PER – simple but limited

A simple article on "Buy & Hold" elicited so many readers' comments. There is a hunger for genuine debate on investing techniques, obviously. In this lackluster market, I have been staying away from focusing on stocks, why not go further to refine ideas on investing.

Too many investors would hold onto low PER as the main decision making trigger. It is an important indicator but we must have a strong appreciation of its powers. Only by realising its limitations, can we use PER effectively.

The price-earnings ratio (PER) is probably the most common financial indicator used by investors. However, there are a lot of shortcomings in relying on just the PER to make financial or investing decisions.

One should also note that the earnings per share is based on net profit and not gross. Plus, it should be fully diluted, that is, it should take into account probable conversions into stock. “Trailing PER” involves taking earnings from the last four quarters, while “forward PER” uses the estimated earnings going forward 12 months.

One of the simplest and safest ways to invest is to judge a stock by its absolute low PER. It is simple as you have the low figure as a buffer and cannot go wrong by very much.

If investing were that simple, there would be no need for data mining and earnings projections, or even analysts' reports. You just sort and search each sector according to historical and forward PERs, and then look at the bottom 10% in PER.

To add value, consider the sector and earnings outlooks. If these are good, then it's a safe investment. You may not get a big bang for your bucks from this investment, but it's safe and sure. If this works all the time, why bother doing anything else? That's because investing using low PER as your main yardstick will not give you market returns or better-than-market returns (alpha). If it did, all fund managers would use that exclusively and we would not need to spend billions on research.

Using low PER as a tool

You won't be the first to discover cheap PER stocks. Rule #1: There must be very good reasons why they trade at low PERs in the first place. One must fully be aware of the whys before going further. Try and locate all the negative reasons before jumping in. Reasons for low PER are aplenty. Some of the more common ones:

Sunset industry, enough said

Cyclical stocks

Capital-intensive industries tend to trade at low PERs

Erratic earnings

Earnings may have had a huge jump in recent years, making PER low but not likely to be sustainable

The PER is low because it is likely to go lower

Not liked by funds for good reasons

Third-class management with no vision or coherent strategy

Jumbled shareholders or management using vehicle as their dumping ground

Steel stocks have outperformed enormously; cyclically, it still is a good time. It's the same with certain stocks in shipping services. Both are still cyclical stocks. This means their low PER may be upgraded but it won't run very far. Cyclical stocks do not have predictable growth in earnings further than three years. Get the timing correct, but also look for a time to exit. These are not for a buy-and-hold strategy.

Low PERs usually mean “capital-intensive stocks = low returns on assets” as compared to those in the services industry. Low PER stocks also usually have very high NTA (net tangible assets) per share relative to their share prices. Conversely, high PER stocks usually have low NTA per share relative to their share prices.

This is because from an investing point of view, NTA only comes into consideration upon liquidation. Certainly, you don't invest in a stock hoping for the company to be liquidated in the foreseeable future. Take Maxis Communications Bhd. Its NTA is less than a quarter of its share price. If you liquidate Maxis today, it would be hell for bondholders and shareholders.

Paying for higher PER

A stock will command a high PER if its business model is scalable without the same proportion of capital investment. If you have a cement plant, you will have to fork out a huge amount of capital to expand elsewhere. If you are N2N Connect Bhd, you can scale up your business into the Middle East bourses with relatively low capital investments.

It is highly unlikely that if you were to find a stock at 6x forward PER, you would be the first and only one to have done so. When the timing and conditions are right (like in the last few months), low PER stocks will have their day in the sun.

Hence, PER is only a minor guide and should not be given undue weighting. Many a times, when a low PER stock is moving, it is not because of the low PER, but rather, because of a confluence of other factors, such as a sector or earnings upgrade, or that cyclically, it's time has come. It just so happens that the stock has a low PER.

There are many who religiously find comfort in low PER, when in fact they have carved out a universe of stocks for their selection that are largely capital-intensive industries. You might as well say that you would only invest in capital-intensive and/or cyclical industries if you were to embrace only low PER stocks.

It's not rocket science. An 8x PER stock could still go to 4x PER in a bear market, trust me. A higher PER stock does not mean that it will fall by a higher percentage. Some will cite that artificially manipulated stocks may also have high PERs. But that should not scare people away from them. Just do your homework.

The best way to use PER in investing is by marking them to their historical PER bands. It is more meaningful to use them within the same-sector PER trading bands.

It's pretty useless and shortsighted to buy steel stocks at 7x PER and tout them as great buys compared to the market PER of 14x. On the other hand, it's okay to buy a steel stock at 7x PER when its historical PER is 10x and because you like the market sentiment, sector outlook and the stock's fundamentals.

An alternative gauge

Owing to the shortcomings of the bland PER, professional investors tend to favour using the EV/EBITDA ratio. It's very similar to PER. EV is enterprise value and EBITDA is earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation.

