Early Retirement SG

What Do You Do When The Fire Alarm Sounds?

7/8/2020

Yesterday night, 12:30am, the fire alarm sounded.
I had difficulty sleeping and was awake when the alarm sounded.

So like a typical Singaporean, I just lay in my bed and just expected it to be just a false alarm.
I mean... That's what usually happens at shopping centers and other places right?
We hear the fire alarm, then we hear an announcement "The fire alarm has sounded, we are investigating the situation."
So I lay in my bed for around 3 minutes, expecting to hear some announcement. Some of the staff stay in the apartment complex so I was pretty sure someone would be looking into this.

3 minutes later, I decided to get up to check out the situation. I opened the main door and heard some noises. No one around the corridors. I thought, "Ok, probably someone else who got up and also investigating what's happening."

The alarm was still ringing.

Then I opened my window blinds. No bright lights, no smoke, etc. Nothing out of the ordinary.
BUT... I saw groups of people walking down the stairs.
WOAH!!! Not just one or two people. A steady stream of people were evacuating the apartment complex.
So I asked my wife to get up to evacuate as well.

So we walked down the stairs, bumped into a couple of other people who were getting out of the building as well. And we just basically got out of the building and hung out at an open area just outside of the building.

Some people got into their cars and drove down the multi story car park and parked in a big open air space.

After a couple of minutes, the security patrol from the nearby shopping center arrived to check out the situation.
(There's a shopping center nearby and they have security patrol 24 hours a day.)
A flashing fire engine appeared.
Seriously... It was a big, bright fire engine with the lights flashing.

We continued to hang outside for maybe 20 minutes or so. Then the fire engine started backing out of the driveway. And so we concluded that there was nothing really wrong and everyone just went back to their apartments.

So what lessons did I learn from this incident?
Well... things are different in US and in SG.
Are we too complacent in SG?
Fires occur regularly in the US. So the people will naturally just evacuate to be safe.
Chances are, the fire alarm is linked to the fire department. So the fire engine just came once the alarm sounded.

Whereas I think in SG, we will tend to wait for further instruction before doing anything. Maybe even in shopping centers the management needs to call the 995 before a fire engine is sent.
Which I think is a bad habit. Never know... even the instruction to wait by an "authority" might be the wrong instruction.
Remember what happen in the Sewol incident? Teachers, who were supposed to know better, told the kids to go back to their rooms, which resulted in many of the students getting trapped and drowning in their rooms.

After we got back to our rooms, we wondered... Maybe the folks who evacuated with their cars might be on to something. Maybe they had an emergency kit in their cars already and they just need to drive out and they would have resources, clothes, food, water, etc.
However, of course driving down might take longer than just running down the stairs.

We did note that we were definitely inadequately prepared for the situation.
We should at least have a bag ready to grab with money, our passports, and maybe a set of clothes already packed. Which is worth preparing.
Cos IF there's any real emergency, we'll need to have money and our passports with us. Then maybe we need to stay at a hotel for a couple of days, we need some clothes to change. Before we are able to go out and buy new clothes and such.

So even though the fire alarm was a false alarm, probably some malfunction, it made me think about how to react to such a situation.
Cos I think in SG, I really take it for granted. I probably wouldn't have evacuated the place and waited for further notice if I didn't see other people evacuating as well.

And for me, that was very risky. I need to be better prepared next time.

<<PREVIOUS POST // NEXT POST>>

Did you like this post? If so, could you "blanjah" me 1/4 cup of my morning coffee pls.
You may also consider subscribing to receive the articles in your email, link in the column on the right.

2 Comments

Running Retirement Like a Business

6/8/2020

0 Comments

I was thinking...
Retirement planning is kinda like running a business.

First you start the planning and thinking about it.
Do the calculation, market research, ask around for more info, etc...
Some people don't plan and just chiong... go in blindly...
Sometimes, the people who chiong succeed, sometimes they don't. Never know really. Sometimes even those who plan fail as well.

Then, need to find money to start it out.
Which is usually your savings, you know, like excess money after your personal expenses.

Then the execution and growth of the business.
Save, invest, borrow money to invest, leverage, diversify.
Year on year, you want to keep growing the business.
You need to manage this "business", what strategy you want to take, how you want to grow, etc.

Must make sure the business is profitable, grows, and is cashflow positive.
Well, some people might be cashflow negative when they buy a property. They rent it out, but the rental isn't enough to pay the mortgage so they have to input even more capital.
Some people also do that for their business, they have confidence that their business will grow, but just needs to input more capital at the start.

Then as you grow older, maybe you want to chill on the business.
So you don't grow the business as much and just keep the existing business and just enjoy the cashflow.
At this point probably won't want to input anymore capital. The business probably should be able to run by itself now.
Or maybe you want to leave the business to your kids so you keep growing the business and teach your kid how to take over the assets when you leave it to them.
Even if you have a large retirement sum, you may want to be able to hand it over to your kids and have them grow it for their kids in future as well.

The thing about it is...
This planning for retirement "business"... needs to be work out. I mean... well some people don't plan for it and just scrape by... I suppose that works as well. Some people think that having kids is "retirement planning" in itself.
But if one wants to live fairly comfortably in their later years, I suppose embarking on this "business" is pretty much necessary.
The earlier they start on this "business" the more they can grow their business without injecting too much of their own capital.

A comfortable retirement is probably one of the more important things to plan for in life.
A typical person would retire around 60-85... Or something along those lines.
around 20-30 years of unemployment depending on how long one lives and the date he/she decides to leave full time employment.
It's a good 30+% of ones' life. Not short.
I think really too little people put enough thought into it and delay planning for it until much later in life.

<<PREVIOUS POST // NEXT POST>>

Did you like this post? If so, could you "blanjah" me 1/4 cup of my morning coffee pls.
You may also consider subscribing to receive the articles in your email, link in the column on the right.

0 Comments

Defending Your Position (Part 2)

5/8/2020

19 Comments

Some time back, I wrote a post on Defending your position.

The idea is, I feel that after a certain point, it becomes important to defend the position instead of keep pushing for more returns.

Now, different people have different takes on how to manage finances and there's no one size fits all.
Some people can retire on less, some people can sleep with great volatility, some people... some people... whatever...
Financial planning or retirement planning is different for everyone.
And everyone will have to decide for themselves what is suitable for themselves.

Some people have been able to make good income on short term trading/investing.
Some people like to buy and hold for long periods.
Some people rebalance regularly.
Some people invest in dividend stocks/REITs...
Different people, different styles.

