Not in my wildest dreams had I ever imagined that I'd be working in the banking industry!
But as if that wasn't wild enough, now the quotient goes even beyond wild ....I am in the banking industry AND in the middle of a Financial Crisis!! hahahahahaha I mean whoever has known me since childhood would understand how completely crazy that sounds. I hated numbers, I hated banks and I couldn't care less about a financial crisis in any part of the world.
So a month back when Lehmann and AIG and others started going bust, I thought, perhaps this is my excuse! Singapore, being the financial hub that it is, will surely cut jobs and get a bit depressed. As an expat living in Singapore and working in a bank I surely had reason to imagine the worst and pehaps pack my bags for home! Now don't get me wrong, I do love my job but somewhere my subconscious is still struggling to deal with reality. The reality of being part of the financial industry. I mean I'm doing exactly the kind of work I want to do, but just that I'm doing it for a BANK!
[Definition] Bank - (1) A place where my parents and all their friends worked. (2) Uncool
Then again I'm not working with an international bank, merely a LOCAL BANK (yes, they say it like it is a stigma). Now I need to clarity that a bank is a bank to me (look at definition above), no matter whether it is international, local or rural. I'm quite indifferent to that. Even if I worked in the biggest mightiest bank, I'd feel just as unable to reconcile why I was there!
But lo and behold, I finally find out why desitny put me in a local bank. It was good for my career! We really are more safe today than our international counterparts! At least in Singapore we are. MAS, the big brother, ensured we stay safe. We all raised money just before the crisis was official. I mean there are some really smart people up there.
I'm not quite sure what will happen next though. A lot of excellent strategy and planning that we worked on in the last one year, could be washed away by a mere slashing of budget now. Time will tell.
On another note, I've been busy being super-creative as a scriptwriter, director to put together a musical for our bank's internal quarterly show. And whoever has seen bits of it can't stop laughing. Yes, it is a spoof on the financial crisis and Abba songs can be so handy!
Friday, October 10, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Socially responsible investing
During my MBA program I had attended a conference of Asian bschools on Global Corporate Social Responsibility. We vowed to not work for companies that blatantly flout social responsibility. I would like to think I am in the business of helping people make more money. Environment friendliness probably does not go hand in hand with our business considering the realiance on paper for most things (customers want statements!)....but we do our bit to give back to society through other charity work.
Anyway the purpose of this post brought back memories of Prof Mohamed Yunus speaking at the Barclays Asia Forum ....about the financial industry devising innovative products that support social causes. Why can't we have an index purely for socially responsible stocks and mutual funds based on them? Some governments are trying to do their bit by divesting their pension funds from unethical companies that pose unacceptable risks ..case in point is the Norwegian Government Pension Fund.
Unfortunately, the irony of it all is here in this snippet from wiki - At least one mutual fund, the Vice Fund (VICEX), was created specifically to contrast with the trend in socially responsible investing. VICEX specializes in investing in the defense, alcohol, tobacco, and gambling industries, and has greatly outperformed both the S&P 500 and most socially responsible mutual funds.
Hope the readers of my blog don't note it down and go looking for their financial planners now.
Anyway the purpose of this post brought back memories of Prof Mohamed Yunus speaking at the Barclays Asia Forum ....about the financial industry devising innovative products that support social causes. Why can't we have an index purely for socially responsible stocks and mutual funds based on them? Some governments are trying to do their bit by divesting their pension funds from unethical companies that pose unacceptable risks ..case in point is the Norwegian Government Pension Fund.
Unfortunately, the irony of it all is here in this snippet from wiki - At least one mutual fund, the Vice Fund (VICEX), was created specifically to contrast with the trend in socially responsible investing. VICEX specializes in investing in the defense, alcohol, tobacco, and gambling industries, and has greatly outperformed both the S&P 500 and most socially responsible mutual funds.
Hope the readers of my blog don't note it down and go looking for their financial planners now.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
My response to the subject of the previous post
Sad it is. I won't refute anything. India is very tough to grapple for those who have no experience with it. Yes i have grown up watching slums in the neighbouhood and despicable living conditions too.
But since you brought up China in comparison I will definitely give credit to its government which is dedicated to ensuring wealth generation. And the people are happy as long as they get their share of the pie. Sounds so much like SIngapore right? They entrust their well-being to the government. In one of my classes during the MBA though... the professor brought up just one scenario for China - what if things start looking gloomy or the government makes one big mistake? People aren't allowed to voice their disgust and if they do....it can get ugly.
