December 17, 2009

  • <The costs of infidelity>

    Bloomberg has an excellent report on the cost of Tiger Woods’s indefinite leave from Golf.

    “The 2010 PGA Tour season begins on Jan. 7 in Hawaii. Cohen’s estimate suggests ad losses may be at least $192 million if Woods is out all year. That, plus the potential damage to Nike, would put the effect at more than $220 million.”

    So you should have no doubts why Tiger is a $1 billion man (according to Forbes).

    Readers should be careful when reading the report, since it consists of many numbers and could be very confusing. The financial flows affected are not so easy to understand i.e. when Tiger Woods sits out, what is the financial impact to the industry. 


    If you switch the angle a bit, and think in terms of the “business” flow, it is easier to understand. Basically, if Tiger Woods sits out :

    — Less people will watch the PGA tours directly. Less hostel, Food & Beverage and travel activities. Pretty straight forward.

    — (Broader terms) Less audience will watch the PGA tours via TV and other indirect channels. There will be less advertisement and other marketing campaigns. (Similarly, less marketing campaign by PGA – if it has)

    — (Broader terms) Tiger Woods has been the icon of Golf for Nike. So less people will buy Nike and to a less extent, Golf-related sports item. They might switch to the items for other brands (e.g. Adidas) or sports (e.g. basketball), but there should be some net loss in purchase of Gold-related merchandise.

    — (Even broader terms). In the longer term, golf could lose its favor to audience and potentially golf players (which somewhat creates viscous cycle). Depending on the impact (which I suspect could be immense), golf course operator will invest less, less merchandise of golf will be sold, and the whole sports could be less popular.

    See an extract from the report on the economic impact of the golf sports here (by some golf related assocations). It has a quite good framework (page 4)

December 16, 2009

  • Blink, The Tipping Point 作者的著作.

    Page One 前陣子八折, $64; 非常非常好看.

    (個人較喜歡  Blink)

    另外, 前陣子完成 1Q84… 感覺結局怪怪的…

    GOOGLE 才發現, 原來村上正在寫作 Book 3, 2010 年年中出版.

    屌佢老母. 早響呀…

December 15, 2009

  • <每年一度 . 玩柒財爺>

    每年呢個時候, 條友硬係要死出黎俾人玩一鑊.

    唔俾人玩鑊甘唔撚心息. 睇黎幫佢拍廣告片 同 度橋 個班人, 近排收到稅單.

    我只可以講 : 好過上年個條片.

    但褲袋由無錢變做有一元, 都係窮西, ok?

    其實佢係個牆角閃出黎, 同胡冏冏無乜分別.

    如果財爺係冰室無端端走出黎, 你梗係一拳打埋去拉.

    http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/evchk/images/d/d8/Wughost1.gif

December 14, 2009

  • <US Labor market in November-2009>

    In broad terms, some headline figures for US labor market showed initial signs of stabilizing in November-2009 : Unemployment rate edged down, jobs cut almost eased. But some underlying fundamentals remained very weak (e.g. long-term unemployment)

    Unemployment rate dropped slightly to 10% from 10.2% in October. An encouraging sign. This is the second time in this year where unemployment fell while company still cut jobs. It is too early to judge whether jobless rate has already peaked. But as you can see in previous hikes, peak in unemployment rate is really “steep”, instead of being a plateau.

    By and large, it is more prudent to wait for 1 or 2 months to judge whether 10.2% in October is the peak for this cycle.

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&chart_type=line&graph_id=0&category_id=&recession_bars=On&width=630&height=378&bgcolor=%23B3CDE7&graph_bgcolor=%23FFFFFF&txtcolor=%23000000&preserve_ratio=true&id=UNRATE,&transformation=lin,&scale=Left,&range=Max,&cosd=1948-01-01,&coed=2009-11-01,&line_color=%230000FF,&link_values=,&mark_type=NONE,&line_style=Solid,&vintage_date=2009-12-14,&revision_date=2009-12-14,&mma=0,&nd=,&ost=,&oet=,

    At the same time, companies cut less jobs in November, only -11k (at the same time, figures for Sep and Oct are revised, showing less jobs cut). Note that companies still cut jobs, but at a lesser pace. Since recession in January-2008, US lost a total 7.2 mn jobs, about the whole population of Hong Kong.