FIRE, or the idea of early retirement has only picked up in the last 10-20 years.
It wasn't so prevalent in our parents generation.
How many who are planning FIRE, have been through multiple boom and bust cycles?
How many have sat on 40-50% losses for extended periods of time with poor economic environment?
I don't think there are many people who have been through this.
FIRE people are usually folks who are under 40 years old.
And probably someone who has lived through decades of boom and busts need to be at least 60 years old.

It's easy to look back and say, it's worked for the past 50 years. It must work the same way now.
And yet, when you are 60 years old, living in the situation, holding on to 50% losses, for 2 years... are you sure you will still have that faith / confidence?
The latest generation of investors, got a quick rebound in the past 6 months and it's easy to pat themselves on the back and say "Well done, SEE I told you to just hold and it will recover."

Many of these young FIRE proponents are still working with a regular income.
The mentality of someone with a regular income, with youth on their hands, grants one a certain level of confidence that they have time on their hands. And they do.
They have income and time on their hands. Many of them aim for FIRE, most still have at least 5 years before they execute, IF they even execute. Cos I know there are many who wanted to FIRE, but eventually just continued to work to pad up their AUM.

BUT... The thing is... let's look at it from the perspective of a 65 year old retiree.
He may have a $1 million portfolio. He may already have been retired for 10 years.
So he doesn't have a career which he could return to.
And now, the question becomes... Would it be prudent for him to invest his whole $1 million in stocks and/or bonds?
Both stocks and bonds gets smashed in bad times. It's not like what is learnt in finance. Bonds just gets smashed less.
If this retiree gets hit by a 40% loss. That's $400k. Leaving him with only $600k.
Still a good amount but I'm pretty sure he would have a lot less confidence about his retirement.
Don't forget, this guy has ZERO income.

Then we compare this with a young FIRE proponent.
Maybe he's 35 years old. He may have $250,000 AUM. He may be earning $60k per annum
A 40% drop for this guy would be $100k. He doesn't feel it. Cos he's still working. He still uses his working income to fund his lifestyle.

The feeling of security is very different for someone with a working income.
They have options. They have the option to delay retirement. They have the option to keep working and "wait" for their investments to recover.

So the thing is, we have to realize/understand that the mentality, financial situation, sense of security, etc for someone at 35 years old, talking about FIRE and long term passive investing, is very different from someone who's at 65 years old, retired for 10 years and been exposed to numerous boom and bust cycles of which, they also know that some downturns last much longer than what happened in the past 6 months.

Will markets recover? YES. Most likely they will.
HOWEVER, when you're 65 years old, retired, without a job, you really don't want to be potentially sitting on 40% losses for years. IF it takes years for his investments to recover.

Which is why, I believe that it would be prudent, or suitable for some folks to look into defending their position. The "cost" of a loss, is more "expensive" than the potential benefit of a gain.
For the retiree to increase his portfolio by 50% from $1 million to $1.5 million, isn't really attractive when he has to consider 40% losses.

A young FIRE just starting out or halfway through his plans, can still easily talk about holding on to his mortgage of under 2.5% interest and using the excess liquidity to invest in the markets for the long term.
Whereas a retiree might find that too risky due to his circumstances.

It would probably be more prudent for the retiree to have fully paid off his mortgage and live on his $1 million. Trying to earn more at this point in life just might not be worth the risk anymore.
At that age, I would think a retiree would want to just live out his life and enjoy himself and not bother about too much volatility in his portfolio.

Why do I talk about this?
Well, cos "been there, done that".

When I was younger and working, I would think about... all these things.
Don't pay off mortgage early, hold on to less than 2.5% interest rate. Invest the rest. Theoretically, that's correct.
Don't put money into CPF, cos it's easy to beat 2.5% or even 4%.
It still IS easy to beat those returns.
HOWEVER... now that I haven't worked for around 4-5 years, the mental state is different.
There's NO NEED to take more risks. Capital preservation is probably more important to me than the idea of making more returns.
There is REAL concern of losing capital. Making more returns at this point in my life wouldn't impact my lifestyle much, whereas I would really feel a significant drop in my AUM, in terms of mental security.
For example, the idea of buying into the S&P 500 at near it's all time high is really not attractive to me, considering the current state of the global economy.

As I/we grow older, our circumstances change. Mentality changes. How we perceive risks change.
For me, I just want my life to remain somewhat stable.
When I return to Singapore, I want to continue staying in a fair sized HDB, have food to eat, clothes to wear, don't need to be concerned about my finances.
I really don't want to think about a big drop in my assets.

So yea... I'm not saying don't invest. I, myself, am also looking at various investments.
But for me, stability of the companies are more important than their potential returns.
I rather buy undervalued (in my opinion) shares and aim for their recovery during this period, as compared to buying a growth company and hoping that they continue growing through this downturn. Although growth companies may show greater returns in the long run.

And so, as our circumstances change, I think it's important to look at defending our position as compared to just looking at returns and always staying invested.
Holding cash, itself, is a strategy, when one doesn't have confidence in what is going to happen next.

Think about it in terms of soccer. The team you support has already scored 2 goals and are in the lead 2-0, it makes sense to just defend and waste time and hold on to the lead until the match is over.
IF there is a chance, ie, the opposing team makes a mistake and there is an opportunity to score another goal, then make use of that opportunity. Else, is there really a need to open up the defenses and try to score a 3rd goal?

<<PREVIOUS POST // NEXT POST>>

Did you like this post? If so, could you "blanjah" me 1/4 cup of my morning coffee pls.
You may also consider subscribing to receive the articles in your email, link in the column on the right.

19 Comments

Second Thoughts on Long Term Investing

4/8/2020

5 Comments

Recently, I've been having second thoughts on long term investing.

My friend asked me, is long term investing really good?
And I thought it was an idiot proof answer... Wasn't the answer just a simple... Yes?

So... curious me, went to look back at some data...

So I went to look at a couple of stocks and indexes.
I'll give some estimated rounded numbers so that it's easier to read...
Just over the past 25 years.

I typically benchmark returns to double every 10 years. So for a 20 year investment, returns should be 4x.

========================

NASDAQ... The NASDAQ is currently around 10,000 points.
If you bought the NASDAQ in 1995, it was around 1,000 points. You return now would be 10x after 25 years. So it's easy to say. "WOW long term investment works."

However...

If you bought the NASDAQ in 2000, at the height of the dotcom era, it was around 5,000 points. You return now would be 2x. Which is considered low after a 20 year time frame. BUT the NASDAQ didn't recover to 5,000 points until year 2015. Between 2000 and 2015, 15 years with nothing to show for it.

If you bought the NASDAQ in 2002, after the dotcom burst, it was around 1,300 points. You return now would be 7.7x.
Which is not too bad for 18 years.

If you bought the NASDAQ in 2008, the peak period before the Great Financial Crisis, it was around 2,400 points. You return now would be 4x. Also quite good return for 12 years.
Note, at 2,400 points in year 2008, the index is STILL BELOW the dotcom era.

