Post Reply
101-120 of 152
the darkness before the ray of sun shine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcrgoOPD4TA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcrgoOPD4TA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeyfVX7mmp8
2021-10-30 00:00:10.77 GMT
By Daniel Moss
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Citigroup Inc., HSBC Holdings Plc,
UBS Group AG: Global capital&rsquo s gleaming logos dominate the night
skyline of Singapore&rsquo s central business district. They don&rsquo t
have the vista from a balcony at the Marina Bay Sands hotel and
casino to themselves, however. Nestled among them, competing for
eyeballs, is a tower bearing the logo of the National Trades
Union Congress. Local lenders and property developers also
jostle for attention.
Long a beacon for planet-spanning corporations, a sanctuary of
administrative stability in a volatile neighborhood and a
template for global cities, Singapore is undergoing a subtle but
significant reorientation. It still wants foreign investment and
is keen as ever to retain its status as a hub: Ministers assure
companies they are welcome and insist Singapore won&rsquo t turn its
back on the world. Yet those soothing incantations now come with
an important caveat: The republic sounds far less enthusiastic
about the talent that those prized firms want to bring with
them.
Instead, Singapore&rsquo s leaders find themselves focusing
increasingly on social cohesion. A series of race-related
incidents and violence have played across domestic media this
year. Concerns about a growing wealth gap are prompting
consideration of a wealth tax on local tycoons and the many
well-heeled globetrotters who have taken up residence. While the
foreign workforce has receded over the past two years, it still
represents more than 20% of the population. Where Singaporeans
once accepted that for their small nation to survive, they
needed to welcome foreigners, the question now asked has become
akin to: Is there sufficient direct benefit in it for me? How
Singapore emerges from this period of soul-searching will say a
lot about the mobility of cash and skills in the post-pandemic
era and whether Asia, which rode to prosperity on outside
investment, still wants that infusion &mdash and at what social
price.
Like any nation, Singapore understandably wants to adjust
its expectations of, and demands on, international companies.
The republic controls its borders, who enters and leaves and on
what terms. But the transition to a more nuanced landscape also
requires a recalibration of the country&rsquo s reputation. It may
well still be a top Asian destination for commerce, but its
appeal will rest as much on the shortcomings of its neighbors as
the warmth of its welcome.
Singapore&rsquo s shifting attitudes could also be a harbinger of
changes to come in other global cities. Singapore,often compared
with Hong Kong, has spawned imitators such as Dubai that follow
the same formula: Get rich, suck in talent, build great
infrastructure, keep taxes low &mdash or nonexistent &mdash and have
fabulous ports and airports where people and goods can get in
and out quickly. Can global cities, especially urban centers
without a hinterland, survive a trauma as big as Covid-19? They
rode out the global financial crisis of 2007-2009. Yet they will
have to be even more alert and nimble in adapting to an era of
constrained travel, shortened supply chains and heightened
tensions between two superpowers increasingly attuned to who&rsquo s
loyal and who&rsquo s not.
In the eyes of some expatriates, Singapore is leaning
against their once-valued expertise. Expats face ever-tighter
requirements for work papers. The salary requirements for
employing foreigners are being raised, narrowing the positions
open to them, with those in banking subject to even higher pay
thresholds. Companies suspected of discriminatory hiring and
failing to promote Singaporeans can find themselves on a
watchlist. In a contentious recent step, foreigners living as
dependents now need a company-sponsored visa to work. Companies
are falling over themselves to put a local face on what they are
doing. Finance, where non-Singaporeans are heavily represented
in senior management, gets particular scrutiny. On July 6, the
day of a parliamentary debate on the workforce, Citigroup issued
a press release headlined: &ldquo Citi announces senior appointments
of five Singaporeans across Asia Pacific.&rdquo
Singapore&rsquo s recalibration toward the import of labor
actually has its roots in policies aimed at securing the
nation&rsquo s viability. Soon after independence in 1965, the
republic suffered a setback when the U.K. said it was
withdrawing from its military bases. Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore&rsquo s
long-serving first prime minister, determined that the country&rsquo s
survival hinged on becoming an inextricable link in the global
chains that sustained American-headquartered multinational
firms. &ldquo It thrived because it was useful to the world,&rdquo Lee
wrote in his memoir &ldquo From Third World to First.&rdquo &ldquo It is part of
the global network of cities where successful corporations of
advanced countries have established their business.&rdquo
This meshing wasn&rsquo t intended to be static. In 1999, Lee&rsquo s
successor, Goh Chok Tong, said being best on the block wouldn&rsquo t
cut it. &ldquo We must make Singapore an oasis of talent,&rdquo Goh said
that year, according to a biography of Goh, &ldquo Standing Tall,&rdquo by
Peh Shing Huei. &ldquo Many cities are vying to be the key global node
in the region &mdash Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sydney, Taipei, Singapore.
