http://www.cnbc.com/id/100659977
Published: Monday, 22 Apr 2013 | 8:26 AM ET
By: Robert Frank
CNBC Reporter & Editor

Thanks in part to its generous tax regime, Singapore has been a millionaire haven for years. But a new report says the tiny island state may soon overtake Switzerland as the world's largest offshore wealth hub.

The report, by WealthInsight, a London-based research firm, says Singapore is the fastest growing wealth center in the world, with $550 billion in assets under management – up from $50 billion in 2000. About $450 billion of that is offshore.

Switzerland has $2.8 trillion in assets under management, with $2.1 trillion of that coming from offshore wealth. Switzerland accounts for 34 percent of the $8.15 trillion in total global wealth.

Yet the report said Singapore could overtake Switzerland in offshore assets under management by 2020. It said Swiss offshore assets could fall below $2 trillion by 2016, while Singapore's assets could more than quadruple by then.

The reason: Switzerland may be falling out of favor with the wealthy, while Singapore is attracting more of the new wealth from Asia. Recent offshore wealth scandals and prosecutions in the United States and Europe have pierced the veil of Switzerland's vaunted bank secrecy laws. Western countries are also tightening their tax codes and chasing tax shelters more aggressively.

"The Swiss wealth management model is under intense pressure," the report states. "Offshore centers have suffered significant reputational damage in the past four years and advanced economies are increasing their oversight of cross-border banking and tax havens."

While the West is cracking down on wealth in Switzerland, however, Singapore is opening its arms to all the new rich from Asia. Millionaires and billionaires in Asia, especially China, are pulling hundreds of billions of dollars out of their country to stash overseas.

Much of that is going to Singapore and Hong Kong. More than half of Singapore's offshore assets come from China, WealthInsight says.

"Rapid growth in Asian economies such as China, India, Indonesia and Malaysia will continue to see new investments in the years ahead," the report stated.

http://gawker.com/plastic-surgery-blamed...socialflow


It's an accepted truism that all beauty pageant contestants have a certain similar "look," but one Japanese blog has touched off a firestorm of speculation that South Korea's plastic surgery craze may have taken that cliché too far.


It's an established fact that South Korea has one of, if not the highest rate of plastic surgery per capita in the entire world, and a Japanese blog covering South Korean topic recently wondered out loud if the phenomenon hasn't unintentionally turned the country's Miss Korea beauty pageant into a clone parade.

Photos posted on the site claim to show Miss Korea 2013 contestants before and after their "transformation," but it remains unclear if the apparent similarities stem from surgery or from something far more banal such as makeup or photoshop.

Still, the Twilight Zone-sh quality of the result, along with a group photo showing several beauty pageant hopefuls "pre-transformation" has sparked significant dialog concerning South Korea's "plastic surgery problem."


"You arent racist," one local wrote in a Reddit post on the topic. "Those women in fact do look unnervingly similar and yes, Koreans think so too. This is because they all get the exact same plastic surgeries and the surgeons follow the same formulas for noses and eyes and everything else theyve had done."

"Girls here consider eye surgery just like using make up," another Korean Redditor chimed in.

Others, however, weren't entirely in agreement.

Another user claiming to be from Korea insisted the entrants "dont look the same, but they look eerily similar."

And one top comment pointed out that much the same could be said about Miss USA 2013 contestants, several of whom could be mistaken for each other.

"Even in a country as diverse as the US you'll see a lot of similar looking women in these pageants because there's a certain aesthetic they're looking for (styled or shopped) that changes with what's considered attractive to that particular culture at that point in time," wrote user adlauren.

http://www.msci.com/resources/pressrelea..._Feb13.pdf

Jim Chanos, with something for everyone.