If you bought the NASDAQ in 2009, after the GFC, it was around 1,500 points. You return now would be 6.6x.
Even if you bought in 2002 after the dotcom, you are only up around 20% at this point after 7 years.

If you bought the NASDAQ in 2015, it was around 5,000 points. You return now would be 2x. That's quite good cos it's only been 5 years.

So what do I notice? Well... hindsight is always perfect.
Currently, the NASDAQ is at the all time high around 10k points.
It's easy to say, just invest long term and all will be good.
That's only if you are immortal.
At every period of time, there is someone who is just starting investing, there's someone retiring, or trying to grow their assets. Everyone is at different phases of their investing life.
If we look back and are in year 2001, just after the dotcom bubble, do you think people would be convinced that long term investing is good? The NASDAQ stayed depressed for many years after the dotcom bubble burst.
It's easy to be living at the peak of the index and looking back to say that long term investing has worked for them.

========================

If we look at the S&P 500, the situation is slightly different but similar.

S&P 500... The S&P 500 is currently around 3,300 points.
If you bought the S&P 500 in 1995, it was around 500 points. You return now would be 6.6x. Which is quite fair for a 25 year period.

However...

If you bought the S&P 500 in 2000, at the height of the dotcom era, it was around 1,400 points. You return now would be 2.3x. Which is considered low after a 20 year time frame. The S&P 500 didn't recover to 1,400 points until year 2007. Which was the next peak, cos after 2007 was the GFC.
So dotcom peak to GFC peak, there was barely any return.

If you bought the S&P 500 in 2002, after the dotcom burst, it was around 800 points. You return now would be 4.1x.
Which is not too bad for 18 years.

If you bought the S&P 500 in 2008, the peak period before the Great Financial Crisis, it was around 1,500 points. You return now would be 2.2x. Barely double after 12 years.
Note, at 1,500 points in year 2008, the index is around the same level as the dotcom era.

If you bought the S&P 500 in 2009, after the GFC, it was around 800 points. You return now would be 4.1x.
Even if you bought in 2002 after the dotcom, you are having no returns.
I'm not using the lowest point after the GFC cos nobody picks the bottom and picks the top. So maybe someone bought it at 600 points or 700 points or 800 points. Thing is, between 2002 and 2009, there's just a 20% return or less.

If you bought the S&P 500 in 2013, 5 years after the GFC, it was around 1,500 points. The S&P just recovered to the high before the GFC. You return now would be 4.1x. That's quite good cos it's only been 7 years.

So once again, what do I notice.
Well... hindsight is always perfect.
Currently, the S&P is at 3,300 points near it's all time high.
Again, it's easy to say, just invest long term and all will be good.
See, just in a few months, the market has recovered most of it's losses.
It's easy to be living at the peak of the index and looking back to say that long term investing has worked for them.

========================

If you look at the Nikkei, it's even worse.
The Nikkei peaked in 1989 at around 38,000 points.
It's now 22,000 points. 30 years and it's still under.
Of course, the Nikkei has gone through ups and downs between 1989 and 2020.
Thing is... long term investment doesn't always work out.

Now, I'm not saying that long term investing is bad.
It is probably still a very good idea.
What I want to say, is...
Everything depends on perspective.
When did you buy? What did you buy? Are you retiring soon? Do you need the money on sudden notice?
Markets go up and down. It's not always at the peak. it may stay depressed for many years.
Yes. Most likely the next peak will be higher than the previous peak. Even if it's not, the next next peak will be higher. But maybe someone cannot wait til the next next peak. Maybe they will be retiring soon.

Humans are not companies.
Humans have a life cycle. They have goals and milestones that they hit in life.
Whereas for a company, they have decades, or centuries. They can invest for 50 years, 100 years, 200 years. Yes, markets will likely be higher in 200 years time. But humans don't have the luxury of time. We have things to do. Lives to lead.

So the realization is that... the investment strategy very very important.
Buying at the high or near high is an extremely bad idea.
If you buy early and you buy cheap. Then it's great. Long term investment is always good.
But if you buy during the peak, or near the peak. It might take very long to make back the investment.

Even if you do not try to time the market and invest regularly, you will have similar effects. The gains or losses will not be so high, cos you will average the purchase price.
You will not do as badly as someone who bought at the peak.
You will not do as well as someone who bought at the bottom.
It will just be average. You won't face as much of the up, you also won't face as much of the down.

But... Eventually, you will face a period of downturn and returns could just be maybe 50% over a 10 year period.
People like to look at returns when prices are at the peak.
And yet, I doubt that's realistic. Markets go up and down through someone's investment life time.
The question is, how much is this person above water and how long do they stay above water?
Do they ever go underwater? And how long do they stay underwater?

During the past 20 years... yes long term passive investing has worked.
And if we look at the past 60 years, yes, long term investing has worked.

But, the real question should be, WILL IT WORK FOR YOU?
Will it work for you WHEN you retire?
Are you sure it will continue to work? Cos, WHEN you want or need the money is one of the most important things in such a plan.

Imagine getting into retirement age after the dotcom burst. Your investments would be crushed.
It would remain low for at least another 5 years.
Not all market downturns recover as fast as this recent one.
This person would likely have continued to work until the market recovers.

So the thing is, blindly following long term passive investing is... questionable.
It's still probably a good idea.
But it really needs more thought. Like when you need the money, how long the investment horizon is, is the Government doing a good job, is the country continuing to develop and grow, etc...

So for me, I think... I have second thoughts about long term passive investments.
Rather, I would now think about, HOW can I make long term passive investing work for me.
Cos I don't think it's as simple as just buy and hold anymore.
The long term buy and hold is a good idea, but I think there needs to be an exit strategy as well. Cos when I'm older, I may need to switch to less volatile investments cos I may need the cash in my old age.
Regardless, there needs to be some form of market timing involved.
I'd want to cash out at a near peak especially when I'm older and can't afford to wait for a recovery after a crash.

<<PREVIOUS POST // NEXT POST>>

Did you like this post? If so, could you "blanjah" me 1/4 cup of my morning coffee pls.
You may also consider subscribing to receive the articles in your email, link in the column on the right.

5 Comments

2 Important Things That You Should Never Do

3/8/2020

4 Comments

There's a lot of things that financial bloggers talk about.
Save money, don't overspend, invest, stuff like that.

Today, I want to talk about 2 other things which not many people in the financial blog-o-sphere talk about.

1. Don't tell people you have money.

I learnt from a young age not to talk about what I have. Don't tell people you have money.
The thing is, many people aren't prudent with their finances.
I don't have many close friends. Usually, if they are close, they share similar values as me, so they are pretty frugal as well.
But there are a lot of other people who aren't cautious with their spending.