Who wins depends on who attracts the most talent, and forms a
critical mass that draws in still more entrepreneurs, bankers,
artists, writers, professionals.&rdquo
Singapore&rsquo s population did, indeed, boom. It rose by about
40% in the first two decades of this century and stood at about
5.5 million at the end of June. While that growth buttressed
recoveries from the Asian financial crisis and its global sequel
a decade later, it also led to strains. In 2011, the long-ruling
People&rsquo s Action Party suffered its worst election outcome since
independence, with its share of the vote dipping to 60.1%. The
most common critique was that population had grown too quickly,
straining housing and transport. Such complaints were considered
as a proxy for immigration.
A decrease in permanent residency visas followed. The
number granted each year has hovered around 30,000 since 2010,
well down from around 80,000 in 2008. &ldquo There was a strong reason
why the government was bringing foreign manpower in to support
and grow our economy,&rdquo Goh told Peh. &ldquo Unfortunately, the
negative ground sentiment went beyond crowdedness. It also
encompassed perceived job competition from foreigners and
preference of some companies for foreigners over Singaporeans.
Well, every medicine has its side effects. The key point is how
quickly the government responds.&rdquo
Sure-footed governance and political stability have
traditionally been assets for global cities. Singapore has
benefited: The grip on power exerted by the People&rsquo s Action
Party, say Singapore&rsquo s fans, has enabled the government to make
far-reaching decisions of long-term benefit. Predictability has
been a touchstone.
That&rsquo s made recent mixed messages, not just on labor but
also on pandemic management, all the more jarring. Few countries
have handled Covid with aplomb, but few have Singapore&rsquo s
reputation for technocratic and administrative excellence. As a
consequence, it inevitably faces a higher bar.
Despite a vaccination rate exceeding 80% and official
assertions about the need to live with the virus, Singapore is
struggling to dismount from a carousel of openings and closures.
Different ministers have emphasized different things.
Singapore&rsquo s storied sureness of touch and clarity of message
have suffered. &ldquo I am very sympathetic to the sense of confusion
around how come your specific actions today doesn&rsquo t quite gel
with what we said a few weeks ago,&rdquo Communications Minister
Josephine Teo said in an Oct. 1 interview with Bloomberg News.
&ldquo We obviously have to address that.&rdquo A week later, Prime
Minister Lee Hsien Loong tried to draw the strands together and
align the government behind a simple message. We can&rsquo t be
&ldquo locked down and closed off indefinitely,&rdquo Lee said in a
national address. &ldquo We should respect Covid-19, but we must not
be paralyzed.&rdquo
Tight border and quarantine orders orders appear to have hit
white-collar foreigners hardest, though new vaccine travel lanes
may alleviate some of the worst of this. In fact, for every
Singaporean gripe about outsiders hogging job opportunities and
being paid too much, there&rsquo s an expatriate professional weary of
Singapore&rsquo s frequent U-turns and red tape in the name of
combating Covid. For many, visits home &mdash once an accepted staple
&mdash now have to be coordinated with the government via human
resource departments.
The tough travel restrictions have hurt more than just European
or American expats: More than 100,000 Malaysians who used to
commute daily across the bridge have been stranded. What&rsquo s more,
Singapore&rsquo s once lucrative lodging industry has suffered from
the drop in tourism and conferences same with footfall at some
malls. Time was when a visit to the lovely bike paths and
running tracks along the city-state&rsquo s east coast served as a
tonic for worries about globalization in the aftermath of Brexit
and President Donald Trump&rsquo s election. You could almost set your
watch by the passenger jets approaching Changi Airport, coming
in over the tops of tankers and crammed container vessels
waiting to berth at Singapore&rsquo s world-class port. No more. On a
recent run late one afternoon along the coast, I spied only a
lonely PT Garuda International plane appear through the drizzle.
There&rsquo s been no real gnashing of teeth accompanying figures
showing the population retreating more recently. The number of
people calling Singapore home fell 4.1% last year, the second
consecutive dip and only the third contraction since 1950. As
was the case in 2020, the dip was largely a result of foreigners
departing.
