Yesterday it was reported on Bloomberg news that facebook's co-founder Saverin is renouncing his us citizenship. The shocking part of the story is that he is living in Singapore.

It seems Singapore must be a really nice place to live in if you are a rich person.

The first rich guy i heard to move to Singapore was Jim Rogers. now its Saverin.

What is it in Singapore that is so good that these guys want to live here. i just don't quite get it.

A timely reminder!

The Straits Times
May 11, 2012
Commentary
Beware investments too good to be true
Esoteric products may be unregulated so buyers have no legal recourse

By Magdalen Ng

INVESTORS now have access to a smorgasbord of investment products. Gone are the days when equities and bonds were the main tools by which investors could grow their money. A large variety of investment products ranging from straightforward 'vanilla' products to complex derivatives catering to the sophisticated investor are easily available.

But as interest rates sink to all-time lows, many of the investments traded on recognised exchanges are also failing to deliver satisfactory returns.

Investors are being tempted by much more esoteric investments that range from land banking, wine and gold-dealing, to even livestock. These are very attractive investments which promise returns that can be as high as 30 per cent or more.

But these returns clearly come with heightened risks.

Most, if not all, of these alternative investment products are unregulated.

Unlike unit trusts and other regulated financial investments, which can be sold only by licensed financial advisers, brokers who deal with such alternative investments are not.

Similarly the marketing materials for regulated products are subject to stringent regulation such as the font size of disclaimers and fine print details.

Consumers find themselves on shaky ground should the investment company go bust.

For example, when 1,400 investors were left in the lurch by local land banking firm Profitable Plots, there was little recourse for investors as the company was not regulated by any specific statute.

The firm did not come under the Financial Advisers Act, for example which is legislation that gives the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) regulatory powers over such advisers.

Neither does land banking come directly under the Securities and Futures Act as the investors are holding a direct interest in small plots of land which they hope to sell en bloc at a later price, as opposed to them acquiring securities related to the land.

MAS has long held the stand that it strongly encourages consumers to deal only with regulated entities. A list of these firms can be found on their website. For those who choose not to heed the advice, the old adage of 'buyer beware' applies.

What the MAS does do is maintain an Investor Alert List which names unregulated persons who, based on information received by MAS, may have been wrongly perceived as being licensed or authorised by MAS.

When the list was first put out in 2004, the MAS said that this was to provide an 'early warning' to consumers that if they dealt with these unregulated entities, they would not be protected by the MAS.

Potential investors will have to protect themselves by conducting the requisite background checks on the companies or investment schemes in question.

But during this period of low interest rates, many investors cannot help but be drawn to the attractive returns dangled by these investments. Should more regulation be put in place before another large collapse occurs?

Investor watchdog Securities Investors Association of Singapore (Sias), is one party that has called for the regulation of such investments.

Mr David Gerald, president of Sias, said: 'Currently, there are sufficient laws to protect investors from mis-selling or fraud, but the MAS needs to intervene in the case of complicated products which may not be easily understood by the regular investor.'

Certainly, not everything can or should be regulated. To do so would be to place a huge administrative burden on the agencies involved. There is also an inherent tension between allowing consumers free choice, and protecting the mostly unwitting among the general public from being cheated.

But more can be done.

Singapore could take a leaf from the books of countries such as the United Kingdom, and regularly review the scope of its regulation and consider extending it if necessary.

Since 2000, collective investment schemes - including land banking - have been defined as a regulated activity under their Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

Under the Act, anyone who operates a collective investment scheme will have to be an authorised person, unless he is specifically exempt by legislation.

An agreement made in contravention of the Act will be unenforceable, and monies paid to a person flouting this rule can be recovered on top of compensation in respect of losses incurred.

Mr Justin Ong, asset management partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers, also noted the vastly different legal culture and landscape between Singapore and the United States, for instance. In the US, individuals are generally more litigious, and they can also rely on a very comprehensive and robust set of consumer protection laws to take action against the investment scheme operators.

Where regulation is not feasible, perhaps the Government could give more 'legal teeth' to consumer watchdog Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) in the case of these unregulated investments. Case currently has limited powers to demand restitution from companies in respect of complaints on alternative investments.