    In a recent interview, Greenspan expected companies to add jobs very soon; but unemployment rate could still rise, seeming paradoxical (but it is not). See the interview and Greenspan’s explanation here.

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&chart_type=line&graph_id=0&category_id=&recession_bars=On&width=630&height=378&bgcolor=%23B3CDE7&graph_bgcolor=%23FFFFFF&txtcolor=%23000000&preserve_ratio=true&id=PAYEMS,&transformation=chg,&scale=Left,&range=Max,&cosd=1939-01-01,&coed=2009-11-01,&line_color=%230000FF,&link_values=,&mark_type=NONE,&line_style=Solid,&vintage_date=2009-12-14,&revision_date=2009-12-14,&mma=0,&nd=,&ost=,&oet=,

    What has been bothering me, and still being unresolved, is the long-term unemployment. Both the number of long-term unemployed (individuals unemployed for at least 6-months) and the average duration of unemployment broker record, again.

    About 38% of unemployed are long-term ones; over 860k unemployed dropped out of the labor force (800k last month)

    Greenspan in the above interview highlighted the risks of long-term unemployment (again) :

    These people are losing their skills…It is very critical that those people have the skills when the economy comes back or we will not be as productive as we ought to be.”

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&chart_type=line&graph_id=0&category_id=&recession_bars=On&width=630&height=378&bgcolor=%23B3CDE7&graph_bgcolor=%23FFFFFF&txtcolor=%23000000&preserve_ratio=true&id=UEMP27OV,&transformation=lin,&scale=Left,&range=Max,&cosd=1948-01-01,&coed=2009-11-01,&line_color=%230000FF,&link_values=,&mark_type=NONE,&line_style=Solid,&vintage_date=2009-12-14,&revision_date=2009-12-14,&mma=0,&nd=,&ost=,&oet=,

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&chart_type=line&graph_id=0&category_id=&recession_bars=On&width=630&height=378&bgcolor=%23B3CDE7&graph_bgcolor=%23FFFFFF&txtcolor=%23000000&preserve_ratio=true&id=UEMPMEAN,&transformation=lin,&scale=Left,&range=Max,&cosd=1948-01-01,&coed=2009-11-01,&line_color=%230000FF,&link_values=,&mark_type=NONE,&line_style=Solid,&vintage_date=2009-12-14,&revision_date=2009-12-14,&mma=0,&nd=,&ost=,&oet=,

    Hours of work eventually rose, after hovering around record low for quite a number of months. Good initial sign.

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&chart_type=line&graph_id=0&category_id=&recession_bars=On&width=630&height=378&bgcolor=%23B3CDE7&graph_bgcolor=%23FFFFFF&txtcolor=%23000000&preserve_ratio=true&id=AWHNONAG,&transformation=lin,&scale=Left,&range=Max,&cosd=1964-01-01,&coed=2009-11-01,&line_color=%230000FF,&link_values=,&mark_type=NONE,&line_style=Solid,&vintage_date=2009-12-14,&revision_date=2009-12-14,&mma=0,&nd=,&ost=,&oet=,

    But wage growth continued to decelerate (from 2.5% yoy in October, to only 2.2% in November).

    Given that in labor market, quantity adjusted first and then pricel; that is to say, jobs are adjusted first, salary adjustment lag behind, we could have ongoing deceleration in wage growth.

    When recession ended (shaded regions denote recession), unemployment rate would have peaked or soon peaked…

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&chart_type=line&graph_id=0&category_id=&recession_bars=On&width=630&height=378&bgcolor=%23B3CDE7&graph_bgcolor=%23FFFFFF&txtcolor=%23000000&preserve_ratio=true&id=UNRATE,&transformation=lin,&scale=Left,&range=Custom,&cosd=1960-01-01,&coed=2009-11-01,&line_color=%230000FF,&link_values=,&mark_type=NONE,&line_style=Solid,&vintage_date=2009-12-14,&revision_date=2009-12-14,&mma=0,&nd=,&ost=,&oet=,

    But wage growth continued to decelerate even way after recession is over…In the recession of 2001, wage growth slowdown did not stop until 2004.