(Enterprise value = Common equity at equity value + debt at market value + minority interest at market value, if any – associate company at market value, if any + preferred equity at market value – cash and cash-equivalents.)

Basically, EV is one way of trying to arrive at the net present value of the company. If a company has a lot of cash, the EV can even be negative. EV looks at the company as a going concern. It indicates how much the business is worth after paying off all claims. That's why cash in bank does not count.

Hence EV/EBITDA is a cashflow measurement or a payback period measurement, while PER is an earnings multiple ratio (or payback period in terms of earnings).

The former measure is superior because it takes into account the capital structure of the company. One can better compare using EV/EBITDA as it can be adjusted for risk per capital structure of a company to get at the proper returns.

Interest and tax are external to real earnings, while depreciation and amortisation are not real cashflow items.

Hence, you would get a better gauge on real earnings minus the peripherals. Still, even though it is a more sophisticated measure, EV/EBITDA also suffers from most of the shortcomings of PER as explained above.

Being a public company – A good thing?

Before I launch into this subject I think I had better make one thing very clear. What I write about this and all the other subjects past, present and future is MY view and not necessarily those of any company I have worked for. I am sure they are very capable of giving their own opinion if asked! I am in a position where, within reason, I can say what I want now I have retired.

I learned two truisms about PLC status very early on. Firstly, it earns a few people a lot of money and secondly, all the rules of the game change to dramatic effect. There are so many people there to take their cut and they do not go away. In fact not only do they remain but others join them with the sole intend of using the company as a vehicle to increase their cash flow and make money. But that is not the bad part, after all everyone from the filing clerk to chairman wants security and income. The bad part is that you are both directed and judged by these folk and many of them do not have a clue about the business from a commercial perspective. To them it is trends and numbers with very little room for entrepreneurism, flexibility and market forces.

Allow me to try and explain in perhaps a rather simplistic way. Once you have gone through all the posturing, audits, presentations and gained the necessary financial house and investor commitment you finally become a public company valued at your given share price times the number of shares released. Now all you have to do is deliver everything you said in your presentations resulting in the expect revenue, cash flow and profit. Simple.

But it is not simple even if you achieve all the above. Why? Because you not only have to deliver it but you have to deliver in the same shape as originally presented i.e. by doing it exactly as you said you would. Why you may ask? Surely the end result is the important bit especially as circumstance change so much in the commercial world what with new technologies, prices, competitors etc. No, what you have to prove is that you knew what you were doing in the past so they can trust you to do it in the future regardless of change. You see as soon as the results are published they become history and it is the next set of results they are looking to and hey, if you ‘got lucky’ this time what is to say you will not be so fortunate next year.

It reaches a point that you have to invest huge funds and resources managing a bunch of institutions and investors that basically do not trust your opinion against there’s even though they do not understand the industry you are in. Very often the people you have to convince are young analysts fresh out of university who focus almost entirely on past statistics, economic forecasts and news journals. Woe betide you if you do not convince these folk as it is them, rather than your customers who call the shots and the word loyalty or trust are not in their vocabulary!

I guess if I was invested megabucks in an organisation I too would want to go through it with a fine-tooth comb but surely there must be a less expensive and less time consuming way than this?

Buy & Hold?

Hi Dali,

Sorry to trouble you. One of my readers ask me about these questions.

I don't spend much time on stock analysis, but you do. Here is what he wrote to me:

Hi K C,

Thank you very much for your interesting and informative write-ups. I really enjoy reading them.

Is buy and hold (say 5 to 10 years) workable in Malaysian stocks?

Is it possible to sieve out 10 stocks among the thousands listed in Bursa Malaysia that can
1. still survive and prosper in the next 10 years
2. gain 15% a year compounded
3. need the least supervision (say half-yearly review)?

You are the best person to give him your insights.

If possible, you can reply this email or just post the answer on your blog and I will link to it in my newsletter and blog post.

Hope to hear from you soon.

Thank you.

regards, KCLau http://kclau.com



My View: Buy and hold does not work in Malaysian market, and thanks to the globalisation effect, buy and hold does not work for global equity markets as well. Markets are now interconnected. If a fund had some big trouble with their Greek stocks, it may create a huge withdrawal of funds from their portfolio. In order to prepare for that, the funds may be forced to sell down other "good holdings". The example is exacerbated if these funds were leveraged. Thus, it may not mean much even if you are holding BAT or IOI Corp if Portugal starts to spiral downwards.

Can you really pick a stock in Malaysia that will do well over the next 5 years? Well, you can o0nly hope, you can't be absolutely sure. But there are guidelines in selecting "safe" or rather safer stocks. One major problem in picking a seemingly good stock is the failure to recognise whether a company "benefits" from certain government policies - that is not "stable" revenue without needing elaboration.

In picking a solid long term stock, it must have size, it must have critical mass, if its size is past critical mass that will equate to higher barriers to entry for any competition. Size will result in cost efficiencies and better bargaining power.

