雄安：能否驱散鬼城的阴影？

从中国官方公布的信息来看，雄安新区的设立是为了疏解北京的非首都功能和缓解北京的大城市病；同时，也可以弥补河北和京、津之间的断崖式差距，让雄安新区成为京津冀区域新的经济增长极。然而这座依靠一纸政令平地起城的新区能否摆脱成为“鬼城”的命运而达到深圳特区和浦东新区的高度呢？

雄安新区难以达到深圳、浦东的高度

雄安新区地处中国北方内陆，距北京、天津直线距离均为120公里左右，与北京、天津在地理位置上形成了一个等边三角形。雄安有在地理位置上有优势，而且目前开发程度较低，确实有作为新区的区位优势。然而不管是从城市集群效应还是雄安自身的产业结构来说，都与深圳、浦东新区有不小的距离。

长、珠三角是通过产业扩散形成了良性产业集群，进而发展成了发达的城市群；而京津冀的产业模式很难做到这一点。从城市集群效果来说，与珠三角、长三角城市群互利互惠的模式相反，北京非但没有反哺周边，反而吸收了周边城市的资源。京、津两地虽然有发达的服务业和高端制造业，但是其缺乏外迁的经济动力。位于京、津周边的河北向来只能被动接收两地淘汰出来的落后产能。虽然可以带来当地的经济增长，但并不会与京津形成良好的产业互补格局，从而形成城市集群效应而变成新的经济增长极。

河北雄安的产业结构与其构建高新产业区的目标也还有一定距离。雄安现有产业以中低端轻工产业为主，如泛塑料产业，服装产业等。营造高新技术产业区往往需要高端的人才配备，而雄安目前很难留住人才。近日虽然北京大学（以下简称北大）率先表态将在雄安建设一流医学中心，培训中心等，然而北大的核心资源并没有搬入雄安。雄安没有北上广的户口优势，即使短期内有人才引入，也很难留住。这样一来，以雄安自身产业条件和劳动力素质，只能承接北京的低端、低效益、低附加值、低辐射的经济产业转移，例如建材业、铸造业、服装纺织业等。然而这也是不能持续的，随着中国制造业的人口红利正在消失，京、津无法再依靠低端制造业来重复长三角和珠三角曾经的辉煌。雄安未来很难达成其以高新技术为产业核心的目标，更无法与转型高新技术产业的深圳、浦东相比。

曹妃甸和钦州的前车之鉴

不依托经济动力而只强行依靠行政命令兴建的新区，很多走上了成为“鬼城”的命运。地方政府，为保持GDP的增长，试图通过建设工业园区、开发区、产业新城等方式，吸引房地产开发商和外来企业投资。但事实是，行政规划并非万能。

曹妃甸曾被期望打造成为河北沿海增长极上的“皇冠”。在2003至2013年的11年里，曹妃甸已累计实施亿元以上项目352个，总投资5611.2亿元。由于曹妃甸产业结构单一，偏重化工业，在发展面临产业转型危机时，投资在2010年之后开始锐减，导致很多项目因资金短缺而停工。巨额债务危机给曹妃甸留下了大量烂尾工程，成了一座荒无人烟的“鬼城”。

 曹妃甸的烂尾楼

来源：新浪财经

钦州也是一个由行政效力推动而忽视经济发展潜力而打造的旨在衔接东盟的港口城市。政府打着一带一路的招牌和廉价的土地、税收政策吸引外国投资者。但是钦州的贸易规模小，很难吸引到运营远程航线的最大集装箱货轮；并且缺乏技术工人、供应商网络和具备贸易融资经验的银行，使得钦州在港口城市中的竞争力较弱，很难实现持续发展。

钦州的另一个问题是城市盲目扩建新区。中国一些地方政府通过加快城市建设和新增住宅项目来实现GDP的增长。然而当产业规模发展跟不上城市的扩建速度，无法提供更多的就业岗位，也吸引不了外来的就业者，过度被开发的房产没有市场需求，加上城市本身的人口增长也很缓慢，逐渐一些城市新区成为一座空城。这些城市中不乏地级市，他们并不是人口稀少，经济不发达，而是城市扩建过快，经济发展跟不上的结果。

