case is now going to court. Even so, Anwar has been granted bail and he can stand in the Permatang Pauh by-election.
“Let the court decide. The bottom line is, justice will be served,” he said.
Earlier, Syed Hamid had briefed the Australian delegation on the case.
According to Australian Immigration and Citizenship Minister Senator Chris Evans, the Australian Government had been assured that proper judicial process would be followed.
At the Jalan Duta courts, immediately after he was released on bail, Anwar had asked why Saiful had not been charged as well since the alleged sodomy act was said to be consensual.
“If it is “suka sama suka” (consensual), why was I the only one being charged? If it is consensual, both should be charged,” he added.
______________
To me, this entire episode is simply stupid, silly, time-wasting, a complete waste of taxpayers funds, and makes Malaysia a fool in the eyes of the international world!
And for Syed Hamid to come out with the statement that Saiful is not charged because he is a key witness is further proving to the entire world of his international stupidity!
Why?
Well, how can Saiful be a witness when he is a party to the crime?
The silly charge is now "consensual" act is it not?
If it's consensual, why is he not a party but a witness?
Let's look at this from another angle.
Let's imagine an analogy which I've used before.
Imagine there are two armed robbers charged with committing a crime such as robbing a bank.
Let's call these 2 robbers Mr A and Mr S.
Firstly, there were NO WITNESSES to this "crime".
Mr S then decided to go to the Police.
First, Mr S claimed that he was "forced" by Mr A to rob the bank.
After many weeks and days, Mr S then changed his mind!
Then, he claimed it was "consensual", that he and Mr A decided to jointly rob the bank! (Already, his integrity is questionable).
And then, despite carefully weighing all available evidence, the government still proceeded to charge Mr A, but let Mr S off because he is considered as "key witness"?
A key witness??? Not a party???
Does this seem logical to you?
Especially when Mr A now says that he has 5 witness that claims that he didn't do it.
To me, this is utter stupidity by the government to even proceed with the charge!
Worse, just look at the nature of the charge!
It is an outdated law that makes it illegal - yes illegal - to engage in the act of both oral sex and anal sex.
Wikipedia definition: "Sodomy (IPA: /ˈsɒdəmi/) is a term used today predominantly in law (derived from traditional Christian usage) to describe the act of anal intercourse, oral intercourse, as well as bestiality.". - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy
Leaving bestiality aside for the moment, and just focusing on oral and anal sex only ...
You and I know that in Malaysia alone, with a population greater than 25 Million people, and with a sexually active adult population of say 10 Million people, there are simply MILLIONS of such "illegal acts" being conducted at ALL WALKS of life over the course of one year, if not one month or one week!
Even today!
Yes, despite this high profile sodomy charge which nearly everyone is aware of, this "crime" is still being committed!
Yes, MILLIONS!
And seriously - do you expect me to believe that our BN leaders and politicians themselves are not guilty of sodomy in their entire life?
Do you think all Rakyat is this stupid?
Malaysia must hold some sort of world record! Surely, we must have the greatest number of criminals per capita in the world!
Don't believe me? Just ask your medical doctor. S/he sees plenty of related medical cases every single day - they have to treat all sorts of diseases arising from this criminal act at the least.
Or ask the Police themselves! They also see plenty of related cases happening every single day!
And miraculously, despite these MILLIONS of illegal acts happening, only 1 person is being charged in Malaysia!
Yes, just 1 person!
And he has the honour of being charged TWICE!
If this is not selective prosecution, then, I shall go and bang my head on the wall very, very hard.
This must be the most stupid case to be prosecuted so persistently by the government that I have ever seen in recent years.
And to think that our government insist to push the DNA Bill so quickly and with such urgency so as to be able to obtain the DNA sample from just one individual!
Why use so much resources? Why so urgent?
Isn't the establishment of the JAC (Judiciary Appointment Commission) much more urgent and of much greater importance to the future of Malaysia?
Why use the entire government's Legislative powers with their majority to pursue just one man?
To me, it is obvious the government simply does NOT have Rakyat's best interest, when they pursue Anwar to such a degree.
The mass media - The Star - should have printed this common sense article for all to see.
And the editorials should have repeated this common sense advice!
Instead, we continue to see rubbish from the mass media.
We continue to see the mass media being used as a government tool like this Syed Hamid's rubbish.
That's how I see it.
Utterly, utterly ridiculous!
Sigh!
Where have common sense and doing what is in Rakyat's best interest gone to?
Friday, August 8, 2008
Health: Adult Stem Cell & Cardiomyopathy
Whilst we try to seek and maintain "financial health" through prudent investing and trading in Bursa Malaysia, we shouldn't ignore our physical health too.
A favorite health website which was recently recommended to me is Life Extension website - http://www.lef.org. There is a wealth of free health information there, that after spending hours and hours reading through various news and other materials, I am still constantly learning new things. I think anyone with great interest in health will find this website very interesting.
Anyway, to share with you just one article from that website - http://www.lef.org/news/LefDailyNews.htm?NewsID=7100&Section=AGING. The title is "Authority on Adult Stem Cell Therapy Astounds Over 200 Physicians at Anti-Aging Conference in Nation's Capital". It seems that medical technology has improved so much, that what was previous science fiction to me decades ago now appears to be reality.
As usual, I'll reproduce the entire article with my usual highlighting ... Happy Reading and Have a Good Weekend!
