Reading reports about how the investors/homeowners in China who bought in at the height of the property boom, only to see falling prices now, can get scary. It's not so much about the fact that prices can go up, thus surely it can come down too; but of how the public perceive property investments as fail-safe, and would demand their money back when the market "casino" turns against them.
This is not quite comparable to the impending bonds enquiry in Hong Kong due to the collapse of Lehman Brothers when banks had been selling the bonds as fail-safe. Property investments and speculation in Hong Kong had gone through the same phase as China (and other parts of the world) during the financial crisis in 1997 when property prices in Hong Kong went south, which had never happened before. Back then, no one in Hong Kong would imagine asking for their money back. Afterall, people in Hong Kong are much more used to the idea of investments and the capitalist system.
It goes to show how behind China and its systems (not only legal system in handling complaints, but also the government and private sectors in addressing concerns outside of contractual obligations) are woefully inadequate. While China's huge currency reserve is going to give it muscle to buffer financial and economic hiccups, it'll take much longer for its systems to come up to speed.
Along the same token (that investors/speculators in China property market should be reimbursed of any loss they suffer), neither should those in United States should be refunded. But that's exactly what the Democrat's Congress is pushing for, which is wrong-headed. If America is such a great experiment of capitalism, it should not set a wrong example for the world (and China) to see.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
On the possible comeback of John Edwards...
Opinions, public or private, of politicians are pretty low; and rightfully so. Scores of public scandals, with Bill Clinton topping it off, are embarrassing enough. But there's something about John Edwards' case that irks me.
Edwards admitted to bedding a former staffer while he's campaigning in the primaries. This was the staffer who was chartered to make a video of Edwards on the campaign trail, to be put on YouTube and the web, to promote him as the "net candidate." Subsequent videos even show how he had flirted with this staffer. This was also the same time when he championed family values, with his wife fighting for her life in cancer treatment while still tucked in tow with the kids to campaign for Edwards. While Bill Clinton had lied, at least he hadn't used Hillary Clinton this way.
There is something hypocritical about Edwards, who cares deeply about his appearance and who allegedly paid $400 for haircuts. This is the guy, who supposedly cares about the causes that he campaigned for, and yet puts himself above the system. I'm sure he knew he would wreck his party, damage his causes, should he won the nomination and even presidency, and the scandal leaks after that. No matter, he cares more about himself than anything/anyone else.
The only words that come to mind about him is: vain.
And now, less than a few months after the scandal broke and he went into hiding, he re-emerges after Obama won. No doubt he wants everyone to forget and move on. But for those who had supported him in the past, particularly through two election seasons, only to be let down drastically by Edwards, it won't be an easy feat. While I'm not an Edwards' supporter, I don't forgive and forget that easily.
Edwards admitted to bedding a former staffer while he's campaigning in the primaries. This was the staffer who was chartered to make a video of Edwards on the campaign trail, to be put on YouTube and the web, to promote him as the "net candidate." Subsequent videos even show how he had flirted with this staffer. This was also the same time when he championed family values, with his wife fighting for her life in cancer treatment while still tucked in tow with the kids to campaign for Edwards. While Bill Clinton had lied, at least he hadn't used Hillary Clinton this way.
There is something hypocritical about Edwards, who cares deeply about his appearance and who allegedly paid $400 for haircuts. This is the guy, who supposedly cares about the causes that he campaigned for, and yet puts himself above the system. I'm sure he knew he would wreck his party, damage his causes, should he won the nomination and even presidency, and the scandal leaks after that. No matter, he cares more about himself than anything/anyone else.
The only words that come to mind about him is: vain.
And now, less than a few months after the scandal broke and he went into hiding, he re-emerges after Obama won. No doubt he wants everyone to forget and move on. But for those who had supported him in the past, particularly through two election seasons, only to be let down drastically by Edwards, it won't be an easy feat. While I'm not an Edwards' supporter, I don't forgive and forget that easily.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
On Jennifer Aniston disses Angelina Jolie...
