Damages for late delivery of house

Please learn that you are entitle for damages for late delivery of your house. Don't let the developer gets away with tons of our money. Due to "sell first" concept, we finance their venture and do you accept when they don't deliver as scheduled? Learn your option.

--------

Addressing and defining vacant possession.

“MY new house is ready and I can now collect my keys,” or so the house-buyer thinks. No more having to pay rent.

But his dreams come crashing down, however, when he is informed that although he may have gained vacant possession, he cannot not move into his house because the Certificate of Fitness for Occupation (CFO) is not ready.

Months later, he receives a copy of the CFO, and when he asks to be compensated for the delay, the developer says liquidated damages for late delivery (liquidated ascertained damages or LAD) is calculated up to the date of their notice for delivery of vacant possession and not up to the date of the CFO.

Who then is to compensate the house-buyer who has to service a housing loan for a house he or she is not allowed to occupy, and who, at the same time, pays for a rented place while waiting to move in?

This is a common scenario faced by house-buyers for years.

Is the house-buyer entitled to damages up to the date the CFO is issued? The answer is a definite yes, if the sale and purchase agreement (SPA) is in the format prescribed by the Housing Development (Control & Licensing) Act, 1966 – year 2007 amendments, according to a recent decision of the Tribunal for Home Buyer Claims, a.k.a. the Housing Tribunal.

Recently I was in the vicinity of the Housing Tribunal located in the Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Ministry building, and decided to pay a visit before my next meeting in Putrajaya.

As I entered the hearing room, the ongoing case involved a claim for LAD. It was by no means a simple LAD case. The developer’s defence ran into several pages and touched on several legal technical issues. I am writing this article to share with the readers the LAD issue vis-a-vis the CFO as opposed to the certificate of completion and compliance (CCC).

Is LAD calculated up to date of CFO or CCC?

Having stressed that the delivery of vacant possession in a housing project entailed more than just developers issuing their notice for delivery of vacant possession, the tribunal president went on to explain that the SPA contained specific requirements for delivery of vacant possession, which must be complied with.

One of these requirements as provided by Clause 26(2) of the SPA is that delivery of vacant possession must be supported by a CCC. The LAD must, therefore, be calculated until the date of the CCC. That was simple enough to understand. But what happens if a CFO is issued instead of a

CCC?

In the past when houses were certified fit for occupation by way of the CFO, developers were not required to procure the CFO before handing over the houses to their buyers. Developers would deliver vacant possession before the CFO was issued and would not be liable for damages or any delays in the issuance of the CFO. House-buyers would collect their house keys but would not be allowed to move into their newly-completed houses simply because the CFO had not been issued yet.

In 2007, the statutory SPA was amended. Developers were now required to procure the CCC to deliver vacant possession so that house-buyers could move in as soon as they collected their keys. This mode was more meaningful to buyers. The CCC system to certify a house or apartment safe for occupation was intended to replace the CFO system. Unfortunately, there were many cases where building approvals were given before the 2007 amendment with the SPA being signed after the amendment. In such cases, some local authorities insist that developers must procure the CFO, and not the CCC, even though the SPA says otherwise.

So, we have a situation where the SPA says that the developers must produce the CCC, but developers are not able to do so because the local authorities insist on the developers applying for the CFO. This was what had happened in the case being heard by the Housing Tribunal.

The developers argued that damages should be calculated up to the date of their notice for delivery of vacant possession and not the date of the CFO. Clause 26(2) of the SPA was not applicable because the local authorities insisted on the developers getting the CFO instead of the CCC.

This means that the developers would have to bear damages amounting to more than 10% of the purchase price if damages were calculated up to the date of the CFO. This explains why developers are fighting tooth and nail to save themselves a lot of money; money which should rightfully be paid to the house-buyers.

The SPA, in this case, was in the form of Schedule H (for strata properties such as apartments) and Clause 26(2) says that “the delivery of vacant possession by the vendor shall be supported by a CCC certifying that the said building is safe and fit for occupation and includes the handing over of the keys of the parcel to the purchaser”.

“To my mind, the provisions of clause 26(2) can best be understood and dealt with by tracing the purpose for which such provisions were made,” said the tribunal president. (See Star

Online for the tribunal president’s analysis).

The tribunal president said substantial amendments were made to the housing legislations in 2002 and 2007 to protect house-buyers. The certificate of compliance was introduced and the SPA was amended to make it mandatory for delivery of vacant possession to be supported by the CCC. Developers were required to ensure their houses and apartments were certified safe and fit for occupation before delivery of vacant possession, as in Clause 26(2). The tribunal president said the clause must be read to mean the CFO in cases where a CFO is issued instead of a CCC.

Here is her reasoning:

“... the CCC system of certification is a system ... much like the CFO. The 2007 amendment was to address the cumulative problem of house-buyers not being allowed to occupy their houses upon collection of their keys.

“How that certification is done is not the main purpose for this Clause 26(2). The crux of the issue is not about the system of certification (be it CFO or CCC), but about the house being certified as safe and fit for occupation.

“... the statutory SPA (after the 2007 amendment) refers only to the CCC. No mention is made of the CFO. To say that the CCC cannot be equated with the CFO will mean that in cases where the local authorities require a CFO (as opposed to a CCC), vacant possession can never be delivered in accordance with the provisions of the SPA because no CCC will ever be issued.”

The tribunal president said this interpretation defeated the purpose of the 2007 amendments to the statutory SPA, and made a mockery of parliament and the housing legislations.

The tribunal awarded damages up to the date of the CFO to the house-buyer.

Thumbs up to the Housing Tribunal

The Housing Tribunal assists parties in the conduct of their cases, especially when they are not represented by lawyers, and where one party is superior to the other. “Independent” legal representation is rarely allowed at the Housing Tribunal.

