Brexit - The Aftermath

Yes, Brexit was a disaster for capital markets ... but mainly because most traders did not hedge their positions for such an eventuality. Most traders assume the Brits would never do something so silly. Yes, it is silly because Britain has a 75% export market and depends on the union in more ways than one.

London as the financial centre has been magnified for the past 10-15 years thanks to the free movement of labour, capital ... the flow on benefits of that cannot be minimised.


WHAT IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN

- REGRET: More and more Brits will regret their decision. There will be movements to garner sufficient support for a second referendum - even though that is not written in stone, it could be debated in Parliament if there is sufficient pressure.

- POLITICAL WILL: Cameron did what I considered the smartest chess move, and swiftly too, by resigning immediately. He is basically saying, you want to eat shit, then I am not going to be the one to open the door and scoop the shit. No wonder Boris looked like Becker having lost Wimbledon yet again. Boris should be celebrating but with Cameron's resignation, he is in line to be the "the leader" and its really a no win situation for Boris of London. If you look around, none of the vocal Brexit leaders are now trumpeting to invoke Article 50 immediately. This is the classic case of "be careful what you wish for, cause you buggers do not know what to do when you have it".

- E.U. STANCE: The 6 foreign ministers of EU came out strongly to basically ask Britain to move quickly to exit. That might be a surprising stance to many but its a calculated stance to stand strong and send a signal to other nations wanting to leave the union. Its still a stance.

- This will lead to a discordant British society with youth vs seniors, as the majority of the seniors voted for Brexit while the majority of youths voted to remain. Looking at actual impact, most youths have another 40-60 years to live with the decision while the seniors have between 5-20 years. You do the math. As you stop people from coming in, you also limit the "opportunities" to work in the rest of Europe. There are also many British retirees in Spain, Portugal and Greece ... I think they will make it tougher for these seniors to retire there soon.

- OTHER EXITS: Naysayers will cite that now more countries will go for the referendum route to exit EU. Well, thats a probable route because most right wing parties in every country will try to jump on the bandwagon. Again, we have to look at this logically. Not every country want to leave the union as they are in a position of weakness in economic terms, structurally and being too inter-dependent on the union.


WHAT IS REALLY REALLY LIKELY TO HAPPEN

- Both side will quickly try to negotiate a "new treaty" ala Switzerland, Norway. The EU really really needs Britain to be in at least in economic terms. If Britain can get some new terms in free movement of labour, I think that can sway the way for a second referendum. If you look at it, both sides really want to be in. Even Brexit leaders will concede that much if the terms can be changed somewhat.

- At the end of it all, its the immigration issue, nothing else. Maybe a special passport will be needed for other Europeans wanting to work or stay in London. Actually its not that difficult. Just accept Temporary Resident, renewable for every 3 years, provided they have a proper job offer. And they must leave the country within 3 months if they do not have a job anymore.

MARKETS

- Very hard to try to discount when there are still so many permutations. To try and guess, will make you making good money or lose a ton of money. If thats the kind of bet you want, go ahead. But if I am forced to bet, based on the arguments above, I'd bet for sanity to prevail and the human will to survive and reconnect - bullish, even though its mad-like bullishness.

Remember that, when presented with a great unknown with an equal amount of uncertainty, markets will discount down and will overshoot. The 'what mights' are all tainted with worst case scenario ... but we should look at what is probable given that people will make decisions based on new evidence on the table, and new evidence is neither Britain nor the EU liked the ramifications. Thus safe to say, it is likely both sides will try and hammer out something which will keep the EU intact - because a nasty breakup will cause EU to disintegrate, and Britain will be whiplashed terribly being an export reliant market (to EU mainly).

Source: Malaysia-Finance Blogspot

Don't Let Stock Prices Fool You

A common saying says, "Don't judge a book by its cover." Some equally valid words of wisdom for investors could be, "Don't judge a stock by its share price." Despite much readily available information for investors, many people still incorrectly assume that a stock with a small dollar price is cheap, while another with a heftier price is expensive. This misconceived notion can lead investors down the wrong path and into some bad decisions for their money.