_________________
Authority on Adult Stem Cell Therapy Astounds Over 200 Physicians at Anti-Aging Conference in Nation's Capital
Market Wire
07-22-08
WASHINGTON, DC, Jul 19, 2008 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- Speaking at the 16th Annual World Congress on Anti-Aging Medicine & Regenerative Biomedical Technologies at the Gaylord National Resort in Washington, DC, on Friday, July 18, Florida-based cardiologist Dr. Zannos Grekos astounded over 200 physicians with a presentation on the impressive regenerative behavior of pre-engineered adult stem cells injected into patients with cardiomyopathy.
The presentation by the lead cardiologist of Regenocyte(TM) Therapeutic (www.regenocyte.com) included a report on the company's post-stem cell treatment results citing an average increase of 21 percent in cardiac ejection rates as well as measurable improvements in a patient's congestive heart failure class status.
"We're able to bring a patient from a Class IV status to a Class II status in less than 180 days," said Grekos commenting on the success rate of Regenocyte patients receiving adult stem cell therapy to repair damage to heart muscle and arteries caused by atherosclerosis, a disease that causes heart muscle disorders and infarction due to plaque formation in the cardiac arteries in over 500,000 Americans.
According to the Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) Classification System by the New York Heart Association, patients suffering from CHF are categorized into four classes based on the disease's degree of severity. Patients in the lowest classification, Class IV, experience increased pulmonary edema, severe shortness of breath, and can be dependent on an implanted defibrillator and/or continuous infusion of Milrinone, a cardiac drug that improves blood flow by chemically increasing a patient's ejection fraction or ventricular blood pumping rate.
(Seng comment: In short, Class IV is pretty severe case)
"I've seen patients go from an ejection fraction of 28 percent to 49 percent in six months with the stem cell therapy," he told the captive audience. (An ejection fraction of 50 is normal.)
(Seng comment: WOW! From worst case, to nearly normal case!)
"Injecting a patient's own stem cells into damaged tissue is replacing damaged cells with normal functioning cells. At this point, the patient can discontinue Milrinone infusions and potentially the need of an implanted defibrillator."
Immediately following the presentation, over two-dozen physicians insisting on discovering more about his work approached Grekos in the hallway outside the auditorium. The group was particularly fascinated with the center's research proving that adult stem cells have the ability to engraft themselves into areas damaged by myocardial infarction (heart attacks) and turn into new heart cells and new blood vessels.
Dr. Grekos responded to the forum by stating, "Three months after treatment, cardiac nuclear scans of the areas treated reveal reversal of damage. In some cases, it's virtually impossible to identify the problems that existed before therapy. We have shown such improvement in some patients that they were taken off the heart transplant list."
(Seng comment: WOW!)
In adult stem cell therapy, a patient's stem cells are extracted through a simple blood draw at the Regenocyte Clinical Center in Florida. The sample is sent to a biotechnology laboratory in Israel where the cells are cultivated and pre-engineered into millions of cardiac regenocytes (living heart repair cells). The patient receives injections of the new cells one week later at one of the clinic's internationally licensed treatment centers. Over the next few months, the cells stimulate tissue re-growth and create greater blood flow to the affected areas. Unlike surgically implanted devices, medications, or organ replacement surgery, using a patient's own stem cells to rebuild damaged heart muscles means there is no possibility of rejection or tumorgenicity (cancer causing).
(Seng Comment: WOW! Does this sound like science fiction to you? If you asked your physician this question 20-30 years ago, your physician may have probably told you that it's pure science fiction rubbish. Well, this is now reality!)
Dr. Grekos and his colleagues in the world medical field are currently employing adult stem cell therapy and coordinating its application for thousands of American patients who have exhausted all other traditional therapy options. His presentation at the 16th Annual World Congress on Anti-Aging Medicine & Regenerative Biomedical Technologies conference supports efforts by a global community of doctors that are striving to incorporate adult stem cell therapy into mainstream medicine.
(Seng comment: Not yet mainstream medicine? Let's hope it will be one day soon.)
Dr. Zannos Grekos will be hosting several public seminars in Naples, Florida and Hilton Head, South Carolina in August 2008. He will also be a featured lecturer at another World Congress on Anti-Aging Medicine & Regenerative Biomedical Technologies conference in Las Vegas on December 11-14, 2008.
Regenocyte(TM) Therapeutic is an international corporation located in Bonita Springs, Florida. Dedicated to leading the world in providing Adult Stem Cell therapies, Regenocyte(TM) Therapeutic utilizes the most effective and safest technologies and medical procedures in order to prolong and improve the lives of its patients. A video of Dr. Grekos' presentation at the 16th Annual World Congress on Anti-Aging Medicine & Regenerative Biomedical Technologies will be available for viewing on the company's website by August 1st. Additional information on adult stem cell therapy as well as patient video testimonials, and seminar reservation requests can be found at www.regenocyte.com.
SOURCE: Regenocyte(TM) Therapeutic
A favorite health website which was recently recommended to me is Life Extension website - http://www.lef.org. There is a wealth of free health information there, that after spending hours and hours reading through various news and other materials, I am still constantly learning new things. I think anyone with great interest in health will find this website very interesting.
Anyway, to share with you just one article from that website - http://www.lef.org/news/LefDailyNews.htm?NewsID=7100&Section=AGING. The title is "Authority on Adult Stem Cell Therapy Astounds Over 200 Physicians at Anti-Aging Conference in Nation's Capital". It seems that medical technology has improved so much, that what was previous science fiction to me decades ago now appears to be reality.
As usual, I'll reproduce the entire article with my usual highlighting ... Happy Reading and Have a Good Weekend!
