2007/04/19
Kurt Vonnegut
"The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal..." This science fiction dated 1961 tells something about equality. The author Kurt Vonnegut died last week.
2007/04/17
M-shaped society: Inequality?
Living in a city like Hong Kong, i have endless reasons for getting paranoid. At home, i get brown tap water. My share of frozen oil fish still sits in the fridge since news reports said the fish could cause health problem. What more fearful takes place at work -- the fear of losing my job. Recent job statistics from the government seems to tell a spine-chilling story about my future -- "Get rich, or you have to be poor. There is no middle ground!"
In the so-called M-shaped society, the distribution of income has polarized. The number of people who earn monthly income of less than HK$6,000 increased by 17% during the decade from 1996 to 2006. Payrolls for more than HK$10,000 rose 21%. However, the group of people who earn between HK$6,000 and HK$10,000 contracted by 8%. Academics pulled out the jargon called Gini Coefficient and said that inequality in Hong Kong is now scoring high relative to other comparable cities in the world. The situation is getting worse year after year, they said. Social groups warned that the middle class is disappearing and the society is going out of balance. Some people must be taking advantages over others, they claimed.
Worse, the unemployment rate remains buoyant, above 4%, compared with 1-3% during the decade from 1986 to 1995. Even top financial official Henry Tang threw cold water on hopes that the job market could recover, saying the jobless rate won't come down to the heyday level until we die. Is the city losing jobs? Many people say yes. They pointed to cheap labors across the border for taking away low-paying jobs. The others blamed former chief Tung Chee-hwa for leading the economic development to nowhere.
Even well educated people cannot escape from the misery, it seems. The job market is getting increasingly competitive when university graduates are accepting salaries low enough to make their elder alumni laugh. An average high school graduate is doing much worse than that 30 years ago. Some people said it was a rat race for academic qualifications in which everyone is struggling but no one gains at all.
Are we coming to the end of the world? No. Far from it.
From this paragraph onward, i am going to cheer you up. i am going to tell you the truth behind the numbers. The M shape, jobless rate and even fresh graduate income are irrelevant as an indicator of inequality and job opportunities. None of them means anything miserable. Instead, they are the outcomes of natural progress of our society.
i am not going to bore you with number crunching and twisting. i just want to point out a simple fact -- people follow different paths along their lifetime.
Randomly take two fresh graduates from university. They would likely start with monthly income more or less the same, say HK$9,000. Ten years later, their income could be anywhere between HK$20,000 to HK$50,000. Another ten years later, one of them might possible become a successful businessman while the other might possibly have problem to earn a living. Further ten years later, the successful businessman could unfortunately go broke and the other catch a second wind to become a billionaire.
That's natural. In a marathon, ten athletes who start at the same line could end up miles apart. How does that relate to the M-shape situation?
A wave of new birth kicked in during the decade following the end of World War II. See the longest pair of bars, for men and women, in the following chart and you know the size of the so-called baby-boomers. Baby-boomers, men and women aged between 40 and 50, amounted to roughly 1.3 million in 2006.
In 1996, the baby-boomers of course were 10 years younger than now. See the following chart.
The widening of income distribution over the past decades was resulted from the fact that the baby-boomers were explored their fortune. Twenty years ago, they just started their career and received similar incomes. As time went by, some did better than the others. In their forties, in 2006, the baby-boomers made various levels of achievements. They are not necessarily going to extremes. There could be a lot of middle-range performers. Merely the dispersed spread of personal performance is enough to make the statistics take its present shape.
Compare two hypothetical societies -- one comprising mostly 20-year-old people and the other comprising mostly 40-year-old. Can we say that the younger society is more equal than the older one simply because the younger society has more evenly distributed income? No, we can't.
To make Hong Kong a better place to live, we must distinguish "inequality of outcomes" from "inequality of opportunities". The Gini Coefficient and any other measurement of income distribution measure the degree of "inequality of outcomes" only. We are barking the wrong tree if we focus on "inequality of outcomes". A communistic society has absolute equality of outcomes. Everyone earns the same level of income. Is it a utopia? Some people might say: "Yes, those poor people contribute to the society just as much as the rich. Let them share the fruit of the economic development." However, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. History tells us that, if we focus on equality of outcome, we won't help the poor at all. Instead, everyone would end up being in poverty.
"Inequality of opportunities" is more important than "inequality of outcomes". That is to ensure that everyone plays in level field.
i will try to assess the inequality of opportunities in Hong Kong in future entries. Before that, we would take a few more steps to clarify the general perceptions and confusions. Next time, i will continue to show why worries about the buoyant unemployment rate and the struggle of rat race are exaggerated.
Copyright Quam
In the so-called M-shaped society, the distribution of income has polarized. The number of people who earn monthly income of less than HK$6,000 increased by 17% during the decade from 1996 to 2006. Payrolls for more than HK$10,000 rose 21%. However, the group of people who earn between HK$6,000 and HK$10,000 contracted by 8%. Academics pulled out the jargon called Gini Coefficient and said that inequality in Hong Kong is now scoring high relative to other comparable cities in the world. The situation is getting worse year after year, they said. Social groups warned that the middle class is disappearing and the society is going out of balance. Some people must be taking advantages over others, they claimed.
Worse, the unemployment rate remains buoyant, above 4%, compared with 1-3% during the decade from 1986 to 1995. Even top financial official Henry Tang threw cold water on hopes that the job market could recover, saying the jobless rate won't come down to the heyday level until we die. Is the city losing jobs? Many people say yes. They pointed to cheap labors across the border for taking away low-paying jobs. The others blamed former chief Tung Chee-hwa for leading the economic development to nowhere.
Even well educated people cannot escape from the misery, it seems. The job market is getting increasingly competitive when university graduates are accepting salaries low enough to make their elder alumni laugh. An average high school graduate is doing much worse than that 30 years ago. Some people said it was a rat race for academic qualifications in which everyone is struggling but no one gains at all.
Are we coming to the end of the world? No. Far from it.
From this paragraph onward, i am going to cheer you up. i am going to tell you the truth behind the numbers. The M shape, jobless rate and even fresh graduate income are irrelevant as an indicator of inequality and job opportunities. None of them means anything miserable. Instead, they are the outcomes of natural progress of our society.
i am not going to bore you with number crunching and twisting. i just want to point out a simple fact -- people follow different paths along their lifetime.
