Thursday, 10 June 2010

When to Buy Your Child a Cellphone

When to Buy Your Child a Cellphone

Andrew Sullivan for The New York Times


Caroline LaGumina, 11, of New York, wanted a phone so she could text her friends. She got one last Christmas.

By STEFANIE OLSEN
Published: June 9, 2010



David Poger had planned to buy his daughter Maya a cellphone when she was 15 and in high school, but last year he and his wife caved when she was 11.

“There was a lot of nagging and pleading,” said Mr. Poger, who lives in St. Louis, Miss. But for his wife, Stephanie, and him, he said, “Safety was a big issue because she was walking downtown with her school friends, going to movies and roller skating without us.” He added, “I still think she’s too young.”

Many parents these days face the same struggle as the Pogers: at what age should you buy your child a cellphone? And when you do buy that first phone, what kind should it be?

About 75 percent of 12- to 17-year-olds in the United States own a mobile phone, up from 45 percent in 2004, according to an April study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, part of the Pew Research Center. And children are getting their phones at earlier ages, industry experts say. The Pew study, for example, found that 58 percent of 12-year-olds now own a cellphone, up from 18 percent in 2004.

Parents generally say they buy their child a phone for safety reasons, because they want to be able to reach the child anytime. Cost also matters to parents, cellphone industry experts say; phones and family plans from carriers are both becoming more affordable. Also, as adults swap out their old devices for newer smartphones, it is easier to pass down a used phone.

But for children, it is all about social life and wanting to impress peers. The Pew study found that half of 12- to 17-year-olds sent 50 text messages a day and texted their friends more than they talked to them on the phone or even face to face.

Experts say the social pressure to text can get acute by the sixth grade, when most children are 11 years old. Just ask Caroline LaGumina, 11, of New York, who got her phone last Christmas. “I wanted to be able to text because my friends all text each other.”

So when is the right time to buy that first phone?

There is no age that suits all children, developmental psychologists and child safety experts say. It depends on the child’s maturity level and need for the phone, and the ability to be responsible for the device — for example, keeping it charged, keeping it on, not losing it, not lending it. Instead of giving in to the argument that “everyone else has one,” parents should ask why the child needs one, how it will be used and how well the child handles distraction and responsibility.

“You need to figure out, are your kids capable of following your rules?” about using the phone, said Parry Aftab, executive director of the child advocacy group Wired Safety.

Ruth Peters, a child psychologist in Clearwater, Fla., said most children were not ready for their own phones until age 11 to 14, when they were in middle school. Often, that is when they begin traveling alone to and from school, or to after-school activities, and may need to get in touch with a parent to change activities at the last minute or coordinate rides.

Patricia Greenfield, a psychology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who specializes in children’s use of digital media, cautioned that at younger ages, parents might miss out on what was going on with their children because of a cellphone.

“Kids want the phone so that they can have private communication with their peers,” she said. “You should wait as long as possible, to maintain parent-child communication.”

When choosing a phone for a child, experts say, a big consideration is whether to buy a feature phone or a smartphone. A feature phone generally has a camera, Web access and a slide-out qwerty keyboard, but not the operating system with the applications that can be downloaded on a smartphone. With some carriers, you can buy a feature phone and not get a data plan, but others, like Verizon, have started to eliminate this combination.

Parents should realize that buying any kind of phone with Web access essentially allows their children unsupervised access to content and tools, like social networking and videos, that they may forbid on the home computer.

“Most parents want to give a cellphone to keep them safe, but that ignores the great majority of uses that kids are using cellphones for,” said James P. Steyer, the chief executive of the nonprofit group Common Sense Media, which rates children’s media. He said that with those added features can come addictive behavior, cyberbullying, “sexting” (sending nude photos by text message), cheating in class and, for older teenagers, distracted driving.

Dr. Peters suggested that parents avoid buying children younger than 13 a phone with a camera and Internet access. “If they don’t have access to it, it’s just cleaner,” she said.

Parents who do not want to buy a feature phone or smartphone might consider an inexpensive prepaid phone — Nokia, LG and Samsung have models like this — that comes without a contract and is not part of a family plan. For as little as $10, parents can load the phone with 30 minutes of calls. The Pew study reported that 18 percent of teenagers used these plans and that teenagers who did were typically more tempered in their use.

If parents do choose a smartphone or feature phone, it is important to set use restrictions on Internet, texting and calls until age 15 or 16, when presumably the child will be more mature and also have greater autonomy.