_________________
Authority on Adult Stem Cell Therapy Astounds Over 200 Physicians at Anti-Aging Conference in Nation's Capital
Market Wire
07-22-08
WASHINGTON, DC, Jul 19, 2008 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- Speaking at the 16th Annual World Congress on Anti-Aging Medicine & Regenerative Biomedical Technologies at the Gaylord National Resort in Washington, DC, on Friday, July 18, Florida-based cardiologist Dr. Zannos Grekos astounded over 200 physicians with a presentation on the impressive regenerative behavior of pre-engineered adult stem cells injected into patients with cardiomyopathy.
The presentation by the lead cardiologist of Regenocyte(TM) Therapeutic (www.regenocyte.com) included a report on the company's post-stem cell treatment results citing an average increase of 21 percent in cardiac ejection rates as well as measurable improvements in a patient's congestive heart failure class status.
"We're able to bring a patient from a Class IV status to a Class II status in less than 180 days," said Grekos commenting on the success rate of Regenocyte patients receiving adult stem cell therapy to repair damage to heart muscle and arteries caused by atherosclerosis, a disease that causes heart muscle disorders and infarction due to plaque formation in the cardiac arteries in over 500,000 Americans.
According to the Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) Classification System by the New York Heart Association, patients suffering from CHF are categorized into four classes based on the disease's degree of severity. Patients in the lowest classification, Class IV, experience increased pulmonary edema, severe shortness of breath, and can be dependent on an implanted defibrillator and/or continuous infusion of Milrinone, a cardiac drug that improves blood flow by chemically increasing a patient's ejection fraction or ventricular blood pumping rate.
(Seng comment: In short, Class IV is pretty severe case)
"I've seen patients go from an ejection fraction of 28 percent to 49 percent in six months with the stem cell therapy," he told the captive audience. (An ejection fraction of 50 is normal.)
(Seng comment: WOW! From worst case, to nearly normal case!)
"Injecting a patient's own stem cells into damaged tissue is replacing damaged cells with normal functioning cells. At this point, the patient can discontinue Milrinone infusions and potentially the need of an implanted defibrillator."
Immediately following the presentation, over two-dozen physicians insisting on discovering more about his work approached Grekos in the hallway outside the auditorium. The group was particularly fascinated with the center's research proving that adult stem cells have the ability to engraft themselves into areas damaged by myocardial infarction (heart attacks) and turn into new heart cells and new blood vessels.
Dr. Grekos responded to the forum by stating, "Three months after treatment, cardiac nuclear scans of the areas treated reveal reversal of damage. In some cases, it's virtually impossible to identify the problems that existed before therapy. We have shown such improvement in some patients that they were taken off the heart transplant list."
(Seng comment: WOW!)
In adult stem cell therapy, a patient's stem cells are extracted through a simple blood draw at the Regenocyte Clinical Center in Florida. The sample is sent to a biotechnology laboratory in Israel where the cells are cultivated and pre-engineered into millions of cardiac regenocytes (living heart repair cells). The patient receives injections of the new cells one week later at one of the clinic's internationally licensed treatment centers. Over the next few months, the cells stimulate tissue re-growth and create greater blood flow to the affected areas. Unlike surgically implanted devices, medications, or organ replacement surgery, using a patient's own stem cells to rebuild damaged heart muscles means there is no possibility of rejection or tumorgenicity (cancer causing).
(Seng Comment: WOW! Does this sound like science fiction to you? If you asked your physician this question 20-30 years ago, your physician may have probably told you that it's pure science fiction rubbish. Well, this is now reality!)
Dr. Grekos and his colleagues in the world medical field are currently employing adult stem cell therapy and coordinating its application for thousands of American patients who have exhausted all other traditional therapy options. His presentation at the 16th Annual World Congress on Anti-Aging Medicine & Regenerative Biomedical Technologies conference supports efforts by a global community of doctors that are striving to incorporate adult stem cell therapy into mainstream medicine.
(Seng comment: Not yet mainstream medicine? Let's hope it will be one day soon.)
Dr. Zannos Grekos will be hosting several public seminars in Naples, Florida and Hilton Head, South Carolina in August 2008. He will also be a featured lecturer at another World Congress on Anti-Aging Medicine & Regenerative Biomedical Technologies conference in Las Vegas on December 11-14, 2008.
Regenocyte(TM) Therapeutic is an international corporation located in Bonita Springs, Florida. Dedicated to leading the world in providing Adult Stem Cell therapies, Regenocyte(TM) Therapeutic utilizes the most effective and safest technologies and medical procedures in order to prolong and improve the lives of its patients. A video of Dr. Grekos' presentation at the 16th Annual World Congress on Anti-Aging Medicine & Regenerative Biomedical Technologies will be available for viewing on the company's website by August 1st. Additional information on adult stem cell therapy as well as patient video testimonials, and seminar reservation requests can be found at www.regenocyte.com.
SOURCE: Regenocyte(TM) Therapeutic
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Unit Trusts: Quick Commentary
Disclaimer: I am not a licensed financial advisor. If you require professional financial advise, please consult your licensed financial advisor. Please treat my comments below as merely sharing personal thoughts and second opinions.
Dedication: This article is dedication to "EH", "pk" and others who have expressed interests in investing in Unit Trusts before in real life, as well as in my chatbox. For some of you, sorry if this opinion is "belated".
______________
Recently, I met up with a young friend of mine whom I haven't seen in months, and we chat about Unit Trusts over a meal at my house. We chatted about many things, learnt that he was recently promoted, been very busy naturally, and the promotion came with a higher salary which I am pleased for him. Naturally, after some time, he's wondering what to do / how to invest his surplus monthly funds.
His background is that he is an intelligent, full-time professional, working outside the financial sector with little financial knowledge, and so, have little knowledge on personal financial products. He also has very little time to monitor financial markets, and prefer to spend whatever little extra time he has left outside his job to enhance his small side business over the next few years.