More declines are on the horizon. The fertility rate fell to 1.1
last year, a record low, despite a raft of incentives for
couples to get busy. Society is also aging: The ranks of folks
aged 65 and above approach 18% of the total, up from 16.8% a
year earlier and a bit more than 10% a decade ago. The city-
state is cooling on the world just as its homegrown demographics
swing against it.
Prime Minister Lee, the son of Lee Kuan Yew, acknowledged the
interests the government is trying to balance in his pre-
national day Aug. 8 address. &ldquo We have to adjust our policies to
manage the quality, numbers and concentrations of foreigners in
Singapore,&rdquo Lee said. &ldquo If we do this well, we can continue to
welcome foreign workers and new immigrants, as we must.&rdquo
Singapore&rsquo s latest effort at a tightly controlled re-
opening &mdash work from home is still the default setting &mdash struck
many of the right notes, as did the premier&rsquo s rejection of a
prolonged defensive crouch and some of the steps that followed.
And for now, Singapore benefits from a robust global upswing:
The International Monetary Fund projects world gross domestic
product to climb 5.9% this year Singapore forecasts a range
that&rsquo s a bit better.
Yet don&rsquo t expect the Singapore that emerges from the
pandemic to pick up where the old one left off. An instinct for
survival has often gotten global cities through. For Singapore,
it means reckoning with choices deferred during less dire times,
like finding the right mix of imported and home-grown labor.
Meanwhile, though, let&rsquo s get back workers, whether imported or
local, into those glass towers downtown. Global cities are
infinitely preferable to global shells.
By Daniel Moss
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Citigroup Inc., HSBC Holdings Plc,
UBS Group AG: Global capital&rsquo s gleaming logos dominate the night
skyline of Singapore&rsquo s central business district. They don&rsquo t
have the vista from a balcony at the Marina Bay Sands hotel and
casino to themselves, however. Nestled among them, competing for
eyeballs, is a tower bearing the logo of the National Trades
Union Congress. Local lenders and property developers also
jostle for attention.
Long a beacon for planet-spanning corporations, a sanctuary of
administrative stability in a volatile neighborhood and a
template for global cities, Singapore is undergoing a subtle but
significant reorientation. It still wants foreign investment and
is keen as ever to retain its status as a hub: Ministers assure
companies they are welcome and insist Singapore won&rsquo t turn its
back on the world. Yet those soothing incantations now come with
an important caveat: The republic sounds far less enthusiastic
about the talent that those prized firms want to bring with
them.
Instead, Singapore&rsquo s leaders find themselves focusing
increasingly on social cohesion. A series of race-related
incidents and violence have played across domestic media this
year. Concerns about a growing wealth gap are prompting
consideration of a wealth tax on local tycoons and the many
well-heeled globetrotters who have taken up residence. While the
foreign workforce has receded over the past two years, it still
represents more than 20% of the population. Where Singaporeans
once accepted that for their small nation to survive, they
needed to welcome foreigners, the question now asked has become
akin to: Is there sufficient direct benefit in it for me? How
Singapore emerges from this period of soul-searching will say a
lot about the mobility of cash and skills in the post-pandemic
era and whether Asia, which rode to prosperity on outside
investment, still wants that infusion &mdash and at what social
price.
Like any nation, Singapore understandably wants to adjust
its expectations of, and demands on, international companies.
The republic controls its borders, who enters and leaves and on
what terms. But the transition to a more nuanced landscape also
requires a recalibration of the country&rsquo s reputation. It may
well still be a top Asian destination for commerce, but its
appeal will rest as much on the shortcomings of its neighbors as
the warmth of its welcome.
Singapore&rsquo s shifting attitudes could also be a harbinger of
changes to come in other global cities. Singapore,often compared
with Hong Kong, has spawned imitators such as Dubai that follow
the same formula: Get rich, suck in talent, build great
infrastructure, keep taxes low &mdash or nonexistent &mdash and have
fabulous ports and airports where people and goods can get in
and out quickly. Can global cities, especially urban centers
without a hinterland, survive a trauma as big as Covid-19? They
rode out the global financial crisis of 2007-2009. Yet they will
have to be even more alert and nimble in adapting to an era of
constrained travel, shortened supply chains and heightened
tensions between two superpowers increasingly attuned to who&rsquo s
loyal and who&rsquo s not.
