Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 4,917
» Latest member: shadowybs
» Forum threads: 10,219
» Forum posts: 162,550

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 506 online users.
» 1 Member(s) | 504 Guest(s)
Google

Latest Threads
Guan Yin Citta & Master L...
Forum: Others
Last Post: Curiousparty
10 hours ago
» Replies: 2,603
» Views: 2,668,766
Yangzijiang Financial Hol...
Forum: Y - Y
Last Post: dreamybear
Yesterday, 10:19 PM
» Replies: 250
» Views: 141,661
TAANN – another round to ...
Forum: Malaysia Listed Companies
Last Post: weijian
Yesterday, 05:53 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 1,607
Property Market Sentiment...
Forum: Property
Last Post: weijian
Yesterday, 05:11 PM
» Replies: 820
» Views: 1,056,373
Yoma Strategic
Forum: Y - Y
Last Post: Bibi
Yesterday, 03:05 PM
» Replies: 69
» Views: 154,690
Luk Fook (0590)
Forum: L - L
Last Post: bmann025
Yesterday, 12:33 PM
» Replies: 66
» Views: 106,625
Q & M Dental
Forum: Q - Q
Last Post: weijian
Yesterday, 09:39 AM
» Replies: 93
» Views: 203,290
Hongkong Land Holdings
Forum: H - H
Last Post: mscheng13
27-06-2024, 10:11 PM
» Replies: 73
» Views: 151,932
Capitaland Investment Man...
Forum: C - C
Last Post: weijian
27-06-2024, 08:46 PM
» Replies: 226
» Views: 404,247
Seatrium Limited (formerl...
Forum: S - S
Last Post: weijian
27-06-2024, 04:33 PM
» Replies: 348
» Views: 594,319

  In no hurry to join penny party
Posted by: Musicwhiz - 17-03-2013, 07:38 AM - Forum: Others - Replies (1)

You shouldn't take such risks at any time, period.

The Straits Times
www.straitstimes.com
Published on Mar 17, 2013
SMALL CHANGE
In no hurry to join penny party

With a mortgage to pay and a baby on the way, financial prudence rules

By Alvin Foo

My first foray into penny stocks was an experience I will find hard to forget.

It was during the super bull run in 2006, and I was a 26-year-old sports journalist with little investing experience.

A chat with a close friend, who has a knack of unearthing market gems, centred on a local penny share with an energy business potential.

As a financially carefree bachelor with no mortgage and no dependants, I had little need to think twice before sinking the bulk of my cash savings into that stock.

It did not matter much that I had just returned from an expensive trip to catch the football World Cup Finals in Germany and had holiday bills to pay.

Thankfully, that counter soared about 500 per cent in less than a year, yielding a handsome profit.

But in hindsight, that was more a brash punt than investing genius.

The highly risky foray could also have gone sour, leaving me with a cash-starved bank balance and full of regret.

Fast forward seven years, and it's a vastly different story.

There's much less desire to join the penny party, which has hit fever pitch with daily trading volumes hitting an all-time high of 12.2 billion shares late last month.

Being a married man with a mortgage to pay and the first child on the way has altered my risk appetite.

I've learnt that taking stock of your financial priorities and tweaking your risk profile along life's journey will make transition into the next chapter smoother.

There are now added responsibilities that call for more prudence.

So the focus is more on dividend-yielding plays such as real estate investment trusts (Reits), telcos and blue chips these days.

There is just the occasional glance at the penny counters, more out of job-related interest as a financial journalist rather than for personal investment.

True, Reit stocks may not treble in value in a few months or even mere days like some of the penny counters, but they don't sink as much either when the market heads south.

They yield a regular dividend and serve as a good hedge against high inflation amid low interest rates.

Singapore Reits have not fared too badly either.

In fact, they were the best performers for that sector globally last year and they are tipped to shine this year too.

The FTSE ST Reit Index - an index which tracks such counters - surged nearly 40 per cent last year, easily outgunning the benchmark Straits Times Index, which gained 20 per cent.

In a similar vein, telcos offer a healthy dividend yield of at least 4 per cent.

Based on last year's dividends, 1,000 shares in either one of the three telcos can pay for three months of a $50 monthly mobile bill, according to a recent Singapore Exchange My Gateway report.

Aside from developing an appetite for different kinds of stocks, I've also made holding sufficient cash a higher priority.

This translates into keeping at least six months' worth of living expenses in cash, a rule of thumb usually advocated by financial planners.

A recent JP Morgan Asset Management investment guide showed that developed Asia households - these include Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan - held about 55 per cent of their portfolios in cash and deposits.

My other simple but significant financial principles these days include not overcommitting on the first property and being able to live on one income.

I may still consider the odd penny stock, but only after studying its business model, dividend potential and valuation closely.

And you won't catch me emptying my bank account on a single counter ever again.

alfoo@sph.com.sg

Print this item

  The Big Short War
Posted by: rogerwilco - 16-03-2013, 12:49 PM - Forum: Others - No Replies

http://m.vanityfair.com/business/2013/04...-herbalife

Hedge-fund titan Bill Ackman has vowed to bring down Herbalife, the 33-year-old nutritional-supplement company, which he views as a pyramid scheme. With his massive shorting of Herbalife stock, the price plummeted, prompting two fellow billionaires—Ackman’s former friend Dan Loeb and activist investor Carl Icahn—to take the opposing bet on Herbalife. As the public brawl rivets Wall Street, William D. Cohan learns why, this time, it’s personal.

By William D. Cohan

The supremely confident billionaire hedge-fund manager Bill Ackman has never been afraid to bet the farm that he’s right.

In 1984, when he was a junior at Horace Greeley High School, in affluent Chappaqua, New York, he wagered his father $2,000 that he would score a perfect 800 on the verbal section of the S.A.T. The gamble was everything Ackman had saved up from his Bar Mitzvah gift money and his allowance for doing household chores. “I was a little bit of a cocky kid,” he admits, with uncharacteristic understatement.

Tall, athletic, handsome with cerulean eyes, he was the kind of hyper-ambitious kid other kids loved to hate and just the type to make a big wager with no margin for error. But on the night before the S.A.T., his father took pity on him and canceled the bet. “I would’ve lost it,” Ackman concedes. He got a 780 on the verbal and a 750 on the math. “One wrong on the verbal, three wrong on the math,” he muses. “I’m still convinced some of the questions were wrong.”

Not much has changed in the nearly 28 years since Ackman graduated from high school, except that his hair has gone prematurely silver. He still has an uncanny knack for making bold, brash pronouncements and for pissing people off. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the current, hugely public fight he and his $12 billion hedge fund, Pershing Square Capital, are waging over the Los Angeles–based company Herbalife Ltd., which sells weight-loss products and nutritional supplements using a network of independent distributors. Like Amway, Tupperware, and Avon, Herbalife is known as “a multi-level marketer,” or MLM, with no retail stores. Instead, it ships its products to outlets in 88 countries, and the centers recruit salespeople, who buy the product and then try to resell it for a profit to friends and acquaintances.

Ackman has called Herbalife a “fraud,” “a pyramid scheme,” and a “modern-day version of a Ponzi scheme” that should be put out of business by federal regulators. He says he is certain Herbalife’s stock, which in mid-February traded around $40 per share, will go to zero, and he has bet more than a billion dollars of his own and his investors’ money on just that outcome. (Ackman declines to discuss the specifics of his trade.) “This is the highest conviction I’ve ever had about any investment I’ve ever made,” he announced on Bloomberg TV. An interviewer on CNN reminded him that Herbalife had been around since 1980 and had withstood many previous challenges to its business plan. How long was he willing to “sit on this bet”? Ackman replied, “We’re not sitting. We’re shouting from the rooftops. They’ve never had someone like me prepared to say the truth about the company. I’m going to the end of the earth. If the government comes out and determines this is a completely legal business, then I will lobby Congress for them to change the law. I had a moral obligation. If you knew that Bernie Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme, and you didn’t tell anyone about it, and it went on for 33 years ... ”

Ackman says he suspected, when he “shorted” (i.e., bet against) Herbalife, that other hedge-fund investors would likely see the move as an opportunity to make money by taking the other side of his bet. What he hadn’t counted on, though, was that there would be a personal tinge to it. It was as if his colleagues had finally found a way to express publicly how irritating they have found Ackman all these years. Here finally was a chance to get back at him and make some money at the same time. The perfect trade. These days the Schadenfreude in the rarefied hedge-fund world in Midtown Manhattan is so thick it’s intoxicating.

“Ackman seems to have this ‘Superman complex,’ ” says Chapman Capital’s Robert Chapman, who was one of the investors on the other side of Ackman’s bet. “If he jumped off a building in pursuit of super-human powered flight but then slammed to the ground, I’m pretty sure he’d blame the unanticipated and unfair force of gravity.”

Lined up against the 46-year-old Ackman on the long side of the Herbalife trade were at least two billionaires: Daniel Loeb, 51, of Third Point Partners, who used to be Ackman’s friend, and Carl Icahn, 77, of Icahn Enterprises. Along for the ride are some smaller, well-regarded hedge-fund investors—who would like to be billionaires—John Hemp­ton, of Bronte Capital, and Sahm Adrangi, of Kerrisdale Capital.

It’s Ackman’s perceived arrogance that gets to his critics. “The story I hear from everybody is that one can’t help but be intrigued by the guy, just because he’s somewhat larger than life, but then one realizes he’s just pompous and arrogant and seems to have been born without the gene that perceives and measures risk,” says Chapman. “He seems to look at other members of society, even legends such as Carl Icahn, as some kind of sub-species. The disgusted, annoyed look on his face when confronted by the masses beneath him is like one you’d expect to see [from someone] confronted by a homeless person who hadn’t showered in weeks. You can almost see him puckering his nostrils so he doesn’t have to smell these inferior creatures. It’s truly bizarre, given that his failures—Target, Borders, JCPenney, Gotham Golf, First Union Real Estate, and others—prove he’s as fallible as the next guy. Yet, from what I hear, he behaves that way with just about everybody.”

Another hedge-funder describes the problem he has with Ackman in more measured tones. “There is a saying in this business: ‘Often wrong, never in doubt.’ Ackman personifies it. . . . He is very smart—but he lets you know it. And he combines that with this sort of noblesse oblige that lots of people find offensive—me, generally not. On top of that he is pointlessly, needlessly competitive every time he opens his mouth. Do you know about the Ackman cycling trip with Dan Loeb?”

It’s Not About the Bike
The story of the Ackman-Loeb cycling trip is so widely known in the hedge-fund eco-system that it has practically achieved urban-legend status, and Loeb himself was eager to remind me of it.

It happened last summer when Ackman decided to join a group of a half-dozen dedicated cyclists, including Loeb, who take long bike rides together in the Hamptons. The plan was for Loeb, who is extremely serious about fitness and has done sprint triathlons, a half-Ironman, and a New York City Marathon, to pick up Ackman at Ackman’s $22 million mansion, in Bridgehampton. (Ackman also owns an estate in upstate New York and lives in the Beresford, a historic co-op on Manhattan’s Central Park West.) The two would cycle the 20 or so miles to Montauk, where they would meet up with the rest of the group and ride out the additional 6 miles to the lighthouse, at the tip of the island. “I had done no biking all summer,” Ackman now admits. Still, he went out at a very fast clip, his hypercompetitive instincts kicking in. As he and Loeb approached Montauk, Loeb texted his friends, who rode out to meet them from the opposite direction. The etiquette would have been for Ackman and Loeb to slow down and greet the other riders, but Ackman just blew by at top speed. The others fell in behind, at first struggling to keep up with the alpha leader. But soon enough Ackman faltered—at Mile 32, Ackman recalls—and fell way behind the others. He was clearly “bonking,” as they say in the cycling world, which is what happens when a rider is dehydrated and his energy stores are depleted.

