Singapore income tax highest in the world???
-
ooooooo - tats a pity tat u should decide to run awayOriginally posted by stupidissmart:I have no energy to argue over tis topic anymore. All I can say is please read the Conclusion I have written about tis issue. If u, or other people still feel tat the idea is superb, then I have nothing to say.
Why do you not engage on the issues that have been so clearly broken down ?
Why are you not engaging on the facts of my responses to the various issues raised by yourself - in your previous supposedly CONCLUDING Post ?
One cannot run round in circles forever, and avoid coming back to the center point from which the various issues originate and which require your focussed replies. -
Hoho, hohoho, things r getting interesting man. So u decide to carry on this topic isn't it. Very well, I suddenly have tis surge in energy to talk about your 'incredible' idea again. Opps, I guess after I wrote incredible to your idea on the previous line, u are going to write it in all your following replies saying tat I have proclaimed it is already your idea as "incredible". Wow wow wow, is tat going to affect me a lot ?
The points u wrote on the latest thingy have already been answered by me before, or u choose to ignore the replies I had given u ? Will tat be a nimble excuse ?Page 1 – 09 October 2003 09:53 PM - stupidissmart
Do I leave out any of your paragaraph now ? No ? So lets get started shall we.
There will be obviously more demand for cars than the quota set by Gov, and they will end up giving the cars with the highest bidder again. If Gov decide to release 500 cars tis month but 50000 cars r being bidded, how is gov going to decide who get who win the bid, other than who bid a higher price again ?
Page 1 – 10 October 2003 10:45 AM - stupidissmart
I believe u have not answer the possibility of people bidding over the quota level. Who will have priority then ? If there r 10 people wanting to buy 1 car ownership from a car dealer, then who will be given priority as to who get the ownership ? I don't see why won't the dealer buy in as much ownership as possible, since the actual level of demand is tat high. I don't believe u can safely say tat it won't happened.
Page 1 – 10 October 2003 – 11:24 AM atobe
What is the objective of DEMAND side quota (COE), or SUPPLY side quota ?
If 5000 vehicles can only benefit 5000 BUYERS only, does it really matter if this 5000 vehicles (divided into whatever smaller lots) benefit whatever numbers of dealership ?
Someone has to loose out on the opportunity to buy a car, so does it matter if some dealership sell more, or sell nothing at all ?
If fairness is to be done, then divide into smaller quota lots of 25 or 50 vehicles per quota permit, so as to allow more dealership to have its share.
Page 1 – 10 October 2003 – 02:19 PM - stupidissmart
As I say, tat idea is stupid. I ask again, if 50000 bid and there is only 5000 for tis month quota, then how ? Who get to have the car ?
Page 2 – 11 October 04:34 AM – atobe
If 50,000 people were to demand from a Dealership that has dared to only successfully bid for a quota allocation of 500 cars - in a SUPPLY side scheme - do you think it will be a good PR exercise for the Dealership to get around this “difficulty” by holding a balloting exercise to determine who will be the lucky 500 new owners ?
Page 2 – 11 October 2003 – 11:35 AM - stupidissmart
If 50000 bids from dealers for 5000 gov quota, who get to have the 5000 ownership ? Those who bid more or they have go to ballot box again This is a very crucial question, please answer it.
Page 2 – 11 Octobe 2003 – 06:25 PM - atobe
Did you even bother to read my earlier post before your reply ?
Did you not read about the balloting that the Dealer can exercise ? What is to stop the Dealership from taking on more then one quota lot ?
Page 2 – 11 October 2003 – 11:38 PM - stupidissmart
All your stupid crap just keep rotating about tis big assumption tat u have. The demand will be lesser than the supply set by quota. Can u 100% say tat it will always happen ?
Page 2 – 12 October 2003 – 07:41 AM – atobe
If you can set aside trying to be smart while being stupid, and try to be objective then perhaps you will understand that all proposal will have to follow certain assumptions, until the reality of any situation prove such assumptions in a proposal to be right or wrong.
Nowhere did I write in my SUPPLY SIDE quota control system that DEMAND will be LESSER than SUPPLY.
How on earth did you read this into my post ?
Page 2 – 12 October 2003 – 02:15 PM - stupidissmart
Again and again I have ask u toreply to the situation when there r more bidders than the quota set by Gov. Instead of answering tat u still keep telling me tat it won't happened.
Page 2 – 12 October 2003 – 03:57 PM – atobe
Do you read what your eyes see ? The following was printed to address your problem in understanding what was previously written:
My question to you: - can the COE system of a monthly fixed quantity of 5000 certificates be sufficient for a monthly demand of 10,000 buyers through 300 car dealerships – (all numbers are ASSUMPTIONS similar to your hypothetical numbers) ?
Did the words "it won't happen" appear anywhere in my text ?
Now that you have read all my previous answers repeated here to the same repeated point - how do you think the present COE system will resolve the ONE Million buyers bidding for only 300 COE ?
The answer for the FINAL TIME remains the same, as what has been given repeatedly - that whether it is the PRESENT COE or the SUPPLY SIDE Quota (your CHEAPER COE), the OBJECTIVE remain the same - and that is for this month the COE or SUPPLY SIDE Quota available is only 300.
The other 999,700 Singaporeans will have to wait for the next round - and NO APPOLIGIES will be offered.
Do you have a problem with the effects of the Present COE ?
Unfortunately, the Government has missed out on the ORIGINAL OBJECTIVE of the Present COE system, by issuing more and more COE to take advantage of the high COE prices that Singaporeans are "stupid-is-NOT-so-Smart" paying, just to own a car of ten years.There will be obviously more demand for cars than the quota set by Gov, and they will end up giving the cars with the highest bidder again. If Gov decide to release 500 cars tis month but 50000 cars r being bidded, how is gov going to decide who get who win the bid, other than who bid a higher price again ?
First from the paragraph, MY QUESTION IS HOW DO U DO YOUR SELECTION IF THERE WAS OVERBIDDING AT GOV SIDE.
Wat is your reply then ?
What is the objective of DEMAND side quota (COE), or SUPPLY side quota ?If 5000 vehicles can only benefit 5000 BUYERS only, does it really matter if this 5000 vehicles (divided into whatever smaller lots) benefit whatever numbers of dealership ?
NOW, has it answer MY QUESTION ? Did u mention anything about overbidding from Gov side ? Is there any method of SELECTION from the reply ?
Someone has to loose out on the opportunity to buy a car, so does it matter if some dealership sell more, or sell nothing at all ?
If fairness is to be done, then divide into smaller quota lots of 25 or 50 vehicles per quota permit, so as to allow more dealership to have its share.
From your reply above, I get the picture "any dealer can get the COE, it doesn't matter". Well, it matters to me, HOW R U GOING TO SELECT THEM ? It is important to tell specifically how u going to select. U break up into 25 and 50, THEN WAT ? Use ballot box or wat ? Using higher bidder r winners method ? Using your infamous MEDIAN theory ? WHICH method ??If 50,000 people were to demand from a Dealership that has dared to only successfully bid for a quota allocation of 500 cars - in a SUPPLY side scheme - do you think it will be a good PR exercise for the Dealership to get around this “difficulty” by holding a balloting exercise to determine who will be the lucky 500 new owners ?
Your second supposed answer. DOES IT ANSWER WAT I AM ASKING ABOUT GOV SIDE ? I am talking about Gov selection and u r talking about selection from DEALER side. -
Did you even bother to read my earlier post before your reply ?
From tis mail, haven't u shown yourself tat u purposely IGNORE the question (Gov overbidding) and answer it with an ANSWER(Dealer overbidding) for something else. Isn't tat an act of slimeball or wat ?
Did you not read about the balloting that the Dealer can exercise ? What is to stop the Dealership from taking on more then one quota lot ?If you can set aside trying to be smart while being stupid, and try to be objective then perhaps you will understand that all proposal will have to follow certain assumptions, until the reality of any situation prove such assumptions in a proposal to be right or wrong.
Has tis answer the question ? U have just given INSULTS without answering the question I ASKED U.
Nowhere did I write in my SUPPLY SIDE quota control system that DEMAND will be LESSER than SUPPLY.
How on earth did you read this into my post ?Do you read what your eyes see ? The following was printed to address your problem in understanding what was previously written:
Tat is more insult tat cover the eyes of the people. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE NUMBERS OF DEALERS !
My question to you: - can the COE system of a monthly fixed quantity of 5000 certificates be sufficient for a monthly demand of 10,000 buyers through 300 car dealerships – (all numbers are ASSUMPTIONS similar to your hypothetical numbers) ?
Did the words "it won't happen" appear anywhere in my text ?
Now I believe the others can understand my frustration of U not answering the question. First u refuse to answer it, then u give an answer to some other question and finally u give insults when I further ask for it. Can anyone get more SLIMY than tis ?9th Oct 0953
These r the times I had asked tat question during tat period. R u going to say u fail to read all these questions ?
If Gov decide to release 500 cars tis month but 50000 cars r being bidded, how is gov going to decide who get who win the bid, other than who bid a higher price again ?
10th Oct 1046
2 questions r posted here
I believe u have not answer the possibility of people bidding over the quota level. Who will have priority then ?
If there r 10 people wanting to buy 1 car ownership from a car dealer, then who will be given priority as to who get the ownership ?
10th Oct 0219
if 50000 bid and there is only 5000 for tis month quota, then how ? Who get to have the car ?
11th Oct 1135
If 50000 bids from dealers for 5000 gov quota, who get to have the 5000 ownership ? Those who bid more or they have go to ballot box again
12 Oct 0215
Again and again I have ask u to reply to the situation when there r more bidders than the quota set by Gov.
12th Oct 0812
Wat I am asking is if there is an over demand from GOV side, then wat is your selection proces !!
I have stated in the reply during 15th Oct 0146
If Car A runs out of stock (whether due to lack of COE or physical car stock), and if you really like that car, surely you can wait ?
The waiting list of some of the most prestigeous car is almost a few months long, What is the big deal of a Mitsubishi or any other make ?Tis is not a static figure, it is dynamic figure tat goes for every month. Here is an illustration : If the dealer used to sell 5000 cars tis month, while on average he only get 800 COE, tat means every month there will have 4200 people tat cannot get the cars. If u cannot get your car tis month from him, the odds is tat u will have to wait VERY VERY VERY long, maybe YEARS to get the car. Isn't tat forcing them to buy other cars ? Tis is especially so if u had used the overcharging policy.
If u think u can wait for a few years then please carry on.Are you aware that during this OCTOBER 2003, the present COE system has resulted in the LOWEST COE PRICES over the last ten years; and yet NOT all the AVAILABLE COE are taken up by Buyers.
Again I have answered tis reply too. 15th Oct 0146
In simple English, during OCTOBER 2003, there is a SURPLUS of COE Certificates even when COE Prices is at the LOWEST LEVELS for the last TEN YEARS.I got to pose tis question, not all the AVAILABLE COE are taken up by buyers, isn't it because of the high cost of present COE tat contribute to tis phenomenon ? If it is lesser than the quota, than it just shows the effectiveness of the present COE. If there is no COE, the price will definitely climb down a LOT. Simple economy, if price go down, demand will rise
And again 15th Oct 0711First, I will talk about the buyer side first. If Atobe supply side idea worked, then the price of COE will goes down, since tat is the main objective of supply idea. The overall price for owning a car will goes down, there will be an increase in numbers of buyers for a car. (Simple economy theory : Lower price, higher demand) Atobe attempt to show the Oct statistic tat the actual demand for car in Singapore is low, however tat is mainly because of the present COE system which forced the car price up, lowering the actual demand.
U think is fair to give figures after the effective cutting off of demand from the PRESENT COE ? U got any friends tat WANT to have a car but CAN'T afford to buy it ? Or r u going back to your old slime tactics and totally ignore the replies I had given u ?
I believe it is general knowledge tat there r a lot of people who wanted to have their own car but cannot afford it in Singapore. For everyone who actually owned a car in Singapore now, one can easily find 3 others who desired a car yet cannot afford it.Are ownership of COE transferable ? Can one actually bid for a COE and resell it at a higher price ?
The present system, nope. COE is not transferable. However after the implementation of your STUPID idea, it has to be. It has to be in the name of the dealer first before he can sell it back to the buyer. Then isn't COE transferable or wat ??
Now let me give u a challenge, go back and read the post on 15th Oct 0711. Lets see wat great answer our 'Mighty Atobe' is going to be. Opps, another mistake written again ! I guess Atobe is gonna mentioned he is Mighty everytime he write down his name from now on. Tat will be revolting isn't it ? -
You seem to be doing quite well with this sudden surge of interest, hopefully it will not degenerate into some unfocused and aimless vision.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Hoho, hohoho, things r getting interesting man. So u decide to carry on this topic isn't it. Very well, I suddenly have tis surge in energy to talk about your 'incredible' idea again. Opps, I guess after I wrote incredible to your idea on the previous line, u are going to write it in all your following replies saying tat I have proclaimed it is already your idea as "incredible". Wow wow wow, is tat going to affect me a lot ?[b
Since you have a great capacity to simply "copy and paste" without mistakes - from my efforts in summarising our exchanges in the various postings; how about some of your own serious effort to show where your "supposed replies to the latest thingy had occurred" ?
The points u wrote on the latest thingy have already been answered by me before, or u choose to ignore the replies I had given u ? Will tat be a nimble excuse ? [/b]
Moving the mouse and point the cursor across some other people's work is easy, and so is making a statement about accomplished work can be easily type with a few keystroke on the keyboard.
The dfficult part will be to go through the entire exercise of finding where your supposed replies have been posted.
Here lies your the confusion in which you have created by your own statement: "MY QUESTION IS HOW DO U DO YOUR SELECTION IF THERE WAS OVERBIDDING AT GOV SIDE? "
Do I leave out any of your paragaraph now ? No ? So lets get started shall we.
quote: from stupidissmart
-------------------------------------------------
There will be obviously more demand for cars than the quota set by Gov, and they will end up giving the cars with the highest bidder again. If Gov decide to release 500 cars tis month but 50000 cars r being bidded, how is gov going to decide who get who win the bid, other than who bid a higher price again ?
-------------------------------------------------
First from the paragraph, MY QUESTION IS HOW DO U DO YOUR SELECTION IF THERE WAS OVERBIDDING AT GOV SIDE.
Wat is your reply then ?
What is the objective of DEMAND side quota (COE), or SUPPLY side quota ?
What do you mean by "overbidding at Government side" ?
Who is "overbidding at the Government side" ?
From your postings, it seems to show your serious lack in the basic understanding of how COE mechanism work, its stated objectives and its actual implementation.
Lets us confirm the following with some answers from you that will confirm your knowledge about the COE System - before I proceed to reply to your post :
Question 1
What is the objective of the COE ?
Question 2
Who can apply for the COE ?
Question 3
How is COE Price determined ?
Question 4
How is COE awarded to the bidder ?