In the eyes of some expatriates, Singapore is leaning
against their once-valued expertise. Expats face ever-tighter
requirements for work papers. The salary requirements for
employing foreigners are being raised, narrowing the positions
open to them, with those in banking subject to even higher pay
thresholds. Companies suspected of discriminatory hiring and
failing to promote Singaporeans can find themselves on a
watchlist. In a contentious recent step, foreigners living as
dependents now need a company-sponsored visa to work. Companies
are falling over themselves to put a local face on what they are
doing. Finance, where non-Singaporeans are heavily represented
in senior management, gets particular scrutiny. On July 6, the
day of a parliamentary debate on the workforce, Citigroup issued
a press release headlined: &ldquo Citi announces senior appointments
of five Singaporeans across Asia Pacific.&rdquo
Singapore&rsquo s recalibration toward the import of labor
actually has its roots in policies aimed at securing the
nation&rsquo s viability. Soon after independence in 1965, the
republic suffered a setback when the U.K. said it was
withdrawing from its military bases. Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore&rsquo s
long-serving first prime minister, determined that the country&rsquo s
survival hinged on becoming an inextricable link in the global
chains that sustained American-headquartered multinational
firms. &ldquo It thrived because it was useful to the world,&rdquo Lee
wrote in his memoir &ldquo From Third World to First.&rdquo &ldquo It is part of
the global network of cities where successful corporations of
advanced countries have established their business.&rdquo
This meshing wasn&rsquo t intended to be static. In 1999, Lee&rsquo s
successor, Goh Chok Tong, said being best on the block wouldn&rsquo t
cut it. &ldquo We must make Singapore an oasis of talent,&rdquo Goh said
that year, according to a biography of Goh, &ldquo Standing Tall,&rdquo by
Peh Shing Huei. &ldquo Many cities are vying to be the key global node
in the region &mdash Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sydney, Taipei, Singapore.
Who wins depends on who attracts the most talent, and forms a
critical mass that draws in still more entrepreneurs, bankers,
artists, writers, professionals.&rdquo
Singapore&rsquo s population did, indeed, boom. It rose by about
40% in the first two decades of this century and stood at about
5.5 million at the end of June. While that growth buttressed
recoveries from the Asian financial crisis and its global sequel
a decade later, it also led to strains. In 2011, the long-ruling
People&rsquo s Action Party suffered its worst election outcome since
independence, with its share of the vote dipping to 60.1%. The
most common critique was that population had grown too quickly,
straining housing and transport. Such complaints were considered
as a proxy for immigration.
A decrease in permanent residency visas followed. The
number granted each year has hovered around 30,000 since 2010,
well down from around 80,000 in 2008. &ldquo There was a strong reason
why the government was bringing foreign manpower in to support
and grow our economy,&rdquo Goh told Peh. &ldquo Unfortunately, the
negative ground sentiment went beyond crowdedness. It also
encompassed perceived job competition from foreigners and
preference of some companies for foreigners over Singaporeans.
Well, every medicine has its side effects. The key point is how
quickly the government responds.&rdquo
Sure-footed governance and political stability have
traditionally been assets for global cities. Singapore has
benefited: The grip on power exerted by the People&rsquo s Action
Party, say Singapore&rsquo s fans, has enabled the government to make
far-reaching decisions of long-term benefit. Predictability has
been a touchstone.
That&rsquo s made recent mixed messages, not just on labor but
also on pandemic management, all the more jarring. Few countries
have handled Covid with aplomb, but few have Singapore&rsquo s
reputation for technocratic and administrative excellence. As a
consequence, it inevitably faces a higher bar.
Despite a vaccination rate exceeding 80% and official
assertions about the need to live with the virus, Singapore is
struggling to dismount from a carousel of openings and closures.
Different ministers have emphasized different things.
Singapore&rsquo s storied sureness of touch and clarity of message
have suffered. &ldquo I am very sympathetic to the sense of confusion
around how come your specific actions today doesn&rsquo t quite gel
with what we said a few weeks ago,&rdquo Communications Minister
Josephine Teo said in an Oct. 1 interview with Bloomberg News.
&ldquo We obviously have to address that.&rdquo A week later, Prime
Minister Lee Hsien Loong tried to draw the strands together and
align the government behind a simple message. We can&rsquo t be
&ldquo locked down and closed off indefinitely,&rdquo Lee said in a
national address. &ldquo We should respect Covid-19, but we must not
be paralyzed.&rdquo
Tight border and quarantine orders orders appear to have hit
white-collar foreigners hardest, though new vaccine travel lanes
may alleviate some of the worst of this. In fact, for every
Singaporean gripe about outsiders hogging job opportunities and
being paid too much, there&rsquo s an expatriate professional weary of
Singapore&rsquo s frequent U-turns and red tape in the name of
combating Covid. For many, visits home &mdash once an accepted staple
&mdash now have to be coordinated with the government via human
resource departments.
