In 1990, a psychologist quoted in the New York Times reported that people “ turn on the TV when they feel sad, lonely, upset or worried, and they need to distract themselves from their troubles. ” Another psychologist also said: “People who watch too much television from childhood grow up with a deprived fantasy life. For them, watching television substitutes for their own imagination.” How the phenomenon above has impacted our lifestyles and wellbeing is not new. Way back in the 1930s, a sociologist named Herbert Blumer published a paper titled “ Movies and Conduct ”. The observations from the research suggested that content shown on television and in the movies shape not only how young people interact socially, but also their attitudes to life and also how they choose to groom themselves. Although it was done decades ago, it isn't that different from how social media impacts our behavior and thinking today. Naturally, the adverse side-effects from watching too much TV made people start to moderate and minimize their "TV time". But did we stop watching the television and reading the news? Watching the television (much like browsing the Web on our mobile devices today) has been a significant part in our lives for a long time. In any interior design mock-up, the TV is almost always part of the living room. For many people, it might even be considered odd not to have one in the house. Not only was the TV an important part of the decor, it also enabled us to receive up-to-date information and news from around the world. And if you think about it, the time spent facing the screen in the old days isn't very different from we are indulging in Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Tik Tok in present day. With the Internet, those same feelings of deprivation, loneliness and worry are simply just manifested in different ways. In a similar way, the online ads that show up on our mobile devices technically aren’t that different from the conventional paper advertisements and billboards that we see on the sidewalks and highways. Every advert out there - online or offline - is reaching out to you and saying something, in hopes that they’ll eventually change your mind and perception on something: “don’t use their product, use ours, we are better.”, “do this, don’t do that.”, “Do the right thing, invest in your wellbeing.”, “Vote for us, make the right choice” . Can you blame the companies for putting out the advertisements that led you to buy their product? Were you under duress to act? Did you not have a choice? Newspapers have been around since the 17th century, and television since the 1920s. In the same way, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and many other apps are probably also going to stay around for a very long time. Like it or not, these will become the norm for how anyone with a decent Internet connection will stay connected with the rest of the world. Along with that, our thoughts, our perspectives and bias on various topics will also continue to be shaped by them, the same way TV, movies and print advertisements have shaped civilisation since the early 1900s. Media, in its various forms, new or old, will always be a tool for commercial and political propaganda. We can choose to extricate from this dilemma by renouncing all social media, but one thing for sure is that we are ultimately responsible for how we let them influence the way we think.

Schrödinger's cat Schrödinger stated that if you place a cat and something that could kill the cat (a radioactive atom) in a box and sealed it, you would not know if the cat was dead or alive until you opened the box, so that until the box was opened, the cat was (in a sense) both "dead and alive". This is used to represent how scientific theory works. No one knows if any scientific theory is right or wrong until said theory can be tested and proved. In business valuation, the pricing estimates done by analysts can be thought of both right and wrong, until proven by the market via an actual transacted deal between a buyer and seller. Disclaimer: I've never had much luck with stocks, which is sometimes quite the irony. I had spent countless hours before formally entering my corporate finance career learning the technicalities and ropes of valuation in hopes of being able to price a company correctly. Even after that, I've spent even more time working on countless models, valuing and running scenario analyses for different companies. Yet, in my poor judgement and over-compensated experience in investment banking, I could never get the pricing of businesses right - at least 90% of the time. In one meeting, I clearly remembered showing a company profile to a client which clearly showed that its share price was trading at historical lows. We were pitching them as a potential acquisition target. Because of its share price (and on hindsight, possibly also the lack of sufficient earnings consensus data), the forward price-to-earnings multiple was so low that mathematically, it was a no-brainer that the acquisition - regardless of how it was funded - would be earnings accretive. Fortunately the client didn't buy them (both the company and the idea) and the stock went into administration / receivership less than a year later. And you thought bankers had all the brains in the finance world. Asset pricing is full of bias For publicly listed companies, so many factors go into the pricing of their stock. Bankers and analysts run their DCF models and communicate valuation to potential investors based on their house view of "realistic growth" - which is pretty much predicated on and driven by the calculated guesses of the target company's CEO and CFO, people whom we trust are in the best positions to comment on an appropriate growth of the business. There's nothing wrong with trusting their numbers, except that this is subject to both experience and motivational bias . Who is to say the numbers are wrong? "This country needs a vaccine and you are going to have it by end of the year" - says Trump in a CNBC article. So when someone in a position of power says something like this above, I wonder if the intelligent analysts around the world are going to factor in a scenario of a year-end vaccine in their models. Trust but verify If you were smarter or came from the industry, you might be able to validate information coming out from management. Otherwise, you're pretty much left