Randomly take two fresh graduates from university. They would likely start with monthly income more or less the same, say HK$9,000. Ten years later, their income could be anywhere between HK$20,000 to HK$50,000. Another ten years later, one of them might possible become a successful businessman while the other might possibly have problem to earn a living. Further ten years later, the successful businessman could unfortunately go broke and the other catch a second wind to become a billionaire.
That's natural. In a marathon, ten athletes who start at the same line could end up miles apart. How does that relate to the M-shape situation?
A wave of new birth kicked in during the decade following the end of World War II. See the longest pair of bars, for men and women, in the following chart and you know the size of the so-called baby-boomers. Baby-boomers, men and women aged between 40 and 50, amounted to roughly 1.3 million in 2006.
In 1996, the baby-boomers of course were 10 years younger than now. See the following chart.
The widening of income distribution over the past decades was resulted from the fact that the baby-boomers were explored their fortune. Twenty years ago, they just started their career and received similar incomes. As time went by, some did better than the others. In their forties, in 2006, the baby-boomers made various levels of achievements. They are not necessarily going to extremes. There could be a lot of middle-range performers. Merely the dispersed spread of personal performance is enough to make the statistics take its present shape.
Compare two hypothetical societies -- one comprising mostly 20-year-old people and the other comprising mostly 40-year-old. Can we say that the younger society is more equal than the older one simply because the younger society has more evenly distributed income? No, we can't.
To make Hong Kong a better place to live, we must distinguish "inequality of outcomes" from "inequality of opportunities". The Gini Coefficient and any other measurement of income distribution measure the degree of "inequality of outcomes" only. We are barking the wrong tree if we focus on "inequality of outcomes". A communistic society has absolute equality of outcomes. Everyone earns the same level of income. Is it a utopia? Some people might say: "Yes, those poor people contribute to the society just as much as the rich. Let them share the fruit of the economic development." However, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. History tells us that, if we focus on equality of outcome, we won't help the poor at all. Instead, everyone would end up being in poverty.
"Inequality of opportunities" is more important than "inequality of outcomes". That is to ensure that everyone plays in level field.
i will try to assess the inequality of opportunities in Hong Kong in future entries. Before that, we would take a few more steps to clarify the general perceptions and confusions. Next time, i will continue to show why worries about the buoyant unemployment rate and the struggle of rat race are exaggerated.
Copyright Quam
2007/04/15
2007/04/08
Who killed Silly Keung?
鬼佬版與原裝港版無間道，人們對鬼佬版沒有了"傻強"一角感到失望，認為親切感大減。茶怪想，傻強一角的作用，除了攪笑，更重要是用來襯托梁朝偉的機智。在編劇悉心安排下，無間道的四個主角，都各有四個配角作為襯托，梁朝偉有傻強，劉德華有衝動的同事吳廷華，黃sir有悶蛋同事葉sir，大奸角韓森有周圍差人亦茫然不知泰國毒梟。有這些配角，才顯出主角的過人之處。
