Two Shitty Jobs

So, you think you are saddled with a rotten job.

Just thank your lucky stars that you are not doing the following 2 jobs!

Three Great Jokes

Three great jokes. Enjoy!

The Little Guy:

A little guy is sitting at the bar just staring at his drink for half an hour when this big trouble-making biker steps next to him, grabs his drink, gulps it down in one swig and then turns to the guy with a menacing stare as if to say, 'What'cha gonna do about it?'

The poor little guy starts crying.

'Come on man I was just giving you a hard time,' the biker says. 'I didn't think you'd CRY.' 'I can't stand to see a man crying.

"This is the worst day of my life," says the little guy between sobs. "I can't do anything right." "I overslept and was late to an important meeting, so my boss fired me."

When I went to the parking lot, I found my car was stolen and I don't have any insurance. I left my wallet in the cab I took home. I found my wife in bed with the gardener and my dog bit me.

So I came to this bar trying to work up the courage to put an end to my life, and then you show up and drink the damn poison.

The Jewish and Chinese Pilots:

A plane leaves Los Angeles airport under the control of a Jewish captain.

His copilot is Chinese. It's the first time they've flown together, and an awkward silence between the two seems to indicate a mutual dislike.

Once they reach cruising altitude, the Jewish captain activates the auto-pilot, leans back in his seat, and mutters, 'I don't like Chinese.'

'No like Chinese?' asks the copilot, '....why not?'

'You people bombed Pearl Harbor, that's why !'

'No, no,' the co-pilot protests, 'Chinese not bomb Peahl Hahbah! That Japanese, not Chinese.'

'Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese.. . Doesn't matter, you're all alike!'

There's a few minutes of silence.

'I no like Jews either!' the copilot suddenly announces.

'Oh yeah, why not?' asks the captain.

'Jews sink Titanic.'

'What? That's insane! Jews didn't sink the Titanic!' exclaims the captain, 'It was an iceberg!'

'Iceberg, Goldberg, Greenberg, Rosenberg ...no mattah... All same.'

The Parking Tickets:

I went to the store the other day, and I was in there for only about 5 minutes. When I came out there was a motorcycle cop writing a parking ticket. So I went up to him and said, 'Come on, buddy, how about giving a guy a break?' He ignored me and continued writing the ticket. So I called him a pencil-necked Nazi. He glared at me and started writing another ticket for having worn tyres! So I called him a piece of horse shit. He finished the second ticket and put it on the windshield with the first. Then he started writing a third ticket! This went on for about 20 minutes. The more I abused him, the more tickets he wrote. I didn't care. My car was parked around the corner. I try to have a little fun each day. It's important.

45 Lessons of Life

This was written by Regina Brett, aged 90, of The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, Ohio:

She wrote:

"To celebrate growing older, I once wrote the 45 lessons life taught
me. It is the most-requested column I've ever written."

Here are the wondrous 45 lessons of life.

Hope we can live half of them.

1. Life isn't fair, but it's still good.


2. When in doubt, just take the next small step.


3. Life is too short to waste time hating anyone.


4. Your job won't take care of you when you are sick. Your friends and parents will. Stay in touch.


5. Pay off your credit cards every month.


6. You don't have to win every argument. Agree to disagree.


7. Cry with someone. It's more healing than crying alone.


8. It's OK to get angry with God. He can take it.


9. Save for retirement starting with your first paycheck.


10. When it comes to chocolate, resistance is futile.


11. Make peace with your past so it won't screw up the present.


12. It's OK to let your children see you cry.


13. Don't compare your life to others. You have no idea what their journey is all about.


14. If a relationship has to be a secret, you shouldn't be in it.


15. Everything can change in the blink of an eye. But don't worry; God never blinks.


16. Take a deep breath. It calms the mind.


17. Get rid of anything that isn't useful, beautiful or joyful.


18. Whatever doesn't kill you really does make you stronger.


19. It's never too late to have a happy childhood. But the second one is up to you and no one else.


20. When it comes to going after what you love in life, don't take no for an answer.


21. Burn the candles, use the nice sheets, wear the fancy lingerie. Don't save it for a special occasion. Today is special.


