x 0

As Tuition Soars Globally, Schools Face a Need for Frugality

By CONRAD DE AENLLE

College tuition and other fees have risen for years in many countries, and the economic and financial crisis almost ensures that the trend will persist or worsen.

Students and their families will have to get used to bearing a greater share of the burden, the experts say.

But universities may be forced to operate more efficiently and frugally, they say, as those who pay the bills become smarter, more cost conscious shoppers.

Margaret Spellings, senior adviser at the Boston Consulting Group, a global management consulting firm, and secretary of education under President George W. Bush, blames government’s failure to demand more value for the money spent, and an elitism that she says is entrenched in academia.

“Affordability is an issue worldwide,” said Ms. Spellings, “People are up in arms. Tuition is going up, but an interest in reform is going up for the first time ever.”

Well before the crisis, the cost of a university education almost invariably advanced at a faster pace than the general level of inflation.

“There is no policy set up in any of our systems anywhere in the world to drive universities toward productivity and efficiency,” she said.

“We don’t collect any data. We don’t know what we’re getting for our money, and neither do students or taxpayers.”

Soaring demand for university places is also driving up costs, as is a desire by governments to accommodate the demand.

“Part of the problem in much of the world is exploding enrollments,” said D. Bruce Johnstone, emeritus professor of education at the State University of New York in Buffalo.

He said conditions were especially acute in developing nations.

And he cited a Western penchant for academic egalitarianism, in which higher university enrollments are sought as a matter of public policy.

“An expectation of an entitlement to participation in a research university is part of the problem,” Mr. Johnstone said. He noted that all secondary school graduates in France and Germany who pass a national examination are guaranteed university admission.

Tuition rose 106 percent between 1997 and 2007 at American public universities and 76 percent at private universities, to $7,171 and $30,260, respectively, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

It is lower everywhere else, although it can be quite high relative to incomes, especially in the developing world. The 23 million students attending Chinese universities pay about $3,000 a year, Mr. Johnstone said; the government has warned that fees will go up.

Tuition in India varies, he said, but it works out to about $600 a year for average universities and much more for the elite technology institutes.

Chinese and Indian schools have no shortage of applicants, but in Japan, enrollments are shrinking.

The government in the middle of the decade began cutting revenue to universities by a percentage point or two every year. In return it gave universities greater autonomy in setting faculty salaries and tuition rates. The average tuition there is about $4,500.

Tuitions are assessed at much lower rates in Continental Europe, Mr. Johnstone noted.

“European countries introduce tuition fees amid enormous political controversy,” he remarked. Eventually conditions deteriorate and the authorities are forced to increase fees, he said, “and then everyone really screams.”

Official Europe has begun to accept the idea of tuition, with an important caveat. Dennis Abbott, the European Commission spokesman on education, pointed to “a distinct trend to increased cost sharing” between students and state sources, although he stressed that fees “should be supported by grants and/or loans to ensure that financing does not represent an undue barrier to participation in higher education.”

Higher tuition is not the only suggestion for closing the funding gap.

A 2006 report by the Center for European Reform, a London-based, centrist research organization, encouraged European universities to become more competitive and more entrepreneurial and, although it did not say so explicitly, more American.

The authors also recommended paying faculty on the basis of merit; lobbying aggressively with state and private funding sources, like alumni; and wooing corporate benefactors.

One way to improve affordability and productivity, Mr. Abbott said, is to make sure first that students at universities want and need to be there.

“Too many young people are embarking upon university careers but dropping out before completing their courses,” he said.

“This represents a missed opportunity, both in terms of the human potential of the individual student and in terms of the best value for money. Better advice and guidance, combined with improved support, including financial support, should be made available.”

For those who do attend college, there should be more flexibility, Ms. Spellings said. She said she expected an increase in “a la carte, hybrid, technology-based education,” in which students take courses in person, online and at times of their own choosing. “Consumers are demanding it,” she said.

“Things are starting to change, as prices have gotten so ridiculous,” Ms. Spellings continued. “People are starting to ask the right questions that would have been heretical five years ago. Universities have enjoyed their ivory tower status of being above it all, but they’re beginning to change and it’s happening worldwide.”

x 0

As Tuition Soars Globally, Schools Face a Need for Frugality

By CONRAD DE AENLLE

College tuition and other fees have risen for years in many countries, and the economic and financial crisis almost ensures that the trend will persist or worsen.