Friends, family, acquaintances. And that's troublesome.
People have expectations when they hear/know you have money.

Maybe they expect you to pay more when it's time to take care of your parents, or their medical bills.
(Not saying you shouldn't take care of your parents or anything, just saying that people may have more expectations and I don't think that's fair.)
Or they may expect you to pick up the bill on a family meal.
Or they may think, "Oh this guy so rich, why is he so cheapo on his kids' birthday party?"
Stuff like that...

So I've learnt to keep quiet about my finances.
I'm getting by ok. That's all. I'm unemployed. I don't have money.
I would dumpster dive for food if I could. Actually I'm broke.
I like this image that I try to create for myself.

When people think you're broke, they try to help you out. So that works even better for me.

And of course, the next problem that comes about when people know you have money.
Is that they may come and try to borrow money.
Friends, family, etc... and they may try to guilt trip you and say how bad their situation is and stuff like that.

They'll be like "Oh come on man, you can't even spare me $200 bucks?! How about $100? Ok just $50 bucks? I'm sure you have $50 bucks..."
Happened to me. It sucks.

2. Don't EVER lend people money.

NEVER EVER LEND PEOPLE MONEY.
You probably will lose your money and will probably lose your friend/family member as well.

I've lent people money 2 times in my life. Both were stupid decisions which I made. I don't know why I didn't learn from the first one and lent money the second time.

First time I lent someone S$15,000.
After I transferred the person the money, I regretted it right away. It was a friend.
He was doing some "investments" blah blah blah... don't want to get into the details of it.
I felt stupid after transferring him the money.
Cos the thing is. I lose control of the money once I send it to him. He could have bought a car and driven it around and all I can do is feel stupid.

I eventually got my money back after the expected loan period. I got an interest on it as well. Couple of hundred bucks. So no loss there. I had to bug him to transfer the money back though. But still got it back so no love lost. But it was a stupid move. We were still friends after the incident but we grew apart as the years went by so I don't know what happened to him anymore.
The loss of contact had nothing to do with the money.

The thing is... it's just not worth that few hundred bucks, to lose $15k... really.

Second time, I lent someone $4,000...
Similar situation. I would get an interest on the loan, I trusted (still trust) the person (only for certain things tho).
But even though I trust the person, I would prefer not to lend money to him ever again.
Same thing, I got the money back after a few weeks. Got an interest on it.
Still felt stupid after transferring the money, cos... same thing. He could have bought some stuff and enjoyed himself with the money and just not returned it to me.
Had to bug him for the money, and after a couple of weeks, within the loan period, he returned it to me.
So again, no love lost, but still a stupid move.

Just for a couple of hundred bucks, I could have lost $4,000.

Significantly different from investments in the stock market. At least for investments, I have legal rights to buy/sell/dividends, etc.
Loans to friends and family has no rights. Paying for a lawyer is more expensive than writing off the loan.

I've read about this a lot. People lend money... they never get it back. Didn't happen to me. I was lucky.
But it's like cigarettes... One could smoke and not get cancer... but mathematically, there's good chance to get cancer.
Same as loans. I know I was lucky for those 2 times. Hope I won't be stupid and try a 3rd round.

It's quite sad when I read about stories.
People lend money cos they trust the person. Usually the lender is a nice person and wants to help out.
But the person borrowing the money just takes it for granted. They might get over their rough period in life and they might go on trips with their family and stuff, but they never ever pay the lender back the money.

Other stories I hear about are that the borrower just disappears. Just can't be contacted. It's just screwed up.

So yea... Once you lend the money, you lose control of it. It's no longer in your account. It's in their account.

So remember...
1. Don't tell people you have money.
2. Don't EVER lend people money.

<<PREVIOUS POST // NEXT POST>>

Did you like this post? If so, could you "blanjah" me 1/4 cup of my morning coffee pls.
You may also consider subscribing to receive the articles in your email, link in the column on the right.

4 Comments

Burning Thru S$70,000

31/7/2020

2 Comments

As I was thinking back on my life and my past decisions.
I came up with an estimate of how much I wasted throughout my 38 years of living and my time with my wife.

Now, of course these losses/expenses are based on my current view of life.
Maybe when I was younger, I would think this money was well spent.
Also, there are some expenses which I don't regret.
Like spending S$400 for a buffet for 2 at Raffles Hotel. It was a very nice experience. Expensive. I probably won't do it again, but it was still fun that day.

And yet, it's hard to say that the loss of all this S$100k was for nothing.
Cos... there's always the experience, the learning lessons, etc...
Not to mention, that if some of the risky bets I made turned in my favour, then I would have made money instead. So it's hard to really say that all these "losses" are just money down the drain.

So I'll run thru some of the losses and the experiences I've had...

First, right at the top of the list, I made an leveraged FX bet that went really badly. Lost S$35k overnight. I literally went to sleep and woke up with the losses due to forced closed positions.
Yea, I was stupid enough to place the bet without stop-losses. This is one of those scenarios... If the bet turned the other way, I would have made money on it.
But, no excuses.
For me, even though I could have made money on it, this has to be hands down the worst money burner I did. I learnt early on in life that I shouldn't be trading short term, cos I just wasn't good at it. I do better on longer term investments. And YET I still made this bet.

Second, I lost around S$3k when my options expired out of the money. I was trading warrants and the market moved against me. Yes, once again I could have made money on it but on hindsight, this was a bad "investment". Cos I was not prepared to lose the money.
After this incident, I told myself never to go into short term trading again. This happened before the FX incident mentioned above.
This was THE lesson which made me understand that I simply wasn't good at short term trading and yet I did it again.
I also don't sleep well when making such "investments".

Note: I have made other trades in options where I was prepared to lose the money. Even though they expired out of the money, I don't regret those, cos I understood the risks better and was prepared for the losses.

Next, lost around S$7k developing a prototype Android game. Yes, it was fun to plan and talk about it with my friend. However, once again, on hindsight, it was a stupid idea. Both of us did not have the expertise or experience to execute such a business idea.
After this experience, I came to the conclusion that I also wasn't suitable for starting or running businesses. I started a couple of small businesses when I was younger but they all went nowhere. It's just a personality thing, some people have the acumen, some don't. I don't.
I understand and accept that.
So now, I don't get into discussions with people about fancy business ideas, cos I know that a lot of it is just talk and in the end, running a business isn't for everyone.

The loss count due to "investments" at this point totals S$45k.