to the mercy of the company's guidance and/or research data done by external parties. Those same data are being gathered by humans on the ground and put together in a systematic and presentable way to be sold at a fee to investment banks and advisory firms. The excel valuation model that you do is basically a output from a "black box" of mathematical functions based on a series of numbers backed by those research. You can run the financial model a hundred times over, but yet you'll never be able to predict and foresee if a business is really valued that much. Why? Beyond the spreadsheet The common approaches to valuation for a growth company i.e. the market and income methods - are based almost solely on a single or few data points - next year's and subsequent five years financial estimates. Those future estimates of cash flows often do not take into consideration other critical factors such as: Cash collected (or more importantly - uncollected) from customers: a commonly overlooked metric in due diligence, found under the detailed notes of trade receivables in the financial statements Quality of revenues : whether customers really continue to buy the company's products over the longer term (for e.g. Apple) Management integrity and fraud : which has come under much spotlight recently especially with a number of US-listed China stocks such as iQiyi, TAL and Luckin . Geopolitical shocks : as what we are experiencing now with COVID-19, US-China trade tensions, food security, North Korea, changes in political leadership in different countries, etc All these are compounded by the fact that you are projecting free cash flows over 5-7 years and then applying a " terminal value " to arrive at a valuation. If you do the math, this "terminal value" often takes up 60-70% of the total business value, which means: After pulling all nighters and sitting through detailed interviews sessions with the management on their 5 year plan, and doing extensive research on what drives the industry, you are basically throwing more than half your weight and work into two BIG woozy variables - the long term sustainable growth rate and the weighted average cost of capital . Apart from the need to have some basis for negotiating deals, I don't believe in the practical application of terminal value to estimate the price tag of a business. Information is the one big thing that drives the price of a stock. Any unsophisticated retail investor can price a stock even without a properly functioning financial model. If there is proprietary information on a company, not known to the public and is expected to positively impact its outlook, there is a window of opportunity for the investor to profit from it. I am not talking only about proprietary information not only in the form of "insider news" but also proprietary intelligence, analysis and field research. At the end of the day, it is essentially about data collection and scrubbing. The closer you are to the source, the more confident you become about the credibility of that information - this is information proximity bias. But it does not automatically imply correct-ness. Your belief in that information is personally shaped by your knowledge in the subject matter and the level of trust you (and only you) have in the source. Many punters and investors get their hands burnt by relying on market rumours without first doing their homework - both in the form of understanding the company and perhaps more importantly, validating the source of that information. Whenever I receive unsolicited stock rumours and tips nowadays, I tend to assume that this information is already stale i.e. If someone is telling me that this company worth shorting or taking a long position, there is a high chance that this person has already taken a position, and it is also likely that the person before has also done the same, so on and forth i.e. two to three degrees away. There are no free lunches. Perhaps more important than the integrity of information itself is to ask: What does this person stand to gain from sharing-revealing-publishing this piece of news? Movements in the share prices of companies are very difficult to predict and understand. Many stay-at-home traders and professionals alike use technical analysis such as charts and patterns to try and explain why share prices move in a certain way. Some even claim to be able to feel the market sentiment. This ideology in itself is very complex for me. Not only is it self-fulfilling on a certain level but also potentially dangerous because it could ultimately lead you to believe that your way of thinking, your ideology is correct. The thing is: No one can really predict how stock prices will move. It's 50-50 every day. It's either up or down. And those are the odds that you deal with every day. Beyond charts, patterns and fundamental analysis, the movement in share prices are also driven by huge chunks of shares being exchanged by big institutional players such as hedge funds and asset managers. For larger companies, sometimes a dedicated team can be staffed to perform "treasury operations" which simply means buying and selling its own shares in the market - a 'loose' way for a company to control its share price in order to prevent sudden spikes. The power of publicity. The news and media are also very important catalysts to a company's share price. This also includes analyst coverage and recommendations on a stock. Because the information is in public, any revelation in the business will often result in significant share price movements. Perhaps the most obvious examples of these are investor activism and short seller attacks on public companies. Your DCF models, charts and expert research just aren't going to cut it if the information doesn't get picked up by the media. At the end of the day, business valuation and trading equities are a very personal thing. Every one sitting behind the desktop sees the same information and the same world in very different ways. Their views are inevitably shaped by their backgrounds and experiences. Also, the first-hand information of one person is another person's second-hand information. Like it or not, the sentiments and confidence of both parties looking at that same piece of information, is going to be somewhat different. And as a result of that, their decisions to buy or not to buy are also based largely on their own analysis and best judgement.

