Sunday, December 10, 2017

DW December 2017 Portfolio Update - The Warrior Returns

Current Portfolio Value: $426k 
Projected Annual Dividends: $21.6k 
Projected Monthly Dividends: $1.8k

Top 5 Holdings (48.6% allocation)
1) Frasers Logistics & Industrial Trust (BUOU)
2) Mapletree Logistics Trust (M44U)
3) SingTel (Z74)
4) Mapletree Commercial Trust (N2IU)
5) OCBC Bank (O39)

8th Anniversary of Investing Journey
Last month was the 8th anniversary of my investing journey. A journey packed with ups and downs. I still remember buying CMT, Suntec & Starhub in 2009 as a wide-eyed beginner, like it was just yesterday. Honestly, this portfolio I have built exceeds way beyond my expectations. It seems like yesterday when I just achieved my $200k milestone ( Interesting to see how my portfolio has evolved over the last 4 years.
‘Badges’ big and small were earned. Euro debt crisis (PIIGS), Grexit turmoil, U.S. debt ceiling crisis, Arab Spring, Japan's earthquake & subsequent Fukushima nuclear accident, Fed QE Taper Tantrums, Hong Kong ‘Umbrella Movement’, Brexit, Fed rate hikes, Trump election victory, China market crash (still remember the circuit-breakers being triggered on consecutive days), O&G crisis.
Nevertheless, I focused on growing my portfolio & dividend income through all these fears and so-called ‘crises’. All the while, taking those analysts’ and experts’ reports with a spoonful of salt. Things are seldom really bad or really good. As long as we keep earning, saving & investing, the compounding effect will reward us over the long-term. 

2017 Review 
As 2017 comes to an end, I must say this year is set to be one of the best years for my portfolio’s total returns. Unlike 2016, there was no roller-coaster ride (except the occasional colourful war of words between Trump & Kim). My portfolio grew from 3 contributing factors.
1) Sustained rally in the 3 local banks
2) Unexpected recovery of REITs since the lows of December 2016
3) Fresh injection of capital + re-investment of dividends received

As I am heavily vested in S-REITs and banks, my portfolio outperformed the STI slightly with a time-weighted return of +23.4% in 2017. My best-performing stock would be DBS, almost +60% y-o-y total returns. Worst-performing stock would be RMG with a -21.8% y-o-y decline. As I returned to my roots and started re-building my income portfolio, its size grew steadily from $388k in June to $426k now. Collected $20.7k dividends in total, which translates into $1,725 per month.

Power of CD
Dividend Warrior

Saturday, December 9, 2017

Comfort - Uber Partnership, Good or Bad?

This article is re-posted here with the approval of a member (Hachiko) from the InvestingNote platform.

Finally compiled a list of positive & negative views from as many members as I could. Tried to tidy up the points. Feel free to comment below if you need me to add more points (provided they are reasonable)


1) With Lion City Rental (LCR) operations off their hands, hopefully Uber can focus on what it is supposed to do best. Improve their routing and pricing algorithm to compete against Grab. One has the booking apps and big data expertise and one has the fleet management and service expertise. 
Both can focus on their expertise. Uber on improving the apps and algorithm, fare and integration/development of different booking services. Cdg on fleet management, utilisation and cost efficiency on maintenance and servicing. The collaboration can also establish themselves as a premium operator as Cdg/Uber have a larger and newer fleet compare to Smrt/grab.
2) Potential increased rental revenue from the larger car fleet.
3) With CDG’s decades of taxi rental and fleet management experience, it will manage and rent out the cars properly and profitably. CDG will not burn cash. The acquisition price is below NAV, $40k per car (3-year old car), can you buy a 3-year old car now at $40k in Singapore? Another bonus, reports mentioned the money for the acquisition is paid by internal funds, it will not affect the EPS so dividends will not be cut. Their automotive workshop is empty, so just nice LCR cars can come in for servicing & repairs.
4) CDG acquired the car rental business at a discount instead of premium price. if things don't work out they can sell, scrap or export the cars but they get to use Uber booking app platform and to fight directly with Grab.


