Went to watch Laddaland last week at my home town of Melaka and have to say: it's better than I thought.
First of all, it's not a good horror movie. The director seems to have problem deciding the direction of the film whether it should be like traditional Asian horror movies involving "ghosts", or like western horror movie involving "psycho maniac killer, or even like M Night Shyamalan's "the Village". As a result, this movie has them all, but poor version of them (well maybe not as bad as the Village lol.)
However, as the movie progresses, it starting to become good in non-horror department of the film. The problems faced by characters in this movie, mixed with very good writing and excellent acting, we have a really good and engaging drama that truly like a reflection of most typical family's problems.
The director knows that and as the movie progresses, it leans more and more away from horror into drama and even end with it. From time to time, we have some good shocks and very little horror but that may not be a bad thing after all.
Story wise, this is no Inception. It has many lovable characters and interesting plot but quite poor main story. However the implementation and pace of the whole movie is nonetheless good.
Overall, this movie is terrible if you want something similar to Insidious. However, why should we limit ourselves to horror for a horror movie. This movie shows us that a horror movie can have so much more than just plain horror it excels at that. No wonder it achieves such a success in Thai's box office. A good movie.
8/10 for me.
p/s: based on the reviews from metacritic and rotten tomatoes, Transformers 3 is no Inception either but who cares, it will still top the box office anyway. Wonder why people like to kill their brain cell by enduring 150 minutes of mindless action lol.
29.6.11
23.6.11
Can CAPM and APT used for forecasting?
Capital asset pricing model and arbitrage pricing theory are probably the greatest and most popular asset pricing theories of 20th century. They have gone through numerous changes and modifications in the past 50 years since their existence in the 50's. Can they be used to determine asset prices correctly and accurately?
Recently a research has been done and published based on such questions on stock markets of Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and US. The results shows that CAPM does not even exist in all markets except for Japan as the linear relationship between market beta and asset return can't be accepted statistically. Similar result for APT as well for these markets.
Although CAPM and APT do exist in Japan, their forecasting ability using constant beta and time varying beta are terrible especially during economic crisis of 2007/2008.
So the question is why do we need to study these asset pricing theories? Why CAPM and APT are so popular and basically learned by all finance / business / economic / accounting students? Can we even call them as theories as they are numerous research on similar topics disprove the availability of CAPM and APT in the past.
Using simple economic theory, prices are determined endogenously (provided no government intervention) by market forces of buyers and sellers. The same concept can be applied in financial assets as well. Stocks, bonds, currencies, commodity futures share the same characteristics. Higher the demand, higher the market price, ceteris paribus.
CAPM and APT are not effective tools in predicting and forecating the tradable financial assets (mostly stocks) as they are not used by stock market investors (especially retail investor). Since nobody use CAPM and APT in the decision making process for stock buying, they cannot spur demand and thus, ineffective in such uses.
Most investors (retail or institutional) use technical analysis tools (RSI, Bollinger bands, Stochastic, Macd etc.) and financial analysis tools (PE, ROA, ROE, Profit margin etc.) in determine the buying and selling opportunity in tradable financial assets thus making them much more effective tools in forecasting than CAPM and APT.
So, why don't we introduce technical analysis in tertiary education instead of CAPM and APT? (as far as I know, no university include technical analysis tools in their syllabus, correct me if I'm wrong)?
Or how bout random walk? can asset price be predicted correctly and accurately everytime using certain indicators?
Well, Economists have been discussing this for centuries and answer is yet to be found. Econometricians try to use modelling techniques to form unbelievably complex models and in the end, we still do not have a standardised model in determining asset price. Probably Austrian economists are correct: human being are unpredictable and cannot be estimated using econometric modelling.
Recently a research has been done and published based on such questions on stock markets of Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and US. The results shows that CAPM does not even exist in all markets except for Japan as the linear relationship between market beta and asset return can't be accepted statistically. Similar result for APT as well for these markets.
Although CAPM and APT do exist in Japan, their forecasting ability using constant beta and time varying beta are terrible especially during economic crisis of 2007/2008.
So the question is why do we need to study these asset pricing theories? Why CAPM and APT are so popular and basically learned by all finance / business / economic / accounting students? Can we even call them as theories as they are numerous research on similar topics disprove the availability of CAPM and APT in the past.