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&chart_type=line&graph_id=0&category_id=&recession_bars=On&width=630&height=378&bgcolor=%23B3CDE7&graph_bgcolor=%23FFFFFF&txtcolor=%23000000&preserve_ratio=true&id=AHETPI,&transformation=pc1,&scale=Left,&range=Max,&cosd=1964-01-01,&coed=2009-11-01,&line_color=%230000FF,&link_values=,&mark_type=NONE,&line_style=Solid,&vintage_date=2009-12-14,&revision_date=2009-12-14,&mma=0,&nd=,&ost=,&oet=,

  • <百年過去; 我們仍如此 – 外國的月亮一定圓>

    I hope this is the editing problem of MingPao :

    曾德成:東亞運三傳奇時刻 (15:10)

    民政事務局長曾德成表示,感謝港人支持成功舉辦東亞運,而本屆東亞運對他來說有三個傳奇時刻。

    曾德成說,這次東亞運成功舉辦,有賴全港市民一起參與和支持。香港歷史上從未舉辦過國際性的運動會,這次東亞運的成功,有助於推動香港的體育文化。

    曾德成指出,對於他來說,本屆東亞運成就了三個傳奇。第一個傳奇時刻是12日香港足球隊擊敗日本隊奪得金牌。第二個傳奇是香港隊取得歷來最多的獎牌數目。第三個傳奇是東亞運開幕式是在開放的環境下舉行。曾德成說,這個開幕式連外國人也認為很有創意。

    ———

    So whatever Chinese says creative is not creative at all? Are foreigners all creative? What is he talking about?

December 13, 2009

  • <Paul Samuelson dies at 94>

    Rest in Peace, Paul Samuelson

    From WSJ

    Paul A. Samuelson, whose analytical work laid the foundation for modern economics, died Sunday. He was 94.

    Mr. Samuelson, the first American to win the Nobel Prize in economics and the author of one of the most-ubiquitous college textbooks ever, was “one of the greatest teachers that economics has ever known” and “a titan of economics,” according to Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke.

    “Paul Samuelson was both a path-breaking and prolific economic theorist,” said Mr. Bernanke, a former student of Mr. Samuelson’s at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Actively publishing into the 2000s, Mr. Samuelson’s career in economics spanned eight decades. As a high school student in 1932, he wandered into an economics lecture at the University of Chicago and was enamored. But attending Chicago as an undergraduate during the Great Depression, he became acutely aware, he said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal earlier this year, of the differences between what was being taught in the classroom and “what I heard out the windows and I heard from the street.”

    In 1935 he went, despite his Chicago professors’ protestations, to Harvard University for his graduate work. His 1941 PhD thesis, later published as “Foundations of Economic Analysis,” examined the mathematical structure underlying economics. The approach revolutionized the field, to the point where economists today are often consumed with finding mathematical proofs for their theories.

    “For me, it is a special bereavement,” said Princeton University economist Avinash Dixit. “My whole style of research, and the techniques that support almost all of my own papers, derive from his foundational articles.”

    Mr. Samuelson started teaching at MIT in 1940, the beginning of a lifelong association with the university that helped its economics program become the most highly-regarded in the world. Through his “Economics” textbook, first published in 1948 and for years the most widely used college textbook on any topic, his analytical approach became the standard for undergraduate courses. It also introduced the work of John Maynard Keynes into the college curriculum. Now in its 19th edition, it is still popular. Mr. Bernanke keeps a copy signed by Mr. Samuelson on the shelves in his office at the Fed.

    “There’s just an enormous amount of what every undergraduate learns that we take for granted that Paul played an absolutely critical role in codifying and uncovering,” said MIT economist and National Bureau of Economic Research president James Poterba, who remembers carrying around Mr. Samuelson’s textbook as a high school student. “It’s like trying to envision how did people do mechanics before Newton.”