雄安对房地产开发需求有限

雄安新区的规划还没有形成，新区的房产交易已被政府禁止。雄安新区目前三县人口总和130万，预计后期承接与发展人口会增至两三百万。雄安新区的远期规划面积是2000平方公里。以预计的300万人口计算，未来雄安新区的人口密度也只有1500人/平方公里。所以雄安对房地产开发需求是有限的，短期内如果过度开发，供求大于市场需求，雄安难免会成为下一个“鬼城”。

现在最多的猜测是雄安新区将启用全新的房地产试行方案，即新区将不允许配建商品房；试行以公租房、廉租房为主的建设模式。也意味着雄安将避免依靠房地产的开发模式，一定程度上降低了空城风险。

然而雄安能否驱散成为“鬼城”的阴影还需要时间的见证。行政效力并非万能，自身产业不足，无法吸引高端人才，目前城市规划仍不清晰，在地理位置上，又无法形成资本、生产和商品的国际化流动等都是雄安未来发展要面临的问题。区域经济的发展更多的是要尊重市场的发展规律，雄安的路还很长。

大而无当：政治叙事与现实的鸿沟

从万里长城开始，中国在建筑上的成就便总是与政治联系在一起。京杭大运河，三峡大坝，例子从古到今，举不胜举。君主要立功立德立言乃至千秋万代，政府要政绩和GDP，而背后的代价缺乏人问津。

钦州：“一带一路”不能代替软实力

钦州在短短几年间经历了“理想照不进现实”的阵痛。2013年，从中央到地方都很看好钦州。钦州由此成为了我国第六个自由港，并力图成为与东盟联系的门户。李克强总理表示，钦州有条件成为对外经济发展的战略支点。习近平主席也重点关切广西钦州港项目，并将其视为“一带一路”计划的一部分。马来西亚总理2012年访问广西钦州时曾对钦州港的建设速度大加赞扬。而五年过去了，钦州港并未如描绘的那般。工业重镇的目标没有实现，政府支出反而在增加。响应政府号召而来的房地产商也空手而归，建了大量无人居住的空房。

钦州的财政状况不但没有因为钦州港而受益，反而受到了巨大影响。在2015年钦州市财政收支情况综述中写到，作为全是收入龙头的钦州港区近几年没有重大企业投产，税收增长动力严重不足。 2016年财政收入增收压力依然较大，财政收入下降了5.0%, 预算下降1.7%，而支出却增长了4.8%。

投资不足并非根本原因。在钦州经营葡萄酒进口业务的投资者Simon Pun表示，”各方面成长起来需要多年时间，整个过程很不容易，因为这需要有海关官员、投资者和受过培训的员工。”软实力才是吸引外商投资的关键，而这绝非如港口的建设速度一样，一朝一夕便可成功。“一带一路”是一根指挥棒，可不是万能的魔法棒。

 政治叙事里的中国“鬼影重重”

钦州并不是躲在宏大叙事下的个例，这一次受影响的不只是政府的财政收入，还有失去了土地的农民。江苏泰州中国医药城，地处上海与南京之间，规划面积30平方公里。2005年江苏省委、省政府出台了打造“中国医药城”的决策。这里也是曾经的中国国家领导人胡锦涛的故乡。2012年8月，时任主席的胡视察了泰州，并受到了热烈欢迎。在这中国医药城的土地，是政府并采用了“强拆”的方式获得的， 并激起了村民的激烈抵抗。“开发商和政府部门采用期满、恐吓等手段诱逼村民签字。拆迁户之间的补偿标准也相差甚大，有的补偿单价甚至相差十几倍。”被政府强行征去，并没有公平的补偿标准，且失去了自己土地的农民被逼着走上了长期上访维权的道路。

而通过政府强权得到的“面子工程”的土地究竟开发的怎么样呢？Wade Shepard，多家杂志的作者亲自到泰州考察了一番。在他的文章里，他形容整个医药城看起来就像一个鬼城。“整座城市没有流动，没有噪音，连人都很少见。而巨型建筑之间的巨大空地更是让这个地方看起来空空如也。”在Wade对在泰州发展不太顺利的一个美国人的采访中，他问道，为何“中国医药城”发展不起来，Chou说“没有足够的人口。”Chou在采访时，已经在泰州发展了2年，享受了1年多的免租金、低税政策，还是对未来的发展不乐观。而没有足够人口的原因，与前面为了得到土地而驱赶当地村民对比，又不免让人觉得讽刺。