Such grounds could include the omission of material information, misrepresentation, misleading information, or taking advantage of persons of unsound mind.

But it always takes two to tango, and the onus should remain on the customer to do as much homework as possible before making any investment decision.

The discerning consumer should turn away from products he does not fully understand, or which seem too good to be true.

Failing that, he will have only himself to blame, and have to grin and bear the consequences if he ends up poorer.

songyuan@sph.com.sg

This article reveals the truth I guess - the car population has been growing despite the high COE prices, so COE ends up being just another tax which fattens the Govt's coffers without any concrete effects on congestion! As I've said before, the solution is not to limit the car quota or even ERP like what Christopher Tan is suggesting - it is to tighten up on the financing of the car and reduce the loan tenure period. This should see an immediate effect! My views.

The Straits Times
Apr 30, 2012
commentary
Time to rethink COE system?
No real slowdown in car population growth, just inflation, social discontent

By Christopher Tan

IF THE purpose of the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system was to slow the growth of Singapore's vehicle population, it hasn't been working all that well. At least, not when it comes to cars - the main target of the quota system.

The system, officially called the Vehicle Quota System, was put in place in May 1990 as the Government deemed the prevailing vehicle growth rate of 3.5 per cent unsustainable in the long term.

The system was to cap growth at 3 per cent per annum, to be in line with the pace of road network expansion and me-dian income growth of Singaporeans.

An analysis of growth trends 20 years before the system was introduced in 1990, and 20 years after it, shows the car population has, on average, been growing faster post-COE than pre-COE.

According to data from the Registry of Vehicles and the Land Transport Authority, the average growth rate was 3.5 per cent per annum from 1971 to 1990. It rose to 4 per cent from 1991 to 2010. The growth rate after COEs were introduced was 14 per cent faster than before.

Why? Here's one theory: Before the quota system, consumer behaviour was influenced more acutely by factors such as economic slowdowns, oil crises and changes in tariffs. But with a quota system in place, consumers become shielded from natural market forces. While the quota system put in place a growth ceiling, it also established a 'floor' that prevents the market from collapsing - even in the depths of recession.

An example of the latter was well demonstrated in 2004, when Singapore sank into a deep recession. Car sales grew 19.2per cent that year.

The year before, when the country was in the throes of the Sars epidemic, sales grew 29.1per cent.

But what would have happened if there had been no quota system in place? Would Singapore have become as gridlocked as cities like Jakarta, Manila and Bangkok?

Maybe. Then again, maybe not.

While growing income tends to fuel the desire to own cars, there comes a point when the pattern goes into reverse.

A paper written by United States transport researcher Joyce Dargay and economist Dermot Gately (Income's Effect On Car And Vehicle Ownership Worldwide: 1960-2015) asserts that car ownership grows slowly when income levels are low. When a country reaches 'middle-income' status, the ownership growth rate becomes twice as fast. And when income goes beyond a certain level, the car ownership growth rate actually reverses.

The global car market today confirms this. Car sales in developed markets such as America, Europe and Japan are slowing, while sales in China and India are in the fast lane.

Singapore's per capita gross domestic product ($63,000 last year) is among the highest in the world. So, even if its car ownership growth rate was relatively fast in the 1990s (assuming the COE system was not in place), the pattern could well have gone into reverse gear by the mid-noughties.

Today, when COE premiums are heading towards record levels, the quota system causes unintended ill-effects too. High inflation is one. Ironically, public transport fare adjustments are influenced greatly by the inflation rate.

The other major ill-effect is social discontent. Like all auctions, the COE system favours those who are most able to pay. When the supply of certificates is constricted (as it is now), COEs invariably end up mostly with wealthy consumers, who buy bigger and costlier cars.

Interestingly, this contrasts with a common criticism of the high ad valorem taxation regime preceding the quota system. When car registration taxes added up to more than 220 per cent of a vehicle's open-market value (OMV, or roughly its pre-tax cost) before 1990, well-heeled buyers complained that the system placed an inordinately high penalty on bigger, pricier cars.

Car taxes today amount to 120 per cent of OMV.