The second factor is to look at how each industry is going to play itself out. Do you think there will be more or less banks in the country? Yes, the country will be opening up more for competition, but just look at the experience of any country that has opened up, its the surviving local banks that will continue to prosper even more.

Another good example is plantation land, will it ever get cheaper? Even if you add on more environmental and green regulations onto the planters, they will still be able to pass on the cost. The way the global warming effect is playing out, weather patterns are more severe and harder to predict and more extreme.

Even when you do a lot more homework, you seriously cannot be doing a buy and hold strategy for 5 to 10 years. You may have been able to do it back in the 60s, 70s or even 80s... but the effects of globalisation and indirectly the prevalence of derivatives have created too much uncertainty. Stocks are just assets that is based on the liquidity in the system. Nowadays, liquidity can be totally withdrawn for a myriad of reasons unrelated to the underlying fundamentals. You cannot say that it does not matter if a stock is $10 today and will be $30 in 5 years, if it fell to $2 sometime between these two dates, does it matter? You can be Buffett in the 60s-80s but not today.

Standard & Poor's Views On Sovereign Debt

FinanceAsia: Standard & Poor's answers some of the most frequently asked questions about what potential impact the credit situation in Europe may have on Asia's economies and sovereign ratings.

| 28 May 2010

Worries over the credit standing of a number of eurozone sovereigns have driven their funding costs up significantly over the past few weeks. The deteriorating conditions prompted the eurozone members and the IMF to approve a €110 billion ($135 billion) rescue package for Greece on May 3.

The downgrades by Standard & Poor's Ratings Services of Greece (BB+/Negative/B), Portugal (A-/Negative/A-2), and Spain (AA/Negative/A-1+) on April 27 and 28 have spurred numerous questions about the impact of developments in the eurozone on Asia's economies and sovereign ratings. Here are some the more frequently asked ones and our answers.

Do you expect a widespread deterioration of sovereign creditworthiness globally?
The picture of sovereign risks across the world isn't uniform. We have raised our ratings on a few emerging market governments in Asia (such as Indonesia) in the past year, and taken negative rating actions on several western sovereigns, including some in the European Union. We currently believe that most of the downward pressure on sovereign ratings is concentrated in Europe.

So, the fiscal problems in Europe haven't had an influence on Asia's sovereigns?
The main channel of contagion is likely to be through higher funding costs. For example, the Bank for International Settlements and the IMF estimate that cross-border lending by European banks to Asia is more than half a trillion dollars. If this external funding is reduced, it could result in higher external funding rates for some sovereigns and especially for some banks, but we see no evidence of that at this juncture.

Could what happened in Europe happen in Asia? I.e. could investors turn their backs on some highly-indebted Asian sovereigns as funding conditions become increasingly tight?
We don't expect the same degree of deterioration in funding conditions for Asian sovereigns, for several reasons.

Among Asian sovereigns with high debt burdens, those that borrow mostly domestically (owing to high savings rates, home market bias and, in some cases, restrictions on outward portfolio investment) are unlikely to experience the same volatility in investor sentiment as those borrowing externally. Japan, India, and Taiwan are prominent sovereigns in the region that rely largely on domestic sources to fund government budget deficits.

If financial turmoil persists in Europe, it is possible that Asian sovereigns that borrow internationally could pay more on their commercial external debt, at least for a time. Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Mongolia have significant external borrowings. However, these three countries' IMF programmes and the volume of bilateral and multilateral loans they receive partly shield them from the volatility of market interest rates.

Chart 1

Finally, we expect economic growth prospects for the next three to five years to be stronger in Asia --except perhaps for Japan -- than in Europe. This gives Asian governments more policy flexibility than their European counterparts, since Europe's growth prospects are weaker, in our view.

Japan's fiscal and debt positions are comparable to the highest indebted European governments. Will it not face debt sustainability issues at some point in the future?
Japan shoulders the heaviest net general government debt -- projected at 106% of GDP this year -- among rated sovereigns in Asia. However, its debt is almost entirely financed by residents. The country is also a large net capital exporter. The low nominal interest rates the government pays reflect expectations for low inflation or deflation and weak private sector loan demand. So we believe that the government of Japan will not likely face near-term financing problems.

Nevertheless, Japan faces a number of daunting challenges, including deflation and an aging population, in addition to the high government debt. The savings rate has been declining for some time and, in our view, it won't be able to support the incremental increases in Japan's government debt burden in the long term. We recently revised the outlook on the 'AA' long-term sovereign ratings on Japan to negative from stable. The government's efforts in forming a credible medium-term growth strategy and fiscal consolidation plan will be key in ensuring long-term sustainability of its debt.