His benchmark comparison is obviously Fixed Deposits. These are safe and secure, and doesn't require any involvement from him. But the returns are a measly 3.7% to 4% per annum, which doesn't even match inflation. These are of course very natural concerns, since even the official inflation rate is already 7.7%+, and the unofficial rates even higher.
The extra savings per month is also not large. We may be talking say hypothetically $5k per quarter (figure adjusted), but he's also considering his existing savings which I understand is currently in F.D., and when spread over a monthly basis, may double that (say) over the next 6 to 12 months.
My friend is of course aware that with shares and unit trusts, prices do fluctuate, and past returns do not guarantee future performance. In terms of trading knowledge, he has virtually zero, and is not yet interested nor ready to learn how to trade yet. In terms of time-frame, his time-frame is very long, since he doesn't expect to have any need for that surplus funds, and so, does not expect to touch the funds over the next 10 years.
The short of it is that he asked for my opinion on what I personally think of Public Mutual equity trusts. Basically, several people has recommended him Public Mutual trusts, and he's wondering how that compared with investing directly in Public Bank shares, which he has heard others including me mentioned before also.
His background is that he is an intelligent, full-time professional, working outside the financial sector with little financial knowledge, and so, have little knowledge on personal financial products. He also has very little time to monitor financial markets, and prefer to spend whatever little extra time he has left outside his job to enhance his small side business over the next few years.
His benchmark comparison is obviously Fixed Deposits. These are safe and secure, and doesn't require any involvement from him. But the returns are a measly 3.7% to 4% per annum, which doesn't even match inflation. These are of course very natural concerns, since even the official inflation rate is already 7.7%+, and the unofficial rates even higher.
The extra savings per month is also not large. We may be talking say hypothetically $5k per quarter (figure adjusted), but he's also considering his existing savings which I understand is currently in F.D., and when spread over a monthly basis, may double that (say) over the next 6 to 12 months.
My friend is of course aware that with shares and unit trusts, prices do fluctuate, and past returns do not guarantee future performance. In terms of trading knowledge, he has virtually zero, and is not yet interested nor ready to learn how to trade yet. In terms of time-frame, his time-frame is very long, since he doesn't expect to have any need for that surplus funds, and so, does not expect to touch the funds over the next 10 years.
The short of it is that he asked for my opinion on what I personally think of Public Mutual equity trusts. Basically, several people has recommended him Public Mutual trusts, and he's wondering how that compared with investing directly in Public Bank shares, which he has heard others including me mentioned before also.
My thoughts which I shared with him was as follows.
1. Unit Trusts are generally long term investments because of the higher upfront fee. Typically, equity unit trusts charge 5% or more as upfront fee, and so, it makes it hard to beat F.D. if the time-frame is short. Shares on the other hand have lower brokerage, typically, 1.5% or less for the full buy and sell trip. For him, it is important to adopt a long-term view for both Unit Trust and Shares which to him is already something he is willing to do before we met.
2. Equity unit trusts and Public Bank shares both share the same characteristics, in that they are both share investment and so, their prices can fluctuate over time. It is both a source of profit or an opportunity to lose money. But in general, if one adopts a prudent approach to buying and selling, then, the price fluctuations are a friend than an enemy - it gives one an opportunity to "buy low" and "sell high". The potential returns can be significantly higher than F.D. if it is done prudently.
1. Unit Trusts are generally long term investments because of the higher upfront fee. Typically, equity unit trusts charge 5% or more as upfront fee, and so, it makes it hard to beat F.D. if the time-frame is short. Shares on the other hand have lower brokerage, typically, 1.5% or less for the full buy and sell trip. For him, it is important to adopt a long-term view for both Unit Trust and Shares which to him is already something he is willing to do before we met.
2. Equity unit trusts and Public Bank shares both share the same characteristics, in that they are both share investment and so, their prices can fluctuate over time. It is both a source of profit or an opportunity to lose money. But in general, if one adopts a prudent approach to buying and selling, then, the price fluctuations are a friend than an enemy - it gives one an opportunity to "buy low" and "sell high". The potential returns can be significantly higher than F.D. if it is done prudently.
3. So, to maximize profits, contrary to public opinions, it is not a question of how long the money has been invested, but at what price was it bought and at what price was it sold (ignoring dividends). So, sometimes, two year old investment can be more profitable than a 10 year old investment, and sometimes not. The key is to be selective in when to buy (the Method), as well as how much to buy at any one time (Money Management). Adopting the attitude that a low price is a friend for long term buyers is also very important (the Mind), because often, we are our worst enemy when it comes to investing.
4. At the present moment, when he has a very long time horizon, I advised against entering the market now. I believe it is better to wait as a general comment. Why? Because we are still in a bear market where we can expect more lower "highs" and a lower "lows" to come.
I showed him various charts of various stock markets around the world over the past decade, where it was obvious that in many stockmarkets around the world (e.g. the US, London, Dax, Cac, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, etc.), it was a wonderful bull run for many, many years (e.g. since 2002) - as witnessed from the higher "highs" and higher "lows".
However, this year, it was obvious that the bear has started to come in, as evidenced by the "lower highs" and "lower lows".
And given that the bear has only been around for less than a year, chances are good that it probably won't stop this month, and reverse its course, after 5 to 6 years of bull run. This is a longer-term bear that has come in, and I believe it will take longer than just a few months to run itsfull course.
What to Buy?
We went back to his original question of what to buy. Public Mutual trust or PBBANK shares?