1) Judging from the sharp decline of price this entire week, it is possible that insiders already knew about this deal and they are not sanguine about it.
2) CDG itself is already struggling to rent out its taxis. Its fleet has shrunk steadily throughout 2017. The number of drivers applying for new taxis has also fallen off sharply in recent months. LCR has lots of unleased cars too parked at Big Box, Peace Centre, Textile Centre, etc but the sheer volume of cars seen here is telling of their struggle. LCR is loss-making. It is bleeding cash.
So, this makes taking over LCR a bad idea. A bad car rental based company sticking to their dying model, and sinking another large sum of money into another rental based company, which has a similarly sullen reputation from the issues that they give drivers when they are returning their rental vehicles (word on the street). This feels like CDG is throwing more good money into a sinkhole.
3) This deal feels like CDG is paying Uber to use its platform/software. CDG paid their fair proportion of net assets of a loss making company just to participate in the private hire market. Few years ago, Grab approached all taxi companies to collaborate and CDG was the only one who refused to. The other smaller players all joined. CDG could’ve participated using Grab’s Platform without paying for it. Now it’s paying 51% of the net assets of a loss-making company with a lousy partner (Uber).
Grab is so much stronger than Uber, they wisely stayed in South-east Asia where they have competitive local know-how, without stretching themselves thin.In comparison, Uber is a joke. They are fighting wars on so many fronts, many of which are not actually related to operations. (Sexual harassment suits?!)
4) Uber is primarily a tech company. It is not interested and not able to run a car rental management company in the long-term efficiently. So, Uber is more than happy to ‘offload/dump’ its huge fleet of cars to CDG. This is also why Grab was unwilling to completely buyout SMRT taxi.
5) LCR has $1 billion debt as at Dec 2016.
6) LCR may be under CPIB probe.

Friday, November 17, 2017

5 Things Singaporeans Don't Know About End-Of-Life Planning

Unexpected costs can make palliative care for a loved one dauntingly expensive. Take note of these 5 points to avoid getting caught in a financial bind. No matter how long medical science extends our life, we all have to face the reaper. In the final years and months, as our loved ones await the inevitable, the last thing we want is more stress for money reasons. Hence, it’s important to prepare financially for the twilight years of our dependents and family. Here are five key things to note.
Insurance May Not Cover Palliative Care Equipment
Palliative care is, contrary to popular belief, not “care for those who are definitely going to die”. Palliative care can, and often is, coupled with medical treatments that continue trying to prompt recovery. That said, one factor that’s often ignored is the prohibitive cost of palliative care. For example, say the dying person would prefer to be at home (especially if the end could come at any time). This may require the rental of medical equipment, such as oxygen tanks, dialysis machines, or other devices that would usually only be available in a treatment centre or hospital. Some insurance policies, however, only cover the cost of treatment when the patient goes to a centre or hospital. The policy may not cover the rental of medical equipment for palliative care, which might mean you have to pay out of pocket. If you have a loved one who may nearing the end, and they want to spend their final days at home, speak to your financial adviser quickly. If your policy does not cover palliative care at home, you need to know early to plan for the costs.
Hiring a Caregiver May Not be Optional