原裝無間道說忠義者最終得到解脫，背叛者永不超生，要加強覆蓋面，當中的主角要是卓越非凡的人，暗示卓越的人如是得到報應，更何況普通人。鬼佬版無間道不行這套。除了有班不知「江湖規矩」的中國幫，去顯出Jack Nicholson的老練之外，沒有其他的襯托角色，傻強亦不例外，原因是如茶怪在前文"Three years, three years and three years!"中指出，鬼佬版並不歌頌英雄，不著重正邪，沒有善惡因果。所有角色皆為棋子，為自己的私利各出奇謀。
傻強是儒家文化的產物，也適合階級制度的需要，他忠心、卑微、傻，他令上級感到安全，傻強之上又有傻強，一級一級上。但西方的文化看不見傻強，即使看見，也不用不著，即使有用，也不相信他是傻的。令西人有安全感的，是權力的制衡，Nicholson「收靚」不問甚麼，只要有collateral，抵押品可以是親人或甚麼，只要有「痛腳」，威脅就是指令的力量，這就是權力的制衡。
在國際關係裡，中國幾千年來一直以為日本和其他鄰近的國家都是傻強，將來，中國將繼續相信她有很多傻強。日本是西方的傻強，但在九十年代，當日本經貿強勁，引起美國的保護主義，並有學者懷疑終有一日，日本回歸成為中國的傻強，西方就是不信傻強是傻的，西方在歐洲歷史上行權力制衡這一套，面對中國的日益強大，將循權力制衡方面著手。
原裝無間道說忠義者最終得到解脫，背叛者永不超生，要加強覆蓋面，當中的主角要是卓越非凡的人，暗示卓越的人如是得到報應，更何況普通人。鬼佬版無間道不行這套。除了有班不知「江湖規矩」的中國幫，去顯出Jack Nicholson的老練之外，沒有其他的襯托角色，傻強亦不例外，原因是如茶怪在前文"Three years, three years and three years!"中指出，鬼佬版並不歌頌英雄，不著重正邪，沒有善惡因果。所有角色皆為棋子，為自己的私利各出奇謀。
傻強是儒家文化的產物，也適合階級制度的需要，他忠心、卑微、傻，他令上級感到安全，傻強之上又有傻強，一級一級上。但西方的文化看不見傻強，即使看見，也不用不著，即使有用，也不相信他是傻的。令西人有安全感的，是權力的制衡，Nicholson「收靚」不問甚麼，只要有collateral，抵押品可以是親人或甚麼，只要有「痛腳」，威脅就是指令的力量，這就是權力的制衡。
在國際關係裡，中國幾千年來一直以為日本和其他鄰近的國家都是傻強，將來，中國將繼續相信她有很多傻強。日本是西方的傻強，但在九十年代，當日本經貿強勁，引起美國的保護主義，並有學者懷疑終有一日，日本回歸成為中國的傻強，西方就是不信傻強是傻的，西方在歐洲歷史上行權力制衡這一套，面對中國的日益強大，將循權力制衡方面著手。
2007/04/04
讀書樂
常聽說「滿街碩士」，工餘時進修，取得好學歷也找不到一份高薪厚職。為甚麼？是競爭太激烈嗎？茶怪想，兩者未必有關係，首先，進修如果作為投資，是屬於高成本、低回報、高風險、低流通性的。
高成本 -- 時間金錢不在話下。低回報 -- 進修得來的知識技能未必可應用於工作上以提升工作效率。以金融業為例，工作效率主要來自兩方面，投資眼光和人脈關係，兩樣都差不多冇得學，要求的基本知識如數學和語言，都在中學有教，要培養好投資眼光和人脈關係，更重要的是實務經驗。高風險 -- 投資期長，很難預見幾年後，你所修讀的專科的人才需求，很多時間，市場有週期，當某個專業好景，人人爭相進修，誰不知完成課程後，該專業的週期已轉淡，市面上出現大批拿著該專業資格的求職者，工資待遇一定被壓低。低流通性 -- 股票買錯了可即日沽售，換碼，但專業資格不能隨時轉換。
專業資格只限於政府、非牟利機構或絕對排他性的專業，如會計師和律師，發揮利益功效，在市場經濟則不能，工資待遇取決於工作效率，好簡單，考慮聘請你的雇主本身都是打工仔，自己管理的部門也有表現目標。普遍人的認知是: 「一個中五畢業，另一個大學畢業，雇主一定請大學生吧。」對，這是因為有能力的人多入大學大專，這是常規教育選拔機制下所產生的標籤效應。但投身社會之後工餘時間進修，所得的資格已失去標籤效應。
讀書為讀書，搵錢為搵錢，讀書為搵錢是錯配。讀書、進修以提升個人修養，茶怪想，是最快樂和自然的結果，希望搵錢的，最有效的方法是從工作中學習、拼搏，以提升自己的效率。人們不是愚的，為何他們從切身利益考量，都寧願選擇持續進修這項「劣質投資」？可能是因為已沒有更好的投資選擇了，「從工作中學習、拼搏」，回報更低，為甚麼？ 茶怪未有答案。
高成本 -- 時間金錢不在話下。低回報 -- 進修得來的知識技能未必可應用於工作上以提升工作效率。以金融業為例，工作效率主要來自兩方面，投資眼光和人脈關係，兩樣都差不多冇得學，要求的基本知識如數學和語言，都在中學有教，要培養好投資眼光和人脈關係，更重要的是實務經驗。高風險 -- 投資期長，很難預見幾年後，你所修讀的專科的人才需求，很多時間，市場有週期，當某個專業好景，人人爭相進修，誰不知完成課程後，該專業的週期已轉淡，市面上出現大批拿著該專業資格的求職者，工資待遇一定被壓低。低流通性 -- 股票買錯了可即日沽售，換碼，但專業資格不能隨時轉換。
專業資格只限於政府、非牟利機構或絕對排他性的專業，如會計師和律師，發揮利益功效，在市場經濟則不能，工資待遇取決於工作效率，好簡單，考慮聘請你的雇主本身都是打工仔，自己管理的部門也有表現目標。普遍人的認知是: 「一個中五畢業，另一個大學畢業，雇主一定請大學生吧。」對，這是因為有能力的人多入大學大專，這是常規教育選拔機制下所產生的標籤效應。但投身社會之後工餘時間進修，所得的資格已失去標籤效應。
讀書為讀書，搵錢為搵錢，讀書為搵錢是錯配。讀書、進修以提升個人修養，茶怪想，是最快樂和自然的結果，希望搵錢的，最有效的方法是從工作中學習、拼搏，以提升自己的效率。人們不是愚的，為何他們從切身利益考量，都寧願選擇持續進修這項「劣質投資」？可能是因為已沒有更好的投資選擇了，「從工作中學習、拼搏」，回報更低，為甚麼？ 茶怪未有答案。
2007/04/03
沙士紀念日 II
多謝meta的回應。
董落曾上的意義，茶怪想，不在於新人勝舊人，而在於「炒魷」機制的彰顯。
很多人說，董落的原因是中央改朝換代，但澳門特首豈不是，為什麼他又能通過新老板的面試? 董在位期間，經濟衰退，疫症處理不周，政府財政嚴重赤字，曾上，赤字消失，幸運地再沒有沙士，整體經濟復甦。至於貧富懸殊和政制改革問題，尚待處理。
經濟和財赤是週期性的，疫症亦不知何時會來，曾上的時間剛好順風順水，是好幸? 成功總帶幸運成份，最重要是個結果，結果影響民心。老董輕民心重效率，例如中藥港、數碼港和八萬五建屋計劃，老董以為任期五年又五年，不怕你罵、上街。誰不知中央冇面俾，民心關乎社會穩定，穩定第一，原來不攪好民心會遭「炒魷」。
老曾重民心輕效率，競選前攪咁多show，有甚麼計劃，是真是假都做公開咨詢。茶怪想，怕被「炒魷」是特首最大的動力去「做好呢份工」。
董落曾上的意義，茶怪想，不在於新人勝舊人，而在於「炒魷」機制的彰顯。
很多人說，董落的原因是中央改朝換代，但澳門特首豈不是，為什麼他又能通過新老板的面試? 董在位期間，經濟衰退，疫症處理不周，政府財政嚴重赤字，曾上，赤字消失，幸運地再沒有沙士，整體經濟復甦。至於貧富懸殊和政制改革問題，尚待處理。
經濟和財赤是週期性的，疫症亦不知何時會來，曾上的時間剛好順風順水，是好幸? 成功總帶幸運成份，最重要是個結果，結果影響民心。老董輕民心重效率，例如中藥港、數碼港和八萬五建屋計劃，老董以為任期五年又五年，不怕你罵、上街。誰不知中央冇面俾，民心關乎社會穩定，穩定第一，原來不攪好民心會遭「炒魷」。
老曾重民心輕效率，競選前攪咁多show，有甚麼計劃，是真是假都做公開咨詢。茶怪想，怕被「炒魷」是特首最大的動力去「做好呢份工」。
2007/04/01
2007/03/31
以第一個答案為準
「你估恆指今年年底是多少?」茶怪和朋友談股經，遇上類似問題，第一個反應是: 「唔知。」一個掃興的答案，可能的話，盡量猜一猜，最簡單的推斷是 -- 2006年由15,000點升到20,000點，每年升5,000，2007年底應該到25,000，那就相當高興了。這個計法可能粗略了點，「唔夠科學」，拿二十年的數據分析，會否可靠些?
