Sunday, April 11, 2010

CA Election: Who voted for who

CA Election: Who voted for who
TKP, 14-Mar-2010
Sudhindra Sharma and Bal Krishna Khadka

A small news item on March 11 which did not make it to the headlines or TV discussions mentioned that a former assistant minister and Nepali Congress central committee member Hari Shanker Pariyar had joined the Maoists with some of his Dalit followers. With the Maoists threatening to launch a people’s revolt come end of May, and the other parties in the coalition government considering this merely a bluff, it would be pertinent to explore the support base of the Maoists. Who are the supporters and sympathisers of the Maoists? What are their demographic characteristics in terms of age, educational qualifications and caste/ethnicity? Does Pariyar’s quitting the Nepali Congress and joining the Maoists have any significance?

Three months after the completion of the Constituent Assembly election in April 2008, Interdisciplinary Analysts (IDA) had undertaken a nationwide survey in July-August 2008 with its statistically stratified random sample spread across 30 districts asking which party the respondents had voted for. A few months after the collapse of the Maoist-headed coalition government in May 2009, IDA had conducted another nationwide survey in July where an equal number of people across the country had been asked what they thought of the row over the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) and who they thought was right — the then Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda or President Ram Baran Yadav. From the responses to these two questions, it is possible to ascertain the demographic characteristics of the supporters and sympathisers of the Maoists, at least in very broad terms, and to glean valuable insights.

In the survey carried out in 2008, the following question was asked: "Which political party did you vote for under the proportional system?" As is well known, surveys such as those done by IDA allow for disaggregating the data by variables such as age, sex, urban-rural settlement, development region, ecological region and caste/ethnicity. Disaggregating this question by a respondent’s caste and ethnicity reveals that a person’s choice of a political party is related with his/her caste and ethnicity. This is shown in the Table 1.

Among the eight broad caste/ethnic groups, support for the Maoists is the strongest among the hill Dalits followed by Tarai and hill ethnic communities. While two out of three hill Dalits reported voting for the Maoists in the CA elections, so did almost every other ethnic voter (both among the hill and Tarai ethnic communities). The data also reveals that the Maoists have a fairly good presence among the hill castes. The support base of the Maoists is the weakest among the Madhesi groups — among Madhesi castes, Muslims and Madhesi Dalits.

After the row over the COAS and the collapse of the Maoist-led coalition government, IDA in its nationwide public opinion survey had asked the following question: “On May 3, 2009, the government under the premiership of Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda sacked General Rookmangud Katawal from the post of Chief of Army Staff. Late in the evening the same day, President Ram Baran Yadav wrote to the army headquarters informing General Rookmangud Katawal to stay in the post of Chief of Army Staff and continue his job. What is your opinion in this regard — who do you think was right, Prime Minister Prachanda or President Ram Baran Yadav?”

A high proportion was ambivalent with regards to the row over the COAS: 50 percent said “don’t know/cannot say” on this issue. Among the people who did express their opinion, 25 percent thought that Prime Minister Prachanda’s action was right while 20 percent thought that President Ram Baran Yadav’s action was right. What is revealing is the response to this question by educational attainment levels of the respondents.

When disaggregating the public’s opinion on the COAS row, one notices that a high proportion of the illiterate said “don’t know/cannot say”. With a rise in the educational attainment, people begin to form a definite opinion on the matter. If, for instance, 76 percent of the illiterate said "don’t know/cannot say", this comes down to 13 percent for those who have passed Bachelor’s level. Likewise, once educational attainment increases, those who say that the prime minister was right also increases. It, however, reaches the zenith among those who have passed School Leaving Certificate. With a further increase in the level of education after SLC, those who think the prime minister was right begins to decline. Among those who have passed the Bachelor’s level, only 24 percent think the prime minister was right compared to 41 percent among those who have passed SLC.

The data reveals a clear correlation between the level of educational attainment and the thinking that the president was right with regard to the row over the COAS. Unlike support for the prime minister, it does not taper off after reaching its zenith at a particular point. However, among those who have passed the Intermediate and Bachelor’s level, there is a substantial number of ambivalent opinions that consider neither of them to be right. The fact that support for the then Prime Minister Prachanda in the COAS row is highest among those who have passed SLC need not be construed as being highest among young people in general. Those who have passed SLC could be young people; it could also be older people who were not able to continue their education after SLC.