The cheapest stocks - "penny stocks" - also tend to be the riskiest. That stock that just went from $4 to $0.40 might end up at zero. And a stock that goes from $1 to $2 might double again to $4. Looking at a stock's share price is only useful when taking many other factors into account.

Many Factors to Consider

Investors often make the mistake of looking only at stock price, because it is often the most visibly quoted number in the financial press. However, the actual dollar price of a stock means very little unless many other factors are considered. For example, if Company A has a $100 billion market capitalization and has 10 billion shares, while Company B has a $1 billion market capitalization and 100 million shares, both companies will have a share price of $10, but Company A is worth 100 times more than Company B.

A stock with a $100 share price may be intimidating to many retail investors, because it seems very expensive. Some investors think that a triple-digit share price is bad, and they feel that a $5 stock has a better chance of doubling than the $100 stock. This is a misguided view, because the $5 stock might be considerably overvalued, and the $100 stock undervalued. The opposite also could be true as well, but share price alone is no sign of value. Market capitalization is a clearer indication of how the company is valued, and gives a better idea of the stock's value.


Real World Example


An example of where a high price may have made investors pause is Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK.A). In 1980, a share of Berkshire Hathaway sold for $340. The triple-digit share price would have made many investors think twice. However, Berkshire Class A shares are worth $173,300 each in 2013. The stock rose to those heights because the company, and Buffett, created shareholder value. At $173,300 per share, would you consider the stock expensive? The answer to that question does not depend on the dollar price of the shares.

Another example of a stock that has generated exceptional shareholder value is Microsoft (Nasdaq:MSFT). Microsoft's shares have split multiple times since its IPO in March 1986. Microsoft closed at $27.75 on its first day of trading, and is currently valued at $32.93 per share in 2013. That seems like a meager return over 20 years, but when all the splits are accounted for, a $27.75 investment in 1986 would be worth significantly more today. Because the stock did split, the share price in 2013 was $33, but each share also represented a much smaller piece of the company.

Microsoft and Berkshire both produced stellar returns for investors, but one decided to split several times, while the other did not. Does this make one more expensive than the other now? No - if either should be considered expensive or cheap, it should be based on the underlying fundamentals, not the share prices.

Conclusion

Some investors may focus on share price when looking at a stock, because it is the most visible number in the financial press. Investors should not get fixated on share price alone, because companies can change share prices dramatically through stock splits, reverse splits and stock dividends without changing fundamentals. Dig a little deeper when thinking about your next investment, and remember that a stock with a high price can go much higher under the right circumstances, just as a stock with a low price can sink even further if it isn't really a good value.

*Note: Article have been extracted and edited from: Don't Let Stock Prices Fool You | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/08/stock-prices-fool.asp#ixzz4C87INg7S

Binary options are a scam

A scam is a dishonest representation, meant to trick someone. What makes binary options a scam is that it presents itself as an investment method, while it is nothing short of gambling with bad odds.

The simplicity of binary options is part of its attraction.

Binary means “two” and refers to the fact that you only have to make a single decision about one of two outcomes. You decide on whether you think a certain asset will rise or fall in the future.

The size of the movement does not matter. If you are wrong, you lose the money you have “invested”.

If you are right, you will get a pay out of between 65%-85% of the “invested amount”. Note this is already unfair as you stand to lose 100%, but you can never win 100%.

Some brokers will give you a small percentage – 5% to 15% – back, in case you lose, but they compensate this by giving you less when you win.

You can bet on almost any asset: stocks (for example Shell), indexes (for example the Dow Jones), commodities (for example gold, oil), or currency pairs (for example Ringgit and Dollar).

Here is the tricky part: the duration of the binary option is extremely short. It typically ranges from 60 seconds to 24 hours.

For such short time periods, assets move in essentially random directions and cannot be predicted. The short duration makes any investment technique worthless.