India's fiscal position has deteriorated in the past two years. Shouldn't investors be concerned?
Like Japan, most of the Indian government's debt is denominated in local currency and financed from domestic sources. Although the size of the general government deficit increased to 9.8% of GDP in the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009, from 4.6% in fiscal 2007, the government has a plan to consolidate its fiscal position. The plan is based on the recommendations of the 13th finance commission, submitted in February 2010. We revised our outlook on the 'BBB-' sovereign ratings on India to stable from negative on March 18, 2010.

India's strong medium-term real GDP growth prospects, about 8% annually in our estimation, combined with lower fiscal deficits, should help reduce its gross general government debt to about 68% of GDP in 2015, from 79% in fiscal 2010. Besides that, as indicated by the recent gradual nominal appreciation of the rupee against the US dollar, the improvement in investor sentiment has resulted in the return of net capital inflows into the country.

Indonesia and the Philippines have significant amounts of external debt. Are they vulnerable?
In our view, Indonesia is more exposed to external investor sentiment than the Philippines. This is because corporations in Indonesia still have a high level of external indebtedness, and because non-residents hold more than 20% of Indonesian government local currency bonds -- making them part of the external debt in terms of investor behaviour.

In the Philippines, on the other hand, domestic investors hold a large share of foreign currency-denominated government bonds, and the share of non-resident's holdings of local bonds is very small. The Philippines' external liquidity is further supported by more than $15 billion in annual remittance inflows, and central bank reserves currently amount to about $46 billion. This makes the Philippines somewhat less vulnerable to shifts in external sentiment.

That said, both governments have nearly completed their external funding requirements for the year. So, unless market interest rates for Asian borrowers rise and remain at elevated levels over many months, we believe that these two sovereigns shouldn't be affected much. Private sector borrowers reliant on external funding are somewhat more vulnerable.

Moreover, many investors view emerging Asia (including Indonesia and the Philippines) as attractive investment destinations relative to many developed markets. This is due to their stronger growth prospects, better demographics, lower government debt burdens, and adequate external liquidity. We believe the combination of these factors is likely to maintain capital inflows into Asia.

So, are you expecting higher capital inflows into Asia?
If global risk aversion rises across the board or if new financial market regulations result in diminished attractiveness of cross-border investment, we believe that many Asian equity markets could be hurt. On the other hand, many of the major Asian economies are net capital exporters (including China, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore). So, part of their funds could be pulled back to Asia and re-invested within the region.

What is the likely impact on Asia's economic growth?
Because of higher funding costs, governments of countries such as Sri Lanka and Pakistan may have to delay their return to the international markets for funding. Governments and companies in Indonesia and the Philippines may have to pay higher interest rates.

If the current situation leads to a wider economic slowdown in Europe, Asian exports and inbound foreign direct investment could also be hurt. Many Asian countries with healthy government finances, such as China, Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea, and Thailand, are likely to be able to mitigate an economic slowdown through further stimulus programs in the short term. However, a prolonged reliance on economic stimulus programs could raise the leverage of these economies excessively, contribute to asset bubbles, and reduce long-term growth.



To sum up, it seems you don't expect any immediate sovereign downgrades in Asia following the ones in Europe?
That's correct. We don't see any immediate impact on Asia sovereign ratings from the unfolding events in Europe. But we are monitoring the potential medium-term effects of prolonged investor risk-aversion, slower global economic growth, and the possible negative impact on the European banking sector.

Of course, specific idiosyncratic risks may be driving Asia sovereign ratings down (or up) in the near future. In addition to Japan, we have negative outlooks on the sovereign ratings of Thailand, Taiwan, and Vietnam. But the main drivers of their credit quality stem from factors other than the turmoil in Europe.

Foreign Currency Ratings Of Sovereigns In Asia

Elena Okorotchenko is a managing director and analytical manager of Asia sovereign and public finance ratings at Standard & Poor's.

Thanks for looking in

It has been a few months since I decided to do this blog. I just wanted to continue having the opportunity to speak about the industry I love as well as put together some of my strange (but mainly true) stories of my life in travel.
I have a monitoring package of sorts which tells me how many people view and what areas of the world they come from and I am both delighted and amazed by the interest.
I have not tried to broaden readership as I do not really have a clue how to but it would be great if I could cover more people and places with my ramblings so can you help me? If you want to can you tell some of you friends and colleagues the blog address? Every so often I will let you know how we get on and what new and obscure places look in!
Needless to say viewers have complete individual anonymity and all I get is what area and how many. That blog address again is http://wwwbusinesstravel.blogspot.com
Also please take the opportunity to get in touch if you want to ask my view (or add yours) on anything either by the ‘comment’ icon on one of the blog articles or by sending me an email.
Thanks again!
MIKE

So What Has Changed?