I am pleased by the detailed reasoning given by the tribunal and was impressed by attempts made in trying to settle the matter and the informal, yet solemn, atmosphere surrounding the entire proceedings. As I left the Housing Tribunal some two hours later, I could not help but feel rather uplifted by my experience.

As I write, I wonder if the decisions of the Housing Tribunal ought to be reported and made available for public consumption. I intend to make representations to the Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Minister that decisions of the Housing Tribunal should be made available for public reading on their website so that the public would be able to comprehend and aim towards the empowerment of information so as to make an informed decision.

If the Financial Mediation Bureau (under Bank Negara, http://www.fmb.org.my/pc04.cb.htm)

can have its case reviews published on their website, and Tribunal for Consumer Claim

(http://ttpm.kpdnkk.gov.my) decisions made available, why not the Housing Tribunal?

How to identify the differences

Last but not least, how do you know whether your SPA is in the format prescribed by the year 2007 amendment? Easy. Look for the defect liability clause in your SPA. If the defect liability period is 24 months, then your SPA is post-2007. I learned that at the Housing Tribunal that day too!

Here is a record of the Tribunal President’s analysis, as provided by Mr Chang Kim Loong, honorary secretary-general of the National House Buyers Association (HBA).

“Before a house buyer can move into his/her new house it must be certified safe for occupation. This used to be done by the local authority issuing a CFO. For decades, developers were not required to obtain the CFO before delivery of vacant possession. Many house buyers were not allowed to occupy their newly purchased houses or apartments even though they were completed, fully paid for and handed over to them, simply because there was no CFO.

“Many developers, having collected the full purchase price and handed over vacant possession, were not the least bothered about the delay in the CFO. Such delay was through no fault whatsoever of the house buyers and completely beyond their control. Yet they were the ones to bear the burden of financing houses they could neither move into nor rent out.

"In 2002, substantial amendments were made to the housing legislations to give added protection to house buyers.

"One such amendment was to address the problem of vacant possession without CFO. Developers were required to secure the acceptance of Borang E (Application for CFO) by the local authority before delivery of vacant possession.

“According to the then Housing Minister, Borang E once accepted by the local authority was

‘ ... sort of as good as a CFO’ because once the Borang E was accepted the CFO should be issued by the relevant authority within 14 days. In the course of my presiding at the Tribunal, I have indeed seen many CFO issued within 14 days of acceptance of Borang E by the relevant authority.

“Unfortunately, there remained many delayed cases in the issuance of CFO and the nightmare

continued for many vulnerable and innocent house buyers. In the year 2007, Parliament again tried to address the grievances of house buyers. The CCC was introduced and the SPA was amended to make it mandatory for delivery of vacant possession to be supported by the CCC.

"So for the first time in the history of the housing industry, developers (through their appointed Architects and Engineers), were required to ensure their houses and apartments are certified safe and fit for occupation before deliver of vacant possession. This is clearly reflected in Clause 26(2).”

The Tribunal President then went on to say that the CCC referred to in Clause 26(2) must be read to mean the CFO in cases where a CFO was issued instead of a CCC. Here is her reasoning:

“First and foremost, one must bear in mind that the CCC system of certification is just a system or mechanism, very much like the CFO system, for certifying that a building is safe for occupation, thus, permitting the house owners to occupy their houses.

“One of the main reasons for the 2007 amendments was to address the cumulative problem of house buyers not being allowed to occupy their houses upon collection of their house keys.

“This is clearly reflected by the then Housing Minister’s statement in Parliament that

'Pindaan ini dan peraturan baru diharap akan dapat menyelesaikan masalah di mana pembeli

berjaya memperolehi kunci tetapi tiada CFO.'

“It must be taken that the main purpose of Clause 26(2) is to ensure that the building in question is certified safe and fit for occupation when vacant possession is delivered so that house buyers can move into their houses. How that certification is done is not the main purpose of this Clause 26(2).

“The crux of the issue is not about the system of certification (be it CFO or CCC) but about the house being certified as safe and fit for occupation.

“Further, it must be noted that the statutory SPA (after the 2007 amendment) refers only to the CCC. No mention is made of the CFO. To say that the CCC cannot be equated with CFO will mean that in cases where the local authorities require a CFO (as opposed to a CCC) to be issued, vacant possession can never be delivered in accordance with the provisions of the SPA because no CCC will ever be issued.

"It will mean that in cases where the local authority requires a CFO (as opposed to the CCC) to be issued there is no provision at all under these SPAs requiring the developers to ensure that the houses or apartments sold to the house buyers are certified safe and fit for occupation. Such interpretation will not only defeat the purpose of the 2007 amendments to the statutory SPA but make a complete and utter mockery of Parliament and the housing legislations.

“Clause 26(2) must be interpreted as requiring vacant possession to be supported by a certificate certifying that the building/house/apartment in question is safe and fit for occupation. Whether this certification is done by the former CFO system or under the new CCC system of certification is secondary and does not affect the developers’ responsibility to deliver vacant possession only when the building is certified safe and fit for occupation.”

Chang Kim Loong is the honorary secretary-general of the National House Buyers Association (HBA): www.hba.org.my, a non-profit, non-governmental organisation manned purely by volunteers. He is also an NGO councillor at the Subang Jaya Municipal Council.

This article appear in thestar in Jan2014.

Something technical

Break it away

As a rule of thumb, "high volume" for any given market is at least 25 percent above average for the past two weeks, and "low volume" is at least 25 percent below average.

1. High volume confirms trends. If prices rise to a new peak and volume reaches a new high, then prices are likely to retest or exceed that peak.
2. If the market falls to a new low and the volume reaches a new high, that bottom is likely to be retested or exceeded. A "climax bottom7' is almost always retested on low volume, offering an excellent buying opportunity.
3. If volume shrinks while a trend continues, that trend is ripe for a reversal. The reverse is untrue.

Prices represent the consensus of value, while volume represents the emotions of market participants.