While everyone else rode back to Loeb’s East Hampton mansion, one of Loeb’s friends, David “Tiger” Williams, a respected cyclist and trader, painstakingly guided Ackman, who by then could barely pedal and was letting out primal screams of pain from the cramps in his legs, back to Bridgehampton. “I was in unbelievable pain,” Ackman recalls. As the other riders noted, it was really rather ridiculous for him to have gone out so fast, trying to lead the pack, considering his lack of training. Why not acknowledge your limits and set a pace you could maintain? As one rider notes, “I’ve never had an experience where someone has gone from being so aggressive on a bike to being so hopelessly unable to even turn the pedals…. His mind wrote a check that his body couldn’t cash.”

Nor was Ackman particularly gracious about the incident afterward, not bothering to answer e-mails of concern and support from others in the group until months later.

In a recent interview on CNBC, the blunt-talking and cagey Icahn hinted there would be a concerted effort to take Ackman down a peg or two in the Herbalife battle, which “could be the mother of all the short ­squeezes,” he said, referring to a technique that can be used by a group of traders who band together to try to clobber a short-seller.

Chapman agrees. “This is like Wall Street’s version of the movie Kill Bill,” he says. “Bill Ackman has been so arrogant and disrespectful to so many people, presumably on the theory that he would never be in a position where these subjects of his disrespect could actually act on their deserved hatred for him But now, with JCPenney [which is down 20 percent from Ackman’s 2010 investment] and Herbalife going against Ackman, his ‘stock’ has moved down, allowing once again, a decade later, for those holding their Kill Bill puts [i.e., options they have been waiting to cash in] to exercise them against him.”

Ackman got the idea to short Herbalife in the summer of 2011 from Christine Richard, who had left a job as a reporter at Bloomberg News to join Diane Schulman at the Indago Group, a high-end investment-research boutique. Schulman and Richard are known around Manhattan as the Indago Girls. They have a handful of hedge-fund clients—among them David Einhorn’s Greenlight Capital and Ackman’s Pershing Square—who pay around $10,000 a month, plus expenses, for their exclusive ideas.

Ackman listened intently to Richard’s pitch about Herbalife, but was busy at the time with a highly successful proxy fight for control of Canadian Pacific Railway. He turned the Herbalife idea over to two of his employees, Shane Dinneen, a young Harvard graduate—who bears an uncanny resemblance to Conan O’Brien—and to Mariusz Adamski, whom Ackman had met on the tennis court and then hired as an intern. The two read public documents, reviewed old lawsuits, watched strange selling videos, and learned about Herbalife’s bizarre, charismatic founder, Mark Hughes. They discovered that, a few years earlier, Barry Minkow, a convicted felon and founder of the infamous 1980s swindle ZZZZ Best, had in 2008 publicly called into question Herbalife’s practices. To avoid a costly legal battle, Herbalife had paid him $300,000. (Minkow is now in prison, for another scam.)

On February 22, 2012, the Indago Girls finished their 100-page report describing how Herbalife had billions in revenues and millions of independent distributors globally (3.2 million at last count, according to CNBC), and claimed to have created millions of jobs in its 33-year existence. But, the Girls summarized, “it would be an impressive American success story if it were not based on a lie. Far from being a shining example of corporate beneficence, Herbalife is a story of stunning deception. It is a pyramid scheme whose revenue comes not from retail sales of its products, as it contends, but from capital lost by failed investors in its business opportunity. Our research has shown that through manipulation and misrepresentation, Herbalife conceals its true business model from distributors and from the investing public. Herbalife is not selling a ‘healthy lifestyle’ through nutritional supplements and weight management products; it is selling a highly risky financial product: an investment in the business opportunity of recruiting more Herbalife distributors. The merchandise is little more than a vehicle for selling the financial investment in the pyramid scheme.”

Dinneen agreed, but Ackman remained cautious. In the best of circumstances shorting stock can be a risky business, even for hedge-fund big shots. To do it, you have to borrow someone else’s stock (paying them a fee to do so) and then sell it into the market, collecting the proceeds from the sale. If the stock goes down, you can “cover” your short position by buying it back at the lower price and returning the borrowed stock to its original owner, keeping the profits. While a stock’s price can never go below zero—Nirvana for a short-seller—there is no cap on how high a stock can trade. That’s what makes shorting so risky. If you are wrong and, instead of going down, the stock price goes up, you can end up having to buy the stock back at a higher price—perhaps a much higher price—than you sold it for originally, making the potential losses nearly infinite when you have to return it to the original owner.

As the old Wall Street saw goes, “he who sells what isn’t his’n must buy it back or go to pris’n.”

Herbalife had been around for 33 years and had withstood previous attacks from the likes of Minkow and others, as well as the fact that, in May 2000, Hughes—despite his clean-living image—died of a toxic combination of alcohol and Doxepin (an antidepressant he was taking to sleep), causing the company nearly to collapse.

Reeling from Hughes’s death and lawsuits related to its use of the stimulant ephedrine—which would be banned in the U.S. from all nutritional supplements in 2004—Herbalife agreed to sell itself, in 2002, to its management, who had joined with two private-­equity firms—Golden Gate Capital and Whitney & Co. The company went public again, in 2004, netting the private-equity firms a fortune estimated at $1.3 billion, a return of seven times their initial investment, according to the Indago Girls. Between 2005 and 2012, Herbalife’s stock increased 1,000 percent.

Taking on Herbalife would not be for the faint of heart.

The Indago Girls shared their Herbalife short idea with David Einhorn, and he too was skeptical at first. “Short-sellers had dashed themselves on these rocks, like, only 50 katrillion times,” says someone who knew Einhorn’s thinking. In the end, though, he was convinced by Schulman’s passion and detailed analysis, and he urged her to keep researching while he slowly built a short position in Herbalife. “Short-sellers have been attracted to multi-level marketers the way drunken sailors are always attracted to dirty girls at the end of the bar,” explains that person. “It’s just a match made in heaven.”

Einhorn and Ackman were once good friends. They met on a subway platform in 1998 after they both had attended an industry luncheon. In March 2010, when the two appeared together on CNBC, Einhorn said of Ackman, “Bill’s a phenomenal investor. . . . His returns are absolutely extraordinary. It shows there are a lot of different ways to go about things. He’s a fabulous investor.”

Without missing a beat, Ackman replied, “David is my marketing adviser.”

The relationship soured, however, around the time the Indago Girls were making their Herbalife pitch to both men. “David and I had what you might call a falling-out,” Ackman admits. It happened in June 2011, when Ackman was quoted in The New York Times revealing that Einhorn, a Milwaukee-area native, had wanted to buy the Milwaukee Brewers in 2004 but lost out to Mark Attanasio, another financial heavyweight. At that moment, Einhorn was trying to buy a piece of the New York Mets, and, Ackman says, Einhorn feared if the Mets knew of his previous interest in the Brewers they would conclude he was just another rich hedge-fund guy looking to buy a new toy, as opposed to being a serious Mets fan. Ackman says he was just trying to help show that his friend had a lifelong interest in baseball. There was some back-and-forth on e-mail between the two men, and that was that. “David and I are friendly, but it’s like we were boyfriend and boyfriend, and then one day we were just friends, and now we’re just friendly,” Ackman says. “I have enormous respect for him. But as a result of that, I stopped calling him and he stopped calling me, so that’s why I didn’t talk to him” about Herbalife. (Einhorn declined to discuss Herbalife or his relationship with Ackman, but lavishly praised Dan Loeb.)

On May 1, Dinneen was listening in on Herbalife’s first-­quarter-2012 investor conference call when suddenly Einhorn spoke up and started asking questions, mostly about what percentage of the company’s sales was merely to distributors, who are required to buy the product each month, and what percentage to genuine consumers. At first, Des Walsh, the company’s president, said “70 percent or potentially in excess of that” went to consumers or distributors “for their own personal use.” Einhorn pushed Walsh for a clarification, and Walsh said he didn’t have “an exact percentage” because “we don’t have visibility to that level of detail.” This was a surprising answer, since that information should have been readily available. By the end of the day, Herbalife stock had plummeted to $56 per share, from $70 per share.

Had Ackman waited too long to bet against the stock?

Dinneen alerted Ackman that Einhorn was on the call and asking tough questions. “David asks his question, the stock plummets, and then Shane [Dinneen] is all upset,” Ackman recalls. “He thinks he’s done all this work for nothing. I said, ‘No, no, you’re wrong. This is great. Clearly David shorted the stock.’ ”

Now, Ackman believed, Pershing Square didn’t have to be the so-called catalyst, the guy who says the emperor has no clothes—which generally causes the company being shorted to go on the attack against the short-seller. “It sounds like David is prepared to go public with it,” he told Dinneen. “He’ll be the catalyst, and we can be short and we don’t have to deal with all the headaches of being the active short-seller.”

During the conference call Ackman decided to pull the trigger and started shorting Herbalife shares through Goldman Sachs, Pershing Square’s principal prime broker. His position eventually grew to more than 20 million shares. The move took major cojones because with such a large percentage on the short side, around 20 percent, in the hands of one person, those on the other side of the trade—who are betting the stock will go up—can try to orchestrate the aforementioned “short squeeze,” by buying up shares. This causes the thinly traded stock’s price to trade up, forcing the short-seller to buy back stock at far higher prices than he had hoped, which sends the price of the stock higher still.

In addition, Herbalife would no doubt be able to defend itself by using some of the $320 million or so in cash on its balance sheet to buy back and retire its stock, reducing the number of shares outstanding and potentially adding to Ackman’s whiplash. (Since the end of 2012, Herbalife has bought back four million shares at a cost of around $150 million.)

The Sohn and the Fury
The annual Ira Sohn Conference, in Manhattan, is where the leading hedge-fund managers share their investing ideas. With the 2012 edition scheduled for May 16, Ackman suspected that Einhorn would use his presentation there to tout his short in Herbalife and become the catalyst for the trade. It’s a tried-and-true strategy, and smacks of insider trading, but stays just this side of legality. Ackman, Icahn, and Einhorn, among others, have all used appearances at Sohn to tout their short or long positions, after having already accumulated them, knowing that their very words will move the mar­ket in their favor. Talking your book, as it’s known on Wall Street, is not exactly kosher, but it’s done all the time.

According to Ackman, just before his presentation, Einhorn put up a slide with the letters “MLM” on it. The audience, he believes, immediately took this as an indication that he was about to slam “multi-level marketers,” such as Herbalife. But Einhorn’s pres­entation turned out to be about Martin Marietta Materials, a company with the stock symbol MLM. When the market realized this, Herbalife stock moved smartly to finish up more than 10 percent.

“He did that kind of as a joke,” Ackman says.

Einhorn wasn’t going to be the Herbalife catalyst after all, so over the summer and fall Ackman and his team worked tirelessly to put together their version of the Herbalife story. Ackman wanted to unleash his monster on the world before Thanksgiving, but his team wasn’t ready, even though it had been working around the clock. So Ackman arranged with Douglas Hirsch, a co-chair of the Sohn Research Conference Foundation, for a special session to present the Herbalife idea on December 20.

“I go back to first principles for me, personally,” Ackman says. “The single most important thing to me, personally, is the ability to speak my mind. I’m a change-the-world guy, and I know that sounds like bullshit or whatever. I don’t like to make investments that are not good for America. You can say I’m self-righteous. You can say that I’m disingenuous. I have more money than I need. I don’t need to work for a living. I do this because I love what I do.”

After graduating from Har­vard College and follow­ing a stint working for his father at the family’s commercial-­mortgage real-­estate business, Ackman went to Harvard Business School, the only program to which he had applied. As he had in college, Ackman rowed crew. He was co-captain of the business-school team that generated national controversy by wearing

T-shirts with dollar signs on the backs and painting dollar signs on the oars. At the annual Head of the Charles race, spectators booed the H.B.S. crew boats, causing Ackman to defend the decorations in an opinion column in the Harbus, the business-school newspaper. “Let’s face up to what Harvard Business School represents,” he wrote. “We spend 90 percent of our studies at HBS pursuing the maximization of the dollar.”