If there was an attempt to incorporate social equity into the quota system by segregating COEs according to car engine size, it is now negated by an increasing number of premium brands with small-engine models.

In the first quarter of this year, brands such as Mercedes-Benz, Volvo and Audi accounted for 45 per cent of sales in the up-to-1,600cc COE segment. Five years ago, they had a mere 0.3 per cent slice of the segment.

This only serves to widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

So, after 20 years, perhaps it is time we took a long hard look at the COE system, to examine its relevance and to see if it can be improved upon.

In doing so, it might be useful to look at how other cities without a quota system have coped - Hong Kong, for instance.

Hong Kong has 59 cars per 1,000 residents - half of Singapore's 117. Taipei has 250 cars per 1,000 residents, but the annual mileage of cars there is half that of those here. Ditto Tokyo.

New York is another example. The Big Apple is one of the wealthiest cities in the US, but its car ownership rate is among the lowest (230 per 1,000 residents).

These cities share a common denominator: a superior rail network and limited parking facilities. In the case of New York's Manhattan, 60 per cent of work trips are made by public transport. In Hong Kong, the figure is 90 per cent.

None of them has a quota system, or even high taxes on cars. They rely instead on letting the motorist bear the brunt of driving: jams and the frustration of not being able to find parking.

That, however, exerts a huge environmental cost. Singapore can do better. We have electronic road-pricing. All we need now is a policymaker brave enough to expand the gantry network and treble or quadruple ERP rates.

After all, it is ultimately congestion we are tackling. ERP, if priced right, will be more efficient at controlling congestion than a vehicle quota system.

And if a quota system is deemed still necessary, we should have one without the sharp supply fluctuations that send premiums to $90,000 in one year, and $5,000 in another.

christan@sph.com.sg

When the news starts talking about shares trading in the PRIME section, you know it's trouble!

The Straits Times
Apr 29, 2012
The shady side of penny stock rallies
Big market swings blamed on 'pumping and dumping' by trading syndicates

By Yasmine Yahya

Small, cheap stocks, some costing as little as one or two cents apiece, have been driving up market volumes to astonishing heights in recent weeks, yet nobody seems to know who is trading these 'ultra pennies'.

Remisiers and analysts hint that it could be the work of 'trading syndicates' - groups of full-time stock market traders who work together to amass large amounts of certain stocks in order to push up their values and then profit by selling them off.

Veteran stock market observers term it 'pumping and dumping'.

Such groups have been around probably as long as the stock exchange has been in existence, said Phillip Securities remisier Desmond Leong.

Yet there is little concrete information on who these traders are.

They made their presence felt recently through a number of ultra penny stocks, including JEL Corp, Advance SCT and TT International. The market capitalisations of these three firms - the total value of all their tradable shares - range from $35 million to $127 million.

All were inactive stocks that suddenly became hot overnight for little or no discernible reason.

JEL Corp, for example, had been thinly traded for at least three years. On an average day, fewer than two million of its shares changed hands.

But on March 30, its trading volume shot up to 115 million for no apparent reason. The stock price jumped 57 per cent that day, from 0.7 cent to 1.1 cent.

The stock price and volume continued to rise and gradually began drawing the attention of retail investors.

Never mind that the firm was on the Singapore Exchange watchlist for posting repeated losses.

Investors saw a cheap stock on a seemingly uninterrupted trajectory skywards.

Last Wednesday, JEL shares chalked up a trading volume of one billion and ended the day at a year's high of 12.2 cents, making it 17 times more expensive than it had been just three weeks before.

And then the syndicate traders began cashing out.

The very next day, JEL stock tumbled 4.4 cents, and on Friday it fell another 1.4 cents. In just two days, the stock had lost almost half its value.

Mr Leong said this perfectly encapsulates the reason why he discourages his clients from joining penny stock rallies, especially if the share in question does not have good business or financial fundamentals.

'These stocks can rise very fast within a short period of time, but once they start falling, they fall just as fast, if not faster.'

After all, these syndicates are waiting to profit on the stocks that they have amassed and the only way they can do that is by selling them at jacked-up prices to willing buyers.