When I was in army and uni, I spent quite a bit on drinking and clubbing.
I think maybe during my second year in army and first 2 years in uni, 3 years total, I went to club and drink often.
I would estimate it to be around $200 per month? Not sure since it's been so long ago.
Then there are times during my working life that I went out to drink as well. Some were fun some weren't fun, or I felt it wasn't worth the amounts I spent.
I would estimate the total up to be S$10k.
It might seem like a lot, but really... that's probably an underestimation.
Yea I used to drink quite a bit last time.

Then there was this incident where my wife and I went on a trip to China.
The tour guide brought the group to a chop house... You know, the place where they bring tourists in to get slaughtered... Yea... So somehow, in the hype of things, I was foolish enough to plonk down S$2,000 on some overpriced jewelry which my wife wanted.
Why was it foolish? Even though it was something my wife wanted?
Well, cos we didn't have any expertise in the subject, jade. We didn't do any market research on the product, and didn't know what was market price, branding, what was considered good value or a rip-off.
IF we were better educated, then I'm sure that both of us would have concluded that the pricing was too high for the products that they sold. After we went back and did some research, we found out that we could get something very similar, with indistinguishable differences, at around S$500 or less.

Many years back, I used to go to "friends" weddings... I somehow had this childish misconception that I should be honoured that someone would invite me to their wedding. Like, they considered me their friend, and so they invited me. Then as I got older, I learnt (a little too late) that most of these wedding invites are just fillers. "Friends" whom I don't keep in contact with for years, then suddenly they invite me or my wife to their wedding. Errrmmm... Yea... sure... as older folk who've been around, we now realize that the couple just wants to make up the numbers to book a wedding dinner at a hotel.
I'm not too sure how many of such weddings I/we've been to that I feel aren't worth it. So I'll just estimate it to be S$1,500 between the both of us.

Upgrading our wedding package. The basic package was $1k per table. We only had 7 tables of close friends and family, so we thought that it would be nice to have better food and they probably would give bigger "ang pows". So we upgraded our menu to $1,500 per table. An increase of $3,500 in total. This wasn't worth it, the food was great, but since many people check the restaurant website for the price before they come, they just assume that the wedding couple would be taking the basic menu, so... yea you get the picture.

We used to subscribe to Fitness First. I think it was around S$138 per pax per month.
I kinda half appreciated it and half didn't like it. In the end, we didn't have any overall gain in health.
Subscribed to the membership for 1 year, we went daily for around half a year for the group exercises, then lost momentum after a trip overseas, then conveniently didn't go anymore, so we wasted half the subscription for no good reason. Total wastage for the half year, S$1,656.

My first car gave me a lot of grief. There were a lot of learning lessons. But nonetheless, I regretted that car. I should have done more research on cars and reliable cars. It's not just repair expenses but also the mental stress of having the car breakdown, bringing the car to a "ah beng" chop house and having no choice cos I didn't know much about cars, while the guy was probably just quoting me any price for unknown kinds of "necessary" repairs. Went to fix my car a couple of times for major things and a couple of minor things. Total estimated wastage S$5,000.
Compared to my 2nd car, where I needed no repairs and only needed to do basic oil changes every 6 months or so.

Loss count of "lifestyle" choices, S$23,656.

Some time back, there was an uncle who passed away.
The wife, who was my wife's aunt doesn't work and they didn't have much/any savings.
So my wife and I were discussing about how much "pek kim" to give.
And my wife wanted to give the aunt S$5k. Which I think is a quite a considerable sum.
Apparently the couple took care of my wife when she was younger, and the aunt seemed to be concerned about money, funeral expenses, rent and future living expenses.
So I was ok with it. The aunt was nice to us when we met, and since they took care of my wife in her childhood, I thought it was pretty acceptable for us to help her a bit during this trying period.
I mean... the money would probably be used in the interim for the aunt to stabilize her life, pay off expenses and buy her some time for her to find a job right?
So I didn't think too much about it... until around 2 months after the funeral, when I found out that the aunt was going to Australia for holiday.
Which led me to conclude that this aunt doesn't really need much help with her expenses...
If I/we didn't buy into her sob story, we would likely have contributed S$500 or less for the "pek kim".

Loss count of being "too nice" S$4,500.

Total count S$73,156

It's quite amazing how things add up. Over the course of maybe 20+ years, I've managed to burn through S$70k+ of stuff I regret doing.
And even though I would like to have avoided making these spending/losses, there are also lessons which I learnt along the way. Learning about myself, learning about people, learning how to react to certain issues, etc. Sure it would be best if I could have attained these lessons without the monetary loss, but what's done is done, and all I can do is to learn from them and move on and hopefully not make such mistakes in future.
There's probably more which I've forgotten so maybe the real total should be S$100k.
Hmmm, but if I don't remember it, then how can I regret it right? Means I probably don't think it was significant.

Now... of course, not all spending is bad, sometimes I/we intentionally spend more even though we could save on something. And we may indulge in some of the luxuries we enjoy.
Sometimes we try food which we end up not liking, but that's part and parcel of trying new things. So I don't consider that a waste.

For those listed above, I'd probably say, I'd liked to have avoided doing those things IF I had better clarity of mind, or more experience at that point in time.

<<PREVIOUS POST // NEXT POST>>

Did you like this post? If so, could you "blanjah" me 1/4 cup of my morning coffee pls.
You may also consider subscribing to receive the articles in your email, link in the column on the right.

2 Comments

Loss of Faith, Focus on Investing

30/7/2020

4 Comments

There's a lot of news around.
And I think of a lot about the changing landscape.
It bothers me.
It affects how I look at investments. How I plan for my future, etc.

US printing more money, this could result in a significant depreciation of the US dollar. Maybe another currency will take over as the reserve currency.
Class divide in US is growing. You either have money or don't have money. If we go back in history, when such class divides grow, there is usually civil war.
Trump may win the election. Even if he loses he may not want to leave the White House. This could also result in civil war or significant unrest in the US.
US lives by no rules. They will claim laws when it's in their favour, but ignore them when the situation is flipped around.

The rise of China will change things, US will try to contain China like a suicide bomber.
China also plays by no rules. Just like any big sovereign country.
China has made a lot of headway in many countries by providing funding and investments for development. Their influence on the world is growing significantly.

The future of SG looks gloomy.
Our Gov isn't what it used to be.
SG economy is pretty much stuck. Seems like most of the STI companies have reached some form of maximum cap and can't out grow the shores of SG. Seems like only the banks and REITS can keep growing.
Will SG still be around when I reach 65? How will my CPF be by then?

There's a lot of uncertainty in the future.
And IT IS DIFFERENT. It's different cos 10-15 years ago, when I invested during the last crisis in 2008, these weren't concerns.
During that time, I had good faith that the crisis was just a bump in the road.
I can throw my money in my investments with good confidence that the world system would remain the same and once the financial crisis was over, my investments would grow with the recovery.

