Here are two Youtube videos on how 6 year old Cheyenne solve the shape quiz. The quiz is suitable for children, adults and seniors. It is challenging and fun. You can also organise a competition for a group of friends, to see who can get the shape first.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Shape Quiz book is now ready
The long awaited shape quiz books is now ready. It is quite attractive. Available for only $7.90 here.
6 day detox programme (2)
I have now completed 5 days out of the 6 day detox programme. The results have been satisfactory. Read my experience here.
You can likely chop your car insurance bill in half
If you're looking to trim your expenses as much as possible, you might be eying your insurance bills. There are many ways to tinker with your car insurance coverage to chop your premium down to a bare minimum. You could call your insurance company and:
* Drop your liability limits to the minimum level allowed by state law
* Drop your collision and comprehensive coverages
* Keep collision and comprehensive but increase your deductible to $1,000 or more
* Drop your uninsured motorists (UM) coverage
How low can you go? You can likely chop your car insurance bill in half by dropping your liability limits from "recommended" limits of 100/300/50 down to 25/50/10, dropping collision and comprehensive, and dropping UM (see chart below for average savings). Many states have minimum liability limits of 25/50/10, but others are higher or lower. See the minimum levels of car insurance you are required to buy.
How low can you go?
Average national insurance premiums
Vehicle Coverage of 100/300/50 with comprehensive & collision, UM included Coverage of 25/50/10, no comprehensive or collision, no UM Savings
Honda CR-V $834 $426 49%
Honda Odyssey $786 $338 57%
Chevy Tahoe $878 $420 52%
Ford F-series pickup $905 $438 52%
Toyota Camry $885 $412 53%
Chrysler Town & Country $768 $355 54%
Audi A8 $1,268 $426 66%
Source: bestinsurance4u.com research.
Average national premiums calculated for a 40-year-old single male driver. Policy limits of 100/300/50 assume a $500 deductible. Model year 2004 was used for all quotes because collision and comprehensive are often dropped on older cars. We used states with liability minimums of 25/50/10; some states require higher minimums.
But remember this: Dropping your car insurance to a bare minimum opens you up to substantial risk.
"You want to consider that very carefully. You’re trying to protect the assets you have," says Robert Passmore, spokesperson for the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCIAA), an industry trade group. If you have a house, savings and investments, they could be put at risk if you cause a large accident where damage exceeds your insurance limits. And if you've dropped your UM coverage, a driver with no or inadequate insurance could wreck your finances too.
Passmore notes that the most expensive coverage dollars are the first dollars. In other words, $100,000 in coverage does not cost twice the price of $50,000 in coverage. "It’s like getting a volume discount," says Passmore.
Another quick way to save money is to comparison shop and change companies based solely on price. Before you leap to another insurer, check its track record. You won't receive more value for your insurance dollar if your new company has poor customer service. Many states release "complaint ratios" showing the relative number of consumer complaints against each company. bestinsurancequotes4u.com has contact information for state insurance departments.
* Drop your liability limits to the minimum level allowed by state law
* Drop your collision and comprehensive coverages
* Keep collision and comprehensive but increase your deductible to $1,000 or more
* Drop your uninsured motorists (UM) coverage
How low can you go? You can likely chop your car insurance bill in half by dropping your liability limits from "recommended" limits of 100/300/50 down to 25/50/10, dropping collision and comprehensive, and dropping UM (see chart below for average savings). Many states have minimum liability limits of 25/50/10, but others are higher or lower. See the minimum levels of car insurance you are required to buy.
How low can you go?
Average national insurance premiums
Vehicle Coverage of 100/300/50 with comprehensive & collision, UM included Coverage of 25/50/10, no comprehensive or collision, no UM Savings
Honda CR-V $834 $426 49%
Honda Odyssey $786 $338 57%
Chevy Tahoe $878 $420 52%
Ford F-series pickup $905 $438 52%
Toyota Camry $885 $412 53%
Chrysler Town & Country $768 $355 54%
Audi A8 $1,268 $426 66%
Source: bestinsurance4u.com research.
Average national premiums calculated for a 40-year-old single male driver. Policy limits of 100/300/50 assume a $500 deductible. Model year 2004 was used for all quotes because collision and comprehensive are often dropped on older cars. We used states with liability minimums of 25/50/10; some states require higher minimums.