22. Over prepare, then go with the flow.


23. Be eccentric now. Don't wait for old age to wear purple.


24. The most important sex organ is the brain.


25. No one is in charge of your happiness but you.


26. Frame every so-called disaster with these words ''In five years,will this matter?".


27. Always choose life.


28. Forgive everyone everything.


29. What other people think of you is none of your business.


30. Time heals almost everything. Give time, time.


31. However good or bad a situation is, it will change.


32. Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does.


33. Believe in miracles.


34. God loves you because of who God is, not because of anything you did or didn't do.


35. Don't audit life. Show up and make the most of it now.


36. Growing old beats the alternative -- dying young.


37. Your children get only one childhood.


38. All that truly matters in the end is that you loved.


39. Get outside every day. Miracles are waiting everywhere.


40. If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else's, we'd grab ours back.


41. Envy is a waste of time. You already have all you need.


42. The best is yet to come.


43. No matter how you feel, get up, dress up and show up.


44. Yield.


45. Life isn't tied with a bow, but it's still a gift.

An Alternative Financing Method?

Chua Tee yong, the youngest MP in Malaysia has proposed a hybrid scheme for the payment of housing development by both developers and buyers.

To prevent abandoned housing schemes of private developers, Tee Yong wrote his piece in the Malaysia Insider.

This is his proposal:

"JULY 7 — Most housing developments in Malaysia are undertaken by private developers who use the concept of sell then build (STB). Even though most of the projects are ultimately completed, there are a number of abandoned projects — leaving the home-buyers in the lurch.

Most developers go scot-free while the home-buyers are burdened with installment payment for incomplete homes. Imagine the burden of having to pay rental for a place to stay and then pay installments for a home that you cannot occupy. The problem with the current STB is that developers start collecting payments as soon as buyers sign on the dotted line.

Problems associated with STB are constantly reported in the media and in Selangor alone it is estimated that there is nearly 45,000 units abandoned and it is estimated that it would required RM3 billion to RM5 billion just to revive the projects.

Due to STB-related problems, in April 2007, the government introduced the build then sell scheme (BTS) — to protect home-buyers. There are two types of BTS, the first one the complete BTS whereby home-buyers do not pay any deposit and type two whereby the buyers pay a 10 per cent deposit and only begin paying the remaining 90 per cent when the house is ready.

Unfortunately, the BTS approach is solely voluntary. With developers not being paid on a progressive basis, hardly any of them adopt this approach. The previous STB approach enables developers to source funds on a progressive basis.

Therefore the BTS is not feasible and it is only good in paper as developers shun it.

As such a new approach is necessary, to balance the interest of both developers and home-buyers.

From the buyers’ perspective, they want completed projects and not liable if they are abandoned.

Developers are concerned that without steady financing during construction, they would lack the cash flow to complete the project.

In addition, the funding cost to complete the project would have factored into the selling price of the home resulting in higher selling price. In between the developer and the homeowners, financial institutions provide the funds and recover the disbursement through the installment payment received from the homeowners.

Taking into account the perspective of the home-buyers, developers and financial institutions, my hybrid of the BTS and STB is as follows;

Role of the Home-buyer

The home-buyer would pay a 10 per cent deposit for the projects and no more until project completion.

If the project is delayed there will not be any installment payment.

Upon project completion, the installment scheme starts immediately and the buyers is not allowed to withdraw from the sale and purchase agreement.

Role of the Developer

During the stage of construction, the developer is able to claim progress payment from the financial institutions for the projects.

Any interest cost for the draw-down to pay the progress of the home is borne by the developers instead of the home-buyers.

If there are delays, the developer will continue to pay the interest cost. This will ensure speedy completions of the units.

Role of the financial institutions

Financial institutions predominantly only assess the ability of home-buyers to service their loans.

Under this approach the financial institutions evaluate developers’ ability to complete the project.

Financial institutions will forward progressive disbursements to the developers based on percentage completion.

However, if the project is abandoned, the financial institution would have to take the necessary action against the developer and NOT the home-buyers.

Once the project is completed the installment will be serviced by the home-buyers.