In India, wealth is created by private organisations and entreprenuers...government is mostly making their life difficult but increasingly its getting better. If we develop steam, we can let it out! What India has is a heart that can't be matched by a communist China. Our strength honestly lies in our land, our people and our humane culture. Unfortunately neither got its due in the last many years but it sure is changing steadily. There is a reversing of the brain drain as well as unprecendented infratructure development albeit amid chaos.
In Singapore too citizens would quietly make way for highways and development and relocate to other areas but do you see the value in allowing poor fishermen in Mumbai or farmers in West Bengal to voice their concerns and stop a multibillion dollar project? Probably not :-)
May be I'm just being very idealistic but honestly I don't mind paying the price for freedom.
PS: The writer's opinion may be discounted considering she is after all sitting in Singapore and not in India :-(
But since you brought up China in comparison I will definitely give credit to its government which is dedicated to ensuring wealth generation. And the people are happy as long as they get their share of the pie. Sounds so much like SIngapore right? They entrust their well-being to the government. In one of my classes during the MBA though... the professor brought up just one scenario for China - what if things start looking gloomy or the government makes one big mistake? People aren't allowed to voice their disgust and if they do....it can get ugly.
In India, wealth is created by private organisations and entreprenuers...government is mostly making their life difficult but increasingly its getting better. If we develop steam, we can let it out! What India has is a heart that can't be matched by a communist China. Our strength honestly lies in our land, our people and our humane culture. Unfortunately neither got its due in the last many years but it sure is changing steadily. There is a reversing of the brain drain as well as unprecendented infratructure development albeit amid chaos.
In Singapore too citizens would quietly make way for highways and development and relocate to other areas but do you see the value in allowing poor fishermen in Mumbai or farmers in West Bengal to voice their concerns and stop a multibillion dollar project? Probably not :-)
May be I'm just being very idealistic but honestly I don't mind paying the price for freedom.
PS: The writer's opinion may be discounted considering she is after all sitting in Singapore and not in India :-(
Why "no" to India? Why "yes" to China?
My singaporean colleague sent me a link to an article published in the Economist. India as a subject of international expansion seems to be a very scary proposition for many around this region. My friend's email read:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I feel that the “ills” of democracy seems to be beset this key commercial city of India, and it is sad. Changes in government, lobbyists for both sides of the fence – this spells paralysis to me in all sense of the word. Perhaps not wise to go there now, but hope a stronger govt may emerge and things will change.
Communist or not, China will be able to do what it says/promise and no obstacles are there –though we may not agree on methods used.
From a business perspective, it offers more certainty for businesses relatively, and stability for business investment and expansion.
Singapore seems to have the best of both worlds – controlled or engineered freedom : )
xyz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can understand his feelings after reading the article below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum city blues
Aug 30th 2007 MUMBAIFrom The Economist print edition
Great plans are in place to resuscitate South Asia's biggest city. As ever, the difficulty lies in implementing them
THERE is only one way to see Mumbai. That is by helicopter: whirring low over the rust-brown slums, godowns and Victorian Gothic monuments of India's city of commerce, its historic gateway; then soaring high over the hazy Arabian Sea beyond. It is exhilarating. Moreover, only by helicopter can one cross log-jammed central Mumbai—a distance of around 20km (12.5 miles)—in under two hours.
Mumbai is South Asia's biggest city. By 2015 the UN says it will be the world's second-biggest after Tokyo, with nearly 25m people. Yet already it is choking. Around half the population—of 14m, at a modest estimate—live in slums. Another 3m commute daily from surrounding suburbs. Most come by rail, though the service would be inadequate even if it were not hobbled by a shortage of trains and a surfeit of vagrants. At peak hours, 5,000 commuters cling to trains designed for 1,700. Hundreds die on the tracks each year.
Higher up the economic food-chain, the damage is commensurate. Airliners circle Mumbai by the hour, awaiting space to land. One of the airport's two runways is semi-retired, because 300,000 squatters have built shacks around it. The roads are even worse: Mumbai is traversed by two north-south highways, with no large axis between them. Yet every day an estimated 500 cars are added to the city's jams.
Mumbaikars have long seen the trouble ahead. In recent years, the state and central governments have recognised it too. There is much at stake, for India as well as Mumbai. Its recent high economic growth is an urban phenomenon. Indeed, the failure of rural India is why so many Indians come to town. Huge improvements in urban infrastructure are needed urgently.
Mumbai, moreover, for all its flaws, is the one Indian city with pretensions as an international financial hub. So state and central governments have made vast promises. The plans envisage overhauling laws and regulations and building Mumbai's infrastructure anew. The government of the state of Maharashtra, of which Mumbai is the capital, says this will cost $60 billion and take a decade.