The April Pew study estimated that nearly half of American parents limited their 12- to 17-year- old’s phone use. It said that restrictions on text messaging correlated to lower levels of sexting and impulsive behavior.

Parents have several ways to set use restrictions. One way is to buy a plan through the carrier. For example, for $4.99 monthly, AT&T’s Smart Limits or Verizon’s Use Controls let parents set limits on minutes, restrict time-of-day use and even dictate whom the child can call or text. Parents can also request that their carrier block content or prevent a child from texting photos.

Parents can also buy software from other vendors like My Mobile Watchdog that can be loaded onto the child’s phone and will, for example, send a copy of a child’s texts or photos to the parent’s phone.

Some phones are made specially for children and include free parental controls, like the Firefly and the Kajeet, available online. But generally, the major wireless retailers focus on smartphones and feature phones, saying that children’s phones have proved less popular.

Anyone with a teenager or preteenager knows that most children covet the kinds of phones adults have. “No kid wants a dumbed-down phone,” said Julie A. Ask, vice president at Forrester Research.

In a Verizon store in Berkeley, Calif., recently, store clerks pointed to several feature phones, some of which are referred to as 3G multimedia phones that they said were attractive to teenagers — like the $130 LG enV3 and the $150 Motorola Cliq.

Common Sense Media and CTIA, the cellphone industry trade group, both have sites with advice on children and cellphones.

Parents might also consider cellphone alternatives like the iPod Touch, which for $199 offers music, games and applications. Technically, it is not a phone, but through a Wi-Fi hot spot, children can download applications like TextFree ($5.99 or free in ad-supported version) and Skype, and then text or call their friends free.

Mr. Poger’s daughter Maya has an LG Rumor2 with a keyboard through his family’s Sprint plan. He asked the carrier to block downloads, and he and his wife have talked to Maya about responsible use. Now Maya’s sister, who is 6, wants one.

“She’s going to wait until she’s 11,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/technology/personaltech/10basics.html?ref=business

Taking their medicine

Taking their medicine

June 10, 2010
Most of those responsible wreaking havoc on the global economy have not owned up to their failures, writes Joseph Stiglitz.

IT HAS taken almost two years since the collapse of Lehman Brothers and more than three years since the beginning of the global recession brought on by the misdeeds of the financial sector, for the United States and Europe finally to reform financial regulation.

Perhaps we should celebrate these regulatory victories. After all, there is almost universal agreement that the crisis the world is facing today - and is likely to continue to face for years - is as a result of the excesses of the deregulation movement begun under Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan 30 years ago.

Unfettered markets are neither efficient nor stable.

But the battle, and even the victory, has left a bitter taste. Most of those responsible for the mistakes - whether at the US Federal Reserve, the US Treasury, Britain's Bank of England and Financial Services Authority, the European Commission and European Central Bank, or in individual banks - have not owned up to their failures.

Banks that wreaked havoc on the global economy have resisted doing what needs to be done. Worse still, they have received support from the Federal Reserve, which one might have expected to adopt a more cautious stance, given the scale of its past mistakes.

This is important not just as a matter of history and accountability, but because much is being left up to regulators. And that leaves open the question: can we trust them? To me, the answer is an unambiguous ''no'', which is why we need to hard-wire more of the regulatory framework. The usual approach - delegating responsibility to regulators to work out the details - will not suffice.

And that raises another question. Whom can we trust? On complex economic matters, trust had been vested in bankers (if they make so much money, they obviously know something!) and in regulators, who often (but not always) came from the markets. But the events of recent years have shown that bankers can make megabucks, even as they undermine the economy and impose massive losses on their own firms.

Bankers have also shown themselves to be ''ethically challenged''. A court of law will decide whether Goldman Sachs' behaviour - betting against products that it created - was illegal. But the court of public opinion has already rendered its verdict on the far more relevant question of the ethics of that behaviour. That Goldman's CEO saw himself as doing ''God's work'' as his firm sold short products that it created, or disseminated scurrilous rumours about a country where it was serving as an ''adviser'', suggests a parallel universe, with different mores and values.

As always, the financial-sector lobbyists have laboured hard to make sure that the new regulations work to their employers' benefit. As a result, it will likely be a long time before we can assess the success of whatever law the US Congress ultimately enacts.

The new law must curb the practices that jeopardised the entire global economy, and reorientate the financial system towards its proper tasks: managing risk, allocating capital, providing credit (especially to small and medium-sized enterprises), and operating an efficient payments system.