Slide 2 - for those who like to look at financial statements

Slide 6 - for financial history buffs

Slide 7 - for those wondering where Chinese citizens are putting their cash

Slide 10 - for those bashing housing affordability in Singapore

Slide 11 - for those who still think China can be THE workshop of the world

Slide 12 - for those bashing income inequality in Singapore

Slide 17 - for those who think Chinese are not self-aware

Attached Files

  Jim-Chanos-China-Wine-Country-Presentation.pdf (Size: 750.12 KB / Downloads: 63)

A meaningful and respectful way of spending the money amassed from Wall Street...

Blackstone founder creates S$372 mln China scholarship

BEIJING – A US private equity tycoon announced Sunday the establishment of a US$300 million (S$372 million) endowed scholarship programme in China for students from around the world, and billed it as modelled after the prestigious Rhodes Scholarship.

Mr Stephen Schwarzman, founder of the private equity firm Blackstone, said he would give US$100 million as a personal gift and raise another US$200 million to endow the Schwarzman Scholars programme at Beijing’s Tsinghua University. It will be the largest philanthropic gift with foreign money in China’s history, according to the tycoon and the university.

http://www.todayonline.com/business/blac...cholarship

hahahaha

[Image: 20830_4516723406664_2050012826_n_zps9e8a87ee.jpg]

Rachel Scully
The Straits Times
Sunday, Apr 21, 2013

The Singapore Exchange (SGX) has asked several listed firms why they failed to disclose enough information in their annual reports about the remuneration paid to key executives.

High-profile companies Noble Group, Osim International, KS Energy and Sakae Holdings were among those questioned in the past two weeks.

Companies are not required to adhere to the code of corporate governance.

But listing rules require that firms which do not follow the guidelines must cite their reasons in the annual reports.

If they do not, the SGX sends out queries to such firms to remind them that they need to explain their reasons.

This has led to the questions over remuneration.

The code encourages firms to disclose details such as remuneration of their directors, the chief executive and at least the top five key management staff who are not also directors.

But some firms are reluctant to give away what they regard as commercially sensitive information, fearing it will encourage talent-poaching.

Noble Group's 2012 annual report listed the directors, the payout structure in percentages and remuneration bands of below $250,000 and above $1.5 million.

When asked by the SGX why it left the upper limit on salaries open, Noble said providing more details "would be disadvantageous to the interests of the company and its subsidiaries".

It cited reasons such as highly competitive industry conditions and sensitivity and confidentiality of remuneration matters.

By comparison, fellow commodity player Olam International provided an additional banding range for directors' salaries.

Payouts were separated into three categories: below $250,000, between $800,000 and $1.7 million and above $1.7 million.

Osim International also cited competitive reasons when queried by SGX. It told The Straits Times that it did not want rivals to know the pay of key executives.

Its spokesman said on Thursday: "We should not subject people to public exposure of their exact income as it could be more detrimental to the company. The purpose of corporate transparency is to protect the firm, not increase its risk. Providing a range is sufficient for investors to decide if they want to invest."

Mr Terence Wong, the co-head of research at DMG & Partners Securities, said the banding system is a reasonable guideline but he hopes firms will state an upper limit for the salary ranges.

Corporate governance expert Mak Yuen Teen, an associate professor at the National University of Singapore, said firms citing the fear of talent-poaching are just looking for an "excuse" to hold back information.

"Singapore has low transparency when it comes to executives' pay compared with other developed cities in Australia, Europe and the United States," he added.

"In Hong Kong, the listing rules require the salaries of every director to be explicitly spelt out. Is there no competition for talent in Hong Kong?"

Mr David Gerald, the president of the Securities Investors Association (Singapore), said: "Disclosure of top senior management salaries is important for shareholders considering to invest in a company.

"Research reveals that imbalances remuneration systems can hurt a company's long-term strategy by encouraging a focus on short-term gains.

"Well-performing managers must be paid well but not on a short-term basis."

Some firms do opt for full transparency. SingTel and fish breeder Qian Hu disclose the exact salary packages paid to top management and directors.

Qian Hu managing director Kenny Yap said: "Critics often say that family-run businesses are not transparent enough.

"By doing so, I'm accountable to both shareholders and employees, who can see how much the top executives earn."