泰州中国医药城

来源：http://www.vagabondjourney.com/china-medical-city-cmc/

新加坡：知识经济与创新驱高效动政府决策

发人深省的现实背后，是政府执政理念的偏误。政治命令，不是理性与高效的代名词。新加坡用一代人的时间从内忧外困走向独立，到创造经济奇迹跻身亚洲四小龙，政府的效率排名世界第二。新加坡政府高效、清廉、精英化，并一直致力于优化政府计划和精细的执行。

对于未来发展，政府转型知识经济并鼓励创新。“梦想、设计、实施”是新加坡政府政策发展和实施的最佳注脚。在没有足够的自然资源的情况下，人力是新加坡最大的资源。优秀、高效的教育系统为新加坡培养了走进政坛、制定政策、保证实施的精英。这些都与政治叙事无关，与个人崇拜无关，只与专业、高效、理性有关。

不止于量，还有质的对决——手机外卖现状

据艾媒北极星数据显示，2017年中国在线外卖市场规模预计将达到2045.6亿元。而逐渐降低的增长率则表明，中国第三方餐饮外卖市场开始在各平台的努力开发下趋于稳定发展，用户规模将在2.56亿人的基础上平稳增长。比起发展初期赶着跑马圈地，第三方外卖平台的发展也更将冷静、理性。

美团外卖、饿了么、百度外卖占据了主要的市场份额，分别为40.7%，35.0%和18.4%。然而从季度数据看来，三者占比变动不大，竞争陷入胶着。若想要在竞争中突围，只有创造明显的独有优势，才能抢占市场的制高点。靠低廉的价格吸引，已经无效。美团外卖2017年全国月均客单价较去年上半年18%的增幅证明了单靠优惠吸引的用户量已经不是独占优势。目前各大平台都转而在商业模式、战略合作方、行业弊端和客户经营等方面探讨如何扭转局势。

商业模式大同小异，广度和深度见高低

三大平台的商业模式在目标顾客上略有不同，在物流配送模式上都形成了自营+加盟+众包三位一体的配送模式；在价值主张上都看重客户的服务体验，百度外卖尤其看重用户的服务品质。而从各平台多年经营均尚未实现盈利可见，在盈利模式薄弱的条件下，谁强谁弱，还需要比较在细节方面做的够不够多，够不够好，够不够扎实。毕竟，2016年众多外卖平台因不抵亏损压力而倒闭的前车之鉴已经足够了。

国外已经有可以借鉴的例子了。拿物流配送系统来说，虽然模式大致相同，但左右配送效率的管理和技术水平却可以分出高低，尤其是在形成技术壁垒后。如旧金山的Forkable，通过人工智能机器人处理大量订单，成功降低了单元配送费，提升了品牌影响力，你追我赶的形势就不再那么紧迫。

盈利模式的薄弱，还可以从用户和商户两方面入手。丰富服务种类，提高用户忠诚度，挖掘更多的利润增长点。美国的Eat Club设立自家厨房来烹饪食物，最终获得了盈利。

BAT助攻跨领域和技术，谁显神通

尚未实现盈利的三大平台目前靠融资维持资金链，因为有着典型到家服务的平台特征和发展潜力，一直对社区O2O圈野心勃勃的BAT三巨头注资其中的规模相当可观。且三大平台与背后BAT的合作还有可能走向跨领域发展业务，突破现有盈利模式，向金融运作，大型餐饮商户服务，云计算，机器智能等多领域方面扩张业务。但是哪家平台能在助攻下脱颖而出，还有待观察。

蚂蚁金服为饿了么用户提供“安全理赔快速通道”， 饿了么平台的中小商户，众包配送服务商及个人，可获得蚂蚁金服提供的金融服务。百度外卖和美团外卖都紧抓云计算服务平台，高度精准用户画像，规划最佳配送路径，大幅提高了运营效率，并为商家企业提供技术服务，有望创造新的利润增长点。

此外，BAT强大的技术积累在战略合作发挥的作用也不可小觑，将为平台形成技术壁垒提供有利条件。比如百度“Apollo”的自动驾驶平台一旦成熟，抢先应用在外卖配送上，便有望形成服务品质的差异化优势，份额差距将明显拉开。

