online casino bluebook - online casino gambling guide, to top ranked online casinos and reviews of over 200 gambling related websites. www.onlinecasinobluebook.com also host a casino forum, blog, and casino news articles
The price of oil has refused to budge. As China bites the bullet and raised prices of petrol-related products, as Saudi Arabia made a symbolic output increase, and as consumers feel the pinch, the price of crude oil continued with its merry rise. This oily resilience is pushing the entire global economy to very slippery grounds. While the energy resilience confirms a strong global economy, it is heading into levels and staying at levels where strength becomes weakness. For now, weakness will be strength.
In the last 5-6 years, one of the best confirming indicators that the global economy was expanding robustly was the sustained rise in crude oil price. The same holds true for 2008. While an endless number of people have said that the US economy is already in recession, GDP growth for the 1st quarter of 2008 was once again revised upwards. Business spending was stronger than expected, export growth was stronger than initially estimated and even Warren Buffett has revised his recession conclusion to a stagflation forecast. Japan’s exports remained strong as the 6 bln plus people in the rest of the world bought more Japanese products. At the end, the elevated oil price says it all. In contrast to all the doom and gloom views emanating from the US subprime issue, or the credit market freeze, US and global economic growth may be too strong. A full-fledged US recession may actually be good for the rest of the world. As i Capital advised previously, the strength in the price of crude oil has reached a level and intensity that will eat into global economic growth. The world economy may soft land or the global economy may face a hard landing. In the end, strength in crude oil price is becoming a weakness for the global economy. This brings us to the present state of Malaysia.
Many Malaysians have criticised Badawi for being weak, with many comparing his “weakness” with the supposed “strength” of the 4th prime minister. For Badawi, his apparent “weakness” will be Malaysia’s strength. For the 4th prime minister, his much touted, hyped up “strength” is Malaysia’s weakness, Malaysia’s undoing, Malaysia’s Achilles heel and Malaysia’s curse.
With his “strength”, the 4th prime minister single-handedly destroyed the Malaysian judicial system, one of the most important checks and balance institution in any democracy. He singled-handedly embedded the cancer causing money politics into UMNO.
With his “strength”, the 4th prime minister shoved down the throats of Malaysians, endless glamorous, non-viable, mega projects that used up precious and limited resources of Malaysia. Very few Malaysians realise that the KLIA has the honour of being the furthest airport from the city centre. Imagine the huge amount of expensive petrol and diesel (and time) that would be saved if the KLIA had been so much nearer. Why are Malaysian politicians, including those in the opposition, not asking why the KLIA has to be in Sepang ? Why are Malaysians paying so much subsidies for the KLIA to be located so far away ? With his “strength”, he repeatedly ignored warnings of Malaysia’s dangerously high external deficits in the Nineties and set the stage for Malaysia to suffer from the full impact of the Great Asian Crisis.
With his wellspinned “strength”, through a mass media that was forced into being one-sided, he was able, on the one hand, to “honestly” lecture the Malays for being lazy and on the other hand, insidiously made them more and more dependent on subsidies and a subsidy mindset. After 22 years of his “strong” rule, the Malaysian economy became more and dependent on subsidies, in whatever forms these may take. The Malaysian education system crumbled under the “strength” of the 4th prime minister who was also an education minister before that. His “strength” resulted in Malaysia scapegoating globalisation and ended up with Malaysia turning away from globalisation. In the end, Malaysia fell further and further behind the Asian Tigers and also quickly lost competitiveness against the many new competitors.
The “strength” of one man for 22 years caused the major weaknesses of Malaysia for generations to come. His “strength” destroyed many “weak” Malaysian prime ministers. Ironically, the “weakness” of Badawi will be Malaysia’s strength. His “weakness” allowed the voices of many suppressed Malaysians to be heard again after a very long time. His “weakness” has made Malaysian politics competitive and with a properly reformed judicial system, hopefully this will result in a more civil society and a more balanced economy. It is through his “weakness” that the Malaysian economy is still able to keep its persistent budget deficit from spiralling out of control. It is the “weakness” of Badawi that Malaysia is friends with every country instead of being a global pariah. From Badawi’s “weakness”, Malaysians can now transfer abroad their hard-earned money easily while the “strength” of the 4th prime minister resulted in our monies being forcefully trapped.
i Capital hopes that Malaysians will make use of Badawi’s “weakness” to make Malaysia strong, successful, and proud. This brings us to an email that we received from Tan Han Wooi on 17 Jun 2008. Tan wrote,
“i Capital's article dated 13 June 2008 title "DOING MORE HARM THAN GOOD" states that "The UK is also a net oil exporter".
According to US Energy Information Administration, the UK is a net importer for 2006 & 2007 ………… Is there any recent 2008 data show otherwise.
Please clarify the above.
As an i Capital subscriber I do expect i Capital to be independent and based on genuine facts and data.”
First, the UK became a net exporter of oil in 1981 but this subsequently changed. The UK nowadays slipps in and out of being a net exporter and importer. Recently, with the start-up of new oil fields, the UK has turned into a net exporter again, a situation which is likely to change again in the future.