Using simple economic theory, prices are determined endogenously (provided no government intervention) by market forces of buyers and sellers. The same concept can be applied in financial assets as well. Stocks, bonds, currencies, commodity futures share the same characteristics. Higher the demand, higher the market price, ceteris paribus.
CAPM and APT are not effective tools in predicting and forecating the tradable financial assets (mostly stocks) as they are not used by stock market investors (especially retail investor). Since nobody use CAPM and APT in the decision making process for stock buying, they cannot spur demand and thus, ineffective in such uses.
Most investors (retail or institutional) use technical analysis tools (RSI, Bollinger bands, Stochastic, Macd etc.) and financial analysis tools (PE, ROA, ROE, Profit margin etc.) in determine the buying and selling opportunity in tradable financial assets thus making them much more effective tools in forecasting than CAPM and APT.
So, why don't we introduce technical analysis in tertiary education instead of CAPM and APT? (as far as I know, no university include technical analysis tools in their syllabus, correct me if I'm wrong)?
Or how bout random walk? can asset price be predicted correctly and accurately everytime using certain indicators?
Well, Economists have been discussing this for centuries and answer is yet to be found. Econometricians try to use modelling techniques to form unbelievably complex models and in the end, we still do not have a standardised model in determining asset price. Probably Austrian economists are correct: human being are unpredictable and cannot be estimated using econometric modelling.
20.6.11
Some Jokes on Economy and Economist
Found some jokes about the economics and economist. All of it are hillarious and some of it is actually correct. Enjoy!
A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.
The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks “What do two plus two equal?” The mathematician replies “Four.” The interviewer asks “Four, exactly?” The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says “Yes, four, exactly.”
Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question “What do two plus two equal?” The accountant says “On average, four – give or take ten percent, but on average, four.”
Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question “What do two plus two equal?” The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says “What do you want it to equal?”
An economist is a trained professional paid to guess wrong about the economy. An econometrician is a trained professional paid to use computers to guess wrong about the economy.
Bentley’s second Law of Economics: The only thing more dangerous than an economist is an amateur economist!
Berta’s Fundamental Law of Economic Rents: The only thing more dangerous than an amateur economist is a professional economist.
Three econometricians went out hunting, and came across a large deer. The first econometrician fired, but missed, by a meter to the left. The second econometrician fired, but also missed, by a meter to the right. The third econometrician didn’t fire, but shouted in triumph, “We got it! We got it!”
Economics is the painful elaboration of the obvious.
An economist is someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about – and make you feel it’s your fault.
A woman hears from her doctor that she has only half a year to live. The doctor advises her to marry an economist and to live in South Dakota. The woman asks: will this cure my illness? Answer of the doctor: No, but the half year will seem pretty long.
I asked an economist for her phone number and she gave me an estimate.
Economists have forecasted 9 out of the last 5 recessions.
An economist is someone who gets rich explaining others why they are poor.
“I’m thinking of leaving my husband,” complained the economist’s wife. “All he ever does is stand at the end of the bed and tell me how good things are going to be.”
There are two things you are better off not watching in the making: sausages and econometric estimates.
— Edward Leamer
On the first day God created the sun – so the Devil countered and created sunburn. On the second day God created sex. In response the Devil created marriage. On the third day God created an economist. This was a tough one for the Devil, but in the end and after a lot of thought he created a second economist!
Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists.
The First Law of Economists: For every economist, there exists an equal and opposite economist.
The Second Law of Economists: They’re both wrong.
We have 2 classes of forecasters: Those who don’t know and those who don’t know they don’t know.
— John Kenneth Galbraith
An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn’t happen today.
— Laurence J. Peter
How can you tell when an economist is lying?
His lips are moving.
They say that Christopher Columbus was the first economist. When he left to discover America, he didn’t know where he was going. When he got there he didn’t know where he was. And it was all done on a government grant.
Economics is the only field in which two people can share a Nobel Prize for saying opposing things.
A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.
The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks “What do two plus two equal?” The mathematician replies “Four.” The interviewer asks “Four, exactly?” The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says “Yes, four, exactly.”
Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question “What do two plus two equal?” The accountant says “On average, four – give or take ten percent, but on average, four.”
Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question “What do two plus two equal?” The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says “What do you want it to equal?”
An economist is a trained professional paid to guess wrong about the economy. An econometrician is a trained professional paid to use computers to guess wrong about the economy.
Bentley’s second Law of Economics: The only thing more dangerous than an economist is an amateur economist!