Combining the findings of the two surveys allows one to form some ideas of the support base of the Maoists. It, however, also leads to the following question: What could be the common feature behind hill Dalits (and hill and Tarai ethnic communities to a lesser extent) and those that have modest educational attainment levels? Though these are quite different entities — one a caste category and the other an educational level — hill Dalits and those who could not continue their education after SLC are those sections of society that feel that they have somehow been disadvantaged by the existing system. Feelings of having been deprived of the things in life that others have, and thus being “stuck” to where they are, could be the feature that ties together and links these disparate entities.

In a much-discussed op-ed piece in Kantipur on March 3, 2010, Pradeep Poudel, chief of the student wing of the Nepali Congress, lamented that Dalits were no longer attracted to the Congress, the political party which had been at the vanguard of the equality movement for half a century. What the news report mentioned above of Hari Shanker Pariyar’s joining the Maoists only said was that he was all praise for the Maoists for uplifting the Dalits. It did not give any clue as to what may have been his real reasons. With two out of three hill Dalits having voted for the Maoists during the CA elections as revealed by the IDA survey, one can only imagine the pressure exerted on Pariyar from the rank and file to join the Maoists!

Sudhindra Sharma, a sociologist, is executive director of IDA and Bal Krishna Khadka is a statistician at IDA.

Friday, April 09, 2010

Muluki Ain to become history soon

Muluki Ain to become history soon
TKP, 1-Apr-2010
By KAMAL RAJ SIGDEL

The government has prepared a complete and comprehensive body of criminal and civil laws to replace the entire Muluki Ain, the one-and-a-half-century old legal code enforced by first Rana oligarch Jung Bahadur Rana during his reign in 1854.

The new body of laws, organised into two codes, namely Criminal Code and a Civil Code, will modernise Nepal’s justice system, claim officials involved in preparing the drafts. For these laws to come into effect, the Cabinet and the Parliament will have to endorse them.

The Ministry of Law and Justice (MoLJ) will submit the final drafts of the codes to the Cabinet in the next few days, said MoLJ Secretary Madhav Poudel.

For the last two years, two expert committees under the leadership of Justice Khil Raj Regmi and Kalyan Shrestha were engaged in codifying the laws.

The new legal codes, said Poudel, are urgent for the country, given the changes following the Rana rule such as the country’s increased dealings with the international community, emergence of new types of crimes, and new perspectives on crime and punishment. “The Muliki Ain—despite over a dozen amendments—has several weaknesses.”

Structured in 6 Parts, 51 Chapters and 728 Sections, the Civil Code is the longest ever law to be enacted in the country, according to Poudel. The code includes chapters on “law of persons”, “family law”, “property law”, “law of obligation”, and “private international law”. The law, however, does not recognise gay marriage.

For the first time, the chapter on property law has defined servitude, trust (Guthi), usufruct to effectively resolve all legal disputes relating to land and property issues.

Considering Nepal’s obligation to the Hague Convention on inter-country adoption, the new civil code has provisioned separate section on the same. Nepal became signatory to the convention in April 2009. The new codes are prepared by codifying the SC precedents, and inheriting the best of Muluki Ain.

The move has evinced mixed reaction from legal experts. While former Nepal Bar Association Chairman Bishwo Kant Mainali said a country should shed off old systems to mark its entry into a new era, advocate Bhimarjun Acharya said replacing the legal document of historic significance would cost dear.

Wednesday, April 07, 2010

Day Traders 2.0: Wired, Angry and Loving It

Day Traders 2.0: Wired, Angry and Loving It
NY Times, 26-Mar-2010
By DAVID SEGAL

REMEMBER the day traders?

They were hard to miss during the tech-stock mania a decade ago, when the Nasdaq seemed like a casino built by morons and a chimp with darts could pick winners. You would hear about these guys — nearly all of them were guys — and wonder: Could anyone make a living this way? And if the answer was yes, why were the rest of us suckers still holding down regular jobs?