The volatility is numb minding, or rather mind numbing. To summarise, its about debt. When we had the subprime mess, the governments everywhere could still print money and stimulate their economies. When it is sovereign debt, those countries cannot just print. The outstanding debt looks too large and no is willing to buy new bonds unless its issued at very high yields. Trouble is the countries affected are mainly inside the Eurozone. The Greeks, the Portuguese and even the Spaniards cannot issue new debt in their own currency, they only have the Euro. You cannot be issuing in Euro as you have no way of controlling your monetary policies that is set by the ECB.



If they were still in their own currency, they still can devalue their currency, which is now no longer an option. The whole hoopla was due to rumours that the Chinese were about to sell their Euro bonds holdings. Now that they have denied it, the markets all rallied, but WHAT HAS CHANGED??? Nothing!!!

The entire scenario would have to see the Euro being depressed for quite some time. Though the EMU have stepped in aggressively, Greece is not the only one playing truant. Portugal and Spain, and maybe Italy will be the "me too" category. You cannot help one without helping the others. The more they help, the more downward pressure on the Euro. I can see the Euro going down to 1.1 to the dollar with fears of parity even by year end.

The entire scenario will cub the recovery process globally as the coming theme hitting the markets will be how the EU will have a lot less purchasing power, hence exporting countries to the EU will see a dismal scene playing out.



Some may take it that Asian and Latam may be hit as collateral damage, but I think the investors will actually pour more funds into the US and emerging markets as they will be the only bright sparks. The saving grace for the past 12 months have been that emerging markets have been relying a lot more on domestic demand and trading among themselves, and that underpinning would be sufficient to pull them back up.

But not yet, lets wait till the World Cup is over people, no rush.

More dispensable than I thought!

My old firm HRG has just announced its results and I must say I am impressed. It seems they can and have managed without me quite well. And there was me thinking I was indispensable.
We always dared to believe in the seismic change to delivering on value rather than headline price and it seems to have actually worked in that their clients must have realised that a superficially low price has no longevity.
Mind you there may have been a few casualties along the way as their client retention rate is not as high as it was and there seems not too many barnstorming new signings for a global company. I guess my prognosis must be that whilst a strategy of being ‘the customer’s consultant’ is the right way to go and clearly successful it is still work in progress against those that want a quick, traveller visible, upfront buck.
Another thing that is remarkably slower growing than I expected is their high tech range of Spendvision products. I thought profits from this business would be rocketing as it delivers exactly what corporations say they want i.e. the definitive end to end solution. I have seen it and it is damn good but I suspect some corporations do not want an initial cost for the benefit of long term gain. The world seems more about now and not the future when it comes to business travel.
One of the greatest areas for opportunity for them is their government business. They currently have the British Ministry of Defence and Foreign and Commonwealth Office which are mega in size and both about to cut back in expenditure however what they are still fighting for is much of the vast Government business. In my opinion this business has been procured and operated so very badly that HRG, with their track record, could seriously increase their share.
So my message to my old colleagues is well done. But kind of wish you were missing me a little more!

No Need For Words!

Quality of Living worldwide city rankings 2010 – Mercer survey

The 2010 Mercer Quality of Living Survey is based on 39 criteria, including political, socio-economic, environmental, health, education, and transport. In Mercer's eco-city ranking list, Calgary in Canada has taken out the top spot followed by Honolulu in the United States. The only Australian city to make the top ten in the eco-city rankings is Adelaide in seventh position. Criteria for the eco-city ranking include air pollution, traffic congestion, water availability, waste removal and sewage treatment.

Vienna retains the top spot as the city with the world’s best quality of living, according to the Mercer 2010 Quality of Living Survey. Zurich and Geneva follow in second and third position, respectively, while Vancouver and Auckland remain joint fourth in the rankings.

Mercer conducts the ranking to help governments and multi-national companies compensate employees fairly when placing them on international assignments. The rankings are based on a point-scoring index, which sees Vienna score 108.6 and Baghdad 14.7. Cities are ranked against New York as the base city, with an index score of 100.

Mercer’s Quality of Living index list was revised and now covers 221 cities compared to 215 last year, which means direct trend comparison will not be possible until 2011. The new selection includes prominent capital and other major cities from across the world currently available in Mercer’s database and better reflects where companies are sending their expatriate employees in the current business environment.

Slagin Parakatil, Senior Researcher at Mercer, commented: “As the world economy becomes more globalised, cities beyond the traditional financial centres are emerging as attractive places in which to expand or establish a business. Cities in many emerging markets, such as in the Middle East or Asia, have seen a significant influx of foreign companies and their expatriate employees in recent years.”

“To ensure their expatriates are compensated appropriately and an adequate hardship allowance is included in their benefits package, companies seek a clear picture of the quality of living in these cities. We have reviewed our index to reflect these developments and it now better represents the cities that most interest our clients,” Mr Parakatil said.

European cities continue to dominate amongst the top 25 cities in the index. In the UK, London ranks at 39, while Birmingham is at 55 and Glasgow at 57. In the US, the highest ranking entry is Honolulu at position 31, followed by San Francisco at position 32. Singapore (28) is the top-scoring Asian city followed by Tokyo at 40. Baghdad, ranking 221, remains at the bottom of the list.