茶怪下載過去二十年的恆指數據，經過統計學混算，將複式增長結果轉化成線性模式，訂定一條趨勢線，據此，2007年底恆指應為22,725。不錯吧。但是，二十年的經歷是夠長嗎? 見過有投資專家作更「全面」的評估，找來四十多年的數據，由恆指於1964年基點100開始，以類似的統計學混算，得出更進取的答案 -- 26,000，嘩!
這個計算方法可能有問題，這四十年內，上半折比下半折好景得多。1964至1986年，是香港由工業轉型為商業的時代，將之計算在內，可能誇大了恆指今時今日的步伐。用1987至1996年的數據亦有問題，因當時是樓市股市飛騰的時代，恆指在1964至1996年走勢厲害，這段日子會否重臨? 還是保守一點，只限分析最近十年的趨勢，回歸後的環境可能有其獨特性，十年趨勢圖顯示，2007年底，恆指係17,431，吓!
記得小時候，朋友們嬉戲總愛嚷著說:「以第一個答案為準。」現在回想這句說話真有道理。
茶怪下載過去二十年的恆指數據，經過統計學混算，將複式增長結果轉化成線性模式，訂定一條趨勢線，據此，2007年底恆指應為22,725。不錯吧。但是，二十年的經歷是夠長嗎? 見過有投資專家作更「全面」的評估，找來四十多年的數據，由恆指於1964年基點100開始，以類似的統計學混算，得出更進取的答案 -- 26,000，嘩!
這個計算方法可能有問題，這四十年內，上半折比下半折好景得多。1964至1986年，是香港由工業轉型為商業的時代，將之計算在內，可能誇大了恆指今時今日的步伐。用1987至1996年的數據亦有問題，因當時是樓市股市飛騰的時代，恆指在1964至1996年走勢厲害，這段日子會否重臨? 還是保守一點，只限分析最近十年的趨勢，回歸後的環境可能有其獨特性，十年趨勢圖顯示，2007年底，恆指係17,431，吓!
記得小時候，朋友們嬉戲總愛嚷著說:「以第一個答案為準。」現在回想這句說話真有道理。
2007/03/30
聽民意=反競爭?
多謝brian就前文的回應。
根據brian所說，公平競爭法是一場政治show，不是經濟和社會上的考慮，茶怪想後果會好嚴重，通過法案初期，是皆大歡喜的，政府打擊官商勾結「不遺餘力」，同時，與民主派在「非政治」領域合作關係良好; 民主派看來成功為市民爭取了些東西; 市民對大財團的氣也消減。但當法例實施之後未見成效，市民的打擊對象大超市，沒有受到任何影響，如常「欺負」供應商，貧富懸殊問題持續，這樣，民間繼續有不滿聲音，自然有更多人走出來「代表民意」，要求進一步立法，加大促進公平競爭法的力度，政府方面，想，以此作為政治籌碼幾好，成本低，風險低，形象好。如是者，出現惡性循環，不斷有新條文加入。
更多的繁文縟節，受害者反應是中小企，因為他們沒有大狀律師，與政府的關係又不及大財團，要依法申請，填form，請律師、會計師，成本一定增加，而且等候批文時間又延長了。更重要的，是繁文縟節必然減少中小企靈活變通的可能性，可知中小企要與大財團競爭，人力物力一定輸蝕，唯一可以取勝的是靠靈活變通，正如聖經記載年少時的大衛王如何打敗巨人一樣。當然中小企勝大財團不是甚麼神話故事，google贏yahoo就是實證。
靈活變通就是生意上的創意，創意就是社會進步的條例，你諗到偈，我又有好橋，雖然不是每個新辦法都成功，但是有效的市場，就是不斷地進行trial and error，飛沙走石，每個人，企業都有機會成功。在有效的市場，企業不論大小，都要不斷求變，去競爭，去進步，這樣社會才有希望。
很多對大財團的指控，是源於他們的市場地位，以至享受極高的議價能力。茶怪想，一場球賽，永無咁高咁大，曼聯對韋斯咸你話公唔公平? 一隊榜首，一隊榜尾，曼聯有錢，請最好的球員、領隊，又如何，一樣有機會輸，對球迷來說，球賽公平與否，不是看牌面，而是看球證如何執法，有沒有偏幫，如果無，球賽就是公平，雙方一定全力以赴。足球比賽規例簡單，就是維持球賽公平的最佳方法。球例愈複雜，球證可以影響賽果的空間便愈大。
根據brian所說，公平競爭法是一場政治show，不是經濟和社會上的考慮，茶怪想後果會好嚴重，通過法案初期，是皆大歡喜的，政府打擊官商勾結「不遺餘力」，同時，與民主派在「非政治」領域合作關係良好; 民主派看來成功為市民爭取了些東西; 市民對大財團的氣也消減。但當法例實施之後未見成效，市民的打擊對象大超市，沒有受到任何影響，如常「欺負」供應商，貧富懸殊問題持續，這樣，民間繼續有不滿聲音，自然有更多人走出來「代表民意」，要求進一步立法，加大促進公平競爭法的力度，政府方面，想，以此作為政治籌碼幾好，成本低，風險低，形象好。如是者，出現惡性循環，不斷有新條文加入。
更多的繁文縟節，受害者反應是中小企，因為他們沒有大狀律師，與政府的關係又不及大財團，要依法申請，填form，請律師、會計師，成本一定增加，而且等候批文時間又延長了。更重要的，是繁文縟節必然減少中小企靈活變通的可能性，可知中小企要與大財團競爭，人力物力一定輸蝕，唯一可以取勝的是靠靈活變通，正如聖經記載年少時的大衛王如何打敗巨人一樣。當然中小企勝大財團不是甚麼神話故事，google贏yahoo就是實證。
靈活變通就是生意上的創意，創意就是社會進步的條例，你諗到偈，我又有好橋，雖然不是每個新辦法都成功，但是有效的市場，就是不斷地進行trial and error，飛沙走石，每個人，企業都有機會成功。在有效的市場，企業不論大小，都要不斷求變，去競爭，去進步，這樣社會才有希望。
很多對大財團的指控，是源於他們的市場地位，以至享受極高的議價能力。茶怪想，一場球賽，永無咁高咁大，曼聯對韋斯咸你話公唔公平? 一隊榜首，一隊榜尾，曼聯有錢，請最好的球員、領隊，又如何，一樣有機會輸，對球迷來說，球賽公平與否，不是看牌面，而是看球證如何執法，有沒有偏幫，如果無，球賽就是公平，雙方一定全力以赴。足球比賽規例簡單，就是維持球賽公平的最佳方法。球例愈複雜，球證可以影響賽果的空間便愈大。
2007/03/29
少立法，多執法
看新聞有時覺得好好笑，甚麼東西都算到政府頭上，尤其是星期日的電視新聞，環保團體指戶外廣告牌上燈泡太多，要政府立法規管，其他包括工人保障、家庭紛爭、愛護動物等問題，也要政府立法，或發上指引，茶怪想，政府怎麼辨? 它有能力對各行各業了解清楚? 究竟一個廣告牌應掛多少個燈泡，才算合理? 太多的法例只會幫倒忙，如何確實執行現有的法例更重要。廣告牌太亮，有否影響鄰居作息? 觸犯滋擾條例?