No doubt, it’s been a long time since a question like that troubled your imagination. And perhaps you assumed that the twin calamities of the Internet crash and the Great Recession had doomed the day-trader species in the unruly jungle of American capitalism. But some dreams refuse to die, and few, it seems, are more resilient than the dream of beating the market while wearing nothing but tighty-whities.

Or, if you are Andy Lindloff, a pair of jeans and a black waffle-pattern shirt.

“Banks are seeing a nice little lift,” he says, staring at computer screens one recent Wednesday morning, sipping coffee from a Denver Broncos mug. “The European banks are up, so that may bleed over to ours. Bank of America might be one to watch.”

Mr. Lindloff, 49, is sitting in his living room here in a city known as “surfer’s paradise,” about 25 miles north of San Diego. Surrounded by the playthings of his daughter — a toy oven, a doll house — he appears to be alone. In fact, he has plenty of company. With a hands-free headset, he is speaking to Steve Gomez, his partner in Today Trader, a two-year-old Internet venture that is “about helping traders find success through virtual technology,” as it says on the company’s Web site.

The company charges aspiring traders $199 a month for a live, real-time view of Mr. Lindloff’s computer screen, along with the running banter, commentary and advice that he and Mr. Gomez provide through the morning. (After lunch, it’s just Mr. Lindloff.) The service is billed as a chance to look over the “virtual shoulder” of two veteran stock traders, but you don’t really see anyone’s shoulder. It’s more like staring at the instrument panel of a jet while eavesdropping on the pilots, plus the ceaseless tap-tap of a keyboard.

By the opening bell, 21 subscribers are logged in.

“Citigroup’s at $4.10,” says Mr. Gomez, 43, who is in his home in San Diego. “Probably going to hang around that strike price.”

“AMD is at an interesting stop there, too,” says Mr. Lindloff, hopscotching from one chart to another.

“Keep it tight,” says Mr. Gomez. “Don’t fight the momentum.”

All the while, subscribers send questions and share ideas in a chat room that is part of the service.

“DRYS over 6.”

“MNKD short?”

“Watching this ALD.”

“HBAN?”

It might read like a teenager’s idea of a haiku, but this is the new frontier in do-it-yourself trading. Today Trader and its rivals are tiny operations, and they have modest followings. But they are harnessing all the crowd-sourcing features of the Internet circa 2010: YouTube, Twitter, and companies like GotoMeeting, a Web conferencing service.

They are also harnessing a lot of market-related rage. The gruesome stock plunge of late 2008 and early 2009 was a searing, fool-me-twice moment for many people. The market again seemed hopelessly treacherous, a mug’s game. And if you had an account with the brokerage arm of any number of Wall Street stalwarts — like Lehman Brothers, Citigroup or Merrill Lynch — your losses were doubly galling. Your team helped put a sleeper hold on the economy, the near-collapse of which then ravaged your portfolio.

Even many of those who took the safe route and years ago bought index funds have seen little upside. Look at the performance of the Standard & Poor’s 500, the most popular index out there. If you put $1,000 in it in 1999, you now have slightly less money in your account (about 0.3 percent less, actually).

If the motto of the original day-trade boom was, “If the pros can do it, so can we,” the motto today is, “We can’t do much worse than the pros.”

“There’s this idea out there that retail investors are dumb,” says Howard Lindzon, the co-founder of StockTwits, which curates a gusher of stock tips and financial news alerts tweeted by 20,000 regular contributors. “Well, it turns out that the institutional investors are pretty dumb. They nearly blew us all up with leverage.”

Of course, anyone hoping to join the day-trade caravan had better wear a seat belt, as Mr. Lindloff’s experience on this Wednesday morning demonstrates. Before lunch, he will buy and sell about 44,000 shares, in 17 trades. He starts off poorly, losing about $500. But a timely bet on a company called Rackspace Hosting (“I don’t know what they do,” he says), as well as quick investments in Applied Materials, Eagle Bulk Shipping and a few others, have turned things around.

“Up $210,” he says, removing his headset. Factoring in commissions, he’s made $60.

IT is hard to say how many day traders are currently plying their craft, if that is the right word, in this country. Brokerage firms track the activity and demographics of their customers, but they have been reluctant to share that data. About the most we know is that the day traders skew male, and the number of trades per $100,000 in client dollars is a little less than half what it was back in 2000, according to the Charles Schwab brokerage firm.