The tough travel restrictions have hurt more than just European
or American expats: More than 100,000 Malaysians who used to
commute daily across the bridge have been stranded. What&rsquo s more,
Singapore&rsquo s once lucrative lodging industry has suffered from
the drop in tourism and conferences same with footfall at some
malls. Time was when a visit to the lovely bike paths and
running tracks along the city-state&rsquo s east coast served as a
tonic for worries about globalization in the aftermath of Brexit
and President Donald Trump&rsquo s election. You could almost set your
watch by the passenger jets approaching Changi Airport, coming
in over the tops of tankers and crammed container vessels
waiting to berth at Singapore&rsquo s world-class port. No more. On a
recent run late one afternoon along the coast, I spied only a
lonely PT Garuda International plane appear through the drizzle.
There&rsquo s been no real gnashing of teeth accompanying figures
showing the population retreating more recently. The number of
people calling Singapore home fell 4.1% last year, the second
consecutive dip and only the third contraction since 1950. As
was the case in 2020, the dip was largely a result of foreigners
departing.
More declines are on the horizon. The fertility rate fell to 1.1
last year, a record low, despite a raft of incentives for
couples to get busy. Society is also aging: The ranks of folks
aged 65 and above approach 18% of the total, up from 16.8% a
year earlier and a bit more than 10% a decade ago. The city-
state is cooling on the world just as its homegrown demographics
swing against it.
Prime Minister Lee, the son of Lee Kuan Yew, acknowledged the
interests the government is trying to balance in his pre-
national day Aug. 8 address. &ldquo We have to adjust our policies to
manage the quality, numbers and concentrations of foreigners in
Singapore,&rdquo Lee said. &ldquo If we do this well, we can continue to
welcome foreign workers and new immigrants, as we must.&rdquo
Singapore&rsquo s latest effort at a tightly controlled re-
opening &mdash work from home is still the default setting &mdash struck
many of the right notes, as did the premier&rsquo s rejection of a
prolonged defensive crouch and some of the steps that followed.
And for now, Singapore benefits from a robust global upswing:
The International Monetary Fund projects world gross domestic
product to climb 5.9% this year Singapore forecasts a range
that&rsquo s a bit better.
Yet don&rsquo t expect the Singapore that emerges from the
pandemic to pick up where the old one left off. An instinct for
survival has often gotten global cities through. For Singapore,
it means reckoning with choices deferred during less dire times,
like finding the right mix of imported and home-grown labor.
Meanwhile, though, let&rsquo s get back workers, whether imported or
local, into those glass towers downtown. Global cities are
infinitely preferable to global shells.
chartistkao1 ( Date: 01-Nov-2021 14:17) Posted:
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABldpP7p3kY
https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/simp/business-55476378
chartistkao1 ( Date: 01-Nov-2021 14:10) Posted:
|
走 1990年 走 进 了 大 陆 科 技 市 场
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00QW8xunU48
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00QW8xunU48
chartistkao1 ( Date: 01-Nov-2021 14:06) Posted:
|
https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/simp/science-40713613
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa_a26wn2Fs
chartistkao1 ( Date: 01-Nov-2021 13:59) Posted:
|
它 做 初 一
别 人 就 做 十 五
https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/simp/chinese-news-40634827
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-ZkP04Z3_g
chartistkao1 ( Date: 01-Nov-2021 13:45) Posted:
|
https://finance.sina.com.cn/stock/s/2021-02-05/doc-ikftpnny5335605.shtml
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=git6DCXSqjE
chartistkao1 ( Date: 01-Nov-2021 13:40) Posted:
|
2020 and 2021 two years of china tech selldown
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/06/jdcom-appoints-new-president-founder-to-focus-on-long-term-strategy.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c56IJWgrkNE
马 ， 马 ， 马 变 成 马 上 好 了
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsVqO83OYow
https://www.straitstimes.com/business/companies-markets/tencent-boss-pony-ma-loses-189-billion-in-china-crackdown-more-than-jack
chartistkao1 ( Date: 01-Nov-2021 13:33) Posted:
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBFnq5Cp5Do
https://www.india.com/business/china-crackdown-after-jack-ma-pony-ma-beijing-now-clips-didi-founder-chengs-wings-4974051/
busy bottom fishchartistkao1 ( Date: 01-Nov-2021 13:29) Posted:
|
not jack ma or ponny ma and no one will fall down
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-antgroup-ipo-idINKBN27S31I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V000EPpgadY
chartistkao1 ( Date: 01-Nov-2021 13:25) Posted:
|
这 个 大 中 国 科 技 震 荡 ， 谁 会 平 安 无 事
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V000EPpgadY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V000EPpgadY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGqadx4azgA
chartistkao1 ( Date: 01-Nov-2021 13:13) Posted:
|