Once they have sold off all their stock in a particular company - and nobody knows when that might be - the buyers will find that overnight, trading volume has vanished and the share price is declining rapidly.

But savvy punters who are able to monitor the stock market throughout the day can and have profited from penny stock rallies.

Mr Charles Chua, a remisier who also trades stocks with his own money, recently made a winning bet on TT International.

He noticed that the stock had been rising steadily since April 9, when its price shot up 38 per cent in one day.

On April 19, he bought TT shares at 11.5 cents apiece. Just three days later, he made a 48 per cent profit by selling them at 17 cents.

'I made a small amount of money,' he said.

This is not the first time that Mr Chua has punted on such stocks, which, in his own words are 'highly speculative, highly volatile and with zero fundamentals'.

He uses a program called Meta- Stock, which helps him to filter out what he calls 'break-out' stocks.

These are shares that fulfil three criteria: they have been thinly traded for at least a year, their volumes have suddenly increased sharply and their prices have shot up dramatically.

'I monitor them for a while, and if I see that they continue to rise, I will join the party for a few days, or up to two weeks,' he said.

Penny stocks continued to dominate trading on Friday, but analysts say their time is almost up.

NRA Capital executive chairman Kevin Scully noted that in the past, such rallies had been cut short when trading reached such a frenzied level that brokerage houses got spooked.

In 2009, for example, at the height of a penny-stock rally, UOB Kay Hian told its customers that they could no longer use their Internet trading accounts to buy or sell shares in five small chip firms, including Jade Technologies, Transcu Group and Ban Joo.

Trading in all penny stocks died down soon after, Mr Scully recalled.

History could be repeating itself soon. UOB Kay Hian on Thursday listed 13 penny stocks that its customers are no longer allowed to trade online, including Artivision, Digiland and JEL.

OCBC Securities has banned Yoma Strategic and JEL from online trades.

'So trade carefully, but try not to jump in if the shares have already spiked, and if there are no accompanying fundamentals to justify the spike,' Mr Scully said.

yasminey@sph.com.sg

I discovered something rather unusual when I entered my buy order for a particular counter today. My bid price was one bid higher than the last bid price and so I would expect my order to be in the front of the queue. It was not, there were x numbers of buy volume in front of me at the price I bid. I then re-enter a new price at one bid higher than the last and when I submit my order, the same x numbers of buy volume was in front of me again. Not convince, I tried again by submitting a new order at a one bid higher price and the same thing happened, the same x numbers of buy volume was in front of me.

I then removed my order. And guess what? That x volume also disappeared.

Anyone has similar encounter?

Is it a public body issuing reprimands or a private club?
By
Lynette Khoo

Court debate: Mr Singh and Mr Tan have locked horns in the court over SGX's hybrid nature

[SINGAPORE] Is the Singapore Exchange (SGX) a public body exercising a public function when reprimanding companies and their directors? Or is it a private club, dealing with its members?

The question was hotly debated yesterday after a former independent director (ID) of China Sky Chemical Fibre sought to have a public reprimand from SGX overturned by the court.

SGX is "not a creature of statute" and its relationship with listed companies is a contractual one, said Davinder Singh, chief executive officer of Drew & Napier LLC, who represented the Exchange.

Its power to reprimand companies or directors is not subject to judicial review since it is rooted in private law, he added.

Tan Cheng Han, a consultant at TSMP Law Corporation, contested this view. "To the extent that the Exchange is exercising a power that is inherent or necessary for the proper regulation of the securities market in Singapore, it is exercising a power of public character," he said.

The two Senior Counsels locked horns on the grey area of SGX's dual commercial and regulatory roles yesterday in court in an unprecedented lawsuit brought by a former director of a listed company against SGX.

Yeap Wai Kong, former ID of China Sky, wants to overturn a public reprimand from SGX through a quashing order from the court. The company and its directors were publicly rapped on Dec 16 after the group's failure to comply with SGX's directive to appoint a special auditor.

SGX's hybrid nature has long been a source of market debate but the lawsuit has probably brought the discussion on the source of its powers in court for the first time.

Representing SGX, Mr Singh stressed that SGX's position is different from that of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), which is a statutory body that regulates the securities market and SGX itself.