There is something uncool about Jennifer Aniston. Most people find her personable, but personally I think her whole appeal to the women kind rests on the fact that she really isn't very glamorous, but yet, with proper hairdo, make-up, and some fashion sense, she can look good. And THAT can be a very appealing thing, since glamor suddenly becomes very accessible, as Aniston has shown us all. As an actress, she's not talented; but as long as she keeps up the glam, I'm sure she'll have steady stream of movies for another 5-6 years. After that, I'm not sure if she can still compete with the younger talents in the brutal tinseltown for the leading ladies roles.
Considering that Aniston has serious ambitions to strike it big on the silver screen, thereby pushing back her ex-hubby Brad Pitt's hope to start a family, perhaps even leading to his drifting away from her and their power couple status, to the supposedly home-wrecker Angelina Jolie. Judging by her forever kind words to Pitt, but veiled "uncool" comments about Jolie, one can only feel how bitter and sorrowful she must be, for the whole world to pity on her, being 39 of age, childless and husbandless, with a career going nowhere. All the while when Jolie is on the up and up, with an Oscar already under her belt, a humanitarian mission that no one can fault her on, her motherly love of her kids, the mutual love and respect she has with Pitt, the new Brangelina power couple brand, and of course her sex goddess appeal that Aniston doesn't even come close.
I'm sure Aniston has tried to be graceful. Afterall, it's been more than a couple of years before she finally opens up now, and disses on Jolie for being "uncool" in gushing love to Pitt for the world to see.
In a way, Aniston reminds me of Diana, and how her various books, interviews, and the tell-all expose by her friends (with details fed by none other than Diana herself). Even though I dislike the manipulative Diana, in a way I suppose she has to lash out against a whole establishment of the Royal Family working against her. But Jolie and Pitt had hardly uttered a word about Aniston. In fact, they have simply lived their life joyfully, and it's Aniston who wouldn't seem to move on.
To be honest, to diss out on the situation with ex, with a couple of years after-the-fact, is just so uncool. I wonder what Aniston wishes to accomplish by "speaking out" now. Afterall, she reiterates and re-emphasizes often enough, to let the world know that she doesn't need any pity, and that she's happy and all. But if she's still talking about the past and history, I don't know how she can be a happy person.
Jen, it's time to move on.
Considering that Aniston has serious ambitions to strike it big on the silver screen, thereby pushing back her ex-hubby Brad Pitt's hope to start a family, perhaps even leading to his drifting away from her and their power couple status, to the supposedly home-wrecker Angelina Jolie. Judging by her forever kind words to Pitt, but veiled "uncool" comments about Jolie, one can only feel how bitter and sorrowful she must be, for the whole world to pity on her, being 39 of age, childless and husbandless, with a career going nowhere. All the while when Jolie is on the up and up, with an Oscar already under her belt, a humanitarian mission that no one can fault her on, her motherly love of her kids, the mutual love and respect she has with Pitt, the new Brangelina power couple brand, and of course her sex goddess appeal that Aniston doesn't even come close.
I'm sure Aniston has tried to be graceful. Afterall, it's been more than a couple of years before she finally opens up now, and disses on Jolie for being "uncool" in gushing love to Pitt for the world to see.
In a way, Aniston reminds me of Diana, and how her various books, interviews, and the tell-all expose by her friends (with details fed by none other than Diana herself). Even though I dislike the manipulative Diana, in a way I suppose she has to lash out against a whole establishment of the Royal Family working against her. But Jolie and Pitt had hardly uttered a word about Aniston. In fact, they have simply lived their life joyfully, and it's Aniston who wouldn't seem to move on.
To be honest, to diss out on the situation with ex, with a couple of years after-the-fact, is just so uncool. I wonder what Aniston wishes to accomplish by "speaking out" now. Afterall, she reiterates and re-emphasizes often enough, to let the world know that she doesn't need any pity, and that she's happy and all. But if she's still talking about the past and history, I don't know how she can be a happy person.
Jen, it's time to move on.
On falling home property prices and social psychology...
Human psyche is a funny thing. The current collective doom and gloom, as a result of the falling residential prices, is a case in point.
