Maybe the topic is slightly provocative, but it seems that at least some Finnish newspapers have been declining in quality very rapidly. I personally don't subscribe to any newspapers as they don't fit my lifestyle: I don't eat breakfast nor do I sit at home in the mornings for long enough to be able to read a newspaper. Instead I prefer to get my news online. So that's why I pay more attention to the online versions of some of Finland's larger newspapers. But unfortunately it seems that either some of these papers don't take online presence seriously or then they just don't care for their brands.
I vaguely recall that Kauppalehti used to be a semi-decent newspaper which focused on business. We still get the paper version at the office and because of some unknown campaign, my new broker is going to send two months worth of Kauppalehti to me. But to be honest, I'm not entirely sure about the brand anymore. I check out their online news about once a day, and the quality is appalling, to say the least. These days it seems that it's a rare case and a big feat when they manage to post a bit of news online without it containing a number of spelling mistakes. And even that would be ok if they would actively hunt them down and correct them. But more annoyingly I think that their overall quality is very much lacking: their news seems to be very biased and tabloid-like. They seem to be desperately seeking for sensational stories, and failing at this, as well as passing rumors and gossip. If one were to have tendencies to see conspiracies, one could easily assume that the writers of Kauppalehti were actively using their medium to drive the stocks of various companies up or down, depending on their will. But that may be giving too much credit to Kauppalehti, so maybe we'll just assume that it's just bad journalism by amateur reporters.
Another thing that I've been able to amuse myself with are the commenting features of some online newspapers, for instance Helsingin Sanomat. I've read very many different online news sites in the past decade, and seldom have I seen such an amount of trolling as is frequently present in the comments of Finland's number one newspaper. I'm not saying that it's the fault of Helsingin Sanomat; far from it. From what I've read their news, I think that they're actually doing a decent job of it. I may not be directly in line with their political stance, but I can appreciate what they're writing and where they're coming from. But the comments! If you ever have to kill an hour or two of time, head on down to the comments area of HS's web site and you're bound to get a laugh or two, or your money back.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
First level reached
Earlier today (Sunday) I had my first level-test in Krav Maga. Or any martial art/self-defense system, for that matter. The experience was certainly interesting as I had practically no clue as to what I was walking into on a practical level. All in all the test was certainly much easier than I expected and I think I would've given myself some negative feedback on a few things, the most annoying of which was when I totally froze and failed to defend myself properly when the instructor was hitting hooks at my head. The situation was slightly amusing since I don't really know why that happened: I knew what I was facing and what I had to do, I saw the fist, but for some odd reason I failed to react. On the second try I got my arm in the way, but blocked with the wrong part and got another hit on my head. It was only on the third attempt that I was actually able to focus enough to get any type of semi-credible defense and counter-attack in place. In retrospect that was the most annoying thing that happened and I would've given myself a minus for something as stupid as that.
Anyway, ultimately it seemed like the P1 test was more focused on just checking that everyone was somewhat sane and able to take part in further training, if they so wished. This became obvious when everyone passed the test and there were a few people who had no clue as to how to break free from a headlock as well as other types of chokes. In general, though, it seemed quite strange that people who had attended the course would have been able to not pick up the simple moves and techniques, but oh well...
Now with the P1 behind, I guess life will go on as usual and I'll see if I can train enough to get P2 next spring. I was also thinking of supplementing my KM with some fitness boxing as the company seems to be kind enough to arrange a fitness boxing lesson every Monday at a nearby office...
Anyway, ultimately it seemed like the P1 test was more focused on just checking that everyone was somewhat sane and able to take part in further training, if they so wished. This became obvious when everyone passed the test and there were a few people who had no clue as to how to break free from a headlock as well as other types of chokes. In general, though, it seemed quite strange that people who had attended the course would have been able to not pick up the simple moves and techniques, but oh well...
Now with the P1 behind, I guess life will go on as usual and I'll see if I can train enough to get P2 next spring. I was also thinking of supplementing my KM with some fitness boxing as the company seems to be kind enough to arrange a fitness boxing lesson every Monday at a nearby office...
Thursday, October 15, 2009
On taxes and subsidies
Finland has been recently trying to revamp its laws and taxation when it comes to saving for pensions. Previously the setup has been that individuals gain tax benefits if they save towards their pensions via voluntary pension insurances, which are managed by private companies. These companies typically charge an arm and a leg for offering this service, which seems logical for them and raises the question of how silly this is for the government to essentially subsidize private companies in this way. And taking into account the fact that most likely these funds will anyway be very conservatively managed and create less-than-optimal profits for their owners (and the overpriced management fees on top), the system seems flawed.