Binary option brokers will tell you “the trend is your friend”, but to call movements of a few second or minutes ‘trends’ is a grave misuse of the term. If you do spot a trend, it is only because the human mind is trained to see patterns and trends, even if they aren’t really there.

Similar to how people see “trends” at the roulette table, while it is completely random what happens: roulette balls have no memory and don’t care what happened the previous roll.

This means you are not investing, but gambling. It is just that you have worse payout ratios than if you were to go to the casino and gamble red or black on the roulette table.

Predicting what the stock is going to do in the next ten minutes is impossible, even for companies about which an abundance of information is available, such as Apple or Facebook.

Random, unrelated events, such as interest announcements, large buyers / sellers, bad weather, a terrorist attack or a flash-crash could temporarily influence the stock price.

But more often, there is no attributable reason at all for short term stock movements. This makes binary options gambling with unfair chances. The broker will always win at the end, just like at the casino.

As short-term fluctuations in stock prices are random and irrational, you have 50% chance of being right. Let’s say you “invest” RM100 and are wrong, you lose RM100. If you “invest” RM 100 and are right, you will get RM75 (a payout percentage of 75% is common).

This means on average you will lose RM12.5 per trade: (lose RM100 + win RM75) / 2 trades. Betting red or black on the roulette table is a better deal (through you will still lose on average), as the payout is 100% and the chance that you win is 18/38= 47% (due to the occurrence of the 0 and 00).

As you have to accept the 75% payout, it means you would need to be right in 57% of your gambles, instead of 50%, in order to break even. In order to win money, you need to be right even more often! This is because 57% x RM 75 (you win) – 43% x RM 100 (you lose) equals zero Ringgit.

But there is no knowledge that can help you to improve your win rate to 57%. After multiple gambles, you will always gravitate toward the 50% average and lose money.

It is easy to see how all the human weaknesses – greed, jealousy, overconfidence in your own trading ability and knowledge plus the underestimation of risk – come into play when you see the unwanted ads for binary options pop up on your screen.

They scream at you: “no knowledge required!”, “Make money from your own home”, “Start earning thousands of ringgits in a few hours”. Then, the fake testimonies from paid actors start to play. It’s the latest ‘get rich quick’ scheme. It’s too good to be true, literally.

You don’t need to be Einstein to realise this is a scam. If it would work as advertised, everybody would do it. Regrettably, it is always the financially illiterate people that end up being the victim and become even poorer as a result, while the brokers are the only ones who profit.

No serious investor, such as Warren Buffet, would ever consider binary options. No financial investor worth his or her salt would advise it.

Short term stock movements are “noise” that can only be filtered out by holding a stock for an extended period of time – not even months, but years.

As Warren Buffet said in his Chairman letter of 1988: “Our favorite holding period is forever.”


Source : The Star

Why I have decided to stop Investing in the Stock Market

Yes, I have decided to stop investing in the stock market.

Whatever shares I hold now I will keep them for their dividends or for those shares I bought for trading when they reach my target price I will dispose them and keep the cash.

I will NOT be adding in more money into the stock market.

REASONS are as follows :

1) I am already Invested In Stock Market via my EPF savings - If you worked before, you would have some money in EPF Account 1 and 2. The money inside is invested by EPF in various asset class, the stock market being one of them - EPF has 44% of the funds invested in the stock market as at 2015 (see diagram below)

IMO 44% is a large amount so I am thinking why I am putting in SOME MORE risk money into the stock market. Our EPF is already doing it for me, whether I want it or not (*grin)

2) The stock market is always dangerous minefield. One or two wrong steps you go KABOOM even if you are a professional or old timer. Since I am an entrepreneur (not a salaried worker) I am entitled to contribute money each month into EPF. I will put money into EPF from now on as EPF guaranteed a minimum of 2.5% dividend annually to the members. It would be foolish NOT to do this since I will never lose my principal sum yet earn a minimum 2.5% yearly. I will let EPF do all the hard work of investing and trading for me from now on (*grin).