It's often cited (and is often the case) that our home equity holding is one of the largest purchases in our lifetime. For most of the people, it's also the one primary residence that we would well spend most of our life in. In other words, it's a long term holding/investment. In the bygone days, our generations past would toll away, save up to pay down the mortgage, and would have a mortgage-free property by the time they're retired. With the once new (and now defunct) high finance of home equity loan, our home has become our not-so-little piggy bank that a lot of people cash out to finance their high life that they couldn't otherwise afford and they shouldn't have taken, in the first place.
As in most other long-term investment, we're supposed to sit tight in hard times, and ride it out, which is pretty much what I do right now. Afterall, what does it matter to me now, if I have not considered selling our home now? The only difference is, I would feel poorer, since the market value might not be rising 10-15% every year; and home equity loan might not be as forthcoming (but I never have any intention of taking out home equity loan anyways). For those who still can afford the mortgage payments, I would argue that the falling market value really should have no impact to their immediate life style.
But of course that's not meant to be. Human psychology is at work, and people take their feelings very seriously - BOTH men and women. They feel poorer since the readily available piggy bank with cash is slammed shut. If these homeowners are not forced to sell (for failing to make mortgage payments), their home is still what it is - a home.
The only difference is that, a lot of those who complain about the current mortgage mess are the ones who are encouraged into buying a home (remember the Ownership Society by Bush?) that they couldn't afford and shouldn't have jumped onto the bandwagon, to start with. For those who think the party will go on forever, taking out exotic loans, and now complain that they would not be able to afford interest-only loans (like the homeowner in the article who gloomily commented that his mortgage will be $12,000 a month, nine years from now), should they get help? I don't think so. It's exactly like people going to casino, expecting to strike it rich fast, and when they lose all their money on the roulette table, they complain about the casino taking their money. The air of entitlement by people like that sounds disgusting to me.
It's often cited (and is often the case) that our home equity holding is one of the largest purchases in our lifetime. For most of the people, it's also the one primary residence that we would well spend most of our life in. In other words, it's a long term holding/investment. In the bygone days, our generations past would toll away, save up to pay down the mortgage, and would have a mortgage-free property by the time they're retired. With the once new (and now defunct) high finance of home equity loan, our home has become our not-so-little piggy bank that a lot of people cash out to finance their high life that they couldn't otherwise afford and they shouldn't have taken, in the first place.
As in most other long-term investment, we're supposed to sit tight in hard times, and ride it out, which is pretty much what I do right now. Afterall, what does it matter to me now, if I have not considered selling our home now? The only difference is, I would feel poorer, since the market value might not be rising 10-15% every year; and home equity loan might not be as forthcoming (but I never have any intention of taking out home equity loan anyways). For those who still can afford the mortgage payments, I would argue that the falling market value really should have no impact to their immediate life style.
But of course that's not meant to be. Human psychology is at work, and people take their feelings very seriously - BOTH men and women. They feel poorer since the readily available piggy bank with cash is slammed shut. If these homeowners are not forced to sell (for failing to make mortgage payments), their home is still what it is - a home.
The only difference is that, a lot of those who complain about the current mortgage mess are the ones who are encouraged into buying a home (remember the Ownership Society by Bush?) that they couldn't afford and shouldn't have jumped onto the bandwagon, to start with. For those who think the party will go on forever, taking out exotic loans, and now complain that they would not be able to afford interest-only loans (like the homeowner in the article who gloomily commented that his mortgage will be $12,000 a month, nine years from now), should they get help? I don't think so. It's exactly like people going to casino, expecting to strike it rich fast, and when they lose all their money on the roulette table, they complain about the casino taking their money. The air of entitlement by people like that sounds disgusting to me.
Friday, November 7, 2008
On Yahoo's stupidity...
Legacy is a funny thing, depending where you draw a conclusion on a timeline. When the web was growing out of infancy in the 1990s, and Yahoo was riding high as the portal of choice, Jerry Yang had looked like a genius. In the late 90s, everybody's talking about portal, as if the mere uttering of that buzzword is enough to render a business models for alot of startup hopefuls. Indeed, Yahoo had once been the portal I used, when I first started out. I've since moved on to others, like Northern Light, then AltaVista, then simply a plain-vanilla search page from Google for my needs. I don't need the bullshits from a so-called portal.