No doubt, the above proposed scheme is not full proof and a lot of small developers may find this approach unattractive but the government can probably set aside some fund to ensure this approach is a success. I am glad to note that some developers have actually undertaken a similar approach on a voluntary basis to attract home-buyers during this period.

The financial institutions may not agree due to higher risk as they would have to assess both the home-buyer and developer. Under the current scheme, financial institutions are relatively risk free as loans are tied to the home-buyers.

There is also a possibility that the cost of homes would be slightly higher. This is because developers would factor in the interest expense incurred during the construction period.

For a home costing RM350,000 taking three years to complete, it is estimated that the interest cost would amount to +/- RM30,000. Even though the selling price is higher, the home-buyer is at least assured that if the project is abandoned they will not be burden with installments.

Ultimately the Government has to weigh the benefits of this proposal compared to the risk of having more abandoned projects.

Financial institutions cannot be ignorant and hope to rely on the home-buyers to judge if a project can complete. Developers with good track record have nothing to worry about.

In summary, any new approach would require buy-in from the home-buyers, financial institutions and developers.

As usual, dialogues, fora and discussions are necessary to get feedback and to formulate a detailed revised approach from time to time.

Venture Capitalists or Vulture Capitalists?

Venture capitalists can be angels or demons.

If they should pick out good inventions or innovations and help in the commercialisation and listing of these products in the emerging tech markets, then they are doing the world a favour.

If they squeeze founding inventors out of the picture for their greedy gains through huge profits accruing from heady market raising exercises, then they are truly vulture capitalists.

Today, after the bubble went bust on NASDAQ and it sister exchanges globally, venture capitalists have come down from their high horses and are intending to go back to basics.

The following report expresses the wishes and hope of venture capitalists of Menlo Park in the famed Silicon Valley. It is from the New York Times. Read on...

"For a group accustomed to looking outward for the next big thing, Silicon Valley’s venture capitalists are getting very introspective these days.

Much of the soul searching along Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park, where many of the venture capitalists have offices, is leading to the same conclusion: venture capital needs to go back to basics.

The biggest names in the industry are concerned about low returns and are blaming several factors: funds that have grown too large, the MBA’s that have invaded the industry and older partners who have lost touch with what is new in technology.

“I personally believe and I think the evidence proves that the venture industry has gotten too big, the funds have gotten too big,” said Alan Patricof, an investor for 40 years who backed America Online and Apple, at a recent venture investing conference in San Francisco. “Our biggest challenge today for venture capital is to think smaller.”

Patricof is part of a growing chorus of voices calling for the amount of money in venture funds to shrink drastically to levels last seen two decades ago. His firm, Greycroft Partners, is taking a retro approach with a US$75 million (RM265 million) fund that makes smaller investments.

Many in the industry predict that a third to a half of the 882 active venture capital firms could disappear, if only because poor returns will force under-performing firms to shut down. It is already happening: Investment in venture capital funds shrank to US$4.3 billion in the first quarter, from US$7.1 billion in the same quarter a year ago.

There will be “a tonne of venture capitalists who disappear over the next 18 to 20 months, and it’s going to be painful for a while,” said Bryan Roberts, a partner at Venrock. “But the best thing that could have happened to VC is this economic crisis, because it’s lowering the flow of capital into these funds.”

The source of concern is lower returns. Five-year returns in the venture capital industry, which reached 48 per cent in 2000 at the height of the dot-com bubble, were just 6 per cent through 2008, according to the National Venture Capital Association. The recent dearth of public stock offerings, once the main source of the industry’s profits, is partly to blame.

Most venture capitalists say the trouble began amid the excesses of the dot-com era. Before then, most of the investors in venture capital were university endowments, foundations and wealthy families.

But in the late 1990s, endowments sharply increased their stake in illiquid assets, including venture capital. Big pension funds saw how much money these investors were making and wanted in as well. The amount invested annually by venture capitalists swelled from US$2.7 billion in 1990 to US$104 billion in 2000, according to the venture capital association. Today it is about US$30 billion.