Many families make the mistake of assuming they can care for the dying. In truth, it’s rarely as straightforward as we imagine. Certain illnesses may mean the loss of coherency, or the ability to communicate. For example, advanced stages of Alzheimer’s may mean your loved one is unable to recognise you, and may often be angry or agitated. This can be difficult to bear with day-in and day-out, over the course of several years (particularly if a sole family member is placed in charge). You also have to acknowledge your own physical limitations, if you’re the main caregiver. It’s difficult to be available around the clock; and if you’re elderly yourself, you may endanger your own health by having to lift or carry the patient. No matter how determined you are to look after the dying by yourself, budget for a caregiver just in case. Seek out agencies that specialise in this, and approach your neighbourhood community services if a private caregiver is beyond your budget (many HDB estates have volunteers from grassroots communities, who can lend a hand).
Medical Costs Most Certainly Will Increase Significantly
Contrary to popular belief, switching to palliative care doesn’t mean medical treatment will be cheaper. For example, patients who are in intense pain may require more expensive painkillers, and patients with multiple health problems may need a whole regimen of drugs on a daily basis. Even if medical costs do fall, they may not drop as much as you assume. You must also be prepared for situations where medical costs increase, during the last few years. For instance, a cancer patient may initially pay a lower cost, by choosing not to have chemotherapy. Later on however, they require more frequent ambulance trips, or longer hospital stays in intensive care. This can be mitigated with the correct whole life insurance policy, or even basic term insurance. Many policies pay out a lump sum for terminal illness, which will more than cover the costs; speak to a financial adviser about complementing MediShield Life with such policies.
Denial Can Break You Financially
This is the greatest hidden danger in end-of-life care. Studies in countries like the United States have shown that, when loved ones come down with incurable conditions or illnesses, denial is the immediate response. No matter how level-headed you usually are, the reality of such a situation can change you. Most families push for aggressive and expensive intervention, in some cases even falling for scams (e.g. fake “miracle cures” that extort tens of thousands of dollars from them). This situation is aggravated if the dying person can’t communicate, and hasn’t declared their intent. For example, if your dying parent is on life support and in a coma, should you make the decision to end their life? Doctors will carry on medical care if the dying person has not signed a Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) order, and if the family does not give consent to end treatment. However, every month of medical care could rack up thousands in medical bills, and even insurance benefits will eventually run out. It’s best to discuss such situations early. Families are more likely to overcome their denial, and take steps to end it if the dying patient makes their wishes known.
Bad Credit Can Seriously Hurt You
You’ll often find yourself confronted by unexpected costs, when caring for the dying. From emergency room visits, to flying abroad for experimental treatment, the number of unknowns and variables are staggering. Even the old rule of thumb – saving up six months of your expenses – may not suffice. For example, you may be in situations where you not only need to pay for medical treatment, but you also face permanently reduced income (e.g. you need a job that allows you more hours at home, to provide care). The chances are high that, at some point, you will need a loan from the bank. This is where previously bad behaviour, such as paying your credit cards late, could come back to haunt you. Banks are not obliged to lend you the full two to four times your monthly income for personal loans – especially if they see that you’ve applied for several large loans quite recently. What will convince them to fork out a big loan is if you’ve proven reliable, over the course of many years. There’s nothing more painful than being denied credit for a major operation, which could potentially prolong the life of your loved one. Be responsible with credit, to ensure you can get it when it’s most needed.'s #1 personal finance comparison platform by transaction volume, provides consumers with timely money insights and aggregates the latest credit card offers and up-to-date personal loan deals.