But somehow, now, I feel that things have changed. My fundamental faith in the world system is no longer the same.
I don't have faith when I invest and hold the US dollar.
I don't have faith when I think about the future prosperity and longevity of Singapore.
I'm 38 this year. 17 years to 55, 27 years to 65.

It's a long time. A lot of things could change.
Remember, 18 years ago, smart phones didn't exist.
22 years ago, when I was in JC, handphones weren't a thing.

So another 17 years or 27 years, A LOT of things could change.

And yet within all this uncertain, I have to tell myself.
Focus on what I know, and make decisions based on that.
I can always adjust my strategy as life goes along.

I know that, despite what's happening in the US, it will be the center of consumption and innovation.
Apple, Facebook, Google, etc...
The next generation of innovation, product, etc... will come from the US.
Could be AI, could be quantum computing, whatever.
As old companies drop out of the S&P 500, new companies will be added and grow.
I haven't bought into the S&P 500, but I probably will in future.
I look at the S&P 500 as ONE BIG COMPANY.
Sometimes a company will close off some of their dying business, sometimes they will acquire new businesses.
When one business segment loses market share to another segment, I still earn, cos I own the whole market by owning the S&P.
Like, if Walmart gets less customers, but Amazon gets more deliveries.
Regardless, I still own the whole S&P "company".
What's even better is that the Gov supports this S&P "company".
So someday, I'll by myself some S&P.

I still want to stay in Singapore for the near future.
I cannot keep thinking 20 years into the future which might or might not exist.
Hope for the best, plan for the worst.
Maybe Singapore will find a way to keep developing. Hopefully they are able to re-engineer the economy and industries to focus on more future related segments.
Hopefully there will be no more changes to CPF policies so that I know what to expect when I grow old.
Even if things change in SG. I still have time to react. It's not as though we are like sheep in a farm. We can always do things to make our situation better.

China will become a powerhouse. It already is.
The problem with China investments is that I know very little about it. There's not enough transparency.
Also I feel there's a lot of government involvement in the financial markets. So I'm concerned.
I know it's a growing economy. It's a good place to invest for the next 30 years.
But yet, I find it hard to have faith in the financial markets there.
I suppose that's part of the risk and investors get compensated for taking such risks.

So I think... despite all my fears and concerns, I need to try to keep the faith that the world will largely remain the same at least within the next 10 years, and keep investing and planning for the future.
Regardless of what happens, money is still important, especially if I expect the world to change.

Then again, maybe all these concerns are in my own mind and I'm just being paranoid.
Who knows...

<<PREVIOUS POST // NEXT POST>>

Did you like this post? If so, could you "blanjah" me 1/4 cup of my morning coffee pls.
You may also consider subscribing to receive the articles in your email, link in the column on the right.

4 Comments

Investment Returns are Subjective

29/7/2020

0 Comments

It's quite strange when I think about returns these days.
Cos I'm Singaporeans and live in the US... So I tend to get mixed up about how I view returns.
And I realize that returns aren't really so clean cut, cos it depends on who's looking at the investment.

Imagine...
If I'm an American. I save in USD, I buy gold, at USD1,700 and now it is USD1,900.
Great! I have achieved around 11.8% return.

However, for a Singaporean, he saves in SGD, he buys gold at USD1,700 but the exchange rate was SGD1.43 per USD. Now the exchange rate is SGD1.38 per USD, when gold is at USD1,900. So for a Singaporean, the return would be around 7.9%.

Then for a European, he saves in EUR, he buys gold at USD1,700 the exchange rate was USD1.10 per €, and now it is USD1.17 per € when gold is USD1,900, resulting in a return of around 5.1%.

So depending on how the exchange rate moves with regards to the appreciation of gold, the Singaporean investor would have differing returns compared to the American and European.
The European guy could maybe have just bought some other EUR investments and achieved 5% return or more.

OR...

Assuming that the American expects the USD to drop against other currencies.
Well, he could do nothing, cos he spends in USD, a burger is still a burger.
Alternatively, he may want to buy gold, or change his money to € to take advantage of the expected depreciation of the USD.

Whereas as Singaporean, I could just hold SGD and I won't be particularly affected by fluctuation of the USD. Cos a plate of chicken rice is still a plate of chicken rice. The price wouldn't be affected by the depreciation of the USD.

For me, I'll likely return to SG eventually.
Although staying long term in US has crossed my mind.
And this has fuddled my mind and how I calculate and look at investments.

Cos... if I want to stay in US long term, then I need to take into account the FX (foreign exchange) fluctuation.
Whereas if I return to SG, then I should just convert to SGD and manage my investments in SGD, cos I'll need to be spending in SGD when I'm older.

Of course, the perfect way is to trade the SGD/USD if I know the direction of the currency pairs, but let's say I don't want to take that risk, so I'd just hold SGD as much as possible.

And since I always calculate in SGD, then when I want to make an investment in a US company, then I'll need to include the FX fluctuations in my expected returns, cos maybe I make money in the investment but in the end I lose money on the FX, and the return becomes a lot less than what I expected.

If I was born in America, I wouldn't even be bothered to think about another currency. Cos if I was brought up in the US, then I would think the USD is the best currency and live my life satisfied with the USD.

Then if you're a true investment professional, then you might want to try to maintain a portfolio with multiple currencies so that you can maintain purchasing power across currencies.
This isn't particularly difficult, cos when you buy large companies with global businesses, they usually sell stuff in local currencies, except that they may hedge away the currency risk. Whereas you might want the exposure to the different currencies. So it really depends on how the global companies handle their FX risk.

OR one could buy a Global Index tracker ETF. So that can help to get exposure to multiple currencies. Except that usually these ETFs are exceptionally heavy weighted on US equities, so the exposure will be around 50-60% US equities, 7-8% Japan, 4-5% UK, then the rest is a mix of the other countries.
So you'd still get a disproportionate amount of exposure to the USD.

Another perspective about returns being relative is market timing...
Think about those folks who bought private condos at the peak, vs people who were lucky and bought it at lower prices. Some people made money on their condos, some people lost money.
Some people faced higher interest rates, some had low interest rates.
People who bought HDBs using HDB loans at 2.6% vs someone else who got a bank loan at 1.5%.
Their returns would be significantly different.
Some people may share their experience getting 7% year on year returns, whereas other people would say property is not a good investment.

I have a friend who sold his HDB after 10 years and he did not make enough on the HDB to repay the additional 2.5% he owed his CPF account for utilizing the funds.

So the thing is, everyone looks at investments differently based on many different factors.
Our nationality, the currency we invest in, our past experience with it, how we executed the investment, our holding power, our skill and expertise on the particular asset class, transaction costs, taxes, etc.
It's easy to just look at historical averages and say... oh stocks provide 7% yoy return, or whatever return.
Whereas the reality of it is not so simple.
Cos average is just a single number, there's a large number of other possibilities based on the standard deviation.