3) The stock market is in BEAR MARKET. I categorize bear market as when the KLCI Index is below the 200 day MA. Apart from KLCI Index, many stocks are also trading below the 200 MA. Those that do not read widely or is an old timer do not realize that during any bear markets the market is excessively volatile. And the syndicates are hungrier than usual (*grin). I can tell from experience I will NOT make any money in a bear market in the long run. I will make some money only to lose it back later. So it's better to stay away.

4) It's time to go into another passion of mine - Internet Business! I believe I can be successful there. I have been doing it on and off for 5 years but the stock market always distract me (*grin).

5) Lastly, I am getting older by the day. Time to get out of big risk, do less stressful things, be lazy as I want, enjoy life and get ready for retirement (*grin).

All the best to those still investing and trading! I will still post regularly on this blog - Ongmali because I love it dearly.

Yours truly,

Ongmali

Here’s everything you need to know about 'Brexit'

You may not have to worry about this for long. But through June 23, investors should devote a share of their attention to the European parlor game known as “Brexit.”

On June 23, British citizens will vote on one basic question: Should the United Kingdom remain in the European Union, or leave? If they vote to stay, global markets will breathe a sigh of relief and go back to business as usual. But if BRits vote toEXIT the EU – Brexit, get it? – it will trigger a realignment of Europe’s financial sector and cause the kind of uncertainty that makes markets manic.

The European Union is a group of 28 countries that have agreed, over time, to abide by certain rules that supercede each nation’s own rules and laws. This is mainly to facilitate trade and commerce in ways that make each signatory country better off. In principle, the EU supports “four freedoms”—the free flow of goods, services, workers and capital among all 28 countries. There’s no analog in the United States because all of those things can already move unimpeded from state to state.

The EU is different from the euro zone, which is a group of 18 countries that have adopted the euro as their currency, including Germany, France, Spain and Italy. The UK does not use the euro, nor do other EU countries such as Sweden, Poland or Hungary. Nations can still benefit from membership in the EU while retaining their own currencies.

Rising immigration levels

European governance can be arcane, but the main reason for the Brexit vote will be familiar to many Americans: concern about immigration. EU rules allow any citizen of an EU country to live in any other EU country and enjoy most privileges of citizenship, including social services. In recent years, there’s been a sharp jump in the number of people coming to the UK from other EU nations, including newer entrants such as Romania and Bulgaria. Some native Brits feel immigrants are collecting an unfairly large share of welfare payments and child benefit payments, which has become a touchy political issue, much as it has here in the United States.

While running for reelection in 2015, Prime Minister David Cameron vowed to cut the net inflow of people to the UK to less than 100,000 a year. Last year, however, that number hit 330,000. Cameron, who staunchly opposes Brexit, also made a campaign promise to hold a referendum on the matter, which is what is happening on June 23.

Polls suggest the vote will be close, but polls have been wrong before. When Scottish citizens voted on whether to secede from the UK in 2014, many polls forecast a tossup and a few predicted Scottish secession. But Scots ended up voting 55% to 45% to remain part of the UK. Pollsters point out that voters tend to become more conservative, and side with the status quo, as voting on a controversial topic nears.

How will markets react?

If Brits vote to stay in the EU, markets could rally, since they’ve been falling on concern about what sort of turmoil a Brexit vote could unleash. The UK might stil try to renegotiate certain agreements with the EU, but markets would barely care.

The troubling scenario is a vote for the UK to leave the European Union, which would cause all kinds of unpredictable fallout. An actual departure from the EU would take a minimum of two years, with procedures worked out slowly. The impact on the US economy would be minimal, except for financial markets, which could stagger while investors try to sort out the implications. The dollar would probably strengthen as investors bought US securities as a hedge against European turbulence.

Once out of the EU, the UK would no longer benefit from free-trade provisions among EU countries or with other nations governed by EU deals. That means it could either negotiate trade deals one-by-one with its European neighbors and other countries, including the US, or do without trade deals. That's what President Obama was talking about when he said Britain would move to the "back of the line" if it left the EU. There would also be strong pressure from some domestic industries, such as steel, to impose tariffs on imports, which would push up prices in the UK and invite other countries to retaliate on imports from the UK. And trade wars rarely make everybody better off.

