On bad airline food and complaint...

Amid all the gloom and doom in economic news, there's at least some light moment reading hilarious stories. There was this complaint about the food on Virgin flight from Mumbai to Heathrow, addressed directly to Richard Branson, that is quite funny, what with all the pictures and exhibits to support his argument.

And then, I read more closely at the story, and realized the flight originated from Mumbai, India. The guy, who was revealed to be a high-flying advertising executive, is probably not used to Indian food. Admittedly, I love all kinds of curry, but I must say, oftentimes I find the presentation of Indian food does not make it very desirable. More often than not, the Indian dishes are just blops of similar colored stuffs (either yellow or brown or green), and I wouldn't even know what they are. Those picture exhibits look very much like any Indian food you would get in restaurant, in terms of presentation. I have little doubt that the food handlers/chefs are all Indians, and those food look perfectly normal and acceptable to them. :)

On the gullibility and incompetence of fund managers...

It has been said (and it's certainly true) that, most fund managers who made money during boom times but couldn't handle any bust, are less than mediocre.

News came out today that a number of fund managers in Europe were hit by the Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme which could cost investors $50 billion or more. These fund managers were not directly investing with Madoff, but were investing in funds from JP Morgan which in turn acted as conduits to channel fresh funds to Madoff. It turns out, JP Morgan's internal risk management and audit folks did their job right and determined that the Madoff funds were too fishy, hence pulling out JP Morgan's own money from Madoff, but leaving its hedge funds' investor money with Madoff. Naturally, those investors were livid now, knowing that their investments would probably become worthless, while JP Morgan came out unscathed.

The funny thing about this is, these supposedly professional fund managers were claiming the exact same argument of gullibility as average joes like the Lehman Brothers mini-bonds in Hong Kong which were pushed by various banks. Those poor folks (like those retired citizens who invested their entire retirement savings in the mini-bonds) said they thought it has principal protection, and the bonds had the backing of the banks, wcih apparently was not the case.

These fund managers were claiming the same thing, that they were under the belief that since the conduit funds were sold by JP Morgan, they thought they couldn't lose any skin. It turns out, of course, that it wasn't the case.

Why then, shall we ask, are we paying fees to these fund managers who do not even have intelligence or are too lazy to do any due diligence of their own? Apparently, JP Morgan claims that the risks were listed in the sale agreement of the funds, but these "professionals" didn't even bother to read closely, which was exactly the same mistake as the Lehman mini-bond holders (who are _not_ professionals).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This past summer when we were vacationing in Hong Kong, I was struck by the advertisement of the Lehman bonds as well, what with all the seemingly attractive yields and all. I got a prospective, read through it, and decided that all the risks (which were many) were assumed solely by the investors, and the banks (that were selling them) really had nothing to do with backing the bonds. So, I decided not to put any money in it. I should have shared that thought with one of my sisters in Hong Kong, since she was one of the gullible victims who bought the Lehman bonds thereafter.

While I felt kinda bad about it, for if I had shared my thoughts with my sister, she might not have gone ahead with the investment in the Lehman bonds that cost her more than HK$500k; on the other hand, I thought she would have done her basic due diligence, not just in this investment, but everything else in life, considering that she's a financial controller in her company. Apparently, when it comes to investment, alot of us, professionals or otherwise, can sell ourselves short, and delegate/defer the due diligence to someone else who might not do the job.

On bleak economic news, falling home prices, et al...

It's disheartening, without a doubt, reading through grim financial and economic news of the day. The impacts are mostly psychological (not unemployed, not much debt) and not physical, it hits me all the same.

Yesterday, there was news of job loss spreading across the economy in US and worldwide, with 75,000 layoffs already confirmed. Today, there's news of annualized home value dropped more than 18% in Nov 2008, compared to a year earlier.

It comes as no surprise, as the condo that we sold in June 2006 (pretty much at the top of the market before it softens from the second half of 2006, then came crashing down and still falling) had its price increased by three-fold in the 10 years when we owned it. Granted that the condo was in a nice, desirable, sought-after neighborhood, I'm not sure if I would pay $360k+ to buy a one-bedroom with less than 500 square feet. And while I love that condo, rentals over the same 10-year period definitely would not have justified that kind of capital gain (of 300%) on that property. The rational side of me still told me that it's simply unsustainable. So, when we were nudged to sell (for more than a few years) by the family living downstairs, we eventually relented and sold. Oftentimes, I wonder how they're doing, for a family of four, to be carrying 4-5 mortgages at the time, albeit having one very good job by the husband.

If our condo had risen some 30% every year since 1997, and it provides any kind of yardstick to measure home prices now which has following 18-25% so far and still falling, I'd say, property prices would still have a long way to go, down south. But the price drop so far has already caused so much pain to the economy, that I'm not sure how it could sustain another 100-150% drop (assuming only half of our 300% rise over the last 10 years were justifiable - totally unscientific, but something whipped out from my head on a whim).