the current ping an selldown is good buying opportunity for 大 家 平 安 ， 代 代 平 安
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTusLc-M5d4& t=140s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTusLc-M5d4& t=140s
chartistkao1 ( Date: 20-Oct-2021:26) Posted:
|
https://www.theedgesingapore.com/news/banking-finance/ocbc-partners-ping-bank-two-way-services-chinas-wealth-management-connect
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/banking-finance/dbs-ocbc-tap-china%E2%80%99s-wealth-management-connect-scheme-to-expand-in-greater-bay-area
chartistkao1 ( Date: 19-Oct-2021 11:48) Posted:
|
buy ocbc when us is trouble by debt ceiling and also the FED shrinking its balance sheet will not be wrong timing to buy it
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T& Cs and Copyright Policy. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/828169e8-8902-3d5a-903d-586bf22cc35c
The Federal Reserve is actively considering a profound change in US monetary policy, in effect the reversal of quantitative easing (QE). In its March meeting, the FOMC discussed its strategy for the future run down of its balance sheet, and said that further debate would take place in upcoming meetings. The FOMC has already concluded that &ldquo a change in the Committee&rsquo s reinvestment policy would likely be appropriate later this year&rdquo and that this would need to be flagged &ldquo well in advance&rdquo . The minutes to the May meeting (to be published on 24 May) will probably provide some further indication about their thinking on this important topic. Investors are therefore beginning to focus on the possible consequences of the reversal of QE on interest rates and the shape of the yield curve. In a previous column, I outlined the likely path for the US central bank balance sheet under the new policy, and predicted that this would cause global QE to turn negative in 2019, after being consistently positive by about 2 percentage points of global GDP in every year since 2011. The great unknown is whether this reversal of central bank support will remove the underpinnings from the bond market, risk assets and the global economic upswing. I take the optimistic side of this debate, but investor opinion is sharply divided on the matter. The FOMC has already outlined some of the principles that will guide the shrinkage of its balance sheet. The central bank&rsquo s portfolio of treasuries and mortgage backed securities will almost certainly be run down in a gradual and predictable manner, allowing bonds to run off as they mature, instead of reinvesting the proceeds in more bonds. There will be no direct sales of bonds into the open market. The run down will start only when the normalisation of interest rates is &ldquo well underway&rdquo (probably implying a Fed funds rate of around 1.5 per cent), and when the FOMC is confident that there is little risk of needing to reverse the direction of monetary policy in the foreseeable future. The FOMC is still deciding whether reinvestments should cease in a single jump, or whether they should be phased out more gradually. But the Committee clearly wants to set the balance sheet reduction on a predictable long term path, while relying on changes in interest rates to make shorter term alterations to monetary policy. What would be the effect of fully reversing the quantitative easing that has taken place since 2007, a period in which the Fed&rsquo s balance sheet has risen by $3.5 trillion, from $0.9 trillion to $4.4 trillion? There have been many studies on the economic effects of this unconventional monetary easing, including an analysis by Fed economists that has been quoted recently by Janet Yellen. This study, by Eric Engen, Thomas Laubach and David Reifschneider, presents conclusions that may be near the consensus of Fed thinking on the subject at present. The Fed study suggests that the effect of the entire QE programme was to reduce 10 year term premium, and therefore the bond yield, by 120 basis points in 2013. This is estimated to have reduced US unemployment by about 1.25 percentage points and increased inflation by about 0.5 percentage points. On my reckoning, other results in the Engel et al paper indicate that the QE programme increased US equity prices by 11-15 per cent, and reduced the dollar effective exchange rate by 4.5-5 per cent. These are obviously very large effects, and if we were to make the highly simplified assumption that they will be fully reversed during the unwind of QE, there would be plenty of reason to be worried. However, that simplified assumption does not make much sense. There are at least three good reasons for believing that the effects of the run down will be much smaller than the impact of the original QE programme, quoted above. First, the scale of reduction in the Fed&rsquo s balance sheet in the next few years will be nowhere near as large as the increase during the expansion phase. For various reasons related to changes in the Fed&rsquo s mechanism for controlling short rates, and in the demand for liquidity in the banking sector, it will be necessary for the central bank&rsquo s balance sheet to be permanently larger than it was before the crisis (see this earlier column). The FOMC will probably publish the full path for the expected balance