Before I attempt to reply to your baiting, I shall wait for your reply to the four simple questions that will confirm your understanding of how COE operate in Singapore.
quote: from atobe
----------------------------------------------------
If 5000 vehicles can only benefit 5000 BUYERS only, does it really matter if this 5000 vehicles (divided into whatever smaller lots) benefit whatever numbers of dealership ?
Someone has to loose out on the opportunity to buy a car, so does it matter if some dealership sell more, or sell nothing at all ?
If fairness is to be done, then divide into smaller quota lots of 25 or 50 vehicles per quota permit, so as to allow more dealership to have its share.
----------------------------------------------------
NOW, has it answer MY QUESTION ? Did u mention anything about overbidding from Gov side ? Is there any method of SELECTION from the reply ?
From your reply above, I get the picture "any dealer can get the COE, it doesn't matter". Well, it matters to me, HOW R U GOING TO SELECT THEM ? It is important to tell specifically how u going to select. U break up into 25 and 50, THEN WAT ? Use ballot box or wat ? Using higher bidder r winners method ? Using your infamous MEDIAN theory ? WHICH method ??
The problem with your question is that you refuse to read in a calm manner, and without exciting your own senses to read erroneously, so as to allow yourself to read accurately the contents of what I have posted.
quote:
-------------------------------------------
If 50,000 people were to demand from a Dealership that has dared to only successfully bid for a quota allocation of 500 cars - in a SUPPLY side scheme - do you think it will be a good PR exercise for the Dealership to get around this “difficulty” by holding a balloting exercise to determine who will be the lucky 500 new owners ?
-------------------------------------------
Your second supposed answer. DOES IT ANSWER WAT I AM ASKING ABOUT GOV SIDE ? I am talking about Gov selection and u r talking about selection from DEALER side.
Let us get something straight, before we start firing across each other's bows and missing each of our targetted ships.
In the Present COE System, the people (Dealers representing the Buyers, or the Buyers themselves) will submit bids to the Government.
In my Proposed SUPPLY SIDE Quota Control, ONLY the Dealers will submit bids to get the desired Quota Lots to the Government.
In the Present COE System, the Government allow the Dealers to bid for COE to allocated number of vehicles prior to the Buyers being found. The Dealer only pay a token sum of the COE Bid Price until the vehicle is registered.
COE cannot be transferred from Person to Person, or from one car to another car. The COE awarded to a Dealership is NOT considered by the Government as a Buyer COE, but to allow a Car to be sold BEFORE a Buyer is found.
I will wait for your reply to those 4 questions before responding to your above confused question. -
The very idea of a NON-TRANSPARENT COE bidding system is abhorrent, and my reply as to why the SUPPLY SIDE control mechanism with a fixed LOWER BASE PRICE is more advantageous has been quite clearly explained.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Did you even bother to read my earlier post before your reply ?
From tis mail, haven't u shown yourself tat u purposely IGNORE the question (Gov overbidding) and answer it with an ANSWER(Dealer overbidding) for something else. Isn't tat an act of [b]slimeball or wat ? [/b][/quote]
Did you not read about the balloting that the Dealer can exercise ? What is to stop the Dealership from taking on more then one quota lot ?
Now you are being dishonest again in your confused remark that
"I have ignored your question (Gov overbidding) and answer it with an ANSWER (Dealer overbidding) for something else. "
Firstly, your confusion in terminology with "Gov overbidding"
- is the Government overbidding in the Present COE System, or is the Dealers representing Buyers or Buyers themselves overbidding ?
Secondly, did you not complain that I did not answer your question, and now you are complaining that I answer your question with "an ANSWER (Dealer overbidding) for something else" ?
My reply to your question was already on Page 2 - 11 October 2003 at 04:34A.M.
You had responded on Page 2 - 11 October 2003 - 11:35A.M.
with my follow-on reply on 11 October 2003 - 06:25P.M. as follows:
==================Originally posted by stupidissmart:
I never say anything about dealership in regard to balloting. As I say many times before, tat is stupid idea, making the ownership chain only longer. Read carefully below.
The gov will hold a ballot for the owner themselves to ballot it out. The application form for each ballot come in $100 or watever the gov want, and the people, if they wanna increase their chances, can buy more application form and try out their luck (tis is to prevent people from using other people IC to ballot). Of course if they got the ownership, they cannot transfer their ownership and have to get a car by tis month. (to avoid investors since it is only to themselves, tis time). There can be another alternative to those who must absolutely get their car within tis month. They get to pay the full COE, or a fixed min price fixed by gov.
U haven't say anything about preventing people from investing in COE in your case since now ownership can be transferable, neither has u say anything about wat happened when there is an over bidding from the dealership in your case. U fail to answer any of my questions, why will I be satisfied with your suggestions ? Frankly I do not see any value added in your proposal. Please answer these 7 issues I have stated down to convince me.
The OBJECTIVE of the COE system is a CONTROLLED growth of the car population, which has now TURN OUT to be a MONEY SPINNER for the Government, and hurting the Singaporean Car Owners, who have NO CHOICE but to submit themselves to an ARTIFICIALLY IMPOSED ENVIRONMENT.
===========================
[color=darkred]Need I go further to address the supposedly Government promoted merits that you seem to have been deeply infatuated with.
For a full reading of my reply on Page 2 - 11 October 2003 - 06:25P.M.
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=58787&page=1
Did you even bother to read my earlier post before your reply ?
5) wat if again 5000 potential car owners wanna buy the 500 COE from a dealer. How does he decide who get to have the ownership ? He of course will give the ownership to people tat had bid in more money, as dealers r profit orientated isn't it ? How do u stop tat ?
Did you not read about the balloting that the Dealer can exercise ? What is to stop the Dealership from taking on more then one quota lot ?
===========================
So did I or did I not respond to your question ?Originally posted by stupidissmart:
==============================================
[quote]If you can set aside trying to be smart while being stupid, and try to be objective then perhaps you will understand that all proposal will have to follow certain assumptions, until the reality of any situation prove such assumptions in a proposal to be right or wrong.
Nowhere did I write in my SUPPLY SIDE quota control system that DEMAND will be LESSER than SUPPLY.
How on earth did you read this into my post ?
Has tis answer the question ? U have just given INSULTS without answering the question I ASKED U. Here again, you show your brilliance in cutting short someone's posting just to show that you have been the aggrieved party and gain some sympathy for being verbally raped (?).
You could have been more honest and accurate if you had also printed the full text of your abusive language in your question that appeared in my post on Page 2 - 12 October 2003 - 07:41 A.M.
=========================
If you can set aside trying to be smart while being stupid, and try to be objective then perhaps you will understand that all proposal will have to follow certain assumptions, until the reality of any situation prove such assumptions in a proposal to be right or wrong.
All your stupid crap just keep rotating about tis big [b]assumption tat u have. The demand will be lesser than the supply set by quota. Can u 100% say tat it will always happen ? Wat fiance sort of crap is just plain crap as wat I have explained earlier, they fixed the number of COE bought by their sale volume. If quota cannot fulfil the demand of bidders, which it highly likely will, then wat is your solution ? Please don't come up with answer such as "it won't happened lah because bla bla bla". Lets say it happened already, wat r u going to do ? Answer it to the point ! How does Gov do its selection ! [/b]
Nowhere did I write in my SUPPLY SIDE quota control system that DEMAND will be LESSER than SUPPLY.
How on earth did you read this into my post ?
Read again the purpose of the DEMAND SIDE quota control through the COE system, or the SUPPLY SIDE quota control system – they both are meant to CONTROL the GROWTH of the VEHICLE POPULATION.
===============================
Now the picture certainly looks different, when the Q & A is seen in its correct perspective, doesn't it ? -
cont
Do you read what your eyes see ? The following was printed to address your problem in understanding what was previously written:Originally posted by stupidissmart:Do you read what your eyes see ? The following was printed to address your problem in understanding what was previously written:
Tat is more insult tat cover the eyes of the people. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE NUMBERS OF DEALERS !
My question to you: - can the COE system of a monthly fixed quantity of 5000 certificates be sufficient for a monthly demand of 10,000 buyers through 300 car dealerships – (all numbers are ASSUMPTIONS similar to your hypothetical numbers) ?
Did the words "it won't happen" appear anywhere in my text ?
Now I believe the others can understand my frustration of U not answering the question. First u refuse to answer it, then u give an answer to some other question and finally u give insults when I further ask for it. Can anyone get more SLIMY than tis ? [/quote]
If you had been less agitated, and kept your cool, you will probably have been able to control your irrational tantrums.
Shall we revisit the original question that was posed by you ?Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Again and again I have ask u toreply to the situation when there r more bidders than the quota set by Gov. Instead of answering tat u still keep telling me tat it won't happened.
My question to you: - can the COE system of a monthly fixed quantity of [color=red]5000 certificates be sufficient for a monthly demand of 10,000 buyers through 300 car dealerships – (all numbers are ASSUMPTIONS similar to your hypothetical numbers) ?[/color]
Did the words "it won't happen" appear anywhere in my text ?
Like a kid that demand to hear a story in the way that he wants to hear, the kid will refuse to hear the story being told in any other way except in the style that is demanded.
You had rightly or wrongly assumed that "there r more bidders than the quota set by Gov".
I had replied that by asking from your own stupendous experience with COE, what will happen when only 5000 COE Certificates are available when there are 10,000 vehicle buyers ?
It is fine with me, if you wish to forget the 300 dealers that I had included - what will happen when there are 10,000 buyers chasing after only 5,000 certificates ? (A question which you had posed on Page 2 11 October 2003 - 11:35A.M )
If you had answered my question, you would already have seen the answer to the perceived difficulties that you have with my SUPPLY SIDE Quota Control System.
These r the times I had asked tat question during tat period. R u going to say u fail to read all these questions ? [/quote]Originally posted by stupidissmart:
[quote]9th Oct 0953
If Gov decide to release 500 cars tis month but 50000 cars r being bidded, how is gov going to decide who get who win the bid, other than who bid a higher price again ?
10th Oct 1046
2 questions r posted here
I believe u have not answer the possibility of people bidding over the quota level. Who will have priority then ?
If there r 10 people wanting to buy 1 car ownership from a car dealer, then who will be given priority as to who get the ownership ?
10th Oct 0219
if 50000 bid and there is only 5000 for tis month quota, then how ? Who get to have the car ?
11th Oct 1135
If 50000 bids from dealers for 5000 gov quota, who get to have the 5000 ownership ? Those who bid more or they have go to ballot box again
12 Oct 0215
Again and again I have ask u to reply to the situation when there r more bidders than the quota set by Gov.
12th Oct 0812
Wat I am asking is if there is an over demand from GOV side, then wat is your selection proces !!
If you care to look into the summary of replies that was printed on Page 2 - 13 October 2003 - 04:21 A.M. the answers to your poser was given by me each day that it appeared.
It may not be according to your preferred form, but my reply was given based on your assumed expectation that Demand will EXCEED available COE because prices are LOW.
My ultimate reply to you was also given on the same referenced post:
============================Now that you have read all my previous answers repeated here to the same repeated point - how do you think the present COE system will resolve the ONE Million buyers bidding for only 300 COE ?How do you make your assumptions ?
The answer for the FINAL TIME remains the same, as what has been given repeatedly - that whether it is the PRESENT COE or the SUPPLY SIDE Quota (your CHEAPER COE), the OBJECTIVE remain the same - and that is for this month the COE or SUPPLY SIDE Quota available is only 300.
The other 999,700 Singaporeans will have to wait for the next round - and NO APPOLIGIES will be offered.
Do you have a problem with the effects of the Present COE ?
-----------------------------------------Originally posted by stupidissmart:
I have stated in the reply during 15th Oct 0146
[quote]
If Car A runs out of stock (whether due to lack of COE or physical car stock), and if you really like that car, surely you can wait ?
The waiting list of some of the most prestigeous car is almost a few months long, What is the big deal of a Mitsubishi or any other make ?Tis is not a static figure, it is dynamic figure tat goes for every month. Here is an illustration : If the dealer used to sell 5000 cars tis month, while on average he only get 800 COE, tat means every month there will have 4200 people tat cannot get the cars. If u cannot get your car tis month from him, the odds is tat u will have to wait VERY VERY VERY long, maybe YEARS to get the car. Isn't tat forcing them to buy other cars ? Tis is especially so if u had used the overcharging policy.
If u think u can wait for a few years then please carry on.
On baseless gut feelings ? Wild speculations ? Stupendous inspirations ?
How does a dealership SELLS 5000 Cars THIS MONTH when he is getting an AVERAGE of only 800 COE per month ?
This is either a stupendous misuse of the English Language, or it is a brilliant mathematical calculation in the reverse world of being "stupid-is-smart".
Certainly in such a reverse world in which it is ASSUMED that ONLY ONE Dealer exist to serve 5000 monthly customers, with the SINGLE Dealer having only 800 COE.
Is this a concern for the Government ?
The COE has met its objective of controlling the MONTHLY Growth to the Vehicle Population by the Quota of 800 vehicles.
What is your problem with this being practised even TODAY with the PRESENT COE System - which you are so much infatuated with ?
You are brilliantly testing my patience to exasperation. -
cont
Thanks for considering the title, but no thanks coming from your World of Reverse Order, as it has too much ill will to be considered worthwhile accepting.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Are you aware that during this OCTOBER 2003, the present COE system has resulted in the LOWEST COE PRICES over the last ten years; and yet NOT all the AVAILABLE COE are taken up by Buyers.
Again I have answered tis reply too. 15th Oct 0146
In simple English, during OCTOBER 2003, there is a SURPLUS of COE Certificates even when COE Prices is at the LOWEST LEVELS for the last TEN YEARS.I got to pose tis question, not all the AVAILABLE COE are taken up by buyers, [b]isn't it because of the high cost of present COE tat contribute to tis phenomenon ? If it is lesser than the quota, than it just shows the effectiveness of the present COE. If there is no COE, the price will definitely climb down a LOT. Simple economy, if price go down, demand will rise
And again 15th Oct 0711First, I will talk about the buyer side first. If Atobe supply side idea worked, then the price of COE will goes down, since tat is the main objective of supply idea. The overall price for owning a car will goes down, there will be an increase in numbers of buyers for a car. (Simple economy theory : Lower price, higher demand) Atobe attempt to show the Oct statistic tat the actual demand for car in Singapore is low, however tat is mainly because of the present COE system which forced the car price up, lowering the actual demand. [/b]
Did you not say in your post that people with money will demand to have COE and will refuse to wait for any long period ?
Did you also not mention that when price drop there will be a surge in demand to buy cars ?
Based on your assumption, it will seem that COE is part of the price of a vehicle that Vehicle Buyers have accepted, and the Buyers [color=red]cannot wait for long periods to possess a car - the question that need to be asked is where are the buyers when the vehicle prices dropped during this October 2003 ?
For your information, it is not only the COE value that has dropped, but also the OMV and PARF Values for all new cars have also dropped during the month of October 2003.
Are you then contradicting yourself by ignoring the fact that PRICES of Vehicles have dropped to a ten year low by saying that the Present COE system forced the car price up and has LOWERED actual Demand ?