On or off balance?

On-Balance Volume often rises or falls before prices - it acts as a leading indicator.
A new high in OBV shows that bulls are powerful, bears are hurting, and prices are likely to rise. A new low in OBV shows that bears are powerful, bulls are hurting, and prices are likely to fall. When the pattern of OBV deviates from the pattern of prices, it shows that mass emotions are not in gear with mass consensus. A crowd is more likely to follow its heart than its mind. This is why changes in volume often precede changes in prices. When OBV rises or falls together with prices, the trend is confirmed.

If prices reach a new high and OBV reaches a new high, the uptrend is likely to continue.

1. When OBV reaches a new high, it confirms the power of bulls, indicates that prices are likely to rise even higher, and gives a buy signal.
2. OBV gives its strongest buy and sell signals when it diverges from prices. If prices rally, sell off, and then rise to a new high, but OBV rallies to a lower high, it creates a bearish divergence and gives a strong sell signal. If prices decline, rebound, and then fall to a new low, but OBV falls to a more shallow bottom, it traces a bullish divergence and gives a strong buy signal.
3. When prices are in a trading range and OBV breaks out to a new high, it gives a buy signal. When prices are in a trading range and OBV breaks down and falls to a new low, it gives a signal to sell short.

Which way is the traffic?

The Directional System is unique in telling you when a major new trend is likely to begin. It signals when a new baby bull or baby bear is being born.

The relative position of Directional lines identifies trends. When the Positive Directional line is above the Negative Directional line, it shows that bullish traders dominate the market. When the Negative Directional line rises above the Positive Directional line, it shows that bearish traders are stronger. It pays to trade in the direction of the upper Directional line.

1. The best time to be long is when both +DI13 and ADX are above -DI13 and ADX rises.
2. When ADX declines, it shows that the market is becoming less directional.
3. When ADX falls below both Directional lines, it identifies a flat, sleepy market. Do not use a trend-following system but start getting ready, because major trends emerge from such lulls.
4. The single best signal of the Directional system comes after ADX falls below both Directional lines. The longer it stays there, the stronger the base for the next move. 

When ADX rallies from below both Directional lines, it shows that the market is waking up from a lull.

Add or deduct

It was designed as a leading indicator for stocks, the unique feature of Accumulation/Distribution (AD) is that it tracks the relationship between opening and closing prices, along with volume. If prices close higher than they opened, then bulls won the day and AD is positive. If prices close lower than they opened, then the bears won and AD is negative. If pricks close where they opened, then nobody won and A/D is zero. A running total of each day's AID creates acumulative Accumulation/Distribution indicator.

The best trading signals are given by divergences between AD and prices. 

1. A bullish divergence occurs when prices fall to a new low but AD stops at a higher low than during its previous decline. It shows that market professionals are using the decline for buying, and a rally is coming.
2. If prices rally to a new high but AID reaches a lower peak, it gives a signal of bearish divergence, sell.

Waiting for spring or autumn

• Screen 1: Weekly macd-histogram rising.
• Screen 2: Use oscillator to a daily chart, find declines during weekly uptrends.
• Screen 3: Use the trailing buy-stop technique when the weekly trend is up and the daily oscillator is down(stocastic/william%?).

Trailing buy stop technique: Place a buy order one tick above the high of the previous day.

As soon as you buy, place a stop-loss order one tick below the low of the trade day or the previous day, whichever is lower. Limit is only 2%.

Ride till price goes below 13wma or weekly stocastic going down from overbought or negative SAR begin.

Weekly Trend-Daily Trend-Action-Order:

UP-Down-Go long-Trailing buy stop

Good luck! Thanks doc.

Reality Check: Lapuran Penganalisa Saham untuk siapa sebenarnya?

Sesiapa yang baru berada dalam pasaran saham selalu tertanya, nak ikut laluan mana satu, ikut FA-Analisa fundamental, atau TA-Analisa Teknikal. Dua-dua ada pro dan con masing-masing. Warren Buffet pun menang, Darryl Guppy pun menang, aku???

Tiada jawapan terus dalam hal ini. Paparan ini tercetus dari artikel INI dimana blogger ni dah buat analisa beliau dalam pasaran unit trust. Dia ada kaedah tersendiri dalam memilih tabungan dengan melakukan analisa berdasarkan prestasi.
Lalu saya ambil kaedah yang sama dan melihat dari sudut pasaran saham pula kerana pada saya "lapuran penganalisa ini bersepah" dan siapa-siapa pun boleh dapatkannya. Dari lapuran ini, yang ketara adalah cadangan ataupun syor untuk beli atau jual.

Jadi untuk tujuan mencari jawapan ini, saya gunakan lapuran dari sebuah institusi yang besar dirantau asia ini (lapuran ini lebih 300 mukasurat, bak kata orang - koprehensif). Mereka-mereka yang
menulis lapuran ini adalah kebanyakannya adalah lulusan professional dalam bidang analisa ini.

Jawapan yang saya cari ialah: Adakah lapuran penganalisa ini untuk saya?

Ringkasan penilaian

Data dalam rigkasan diatas adalah berikut:
1. ID - nombor pengenalan data
2. Pr@8Dec14 -Harga pada tarikh berkenaan
3. Tgt - Target Harga
4. %UpDn - Peratusan kenaian atau penurunan
5. Recom - Cadangan/Syor penganalisa
6. Prdict  - Tukar Reduce=0, Hold=1, Add=2*
7. Pr@Dec - Harga pada akhir Dec14
8. Pr@Sep15 - Harga pada akhir Sep15
9. PrCheck  - Ruang untuk memeriksa harga adalah munasabah^^
10.PrSepVsTgt - Harga Sep15 tolak Harga Target
11.VsTgt - Lose=kalah, Better=Menang**
12.Actual  - Tukar Lose=10, Better=11*

* Dua kolum ini adalah representasi untuk plot graf sahaja.
^^ Didapati ada satu data mengalami split/pecahan nilai
**  Lose=Harga Sept dibawah Target, Menang=Harga Sept melebihi Target Harga

Seksyen berwarna sebelah kiri adalah cabutan dari lapuran penganalisa dan seksyen sebelah kanan adalah analisa saya untuk menentukan jawapan yang saya cari.