At Harvard, Ackman met David Berko­witz, who had studied engineering as an undergraduate at M.I.T. After graduation Ackman and Berkowitz formed Gotham Partners, their own hedge fund, in a windowless office in Midtown Manhattan. Starting with $250,000 from Marty Peretz, a college professor of Ackman’s and the then editor and owner of The New Republic (and the father of V.F. contributing editor Evgenia Peretz), they raised $3 million. “We did incredibly well for five years,” Ackman recalls. Most important, in 2002, Ackman made a huge bet that M.B.I.A. Inc., the publicly traded municipal-bond insurer, was fatally overvalued. The company protested that Ackman was trying to manipulate its stock price. Both the S.E.C. and Eliot Spitzer, then the New York State attorney general, investigated. “Not to put it too impoliticly,” Spitzer told The New York Observer in 2011, “but we put [Ackman] through the wringer.”

Ackman recalls he told the investigators, “If you guys don’t pursue M.B.I.A., and you allow it to continue, there will be a financial crisis of unbelievable proportions. That’s what will happen.” No charges were ever filed against Ackman, and he was proven correct after M.B.I.A. nearly collapsed during the financial crisis. Ackman and his investors made around $1.4 billion in profit. By that time, though, he and Berkowitz had parted company, and Gotham was dissolved.

On his own in 2004, and then with people he had met serendipitously—one sharing a cab in a rainstorm, another while bone-­fishing in Argentina—Ackman started Pershing Square, named after the area just south of Grand Central Terminal. Over the years, Ackman has had some notable wins—with Canadian Pacific Railway (doubling his $1.4 billion investment in less than a year), Fortune Brands, McDonald’s, Burger King, and General Growth Properties—and some notable mistakes, namely Borders (which went bankrupt) and the call options of Target Corporation, an investment that declined, at its nadir, 90 percent, according to Ackman, costing him and his investors some $1.5 billion. The loss caused Ackman to issue a rare apology: “Bottom line, [the Target investment] has been one of the greatest disappointments of my career to date,” he wrote his investors.

Faced with the hedge-fund fire­power lined up against him—to say nothing of Herbalife’s wrath—someone with a lesser ego might have had some doubts. Not Ackman. Although Herbalife is his first activist short since the M.B.I.A. war—which took nearly seven years for him to win—he claims he is not even remotely worried that he might be wrong. “By the way, there is no other investment in my portfolio about which I feel better,” he says. “I can give you all the concerns I have about everything else we own. JC­Penney … Canadian Pacific has gone from $46 to $117 a share. O.K.? Are there risks? Absolutely, absolutely. Every one of my other investments. Not this one.”

The day before Ackman’s presentation at Sohn, he called CNBC reporter Kate Kelly. “We wanted the right people there,” he says. “We wanted the right people to listen. And if you don’t know what company it is, you’re not going to just go [to a presentation] randomly. But I wanted everyone who owned Herbalife stock watching, and I wanted people who were interested in the story, and I wanted Hispanic media there. They’re not going to come to some hedge-fund presentation.”

By around two p.m. on December 19, Kelly was reporting on-air that Pershing Square had “a major new short position,” and, she explained, Ackman would be making a full presentation the next day. Ackman’s media ploy worked. Some 500 people assembled at the AXA Equitable Center, in Midtown Manhattan—along with another 1,300 people watching online—as Ackman, Dinneen, and David Klafter, Pershing’s general counsel, denounced Herbalife for more than three hours, without interruption, using some 330 slides. The title of the presentation was “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”

Ackman was smooth, confident, and unrehearsed. “Tennis, I practice,” he tells me. “Presentations, I don’t. Never.”

Onstage, Ackman said he would donate any money he personally made from the trade—“blood money,” he called it—to his foundation, the Pershing Square Foundation, which gave $7 million to Andrew Youn and his One Acre Fund, to relieve hunger and poverty in East Africa, and $25 million to the Newark, New Jersey, public schools (to which Mark Zuckerberg gave $100 million). Ackman also announced—on the spur of the moment, he says—that he would donate $25 million to the Sohn foundation, which supports pediatric cancer care and research. “You know what?” he says he told Douglas Hirsch. “It’s time for me to do something for cancer.” He later explained to me, “By the way, I was diagnosed with skin cancer. Within a week of the event. Basal cell carcinoma, and I had it removed. You’ve got to see this scar.”

Throughout the presentation, CNBC’s Kate Kelly kept ducking out to report what Ack­man was saying, and after it was over Ackman himself hit the airwaves, talking up a storm to Andrew Ross Sorkin, on CNBC, and on Bloomberg TV. He positioned him­self as the champion of the vic­tims of the alleged scheme. “You’ve had millions of low-income people around the world who’ve gotten their hopes up that there’s an opportunity for them to become millionaires or hundred-thousand-aires or some number like that, and they’ve been duped,” he told Sorkin. “We simply want the truth to come out. If distributors knew the probability of making $95,000 a year—which is the millionaire team, as they call it—was a fraction of 1 percent, no one would ever sign up for this. And we simply exposed that fact. The company has done their best to try to keep that from the general public.”

Chapman counters, “If anybody buys this ‘He’s out to save the little guy’ routine, they’re just outright gullible and naïve. Arguably, the number of Herbalife employees, suppliers, and their employees, and of course non-complaining distributors who may be harmed by Ackman’s quest for profits massively outnumber those distributors who fail to succeed as they had hoped.” (As for Chapman, Ackman says, “He’s a lunatic. And I think, by the way, that he’s proud to be a lunatic, and he’s even said as much, that it’s part of his strategy, as an activist, to make the other side think you’re crazy.”)

But the presentation did work as Ackman had planned: Herbalife’s stock went from $42.50 per share on December 18 to a low of $26 on Christmas Eve.

Not surprisingly Herbalife began fighting back. “Herbalife operates with the highest ethical and quality standards,” the company wrote in a press release. “Herbalife also hires independent, outside experts to ensure our operations are in full compliance with laws and regulations. Herbalife is not an illegal pyramid scheme.” (The company’s C.E.O., Michael Johnson, declined an interview request.)

The Long and Short of It
Dan Loeb watched the December 20 pres­entation with amazement and thought the entire hedge-fund industry would look at Ackman’s highly promoted announcement as an opportunity to take the other side of the bet. Loeb met with me in his serene, art-filled Lever House office, on Park Avenue. He is a yoga enthusiast and surfer from California, a cool customer, and more than a tad condescending. “It took us a little while to do our work, because we had no reason to think he was right or wrong,” Loeb explained. “We just wanted to understand the company. And we weren’t like super-focused on it, but sometime during the holiday we got very, very focused on it.”

Most of Loeb’s Third Point enterprise is based in Manhattan. But one of his key partners, Jim Carruthers, works in Silicon Valley, where he and an analyst, Scott Matagrano, research potential short ideas. “They have a massive fucking budget for research and analysis,” says an observer, who knows them. “They are deepwater shorts,” meaning that, when they get a conviction about a short idea, they put a lot of money behind it and stick with it. As the Indago Girls had during the summer of 2011, Carruthers and Matagrano studied the multi-level-marketing industry in depth. “Their opinion is very point-blank,” says the observer, adding that the “industry is shot through with lies, deceit, and fraud.” At the end of their research, they decided to short two publicly traded multi-level marketers, Nu Skin and Usana, but they weren’t sure what to do about Herbalife, in part because it appeared others had lost money shorting the stock in the past. When they heard that Einhorn had shorted it, they decided not to join him. “They backed off of Herbalife because it’s just too big, and once Einhorn started sniffing around it was going to become a very crowded trade immediately,” this person continues.

But on December 20, when the Herbalife stock fell to $26, Loeb decided that Ackman had created a unique opportunity for him and other hedge-fund investors to go long Herbalife—in part because Herbalife was a cash machine that had been around for 33 years, in part because even if the Federal Trade Commission closed down Herbalife’s U.S. business (a prospect that Loeb considered highly unlikely) it represented only 20 percent of the company’s total, and in part because of the short-squeeze opportunity on Ackman.

Loeb consulted with Carruthers, who told him he didn’t like Herbalife but didn’t hate it enough to want to short it. “This is a company that should be a normalized $40 to $50 stock trading in the 20s,” Loeb argued, according to the observer. “And Ackman has created a situation where if this company buys back stock and declares a dividend or two it can run up into $60 or $70.” With the understanding that Loeb was just looking to make some quick money for his investors, Carruthers endorsed Loeb’s plan.

There was also the matter of the growing antipathy between Loeb and Ackman. “My understanding is that they dislike each other profoundly,” the observer says. In 2007, with the market booming and Third Point’s assets growing considerably, Loeb invested around $200 million of Third Point’s $6 billion in a blind pool of money that Ackman had assembled. Ackman had promised investors it would be as successful as his McDonald’s investment, which had earned hundreds of millions of dollars, but it turned out to be the notorious Target loss of nearly 90 percent, leaving many unhappy investors, especially Loeb. He says he had invested with Ackman, who was coming off a super-hot hand with his McDonald’s investment, because he trusted Ackman’s judgment and process. In retrospect he believes he was crazy to do so and has vowed never to do anything like it again.

Loeb’s funds eventually lost around $175 million with Ackman, and today Ackman remains contrite. “Dan was very unhappy, as he should be, when the thing went down,” says a person who knows both men. He adds that Loeb was the angriest of Ackman’s investors about the Target debacle and got out of it as soon as Ackman made that possible; had he been more patient and stayed in he would have gotten most of his money back as the investment rebounded.

Loeb says his decision to invest in Herbalife was not about getting revenge on Ackman. “Everything I do is driven to generate returns for my investors, so the fact that Bill is involved here is coincidental,” he claims.

On January 9, Loeb filed a 13-G report with the Securities and Exchange Commission, announcing that he had acquired 8.9 million Herbalife shares, or 8.24 percent of the stock—making him the company’s second-largest shareholder—at a cost of around $300 million. That same day he wrote a letter to his investors explaining he had acquired most of the stock “during the panicked selling that followed the short seller’s dramatic claims.”

In his letter, Loeb refuted them and wrote that he believed the stock “could easily” return to its April 2012 price of around $70 per share. At a minimum, he wrote, the stock should be valued at between $55 and $68 per share, offering Third Point “40–70% upside from here and making the company a compelling long investment.”

The market took notice of Loeb’s purchase and sent the stock up around 10 percent.

Sahm Adrangi was one of the traders who agreed with Loeb. “After you’d done your work on Herbalife and you viewed Ackman’s three-and-a-half-hour presentation, you could see the holes in his argument,” says Adrangi. “Ackman has three points: the F.T.C. is going to shut it down because they’re in regulatory violation of pyramid-scheme laws, distributors are going to jump ship because they’re going to realize that they’re being duped, and you’re going to see an unwinding of the business because of the ‘pop-and-drop’ dynamics [where sales shoot up when Herbalife enters, and then quickly subside]. Those three points are very easy to debunk. Is the F.T.C. going to shut it down? MLMs have been around for 30 years. There’s really no evidence that Herbalife is the worst of the bunch, and the government would also have to shut down Amway, Avon, Tupperware. The second point, that distributors are going to view his video and quit in droves—I mean, 80 percent of the business is outside the U.S., so to think that lower-income Brazilians and Paraguayans and Malaysians will view his video and decide to quit becoming Herbalife distributors is very silly. And his third thesis, that the pop-and-drop dynamics are going to cause an unwind internationally, is also absurd. The reason Herbalife and these other global MLMs are very sustainable businesses and grow year after year at impressive rates is because they’re very diversified.”

Ackman was on his private Gulfstream 550 jet, on the way to Myanmar for some exotic scuba diving, when he got the news of Loeb’s purchase, via the onboard high-speed Internet. “I had no idea Loeb was about to do that,” he says, though he could have had an inkling something might be up, because, the day before, Chapman, who had also built a long position in Herbalife equal to “35 percent of his fund” (the size of which is unknown), had had an exchange with Charlie Gasparino, of Fox Business, in which Chapman had claimed there would be “big news” coming shortly on Herbalife—about which Gasparino tweeted.