Monday, November 13, 2017

7 Common Things Singaporeans Don't Realise Are A Waste Of Money

From health supplements to single-serve consumables to cable channel packages, here are 7 common ways Singaporeans waste money. We all have impulse purchases, which we make without thinking. If we learn to control these, we would have much more cash to spend on the things that we do care about. The following items aren’t really things that we love; they’re the habitual, money-wasting purchases that we should weed out.
1. Bottled Water
Singapore is currently suffering from a S$134 million bottled water addiction. This is mostly because (1) we don’t like to carry water bottles, and (2) we consider it disgusting to drink from a public tap, especially when most of them are in public toilets. That causes us to end up spending S$1 to S$1.20 for bottled water, which is no different from tap water. But while S$1 may not seem like much, consider that a rising number of Singaporeans buy a bottle of water as often as twice a day. That comes to around S$60 a month, or about S$730 a year. That’s enough to fund a weekend family getaway to a nearby country.
2. Multi-vitamin Supplements
Medical studies have shown that multivitamins (and related vitamin supplements) do virtually nothing for your body. Even worse, some could be dangerous. In the United States, which has largely the same brands of vitamin supplements we do, studies of 54,000 different brands showed that only a third of them had any sort of safety standards. 12 per cent of them (a stunning 6,480 brands) were actually found to be dangerous, potentially increasing the takers’ risk of disease. Many of the claims made by vitamin brands, such as improving concentration or preventing loss of bone density, have been debunked. And as it turns out, you can’t “megaboost” the vitamins in your body by taking pills – once your body has enough of a particular vitamin, it will naturally reject any more; it doesn’t matter how many more pills you take.
3. Cable Channel Packages (Instead of Internet Streaming)
Singaporeans like to buy bundled cable TV channels, just out of laziness. It’s tedious to compare prices and shows, and half the time we have access to channels that we never watch. It’s a total waste of money, especially in an age when we have services like Netflix (just around S$15 per month). Before you buy cable television channels, ask yourself if you’d have problems watching shows on your tablet, phone, laptop, etc. instead. If services like Netflix already have the shows you want, you may be better of skipping the cable channels. (Some thrifty Singaporeans have even gotten rid of TV altogether, reasoning that all their favourite shows are on the Internet anyway).
4. Unnecessarily High Interest Rates
Many Singaporeans are averse to thinking about interest rates, or topics like refinancing. It’s common to hear them insist they “don’t want to deal with that stuff”. It’s a pity, because they waste tremendous amounts of money that way. For example, if you have a S$5,000 credit card debt growing at 26 per cent per annum, there’s a simple way to reduce that interest to just six per cent: You could look for a cheap personal instalment loan at six per cent per annum, borrow S$5,000 on it, and then use the money to pay off your card. Just like that, your debt has gone from 26 per cent per annum to just six per cent. With online banking, all of this can be done in a matter of minutes; but we’re often too lazy, and thus end up paying unnecessarily high interest.
5. Credit Card Fees
Many banks (not all) will give you fee waivers for your credit card, if you just call and request for it. Credit card annual fees range from around S$200 to several hundreds per year – but if you repay your card reliably, and you actively make use of it, many banks may not mind processing a waiver. In fact, some of them even have a specific button for it, on the call centre support system. (Other cards reward you with points or air miles for paying your annual fee. This is often at a superior exchange rate than normal, so you should definitely consider taking advantage of it.) Whether you decide to pay your fees, or to get them waived, there’s no harm in spending a few minutes to make the request. At the end of the year, that S$200+ can go toward funding your Christmas and New Year gifts.
6. Travel Insurance (At the Last Minute)
Travel insurance not only protects you against accidents, it can also covers trip cancellation or postponements. However, you need to have the travel insurance plan in place before such an event. For example, if you buy travel insurance today, and two weeks later your trip is cancelled due to natural disasters, you’ll be able to make a claim. But if you hadn’t bought the insurance yet, your trip would be cancelled, and the money paid for flight tickets and lodging would be a total write-off. Of course, travel insurers love it when you buy at the last minute. You see, when you buy travel insurance exactly as you’re leaving, you pay for protection you don’t use – part of your premium was meant to cover you in the event of a cancelled trip. Hence, the fiscally responsible option here is to buy travel insurance once you’ve decided to go on a trip. Consider buying an annual plan if you go for multiple trips per year.
7. Single-serve Consumables
Do you use a lot of jam or peanut butter? Or how about margarine? If your household makes regular use of these items, stop buying them on an ad hoc basis. In other words, don’t pop into the store to get a few whenever you need them. The prices of small or single-serve packs can be up to 50 per cent higher, when compared to buying in bulk. A good example of this is milk: the difference between 600 milliliters and a full litre can be as high as S$2.50 for some brands. If you just buy the full litre, you’re effectively getting the fourth bottle for free, as opposed to buying the smaller bottle all the time. That’s not forgetting the increased waste your household will be generating.'s #1 personal finance comparison platform by transaction volume, provides consumers with timely money insights and aggregates the latest credit card offers and up-to-date personal loan deals.

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Is Investing The Same As Gambling?

There are plenty of myths about investing, among which is the comparison between investing and gambling. Here’s why they are nothing like each other. There are plenty of misconceptions about investing, but the most overused comparison is between investing and gambling. This is far from correct, as the comparison finds only one element (risk), and declares the two to be similar. Here’s why proper investing is not like gambling.

The Confusion Between Investing, Speculating, and Gambling
There are two main types of investors in Singapore. There are investors who put their money on an asset for the long term, such as people who buy index funds and hold on for 15 to 20 years. Then there are traders: investors who aim to buy low and sell high, to see a return as quickly as possible. There’s also a third type of “investor”, who is more properly called a speculator. These types put money on small chances, such as funding a start-up, in the hopes that they will see big rewards. Intelligent speculators are aware that they’ll lose money most of the time, but all it takes is one big payoff to make it all worthwhile. Which of these are like gambling? The one that comes closest is speculating, but even then, none of them is truly like gambling. Here’s why:

    Proper investing skews the odds toward you in ways gambling never will
    Gambling is almost always a zero-sum game
    Investing is only like gambling if you treat it as such

Proper Investing Skews the Odds Toward You in Ways Gambling Never Will
A well-understood rule of gambling is that “the house always wins”. The longer you gamble – be it at a jackpot machine or a Poker table – the more you tend to lose to the casino. The odds have been calculated to skew things in their favour. With proper investing – especially long term investing in blue chips or index funds – the opposite is true. There is a historical precedent for stock prices and property prices to rise in the long run: while it may not be true next year, it will almost certainly be true over 15 or 20 years. For example, look at Singapore’s property asset prices since 1976: While this doesn’t completely remove the possibility of a loss, it does mean the odds are skewed in your favour. In a casino, time is on the casino’s side. But when you’re a long term investor, time is on your side instead.

Gambling is Almost Always a Zero-Sum Game
When you gamble, the outcome always involves a winner and a loser. For you to win, the casino – or another player – has to lose. This isn’t always the case when it comes to investing*. Say you invest in a property that’s worth S$1.2 million. By the time you’ve paid it off  25 years later, its value has appreciated to S$1.7 million. The extra S$500,000 isn’t a “loss” to other property investors – you haven’t taken it from them, it’s grown as a result of the overall economy/property market becoming more developed. The same goes for assets like stocks, which grow in value as the company develops. When you gamble however, the winner’s gains always come from the loser. For the casino to win, you have to lose, and vice versa. The problem with zero-sum games is that, in the long run, one player tends to walk away with almost everything, whereas the majority of players will walk away with a loss (observe the typical Poker table, or jackpot session). *Some forms of high-risk trading, such as options trading, may be zero-sum games. But these are not typically available to lay investors.

Investing is Only Like Gambling if You Treat it as Such
There is a way for investing to become gambling, and that’s if you treat it as such. If you decide to buy and sell stocks based on “intuition”, or superstitions (e.g. the stock price matches your car’s license plate), then it indeed becomes a form of gambling. What sets investing apart is that the odds can be in your favour, if you make reasoned decisions. This means properly diversifying your assets, learning to read the fundamentals of a company before buying its stock, and being disciplined enough to follow a system.

But What About Speculating?
Speculating is not like gambling, because it is even less predictable than gambling. When you gamble, the risks are known. For example, if you are playing Blackjack, you know the main risk is going over 21, or that the dealer will have a number higher than you. As such, you can develop systems to deal with those risks: if you draw an 18, you should stand. If you draw a nine, you need to hit, and so forth. When it comes to speculating, the real world introduces so many variables that such systems are hard to develop. The start-up you invest in may turn out to be a scam, the land you bought in Nicaragua may be re-zoned as a garbage dump, and your investments in a developing country may be void as a result of a civil war. You may know some of the probable risks, but there are too many others for you to account for all of them. While expert gamblers can tell you the odds of a round, such as “10 to 1” or “47 per cent”, most speculators honestly don’t know how their investments will turn out. Their “game” is governed by fewer rules, and encompasses too many possibilities. That’s why speculating is only ever done by investors who can afford the losses. A billionaire, for example, might place two per cent of her portfolio in a company that might create the next Facebook, or might go bust in two weeks with nothing to show for it.'s #1 personal finance comparison platform by transaction volume, provides consumers with timely money insights and aggregates the latest credit card offers and up-to-date personal loan deals.

Thursday, August 24, 2017

Why Singaporeans Are Angry About Not Owning Their HDB Flats

When you buy an HDB apartment, do you own your flat, or are you merely leasing it for 99 years?
There has been an ongoing debate the past few weeks, over whether or not Singaporeans “own” their HDB flats. Some of it is due to confusion over terms used in documents (e.g. where the term “tenant” is used instead of “owner”). But it stokes an old worry among Singaporeans, that they don’t “truly own” their flats. Why does this matter? It’s as much psychological as well as practical:

Do Singaporeans Own Their Flats?
HDB has stated, many times, that Singaporeans who buy their flats do own them. However, it would be more accurate to say that HDB has provided a definition of what ownership means, by HDB’s standards. HDB has said that Singaporeans own their flats because they can sell them, rent them out, and do other things that owners would be able to do. However detractors argue that there’s no real ownership, due to the 99-year lease, and the many restrictions that don’t apply to private property. For example, you can rent out a whole private property immediately, whereas you have to wait for the Minimum Occupancy Period (MOP, currently, 5 years) for a HDB flat. There are also neighbourhood and block quotas that have to be considered, when renting out to foreigners. Ultimately, it comes down to a definition debate: do you own something if there’s a lease, and there are restrictions? So while there’s no clear answer there – it’s strictly a matter of perspective – it’s important to look at why the issue of ownership means so much to Singaporeans. After all, if you have a roof over your head, it’s affordable, and it generally appreciates in price, what’s the difference? Well, here’s why it’s a sticking point:

    There’s increasing worry about the 99-year “timebomb”
    There are estate planning issues
    The right to make money off your flat
    Psychological and political factors

1. There’s Increasing Worry About the 99-year “Timebomb”
This is the biggest bone of contention for most Singaporeans. HDB flats have leases that expire after 99 years, after which they are returned to the government. To be fair, this isn’t specific to HDB flats or even Singapore. Many private properties also have 99-year leases (commercial properties typically have 60-year leases), and these types of leases are used in some other countries as well. That said, there’s a worry that when your flat’s lease runs out, you may be too broke to afford a new one. And of course, you may find it hard to sell your flat once there are 30 years or less on the lease (buyers can’t use their CPF to buy it from you). The government has stated, quite clearly, that we can’t always count on the Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS). There is a very real possibility that our flats will slip into their last 30 years, be impossible to sell, and then see us booted out to find a new house. To some Singaporeans, that means the S$1,800 to S$3,000+ they pay every month (a typical range for HDB flat loan repayments) is nothing more than rent.

2. There Are Estate Planning Issues
While Singaporeans can, of course, leave their flat to their children/grandchildren, there are many restrictions to consider. For example, the beneficiaries may be forced to sell the flat, if they currently already own private property. In a broad sense, this is because HDB flats are meant to provide housing, not to act as investments. But it remains a sore point among some Singaporeans, who feel they should be able to leave such a legacy, when they’ve spent 25 to 35 years of their lives paying for it. Which leads to…

3. The Right to Make Money Off Your Flat
Ask some Singaporeans, and they’ll tell you true ownership of a property means they can use it how they please – that includes using their flat to make money. If they have to work under stringent restrictions, such as controls on how and who the flat can be sold/rented to, then they aren’t really owners. To be fair, HDB flats are sold at subsidised prices (due to the various housing grants). Many would argue that HDB restrictions are justified, given that the aim is to provide affordable housing, and not an appreciating asset. But then – detractors will argue – don’t call it ownership. It’s (indirectly) a form of renting from the government.

4. Psychological and Political Factors
There’s a great sense of relief in fully owning a house, from which you can’t be kicked out (such as with freehold property). Many people will never feel the comfort of home ownership, unless it happens on those terms – they want a house that will stay in the family for generation unto generation. Politically, this is about denying the government its bragging rights. Currently, Singapore has the second-highest rate of home ownership in the world (above 90%). However, if we were to redefine HDB ownership as a type of leasing scheme from the government, that accomplishment would be a fraud, and have no choice but to be struck off.

Either Way, These Debates Miss the Main Point
Singaporeans certainly have a long conversation ahead, on whether we really own our HDB flats. But this mainly semantic or academic issue needs to give way to a broader one: Singaporeans in possession of older flats may need to start budgeting, especially if they’d be retired when their flat lease runs out. They need to plan without the expectation of SERs, and stockpile enough savings that they can afford another house (even if the flat they are living in goes back to the government without a single cent paid).'s #1 personal finance comparison platform by transaction volume, provides consumers with timely money insights and aggregates the latest credit card offers and up-to-date personal loan deals.