精细化用户，兼顾多维度和多样性需求

目前三大平台还需要及时依据用户体验反馈加快改善服务内容和质量，以保障用户粘度。如果没有明显的独有优势，服务内容和质量大同小异，用户很容易在平台间流动。比达咨询数据显示，在2016年中国第三方餐饮外卖平台自身，配送服务和入住商户的用户满意度分析中，消费者对饿了么，美团外卖和百度外卖的评分相差无几，普遍在4分左右；对平台自身的满意度分数更是不相上下。

产品质量及安全已经成为影响用户选择的最主要因素，而平台优惠力度跟品牌影响力、配送速度的影响相差无几。在背负盈利压力下，侧重用价格吸引流量并非长久之计。所以平台的服务应多维度覆盖，在平台运营，配送服务和商户管理等方面的质量优化缺一不可。

此外，服务的类别也是有待丰富和细化。2017年Q1白领、校园和社区市场占比分别为64.3%、25.4%和9.5%。各结构市场在用户忠诚度和价格敏感度等方面特点不一。细分的市场，个性化的服务，更容易得人心，也能挖掘到更多的用户价值。如专攻白领市场，主做品质外卖的百度外卖，不到两年便能在白领市场稳扎下来。饿了么和美团外卖也发力跟上，前者和阿里钉钉达成企业订餐服务的战略合作，后者则推出新产品“商企通”来拓展企业用户市场。

随着竞争的日益激烈，满足用户对品质服务的多维度和多样性需求不容耽搁。艾媒北极星数据显示，在2017年第一季度，通过外卖平台订餐的用户对饿了么、美团外卖和百度外卖的综合评价评分分别为7.4，7.2和7.0，差距已经拉开，看来质的加码也要赶时间了。

深挖商户价值，供应链打通B端

外卖平台客户不仅包括普通用户，还包括商户，且用户的体验也离不开商户的品质和管理。目前依托于外卖平台的商户的价值也还有待挖掘，平台可以深化与商户的合作，争取商家平台的独家权，为商家连通供应链，还能赚取链条差价，以此丰富新的盈利方式，并形成产品的独有性。

三大主流平台也已在即时消费领域发力，并在B端业务展开较量。在外卖类型中，午餐占据57.9%，晚餐和宵夜的占比和也高达53%，加上非正餐类型的扩充，为跟上市场需求和双赢，平台服务和商户的产品内容势必走向全时段、多元化、全品类。饿了么推出“有菜”，打造高品质垂直供应链; 美团外卖商家则从“快驴进货”买进食材，一次性用品，酒水饮料等等，加速布局B端业务; 百度外卖与武圣炙城餐饮管理有限公司达成独家战略合作，从商户端差异化竞争。除了丰富盈利模式，供应链的经营管理还将有利于建立完整的食品安全体系，平台和客户将受益匪浅。

尽管外卖平台和政府已经在解决食品安全和配送服务问题上投入了不少心血，但问题还是频频发生，既是用户痛点，也是平台顽疾。食品安全和配送服务是用户体验的关键，也是影响用户选择平台的重要因素，因此如果任意一主流外卖平台在解决这两大难题上快人一步，建立独有的管理运营机制和技术，市场格局必会产生变动。平台的运营水平、品牌价值定位和战略方向的差异都将关乎其解决措施的投入和效率，谁家止痛快准狠，谁家治理成效便更好。

总而言之，除了法规和政府的规范，第三方外卖平台想要顺利盈利，还需要优化商业模式，加快差异化布局，丰富经营渠道，探索健康可持续的盈利模式；提高物流配送的技术和管理水平，强化自己的提高运营质量；多层次满足客户需求，建立全面性、高品质的客户服务闭环，否则没有质的充实，单纯耗钱拼来的交易规模只是泡沫。

极简理财

The European Union will grow weaker in the next decade.

The consequences of the 2008 meltdown have highlighted how far Europe is from being a single and united geopolitical force.

Germany opposed bailout measures for weaker countries. This also highlights the reality that Europe's historical integration was imposed primarily by the necessity of organizing against the Soviet threat.

The confederate model for European organization and integration hasn't evolved into a deeper sense of unity over time. Even today, each constituent nation-state chooses whether to adopt the Euro as its currency, clings to its own history and identity and refuses to commit to a united defense policy.

Ultimately, though the EU will not disappear, the coming years will see some members stepping out of the eurozone. And without united military forces, the EU will never attain any real power.