We should toast the likely successes. Some form of financial-product safety commission will be established, more derivative trading will move to exchanges and clearing houses from the shadows of the murky ''bespoke'' market, and some of the worst mortgage practices will be restricted.

It also looks likely that the outrageous fees charged for every debit transaction - a kind of tax that fills only the banks' coffers - will be curtailed.

But the likely failures are equally noteworthy. The problem of too-big-to-fail banks is now worse than it was before the crisis. In the last crisis, US government ''blinked'', failed to use the powers that it had, and needlessly bailed out shareholders and bondholders because it feared that doing otherwise would lead to economic trauma. As long as there are banks that are too big to fail, it will most likely ''blink'' again.

It is no surprise that the big banks have succeeded in stopping some essential reforms; what was a surprise was a provision in the US Senate's bill that banned government-insured entities from underwriting risky derivatives. Such underwriting distorts the market, giving big banks a competitive advantage, not necessarily because they are more efficient, but because they are ''too big to fail''.

The Fed's defence of the big banks - that it is important for borrowers to be able to hedge their risks - reveals the extent to which it has been captured.

There are many ways of curbing the excesses of the big banks. A strong version of the so-called Volcker Rule (designed to force government-insured banks to return to their core mission of lending) might work. But the US government would be remiss to leave things as they are.

The Senate bill's provision on derivatives is a good litmus test: the Obama administration and the Fed, in opposing these restrictions, have clearly lined up on the side of big banks. If effective restrictions on the derivatives business of government-insured banks (whether actually insured, or effectively insured because they are too big to fail) survive in the final version of the bill, the general interest might indeed prevail over special interests, and democratic forces over moneyed lobbyists.

But if, as most pundits predict, these restrictions are deleted, it will be a sad day for democracy - and a sadder day for the prospects of meaningful financial reform.

Joseph E. Stiglitz is University Professor at Columbia University and a Nobel laureate in Economics.

Source: The Age

http://www.smh.com.au/business/taking-their-medicine-20100609-xwsq.html

Wednesday, 9 June 2010

Core-satellite Portfolio Management

The core-satellite portfolio strategy is a relatively new concept that bridges the never-ending debate between the respective benefits of active and passive portfolio management.

The core-satellite portfolio approach optimises both passive and active management strategies.

  • Such a portfolio approach is divided into a core component, which usually forms the majority of the portfolio that is passively managed.  
  • The rest of the portfolio is called the "satellite", which is an active component in an attempt to generate alpha returns, i.e. risk adjusted returns.  


The allocation mix between the core and the satellite components within the portfolio is flexible and it allows investors to select and optimal mix that would best represent their desired portfolio risk-return characteristics.

The core-satellite portfolio concept is very suitable for big investors who are often long-term investors.  


KL bourse out to woo retail investors

KL bourse out to woo retail investors
Published: 2010/06/09

Malaysia’s bourse said it’s seeking to lure individual investors who have shunned the market a decade after the Asian financial crisis.

Bursa Malaysia Bhd is working with brokerages and banks to “to reach out to retail investors in various towns and cities” to open up accounts and encourage online trading, chief executive officer Yusli Mohamed Yusoff said in an interview in Kuala Lumpur.

Trading by individuals fell to as low as 20 per cent of trading value from more than half before the start of the Asian financial crisis in 1997, when the benchmark index slumped by a record 52 per cent.

“A lot of retailers lost a substantial amount,” Yusli said yesterday. The result is that the market is now “dominated by the local institutions,” he said.

Most individual savings started shifting to mutual funds and unit trusts since Malaysia’s economy went into a recession in 1998, Yusli said. They haven’t returned to stock trading even as the economy expanded at an annual average of 5 per cent over the past decade and the benchmark index more than doubled.

The FTSE Bursa Malaysia KLCI Index has climbed 1.2 per cent so far this year, paring a gain of as much as 5.8 per cent amid concern austerity measures in Europe will reduce demand for the Malaysia’s technology and commodity exports.

Lagging Behind

The KLCI’s 45 per cent gain last year lagged behind Southeast Asian neighbors even after the government announced stimulus plans totaling RM67 billion to help pull Southeast Asia’s third-largest economy out of a recession.

Trading slumped by half to an average US$375 million a day over the six months ended May from the same period 13 years ago, right before the start of the regional financial crisis in July 1997, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Neighboring Singapore’s figures have quadrupled to US$1.1 billion over that time, data from the city-state’s exchange show.