    In 1970, Mr. Samuelson was the first American to win the Nobel Prize in economics, the second year the prize was offered. “Samuelson’s contribution has been that, more than any other contemporary economist, he has contributed to raising the general analytical and methodological level in economic science,” wrote the Nobel prize committee. “He has in fact simply rewritten considerable parts of economic theory.”

    Mr. Samuelson, a lifelong Democrat, acted as an adviser to Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, though he refused to take an official position in government. Mr. Samuelson hailed from a family of well-known economists, including brother Robert Summers, sister-in-law Anita Summers and nephew Lawrence Summers.

    “Above all else, Paul Samuelson was a scholar,” Lawrence Summers, who runs President Obama’s National Economic Council, said Sunday. “He used to proudly remark that he had never spent a full week in Washington. But through his research, teaching, and writing he had more impact on the economic life of this country and the world than any government economic official and many presidents.”

    Mr. Samuelson, in a March interview with The Wall Street Journal, took aim at those trying to quell the financial crisis. “The typical pundit today would be somebody who might have been my student at MIT 25 years ago. I have great admiration for Ben Bernanke. But having been born in 1956 he did not have a feel for what it was like. If you were born after 1950, you really don’t have the feel of that Great Depression in your bones,” he said. “Being a bright boy at MIT, it’s not really a substitute for that.

    Indeed, MIT PhDs now dominate the profession and hold many high positions in government, including Mr. Bernanke and Christina Romer, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers.

    An economics column Mr. Samuelson wrote for Newsweek from 1966 to 1981 brought his views on economics to a wider audience. One of his columns also included his most widely repeated quip.

    “To prove that Wall Street is an early omen of movements still to come in GNP, commentators quote economic studies alleging that market downturns predicted four out of the last five recessions,” he wrote in 1966. “That is an understatement. Wall Street indexes predicted nine out of the last five recessions! And its mistakes were beauties.”

    He remained intensely interested in what was happening in the economy through this year, holding forth on the effects of the worst economic crisis since the one that marked the start of his career in the 1930s, and offering analysis.

    “I thought from the beginning this was going to be very serious because it was people like me — people at MIT and Chicago — who created all these wonderful derivatives,” he said. “The way they were formulated by financial engineers, they were not understood by any CEO. They didn’t even know who they were in the bathtub with.”

December 10, 2009

December 8, 2009

  • <More on sports replay and referee decision>

    I have talked about Henry’s handball and FIFA’s special meeting here.

    According to 明報

    台灣指韓國跆拳道選手犯規 (19:22)

    昨天在東亞運動會跆拳道場上被韓國對手擊敗的中華台北隊選手曾敬翔稱,對手其實犯規,對判決很不滿。

    中央社稱,中華台北選手曾敬翔在東亞運跆拳道金牌戰中,被韓國對手以犯規動作擊中頸部,當場倒地不起,最後裁判還是判韓國選手獲勝。在場邊觀戰的政務委員曾志朗當場抗議,仍不被採納,中華隊因此痛失一面金牌。

    曾經是奧運跆拳道銀牌得主的國民黨立委黃志雄周二表示,跆拳道國際賽事多半被韓國主導。他認為,這次會發生這樣的事情,是得分認知的問題,裁判人為因素影響很大。

    Replay in YouTube speaks louder than words

    So in another sports, referee decision, without using replay as reference, is subject to dispute again. This is unlikely to be as controversial as Henry’s handball, given the importance of East Asia Game and the popularity of the sports (via-s-via World Cup). But it shows that with technology improving, we could rely less on human decision which is, relatively speaking, more vulnerable to errors (either unintentional or intentional).

    Take tennis as an example, they allow players to appeal against referee decision, using the “鷹眼” technology. When players can serve better and better, and quicker and quicker, human errors in decision-making are unavoidable. So why don’t make better use of the technology? This does not make referee decision less authoritative – it is a built-in mechanism to make sure that they are “fair” and “professional” in their decisions. Don’t judge in a causal way.

    More importantly – I think very very important – this makes the competition fairer. We compete on the skills, luck and everything but POOR judgment by the referee. What if France wins the World Cup in South Africa?