极简不只是整然有序，而是选择重要的事情，然后专注于它

数据信息越多，你就越可能出错。如果你的模型把很多无关项或者弱联系因素都考虑进去，预测结果肯定会出错。人很自然就会订个计划，但是这样安排并不一定是有益的。硅谷的公司的雇员流动性很高，跳槽很常见，新概念新思想交流传播得很快，因而促进了创新的事物不断地涌现。

颠覆和变革的出现迫使我们主动去寻找新的有创造力的思路和方法。新奇的创意往往就是从混沌无序的状态中得来的。

同一个团队里面的人常常会发现相似的东西。但是如果从不同的角度看就很容易产生不同的想法，这些想法相互交流影响又可以进一步让思想维度变得更加多元。

不要过度审视你自己。过度审视怀疑自己很危险，会变成你尝试即兴创作的时候的阻碍或者陷阱。思考设定一定要摒弃看法和偏见，因为即兴创作依靠的就是无法预料地创造什么和一种创作者们很舒服的无序混沌的状态。

举个例子，整整齐齐地排好码好邮件从本质上来说是没有意义的。用搜索功能比花心思把所有邮件合理分类在一个个的文件夹里面快得多。不是说以后都不要提前计划安排什么，但是在计划的时候，要容许跟以往不一样的东西存在。​​​​

Minimalism does not always mean perfect order, but selecting what to focus on

With more data, you will pick up errors. If your model picks up these noises, predictions will go wrong. It is human tendency to prefer order. But order is not always beneficial. In Silicon Valley, employees hop around from job to job. These mean ideas are exchanged quickly, resulting in better innovation.

Disruptions force us to find new, creative approaches.  Novel ideas are usually discovered in disorderly periods.

Working groups often find their finds converging. But differing views help different ideas interact – allowing range of ideas to grow.

Stop censoring yourself. This is a risky step, but it's a risk you've got to take if you want to tap into the power of improvisation. Non-judgemental mind-set is crucial since improvisation depends on creating unpredictability, a chaotic state only they feel comfortable with. 

In another example, organizing your email is essentially pointless. It's quicker to use the search bar than to parse through a whole system of folders. This doesn't mean not planning, but that you should embrace differences even as you plan.

极简

Passive investing – the only way to plan for retirement

This entry includes highlights from a journal in CFA publications. My intention is to urge investors to invest in low cost index funds. The general rule of thumb is, the higher the cost, the lower your rate of return. Active managers who can outperform the market is incredibly hard to find. In fact, it’s quite improbably to find one who can outperform the market persistently, net of fees, over a long time.

There is extensive, undeniable data which show that identifying in advance any particular investment manager who will—after costs, taxes, and fees—achieve the holy grail of beating the market is highly improbable.

If there’s anything in the whole world of mutual funds that you can take to the bank, it’s that expense ratios help you make a better decision. In every single time period and data point tested, low-cost funds beat high-cost funds. Investors should make expense ratios a primary test in fund selection. They are still the most dependable predictor of performance.

[Kinnel, Russel. 2010. Morningstar FundInvestor, vol. 18, no. 12 (August):1–3.]

Whether one is investing a lump-sum amount or a series of periodic amounts, the arithmetic of investment expenses is compelling. Although a long-term investor may be able to find one or more high-cost managers who can beat an appropriate benchmark by an amount sufficient to more than offset the added costs, the reality is that “compared with the readily available passive alternative, fees for active management are astonishingly high” (Ellis 2012, p. 4).

Managers with extraordinary skills may exist, but as I argued in this publication many years ago (Sharpe 1991), another exercise in arithmetic indicates that such managers are in the minority. And as Ellis has reminded us, they are very hard indeed to identify in advance.

References
Ellis, Charles D. (2012). “Investment Management Fees Are (Much) Higher Than You Think.” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 68, No. 3 (May/June): 4-6.

Kimmel, Russell (2010). Morningstar Fund Investor, Vol. 18, No. 12 (August): 1-3.

Sharpe, William F. (1991). “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1 (January/February): 7-9.