Under Singapore's "unique framework", companies that seek to be admitted into the official list enter a "consensual submission" to abide by SGX listing rules.

SGX's power to reprimand arises because "the Company and the Applicant (Mr Yeap) both agreed to be bound by the Listing Rules, thereby consensually submitting to the Exchange's power under Listing Rule 720(4) to issue the Reprimand", Mr Singh said in his written submissions for SGX.

"Like any other private club, the Exchange has rules governing the conduct of its members, and seeks to ensure compliance with its rules. This does not lead to the conclusion that the Exchange was exercising a public function in issuing the reprimand."

Companies are obliged to abide by SGX rules and they can say "no" to any SGX directive only through the Board, he added. Mr Singh pointed out that announcements by China Sky rejecting SGX's directive were issued "by order of the Board" and there was no evidence that Mr Yeap had disagreed with them.

"Distinction between the Board and its directors is an artificial one," he said. "To say that there is a need for notices to be issued to individual directors is a weak point".

Judicial review is a review of the manner in which a body makes a decision. In a judicial review, the court is concerned not with the merits of a decision but the process by which that decision has been made.

Representing Mr Yeap, Mr Tan argued that since the court has already decided that it has jurisdiction to hear this case, the decisions made by SGX are susceptible to judicial review.

"A hybrid body like SGX that discharges a public function is under the obligation to act judicially or fairly," he said, adding that SGX did not give Mr Yeap an opportunity to be heard before issuing a public reprimand on him, hence breaching natural rules of justice.

"I can find no piece of correspondence or a phone call from a SGX representative to the applicant to say that it is issuing a public reprimand to him and 'please explain yourself'," Mr Tan argued.

Neither was there a show-cause letter to Mr Yeap, similar to the ones issued to China Sky and another independent director at that time, Lai Seng Kwoon.

Mr Singh argued, however, that a show-cause letter was issued separately to Mr Lai because he was asked to explain his personal role in the interested person transactions with China Sky and his potential conflict of interest as chairman of the audit committee.

SGX had in January applied to the court to compel China Sky to comply with its directives, but executed a sudden withdrawal of its court application within two weeks without any reasons given.

"I find it strange that the respondent (SGX) is not pressing the company now to appoint auditors but is allowing the public reprimand to stand," Mr Tan said.

Mr Yeap was appointed to China Sky's Board in May last year before quitting on Jan 12 with two other IDs, Er Kwong Wah and Mr Lai, citing the company's non-compliance with SGX's order.

The Commercial Affairs Department is now probing Fujian-based fibre maker for possible breaches of securities laws after a number of irregularities were flagged by SGX.

MAS has also sought a court order to freeze the assets in Singapore belonging to the former chief executive of China Sky, Huang Zhong Xuan.

I thougt german made washers are top class... so I bought BOSCH when they had a promotion.

My 8kg german made machine $1400, 6 mths only, broke down.

Call for service - 8 days lead time. Call their service centre - they tell me too many calls, earliest is this date.

Left my number with the service centre, ask the service manager to call (got his name), he never bother call back.

My previous Electrolux 13 years, got to change due to whole body corrode badly... now product quality extinct liao.

Another reader also similar problem...

we have changed from Bosch sometimes ago due to similar problem....we had dishwasher and washing both from Bosch....after about 1 year or so, they kept breaking down and every time service guy from the company visited to repair it, the bill was typically in excess of $200 for part and labor....soemtime even $400+.....so I thought enough is enough and we have changed brands for both now and very happy ....cheers.

I am not sure. It does not sound like a working solution.
Who is going to foot the bill?

I am quite sure it will straightaway lead to major price inflation and the ones who suffer will be the lower income earners.

The right way is to tax the rich people more and reduce the cost of living via price control over basic neccessities.(housing and transport are two easy targets).

As for food, it is time for ntuc to do more than upgrading its image by going high class(ntuc finest???).


Does Singapore need Economic Restructuring II?


by Lim Chong Yah
04:45 AM Apr 10, 2012
As a solution to the new problems of increasing income inequality and the excessive reliance on cheap foreign labour import, I would like to propose Economic Restructuring II, operational for three years, with the following six features.