Berta’s Fundamental Law of Economic Rents: The only thing more dangerous than an amateur economist is a professional economist.
Three econometricians went out hunting, and came across a large deer. The first econometrician fired, but missed, by a meter to the left. The second econometrician fired, but also missed, by a meter to the right. The third econometrician didn’t fire, but shouted in triumph, “We got it! We got it!”
Economics is the painful elaboration of the obvious.
An economist is someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about – and make you feel it’s your fault.
A woman hears from her doctor that she has only half a year to live. The doctor advises her to marry an economist and to live in South Dakota. The woman asks: will this cure my illness? Answer of the doctor: No, but the half year will seem pretty long.
I asked an economist for her phone number and she gave me an estimate.
Economists have forecasted 9 out of the last 5 recessions.
An economist is someone who gets rich explaining others why they are poor.
“I’m thinking of leaving my husband,” complained the economist’s wife. “All he ever does is stand at the end of the bed and tell me how good things are going to be.”
There are two things you are better off not watching in the making: sausages and econometric estimates.
— Edward Leamer
On the first day God created the sun – so the Devil countered and created sunburn. On the second day God created sex. In response the Devil created marriage. On the third day God created an economist. This was a tough one for the Devil, but in the end and after a lot of thought he created a second economist!
Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists.
The First Law of Economists: For every economist, there exists an equal and opposite economist.
The Second Law of Economists: They’re both wrong.
We have 2 classes of forecasters: Those who don’t know and those who don’t know they don’t know.
— John Kenneth Galbraith
An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn’t happen today.
— Laurence J. Peter
How can you tell when an economist is lying?
His lips are moving.
They say that Christopher Columbus was the first economist. When he left to discover America, he didn’t know where he was going. When he got there he didn’t know where he was. And it was all done on a government grant.
Economics is the only field in which two people can share a Nobel Prize for saying opposing things.
15.6.11
X Men First Class & Super 8 Should (& Hopefully Will) Kick Transformers 3's Butt
Recently watched X-Men first class and Super 8. No they are not perfect but yes, they are way better than many of the action movies of this generation. Although they are not on the level of The Dark Knight or Inception, They are good action movies nonetheless.
We all know no matter how bad Transformers 3 Dark of the Moon is, it will still top the box office chart but it's like breeze of fresh air to have some good action summer blockbusters.
Both of these movies done exceptionally job of acting, directing and pace. It managed to make us feel involved with the overall story, sub-plots and characters. This is exceptionally true for Super 8 which done a remarkable job in characters development and sub-plots that truly link us to the glorious day of ET and Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
I admit I love X Men but I don't like the first 3 movies as they suffered the same problems of most action / superhero movies: weak story, no character development, bad directing and overused of action scenes. X-Men origins: Wolverine was better but still have some problems faced by its predecessors. X-Men first class shows a vast improvement of all categories such as directing, acting, dialogue, character development, action scenes, jokes, story, pace...... It's not perfect by any means but it's great.
For me, both movies are somewhat too long and something sub-plots dominates the main story. 90-100 minutes would be better for these movies.
Well, based on past experiences, Transformers Dark of the Moon will be a bad movie. I am certain I will not contribute to its box office success but who cares, it will still win the summer blockbusters list.
IMO, action movie is similar to horror movie. In a horror movie, the more you see the "ghost / demon", the less scary it becomes and hence the worse the movie it becomes. Similarly, the more actions you see in an action movies, the worse it becomes as it lose all the suspense.
Movies industry is dying not because of poorly-made movies or piracy, it's because "people who watch movies no longer know what a good movie is"
We all know no matter how bad Transformers 3 Dark of the Moon is, it will still top the box office chart but it's like breeze of fresh air to have some good action summer blockbusters.
Both of these movies done exceptionally job of acting, directing and pace. It managed to make us feel involved with the overall story, sub-plots and characters. This is exceptionally true for Super 8 which done a remarkable job in characters development and sub-plots that truly link us to the glorious day of ET and Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
I admit I love X Men but I don't like the first 3 movies as they suffered the same problems of most action / superhero movies: weak story, no character development, bad directing and overused of action scenes. X-Men origins: Wolverine was better but still have some problems faced by its predecessors. X-Men first class shows a vast improvement of all categories such as directing, acting, dialogue, character development, action scenes, jokes, story, pace...... It's not perfect by any means but it's great.