Before the party crashed, it was said in 2005 that Americans have extracted some $1 trillion in home equity value to finance consumer spending. The public worldwide announcements of writedowns and losses by funds and financial institutions, in particular, have already exceeded the $1 trillion mark. And it was said that it could cost a few more trillions in order for Washington to fix the economy (or at least try to get it going). Considering those numbers (however ballpark), and we should realize that Americans have basically eaten into the savings (the fats that had been building up in the past 10 years).

Although we're in decent shape financially, and the property we're in is good, all other investments have lost more than 50% in value, including my 401k. Those 50% loss in my 401k basically wipes out *all* of the gains in the 401k, putting me back to where it would have been, as if I have only contributed only the maximum 401k amount, with no company matching contribution to the total, and no gains to show for in this 401k investment over 10 years. It's like I'm back to square-one, but at least it's not in the negative, unlike alot other poorer souls who lost even more.

But I feel poorer nonetheless. Society is a collective place. When fellow countrymen suffer, we feel some pain. And I feel more anxious too, in this recession, compared to the one in 2000/2001. At least back then, we had two incomes. Now, it's just my income/job, and my husband's business which won't pick up until the economy comes back (and it could take at least a year or two). And we have kids more.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At times like this, when my anxiety level is high, I feel the need to do something. I have urge to get an extra job. I'm more inclined to do a few more research studies to pick up some free money. I'm starting my advance degree. I'll even sign up to do some tutoring in the university. And I need to re-balance my portfolio. Not that I'm in any panic to sell (which is probably the most foolish thing to do, since panic selling definitely seals the loss), but there are loser- investment that I need to trim.

But I'm hopeful we'll be able to make it better, in the coming year.

On the Inauguration 2009...

I'm tired of the media of all those hype around the Inauguration Day 2009 for the incoming president Obama. I have accepted that, Obama has won the presidential race and he's going to be sworn in, then begins to fix the mess that George W Bush has left behind. Everyone's been talking about how historical this is, yada, yada. There's even much talk about the dress that Michelle Obama wears, yada, yada, yada. Unfortunately, I simply don't feel it. I don't feel the hype, I don't feel the excitement, I don't feel how great Obama is.

I do hope I'm wrong though, that even though I'm not jumping and leaping for Obama, he'll do a fine job to be the commander-in-chief. But my guess is, even if you put MLK in that job with hyped-up hopes, you're bound to be disappointed. With so much backpeddling that Obama already has gone through, I'm simply surprised that no one is holding him up for much scrutiny, if at all. The media and most public seem to yawn to have such low expectation of this guy ("give him a break, he didn't create this mess"; "he's the first black president!"; "he's making history already, what more do you expect?!"), that Obama looks set to walk on water or separate the Red Sea within the first year of his term.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We don't own or watch TV, which is a very handy thing to ignore all the hypes and white noise. Last night, I made a gesture to my kids. In order not to deprive the kids of any "historic moments", I offered to let them watch some video streams of Obama's inaugural speech from the day earlier. I'm not interested in rhetorics (which is Obama's forte), although bad speeches like those from Bush made me cringe. But I was surprised when my kids both exclaimed, "we watched it already!" I asked "where/when?" and they told me the school let the kids watch it on the TV (or recorded tape) in the library. My son, who's 8, had no further comments. My daughter, who's 6, immediately added, "It's boring!" I was only too happy not to have to sit though it.

On Caroline Kennedy dropping out of unusual Senate race...

It's a surprise, but on second thought, not too surprising, that Caroline Kennedy was dropping out of the unusual Senate race to lobby Governor David Paterson to name a replacement to the Senate seat that Hillary Clinton vacates, in her move to become Secretary of State in the Obama administration.

I don't hold anything against Kennedy. But I find it repulsive, that someone who's never had a real job would consider that she's capable of doing something simply with a claim of her "life experience." Surely, no one would argue against the fact that she's born to a president, having lived in the White House for a while, bears a great last name, inherits much wealth to allow a life without any worry of working, and even threw her support behind Obama the candidate back then in his campaign to 1600 Penn Ave. I don't hold any of those against her, in particular. It's who she is.

But if she's arguing that, for what she has, what she's been handed down with, allows her to better serve the people of New York, I simply don't see the logic in it. From my vantage point, she has to earn her dues.

Surely, people were saying the same thing about Hillary Clinton, back then when she's campaigning for the New York Senate seat right after her husband's second term. She was called all sorts of names, carpetbagger being one of those. But Clinton is a fighter. She's tenacious, she fights for what she believes, she develops this thick skin, and she prevails to win the seat, and ultimately wins over the hearts and minds of the districts that she represents with good grassroot work.

I would not discount Kennedy the way that Clinton was discounted back then. I was expecting Kennedy to do the same, if not more, should she really want the job bad enough, should she really think she's better than the next one in line. Heck, she should even have considered putting in even more efforts, lest people think she's getting some kids-glove treatment from uncles and cousins in Senate, if not anywhere else.