London is a world hub for finance, and there would be immediate pressure on big European banks to move investment banking, trading operations and other activities out of the UK and into other countries fully integrated with the EU. This might actually benefit financial hubs such as New York, which could gain a competitive edge if Europe’s financial capital splinters into several smaller ones.

Other EU nations, which have their own anti-immigration political factions to contend with, would probably make Brexit painful for the UK. “This will not be an amicable divorce,” Jacob Kirkegaard of the Peterson Institute for International Economic said at a recent conference. “The probability of punitive political actions by the rest of the EU is a very strong base case,” It could become much harder for Brits to work and live legally in other parts of Europe, for instance. Brits who retire in sunny locales like Spain or Cyprus -- the European equivalents of Florida or Arizona -- might find they’re no longer able to receive government-provided healthcare in their new locales, a perk of EU membership.

The consequences of Brexit would land a lot harder on the UK than on the rest of the world, however. “I have trouble fully understanding why some of the major economies think this is a systemic risk,” says Adam Posen of the Peterson Institute. Even in the worst-case scenario, banks, multinational companies and government regulators would have plenty of time to adjust. The Federal Reserve and other central banks would be able to intervene, if necessary, to keep markets stable.

If the Scottish vote is any guide, none of that will happen. Even the Greek financial meltdown, caused by profound economic problems, got resolved last year after familiar down-to-the-wire wrangling. So the 2016 Brexit vote may turn out to be nothing more than Europe’s annual scare. Just be ready in case this time, it’s real.

Source : Yahoo Finance

Norway Set To ‘Completely Ban’ All Petrol Cars By 2025

Norway is set to ‘completely ban’ the sale of all petrol and diesel powered cars in the next 10 years.

According to Norwegian newspaper Dagens Naeringsliv, politicians from both sides of the political spectrum have reached a concrete agreement that 100 per cent of Norway’s cars should be powered by green energy by 2025.

HANDOUT . / REUTERS

Tesla’s first mass-market electric car the Model 3 has already broken the company’s pre-order records.

This hugely ambitious target would arguably make Norway the world leader in pushing renewable energy. This is a fascinating decision for a country which is arguably one of the largest oil exporters in the world.

Norway is no stranger to making bold strides towards being a greener country. The country recently confirmed that it would be the first country to commit to zero deforestation.

The 100 per cent target is hugely ambitious, despite the fact that the country already has 24 per cent of its vehicles running on electricity.

TASFOTONL VIA GETTY IMAGES

Then there’s Norway’s energy production of which 99 per cent is provided through its on hydroelectric plants.

There is some ambiguity however over whether the plan has been legally enforced yet with claims from another paper suggesting it was still in the later stages of negotiation.

Despite this, industry leaders have applauded the potential move with Tesla founder Elon Musk tweeting about news.

View image on Twitter

 Follow

Elon Musk 

✔@elonmusk

Just heard that Norway will ban new sales of fuel cars in 2025. What an amazingly awesome country. You guys rock!!

2:52 AM - 4 Jun 2016

 
•  18,15618,156 Retweets
 
•  26,37226,372 likes

Source : Huffingtonpost 

RIP OPEC 1960 - 2016

Summary

• It's every country for itself now with OPEC.

• The catalyst that brought an end to OPEC as we know it.

• Original reason for the formation of OPEC no longer relevant.

• Why this is good for oil.

Source: CNN

For some time Saudi Arabia clearly stated it wasn't interested in attempting to influence the price of oil after the emergence of the U.S. shale industry. That resolve was tested when Venezuela attempted to leverage its relationship with Russia to press for a production freeze which would have helped push up the price of oil some. Passing the test, it revealed the fact Saudi Arabia was not only committed to the market rebalancing itself, but the reason for OPEC in the first place, was no longer relevant.

Back in 1960 when OPEC was founded, the impetus was primarily to form a cartel which could compete against large corporations, using its supply capacity to influence the price range of oil.