Students and their families will have to get used to bearing a greater share of the burden, the experts say.

But universities may be forced to operate more efficiently and frugally, they say, as those who pay the bills become smarter, more cost conscious shoppers.

Margaret Spellings, senior adviser at the Boston Consulting Group, a global management consulting firm, and secretary of education under President George W. Bush, blames government’s failure to demand more value for the money spent, and an elitism that she says is entrenched in academia.

“Affordability is an issue worldwide,” said Ms. Spellings, “People are up in arms. Tuition is going up, but an interest in reform is going up for the first time ever.”

Well before the crisis, the cost of a university education almost invariably advanced at a faster pace than the general level of inflation.

“There is no policy set up in any of our systems anywhere in the world to drive universities toward productivity and efficiency,” she said.

“We don’t collect any data. We don’t know what we’re getting for our money, and neither do students or taxpayers.”

Soaring demand for university places is also driving up costs, as is a desire by governments to accommodate the demand.

“Part of the problem in much of the world is exploding enrollments,” said D. Bruce Johnstone, emeritus professor of education at the State University of New York in Buffalo.

He said conditions were especially acute in developing nations.

And he cited a Western penchant for academic egalitarianism, in which higher university enrollments are sought as a matter of public policy.

“An expectation of an entitlement to participation in a research university is part of the problem,” Mr. Johnstone said. He noted that all secondary school graduates in France and Germany who pass a national examination are guaranteed university admission.

Tuition rose 106 percent between 1997 and 2007 at American public universities and 76 percent at private universities, to $7,171 and $30,260, respectively, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

It is lower everywhere else, although it can be quite high relative to incomes, especially in the developing world. The 23 million students attending Chinese universities pay about $3,000 a year, Mr. Johnstone said; the government has warned that fees will go up.

Tuition in India varies, he said, but it works out to about $600 a year for average universities and much more for the elite technology institutes.

Chinese and Indian schools have no shortage of applicants, but in Japan, enrollments are shrinking.

The government in the middle of the decade began cutting revenue to universities by a percentage point or two every year. In return it gave universities greater autonomy in setting faculty salaries and tuition rates. The average tuition there is about $4,500.

Tuitions are assessed at much lower rates in Continental Europe, Mr. Johnstone noted.

“European countries introduce tuition fees amid enormous political controversy,” he remarked. Eventually conditions deteriorate and the authorities are forced to increase fees, he said, “and then everyone really screams.”

Official Europe has begun to accept the idea of tuition, with an important caveat. Dennis Abbott, the European Commission spokesman on education, pointed to “a distinct trend to increased cost sharing” between students and state sources, although he stressed that fees “should be supported by grants and/or loans to ensure that financing does not represent an undue barrier to participation in higher education.”

Higher tuition is not the only suggestion for closing the funding gap.

A 2006 report by the Center for European Reform, a London-based, centrist research organization, encouraged European universities to become more competitive and more entrepreneurial and, although it did not say so explicitly, more American.

The authors also recommended paying faculty on the basis of merit; lobbying aggressively with state and private funding sources, like alumni; and wooing corporate benefactors.

One way to improve affordability and productivity, Mr. Abbott said, is to make sure first that students at universities want and need to be there.

“Too many young people are embarking upon university careers but dropping out before completing their courses,” he said.

“This represents a missed opportunity, both in terms of the human potential of the individual student and in terms of the best value for money. Better advice and guidance, combined with improved support, including financial support, should be made available.”

For those who do attend college, there should be more flexibility, Ms. Spellings said. She said she expected an increase in “a la carte, hybrid, technology-based education,” in which students take courses in person, online and at times of their own choosing. “Consumers are demanding it,” she said.

“Things are starting to change, as prices have gotten so ridiculous,” Ms. Spellings continued. “People are starting to ask the right questions that would have been heretical five years ago. Universities have enjoyed their ivory tower status of being above it all, but they’re beginning to change and it’s happening worldwide.”

x 0

‘Wall Street’ redux: Greed’s Next crisis

Titans of finance with the ethical code of gangsters. essay

Joe Nocera -

Twenty-three years ago, Oliver Stone made the most memorable business movie of all: “Wall Street,” which captured an era and an ethos. Now the left-leaning, blunt-talking director was trying to explain why his new movie, “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps,” was not the fictionalized version of the financial crisis of 2008 I had expected.