For many, it is that time of the year again for festivities and holidays. However, it is also the time of the year for many companies to round up the hits and misses. Simon Sinek says that " you can’t incentivize performance, you can only incentivize behavior ". But what happens to an organization if you reward the right behaviour and fail to deliver on results? Embracing the philosophy of ' survival of the fittest' might be their best chance of staying afloat, should they continue to reward good behaviour at the expense of performance? Goldman Sachs, has an annual 'culling' ritual whereby it shaves off the underperforming 5% of its workforce. This might sound brutal but that practice is probably one of the key reasons why the investment bank has successfully maintained its leading edge amongst the rest of its competitors. In the book "Dream Big", Jim Collins also talks about private equity firm 3G Capital's corporate culture: "The very best people crave meritocracy, and mediocre people fear it." Generally, those who seek to cruise their way to a natural retirement should be eliminated for the greater commercial good of the company. Yet this is not always so. Large companies often have blind spots and loopholes within their organisational hierarchy for underperforming people to hide away. Sometimes, it is also more costly to replace a long-serving employee who has been too familiar with keeping up with the firm's day to day operations. But trimming the fat is a crucial aspect for staying alive. And in all of these scenarios, the firm pays the ultimate price in terms of profitability and efficiency. It can be very easy to feel victimised when you don't get credited or rewarded (monetarily) for the efforts that you put into a particular project or for achieving a breakthrough for the company. It could also be a certain line manager or a higher up finding fault with you. And this could be anything from a missed deadline, falling short of KPIs, or even not trying hard enough. Sometimes the way things work (or don’t work) within the company is not entirely your fault. The larger the company, the more complex and inter-connected the workings are. The reality is everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just remember that the ones who have real skin in the game (those who have something to really lose when things go bad) have the absolute right to ask questions and demand for results - even if they sound unreasonable. Don’t beat yourself up too much. But remember, as an employee, also don't be too quick to give yourself more credit than you deserve for your achievements at the workplace.

So, none of this makes sense anymore. For a long time, offshore financing - which was predominantly priced off the LIBOR or overnight rates - had always been significantly lower than the benchmark rates in China. For years, raising offshore money at a lower cost had always been the de facto fundraise strategy. Today, it is obvious that the tables had turned, quite abruptly as well. After you account for taxes, hedging costs (which is somewhat upside down now) and geopolitical risk, raising offshore money in China doesn’t seem to make much sense at all, not at least in the near term. While the rest of the world is hiking interest rates, China is going in the opposite direction , encouraging credit activity to boost growth and revive the economy. Earlier on, a consultation paper was also released, outlining guidelines towards formalising and further regulating the approval of offshore debt, on the pretext of promoting the healthy and orderly development of overseas financing by enterprises. Putting aside its over-leveraged property market and inflation in the rest of the world, it is almost as if the policy is indirectly encouraging Chinese companies to source for capital domestically rather than look elsewhere for financing. The combination of all of the above, coupled with no end in sight of travel opening up, seems to hint that China is closing up from the rest of the world. With the largest manufacturing engine closed from the world and the severe shortage of oil due to the war, you can hike all the rates you want but I don’t think that is going to meaningfully bring prices down.

