Investing in Options

I do not like to invest in options. My reasons are:

• The price of the option is decided by an expert who takes the other side of the trade. This expert is likely to fix a price that will give him a profit (after allowing for the future possible outcomes). As the other party to this "bet", the retail investor is likely to make a loss.
• It is possible for the option issuer to manipulate the price of the underlying shares to avoid making a loss. For example, if the option pays out a large sum of money when the underlying share hits a certain price, the option issuer will buy or sell the underlying share to avoid hitting the strike price. The cost of buying the manipulating the price of the underlying share will be lower than the  payout on the option strike.

If a retail investor wishes to speculate, it is better to buy or sell the underlying share, rather than buy an option. For long term investors, it is better to buy blue chip shares and keep for the long term to enjoy the dividends and the long term capital gain (and forget about short term fluctuation in the share price).

Lesson: Do not invest in options or other derivatives. Buy or sell the underlying share. Speculating in futures is all right, as the price is a direct reflection of the underlying share index.

Policing the Internet

I found this statement in Singapore Notes:

In the CNA Talking Point episode "Policing The Internet", MP (Tampines GRC) Baey Yam Keng claimed that the Ministry of Law sees the internet as another platform for real world criminals to operate from, and people need to be protected from fraud, cyber-bullying, etc. The timing of gazetting online blogs had nothing to do with policing the internet, he said with a poker face. While at it, he might as well add that the president's addendum had nothing to do with the online revelations about the circumstances of his son's 12 year deferment. The wording of the Ministry of Law statement on the subject goes like this:"The proliferation of new media has brought about new challenges to the rule of law and the ministry will review legislation to deal with harmful and unlawful online conduct". Smells like a good-cop-bad-cop routine is in play.

I am in favour of policing the Internet to make sure that it is useful for lawful purposes. This is to prevent people from doing harmful things while remaining anonymous. I know that it is difficult to police the Internet but it should not deter us from taking the challenge.

The first step is to lay down the law clearly and identify what are offences and crimes. Some examples are:

• Defamation
• Bullying
• Telling lies
• Cheating

These are offences in the real world, so it should not be different in the Internet world. The next step is to enforce the law and take action against the culprits. This is not different in the real world. Someone will report to the Police of an alleged crime. The Police will have to investigate and gather evidence to find out the culprit and charge the culprit in court. 

The next challenge is to have sufficient people to do the work. There is no short cut to enforcing the law - you need policemen and public prosecutors. These are good jobs - much better than having more people to be insurance and property agents!

I am also in favour of a requirement that people posting statements should be identified. They can use a pen name, but their real name should be registered somewhere and can be traced for accountability. I do not support people giving views and statements under anonymous cover, as the lack of accountability can lead to bad behaviour.

Some people feel that they have to be anonymous to avoid bullying by the people in power. This is not a good reason. If the people in power act badly, we should vote them out of office. But if they are elected, we have to live with the consequence, i.e. obey the rules and the law - including speaking with accountability.

Risk of Credit Default Swaps (CDS)

Suppose you bought Greek bonds and to protect yourself against default, you bought a CDS and paid a premium for this protection. The Greek government now offers repayment with a 50% "haircut" (i.e. you suffer a 50% loss) and you wish to make a claim on the CDS. Will you get paid for your loss?

According to this article, you will not be paid, as this is called a "voluntary settlement". On the other hand, there are many investors who were on the other side of the CDS during the Lehman crisis, and they lost all of their investments. It is "tail they win, head you lose".

Lesson: Avoid all types of complex instruments. Just invest in the STI Exchange Traded Fund or in blue chip share". Attend the FISCA Financial Planning talk - http://easyapps.sg/assn/Org/Event.aspx?id=5

DBS High Notes Investors Lose Appeal

It is sad that the retail investors lost the appeal with cost. This means that they lost their investment and also have to pay their lawyer's fees. So, their loss is compounded.

Singapore Investors Lose Bid to Recoup $14 Million Lehman-Related Losses

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-02/singapore-investors-lose-bid-to-recoup-lehman-related-losses-on-appeal.html

The Bloomberg article did not mean the words "with cost". I remember reading it in the newspapers.  I believe that this meant that the investors also have to pay the legal fees of DBS Bank (but I need someone to confirm this fact).

In contrast, read this Good News for Pinnacle Notes Investors

Collapse of MF Global - the lessons

Read Lucky Tan's article here.

The collapse of MF Global in the USA have a direct impact on retail investors in Singapore. They have money in their accounts with this brokerage firm and are worried that they may not be able to get their money back.

This brokerage firm lost a lot of money in the European bonds. It was reported that they might have transferred some of their client money to cover these loses.  It could be a big mess.

600 million missing in MF Global

This raises the issue about financial institutions, such as banks and brokerage firms, being involved in large scale speculation with their shareholder's money and, through illegally means, with their client's money. How can it be prevented?

I recall reading about the Glass Stegall Act in the USA which used to separate investment banking (where the speculation is carried out) from commercial banking (which has the fiduciary duty of looking after the money of their clients. This Act was passed during the Great Depression - after the lesson of the global financial collapse in 1928 - to address the same problem. With the passage of time, the lessons were forgotten and the key provisions of the Glass Steagall Act was repealled. This allowed the replay of the same drama.

Here is a description of the Act from Wikipedia:

The Banking Act of 1933, Pub.L. 73-66, 48 Stat. 162, enacted June 16, 1933, was a law that established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and introduced banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation.[1] It is most commonly known as the Glass–Steagall Act, after its legislative sponsors, Senator Carter Glass (D–Va.) and Congressman Henry B. Steagall (D–Ala.-3). Some provisions of the Act, such as Regulation Q, which allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts, were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, named after its co-sponsors Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia).[2][3]
The repeal of provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks.

What are the lessons for today? Financial services and banking have to be more strongly regulated. Some specific measures include the following:

• To separate investment banking from commercial banking

• To require all trust account to be held by the banks, and not the brokerage firms. However, the law has to be updated to make it convenient to operate these trust accounts conveniently and through electronic means - and still retain the value of a third party oversight.

If these measures are not addressed, we will continue to see a repeat of other failures, similar to MF Global.

Singapore's crime rate

Lucky Tan asked:

Singapore has the highest prison population per capita after USA among developed countries. We have the 2nd highest rate of incarceration in South East Asia. Our rate of imprisonment is triple that of Malaysia. There is this poster that the SPF put up around housing estates that says "Low Crime Rate Does not mean no crime". If our crime rate is low, why are there so many people imprisoned? The USA has a large prison population because the crime rate is high.
http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/2011/11/singapores-high-prison-population.html