另一個好無聊的規例，是對付小巴超速問題，不知是誰想出來的主意，規定每輛小巴須安裝超速警告器，它全程顯示車速，每當超速，它就發出吵耳的bb聲響，它還印有小巴的車牌。作用是提醒乘客，叫他們如有不滿可投訴。結果，你都知，小巴繼續超速，超速警告器不停響，要乘客繼續坐過山車之餘，還要忍受噪音。小巴商又要承擔安裝警告器的成本，長期測驗和維修又是錢。 還有路段不同，車速限制不一，警告器沒有辦法因應不同路段的需要發揮「作用」。
其實要防止小巴超速方法好簡單 -- 抄牌，你一超速，就收「牛肉干」。執法不夠嚴謹，再立一千條例也沒用。
社會反對壟斷聲音此起彼落，要求政府訂立「公平競爭法」，思維方向和上述廣告牌的類似，就是有問題，就立法，茶怪對此有所保留，立法是否可以解決問題? 大財團有好多大狀律師幫手，與政府關係又好，取得waiver好易，繁文縟節只會加重中小企負擔。事實上，問題不在於現有的法例足夠與否，而是執行夠不夠徹底。以地產商為例，他們被指在賣地過程中達成協議，成功避免競爭。其實這類協議可能觸犯現有的競投法例，但事情不了了之。
另一個好無聊的規例，是對付小巴超速問題，不知是誰想出來的主意，規定每輛小巴須安裝超速警告器，它全程顯示車速，每當超速，它就發出吵耳的bb聲響，它還印有小巴的車牌。作用是提醒乘客，叫他們如有不滿可投訴。結果，你都知，小巴繼續超速，超速警告器不停響，要乘客繼續坐過山車之餘，還要忍受噪音。小巴商又要承擔安裝警告器的成本，長期測驗和維修又是錢。 還有路段不同，車速限制不一，警告器沒有辦法因應不同路段的需要發揮「作用」。
其實要防止小巴超速方法好簡單 -- 抄牌，你一超速，就收「牛肉干」。執法不夠嚴謹，再立一千條例也沒用。
社會反對壟斷聲音此起彼落，要求政府訂立「公平競爭法」，思維方向和上述廣告牌的類似，就是有問題，就立法，茶怪對此有所保留，立法是否可以解決問題? 大財團有好多大狀律師幫手，與政府關係又好，取得waiver好易，繁文縟節只會加重中小企負擔。事實上，問題不在於現有的法例足夠與否，而是執行夠不夠徹底。以地產商為例，他們被指在賣地過程中達成協議，成功避免競爭。其實這類協議可能觸犯現有的競投法例，但事情不了了之。
2007/03/28
不談嘉玲
富士康(2038)是名副其實的cash cow，ROIC在過去三年超過三成，茶怪預計未來幾年有三成至四成幾。ROIC是Return on Invested Capital，即一間公司每年投入的資金的回報，資金包括買機、買廠，還包括茶怪最討厭的營運資金 -- 存貨、些數等 (因為討厭，所以更要計真)，這裡說的回報有別於盈利，是稅後營運現金流 (NOPLAT)，為什麼這個ROIC值得參考?