Anyway, the changes in the legislation seem to focus on introducing a setup where the individual person can use a multitude of different financial instruments when saving, and is able to perform reallocation of capital with no tax consequences, as long as they do not withdraw the capital from these special accounts before they reach the pension age. Sounds a lot more reasonable than what we've previously had. However, I think this still doesn't address the rather fundamental problem of market distortions that are caused every time the government steps in.
I'm personally very skeptical about any types of subsidies or benefits that the government (or any other authority) hands out. They may benefit some, but most likely the overall consequences aren't understood due to the complex nature of the world that we live in. A very good example of this is in the Finnish tax legislation where you can deduct parts of the interest payments that you incur from your house loan. While I technically understand the intention behind that, I fear that in fact these types of subsidies merely end up directly into the house prices and push them further up, meaning that the net benefit for an individual who is looking to purchase a house is more or less zero, at best.
Additionally, the problem on sudsidization via taxes is that it is so bloody complex. Combine, for instance, the two above topics: saving via investing and purchasing a home. You get tax benefits from your home loan, but if you get any types of capital incomes from abroad, you start losing your tax benefit. This doesn't happen with capital income from Finland. Ok, I can see that this might encourage Finns to invest in Finland. Fair enough. But now my investment portfolio has an increasing amount of risk that stems from the fact that I do not distribute my savings geographically. So if things go south in Finland and the economy goes bad, I lose my job (and thus my steady income from wages), and then I also lose my equity that I've been trying to build up for the rainy day, because I haven't been able to achieve a properly diverse portfolio of ownings from abroad. A double-whammy right in the back of my head. (And yes, I am aware that I could invest abroad via mutual funds that are managed by Finnish financial institutions, but the amounts they charge for this service are ludicrous to say the least).
So ultimately I think the goal should be to get away from tax benefits and subsidies, which unnecessarily complicate the system and don't even achieve the intended results at the end of the day. Instead we should scrap these types of systems in favor of a lower tax rate. And as an additional benefit, we could also decrease the size of the tax authority, which would no longer need such a large machinery to operate...
Anyway, the changes in the legislation seem to focus on introducing a setup where the individual person can use a multitude of different financial instruments when saving, and is able to perform reallocation of capital with no tax consequences, as long as they do not withdraw the capital from these special accounts before they reach the pension age. Sounds a lot more reasonable than what we've previously had. However, I think this still doesn't address the rather fundamental problem of market distortions that are caused every time the government steps in.
I'm personally very skeptical about any types of subsidies or benefits that the government (or any other authority) hands out. They may benefit some, but most likely the overall consequences aren't understood due to the complex nature of the world that we live in. A very good example of this is in the Finnish tax legislation where you can deduct parts of the interest payments that you incur from your house loan. While I technically understand the intention behind that, I fear that in fact these types of subsidies merely end up directly into the house prices and push them further up, meaning that the net benefit for an individual who is looking to purchase a house is more or less zero, at best.
Additionally, the problem on sudsidization via taxes is that it is so bloody complex. Combine, for instance, the two above topics: saving via investing and purchasing a home. You get tax benefits from your home loan, but if you get any types of capital incomes from abroad, you start losing your tax benefit. This doesn't happen with capital income from Finland. Ok, I can see that this might encourage Finns to invest in Finland. Fair enough. But now my investment portfolio has an increasing amount of risk that stems from the fact that I do not distribute my savings geographically. So if things go south in Finland and the economy goes bad, I lose my job (and thus my steady income from wages), and then I also lose my equity that I've been trying to build up for the rainy day, because I haven't been able to achieve a properly diverse portfolio of ownings from abroad. A double-whammy right in the back of my head. (And yes, I am aware that I could invest abroad via mutual funds that are managed by Finnish financial institutions, but the amounts they charge for this service are ludicrous to say the least).
So ultimately I think the goal should be to get away from tax benefits and subsidies, which unnecessarily complicate the system and don't even achieve the intended results at the end of the day. Instead we should scrap these types of systems in favor of a lower tax rate. And as an additional benefit, we could also decrease the size of the tax authority, which would no longer need such a large machinery to operate...
Sunday, October 11, 2009
On electric cars
The previous entry consisted of only a short advertisement video of the Fisker Karma, quite arguably one of the coolest electric cars yet. I've talked with a number of people about cars and I personally still maintain that a car is an aspirational thing, at least for me. If I ever get myself a car, it has to be a car that I want. Not a compromise. It has to be something that I actually want to get into and absolutely want to take a ride in it. Not something that makes a small piece of me die every time I see it.