Learning, knowledge and staying up to date with the news and what's going on in the world is your own personal responsibility. The same goes for your health. Nobody was ever hired into a smooth sailing job. You were hired to fix a problem or to clear up a mess. Take the cheapest and happiest mode of transport wherever possible. Never look down on anyone because of what they do or where they are from. Usually, no one is incompetent. Everybody is good at some things and bad in others. Some people are just placed in the wrong places at the wrong time. Work hard, but make time for adventure every now and then. Have faith - even if you feel victimised. Over-deliver, don’t over-promise. Let making a great product be your primary focus rather than try adjust your output and deliverables based on dollar and cents paid. Optimism almost always triumphs pessimism. The change in mindset is usually all a matter of crossing a thin line or seeing a whole new perspective. In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing. Take responsibility for your own decisions and actions. Embrace both the good and bad things that happen. Never compare with others, thinking that they were lucky or fortunate. You make your own luck. Pursue work excellence with a balance. Life is full of bad decisions, screw up and then just move on. Never show a black face unless you have to. Impulsive anger and frustration may come back and bite you. Rather than being annoyed, be amused. Instead of getting angry, become curious. In place of envy, feel admiration. Don't let success get to your head or failure get to your heart. Prove the doubters right by making mistakes, before proving them wrong in the long run. Avoid the “fake it ’til you make it” belief and focus only on making it. Wake up earlier than others. Talk about ideas, not people. Put in more than you get in return at first. Stick to a strict schedule, even if it makes less time for excessive fun and relaxation. Support the success of others, rather than hoping they fail. Sacrifice your social life and weekends. Admit you need help and ask others for guidance. Accept insecurity and fear as unavoidable emotions. Do what others would say is an impossible task, without making excuses or feeling like a victim. Get up after getting knocked down, stronger and more prepared than before. Smile at the people who doubt your abilities. Material possessions are overrated. Own less. Focus on the things that really matter. Success is a lifestyle not a result.

No quarterly reporting is like streaming a 4K video in standard definition (SD) - it’ll look fine from afar but you won’t get the same clarity close-up. Investors and stock punters in Singapore may have less to look forward in terms of earnings results when the new rules that do away with quarterly reporting kicks in on 7 February. I am an advocate of quarterly reporting, even if regulators now do not set this as a hard mandate for listed companies. Dealing with the new asymmetry of information. Investors no longer have the privilege of observing seasonality in business cycles in certain fast-moving industries such as consumer and retail. This makes it potentially make it more difficult to gauge business performance, which could result in reliance on alternative sources of data including analyst research reports, stock discussion forums and market talk over kopi . The reliability and credibility of third party information sources will become more important than ever. “Are your quarterly financials reliable?“ With the new disclosure rules in effect, the half-year-on-half-year financial performance will gradually take precedence over the quarterly numbers. While managers will feel less pressure to show a report card every three months, these quarterly operational and financial indicators enables: Investors to react more quickly to any near-term volatility in the business cycle and make well-informed recommendations to the board; Management to allocate resources and budget more effectively as compared to half-yearly reporting. A longer window of time. Without quarterly reporting, companies now have more room to move around their order book and working capital over a 6-month window instead of the usual three months. Half yearly disclosures also give companies more room and time to sweep teething issues under the carpet that could have been addressed early on through the quarterly announcements. Material and sensitive information will also have a longer time to linger within company walls and increase the temptation for insider trading. It’s like streaming a 4K video in standard definition (SD) - it’ll look fine from afar but you won’t get the same clarity close-up. On the private side, this should have less impact since investors may continue to request for quarterly management accounts for due diligence. The impact on cost of capital and valuation. The basis for calculating cost of capital is predicated on risk. And risk is a function of uncertainty. For example, cost of debt is driven by viability of repayments. Financial institutions are more likely to offer more competitive rates for companies that demonstrate the ability to make quarterly repayments. More disclosures imply greater transparency and visibility which in turns reduces the risk profile of the business. For companies that continue to maintain timely updates on their earning results, there should be some valuation premium reflected through a lower cost of capital. Companies that keep their books clean and organized on a regular basis should also be valued higher on the basis of better corporate and financial governance. Overall, focus on the longer term. Shifting the focus off quarterly announcements will probably compel investors to take a longer term view on the company and discourage unhealthy speculation on quarterly results. The shift to half yearly reporting will likely encourage more businesses to go public and reduce the costs for some existing listed companies. But for those companies that have fundamental problems, this isn’t going to move the needle much.