If COE system has forced car price up and lowered actual demand, then why do you oppose the idea of a SUPPLY SIDE Quota Control System - which comes at a lower price (your supposed CHEAPER COE) that should be a welcome relief ?
Your difficulty to acknowledge the worth of this idea is based on your WRONGLY perceived notion that someone will lose out or be disadvantaged in not getting the chance to buy a car.
However, where is this concern with the Present COE system, which you are deeply infatuated with ? There are some people who do not bid successfully for a COE in the Present COE System, they do not cry over it as if they are a disadvantaged lot that you make them out to be.
Contradictions heaped upon contradictions, lead only to confusion in one's visions of things.[/color]Originally posted by stupidissmart:
U think is fair to give figures after the effective cutting off of demand from the PRESENT COE ? U got any friends tat WANT to have a car but CAN'T afford to buy it ? Or r u going back to your [b]old slime tactics and totally ignore the replies I had given u ? [/b][/quote]
I believe it is general knowledge tat there r a lot of people who wanted to have their own car but cannot afford it in Singapore. For everyone who actually owned a car in Singapore now, one can easily find 3 others who desired a car yet cannot afford it.
You forget that I was not the one who avoided your questions posed, nor was I the one who slithered around and skipped issues that have been deflated.
I am not in your World of Reverse Order, so I can hardly comprehend your confused question about fairness "to give figures after the effective cutting off of demand from the PRESENT COE"
My friends are more practical then to indulge in desiring a car that they CAN'T afford - so what is the point of even asking ?Originally posted by stupidissmart:
The present system, nope. COE is not transferable. However after the implementation of your STUPID idea, it [b]has to be. It has to be in the name of the dealer first before he can sell it back to the buyer. Then isn't COE transferable or wat ?? [/b][/quote]
[quote]Are ownership of COE transferable ? Can one actually bid for a COE and resell it at a higher price ?
In your World of Reverse Order, the STUPID idea is supposed to be SMART, if you are able to believe in your own World.
From your statement, it shows that you have little or zero understanding of the Present COE System.
To update you with a little information from the Real World Order, even in the Present COE system, the Dealer is allowed to bid for COE on behalf of Buyers, as well as submit bids for COE to be issued with a status of temporary COE for the sale of dealer's own stock of vehicles that has NO PRESENT BUYERS.
In a SUPPLY SIDE Quota System, the Dealer will bid for the Quota Lots to sell, the Price of the Quota Lot will be reflected in the Selling Price of each vehicle in the Quota.
Where is the Transfer of COE in a SUPPLY SIDE Quota Control ?
[quote]Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Now let me give u a challenge, go back and read the post on 15th Oct 0711. Lets see wat great answer our 'Mighty Atobe' is going to be. Opps, another mistake written again ! I guess Atobe is gonna mentioned he is Mighty everytime he write down his name from now on. Tat will be revolting isn't it ?
So far in this sgForums, no one is pompous enough to make a morbid declaration that being " stupid-is-smart " or anything of the same brilliant caliber. So if there are any titles befitting anyone to win, it will surely be you.
With regards to the challenge that you have proposed, let us have a view of your understanding to the basic issues, which seems to be dividing us so seriously.
Try answering those four question at the head of these four pages of reply, and then I will try to return the favor by assisting you further. -
What do you mean by "overbidding at Government side" ?
I mean in your model, the dealers are bidding more number than the Gov is offering. I am talking about your model and not the present model. Wat is the specific action tat the Gov will take in tis case ?
Who is "overbidding at the Government side" ?Question 1
I will assume u r asking me about the present COE. I will not avoid the question since u pose it out.
What is the objective of the COE ?
Question 2
Who can apply for the COE ?
Question 3
How is COE Price determined ?
Question 4
How is COE awarded to the bidder ?
1. To control number of cars, a fair way to tax the people
2. Anybody interested, including dealers and buyers as long as they fulfil requirements like age
3, 4. By the price set by bidders using market equilibrium. Gov control a fixed amount of COE to be release to the public. Those who bid sufficient high, get the COE. If they offer 5000 COE tis month, the 5000 highest bidders get the COE.Secondly, did you not complain that I did not answer your question, and now you are complaining that I answer your question with "an ANSWER (Dealer overbidding) for something else" ?
I have written a short story on your method of ignoring the question. From the story it did mention answering a question with an answer for something else.11th Oct 1135
Is tat a very confusing terminology stated above ? Why do u keep telling me the end effect and not the actual method ?
If 50000 bids from dealers for 5000 gov quota, who get to have the 5000 ownership ?The very idea of a NON-TRANSPARENT COE bidding system is abhorrent, and my reply as to why the SUPPLY SIDE control mechanism with a fixed LOWER BASE PRICE is more advantageous has been quite clearly explained.
The OBJECTIVE of the COE system is a CONTROLLED growth of the car population, which has now TURN OUT to be a MONEY SPINNER for the Government, and hurting the Singaporean Car Owners, who have NO CHOICE but to submit themselves to an ARTIFICIALLY IMPOSED ENVIRONMENT.And lastly, another thing which u avoid to answer, is why deprive Gov from collecting COE ? They in the end will spend the same and will seek to increase tax from other areas which will affect everyone, including the poor. Isn't COE a good way to tax people ?
I have stated tat though u do not like it, it is a good way of taxing people. I have already said tat since ages ago. It is a good way of taxing the rich and distributing it to the poor. Is car a necessity in singapore ? (please do not regard business in since they can bid for the cheaper van and trucks) If u r poor, can't u take public transport ?
1. It was already decided tat cars can only benefit a fraction of the whole population in singapore. Do u agree with tis fact ?
2. Wat is the best way to select which portion of the population get to own the car ?
3. Gov decision is to let the richer people be the ones tat will own a car. However to be fair to the rest of the population, he will tax the richer people heavily and used it to lower the tax and burden on the poor. I do not see anything wrong with tis method.
4. I do not care how the Gov spend tis money, don't tell me more Gov expenditure facts tat u had already said before. The question in this discussion is whether it is an appropriate tax, and not whether is tis money spend wisely.
Tat is very interesting. Tis is from the quotes u have sent out yourself. Talking about honesty and accuracy... U didn't blame yourself when u cut it off badly, yet blame me for cutting off a quote u have sent yourself ?? U certainly love to twist and blame me for everything don't u ? PLease refer to your own reply 13 October 2003 · 04:21 AM.
Here again, you show your brilliance in cutting short someone's posting just to show that you have been the aggrieved party and gain some sympathy for being verbally raped (?).Do you read what your eyes see ? The following was printed to address your problem in understanding what was previously written:
I did ask tat question. However I do ask the question of overbiddding from Gov side too. U choose to keep answering the question of overdemand on DEALER side and refuse to touch on the issue of overbidding from dealer to Gov side. -
9th Oct 0953
Surely these questions r asking about problem of Gov side isn't it ? How r u going to explain why u didn't answer them ?
If Gov decide to release 500 cars tis month but 50000 cars r being bidded, how is gov going to decide who get who win the bid, other than who bid a higher price again ?
10th Oct 1046
2 questions r posted here
I believe u have not answer the possibility of people bidding over the quota level. Who will have priority then ?
If there r 10 people wanting to buy 1 car ownership from a car dealer, then who will be given priority as to who get the ownership ?
10th Oct 0219
if 50000 bid and there is only 5000 for tis month quota, then how ? Who get to have the car ?
11th Oct 1135
If 50000 bids from dealers for 5000 gov quota, who get to have the 5000 ownership ? Those who bid more or they have go to ballot box again
12 Oct 0215
Again and again I have ask u to reply to the situation when there r more bidders than the quota set by Gov.
12th Oct 0812
Wat I am asking is if there is an over demand from GOV side, then wat is your selection process !!Like a kid that demand to hear a story in the way that he wants to hear, the kid will refuse to hear the story being told in any other way except in the style that is demanded.
Huh !!? I am asking u wat will happen in your model, not the present COE system.
You had rightly or wrongly assumed that "there r more bidders than the quota set by Gov".
I had replied that by asking from your own stupendous experience with COE, what will happen when only 5000 COE Certificates are available when there are 10,000 vehicle buyers ?
It is fine with me, if you wish to forget the 300 dealers that I had included - what will happen when there are 10,000 buyers chasing after only 5,000 certificates ? (A question which you had posed on Page 2 11 October 2003 - 11:35A.M )
If you had answered my question, you would already have seen the answer to the perceived difficulties that you have with my SUPPLY SIDE Quota Control System.
PRESENTLY,if there are more bidders than wat Gov is supplying, the METHOD OF SELECTION by Gov is to offer the COEs to the higher bidders. They choose people tat bid the highest for COE.
How is your model going to cope with tat ? Wat is the exact method u will use ?The answer for the FINAL TIME remains the same, as what has been given repeatedly - that whether it is the PRESENT COE or the SUPPLY SIDE Quota (your CHEAPER COE), the OBJECTIVE remain the same - and that is for this month the COE or SUPPLY SIDE Quota available is only 300.
U r not reading my question after all this time -_-... I am asking your exact method of selection, NOT about the effect in the end ! I know the effect in the end too ! But how r u going to choose who is the lucky 300 !! THE METHOD of SELECTION, NOT THE END EFFECT !
The other 999,700 Singaporeans will have to wait for the next round - and NO APPOLIGIES will be offered.12th Oct 0812
Wat I am asking is if there is an over demand from GOV side, then wat is your selection proces !!How does a dealership SELLS 5000 Cars THIS MONTH when he is getting an AVERAGE of only 800 COE per month ?
AT PRESENT, the dealer do not have to care about bidding for COE. The BUYER bid themselves. After the buyer had the COE, they can choose which car to buy, thus for tis Dealer, 5000 customers will approach him every month IF the present COE is continued. However after YOUR model set in, the DEALER has to bid for the COE themselves. If there is OVERBIDDING from Gov side, he cannot get ALL the cars he needed per month. If every month he BID for 5000, or 50000 cars, yet manage to get only 800, then won't it be a dynamic FIGURE in terms of RATE. Every month only 16% of the interested buyers tat month get to have the car. Tis does not include the INTERESTED BUT FAILED TO GET the CAR buyers from the previous months. Doesn't tat means the buyer has to WAIT for a long time ? Isn't tat forcing them to buy cars from OTHER make and model ? Is tis more clearer to u now ?
I use another method to explain. A Dealer manage to capture 10% of market share. Tat mean if 100 buyers want to buy a car, 10 will choose him. Presently, whoever get to have the COE doesn't matter to the dealer. If Gov released 5000 COEs tat month, tat just means 500 of them will buy his car. However after your MODEL is implemented, the number of cars he can sell depends GREATLY on the number of COEs he managed to successfully bid. IF no matter how hard he tries, he manage to get only 6% of the totalled released COEs, then won't it affect his business a lot by 40% ? Won't tat be a dynamic figure for the peopel tat want to buy its car ?
You are brilliantly testing my patience to exasperation.Are you then contradicting yourself by ignoring the fact that PRICES of Vehicles have dropped to a ten year low by saying that the Present COE system forced the car price up and has LOWERED actual Demand ?
Tat is because of economy NOW. Prices r dropping at a 10 year low, however remember ECONOMY is also dropping to a 10 year low. Since people r getting poorer, the EFFECTIVENESS of the present COE using dynamic market equilibrium make it such tat the prices for COE also go down too. If the COE remains stubbornly at 10 years ago rate, then IT FAILS to be effective.
It is using PRICE to balance supply and demand. If people cannot afford cars now, COE will itself GOES DOWN to again control the number for supply and demand. In short, no matter wat economy status we in, COE will set itself to the appropriate price level to regulate supply and demand.If COE system has forced car price up and lowered actual demand, then why do you oppose the idea of a SUPPLY SIDE Quota Control System - which comes at a lower price (your supposed CHEAPER COE) that should be a welcome relief ?
I have no problem with tat, provided it WORKS. Has u proven tat it works to me ? No ! U haven't give an appropriate method of solving overbidding from DEALER to Gov side in your MODEL. (cheez.. tat is a lot to write to make it politically correct)
Why don't we have a vote then ? I will start a thread in the Car category at sgforums, and see wat is their response. The question will goes
My friends are more practical then to indulge in desiring a car that they CAN'T afford - so what is the point of even asking ?
" If COE drops to $5000, while all other factors remain the same, will u buy a car ?"
Wat do u think the response will be like ?To update you with a little information from the Real World Order, even in the Present COE system, the Dealer is allowed to bid for COE on behalf of Buyers, as well as submit bids for COE to be issued with a status of temporary COE for the sale of dealer's own stock of vehicles that has NO PRESENT BUYERS.
Tat is good, it shows tat some stocks r being held by Dealers every month to facilitate sales. I guess u will say I am as slippery as a snake for using your quotes to attack u again.
I got to ask u tis again. It is in my response 15 October 2003 · 07:11 PMHe(Dealer) can easily eliminate the cash flow problem by loans from bank, whose fees will be passed on to the buyers. The bank will act as a buffer, paying the COE fees first while waiting for the dealer to collect it back from the buyers. In the end, the dealer may act as just a middleman, one tat never even need to pay a single cent out from his pockets. Loans will even be made easier if the owners chose advance booking, since the contracts that they will signed with the dealer will add as a safe guard for the bank.
Then I got to ask u, if dealer used the method, wat difference does your model make ? Please try not to act as a slimy slug and refuse to answer tis question.
Also since I have answered your 4 questions, maybe u can come up with a method to do DEALERS OVERBIDDING the GOV's set QUOTA. I do not wat the end effect, I WANT THE ACTUAL SELECTION method.
I have said wat should be said in this reply. Lets see your next response. -
You seem to have an objection to my model describing "dealers are bidding more number than the Gov is offering".Originally posted by stupidissmart:What do you mean by "overbidding at Government side" ?
I mean in your [b]model, the dealers are bidding more number than the Gov is offering. I am talking about your model and not the present model.
Who is "overbidding at the Government side" ?
Is this not happening in reality with the Present COE System that there will always be more bids than what the Government is offering ?
If the Present COE has more buyers chasing after a limited quantity of COE offered by the Government, why do you have any problem in my model having "dealers are bidding more number than the Gov is offering" ?
The four questions asked is simple and direct.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Wat is the specific action tat the Gov will take in tis case ? [/b][/quote]
To answer this question, you must understand how the Present COE work.
I have always said that in my Proposed SUPPLY SIDE Quota it is similar to the Present COE in some ways, and will also improve on the Present COE by BEING DIFFERENT in Other Ways.Originally posted by stupidissmart:
I will assume u r asking me about the present COE. I will not avoid the question since u pose it out.
[quote]Question 1
What is the objective of the COE ?
Question 2
Who can apply for the COE ?
Question 3
How is COE Price determined ?
Question 4
How is COE awarded to the bidder ?