He added that the competition-for-talent reason will be debunked if all listed companies are required to report actual remuneration figures as it will even out the playing field.

rjscully@sph.com.sg

Interesting math eh? The $3.50 hawker brings in about $100 in profit a day, while the $1.50 hawker brings in about $213 a day, just due to higher volumes! This is actually contribution margin analysis - the NPM is about the same for each hawker so it becomes a volume game!

The Straits Times
www.straitstimes.com
Published on Apr 20, 2013
$1.50 chicken rice brings in tidy profit
To earn $6k a month, stall buys supplies in bulk, stays open longer

By Jessica Lim Consumer Correspondent

A PLATE of roasted chicken rice at 820 Hainanese Chicken Rice in Tampines costs $1.50 - a rock-bottom price for the dish.

But despite this, owner Tam Mee Chan turns a profit of at least $6,000 a month.

This is despite raising the price of the meal from $1 in 1992, to $1.30 in 2008, then to $1.50 in 2011 due to rising costs.

Her secret - selling a large number of plates at lower prices, bulk-buying ingredients at discounted prices, cooking chickens from scratch and her roll-up-her-sleeves attitude.

The 45-year-old closes her stall only two days a month - every alternate Monday - and wakes up at 6am to cook from scratch.

'We sell a lot and our attraction is our low price,' she said, adding that buying pre-cooked chickens is more expensive. 'We need to hire only two part-timers. That saves us some money.'

A plate of chicken rice is typically priced at $2.50.

Madam Tam, who runs the stall with her husband, sells about $1,000 worth of food a day, equal to more than 650 plates of her chicken rice.

Retail analysts said that there is no magic bullet. A hawker stall selling $1.50 chicken rice, they said, could be more profitable than one selling the dish for double the price.

It is all about the business model and striking the right balance, said Ms Sarah Lim, a senior retail lecturer at Singapore Polytechnic. She said 820 Hainanese Chicken Rice is trumping not just other chicken rice stalls but also stalls that sell more expensive dishes.

'Selling at lower prices means thinner margins, but a stall may sell many plates. They earn by volume,' said Ms Lim. 'It's all about striking a good balance between pricing and demand.'

Many other factors could affect pricing, she said, such as the presence of competitors nearby and how much they charge, the affluence of the neighbourhood and overall costs.

Madam Tam's story is a glimmer of hope in a tough industry with hawkers caught between rising costs and the public's desire for hawker fare to remain cheap and good.

A check by The Straits Times with 35 hawkers at 17 non-air-conditioned eateries found 23 of them were wary of raising prices despite being squeezed by higher costs.

A recent survey by the Consumers Association of Singapore of 541 non-air-conditioned eateries supported this.

It found that more vendors were charging more, but that the most common prices found for chicken rice ($2.50), plain prata (80 cents) and chicken nasi briyani ($4.50) remained the same.

One hawker who is straining to hold the prices of his food is Mr E.K. Ong, 51, who owns an economical bee hoon stall called Lai Cheng Shu Shi at a hawker centre in Jurong. He earns a profit of about $3,000 a month now, down from about $4,000 two years ago.

The prices of several of his ingredients, he said, have doubled over the past two years. Luncheon meat costs him $44 a carton now, up from $24 a carton in 2011, he claims.

The price of a plate of his plain bee hoon, however, has stayed at 80 cents for the past six years. '

We absorb the increased prices. I cannot cut corners, or I won't have customers. I want to increase the price but I don't know how to,' he said, adding that there are a lot of competitors.

Over at a Bukit Merah hawker centre, Madam Puan Mui Tian, 54, who owns Nan Heng Hainanese Chicken Rice, said she has not increased the price of her $3 chicken rice with vegetables for the past 20 years.

The stall turns a profit of $1,000 a month, 20 per cent lower than in 2010 due to rising costs of ingredients.

Asked why she did not raise prices, she said: 'Human traffic is bad. Bukit Merah is also a mature estate and residents are not that rich.