I note that the problem with investing relatively small amounts of money is the lack of diversification risk. Public Mutual Equity trust has the advantage of diversification, in that the Manager invests in a number of shares which are supposed to be "carefully selected". So, if for whatever reason any one share kaputs, it shouldn't hurt the entire fund performance. Whereas, investing in just PBBANK alone is potentially risky. We chatted about PBBANK - the good and the bad - and about the reliance of valuation on the founder (THP), and the risks should something unexpected happen to him. Whilst PBBANK is clearly the best performing bank relative to other banks in Malaysia over the past long term, my advice was to only put a certain % of funds in there, and not 100% of funds.
As for Public Mutual Equity trusts, I compared this with ICAP. Notwithstanding my stance on ICAP's integrity, I do believe that ICAP as a fund manager has performed excellently - the past results speak for themselves. I suggested that he considers investing a part of his savings into ICAP also, since it automatically provides diversification, as well as fund management (including trading) services for a relatively small level of expenses, and for a significantly lower fee with better performance than Public Mutual equity trusts.
I showed him various charts of various stock markets around the world over the past decade, where it was obvious that in many stockmarkets around the world (e.g. the US, London, Dax, Cac, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, etc.), it was a wonderful bull run for many, many years (e.g. since 2002) - as witnessed from the higher "highs" and higher "lows".
However, this year, it was obvious that the bear has started to come in, as evidenced by the "lower highs" and "lower lows".
And given that the bear has only been around for less than a year, chances are good that it probably won't stop this month, and reverse its course, after 5 to 6 years of bull run. This is a longer-term bear that has come in, and I believe it will take longer than just a few months to run itsfull course.
What to Buy?
We went back to his original question of what to buy. Public Mutual trust or PBBANK shares?
I note that the problem with investing relatively small amounts of money is the lack of diversification risk. Public Mutual Equity trust has the advantage of diversification, in that the Manager invests in a number of shares which are supposed to be "carefully selected". So, if for whatever reason any one share kaputs, it shouldn't hurt the entire fund performance. Whereas, investing in just PBBANK alone is potentially risky. We chatted about PBBANK - the good and the bad - and about the reliance of valuation on the founder (THP), and the risks should something unexpected happen to him. Whilst PBBANK is clearly the best performing bank relative to other banks in Malaysia over the past long term, my advice was to only put a certain % of funds in there, and not 100% of funds.
As for Public Mutual Equity trusts, I compared this with ICAP. Notwithstanding my stance on ICAP's integrity, I do believe that ICAP as a fund manager has performed excellently - the past results speak for themselves. I suggested that he considers investing a part of his savings into ICAP also, since it automatically provides diversification, as well as fund management (including trading) services for a relatively small level of expenses, and for a significantly lower fee with better performance than Public Mutual equity trusts.
ICAP vs PBBANK vs KLCI Performance
The green line is ICAP.
The red line is PBBANK.
The yellow line is KLCI.
All 3 are compared over the same time period, which is from Oct 19, 2005 (or 2.75 years), when ICAP was first introduced to Bursa.
We can see that ICAP has performed very, very well amongst the three vehicles. ICAP total returns over the 2.75 year period is nearly 80% or around 23% annual compounding rate of return. This is a superb result.
PBBANK is also very, very good - nearly 60% over 2.75 years, or around 19% annual compounding rate of return excluding dividends. And if include dividends, the returns should be comparable to ICAP.
The KLCI however is a relatively poor performer - it only managed 27% over 2.75 years, or around 9% annual compound rate of return. Whilst this is very good compared to Fixed Deposits, we must bear in mind that the last 2.75 years was an extremely good year for Bursa, and I don't expect this same level of performance to be repeated over the next 2.75 years. In fact, it will definitely struggle to even earn double the F.D. rate annually (7.4% to 8% p.a.), over the next 3 years.
And we observe that ICAP (and to a lesser extent PBBANK) has large volatility too. For example, if one has invested $10,000 at the start, then, this amount would have grown to nearly $28,000 at its peak, but then, fall to $18,000 approximately. This means one must be willing to give up $10,000 as a Buy and Hold investor. But for someone who is very busy with 2 careers, and does not have an interest in monitoring their investments, this is an unavoidable cost. We can't have everything in life.
Public Mutual Performance
Public Mutual Equity Fund also outperformed KLCI. However, it only managed 46% over the same 2.75 year period. This translates to less than 15% per annum return, over what is arguably one of the best 2.75 year period in Bursa.
My belief is that this is the maximum that one can reasonably expect. In fact, after taking out charges and expenses, it will be less. Depending on time-frame, it could be 14% or 13% or less. I ass-u-me these are based on net prices, and not gross unit prices, i.e. the maximum possible returns. I expect actual returns to be less than shown in the graph above.
So, if we compare Public Mutual Equity trust over the same period with PBBANK shares and ICAP, it's clear that the latter 2 are better performers with lower fees. Of course, the past does not guarantee the future, but both vehicles seems to be better long term investment.
My Allocation thoughts between the 2 - perhaps consider something like 33%-50% PBBANK, 50%-67% ICAP. Or something similar.
My friend was also interested in investing in China funds and enquired about Public Mutual China funds. We compared some graphs and found that since inception, Public Mutual China funds have under-performed their benchmarks. In fact, on absolute return basis over the same period 2.75 years, the China funds have underperformed KLCI. It's obvious to me that Public Mutual expertise is in the local sharemarket, and when they venture to China, they do not appear to demonstate the same level of relative competency. I leave it up to him to decide whether he still wants to invest in China, but if he does, then, I advise him to keep it small. E.g. 10% China, 40% PBBANK, 50% ICAP or something like this. Note that since I am not a licensed advisor, I do not want to give him specific number, but leave that to his discretion.