1. To control number of cars, a fair way to tax the people
2. Anybody interested, including dealers and buyers as long as they fulfil requirements like age
3, 4. By the price set by bidders using market equilibrium. Gov control a fixed amount of COE to be release to the public. Those who bid sufficient high, get the COE. If they offer 5000 COE tis month, the 5000 highest bidders get the COE.
Do not mix what are the stated OFFICIAL Purpose of the COE with what YOU PERCEIVED to be the benefit that you assume COE to have.
In other words, your opinion that the COE is "a fair way to tax the people" is NOT RELEVANT as an answer to the Question.
1. The COE is a quota system by itself, by limiting the MONTHLY Quantity of Vehicles allowed to be sold Per Month. (It is NOT a Tax System - and is unfortunately not a fair way as what you think).
2. Anyone is allowed to submit a bid for a COE and there is NO AGE LIMIT, EXCEPT that the insurance certificate must cover the successful bidder who is the certified driver and owner of the vehicle.
3. The COE price is NOT determined by the TOP VALUES of ALL COE received, but taken from the LOWEST VALUE of the last REJECTED BID PRICE - (which LTA termed as "Reserve Price" ) .
4. COE is awarded by a complex system of accepting the APPLICANTS submitting the TOP VALUES, but they need to PAY ONLY the price of the LAST REJECTED BID PRICE.
For example, if there are only 5000 COE available for this month:
First group of 3000 Persons (Buyers or Dealers) submit bids of $10,000
Second group of 2000 Persons submit bids of $11,000
Third group of 1000 Persons submit bids of $12,000
Fourth group of 1000 Persons submit bids of $15,000
Fifth group of 1000 Persons submit bids of $20,000
Sixth group of 1000 Persons submit bids of $50,000
Seventh Group of 1000 Persons submit bids of $60,000
The 5000 applicants submitting the TOP VALUES will be awarded, and those people from the Third Group to the Seventh Group - each of 1000 persons will be the successful winner.
However, they DO NOT PAY the values of what they have submitted, as the COE Price is determined at the LAST UNSUCCESSFUL BID PRICE - which is the value submitted by the SECOND Group at $12,000.
LTA will charge $12,000 PLUS $1.00 - (GST to be separtely paid).
This is the mechanism in which COE determine who amongst a LARGE group of BUYERS will be awarded with a limited quantity of COE.
Is this a fair system that allows the highest bidders to be awarded with the COE but based on the Lowest Price from the nearest Reserve or Bid Price ?
In a SUPPLY SIDE Quota System, the same mechanics can be used, EXCEPT that -
(a) the bids will be made by DEALERS
(b) there will be a MINIMUM Bid Price fixed by LTA
(c) the bids will be for a group of allowed vehicles to be sold, but are divided into Quota Lots
(d) the Bid Price PER QUOTA Lot is determined from the average bid price determined at a Median from all the bidders
See the model which I had given in my post on Page 3 - 15 October 2003 - 01:44A.M.
Unfortunately, your short story had the table turned on you, as you do not seem to be too good a story teller.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Secondly, did you not complain that I did not answer your question, and now you are complaining that I answer your question with "an ANSWER (Dealer overbidding) for something else" ?
I have written a short story on your method of ignoring the question. From the story it did mention answering a question with an answer for something else.
Read my response to your story posted on Page 3 14 October 2003 - 05:02A.M.
------------------------------------------------
For the last 3 days, it was with great temptation that [color=blue]A:tobe had wished to tell B: ( stupid-is-smart ) :[/color]Originally posted by stupidissmart:A got a business plan and want to sell it to a group of capitalists. B, an experienced person also attended the presentation. On his presentation, tis is the exchanges tat took place.
A : As u all can see, if u do A,B,C, then u will get back your investments and much more
B : (sensing something not practical with business plan) Tat is very good, but wat happened if D,E,F happened ?
A : (realised a loop hole in D and E. However pride does not allowed him to admit it) Okie, if u do A', B' and C', then it will solve question F of your problem, now is there any other ques..
B : Tat is very interesting, but I think u haven't answer question D and E
A : I thought I told u A', B' C' already right ?
B : Yes but tat is for question F, how about D and e ?
A : I have told u so many times it is A', B' and C' already. R u deaf or stupid ?
B : I want u to answer D and E ? I know F, and A', B', C' doesn't address question D & E at all ! I want to know your answer for D and E !
A : As I said, it is A', B' and C' for F! I have told u so many times already I can't believe your spastic intelligence
B : HEY ! I am asking plain and simple question, D and E happen, then WAT ??
A : I am not going to answer question F so many times. I think u better go home and sleep, I shall now carry on....
B : Wat ?? Hey, answer D and E for goodness sake !
A : Hey stupid, haven't I told u enough ? Get lost !!
..................................................................
A: " Hey stupid, haven't I told u enough ? Get lost !! "
Thanks, stupidissmart for your contribution, it was fun while it lasted.
-------------------------------------------------- -
cont.
You may not like to get my reply in the manner that you prefer, but a reply was given if you care to read the following extract from my reply posted on Page 2 - 11 October 2003 - 06:25P.M.Originally posted by stupidissmart:11th Oct 1135
Is tat a very confusing terminology stated above ? Why do u keep telling me the end effect and not the actual method ?
If 50000 bids from dealers for 5000 gov quota, who get to have the 5000 ownership ?
That is the trouble with the present COE bid system, in which the Dealership is left with the option to pay up the balance of the COE NOT WITH THE BID.
In a SUPPLY SIDE control mechanism - if you had take the care to read clearly - the Dealership will have to pay immediately on successful award of the quota that he had bid for.
The Dealership will have to plan carefully his cash flow, capital cost, existing stock against future stock positions and sales, and a whole host of consideration; where at present the entire cost is passed onto the Car Owners desperately willing to be subjected to a NO-CHOICE situation.
If you care to read my post on Page 3 - 12 October 2003 - 07:47A.M. - my reply to your COE question was made several times in the point-by-point references to your postings.Originally posted by stupidissmart:The very idea of a NON-TRANSPARENT COE bidding system is abhorrent, and my reply as to why the SUPPLY SIDE control mechanism with a fixed LOWER BASE PRICE is more advantageous has been quite clearly explained.
The OBJECTIVE of the COE system is a CONTROLLED growth of the car population, which has now TURN OUT to be a MONEY SPINNER for the Government, and hurting the Singaporean Car Owners, who have NO CHOICE but to submit themselves to an ARTIFICIALLY IMPOSED ENVIRONMENT.And lastly, another thing which u avoid to answer, is why deprive Gov from collecting COE ? They in the end will spend the same and will seek to increase tax from other areas which will affect everyone, including the poor. Isn't COE a good way to tax people ?
Your question seems to be silly when my answer is already clear from the beginning that the COE is a NON-TRANSPARENT Mechanism that is utilised by the Government to SUCK ALL AVAILABLE MONEY from Singaporeans - and I may add that this COE is used in conjunction with all other revenue grabbing policies as allowed by the Singapore Parliament to the Inland Revenue.
Do you seriously believe that the Present COE has NOT deviated from the goals that were to be fair to all.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I have stated tat though u do not like it, it is a good way of taxing people. I have already said tat since ages ago. It is a good way of taxing the rich and distributing it to the poor. Is car a necessity in singapore ? (please do not regard business in since they can bid for the cheaper van and trucks) If u r poor, can't u take public transport ?
If you care to look at my post of today, that has confirmed the manner in which the COE price is determined, then come back again and repeat that the COE is a good way of taxing the rich and distributing it to the poor.
Do you seriously believe that the Government has made any donations to the Poor ?
Do seriously believe that cars can only benefit a fraction of the whole population of Singapore ?Originally posted by stupidissmart:1. It was already decided tat cars can only benefit a fraction of the whole population in singapore. Do u agree with tis fact ?
How small is your "fraction of the whole population in Singapore ?
With the Present COE system, in the manner that it is formed today, it will be quite unfair even to the rich, let alone the poor - see my posting on the present LTA vehicle COE bidding price.Originally posted by stupidissmart:2. Wat is the best way to select which portion of the population get to own the car ?
[/b][/quote]Originally posted by stupidissmart:3. Gov decision is to let the richer people be the ones tat will own a car. However to be fair to the rest of the population, he will tax the richer people heavily and used it to lower the tax and burden on the poor. I do not see anything wrong with tis method.
That is what you think the Government is doing, but is this based on another speculation and not from substance ?
Nothing from the COE collected from all the car biddings has ever been accounted for that benefits any Old Folks home.
Are you not being quirky here ?Originally posted by stupidissmart:4. I do not care how the Gov spend tis money, don't tell me more Gov expenditure facts tat u had already said before. The question in this discussion is whether it is an appropriate tax, and not whether is tis money spend wisely.
You talk about Gov taxing the rich by using the COE to spend on the Poor on the one hand, but you prefer that I "don't tell me more Gov expenditure facts tat u already said before". When did I speak about "Gov expenditures" other then to rebutt your idea that COE is used to the road systems.
Interesting that you should declare that the Question in this discussion is whether it is an appropriate tax ? - (and I can accept your proposal of not considering how the money collected from COE is spent).
Look at the answer given for Question 1 of this Post, and you will see the answer quite clearly. -
cont
It is easy to speak of someone but until you show how I have done anything that you have accused me of doing, the fact remains quite clear that you have been dishonest in the manner that you have selectively misquoted from my posts, for the simplistic objective of scoring points in an argument that you refused to conduct in a sensible manner.Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Tat is very interesting. Tis is from the quotes u have sent out yourself. Talking about honesty and accuracy... U didn't blame yourself when u cut it off badly, yet blame me for cutting off a quote u have sent yourself ?? U certainly love to twist and blame me for everything don't u ? PLease refer to your own reply 13 October 2003 · 04:21 AM.
Here again, you show your brilliance in cutting short someone's posting just to show that you have been the aggrieved party and gain some sympathy for being verbally raped (?).
From the manner in which you have conducted your argument, and from some replies that you made, as well as from this reply given, it seems that you have a problem with the understanding of the English Language used here.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Do you read what your eyes see ? The following was printed to address your problem in understanding what was previously written:
I did ask tat question. However I do ask the question of overbiddding from Gov side too. U choose to keep answering the question of overdemand on DEALER side and refuse to touch on the issue of overbidding from dealer to Gov side.
You may not like the manner in which the answer is given, but an answer was given and addressed your concern.
If you cannot understand it, then ask again in a more concise and specific manner, as was shown in the following exchanges that we had on Page 2 - 13 October 2003 - 04:21A.M.--------------------------------------------
Must I also help you to understand that you are fit only as a wharehouse supervisor, and not as a Financial Planner. Must I also make some marketing strategies and planning so as to help you live up to your credo too ?
''
Obviously, being a warehouse expert you are not exactly a financial wizard to appreciate the cost of holding surplus stocks.
Firstly, do you understand the whole purpose of CONTROLLING the GROWTH of the VEHICLE POPULATION in Singapore - either with the COE (DEMAND SIDE Quota) or SUPPLY SIDE Quota (your understanding it as being "CHEAPER COE" ) ?
The ORIGINAL idea of COE was to control the growth of the car population - NOT TO COLLECT REVENUE for the Government; and certainly not for the benefit of the CAR DEALERSHIPs.
""
Wat does the above point mean ? Why repeat telling me the same point again ? I ask u then, if I sell 713 cars tis month, how much will u propose to bid for next month COE ?
------------------------------------------------ -
I am quite certain that you are continuing this useless discussion WITHOUT even understanding - or refusing to accept - the answers given by me, by claiming that I have answered your question with an answer on some other matters.
You are quite a genious when trying so hard to be one.Originally posted by stupidissmart:9th Oct 0953
Surely these questions r asking about problem of Gov side isn't it ? How r u going to explain why u didn't answer them ?
If Gov decide to release 500 cars tis month but 50000 cars r being bidded, how is gov going to decide who get who win the bid, other than who bid a higher price again ?
10th Oct 1046
2 questions r posted here
I believe u have not answer the possibility of people bidding over the quota level. Who will have priority then ?
If there r 10 people wanting to buy 1 car ownership from a car dealer, then who will be given priority as to who get the ownership ?
10th Oct 0219
if 50000 bid and there is only 5000 for tis month quota, then how ? Who get to have the car ?
11th Oct 1135
If 50000 bids from dealers for 5000 gov quota, who get to have the 5000 ownership ? Those who bid more or they have go to ballot box again
12 Oct 0215
Again and again I have ask u to reply to the situation when there r more bidders than the quota set by Gov.
12th Oct 0812
Wat I am asking is if there is an over demand from GOV side, then wat is your selection process !!Like a kid that demand to hear a story in the way that he wants to hear, the kid will refuse to hear the story being told in any other way except in the style that is demanded.
Huh !!? I am asking u wat will happen in your model, not the present COE system.
You had rightly or wrongly assumed that "there r more bidders than the quota set by Gov".
I had replied that by asking from your own stupendous experience with COE, what will happen when only 5000 COE Certificates are available when there are 10,000 vehicle buyers ?
It is fine with me, if you wish to forget the 300 dealers that I had included - what will happen when there are 10,000 buyers chasing after only 5,000 certificates ? (A question which you had posed on Page 2 11 October 2003 - 11:35A.M )
If you had answered my question, you would already have seen the answer to the perceived difficulties that you have with my SUPPLY SIDE Quota Control System.
PRESENTLY,if there are more bidders than wat Gov is supplying, the METHOD OF SELECTION by Gov is to offer the COEs to the higher bidders. They choose people tat bid the highest for COE.
How is your model going to cope with tat ? Wat is the exact method u will use ?The answer for the FINAL TIME remains the same, as what has been given repeatedly - that whether it is the PRESENT COE or the SUPPLY SIDE Quota (your CHEAPER COE), the OBJECTIVE remain the same - and that is for this month the COE or SUPPLY SIDE Quota available is only 300.
U r not reading my question after all this time -_-... [b]I am asking your exact method of selection, NOT about the effect in the end ! I know the effect in the end too ! But how r u going to choose who is the lucky 300 !! THE METHOD of SELECTION, NOT THE END EFFECT !
The other 999,700 Singaporeans will have to wait for the next round - and NO APPOLIGIES will be offered.12th Oct 0812
Wat I am asking is if there is an over demand from GOV side, then wat is your selection proces !!How does a dealership SELLS 5000 Cars THIS MONTH when he is getting an AVERAGE of only 800 COE per month ?
AT PRESENT, the dealer do not have to care about bidding for COE. The BUYER bid themselves. After the buyer had the COE, they can choose which car to buy, thus for tis Dealer, 5000 customers will approach him every month IF the present COE is continued. However after YOUR model set in, the DEALER has to bid for the COE themselves. If there is OVERBIDDING from Gov side, he cannot get ALL the cars he needed per month. If every month he BID for 5000, or 50000 cars, yet manage to get only 800, then won't it be a dynamic FIGURE in terms of RATE. Every month only 16% of the interested buyers tat month get to have the car. Tis does not include the INTERESTED BUT FAILED TO GET the CAR buyers from the previous months. Doesn't tat means the buyer has to WAIT for a long time ? Isn't tat forcing them to buy cars from OTHER make and model ? Is tis more clearer to u now ?