Di akhir lapuran penganalisa ada definasi berikut:-

Stock Ratings Definition:
Add: The stock’s total return is expected to exceed 10% over the next 12 months.
Hold: The stock’s total return is expected to be between 0% and positive 10% over the next 12 months.
Reduce: The stock’s total return is expected to fall below 0% or more over the next 12 months.


Ya jangkamasa 12 bulan tu ada ~ dua bulan lagi, jadi analisa ni terkurang 2 bulan lah.
Tak mengapa kerana saya bukan memerlukan jawapan tepat seperti saintis loji nuklear - saya hanya ingin buat validasi adakah lapuran penganalisa saham untuk kita?

Klik imej untuk besarkan

Dari plot graf diatas saya dah dapat jawapan. Lapuran tersebut bukan untuk orang seperti saya. Anda yang masih ingin kepastian, boleh download fail pdf tersebut dan mulakan kajian sendiri. Ini adalah kajian/pandangan saya untuk menang dalam pasaran - anda bebas menilai!

Jadi saya akan lebih berhati-hatilah selepas ini apabila anda membaca Lapuran Penganalisa Saham kerana saya dah yakin rata-rata lapuran ini bukan untuk saya. Untuk siapa? Masih tiada jawapan.

Mungkin selepas ini saya tulis pula bila lapuran mereka boleh diambil kira.....

Dear Politician, Does Malaysia really need TPPA?

I've share the post about A matter of life and death, an article that get me interested in the TPP in the first place. This issue is not making life simpler but indeed going to make it harder. These are snippets of information dig out from various sources.

I've made up my mind about this issue and you had a chance to read through links below and decide.


View#1
"That (TPPA) is not a trade deal, it is an investment deal," said Dr Jomo Kwame Sundaram, who is also assistant secretary-general of economic development in the United Nations' Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA).

"Malaysia gets next to nothing. I was extremely disappointed and I think it is going to affect not only the Malaysian business community, but also the consumers and citizens adversely," he told reporters on the sidelines of the Khazanah Megatrend Forum 2015 today.

He said the agreement is mainly driven by "political considerations" for the US to isolate China.

"Hence, it (TPPA) is not really to help Malaysia, and (the) trade advantages are very minimal," he added.

Jomo cited Malaysia, which has been producing solar panels, being prohibited to sell the solar panels in the US and elsewhere under the pact.

"This is contravening the multi-lateral trade agreements and I do not expect the TPPA to overcome this," he said.

According to Jomo, the main impact of the TPPA would be the increasing cost of intellectual property, which will have many implications on electronics and cost of medication.

"We can wipe out many diseases in the world, but the people who control the drugs are depriving people of the world from benefitting it," he said.



View#2
What was promised to us is a Parliamentary debate, not approval. Under Malaysian law, trade agreements, the TPPA in particular, do not require parliamentary approval. The power to decide rests on the Executive.

5. This is a done deal. No country has ever walked out of an agreement after negotiations have concluded.

9. The release of a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) or National Interest Analysis had been promised and postponed since end of last year to every consecutive month since May 2015 to date. Until now, it has not been released and we only have three (3) months from the official date of negotiation’s conclusion to the date that it has to be signed. The CBA, if finalised and released earlier, would have provided the public and interested parties with a greater understanding of the TPP and its implications.



View#3
“If instituted, the TPP’s IP regime would trample over individual rights and free expression, as well as ride roughshod over the intellectual and creative commons,” Assange said. “If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance, sing or invent; if you farm or consume food; if you’re ill now or might one day be ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs.”

“No wonder they kept it secret. What a malicious piece of US corporate lobbying. TPP is about world domination for US corporations. Nothing else. We will stop this madness in New Zealand,” he told RT’s Andrew Blake.


View#4
If you still haven’t made up your mind, read the chilling “The Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Death of the Republic” by Ellen Brown of the Public Banking Institute. Is it all hyperbole, or could things be as ominous as they seem?

The TPP, which involves 12 nations and 40% of the earth’s trade, has been called “NAFTA on steroids.” (NAFTA, recall, was the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement of 1993 negotiated during the Clinton Presidency). Every such agreement has been sold to the public by the promise that free trade floats all boats. What’s the reality? According to Buchanan, “… almost all [the big trade agreements] have led to soaring trade deficits and jobs lost to the nations with whom we signed the agreements.” Over the past four decades of free trade, America, cites Buchanan, has lost 55,000 factories and 5-6 million manufacturing jobs, all while racking up $11 trillion dollars in trade deficits.



View#5
Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement Permits Corporations To Sue States
Leaked TPP investment chapter: Corporations can sue states in private courts



View#6
Malaysia will lose RM75billion & the government can be sued - Listen to podcast.


So my question to beloved politician, does Malaysia really need TPPA? Think hard rather than aye sir!

photo credit - bilaterals.org

A matter of life and death

Although this article is more than a year old, learning the subject from the view of industry players, I must say that Malaysia government is truly negotiating something which may put us in a difficult situation. Friends living abroad such as in India or Thailand knows and to their amazement that price of generic drug are damn cheap there! And these countries could not be bothered about anything to do with drug because they simply know that any such agreement will make them suffer, so why bother. Malaysia's bio diversity offers us lots of avenue but I'm confused why we need to agree to such flexing agreement. Please read Martin view below. Thanks for bring it up.