Even that figure seems high. As a job, “day trader” registers in roughly the same way as “disco ball manufacturer” or “Brooklyn farmer.” You know that someone has to be making disco balls and that maybe there are still a few plots of arable land in Brooklyn.

Still, it can seem strange to see TV ads for an Atlanta company called Long Term Short Term, which offers two-day investment seminars, as well as DVDs, CDs and online tutoring, in cities across the country. Price: $3,995 a person. Part of the pitch taps into the simmering anger at professional investors.

“People put their trust in stock brokerages that are now out of business, and have seen their 401(k) drop by 40 percent or more,” says Michael Hutchison, an executive vice president of Long Term Short Term, which does business as Better Trades. “Meanwhile, mutual fund companies are making $85 billion a year, and look at their performance. There are people who see all this and think, ‘Why don’t I educate myself?’”

Mr. Hutchinson hastens to add that his company doesn’t encourage anyone to quit a job and trade full time. But more than a few attendees may be looking for a change in career. Many of the new day traders are people who recently lost jobs and can’t find work.

“I get e-mails from people saying, ‘I worked for XYZ company for 20 years and I just got laid off,’” says Brian Shannon of Alphatrends, which, for $60 a month, offers proprietary online videos and a once-a-week live chat. “They’ve got a severance package or a nest egg that they want to invest themselves.”

Mr. Gomez and Mr. Lindloff are among the few who started day trading in the late ’90s and never stopped. At a late breakfast, just after that $60 morning, the two are sitting at a sidewalk cafe. You expect them to be revved up and antsy. Instead, look like members of a mellow Southern California rock band that split up 15 years ago. The most agitated either gets while trading online is the occasional “goddangit,” Mr. Lindloff’s idea of an outburst.

For years, Mr. Gomez was a manager at a self-storage facility, but he couldn’t resist trading commodities during office hours, and he had a hard time keeping his mind on his work. Mr. Lindloff worked at an Isuzu dealership for years, then made cold calls — knocking on doors — for Edward Jones, the brokerage firm. He left after three months.

“I knew I wanted to trade,” he says.

How good are they? Mr. Lindloff, who Mr. Gomez says is the more skilled of the two, says he has averaged somewhere between $100,000 and $120,000 a year for the last 10 years, even during the worst part of the Great Recession. With low expenses, he lives comfortably, though hardly extravagantly.

“I basically have $80,000 to $100,000 in my trading account every day,” he says, “and take my earnings out of that account to live.”

It is, to be sure, an odds-defying performance. The great mass of studies point to the same conclusion: trading is hazardous to your wealth, as an academic paper memorably put it. The losers far outnumber the winners.

Exactly how far is clear from one of the most comprehensive looks at the subject in a yet-to-be-published study conducted in Taiwan. (The country is ideal for this kind of research because all trades go through one place, the Taiwan Stock Exchange, which is willing to share the information.) The authors sifted through tens of millions of trades, from 1992 to 2006, and found that 80 percent of active traders lost money.

“More importantly, we found that if you were to look at the past performance of these traders, only 1 percent of them could be called predictably profitable,” says a co-author, Brad M. Barber, a finance professor at the University of California, Davis. Everyone else, it seems, was on a short-term winning streak. Even those who did modestly well found their that profits were wiped out, and then some, by transaction fees like commissions and taxes.

“It’s not impossible to make money actively trading,” Mr. Barber continues. “There are slivers of people out there who are quite good. And everyone thinks they will be in that group of 1 percent.”

So why do people persist in this line of work?

“The technical term is thrill-seeking,” says Hersh Shefrin, a professor of behavioral finance at Santa Clara University in California and author of “Beyond Greed and Fear,” an exploration of investors’ mindscapes. “There’s an adrenaline rush. And the thing about day trading is that it gives you pretty quick feedback. If you buy and hold, a lot of things need to happen before you see a result, and much of what happens relates to external factors that are beyond your control. With day trading, you’re in charge.”

Also, he says, “people enjoy trading.”

IF Mr. Lindloff is earning steady six-figure returns, he is squarely in the rarefied 1 percent of winners. But for $199 a month you sort of expect a man with a mansion, a hot tub and hyperbolic claims of double-digit returns. Why do a few dozen subscribers pay to watch these quite appealing but hardly world-beating guys at work?