“I don’t know how you show a credit default swap on the screen,” Mr. Stone said. It just couldn’t be done, he said.

The crisis, he insisted, was merely meant to be the backdrop for a story about a handful of “complex” people — an older, wiser Gordon Gekko among them — who just happened to be operating on Wall Street around September 2008.

“People won’t watch a business movie,” Mr. Stone said. The more he protested, the more he sounded like a man who hadn’t pulled off what he had set out to accomplish and was now making excuses.

The original “Wall Street” created indelible images: Gordon Gekko, played with delirious vigor by Michael Douglas, barking out buy and sell orders that make or break companies and competitors.

His acolyte, Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen), who gains Gekko’s favor by feeding him inside information.

The famous “greed is good” speech Gekko delivers to the hapless directors of a company that has become his latest prey.

The original “Wall Street,” Mr. Stone told me, “was about a kid who sells out his father.” True enough. But the events that characterized Wall Street in the 1980s were a lot more than a backdrop.

They were crucial to the plot. The movie was built around insider trading and the predations of the hostile takeover movement.

Ivan Boesky, who went to jail for insider trading, made the original “greed is good” speech. Michael Milken, the inspiration, in part, for Gekko, was known as the “junk bond king” and financed the hostile takeover movement.

In “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps,” many of the characters — and firms — are stand-ins for real people and real companies. Frank Langella’s character is based on Jimmy Cayne, the former chief executive of Bear Stearns. Josh Brolin, who plays the villain, heads Churchill Schwartz, which is modeled on Goldman Sachs, ruthlessly taking advantage of competitors.

And though Mr. Douglas returns as Gordon Gekko, he spends much of the film predicting the coming cataclysm.

The problem is that, with rare exception, the characters merely talk about the things that helped bring the world’s financial system to the brink. Gekko’s sermons have the quality of a Greek chorus, describing crucial events that we never see.

Instead, the plot revolves around the efforts of a young investment banker, Jake Moore (Shia LaBeouf), to get financing for an earnest clean-energy company.

Even the one big exception is instructive.

With Mr. Langella’s firm on the brink of failure, the New York Federal Reserve calls together all the Wall Street barons in the hope of finding a way to save the firm. (Mr. Brolin’s company winds up buying it cheaply, not unlike the way J.P. Morgan bought Bear Stearns for practically nothing.)

But Mr. Stone told me he worried that devoting so much screen time to those meetings — seven minutes in all — could cost him some of his audience. So he embellished them so much that they resemble a gathering of mobsters in “The Godfather.”

The events that took place on Wall Street from the summer of 2007 to the fall of 2008, when even mighty Goldman Sachs’s survival was in doubt, were inherently dramatic.

Much of the trading that went on in the prelude to the crisis utterly lacked any redeeming virtue.

Villains abounded. Was it really so impossible to build a movie script out of this material?

Olaf Rogge, a big-time London money manager who was an adviser to the film, said he was disappointed.

“He missed a beautiful opportunity,” Mr. Rogge said of the director. “He could have pointed out how we were five minutes from the brink of anarchy.”

There is something a little unfair in criticizing a director for not making the film you had hoped he would make. But Mr. Stone looked the crisis straight in the eye — and blinked.