With cities going into lockdown mode, it is starting to feel like governments of the world are putting economies into a temporal cryostat. So here's what I think could be a possible storyboard for the rest of the year. Stage 1: Pandemic virus hits, people fall sick and die. 1Q 2020 is effectively a washout. While healthcare systems around the world are dealing with the impact of the virus, government suspends international travels. Airlines, cruises, hotels and tourism sectors are hit. the whole of 1Q 2020 is basically a sh#tshow. Lockdowns. Home quarantine measures are put in place with some countries closing down mass gatherings and public gatherings. People go out less and therefore spend less, reducing domestic consumption. As large companies suffer, smaller companies face similar issues in terms of cash payments and some will inevitably go out of business. Throwing money into the system to fight fire. Governments have started to introduce monetary stimulus packages, except that this time unlike the 2008 financial crisis, money doesn't solve the problem because money doesn't heal people. Tax breaks and incentives only benefit companies that are profitable - the smaller mom and pop businesses that support domestic consumption gain nothing from this. With lockdowns, physical distancing and the extent of the virus, the general public is starting to lose confidence that things will revert back to the good old days. It's gonna be a game of who's the last man standing. As we enter into the third month of the pandemic, some businesses will have recorded close to zilch revenues while cash continues to burn through with fixed operating overheads. Some enhancements to the fiscal stimulus package such as discretionary cash payouts will help some companies in the short run but there will not be enough to go around for everyone. Then comes the layoffs. With reduced capacity, companies are forced out of businesses, jobs are lost and overall consumer spending suffer as disposable incomes drop. This compounds the already existing problems caused by the virus. Economic recovery will be protracted because (i) a cure / vaccine on the virus has yet to be found; (ii) The lift on travel bans will be progressive and take some time; (iii) Life will never be the same again - there will be additional costs of doing businesses such as heightened business continuity procedures and increased sanitisation costs. Companies will need time to gradually adapt to this 'new normal'; (iv) We have now also become aware of how vulnerable we can be to an 'invisible enemy' that we still don't really know much about. Because of that, we are also unsure if there could be a similar 'relapse' taking place in the future. Unlike trade wars and armed conflict which can be negotiated and prevented, there is unfortunately no way to prepare or defend against this apart from maintaining / enforcing personal hygiene - and more importantly, executing this in a coordinated fashion on a global scale. Global social infrastructure comes under pressure. Studies have shown that social relationships have both short and long term effects on health and society as a whole. Prolonged periods from staying at home and/or being out of a job puts the psychological well-being of people at risk: The stress of losing income, the lack of interaction with friends and co-workers, and in many cases, feeling disgruntled with the inadequacy of elderly healthcare needs - will create tremendous emotional burden for people. This recession is no longer just a liquidity crunch like in the 2008. This impacts not only jobs in financial services but the employment on a wider scale. In China, where it was said to be ground zero for the pandemic, default and late payment on consumer loans have just started. If that is any precedent, we are likely to see a similar trend of defaults happening in other economies starting as soon as Jun 2020. And if people can't keep the lights on at home, they are more likely to take to the streets. Government financings first, then comes capital markets. The stimulus packages from governments around the world will be the first of many financings to come. The longer it takes for spending to return, the more cash companies burn. Some businesses will default on loans, request for extensions and some will even tap the capital markets for equity capital - quite similar to the wave of rights issues undertaken by many large corporates after the 2008 financial crisis. What the government giveth, the people must return. A large gaping hole in the budget will form especially with some countries already starting to tap into their reserves. At some point of time, this has to be given back whether in the form of tax or government stakes in key industries. "I help you now, but you owe me one". The most important thing for the situation today to improve is for the global economy and trade has to pick up and return consumer spending back to its normal levels.