But remember this: Dropping your car insurance to a bare minimum opens you up to substantial risk.
"You want to consider that very carefully. You’re trying to protect the assets you have," says Robert Passmore, spokesperson for the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCIAA), an industry trade group. If you have a house, savings and investments, they could be put at risk if you cause a large accident where damage exceeds your insurance limits. And if you've dropped your UM coverage, a driver with no or inadequate insurance could wreck your finances too.
Passmore notes that the most expensive coverage dollars are the first dollars. In other words, $100,000 in coverage does not cost twice the price of $50,000 in coverage. "It’s like getting a volume discount," says Passmore.
Another quick way to save money is to comparison shop and change companies based solely on price. Before you leap to another insurer, check its track record. You won't receive more value for your insurance dollar if your new company has poor customer service. Many states release "complaint ratios" showing the relative number of consumer complaints against each company. bestinsurancequotes4u.com has contact information for state insurance departments.
recession in full swing and unemployment still moving higher
With the recession in full swing and unemployment still moving higher, consumers are looking for opportunities to save money any way they can. The most common budget items most look to trim first are things like groceries, gas and other expenses that vary month to month. But for some reason insurance costs, which are generally fixed, are often ignored.
That could be a costly mistake. Simply reviewing your auto and homeowners insurance policies and making a few adjustments could save you more than one hundred dollars a month. But where should you start?
First, take a hard look at your deductibles. Raising your home and auto insurance deductibles from $250 to $1,000 could reduce your premiums by 25 and 40 percent, respectively. You'll incur higher out-of-pocket costs should you need to file a claim, but the amount you'll save on your premiums may be well worth it.
Savings: Up to $45 per month. Time: Approx. 15 minutes
Second, carrying your home and auto insurance policies with a single insurer could save you even more. According to the Insurance Information Institute, converting to a multi line policy could save you as much as 15 percent on each premium. Plus, you'll have one fewer bill to pay each month.
Savings: As much as $20 per month. Time: Approx. 30 minutes
Third, if you haven't compared insurance providers in more than a year, you're overdue. And the simple act of shopping around can save you money instantly. There are a number of ways to get quotes, but one of the easiest ways is to let those quotes come to you by using an online comparison site such as WWW.bestinsurancequotes4u.com.
Savings: As much as $50 per month or more. Time: Approx. 15 minutes
Total Savings: Up to $115 or more per month
Total Time: Approximately one hour
learn more about ways to save on your auto and homeowners insurance, visit the bestinsurancequotes4u.com
That could be a costly mistake. Simply reviewing your auto and homeowners insurance policies and making a few adjustments could save you more than one hundred dollars a month. But where should you start?
First, take a hard look at your deductibles. Raising your home and auto insurance deductibles from $250 to $1,000 could reduce your premiums by 25 and 40 percent, respectively. You'll incur higher out-of-pocket costs should you need to file a claim, but the amount you'll save on your premiums may be well worth it.
Savings: Up to $45 per month. Time: Approx. 15 minutes
Second, carrying your home and auto insurance policies with a single insurer could save you even more. According to the Insurance Information Institute, converting to a multi line policy could save you as much as 15 percent on each premium. Plus, you'll have one fewer bill to pay each month.
Savings: As much as $20 per month. Time: Approx. 30 minutes
Third, if you haven't compared insurance providers in more than a year, you're overdue. And the simple act of shopping around can save you money instantly. There are a number of ways to get quotes, but one of the easiest ways is to let those quotes come to you by using an online comparison site such as WWW.bestinsurancequotes4u.com.
Savings: As much as $50 per month or more. Time: Approx. 15 minutes
Total Savings: Up to $115 or more per month
Total Time: Approximately one hour
learn more about ways to save on your auto and homeowners insurance, visit the bestinsurancequotes4u.com
SCMP:Cleaning up the mess after a big player falls
15 July 2009
In the last part of a series, Enoch Yiu examines proposals on how to deal with future financial failures. The Lehman Brothers minibond crisis showed just how ill-prepared Hong Kong is for the collapse of a new breed of hybrid investment products.