--------
Of all the issues being negotiated in the TPPA – none are more important than life-saving medicines at affordable prices.
IF you or some family members or friends suffer from cancer, hepatitis, AIDs, asthma or other serious ailments,it’s worth your while to follow the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement negotiations, now going on in Singapore.

It’s really a matter of life and death. For the TPPA can cut off the potential supply of cheaper generic life-saving medicines, especially when the branded products are priced so sky-high that very few can afford them.The fight for cheaper medicines has moved to cancer and other deadly diseases, when once the controversy was over AIDS medicines.

Last week, a cancer specialist in New Zealand (one of the TPPA counties) warned that the TPPA would prolong the high cost of treating breast cancer because of new rules to protect biotechnology-based cancer drugs from competition from generics. And this will affect the lives of cancer patients.
Some cancer medicines can cost a patient over US$100,000 (RM329,600) for a year’s treatment, way above what an ordinary family can afford. But generic versions could be produced for a fraction, making it possible for patients to hope for a reprieve from death.

In India, local companies are leading the fight to make medicines more affordable to thousands suffering from breast, kidney, liver and gastro-intestinal cancer and chronic leukeamia. For example, an Indian company produced a generic drug for kidney and liver cancer 30 times cheaper than the branded product – US$140 (RM461) versus US$4,580 (RM15,100) for a month’s treatment – after it was given a compulsory license.
India has a patent law that disallows patents for newer forms of drugs or known substances unless it improves the medicine’s efficacy or effectiveness. Under WTO rules, countries are free to set their own standards for novelty, or whether a product is novel enough to be eligible for a patent.

Also, in many countries, including Malaysia, the patent law allows for companies to obtain compulsory licences to import or make generic versions of original medicines. Governments grant such licences if the branded products are too expensive and the original companies do not offer attractive terms for a voluntary licence to other firms.
Multinational companies have strongly opposed compulsory licences or the Indian-type 
laws that allow for patents only for genuine innovations.
This is where the TPPA comes in. Mainly at the insistence of the United States, countries are being asked to accept “TRIPS-plus” standards of intellectual property, that go beyond the rules of the WTO’s agreement on IP.
Especially noteworthy is the US insistence that the TPPA countries agree to give a type of intellectual property known as “data exclusivity” for five years to companies producing original medicines.

This is extended to eight or 12 years for “biologics”, or medicines made with biotechnology. Many of the new medicines for treating cancers are biologics.
This will cause immense problems for patients waiting for cheaper medicines because “data exclusivity” prevents generic companies from relying on the safety and clinical trial data of the original company to get safety clearance for their generic products.

Thus, even if a generic company can prove that its medicine is bio-equivalent to the original medicine that has already passed the safety standard required by the health regulatory authorities, it will not be allowed to sell its medicine unless it comes up with its own safety and clinical trial data. This goes against current practice of generic medicines and safety standards. But the US is insisting on this in the TPPA.

Few generic companies have the funds or technical ability to do their own clinical trials, and thus generic medicines could well be prevented from being used in TPPA countries for five to 12 years – even if the medicines are not patented.
Being deprived of affordable medicines is a matter of life and death, and will cost many lives. That is the most outrightly significant aspect of the TPPA, and this is why so many groups of patients, health organisations and independent medical experts have been outraged and outspoken in their opposition.

George Laking, a cancer specialist in New Zealand, last week raised the alarm that the TPPA could make cancer treatment unaffordable because the data exclusivity clause would lock in the high prices of cancer drugs.
In an article he co-authored in the New Zealand Herald, Laking uses the example of Herceptin, an anti-cancer medicine which costs US$100,000 for a year’s treatment. Once Herceptin comes off patent, it will become cheaper because generic forms can be made, he says. Also, new medicines that have fewer side effects and greater efficacy are being developed all the time.

That means more people will get through the treatment with less pain and distress. But the cost of new “generic” versions of Herceptin and other such pharmaceuticals looks likely to become a casualty of the TPPA, said Laking.
“The new drugs will stay expensive for longer, because access to generic versions will be delayed between eight and 12 years, because of the new data exclusivity rules in the TPPA,” he remarked.
“These extended monopoly rights go far beyond existing international norms …This would be the first time in the history of such agreements that exclusive long-term monopoly rights over these “biologic” medicines will have been guaranteed ...
“Each additional year of exclusivity will cost consumers and taxpayers many millions of dollars. This will be profitable for the pharmaceutical industry, but not so good for cancer patients and their families.”

According to Jamie Love of Knowledge Ecology International, an expert on drugs and patents, the average cost of eight biologic cancer drugs registered with the US drug authorities in 2011-2013 is US$128,000 (RM421,850) for a year’s treatment, with the most expensive being over US$390,000 (RM1.28mil).
At such prices, hardly anyone in developing countries can afford these medicines. Countries that join the TPPA will find it very difficult or impossible to undertake policies and practices similar to India’s, should the US proposals in the intellectual property chapter be accepted.

Moreover, countries like Malaysia that don’t produce the generic drugs have the option to import them from India. But if the TPPA imposes data exclusivity rules of the type desired by the US, it would be difficult or impossible to sell them here.
Malaysians would be deprived of the much cheaper generic medicines not only for treating cancer, hepatitis, AIDS, and many other diseases, at least for many years. How many lives would be affected?
Some countries are however opposed to some of the US proposals. According to a briefing on the TPPA by the Malaysian Ministry of Trade and Industry on 20 February, the IP chapter remains the most problematic, with many differing views.

The views and positions that defend public health must prevail, for after all, it is a matter of life and death.The views expressed are entirely the writer's own.

This article first appear in thestar in Jan2014 by Martin Khor

Too bad to be young in Malaysia

This is five years old article nevertheless I repost it here as a reminder for the younger generations... US had gone thru starting few years back, please be prepared because we will go thru this soon.... they call it a demographic cliff!