I use another method to explain. A Dealer manage to capture 10% of market share. Tat mean if 100 buyers want to buy a car, 10 will choose him. Presently, whoever get to have the COE doesn't matter to the dealer. If Gov released 5000 COEs tat month, tat just means 500 of them will buy his car. However after your MODEL is implemented, the number of cars he can sell depends GREATLY on the number of COEs he managed to successfully bid. IF no matter how hard he tries, he manage to get only 6% of the totalled released COEs, then won't it affect his business a lot by 40% ? Won't tat be a dynamic figure for the peopel tat want to buy its car ?
You are brilliantly testing my patience to exasperation.Are you then contradicting yourself by ignoring the fact that PRICES of Vehicles have dropped to a ten year low by saying that the Present COE system forced the car price up and has LOWERED actual Demand ?
Tat is because of economy NOW. Prices r dropping at a 10 year low, however remember ECONOMY is also dropping to a 10 year low. Since people r getting poorer, the EFFECTIVENESS of the present COE using dynamic market equilibrium make it such tat the prices for COE also go down too. If the COE remains stubbornly at 10 years ago rate, then IT FAILS to be effective.
It is using PRICE to balance supply and demand. If people cannot afford cars now, COE will itself GOES DOWN to again control the number for supply and demand. In short, no matter wat economy status we in, COE will set itself to the appropriate price level to regulate supply and demand. [/b][/quote]
If you had carefully understood my first response on Page 1 - 10 October 2003 - 02.54A.M. that was made in response to your question posted on Page 1 - 09 October 2003 - 09:53P.M. - this whole matter may have been less taxing on you.
In my post on Page 1 - 10 October 2003 - 02:54A.M. - which I will summarised in brief - I had written that there is little difference between SUPPLY SIDE Quota System to the Present COE System that I have termed as being a DEMAND SIDE Quota.
I had emphasised that in the SUPPLY SIDE Quota System, since it is the Dealers, who will be responsible to bid for the Quota Lots made available by the Government, the Dealers will have to be WISE and CAREFUL to determine which Quota Lot and how Quota Lots to bid for. They have to ensure that they do not overstock on Vehicles from Quota Lots awarded at "high priced biddings".
The reason is that the Dealers will have to pay for the total of the value of their bids at the time of bidding - and not when they pick-up or utilise the allotted quota, as it allowed in the Present COE.
This being the case, the SUPPLY SIDE Quota System will at least moderate the wild speculative bidding and possible "over-stocking" by holding more COE then there are Buyers.
At present, there are some Dealers holding high priced COE from the last bid that are left unused, when the COE has fallen at the next COE bid exercise.
Somehow, you refuse to accept that Dealers will use reason and financial prudence in a SUPPLY SIDE Quota bidding, and prefer to take on an argumentative and speculative line that there will always be an OVER SUPPLY OF DEMAND from Dealers.
In response to your speculative and baseless argumentative reasoning, I had asked you if in the present COE System, how will the system resolve the OVER DEMAND for COE ?
You have somehow missed the point, as it seems that you have a shallow understanding of the mechanics behind the COE, which is that of any other ordinary Singaporean.
Concerning your belief that COE Prices move up and down based on People's ability and affordability of purchase cars, is it amazing that in a Singaporean Vehicle Buying Population of at least ONE MILLION PERSONS, everyone will experience the same "Ability To Pay Syndrome" at the same time ?
Have you ever wondered how the mechanics of COE Prices seems to be at the lowest, each time when one of the GLC Taxi Companies have to renew their fleet of Taxis ?
When times are good, there is enough money to be "milked" out of the "Singaporean Pockets", the COE Prices will somehow be "influenced" upwards.
While the reverse is true when there is a dampened economic mood that affects the entire vehicle sector of the economy - which include the Dealerships, Finance Company, Accessory Shops, Workshops, Insurance Companies - and to prevent a collapse of this sector, and to keep the engine running to contribute to the main "Economic Performance Picture" - the COE Prices will be "magically" reduced to allow transaction activities to continue.
However, if you study and appreciate the COE system carefully, you will soon be asking "Are Singaporeans so desparate to own a car even to the extent to pay 5 figure values to own a piece of paper called COE ?". Another question asked will be, "Surely there are sane people who are putting bids starting from $1, what happened to those beginning from $1 up to a value of $9999 ? "Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Why don't we have a vote then ? I will start a thread in the Car category at sgforums, and see wat is their response. The question will goes
[quote]
My friends are more practical then to indulge in desiring a car that they CAN'T afford - so what is the point of even asking ?
" If COE drops to $5000, while all other factors remain the same, will u buy a car ?"
Wat do u think the response will be like ?
Now you want to pick a closed laboratory type of environment - by holding all other factors to remain the same - when trying to prove what will happen when COE drops to $5000 ?
Are you so desparate to such an extent to resort to this method to bait me into such a useless experiment ?
What will you even think of next to try to score points ?
Are you an authority on any subject ?Originally posted by stupidissmart:If COE system has forced car price up and lowered actual demand, then why do you oppose the idea of a SUPPLY SIDE Quota Control System - which comes at a lower price (your supposed CHEAPER COE) that should be a welcome relief ?
I have no problem with tat, provided it WORKS. Has u proven tat it works to me ? No ! U haven't give an appropriate method of solving overbidding from DEALER to Gov side in your MODEL. (cheez.. tat is a lot to write to make it politically correct)
How qualified are you to even comment on the current COE system, when you have only a limited layman's understanding of the current COE system ?
To begin with, your assumptions on the supposed limitations and down side of the SUPPLY SIDE Quota system is speculative and argumentative based on unsubstantiated and prejudiced personal opinions.
It is odd that you have no qualms in ACCEPTING the fact that the SUPPLY SIDE Quota will result in a CHEAPER bidding values when compared to the Present COE; but your OBJECTION and VEHEMENT ARGUMENT is centered on your SPECULATION in the fact that EXCESS DEMAND will result with such a "Cheaper" SUPPLY SIDE Quota System.
You refused to accept the fact that when DEALERS have to submit the full sum of the value of their bids AT THE TIME of submission, they will have to behave more rationally.
You refused to accept the fact that by having a Price Level determined by an Averaging of the Bid Price Level with the most hits of biddings - it will resolve the issue of MORE DEMAND THEN SUPPLY.
You refused to accept the fact that the Present COE System is NON-Transparent and subject to Government manipulation.
Your knowledge of the mechanics of the Present COE remains suspiciously shallow to allow you even sufficient knowledge to carry on discussing this topic in an intelligent manner.Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Tat is good, it shows tat some stocks r being held by Dealers every month to facilitate sales. I guess u will say I am as slippery as a snake for using your quotes to attack u again. [/quote][/b]
[quote]To update you with a little information from the Real World Order, even in the Present COE system, the Dealer is allowed to bid for COE on behalf of Buyers, as well as submit bids for COE to be issued with a status of [b]temporary COE for the sale of dealer's own stock of vehicles that has NO PRESENT BUYERS.
No, this time you are not quite so slippery, but being dis-ingenious in trying to score points.
Such a practise has always been in existence with the DEMAND SIDE Quota such as the Present COE System.
It will result in Dealers holding high priced COE that are based on CHEAP SPECULATION, since the COE require only a token sum to be paid by the Dealer.
Have you considered what will happen to these high priced COE obtained (for the sake of discussion) in October 2003, when the price of COE falls in November 2003 ?
The present COE system is open for wild speculation and manipulation by stuffing the present COE System with ever higher bids, just to be in the top ranks, but ending up paying at a Price of the LAST UNSUCCESSFUL BIDDER.Originally posted by stupidissmart:
I got to ask u tis again. It is in my response 15 October 2003 · 07:11 PM
[b][quote]He(Dealer) can easily eliminate the cash flow problem by loans from bank, whose fees will be passed on to the buyers. The bank will act as a buffer, paying the COE fees first while waiting for the dealer to collect it back from the buyers. In the end, the dealer may act as just a middleman, one tat never even need to pay a single cent out from his pockets. Loans will even be made easier if the owners chose advance booking, since the contracts that they will signed with the dealer will add as a safe guard for the bank.
Then I got to ask u, if dealer used the method, wat difference does your model make ? Please try not to act as a slimy slug and refuse to answer tis question.
Also since I have answered your 4 questions, maybe u can come up with a method to do DEALERS OVERBIDDING the GOV's set QUOTA. I do not wat the end effect, I WANT THE ACTUAL SELECTION method.
I have said wat should be said in this reply. Lets see your next response. [/b][/quote]
You are assuming that the highly paid Financial Officer will have the same thought process as you.
Do you know the financial impact to a Company that borrows money to hold stocks ?
Each month that the remaining stock is left unsold, the cost of those unsold stock climb at a compounded interest rate that is being charged.
Do you not think that Rational Behavior will not be practised in a SUPPLY SIDE SYSTEM that require the Dealer to reconsider his strategy MORE PRUDENTLY - ( since he now has to include the FULL VALUE of his bids AT THE TIME of BID SUBMISSIONS ) - than when he need only to submit $100 per COE application and pay the full amount when the COE is actually taken up - ( as allowed in the Present COE system) ?
I am not certain if you can even comprehend the full financial impact to a Dealer holding stocks in a dampening vehicle market, and in a depressed economic environment. -
If the Present COE has more buyers chasing after a limited quantity of COE offered by the Government, why do you have any problem in my model having "dealers are bidding more number than the Gov is offering" ?
I have told u already, if there r more people chasing a limited quality of COE offered, then the price will just get higher and cut off the demand till it reaches the number of bidding and the number of quota coincide.d) the Bid Price PER QUOTA Lot is determined from the average bid price determined at a Median from all the bidders
For your case, in the past, u refuse to tell me the method of our selection.
Now u still to use the old Median method. After the dealer get to have the COEs, using your suggested method again, the DEALER will AGAIN USE ballot box to determine who is the lucky BUYERS.
I have asked a question before when u mentioned using tis method. Since u must have conveniently forgotten it, I will refresh your memory. If u r going to use the MEDIAN approach, why not cut off on ONLY DEALER can BID in this case and make it into the present form of letting the dealers and BUYERS BID for themeselves instead ? Instead of suggesting tat the COE can only be bid by Dealer, why not go back to the present idea of letting buyers bid themselves instead ? If buyer want help, they will have option of askign dealer to bid for them too. Isn't tis better ?
Then the car dealer can just keep focusing on selling his car, and not about the problems of keeping COE isn't it ? U cut off a step in using LUCK 2 times to determine who is the one going to own a car isn't it ? AND buyers get to choose the car they want too isn't it ? Won't tat be a more better system than your old model of using only DEALERS to bid, using the MEDIAN method followed by Ballot Box method.
Talking about the median. which is equal to trying out one's luck, isn't it better if we just use the BALLOT BOX ? The prices tat the Buyer had to buy doesn't even have to be concerned with the market trends, which will lessen their burden when bidding for COE.
Before u use MEDIAN method to select buyers, why don't u tell me the benefits of forcing only and only dealers to bid instead of BOTH buyer and dealer bid and the benefit of using MEDAIN than using BALLOT BOX.The 5000 applicants submitting the TOP VALUES will be awarded, and those people from the Third Group to the Seventh Group - each of 1000 persons will be the successful winner.
However, they DO NOT PAY the values of what they have submitted, as the COE Price is determined at the LAST UNSUCCESSFUL BID PRICE - which is the value submitted by the SECOND Group at $12,000.
Just a quick question, I have already stated tat the top 5000 bidders will get the COE, which coincide with your model too. Wat is the diff between the actual COE and the COE which I stated ?
Those who bid sufficient high, get the COE. If they offer 5000 COE tis month, the 5000 highest bidders get the COE. -
AT PRESENT, the dealer do not have to care about bidding for COE. The BUYER bid themselves. After the buyer had the COE, they can choose which car to buy, thus for tis Dealer, 5000 customers will approach him every month IF the present COE is continued. However after YOUR model set in, the DEALER has to bid for the COE themselves. If there is OVERBIDDING from Gov side, he cannot get ALL the cars he needed per month. If every month he BID for 5000, or 50000 cars, yet manage to get only 800, then won't it be a dynamic FIGURE in terms of RATE. Every month only 16% of the interested buyers tat month get to have the car. Tis does not include the INTERESTED BUT FAILED TO GET the CAR buyers from the previous months. Doesn't tat means the buyer has to WAIT for a long time ? Isn't tat forcing them to buy cars from OTHER make and model ? Is tis more clearer to u now ?
Do u have anything to say about tis ?
I use another method to explain. A Dealer manage to capture 10% of market share. Tat mean if 100 buyers want to buy a car, 10 will choose him. Presently, whoever get to have the COE doesn't matter to the dealer. If Gov released 5000 COEs tat month, tat just means 500 of them will buy his car. However after your MODEL is implemented, the number of cars he can sell depends GREATLY on the number of COEs he managed to successfully bid. IF no matter how hard he tries, he manage to get only 6% of the totalled released COEs, then won't it affect his business a lot by 40% ? Won't tat be a dynamic figure for the peopel tat want to buy its car ?
You are brilliantly testing my patience to exasperation.If you had carefully understood my first response on Page 1 - 10 October 2003 - 02.54A.M. that was made in response to your question posted on Page 1 - 09 October 2003 - 09:53P.M. - this whole matter may have been less taxing on you.
Sorry man, I have no time to read through your tons of long rubbish again. Why don't u cut off the appropriate response u had given instead.Concerning your belief that COE Prices move up and down based on People's ability and affordability of purchase cars, is it amazing that in a Singaporean Vehicle Buying Population of at least ONE MILLION PERSONS, everyone will experience the same "Ability To Pay Syndrome" at the same time ?
Wait a minute, do u not understand the COE mechanism at all yourself ? If economy is good, people can afford to pay more thus bid more, is tat very strange to u ? Why use the word "Magically" when the present COE can perform tat function without a doubt ? When the economy is bad, people cannot afford to pay tat much thus the COE prices drop. Tis too coincide with how the mechanism work isn't it ? Can't tis happen NATURALLY due to the mechanism of COE ? Why do u believe there is a GREAT AND BIG conspiracy behind tis normal symptoms ???
Have you ever wondered how the mechanics of COE Prices seems to be at the lowest, each time when one of the GLC Taxi Companies have to renew their fleet of Taxis ?
When times are good, there is enough money to be "milked" out of the "Singaporean Pockets", the COE Prices will somehow be "influenced" upwards.
While the reverse is true when there is a dampened economic mood that affects the entire vehicle sector of the economy - which include the Dealerships, Finance Company, Accessory Shops, Workshops, Insurance Companies - and to prevent a collapse of this sector, and to keep the engine running to contribute to the main "Economic Performance Picture" - the COE Prices will be "magically" reduced to allow transaction activities to continue.