What had worked for our parents, might not work for us, what works for me, might not work for you, etc...
I often hear people asking/talking about whether they should invest in property or stock market...
But I think... the answer isn't so simple, so many factors, leverage, mortgage, investment horizon, stress of stock market volatility vs stress of tenant, etc
In the end... as long as an investment suits your own risk profile and required return...
I suppose that's good enough.

<<PREVIOUS POST // NEXT POST>>

Did you like this post? If so, could you "blanjah" me 1/4 cup of my morning coffee pls.
You may also consider subscribing to receive the articles in your email, link in the column on the right.

0 Comments

Minimum Wage & Quality Jobs

28/7/2020

1 Comment

So I said I was going to write about this.
It's an interesting topic.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying any job is good or bad, or looking down on any job. Since this post is about jobs, then I have to talk about them. Whether they are skilled or unskilled, workers all provide a service and play a part in society and everyone is trying to make a living in the way they believe is best for themselves.

When we hear about low wage workers, the answer seems so simple. Just have a minimum wage and they will all be able to live properly.
And yet, when we look at countries with minimum wage, this solution didn't work out anyway.
Low wage workers are still struggling. And the solution seems so simple. Just raise the minimum wage...

Now, I'm no expert in policy, so... there's probably a lot of things I don't know about this.
But as I see the situation in the US, some parts of the story become clearer.
I see a lot of hourly workers. America is big there's a lot of workers who work in hourly wage jobs.
I didn't realize this, cos I am used to my own industry where people are paid an annual pay with benefits.
But in US and maybe even in SG, there are a lot of people who are paid hourly, and usually, the pay isn't very high.
Yes there are highly paid hourly workers, but generally, there are more low wage hourly workers than there are highly paid hourly workers.

Ok, so what happens if we put in a minimum wage?
Well yes, people will earn more.
Next, cost of production increases. The company will charge more for the product.
Consumers will pay more. Consumers who are also the people earning a minimum wage.
So if HDB construction costs more, then other minimum wage workers will need to pay more for their HDB. Same as for McDonald's, etc...

If the minimum wage is increased to a high enough level, companies will probably do 2 things.
1. Invest in automation.
Jobs will be lost, BUT companies will have to train some workers to use the automation. So productivity will increase.
Currently, wages are low, so companies cannot be bothered to invest in technology.

2. Companies may just move overseas to countries with lower labour costs.
A lot of manufacturing has left USA for China and Mexico where the labour is cheaper.
Even financial companies are looking to have their back offices in lower cost countries.
Call centers are being redirected through India or the Philippines.
Jobs will be lost.

Option 1 would be great. Cos it forces companies to invest in technology and increases the productivity of the people and thus providing quality jobs.

You see, the problem here lies not in wages or minimum wage.
The problem lies in value add, or the demand of the current economy vs the supply of skilled/unskilled labour.
Increasing the wages without increasing the productivity of workers will result in companies finding alternative methods. Or just cause more expensive products.

The real solution would be to create higher value added jobs. Train citizens to take up those roles, then maybe have foreign workers take up jobs which citizens don't want to do.
This will keep the cost of products cheap, citizens will have better jobs and have better wages.
And currently Singapore seems to be doing somewhat quite well here.
Many families are able to have excess money to buy stuff and travel overseas on top of their basic necessities. How many families do you know who do not at least take one vacation overseas per year?

IF Singapore doesn't import foreign workers at all, then the cost of low wage workers will also increase.
Someone still needs to clean the toilets. So maybe we'll end up with a country like Norway, or Japan, where such jobs have quite high pay as well. I'm sure that there's going to be Singaporeans who wouldn't mind being a cleaner for $5,000 per mth.
This also ends up with higher costs of products and possibly lower disparity of wealth. Cos every company is fighting for workers in a small labour pool.
Skilled workers will get market pay for their skills.
Whereas unskilled workers get higher pay cos there is little competition from cheaper alternatives, such as foreigners. Of course in this scenario, more companies will likely be willing to invest in technology and automation.
This ends up with a higher cost of living for everyone.
Which is somewhat ok I suppose, if that's the society we want to build. But means people won't be able to save as much and travel as much.

It would probably be better if most Singaporeans get skilled jobs, earn more, then have lower cost of living cos foreigners take up lower paying jobs and Singaporeans get to benefit from the reduced cost from cheap foreign labour. Then Singaporeans can save more and travel more and buy more stuff as well.

The issue is how to encourage behaviour.
That's what policy is about.
The Government needs to encourage people to upgrade and take on better roles.
Problem is sometimes, people don't want to upgrade to take on better roles. The rise of the gig industry is a testament to this. People want to do simple jobs and get paid a livable wage. As what I wrote about in my last post, this just isn't possible anymore in the new world. People can't sell labour and expect to be paid well, people need to sell skills, knowledge, specialty to be able to live well.
Having people change jobs, careers isn't as easy as just offering higher pay. Us mere mortals have a lot of inertia for change. It's just part of being human.

They need to get encourage companies to create better jobs.
Or get companies to set up shop in Singapore to create good value jobs.
But what if companies come to Singapore and sets up good value jobs...
BUT Singaporeans don't want to upgrade or aren't able to take up these jobs?
As a Government, will you ask the companies to go away or do you open the gates to "foreign talent", who might be able to take these roles?
I think this is a current problem in SG.

They are probably conflicted about importing foreigners for jobs which Singaporeans want.
Personally, I don't enjoy seeing foreigners at retail outlets and as accountants and auditors or IT professionals. I find these jobs are jobs which Singaporeans would like to have.
Unfortunately, although I prefer to have Singaporeans at hawker centers selling food, I understand that this is a tough job and many Singaporeans don't want the job of helping out at a hawker center.

But what if a job is low value add, but it's also a job which Singaporeans want?
Should the Government intentionally displace the Singaporeans to force them to upgrade and take on more value added roles?
And what if Singaporeans insist on having those jobs and getting low pay and continue to complain about the low pay?
This is happening in the US. People are working at McDonald's and demanding a livable wage.
Whereas I think many of us recognize that such jobs are jobs that shouldn't be taken as a career or to sustain a lifestyle. These jobs are maybe for teenagers to earn some pocket money during their holidays or retirees who want to pass time and make some pocket money.
But in the US, people get these jobs and hope to raise a family on it. And so... they demand to increase minimum wage.

The thing about minimum wage is... this is also a policy which affects behaviour.
It will encourage companies to do certain things.
It's easy for people to just say, implement or raise minimum wage, and expect the problem to take care of itself. However, personally, I feel that it's having a minimum wage will result in cause and effect, won't solve the problem and minimum wage will just keep having to go up cos it ends up as a cyclical problem.