Apparently, Kennedy is not a fighter. After her announcement to lobby Paterson to give her Clinton's seat without any election, a whirlwind campaign to try (and fail) to charm the media (counting all those um's and you-know's in rare interviews), she flamed out and called it quit.

It is perhaps fitting, that Kennedy was more often compared to Sarah Palin than Hillary Clinton, with Palin's meteoric rise and fumbling speeches and quick flame-out. But even Palin is more a bulldog fighter than Kennedy.

For Kennedy, it's just another disappointment in the family. Since she's been so comfortable in the shadow for 50 years now (didn't Jackie O do such a fantastic job shielding her kids?!?), she should have just stayed out and kept the mystic of the Kennedy name. With her quick burnout, she has perhaps drawn a full-stop to the name that her father and grandfather had so carefully crafted.

On the environmental impact of rising Chinese wealth...

I remember one time when we were in a restaurant, my brother commented on the rising wealth of China. He was saying, Chinese would eat some of those endangered animals and species to extinction. I wholeheartedly agree with him.

There's an old saying, that Chinese would eat anything that has its back facing the sky. That would cover pretty much all reptiles and marine animals. Average Chinese, with their rush and race up the wealth ladder, are keen for outward display of their prosperity, meaning more consumptions, more meat, more seafood, more of everything that they were lack of in the past.

Not that it's entirely their fact. Consumers in the West have been doing their part in consumption craze for a very long time. Thing is, Chinese does this with blatant disregard for history and environment, akin to a bulldozer that would crush everything standing in its way.

So, we have reports of alarms from scientists about "eating tourism" and the dwindling numbers of coral reef fish like groupers, which are a favorite among Chinese.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I recall one time, when I was still living in Sydney, a couple visited my sister on a guided tour, and the four of us went to a restaurant in Chinatown late that night when we met up. It's close to mid-night. The couple had been up since dawn, sightseeing on the tour bus; and they're pretty tired too. But once we got to the restaurant, their eyes lit up when they saw the giant groupers swimming in the fish tank. We got our table, sat down, and first thing they uttered was, "we want to try the grouper congee - we heard it's very good but it's very expensive in Hong Kong". As a host, we wouldn't say no to them, but I was secretly disgusted by their eating all the way from Hong Kong to Sydney. And those groupers were big - very big, in fact - and I hate the thought of killing them, just to put some congee to satisfy their curiosity.

Another time, when we were visiting the Museum of Natural History in NYC. While we were approaching some exhibits in tanks, there was this family (parents with two grown children) in front of us. Judging from their accent, they're probably ethnical Chinese from Singapore or Malaysia (rather well-dressed, and probably of some intellect). When we got to the tank in front of us, there was this huge marble eel lurking in the murky water. Its body was thicker than my thigh. While we were marveling the eel with my young kids (they love all animals), the Chinese family was expressing their own wonder. The parents were discussing how tasty the eel must be, and they were discussing ways to cook the eel!!! I was so disgusted that I let my kids away, so as not to upset them that someone would be contemplating killing and cooking that fish.

I don't mean to sound harsh to fellow Chinese, but the way that alot of Chinese are display their disregard to the environment and the planet earth really does make me sick.

On memory of Bonfire night...

We learn something new everyday. Today, I read that the bonfire in November, which I knew was to commemorate the plot to overthrow British parliament in 1605, has a proper name: Guy Fawkes Night.

Everytime I read about bonfire, that memory would always flash across my eyes: It's me riding my rinky-dink bike up a highway in Coventry in the Midlands, on that night coming back from lectures in college, with my friend ("little brother" Kenneth) who shared an apartment with me living off-campus. It was a smokey night. I didn't even realize it's the bonfire night. But I like the smell of burning. I wasn't very good at riding, so Kenny would ride to the top, and stop there to wait for me to push my bike up. (Pathetic, isn't it.) When we got to the top, we saw bonfire in a number of places. I was pleasantly surprised, seeing the bonfire and smelling the wood-burning smoke.

I later read up on bonfire and its origin, but I never knew its proper name was Guy Fawkes Night. Well, like I said, we learn something new everyday.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The smelling of smoke actually evokes deeper, also pleasant, memory of mine. I grew up, living right across a Chinese temple. It's a sizeable, famous one. People from afar would come and pay homage to it, and it's always very crowded and rowdy on Chinese festivals. I like that happy, cheery environment. I like to sit by the kitchen table which allows me a panoramic view of the environ from dawn till dusk. (Faithfuls would come pre-dawn before temple opens, and would still come after it closes by dusk.) I like the trees, the temples, the burning of incense sticks, all the food and chatter of people and kids. How I love that smell of burn.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I remember I read somewhere about olfactory sense and its strong relationship to memory. I can attest to that notion, that smells (and to a large extent, taste - of food) bring me back memory, time and again. It never fails.