ROIC就是說你今年投放了多少現金進一門生意，明年的營運，扣除人工、租金、燈油火蠟之後所得的現金流入增長。它較其他以盈利和賬面資產計出的回報率如ROE、ROA等為實際，因為ROIC著眼於現金流出流入。
高ROIC代表顯示富士康貨如輪轉，增值能力不在於貴價機械。富士康僅賺取直接成本的十分一，其他規模較小的廠，如果同樣定價，即使物料損耗做到富士康的低水平，僅是overhead雜費，足以令他們無利可圖。
如果純粹計P/E，現價24.05，2006年預測市盈率達25倍，算高，但考慮到現金流強勁，受惠於外判代工需求，top line 營業額2007至09年，持績有17%至38%增長，現價估值合理。富士康的風險在於客戶與供應商高度集中，和受其大股東鴻海集團的控制，兩者業務和客戶群接近。近期富士康大客Motorola，手機滯銷，也對富士康構成壓力。
ROIC就是說你今年投放了多少現金進一門生意，明年的營運，扣除人工、租金、燈油火蠟之後所得的現金流入增長。它較其他以盈利和賬面資產計出的回報率如ROE、ROA等為實際，因為ROIC著眼於現金流出流入。
高ROIC代表顯示富士康貨如輪轉，增值能力不在於貴價機械。富士康僅賺取直接成本的十分一，其他規模較小的廠，如果同樣定價，即使物料損耗做到富士康的低水平，僅是overhead雜費，足以令他們無利可圖。
如果純粹計P/E，現價24.05，2006年預測市盈率達25倍，算高，但考慮到現金流強勁，受惠於外判代工需求，top line 營業額2007至09年，持績有17%至38%增長，現價估值合理。富士康的風險在於客戶與供應商高度集中，和受其大股東鴻海集團的控制，兩者業務和客戶群接近。近期富士康大客Motorola，手機滯銷，也對富士康構成壓力。
2007/03/27
2007/03/15
唔准傾偈
前文提過地產商在政府土地拍賣會上為免「爭堋頭」，有機會在某些情況下「點到即止」。據報，日前在拍賣會上中途，信和與南豐代表「咬耳朵」，即場達成合成協議，共同發展大家志在必得的土地。本來可以以更高價成交的土地，即場協議令競價停止，有損拍賣價高者得的原意，減少了政府庫房收入，更重要的是，在沒有充滿競爭下，有限的資源無法分配到購買意欲最高的買家。茶怪想，即場協議應該禁止。
地產發展商合作發展土地是自由商業活動，不應干預。關鍵是合作協議何時達成。拍賣會舉行前，沒有人知道誰購買意欲最高，你和某某相好組織聯盟去投地，說不定到時有願意出更高價者，所以競爭仍然存在。拍賣會舉行後，貨物出門，賣家無權過問。偏偏在拍賣會舉行時，有一個狹窄的時空，讓參與者逃避競爭。
在一輪叫價之後，競投者的數目很快就減少，到只餘下兩位，他們便是購買意欲最高的買家。其他的參與者雖然表面上仍有權舉牌，但由於當時叫價已高過他們願意承受的水平，所以不會再舉牌，同時兩大競爭者終於知道對方的身份，即場協議就可那時達成，最後的兩大競爭者就不用再爭。
如果茶怪有一天不幸要當拍賣官，拍賣自己的家當，冒必想盡辦法阻止即場協議。
地產發展商合作發展土地是自由商業活動，不應干預。關鍵是合作協議何時達成。拍賣會舉行前，沒有人知道誰購買意欲最高，你和某某相好組織聯盟去投地，說不定到時有願意出更高價者，所以競爭仍然存在。拍賣會舉行後，貨物出門，賣家無權過問。偏偏在拍賣會舉行時，有一個狹窄的時空，讓參與者逃避競爭。
在一輪叫價之後，競投者的數目很快就減少，到只餘下兩位，他們便是購買意欲最高的買家。其他的參與者雖然表面上仍有權舉牌，但由於當時叫價已高過他們願意承受的水平，所以不會再舉牌，同時兩大競爭者終於知道對方的身份，即場協議就可那時達成，最後的兩大競爭者就不用再爭。
如果茶怪有一天不幸要當拍賣官，拍賣自己的家當，冒必想盡辦法阻止即場協議。
2007/03/14
白票一定知，一定
假設你在街上遇襲，被打了一身，誰是主謀你一定知，因為主謀一定要你知他是誰，才達到他打你的目的，目的就是要左右你日後的某些決定。否則，你有多個敵人或仇家，萬一你誤會了是別個，怕錯了別人，主謀豈不是白費心機和金錢?
看國際新聞，凡有恐怖炸彈襲擊，事後總有某某激進組織公開承認責任，茶怪以前常常有疑問: 「承認責任，莫非幫忙當地警方查案，等於自投羅網? 」不，想深一層，他們就是要你知。
何鴻燊說，白票一定知，導致有關當局走出來澄清，強調投票是不記名的，保密功夫亦將做足，其實傳媒是捉錯方向，問題本身不是於投票程序，而是這個選舉的「特質」。
各個利益團體為向曾蔭權爭取政府資源，或優惠政策，都在投票上以白票作為與老曾討價還價的籌碼，老曾沒有可能同一時間滿足各方要求，談不合攏的團體，便會投白票。目的不是發洩不滿，而是為日後有更大能量爭取利益，所以投白票的團體一定直接或間接，讓老曾知道。
「白票一定知」，關鍵在於誰人知，老曾一定知，至於北京，正是此言精妙之處。
看國際新聞，凡有恐怖炸彈襲擊，事後總有某某激進組織公開承認責任，茶怪以前常常有疑問: 「承認責任，莫非幫忙當地警方查案，等於自投羅網? 」不，想深一層，他們就是要你知。
何鴻燊說，白票一定知，導致有關當局走出來澄清，強調投票是不記名的，保密功夫亦將做足，其實傳媒是捉錯方向，問題本身不是於投票程序，而是這個選舉的「特質」。
各個利益團體為向曾蔭權爭取政府資源，或優惠政策，都在投票上以白票作為與老曾討價還價的籌碼，老曾沒有可能同一時間滿足各方要求，談不合攏的團體，便會投白票。目的不是發洩不滿，而是為日後有更大能量爭取利益，所以投白票的團體一定直接或間接，讓老曾知道。
「白票一定知」，關鍵在於誰人知，老曾一定知，至於北京，正是此言精妙之處。
2007/03/11
Blog is beautiful
Great economist and political philosopher Friedrich Hayek says: "What is essential to make [intellectual freedom] serve its function as the prime mover of intellectual progress is not that everybody may be able to think or write anything, but that any cause or idea may be argued by somebody."
Replace [intellectual freedom] with [blog] and you get that blog is beautiful and why it is so. t freak appreciates your comments at this blog.
Replace [intellectual freedom] with [blog] and you get that blog is beautiful and why it is so. t freak appreciates your comments at this blog.
2007/03/10
電影一問
不同電影，無論是數千萬元的大製作，還是幾百萬的小品，無論是好看的還是爛片，放在同一間戲院上映，為什麼票價都是一樣? 熱奶茶和凍奶茶的價格已是不一，其他的商品價格差異較大，為什麼正常的市場自由定價情況在戲院又不適用?