Ackman thought Loeb was in Herbalife merely to make a quick buck: “While Dan’s investment letter gave the impression that he’s in Herbalife for the long term, I think he’s too smart for that. I think it’s just a trade.” Within weeks he said he suspected Loeb had already started selling his stake. “I don’t know if it’s true,” he said. “I have no idea. But I think if he’s selling he’s got problems.” Ackman was too diplomatic to say on the record he meant that Loeb could be accused of a “pump and dump” scheme, in which a prominent investor talks up a stock he owns, then sells it, making good money. (Loeb declined to comment.)

Grudge Match
Matters got even more interesting on January 16 when news reports claimed that Carl Icahn, whose net worth has been estimated by Bloomberg to be $20.2 billion, had acquired a “small” stake in Herbalife, joining forces with Loeb in the battle against Ackman.

That Icahn would do so was clearly sport for him. He and Ackman first met in 2003, when Ackman was in the process of liquidating Gotham Partners. One of the companies in which he owned a large stake, Hallwood Realty, was trading for around $60 per share. Ackman believed the stock was worth $140, but he decided to sell, and he approached Icahn with a deal. “I checked him out,” Icahn told The New York Times in 2011. “He was in trouble with the S.E.C.; he had investors leaving him. A few of my friends called me up and said, ‘Don’t deal with this guy,’ ” but, Icahn says, he ignored their advice.

He and Ackman agreed to a deal for $80 a share for Hallwood, along with a contract that gave Ackman “schmuck insurance” in the form of a written agreement to split any profit above a 10 percent return for Icahn if Icahn sold Hallwood within three years. In April 2004, Icahn merged Hallwood Rea­l­ty with HRPT Properties Trust for nearly $138 per share in cash—surprisingly close to what Ackman thought Hallwood was worth in the first place. Under the terms of their agreement, Ackman believed he was owed another $4.5 million. He waited a few days and then called Icahn to try to collect.

“First off, I didn’t sell,” Icahn told him. He said he had voted against the merger, but his shares were cashed out anyway.

“Well, do you still own the shares?” Ackman asked.

“No,” Icahn replied, “but I didn’t sell.”

Ackman threatened to sue Icahn for the money.

“Go ahead, sue me,” Icahn told him.

Ackman did, in 2004. The case was finally resolved in Ackman’s favor in October 2011, and Icahn paid Ackman $9 million, including several years’ worth of accrued interest.

Speaking at a conference in March 2012, Ackman mentioned Icahn and said he didn’t respect him. Icahn returned the favor later that day in an interview with The Wall Street Journal: “Any criticism from Bill Ackman I consider a compliment.”

On January 24, after taking his stake in Herbalife, Icahn went live on Bloomberg TV. “It’s no secret to the world and Wall Street that … I don’t like Ackman,” he fumed. Telling Trish Regan, the anchor, that he didn’t approve of Ackman’s approach, he elaborated: “I think if you’re short, you go short, and, hey, if it goes down, you make money. You don’t go out and get a roomful of people to bad-mouth the company. If you want to be in that business, why don’t you go and join the S.E.C.”

He said he was also critical of Ackman’s announcement at the Sohn Conference that he would give any profit he made on the short to charity, because Ackman’s limited partners would still benefit, which would then accrue to Ackman’s benefit as well. “I dislike the guy,” he continued. “I don’t respect him. . . . I don’t think he did this in the right way Don’t be holier than thou and say, ‘Look, I’m doing this for the good of the world and I want to see sunshine on Herbalife.’ I mean, that’s bullshit.”

The gloves were off.

The next afternoon on CNBC, when Ackman was defending himself against Icahn’s claims, Icahn called in to the show, and the CNBC producers, realizing they had all the makings of cable-TV fireworks, patched him in. Suddenly Icahn and Ackman were going at it live, causing electrified trading floors all over New York to stop dead in their tracks as the traders whistled, stomped, clapped, and guffawed at the two billionaires mixing it up on national television.

“I’ve really sort of had it with this guy Ackman,” Icahn said. “He’s like the crybaby in the schoolyard. I went to a tough school in Queens, and they used to beat up the little Jewish boys. He was like one of these little Jewish boys, crying that the world was taking advantage of him. He was almost sobbing, and he’s in my office, talking about this Hallwood, and how I could help him.”

Einhorn announced in late January that he had made money on his Herbalife short, but, tellingly, he added that he had closed out the position in 2012.

But Ackman says he is in it for the long haul. On January 29, he told me he was just days away from sharing with the world several bombshell announcements that would blow the lid off Herbalife once and for all and send its stock to zero. But on February 20, he softened his language some, saying he believes there will be more market-moving news to come.

His convictions, though, are as strong as ever. “Every day is a happy day for me,” Ackman tells me. “You don’t know me well enough. But I know Herbalife is a pyramid scheme. It is a certainty. It’s just a question of when the rest of the world figures it out.”

Adrangi is not persuaded. “We have high-conviction ideas, and, oops, it doesn’t work out,” he says. “But what’s important is to pay attention to what the other side is saying, and to revise your thesis. . . . Since Ackman’s pres­en­ta­tion, more information has come out. Bob Chapman put together a very good, five-page letter on why Herbalife is a long. Dan Loeb has done the same thing. The company’s response presentation was excellent Ackman is making this moral,” Adrangi continues. “He runs a hedge fund, right? His duty is not to the world. If you want to save the world, go donate some money to charity. I’m pretty confident that if he does not cover his short position his fund will be smaller, materially, in two years’ time.”

Icahn seems to be doing his best to make Adrangi’s prophecy come true. On February 14, Icahn announced that he had accumulated a surprisingly large, 12.98 percent stake in Herbalife and that he intended to meet with the company’s management to discuss “enhancing shareholder value,” including possibly a going-private transaction. Herbalife’s stock soared throughout the day on the Icahn news and traded as high as $46.22, a 21.4 percent increase from the previous day’s close. “Carl Icahn just delivered Bill Ackman a valentine he’ll never forget,” Chapman gleefully e-mailed me. The soaring stock price allowed some of the more risk-averse traders to make some money. Chapman, for one, sold his entire Herbalife position in mid-February at a tidy profit, while Loeb, who had been selling Herbalife stock for weeks, his spokesman admitted, also sold another portion into the Icahn-induced rally.

But Ackman, who knew some of his biggest hedge-fund rivals were still lined up against him, remains unflappable. We’d been sitting together in the conference room just off his spacious office. Grabbing a banana from a bunch on a table, he said of Herbalife’s stock, “I’ll be happy at zero,” and smiled.

NOTE: A previous version of this article misstated when Ackman got the idea to short Herbalife. It was the summer of 2011. The previous version also approximated the size of Robert Chapman Jr.'s fund. That figure is unknown.

Print this item

  Woman stole $25,000 from gambler at Marina Bay Sands hotel
Posted by: pianist - 14-03-2013, 11:19 PM - Forum: Others - No Replies

SINGAPORE - Yee Bee Ang, 31, unemployed, admitted to theft of 25 pieces of $1,000 notes from Mr Sri Guritno, 48, an Indonesian, in his room at Marina Bay Sands Hotel Tower 1 on Sept 13 last year.
http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNe...08746.html

Print this item

  Football Investors Get 62% in Run Around Players on Transfer Bet
Posted by: rogerwilco - 13-03-2013, 08:15 PM - Forum: Others - No Replies

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2013...sfers.html

By Alex Duff and Tariq Panja - Mar 5, 2013

The walls of Ray Ranson’s Manchester office celebrate the high points of his 17-year run as a defender in English soccer. In one of his most memorable moments, Ranson’s Manchester City was battling Tottenham Hotspur in the final game of the F.A. Cup in May 1981. The 92,000 chanting fans at London’s Wembley Stadium were making such a din that he couldn’t even hear the referee’s whistle.

At the 11th minute in the first half, Ranson, wearing No. 2 and pumped with adrenaline, thumped a free kick 30 meters (98 feet) into the penalty box. In quick succession, three players headed the ball before a City midfielder rammed it into the goal with his right foot, tying the game 1-1. Although City lost 3-2, Ranson’s eyes still sparkle when he describes the thrill he got that day, Bloomberg Markets magazine will report in its April issue.

Now, 18 years after hanging up his cleats, Ranson is cashing in on his passion for the world’s most popular sport. As the founder and chief executive officer of R2 Asset Management Ltd., he competes in the controversial market of betting on the transfer value of soccer players -- the money that an acquiring club must pay to a team for an athlete under contract.

Ranson, who recruits institutional investors and scouts players, says his fund’s wagers have frequently earned returns of about 50 percent in two years.

Financial Lifeline

While using transfer fees to compensate small clubs for releasing athletes started in England as far back as the 1890s, betting on them is a recent phenomenon. It began in Argentina in the late 1990s, and since then, at least 11 funds have invested in hundreds of players, including Real Madrid’s superstar forward Cristiano Ronaldo.

Eight of the funds currently have more than $500 million bet on transfer rights worldwide, estimates Julio Senn, a partner at Senn, Ferrero, Asociados Sports & Entertainment SLP, a Madrid-based law firm that advises investors on buying stakes in players.

Ranson, 52, says transfer rights investments are good for soccer, providing cash-poor teams a financial lifeline. Many clubs, particularly in southern Europe, are struggling to raise revenue and obtain bank loans following the 2008 credit crisis and resort to transfer investments for cash, says Jose Maria Gay, a professor at Barcelona University who studies soccer team finances.

In a typical deal, Ranson says, he might pay 1 million euros ($1.3 million) to a Spanish team to acquire 50 percent of the expected fee for an up-and-coming athlete.

Banks Shut

“The clubs need it,” says Ranson, whose fund had invested about 50 million pounds ($75 million) in 20 players in Europe as of February. “The banks are shut.”

Clubs get a quick infusion of money but sacrifice a bigger payday a few years later, when they negotiate the sale of the player and share the transfer fee with an investor.

“If the player in Spain is worth 2 million today, he could go for 3 million when he is sold, and I’ve made a 50 percent return,” says Ranson, who collects a 2 percent management fee and 20 percent of profits.

Soccer officials are less than thrilled about this burgeoning market. Richard Scudamore, CEO of the English Premier League, the sport’s richest league, says the wagers threaten the integrity of soccer by giving investors influence over the sale of players.

Agents are also taking stakes in the athletes they represent, creating possible conflicts of interest with them, says Raffaele Poli, a researcher at the Centre International d’Etude du Sport, or CIES, in Neuchatel, Switzerland.

English Scandal

A scandal erupted in 2007 when a Premier League investigation into a West Ham United transfer deal uncovered that the club had ceded total control over Carlos Tevez, its standout striker, to investors. The league banned transfer betting a year later, which means Ranson can’t do deals where he used to play.

“These investments are immoral and have nothing to do with football as a sport,” says Theo van Seggelen, secretary-general of the International Federation of Professional Footballers, which is located near Amsterdam. “There’s not any other profession in the world where investors can buy stakes in a human being.”

The Federation Internationale de Football Association, or FIFA, which governs soccer worldwide, allows betting on transfer fees as long as investors don’t affect the movement of players - - a restriction that officials have never enforced. Scudamore denounces FIFA’s position.

Secret Wagering

“It is impossible for me to believe that the person who has the financial interest in that player doesn’t have an influence over the future of that player,” Scudamore says.

The wagering is so secretive that athletes typically don’t realize funds have taken stakes in them, Ranson says. The market has lured investors from around the globe. A group controlled by Sao Paulo-based supermarket chain owner Delcir Sonda invested 5.5 million Brazilian reais ($2.8 million) in 2009 for a 40 percent share of Neymar da Silva Santos Jr., the mohawk-sporting poster boy of Brazilian soccer, says Eduardo Carlezzo, a lawyer who worked on the deal for Sonda.

Baniyas Sports Club, whose president is United Arab Emirates Deputy Prime Minister Sheikh Saif bin Zayed Al Nahyan, and Qatar-based conglomerate Ghanim Bin Saad Al Saad & Sons Group Holdings are wagering on South American players through the Bermuda-based fund Global Eleven, according to three people familiar with the matter. Sheikh Saif’s brother owns English champion Manchester City. The fund was started in 2010 by Indoo Sella di Monteluce, the son of an Italian count, one of the people says.

