Palm Jumeriah, Dubai

The Palm Jumeriah is built on reclaimed land. It is a very large development shaped like a palm tree. It comprises of the trunk, crescent and many fronds. 

There are several large apartment blocks built on the trunk. Atlantis Hotel and its supporting developments is built on the crescent. The expensive villas are built on the fronds. Almost all developments have a waterfront.

The development is served by a monorail system that is connected to the Dubai Metro. It is opening in April 2009.

Atlantis is a popular attraction for the locals and tourists.  You can watch this video to get an idea of the Palm. There is a tunnel that goes under the water connecting the mainland to the Palm and from the trunk to the crescent of the Palm.

Respect Other People's Views

Minister for Health Khaw Boon Wan suggested that some people can consider sending their elderly parents to a nursing home in Johor Bahru, where the cost is less than half of the cost in Singapore.

This created a big uproar. It attracted more than 300 comments in postings in The Online Citizen. Over 80% of the comments were strongly against the suggestion. Many of the comments were rude and abusive. They called the minister inappropriate names. I was shocked at this behaviour.

First, it was not necessary for people to give their views in a rude manner. They should show respect to the views of other people. I am not suggesting that a minister deserves more respect than any ordinary people. But he should not be given any less respect either.

Second, there is a strong perception that any suggestion by a minister will be implemented as government policy. If the reaction is likely to be irrational and negative, the government may decide that it is better not to engage the public. Surely, as citizens, we like to have the chance of giving our views before any decision is taken by the government leaders? Can we give our views in an objective manner, rather than behave badly?

Third, there seems to be a strong dislike and distrust of the government.  This is unhealthy.

The Online Citizen

Recipe for Disaster: The Formula That Killed Wall Street

Read this article.

Actually, the top people in Wall Street don't care. This formula allows them to show billions of profit, on which their bonuses are calculated. When the global financial system collapsed, they disappear with their big bonuses. They don't have to pay back or suffer the loss, which is borne by the rest of the world.

What greed!

Reuters: In Asia, suicides rise due to financial crisis

Read this article.

A truly inspiring speech from a great leader

Video

In his speech, President Obama said that Americans do not like to see the tax payers give money to the banks. The President said that it is necessary to allow the banks to continue to give credit for businesses and consumers.

There is another way to achive it, without giving money to the banks. This is to give the credit directly to the borrowers through another agency (other than the banks). It ensures that the money is properly used and does not give the profit to the banks.

I shall be talking more about this idea in another article.

SCMP:Risk-assessment tests are investment traps

24 Feb 2009
Enoch Yiu

'How much do you earn every month?" "How many overseas trips do you take with your family every year?" "Are you living in your own apartment?"

These are the typical questions asked by your banker or broker before you open an investment account. While the stated purpose is to ascertain risk levels, White Collar believes they can be a tool to sell high-risk products to those who can least afford them.

The experience shared by our readers is that these tests are not in any way standardised, with different questions and rankings set by the banks or brokers themselves.

With the Lehman Brothers minibonds scandal still fresh in our minds, these tests need to be more tightly regulated by the Securities and Futures Commission and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority to avoid mis-selling of risky products. Three readers with different backgrounds relate their experience with these tests.

A fund manager with more than 20 years of experience was asked to do a test as the banker wanted him to invest in risky equity-linked notes - an investment product linked to the performance of some stocks.

A judge who only put his money in time deposits was also asked by his banker to do the test and buy into these notes.

And a retiree, aged almost 80, was asked by his banker to do the test and buy these products.

The fund manager left without finishing the test, as he thought the questions were only intended to find out how much money he had.

"This was an infringement of my privacy. No matter what answers I gave, I believed the results would be the same - I would be sold the products the banker needed to meet the quota for that month," he said.

The judge was ruled capable of buying the high-risk product. But he insisted on putting his money in time deposits as he did not believe in complicated investment products.

"The time deposit does not offer a high interest rate but it is better than losing your money," he said.

The retiree did the test and was judged as someone who could afford low-risk investments. Even so, he was able to buy those notes and believed the products would be "safe". The result: his investment lost 85 per cent of its value.

"Why should an investor adjudged as being only able to afford low-risk investments be sold something that loses 85 per cent of its value?" the retiree said.

This is obviously a case of mis-selling. It is not rocket science and it really does not need any test to confirm an 80-year-old is not suitable for any risky products.

It appears that no matter how these tests are formulated, the result is the same. The bankers are selling products to meet their quotas. Our regulator friends at the SFC and HKMA should immediately curb this type of test to stop people from falling into investment traps.

At the very least, regulators should have a single, standard test for banks and brokers to gauge investors' risk appetite, or we are going to see mis-selling similar to the Lehman minibonds again.

The Standard:Minibonds saga hurts Yam

24 Feb 2009

Hong Kong Monetary Authority chief executive Joseph Yam Chi-kwong said he is sad that the reputation of Hong Kong banks has been tarnished by the Lehman Brothers minibond fiasco, which remains unsettled.

``What banks are doing in their banking business has been acceptable and the banking system is rather robust,'' Yam told legislators yesterday. ``Only this issue has left them with a black mark, and I feel very distressed.''

However, he revealed that in early 2008 some banks did not follow the HKMA's guidance to adjust the ratings of investment products when they turned more risky.

Abraham Shek Lai-him, who sits on Legco's financial affairs panel, accused the banking regulator of failing to warn Lehman minibond investors.

``If you already knew there were problems, why didn't you remind the more than 30,000 investors about redeeming the products when they became high risk from low risk in 2008?''

Yam responded: ``As a regulator ...we can never warn that a specific product or a specific financial organization is not doing well and [ask investors to] sell their products right away. How can we do that? It's not possible.''

He said the HKMA told banks they must inform clients when the rating of a certain product has changed.

Civic Party legislator Ronny Tong Ka-wah lashed out at regulators. ``It's unbelievable that you still can't tell if any bank broke the rules after investigating for five months.''

Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Ceajer Chan Ka-keung replied: ``It may harm the investigation results if we release the report before the Securities and Futures Commission completes its investigations.'' Yam added that some Lehman investors could not provide enough information for investigation.

He also said banks have generally agreed with the proposal to physically segregate ordinary banking and securities business.

Chan said the government is studying whether to boost the SFC powers to punish financial institutions engaging in improper marketing practices.