政府計劃津貼電影投資，茶怪對此有保留，香港不缺資金。要振興電影業較重要是鼓勵競爭，有競爭才有進步，香港電影業是否缺乏競爭? 從票價上看，是缺乏競爭，市場的力量還未充分發展。 (戲院與戲院之間有價格差異，是反映地點、戲院佈置等因素。但就同一間戲院而言，各套戲是劃一票價的，而且票價長期維持。)
如果以市場供求去決定價格，大製作大導演大卡士的電影，叫座力高，可能市價較高。相反，小規模製作的，可能是新進導演初次、年輕演員合作的，觀眾不認識，可能市價較低。或者是本地低成本製作，可能市價較低。當然如果大製作的是爛片，市價大跌，或本地低成本製作叫好叫座，市價大升，也說不定。視乎市場決定。
你可能會問，小規模創作已夠慘了，如果要降價促銷，創作人的飯碗怎樣保? 而且，降價等於自貶身價，不是進一步降低叫座力嗎? 茶怪想，小規模創作的電影正是劃一收費的受害者，它們以同一價格，與大卡士大製作競爭，真吃虧。 觀眾不入場，其創作人的飯碗更不保。至於自貶身價的問題，如果沒有人入場，憑何論身價。
茶怪不熟識電影業運作，望你指點迷津。
2007/03/08
台北遊記
前幾天與太太到台北旅遊，到處逛街，食台灣小吃，悠悠閒閒地玩了幾天。大概五年前到台北，現在的感覺和五年前的台北都是差不多，城市發展好像停滯不前，如果換轉是大陸的大城市，相信很多東西都面目全非。在台北購物區，可能天氣太冷和下雨，好像周圍都冷清清的。到新北投浸溫泉，也是一樣小貓三兩，我們在公眾大池浸，因為沒有其他人，公眾大池變成我們的私家池，真爽。
台北的書店是一大景點，而每間書店各有特色，正如台灣通c945096說，誠品敦南(24小時店)是買不到書，是一個hea的地方，有人抱著書在睡覺，那裡的藏書較雜亂。誠品信義就厲害了，大得像一個博物館一樣，但選書的買手不算好，可以是個人口味問題。台北101大廈的Page One，令茶怪刮目相看，香港的Page One多是圖片書，但台灣的那間有很多有意思的文字書，特別是英文書。金石堂是另一間好書店，它樓面不算大，但有很多店員的推介，去刺激你的閱讀興趣。
不知為什麼，到哪裡旅行，總要找星巴克作為落腳點，不是到當地的特色咖啡店或小食店，在西班牙如是，台灣如是。到了淡水的市集，終於明白，無論到那裡景點，甚麼小食特飲，其實都是大同小異，與其是到處碰，不如到熟識的星巴克，看看當地人怎樣發揮同一個全球性的題材，敦化北路的那間，女收銀員是多麼的甜美可人，太太也呷醋了。
台北的書店是一大景點，而每間書店各有特色，正如台灣通c945096說，誠品敦南(24小時店)是買不到書，是一個hea的地方，有人抱著書在睡覺，那裡的藏書較雜亂。誠品信義就厲害了，大得像一個博物館一樣，但選書的買手不算好，可以是個人口味問題。台北101大廈的Page One，令茶怪刮目相看，香港的Page One多是圖片書，但台灣的那間有很多有意思的文字書，特別是英文書。金石堂是另一間好書店，它樓面不算大，但有很多店員的推介，去刺激你的閱讀興趣。
不知為什麼，到哪裡旅行，總要找星巴克作為落腳點，不是到當地的特色咖啡店或小食店，在西班牙如是，台灣如是。到了淡水的市集，終於明白，無論到那裡景點，甚麼小食特飲，其實都是大同小異，與其是到處碰，不如到熟識的星巴克，看看當地人怎樣發揮同一個全球性的題材，敦化北路的那間，女收銀員是多麼的甜美可人，太太也呷醋了。
2007/03/03
關乜事
明天渣打馬拉松，如果有人不適，心臟病發或抽根，環保團體就會拿這些事件造文章，說香港的空氣質素每況愈下，導致愈來愈多跑手不適，甚至有生命危險。空氣質素的確差了，愈來愈多跑手不適也是事實，兩者是否有關? 茶怪前文指出，「香港女多男少，好男人難求。」是謬誤，「空氣質素差，跑手不適」是另一個。
空氣差是不會導致抽根的，愈來愈多跑手抽根，又是何解? 渣打馬拉松愈來愈受歡迎，參加人數愈來愈多，不適跑手的數量多，是正常現象，加上有很多新參加者，平時缺乏練習，只是跟朋友一齊玩，或感受比賽氣氛，有些勇字當頭，沒有注意自己身體的反應的，不適的機會更大，輕則抽根，嚴重的送命。
空氣日日差，不會在比賽當日特別差的，如果平時每星期有練習，也沒有出事，比賽當日因空氣差而不適，是說不通的。唯一受影響的可能是海外跑手。
學者，包括經濟學者，近年喜歡玩correlation，很容易用數據發掘到一些有趣，甚至有「利用價值」的關係，但實際上是無關的，只不過是同時發生而已。你只需要畫個圖，比較空氣污染和渣打馬拉松參加人數歷年的變化，很容易得出一個「學術性」的結論 -- 空氣污染是港人愛跑步的原因。
空氣差是不會導致抽根的，愈來愈多跑手抽根，又是何解? 渣打馬拉松愈來愈受歡迎，參加人數愈來愈多，不適跑手的數量多，是正常現象，加上有很多新參加者，平時缺乏練習，只是跟朋友一齊玩，或感受比賽氣氛，有些勇字當頭，沒有注意自己身體的反應的，不適的機會更大，輕則抽根，嚴重的送命。
空氣日日差，不會在比賽當日特別差的，如果平時每星期有練習，也沒有出事，比賽當日因空氣差而不適，是說不通的。唯一受影響的可能是海外跑手。
學者，包括經濟學者，近年喜歡玩correlation，很容易用數據發掘到一些有趣，甚至有「利用價值」的關係，但實際上是無關的，只不過是同時發生而已。你只需要畫個圖，比較空氣污染和渣打馬拉松參加人數歷年的變化，很容易得出一個「學術性」的結論 -- 空氣污染是港人愛跑步的原因。
2007/02/28
Mr. Right is hard to find, why?
It is so hard for a women to find a good man to marry, say many people, including those hosting radio shows, dining in restaurants and sighing in Internet. Many single women, at their late 20's and early 30's, have gloomy hopes for marriage. There are a lot of reasons for being single, some personal and others social. One general argument is that there are fewer men than women living in Hong Kong, and that inevitably would leave some women behind, unmarried. The dismal logic follows that women now have to compete more desperately for men's love, or they will end up being single. No, i don't think so. The whole argument is wrong.
The so-called "men-and-women imbalance" exists but it is irrelevant.