Letterbox Companies

Sella di Monteluce declined to comment, says Paul Wynne, a spokesman for a company that manages his money. Nader Saleh Abuhayyeh, who represents Baniyas, and GSSG also didn’t comment.

Some investors hide their interests in athletes in offshore firms located in tax havens, Scudamore says. Other deals are done through so-called letterbox companies in the U.K. and the Netherlands, which allow investors to shield their ownership of the firms by hiring a director to sign regulatory filings.

“Ethically, we think it’s very difficult that these sums of money are going to very opaque organizations, often with very complex ownership structures, that no one really knows where the money is going when those fees are paid,” Scudamore says.

Ranson says the moral outrage of officials is overblown and dismisses the Tevez case as an aberration. Dressed in jeans and a fawn-colored sweater, the former player is a jovial man who laughs at the pounds he’s added to his 5-foot-10-inch (1.8- meter) frame since retiring from soccer in 1995.

Ranson’s Bets

“I haven’t broken a sweat in 15 years,” says Ranson, who was raised in the former coal mining town of St. Helens between Manchester and Liverpool.

In his sparsely furnished office, Ranson, a boxing fan, has hung a limited-edition framed picture of middleweight champion Jake LaMotta, who’s nicknamed the Bronx Bull.

Investors such as Ranson make money only when players get transferred while they’re still under contract. If there’s no sale, the punters can lose their entire wager.

That’s why Ranson’s deals include inducements for teams to sell: His investment may automatically switch to another player if a contract expires on Ranson’s footballer, and teams may pay a penalty if they don’t move an athlete before his contract ends.

Despite the pressure he applies, Ranson says he has no influence over transfers.

“We can’t make the club sell,” he says.

Ronaldo’s Value

The value of Real Madrid’s Ronaldo, 28, who racked up more than 300 career goals in 10 years, soared during the past decade. In 2002, Lisbon-based asset management firm First Portuguese Group SGPS SA paid 3.1 million euros for an undisclosed share of the then-17-year-old forward at Sporting Clube de Portugal and five of his teammates, club statements show.

The following year, Ronaldo joined Manchester United, which paid a 15 million euro fee for him. First Portuguese, the only investor known to have taken a stake in the player, didn’t reveal its return from the deal. Ronaldo led the team to victory in Europe’s Champions League in 2008, when he was voted world player of the year by FIFA.

During that season, Ronaldo amassed 42 goals, a club record, often using his step-over trick -- rapidly passing his foot several times on top of the ball to destabilize opponents before accelerating past them. Then he’d shrug his shoulders as the ball hit the net, as if to say it was all too easy.

62% Return

His 2008 performance triggered a financial windfall for Manchester United. The next year, the club said that Real Madrid had paid a transfer fee of 80 million pounds for Ronaldo, making him the world’s most expensive player to acquire.

Traffic Sports, a unit of Traffic Marketing Esportivo in Sao Paulo, is one of the most prominent investors in transfer rights. Its second fund, which started in 2008 and raised $50 million, gained 62 percent on the first 21 players sold, according to a 2012 Traffic Sports presentation.

Traffic’s $6.8 million bet on 19-year-old Brazilian striker Keirrison de Souza Carneiro in 2008 was one of its most profitable. A year earlier, he had scored 12 league goals to elevate Coritiba to Brazil’s top division. In 2009, Barcelona, the then newly crowned European champion, paid a transfer fee of more than $19.3 million for Keirrison.

That deal produced a 114 percent return for Traffic Sports from its investment in Keirrison in just eight months, the presentation says.

Russian Tycoons

Traffic is now raising as much as $100 million for its third fund in conjunction with Dubai-based buyout firm CedarBridge Partners.

“The returns are robust because Traffic has an operating team with a proven methodology to buy the right players and connections with football teams across the world to sell them at the highest price,” says Magellan Makhlouf, managing director at CedarBridge.

Investors are exploiting the widening rich-poor divide among teams worldwide. In the past 10 years, Middle Eastern oil sheiks, Russian tycoons and American billionaires have taken control of more than a third of Premier League clubs. Ranson’s former team, Manchester City, was bought by Abu Dhabi’s Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan in 2008.

Without wealthy backers, clubs such as Sporting are making transfer investment deals to obtain cash to buy players and remain competitive in the Champions League and Europa League.

Level Field

Sporting, an 18-time Portuguese champion, gets 10 times less television revenue than leading Premier League clubs, President Luis Godinho Lopes says. Sporting also suffered from a 25 percent decline in ticket sales from 2008 through 2012 because consumers in Portugal had less money to spend.

“Outside investors in transfers are the only way we can have a level playing field,” Godinho Lopes says.

Miguel Angel Gil, CEO of Atletico Madrid, which won the second-tier Europa League in two of the past three years, says Spanish banks have shut off almost all lending to his team. So Atletico began making transfer deals with funds, which provide about 30 percent of the team’s financing.

He says investors haven’t tried to pressure the club to move players.

“It’s simply a financial arrangement; there’s no mystery involved,” Gil says.

Small clubs’ deepening dependence on the transfer market takes a toll: They must constantly scramble to find new talent or risk dropping to a lower division. European clubs transferred about 18,000 players in 2011, triple the number in 1995, according to Brussels-based consulting firm KEA European Affairs.

Agent Conflicts

The revenue from fees discourages teams from making long- term investments in facilities and coaches to attract fans, sports researcher Poli says.

“It’s a short-term perspective,” he says. “The easiest way to make money in soccer is in the transfer market.”

Investors rely on the sport’s most powerful agents to find and broker deals -- creating potential conflicts of interest with players. In 2007, Portuguese agent Jorge Mendes helped broker his client Angel di Maria’s transfer to Benfica of Portugal from Argentina’s Rosario Central.

The following year, Mendes bought a 10 percent stake in the Argentine playmaker for 1 million euros, according to team filings. In 2010, Benfica moved Di Maria, who was still Mendes’s client, to Real Madrid for a transfer fee of as much as 36 million euros.

Creative Artists

The agent earned a profit of more than three times his investment, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Mendes declined to comment.

Mendes advises Creative Artists Agency LLC, the biggest talent agency in Hollywood, on transfer investments. CAA, which represents Ronaldo and the clubs Barcelona and Chelsea, manages three soccer funds, according to a person familiar with the matter. Beth McClinton, a spokeswoman for CAA, declined to comment.

Some 15 percent of agents own stakes in players they represent, according to a survey of 269 agents by CIES.

“It’s difficult to be sure if the agent is acting in the interest of himself or the player,” says Poli, who helped compile the survey.

Scudamore is determined to stamp out transfer investments around the globe. His league’s probe of the West Ham deal for Tevez revealed a secretive web of investors in the muscular 5- foot-8-inch Argentine forward who jostles past defenders before shooting powerfully.

Tevez Deal

In 2004, Sao Paulo-based Corinthians, which was controlled by Media Sports Investment Group in London, paid a transfer fee of $16 million to Buenos Aires-based Boca Juniors to acquire Tevez, according to the sales agreement.

Iranian-born Kia Joorabchian, who had founded now-defunct New York-based investment firm American Capital (U.S.A.), ran Media Sports. A spokesman for Joorabchian said because of confidentiality agreements the investor was unable to comment.

In 2004, a British Virgin Islands based-company -- MSI Group Ltd. -- acquired a 35 percent stake in the forward, according to sales documents. MSI was owned by the late Georgian billionaire Arkady Patarkatsishvili, a business partner of Joorabchian, the documents say.

Russian media tycoon Boris Berezovsky also had a stake in the company, says his former public relations adviser Tim Bell.

Dance Celebrations

Tevez proved his worth to investors, firing in 46 goals in 78 games in his 20-month stint at Corinthians. In 2005, he led the team to the Brazilian league title and won the country’s player of the year award -- the first time a foreign player had received the accolade since 1976.

Brazilian fans adored the Argentine for his playful dancing to celebrate goals.

By 2006, another British Virgin Islands-registered company, Just Sports Inc., had also bet on Tevez, according to the league’s investigation. The two investors, MSI and Just Sports, then transferred the forward to the Premier League’s West Ham, a bigger soccer stage that would help boost his resale value.

The investors didn’t require West Ham to pay a transfer fee for Tevez, and in exchange, the team had agreed to allow MSI and Just Sports to terminate the deal and resell Tevez without West Ham getting a say in the matter, according to the investigation.

The revelation that outside investors had dictated the moves of one of soccer’s brightest stars -- a West Ham fan favorite who scored seven goals in his last 10 games to keep the team in the top division -- spurred the league to ban such deals.

Pressuring FIFA

The league did allow investors to unwind their stake in Tevez, whose value skyrocketed. Harlem Springs, another British Virgin Islands-based company, paid MSI 24 million pounds for 100 percent of the player’s transfer rights in 2007, according to the sales documents.

Harlem Springs was run by Joorabchian, says a person familiar with the company. After Harlem Springs loaned Tevez to Manchester United for 9 million pounds, Sheikh Mansour in 2009 paid the British Virgin Islands company about 48 million pounds to bring Tevez to Manchester City, two people familiar with the deal say. Vicky Kloss, director of communications at Manchester City, declined to comment.

In November, Scudamore traveled to FIFA’s headquarters in Zurich and told a panel, with FIFA President Sepp Blatter in attendance, why the ruling body should outlaw transfer investments. A month later, FIFA’s legal department said in an e-mail that it was analyzing which course of action to take.

Players Fate

“This is one of the biggest challenges FIFA has ever faced,” says Gregor Reiter, CEO of Deutsche Fussballspieler- Vermittler Vereinigung, the German association of player agents. “If they don’t address it, someone will ask, ‘What on earth do we need FIFA for?’”

Ranson looks out of his floor-to-ceiling office window and points at the buildings down the block to defend his profession.

“The companies that own the property can raise cash against it as assets,” he says. “That’s all football teams are doing with their strongest assets, their players.”

And as investors gain a greater foothold, Scudamore says, they -- not the clubs -- are determining the fate of players.

To contact the reporters on this story: Alex Duff in Madrid at aduff4@bloomberg.net, and Tariq Panja in London at tpanja@bloomberg.net

Print this item

  Finding solace in a new financial climate
Posted by: Boon - 13-03-2013, 04:59 PM - Forum: Others - Replies (6)

Finding solace in a new financial climate

The Business Times
Wednesday, Mar 13, 2013

Savings is often underrated. Youths today are more excited about learning investing tips than listening to their parents go on about keeping to their budget. The act of saving money is the most fundamental financial discipline everyone should master, regardless of age and financial status.

A survey conducted in 2010 by Wealth Management Asia Consultants, which conducts financial literacy programmes, showed how saving money remains an elusive concept for the young. Of the 1,100 primary and secondary school pupils surveyed, six in 10 do not set aside savings before spending or end up not saving any money at all.

One in two pupils plan to start saving only when they start working. These pupils are likely to carry these spending habits into their adulthood. Those who do not consciously think about their spending habits will not be prepared for unforeseen events in life because of their lack of self-discipline.

Saving money is thus the first step in a long and possibly arduous financial journey. The act of saving allows one to first accumulate funds, before being able to make any other financial decisions, such as investing and purchasing.

In the shadow of their parents, youths today are neither exposed to any financial liabilities nor possible emergencies. They have little notion of financial independence, and seem to believe that their parents would provide for them in any difficulty. As they enter the workforce and live on their own paychecks, these young adults lack discipline in considering the impact of every financial decision they make. They tie themselves to big-ticket purchases like cars and houses, on top of spending indiscriminately on their every desire. As a result, they become vulnerable to the many consequences of financial mismanagement.

Saving does not simply help one to accumulate money; it signifies the beginning of one's financial journey. It evokes a sense of independence and ownership, allowing one to develop a consciousness of how his financial decisions impact his own situation.