KUALA LUMPUR, June 29 — Malaysia’s relatively high population growth rate will see the country remain comparatively young over the next two decades but economic growth is not expected to keep pace with population expansion, according to a report by Bank of America Merril Lynch.

Most developed countries experience lower population growth than developing countries and thus become older as they grow richer but China and Thailand however, are forecast to grow old before they can become rich with more than 15 per cent of the population aged above 65 years in the next 15-20 years.

The forecasts are part of an analysis by Bank of America Merrill Lynch on the impact of demographic trends on investment opportunities.

It also found that the population in Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and Australia are growing old fast but they are expected to remain among the wealthiest in the world.
By 2015, Malaysia is forecast to have an elderly dependency ratio (EDR) — population aged above 64 divided by population aged between 15 and 64 — of 10 with a GDP per capita calculated on purchasing power parity (PPP) basis of US$20,000 (RM64,950). Current young and rich countries such as Australia, Singapore and the US have EDR’s of between 15 and 25 with a GDP per capita of between US$50,000 to US$70,000.

By 2030, Malaysia’s EDR is expected to be about 15 with a GDP per capita of about US$50,000 while Australia, Singapore and the US are expected to have an EDR of between 30 and 40 and per capita GDPs of US$110,000 and US$160,000.

The report also suggested however that based solely on the ratio of prime savers — defined as population aged between 40 and 64 — to the rest of the population, the stock markets of China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Philippines are expected to outperform those of Australia, Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand in the next 20 years.

It added that in advanced economies such as the US and the UK, the stock market “can rationally factor in the demographic trend, usually a few years ahead”. It said that there is a risk of that relationship becoming “self-fulfilling” leading to decades of bear markets in those countries.

“The stock markets and financial assets are arguably most influenced by the mid-aged people,” said the report. “Hence, it is not surprising that the correlation between Mid-Young ratio and the aggregate value of stocks traded is quite high for most Asian countries.”

The report said that there were investment opportunities in the education sector in China, India and the Philippines unlike Australia and Korea which have the most highly education labour force.

It also said that Australia and Thailand have room for development in the private healthcare sector and that India, Philippines and Singapore lag in terms of public spending on healthcare.

Article by : Lee Wei Lian in 2010

Does Australia look like an option?

SPAC money spinners?

Article by: Random Trading in Aug 2014

SPAC is a wonderful thing..... for the promoter, initial investor and of course selected investors including the so-called cornerstone investor that can get the share directly by private placement. Take the latest SPAC IPO, Reach Energy for example.

When I went through the prospectus of the IPO, I'm quite puzzling about the allocation of the shares available to the public. Basically there are 1 Billion shares issued with 1 Billion free warrant attached with it. What makes me baffling is that 980 Million of those shares are applicable to 'Selected Investors' which include cornerstone investors. Looks, 98% of the 'Public' portion goes to the 'Selected Investors' and the pathetically 20 Million shares are allotted to the 'Real Public' like you and me. Seriously, only the meager 2% are offering to the Malaysian Public and you call it IPO. Why don't you guys just ask another 'Selected Investor' subscribe the rest and keep the company private for your club members. The 42 times oversubscribe is just another joke. Why did our authority allow this blatantly abuse of IPO a green light. You know what is the worst part of it? There is moratorium on the promoter and initial investor BUT NOT THE 'SELECTED INVESTOR' & CORNERSTONE INVESTOR!!! WHY? Ohh... because they are deem to be pubic allocation so no need for moratorium. WOW!!! NICE!!!

Then, who is these 'selected investors'? I don't know because I can't find any of that information from the prospectus. If any one knows please let me know. Also they didn't mentioned the criteria to become 'selected investors' because I believe the real public really want to know so that we can qualify ourselves to become 'selected investors'. Why Bursa didn't compel them to disclose the information of these 'selected investors' since they take up almost all the IPO's shares? Are they related to the promoters or initial investors? Don't you think it is important since if they are related then there is a very high chance they can circumvent the moratorium to make a quick bucks out of it. Why the Minority Watchdog didn't bring the issue to the authority?

Further breakdown of the shareholding of the enlarge Reach Energy as below:

Reach Energy Holding (Promoter) - 20%
Daya Material (Initial investor) - 1.74%
Selected investors - 76.7%
Real Public - 1.56% (Who ever successfully subscribe this portion can consider themselves extremely lucky)

Then below is the effective cash cost per shares for the various shareholders: (This is mind-blowing)

Reach Energy Holding (REH)
113.6M shares + 113.6M Free Warrant (FW) @ 0.045
142M shares + 142M FW @ 0.099
Total cost RM 19.17 Million for total 255.6 M shares + 255.6 M FW

Daya Material (I will just provide the cost directly instead of showing the calculation)
Total cost RM 20 Million for total 22,222,225 Shares + 22,222,225 FW

Selected Investors & Real Public cost is RM 0.75 per shares + FW

So just take the closing price of 1st trading day, Reach - 0.705 & Reach WA - 0.225

Paper gain for :
REH = RM 218,538,000
Daya = RM 666,667 ( not so much, probably that's why its share price fall)
Selected Investors = RM 176,000,000 (ohh ya! this is not paper gain since they can actually sell it)

Real Public = RM 900,000

Ya. They do gave the reasons to justify why the promoter should allow to have that potential gain :

1) They invested RM 10M before the IPO so if IPO failed to go through then they will have to absorb the lost. (basically they are telling us that they make a bet of 10 M for potential of more than 200 M)

2) The remuneration of the management team came from the fund that promoter put in, not the public subscription money. But they forget to mentioned that the management team is actually the promoter so the money is just left hand out, right hand in. So, where is the risk?

3) In case they failed to make QA within stipulated time, they might not get the pro-rata refund from the trust money. Well, since they already cycle back their initial fund from the remuneration, I don't see they have anything to lose at all.