x 0

‘Wall Street’ redux: Greed’s Next crisis
Titans of finance with the ethical code of gangsters.
Joe Nocera -
Twenty-three years ago, Oliver Stone made the most memorable business movie of all: “Wall Street,” which captured an era and an ethos. Now the left-leaning, blunt-talking director was trying to explain why his new movie, “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps,” was not the fictionalized version of the financial crisis of 2008 I had expected.
“I don’t know how you show a credit default swap on the screen,” Mr. Stone said. It just couldn’t be done, he said.
The crisis, he insisted, was merely meant to be the backdrop for a story about a handful of “complex” people — an older, wiser Gordon Gekko among them — who just happened to be operating on Wall Street around September 2008.
“People won’t watch a business movie,” Mr. Stone said. The more he protested, the more he sounded like a man who hadn’t pulled off what he had set out to accomplish and was now making excuses.
The original “Wall Street” created indelible images: Gordon Gekko, played with delirious vigor by Michael Douglas, barking out buy and sell orders that make or break companies and competitors.
His acolyte, Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen), who gains Gekko’s favor by feeding him inside information.
The famous “greed is good” speech Gekko delivers to the hapless directors of a company that has become his latest prey.
The original “Wall Street,” Mr. Stone told me, “was about a kid who sells out his father.” True enough. But the events that characterized Wall Street in the 1980s were a lot more than a backdrop.
They were crucial to the plot. The movie was built around insider trading and the predations of the hostile takeover movement.
Ivan Boesky, who went to jail for insider trading, made the original “greed is good” speech. Michael Milken, the inspiration, in part, for Gekko, was known as the “junk bond king” and financed the hostile takeover movement.
In “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps,” many of the characters — and firms — are stand-ins for real people and real companies. Frank Langella’s character is based on Jimmy Cayne, the former chief executive of Bear Stearns. Josh Brolin, who plays the villain, heads Churchill Schwartz, which is modeled on Goldman Sachs, ruthlessly taking advantage of competitors.
And though Mr. Douglas returns as Gordon Gekko, he spends much of the film predicting the coming cataclysm.
The problem is that, with rare exception, the characters merely talk about the things that helped bring the world’s financial system to the brink. Gekko’s sermons have the quality of a Greek chorus, describing crucial events that we never see.
Instead, the plot revolves around the efforts of a young investment banker, Jake Moore (Shia LaBeouf), to get financing for an earnest clean-energy company.
Even the one big exception is instructive.
With Mr. Langella’s firm on the brink of failure, the New York Federal Reserve calls together all the Wall Street barons in the hope of finding a way to save the firm. (Mr. Brolin’s company winds up buying it cheaply, not unlike the way J.P. Morgan bought Bear Stearns for practically nothing.)
But Mr. Stone told me he worried that devoting so much screen time to those meetings — seven minutes in all — could cost him some of his audience. So he embellished them so much that they resemble a gathering of mobsters in “The Godfather.”
The events that took place on Wall Street from the summer of 2007 to the fall of 2008, when even mighty Goldman Sachs’s survival was in doubt, were inherently dramatic.
Much of the trading that went on in the prelude to the crisis utterly lacked any redeeming virtue.
Villains abounded. Was it really so impossible to build a movie script out of this material?
Olaf Rogge, a big-time London money manager who was an adviser to the film, said he was disappointed.
“He missed a beautiful opportunity,” Mr. Rogge said of the director. “He could have pointed out how we were five minutes from the brink of anarchy.”
There is something a little unfair in criticizing a director for not making the film you had hoped he would make. But Mr. Stone looked the crisis straight in the eye — and blinked.

essay

x 0

Friday: 1st OCT 2010 mOrnIng

CNA MARKET INSIGHTS INTERVIEW

OVER PRICED MARKETS:

- INDIA

- SOUTH KOREA

- INDONESIA

- THAILAND

PROSPECTIVE MARKETS:

- MALAYSIA [BEST POTENTIAL]

- SINGAPORE [FURTHER POTENTIAL]

CHECK them OUT

ozone2002 ( Date: 02-Oct-2010 09:27) Posted:

Marc Faber: The Fed Is Creating Dangerous Bubbles Around The World, And Stocks Will Tank In October

The original merchant of doom Marc Faber has a good, wide-ranging interview with the Economic Times of India.

For US investors, he argues that bullishness has come on too fast, and that the pain we haven't felt in September has merely been delayed until October and November.

And he also warns that the ramifications of Fed printing will be felt in unexpected ways around the world:

Says Faber:

Now what happens if so much money flows to emerging economies is that you get bubbles over time - currency bubbles, stock market bubbles, real estate bubbles. The question is then how do these emerging economies’ central banks react to that. The Brazilian Finance Minister has just said we are in the midst of a currency war, a foreign exchange war and the central banks of emerging economies have a choice to do nothing - then they have high domestic inflationary pressures with accompanying bubbles - or they tighten monetary policies and their currency becomes even stronger and you have a speculative bubble in the currency. So the Fed has put them actually in a very difficult position and I believe we are going to end up with bubbles in precious metals and to some extent in emerging economies’ real estate and equity markets and every bubble eventually bursts. It does not have to happen tomorrow. It could last another year, but the Fed is actually endangering emerging economies at the present time.