Importance of saving and spending right

Spending prudently is critical if one is to save money. This involves clearly distinguishing between a need and a want when making a purchase decision. Needs are items such as food, clothing and shelter which are essential for survival. Wants are items which are nice to have but not necessary. These choices are not as easy as they seem. One just needs to look at the credit habits of young Singaporeans.

According to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), young adults aged 21 to 29 are responsible for 39 per cent of the increase in the number of new cardholders who do not pay their bills in full. They also account for a rising share of credit-card defaulters, up from 9.4 per cent in 2008 to 13.4 per cent in 2010.

Many Singaporeans fall into the trap of bearing larger credit loans than they can handle. They base their ability to undertake credit merely on their monthly income. However, borrowing on credit is not a mere numbers game of setting aside part of one's cash flow to repay debts. It requires discipline and commitment to constantly repay liabilities as scheduled.

Such a responsibility is the price of living on future money to enjoy benefits today. Some would even deem the usage of credit cards to be the deployment of "weapons of mass financial destruction": the high interest rates charged for not paying on time could ruin one's finances.

Facing up to reality

Realities today further drive home the need for the young Singaporean to save and spend wisely. For younger Singaporeans starting out in the workforce, the aspiration of building a comfortable life here has become more distant than imagined. This, after spending more than a decade pursuing academic qualifications.

A diploma-holder earns a starting pay of about $2,000 while a university graduate earns $2,800 on average. Using current interest rates for paying a 30-year house loan and a five-year car loan, owning a $300,000 four-room HDB flat and a $130,000 Toyota Corolla would require a monthly instalment payment of around $2,400. And that is only if couples moderate their expectations and buy a build-to-order (BTO) HDB flat in a far-flung estate. A resale HDB flat in a mature estate would cost much more, let alone suburban condominiums. In the fourth quarter of 2012, the median price of a five-room flat in Ang Mo Kio, with cash-over-valuation (COV) above market prices, was $640,000. This means that half of such flats transacted above this princely sum. The median price of a four-room resale flat in an outlying area like Punggol is already $515,000.

The numbers speak for themselves. In such a climate of high housing and car costs, raising a child becomes an even tougher financial decision to make.

Online parenting magazine TheAsianParent last year estimated the cost of raising a child from infancy to 21 years of age to be at least $340,000. This accounts for medical fees incurred during pregnancy and delivery, infant care, childcare, enrichment activities, education costs from pre-school to university, basic food and shopping, not including inflation or domestic help.

Holding on to Sunday's dreams would only create more dissatisfaction. The only place in the world where Singaporeans can be sure of finding a solution is within themselves

Redefining success

We should redefine what wealth, happiness and success mean to the young Singaporean. New circumstances call for a new outlook; the weather will always seem stormy if we focus only on the dark clouds. Encouragingly, Singaporeans are shifting their focus towards intangibles defined by non-monetary values.

A survey by OCBC Bank last year highlighted a shift from the conventional 5Cs of cash, car, condominium, country club and credit card, to a new set of 5Cs which conveyed the importance of intangible value. Some 65 per cent of the 2,100 respondents surveyed rated the "new 5Cs" - Control, Confidence, Community, Can-Do Spirit and Career - as more important than the old ones.

This finding shows that Singaporeans are looking beyond their balance sheets to define what is important to them. Breaking away from the pursuit of material possessions unleashes a new mindset that measures things in terms of meaning and happiness.

According to the survey, 53 per cent of respondents find enjoyment in travelling, 12 per cent want to own a luxury car, and just 4 per cent want a country-club membership.

It is promising that Singaporeans are looking at spending in terms of achieving meaning and happiness rather than accumulating material possessions.

And as they spend, Singaporeans must look at what they have and buy within their means. Beyond that, there should be a paradigm shift - from the pursuit of material goods to the pursuit of simplicity. After all, the best things in life are free.

The key to finding some comfort and peace in today's financial environment is to adopt the habit of saving, together with a view to incurring less debt. This would be possible only by reinforcing good decision-making skills when it comes to one's finances.

The weather forecast may be ominous, but let's do our best and dance in the rain.

The writer is a second-year student at Singapore Management University's (SMU) Lee Kong Chian School of Business.
He is one of the student trainers in the SMU-Citi Financial Literacy Programme for young adults in Singapore aged 17 to 30. SMU developed the programme to teach finance and money management, and trains selected students to run it.

http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BN...07829.html

Print this item

  Is John Paulson Wrong or Just Early on Gold?
Posted by: rogerwilco - 12-03-2013, 09:50 AM - Forum: Others - Replies (2)

http://ycharts.com/analysis/story/is_joh...ly_on_gold

Is John Paulson Wrong or Just Early on Gold?
BY DEE GILL MARCH 08, 2013

Hedge fund manager John Paulson continues to lose a ton of money in gold, a commodity that’s a huge part of his investment strategy. But unlike so many of his billionaire colleagues, Paulson is continuing to bet both his reputation and a big chunk of his personal wealth on gold. Either he’s once again being smartly bold when others withdraw in fear, or he’s headed for another one of those painful public apologies.

Paulson’s Gold Fund lost 18% in February, bringing the losses to 26% this year, according to news reports Thursday. The $900 million fund invests in gold-based equities like mining companies and in derivatives.

Paulson is still best known for predicting the subprime mortgage crisis before others saw it. He has made billions of dollars for himself and his investors over the years but apologized in 2011 for major losses in his funds. He has been a fan of gold for several years. Last year, he stepped up his gold investments just ahead of a slump in gold prices. That helped send share prices for some of his mining investments down too.

Mining stocks -- including Anglogold Ashanti (AU) Goldcorp (GG), Kinross Gold (KGC), Gold Fields (GFI) and Novagold (NG) -- have been falling faster than the actual price of gold.

Gold’s weakness has caused a lot of major investors to flee the metal in recent months. (Warren Buffett's takedown of gold is must reading for those mulling an investment.) Several reports indicate that hedge funds are more bearish on gold now than they have been since before the 2008 financial crisis. George Soros, revered as the wise man of gold gambling, was among those who reduced his exposure to gold in the fourth quarter. He cut his stake by more than half.

Paulson’s confidence in gold appears to be unshaken, having left his gold holdings intact during that nasty fourth quarter. He touts the metal as the best long-term investment largely because he expects that the recession fighting programs of governments around the world will eventually fuel inflation and weaken currencies. (Programs like the one by the Federal Reserve that buys $85 billion in bonds every month.) In the U.S., however, inflation has remained muted, the currency has remained strong.

Paulson remains the biggest investor in the SPDR Gold Trust (GLD). That fund saw some gains in recent days after U.S. and European central bankers reaffirmed their dedication to stimulus programs. Paulson, it appears, hasn’t changed his assumption about what such programs can do for the price of gold. He’s probably thinking his timing was just off.

Dee Gill, a senior contributing editor at YCharts, is a former foreign correspondent for AP-Dow Jones News in London, where she covered the U.K. equities market and economic indicators. She has written for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist and Time magazine. She can be reached at editor@ycharts.com.

Print this item

  Penny stocks plummet after record highs
Posted by: Musicwhiz - 12-03-2013, 07:59 AM - Forum: Others - Replies (41)

If you are prepared to speculate, then also be prepared to lose substantial sums of money!

The Straits Times
www.straitstimes.com
Published on Mar 12, 2013
Penny stocks plummet after record highs

Myanmar plays worst hit amid weak market and fresh trading curbs

By Anita Gabriel Senior Correspondent

THE rally in penny stocks that has taken many to record highs this year came to a crashing halt yesterday with a trader referring to the selldown as a "burst bubble".

Many shares that have shot up despite the firms not having impressive fundamentals were dumped amid a relatively weak market and fresh trading curbs that were imposed by some brokerages.

One stock, WE Holdings, lost 47 per cent. Others were down by as much as 20 per cent while the FTSE ST Catalist Index, which tracks 109 counters, mostly penny stocks, lost 5 per cent.

The FTSE Fledgling Index, which reflects the value of the bottom 2 per cent of stocks by market capitalisation, fell nearly 2 per cent. Both these indices have risen about 14 per cent this year, far outpacing the benchmark Straits Times Index's 4 per cent rise.

Retail investors who chased these stocks on the herd mentality are probably the biggest losers.

"Retail investors lost quite a bit of money today. The lesson is that it is never in their interest to chase a stock that is trading way above its book value," said remisier Alvin Yong.

Yesterday's decline only underscored a trend that has been in motion over recent weeks.

"It's not really unusual as most of the recently active penny stocks have started to slow down after a considerable run," said another remisier.

Realisation may have also set in that some of these shares were at levels well above their true value.

"The bubble has burst. Some of these counters were trading way ahead of their fundamentals with lofty expectations. There is a sense of reality that has hit investors that the shares have run ahead of the developments," said Mr Yong.

Myanmar plays topped the hit list yesterday. The steepest decline was felt by Catalist-listed WE Holdings, which was chased up recently on news of a potential tie-up and business venture in the new land of opportunities.

The counter reached a high of 18.4 cents on Feb 26. But it plunged six cents or 47 per cent to 6.8 cents yesterday, on trade of 410 million shares worth $39 million, the day's most active stock.

Another Myanmar play, Aussino Group, lost 2.2 cents or 12 per cent to 16.7 cents. Last year, the lifestyle product supplier was a subject of a reverse takeover led by a prominent Myanmar businessman to mark its shift into the country's budding energy sector. That helped the counter hit a high of 29 cents on Jan 31.

The corporate development is still in limbo and faces regulatory risk. The maker of bedlinen and towels has been suffering losses since 2008 and was placed on the Singapore Exchange watch-list in 2011. "There have been no updates on the deal and the company has yet to turn around. But it's already trading like a profitable firm," a dealer pointed out.

Ntegrator International shed two cents or 19 per cent to 8.4 cents. The communications network firm said in January that it secured $12 million in new contracts.

Investor favourite Yoma Strategic also came under selling pressure, falling 7.5 cents or 9 per cent to 75.5 cents.

"When these micro stocks fall, they fall very fast. Retail investors are not that nimble to get out and fear grips them. So, some of these counters will have few buyers which precipitates the fall," said remisier Ernest Lim.

The sharp fall in some of these counters could have also been a result of trading curbs from stockbroking houses that require more cash upfront so they can limit their exposure to a single counter. Broker UOB Kay Hian has imposed restricted online trading on 15 stocks, including WE Holdings, according to its website.

anitag@sph.com.sg

Print this item

  WSJ.Money: Wealth Over the Edge: Singapore
Posted by: greengiraffe - 12-03-2013, 07:03 AM - Forum: Others - No Replies

Makes me feel so swakoo in my home country after reading the following article...

HTTP://ONLINE.WSJ.COM/ARTICLE/SB10001424...2556670%3F

• WSJ.MONEY
• March 7, 2013, 10:07 a.m. ET
Wealth Over the Edge: Singapore
$26,000 cocktails. Traffic jams freckled with Ferraris. The world's sternest city is now the richest. Why?
• Article
• Video
• Slideshow
• Stock Quotes
• Comments (145)
MORE IN PERSONAL FINANCE »
• smaller
• Larger
• facebook
• twitter
• linked in
• Email
• Print
• Save↓ More
By SHIBANI MAHTANI
Enlarge Image


Photography by Darren Soh/Redux Pictures
The infinity pool at the Marina Bay Sands resort
It's midnight on a Saturday night at the Marina Bay Sands resort near the sparkling Singapore River, and all the boutiques are shut. But past a cosmetic-surgery clinic and a Ferrari accessories store close by, a large crowd is getting increasingly agitated. Dozens of hopefuls are clamoring to get in to what is billed as the world's most expensive club, Pangaea.
Introducing WSJ.Money

WSJ.Money: A new magazine about the world of wealth and the pleasures and pitfalls of managing your money. Debuting this Saturday inside The Wall Street Journal.