The surge of money is in large part to blame for venture capital’s recent poor performance, many in the industry say. “The big financiers of venture capital are force-feeding the industry, and it’s like force-feeding cows — it makes the industry sick,” said Paul Kedrosky, a senior fellow at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation who recently called for the venture industry to contract by half. “The bottom line is it’s a returns-driven business, and the only way you can post better returns is by shrinking.”

Instead of figuring out how much start-ups actually need, too many firms calculate how much they have in their funds, divide it by the number of partners and the number of boards they can sit on, and come up with a sum to invest in each start-up, said Ben Horowitz, a partner in a new venture firm, Andreessen Horowitz. That often means forcing US$3 million into a company that needs US$300,000, he said.

Overfinancing results in too many firms backing too many start-ups that do the exact same thing, some critics say, and it inflates the valuation of companies so that investors get smaller returns when they eventually sell.

The good news is that Web start-ups do not need as much money today, said Dana Settle, a partner at Greycroft Partners. “You can actually make a nice venture return if you sell them for less than US$100 million, you just have to go in at the right price,” she said.

Greycroft has a US$75 million fund, invests US$500,000 to US$3 million in each start-up and does not always demand a board seat. Neither does the US$300 million Andreessen Horowitz, which will invest as little as US$50,000 in a start-up.

“That is a much better model than putting a bunch of money in upfront,” said Marc Andreessen, Horowitz’s partner.

Andreessen and Horowitz also attribute the venture industry’s struggles in part to the business school graduates who now populate Sand Hill Road offices, taking the place of the engineers and entrepreneurs who originally formed venture firms. (Andreessen is a founder of Netscape, and together he and Horowitz founded Opsware, a software company bought by Hewlett-Packard.)

When too many venture capitalists serve on a start-up’s board with “no proper judgment, who have never built a company,” they tend to get too involved in running the company and, in high-pressure situations, imagine problems that do not exist, Horowitz said. “Their insecurity and own anxiety filters into the advice,” he said.

Franklin Pitcher Johnson, a veteran venture capitalist known as Pitch who founded Asset Management Company in 1965, agrees. He had this advice for would-be venture capitalists at a recent conference: “Get a real job in an operating company, because what we back is operating companies — until you understand that, you can’t be much of a venture capitalist.”

Still others blame the fact that money flows to firms with the biggest past successes, even though the venture field can be an industry of one-hit wonders.

“The top firms might not be who you think they are,” said Judith Elsea, co-founder and managing director of Weathergage Capital, which invests in venture funds. “The people who were venture gods in the 1990s are 10 years older than they were.” Experience is an advantage in any industry, but venture might be different, Elsea said, because “technology is so dynamic it just moves on, and it takes a lot of work to have your networks refreshed and changed.”

Despite all the calls for a return to the old-school model of venture capital, some new technologies, like those in clean energy, require huge amounts of money, so some firms will need to remain large.

And certain investors dispute that too much money is the problem. Timothy Draper, founder of Draper Fisher Jurvetson, thinks there should be more venture capitalists, not fewer. “I don’t think we have enough venture capitalists to spread the wealth to the seven billion creative minds out there,” he said.

So, let us look at the infant venture capital industry in Malaysia. MTDC was the prime mover in the early 1990s, helping inventors and innovators to bring their product to market. I think it is still doing that, though more conservative and more risk averse.

The real private venture capitalists have yet to surface in Malaysia.

UK-Not Out of the Woods

A Reuters report on the British economy circa June 2009.

A survey by the British Chambers of Commerce suggested today (July 7)that there is a marked easing in the pace of decline in the manufacturing and services sectors in the second quarter. The economy however,continues to be in recession.

The BCC’s quarterly economic survey of more than 5,600 businesses showed sales and orders continued to fall in the three months to June, though at a much slower pace than the record rates of contraction in April’s first-quarter survey.

In contrast to other surveys, it still suggests the economy continued to contract in the second quarter, and will reinforce expectations the Bank of England will expand its quantitative easing scheme at its policy meeting this week.

BCC chief economic adviser David Kern said the figures were consistent with the economy having shrunk by 0.1-0.4 per cent in the second quarter, better than the 2.4 per cent drop in the first quarter, and he does not expect a return to growth until the end of this year.