In one meeting someone asked the CFO about revenue growth. He looked at the guy and said 'Revenue is an ego game. We could boost revenue tomorrow if we wanted. We run this company for gross profit.' - Twitter Got me thinking about how companies are reporting their sales order book, price and sell their products. One company has certainly taken this literally. Of course, Luckin Coffee isn't the only firm in history to have done this. Just not so long ago (about 1 year), the media widely publicised Luckin Coffee has being one of the upcoming competitors that is likely to give Starbucks a run for its money, especially in China. This was further sensationalised with the listing thereafter in May 2019 . I don't vouch for the quality of LK's coffee but after Xiaomi's IPO, the idea of selling low cost + decent quality merchandize suddenly became a very possible and scalable business model for a lot of aspiring entrepreneurs. Since products were going to be dirt cheap, in order for this to work, you practically need to sell helluva-lot of merchandize. And in the age of data digitization, you don't want to only rely on solely on offline sales through brick and mortar stores. You call in the calvary - the army of bots, data analytic tools, artificial intelligence and all the mumbo jumbo of the tech world. It was all the rage. For a moment, the epiphany was that LK had successfully leveraged China's leading AI and big data technology to drive its sales and any company that didn't incorporate data analytics in its growth strategy was considered part of the older generation of companies. At one point of time, the word on the street was blockchain (it might still be today). Today and who knows for the next 5 years, word on the street will be data, robotics, AI . But big data and the complex systems that churn the numbers have made due diligence even more challenging. Because of the vast amounts of data, making a decisions around these becomes somewhat like relying on a black box. For portfolio fund managers, not only do you just rely on the information given to you, you pass that information into complex models and these black boxes which you may not fully comprehend, and ultimately make that decision to invest. Caveat emptor and god help you if you have no warranties and indemnities. But all of machine error stems from human error. The people who deliver the numbers and build the black box are humans. Human subject to fatigue, bias and greed . The relentless pursuit for sales is manifested as greed in different ways: controversial related party transactions, customer kick-backs, fabricating sales figures, etc. All for greed and personal gain. As LK explodes, many fragments of this starts to fall apart. The founders had apparently invested in other financial products with margins from the banks. Margins which were pledged with LK shares. HNWI could get leverage as high as 100x. This means, for every $1 million deposited, the banks basically allow you to invest in $100 million worth of financial products - bonds, gold, derivative contracts, equities, etc. If those products go to sh%t or the value of your collaterals drop, you either put in more money or surrender your collaterals to the bank. Either the bankers had spurred the founders to get more leverage due to the rising share prices or the founders get gotten greedy and wanted more money for themselves. Was the COO manipulated by the founders to fabricate sales? What really motivated him to do that? Only time will reveal the outcome of those investigations. With most of the founders' shares gone today and the dislocation of interest alignment, can investors get any assurance that the business will run normally after this saga? The ecosystem of banking and financial products continue to amaze me - that greed, in particular the greed for money and prestige can really change a person. Any investment built on fabricated figures and over-leverage will implode eventually. Starbucks didn't become famous overnight. It takes years of pure hard work and consistency to build a legitimate brand from scratch. This should be a wake-up call for both investors and start-ups who still believe that they can change the world in 1-2 years and make a quick buck.

'Less is more - no intern has ever impressed me with knowledge coming into the internship. Many have pissed the entire team off by thinking they had knowledge coming into it. The most impressed I ever was with an intern was a kid who carried around a notebook and just wrote down everything that sounded strange. He then googled it after hours, and if it was still strange he'd ask what it meant. The most important "task" as an intern is identifying the comers at the analyst/associate level and having them like you. Each SA to full-time hire we convert is by asking that level who they liked the best.' - Wall Street Oasis Candidates these days try to impress too much. They bring in their arsenal of credentials, testimonials and references in a bid to be selected as that outstanding one. But so few realize that the most important trait that employers are looking for is “ groom-ability ” and the ability to just learn. At the junior level, firms are are not looking for heroes, they are looking for someone can be consistent with deliverables, and disciplined in doing the little things well. That said, I think trying to 'score' at interviews can be tough. On one hand, you are competing with others for the same role, and knowledge seems to be the benchmark. On the other hand, you are trying fit into the social fabric of the firm. At the end of the day, the most important thing to remember in any interview / conversation is to be genuine as a person and don't ever over-sell on your technicals and experience. A good banker is both good at numbers, communication and fitting in well.