Bank deposits are insured up to HK$100,000, which may soon be raised to HK$500,000. Consumers can recoup up to HK$150,000 in the case of a failed broker, although the investments themselves are not covered. And the insurance industry is considering its own compensation fund in the case of failures.
But crossover products have left consumers without protection. Ten months after Lehman collapsed, leaving behind HK$20 billion in now virtually worthless minibonds, customers are still awaiting a resolution.
Regulators are trying to negotiate compensation. The government is mulling the creation of an ombudsman. Meanwhile, banks are rehearsing ways to handle any collapse, and other industries are looking on with interest.
Many Lehman minibond investors, frustrated at the lack of compensation, criticise the lengthy negotiations with the minibond sellers and the lack of clear guidelines from the regulators about handling their complaints.
They are even confused about where they should take their case - the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, which regulates banks, or the Securities and Futures Commission, which regulates the securities market.
"I did not know where to file my complaint, so I ended up contacting the Democratic Party to help me out," said investor May Chan.
The quick answer: Investors who bought minibonds from banks should go to the HKMA; those that bought them from brokers need to go to the SFC. But the whole process has left investors confused and angry.
In its negotiations with financial institutions, the SFC has so far only been able to prod full compensation for investors out of Sun Hung Kai Financial (HK$85 million) and KGI (HK$1.6 million). The SFC wanted the same compensation from banks but failed. Banks are negotiating with customers on a case-by-case basis.
Bank of China (Hong Kong) reportedly suggested compensation at 60 per cent of the minibond investment. But SFC chief executive Martin Wheatley told legislators last week that it was unacceptable, because banks should pay the higher value of the principal investment.
Permanent Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury (Financial Services) Au King-chi said the government would consult soon about whether Hong Kong needed to set up a new agency, a financial services ombudsman, to handle complaints and negotiations between banks and customers in disputes like that over the Lehman minibonds.
"The SFC has asked for the power to compel compensation, while the HKMA has not," said Ms Au.
The government will consider the experiences of financial services ombudsmen in Britain, Singapore, Australia and Canada.
But legislator Kam Nai-wai believes an ombudsman would have little effect. "What we need is a real super-regulator that has the power to add tough regulations on banks and brokers that sell investment products to investors. We do not need another complaint channel," he said.
There is also the question of what mechanism should exist to deal with the collapse of a large investment bank or broker. Banks have already held rehearsals. In 2006, Hong Kong introduced its deposit protection scheme - initially set at HK$100,000, with a proposed rise to HK$500,000. A year later, it conducted its first annual rehearsal to deal with failed banks. Another rehearsal was conducted at the end of last year.
"Such an exercise cost several million dollars and a whole week, but it is all worth it," said Raymond Li Ling-cheung, the chief executive of the Deposit Protection Board. "The rehearsal makes sure we have a group of contracted providers, such as accountants, lawyers, cheque printers and PR firms, that are prepared for the worst. This will allow us to give cheque payments to the depositors within 14 days of a bank collapse."
Hong Kong Stockbrokers Association chairman Kenny Lee Yiu-sun said such rehearsals could be expanded to the securities market.
"It is worth it for the SFC and the related regulators to have similar rehearsals to inform the public about the impact of the collapse of a giant player like Lehman," he said.
When Lehman collapsed on September 15 last year, the SFC banned the exchange clearing house from taking the cash and stock of Lehman to settle the trades it made on the previous trading days. The clearing house was thus forced to trade in the market to settle the transactions.
Since the market fell 1,052 points that day, the trades were executed at prices lower than had been agreed upon. The result was a loss of HK$160 million, forcing the exchange to make a provision.
Legislator Chim Pui-chung said the restrictions on the Lehman settlements were a mistake. In previous cases, the clearing houses took stock and cash from the collapsed firms to make settlement, which was international practice in the Lehman case.
"Luckily, Lehman did not have a large volume of unsettled trades in Hong Kong," said Mr Chim. "The clearing house would go bankrupt if the SFC imposed curbs on collapsed brokers with unsettled trades valued at HK$20 billion or HK$30 billion."
Mr Chim urged the SFC to confirm it would not repeat the practice.