Ya, I forget to show you the management team remuneration package: (I purposely took off their names)

So, whether they are justified to allow the potential WINDFALL or not, I leave it to you to make your judgement.

That's why to me, SPAC is the most brilliant invention of modern stock market.

Off from day one, until....

Related Article >>> Data con?



UPDATE: 25Feb2016

Cliq to be liquidated, SC rejects request for deadline extension

Probably the first in the series. 

Gentleman kids....

....then why so many cases of wife abuses?

Housing Developers and Deposits

This article sourced from the sun, as a reminder to all small people out there that you had a right that you might not be aware off.


Article by: Gurdial Singh Nijar

TODAY I narrate a personal story. It relates to housing developers – and their selling "antics". It needs to be told so that you will be on guard when you face a similar situation. I am not indicting all developers of course.

First, the developer announces the launch of a project over a weekend. The roads to the launch site are well signposted with fancy boards and bunting. A lavish spread awaits you at the site – complete with a professionally-designed show house.

An elaborate model of the entire location is placed at the centre. Replete with eco-forested areas, exquisite landscaping, a fancy club house, ponds and pools galore.

It's a contrived carnival atmosphere – to lure you into making possibly the biggest financial commitment in your life.

Officers from a coterie of banks sit alongside the developer's representatives. To show you how incredibly easy it is to make a purchase and how little it will eat into your budget. There are profuse promises – getting the loan approved? After a quick calculation of your income – an assurance: no problem, lah!

The developer's rep then assures you – if any problem in getting the loan the money "can sure refund".

And then the infamous – "only few lots left" – better confirm now – pointing to the red "sold" dots on the plan. A sense of daring overcomes you. You abandon your "hum and hah" as you are gently nudged into signing a document headed "Option to Purchase".

Fast forward to some time ahead – you can't get the loan; or you realise that the property is not affordable. What then? No problem – you ask for your money back. It is then that you crash into a barrier.

Whatever you do – even beg or plead – these (few) developers will not return the money. They will give every possible reason to avoid a refund. They will ask you to put your money as a deposit for another house in their other project. Or that they have suffered a loss – even though the same house has been now sold to someone else.

You can sue for your money – but if lack of money prevented you from making the purchase – how can you possibly afford a lawyer? And how will you match the deep pockets of these fat cats and their legal officers?

After a while you let the matter rest in utter despair. You are left to little else than telling your sad story to your friends and others.

In my case I even knew the top echelon "owner" of this development company – a former college mate. We don't cheat people of their money, he declared glibly when first told of my plight in not getting the refund from his company. But after almost three years of phone calls and several stories of how it was his employees and not he who was refusing the refund – the reality dawned of how much more difficult it must be for others less well-connected to get a refund.

What is the legal position then? First, there is a difference between paying this money for a "residential" property and a "commercial" property, even an inexpensive shop lot.

It is illegal for a developer to collect any money before signing a sale and purchase agreement (SPA) in respect of a residential property. It can be labelled by any name – deposit, earnest money, option to purchase, advance, stakeholder sum or whatever other name the developer's fertile imagination creates. The developer cannot take this money until the purchaser has signed the SPA. If he does so, he commits an offence under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulation 1989. The developer commits a criminal offence punishable with a fine up to RM20,000 or jail up to five years or both.

Further all monies collected must be refunded – in full and without any deduction. As long ago as 1981 the Privy Council (then our highest court) brought to book a developer in Johor Baru. The law, said the court, was there to protect house buyers; and developers would be punished for flouting it (Daiman Development Sdn Bhd v Mathew Lui Chin Teck).

Then the lawyers got into the act. They started collecting the monies on the developers' behalf as "stakeholders". And they called it an "option fee". A genuine stakeholder holds money (or anything else) pending the fulfilment of an event – such as approval from some authority. The court struck down this forensic devious device in a 2013 decision: Wan Ming Sun v Planet Uno Sdn Bhd. It was illegal, the court declared.

But then there are lawyers who continue to flout this provision. And despite a clear Bar Council warning against this practice. Should not the Bar Council turbo-boost its enforcement machinery; and at least alert the authorities to prosecute the lawyer(s) under the housing regulations? Surely the knowledge is in the legal fraternity's public domain.

What of those who buy a commercial shop lot and end up in the same predicament? There is no similar protection in this case. The only recourse is to argue that the contract has not come into existence because the precondition of signing the SPA has not materialised. This is a lot harder as the developer will argue that the basic terms – set out in the sheet that he got the purchaser to sign – are clear (property, price and such like). And without doubt, the unethical developers will likely get their favourite obeisant legal eagle to include a clause that says that the money will not be refunded if the SPA is not signed.

Should not the government consider enacting a law similar to that for residential properties to protect the buyers of commercial property – especially now that the volume of the sale of small shop lots has grown so large?

Gurdial is professor at the Law Faculty, University of Malaya.

Simple life

Hey girls....

You wanna this....

Ask him, when he's done...

Is this simple life proposition possible?

In these troubled times do you hold stocks or cash?

As a result of the sharp plummet on the stock market, in these troubled times do you hold stocks or cash? Some investors regret not selling their stocks early as almost all of their stocks have been incurring huge losses.

However, the market recovery over the past few days caused some investors to again regret — not buying stocks when the market hit the bottom.

The decision to hold more cash or stocks is one of the most difficult decisions to make.

According to a study by Gary P. Brinson, L. Randolph Hood and Gilbert L. Beebower in 1986, 95% of the variance of fund returns was the result of the asset allocation decision.

Hence, the right asset allocation between cash and stocks plays a very important role in determining the returns of a portfolio.

In this article, we will look into two key strategies in asset allocation, namely the constant mix (CM) and the constant proportion portfolio insurance (CPPI) strategy.

The key principle behind the CM strategy is to buy stocks when the market drops and sell them when the market recovers.

As for the CPPI strategy, it is the reverse, which is to sell when the market plunges and buy when it recovers.