For me, both movies are somewhat too long and something sub-plots dominates the main story. 90-100 minutes would be better for these movies.
Well, based on past experiences, Transformers Dark of the Moon will be a bad movie. I am certain I will not contribute to its box office success but who cares, it will still win the summer blockbusters list.
IMO, action movie is similar to horror movie. In a horror movie, the more you see the "ghost / demon", the less scary it becomes and hence the worse the movie it becomes. Similarly, the more actions you see in an action movies, the worse it becomes as it lose all the suspense.
Movies industry is dying not because of poorly-made movies or piracy, it's because "people who watch movies no longer know what a good movie is"
6.6.11
QE3
QE3 or quantitative easing 3 is the latest hot topic that everyone is talking about especially after the gloomy outlook in the labour market in US as only 54,000 jobs were created last month compared to the projected number of 150,000. As a result, fear of recession come back and they (as usual) look at government to provide "free lunch".
So, til today, we have TARP or troubled assets Relief Program which worth US$ 700 billion and QE2 which worth 600 billion. These however do not include the trillions and trillions of US dollar "printed" by FEDS and created by commercial banks.
Federal Funds rate on the other hand has been keep at record low of 0-0.25% since December 2008. So, technically, money is free in US as the price and cost of money (interest rate) is zero. This situation is dangerously similar to Japan in the 1980's after the burst of real estate bubble. As a result, Japan has been in a liquidity trap for over 2 decades and still recovering.
US is dangerously close to either have hyperinflation, liquidity trap, or worse, both, depend on the sentiment of consumers. Another round of QE will almost guarantee liquidity trap as consumers and investors will not be stimulated by the easing of monetary policy. Zero interest rate policy implemented by the Feds certainly does not make the situation any better.
On the other hand, although consumer do not invest as illustrate by liquidity trap, they may spend more as more easy money come in. Unexpected increase in consumption may lead to inflation or even hyperinflation.
Either way US economy is looking gloomy now and QE3 will only end with a massive failure. It's crazy to expect different results with same method. So if TARP and QE2 did not work, how can QE3 work?
22.5.11
The Death of Motion Picture Part 2: 3D
Nowadays, almost 50% of the motion pictures are in 3D. Everybody seems to dig this 3D magic especially after the infamous Avatar which (almost) perfected the technology that started around 60 years ago. Now we even have 3D handheld gaming device called Nintendo 3DS where glasses are history.
However I think 3D will kill motion pictures.
First of all, the glasses. It is unbelievable that after 60 years, we still cannot watch a 3D movie without the stupid 3D glasses that are ridiculously pricey. A good pair of it will cost us more than US$150. Sure we can rent one for 2 hours in the cinema but it is unbelievably uncomfortable. Why can't they design the shape of 3D glasses according to human skull?!
Next, the existence of 3D increase the significance of visual effect and graphical quality in making and watching movie. The viewers demand more on the graphic and the movie makers try to fulfill it. However that's the problem: they concentrate so much on graphic and (usually) ignore the other (more important) aspect of a movie: directing, plot, story, acting, dialogue, audio, character etc.
Furthermore, many viewers can't distinguish between 3D and CG. Take Clash of the Titans for instance. The 3D effect in that movie is superbly crappy and few and far in between. Most action scene in that film is computer-generated graphic and not 3D. However, many people including some movie-reviewing media wrongly considered CG as 3D.
It's actually very easy to distinguish 3D from CG (and i know most of you know). Take off the glasses and if you still can see clearly, it's CG.
With that small amount of 3D effect in most films, the price of ticket increase significantly from their 2D counterpart. Without improvement in other aspects of film mentioned above, slight improvement in graphic department can't offset the increase in ticket price and eventually viewers will lose interest.
Nowadays almost everything is in 3D. Animated movies and action movies in particular. Do we need toy story, Shrekor How to Train a Dragon in 3D? How bout action movie? Clash of the Titan, The Last Airbender, or Piranha 3D. The 3D effect in these movies is added in post production and it's very crappy. Worse, these movies completely ignore other aspect of motion picture making them unbelievably bad.
How bout the amazingly overpriced 3DTV? Few thousand bucks and all we get is a TV with few crappy glasses and few movies? Is this a scam? Nintendo can make a glasses free handheld devices so why we still do not have a glasses free TV?
Yes, it's cool to have 3D movie and Avatar really let us know 3D can be good for movies but until they improve the overall quality of motion picture, 3D will kill the motion picture we love.
