Smallest Roundabout In The World

I apologise for disappearing from this blog for a quite a while. Well, the reason is that I have been doing some roundabout in my life, literally. ;)

You see, YG wrote about what could possibly be the smallest roundabout in Singapore here. While I do not dispute his claim, I think I could have found the smallest roundabout in the world:


The above photo was taken when I was holidaying in Taiwan in November last year. It shows the entrance to a carpark near Pacific Sogo in downtown Taipei where land price is at a premium. Hence the approach road and the entrance to this car park is exceptionally narrow. They are so narrow that there is not enough space for a car to turn right normally into the carpark. So how did they manage to solve the problem? By using a powered roundabout or rather, I should say a turntable. The driver manoeuvres the car onto it; the operator presses a button to rotate it slowly 90 degrees to the right and voila, the car is facing the entrance directly within a few seconds. When the car exits the carpark, the process is reversed, with the turntable turning in the opposite direction.

Well okay, I admit that the yellow circle appears bigger than the roundabout in YG's article but if you could imagine and compare the turning motions of the cars in the 2 circles, you will realise that the car in my example is actually turning on its own axis, i.e. it is turning in a much tighter circle. So could this be the smallest roundabout in the world?

Note: I think that the man in the photo is the carpark operator. The driver is seated in the car on the lefthand side as cars in Taipei are lefthand-drive.

Effects Of The Current Financial Turmoil (2)

MAS is in the news again
Not the escapee from prison
Shouldn't it be keeping our savings selamat?*
People who lost money are understandably mad

Some investors bought "minibond"
Now their money could be all gone
Its complexity's beyond the layman
Many didn't know it was linked to Lehman

The product with a fanciful name
But minibonds and bonds are not the same
Who would think a 5% dividend is reasonable
When you could lose all of your principal?

For some it was their entire life savings
Yet the distributors said it had good ratings
"Your risk is very small"
Spinning a tale that's very tall

Is it the buyers' carelessness?
Or rather the sellers' callousness?
Were the buyers simply greedy?
Or were the sellers obviously shifty?

Many elderly people were targeted
The products were indiscreetly marketed
Some were not educated highly
A prospectus they'll not understand easily

Many of them were retirees
Who have collected CPF monies
The banks knew they were cash-laden
So what if there's no diversification?

Some had only wanted fixed deposits renewed
But instead had their investment strategies reviewed
The banks not caring all this while
If the products fit the customers' risk profile

Some VIP even said something like this
If you're unwilling to take any risk
Leave your money with the CPF for 4% return
A very good rate with no risk taken

* - "Selamat" is Malay for "safe". It is also part of the name of the escaped terrorist.

Below are some funny cartoons published in last Sunday's New Paper:

Effects Of The Current Financial Turmoil (1)

I read with sadness that quite a number of people have lost large sums of money recently because they invested in structured deposits linked to the collapsed Lehman Brothers bank. For some of these people, the money they lost were their entire retirement savings. I heard one elderly Singaporean couple invested $250,000 and may not get any of their money back.

As for me, I have made quite a few bad investments myself. A few weeks before the dot-com bubble burst in Mar 2000, I bought into ABN AMRO Star Global Information Society Fund. Needless to say, when I sold off the investment after the bubble burst, I got back only less than 20% of its original value. It was only after the dust had settled that I realised that the fund was classified as "high-risk and narrowly-focussed". To make matters worse, the investment was sold to me by a very close relative. I won't deny that our relationship had suffered because of this unpleasant experience.

More recently (in Aug 2008), my wife and I bought some OCBC non-convertible preference shares. We were attracted to them because they paid 5.1% annual dividends - not bad when you consider that interest rates for savings and fixed deposits are only a small fraction of that. As promised, the shares did pay a 5.1% pa dividend, i.e. S$33.53 for every S$10,000 invested for the 24 days which the shareholder had held on to the shares. Not too bad except that the closing price of the share had dropped from $100 to $93.42 within the same period - we had a paper loss of more than $1000 within less than a month and got back only less than $100. Would you have subscribed to the shares if you know that this is the outcome? Of course, with the benefit of hindsight now, the answer is an obvious one.

My many bad experiences in investment make me wonder how people like Mr Oei Hong Leong can make S$7 million by trading AIG shares in such a difficult market condition. No wonder they say that the rich gets richer (people like Mr Oei) while the poor gets poorer (people like me). Alright, Mr Oei did a good and noble thing by donating his S$7 million gain to the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. (I would like to donate too but now, I am badly in need of donations myself.)

I feel that our MAS has not been very pro-active in its role as a financial regulator. It should not have allowed highly risky products to have been marketed as relatively safe investments to risk-averse investors. This would have constituted as misrepresentation by the sellers. The least it could do is to label the products as "high risk" and this fact should be made known to buyer by the seller. The buyer should also be told in layman's terms the various scenarios which will cause a loss to the investment and by how much.