“Quality of living standards remained relatively stable on a global level throughout 2009 and the first half of 2010, but in certain regions and countries the economic recession had a noticeable impact on the business climate,” according to Mr Parakatil.

“Despite the economic downturn and companies’ efforts to contain costs, quality of living and hardship premiums remain important means of compensating expatriates for differences in living conditions. However, companies are more inclined to review the measurement of such allowances to ensure they are cost-effective."

This year’s ranking also identifies the cities with the best eco-ranking based on water availability and drinkability, waste removal, quality of sewage systems, air pollution and traffic congestion. Calgary is at the top of this index (score 145.7), followed by Honolulu in second place (score 145.1) and Ottawa and Helsinki in joint third (score 139.9). Wellington in New Zealand (5), Minneapolis (6), Adelaide (7) and Copenhagen fill the next four slots, while Kobe, Oslo and Stockholm share ninth place. Port-au-Prince in Haiti ranks at the bottom of this table with a score of only 27.8 (see attached table).

Mr Parakatil commented: “A high-ranking eco-city optimises its use of renewable energy sources and generates the lowest possible quantity of pollution (air, water, noise, etc). A city’s eco-status or attitude toward sustainability can have significant impact on the quality of living of its inhabitants. As a consequence these are also pertinent issues for companies that send employees and their families on long-term assignments abroad, especially considering the vast majority of expatriates are relocated to urban areas.”

“A certain standard of sustainability is essential for city living and forms a very important part of its inhabitants’ quality of living. Though a high standard of living may be taken for granted in certain cities, a lack thereof is much more noticeable and can even lead to severe hardship,” said Mr Parakatil.

Top 50 cities: Quality of living ranking

Base City: New York, US (=100)

Rank 2010	City	Country	Qol index 2010
1	VIENNA	AUSTRIA	108.6
2	ZURICH	SWITZERLAND	108
3	GENEVA	SWITZERLAND	107.9
4	VANCOUVER	CANADA	107.4
4	AUCKLAND	NEW ZEALAND	107.4
6	DUSSELDORF	GERMANY	107.2
7	FRANKFURT	GERMANY	107
7	MUNICH	GERMANY	107
9	BERN	SWITZERLAND	106.5
10	SYDNEY	AUSTRALIA	106.3
11	COPENHAGEN	DENMARK	106.2
12	WELLINGTON	NEW ZEALAND	105.9
13	AMSTERDAM	NETHERLANDS	105.7
14	OTTAWA	CANADA	105.5
15	BRUSSELS	BELGIUM	105.4
16	TORONTO	CANADA	105.3
17	BERLIN	GERMANY	105
18	MELBOURNE	AUSTRALIA	104.8
19	LUXEMBOURG	LUXEMBOURG	104.6
20	STOCKHOLM	SWEDEN	104.5
21	PERTH	AUSTRALIA	104.2
21	MONTREAL	CANADA	104.2
23	HAMBURG	GERMANY	104.1
24	NURNBURG	GERMANY	103.9
24	OSLO	NORWAY	103.9
26	CANBERRA	AUSTRALIA	103.6
26	DUBLIN	IRELAND	103.6
28	CALGARY	CANADA	103.5
28	SINGAPORE	SINGAPORE	103.5
30	STUTTGART	GERMANY	103.3
31	HONOLULU	UNITED STATES	103.1
32	ADELAIDE	AUSTRALIA	103
32	SAN FRANCISCO	UNITED STATES	103
34	PARIS	FRANCE	102.9
35	HELSINKI	FINLAND	102.6
36	BRISBANE	AUSTRALIA	102.4
37	BOSTON	UNITED STATES	102.2
38	LYON	FRANCE	101.9
39	LONDON	UNITED KINGDOM	101.6
40	TOKYO	JAPAN	101.4
41	MILAN	ITALY	100.8
41	KOBE	JAPAN	100.8
41	YOKOHAMA	JAPAN	100.8
44	BARCELONA	SPAIN	100.6
45	LISBON	PORTUGAL	100.3
45	CHICAGO	UNITED STATES	100.3
45	WASHINGTON	UNITED STATES	100.3
48	MADRID	SPAIN	100.2
49	NEW YORK CITY	UNITED STATES	100
50	SEATTLE	UNITED STATES	99.8

Top 50 cities: Eco-City ranking

Base City: New York, US (=100)

*Eco-City Ranking 2010 includes the following criteria: Water availability, water potability, waste removal, sewage, air pollution and traffic congestion.