However, if you study and appreciate the COE system carefully, you will soon be asking "Are Singaporeans so desparate to own a car even to the extent to pay 5 figure values to own a piece of paper called COE ?". Another question asked will be, "Surely there are sane people who are putting bids starting from $1, what happened to those beginning from $1 up to a value of $9999 ? "Have you ever wondered how the mechanics of COE Prices seems to be at the lowest, each time when one of the GLC Taxi Companies have to renew their fleet of Taxis ?
Why don't u think tat taxi companies are also monitoing the COE market themselves. When they realise tat the price is cheap, they renew their fleet of taxis. Is tat strange to u ? I thought u r the fiancial whiz around here. One can get online and check the prices there easily isn't it ?However, if you study and appreciate the COE system carefully, you will soon be asking "Are Singaporeans so desparate to own a car even to the extent to pay 5 figure values to own a piece of paper called COE ?". Another question asked will be, "Surely there are sane people who are putting bids starting from $1, what happened to those beginning from $1 up to a value of $9999 ? "
Aiyoh... if u always bid $1 and always fail, u will try to raise the price of your bidding isn't it ? Since u already say tat only the top 5000 bidders can get to have the 5000 quotas offered, why does tis appear strange to u ? The problem is not whether there r any sane people bidding beginning from $1 to $9999. The problem is whether there are people bidding for $50000 and above. If there is, then the people bidding for 1-9999 fails the bid. TAT IS ALL ! -
Secondly, did you not complain that I did not answer your question, and now you are complaining that I answer your question with "an ANSWER (Dealer overbidding) for something else" ?
For the last 3 days, it was with great temptation that A:tobe had wished to tell B: ( stupid-is-smart ) :
I am trying to say I have mentioned the Bolded points during tat story. Too bad u only seems to focus on the last line. If u want to use jokes and ridicule to cover up your inadequateness, it just proves wat a slimeball u are. Anyway it indeed is true tat u had not answer the same question I have asked on so many occasions.
A: " Hey stupid, haven't I told u enough ? Get lost !! "That is the trouble with the present COE bid system, in which the Dealership is left with the option to pay up the balance of the COE NOT WITH THE BID.
The below is my reply for tat above.
In a SUPPLY SIDE control mechanism - if you had take the care to read clearly - the Dealership will have to pay immediately on successful award of the quota that he had bid for.
The Dealership will have to plan carefully his cash flow, capital cost, existing stock against future stock positions and sales, and a whole host of consideration; where at present the entire cost is passed onto the Car Owners desperately willing to be subjected to a NO-CHOICE situation.
Tis is the counter u used against the point I have stated
He(Dealer) can easily eliminate the cash flow problem by loans from bank, whose fees will be passed on to the buyers. The bank will act as a buffer, paying the COE fees first while waiting for the dealer to collect it back from the buyers. In the end, the dealer may act as just a middleman, one tat never even need to pay a single cent out from his pockets. Loans will even be made easier if the owners chose advance booking, since the contracts that they will signed with the dealer will add as a safe guard for the bank.You are assuming that the highly paid Financial Officer will have the same thought process as you.
You are also assuming that the highly paid Financial Officer will have the same thought process as you. Why do u think they will face "remaining stock is left unsold, the cost of those unsold stock climb at a compounded interest rate that is being charged."
Do you know the financial impact to a Company that borrows money to hold stocks ?
Each month that the remaining stock is left unsold, the cost of those unsold stock climb at a compounded interest rate that is being charged.
Do you not think that Rational Behavior will not be practised in a SUPPLY SIDE SYSTEM that require the Dealer to reconsider his strategy MORE PRUDENTLY - ( since he now has to include the FULL VALUE of his bids AT THE TIME of BID SUBMISSIONS ) - than when he need only to submit $100 per COE application and pay the full amount when the COE is actually taken up - ( as allowed in the Present COE system) ?
I am not certain if you can even comprehend the full financial impact to a Dealer holding stocks in a dampening vehicle market, and in a depressed economic environment.
Why do u assume they will face remaining stock unsold in the first place ? They r probably more smarter than tat and had bid for a FAIR and SUFFICIENT number of COE as stock. They won't go about BIDDING much much more than they can get it used within a month.Do you not think that Rational Behavior will not be practised in a SUPPLY SIDE SYSTEM that require the Dealer to reconsider his strategy MORE PRUDENTLY - ( since he now has to include the FULL VALUE of his bids AT THE TIME of BID SUBMISSIONS ) - than when he need only to submit $100 per COE application and pay the full amount when the COE is actually taken up - ( as allowed in the Present COE system) ?
The Dealer DO NOT lower the number of COE they BID, EVEN IF they have to PAY UP for the FULL amount of COE UPFRONT. DEALERS BID in the number of CARS they believe THEY will SELL within tat MONTH. If they can't sell off ALL the COE tat month, then they will just have to bid LESSER for the following month. In tat case they won't have SURPLUS stock of COE holding up for too long. And they do not even have to FORK out a single cent since they can borrow directly from the BANK. If I buy in the COE, and may risk to hold it at most 2 months, then I will SET THE ADDITIONAL BANK FEES TO ALL THE buyers for 2 months.
Hyptothetical figures. Dealer bidding for Oct
COE I hold : 0
July 572
Aug 963
Sep 782
Last year Oct 945
This figure is already fluctuating much greater than wat NORMAL Dealer face. If I am the above dealer, I will bid 800-900 cars tat month. Lets say I bought in 900 for Oct. However in tat month, I don't get to sell off ALL 900 COE, I only sold off 500. Then for the next month, I will
COE I HOLD : 400
Aug 963
Sep 782
Oct 500
Last year Nov 735
Then I may just bid for 200-300 tis month. Lets say I bid for 300, and tis month sale is bad again, I sell of 550 again. But then I had already cleared off the 400 COE I had bought last month. Take note tat I AM CHARGING FOR 2 MONTHS interest when I sell it off to the buyer. Hence in the END, I turn out to be making a profit instead of a loss.
Tis is in the belief tat I will get the EXACT number of cars I bid from the Gov. If I use median method or something else, I may get LESSER number of COE tat month. If I DO NOT get tat amount, In other words, I bid for 900 on Oct but get only 300, won't tat just clears up my COE surplus faster. If I use advance booking as wat U suggested, meaning the buyers have to bid in ADVANCE, then the RISKS involved GET lower again.
So in the end, WAT HAS YOUR IDEA CONTRIBUTED ? Wat CONTROL mechanism has it achieved ? -
Your question seems to be silly when my answer is already clear from the beginning that the COE is a NON-TRANSPARENT Mechanism that is utilised by the Government to SUCK ALL AVAILABLE MONEY from Singaporeans - and I may add that this COE is used in conjunction with all other revenue grabbing policies as allowed by the Singapore Parliament to the Inland Revenue.
The explained reason from Gov to the people is tat it is used to curb the number of cars on the road. However the Gov is not dishonest in the sense tat they account the MONEY gathered from COE as part of the income on the Budget. And COE did work out well in controlling the number of cars on the road. U got a better idea on controlling the number of cars ? U want to use your SUPPLY and MEDIAN method ? U have to prove me wrong first.
Do you seriously believe that the Present COE has NOT deviated from the goals that were to be fair to all.
If you care to look at my post of today, that has confirmed the manner in which the COE price is determined, then come back again and repeat that the COE is a good way of taxing the rich and distributing it to the poor.
Do you seriously believe that the Government has made any donations to the Poor ?
Do seriously believe that cars can only benefit a fraction of the whole population of Singapore ?
How small is your "fraction of the whole population in Singapore ?
With the Present COE system, in the manner that it is formed today, it will be quite unfair even to the rich, let alone the poor - see my posting on the present LTA vehicle COE bidding price.
That is what you think the Government is doing, but is this based on another speculation and not from substance ?
Nothing from the COE collected from all the car biddings has ever been accounted for that benefits any Old Folks home.
Are you not being quirky here ?
You talk about Gov taxing the rich by using the COE to spend on the Poor on the one hand, but you prefer that I "don't tell me more Gov expenditure facts tat u already said before". When did I speak about "Gov expenditures"; other then to rebutt your idea that COE is used to the road systems.
Interesting that you should declare that the Question in this discussion is whether it is an appropriate tax ? - (and I can accept your proposal of not considering how the money collected from COE is spent).
Look at the answer given for Question 1 of this Post, and you will see the answer quite clearly.If you care to look at my post of today, that has confirmed the manner in which the COE price is determined, then come back again and repeat that the COE is a good way of taxing the rich and distributing it to the poor.
Wat has it confirmed ? The 5000 highest bidders get the 500 COE distributed. Wat is the diff ?Do you seriously believe that the Government has made any donations to the Poor ?
Tat is a silly thing to say. Do u not see schools being built ? Do u not see road being made ? Do u not see police and army working in a efficient manner ? Do u not see tat Old Folks Home and Ophanage is HEAVILY subsidised ? If Gov do not have money, can he do all these ?Do seriously believe that cars can only benefit a fraction of the whole population of Singapore ?
Are u trying to tell me tat there r 4 millions singaporean in singapore, and singapore can allow ALL of them to have cars ? I do not know the exact figures, but the vehicles on the rd must certainly be below 1 million. Even for tis 1 million cars, we already used up 16% of land (16% land were used on residential too) for roads. 1 million cars is already causing Jams at the City almost everyday. WE CANNOT AFFORD EVERYONE TO HAVE CARS. Thus if u want to force me to give the fraction, I can only give 10-20 percent of population get to have cars. I do not have the figures so tis is just guess on my part.
How small is your "fraction of the whole population in Singapore ?With the Present COE system, in the manner that it is formed today, it will be quite unfair even to the rich, let alone the poor - see my posting on the present LTA vehicle COE bidding price.
Wat is unfair ? They bid tat sum of money without anyone forcing them to. Please elaborate
Wat do u think is wrong with tat statement ? If u wanna ask Gov direct, they will give u a more politically correct and lenghty explanation only. It is true I came up with the above conclusion, but so u see any flaws in it ?
That is what you think the Government is doing, but is this based on another speculation and not from substance ?Are you not being quirky here ?
U already question on whether "old folks home" get any money isn't it ? I have said tis before
You talk about Gov taxing the rich by using the COE to spend on the Poor on the one hand, but you prefer that I "don't tell me more Gov expenditure facts tat u already said before". When did I speak about "Gov expenditures"; other then to rebutt your idea that COE is used to the road systems.
Interesting that you should declare that the Question in this discussion is whether it is an appropriate tax ?
Gov will spend the same amount of money every year, whether COE was present or not. If u remove COE, then Gov will look into other way to get back tis offset. How do they do it ? They may raise property tax or raise GST, making living worse for everyone.
On touching COE, only a small fraction of the whole Singapore population get to have cars. We have to decide who get to own the car who can't. Gov method is to let the rich people get to be the ones having the convenience of the cars, but they must do it with a price. The price of COE and other road tax.
Hasn't tat been fair to both the rich and the poor, in the sense tat the Rich get to pay more Tax, while the Poor cannot have the luxury of the car. Let say considering only on tis aspect, do u think tis is fair ?It is easy to speak of someone but until you show how I have done anything that you have accused me of doing, the fact remains quite clear that you have been dishonest in the manner that you have selectively misquoted from my posts, for the simplistic objective of scoring points in an argument that you refused to conduct in a sensible manner.
Tat is very interesting, please elaborate.Must I also help you to understand that you are fit only as a wharehouse supervisor, and not as a Financial Planner. Must I also make some marketing strategies and planning so as to help you live up to your credo too ?
Tat is again very interesting. I have stated before
1. Can u 100% say tat ALL cars are sold by advance orders NOW, INCLUDING 2nd Hand cars Dealers ?
2. Do u not think tis is an added value if I can let u OWN the car the minute u want to buy it AND NOT having to wait for a full month ?But r u sure u will only bid for 323 exact, without leaving any extra COE to play with ? R u sure the whole of next month there won't be any buyer tat buy cars within a shorter time of thinking ? I can see the possibility of potential people just go over to a show room, test a car and decided to buy it straight. Since there r willing buyers willing to book for a month before getting the car, isn't it better to tell them tat they can drive away with the car they want without having to wait at all.Tis can only be achieved since the company has the extra COE with them. Won't an extra stock of COE help to facilitate such transaction and bring convenience to the buyers ?
Clearly u consider yourself to be a fiancial whiz, but lack any clue on sales nor stock keeping. I guess u can just stick holding tat title if u like to belittle other while bloating up your face so much. -
AT PRESENT, the dealer do not have to care about bidding for COE. The BUYER bid themselves. After the buyer had the COE, they can choose which car to buy, thus for tis Dealer, 5000 customers will approach him every month IF the present COE is continued. However after YOUR model set in, the DEALER has to bid for the COE themselves. If there is OVERBIDDING from Gov side, he cannot get ALL the cars he needed per month. If every month he BID for 5000, or 50000 cars, yet manage to get only 800, then won't it be a dynamic FIGURE in terms of RATE. Every month only 16% of the interested buyers tat month get to have the car. Tis does not include the INTERESTED BUT FAILED TO GET the CAR buyers from the previous months. Doesn't tat means the buyer has to WAIT for a long time ? Isn't tat forcing them to buy cars from OTHER make and model ? Is tis more clearer to u now ?
Do u have anything to say about tis ?
I use another method to explain. A Dealer manage to capture 10% of market share. Tat mean if 100 buyers want to buy a car, 10 will choose him. Presently, whoever get to have the COE doesn't matter to the dealer. If Gov released 5000 COEs tat month, tat just means 500 of them will buy his car. However after your MODEL is implemented, the number of cars he can sell depends GREATLY on the number of COEs he managed to successfully bid. IF no matter how hard he tries, he manage to get only 6% of the totalled released COEs, then won't it affect his business a lot by 40% ? Won't tat be a dynamic figure for the peopel tat want to buy its car ?
You are brilliantly testing my patience to exasperation.If you had carefully understood my first response on Page 1 - 10 October 2003 - 02.54A.M. that was made in response to your question posted on Page 1 - 09 October 2003 - 09:53P.M. - this whole matter may have been less taxing on you.
Sorry man, I have no time to read through your tons of long rubbish again. Why don't u cut off the appropriate response u had given instead.Concerning your belief that COE Prices move up and down based on People's ability and affordability of purchase cars, is it amazing that in a Singaporean Vehicle Buying Population of at least ONE MILLION PERSONS, everyone will experience the same "Ability To Pay Syndrome" at the same time ?
Wait a minute, do u not understand the COE mechanism at all yourself ? If economy is good, people can afford to pay more thus bid more, is tat very strange to u ? Why use the word "Magically" when the present COE can perform tat function without a doubt ? When the economy is bad, people cannot afford to pay tat much thus the COE prices drop. Tis too coincide with how the mechanism work isn't it ? Can't tis happen NATURALLY due to the mechanism of COE ? Why do u believe there is a GREAT AND BIG conspiracy behind tis normal symptoms ???
Have you ever wondered how the mechanics of COE Prices seems to be at the lowest, each time when one of the GLC Taxi Companies have to renew their fleet of Taxis ?