“The worst of the recession appears to be over but a recovery is not guaranteed and even if we get one, it will be a very shallow recovery by historical standards,” Kern said.

The Bank has taken unprecedented measures to drag Britain out of recession, slashing interest rates to close to zero and embarking on a 125 billion pound asset purchase programme to pump money into the economy.

Most analysts reckon the Bank will extend the scheme to the £150 billion (RM855 billion) limit sanctioned by the government either this month or next. Kern said policy must remain loose to allow a recovery to take hold, noting measures so far had yet to impact.

Rate-setters seem in little hurry to start unwinding the massive stimulus they have injected into the economy and are worried that tight lending conditions will derail any pick-up.

Still, there was a glimmer of hope in the BCC survey, which showed confidence in service sector turnover and profitability had returned for the first time in about a year, while manufacturers were also upbeat about the prospects for turnover.

However, firms were still operating well below full capacity and manufacturing firms’ cash-flow continued to be weak.

George Buckley, chief UK economist at Deutsche Bank, said conflicting survey evidence made it hard to tell what state the economy is in. “There are some encouraging signs we’re seeing the bottom of the recession but the real question is what the post-recession environment looks like: at the moment it doesn’t look very promising,” Buckley said.

The aye-sayers and the nay-sayers can predict what they want but until such time green shoots moved up the economy to positive teritory, the feeling continues to be worrisome.

The New FTSE Bursa Malaysia KLCI

The New FTSE Bursa Malaysia KLCI was used yesterday to replace the CI (6th July 2009).

The component stocks are as follows:

1015 AMMB Holdings
5076 Astro All Asia Networks
6888 Axiata Group Bhd
1562 Berjaya Sports Toto
4162 British American Tobacco (Malaysia)
1023 Bumiputra-Commerce Holdings
6947 Digi.com
3182 Genting
4715 Genting Malaysia BHD
5819 Hong Leong Bank
1961 IOI
2445 Kuala Lumpur Kepong
1155 Malayan Banking
3786 Malaysia Airline System
3816 MISC
2194 MMC
5657 Parkson Holdings
5681 Petronas Dagangan Bhd
6033 Petronas Gas
5052 Plus Expressways
4065 PPB Group
1295 Public Bank BHD
1066 RHB Capital
4197 Sime Darby Bhd
2267 Tanjong
4863 Telekom Malaysia
5347 Tenaga Nasional
4588 UMW Holdings
4677 YTL Corp
6742 YTL Power International

Notable Information:

Genting, YTL and Petronas group both have two listed companies ad the component stocks. They are,
- Genting and Genting Malaysia BHD (Previously known as Resort) from Genting group
- Petronas Dagangan and Petronas Gas from Petronas group
- YTL Corp and YTL Power from YTL group

Banking sector has 6 stocks in the list, that is 20% of the total.
- AMMB Holding
- Bumiputra Commerce
- Hong Leong Bank
- Malayan Bank
- Public Bank
- RHB Capital

Plantation Stocks
- IOI
- KL Kepong

Gaming Stocks
- Berjaya Sports Toto
- Genting
- Genting Malaysia
- Tanjong

Around 12 stocks are Government Linked Corporates (GLC) Stocks
- Axiata Group Bhd
- Bumiputra Commerce
- Malaysia Airline System
- Malayan Bank
- MISC
- Petronas Dagangan Bhd
- Petronas Gas
- Plus Expressways
- RHB Capital
- Sime Darby Bhd
- Telekom Malaysia
- Tenaga Nasional

Banking sectors and government linked stocks make up almost half of the 30 component stocks of the FTSE Bursa Malaysia KLCI.

Even tough with the introduction of the FTSE Bursa Malaysia KLCI, the past year data of Kuala Lumpur Composite Index from 1976 to 2008 is still valid.

So if any of these stocks moves up a couple of bits, the index will move up in tandem.

Now you know!

Saving is sin, and spending is virtue...

This is one interesting article written by an Indian Economist. I am quoting him verbatim.

Japanese save a lot. They do not spend much. Also Japan exports far more than it imports. Has an annual trade surplus of over 100 billions. Yet Japanese economy is considered weak, even collapsing.