The Method - When / How to Buy?
All 3 are compared over the same time period, which is from Oct 19, 2005 (or 2.75 years), when ICAP was first introduced to Bursa.
We can see that ICAP has performed very, very well amongst the three vehicles. ICAP total returns over the 2.75 year period is nearly 80% or around 23% annual compounding rate of return. This is a superb result.
PBBANK is also very, very good - nearly 60% over 2.75 years, or around 19% annual compounding rate of return excluding dividends. And if include dividends, the returns should be comparable to ICAP.
The KLCI however is a relatively poor performer - it only managed 27% over 2.75 years, or around 9% annual compound rate of return. Whilst this is very good compared to Fixed Deposits, we must bear in mind that the last 2.75 years was an extremely good year for Bursa, and I don't expect this same level of performance to be repeated over the next 2.75 years. In fact, it will definitely struggle to even earn double the F.D. rate annually (7.4% to 8% p.a.), over the next 3 years.
And we observe that ICAP (and to a lesser extent PBBANK) has large volatility too. For example, if one has invested $10,000 at the start, then, this amount would have grown to nearly $28,000 at its peak, but then, fall to $18,000 approximately. This means one must be willing to give up $10,000 as a Buy and Hold investor. But for someone who is very busy with 2 careers, and does not have an interest in monitoring their investments, this is an unavoidable cost. We can't have everything in life.
Public Mutual Performance
Public Mutual Equity Fund also outperformed KLCI. However, it only managed 46% over the same 2.75 year period. This translates to less than 15% per annum return, over what is arguably one of the best 2.75 year period in Bursa.
My belief is that this is the maximum that one can reasonably expect. In fact, after taking out charges and expenses, it will be less. Depending on time-frame, it could be 14% or 13% or less. I ass-u-me these are based on net prices, and not gross unit prices, i.e. the maximum possible returns. I expect actual returns to be less than shown in the graph above.
So, if we compare Public Mutual Equity trust over the same period with PBBANK shares and ICAP, it's clear that the latter 2 are better performers with lower fees. Of course, the past does not guarantee the future, but both vehicles seems to be better long term investment.
My Allocation thoughts between the 2 - perhaps consider something like 33%-50% PBBANK, 50%-67% ICAP. Or something similar.
My friend was also interested in investing in China funds and enquired about Public Mutual China funds. We compared some graphs and found that since inception, Public Mutual China funds have under-performed their benchmarks. In fact, on absolute return basis over the same period 2.75 years, the China funds have underperformed KLCI. It's obvious to me that Public Mutual expertise is in the local sharemarket, and when they venture to China, they do not appear to demonstate the same level of relative competency. I leave it up to him to decide whether he still wants to invest in China, but if he does, then, I advise him to keep it small. E.g. 10% China, 40% PBBANK, 50% ICAP or something like this. Note that since I am not a licensed advisor, I do not want to give him specific number, but leave that to his discretion.
The Method - When / How to Buy?
Using Public Bank as an example (and similar examples can be applied to ICAP), I showed him another price chart in my study, where PBBANK recent low was seen at $9.95 after falling from a peak of $12 on 12 May 2008.
The goal then is simple. Just patiently wait until PBBANK share price falls below $9.95. When this happens, wait until the price falls to find bottom. E.g. wait until it falls to say lower third or lower quarter or even lower over the past 52 weeks. Only then, consider making the first out of many purchases.
In other words, do nothing until the price makes a new lower low. We can't catch bottoms, but I believe the odds are very good that one will be able to buy lower than $9.95 sometime this year. Patience is the key.
Money Management - How Much to buy & sell
In the near term, the question of selling does not arise, as he intends to be a very long term investor. It is only a question of how much to buy each time, since the savings is approximately monthly, aside from the initial investment.
I suggested that since he doesn't have experience in timing the market, and market timing is difficult even for experienced investor, he is better off spreading the buys from his initial lump sum too say over 6 to 12 months, in the same timing as his monthly savings.
So, for the immediate term, buy when the price first make a new low. Let's say this happen in October at say $9.50. Then, when November comes, take a look at the price and if it's below say $9, then, buy as planned, but if it's $10, then, just wait and carry that over to the next month or until a lower price than $9.50 is seen. However, PBBANK is a generally well supported stock, so, any knee-jerk fall is likely to only be short-lived for a few days in general ...
Of course, there is a risk that the price might never fall below $9.50, but in the current bear market, the odds are hugely stacked against it - buying opportunities at lower prices are more likely to occur than not occur. And in the process of waiting, if he finds himself with too much cash, then, just use a % of that to buy at a lowish price- e.g. use 20% or 25% to buy at the low of the week or something like that, and keep the rest in cash. And since he expects to be a monthly saver over the next 10 years (he has separate emergency funds and access to his parents as well), he can afford not to hold more than 3, 6 or even 12 months savings in cash. I advise him to review from time to time his financial circumstances, since he may one day get married, have a family, have a mortgage, etc., with additional financial commitments, even though at present this is not an issue under consideration.
The Mind - Dealing with Volatile Prices, Fear, Greed, etc.
We can't cover everything, but some advice are ... for PBBANK and ICAP only, treat lower prices as a friend, since he is a long term investor. Low prices are usually opportunities to buy on the cheap.
For example, let's say the founder of PBBANK passed away, and the share price drops by 30%. To me, that's knee jerk reaction, and is a great opportunity to buy. I would use 33% of my cash to buy for every 10% price drop, or something like that. It can be fine-tuned, but the general idea applies. Try to buy at low prices.