Rank 2010	City	Country	Eco-city index* 2010
1	CALGARY	CANADA	145.7
2	HONOLULU	UNITED STATES	145.1
3	OTTAWA	CANADA	139.9
3	HELSINKI	FINLAND	139.9
5	WELLINGTON	NEW ZEALAND	138.9
6	MINNEAPOLIS	UNITED STATES	137.8
7	ADELAIDE	AUSTRALIA	137.5
8	COPENHAGEN	DENMARK	137.4
9	KOBE	JAPAN	135.6
9	OSLO	NORWAY	135.6
9	STOCKHOLM	SWEDEN	135.6
12	PERTH	AUSTRALIA	135.3
13	MONTREAL	CANADA	133.6
13	VANCOUVER	CANADA	133.6
13	NURNBERG	GERMANY	133.6
13	AUCKLAND	NEW ZEALAND	133.6
13	BERN	SWITZERLAND	133.6
13	PITTSBURGH	UNITED STATES	133.6
19	ZURICH	SWITZERLAND	133.5
19	ABERDEEN	UNITED KINGDOM	133.5
21	CANBERRA	AUSTRALIA	133.3
22	SINGAPORE	SINGAPORE	132.4
23	BRISBANE	AUSTRALIA	131.6
23	WASHINGTON	UNITED STATES	131.6
25	MELBOURNE	AUSTRALIA	131.5
25	GENEVA	SWITZERLAND	131.5
25	BOSTON	UNITED STATES	131.5
28	DUSSELDORF	GERMANY	130.7
28	MUNICH	GERMANY	130.7
30	CAPE TOWN	SOUTH AFRICA	129.4
30	BELFAST	UNITED KINGDOM	129.4
32	LYON	FRANCE	129.3
33	DUBLIN	IRELAND	128.9
34	HAMBURG	GERMANY	128.8
34	STUTTGART	GERMANY	128.8
34	PHILADELPHIA	UNITED STATES	128.8
37	YOKOHAMA	JAPAN	128.7
38	VICTORIA	SEYCHELLES	128.5
39	TORONTO	CANADA	127.1
39	AMSTERDAM	NETHERLANDS	127.1
41	BRUSSELS	BELGIUM	126.8
41	LEIPZIG	GERMANY	126.8
43	ST. LOUIS	UNITED STATES	126.6
44	VIENNA	AUSTRIA	126.2
44	LUXEMBOURG	LUXEMBOURG	126.2
46	SYDNEY	AUSTRALIA	125
47	GLASGOW	UNITED KINGDOM	124.7
48	MUSCAT	OMAN	124.2
49	POINTE-A-PITRE	GUADELOUPE	123.8
50	NAGOYA	JAPAN	123.1
50	OSAKA	JAPAN	123.1
50	FRANKFURT	GERMANY	123.1

Possibly The Best Concert Show By The Most Under-Rated Musician

Last night I met Leslie Loh at Champs as he had to pass me the JZ8 cds I ordered. Then he started to rave to me about a concert DVD by Lowell Lo Koon Ting, and how I must get to watch it. I paused, and then I said "Fuck you Leslie, do you ever remember reading my blog... I have fucking posted it as possibly the best concert show..." So, anyway we had a good laugh. Yes, Lowell is one talented, passionate and under-rated artiste that the world always seem to lack in. I have played the 4 DVDs almost once a month every month since October and it still tears me up. Get it if you are in HK, maybe Rock Records still have it.

-------------------------------


25 September, 2009


If you can, try and grab hold of this 4DVD concert pack by Lowell Lo Koon Ting. Highly under-rated singer and composer. The 2008 concert was called 2050 and thanks to the respect accorded to him by his peers, he managed to invite highly illustrious fellow artistes to share the stage with him. Lee Jun Sing is one, George Lam is another. Lowell's songs have been sung by many superstars though many may not be aware of them, including Danny Chan and Leslie Cheung. He even composed what I considered to be the best Cantonese song over the last 50 years - Jooi Ngoi (The One I Loved The Most) sung by George Lam. Plus some of you may remember the haunting love song in Stephen Chow's A Chinese Odyssey.

His delivery is inimitable, its always heartfelt, never perfect but in his imperfection lies the attraction. He gives all he has into every song. He chats a lot and brings the audience on an intimate journey through his songs and the people he worked with.

I found one copy imported by Rock Records but thats it, I had to go to HK to get my copy. Till then, you will have to get a taste via some poor quality mobile phone bootleg copies from youtube.

(Interview before his 2008 concert): Lowell Lo is a rarity. Famous for his songwriting – his work has been performed by George Lam, Jacky Cheung, and many others – he’s a versatile Old Cantopop Hand. He also has impressive credentials in jazz and folk. Lo’s singing is so distinctive that critics have tagged his oeuvre “Chinese blues”. Since leaving music in 1993, Lo has been an active environmentalist. Now, after an 18-year absence from the stage of the Coliseum, he’s set to return for a much-anticipated show.

What does music mean to you?