And on the Fed:

The whole world is now optimistic and positioned to take advantage of forever expansionary monetary policies by buying assets, precious metals, real estate, equities, and everybody believes that the central banks in the world will print and print and print and print. That is correct, they will do that, but they printed, printed and printed and we still saw a financial crisis in 2008. So I can print and print and print, and you can still have big corrections in the market. But I believe that if the S&P in the US drops 15-20% to around 900-950, the Fed would come out not with this quantitative easing No. 2, but with quantitative easing No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 until the asset markets go up again. They are going to print and print and print.

ozone2002 ( Date: 28-Sep-2010 22:49) Posted:

markets don't move up in a str8 line..needs to correct once a while to be healthy

gotta spot the clues to know how to trade correctly..

x 0

When a fake boy

is thought better

than no boy at all

x 0

tIger aIr

rUns

cat bUsIness mOdel

nIghtmares

fOr

cUstOmers

InvestOrs

x 0

Most rubber stock have somewhat found their bottom/support levels so as USD/MYR today. On top of that China PMI data show China has resumed it upward manufacturing momentum after falling slow in May-Jun period and also a local brokerage firm issued their re-itteration that rubber glove maker are still TOP of their buy list.

How's that?

To: RHBInvest@yahoogroups.com
From: kamarazaman@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 17:00:27 +0800
Subject: Re: [RHBInvest-Yahoo!] Stock pickings

oh my.., Gloves sector start flying from the same ground as earlier this year. Anyone got information on what cause? A technical rebound?

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Jeffrey Teow <teowjeffrey@yahoo.com> wrote:

Just read the RHB toppicks for this last Qtr, list as below.

TP - target price /Fairvalue

disclaimer : this is not recommendation to buy or sell. Just sharing the learning.

RHB has other top picks
Tenaga TP- 10.80
Gamuda TP-4.51
MRCB - TP 2.49
Faber -TP- 3.82
HSL -TP - 1.95
Maybank -TP-10.50
CIMB- TP -9.60
IOI -TP-6.75
KLK- TP-22.05
Parkson - TP 7.72
Dialog - 1.30
Media -2.75
KPJ - 4.51
Carlsberg - 6.03
Mahsing 2.06

x 0

Monday: 4 OCTOBER 2010

TARGET USD0.505 (+USD0.045)

Friday: 1 OCT 2010 CLOSING

e Genting HK US$ (S21)
Day Hi	0.460	Last	0.460	Vol	104,668,000
Day Lo	0.425	$Chng	+0.035

17:05:03

0.460

7,673,000

Bought From Seller

x 0

********8 ROCKET FUELS

x 0

Fri: 1 OCT 2010 CLOSING

TOP GLOVE CORP	7113	i	--	MYR	5.350	+0.220	+4.3	3,988,300	1,900	5.350	5.360	2,000	5.130	5.130	5.400	5.130	--	--	KLS	7113	TPGC.KL	--	--	--
TOP GLOVE-CW11	7113CB	i	--	MYR	0.155	+0.005	+3.3	2,129,000	20,500	0.155	0.160	30,000	0.135	0.150	0.160	0.135	--	--	KLS	7113CB	TPGC_ta.KL	--	--	--
TOP GLOVE-CW11B	7113CC	i	--	MYR	0.110	-0.005	-4.3	125,200	31,400	0.110	0.120	44,900	0.115	0.115	0.120	0.110	--