After you buy, there is no need to watch the price every day. Once a week is more than enough. Unless you have spare cash and looking to buy. Then you might want to monitor more regularly, say everyday for a week before purchasing. This will happen every month.
Watch brokerage. $5k per quarter is not a particularly large amount, although $3k per month is the bare minimum. After the first 6-12 months (including the initial investment), the future savings may / may not be large enough to warrant monthly purchases (assuming no further increase in savings). As a very general comment, one wants to purchase shares at around $3k minimum, to keep the brokerage small. This can be fine-tuned, as his future savings may be higher a year later.
Try not to pick tops to sell. I walked through with him some live examples, picking a random date in the past, and then walk through the day-by-day experience, and asked him to try to pick tops as we roll forward one day at a time. It is interesting that he couldn't pick tops at all from this exercise since he has no training. But it gave him a good "live" example of the volatility involved, the feeling of "euphoria" as price rise and the "fear" as price falls (after a while, when he is absorbed in the process, you can see his greed and fear). In his case, better to just ignore watching the stock market, except the few times when he wants to buy.
Discipline. Don't touch the monies once invested. Especially when prices are low. Don't invest more than agreed upon. Don't be greedy and over-invest. Stick to the plan even when times are good years down the road. (He might check up with me again after he decides to invest).
Take an interest in PBBANK and ICAP fundamentals. E.g. the Annual Reports, and the Quarterly Reports in Bursa. Over time, once he has bought, I expect him to automatically be interested in the 2 counters that he owns whether these are on the news, rumours, tips, etc.
Some Concluding Remarks
It is always difficult to give advice to beginning investors on how to invest to earn more than F.D. The risks are great that they could lose money. My advice remains which is to keep it in F.D., or give the money to a professional manager to invest.
The problem of course is that with high real inflation (not official figures), F.D. rates simply does not keep up with that. If we do nothing, it means our money erodes in purchasing power as a matter of default.
Public Mutual is one of the best unit trust managers in the country. They do decent job. The question in my friend's mind is can he do better?
In my own personal opinion, investing in PBBANK and ICAP in a "balanced" manner (say 33% to 50% PBBANK, 50% to 67% ICAP) in this specific example for my friend who has set monies aside for everything else that he can think of, and to only invest surplus funds that he doesn't expect to touch over the next 10 years or longer, seems like not a bad proposition. On paper, both beats Public Mutual trusts hands down (19%-23% vs 13%-15%) based on historical returns. Of course, the past does not guarantee the future.
The final decision is up to him. I do not receive any hard nor soft commissions from either PBBANK nor ICAP nor from my friend. He's a friend, it's just a chat between two friends, and I don't dream of receiving any money at all from him. If he didn't talk to me, his monies would be retained in either F.D., or cash or ... ?
Disclaimer 2: As usual, buy, hold, sell, at your own risks.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Important: Read this Petition and SIGN if you agree
If you are a long-time MT reader or a reader of Haris Ibrahim's blog (The People's Parliament), you may already be aware of that Haris Ibrahim is organizing a Petition to His Majesty the Yang DiPertuan Agong to register concerns and to appeal for His Majesty's intervention on the upcoming judicial appointment.
http://harismibrahim.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/daulat-tuanku-daulat-tuanku-daulat-tuanku-2/
After having carefully read the petition, I have decided to sign it and has done so today.
And because it is such an important petition, with far reaching implications on our Chief Justice appointment, I have decided to voluntarily lend a hand and support to Haris (unsolicited) through this blog and this article. At least, to let you know what Haris is trying to do, and to encourage you to at least carefully read the Petition and to consider the implications to our country should Tan Sri Dato' Zaki were to become the next Chief Justice. And to encourage you to sign it, if you sincerely believe this is the right thing to do. And to spread this message to your families, friends, and everyone you know.
The Petition explains in detail the 1+6 concerns and the 2 proposals.
Whilst I do not necessarily and nor do I always agree with the principle that the most senior person should get the top job, and whilst I don't even know who will become the Chief Justice if His Majesty followed Haris' recommendation on appointing the most senior person for the job, I am even extremely more concerned in the manner in which someone like Tan Sri Dato' Zaki has been promoted to become Judge of the Federal Court (recommended in Sep 2007), and then, to become President of the Court of Appeal (recommended Dec 2007), especially in light of the 6 other concerns detailed in the Petition.
In short, speaking from my own heart and for myself, I am extremely concerned on the future of Malaysia, if PM were to recommend Tan Sri Dato' Zaki to His Majesty to be the next Chief Justice. Why? Because this appointment could last for too long a time, with far reaching implications including a proper functioning of a truly democratic system, in view of his past political and other affiliations, and the other reasons mentioned in the Petition.
Whilst I very much prefer to see Parliament establishing a Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) to recommend the appointment of the Chief Justice (than signing this Petition), however, since the JAC can no longer be established in time (due in part to UMNO Cabinet ministers objections which raises all sorts of red flags), Haris' 2 interim proposals would seem to clearly represent the much lesser evil to me.
I can only share with you my own reasons why I signed, but ultimately, this is your own decision whether to sign or not.
Even though I am not a lawyer by training, I do know that the Chief Justice role is an extremely important role to ensure a proper functioning of democracy in our country. To me, it must be held by someone with unquestionable integrity, and with as much independence as possible from the Executive influence. As investors, we also know that our country's FDI, the state of our economy, the state of our stock market, etc. depends on impartial and independent Judiciary, one that foreign investors and investors in general can trust and depend upon over a long period. Once the new CJ is appointed, it would seem practically impossible to have him removed. And if our Judiciary appointment is compromised, it will have so big an implication and so long lasting, that we effectively compromise the future of our country if this position is held by a less than ideal person. In short, because this is such an important appointment, I did not hesitate to sign the petition, to give my children a better chance for a better Malaysia in future. And I did not hesitate to write what I truly believe here.