Unfortunately, Yahoo seems to have gotten itself stuck in the adolescent stage, and never really grow up. Yahoo has pretty much remained how it's like for the past ten years, without much changes. And for those changes that it has tried to add, like photo sharing or social network, it's just a disaster.
Jerry Yang should have bowed out and moved on, like Pierre Omidyar did with eBay. But I guess Yang is too emotionally attached to it, that when their "baby" has troubles walking, daddy comes back to the rescue, like Michael Dell does with Dell Computers. Not too many people can walk away, like Bill Gates did with Microsoft, unless they get engaged with some other pet projects. (Of course, it's still quite possible that Gates could follow the same footstep, and return to Microsoft, should it get into trouble, like Yahoo and Dell do.)
Long time ago, my brother said one thing to me, "don't fall in love with your investment" (although he has his own issues in following through with his advice). Still, it's a good piece of advice, as noted in the clinical analysis of the dire situations by John Thain when he decided to sell Merrill Lynch to Bank Of America, amid the market turmoil. It's happening almost at the same time when Dick Fuld failed to let go of his beloved Lehman Brothers, which saw Barclays and other potential buyers walking away, and the government let it go bankrupt and die.
The point is, had Jerry Yang had a clear head of what Yahoo is in, he could have achieved the marketing manuveauring like Thain did, and even what Alfred Chuang was able to do, in squeezing more juice from Oracle before Chuang sold to BEA to Oracle prior to the market turning very ugly. But Yang refused negotiation on a too-good-to-be-true offer from Microsoft at $33 a share. And now, YHOO hovers around $11-12, and won't budge unless there's rumor from a resurrection of the Microsoft bid.
I'm sure it's hard for Yang to let go of Yahoo, trying to align with Google, if only just to spite Microsoft. I would not have wanted BEA to go (as the last big independent application server providers), and be sold to Oracle. But we know the force was too strong against BEA, and that it's probably 5-6 years overdue for BEA to have gone, that Chuang had never been able to produce another magic touch, like his acquiring Tuxedo and WebLogic Server. It's the exactly the same way, in which Yahoo has failed, time and again, to revive the company, but always come up short.
As an investor, I don't have confidence that Yang is able to turnaround the company to give me $33 a share in the next 1-2 years. One could argue that my time horizon is too short. If YHOO, like any other publicly traded companies, wants my money/investment, then it needs to keep up good work, which I don't see much coming about. Perhaps I'm looking at the company from the outside in, but I'm running out of patience with Yang.
Unfortunately, Yahoo seems to have gotten itself stuck in the adolescent stage, and never really grow up. Yahoo has pretty much remained how it's like for the past ten years, without much changes. And for those changes that it has tried to add, like photo sharing or social network, it's just a disaster.
Jerry Yang should have bowed out and moved on, like Pierre Omidyar did with eBay. But I guess Yang is too emotionally attached to it, that when their "baby" has troubles walking, daddy comes back to the rescue, like Michael Dell does with Dell Computers. Not too many people can walk away, like Bill Gates did with Microsoft, unless they get engaged with some other pet projects. (Of course, it's still quite possible that Gates could follow the same footstep, and return to Microsoft, should it get into trouble, like Yahoo and Dell do.)
Long time ago, my brother said one thing to me, "don't fall in love with your investment" (although he has his own issues in following through with his advice). Still, it's a good piece of advice, as noted in the clinical analysis of the dire situations by John Thain when he decided to sell Merrill Lynch to Bank Of America, amid the market turmoil. It's happening almost at the same time when Dick Fuld failed to let go of his beloved Lehman Brothers, which saw Barclays and other potential buyers walking away, and the government let it go bankrupt and die.
The point is, had Jerry Yang had a clear head of what Yahoo is in, he could have achieved the marketing manuveauring like Thain did, and even what Alfred Chuang was able to do, in squeezing more juice from Oracle before Chuang sold to BEA to Oracle prior to the market turning very ugly. But Yang refused negotiation on a too-good-to-be-true offer from Microsoft at $33 a share. And now, YHOO hovers around $11-12, and won't budge unless there's rumor from a resurrection of the Microsoft bid.