The central government has earmarked $9 billion for Maharashtra's urban infrastructure. The private sector, it is hoped, will stump up most of the rest. Mukesh Ambani's Reliance Industries (purveyor of the helicopter tour) plans to invest $8 billion in a vast manufacturing development—virtually a new city, in Navi (new) Mumbai (see map). Reliance, India's biggest private-sector company, says it will provide 2m jobs.
But there is a problem. To redevelop Mumbai and its hinterland involves moving people. And since in India third-world conditions are dignified (at least in theory) with first-world rights, this causes blockages. The invaders of Mumbai airport, for example, have at least four representatives in Maharashtra's state assembly.
Scrapping lousy laws in corrupt India is similarly fraught: as a rule, the more economic damage they do, the more powerful are the interests defending them. And so hardly a week passes without the stalling of some critical part of Mumbai's redevelopment. Last month was the turn, not for the first time, of one of the most crucial: a scheme to redevelop Dharavi slum, allegedly Asia's biggest, which would involve resettling around 300,000 people.
At its current pace, the redevelopment of Mumbai is probably not keeping up with the city's worsening decrepitude. Yet progress there has been, in three main areas: administrative reform, legal and regulatory reform, and infrastructure. Optimists—whose ranks include some of the redevelopers—say that, as a result, the way will be less tangled ahead.
The city's rulers have already pared back a few trailing branches. Mumbai is run by 16 separate agencies. To help co-ordinate them, the government has formed a redevelopment committee representing them all. But it will achieve little unless the promised axe is wielded on certain laws and building regulations. Two are most heinous. The Urban Land Ceiling Act, a law restricting urban land holdings, has left 2,000 hectares (5,000 acres) of Mumbai in a legal limbo. For three decades these parcels have been locked in the courts, prey to rent-seeking officials. In addition, rent controls ensure that most of Mumbai's best housing is let for peanuts on renewable leases. In such places, the rental market is dead. Denied control of their assets, landlords let splendid buildings crumble. In downtown Mumbai—one of the world's priciest markets for foreigners—3,000 houses stand vacant. Meanwhile, even middle-class immigrants to the city, having no better option, stay in the slums.
The central government says Maharashtra must repeal the urban-land law before it receives its infrastructure money. In July, for the umpteenth time, the state Parliament passed up an opportunity to do so. More promisingly, a law scrapping rent controls has been submitted to Parliament.
On infrastructure, there is less good news. The first 5.6km stage of a project to build a road over the sea, along Mumbai's western coast, is 60% completed, three years overdue and so far has cost double its $150m budget. The delay follows a costly redesign, after local fishermen protested that the road impeded their boats. Construction of an 11km metro, budgeted at some $500m, has not yet started—a year after Manmohan Singh, the prime minister, inaugurated its site by breaking a coconut over it. The government is in a legal battle to acquire a plot of land to store the metro's trains.
In Dharavi, the government has done all it can to avoid such headaches. Its plan is broadly in line with existing slum redevelopment policy. It would see Dharavi's low-lying shanties bulldozed and replaced by apartment blocks. Each unhoused family would be given title to a flat of 225 square feet (21 square metres). The leftover land would be split between the developer, as his fee, and the government. Previous slum redevelopments needed the approval of 70% of the affected slum-dwellers. Dharavi's, however, have been given no choice.
Worse, anyone who arrived there after 1994 will be ineligible for resettlement. Moreover, Dharavi is a peculiarly commercialised slum. Its cottage industries—including garments and handicrafts—earn millions of dollars in annual exports alone. After the redevelopment, Dharavi's traders would be offered space for rent. But much of the slum's industry will be lost.
It is nonetheless hard to know what the government could do better. The existing slum policy was launched a decade ago, with the aim of redeveloping all of Mumbai's slums by 2007. So far, 500,000 slum-dwellers have been resettled. But 2m new ones have arrived in the city.
Reliance would rejoice at any such progress. Its new city was supposed to extend over nearly 15,000 hectares, comprising two special economic zones (SEZs). These are tax havens for export-driven industries, introduced by the government last year. But the scheme has hit the skids. After skirmishes over a proposed SEZ in West Bengal in January, the government changed the rules. So Reliance will have to lop 5,000 hectares off Navi Mumbai, and will have no government help acquiring land. “Why do they worry about my bloody SEZ?” fumes Anand Jain, Mr Ambani's partner in the project. “Why not have ten SEZs and solve all Mumbai's problems?” As if he didn't know.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I feel that the “ills” of democracy seems to be beset this key commercial city of India, and it is sad. Changes in government, lobbyists for both sides of the fence – this spells paralysis to me in all sense of the word. Perhaps not wise to go there now, but hope a stronger govt may emerge and things will change.