However, the SFC argued that the powers of the commission to issue a restriction notice are set out clearly in the law, although it agreed to learn from the Lehman experience. "Based on the experience with Lehman, we have been working closely with the Hong Kong exchange to establish internal guidance as to how future restriction notices will be dealt with," the commission spokesman said.
The collapse of a giant player like Lehman is rare. Nevertheless, it exposed a range of problems in the financial regulatory system - loopholes in the law, gaps in the regulatory system, inadequate investor protection and a lack of preparation in the event of the failure of a large firm. The question is whether the government is prepared to fix the problems before another giant goes down.
In the last part of a series, Enoch Yiu examines proposals on how to deal with future financial failures. The Lehman Brothers minibond crisis showed just how ill-prepared Hong Kong is for the collapse of a new breed of hybrid investment products.
Bank deposits are insured up to HK$100,000, which may soon be raised to HK$500,000. Consumers can recoup up to HK$150,000 in the case of a failed broker, although the investments themselves are not covered. And the insurance industry is considering its own compensation fund in the case of failures.
But crossover products have left consumers without protection. Ten months after Lehman collapsed, leaving behind HK$20 billion in now virtually worthless minibonds, customers are still awaiting a resolution.
Regulators are trying to negotiate compensation. The government is mulling the creation of an ombudsman. Meanwhile, banks are rehearsing ways to handle any collapse, and other industries are looking on with interest.
Many Lehman minibond investors, frustrated at the lack of compensation, criticise the lengthy negotiations with the minibond sellers and the lack of clear guidelines from the regulators about handling their complaints.
They are even confused about where they should take their case - the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, which regulates banks, or the Securities and Futures Commission, which regulates the securities market.
"I did not know where to file my complaint, so I ended up contacting the Democratic Party to help me out," said investor May Chan.
The quick answer: Investors who bought minibonds from banks should go to the HKMA; those that bought them from brokers need to go to the SFC. But the whole process has left investors confused and angry.
In its negotiations with financial institutions, the SFC has so far only been able to prod full compensation for investors out of Sun Hung Kai Financial (HK$85 million) and KGI (HK$1.6 million). The SFC wanted the same compensation from banks but failed. Banks are negotiating with customers on a case-by-case basis.
Bank of China (Hong Kong) reportedly suggested compensation at 60 per cent of the minibond investment. But SFC chief executive Martin Wheatley told legislators last week that it was unacceptable, because banks should pay the higher value of the principal investment.
Permanent Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury (Financial Services) Au King-chi said the government would consult soon about whether Hong Kong needed to set up a new agency, a financial services ombudsman, to handle complaints and negotiations between banks and customers in disputes like that over the Lehman minibonds.
"The SFC has asked for the power to compel compensation, while the HKMA has not," said Ms Au.
The government will consider the experiences of financial services ombudsmen in Britain, Singapore, Australia and Canada.
But legislator Kam Nai-wai believes an ombudsman would have little effect. "What we need is a real super-regulator that has the power to add tough regulations on banks and brokers that sell investment products to investors. We do not need another complaint channel," he said.
There is also the question of what mechanism should exist to deal with the collapse of a large investment bank or broker. Banks have already held rehearsals. In 2006, Hong Kong introduced its deposit protection scheme - initially set at HK$100,000, with a proposed rise to HK$500,000. A year later, it conducted its first annual rehearsal to deal with failed banks. Another rehearsal was conducted at the end of last year.
"Such an exercise cost several million dollars and a whole week, but it is all worth it," said Raymond Li Ling-cheung, the chief executive of the Deposit Protection Board. "The rehearsal makes sure we have a group of contracted providers, such as accountants, lawyers, cheque printers and PR firms, that are prepared for the worst. This will allow us to give cheque payments to the depositors within 14 days of a bank collapse."
Hong Kong Stockbrokers Association chairman Kenny Lee Yiu-sun said such rehearsals could be expanded to the securities market.
"It is worth it for the SFC and the related regulators to have similar rehearsals to inform the public about the impact of the collapse of a giant player like Lehman," he said.
When Lehman collapsed on September 15 last year, the SFC banned the exchange clearing house from taking the cash and stock of Lehman to settle the trades it made on the previous trading days. The clearing house was thus forced to trade in the market to settle the transactions.