If nothing else, things in life should be beautiful. And the Karma is certainly more beautiful than a Prius. And on every front the Karma just absolutely destroys the Prius; design, performance, treehugging, etc. Hell, the car was designed by the same bloke who did Aston Martin's DB9 and V8 Vantage, and those are absolutely stunning cars. So, the Karma will obviously be something that should serve as a good launch for the electric cars: it shows that an electric car doesn't need to be an underpowered wimp that looks like crap. And that's important, since as long as the electric car is merely something that you buy so that you can save the environment, it won't fly. But as soon as you make the electric car into something that is elegant, fast, and which makes you drool every time you see it, then you've solved the problem.
And finally: a Toyota isn't cool. Period.
If nothing else, things in life should be beautiful. And the Karma is certainly more beautiful than a Prius. And on every front the Karma just absolutely destroys the Prius; design, performance, treehugging, etc. Hell, the car was designed by the same bloke who did Aston Martin's DB9 and V8 Vantage, and those are absolutely stunning cars. So, the Karma will obviously be something that should serve as a good launch for the electric cars: it shows that an electric car doesn't need to be an underpowered wimp that looks like crap. And that's important, since as long as the electric car is merely something that you buy so that you can save the environment, it won't fly. But as soon as you make the electric car into something that is elegant, fast, and which makes you drool every time you see it, then you've solved the problem.
And finally: a Toyota isn't cool. Period.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Specialization
I've been a customer of Nordea, a financial services group, for quite a while. On a general level they've performed decently well in their services and the prices that I've had to pay have been very reasonable. They haven't succumbed to any of the pitfalls that another group, Sampo, has been treading through over the past few years. Recently, however, I have been getting somewhat fed up with Nordea, namely the prices they charge for making investments abroad.
The mantra that the larger groups have been saying for years and years is that it pays to focus all of your dealings, from day-to-day finances to investments to loans as well as insurances, to a single entity. The logic goes that the group is able to give you significant and tangible discounts on different products, thus benefitting the end customer as well. I've never entirely bought this argument, namely because I've been somewhat skeptical in regards to putting all my eggs in one basket. This turned out to be a good call when Kaupthing all of a sudden fell down and Sampo's debit cards stopped working. I still had Nordea which more or less worked. Kudos to them for that.
However, when it comes to investments, I've recently started moving towards Nordnet, which is a specialized internet-based broker which operates in the Nordic region. The benefits for me are very tangible, and individual transaction costs from buying e.g. German stocks are a very nifty 70% lower than with Nordea. There are other benefits as well in the form of a better user interface, increased amounts of data for me to access, etc. So overall the package is better, and more importantly cheaper for me.
Now this provokes an interesting question: why can't a group like Nordea, which works with revenue of over eight billion euros per year, offer me competitive pricing in this category? Or more importantly, I know that they could offer it to me, but I would have to go through various negotiations and even then it's not that likely that it would happen. And even then their web-based interface is lacking behind Nordnet's. So this makes it very tempting to jump to the conclusion that specialization is the key here: a company of 323 employees and a specialized business model just runs circles around a mammoth of a company with 34000 employees. In this case I am guessing that the key is the increased focus and a very compelling offering in regards to increased value for the customer. The formula is simple, and thus it's easy for me to motivate the move. Let's see what happens...
The mantra that the larger groups have been saying for years and years is that it pays to focus all of your dealings, from day-to-day finances to investments to loans as well as insurances, to a single entity. The logic goes that the group is able to give you significant and tangible discounts on different products, thus benefitting the end customer as well. I've never entirely bought this argument, namely because I've been somewhat skeptical in regards to putting all my eggs in one basket. This turned out to be a good call when Kaupthing all of a sudden fell down and Sampo's debit cards stopped working. I still had Nordea which more or less worked. Kudos to them for that.
However, when it comes to investments, I've recently started moving towards Nordnet, which is a specialized internet-based broker which operates in the Nordic region. The benefits for me are very tangible, and individual transaction costs from buying e.g. German stocks are a very nifty 70% lower than with Nordea. There are other benefits as well in the form of a better user interface, increased amounts of data for me to access, etc. So overall the package is better, and more importantly cheaper for me.
Now this provokes an interesting question: why can't a group like Nordea, which works with revenue of over eight billion euros per year, offer me competitive pricing in this category? Or more importantly, I know that they could offer it to me, but I would have to go through various negotiations and even then it's not that likely that it would happen. And even then their web-based interface is lacking behind Nordnet's. So this makes it very tempting to jump to the conclusion that specialization is the key here: a company of 323 employees and a specialized business model just runs circles around a mammoth of a company with 34000 employees. In this case I am guessing that the key is the increased focus and a very compelling offering in regards to increased value for the customer. The formula is simple, and thus it's easy for me to motivate the move. Let's see what happens...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