It's exactly day 34 since the circuit breaker as I am writing this. Much of my daily life has been largely revolved around the four walls at the home and the view of the outside from my window. The streets are noticeably quieter, and the reality of the circuit breaker becomes even more obvious when you step out to buy food - Instead of the usual hustle and bustle of people sitting around, the counters of the Burger King outlet near my place is lined with bags of burgers and queues of delivery drivers and residents waiting to collect their orders. Instead of enjoying my meal at the outlet, I now have to deal with the mess I make at the table at home. I've also probably had more burgers than I should have in a week. But after 34 days at home, it's hard to have much variety (at least from my perspective). Live to eat or eat to live? So I missed the good old days where we ate out. Who doesn't. I like my Japanese noodles served hot in a bowl. I enjoy the ambience of the shop, the view of the chefs in the kitchen preparing my noodles and the staff 'yelling' occasionally as the orders are taken. The taste of ramen cannot be matched by the authenticity of eating it in Japan itself, but a lot of the shops in Singapore have done a good job of trying to replicate it. Unfortunately, this is not going to be possible, at least until June 1, maybe even longer? Who knows? Because part of having a good ramen is the dining experience, I had so far refrained from ordering any takeout until recently. With the number of COVID cases reported globally not abating in most parts of the world, there's always an overhanging doubt: will this eventually be a "new normal" in the way we eat? The whole eat-at-home experience also led me to realize that as introverted as you may be, dining - at the end of the day - is a very communal thing. Like it or not, without the company of good friends and/or family, eating is just eating. This is true not only for Asian civilizations but also many European cultures for example in Spain when the dinners last past midnight. Yes, dining can be considered a privilege, but unless society descends into anarchy or another pandemic decides to wipe out the bulk of our food supplies, humans still live to eat . Understanding this gives me a little bit of comfort that at some point of time, restaurants and food outlets will eventually come back to life once the pandemic has subsided. And I think the same applies with many other aspects of life and businesses as we previously knew it - air travel, tourism, conferences and meetings. Can Zoom and other virtual meetings replace the way companies transact with each other? Would you take a tour of the glaciers at the comfort of your computer without having to set foot on Greenland? Because the existence of the virus is effectively challenging the very innate want of human beings to go out, interact, trade, etc. At some point of time, I believe people will figure out how to make this happen - perhaps not so much by adapting businesses to the new normal - but by figuring out how we can both contain the virus, as well as, put in place new mechanisms / procedures that will enable all of us to step out and enjoy the sun again. PS: The takeout ramen was good.

Days like these make you think a lot about how adaptable humans can be. You can keep us at home and restrict our movements, but some way or another, we will find the means to make do with what we have and some times even improvise - like I've come to learn that you don't need to go to Yoshinoya for a beef bowl, you can easily make one at home with a gyudon packet from Donki. And instead of my usual cup of magic, my mornings are spent by the window with a butter cookies dipped with a strong dose of Nespresso. Surely productivity across companies must have gone down during the last two months. Not solely because people are confined to working from their homes and are distracted by other chores, but largely because most of everywhere else in the world has basically come to a standstill. It's hard to say which is which but I think one drives the other. Where do we go from here? I don't think we will stay this way for long. Peer-to-peer interaction is still very much the core of civilisation. I was watching a property webinar today on how the real estate market has basically weathered every known recession since 2000. One of the anecdotes that was shared was: Do car accidents deter people from driving on roads forever? No. People don't stop driving just because of one or a few accidents. Humans are adaptable. We invent traffic lights, implement anti-lock braking systems, we impose harsher penalties on errant traffic offenders and we educate the general public on road safety - but we certainly won't ban people from driving. If life throws us a curve ball, we adapt. If the virus takes away in-person meetings, we use Zoom. So we can't eat outdoors, we just call for food deliveries. Businesses will find a way to re-purpose themselves e.g. makers of luxury goods will make masks ; airlines will continue to operate by transporting cargo and private car drivers will do step up to fill any additional demand for food deliveries during this period . Doctors around the world continue to test and treat patients everyday. So maybe the optimism in markets these days isn't so much about whether stocks have 'bottomed out' or if scientists around the world are on track to find a cure for the virus. There is just too much we can learn about these pathogens. They evolve and even if we suppress them today, who knows what lies in store for the next few decades. But for now, the world looks hinged on the confidence of our survivability. Such is the adaptability of human beings. And in days like these where people are dying by the thousands everyday from the virus, rather than be a sourpuss, sometimes all we need is just a little optimism.