2006 Population By-census offers statistics that shed new lights on this subject.
Women exceeded men by 320,000. That is a shocking number, meaning that for every 100 women, there are only 91 men -- leaving behind nine women. However, a closer look into the statistics shows those women "in excess" don't belong to the "battlefield". Those women are mostly widows and married women.
There are many widows due to the fact that women live longer than men. Probably most of these widows are elderly. Widows exceeded widowers by 240,000 in 2006. The gap is widening, as the general population gets older.
Married women exceeded married men by 34,000 last year. That's probably because many men are now working in the mainland as Hong Kong businesses, mainly manufacturing, have moved across the border.
Out of the 320,000-wide gap between men and women, 270,000 were widows and married women. Taking this number out of the balance, the number of men will rise to 97 for every 100 women -- the gap is much closer. (The gap still contains a lot of divorced and separated women in excess of corresponding men. Of course, divorced and separated women are available for marriage. But if we further narrow our scope to single people only, the balance will close to even. For every 100 single women, there were 99 single men.)
If there are almost as many young men as young women available for marriage, what causes the pain for finding Mr. Right?
Ironically, for men, find a good wife seems to be just as challenging. For every 100 men, there were 34 bachelors. For every 100 women, only 31 were never married. Finding a right spouse is hard for both men and women. And it seems harder today than yesterday, if we look at the raw data only.
In 1996, for every 100 women aged at 40-44, only nine were never married. In 2006, the number went up to 17. For men aged at the same range, that was 10 in 1996, and 18 last year. Is finding a good spouse really harder than before? Many people think so. But i doubt that.
The By-census report shows some interesting insights -- the sizes of households are getting smaller. In 1996, 33 people formed 10 households. Last year, only 30 people made 10 households. Apartment flats are now less crowded.
i believe that people have the choice not to get married. The choice is less likely available in the past.
Pressure from parents' is weakening over decades. i suspect that parents' pressure depend on the living environment. In the past, some twenty years ago, a typical household was crowded, containing six to seven people. Parents' pressure for the siblings to form their own families was strong.
Now, the household is less crowded. The siblings are either few or living separately without getting married. Parents' pressure is weaker. Practically, no matter what causes it, parent's pressure is weaker when parents and children live separately and seldom see each other.
Another pressure is financial. More and more women work. Last year, 480,000 women aged at 25-34 were either working or finding jobs, surpassing 430,000 men. The chances are girlfriends and wives are paying the dining bills. The financial pressure weakened as long as the income is evenly distributed between men and women. If men continue to lose jobs, the pressure to get married will build up again, but then the pressure will shift towards the men's side.
In the past, great pressures were there to urge you marry someone, good or bad. Now the pressure is softer. Finding a good man or woman has never been easy. The good thing today is -- if you can't find anybody good, you will not be forced to hurry and marry someone worse.
Don't worry. Women do not outnumber men. Women are not at a disadvantage. Men have their headache finding good women, too. Men should understand that they are not as rare as they might have thought.
Men and women get older. Median age for Hong Kong men was 41 and women 37. Don't waste time.
Copyright Quam
The so-called "men-and-women imbalance" exists but it is irrelevant.
2006 Population By-census offers statistics that shed new lights on this subject.
Women exceeded men by 320,000. That is a shocking number, meaning that for every 100 women, there are only 91 men -- leaving behind nine women. However, a closer look into the statistics shows those women "in excess" don't belong to the "battlefield". Those women are mostly widows and married women.
There are many widows due to the fact that women live longer than men. Probably most of these widows are elderly. Widows exceeded widowers by 240,000 in 2006. The gap is widening, as the general population gets older.
Married women exceeded married men by 34,000 last year. That's probably because many men are now working in the mainland as Hong Kong businesses, mainly manufacturing, have moved across the border.
Out of the 320,000-wide gap between men and women, 270,000 were widows and married women. Taking this number out of the balance, the number of men will rise to 97 for every 100 women -- the gap is much closer. (The gap still contains a lot of divorced and separated women in excess of corresponding men. Of course, divorced and separated women are available for marriage. But if we further narrow our scope to single people only, the balance will close to even. For every 100 single women, there were 99 single men.)
If there are almost as many young men as young women available for marriage, what causes the pain for finding Mr. Right?
Ironically, for men, find a good wife seems to be just as challenging. For every 100 men, there were 34 bachelors. For every 100 women, only 31 were never married. Finding a right spouse is hard for both men and women. And it seems harder today than yesterday, if we look at the raw data only.
In 1996, for every 100 women aged at 40-44, only nine were never married. In 2006, the number went up to 17. For men aged at the same range, that was 10 in 1996, and 18 last year. Is finding a good spouse really harder than before? Many people think so. But i doubt that.
The By-census report shows some interesting insights -- the sizes of households are getting smaller. In 1996, 33 people formed 10 households. Last year, only 30 people made 10 households. Apartment flats are now less crowded.
i believe that people have the choice not to get married. The choice is less likely available in the past.
Pressure from parents' is weakening over decades. i suspect that parents' pressure depend on the living environment. In the past, some twenty years ago, a typical household was crowded, containing six to seven people. Parents' pressure for the siblings to form their own families was strong.
Now, the household is less crowded. The siblings are either few or living separately without getting married. Parents' pressure is weaker. Practically, no matter what causes it, parent's pressure is weaker when parents and children live separately and seldom see each other.
Another pressure is financial. More and more women work. Last year, 480,000 women aged at 25-34 were either working or finding jobs, surpassing 430,000 men. The chances are girlfriends and wives are paying the dining bills. The financial pressure weakened as long as the income is evenly distributed between men and women. If men continue to lose jobs, the pressure to get married will build up again, but then the pressure will shift towards the men's side.
In the past, great pressures were there to urge you marry someone, good or bad. Now the pressure is softer. Finding a good man or woman has never been easy. The good thing today is -- if you can't find anybody good, you will not be forced to hurry and marry someone worse.
Don't worry. Women do not outnumber men. Women are not at a disadvantage. Men have their headache finding good women, too. Men should understand that they are not as rare as they might have thought.
Men and women get older. Median age for Hong Kong men was 41 and women 37. Don't waste time.
Copyright Quam
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)