I'm sure it's hard for Yang to let go of Yahoo, trying to align with Google, if only just to spite Microsoft. I would not have wanted BEA to go (as the last big independent application server providers), and be sold to Oracle. But we know the force was too strong against BEA, and that it's probably 5-6 years overdue for BEA to have gone, that Chuang had never been able to produce another magic touch, like his acquiring Tuxedo and WebLogic Server. It's the exactly the same way, in which Yahoo has failed, time and again, to revive the company, but always come up short.
As an investor, I don't have confidence that Yang is able to turnaround the company to give me $33 a share in the next 1-2 years. One could argue that my time horizon is too short. If YHOO, like any other publicly traded companies, wants my money/investment, then it needs to keep up good work, which I don't see much coming about. Perhaps I'm looking at the company from the outside in, but I'm running out of patience with Yang.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
On Obama winning presidency...
By now, just about every other guy is conducting their own postmortem on what went wrong with McCain's campaign, and what Obama did right, after Obama won presidency yesterday.
But if you ask me, it's more a stroke of luck for Obama that the economy is in such bad shape, that GOP can't deny any responsibility. Don't be fooled though, since Obama has no experience in economy whatsoever. No matter, the fact that George W Bush and his neo-con squandered away eight long years to top off the decline of GOP and any of its residual credential (if any is left) in handling economy, foreign policy, and the military. Not that anyone would dislike tax cut, but the fact that GOP has only that one magical pill in its medicinal box for the economy, and that its insistence (as much as McCain's) in deregulation, have all contributed to the financial mess (first in subprime mortgage market, then credit market, courtesy of Greenspan). And then, there is the Iraq war that we all know full well that Bush and GOP blundered so badly.
But those are (Bush) guilt by association to McCain. I very much doubt that the choice of Sarah Palin adds to his fallacy. Having said that, the relative smear-clean (almost honorable) campaign from McCain had not served him well. It almost points to an impotent campaign, in line with McCain's senior age. That's just too bad.
Still, I dislike Obama. Just about the only thing I checked this morning was the result of the election. I have switched off all the radio and ignored all the news headlines. I can't stand his flash of teeth. It's so freaking annoying.
But if you ask me, it's more a stroke of luck for Obama that the economy is in such bad shape, that GOP can't deny any responsibility. Don't be fooled though, since Obama has no experience in economy whatsoever. No matter, the fact that George W Bush and his neo-con squandered away eight long years to top off the decline of GOP and any of its residual credential (if any is left) in handling economy, foreign policy, and the military. Not that anyone would dislike tax cut, but the fact that GOP has only that one magical pill in its medicinal box for the economy, and that its insistence (as much as McCain's) in deregulation, have all contributed to the financial mess (first in subprime mortgage market, then credit market, courtesy of Greenspan). And then, there is the Iraq war that we all know full well that Bush and GOP blundered so badly.
But those are (Bush) guilt by association to McCain. I very much doubt that the choice of Sarah Palin adds to his fallacy. Having said that, the relative smear-clean (almost honorable) campaign from McCain had not served him well. It almost points to an impotent campaign, in line with McCain's senior age. That's just too bad.
Still, I dislike Obama. Just about the only thing I checked this morning was the result of the election. I have switched off all the radio and ignored all the news headlines. I can't stand his flash of teeth. It's so freaking annoying.
Monday, November 3, 2008
On the eve of Election Day 2008...
I'm somewhat of an anomaly in terms of politics. One may say I'm a liberal, fiscal-conservative. While I have roots in faith, I don't really go to church. I'm liberal in terms of most social issues, and I strongly believe in fiscal discipline. And I have distinct idea of what government should and should not do. (Government is not all bad, and it plays a pivotal role in maintaining a level playing field, be it social safety net, education, and basic infrastructure.) So, on most days, if you're debating with me, you would see me bounce between the positions held by GOP and Dem.
