Hey Young Uncle Prophetjul (from a slightly younger & dumber uncle ), 1997/98 is high and 1981 was higher leh in your chart
er.. or i was not having enough caffeine in my blood yet paiseh paiseh.

=====
BTW, since "nearly" everyone and their grandpapa are into saying gold is good and stuff + some fellow posting on Genneva resurfacing, i did some Google-ing & number crunching:
Just to share here the Excel for those who are interested to "have a go at the tables" of Genneva, play with these 5 spreadsheets' YELLOW cells, especially the random +/- gold's spot price movement every 6 months.

What to do - too many "statements" but no numbers, thus i just had to scratch the itch
Please correct me if there's some mistaken assumptions in them worksheets ar tai lohs & tai chehs, especially those with the actual Genneva contracts in hand

From these worksheets (investing only once and let it ride) + the postings i read, I think a high risk taker can go in and roll the dice, hoping that Genneva will still be around for at least 5 years without changing the rules of the game, similar to "tea investments" around methinks.

Hey, Madoff investment scandal lasted umpteenth years mar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madoff_investment_scandal)
+ his investors weren't holding them physical gold which can at least be redeemed (less 10% to 20% future spot price?), right?

Just a thought - for those gung-ho enough to consider, not for convincing suckers into this kinda schemes.

This post has been edited by wongmunkeong: Sep 17 2011, 01:49 PM


Attached File(s)
 Genneva_Gold.zip ( 676.56k ) Number of downloads: 8

Dreamer,
Please don't let your ego do all the talking.
You know 2 years is nothing to be bragging about. Not to mention in such inflationary economic times, your 2 years could be as fast as 2 months.
On the other side of the picture, if it's a deflationary recession, two years is nothing. Japan's deflationary recession lasts for a decade, giving them the "Lost Decade". I'm sorry if what I said is a little straight forward but seriously 2 years is nothing.

If you can't survive permanently without working there's nothing to be bragging about. It only shows that you're good at saving the money you earn, which could be trash in probably a decade.
Two years is a good goal, but a bad destination.

Agriculture, Guns (Invest on you and your family's safety. Not quite the legal thing in Malaysia, which I think is ridonculous) and Oil. And I want to repeat this over and over again, PHYSICAL is the keyword.

Well, RM72k is a huge sum of cash to be staying idle. If a person have that kind of money lying around in your bank account, it only shows that he's bad at investing his money (given that it is his life long savings).

so if pun in as1m ok?

I'm keeping my cash as high as I can and is waiting for the property bubble to burst for a cheaper house price..

One million? Through savings from income? In these times? Very unlikely.

Baby boomers and lottery winners can do it, not our generation.

I think that's only his emergency (the most liquid) fund.I am sure he has much more than that.

Bro Wong

Sorry a bit of miscom.

The chart is for FD rates. i was refering to bank lending interest rates.....apologies

That lending rate, in 1997/1998 was around 12% but if you noticed, FD rates did not follow the lending rates in 1998.
Just pointing that to cherroy whos adamant that even FDs better than gold

No problemo - i was too focused on FD to mentally register mortgage loan cost diff than FD, one-track mind like what most women complains about moi

Aiya - it's all about time-value of $ and value-timing mar, tiuk boh.
Based on certain time-segments, some assets great, other time-segments no lor.
Like we borak borak earlier - U baaaaaad (bad as in good lar, mai-kai jiahk shun) 2002 gold entry and kept accumulating with conviction

This post has been edited by wongmunkeong: Sep 17 2011, 02:27 PM

There was 10%-11% FD for 60 months during 1998, this I can be certain of.

In the old day, normally lending rate is 200-300 basic point above deposit rate.
But now BLR vs deposit rate gap is widening further.

cherroy
lookie at the chart for the FD rates incase you missed it
There was NO 10%-11% FD for 60 months during 1998, 60 MONTHS?

The lending rates was more than 12%

This post has been edited by prophetjul: Sep 17 2011, 02:34 PM

Hi, a question here, when u all mentioned cash rich, do u mean save it in a bank or hide in a house? tq

I don't need to look at the chart to know,
because I placed it before....
It was more like promotion campaign.
Just like now interest rate is 3%, but you can find 3.5%, 3.6% FD out there.