Vanguard Group (2012). “Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Admiral Shares.”
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0585&FundIntExt=INT#hist=tab%3A3 (accessed 5 July 2012)

Further evidences that active management does not impress

Evidence that active management does not work – from Active Management in Mostly Efficient Markets (Robert C. Jones, CFA, and Russ Wermers)

The study shows that neither the average mutual fund nor the average institutional separate account (ISA) earned a positive alpha, net of fees and expenses, after adjusting for market and style risks. It is even harder for actively managed funds to outperform passive alternatives on an after-tax basis.

The study found that the average active manager earns a positive alpha before fees but that this alpha does not quite cover the costs of active management.

Most important findings in that study:
Active returns (adjusted for risk) across managers and time probably average close to zero, net of fees and other expenses. This finding is what we should expect in a mostly efficient market.

In another study (Does Active Management Pay? New International Evidence)
Quote: “The authors examine the empirical evidence for the common academic guidance that even sophisticated investors should avoid active equity management because of the outperformance of passive strategies after costs. They confirm this advice’s validity for the US equity market, the world’s most efficient market, but identify exceptions elsewhere.”

Active management might work in inefficient markets. But in efficient markets, active management does not work net of fees.

Expense ratio is key determinant to returns

This entry includes highlights from a journal in CFA publications. My intention is to urge investors to invest in low cost index funds. The general rule of thumb is, the higher the cost, the lower your rate of return. Active managers who can outperform the market is incredibly hard to find. In fact, it’s quite improbably to find one who can outperform the market persistently, net of fees, over a long time.

There is extensive, undeniable data which show that identifying in advance any particular investment manager who will—after costs, taxes, and fees—achieve the holy grail of beating the market is highly improbable.

If there’s anything in the whole world of mutual funds that you can take to the bank, it’s that expense ratios help you make a better decision. In every single time period and data point tested, low-cost funds beat high-cost funds. Investors should make expense ratios a primary test in fund selection. They are still the most dependable predictor of performance.

Whether one is investing a lump-sum amount or a series of periodic amounts, the arithmetic of investment expenses is compelling. Although a long-term investor may be able to find one or more high-cost managers who can beat an appropriate benchmark by an amount sufficient to more than offset the added costs, the reality is that “compared with the readily available passive alternative, fees for active management are astonishingly high” (Ellis 2012, p. 4).

Managers with extraordinary skills may exist, but as I argued in this publication many years ago (Sharpe 1991), another exercise in arithmetic indicates that such managers are in the minority. And as Ellis has reminded us, they are very hard indeed to identify in advance.

References

[Kinnel, Russel. 2010. Morningstar FundInvestor, vol. 18, no. 12 (August):1–3.]

Ellis, Charles D. (2012). “Investment Management Fees Are (Much) Higher Than YouThink.” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 68, No. 3 (May/June): 4-6.

Kimmel, Russell (2010). Morningstar Fund Investor, Vol. 18, No. 12 (August): 1-3.

Sharpe, William F. (1991). “The Arithmetic of Active Management.” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1 (January/February): 7-9.

Vanguard Group (2012). “Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Admiral Shares.”

Sure way to lose money- crowdfunding a firm

Crowdfunding is often perceived as a way to democratize finance. Everyone can commit a small amount of money to fund small companies. Crowdfunding is also known as P2P lending.

Unlike VC funding or debt, crowdfunding requires potentially less paperwork. You can do it on Kickstarter, you can borrow from friend and friends. But crowdfunding can be dangerous. Better startups would have received attention from formal sources such as angel investors, venture capital firms, banks and laboratories. Crowdfunding firms bypassed these sources to ask the public for money. Is there a potential for adverse selection?

Can we conclude that there are more “thrashy” projects on crowdfunding platforms? People who invest little amount of money invest when they feel inspired by ideas. They probably do less due diligence than VCs. This is why crowdfunding can be dangerous for the investor.

There are intermediaries like Lending Club who tries to include some credit risk analysis into startups. But anyone will be able to attest that business stability leading to proper cash flow evaluation is always almost impossible. When the investor losses their investments in the case of crowdfunding, there is little recourse. Pursuing legal actions is costly and difficult. Here are some examples of start-ups which, even though they raised money, didn’t manage to complete their project successfully:

Pirate3D Inc raised nearly $1.5M on Kickstarter in 2013, planning to make a 3D printer available for use by anybody. A total of 3,520 backers invested money to the project including 3,389 who gave more than $300 to eventually get a printer.