x 0

Fri: 1 OCT 2010 CLOSING

UNISEM (M) BHD	5005	i	--	MYR	1.910	-0.070	-3.5	1,339,000	22,600	1.910	1.920	93,000	1.950	1.980	1.950	1.900	--	--	KLS	5005	UNSM.KL	--	--	--
UNISEM (M)-WR	5005WR	i	--	MYR	0.000	0.000	0.0	0	0	0.000	0.000	0	0.000	0.445	0.000	0.000	--	--	KLS	5005WR	UNSMw_r.KL	--	--	--
UNISEM BHD-W15	5005WA	i	--	MYR	0.555	-0.005	-0.9	2,498,600	60,000	0.550	0.555	64,900	0.560	0.560	0.560	0.545	--	--	KLS	5005WA	UNSM_tb.KL	--	--	--
UNISEM-CW11A	5005CA	i	--	MYR	0.065	-0.005	-7.1	4,701,500	40,000	0.065	0.070	270,000	0.065	0.070	0.065	0.060	--	--	KLS	5005CA	UNSM_t.KL	--	--	--
UNISEM-CW11B	5005CB	i	--	MYR	0.000	0.000	0.0	0	200,000	0.165	0.170	200,000	0.000	0.165	0.000	0.000	--

x 0

Fri: 1 OCT 2010 CLOSING

UEM LAND HLDGS (5148)
Day Hi	2.330	Last	2.300	Vol	20,299,500
Day Lo	2.240	$Chng	-0.040

Price	Trades	Volume	Sold to Buyer	Mid	Bought from Seller
2.240	21	174,700	174,700	0	0
2.250	53	493,800	336,100	0	157,700
2.260	149	1,381,400	944,300	0	437,100
2.270	201	1,705,000	1,059,300	16,500	629,200
2.280	210	1,901,800	1,216,600	2,400	682,800
2.290	223	2,752,200	2,075,700	0	676,500
2.300	528	5,389,700	2,823,600	197,800	2,368,300
2.310	423	4,906,600	1,323,300	0	3,583,300
2.320	134	1,080,500	283,600	62,400	734,500
2.330	27	376,700	94,500	50,000	232,200
TOTAL	1,969	20,162,400	10,331,700	329,100	9,501,600

x 0

Fri: 1 OCT 2010 CLOSING

GENTING BHD (3182)
Day Hi	9.980	Last	9.960	Vol	3,159,300
Day Lo	9.900	$Chng	+0.040

Price	Trades	Volume	Sold to Buyer	Mid	Bought from Seller
9.900	25	52,300	8,900	0	43,400
9.910	36	100,200	38,900	0	61,300
9.920	97	251,900	164,000	5,500	82,400
9.930	133	282,100	118,900	0	163,200
9.940	227	671,900	322,600	2,700	346,600
9.950	172	269,800	128,300	0	141,500
9.960	286	882,300	447,200	2,700	432,400
9.970	236	620,100	322,300	3,000	294,800
9.980	2	800	0	0	800
TOTAL	1,214	3,131,400	1,551,100	13,900	1,566,400

x 0

FRi: 1 OCT 2010 CLOSING

CoscoCorp	F83	i	--	SGD	1.810	+0.040	+2.3	23,853,000	530,000	1.810	1.820	1,164,000	1.780	1.770	1.820	1.770	C,M	--	SGX	F83	COSC.SI
e Genting HK US$	S21	i	--	USD	0.460	+0.035	+8.2	104,668,000	2,854,000	0.455	0.460	4,315,000	0.425	0.425	0.460	0.425	M	--	SGX	S21	GENH.SI
GENTING BHD	3182	i	--	MYR	9.960	+0.040	+0.4	3,159,300	800	9.940	9.960	300	9.910	9.920	9.980	9.900	--	--	KLS	3182	GENT.KL
GENTING MYS BHD	4715	i	--	MYR	3.410	+0.020	+0.6	8,268,300	68,300	3.400	3.410	11,000	3.390	3.390	3.440	3.390	--	--	KLS	4715	GENM.KL
Genting SP	G13	i	--	SGD	2.000	+0.140	+7.5	228,844,000	3,957,000	1.990	2.000	10,148,000	1.880	1.860	2.000	1.870	M	--	SGX	G13	GENS.SI
GentingSMBLeCW120402	J2UW	i	--	SGD	0.220	+0.005	+2.3	20,000	10,000	0.220	0.245	40,000	0.220	0.215	0.220	0.220	M	--	SGX	J2UW	GNML_td.SI
GentingSMBLeCW130103	L2PW	i	--	SGD	0.195	+0.030	+18.2	160,000	55,000	0.190	0.200	25,000	0.175	0.165	0.195	0.170	--	--	SGX	L2PW	GNML_tm.SI
GentingSMBLeCW130104	L7KW	i	--	SGD	0.150	+0.015	+11.1	100,000	100,000	0.140	0.155	15,000	0.150	0.135	0.150	0.150	--	--	SGX	L7KW	GNML_tr.SI
GentingSMBLeCW130603	L0QW	i	--	SGD	0.255	+0.030	+13.3	85,000	10,000	0.250	0.260	65,000	0.245	0.225	0.255	0.245	M	--	SGX	L0QW	GNML_tk.SI
Healthway	5NG	i	--	SGD	0.170	-0.005	-2.9	6,380,000	10,403,000	0.170	0.175	921,000	0.170	0.175	0.175	0.170	M