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

Why Singaporeans Should Not Rush To Buy Bitcoin Right Now

Now that bitcoin is valued at US$4,000, some Singaporeans are wondering if it’s worth investing in bitcoin. Here are some things to know first.
Bitcoin has steadily raised in value this past year and hit the US$4,000 mark last week. This has led some Singaporeans to question if bitcoin, or any other cryptocurrencies, are the “thing to get into”. After all, endowment plans look boring at 5% per annum, while Bitcoin has quadrupled its value over the year. But here are some things to know first:

What Caused the Recent Surge in Bitcoin Value?
In a word, North Korea. Due to fears of nuclear tests and possible war in the Korean peninsula, stock markets are in a panic (stock markets like to find something to panic about every few years, and they’ve decided this event is it). When there are fears of global instability – such as would be caused by the outbreak of war in Korea – investors flee to safe haven assets and alternatives. Gold and the Japanese yen are two such safe-haven assets, and gold is also at a two-year peak. One aspect of Bitcoin is that it’s often touted to be a fixed “store of value”, such as gold. The idea is that, as there’s a finite number of them (there’s an intended cap of 21 million bitcoins), their value won’t crash like fiat currencies (such as the US dollar). And, of course, Bitcoin is not tied to the fate of any one country, as no government issues it. This may add to the impression of “safety”. But this is as much a drawback as it is a benefit – as no government backs Bitcoin, that can make it hard to use as payment outside of niche markets.

Before you rush to buy it yourself, here are some key things to consider:
    It may be too late to buy bitcoin now
    Cryptocurrencies are a form of speculation
    Cryptocurrencies can be hard to spend or liquidate

It May Be Too Late to Buy Bitcoin Now
If you decide to buy bitcoin right now, after hearing about the big surge, you’d be buying high. The price of bitcoin may already have peaked (it had to happen before the news covered it, obviously), so anyone who buys right now are taking a dangerous bet. 

Despite bitcoin being at its highest ever recorded value, you’re counting on it to go even higher. That outcome is based on a volatile geopolitical issue: it depends on how North Korea reacts to current tensions. If North Korea does back down – or agree to do so due to concessions – then bitcoin values (like gold and the Japanese yen) can wind down just as quickly as they spiked.

Cryptocurrencies are a Form of Speculation
As the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has warned, cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin remain a speculative investment. Bitcoin is volatile, and has gone through several spikes and crashes. When these happen, the price movements in bitcoin don’t happen in small increments. Their value follows a whipsaw pattern, and it’s not uncommon to see losses or gains happen in increments of 20 per cent or more. While big gains are possible, it’s equally possible to lose much more than you initially invested. That makes bitcoin appropriate only if you’re looking for a high-risk alternative to complement your portfolio; it’s definitely not something to stake your life savings or retirement fund on.
Cryptocurrencies Can Be Hard to Spend or Liquidate
The main worry with bitcoin – and other cryptocurrencies – is the collapse of secondary markets. If things look bad, few investors will be ready to buy (even if they are, it will be at an extortionate price). When this happens, there are few avenues to exchange your Bitcoin for cash. One of the long term issues with bitcoin has been its lack of use in mainstream markets: you can’t go ezbuy or Carousell and start buying things with it or spend it in your grocery store. This results in a situation where, if bitcoin crashes, your only solution is to (1) sell it for dirt cheap to the few people willing to buy, or (2) hold on to it and hope it recovers, risking the loss of your entire investment if it never does. In any case, this means that money committed to bitcoin is likely to stay that way. You can’t cash it out without risking a loss – so make sure you have other savings on hand before you buy into it.'s #1 personal finance comparison platform by transaction volume, provides consumers with timely money insights and aggregates the latest credit card offers and up-to-date personal loan deals.

Friday, August 18, 2017

Is Game Of Throne's 'Iron Bank' A Veiled Criticism Of The IMF?

The Iron Bank of Braavos is the most powerful financial institution in the Game of Thrones. It controls the fate of nations, just like the real-world International Monetary Fund (IMF). In the Game of Thrones series, the Iron Bank of Braavos is the world’s most powerful financial institution. As the only “multinational” bank in its fictional setting, the Iron Bank controls the fate of powerful individuals and nations alike. This will all sound familiar to some people. These criticisms echo real world fears of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

What is the Iron Bank of Braavos?
In the Game of Thrones (GOT) series, the Iron Bank is an ancient financial institution. It’s founded by a group of traders, who used to hide their wealth in an abandoned iron mine (hence the name). As the bank grew in power, it gained the ability to finance entire kingdoms. In particular, the kingdom of Westeros is deeply in debt to them. As far back as the first season, Eddard Stark is shocked to hear the kingdom of Westeros owes three million gold dragons to the Iron Bank (and the same amount to House Lannister). In season three, Tyrion Lannister points out that the Iron Bank likes to finance a kingdom’s enemies, when said kingdom doesn’t repay its debts. True enough, the Iron Bank secretly backs Stannis Baratheon, who attempts to claim the throne for himself. A common saying of the Iron Bank is that “the Iron Bank will have its due”. Many rulers are both dependent on it, and afraid of it at the same time.