sheet before it even starts the run down. This is likely to show that the Fed will shed only around one third to one half of the assets it accumulated during the expansion phase, implying that the balance sheet will drop by $1.2-1.8 billion over several years. The total effect of this might be to increase 10 year bond yields by about 40-60 basis points, and the other economic effects quoted above would also need to be scaled down proportionately. A likely path for the balance sheet (actually, the total securities held in the Fed&rsquo s System Open Market Account), compared to the desired long term or &ldquo normalised&rdquo size, is shown here: Second, some of the effects of balance sheet normalisation may already be in the market. According to to New York Fed&rsquo s Primary Dealer Survey in March, market participants already expect the run down to start in mid 2018, when the Fed funds rate has reached 1.63 per cent. Since the FOMC is very unlikely to shock the market by announcing a more hawkish path than this expectation implies, the impact of the event itself may be rather muted. Third, the effect of balance sheet tightening may be offset by the Fed adopting an easier path for short term interest rates than it otherwise would have chosen. This is very different from what happened during the balance sheet expansion phase, when short term rates were fixed at almost zero. The key point is that the future stance of monetary policy will not be determined by the balance sheet normalisation in isolation, but by its combination with the path for the Fed funds rate. If the adverse effect of the balance sheet run down on bond yields is larger than expected, it would quickly be offset by a more dovish path for short term interest rates. Janet Yellen has suggested that the expectation of balance sheet normalisation has already increased the bond yield in 2017 by 15 basis points, which she says is equivalent to two 25 basis point increases in the fed funds rate. The market seems to think that the balance sheet run down will have an even larger effect on short rates than Yellen implies, which is perhaps why it is so reluctant to price in the full rise in rates implied by the FOMC&rsquo s &ldquo dot plot&rdquo for 2018-19. The Fed is determined to avoid a repeat of the 2013 &ldquo taper tantrum&rdquo , when the tapering of its bond purchases caused major turbulence in the bond market. With careful communication, it can achieve this.
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T& Cs and Copyright Policy. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/828169e8-8902-3d5a-903d-586bf22cc35c
The Federal Reserve is actively considering a profound change in US monetary policy, in effect the reversal of quantitative easing (QE). In its March meeting, the FOMC discussed its strategy for the future run down of its balance sheet, and said that further debate would take place in upcoming meetings. The FOMC has already concluded that &ldquo a change in the Committee&rsquo s reinvestment policy would likely be appropriate later this year&rdquo and that this would need to be flagged &ldquo well in advance&rdquo . The minutes to the May meeting (to be published on 24 May) will probably provide some further indication about their thinking on this important topic. Investors are therefore beginning to focus on the possible consequences of the reversal of QE on interest rates and the shape of the yield curve. In a previous column, I outlined the likely path for the US central bank balance sheet under the new policy, and predicted that this would cause global QE to turn negative in 2019, after being consistently positive by about 2 percentage points of global GDP in every year since 2011. The great unknown is whether this reversal of central bank support will remove the underpinnings from the bond market, risk assets and the global economic upswing. I take the optimistic side of this debate, but investor opinion is sharply divided on the matter. The FOMC has already outlined some of the principles that will guide the shrinkage of its balance sheet. The central bank&rsquo s portfolio of treasuries and mortgage backed securities will almost certainly be run down in a gradual and predictable manner, allowing bonds to run off as they mature, instead of reinvesting the proceeds in more bonds. There will be no direct sales of bonds into the open market. The run down will start only when the normalisation of interest rates is &ldquo well underway&rdquo (probably implying a Fed funds rate of around 1.5 per cent), and when the FOMC is confident that there is little risk of needing to reverse the direction of monetary policy in the foreseeable future. The FOMC is still deciding whether reinvestments should cease in a single jump, or whether they should be phased out more gradually. But the Committee clearly wants to set the balance sheet reduction on a predictable long term path, while relying on changes in interest rates to make shorter term alterations to monetary policy. What would be the effect of fully reversing the quantitative easing that has taken place since 2007, a period in which the Fed&rsquo s balance sheet has risen by $3.5 trillion, from $0.9 trillion to $4.4 trillion? There have been many studies on the economic