Communist or not, China will be able to do what it says/promise and no obstacles are there –though we may not agree on methods used.
From a business perspective, it offers more certainty for businesses relatively, and stability for business investment and expansion.
Singapore seems to have the best of both worlds – controlled or engineered freedom : )
xyz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can understand his feelings after reading the article below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum city blues
Aug 30th 2007 MUMBAIFrom The Economist print edition
Great plans are in place to resuscitate South Asia's biggest city. As ever, the difficulty lies in implementing them
THERE is only one way to see Mumbai. That is by helicopter: whirring low over the rust-brown slums, godowns and Victorian Gothic monuments of India's city of commerce, its historic gateway; then soaring high over the hazy Arabian Sea beyond. It is exhilarating. Moreover, only by helicopter can one cross log-jammed central Mumbai—a distance of around 20km (12.5 miles)—in under two hours.
Mumbai is South Asia's biggest city. By 2015 the UN says it will be the world's second-biggest after Tokyo, with nearly 25m people. Yet already it is choking. Around half the population—of 14m, at a modest estimate—live in slums. Another 3m commute daily from surrounding suburbs. Most come by rail, though the service would be inadequate even if it were not hobbled by a shortage of trains and a surfeit of vagrants. At peak hours, 5,000 commuters cling to trains designed for 1,700. Hundreds die on the tracks each year.
Higher up the economic food-chain, the damage is commensurate. Airliners circle Mumbai by the hour, awaiting space to land. One of the airport's two runways is semi-retired, because 300,000 squatters have built shacks around it. The roads are even worse: Mumbai is traversed by two north-south highways, with no large axis between them. Yet every day an estimated 500 cars are added to the city's jams.
Mumbaikars have long seen the trouble ahead. In recent years, the state and central governments have recognised it too. There is much at stake, for India as well as Mumbai. Its recent high economic growth is an urban phenomenon. Indeed, the failure of rural India is why so many Indians come to town. Huge improvements in urban infrastructure are needed urgently.
Mumbai, moreover, for all its flaws, is the one Indian city with pretensions as an international financial hub. So state and central governments have made vast promises. The plans envisage overhauling laws and regulations and building Mumbai's infrastructure anew. The government of the state of Maharashtra, of which Mumbai is the capital, says this will cost $60 billion and take a decade.
The central government has earmarked $9 billion for Maharashtra's urban infrastructure. The private sector, it is hoped, will stump up most of the rest. Mukesh Ambani's Reliance Industries (purveyor of the helicopter tour) plans to invest $8 billion in a vast manufacturing development—virtually a new city, in Navi (new) Mumbai (see map). Reliance, India's biggest private-sector company, says it will provide 2m jobs.
But there is a problem. To redevelop Mumbai and its hinterland involves moving people. And since in India third-world conditions are dignified (at least in theory) with first-world rights, this causes blockages. The invaders of Mumbai airport, for example, have at least four representatives in Maharashtra's state assembly.
Scrapping lousy laws in corrupt India is similarly fraught: as a rule, the more economic damage they do, the more powerful are the interests defending them. And so hardly a week passes without the stalling of some critical part of Mumbai's redevelopment. Last month was the turn, not for the first time, of one of the most crucial: a scheme to redevelop Dharavi slum, allegedly Asia's biggest, which would involve resettling around 300,000 people.
At its current pace, the redevelopment of Mumbai is probably not keeping up with the city's worsening decrepitude. Yet progress there has been, in three main areas: administrative reform, legal and regulatory reform, and infrastructure. Optimists—whose ranks include some of the redevelopers—say that, as a result, the way will be less tangled ahead.
The city's rulers have already pared back a few trailing branches. Mumbai is run by 16 separate agencies. To help co-ordinate them, the government has formed a redevelopment committee representing them all. But it will achieve little unless the promised axe is wielded on certain laws and building regulations. Two are most heinous. The Urban Land Ceiling Act, a law restricting urban land holdings, has left 2,000 hectares (5,000 acres) of Mumbai in a legal limbo. For three decades these parcels have been locked in the courts, prey to rent-seeking officials. In addition, rent controls ensure that most of Mumbai's best housing is let for peanuts on renewable leases. In such places, the rental market is dead. Denied control of their assets, landlords let splendid buildings crumble. In downtown Mumbai—one of the world's priciest markets for foreigners—3,000 houses stand vacant. Meanwhile, even middle-class immigrants to the city, having no better option, stay in the slums.