'I chose to be a hawker even though life is hard. At least it's better than working as a cleaner. They get even less.'

Twelve of the 35 hawkers The Straits Times spoke to had raised their prices in the past year. But even then, some are struggling to turn a good profit.

At Fatman Satay at Old Airport Road Food Centre, Mr Hadi Tarmandi takes home slightly more than $1,000 a month after subtracting costs. His brother, who runs the business with him, takes home another $1,000.

The satay stall, one of several at the Government-owned hawker centre, charges 50 cents a stick - the only item it sells.

When The Straits Times visited them at dinner time on Thursday, only about five customers put in an order within the hour.

Mr Hadi, a father of two, said the cost of ingredients has gone up by 30 per cent since 2009. The 59-year-old increased prices to 50 cents from 40 cents in January after other stalls raised their prices.

'Look how few customers we have now. All the satay stalls here charge 50 cents a stick. If we increase the price, no one will buy ours,' he said.

The consumer price index (CPI) illustrates the tight spot that many cooked food sellers here are in.

The CPI, a measurement of inflation, shows that hawker food prices went up by 2 per cent last year from 2011. The CPI for all items went up by 4.6 per cent in the same period.

There are about 2,500 non-air-conditioned eateries around Singapore.

The Retail Price Watch Group, set up in early 2011 to keep a close watch on excessive price increase for daily necessities, told The Straits Times that while hawker prices have generally increased, there are still stalls offering value for money.

The group's secretariat called on the public 'to shop around and patronise food stalls that are able to offer food at lower prices'.

'This will encourage food stalls to provide their customers with the best value for money,' it said.

limjess@sph.com.sg

Additional reporting by Kash Cheong, Debbie Lee, Eugene Chua, Cheng Jingjie and Rachel Tan

Attached Files

  Math Behind Chicken Rice.pdf (Size: 1.15 MB / Downloads: 31)

The Straits Times
www.straitstimes.com
Published on Apr 20, 2013
Car-less in Singapore
Despite some of the highest car prices in the world, Singapore lags behind other cities in public transport use. Goh Chin Lian reports on the road blocks in getting people to make the switch.

ARMY logistics officer Izad Shafiee, 33, can afford a car but chooses not to own one.

While his colleagues drive to work, Second Warrant Officer Izad wakes up before dawn to take the bus and MRT from his four-room flat in Tampines to Kranji Camp.

When he and his wife go out with their daughters, aged two and four, they take public transport too, with one or two prams.

His story is a counterpoint to those who say they really need a car in Singapore - or aspire to have one - but find it unhappily out of their financial reach.

While certificate of entitlement (COE) premiums and car ownership have always been hot topics, high prices and recent government-imposed loan curbs have fuelled the current debate.

The Government is now undertaking a long-term review of the COE system even as it hopes to move more people from cars towards public transport. Its latest offer is "free travel" on the MRT to the city before 7.45am, to ease peak-hour crowding.

How effective are measures to move more people to public transport and to control the car population that stands at more than half a million now?

Can you have a good quality of life here without a car?

What is the future of the car in Singapore?

Insight takes a ride through these issues.

Current traffic status

TRANSPORT planners here have always pushed for public transport as the key way to move people instead of building more roads to accommodate more cars.

They cite Singapore's land constraints, with 12 per cent of the island already taken up by roads.

But figures suggest people's desire for cars remains unabated, and public transport is not yet the most attractive choice, at least not to the extent of other thriving cities.

Of the 1.2 million households here, the proportion who owned one or more cars grew from 38 per cent in 2004, to 40 per cent in 2008, and 45 per cent last year.

The majority - 55 per cent of households last year - were still "car-less". But their ranks have shrunk from 62 per cent eight years before.

Of the number of journeys made by private car, and by bus, train and other modes during morning peak hours alone, public transport's share has also fallen.

It went from 67 per cent in 1997 to 63 per cent in 2004, to 59 per cent in 2008. It should have picked up and "crossed 60 per cent", Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew said in an interview last year, ahead of a household travel survey.

