Most Americans don't begrudge great riches to anybody who works hard, takes real risks, and creates things of value. As evidenced by the positive outpouring for Steve Jobs, great entrepreneurs are still celebrated. But there is an implicit social contract that links rewards to effort and accomplishment. If many people now believe that corporate America has violated that contract, is it surprising? At many big corporations, the senior managers have seemed more interested in stuffing their pockets than building for the long term. Gargantuan pay packages are only the start of it. Think boards of directors packed with patsies, books cooked to juice earnings, potential whistleblowers silenced, golden parachutes, and finally taxpayers obliged to save expensively tanned hides. The thing that is really surprising is that it has taken this long for public anger to well up.
Dear Mr Tan,It would be my pleasure to share my experience with you.
Let me tell you upfront that I am not yet profitable trading forex. Please allow me to explain why I was still happy with the course.
I took up the forex training course with X in December 2010. At that time, I was retrenched for about 3 months and was unsuccessful in finding a new job. With time on my hands and not knowing what else to do, I attended a few forex sales seminars and eventually signed up with X. I paid about $3000 upfront for the course.
Before I signed up, I had already educated myself on forex trading. I was aware that there were forex training providers who created the impression that forex was easy money. X was honest about what forex trading was really about. This convinced me to sign up.
The course started with 2 days of classroom training over the weekend. This covered the theoretical knowledge needed to trade forex. After the classroom sessions, students are entitled to attend regular tutorial sessions for 1 year. The tutorial sessions were officially on the evenings of Mondays and Wednesdays. During each session, the Chief Trainer Y would conduct an analysis of one or more currency pairs to demonstrate how he applied his techniques and then pointed out potential trades. This would be followed by hands on session during which students learn to apply the techniques on their demo accounts while Y would go around answering questions. For those who have the time, X was open daily for students to go in and trade with other traders. Y would conduct two analysis for the students; once before London session opened and once before NY session. As I did not have a job, I went in daily, from afternoon until night. During these sessions, Y would analyse a currency pair and point out potential trades. I found out over time that most of his trade calls were good and resulted in profitable trades. However, it was a different matter when I did my own analysis and took my own trades. Most of my trades turned out to be losers. Faced with Y's successful trades and my own unsuccessful trades, it became obvious to me that it was not the technique but the trader that was the problem. I spent practically all my weekdays at X until I found a job in June. When I was there, I found Y to be genuine about helping his students. I was using air-con, Internet and electricity for free. Although I could not go into X anymore because of work, I still joined the Wednesday sessions via webex meetings. This was something additional that Y provided. I didn't have to pay a single cent after that initial $3000 payment. In fact, I wondered if he could be profitable like this. When I saw your online survey on forex and a comment that all forex courses are overpriced and useless, I knew where you were going with this. You probably heard feedback from unhappy people who felt that they were cheated by forex schools. Hence, I felt I should provide a balanced view. There are indeed forex schools that use questionable tactics to sign up students but there are genuine ones too. Evaluating whether a forex course is good based on trading results can be tricky. This is because forex trading techniques are easy to learn but it takes time and experience to learn how to apply them correctly. It takes time, discipline and effort and is not a get rich quick scheme. Like in any business, only a small percentage eventually master the skill to become successful. I personally found that it is quite safe to trade forex. I am still working on my forex trading skills. I have heard of people losing lots of money trading forex but it was usually because they could not follow simple trading rules that would keep them safe. For example, students are taught not to trade large amounts until they are successful with paper trading or trading with mini accounts for a few months. Another rule is that you are not supposed to risk more than a small percentage of your capital per trade. However, there are many people who simply could not follow these simple rules. Mr Tan, if you have read up to this point, thank you for your patience! And thank you for what you are doing to help ordinary Singaporeans!
In the CNA Talking Point episode "Policing The Internet", MP (Tampines GRC) Baey Yam Keng claimed that the Ministry of Law sees the internet as another platform for real world criminals to operate from, and people need to be protected from fraud, cyber-bullying, etc. The timing of gazetting online blogs had nothing to do with policing the internet, he said with a poker face. While at it, he might as well add that the president's addendum had nothing to do with the online revelations about the circumstances of his son's 12 year deferment. The wording of the Ministry of Law statement on the subject goes like this:"The proliferation of new media has brought about new challenges to the rule of law and the ministry will review legislation to deal with harmful and unlawful online conduct". Smells like a good-cop-bad-cop routine is in play.I am in favour of policing the Internet to make sure that it is useful for lawful purposes. This is to prevent people from doing harmful things while remaining anonymous. I know that it is difficult to police the Internet but it should not deter us from taking the challenge.
The Banking Act of 1933, Pub.L. 73-66, 48 Stat. 162, enacted June 16, 1933, was a law that established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and introduced banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation.[1] It is most commonly known as the Glass–Steagall Act, after its legislative sponsors, Senator Carter Glass (D–Va.) and Congressman Henry B. Steagall (D–Ala.-3). Some provisions of the Act, such as Regulation Q, which allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts, were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, named after its co-sponsors Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia).[2][3]What are the lessons for today? Financial services and banking have to be more strongly regulated. Some specific measures include the following:
The repeal of provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks.