effects of this unconventional monetary easing, including an analysis by Fed economists that has been quoted recently by Janet Yellen. This study, by Eric Engen, Thomas Laubach and David Reifschneider, presents conclusions that may be near the consensus of Fed thinking on the subject at present. The Fed study suggests that the effect of the entire QE programme was to reduce 10 year term premium, and therefore the bond yield, by 120 basis points in 2013. This is estimated to have reduced US unemployment by about 1.25 percentage points and increased inflation by about 0.5 percentage points. On my reckoning, other results in the Engel et al paper indicate that the QE programme increased US equity prices by 11-15 per cent, and reduced the dollar effective exchange rate by 4.5-5 per cent. These are obviously very large effects, and if we were to make the highly simplified assumption that they will be fully reversed during the unwind of QE, there would be plenty of reason to be worried. However, that simplified assumption does not make much sense. There are at least three good reasons for believing that the effects of the run down will be much smaller than the impact of the original QE programme, quoted above. First, the scale of reduction in the Fed&rsquo s balance sheet in the next few years will be nowhere near as large as the increase during the expansion phase. For various reasons related to changes in the Fed&rsquo s mechanism for controlling short rates, and in the demand for liquidity in the banking sector, it will be necessary for the central bank&rsquo s balance sheet to be permanently larger than it was before the crisis (see this earlier column). The FOMC will probably publish the full path for the expected balance sheet before it even starts the run down. This is likely to show that the Fed will shed only around one third to one half of the assets it accumulated during the expansion phase, implying that the balance sheet will drop by $1.2-1.8 billion over several years. The total effect of this might be to increase 10 year bond yields by about 40-60 basis points, and the other economic effects quoted above would also need to be scaled down proportionately. A likely path for the balance sheet (actually, the total securities held in the Fed&rsquo s System Open Market Account), compared to the desired long term or &ldquo normalised&rdquo size, is shown here: Second, some of the effects of balance sheet normalisation may already be in the market. According to to New York Fed&rsquo s Primary Dealer Survey in March, market participants already expect the run down to start in mid 2018, when the Fed funds rate has reached 1.63 per cent. Since the FOMC is very unlikely to shock the market by announcing a more hawkish path than this expectation implies, the impact of the event itself may be rather muted. Third, the effect of balance sheet tightening may be offset by the Fed adopting an easier path for short term interest rates than it otherwise would have chosen. This is very different from what happened during the balance sheet expansion phase, when short term rates were fixed at almost zero. The key point is that the future stance of monetary policy will not be determined by the balance sheet normalisation in isolation, but by its combination with the path for the Fed funds rate. If the adverse effect of the balance sheet run down on bond yields is larger than expected, it would quickly be offset by a more dovish path for short term interest rates. Janet Yellen has suggested that the expectation of balance sheet normalisation has already increased the bond yield in 2017 by 15 basis points, which she says is equivalent to two 25 basis point increases in the fed funds rate. The market seems to think that the balance sheet run down will have an even larger effect on short rates than Yellen implies, which is perhaps why it is so reluctant to price in the full rise in rates implied by the FOMC&rsquo s &ldquo dot plot&rdquo for 2018-19. The Fed is determined to avoid a repeat of the 2013 &ldquo taper tantrum&rdquo , when the tapering of its bond purchases caused major turbulence in the bond market. With careful communication, it can achieve this.
https://www.ssga.com/sg/en/institutional/etfs/funds/spdr-straits-times-index-etf-es3buy into ocbc vie buying into this ETF
what next after sia hit bottom on march 2020 and kepcorp still below water at below temasek offer price of $7.4 for kepcorp?
https://financialhorse.com/temasek-drops-keppel-privatization-offer-3-quick-thoughts-on-what-happens-next/
https://financialhorse.com/temasek-drops-keppel-privatization-offer-3-quick-thoughts-on-what-happens-next/
with brent crude hitting over usd 84 ,kepcorp is worth $7.4 after we saw
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/business/temasek-holdings-keppel-corp-billion-shares-1313161
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/business/temasek-holdings-keppel-corp-billion-shares-1313161
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz3sojQZdMo
https://www.hk01.com/%E5%8D%B3%E6%99%82%E5%9C%8B%E9%9A%9B/689587/%E7%BE%8E%E5%9C%8Bcia%E5%85%AC%E9%96%8B%E6%8B%9B%E8%81%98%E7%BE%8E%E7%B1%8D-%E6%87%82%E4%B8%AD%E6%96%87-%E8%81%B7%E5%93%A1-%E5%B9%B4%E8%96%AA%E6%9C%80%E9%AB%98%E5%8F%AF%E9%81%94134%E8%90%AC%E5%85%83