Commentators point to Hong Kong, where nearly everyone takes public transport, including the upper middle class, and ask why the same is not happening in Singapore.

Public transport there accounts for 80 per cent of daily trips, against Singapore's 57 per cent, based on 2011 figures.

One reason for Singapore's motor mania is that car ownership was made more affordable - well, until the COE price hikes over the past three years.

The Additional Registration Fee (ARF), a form of car tax, fell from 140 per cent of the open market value of a car to 130 per cent in 2002, and to 100 per cent in 2008. Car loan curbs in force from 1995 were lifted in 2003 until two months ago.

The Government also let the car population keep growing, although at a slower pace from 2009. Economic growth and low interest rates boosted the buying power of Singaporeans.

Over the past three years, the car population grew 2 per cent to 2.8 per cent, year on year.

Even with usage charges, the average annual mileage the cars clocked up fell by just 2.6 per cent in 2010 and 0.5 per cent in 2011. Last year's figures have not been published.

There was little incentive not to choose a car, if you could afford it - trains and buses were crowded and unreliable.

Improvements to public transport infrastructure did not keep up with a 20 per cent boom in the population over the past seven years. It was this boom that fuelled a large part of the 40 per cent increase in public transport ridership over the same period.

Transport expert Paul Barter, an adjunct professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, notes that even an expanded MRT network needs buses to complement it but bus waiting times are too long. Also, there are mobility gaps not bridged by MRT and buses, he says.

These gaps include short trips between 1km and 4km, the "last mile" from the MRT station to the office or the home, major shopping trips and trips made with pets and small children.

"Singaporeans still think excellent mobility equals car ownership, while public transport is not yet seen as a comprehensive alternative," Prof Barter concludes.

Singapore's approach to parking contradicts other key transport policy objectives, he adds. It includes requirements for buildings to provide at least a certain number of parking spaces. Parking prices are also not adjusted to suit each local situation and each period in the day.

In contrast, Hongkong's limited and pricey parking serves to help rein in car demand.

Good life without a car?

OWNING a car is a necessity, say 28 per cent of the 43 people who gave their views this week to the Singapolitics website and The Straits Times on Facebook and in a street poll.

They cite practical concerns such as their jobs requiring them to traverse the island, and taking young children out without tiring them before they reach their destination.

Public transport is also unappealing to them: Trains and buses are crowded. Taxis are hard to find when they need them most.

Many, however, say they manage without a car. They plan ahead to arrive at their destination on time, work closer to home, and if their children are tired on an outing, take a cab home.

Others aspire to own a car but dread traffic jams and the hassle of finding parking. But the biggest turn-off is the high cost of buying and maintaining a car.

They feel that the money can be better spent on housing, travel or their children's education.

Mr Izad speaks for many when he says: "It costs a bomb to own a car. I can put the money into my daughters' bank account."

Another way to look at the cost differential comes from an official figure announced in last year's Budget debate: A middle-income Singaporean who does not own a car gets back $1.50 for every dollar of tax he pays over his lifetime. One who owns a car gets back 80 cents, nearly half as much.

The issue of costs also touches on whether the Government should help certain segments of the population to own cars.

Off-peak cars, which enjoy a $17,000 rebate and can be used on weekdays from 7pm to 7am, and on weekends are one alternative. Costs aside, the status that a car confers is another reason people will buy one. Prof Barter says: "Can we set a goal to make not owning a car a truly excellent mobility choice for most people, where being car-free is a positive, high-prestige choice and is appealing even if you can afford a car?"

He argues that to compete with car ownership, public transport needs both more MRT lines and a better bus system, integrated with, for example, bicycle infrastructure, car-sharing, taxis, delivery services, smart parking pricing and management, and integrated information and payments for mobility services.

The future of the car

HIGH COE prices may have made some think twice about buying a car and to rely on buses, trains and taxis instead, but their salutary effect will be dampened in the coming years.

