I hope Sunday Times will give more examples of successful individuals who got rich from economically useful activities rather than glamorizing those who got their wealth from not-so-useful activities.
There are useful risk-taking activities and there are not-so-useful risk-taking activities. Useful risk-taker are entrepreneurs who create new products/services that change our lives for the better while making money for themselves. No one will begrudge them for being rich. All of us respect Steve Jobs and mourn his death. None will accuse him of being an undeserving rich.
Sad to say, not-so-useful risk-takers are the young investors/traders frequently highlighted on Sunday's news articles. Not wanting to be hypocritical, I am also one of the useless risk-takers. At the risk of sounding offensive, that includes many of you on this forum. I apologize in advance.
For Singapore to become successful, we have got to cultivate more useful risk-takers. Where are our Samsung, Foxconn, Acer, Lenovo? We are too reliant on foreign MNCs. I hope Sunday Times will talk more about the rich entrepreneurs rather than rich speculators. Please inspire our young to become useful entrepreneurial risk-takers who create real things rather than speculators who move in and out of financial markets but creating nothing of real value.
(07-11-2011, 10:02 AM)hyom Wrote: [ -> ]Sad to say, not-so-useless risk-takers are the young investors/traders frequently highlighted on Sunday's news articles. Not wanting to be hypocritical, I am also one of the useless risk-takers. At the risk of sounding offensive, that includes many of you on this forum. I apologize in advance.
Haha.. yes indeed. Many of us are basically indulged in useless activities that basically exploiting stock market inefficiency. Actually, I am fine if the activity forms part of effort to manage uncertainty in life but to treat it a career for life, I think our future is bleak.
We are cultivating a whole generation of youngsters that aspire to earn their living through exploiting inefficiencies(stock market, forex, commodities) and churning money for their clients.
Warren Buffett may be the most successful investor ever but his contributions to human race pales in comparison with Thomas Edison, Graham Bell, Henry Ford and Bill Gates. These guys produce outstanding products and services and at the same time, make a living for themselves.
Quote:Haha.. yes indeed. Many of us are basically indulged in useless activities that basically exploiting stock market inefficiency.
I couldn't agree with you more. I vaguely remember you mentioning your day job as an engineer. I am confident you create more value to society as an engineer than as an exploiter of the inefficiencies of the financial markets. Indulging in indirect self-praise because I am also an engineer myself. Haha, let's be honest with ourselves. Would we engineers who create value for others rather exchange place with bank proprietary traders who make lots of money for themselves?
Quote:Actually, I am fine if the activity forms part of effort to manage uncertainty in life but to treat it a career for life, I think our future is bleak.
The future is bleak for Singapore's economy as a whole but for those individuals, it is not bleak at all. Fund managers* and proprietary traders working under big, protective financial institutions to exploit the financial markets certainly have a much brighter future than 99% of us.
*The hedge-fund managers who put a big part of their net worth into their own fund are excluded. I respect them if they become rich because their losses are not socialized. Only genuine alpha can win them riches. How many fund managers can claim to have real alpha power?
(07-11-2011, 10:30 AM)yeokiwi Wrote: [ -> ]Haha.. yes indeed. Many of us are basically indulged in useless activities that basically exploiting stock market inefficiency. Actually, I am fine if the activity forms part of effort to manage uncertainty in life but to treat it a career for life, I think our future is bleak.
We are cultivating a whole generation of youngsters that aspire to earn their living through exploiting inefficiencies(stock market, forex, commodities) and churning money for their clients.
Warren Buffett may be the most successful investor ever but his contributions to human race pales in comparison with Thomas Edison, Graham Bell, Henry Ford and Bill Gates. These guys produce outstanding products and services and at the same time, make a living for themselves.
Well, I would argue that exploiting stock market inefficiencies are akin to proper investing and therefore cannot constitute a "useless activity". If we follow the logic of stock market investing - the reason why companies are able to go public and for the public to purchase their shares is because they offer a useful product/service to begin with. So the practice of investing actually encourages entrepreneurship and risk-taking in a "useful" and productive manner.
Granted, there are numerous start-ups with dubious business models which go public under the guise of providing a useful product/service, but without such innovations and entrepreneurial thoughts, the world would not be what it was today!
(07-11-2011, 10:02 AM)hyom Wrote: [ -> ]Sad to say, not-so-useful risk-takers are the young investors/traders frequently highlighted on Sunday's news articles. Not wanting to be hypocritical, I am also one of the useless risk-takers. At the risk of sounding offensive, that includes many of you on this forum. I apologize in advance.
I think to be fair to ST, not all of the young people highlighted are of a speculator/risk-taking nature. Some of those featured in Business Times Starting Young section actually do seem rather sensible and at least they know how to manage their money.
(07-11-2011, 11:20 AM)hyom Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Haha.. yes indeed. Many of us are basically indulged in useless activities that basically exploiting stock market inefficiency.
I couldn't agree with you more. I vaguely remember you mentioning your day job as an engineer. I am confident you create more value to society as an engineer than as an exploiter of the inefficiencies of the financial markets. Indulging in indirect self-praise because I am also an engineer myself. Haha, let's be honest with ourselves. Would we engineers who create value for others rather exchange place with bank proprietary traders who make lots of money for themselves?
include me in as part of the group (Since i am an engineer too..lol)
Pre-2008, i had dreams to join the financial industry 1 day until i witnessed the immense greed and little value it brings to society at large.