Now that the state-owned Saudi Aramco is preparing for an IPO of approximately 5 percent of the company, it is moving toward being one of those corporations it has been competing against for decades.

The implications for OPEC are staggering, in the sense it no longer has a real reason to exist, and with the Saudis taken steps in this direction, it's obvious it's looking out primarily for its own well being, however it may have an effect on OPEC members. Its ignoring of pleas from Venezuela confirms that's what we'll see going forward, as it struggles for its own survival in the midst of increased competition from U.S. shale producers, which has resulted in the price of oil plummeting and the revenue generated for Saudi Arabia shrinking.

OPEC grew in numbers and influence as more production was nationalized and companies owned by the states were created to produce oil and gas. The cartel was able to keep the price of oil in a desired range by setting quotas for each member, which helped keep the industry profitable. With the emergence of the powerhouse U.S. shale industry, that policy and strategy was no longer relevant or effective as a tool.

Even if Saudi Arabia wanted to keep the old methods in place, shale supply no longer allows it to. It has accepted that, and is taking steps to compete in an oil industry that has been totally disrupted from a player that will become the market leader within a few years.

Catalyst that brought down OPEC

Let me be clear on one thing: it doesn't matter whether or not OPEC as a legal entity remains in place - it no longer has a reason for existence. It is dead, and 2016 will be referred back to by historians as the end of the cartel's purpose for being.

What brought it down was the explosion of the U.S. shale industry, which quickly brought the U.S. oil industry into a top three market leader. It generated almost as much oil supply as Russia and Saudi Arabia, and will exceed them in the near future.

This matters because before U.S. shale, when OPEC decided to curtail or add to production, there were no competitors outside of Russia that was able to interfere with its decisions. Russia could have tried, but it has been producing at near to top capacity, and had little in the way of options to counter OPEC's will, even if it wanted to. The steadiness of the market and consistent profitability made it undesirable to buck the system in place.

That has all changed with shale, where the power to bring oil to a desired price range no longer exists. If OPEC were to cut back on production to drive up the price of oil, shale producers would simply boost production, which fairly quickly would bring oil prices back down. If it were to keep supply high, as it's been doing, it drives down the price of oil, reducing the revenue it was accustomed to have for its people.

Saudi Arabia and OPEC can no longer control the mid- and upper price points for oil, it can only have an impact on the low side of the price because of the increase in supply beyond demand. For that reason the Saudis have called for the market to rebalance, essentially because it has no choice. A number of high-cost OPEC producers didn't understand what the Saudis understood, which is why for a time they persistently called for a production freeze, with the ultimate goal of it leading to a production cut.

The Saudis resisted this because they knew all that would happen is OPEC would lose market share to its American competitors. This is where we are today.

This will only change when demand increases to supply levels, which with current production levels, will take time, contrary to the overly exuberant financial media, analysts and pundits, who are acting like we're on the verge of a rebalancing because of some temporary outages.

Reason for OPEC no longer exists

A lot of investors don't understand the importance of Saudi Aramco engaging in an IPO, even if it's only about a 5 percent stake being offered. To be a publicly traded company includes legal requirements it can't ignore, and that means it will operate much differently than it has in the past. It's a nod toward breaking away from OPEC - at least in its independence from the interests of OPEC members. Whether or not it remains a part of it as a legal entity no longer matters. Saudi Arabia, by its assertions and actions, has already broken away from its reliance and connection to OPEC in any meaningful way.

I say this because Saudi Aramco is moving toward becoming that which germinated the idea of OPEC in the first place - a powerful energy companies.

The new oil market means OPEC members must start thinking in terms of competing on an individual level and not as an entity. This is why Venezuela, in spite of its openly public pleas, is being allowed to descend into the chaos it now faces. That wouldn't have been allowed to happen even in the fairly recent past.

OPEC members weren't going to sacrifice the stability and loss of market share in their own countries in order to support countries that continued to run operations at very high costs. They have years to make improvements, and either didn't have the ability, or believed the price of oil would remain high enough to mitigate their high costs. They were wrong.