Another example is that of Neil Singh’s lawsuit against Seth Quest. The latter launched a Kickstarter campaign in March 2011 for Hanfree, a standing iPad mount he’d devised. The crowdfunding campaign was initially a success, and he raised $35,000. However the production was a disaster and Quest couldn’t fulfill his backers’ pre-orders, one of whom was Neil Singh.

The fact is crowdfunding companies probably need more than capital. They need professional advice. Money is one of the many things they will need.

Summarily, if you are an individual, do not invest in startups in your retirement plans. Instead, keep them in an index fund, ensure low cost investments. There are plenty of evidences of how active management does not outperform passive management. Here are some links:

https://www.ft.com/content/2e975946-fdbf-11e5-b5f5-070dca6d0a0d

https://www.ft.com/content/c9aea9f0-74c2-11e6-b60a-de4532d5ea35

https://www.ft.com/content/e555d83a-ed28-11e5-888e-2eadd5fbc4a4#axzz43RnnhB3V

[UPDATE] A very recent and vivid example of crowdfunding risk, is that of FND Film, a filmmakers’ start up, which raised about $78,000 in 2014 through Indiegogo crowdfunding platform, regardless of the fact that they didn’t provide any other detail about their project, but the name of the film “It’s All Good”.

After raising all that money the filmmakers disappered and started posting photos in social media showing that they were enjoying themselves with champagne and limos in Italy. As it was expected, the people who funded the project got furious, for what eventually turned out to be a troll, as the filmmakers made the movie two years after. It came as a very pleasant surprise to their supporters that the project they funded, was actually a metamovie of not making a movie, illustrating vividly the risks that crowdfunding entails.

Passive funds are a better choice than active funds

At the end of 2015, more than 84% of U.S. active funds underperformed the S&P 500 over the year. From a long-term view, over the past ten years, more than 98% of active funds failed to beat their benchmarks. Diving through the data, active funds failed to outperform the market over almost all time frames, the report of S&P Dow Jones Indices shows.

Savita Subramanian, strategist of the Bank of America Merrill Lynch, stated briefly that the active fund managers continued to be on the wrong side of the trade this year. Telecom, utilities and energy benefited from the rebound of oil prices, to which many funds did not attach enough importance. On the contrary, healthcare and consumer discretionary, two of the three worst-performing sectors, were overweight in active funds.

The fees are eating into the gains of funds. If the investor was lucky and chose a follow-the-benchmark active equity fund, the fees would take 1/3 of the income, not to mention that most active funds usually underperformed the benchmarks. Although the fees keep lowering these years, there are quite amazing when the gains of the market and funds are modest.

As a result, investors gradually shifted from active funds to passive funds, for reducing the cost and stopping the loss. According to data from Morningstar, active funds have lost $149.8bn in assets in the first half of 2016, while passive funds took in $286.1bn.

How should you invest your retirement money?

Most agents want your money invested in funds that they can earn a commission from
Based on my experience, most agents are not highly skilled in assessing investment instruments. They pass a couple of mandatory exams. But they cannot explain simple quantitative risk measures.

Typically, they will show you a snapshot of how a fund performs over time. This is tricky. A study by Cass university shows how fund performances lack persistency. i.e. If you buy a loser, the chance of outdoing a winner next year is higher. Simply put, there is a return to average. It is a simple, yet stubborn principle.

Most fund returns are not persistent
In this study – Why Does Mutual Fund Performance Not Persist? The Impact and Interaction of Fund Flows and Manager Changes, it was concluded that the performance of the worst performing funds experiencing both the replacement of the fund manager (internal governance) and high outflows (external governance) enjoys a subsequent increase of 2.40 percentage points in the following year, relative to loser funds not experiencing these effects.

If statistically fund performance are not persistent, it makes more sense to just buy the cheapest index funds. “The persistence of performance among past winners is no more predictable than the flip of a coin,” said Peter Westaway, Vanguard’s chief economist in Europe.

The next step

• You should go direct. Skip agents and save cost
• You should have a longer time horizon. If you don’t have at least 10-year horizon, go for simple banking deposits.
• You should go for index funds that are cheap and broadly diversified, preferably cash based index funds and not diversified.

Read more here:
https://www.ft.com/content/996d4afa-1f5b-11e2-b2ad-00144feabdc0

Top performers definitely do not remain at the top.