Since the market fell 1,052 points that day, the trades were executed at prices lower than had been agreed upon. The result was a loss of HK$160 million, forcing the exchange to make a provision.
Legislator Chim Pui-chung said the restrictions on the Lehman settlements were a mistake. In previous cases, the clearing houses took stock and cash from the collapsed firms to make settlement, which was international practice in the Lehman case.
"Luckily, Lehman did not have a large volume of unsettled trades in Hong Kong," said Mr Chim. "The clearing house would go bankrupt if the SFC imposed curbs on collapsed brokers with unsettled trades valued at HK$20 billion or HK$30 billion."
Mr Chim urged the SFC to confirm it would not repeat the practice.
However, the SFC argued that the powers of the commission to issue a restriction notice are set out clearly in the law, although it agreed to learn from the Lehman experience. "Based on the experience with Lehman, we have been working closely with the Hong Kong exchange to establish internal guidance as to how future restriction notices will be dealt with," the commission spokesman said.
The collapse of a giant player like Lehman is rare. Nevertheless, it exposed a range of problems in the financial regulatory system - loopholes in the law, gaps in the regulatory system, inadequate investor protection and a lack of preparation in the event of the failure of a large firm. The question is whether the government is prepared to fix the problems before another giant goes down.
SCMP:Tsang's disapproval rating at record high
Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen's disapproval rating has reached a record high after the July 1 protest, a poll shows.
Forty-five per cent of 1,006 people interviewed on the phone last week said they lacked confidence in him, the highest proportion to hold that view since he became the chief executive in 2005.
The figure was also 6 percentage points higher than that recorded in the previous survey late last month, the University of Hong Kong's public opinion programme found.
At the same time, the proportion of people who approved of Mr Tsang's performance dropped from 45 to 40 per cent.
His support rating also fell by 1.6 points to 53.8 points.
"Both in terms of the support rating and the approval rate, the popularity of Donald Tsang has dropped again after a rebound two weeks ago, probably due to the effect of the July 1 rally," Robert Chung Ting-yiu, director of the programme, said.
The latest poll was conducted after thousands of people marched on July 1 to air a range of demands, including calls for Mr Tsang's resignation and universal suffrage.
Some protested against the outsourcing of civil servants' work, while a group of investors who lost money on minibonds, a high-risk derivative investment, demanded compensation for their losses.
A spokesman for the Office of the Chief Executive said Mr Tsang respected the findings of the poll.
Forty-five per cent of 1,006 people interviewed on the phone last week said they lacked confidence in him, the highest proportion to hold that view since he became the chief executive in 2005.
The figure was also 6 percentage points higher than that recorded in the previous survey late last month, the University of Hong Kong's public opinion programme found.
At the same time, the proportion of people who approved of Mr Tsang's performance dropped from 45 to 40 per cent.
His support rating also fell by 1.6 points to 53.8 points.
"Both in terms of the support rating and the approval rate, the popularity of Donald Tsang has dropped again after a rebound two weeks ago, probably due to the effect of the July 1 rally," Robert Chung Ting-yiu, director of the programme, said.
The latest poll was conducted after thousands of people marched on July 1 to air a range of demands, including calls for Mr Tsang's resignation and universal suffrage.
Some protested against the outsourcing of civil servants' work, while a group of investors who lost money on minibonds, a high-risk derivative investment, demanded compensation for their losses.
A spokesman for the Office of the Chief Executive said Mr Tsang respected the findings of the poll.
Earthquake and tsunami
I received an e-mail on 14 July containing this message:
Quake and Tsunami Predicted on July 22 2009 Hello there. I just wanted to let you know that please stay away from the beaches all around in the month of July. There is a prediction that there will be another tsunami or earthquake hitting on 22 July 2009. It is also when there will be sun eclipse. Predicted that it is going to be really bad and countries like Malaysia (Sabah & Sarawak), Singapore , Maldives , Australia , Mauritius , Sri Lanka , India , Indonesia , Philippines
I just saw the news headlines on Channel News Asia (15 July):
* 7.8 earthquake off New Zealand
* Tsuname alert given out.
I don't know whether there will be another earthquake on 22 July. We have to wait and see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)