The central government says Maharashtra must repeal the urban-land law before it receives its infrastructure money. In July, for the umpteenth time, the state Parliament passed up an opportunity to do so. More promisingly, a law scrapping rent controls has been submitted to Parliament.
On infrastructure, there is less good news. The first 5.6km stage of a project to build a road over the sea, along Mumbai's western coast, is 60% completed, three years overdue and so far has cost double its $150m budget. The delay follows a costly redesign, after local fishermen protested that the road impeded their boats. Construction of an 11km metro, budgeted at some $500m, has not yet started—a year after Manmohan Singh, the prime minister, inaugurated its site by breaking a coconut over it. The government is in a legal battle to acquire a plot of land to store the metro's trains.
In Dharavi, the government has done all it can to avoid such headaches. Its plan is broadly in line with existing slum redevelopment policy. It would see Dharavi's low-lying shanties bulldozed and replaced by apartment blocks. Each unhoused family would be given title to a flat of 225 square feet (21 square metres). The leftover land would be split between the developer, as his fee, and the government. Previous slum redevelopments needed the approval of 70% of the affected slum-dwellers. Dharavi's, however, have been given no choice.
Worse, anyone who arrived there after 1994 will be ineligible for resettlement. Moreover, Dharavi is a peculiarly commercialised slum. Its cottage industries—including garments and handicrafts—earn millions of dollars in annual exports alone. After the redevelopment, Dharavi's traders would be offered space for rent. But much of the slum's industry will be lost.
It is nonetheless hard to know what the government could do better. The existing slum policy was launched a decade ago, with the aim of redeveloping all of Mumbai's slums by 2007. So far, 500,000 slum-dwellers have been resettled. But 2m new ones have arrived in the city.
Reliance would rejoice at any such progress. Its new city was supposed to extend over nearly 15,000 hectares, comprising two special economic zones (SEZs). These are tax havens for export-driven industries, introduced by the government last year. But the scheme has hit the skids. After skirmishes over a proposed SEZ in West Bengal in January, the government changed the rules. So Reliance will have to lop 5,000 hectares off Navi Mumbai, and will have no government help acquiring land. “Why do they worry about my bloody SEZ?” fumes Anand Jain, Mr Ambani's partner in the project. “Why not have ten SEZs and solve all Mumbai's problems?” As if he didn't know.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Eliminating Banks
If you hadn't heard of online money lending-borrowing websites then you better read on. After reading about what I'm about to say I'm sure majority of you would think...."how come we never thought of that?!" If online users could exchange goods and services then why not money? Is it truly ground breaking? Visit www.Zopa.com to find out more. I mean if we all have enough money we could all be CEOs of our own banks...albeit with a username on zopa.com :-p
I'm amazed. There is so much to look forward to in life! New ideas, new challenges, new tactics to survive (and kill?)
PS: Happy 60 years of Independence India ! - Your citizen for life
I'm amazed. There is so much to look forward to in life! New ideas, new challenges, new tactics to survive (and kill?)
PS: Happy 60 years of Independence India ! - Your citizen for life
Thursday, July 19, 2007
A whole new world...
Almost into my third week of orientation at OC and boy o boy am I impressed with the financial world! If only I had known there are so many avenues in a Bank I would have joined one long back. Unfortunately for me... my parents were bankers therefore banking was very uncool. It remained uncool until I realised my dream companies were not offering me the kind of role I wanted and then I turned to the best bet in Singapore... the financial services sector. I'm a tad superstitious about some things so let me just say that for long in my life I identified with the song by U2 that goes "I still haven't found what I'm looking for"...NO MORE :))
My first lesson in working for a bank in Singapore is to be extremely careful about what I say in public. Big brother is always watching and a slip of tongue could bring a huge personal penalty. So through this blog I will only share some general trivia and interesting discoveries I make along the way.
My first lesson in working for a bank in Singapore is to be extremely careful about what I say in public. Big brother is always watching and a slip of tongue could bring a huge personal penalty. So through this blog I will only share some general trivia and interesting discoveries I make along the way.
For example INSIGHT NO.1 - we were discussing customer service experience in banks. Nobody would ever recount a banking experience as a memorable one...unless it was really shoddy! Customers complain they don't like to queue. But then have you seen the unreasonable queues outside Donut Factory in Singapore? People stand for hours to geta box of freakin donuts! Who says singaporean customers don;t like to queue!
INSIGHT NO.2 - Ask a customer in Singapore to invest $10,000 in the best fund in the market and he will resist. Promise him a free electric cooker or toaster or microwave or washing machine and he will oblige happily (hahaha i just cracked up on hearing that)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)