More than anything else, this is why there is in reality, no more OPEC. Individual members will increasingly make decisions based upon their own best interests. The weaker members will be forced to adapt or make significant improvements and changes to make their oil more competitive. Over time that would be good for oil.

Why this is good for oil

As a whole, this may seem a disaster for those that had depended upon OPEC in the past to use its influence to produce as stable and fairly stable oil market. But over time, this will bring about a stronger industry that will be driven more by demand and competition, rather than restraints on supply to control the price of oil.

I think we're going to see an oil market that becomes less nationalistic and more free. Those high-cost producers will be forced to make deals with companies that have taken a lot of costs out of production. There will also be an openness to offering larger stakes in national companies, as in the case of Russia, which has already increased the percentage of foreign ownership allowed in its publicly traded energy companies.

For that reason there will continue to be a lot of volatility and lack of visibility in the market, as it isn't something it has experienced for a long time; it could be said even as far back as the founding of OPEC, or even earlier.

When a market emerges that is increasingly driven by the self interests of competitors, it's actually much stronger than when it is attempted to be driven by a cartel like OPEC. It takes a disruption like that by U.S. shale producers to become evident.

Conclusion

With increased competition, companies will be forced to continue to reduce costs while increasing the productivity of wells. This will eventually lead to a lot more profitability for those companies finding ways to increase efficiencies. They will be the future winners, which is why Saudi Arabia is distancing itself from OPEC. It understands it can no longer prop up weak producers who have made little or no improvements for many years. The increase in shale production has brought all of this to the fore.

Saudi Arabia is showing the way for other OPEC members, with Iran playing a significant role as well. Its decision to produce as much oil as is best for the country - no matter what the motivation is - is another show of independence that will eventually spread through all of OPEC.

I don't know if OPEC will continue as a figurehead organization, which is really all it is now. But whether it does or not, its purpose for forming in 1960 is no longer there, and energy investors need to look at each country as a standalone producer. That is how it'll play out long into the future.

Source: Seeking Alpha

When it comes to Investing, Keep it Simple Stupid! 10 Things You can do today!

“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” — Leonardo da Vinci.

Einstein’s famous quote — “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

“Nature is pleased with simplicity.” — Isaac Newton.

Three famous quotes by three famous men. The message is to keep things simple in business and life. The same goes for the stock market. We need to keep stock investing and trading as simple as possible as complexity can cause big problems to us.

10 Things You can do today to keep things simple stupid!

1. In the stock market just stick with stocks. Period. Don't think about investing or trading warrants, options and ETFs ..these are for professionals. Remember to keep things simple stupid, and stocks are the most simple stupid things of investing.

2. Only invest/trade stocks, keep away from Forex, as its' a manipulated legalized scam as this article I posted here shows.

3. Only invest in stocks where the business is simple to understand ie. a good example would be the boring stocks. Keep away from stocks with ultra complex businesses. They are HIGH-RISK games in the sense their fortunes could change drastically if the economy changes a little.

4. Keep away from CFDs and spread betting, its another manipulated gambling casino-type of business. 

5. Always invest/trade with cash you have and never use margin to invest or trade, as margin will cloud your judgement and make you greedy.

6. Never trade oil, gold and CPO. They are another manipulated market where MR BIG MONEY controls the prices and all the news.

7. Stay away from the high tech sectors. These businesses are difficult to predict their future prospects... Wonderful today gone tomorrow. 

8. Use simple stock trading strategies. And stick to a few that works for you. Be faithful to your strategies and they will reward you.

9. There is no need to trade/invest every day or every week. If market is bad, do nothing. Btw doing nothing is a stock strategy too! Keep things simple stupid and stay healthy ok.

10. Lastly, stay in Bursa Malaysia lah, focus to be jaguh kampung lor. If in Singapore focus on SGX lah. Opportunities to make money are plentiful. I know some people are saying to you let's shift to foreign markets like Hong Kong, US markets, etc.. but believe me, home is the best!