COE premiums, which hit $92,100 three months ago for small cars, are expected to stabilise from next year.

From 2014 to 2018, an average of about 100,000 cars will be 10 years old each year, and most will be scrapped, estimates NUS Business School Associate Professor of Business Analytics Chu Sing Fat.

"This will lead to bountiful supplies of COEs," he predicts.

"Even though a fraction of these COEs are kept in reserve to beef up what would otherwise be a return to meagre quotas around 2020, we can look forward to about 70,000 to 80,000 COEs available for cars."

He notes that the typical premium for such annual provision of COEs was between $25,000 and $40,000, say, from 2000 to 2003, but in the 2009 economic crisis, it fell to about $11,000.

Ultimately, the priority for transport planners is to keep traffic flowing smoothly, and the working assumption is that more car owners need not mean more congestion, if Singapore also manages car usage.

On the horizon is the move to charge motorists based on distance travelled instead of the flat fee levied at an Electronic Road Pricing gantry. Its speed of implementation is constrained partly by the state of technology.

The next-generation, satellite-based ERP is not expected to come on stream until 2018 at the earliest.

Getting political support for more widespread ERP charges is another hurdle, observers say.

The Government has also set ambitious goals for making public transport attractive to Singaporeans.

It aims to raise public transport's share of morning peak hour journeys to 70 per cent by 2020, and 75 per cent by 2030, when Singapore's population could reach 6.9 million.

By then, the rail network will have doubled to 360km.

The chairman of the Public Transport Council, Mr Gerard Ee, is optimistic that people will think differently about taking public transport when three things are in place: Getting a bus to the nearest MRT is made more convenient; higher connectivity with a larger rail network; and taxis are easily available for families with children.

The last point, he says, is the "big question mark".

"On paper, we have so many taxis but we hear people grumbling they cannot find one when they need it. Taxi operators need to see how the system can be run efficiently."

When it comes to public transport, "anyone can do the maths", says the trained accountant. "If I travel this way and invest the money I would have spent on the car, I can take taxis every day. The car is a depreciating asset anyway but we need the conditions to see people willing to give it up."

The chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Transport, Mr Cedric Foo, believes the broader thrust is to convince the next generation of Singaporeans who do not yet own a car, that public transport is better.

This calls for accelerating measures now to improve the frequency, reliability and coverage of trains and buses, so that the young have a positive travel experience.

Mr Foo says: "For those who already have a car, it is very difficult for them to switch out of it. Our MRT used to be lauded as the best system in the world. Demand just surged ahead of supply and we are doing a little bit of catch-up."

chinlian@sph.com.sg

by MATT TAIBBI
APRIL 11, 2013
There's confidence. There's chutzpah. And then there's Dan Loeb, hedge fund king extraordinaire and head of Third Point Capital, who's getting set to claim the World Heavyweight Championship of Balls.

On April 18, Loeb will speak before the Council of Institutional Investors, a nonprofit association of pension funds, endowments, employee benefit funds, and foundations with collective assets of over $3 trillion. The CII is an umbrella group that represents the institutions who manage the retirement and benefit funds of public and corporate employees all over America – from bricklayers to Teamsters to teachers to employees of Colgate, the Gap and Johnson and Johnson.

Loeb is going to be, in essence, pitching his services to these institutional investors. He already manages the money for several public funds, including the Ohio Public Employees' Retirement System, the New Jersey State Investment Council, the Sacramento County Employees' Retirement System, and the City of Danbury Retirement System. To give you an idea of the scale, New Jersey alone has $100 million invested with one of Loeb's funds.

When he comes to speak at CII, Lobe will almost certainly be seeking new clients. There will be some serious whales in these waters: For instance, CalSTRS, the California State Teachers' Retirement System, will definitely be represented (Anne Sheehan, the director of corporate governance for CalSTRS, will be moderating Loeb's panel).

