Yes I think so.

Now that I have answered and taught you something, could you answer me back ? I have asked the third time....don't be selfish. Teach me something I don't know. Or I have taken the wrong data. Or wrong knowledge. Or anything else wrong you just point out

So, you accept 2.xx% of dividend as good investment because they have been paying shareholders for 40 years. Even if they pay less than FD rates ?

Then why do you insist KLCI companies to pay more than FD rates and insist they last forever ? Double standard ? Or Just because KLCI companies are young, and without century old history to boast about ?

You have to set your comparison parameters on a level playing field to assess which is a better option. Otherwise you are biased

I am actually disappointed with your suggested US stock. Only 2.xx% yield. You can get Australian government bonds for that return. Guarantee you forever without headache

Hahaha you are right after all

Ya, there are dozens of very famous with decades of history US companies bankrupt. Many in the last 10 years.

I think some form of inferior complex plays a role here.

While kuai loh's century old company giving miserable 2+% is considered good, he expect KLCI companies to give him higher than FD rates AND last forever

I can't brain

Economy not strong. China still a threat. Oil price subdue. US$ too strong

On hindsight, analyst like me can give 101 reasons.....

Usually meeting will be over in just 5 minutes. Everything is staged to get the resolutions passed asap. Unless there is some issues or EGM held together then maybe longer.

Attendants usually are aunties and unkers who attend for the food. Some even bring containers to tapao back