When times are good, there is enough money to be "milked" out of the "Singaporean Pockets", the COE Prices will somehow be "influenced" upwards.
While the reverse is true when there is a dampened economic mood that affects the entire vehicle sector of the economy - which include the Dealerships, Finance Company, Accessory Shops, Workshops, Insurance Companies - and to prevent a collapse of this sector, and to keep the engine running to contribute to the main "Economic Performance Picture" - the COE Prices will be "magically" reduced to allow transaction activities to continue.
However, if you study and appreciate the COE system carefully, you will soon be asking "Are Singaporeans so desparate to own a car even to the extent to pay 5 figure values to own a piece of paper called COE ?". Another question asked will be, "Surely there are sane people who are putting bids starting from $1, what happened to those beginning from $1 up to a value of $9999 ? "Have you ever wondered how the mechanics of COE Prices seems to be at the lowest, each time when one of the GLC Taxi Companies have to renew their fleet of Taxis ?
Why don't u think tat taxi companies are also monitoing the COE market themselves. When they realise tat the price is cheap, they renew their fleet of taxis. Is tat strange to u ? I thought u r the fiancial whiz around here. One can get online and check the prices there easily isn't it ?However, if you study and appreciate the COE system carefully, you will soon be asking "Are Singaporeans so desparate to own a car even to the extent to pay 5 figure values to own a piece of paper called COE ?". Another question asked will be, "Surely there are sane people who are putting bids starting from $1, what happened to those beginning from $1 up to a value of $9999 ? "
Aiyoh... if u always bid $1 and always fail, u will try to raise the price of your bidding isn't it ? Since u already say tat only the top 5000 bidders can get to have the 5000 quotas offered, why does tis appear strange to u ? The problem is not whether there r any sane people bidding beginning from $1 to $9999. The problem is whether there are people bidding for $50000 and above. If there is, then the people bidding for 1-9999 fails the bid. TAT IS ALL ! -
Actually i do not see how the new system proposed will be any different from the old COE......Both are supply and demand influenced.Both see the cars going to the highest bidder......and both see's the money end up with the goverment.So how is it different if it's the company bidding or the person bidding?The availbility is still goverment contorlled and the price is still contorlled by how much people can pay...
-
If you continue with this line of ridiculous reply, we will have a debate without you understanding the crux of the questions asked.Originally posted by stupidissmart:If the Present COE has more buyers chasing after a limited quantity of COE offered by the Government, why do you have any problem in my model having "dealers are bidding more number than the Gov is offering" ?
I have told u already, if there r more people chasing a limited quality of COE offered, then the price will just get higher and cut off the demand till it reaches the number of bidding and the number of quota coincide.
What is the basis of your reply that when "more people chasing a limited 'quality'
COE offered, then the price will just get higher and cut off the demand till it reaches the number of bidding and the number of quota coincide" ?
Another gut feeling or wild speculation ?
How the price get higher and cut off demand till it ( what is this " IT " ? ) reaches the number of bidding and the number of quota con-incide
What are you thinking about with your post about "number of bidding and the number of quota co-inciding" ?
Are you referring to a real live event that occurred with the Present COE system, so much so that it will also happen with my Proposed SUPPLY SIDE Quota ? Or is this another of your baseless and argumentative kind of speculation that YOU MUST OFFER just to justify and advance your own position ?
Was there a refusal from me, or was there a difficulty encountered with the manner that your line of questioning had presented itself ?Originally posted by stupidissmart:d) the Bid Price PER QUOTA Lot is determined from the average bid price determined at a Median from all the bidders
For your case, in the past, u refuse to tell me the method of our selection.
Now u still to use the old Median method. After the dealer get to have the COEs, using your suggested method again, the DEALER will AGAIN USE ballot box to determine who is the lucky BUYERS.
Surely, with your brilliance you could stretch some creativity beyond being " stupidissmart " kind of logic.
What will you as a Dealer do when you are confronted with a limited stock of cars to be sold, and a long waiting list of interested buyers ?
Big marque car dealeres have always encountered this situation, but they do not seem to have any problems dealing with this long list of waiting buyers - whether with a "Ballot Box" Policy or with a "First Come, First Serve" Policy.
Why do you have this persistent problem ?
If you had been a little more attentive to details of my postings - (and rein in your urge to "shoot your mouth from your hips" with your "Ah Ha, I got you" attitude, and your eagerness to cut up my post into shreds and ending up with most of the bits in your mouth) - you will perhaps have read in my post on Page 1-10 October 2003-02:54A.M. featuring the IMPORTANT FEATURES of a SUPPLY SIDE Quota System; as well as the follow-on explanations given on the same date at 11:24A.M. (also on Page 1).Originally posted by stupidissmart:I have asked a question before when u mentioned using tis method. Since u must have conveniently forgotten it, I will refresh your memory. If u r going to use the MEDIAN approach, why not cut off on ONLY DEALER can BID in this case and make it into the present form of letting the dealers and BUYERS BID for themeselves instead ? Instead of suggesting tat the COE can only be bid by Dealer, why not go back to the present idea of letting buyers bid themselves instead ? If buyer want help, they will have option of askign dealer to bid for them too. Isn't tis better ?
Then the car dealer can just keep focusing on selling his car, and not about the problems of keeping COE isn't it ? U cut off a step in using LUCK 2 times to determine who is the one going to own a car isn't it ? AND buyers get to choose the car they want too isn't it ? Won't tat be a more better system than your old model of using only DEALERS to bid, using the MEDIAN method followed by Ballot Box method.
Talking about the median. which is equal to trying out one's luck, isn't it better if we just use the BALLOT BOX ? The prices tat the Buyer had to buy doesn't even have to be concerned with the market trends, which will lessen their burden when bidding for COE.
Before u use MEDIAN method to select buyers, why don't u tell me the benefits of forcing only and only dealers to bid instead of BOTH buyer and dealer bid and the benefit of using MEDAIN than using BALLOT BOX.
Click here to go directly to Page 1, and scroll down to 10 October 2003 - 02:54A.M. - as well as at 11:24A.M.
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=58787&page=0
If you cannot understand or accept the first explanation given, then we are perpetually debating an issue in circles, since your inability to differentiate the features between the Present COE System and the Proposed SUPPLY SIDE Quota System.
The difference between what the ACTUAL COE and your simple and superficial understanding of what the Present COE can be, is that in the ACTUAL COE, the top 5000 bidders will pay the price of the Last Highest Bidder; while in your COE, all those who bid the Highest Price will grab the COE - ( this is quoted from your post on Page 2-12 October 2003 - 08:12P.M. )Originally posted by stupidissmart:The 5000 applicants submitting the TOP VALUES will be awarded, and those people from the Third Group to the Seventh Group - each of 1000 persons will be the successful winner.
However, they DO NOT PAY the values of what they have submitted, as the COE Price is determined at the LAST UNSUCCESSFUL BID PRICE - which is the value submitted by the SECOND Group at $12,000.[/color]
Just a quick question, I have already stated tat the top 5000 bidders will get the COE, which coincide with your model too. Wat is the diff between the actual COE and the COE which I stated ?
Those who bid sufficient high, get the COE. If they offer 5000 COE tis month, the 5000 highest bidders get the COE.
"Tat is better to describe your idea bah. If there r 50000 people bidding for 5000 COE, the GOV will give the cert to highest bidder again,and the price of COE will remain relatively the SAME, if not, your stupid idea will charge car owners higher !
You are ONLY CORRECT in the part concerning how the COE is being awarded, but you have FAILED to grasp the FULL SIGNIFICANCE of the COE, when you come to the other part concerning the fair distribution and award of the COE.
Why award the COE to the top 5000 bidders, and then get them to pay the LAST HIGHEST PRICE that lost in the bidding process ?
If you claim that it is a fair system that allow the Government to collect tax to help the aged and other social services is correct ? -
Your concern again, is based on speculation, and on your concept that is suited in a test laboratory - which can only experiment a market environment based on your limited understanding of the real world dynamics that you have only a superficial concept in.Originally posted by stupidissmart:AT PRESENT, the dealer do not have to care about bidding for COE. The BUYER bid themselves. After the buyer had the COE, they can choose which car to buy, thus for tis Dealer, 5000 customers will approach him every month IF the present COE is continued. However after YOUR model set in, the DEALER has to bid for the COE themselves. If there is OVERBIDDING from Gov side, he cannot get ALL the cars he needed per month. If every month he BID for 5000, or 50000 cars, yet manage to get only 800, then won't it be a dynamic FIGURE in terms of RATE. Every month only 16% of the interested buyers tat month get to have the car. Tis does not include the INTERESTED BUT FAILED TO GET the CAR buyers from the previous months. Doesn't tat means the buyer has to WAIT for a long time ? Isn't tat forcing them to buy cars from OTHER make and model ? Is tis more clearer to u now ?
Replying to your post in a reverse order - what makes you think that all the Dealers in Singapore will not be having the same problem - if each of them have a share from the limited quota of 5000 cars or vehicles allowed to be sold in Singapore ?
From the Present COE system that require BUYERS to bid at the highest values, so as to scramble to the top of the bidders, but only pay at the LAST HIGHEST BID PRICE that lost out, is this fair to those who have placed the bid price that is used by those WINNING HIGHEST BIDDERS to pay for the COE ?
Will it not be a fairer system, in which your bid price is placed with the highest percentage median, and those around the highest number median will be awarded the COE ?
This will act as a dampener to the wild speculation in COE Price, in which anonymity is assured, and there is no guarantee that the bid price is not from the Government fixing the price to their own desired value.
To further enhance the dampening speculative effect and to bring some degree of sanity to the car values, in the Proposed SUPPLY SIDE Quota - the Dealers will have to fork out the full sum of their bids for any quota lots that they have planned to market, or based on confirmed bookings received from actual Buyers.
All this benefits from a SUPPLY SIDE Quota can be achieved if the Government decide NOT to capitalise and greedily gain from the insatiable desires of Singaporeans to own cars at any COE price.
Do u have anything to say about tis ? Your assumption is based on your speculation that " IF no matter how hard he tries, he manage to get only 6% of the totalled released COEs " - and again in your "laboratory test ASSUMPTIONS based on pure illogical speculations " .Originally posted by stupidissmart:I use another method to explain. A Dealer manage to capture 10% of market share. Tat mean if 100 buyers want to buy a car, 10 will choose him. Presently, whoever get to have the COE doesn't matter to the dealer. If Gov released 5000 COEs tat month, tat just means 500 of them will buy his car. However after your MODEL is implemented, the number of cars he can sell depends GREATLY on the number of COEs he managed to successfully bid. IF no matter how hard he tries, he manage to get only 6% of the totalled released COEs, then won't it affect his business a lot by 40% ? Won't tat be a dynamic figure for the peopel tat want to buy its car ?
You are brilliantly testing my patience to exasperation.
If in a market of 5000 car buyers, all able to obtain 5000 COE, enabling them to go to whichever Dealerships - (note the Plural in this case, and not your constant SINGULAR terms) - do you think that in a SUPPLY SIDE Quota System, the same 5000 car buyers cannot already confirmed their interests with whichever DEALERSHIPS that they have decided on ?
With the confirmed orders in hand, do you think that the DEALERSHIPS will not have got ACCURATE DATA to decide the actual Quota Lots size to bid ?
The problem with your kind of argument is that you will not consume your own output that you dare to throw at others, when it clearly shows that your thoughts are based on "garbage in and garbage out" with little purpose and directions.Originally posted by stupidissmart:If you had carefully understood my first response on Page 1 - 10 October 2003 - 02.54A.M. that was made in response to your question posted on Page 1 - 09 October 2003 - 09:53P.M. - this whole matter may have been less taxing on you.
Sorry man, I have no time to read through your tons of long rubbish again. Why don't u cut off the appropriate response u had given instead.
When faced with reality, you simply prefer to brush everthing aside.
This is the result of being too involved in your World of Reverse Order that require matters to be kept simple, as any dense matters involving LOGIC will be too much for a confused mind to absorb. -
cont:
What happen to your observation that when prices are cheap, bidders will try to assure themselves a place by BIDDING HIGH ?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Concerning your belief that COE Prices move up and down based on People's ability and affordability of purchase cars, is it amazing that in a Singaporean Vehicle Buying Population of at least ONE MILLION PERSONS, everyone will experience the same "Ability To Pay Syndrome" at the same time ?
Wait a minute, do u not understand the COE mechanism at all yourself ? If economy is good, people can afford to pay more thus bid more, is tat very strange to u ? Why use the word "Magically" when the present COE can perform tat function without a doubt ? When the economy is bad, people cannot afford to pay tat much thus the COE prices drop. Tis too coincide with how the mechanism work isn't it ? Can't tis happen [b]NATURALLY due to the mechanism of COE ? Why do u believe there is a GREAT AND BIG conspiracy behind tis normal symptoms ??? [/b][/quote]
Have you ever wondered how the mechanics of COE Prices seems to be at the lowest, each time when one of the GLC Taxi Companies have to renew their fleet of Taxis ?
When times are good, there is enough money to be "milked" out of the "Singaporean Pockets", the COE Prices will somehow be "influenced" upwards.
While the reverse is true when there is a dampened economic mood that affects the entire vehicle sector of the economy - which include the Dealerships, Finance Company, Accessory Shops, Workshops, Insurance Companies - and to prevent a collapse of this sector, and to keep the engine running to contribute to the main "Economic Performance Picture" - the COE Prices will be "magically" reduced to allow transaction activities to continue.
However, if you study and appreciate the COE system carefully, you will soon be asking "Are Singaporeans so desparate to own a car even to the extent to pay 5 figure values to own a piece of paper called COE ?". Another question asked will be, "Surely there are sane people who are putting bids starting from $1, what happened to those beginning from $1 up to a value of $9999 ? "
Have you ever tried to bid for a COE, or have you actually got involved with a Vehicle Sales Transaction before ?
Have you even spoken to any Car Dealers or conducted a general research - by simple conversation - with different dealerships concerning the "mystery" of how some foolish Singaporeans can buck the GENERAL DESIRE to pay the lowest COE Bid Price of ONLY 3 or 4 FIGURE VALUES ?
Have you ever wondered why the LTA Computer System will react by rejecting bids of 3 or 4 figure values, and persistently "push" the prices higher to the 5 figure values ?
Even when economic times are good, sensible persons will still not bid beyond the 2 to 4 figure values, and the person who was lucky to have won a $50 COE is a successful entrepreneur - submitting and winning his bid during the best time of Singapore's economy.
Unfortunately for you, it maybe difficult for someone like you from a World of Reverse Order to comprehend, but sensible people do exist in Singapore, and most of them are businessmen, hard working professionals who earn their money the hard way.Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Why don't u think tat taxi companies are also monitoing the COE market themselves. When they realise tat the price is cheap, they renew their fleet of taxis. Is tat strange to u ? I thought u r the fiancial whiz around here. One can get online and check the prices there easily isn't it ?