“Eighty percent of it is camaraderie,” says Mr. Lindzon at StockTwits. “Look, my wife watches cooking shows and I tell her, ‘That’s not going to make you a better cook.’ With these guys, you get a community, you get to hang out with people who love stocks, and if you get a couple great ideas in a month, even better.”

Services like Twitter are naturals for traders, and not just because they offer a geyser of pointers, whispers and news flashes. They also give a far-flung group of people a simulacrum of fellowship, which is something that day traders need almost as much as good ideas.

Asked about the Today Trader method of buying and selling, both men seem momentarily stumped, as if they never saw the question coming. Then they talk about the search for “set-ups,” which seems to translate roughly as “golden opportunities,” but they struggle to put a finger on what set-ups are, or how to spot them.

It has something to do with tracking trading volumes of stocks and buying heavily traded stocks as they rise in price. But how to know a stock will keep rising? Intuition, they say. It tells them whether they’ve arrived at the party too late (in which case they won’t buy), at the right time (in which case they buy), or just before it ends (time to sell).

“A common phrase in this business,” says Mr. Lindloff, “is ‘the trend is your friend.’”

The more you listen, the more you realize that for all the high-tech gadgetry behind Today Trader, at its core is a Newtonian principle formulated more than 300 years ago: a body in motion tends to stay in motion.

The problem is that stocks aren’t bodies and their motion is subject to forces Newton could never have fathomed. Some of those forces are hard for the Today Trader duo to fathom, too. Mr. Gomez says that day trading has become far trickier in recent years because of the rise of robo trading — the use of computers to automatically buy and sell huge numbers of shares in superfast bursts, based on algorithms.

Big, muscular Wall Street veterans like Goldman Sachs have the money, smarts and brute power to dominate this computerized battle, and many day traders may not even be aware how outgunned they now are.

“It’s not something we fully understand, but algorithms don’t have emotions,” says Mr. Gomez. “It’s like these machines can smell a human. They can smell the fear of a discretionary trader. Stocks will still go from Point A to Point B. But what used to be a waltz is now more like mosh pit.”

Daily hand-to-hand combat with a bunch of robots? It seems kind of crazy. But is it any crazier than leaving your money in the same place where it languished for the last decade?

This is a not a simple question. Fortunately, one man is ideally suited to answer it.

UNFORTUNATELY, Charles Schwab doesn’t do interviews.

This is ironic, as has been noted by reporters who have come calling of late, because the company has spent five years and a fortune on an ad campaign whose kicker is “Talk to Chuck.” But in 2008, Mr. Schwab vacated the C.E.O. job — he is now chairman — and the company would like to wean the public off the idea that Charles Schwab is the public face of Charles Schwab.

No small feat, given the name of the company and given the ubiquity of that face in many years of advertising. Mr. Schwab once said he took his grandchildren out trick-or-treating on Halloween and some people thought he was wearing a Charles Schwab mask.

Though he wore a jacket and tie in his TV spots, he seemed to have the heart and soul of a revolutionary. The idea behind the company was to cut commission rates so low — they started off at $70 a trade in 1975, which was then a steal — that the average investor could trade without paying exorbitant fees to Wall Street. If day trading had a patron saint, it was this man.

The current C.E.O. is Walt Bettinger, 49, who is sitting one morning in his San Francisco office, which is next to Mr. Schwab’s and has a killer view of the Bay Bridge. He knows the subject is day trading, and you can tell he finds this topic slightly annoying, the way a movie star would find it annoying if you asked about a film he made 20 years ago.

“I think the day-trade concept is a paragraph in the story of Charles Schwab,” he says. “But it’s not the book.”

The book, he says, is Schwab’s evolution from a company that was just focused on what he calls “self-directed investors” to a company that also offers advice to those who seek it and full-on portfolio management for those who prefer to leave their investment decisions in someone else’s hands.

As a strategy, this makes sense because it turns out that traders are fickle customers. Even during the banner years, Mr. Bettinger said, the company had to constantly replenish its base of very active traders.

The push to advise clients and to manage portfolios started gaining traction in 2005, and the company says that last year, customers moved $21 billion into assorted fee-based advice offerings — which suggests that the era of professional hand-holding in the wealth-management world is hardly over.