Americans spend, save little. Also US imports more than it exports.. Has an annual trade deficit of over $400 billion. Yet, the American economy is considered strong and trusted to get stronger.

But where from do Americans get money to spend?
They borrow from Japan, China and even India.
Virtually others save for the US to spend. Global savings are mostly invested in US, in dollars.

India itself keeps its foreign currency assets of over $50 billions in US securities. China has sunk over $160 billion in US securities. Japan's stakes in US securities is in trillions.

Result:

The US has taken over $5 trillion from the world. So, as the world saves for the US, Americans spend freely. Today, to keep the US consumption going, that is for the US economy to work, other countries have to remit $180 billion every quarter, which is $2 billion a day, to the US!

A Chinese economist asked a neat question. Who has invested more, US in China, or China in US? The US has invested in China less than half of what China has invested in US.

The same is the case with India. We have invested in US over $50 billion. But the US has invested less than $20 billion in India.

Why the world is after US?

The secret lies in the American spending, that they hardly save. In fact they use their credit cards to spend their future income. That the US spends is what makes it attractive to export to the US. So US imports more than what it exports year after year.

The result :

The world is dependent on US consumption for its growth. By its deepening culture of consumption, the US has habituated the world to feed on US consumption. But as the US needs money to finance its consumption, the world provides the money.

It's like a shopkeeper providing the money to a customer so that the customer keeps buying from the shop. If the customer will not buy, the shop won't have business, unless the shopkeeper funds him. The US is like the lucky customer. And the world is like the helpless shopkeeper financier.

Who is America's biggest shopkeeper financier? Japan of course. Yet it's Japan which is regarded as weak. Modern economists complain that Japanese do not spend, so they do not grow. To force the Japanese to spend, the Japanese government exerted itself, reduced the savings rates, even charged the savers.
Even then the Japanese did not spend (habits don't change, even with taxes, do they?). Their traditional postal savings alone is over $1.2 trillions, about three times the Indian GDP. Thus, savings, far from being the strength of Japan, has become its pain.

Hence, what is the lesson?

That is, a nation cannot grow unless the people spend, not save. Not just spend, but borrow and spend.

Dr. Jagdish Bhagwati, the famous Indian-born economist in the US, told Manmohan Singh that Indians wastefully save. Ask them to spend, on imported cars and, seriously, even on cosmetics! This will put India on a growth curve. This is one of the reason for MNC's coming down to India, seeing the consumer spending.

'Saving is sin, and spending is virtue.'

But before you follow this neo economics, get some fools to save so that you can borrow from them and spend!!!

Can we do it here in Malaysia? Is there serious international demand for our Bank Negara bonds? I seriously doubt it!

Is Najib Breaking into a Run?

PM Najib has put into place a series of of reforms to transform Malaysia into a high-income country. Not only has he effectively removed the need for bumiputra equity in listed companies, but he has also removed most of the wanton powers of the Foreign Investment Committee.

In 1957 at independence, Malaysia had the second highest per capita income (PCI) in Asia, after Japan. World Bank has statistics that showed per capita income has slowed down since 1971, and has fallen far behind South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. In 2008, Malaysia had a PCI of US$6,000, while South Korea had US$19,000, Taiwan US$17,000, Hong Kong US$30,000 and Singapore US$34,000.

It's been 100 days, Najib has been in the driver's seat. As such,Najib must pull up the socks of the executive, particularly his cabinet members, GLCs, and ministries so that the nation can strive in a concerted manner with industry to regain its lost status among Asean economies.

As always, education is the key to success for all. The next is discipline and hard work. These are the same qualities of successful people in other countries, especially developed countries in the US, Europe, Japan, or India.

China is the classic example of success. From a poor communist country, it has become the third richest country of the world because of its concrete liberalising initiatives.

The Chinese people put in a lot of hard work and discipline. China, it is predicted, will overtake Japan in 2010 and become the world’s second richest country.

Malaysia must now review all its backward looking policies if it is to be able to play a fast catch-up game with many of its Asean members notably Vietnam.

So is Najib breaking into a run to lift the economy to its glory days pre-1971?