You can see 1997 the rate is 9.3% for 1 year.
But the 10-11% I mentioned, is for 60 months FD, and with this FD, they even gave you free Astro decoder + subscription for 1 year.
At that time, banks were hunger for money/deposit.

Why I remembered? because it was a double digit FD rate, and first time I had Astro.

This post has been edited by cherroy: Sep 17 2011, 02:46 PM

So you had a 10% FD from 1998 to 2003.........dont believe you.......no bank would give such high rates
for such a long period.

What bank is that?

IMHO, cash as in stay liquid - may be in bank, bonds, under tilam or buried in backyard.
Some considers gold, silver, etc. as "cash" too.

Generally i think it's for opportunities during downturns and of course to make ends meet.
Further extremes would be like a fellow forumer pointed out - keep food, weapons, self sustaining land (food, water, etc), when all gold, silver, cash, stocks, bonds, etc. is useless until civilization comes about again. Scary thought but it may happen . However, if it doesnt happen and one is totally out of those "normal investment assets", hehe another different hell gua.

If 1997 listed interest rate for 1 year is 9.3%, what is so surprise with there were banks gave 10%? Just a 0.7% difference.

Remember also the rate published generally is an average, because interest rate was fluctuation a lot during that time.
Yes, after Malaysia shut the door aka capital control 1998, our interest rate become stagnant throughout generally.

Now with low interest rate + cheap money environment, interest rate is 3%, yet there are banks give 3.5% for 6 month, 4.5% for 2 years.

As compared 1997-1998, when there was credit squeeze time and chaotic in financial market, with as significant higher SRR and money flowing out non-stop during that time.
So a 0.7% extra is not something "surprise" or huge, when banks were "fighting" their survival during that time.

The bank/finance company (there were plenty of finance company at that time) name start with "A..

I reckon you are old enough to experience the situation back then, or no?

I don't need one to believe me or not. The fact, it was happening before and placed it before.

This post has been edited by cherroy: Sep 17 2011, 03:20 PM

The extreme case, we don't need to discuss or bother already.
It is your life bother only.

The 2011 March Tsunami is the closer we can see in our naked eye.
Whether you have cash, or physical gold bar in your safety box, or whatever is irrelevant already, all wipe out.

Hehhe i beg to differ and grovel on a bit of details bro. Tsunami is natural disaster (unless U ask someone's wife lar ). Skarang ni is about economic havoc and human nature going nuts leh

Whether i am old enough is not the issue as i was told.
Whther the banks gave 0.7% over the listed rates is also not an issue.

The issue really is i cannot remember any banks giving 10% for a long period of FIVE years......

One year is quite acceptable but FIVE years?

I can confirm what Cherroy said is true. I don't understand why you cannot understand banks will give 10% for 5 years. They don't care whether interest level is at 2% or 10%. What they care is match their asset/liabilities exposure. They are also giving out loans at much higher interest rates. Banks just earn the spread between what they charge and what they receive. So hard to understand? Be more open. Just because you cannot understand does not mean it does not exist.

You can also place a 60 months FD now with 4%, which is roughly 0.9% more than 1 year.
It is same situation with 9.3% vs 10% with 0.7% difference.

5 years FD most of the time is available one.

Unless bank is facing problem in loan growth, difficult to loan out, then they may make it unavailable or put up unattractive rate, for eg. lower than 1 year, automatically nobody will put a 5 years FD already.



Banks just earn the spread between BLR vs deposit rate. Banks generally do not speculate how rate will be, nor care much what is the rate. The spread is always there.

When they take in your 5 years FD, they also give out 20 years housing loan with lock in period of 5 years.
As long as the loan is performing, they are earning the spread already.

At that time, as I said before, banks were fighting for their survival, and money/deposit was highly sort after.
The longer duration deposit they can get, the best, especially in crisis time, it secured them the liquidity needed for the next 5 years.

Banks just want to secure their funding. At crisis time, the worst situation bank can face is everyday need to source for massive liquidity needed, just like what is currently feared in Europe banking market right now.

Remembered money was flowing massively out during that time, so banks were very welcomed most long term deposit.
A prolonged liquidity freeze in financial market, bank can close shop overnight.

This post has been edited by cherroy: Sep 17 2011, 05:37 PM