Investing in actively managed funds is a bad idea

Investing in actively managed funds is a bad idea: they only eat up your hard-earned money, while financial mediators make a fortune. Make more of your money by investing in an index fund.

Actively managed funds are expensive and consequently often underperform the market.

Few funds perform well, and there’s no guarantee even those few will continue to do so.

Investors often underestimate the true cost of actively managed funds. Put the majority of your assets in safe, low-cost index funds.

Each index fund comprises an expense ratio that represents management fees and operating expenses. These expenses, though typically totalling less than one percent, can add up in a long-term investment.

Actionable advice: Invest the majority of your assets in an index fund, and if you want to gamble with some of your hard-earned money, then place a small amount in actively managed funds. If, despite what you’ve read you still want to partake in the thrill of risking some money and making fast profits in actively managed funds, bet on no more than 5 percent. You can afford to risk this small amount but absolutely keep the majority of your assets in a safe long-term investment.

The costs of investing in such a fund are very high. As an investor, you’d pay the brokerage commissions, the fund manager’s fees and so forth. All those fees add up to a hefty chunk of your expected profits.

If the funds perform extremely well, you might not mind those costs, but in the long run, actively managed funds are likely to yield you less profit than the overall stock market.

An actively managed fund will generate significantly less profit for you than a passive, low-cost index fund that merely mimics the performance of the overall market. In fact, if you had invested $10,000 in 1980, by 2005 you would walk away with 70 percent less if you invested in an active fund rather than an index fund, due to fees alone!

Investors pay huge fees to funds, deferring to financial experts who have a solid understanding of the stock market. However, despite industry knowledge or expertise, only 24 of the 355 mutual funds that existed in 1970 have outperformed the market consistently and remain in business.

Actively managed funds automatically come with high costs. However, fund managers rarely disclose the dollar amount. Instead, they boast about the high returns but forget to divulge what the investor will really earn after deducting all the performance and portfolio fees.

Surprisingly, that omission occurs often: 198 of the 200 most successful funds in the latter years of the 1990s reported higher returns than the investors actually earned!

Don’t let what you now know about actively managed funds persuade you to keep all your money under your bed. The index fund is your best alternative.

In contrast to actively managed funds, index funds are much more cost-efficient.

By definition, an index fund holds a diversified portfolio that reflects the financial market or a specific market sector. However, instead of betting on the market, index funds hold their portfolios indefinitely, eliminating the risks of making short-term, volatile bets while simultaneously minimizing operating costs.

Because index funds track the performance of all stocks included in the index without betting on individual stocks, they’re also called passive funds.

Since they simply hold shares across particular market sectors, you will not have to bear operating fees for buying and selling shares, financial consultants, or fund management. You will, however, reap the benefits of commercial net returns.

Another advantage to index funds is that they’re likely to outperform actively managed funds in the long-term.

For instance, many Vanguard index funds fees are less than 0.06% per annum. Both funds have expenses below 1 percent, but over longer investment periods like a decade, those tenths of a penny add up.

Since index funds fluctuations follow the overall market, go ahead and choose the fund with the lowest cost structure, knowing that a company’s expense ratio doesn’t equate with its level of performance.

The truth about preparing for retirement

I’m amazed by the proliferation of articles and content on methods to make big money online. On forums, ordinary men try to give advice on which broker to use, which product to buy.

The truth is simpler. People simply want to earn commissions on your investment. The more you trade, the more they earn. The more you buy into mutual funds, the more fees you pay to agents. Investments should be boring. Put your money in a globally diversified fund and leave it there. Do not move money. Companies layer fees when you try to move money.

Start young, have a long investment horizon. Go for globally diversified passive funds. I like ETFs in Singapore because we cannot buy Vanguard funds direct yet.

Avoid actively management funds. I wrote a few articles consolidating evidences on why active managed funds don’t work.

Also read vanguard’s studies. See the truth about active funds here. Don’t trade actively. Don’t invest in active funds. You are simply funding the high salaries of managers. More than 80% don’t even beat the benchmark market returns.

There are only 3 simple steps to investing:

1. Save monthly, 20 to 30% is a good figure.
2. Invest the money in index passive funds.
3. Leave it. Don’t touch the pot of gold.

Run away from people who are trying to sell you active investments. Don’t even talk to people who want you to believe trading leisurely will make you rich. Let your money work for you. Leave your money in a passive fund.