When most people think of Singapore, an order-obsessed Asian version of Wall Street comes to mind. But lately, Singapore has become a haven for the ultra-rich. WSJ Senior Editor Jonathan Dahl joins Lunch Break. Photo: Darren Soh/Redux Pictures.
Tight-fitting Herve Leger bandage dresses are practically a uniform here, often paired with Christian Louboutin heels and Chanel 2.55 bags, as women try to befriend club goers who are lucky enough to get past the red-velvet barrier and bouncers. It is frequently the leggy models, part of the club's core demographic, who succeed. Out-of-town visitors who negotiated their way onto the guest list weeks earlier are turned away, even after offering to pay more than $3,000 for a table. The nightclub is completely full.
Past the bouncers, a walk through a long tunnel with blue ultraviolet lights and a ride up an elevator reveal one of the world's most exclusive parties. Michael Ault, Pangaea's founder, sits at the club's most prestigious table by the bar, on cushions covered in exotic African ostrich skins. His table is covered with bottles of Belvedere vodka, Cristal champagne, buckets of ice and dozens of glasses for his friends. His wife, Sabrina Ault, a former fashion model and now his business partner, wears a fake shark's head and wields a plastic gun while dancing on a table top. At Pangaea, all surfaces are made for dancing—even tables made from the trunks of 1,000-year-old trees and the crocodile-skinned couches.
It may seem counterintuitive, but a dance club does not need a dance floor if you are Michael Ault. A veteran of Manhattan nightlife and descendant of blue-blooded socialites—he is the son of a Van Cleef from the Van Cleef & Arpels jewelry family and the stepson of Wall Street's famed Dean Witter—Ault, 49, prides himself on one thing above all others: the ability to throw a good party. And he has done just that over the years at more than 25 clubs from New York to Miami Beach and São Paulo to London. He is credited with being one of the first nightclub impresarios to introduce bottle service—now commonplace globally—at the legendary New York Spy Bar in the 1990s, where even Kate Moss was turned away on exceptionally packed nights.
Photos: Singapore Bling
View Slideshow

Photography by Darren Soh/Redux Pictures
The Pangaea experience, he says, replicates the feeling of being at a house party—one that just happens to offer African tribal masks from Ault's personal collection, throbbing music, a $26,000 cocktail that contains a diamond inside and is served by waitresses in black dresses, and the knowledge that many of the people around you are worth billions.
Pangaea, though just over a year old, is now considered the most profitable club in the world with revenues of more than $100,000 per night in recent months, Ault says. It's also one of the most expensive clubs, with tables costing as much as $15,000, and the uber-rich regularly chalking up six-figure bills. He could have brought this extravagance to just about anywhere in the world. London, with its collection of royals and a party scene that attracts Europe's glitterati. Dubai, too, the land of if-you-want-an-island-you-just-build-one. And of course, his hometown and former playground, Manhattan.
But Ault, who moved to Singapore three years ago, says he "no longer feels the magic" in Gotham, which still bears the scars of a financial crisis that knocked the wind out of much of its most extravagant party culture. Singapore, he says, is another matter. This is where he says the rich feel, well, rich, and unusually secure. And where they seem to know only one common language, the language of excess—all too shamelessly displayed in his club.
"One night, there were these kids here—literally kids in their 20s—who all had their own private jets," Ault recalls during another meeting, on a Thursday morning, leaning back on a leather couch in his club wearing bright-blue fuzzy slippers embroidered with a pink skull. "Serious jets, too. There was an A380 which was converted to include a pool and basketball court—it was ridiculous."
"What I see here is what I imagined must have happened in the U.S. in the 1880s, in the Gilded Age, when it first took over England in terms of wealth," he says. "It is truly shocking how much wealth there is—and how willing people are to spend it."
Welcome to the world's newest Monaco, a haven for the ultra-rich in what until recently was mocked as one of the most straight-laced, boring cities in the world. When most people think of Singapore, if they do at all, they think of an order-obsessed Asian version of Wall Street or London's Canary Wharf, only with implausibly clean, sterile streets and no crime. The southeast Asian city-state of five million people is perhaps best known for banning the sale of chewing gum or caning vandals, including American Michael Fay in 1994 for spray-painting cars. Drug traffickers face the death penalty, and even Ault complains the authorities won't let him import his prized gun collection, which now sits in his other homes in Palm Beach and Manhattan.
But over the past decade, Singapore has undergone a dramatic makeover, as the rich and famous from Asia and beyond debark on its shores in search of a glamorous new home—and one of the safest places to park their wealth. Facebook FB +1.63% co-founder Eduardo Saverin gave up his American citizenship in favor of permanent residence there, choosing to live on and invest from the island while squiring around town in a Bentley. Australian mining tycoon Nathan Tinkler, that country's second wealthiest man under 40, whose fortune is pegged at $825 million by Forbes, also chose to move to Singapore last year. They join Bhupendra Kumar Modi, one of India's biggest telecom tycoons who gained Singapore citizenship in 2011, as well as New Zealand billionaire Richard Chandler, who relocated in 2008, and famed U.S. investor Jim Rogers, who set up shop there in 2007. Gina Rinehart, one of the world's richest women, slapped down $46.3 million for a pair of Singapore condominium units last year.
And then there are, of course, your average millionaires—more of whom can be found among Singapore's resident population than anywhere in the world. According to Boston Consulting Group, the island had 188,000 millionaire households in 2011—slightly more than 17 percent of its resident households—which effectively means one in six homes has disposable private wealth of at least $1 million, excluding property, business and luxury goods. Add in property, with Singapore real estate among the most expensive in the world, and this number would be even higher. Singapore also now has the highest gross domestic product per capita in the world at $56,532, having overtaken Norway, the U.S., Hong Kong and Switzerland, according to a 2012 wealth report by Knight Frank and Citi Private Bank.
“But what really checks all the right boxes for many of the world's ultra-rich is Singapore's obsession with order.”
The toys of all these millionaires and billionaires are visible across the city-state. A country roughly the size of San Francisco, it now has 449 Ferraris, up from 142 in 2001, while its Maserati fleet has grown from 24 to 469. Yacht clubs are popping up along with super-luxurious shops, like the Louis Vuitton Island Maison, a flagship boutique of the ubiquitous luxury brand housed in its own floating pavilion. Nightclubs like Pangaea and Filter, which are frequented by the young Saverin and his crew of millionaire party boys, have turned into havens for the wealthy to mingle. Rich out-of-towners play at Singapore's two glamorous new casino resorts, opened in 2010, including the Marina Bay Sands complex with its celebrity chef restaurants and an infinity pool on the 57th floor with palm trees overlooking the skyline. In 2007, Bernie Ecclestone decided that the city-state would be added to the illustrious Formula One World Championship calendar. The race—which is the only Formula One night race in the world and is set to continue annually until at least 2017—has emerged as one of the most glamorous Formula One events, broadcasting the impressive Singapore night skyline to millions globally.
Singapore has long been a magnet for rich expatriates and multinational corporate executives. They are attracted to the city-state's low taxes, virtually crime-free streets, pro-business policies and predictable government, with one political party in power since it gained independence in 1965. But the onetime British trading post's ascent into the stratosphere of the world's ultra-wealthy cities in recent years reflects a momentous shift in the global economy, as wealth settles in Asia after more than a decade of booming emerging-market growth. Asia now has more millionaires than anywhere else, according to consultancy Capgemini CAP.FR -1.72% and RBC Wealth Management. While the rich lick their wounds in Europe and North America, the net worth of individuals in countries like China and Indonesia are up 6 percent to 7 percent annually.
Danny Quah, professor of economics and international development at the London School of Economics, has calculated that the world's economic center of gravity—measured by looking at income averages across more than 700 places worldwide—has shifted east over the past 30 years, from the Transatlantic Axis to somewhere across the Arabian Peninsula. If current growth trends continue, this center will move in another three decades to a resting point between India and China—just about where Singapore is, meaning its potential as the world's economic center may not even be fully realized.
Unlike the West or even places like the Middle East, though, much of the new wealth being created in Asia is emerging in countries where rich people see their assets at risk, either because of unreliable governments or unloved ones. The Chinese alone are reportedly exporting billions of dollars, saying they no longer trust their government and want to put their money elsewhere. Indians and Indonesians have likewise been looking for a place where they can stash cash to avoid high taxes or work with international-class wealth managers, while steering clear of the unpredictable policy shifts in their rambunctious—and some say, corrupt—democracies. Many Americans and Europeans just want a place where their investments can keep growing—hardly a problem in Singapore, smack in the middle of the fast-growing Asia.
"This kind of sharp change [in the global economy] brings with it an emergence of the very rich, who seek security and stability and a pronounced need for financial services in wealth management, investment, and facilitating and guiding decisions," Quah says. "A place like Singapore has developed both the reputation and the expertise along every single one of these dimensions."
But what really checks all the right boxes for many of the world's ultra-rich is Singapore's obsession with order, predictability and control, all of which give comfort to individuals whose fortunes have recently gone down the drain in many parts of the world. It doesn't hurt that Singapore has some of the lowest taxes in the world, including none on capital gains and most foreign dividends. But it also has relatively secretive private banking laws and zero harassment from paparazzi or protesters, whose activities are narrowly proscribed by Singaporean authorities, further creating an aura of order and stability. Ronen Palan, a professor of international political economy and an expert on offshore wealth and tax havens at City University in London, believes that while Switzerland is "clearly suffering" from the pressure put on its private-wealth sector from the European Union and the U.S., Singapore is a "very secretive location" where many—Asians in particular—believe their wealth will be spared scrutiny from Western regulators.
"For all the flack that Singapore has gotten for chewing gum and caning, it shows that things are orderly here. Corporate governance is in order, the ruling party is stable and is not going anywhere, things actually function—everything works," says Indonesian-born millionaire Frank Cintamani, as he sits in front of gold-embellished couture dresses, wearing a three-piece gray Lanvin suit paired with black brogue shoes. It is Haute Couture Week in Singapore, an event he leads after luring it away from Paris. A Singaporean citizen who has spent a large part of his life living in hotels and who frequently dons diamond brooches, he also leads Men's Fashion Week and Women's Fashion Week, and has a host of other interests and investments, including in publishing.
"Rich people can have fun anywhere," he says, as the sound of a Ferrari zooming past distracts his train of thought, while he directs a stream of models, designers and fashion writers coursing through a tent next to the Marina Bay Sands, where his fashion show is being held. Though sitting down, he constantly has to stand up briefly to greet the ultra-wealthy fashion aficionados who recognize him. "But over here they know they will always be safe, their privacy respected and their investments solid," he says.
Cintamani, 36, interrupts the discussion on Singapore's economic environment, drawing attention to two men—one in a three-piece black suit, and another in a futuristic-looking white top embellished with silver at its collar and reaching past his knees over skinny white pants with platform shoes—and a woman in a white two-piece, loose-fitting suit with silver heels.
"See those guys over there? The three people in the corner? Their combined worth is between six to seven billion U.S. dollars—and I know this for a fact," he says. "This is why we need to do this here," referring to his fashion ventures. He then points out that one of Mongolia's richest men, with wide interests in property and a keen investor in Singapore's real estate, is also in attendance at the couture show. Cintamani, whose business card carries several logos from ventures in magazine publishing to fashion shows, declines to say where his family's wealth comes from, describing it as "sensitive." (His spokesperson says much of it comes from the oil and gas business.)
The irony, as with other earlier boomtowns, is that the very sources of Singapore's success may ultimately prove its undoing. The gushers of cash that have flooded Singapore in recent years have put relentless upward pressure on property prices, with private-home prices rocketing 59 percent higher since the second quarter of 2009, even as real-estate prices have tumbled or gone sideways in much of the rest of the world. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was only admitting the obvious, some analysts say, when in a recent interview he said that the country's property boom is "almost a bubble."
Singapore's "Gini coefficient"—the best-known economic measure of income disparity—is the second highest in the developed world. Wealth-X, a private consultancy that provides intelligence on the world's uber-rich, estimates some 1,400 ultra-high-net-worth individuals now hold more than $160 billion of wealth in Singapore. Even upper-middle-class natives find themselves unable to afford houses in some parts of the city-state, such as Sentosa Cove, where more than 60 percent of the houses are owned by foreigners. Some are put off by flashy displays of wealth, particularly when it is the wealth of foreign nationals.
The dazzling party scene, meanwhile, has brought a new kind of anything-goes culture to Singapore that is threatening the sense of order that helped make it so alluring in the first place. One of the more disturbing examples came in May 2011, when a Ferrari driver from mainland China, traveling at more than 110 miles per hour, crashed into a taxi after running a red light and killed himself, the taxi driver and a passenger. The accident triggered an outburst of anti-foreigner sentiment online, with some Facebook users creating a fake profile for the dead Ferrari driver with derisive comments against mainland Chinese. Although authorities have largely succeeded in keeping out the kinds of criminal elements that populate the shadows of casino capitals like Las Vegas and Macau, local papers don't shy away from reports of problem gambling in Singapore's two new casinos, with one local middle manager reportedly losing $400,000 in a single bet. On a recent Saturday night near Pangaea, seven police officers were seen arresting a topless Caucasian male for alleged drunken and disorderly behavior.
“The irony, as with earlier boomtowns, is that the very sources of Singapore's success may ultimately prove its undoing.”
Public expressions of anger or dissatisfaction with Singapore's transformations are limited, since protests for the most part are prohibited. Yet signs of unhappiness are multiplying. The city-state's ruling party retained power with its lowest percentage of votes in Singaporean history in 2011, and a thriving blog culture is prodding officials to consider some changes to the country's economic model, including the creation of a bigger social safety net for the poor, which likely would require higher taxes. Indeed, several of the country's leaders—who for decades staunchly defended long-standing policies of prioritizing economic growth above personal freedoms and welfare—seem to be doing some soul-searching. In his New Year's Day message, Prime Minister Lee called on the nation to balance material goals with its "ideals and values. We are not impersonal, calculating robots, mindlessly pursuing economic growth and material wealth," he said.
The rich in Singapore now find themselves with "new avenues to display their wealth," according to Garry Rodan, a fellow at the Asia Research Center at Murdoch University, while "aged Singaporeans with grossly inadequate savings can be seen on the streets collecting plastic bottles for recycling." Opportunities to move up the ladder, he says, are shrinking.
On the real-estate front, meanwhile, lawmakers have tried to deal with sky-high prices by introducing a 15 percent stamp duty on foreign purchases of private residential homes. Last year, the government also removed a program that allowed wealthy foreigners to "fast track" their permanent residency if they kept at least $8.1 million in assets in the city-state for five years, though investors who plan to dedicate a few million to help companies in Singapore grow are still welcomed. Authorities have repeatedly tightened the city-state's tight casino-control laws, already among the strictest in the world, to restrict some locals from patronizing gaming floors and to punish casinos if they fail to keep problem gamblers away.
Optimists say those steps may, in the long run, prevent Singapore from going down the same road as earlier cities-of-the-moment that burned bright and then flamed out, like Dubai. "The writing was on the wall in Dubai in 2007—we had made our money and it was time to move on," says Chris Comer, a property developer who is bringing the exclusive Nikki Beach franchise—a global chain of beach party clubs in St. Tropez, Miami and St. Barts, with girls in elaborate bikinis and patrons who show up in Caribbean pirate outfits or zebra body paint—to Singapore. Having lived in and out of Singapore for 17 years, Comer now resides in an oceanfront condominium in Sentosa Cove, a gated enclave of ultra-wealthy residents on an island 20 minutes from Singapore's city-center. His beach club venture—one that he insists is "recession-proof"—is particularly well-matched for the city-state, he says, nodding at the seven pages of used Lamborghini listings in the online auto classifieds.
"Singapore is my home, this is my base, this is where I feel safe," says Comer, speaking in the loft of his four-story office in a shophouse on Singapore's Ann Siang Hill precinct, a preserved historic area just off Chinatown.
Others aren't so sure about the future. They see youths burning through cash, and rich people who are totally oblivious to the sacrifices made by earlier generations that helped places like Singapore climb from Third World to First World status in just a few decades. "You see this happening often, one generation would make the wealth, and the next two or three will lose it," Ault says. Moreover, "there is a mathematical certainty that there is going to be an economic tsunami" at some point, adds Ault, who trained as an economist with degrees from Oxford and the London School of Economics and worked on Wall Street before becoming a nightclub owner.
Others are worried secretive Singapore won't be able to stay that way. The city-state, defiant against the label "tax haven," has taken steps to ensure its tax treaties allow for more information exchange on tax dodgers, most recently firming a double-taxation agreement with Germany. (A spokesperson from the Monetary Authority of Singapore says it works hard to report any "suspicious transactions.") Singapore is also forced to comply with new financial regulations—including the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, a way for the U.S. to ensure its taxpayers do not shirk payments through offshore holdings. This, Palan says, is a "game changer" for the private-wealth industry and will be used as a model by other countries.
Still, in the nightclub business—in which there's always another night, and more models and rich kids waiting in line for an exclusive party—it pays to be positive. At least that's how Ault, the highflying owner of Pangaea sees it. He figures that even if things do go awry, "Asia is better positioned." Singapore, his city of choice, he says, is "doing all the right stuff to stay on top."
—Sam Holmes contributed to this article.

