To be a Chef or not..

Being a Chef or at the least a good cook, ranks highly amongst one of my priorities to accomplish. Like I always said along, a fellow hasnt enjoyed life fully till he enjoys eating food. Its not the only factor the life enjoyment, but rather one of many...

Anyway, pple who get so involved in IT and all the gadgetry, have to really ask themselves, are they losing the meaning of communication. I figure all these IT hungry fellas are not really keen on face to face communication. They prefer being caged up in a room with all their iTouch, iRiver, iPod, and whatever else. IT has made communication so cheap and meaningless. What happen to speaking to someone in person? Maybe they prefer talking to a screen then to a face. Thats why we need modules like Communication Fundamentals and such coz IT has created the problem that needs to be resolved. I guess we gotta do both.\

Securitization

Just needed to put down my understanding of key terms that have been discussed in the current financial downturn thus far..

Securitisation : Process whereby banks issue loans(housing, car, credit card loans) that are backed up by collaterals such as the house, car, etc). Now, these banks have "securitized" this assets and issued bonds which are backed by this securities. Cash inflows from this bonds will make up for the cash outflows for the loans to ensure there is sufficient capital in the bank to provide for the depositors.

Now, the problem starts when the customers start to default on their loans. Why? First of all, they could not afford the loan based on their income but yet these homeowners applications were approved. Secondly, and this was a key reason, they could not get their loans refinanced when property prices fell. Hence, the cycle starts. Banks are not able to retrieve back their cash which they loaned out, resulting in a write down.(bad accounts). Now, these writedowns and lost in capital means that banks could not reclaim back their own capital. Selling those assets which they had collateralized was not sensible due to low market value of this share. At the same time, they had to pay the bondholders their due. Thus, banks suffer both ends.

These happened on a massive level, in terms of the kind of money that was loaned out and assets that were securitized.

Now, the current problem that needs to be addressed. Credit lending. Banks need to start lending money to businesses and consumers. Banks cant do that as they not have the capital to do so as they are still dealing with their internal illiquidity issues. Businesses need cash for their purchase of assets, be it short term or long term. Pple need loans for their college education, cars, houses? and so on. However, an important guideline that needs to be strongly enforced is the creditworthiness of this businesses and consumers. They should be able to repay the loans. Thats where the whole crux of the matter lies.

Drinking To Success

Read this article on Forbes, Drinking to Success. Have a read. My view on this: For every drink you have, you are that closer to getting high.

So you overdid it with the booze again this year for the holidays. In an attempt at redemption, your resolution for 2009 is to cut out the sauce. A prudent endeavor, right?

No. While excessive drinking is of course dangerous and unwise, moderate drinking is, for most people, a lot better than abstinence. There are tangible benefits for health, career and happiness associated with sensible partaking. The benefits are not just personal: Strange as it sounds, moderate drinkers are inclined to be more philanthropic than nondrinkers.

The health benefits of drinking are well documented. Research suggests that having at least one drink per day lowers the risk of heart disease by up to 40%. Even further, although the connection has not been definitively established, some research has shown that moderate drinking may protect against type 2 diabetes, reduce risk for strokes and lower the probability of gallstones. Even more provocative, some researchers believe that alcohol can lower the risk of dementia later in life.

Moderate drinkers feel better than nondrinkers about their health. In a 2008 survey of 1,200 American adults by Gallup, 33% of people who drank modestly (that is, not more than two drinks on any one occasion) said they were "very healthy." Twenty-nine percent of teetotalers said this, but only 19% of people who drank four or more drinks at a time.

Moderate drinkers are richer than teetotalers, too. In 2001 the University of Michigan's Panel Study of Income Dynamics found that light drinkers (one to two drinks a day) had a mean income of $49,000, versus $36,000 among teetotalers. This is a nuanced statistic; drinking may be associated with other variables (like education) that influence income. So the researchers did their best to strip these other causes out. If two adults were identical with respect to education, age, family status, race and religion, except that the first had one or two drinks each night after work while the second was a teetotaler, the drinker would tend to enjoy a "drinker's bonus" of about 10% higher income.

The data show that average income rises with alcohol consumption up to a point and then falls off as one moves into the range of heavy drinking. Income peaks at 2.6 drinks per day for men and 1.5 per women. Income falls quickly beyond these moderate levels, however: At five drinks a day, the average man is earning 21% below the maximum, and at this same point the average woman earns 65% less than she would if she drank just 1.5 per day.

It is one thing to say that drinking and income are positively related (up to a point). It is quite another to assert that drinking causes one to enjoy greater earning power. This might seem implausible--yet economists have never been able to show that it is not the case. In study after study, no alternative explanation significantly weakens the direct statistical link between money and moderate drinking. What can explain this? Some economists believe that the health benefits of moderate drinking make for greater worker productivity. Others argue that people who drink together get along and thus are able to conduct business. Another possibility is that the relationship runs the other way: Successful people drink more because they are under more pressure than others.

Drinkers are not only richer than abstainers, they tend to be happier, too. In 2001, 36% of teetotalers said they had been "inconsolably sad" over the preceding month, as did 38% of folks drinking three or more drinks a day. Among those in the one-to-two drinks per day range, only 33% were so sad.

Given the income and happiness gaps, it is no surprise to learn that those who imbibe reasonably are many of America's best charitable givers. In 2008, 89% of people who drank two drinks per day or less reported giving charitably. Compare this with 84% of teetotalers and 77% who had more than three per day.

In sum, moderate drinking has links to good health, fortune, humor and character. None of this is to argue that your Bacchanalian excesses over the holidays were advisable. But as you contemplate your sins, be careful not to overcorrect in 2009. You might not like the results. References

Brooks, A. (2009, February 16). Drinking to Success. Forbes, 183(3), 26-26. Retrieved March 1, 2009, from Business Source Premier database.