[quote]Have you ever wondered how the mechanics of COE Prices seems to be at the lowest, each time when one of the GLC Taxi Companies have to renew their fleet of Taxis ?
What happen to your observation that when prices are cheap, people rush in to grab the limited stocks of COE and push the price high ?
Can a GLC Taxi company - needing to renew their entire fleet of 500 cars - be so lucky to win in a bidding to obtain all the required 500 COEs ?
It does not take a Financial Whiz to have such keen observations, but it sure need a lot of common sense to know when there is an anomaly in the system that favors one group so easily.
Try getting out of the rut in the World of Reverse Order and you will be able to grasp the other straws fluttering in the wind.
Why should it be a problem to find people bidding for $50000 and above ?Originally posted by stupidissmart:However, if you study and appreciate the COE system carefully, you will soon be asking "Are Singaporeans so desparate to own a car even to the extent to pay 5 figure values to own a piece of paper called COE ?". Another question asked will be, "Surely there are sane people who are putting bids starting from $1, what happened to those beginning from $1 up to a value of $9999 ? "
Aiyoh... if u always bid $1 and always fail, u will try to raise the price of your bidding isn't it ? Since u already say tat only the top 5000 bidders can get to have the 5000 quotas offered, why does tis appear strange to u ? The problem is not whether there r any sane people bidding beginning from $1 to $9999. The problem is whether there are people bidding for $50000 and above. If there is, then the people bidding for 1-9999 fails the bid. TAT IS ALL !
It happened, even up to $90,000 for a simple piece of paper that cost less then 0.01cent.
Then again, you miss the point of the question, in your simplistic view of the post.
In an auction, there will be a minimum price for a product to be sold, and this minimum price is set by the owner of the product.
In the Present COE system, the COE price is silently pushed and controlled from "behind the scene", especially in an electronically bid system that automatically cut off a certain bid prices at a certain fixed time. This automatically timed cutting out the ability of a bidder to submit a desired price, can only be a result of manual intervention when the software was written. This is to prevent another repeat of the supposedly "fluke" $50 COE. -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
[b]Secondly, did you not complain that I did not answer your question, and now you are complaining that I answer your question with "an ANSWER (Dealer overbidding) for something else" ?
I am trying to say I have mentioned the Bolded points during tat story. Too bad u only seems to focus on the last line. If u want to use jokes and ridicule to cover up your inadequateness, it just proves wat a slimeball u are. Anyway it indeed is true tat u had not answer the same question I have asked on so many occasions. [/b][/quote]For the last 3 days, it was with great temptation that A:tobe had wished to tell B: ( stupid-is-smart ) :
A: " Hey stupid, haven't I told u enough ? Get lost !! "
Unfortunately, I do not have your " stupidity-is-smart " capacity to follow the convultous track that your storyline went; and the brightess note that you could have got a response from me was your closing line that sounded better with a deft twist from me.
Try harder with your slimeball terminology, as it merely reflects the level of discussion that you have allowed yourself to slide into when you run out of words. Too bad that I am enjoying this.
If you are truly interested in the answers, try being less urgent in your need to debunk me, and be more positively open to new ideas, and perhaps life will be kinder to you - even if you prefer to live in a World of Reverse Order, where stupidity is smartOriginally posted by stupidissmart:
The below is my reply for tat above.[quote]That is the trouble with the present COE bid system, in which the Dealership is left with the option to pay up the balance of the COE NOT WITH THE BID.
In a SUPPLY SIDE control mechanism - if you had take the care to read clearly - the Dealership will have to pay immediately on successful award of the quota that he had bid for.
The Dealership will have to plan carefully his cash flow, capital cost, existing stock against future stock positions and sales, and a whole host of consideration; where at present the entire cost is passed onto the Car Owners desperately willing to be subjected to a NO-CHOICE situation.
Tis is the counter u used against the point I have stated
He(Dealer) can easily eliminate the cash flow problem by loans from bank, whose fees will be passed on to the buyers. The bank will act as a buffer, paying the COE fees first while waiting for the dealer to collect it back from the buyers. In the end, the dealer may act as just a middleman, one tat never even need to pay a single cent out from his pockets. Loans will even be made easier if the owners chose advance booking, since the contracts that they will signed with the dealer will add as a safe guard for the bank.You are assuming that the highly paid Financial Officer will have the same thought process as you.
You are also assuming that the highly paid Financial Officer will have the same thought process as you. Why do u think they will face "remaining stock is left unsold, the cost of those unsold stock climb at a compounded interest rate that is being charged."
Do you know the financial impact to a Company that borrows money to hold stocks ?
Each month that the remaining stock is left unsold, the cost of those unsold stock climb at a compounded interest rate that is being charged.
Do you not think that Rational Behavior will not be practised in a SUPPLY SIDE SYSTEM that require the Dealer to reconsider his strategy MORE PRUDENTLY - ( since he now has to include the FULL VALUE of his bids AT THE TIME of BID SUBMISSIONS ) - than when he need only to submit $100 per COE application and pay the full amount when the COE is actually taken up - ( as allowed in the Present COE system) ?
I am not certain if you can even comprehend the full financial impact to a Dealer holding stocks in a dampening vehicle market, and in a depressed economic environment.
Why do u assume they will face remaining stock unsold in the first place ? They r probably more smarter than tat and had bid for a FAIR and SUFFICIENT number of COE as stock. They won't go about BIDDING much much more than they can get it used within a month. How brilliant that you can suddenly forget your own posted position of a surge in demand when things get cheap.
The remaining stock that is left unsold, is based on your assumption "As I have said, they will buy according to how much cars they sold per month. [color=red]If they sell 700, they will order 800 COE isn't it ? They have to raise tat money through bank through loans watever if they really do not have the cash." - Page 2 - 11 October 2003 - 11:38 P.M.
I think it will be a useless exercise to go into a discussion with you, on the financial aspect of compound interests of a Bank Loan for a Dealer to purchase stocks.[/color] -
cont
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
The Dealer DO NOT lower the number of COE they BID, EVEN IF they have to PAY UP for the FULL amount of COE UPFRONT. DEALERS BID in the number of CARS they believe THEY will SELL within tat MONTH. If they can't sell off ALL the COE tat month, then they will just have to bid LESSER for the following month. In tat case they won't have SURPLUS stock of COE holding up for too long. And they do not even have to FORK out a single cent since they can borrow directly from the BANK. If I buy in the COE, and may risk to hold it at most 2 months, then I will SET THE ADDITIONAL BANK FEES TO ALL THE buyers for 2 months.
[quote]Do you not think that Rational Behavior will not be practised in a SUPPLY SIDE SYSTEM that require the Dealer to reconsider his strategy MORE PRUDENTLY - ( since he now has to include the FULL VALUE of his bids AT THE TIME of BID SUBMISSIONS ) - than when he need only to submit $100 per COE application and pay the full amount when the COE is actually taken up - ( as allowed in the Present COE system) ?
Hyptothetical figures. Dealer bidding for Oct
COE I hold : 0
July 572
Aug 963
Sep 782
Last year Oct 945
This figure is already fluctuating much greater than wat NORMAL Dealer face. If I am the above dealer, I will bid 800-900 cars tat month. Lets say I bought in 900 for Oct. However in tat month, I don't get to sell off ALL 900 COE, I only sold off 500. Then for the next month, I will
COE I HOLD : 400
Aug 963
Sep 782
Oct 500
Last year Nov 735
Then I may just bid for [b]200-300 tis month. Lets say I bid for 300, and tis month sale is bad again, I sell of 550 again. But then I had already cleared off the 400 COE I had bought last month. Take note tat I AM CHARGING FOR 2 MONTHS interest when I sell it off to the buyer. Hence in the END, I turn out to be making a profit instead of a loss.
Tis is in the belief tat I will get the EXACT number of cars I bid from the Gov. If I use median method or something else, I may get LESSER number of COE tat month. If I DO NOT get tat amount, In other words, I bid for 900 on Oct but get only 300, won't tat just clears up my COE surplus faster. If I use advance booking as wat U suggested, meaning the buyers have to bid in ADVANCE, then the RISKS involved GET lower again.
So in the end, WAT HAS YOUR IDEA CONTRIBUTED ? Wat CONTROL mechanism has it achieved ?
[/b][/quote]
With your hypothetical scenario given, is this not an exercise in speculation on the part of the Dealers ?
How many of them have actually suffered losses when successfully bidding COE at $36,000 for each COE during July, only to see the next COE price falling to $29,000 in August, and then lower again in September to $26,000 - all values being hypothetical but has occurred over the last six months sliding COE prices.
Do you think that Buyers will take over the cost of COE bought at $36,000 and left over from July ?
What is the cost of the loan from the Bank for the $36,000 PER COE ?
Did you not read of some Dealership that went bust, as a result of COE speculation ?
With the SUPPLY SIDE Quota System, the element of speculation is removed, and price is stabilised - as was explained in my post over the last two dates. -
Before even going further in this discussion, are you a car owner, or even a goods vehicle owner, or perhaps a 2-wheeler ?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Your question seems to be silly when my answer is already clear from the beginning that the COE is a NON-TRANSPARENT Mechanism that is utilised by the Government to SUCK ALL AVAILABLE MONEY from Singaporeans - and I may add that this COE is used in conjunction with all other revenue grabbing policies as allowed by the Singapore Parliament to the Inland Revenue.
The explained reason from Gov to the people is tat it is used to curb the number of cars on the road. However the Gov is not dishonest in the sense tat they account the MONEY gathered from COE as part of the income on the Budget. And COE did work out well in controlling the number of cars on the road. U got a better idea on controlling the number of cars ? U want to use your SUPPLY and MEDIAN method ? U have to prove me wrong first.
Do you seriously believe that the Present COE has NOT deviated from the goals that were to be fair to all.
If you care to look at my post of today, that has confirmed the manner in which the COE price is determined, then come back again and repeat that the COE is a good way of taxing the rich and distributing it to the poor.
Do you seriously believe that the Government has made any donations to the Poor ?
Do seriously believe that cars can only benefit a fraction of the whole population of Singapore ?
How small is your "fraction of the whole population in Singapore ?
With the Present COE system, in the manner that it is formed today, it will be quite unfair even to the rich, let alone the poor - see my posting on the present LTA vehicle COE bidding price.
That is what you think the Government is doing, but is this based on another speculation and not from substance ?
Nothing from the COE collected from all the car biddings has ever been accounted for that benefits any Old Folks home.
Are you not being quirky here ?
You talk about Gov taxing the rich by using the COE to spend on the Poor on the one hand, but you prefer that I "don't tell me more Gov expenditure facts tat u already said before". When did I speak about "Gov expenditures"; other then to rebutt your idea that COE is used to the road systems.
Interesting that you should declare that the Question in this discussion is whether it is an appropriate tax ? - (and I can accept your proposal of not considering how the money collected from COE is spent).
Look at the answer given for Question 1 of this Post, and you will see the answer quite clearly.
Furthermore, to be more accurate in quoting from issues or statements or terms that are attributed to me, it is best that you are accurate in what you do.
My proposal is called "SUPPLY SIDE Quota" and not "SUPPLY and MEDIAN method" - I wonder at your reluctance to address my proposal in its proper term - in all your postings. It is no loss of face to do so.
Certainly, the Government has accounted for the revenue collected through the COE biddings, but where it ended up in, there is no straight accounting except that it is either lumped into a holding surplus account from current year, for Government spending in the next financial year; or transferred back into the Treasury as part of the National Reserves to be managed by GIC - (who have made grand flops in some overseas investments).
No one said that the Present COE does not work well in controlling the growth of the vehicle population in an orderly manner.
If you had been more careful in your reading of my posts, and less agitated while at the same time being impatient to attack my postings, perhaps you will have noted some cautionary note made by me.
I have said that my detailed explanations as to how to implement the Proposed SUPPLY SIDE Quota may not be the final solutions, which will require some further tweaking to improve.
I have indicated quite a few times, that in practise the Present COE System and the Proposed SUPPLY SIDE Quota System have quite a few similarities, as well as marked differences too.
It was also repeated that the SUPPLY SIDE Quota System will bring down the price of the Present COE system, and dampen the wild speculative element found in the Present COE system.
Examples were offered as such, and from the manner in which the Present COE System is awarded, fairness is the last thing that is being achieved - when wild speculative bid submissions can be made at a high level, so as to be at the top of the pile, but no worry is needed, as the price paid will be at the LAST HIGHEST LOSING PRICE.
Is there a need to prove you wrong, and I am right ?
Hardly, as you have not shown yourself to be an Authority on this subject, and will probably serve best as an opponent for mental exercise to keep one's mind agile.
So again, you need to be spoon fed to see the difference.Originally posted by stupidissmart:If you care to look at my post of today, that has confirmed the manner in which the COE price is determined, then come back again and repeat that the COE is a good way of taxing the rich and distributing it to the poor.
Wat has it confirmed ? The 5000 highest bidders get the 500 COE distributed. Wat is the diff ?
The richest bidders bid at the highest price, and get the COE.
The price that the richest bidder pay is the price that the "NOT SO RICH" or "POOR" Buyers bid at and become the losers.
You are supposed to believe in "robbing the Rich and helping the Poor" ?
Where do you think the Government had the budget to spend before the COE scheme was implemented during the 1980s ?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Do you seriously believe that the Government has made any donations to the Poor ?
Tat is a silly thing to say. Do u not see schools being built ? Do u not see road being made ? Do u not see police and army working in a efficient manner ? Do u not see tat Old Folks Home and Ophanage is HEAVILY subsidised ? If Gov do not have money, can he do all these ?
Where do you think the COE collections are sent to after being accounted and audited ?
I would not consider 10 to 20 percent of the population owning cars to be a small fraction.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Do seriously believe that cars can only benefit a fraction of the whole population of Singapore ?
Are u trying to tell me tat there r 4 millions singaporean in singapore, and singapore can allow ALL of them to have cars ? I do not know the exact figures, but the vehicles on the rd must certainly be below 1 million. Even for tis 1 million cars, we already used up 16% of land (16% land were used on residential too) for roads. 1 million cars is already causing Jams at the City almost everyday. WE CANNOT AFFORD EVERYONE TO HAVE CARS. Thus if u want to force me to give the fraction, I can only give 10-20 percent of population get to have cars. I do not have the figures so tis is just guess on my part.
How small is your "fraction of the whole population in Singapore ?
If your brilliant guess work is correct, that there are 1 million cars, then do you think that this sizeable population deserves better treatment from the Government ?
How can we even find a common ground to debate, argue and to discuss, when you do not even see the issue so clearly laid out ?Originally posted by stupidissmart:With the Present COE system, in the manner that it is formed today, it will be quite unfair even to the rich, let alone the poor - see my posting on the present LTA vehicle COE bidding price.
Wat is unfair ? They bid tat sum of money without anyone forcing them to. Please elaborate
[i]The richest bidders bid at the highest price, and get the COE.
The price that the richest bidder pay is the price that the "NOT SO RICH" or "POOR" Buyers bid at and become the losers