But here's the catch. Dan Loeb, who isn't known as the biggest hedge-fund asshole still working on Wall Street (only because Stevie Cohen hasn't been arrested yet), is on the board and co-founder of a group called Students First New York. And Students First has been one of the leading advocates pushing for states to abandon defined benefit plans – packages which guarantee certain retirement benefits for public workers like teachers – in favor of defined contribution plans, where the benefits are not guaranteed.

In other words, Loeb has been soliciting the retirement money of public workers, then turning right around and lobbying for those same workers to lose their benefits. He's essentially asking workers to pay for their own disenfranchisement (with Loeb getting his two-and-twenty cut, or whatever obscene percentage of their retirement monies he will charge as a fee). If that isn't the very definition of balls, I don't know what is.

It's one thing for a group like Students First to have an opinion about defined benefit plans in general, to say, as they have, that "today's district pensions and other benefits are not sustainable and contribute to a looming fiscal crisis." But it's another thing for a Vice President of Students First like Rebecca Sibilia to tweet the following just a few weeks before one of its board members asks for money from a fund like CalSTRS:

Outdated & underfunded #pension systems like CALSTERS break promises to #teachers#edreform #thinkED http://huff.to/15vdALJ via @HuffPostEdu

That's a hell of a sales pitch for Loeb to be making: "I belong to an organization that thinks you're all dinosaurs. Now give me a hundred million dollars."

Not long ago, the American Federation of Teachers got wind of Loeb's association with Students First and their lobbying efforts, and confronted him about it, leading to a somewhat incredible correspondence, the details of which I'll get to in a moment. But first, a little background on Loeb.

Dan Loeb became famous in the early 2000s not just for being a jerk, but for being a very particular kind of jerk. His favorite activity was to invest heavily in a company and then write blisteringly insulting public letters to management, berating them for not making him enough money. When he spotted the CEO of one company courtside at the U.S. Open, he publicly attacked him for "hobnobbing and snacking on shrimp cocktail" when, presumably, he should have been out making Loeb money. Loeb loves the word "hobnob."

Loeb's schtick is a kind of living tribute to the legendary scene in Wall Street when Gordon Gekko undresses the executives from "Teldar Paper" at a shareholder meeting, urging investors to defy the fat-cat "bureaucrats with their steak lunches, their hunting and fishing trips" who paid themselves big salaries but lacked the stones to buy stock in their own firms. Like Gekko, Loeb pitches himself as the guy who does have the stones, who puts his money where his mouth is. Known as the "Angry Investor," he has made a career as a kind of investor's ombudsman – a man who wouldn't tolerate anyone taking his money and doing anything with it that he didn't absolutely approve of.

So if a CEO using Loeb's money to buy himself tickets to the U.S. Open is bad, just imagine how much Loeb would disapprove of someone taking, say, $100 million of his money, and then using that cash to lobby to end the carried-interest tax break that allows billionaires like himself to pay a maximum tax rate of 15 percent. One can only imagine the letters Dan Loeb would write in that circumstance. "Angry Investor" would be hugely understating the characterization, I would guess.

In any case, when the American Federation of Teachers got wind of Loeb's political activities, its president, Randi Weingarten, wrote him what was, in retrospect, quite a polite letter. She began by noting the apparent oddity of Loeb simultaneously campaigning against defined benefit plans while pitching his services to public funds:

Given your strong support for StudentsFirst, an organization which is leading the attack on defined benefit (DB) pension funds around the country, I was surprised to learn of your interest in working with public pension plan investors.

After reminding Loeb that AFT's members participate in benefit plans worth a combined $800 billion, and that those members are "examining" their decision to invest in hedge funds, Wenigarten then politely asked Loeb if he would be willing to meet with her and some of AFT's trustees during the CII conference.

Since these two interests of yours seem to us perhaps inconsistent, a meeting with you, me and some of our AFT trustees during the CII spring conference could be clarifying. We hope this discussion will allow us to find common ways we can work together to strengthen the retirement security of educators.