I urge you to read the Petition. Think carefully whether you want to risk having someone like Zaki remotely even having a chance to become the next CJ. If you are clear and certain that you do not want to risk it, then, sign it before it's too late.
http://harismibrahim.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/daulat-tuanku-daulat-tuanku-daulat-tuanku-2/
After having carefully read the petition, I have decided to sign it and has done so today.
And because it is such an important petition, with far reaching implications on our Chief Justice appointment, I have decided to voluntarily lend a hand and support to Haris (unsolicited) through this blog and this article. At least, to let you know what Haris is trying to do, and to encourage you to at least carefully read the Petition and to consider the implications to our country should Tan Sri Dato' Zaki were to become the next Chief Justice. And to encourage you to sign it, if you sincerely believe this is the right thing to do. And to spread this message to your families, friends, and everyone you know.
The Petition explains in detail the 1+6 concerns and the 2 proposals.
Whilst I do not necessarily and nor do I always agree with the principle that the most senior person should get the top job, and whilst I don't even know who will become the Chief Justice if His Majesty followed Haris' recommendation on appointing the most senior person for the job, I am even extremely more concerned in the manner in which someone like Tan Sri Dato' Zaki has been promoted to become Judge of the Federal Court (recommended in Sep 2007), and then, to become President of the Court of Appeal (recommended Dec 2007), especially in light of the 6 other concerns detailed in the Petition.
In short, speaking from my own heart and for myself, I am extremely concerned on the future of Malaysia, if PM were to recommend Tan Sri Dato' Zaki to His Majesty to be the next Chief Justice. Why? Because this appointment could last for too long a time, with far reaching implications including a proper functioning of a truly democratic system, in view of his past political and other affiliations, and the other reasons mentioned in the Petition.
Whilst I very much prefer to see Parliament establishing a Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) to recommend the appointment of the Chief Justice (than signing this Petition), however, since the JAC can no longer be established in time (due in part to UMNO Cabinet ministers objections which raises all sorts of red flags), Haris' 2 interim proposals would seem to clearly represent the much lesser evil to me.
I can only share with you my own reasons why I signed, but ultimately, this is your own decision whether to sign or not.
Even though I am not a lawyer by training, I do know that the Chief Justice role is an extremely important role to ensure a proper functioning of democracy in our country. To me, it must be held by someone with unquestionable integrity, and with as much independence as possible from the Executive influence. As investors, we also know that our country's FDI, the state of our economy, the state of our stock market, etc. depends on impartial and independent Judiciary, one that foreign investors and investors in general can trust and depend upon over a long period. Once the new CJ is appointed, it would seem practically impossible to have him removed. And if our Judiciary appointment is compromised, it will have so big an implication and so long lasting, that we effectively compromise the future of our country if this position is held by a less than ideal person. In short, because this is such an important appointment, I did not hesitate to sign the petition, to give my children a better chance for a better Malaysia in future. And I did not hesitate to write what I truly believe here.
I urge you to read the Petition. Think carefully whether you want to risk having someone like Zaki remotely even having a chance to become the next CJ. If you are clear and certain that you do not want to risk it, then, sign it before it's too late.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Maintain Your Integrity
It is sometimes hard to act with integrity, and so, I find this story personally inspiring. Apparently, the author is unknown. Have a Good Weekend!
_________________
A while back, there was a story about Reuben Gonzolas, who was in the final match of his first professional racquetball tournament.
He was playing the perennial champion for his first shot at a victory on the pro circuit.
At match point in the fifth and final game, Gonzolas made a super "kill shot" into the front corner to win the tournament.
The referee called it good, and one of the linemen confirmed the shot was a winner.
But after a moment's hesitation, Gonzolas turned and declared that his shot had skipped into the wall, hitting the floor first.
As a result, the serve went to his opponent, who went on to win the match.
Reuben Gonzolas walked off the court; everyone was stunned.
The next issue of a leading racquetball magazine featured Gonzolas on its cover.
The lead editorial searched and questioned for an explanation for the first ever occurrence on the professional racquetball circuit.
Who could ever imagine it in any sport or endeavor?
Here was a player with everything officially in his favor, with victory in his grasp, who disqualifies himself at match point and loses.
When asked why he did it, Gonzolas replied, "It was the only thing I could do to maintain my integrity."
_________________
A while back, there was a story about Reuben Gonzolas, who was in the final match of his first professional racquetball tournament.
He was playing the perennial champion for his first shot at a victory on the pro circuit.
At match point in the fifth and final game, Gonzolas made a super "kill shot" into the front corner to win the tournament.
The referee called it good, and one of the linemen confirmed the shot was a winner.
But after a moment's hesitation, Gonzolas turned and declared that his shot had skipped into the wall, hitting the floor first.
As a result, the serve went to his opponent, who went on to win the match.
Reuben Gonzolas walked off the court; everyone was stunned.
The next issue of a leading racquetball magazine featured Gonzolas on its cover.
The lead editorial searched and questioned for an explanation for the first ever occurrence on the professional racquetball circuit.
Who could ever imagine it in any sport or endeavor?
Here was a player with everything officially in his favor, with victory in his grasp, who disqualifies himself at match point and loses.
When asked why he did it, Gonzolas replied, "It was the only thing I could do to maintain my integrity."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