What is the International Monetary Fund (IMF)?
The IMF is a financial organisation dedicated to economic stability around the world. Founded in 1944, the IMF currently has 189 member countries, and its roles include fostering free trade, fueling economic growth, and reducing poverty around the world. One of the central roles of the IMF is loaning money to countries in distress. During the Greek Financial Crisis, for example, the IMF played a role just as vital as the European Union (EU). Unfortunately, the IMF has just as many critics as it has supporters. It’s often accused of interfering in local politics and having an inordinate degree of influence in how countries are run.

The Iron Bank Seems to Be a Veiled Reference to the Ugliest Sides of the IMF
The “Iron Bank” metaphor isn’t restricted to the IMF. It’s also partly inspired by the Italian city states in the later Renaissance, where banking was born. But it does seem to be a caricature of all the accusations often hurled at the IMF. These accusations, in the real world, pivot around how the IMF can influence the development of local politics, and hijack a country’s sovereignty. 

In a recent bailout to Egypt in 2016, for example, the IMF attached austerity measures – conditions such as slashing certain forms of social support – in order to bring the national budget back in line. These measures can significantly alter the lives of citizens. Cost cutting can mean that citizens suffer slashed pensions, see their housing subsidies dry up, receive fewer education grants, and so forth. But these are conditions the IMF can indeed impose, as the price of its loan. 

The behaviour of the Iron Bank in the GOT series embodies everything critics fear about the IMF. When the Iron Throne of Westeros seems unable to repay its debt, the Iron Bank goes on a programme of what – in our real world – would be called “regime change”: they fund Stannis Baratheon, a challenger to the throne. Despite being a complete outsider, the Iron Bank is able to influence Westeros better than even the kingdom’s own people (and many of its lords). The Iron Bank also has a tendency to maximise its leverage, by calling in due loans at the worst times. After Tywin Lannister’s death, the Iron Bank calls in a tenth of the amount they’re owed, which is twice the amount of money that the kingdom actually has. However, the Iron Bank should have realised the kingdom would be in no position to pay, precisely because of the chaos following Tywin’s death. This is another criticism commonly levelled at the IMF. Their loans are virtually impossible to repay (by design or bad management), because of the nature of countries that borrow heavily. Countries that tend to be mired in debt – such as during the rebuilding from a war, or from a collapsing economy – are the ones that need big loans from the IMF. Countries that are well-developed seldom need the IMF, and are often the ones contributing to it. Yet this perpetuates a system where vulnerable or developing countries are perpetually stuck in debt; and they have to live in fear of the debt being called in, if don’t listen to the IMF, or its major contributors. Notice that once Cersei repays the debt, the Iron Bank immediately offers another loan. But why would they? Westeros is ravaged by war, winter is coming, and there’s a big risk they wouldn’t be able to repay it. 

There’s only two possible reasons the Iron Bank would extend such an offer: short-sightedness on their part, a desire to hold Westeros in control with their wealth, or even a combination of the two. This mirrors the dual accusations often hurled at the IMF, which either paints them as incompetent, or as political manipulators.

The Real World IMF is Not So Simplistic
Volumes can, and have, been written about whether the IMF is a boon to societies. For all its faults, the IMF has done a lot to help developing and disaster-struck nations. The Iron Bank seems to be based on only the darkest and most negative stereotypes affixed to the IMF, along with snide references to the nature of banking (the Iron Bank was founded by slaves, and now in turn enslaves others through money). Perhaps Cersei should follow up on that idea of Westeros having its own bank.'s #1 personal finance comparison platform by transaction volume, provides consumers with timely money insights and aggregates the latest credit card offers and up-to-date personal loan deals.