"Cruise liners are basically floating hotels. I think quite a number of them will be bankrupt soon." Creativity and innovation are priced on the assumption that there is healthy underlying demand from the end user. In 2014-15, liftboats became increasingly popular with many boat builders and offshore oil diggers. Apparently, digging for petroleum requires you to send more than a couple of boats out to sea - rigs, tugging barges, work and accommodation barges. The liftboat combines a few of these functionalities, allowing you to just send one vessel out, thereby saving costs. Some of the larger offshore companies had ordered these vessels, paying for as much as $600 million. As the resources in shallow waters depleted, companies started to send their vessels further out to sea. And to make sure that it remained commercial to drill for oil, they had to dig deeper and longer, requiring the use of more sophisticated rigs such as drill-ships, some of which cost as much as $1 billion to build. So you can understand that when prices of oil tumbled below $50, everyone across the value chain - from builders, charterers to explorers - were scared sh*tless. If you end up with a $1 billion piece of metal and oil prices hovering at around $40-50 a barrel - would you stay put and lose money or drill and lose money? Can you re-purpose a drill-ship for a different consumer market? A number of these once glorified companies actually went out of business or got acquired by other operators. It's not so different in today's circumstances. With most of automotive manufacturing out of commission, car manufacturers such as Ford and GM had started to re-purpose their plants to build respirators / ventilators. Air travel has also basically come to a standstill because no one is traveling - for business or for leisure. But when it comes to the last mile delivery - food, groceries and basic supplies - airlines can quite possibly convert their fleet to transport supplies and cargo. Although tourist arrivals have taken a hit, hotels can be used to ease some of the capacity constraints faced by hospitals. But a cruise-liner is basically a floating hotel. You can try re-purpose the vessels to transport cargo but it'll take too much work. We already have plenty of dry bulk vessels for that. In addition, a lot of these cruise companies based in the US don't seem to be part of Trump's stimulus package as they hire a lot of foreign workers and aren't technically incorporated in the US. Some industries are better positioned that others to pivot their resources. The current situation is really a test of a company's ability to effectively re-purpose itself, essentially - to innovate or die.

Over the weekend, I was deliberating about stakeholder contribution and their business involvement. We liked some people because they have been long-time friends. We like some others because of having worked together in some capacity. Aside from that, we consistently interact with people whom we also consider to be potential investors, partners, prospective employees and interns. And I tried to pencil all of these down into a matrix to see where all the different stakeholders fit in. Bottom-line: The interests of all co-founders have to be fully aligned, but more than that, each person also needs to demonstrate competency Opportunity costs are an important factor in aligning interest. Put it simply: If founders are in the venture as a 'hobby' or on a part-time basis, the venture probably isn't going to work out Cheer-leaders, idea generators and business evangelists should not be paid, unless they are personally committed to and vested in the business, either in an executive or non-executive role.

The last many weeks were becoming to feel like the GFC days in 2007-2008. I distinctively remember crude trading at USD140+. Governments all over the world were raising interest rates and borrowing costs and yet share prices kept rising. I had just started my career not long in an accounting firm. It was a bull market on the run and even I could feel it in the office as waves after waves of my colleagues 'jumped ship' to the investment banks. Then it just happened very quickly - oil prices collapsed to $36, Lehman Brothers went under and there was even talks of some insurance companies being 'too big to fail'. I remember the emptiness in the streets in Raffles Place and recently it is becoming to feel that way again - except that this time, it seems that no amount of money put into the economy can 'save' the situation. The world needs a 'cure' and money does not seem to be the solution.

After having observed various colleagues, clients and friends over the last 10+ years and watching how some of them have evolved, I realised some common traits in those who consistently fail to deliver in their personal and professional lives. Ego . People like to hear what they want to hear - most people don't like to be disagreed with. They like to hear the good things about them, and that their opinions are important and resonated by everyone. Very few will appreciate critical feedback even though what they are doing may be wrong. Remember this also the next time someone steps on your ego. Laziness or sloth. Taking for granted that someone else will do your work. This usually comes with the feeling of a sense of entitlement due to one's age, experience or perceived wisdom. Inertia. Knowing what needs to be done but yet procrastinating it to a later time and then attributing the inability to execute due to the lack of resources or time - especially for items that need the most critical attention. Narrow-mindedness. The world is changing and evolving everyday. And those who refuse to keep an open mind and embrace change will suffer under the limitations of its old paradigm. The change in mindset is a matter of crossing a thin line, and that makes all the difference. Sometimes all you need is a gentle nudge or push to see a whole new perspective. Personal delusion. To think and act under the belief that you are someone else. It's ok to have dreams and ambition but don't wear shoes that are too big for you or make promises that you can't deliver. Be real and comfortable in your skin. Let learning and the will to act be a way of life.