Most days, I listen to NPR. I like its depth and usually even-keeled coverage, but I've become enraged by the Obama-leaning coverage that I've stopped listening to NPR, and read news online instead. While I shouldn't have been surprised by the left-leaning coverage of NPR, I find it highly distasteful for NPR to off-handedly slight McCain, in favor of Obama. It makes me sick.
While I had considered myself detached in terms of politics, I've also come to realize that this election has become highly personal to me. I've come to view Hillary Clinton as a candidate who can present my positions, and is the most qualified among all in this campaign season (including McCain, and definitely Obama). I also know now, that I have come to dislike Obama so much so, that I'm very willing to elect McCain, whose positions I might not agree with all the time (eg. his positions of less regulations is a disaster), in order to keep Obama out.
Some may say, I'm being unrealistic; I'm being childish, to throw out the baby (Dem) with the bath water (Obama). But there have been so much negativity, and so much patronizing of the Obama camp in the blogosphere, to the essence that Clinton supporters like me should just shut up and suck it up. That's the part when I would not take, sitting down. The way that Obama supporters try to shout down dissenters, the more my blood boils.
And all these have nothing to do with Obama's skin color. Quite far from it, it's his demeanor, and his way to present himself as the heir without the throne, yet everyone has to salute him all the same, that gets to me.
Perhaps the latest NPR report of how hard it would be for Dem to win a majority vote, even in the face of a hugely unpopular president (George W Bush with 20% approval rating that was down from 90%), tremendous budget deficit, economy in recession, terrible job market and salary growth, and financial market in disaster.
Tomorrow (Nov 4th) is the moment of truth, and we'll find out if how much of this youth propaganda of Change is going to get materialized, and how much of the so-called small donors translate into real votes. I'll venture to say, that most real voting citizens (particularly the more senior folks) don't go romper-stomper on blogs and get TV coverage, but they're the one to vote.
If Obama really is winning, he would have Bill Clinton's roaring, heady economic days to think for (that people to yearn for), rather than his stupid, empty slogans of hope or change.
Most days, I listen to NPR. I like its depth and usually even-keeled coverage, but I've become enraged by the Obama-leaning coverage that I've stopped listening to NPR, and read news online instead. While I shouldn't have been surprised by the left-leaning coverage of NPR, I find it highly distasteful for NPR to off-handedly slight McCain, in favor of Obama. It makes me sick.
While I had considered myself detached in terms of politics, I've also come to realize that this election has become highly personal to me. I've come to view Hillary Clinton as a candidate who can present my positions, and is the most qualified among all in this campaign season (including McCain, and definitely Obama). I also know now, that I have come to dislike Obama so much so, that I'm very willing to elect McCain, whose positions I might not agree with all the time (eg. his positions of less regulations is a disaster), in order to keep Obama out.
Some may say, I'm being unrealistic; I'm being childish, to throw out the baby (Dem) with the bath water (Obama). But there have been so much negativity, and so much patronizing of the Obama camp in the blogosphere, to the essence that Clinton supporters like me should just shut up and suck it up. That's the part when I would not take, sitting down. The way that Obama supporters try to shout down dissenters, the more my blood boils.
And all these have nothing to do with Obama's skin color. Quite far from it, it's his demeanor, and his way to present himself as the heir without the throne, yet everyone has to salute him all the same, that gets to me.
Perhaps the latest NPR report of how hard it would be for Dem to win a majority vote, even in the face of a hugely unpopular president (George W Bush with 20% approval rating that was down from 90%), tremendous budget deficit, economy in recession, terrible job market and salary growth, and financial market in disaster.
Tomorrow (Nov 4th) is the moment of truth, and we'll find out if how much of this youth propaganda of Change is going to get materialized, and how much of the so-called small donors translate into real votes. I'll venture to say, that most real voting citizens (particularly the more senior folks) don't go romper-stomper on blogs and get TV coverage, but they're the one to vote.
If Obama really is winning, he would have Bill Clinton's roaring, heady economic days to think for (that people to yearn for), rather than his stupid, empty slogans of hope or change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)