x 0

CoscoCorp	F83	i	--	SGD	1.810	+0.040	+2.3	23,853,000	530,000	1.810	1.820	1,164,000	1.780	1.770	1.820	1.770	C,M	--	SGX	F83	COSC.SI
e Genting HK US$	S21	i	--	USD	0.460	+0.035	+8.2	104,668,000	2,854,000	0.455	0.460	4,315,000	0.425	0.425	0.460	0.425	M	--	SGX	S21	GENH.SI
GENTING BHD	3182	i	--	MYR	9.960	+0.040	+0.4	3,159,300	800	9.940	9.960	300	9.910	9.920	9.980	9.900	--	--	KLS	3182	GENT.KL
GENTING MYS BHD	4715	i	--	MYR	3.410	+0.020	+0.6	8,268,300	68,300	3.400	3.410	11,000	3.390	3.390	3.440	3.390	--	--	KLS	4715	GENM.KL
Genting SP	G13	i	--	SGD	2.000	+0.140	+7.5	228,844,000	3,957,000	1.990	2.000	10,148,000	1.880	1.860	2.000	1.870	M	--	SGX	G13	GENS.SI
GentingSMBLeCW120402	J2UW	i	--	SGD	0.220	+0.005	+2.3	20,000	10,000	0.220	0.245	40,000	0.220	0.215	0.220	0.220	M	--	SGX	J2UW	GNML_td.SI
GentingSMBLeCW130103	L2PW	i	--	SGD	0.195	+0.030	+18.2	160,000	55,000	0.190	0.200	25,000	0.175	0.165	0.195	0.170	--	--	SGX	L2PW	GNML_tm.SI
GentingSMBLeCW130104	L7KW	i	--	SGD	0.150	+0.015	+11.1	100,000	100,000	0.140	0.155	15,000	0.150	0.135	0.150	0.150	--	--	SGX	L7KW	GNML_tr.SI
GentingSMBLeCW130603	L0QW	i	--	SGD	0.255	+0.030	+13.3	85,000	10,000	0.250	0.260	65,000	0.245	0.225	0.255	0.245	M	--	SGX	L0QW	GNML_tk.SI
Healthway	5NG	i	--	SGD	0.170	-0.005	-2.9	6,380,000	10,403,000	0.170	0.175	921,000	0.170	0.175	0.175	0.170	M

x 0

Friday: 1st OCTOBER 2010 CLOSING

e Genting HK US$ (S21)
Day Hi	0.460	Last	0.460	Vol	104,668,000
Day Lo	0.425	$Chng	+0.035

Price	Trades	Volume	Sold to Buyer	Mid	Bought from Seller
0.425	1	172,000	172,000	0	0
0.430	77	7,991,000	6,069,000	0	1,922,000
0.431	1	115,000	0	115,000	0
0.432	1	30,000	0	30,000	0
0.435	82	6,374,000	520,000	0	5,854,000
0.440	115	13,369,000	2,702,000	0	10,667,000
0.444	1	20,000	0	20,000	0
0.445	150	18,856,000	6,832,000	0	12,024,000
0.450	299	29,232,000	10,205,000	0	19,027,000
0.452	1	19,000	0	19,000	0
0.455	239	18,914,000	6,806,000	0	12,108,000
0.460	101	9,475,000	0	0	9,475,000
TOTAL	1,068	104,567,000	33,306,000	184,000	71,077,000

x 0

Fri: 1 OCT 2010 CLOSING

REVERSAL

CONFIRMED

17:05:03	0.460	7,673,000	Bought From Seller
17:00:00	0.460	100,000	Bought From Seller
16:59:54	0.460	100,000	Bought From Seller