Sizable pay increase

for lowest income workers

One, that all workers' pay below S$1,500 per month be cumulatively increased by 15 per cent in year one, 15 per cent in year two and 20 per cent in year three.

This increase is applicable to all workers, local or foreign, if he or she draws a pay of less than S$1,500 per month. A dollar quantum is also to be included in the increase pay package.

Part of pay increase to Skills

Development Fund and CPF RA

Two, that one-third of the increase pay package be channelled to the Skills Development Fund (SDF), one-third in the form of take-home pay and the other third to the CPF Retirement Account.

For foreign workers, it will take the form of ex-gratia payment upon leaving Singapore on expiry of tenure.

The SDF should be reactivated, revitalised and reinvigorated to perform the functions of training and retraining of workers, mechanisation and technological upgrading, and better employment of labour through redesigning in labour use.

The restructuring momentum has to be regenerated and sustained. The buzzwords should continue to be "use one worker instead of two".

Moratorium on pay

of highest income groups

Three, those who receive S$15,000 a month or more will have their wages or salaries frozen for three years only during Economic Restructuring II.

There is no proposal for a pay cut or a pay ceiling or super-taxes for high-flyers, only a moratorium on pay increase for three years.

The intention is not to frighten the geese that lay the golden eggs. No Wall Street protests of the kind in the United States should ever be envisaged.

Moderation for middle income groups

Four, those whose pay is between $1,500 and $15,000 a month will receive a quarter to a third of those less than $1,500 a month. A portion should still go to the much inadequate CPF Retirement Account.

Government co-payment of SDF

Fifth, the state (or the Government) should contribute to the SDF on a 1-to-1 quid-pro-quo basis to demonstrate tripartite commitment, participation and responsibility in the new economic restructuring process.

Involvement of National Wages Council

absolutely necessary

Six and lastly, like in Economic Restructuring I, the modus operandi of Economic Restructuring II - including the operational details - should be discussed and decided upon by the tripartite National Wages Council, which has to forge consensus by the three tripartite social partners, as in 1979.

AIMS OF Economic restructuring II

The basic objectives of Economic Restructuring II are:

To check and to halt and, if possible, to reverse somewhat the disturbing increasing income inequality trend;

To increase productivity, total factor productivity, as a growth target; and

To check and to halt the trend towards increasing reliance on very much cheaper imported labour to generate quantitative GDP growth.

The overall objective must be, and should be, to enhance further the quality of life of all those who live and work in Singapore and, in particular, for those whose home and country is Singapore.

With Economic Restructuring II, we will have a stronger, more robust, and more productive economy, and a fairer, more just society.

NOT EASY BUT ...

It is much more difficult to have national economic restructuring now than three decades ago. The politico-economic and the socio-economic environment have changed.

But what has not changed, however, is that we still have effective tripartism and we still have a government and the Civil Service that are among the best in the world in cleanness, integrity and ability.

Economic restructuring needs a national will. Do we have it now - as we had it then, a little more than three decades ago - but now, we are faced with a new set of economic problems, which may be called the problems of economic success?

Previously, we called (it) Growth with Equity. Now, we call (it) Inclusive Growth. I have no doubt that Economic Restructuring II will bring Inclusive Growth to a more respectable and a more meaningful level.

I recognise, however, that Economic Restructuring II as proposed by me is but one way of achieving the aims of Inclusive Growth - probably, in my view, the best way.

Lim Chong Yah is Albert Winsemius Chair Professor of Economics and Director, Economic Growth Centre, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University. The article is an excerpt of a speech, Does Singapore need Economic Restructuring II or another 'Wage Revolution'?, which he gave at the Economic Society of Singapore Distinguished Speaker Public Lecture Series at the Orchard Hotel yesterday. The views expressed are his own.

Business Times - 09 Apr 2012

Invest Fair 2012 attracts more than 15,000 people

Early birds wait as long as 30 mins for door to open on Sat

By ARTHUR LEE

ABOUT 100 people waited patiently for the doors to Invest Fair 2012 to open on Saturday morning, with some standing in line a full 30 minutes before the event started.