Print this item

  fast-food chain Jollibee will be opening its first outlet in Singapore on Tuesday
Posted by: pianist - 10-03-2013, 09:29 AM - Forum: Others - No Replies

It will be located on the sixth floor of Lucky Plaza along Orchard Road and will have a seating capacity of 300.


Singapore, February 10, 2013

Popular fast-food chain Jollibee will be opening its first outlet in Singapore on Tuesday.

It will be located on the sixth floor of Lucky Plaza along Orchard Road and will have a seating capacity of 300.

Jollibee is a multinational fast-food chain that originated in the Philippines.

The fast-food chain is famous for its signature crispy fried chicken, Chickenjoy. Other notable items on the menu include Yumburger, a beef burger, and Jollibee Spaghetti, which is served with sweet tomato sauce and cut up ham and sausage pieces.

It was founded by Mr Tony Tan Caktiong in 1978. It is currently the largest fast-food chain in the Philippines, with 780 stores in the country.

As part of its international expansion plan, it has opened 92 other outlets around the world, in places such as the United States, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Jollibee Singapore is a joint venture between Golden Plate, a Jollibee Foods Corporation subsidiary, and the Singapore-owned Beeworks Inc.

The company was not able to confirm by press time if it is planning to open more Jollibee outlets in Singapore.

In a release to the media, Beeworks’ representative, Ms Jennie Chua, said: “We are very hopeful that Jollibee’s signature great-tasting food will be enjoyed by Singapore residents. We are thrilled to partner an old friend, MrTony Tan Caktiong, who is a foremost Philippine entrepreneur, to bring Jollibee to Singapore.”

Many Singaporeans are eagerly awaiting the opening of Jollibee here. A Facebook page for Jollibee Singapore, set up early this year, has amassed more than 17,000 likes.

Print this item

  $100,000 COEs? Car ownership scheme should be better managed
Posted by: Musicwhiz - 10-03-2013, 08:59 AM - Forum: Others - Replies (7)

The Straits Times
www.straitstimes.com
Published on Mar 10, 2013
$100,000 COEs? Car ownership scheme should be better managed

No policy should result in arbitrary price movements with no relation to economy

By Han Fook Kwang Managing Editor

When I renewed the certificate of entitlement (COE) for my nine-year-old car in 2010, I paid the prevailing premium of around $20,000.

I kicked myself for not doing so a year earlier when the amount was $5,000. But when the price rose after I made the renewal, to $60,000 a year later, I thanked my lucky stars.

A colleague whose Volvo is almost 10 years old says she will scrap it as she will not pay the $90,000 required to renew its COE now.

Her husband's experience is completely different, and he has a wide grin on his face every time he tells how he renewed the COE of his Mazda for $3,800 in 2009.

Three very different experiences over the same piece of paper that confers the right to own a car in Singapore.

Should policy work like this, resulting in people paying so very different prices over so short a period?

So, how many ways are there to lower COE prices?

Answer: As many as there are to raise them.

Indeed, there are many ways because the COE is a piece of paper created by the Government which has almost absolute control of how it performs in the market.

Want to raise COE prices? Here are three effective ways.

One, reduce the supply of COEs - the fewer there are, the higher the price will rise as buyers compete more aggressively for the reduced supply.

Two, lower the other ownership taxes, such as the Additional Registration Fee (ARF).

What will happen is that car buyers will use the savings from the tax reduction to bid higher COE prices because they will assume all the other bidders will do the same.

Three, relax the lending requirements so that more people will be able to take up loans to buy cars because the monthly repayment is now within their budget.

What if you did all three? You should bet your last COE dollar that prices will hit the roof.

In fact, that's exactly what the Government has done over the last 10 years.

In 2003, it lifted car loan restrictions which had been in force from 1995.

In 2002, it reduced the ARF from 140 per cent of the open market value of a car to 130 per cent, part of a planned reduction in the tax which was brought further down to 100 per cent in 2008.

And in 2009, it sharply reduced COE numbers to slow down the growth rate of the car population from 3 per cent a year to 1.5 per cent, and to 0.5 per cent this year.

Should anyone be surprised then that COE prices exploded, hitting the $90,000 mark?

In its defence, each of these changes could be justified on its own grounds, as indeed they were. But taken together, it was a recipe to break COE price records.

It shows how important it is for policymakers to be clear about what they want to achieve and to be wary of unintended consequences.

In this case, I do not think the people who decided to relax the lending requirements in 2003 realised what a major impact it would have on COE prices by encouraging more people into the car market.

Perhaps the official attitude then was that it didn't matter how high COE prices rose. Weren't prices merely a function of supply and demand? No one was forcing anyone to bid those prices and if there were people willing to pay, who was to say they were wrong, or that the scheme wasn't working properly?

Indeed that was the reply given by officialdom whenever the issue was raised - it was market forces that determined the price.

In reality, it was bad policy.

Alarm bells should have sounded much earlier that something was seriously wrong when the price of a piece of paper conferring the right to own a car was fast approaching $100,000.

The earth should have moved at the Ministry of Transport when Category A COE prices jumped so rapidly over just two years, from an annual average of $11,600 in 2009 to $68,200 in 2011.

No policy should result in such arbitrary price movements that bear no relation to the economy. It is also terribly unfair for one person to pay more than six times what somebody else paid two years ago.

And it's no good saying it's the free market working because the COE market isn't free. It's created by government and determined completely by policy.

There's clearly a need to manage the COE scheme better to prevent prices from moving so arbitrarily.

Of the three measures I mentioned above, the one I have the greatest problem with is the sharp reduction in COE supply.

That was the killer move with the greatest impact on prices.

Reducing the car COE supply from an annual average of 105,000 from 2004 to 2008 to just over 20,000 today was much too precipitous.

In fact it should be policy not to vary the numbers by more than a certain amount - say 10 per cent at most - from year to year to allow prices to adjust gradually.

The roads may be more congested as a result of such a gradual approach, and more usage measures such as electronic road pricing and parking restrictions may be needed to relieve local bottlenecks.

But it wouldn't have shaken confidence in the COE system which I fear is the case now, because people believe it works only for top earners.

Alas, having taken the decision in 2009 to slam the brakes on COE supply, it is very difficult now for the Government to reverse its policy.

It did the next best thing, which was to reimpose the lending curbs.

Whether that will bring down COE prices remains to be seen. Over the longer term, however, and as long as the COE supply remains tight, I'm not hopeful as there's enormous spending power at the top and the rich will not give up their cars.

For those not in that class, I believe the Government made the right decision through the lending curbs to discourage young Singaporeans from committing so much of their earnings to buying a new set of wheels.

This newspaper reported last weekend that owning a car at today's prices can cost the owner $1.6 million over his or her lifetime.

That's an awful lot of money, enough to finance the children's education or provide a tidy sum for retirement.

Time to get used to taking the MRT or bus to work as so many others do in major cities around the world.

In Tokyo, London, New York and even Hong Kong, very few people drive to work unless they are CEOs with chauffeur-driven cars.

Singaporeans cannot expect to be so different.

hanfk@sph.com.sg

Print this item