Secondly, what is worrying to us is the meaning implied in the last sentence made by Tan Han Wooi. From us at Capital Dynamics, subscribers can expect i Capital to be independent and to be “based on genuine facts and data.” But can we expect the same from our subscribers and our fellow Malaysians ? We know that what we write in i Capital has often been taken out of context and twisted to suit whatever agenda the writers have. And when we express our independent views, we get criticised. This then brings us to a more important point and despite the possibility that we would be criticised again, we still have to say it.
The situation facing the UK applies to Malaysia as well. Malaysia will also become a net oil importer. Depending on the assumptions used, it could be even as early as next year. Indonesia has already become a net oil importer. For those who are against the recent increase in petrol and diesel prices, and argue that the prices of such products are cheaper in oil-producing countries, what happens when Malaysia becomes a net oil importer ? Why protest against something, which needs very careful evaluation, just for the sake of populist politics ? Why is the possibility of Malaysia being a net oil importer hidden from the protests ? This is certainly very irresponsible politics. It is actually bluffing Malaysians for selfish reasons.
Populist politics have very dangerous, harmful long-term consequences. They pawn the future for very short-term pleasure. The heart-breaking experience of Argentina is a classic example of why a government cannot implement economic policies based on populist politics. It is the guaranteed route to disaster. So once again, Malaysians need to protest on the right issues so that we can turn Badawi’s weakness into Malaysia’s real strength. And there are certainly many issues for us to be genuinely concerned with. While subscribers can expect i Capital’s analysis to be based on genuine facts and data, we hope our fellow Malaysians will do the same when it comes to assessing Badawi’s “weakness” and the 4th prime minister’s “strength.”
i Capital had expected crude oil price to correct. It has not really happened. As a result, the global equity markets are getting clobbered again with the NYSE almost in an “official” bear territory – depending on which index is used.
The last 8-9 months have certainly been turbulent as the fears of investors quickly shifted from a gigantic economic contraction to a global inflationary overheating. The level of confusion remains high, the level of uncertainty remains high too. In this context, i Capital would like to share the performance of the i Capital Global Fund since its launch in Jul 2007. The following figures, from 1 to 8 compare the Fund’s performance with the various stock market indices.
As can be seen, the i Capital Global Fund has beaten almost all the indices by a handsome margin (Hong Kong outperformed the Fund by about 1.5%). From Jul 2007 to May 2008, the Fund has beaten markets like SGX, KLSE, Sydney, London, New York, etc by a massive 12 to 18 percentage points. So, for those investors who do not know what to do, investing in the i Capital Global Fund may not be such a bad idea.
The KLSE
Meanwhile, the Great Global Confusion remains.
i Capital retains its immediate-term outlook of the KLSE at a range of 1,170 to 1,300. For the short-term, i Capital retains its outlook to a range of 1,150 to 1,400. For the medium and long-term outlook of the KLSE, i Capital still expects the KLSE CI to hit 2,000 points. With the 2008 election results now history, i Capital will review its medium and long-term outlook in another issue.
Last edited on Fri Jun 27th, 2008 14:43 by wanderer
____________________ Don’t Try to Predict the Future / Be In Harmony with the Market / Don’t fight the Market ~Charlie Wright
This article is contradictory in so many ways... I detect a great deal of insecurity of the writer.... I think "The Less Than Great Confusing Article" would be an apt title
This brings us to an email that we received from Tan Han Wooi on 17 Jun 2008. Tan wrote,“i Capital's article dated 13 June 2008 title "DOING MORE HARM THAN GOOD" states that "The UK is also a net oil exporter".
According to US Energy Information Administration, the UK is a net importer for 2006 & 2007 ………… Is there any recent 2008 data show otherwise.
Please clarify the above.
As an i Capital subscriber I do expect i Capital to be independent and based on genuine facts and data.”
First, the UK became a net exporter of oil in 1981 but this subsequently changed. The UK nowadays slipps in and out of being a net exporter and importer. Recently, with the start-up of new oil fields, the UK has turned into a net exporter again, a situation which is likely to change again in the future.
Secondly, what is worrying to us is the meaning implied in the last sentence made by Tan Han Wooi. From us at Capital Dynamics, subscribers can expect i Capital to be independent and to be “based on genuine facts and data.” But can we expect the same from our subscribers and our fellow Malaysians ? We know that what we write in i Capital has often been taken out of context and twisted to suit whatever agenda the writers have. And when we express our independent views, we get criticised. This then brings us to a more important point and despite the possibility that we would be criticised again, we still have to say it.
I am truly baffled. What's wrong with what Mr.Tan wrote?
So what on earth is iCap takling about "We know that what we write in i Capital has often been taken out of context and twisted to suit whatever agenda the writers have."
Let's see... some one wrote about iCapital doing the classical double talk on the market: Maintaing a bullish outlook PUBLICLY while selling sells on the side.
Has this been taken out of context and twisted to suit the agenda of the writer?
Well what about Nasioncom initial buycall.
Comeon... tell us... was the buy call dubious despite the clear facts that the stock was not fundamantally sound?
Taking out of context?
LOL!
Is this a sneeky shot by iCapital against a certain blogger?
i Capital retains its immediate-term outlook of the KLSE at a range of 1,170 to 1,300. For the short-term, i Capital retains its outlook to a range of 1,150 to 1,400. For the medium and long-term outlook of the KLSE, i Capital still expects the KLSE CI to hit 2,000 points.
With such vague time frams and such massive KLSE target range, how coould iCapital ever be wrong?????