Music is my sub-consciousness. You can’t write a song that moves people if it doesn’t move you. Music composition is not about piling up material. I believe the songs that I wrote were not written by me. It’s some higher power who conveyed his message through me. I’m merely a channel. I’m just basically downloading information from the universe. When you sing a song, don’t think, just do it.

Marketocracy Portfolio Updated - May 26, 2010

Further updates to Salvador Dali Mutual Fund (SMF) at Marketocracy. Beating the S&P500 by 33 percentage points since inception.

http://malaysiafinance.blogspot.com/search?q=marketocracy

SMF m100 S&P 500 DJIA Nasdaq

recent returns vs. major indexes
		Beating Today MTD QTD YTD SMF 0.81% -10.50% -8.33% -3.24% S&P 500 0.04% -9.37% -7.94% -2.98% DOW -0.23% -8.56% -7.28% -3.47% Nasdaq -0.12% -10.06% -7.69% -2.45%

recent returns
		RETURNS Last Week -4.66% Last Month -12.18% Last 3 Months -1.27% Last 6 Months 1.77% Last 12 Months 19.79% Last 2 Years N/A Last 3 Years N/A Last 5 Years N/A Since Inception 22.22% (Annualized) 11.57% S&P500 RETURNS Last Week -5.53% Last Month -11.62% Last 3 Months -1.45% Last 6 Months -2.41% Last 12 Months 23.53% Last 2 Years N/A Last 3 Years N/A Last 5 Years N/A Since Inception -10.79% (Annualized) -6.04% RETURNS VS S&P500 Last Week 0.87% Last Month -0.56% Last 3 Months 0.19% Last 6 Months 4.17% Last 12 Months -3.75% Last 2 Years N/A Last 3 Years N/A Last 5 Years N/A Since Inception 33.01% (Annualized) 17.61%

alpha/beta vs. S&P500
		Alpha 19.76% Beta 1.15 R-Squared 0.78

turnover
		Last Month 20.08% Last 3 Months 42.90% Last 6 Months 75.58% Last 12 Months 231.00%

Symbol Price Shares Value Portion of Fund Gains Inception Return NYB $15.44 6,000 $92,640.00 7.52% $26,907.27 40.93% QSII $58.69 1,500 $88,035.00 7.14% $19,597.77 16.33% Details GE $15.95 4,000 $63,800.00 5.18% $4,562.75 7.70% Details FMC $58.88 1,500 $88,320.00 7.17% $4,106.83 4.88% Details C $3.78 30,000 $113,400.00 9.20% $69,755.30 19.97% Details MIDDLE PLD $11.48 8,118 $93,194.64 7.56% $3,635.70 4.06% NVDA $12.69 9,000 $114,210.00 9.27% -$3,567.70 -3.03% WFMI $39.40 2,500 $98,500.00 7.99% -$3,794.61 -3.71% GS $142.56 700 $99,792.00 8.10% -$4,808.90 -4.60% BAC $15.49 9,000 $139,410.00 11.31% $54,493.55 19.39% Details SUN $28.08 3,000 $84,240.00 6.84% -$5,369.03 -5.99% Details POT $95.57 1,000 $95,570.00 7.76% -$12,820.63 -11.83% Details

Close Date	Type	Symbol	Shares	Net Avg. Price	Net
May 25, 2010	Sell	BDD	166	$11.7287	$1,946.96
May 25, 2010	Sell	BDD	4,581	$12.5925	$57,686.31
May 17, 2010	Buy	BDD	850	$11.2524	$9,564.50
May 17, 2010	Buy	WFMI	1,000	$40.9849	$40,984.92
May 14, 2010	Buy	NVDA	4,000	$12.75	$51,000.00
May 14, 2010	Buy	WFMI	1,500	$40.8731	$61,309.69
May 14, 2010	Sell	NVDA	0	$0	$0.00
May 10, 2010	Sell	VXZ	1,000	$78.9714	$78,971.42
May 10, 2010	Sell	VXX	2,500	$24.8431	$62,107.65
May 5, 2010	Sell	BDD	1,103	$14.0744	$15,524.12
May 4, 2010	Buy	GS	700	$149.4299	$104,600.90
May 3, 2010	Buy	POT	1,000	$108.3906	$108,390.63
Apr 21, 2010	Sell	NATH	5,000	$15.3098	$76,549.10
Apr 16, 2010	Buy	SUN	0	$0	$0.00
Apr 16, 2010	Buy	SUN	3,000	$29.8697	$89,609.03
Apr 16, 2010	Sell	F	10,000	$13.7793	$137,792.68
Apr 12, 2010	Sell	LOW	3,500	$25.439	$89,036.37
Mar 10, 2010	Buy	VXX	1,000	$23.3437	$23,343.74
Feb 24, 2010	Buy	VXZ	1,000	$70.5357	$70,535.73
Feb 24, 2010	Buy	VXX	1,500	$26.8776	$40,316.38
Feb 24, 2010	Buy	FMC	1,500	$56.1421	$84,213.17