Into its sixth annual edition, Invest Fair - hosted by ShareInvestor, the financial Internet media and technology subsidiary of Singapore Press Holdings - was held at Suntec City over two days.

More than 15,000 people - from youthful-looking professionals to silver- haired retirees - attended. They had some 40 seminars to pick from.

The event's theme 'Invest with Knowledge' brought together several industry experts.

Richard Duncan - author of The Dollar Crisis: Causes, Consequences, Cures, a top 10 bestseller on Amazon - spoke about investing in today's difficult times.

He is perhaps best known for his views on the risks for an economy that is driven by credit creation and consumption.

'Creditism' may have created extraordinarily rapid growth for decades but it now seems to have hit its limits because the credit that has been extended can no longer be repaid.

Other speakers included Kevin Scully, executive chairman and founder of NRA Capital; Song Seng Wun, executive director and regional economist with CIMB Research, and Robert Miles, author and internationally-acclaimed Warren Buffett scholar.

Said Christopher Lee, chief executive of ShareInvestor: 'Invest Fair 2012 offers a platform for investors to find out more about investment opportunities across different asset classes.

'Working closely with The Business Times, Invest Fair has grown over the years to be the one-stop educational hub for investors to learn, share and, in the process, grow their wealth.'

Patrick Daniel, editor- in-chief of SPH's English and Malay Newspapers Division and chairman of ShareInvestor, said: 'SPH wants to help retail investors make well-informed investment decisions.

'This year's Invest Fair follows the launch of the BTInvest portal, which integrates our products and competencies in the areas of investor education and investor relations.'

Thought I'd just share an article I've read on Yahoo News today. Not sure if it's the right section to post this so moderators please shift this to the appropriate section if I'm wrong.

Quote:There are many investment strategies employed by experts in the stock market. They are based on different values, different time horizons and different risk profiles. There are three stock investment strategies that I use from time to time. They are strategies based on value, growth and income.

1. Value investing
Value investors usually concentrate on calculating the book values of assets such as cash, cash equivalents and fixed assets. The rationale is that the market is irrational and may misprice these stocks. During an economy downturn, cyclical stocks such as property, and oil & gas stocks can often be picked up at huge discounts to the valuations. The investors believe the stock price will ultimately move to more precisely reflect the value of these assets.
Other valuation techniques use relative valuation techniques such as Price-to-Earnings (P/E) and Price-to-Book-Value (P/BV) ratios. One would compare P/E and P/BV ratios against past trends of the stock itself and also within the industry to determine if the stock is undervalued. However, some stocks may take a long time to converge to its fair valuation. One would have to assess the potential capital gain against the opportunity loss from the holding period.

2. Growth investing
Growth investors focus on stocks which have high growth potential. Growth investors typically examine historical growth rates of revenue, EBITDA and earnings to predict the future trends. They also will identify catalysts with the potential to multiply earnings such as new products and new drugs. However, some of these stocks can be extremely speculative or even manipulated, depending merely on news and catalysts.
A lot of growth investors use Price Earnings Growth (PEG) ratios — which is calculated by (Price / Earnings) / (Annual EPS Growth rate) — to determine valuation for growth stocks. That is because the P/E ratio may be too high to justify an investment. Also, there are instances where the company may be making losses currently; hence the only way to value it is using forward P/E.

3. Income investing
Income investing in my opinion is the most important strategy. Income is generated from dividends and hence dividend yield and dividend growth are the key criteria. Dividend yield is also a way to determine value. When the dividend yield is high, the stock may be considered undervalued and the stock may be considered overvalued when the dividend yield is low. The track record of the historical dividend payments is also essential — make sure that the companies pay reliably and progressively raise dividends. The payout ratio and dividend cover ratio are also used to study the sustainability of the future dividends.
Which of these strategies do you use in your own investing? Share them with us in the comments below!
Calvin Yeo is the founder of the Making Passive Income blog.

Posted via www.MoneyMatters.sg, your guide on how to make more money, save smarter, invest intelligently, and enjoy your money like a pro. Click here to get our free report on what you must know about financial freedom.