Of course one could do philanthropy after he becomes rich to contribute back to mankind, but i reckon there's a lower probability for financial folks with oversized egos with self indulgent lifestyles, to do so.
So, if the choice lies before me now, i would choose an engineer. Pre-2008, it was the other way around.
It is pretty depressing to hear alot of bright prospects in spore, inspiring to join the financial sector after they graduate..when MAYBE, they could utilise their gifts in the sciences and make that litle more contribution to society/mankind at large.
there are very very few successful entrepreneurs who do not find themselves in (financially) embarrassing situations as time passes. this gives the straits times very little to talk about. if you notice over the years, they frequently report only on the successes of several companies.
singapore's latest growth plan is to be a big player in the financial services industry. naturally, straits times will have a hand in promoting such growth. when they are not showcasing super bankers from wealth management, we have novice super traders who turns 5k into at least 100k. strange. i thought the concern was about investors using cfd platforms facing difficulty in liquidating their positions? why did the papers instead report on the big potential gains (and losses), and youngsters who experience moderate to great success in leveraged trading?
i would have thought the papers would discuss on how such derivative products are structured, the counter-party risks involved, what regulations are present (if any) that mas has to protect retail investors, and how retail investors can protect themselves. investors are more concerned to know how protected their monies are in their broker's trading account. either straits times correspondents are of such poor quality to be unable to conduct any investigative work, or they have a separate agenda to make its readers dumber.
(07-11-2011, 11:44 AM)Musicwhiz Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2011, 10:30 AM)yeokiwi Wrote: [ -> ]...
Well, I would argue that exploiting stock market inefficiencies are akin to proper investing and therefore cannot constitute a "useless activity". If we follow the logic of stock market investing - the reason why companies are able to go public and for the public to purchase their shares is because they offer a useful product/service to begin with. So the practice of investing actually encourages entrepreneurship and risk-taking in a "useful" and productive manner.
i think what hyom and yeokiwi were trying to say is that, exploiting market inefficiencies is not economically productive. in other words, it does not produce any good or service. therefore, an investor does not contribute to society, apart from the money he spends in the economy. the time taken to seek undervalued counters could be used to plant trees, or solve mathematical problems; both of which allow others as well as yourself to benefit from your labour. as opposed to investing, which only benefit yourself.
(07-11-2011, 10:30 AM)yeokiwi Wrote: [ -> ]Warren Buffett may be the most successful investor ever but his contributions to human race pales in comparison with Thomas Edison, Graham Bell, Henry Ford and Bill Gates. These guys produce outstanding products and services and at the same time, make a living for themselves.
Correction, same as Bill Gate, Warren Buffett committed to donate majority of his assets to good cause.
Even though Steve Job brought a new experience to electronic products, do you see him openly contribute back to the society in big time?
*Disclaimer! They are all great people, but when you look at their contributions back to society, you will see the big heart they have.
(07-11-2011, 03:01 PM)VIChris Wrote: [ -> ]Correction, same as Bill Gate, Warren Buffett committed to donate majority of his assets to good cause.
Even though Steve Job brought a new experience to electronic products, do you see him openly contribute back to the society in big time?
*Disclaimer! They are all great people, but when you look at their contributions back to society, you will see the big heart they have.
i do agree that it is the contributions back to society, that you will see how big their heart is. But i would reserve judgement on Steve Job's philanthrophy efforts. Maybe his style was just 'not as open' as the rest? Maybe a few years later, his wife or his bibliography may reveal that side of him?
Finally we could also look beyond one's indirect contribution to society at large. For example, Steve Job's genius created a consumer electronic boom (all the 'i' stuff) that created thousands of jobs in developing countries and that helped to lift many folks who were unlucky in the ovarian lottery, to have better lives economically..
disclosure: i dont own any 'i' product
Hmm....at the end of his life journey, he still worried about Apple survival.
Probably, he might have something big in mind/plan which we all are not aware of.
As for the electronic boom, I see it as a profit generating machine for Apple. The thin profit margin generated from factories across the globe indeed helps to ensure some of the developing nation livelihood...
Let the history tell the story.
(07-11-2011, 11:56 AM)karlmarx Wrote: [ -> ]i think what hyom and yeokiwi were trying to say is that, exploiting market inefficiencies is not economically productive. in other words, it does not produce any good or service. therefore, an investor does not contribute to society, apart from the money he spends in the economy. the time taken to seek undervalued counters could be used to plant trees, or solve mathematical problems; both of which allow others as well as yourself to benefit from your labour. as opposed to investing, which only benefit yourself.
I actually agree with this - because now and then when I see the engineers, architects and designers around me, I ask myself how come they are earning less than the finance people and bankers? Yet I find them to be so much more creative in that they design and produce things (e.g. interior design, buildings, bridges etc). Yet they seem to get paid much less for their brainpower and expertise.
So it would seem that in our capitalistic society, "financial engineering" is much more lauded than the normal engineering disciplines.