“People’s risk appetite is not there anymore, not like those days,” said Lye Thim Loong, who helps manage US$500 million at Avenue Invest Bhd in Kuala Lumpur. “Those who traded recklessly with no fundamental reasons got burnt.”

The slump in trading by individuals coincided with an exodus by foreigners from Southeast Asia’s second-biggest stock market, leaving Bursa more reliant on domestic institutional funds. Overseas investors have sold a net RM1.36 billion of Malaysia’s equities this year, adding to RM8.57 billion withdrawn in 2009 and RM38.6 billion ringgit that flowed out in 2008, according to exchange data. In 2007, they bought a net RM24.7 billion.

Foreigners

The exit left foreigners holding 20.6 per cent of local stocks at the end of April, down from 27.5 per cent in April 2007, according to stock exchange data. Overseas investors held 9.33 per cent of Tenaga Nasional Bhd at the end of April, compared with 27 per cent in April 2007, according to data from Malaysia’s biggest power producer.

The state-controlled Employees Provident Fund accounts for 50 per cent of daily trading volume in the equity and bond markets, Prime Minister Najib Razak said on March 30. More than half of the RM417.1 billion of market value in the benchmark stock index is owned by government-linked funds, according to calculations by Bloomberg.

“We’d rather see a more balanced distribution, so that one particular sector doesn’t dominate the market so much,” Yusli said.

Retail investors’ share of trading is low by comparison with at least one neighbor, Thailand, where individuals accounted for 56 per cent of turnover so far this year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Exchanges in neighboring Indonesia and Singapore don’t track the figures.

“There has been some increase in the total of retail account sign-ups recently, but the amount is negligible,” Alex Hwang, chief executive officer of HwangDBS Investment Bank Bhd in Kuala Lumpur, said in an e-mailed reply to questions. Investors are “more careful these days due to the volatile market,” he said. -- Bloomberg


Read more: KL bourse out to woo retail investors http://www.btimes.com.my/Current_News/BTIMES/articles/20100609084947/Article/index_html#ixzz0qLed7Wsg

Buy and hold until fundamentals change is safe for selected stocks.

Selected Stock Performance Review
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AuRRzs61sKqRdGZuWktpR2dvQUhhSmpkNElXY0NvWmc&output=html

Monday, 7 June 2010

Kenmark suffers RM137m pre-tax loss

Business Times
Kenmark suffers RM137m pre-tax loss


2010/06/07

Kenmark Industrial Co (M) Bhd posted a pre-tax loss of RM137.022 million for its full year ended March 31, 2010 from a pre-tax profit of RM4.066 million before.

Its revenue also dropped slightly to RM213.224 million from RM250.926 million previously. -- Bernama

How are you allocating your money in this volatile period?

How has the recent turmoil on global markets affected how you allocate money in your fund?




Flash: Govt yet to issue sport betting licence

Flash: Govt yet to issue sport betting licence

Written by Chua Sue-Ann
Monday, 07 June 2010 18:04


KUALA LUMPUR: The government has yet to issue a sports betting licence and it has also yet to finalise the terms of the licence to Ascot Sports Sdn Bhd, says Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

He said this in a written reply in Parliament on Monday, June 7.


http://www.theedgemalaysia.com/political-news/167463-flash-govt-yet-to-issue-sport-betting-licence.html

Historical Investment Data of Integrax (7.6.2010)

Historical Investment Data of  Integrax (7.6.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tZj_Lmc9qKtzpFRFfTu8iEw&output=html

Historical Investment Data of Genting Malaysia GENM (7.6.2010)

Historical Investment Data of  Genting Malaysia GENM (7.6.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tnwEh7I1JjIN3EviG6ZylQg&output=html

Historical Investment Data for Parkson (7.6.2010)

Historical Investment Data for Parkson (7.6.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=to3QELB1TK3GBvszqFfJBdw&output=html

Historical Investment Data for Coastal (7.6.2010)

Historical Investment Data for Coastal (7.6.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=t2V7YCN7GFYfboe6OYDJYpA&output=html

Historical Investment Data for UMW (7.6.2010)

Historical Investment Data for UMW (7.6.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tOedmb48POVTSD45xSQHWpQ&output=html

Historical Investment Data for Latexx (7.6.2010)

Historical Investment Data for Latexx (7.6.2010)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=t73kBT7EVW5Ca8Jxrct4ADw&output=html