However I think 3D will kill motion pictures.
First of all, the glasses. It is unbelievable that after 60 years, we still cannot watch a 3D movie without the stupid 3D glasses that are ridiculously pricey. A good pair of it will cost us more than US$150. Sure we can rent one for 2 hours in the cinema but it is unbelievably uncomfortable. Why can't they design the shape of 3D glasses according to human skull?!
Next, the existence of 3D increase the significance of visual effect and graphical quality in making and watching movie. The viewers demand more on the graphic and the movie makers try to fulfill it. However that's the problem: they concentrate so much on graphic and (usually) ignore the other (more important) aspect of a movie: directing, plot, story, acting, dialogue, audio, character etc.
Furthermore, many viewers can't distinguish between 3D and CG. Take Clash of the Titans for instance. The 3D effect in that movie is superbly crappy and few and far in between. Most action scene in that film is computer-generated graphic and not 3D. However, many people including some movie-reviewing media wrongly considered CG as 3D.
It's actually very easy to distinguish 3D from CG (and i know most of you know). Take off the glasses and if you still can see clearly, it's CG.
With that small amount of 3D effect in most films, the price of ticket increase significantly from their 2D counterpart. Without improvement in other aspects of film mentioned above, slight improvement in graphic department can't offset the increase in ticket price and eventually viewers will lose interest.
Nowadays almost everything is in 3D. Animated movies and action movies in particular. Do we need toy story, Shrekor How to Train a Dragon in 3D? How bout action movie? Clash of the Titan, The Last Airbender, or Piranha 3D. The 3D effect in these movies is added in post production and it's very crappy. Worse, these movies completely ignore other aspect of motion picture making them unbelievably bad.
How bout the amazingly overpriced 3DTV? Few thousand bucks and all we get is a TV with few crappy glasses and few movies? Is this a scam? Nintendo can make a glasses free handheld devices so why we still do not have a glasses free TV?
Yes, it's cool to have 3D movie and Avatar really let us know 3D can be good for movies but until they improve the overall quality of motion picture, 3D will kill the motion picture we love.
17.5.11
What is Going On, PM Najib??
First, I am totally agree that economically, subsidy is inefficient in resources management. It artificially reduce the market price of goods and services and cause inequilibrium. Increasing fiscal spending in subsidy may also caused deficit in government budget and temporarily boost national output and may cause inflation in the long run.
Because of that, our PM policy make perfect sense. However, yesterday, our deputy prime minister announce that government will adjust the wages of certain teachers in Malaysia. These are the senior staff in teaching profession which mostly consist of principles in secondary school. Their wages will increase by RM 2500 to RM3000.
WHAT???
WHY???
First, RM 2500 to RM 3000 is around the average wages of a fresh degree holders in Malaysia. Furthermore, these beneficiaries are all senior staffs in which their wages already at such a high level. Increasing their wages will only causing inefficiency in teaching profession.
Besides, increasing wages of these senior staff will not increase welfare of population as they are minority with incredible level of wages.
Increment in fiscal spending by adjusting wages will have the same effect from macroeconomics point of view as subsidizing petrol. Increase in government spending will cause inflation in the same way.
When we further analyze the situation, more questions surface.
Subsidizing petrol will cause petrol price to stay low and since this is subsidy (and not price ceiling), quantity demanded and quantity supplied will not differ. So inequilibrium may not happen.
Furthermore, maintaining petrol price at low level will have positive effect on supply as cost of production for firms decrease. Increase in production, thus, increase in aggregate supply will cancel off certain portions of demand pull inflation (caused by subsidy) and inflation will be under control.
So, since we know that inflation will be a big macroeconomics problem, subsidy will moderately contributing to inflation while temporarily boost output while wages adjustment will contribute more to inflation and also temporarily boost output. It seems like an easy choice, isn't it?
Furthermore, maintaining petrol price will contribute more to the welfare of Malaysian than wages adjustment since only around 400,000 of teachers in Malaysia and of this 400,000 teachers, only around 1228 of them will get wages adjustment. However we have around 19 million vehicle in Malaysia. Assume some of Malaysian own more than 1 car, it is safe to assume we have at least 5 million car owners.
So, there we go. Subsidy vs Wages increment. Subsidy is better in efficiency and equality. It is more efficient in economy and better welfare in economy as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)