Schwab now offers every item at the steam table of financial offerings, and Mr. Bettinger will not say he prefers one investment strategy to any other. He is, in fact, completely agnostic on the question and surpassingly unhelpful at opining about day trading. If that works for you, do it, he’ll say. Unless you’d like someone to manage your money — in which case, do that.

It is a politic, even-handed answer that proves just how over the whole trading phenomenon the company is. Schwab today is a bit like that part-time insurrectionist you knew in college who denounced “the man” and later became a management consultant. You can understand the evolution and appreciate the maturity, but you can still think fondly of the days when he stood outside the dining hall pushing copies of The Workers Vanguard.

About the most Mr. Bettinger will say about day trading is that it’s a “tough gig.” “You’re competing against mega-institutions that are trading in hundredths of a second.”

HE’S right, and the Today Trader team keeps clashing with those mega-institutions. At one point, Mr. Lindloff buys shares in Patterson-UTI Energy, because he thinks it looks ripe for an uptick. Instead, it dives a few cents, and because Mr. Lindloff has an automatic stop on the trade — which sells the shares if they dip below a certain threshold — they are sold for a loss. A moment later, the shares shoot up.

Mr. Lindloff thinks he has been juked and jived by a robo trader.

“That was nothing but an algorithm boogie,” he mutters to the Today Trader faithful. “Goddang it. Drives me crazy.”

“My analogy is that whole sector is doing great and they find one weak animal in a herd,” replies Mr. Gomez, “and they’ll attack it.”

Mr. Gomez trades his own accounts but spends much of his time answering questions posted in the chat room. One is from a subscriber, Rick, who asks, “What do you guys do to stop kicking yourself (emotionally) about missed opportunity?”

“The only thing you can control is your attitude,” Mr. Gomez replies into his microphone, moments after the question is posted. “Not looking back, not kicking yourself for not catching the whole move. You’re never going to be perfect. Nobody is going to be perfect.”

Not even Today Trader. By the end of the day, Mr. Lindloff has traded 60,000 shares and is up $165. It would be a satisfying return, but commissions on those trades cost $300.

“You know,” says Mr. Gomez, “a lot of people tell us that our down days are every bit as instructive as our ups.”

The Next Small Thing

The Next Small Thing
NY Magazine, 4-Apr-2010
By Christine Whitney

The Yotel chain—purveyors of tiny, chic hotel rooms inspired by Tokyo’s famous “Kapseru Hoteru” capsule lodgings—recently announced plans to open an outpost in Times Square. Inexpensive “Kapseru Hoteru” are the SROs of Japan—some capsule-hotel “rooms” are simply three-foot-high sleeping units stacked on top of one another. But the Yotel is a higher-end version, part of a larger city trend toward smaller accommodations.

Yotel Amenities
Large single bed, foldout desk and stool, private bathroom with shower, flat-screen TV, free wi-fi. “We use the language of first-class airline travel,” says Yotel founder Simon Woodroffe. The company’s three existing hotels are all near European airports—London’s Gatwick and Heathrow and Amsterdam’s Schiphol.

Not Yet Turning Japanese
The Japanese capsule trend began with the 1972 opening of a Tokyo apartment building, Nakagin Capsule Tower, that catered to businessmen with 140 rooms the size of shipping containers (104 square feet). The first capsule hotel opened in 1979. Most are equipped with only a radio and a small TV that hangs down from the ceiling like the screens on buses and airplanes.


Mini-Rooms
A traditional hotel room at the Hilton New York in midtown is 320 square feet and rents for $309. But cool new hotels are going smaller:

The Standard
meatpacking district
245 square feet
$195

Yotel
midtown (planned)
170 square feet
$150

The Ace
Flatiron
140 square feet
$209

The Pod
midtown
70 square feet
$99

The Jane
West Village
50 square feet
$99

Whitehouse
Bowery SRO turned hotel
24 square feet
$33.50


Capsule facts
109
Number of capsule hotels currently in Tokyo

21.5 square feet
Average size of Japanese capsule-hotel unit (cost: $38)

18 square feet
Size of smallest available Japanese unit

16 square feet
Size of an average casket