We should continue selling stocks until the portfolio drops near our pre-set floor level. Once the market touches our floor level, we will hold all cash and no stocks.

Under normal market conditions, the CM strategy is an excellent tool for rebalancing our portfolio.

This strategy requires us to rebalance our portfolio based on a constant mix, where we set a constant ratio of stocks to total assets.

Assuming we have only two asset classes, namely stocks and cash, we will maintain the desired invested portion in our portfolio regardless of market conditions.

If we have a portfolio value of RM100,000 and intend to maintain a stocks to total asset ratio of 60%, we invest RM60,000 in stocks and hold RM40,000 cash.

If the overall market drops by 10%, our stocks will drop by RM6,000 (10% of RM60,000) to RM54,000. Now, our portfolio will be RM94,000 (RM54,000 + RM40,000 cash)

Our invested portion will drop to 57.5% (RM54,000 of stocks divided by our new portfolio value of RM94,000).

In order to maintain a 60% investment, we need to have an invested portion of RM56,400 (0.6 x RM94,000).

So we will use RM2,400 in cash to buy stocks (RM56,400 - RM54,000).

After this portfolio rebalancing, our new invested portions will be RM56,400 in stocks and RM37,600 in cash.

This will bring the invested portion back to 60% with the total portfolio value of RM94,000.

The CM strategy will cause us to buy more stocks when the market drops. We will be able to acquire a lot of quality stocks at cheap prices.

However, we will continue buying more stocks while the overall market continues to plunge.

During a bear market, we will see our portfolio shrink in value as our earlier purchase price may get cheaper.

Unfortunately, not many investors can tolerate a drop in their portfolio value.

The CPPI strategy is appropriate for use in either a super bull or a super bear market.

It is not suitable for use on normal market periods as we need to sell stocks when the market drops and buy when the market is on the way up.

We may end up buying at high prices and selling them at low.

Under the CPPI strategy, the portion of money in stocks is based on the formula that:

Money in stock = M x (TA - Floor) Where M = stock investment multiplier (proportion), TA = total assets held in the portfolio, Floor = the minimum allowable portfolio value (zero risk level) and TA - Floor = cushion or funds that can be put at risk.

Assuming we have a portfolio value of RM100,000, if we set our minimum allowable value (Floor) = RM70,000 and stock multiplier (M) = 2, we will invest RM60,000 in stocks [2 x (RM100,000 – RM70,000)].

If the overall market drops by 10%, our stocks will drop by RM6,000 (10% of RM60,000) to RM54,000. Our portfolio will be RM94,000 (RM54,000 + RM40,000 cash).

Our invested portion needs to be reduced to RM48,000 as 2 x (RM94,000 – RM70,000).

We need to dispose of RM6,000 worth of stocks (RM54,000 – RM48,000) and bring the cash level to RM46,000.

Following this portfolio rebalancing, the portion invested in stock is RM48,000 with cash of RM46,000.

The total portfolio value is RM94,000.

We will continue to sell stocks and hold more cash as the market drops.

We will stop investing in stocks when our total portfolio hits the floor level (TA – Floor= 0).

The strength of the CPPI strategy is that our lowest portfolio value at any point in time will be RM70,000 whereas the CM strategy may cause our portfolio value to drop much lower if the market crashes further.

In conclusion, the choice of strategy will depend on the overall economic outlook.

Unless we know our economy will not drop into recession, otherwise — based on our current situation, the CPPI strategy has the advantage of protecting our minimum portfolio value at the floor level.

Article by Ooi Kok Hwa, is an investment adviser licensed by Securities Commission. The choice is yours.

Borrowers, no one cares about you!

If you think they cares, think again. do read THIS and THIS.

The best advised I've ever received regarding the issue is (because you cannot avoid borrowing), once you got inside, find your way out FAST. They can't do anything to you if there is no relationship! Let them strangle somebody else. 

Conned by investing

Investors got conned, DIY investing is what you should master. Why?


-When they tell you to buy, chances are they want to unload desperately. And when they tell you to sell, they want to buy every single shares that you’ve got. So trust no one who screams buy or sell.

- The market doesn’t care how much you paid for a stock or what you think is a “fair” price. So, when stock brokers or investment banks publish analysis about “fair” price, you know what craps they are talking about. But that’s their job, so don’t blame them.

-The majority of market news is not only useless, but also harmful to your financial health. Despite the fact that you’ve access to information faster than it was 40 years ago.

-Professional investors have latest information and faster computers than you do. You will never beat them short-term trading. Don’t even try. And if you manage to, that’s pure luck and chances are you will not be able to do it again.

-How much experience a money manager or fund manager has doesn’t tell you much. They can underperform the market for an entire career. And many have, but they still keep their job, because their job was not to make money for other than you.

- Markets go through at least one big pull-back every year, and one massive one every decade. Get used to it. It’s just what they do in order to make money. And if you can’t stomach this, don’t lay a finger in the world of investing.

-Saying “I’ll be greedy when others are fearful” is much easier than actually doing it. The fact is when others are fearful, you’re doubly as fearful, and vice versa.

-There will be 7 to 10 recessions over the next 50 years. Now that we have told you this, don’t act surprised or dumb when they come. Being greedy when the market fall more than 50% is a wise move. This is the real buy n forget strategy.

-Don’t fall in love with companies you invest. Companies die and new ones emerge. Treat them as prostitute or gigolo whom you’re interested to get orgasm, nothing more than that.

- If you have credit card debt and are thinking about investing in anything, stop and think again. You will never beat 18% to 36% annual interest, some on daily or monthly compounding.

-However much money you think you’ll need for retirement, double it, or better still triple it.

Wealth means the number of days you can survive forward when you stop working right now - hmm, this is interesting!

How?
1. Pay yourself first
2. Don't buy an expensive car
3. Do compounding