Loeb replied that he was "not aware" of Students First having taken a strong stance on the defined benefit/defined contribution issue, and that he was "not an expert" on the issue and was "uninformed." He said he was happy to meet, and that he would "do some research on my end" before the gathering. "I tend to be evidence based and don't bring any ideological baggage with me," he added, "as I simply like to understand how systems work (as a hedge fund manager)."

Then, having said that, he wrote this:

Third Point has compounded at an annual rate of 21pct per annum for 18 years. Although the funds are closed for now to outside investors, I'd be honored if down the road we could help AFT members realize their financial goals and reduce the tax burdens for states and our citizens. Needless to say, I completely respect the political considerations you may have and understand if other factors dictate how funds are allocated.

Translation: I'll make you a lot of money, but if my politics are going to get in the way of that, that's your problem.

Weingarten quickly wrote back to shore up the meeting, letting Loeb know that there would be some other voices at the table. "A small group of pension fund trustees are interested in joining us," she wrote, "including two funds that are current clients of yours."

It seemed that representatives from New Jersey and Ohio, along with several groups from states like New York, Pennsylvania and California who had not yet invested with Loeb, wanted to meet with him personally to clarify his views on public pensions before making a decision about whether to invest (or, perhaps, disinvest).

After receiving this letter, Loeb suddenly changed his mind about wanting to meet. "Unfortunately, I am not free following my presentation as I have made a prior commitment and am then leaving for New York." He added:

I have learned that SFNY advocated a choice between the two types of plans, a recommendation favored by a majority of younger teachers. Beyond that, I'd be pretty useless in a discussion on such an esoteric copy, so I suggest that Ms. Weingarten discuss her concerns with either Michelle Rhee, the national director of Students First and a member of our board, Joel Klein, our Chairman, or Micah Lasher, our executive director.

This one doesn't need much of a translation. Yeah, I know you represent $800 billion, and that some of your members have already given me tons of cash, but I'm busy, so blow me.

Loeb, incidentally, isn't the only hedge fund manager with a God complex who works with Students First while simultaneously taking money from public plans. Paul Tudor Jones of Tudor Funds is another – he's on the SFNY board with Loeb and manages $15.7 million from the School Employees' Retirement System of Ohio.

Anyway, one hopes that pension funds and unions don't end up inadvertently funding their own political demise by investing with the Loebs and Tudors of the world. For AFT president Weingarten, the whole episode has been unsettling.

"It is the height of hypocrisy to solicit the hard-earned retirement savings of teachers and turn around and use that money to advocate for the dismantlement of those very same plans," she says. "Teachers continue to face a barrage of attacks, and the last thing they expect is that their pensions will be used to fund attacks on their profession, their unions, and their retirement savings."

One thing that people need to realize about Wall Street and the financial system in general: many of the self-congratulating millionaires and billionaires you read about in the news aren't "self-made" in any real sense, but actually live either directly or indirectly off of your money. The quickest way to extreme wealth in this world is to attach oneself to giant piles of institutional money like public pension funds. The subprime mortgage crisis was fueled in large part by sociopathic hotshots from banks and hedge funds who convinced institutional investors – your corporate retirement fund, your public pension, your union – to buy crappy mortgage-backed securities.

Guys like Dan Loeb, they don't actually do anything, other than shave cuts off of other peoples' money. The psychological justification for taking such high fees is that they earn for their clients, but even that's debatable in some cases (AFT points out that some of Loeb's funds haven't even outperformed the S&P).

The point is, many of these guys owe their outrageous lifestyles to people who actually work for a living, who've been putting nickels and dimes away week after week for years, just so guys like Loeb can swoop in, make a pitch after a fancy lunch or two, and then take big chunks of that cash to buy private jets and Picassos. For them to suddenly become self-righteous and political, to tell the world that it can't afford real pensions and retirement funds for regular people anymore, is a rich irony.

Hey, Dan, you know what might make pensions more affordable? Excising the fees that hedge-fund managers get to tend to that money. Let's try that first – what do you think?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blo...s-20130411