So I think this is a multi-faceted problem which the Government, all Governments need to manage.
Cos it's not only about creating jobs, but also getting the people to take up those jobs.
Having the jobs created, doesn't mean that people want them, even though it pays better.
Could also be that people can't learn the skills required as well as reluctance to retrain.
Not everyone can become a doctor. Or not everyone wants to learn to be a plumber. Even though a plumber could earn a lot in the US.
It also has to do a lot with the expectation of people, and what people hope to work as to earn a livable wage. If folks believe that working at McDonald's deserve a livable wage, then that's something that the Government needs to manage, whether that expectation is reasonable, or acceptable or not... well that's up to the society to determine.

So for me, the argument for a minimum wage, or to increase minimum wage... it sounds really easy and sexy on paper. Such an easy solution to help the low income. Just pay them more.
And yet, I don't believe that the solution is so simple. Policies will change behaviour and companies will react to changes in policy.
I believe that a more holistic solution would be to create better quality jobs and encourage citizens to take up those jobs. Just cos the job is available doesn't mean people want or have the skills to fill those jobs.
And that's where the real problem lies.

I think today's post is different from my previous post written in 2014.
Some parts of that old post I still believe in but now, I think I was naive to think that just cos better jobs exist, that people will naturally gyrate towards it.
Yes, some people will upgrade to take up those jobs, but there are probably a lot of people who don't want to upgrade to take those jobs. It's just human nature.
And IF companies want to set up shop in Singapore, the Government will definitely want their business, but if Singaporeans aren't able to or unwilling to take up those jobs, then the Government will naturally open the gates for foreigners to help fill those jobs.

<<PREVIOUS POST // NEXT POST>>

Did you like this post? If so, could you "blanjah" me 1/4 cup of my morning coffee pls.
You may also consider subscribing to receive the articles in your email, link in the column on the right.

1 Comment

The Past Generation Never Bought So Much Sh!t

27/7/2020

7 Comments

I was reading about American spending habits, and I reflect upon Singaporean spending habits.
I hear/read stories about people who generally complain about not being able to save or retire. That they are being priced out of the system, they can't make ends meet.

And there's always 2 sides of the argument.

On one hand, there are people who blame the individual. Saying that people shouldn't be spending on Starbucks, iPhones, and that their spending habits are the reason why some people remain poor and aren't able to save or retire.

On the other hand, there are people who believe that wages haven't increased by much throughout the years, whereas the prices of stuff, housing, food, etc have increased by much more than wages.
So mathematically, housing, food and other essentials are taking up more percentage of our income as compared to previous generations.

We always hear stories about our parents generation where they can raise a family on a single income. And on a simple income, like a taxi driver, or forklift driver, stuff like that.
And then people say that that cannot be done anymore.
And that's somewhat true. Wages haven't kept up with inflation.

In America, that's also true, the "American Dream" is dead they say. Cos the average worker cannot afford what his parents afforded. Wages have remained low, cos companies have moved production overseas to China or Mexico. Low value add workers earn a low wage.
Executives fare better.
This is actually the reason why the SG Government keeps talking about quality jobs, and they don't have a minimum wage. When I think more about it, I can understand the reason. (Will write about it tomorrow.)

The thing about it is, both sides to this discussion are right.
Firstly, we have to recognize that the world has changed. Keeping a simple job as a labour worker won't keep an individual ahead of the game.
In the previous generation, this was possible.
But as the world changed, these labour workers aren't as demanded in the economy.
Knowledge based workers are in higher demand and so it pays more.

It's happened before. It's like... horses are no more in fashion cos there are cars. But horses can't complain.
Every age has it's new economy and what is in demand in that economy.
Unfortunately, people CAN complain, they want to be able to achieve everything that their parents achieved by doing the same thing as their parents.
But as the world has changed, this is no longer possible.

On the flip side, when we look at spending, it's a similar story...
Our parents never bought so much sh!t.
It's a new generation now... we have more stuff to buy. We need handphones, mobile subscriptions, Netflix, Spotify, branded goods, laptops, gaming chairs, air-conditioning, etc.
These things just didn't exist for them to buy.

We are in a generation of consumption.
Our parents never had HDBs with air-cons in every room. They didn't need to buy mobile plans, Starbucks, etc... I hardly ate out as a kid, maybe only on weekends.
There was no such thing as spending money on online games. Only rich kids had a game console and each game was expensive so kids would have only a couple of games. Now, kids have many games and many toys.

So the answer is actually Yes and Yes...
Both of the arguments are true.

Wages haven't kept in tandem with inflation.
The cost of basic goods has increased faster than wages have. This is also due the the problem that many jobs are low value add jobs which are low in demand. If we increase the cost of workers, then companies will just shift production to cheaper countries.
The number of high value jobs aren't that many. Even with more education, the number of quality jobs aren't enough. You only need a few hundred computer engineers/programmers to code out a game/software and it's easily replicated to sell to millions.
Whereas manufacturing of clothes is labour intensive and companies will just shift production to low cost countries.

The flip side is also true.
People spend more on stuff that never existed last time.
Premium coffee, avocado toast, luxury bags, eating out more often, computers, phones, etc...
Companies produce products which break easier, cos they expect people to continue to upgrade every couple of years anyway. Read about planned obsolescence. And of course, if it breaks easier, they get to sell more anyway.

So how?
Well...
The solution should be obvious here right?

As an individual, what can we do for ourselves?
Try to get higher paying, higher value add jobs. And spend less buying stuff.

As a Government... well, they have to try to create quality jobs for the citizens.

It's just the way the world works. Each generation will have their own challenges and we have to adapt to things. We can't expect to have the same lives as our parents. The world has changed a lot since then, we have lots of things which they never had. We've traveled a lot more than our parents ever did. Have lots of access to knowledge and information, different forms of entertainment, etc.

It's just a different life.
If we look at it in another way, our parents earned more and spent less.
Whereas for this generation, many people earn less and spend more.

<<PREVIOUS POST // NEXT POST>>

Did you like this post? If so, could you "blanjah" me 1/4 cup of my morning coffee pls.
You may also consider subscribing to receive the articles in your email, link in the column on the right.

7 Comments

<<Previous

What Do You Do When The Fire Alarm Sounds?

Running Retirement Like a Business

Defending Your Position (Part 2)

Second Thoughts on Long Term Investing

2 Important Things That You Should Never Do

Burning Thru S$70,000

Loss of Faith, Focus on Investing

Investment Returns are Subjective

Minimum Wage & Quality Jobs

The Past Generation Never Bought So Much Sh!t

Author

Archives