    A friend of mine told me that, in HK horse racing, jockey has to wear a microphone with them now. Why? To avoid cheating – they used to shut “get out of my way” in manipulated races. Why? We want to make sure the horsing racing is free of manipulation. This makes the “sports” – though i am somewhat reluctant to call horse-racing a sports – fairer, more open and the result being more authoritative.

    By the way, I really adore the Taiwan gentlemen in the video reply. The team as a whole respects referee’s decision, and once it’s done, they don’t argue anymore – even everyone should know now the decision is erroneous.

  • <It’s confirmed : Tariff hike for CLP; Not for HK Electricity>

    轉載自明報

    行政會議通過兩電明年調整電費,中電電費上調約2.6%,港燈則凍結來年電費。

    港燈董事總經理曹棨森表示,雖然明年會增加使用天然氣發電,比例由15%增至30%,因天然氣較燃煤發電成本較高,令燃料費大幅上升,為電費帶來壓力,但為了減少市民負擔,明年會凍結電費。港燈亦會落實減排,相信可達到政府二零一零年的減排目標。

    中電解釋,由於新的基本投資造成成本增加,因此要提高電費2.6%,這是十多年來首次加價。

    Against the 40% gap between HK Electricity and CLP, the rise is far from being anything significant. But it’s a good, long-awaited step.

    I suspect, reiterating only “suspect”, that HK Electricity may not be so easy-going. Some trade-off must be agreed on (no tariff hike, but in return you get something else). I do not think anyone should dump HK Electricity share.

December 6, 2009

  • <Oriental Daily on Electricity Tariff>

    As I have written before, consumers might pay the full cost for any environment measures under the existing scheme of control. So if you want cleaner energy, the electricity companies will not pay for you. YOU HAVE TO PAY.

    轉載自東方日報 :

    每年盈利超過八十至百億元的兩電仍要加電費,帶動各行業刮起加風苦害升斗市民!行政會議本周二討論兩電來年元旦調整電費,據悉兩電在增加更環保的天然氣發 電令成本大幅上漲後,中電提出加電費百分之二至三,港燈加價壓力更大,學者擔心加電費帶動加風,最終只會轉嫁到市民生活開支,要求港府「叫停」兩電,以免 稍後推動慳電膽券計劃時,電費加完再加。

    行政會議周二將審批電費調整,兩電亦會於當日向立法會經濟事務委員會 簡報電費調整安排。兩電提交立法會的文件顯示,去年燃煤價格上漲,至今年六月兩電累積燃料帳虧損分別為三億及八億元,因此極有機會向全港二百多萬用戶追回 虧損。港燈回應指明年需要將天然氣發電比例由百分之十五增至百分之三十。中電則表示現階段不評論事件,留待周二在立法會解釋。

    So we have to pay high tariff in the future anyway. How to tackle that? Someone claims we can open up the electricity market.


    From my point of view, the permitted rate of return, which is effectively the profit-guarantee-return, should be lowered to the fixed deposit rate in HKD or USD, plus a small premium. For example, a formula making reference to the 1 year HIBOR rate (the rate is currently at 0.54%).

    Consider this : If someone guarantees you a fixed return on certain investment, the equilibrium rate of return will be just no more than the market risk-free interest rate. Simply because it is GUARANTEED. The return for HSBC’s MPF guarantee fund is no more than 1%. Because it is risk-free, you don’t have to take any risks and this is the maximum return you can get.

    So what is the difference with HK’s electricity companies’ investment? Effectively, the return is guaranteed : in case you don’t earn the “guaranteed return”, the government will pay you back in later years (indeed this is what the hk government is doing implicitly). Simply, there is no RISK. So you should pay the return on assets at the risk-free rate.

    It is true that investment in electricity assets are long-term and cannot be “sold” without involving huge transactions. How about paying you at a small premium over the long-term 10-year US Treasuries? This is how corporate bonds are priced as well. I saw little difference.

    If we take it, the long-term Treasuries yield is about 5% (now at about 3.4%) and add a “long-term” premium at 2% (which i think is very lenient), we have only a 7% permitted rate of return. Compared with the current 9.99% permitted rate of return, this could mean billions of dollars.