Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
UAE - Market Situation
03-19-2009, 09:02 PM,

I am copying below an article of interest on US economy


Reasons for an impending US economic recession
Dr Kurt Richebacher

....For the US, this rapid, steep decline in the growth of consumer spending is the first decisive consideration to expect in the United States impending serious recession...

Trying to assess the situation and further growth prospects of the US economy, the first important fact to see is that the US economic recovery since November 2001 has been by far the weakest in the whole postwar period. Just a few tidings composed by the Economic Policy Institute in Washington

First, inflation-adjusted hourly and weekly wages today are below where they were at the start of the recovery in November 2001; second, median household income (inflation adjusted) has fallen five years in a row and was 4% lower in 2004 than in 1999; third, total jobs since March 2001 (the start of the recession) are up 1.9% and private jobs 1.5% (at this stage of previous business cycles, jobs had grown 8.8%); fourth, the unemployment rate is low only because several million people have given up to look for a job.

And here are some cursory remarks on our part First, job growth has steeply fallen during the last three months, from 200,000 in February to 75,000 in May; second, all the job growth has come from the artificial net birth/death model, implying that it is booming among small new firms not captured by the payroll survey, while slumping in existing firms; third, private household indebtedness since 2000 has soared by 70%. This compares with an overall increase in real disposable personal income by 12%.


According to the popular GDP accounts, US consumer spending in the first quarter has burst by a record rate of 5.2%. That is the fact on which everybody happily focuses. Few people realize, first of all, that this is an annualized figure. The true increase against the prior quarter was 1.3%.

In any case, though, it is a grossly distorted figure. The ugly reality of the first five months of 2006 is that the consumer-spending boom of the past few years has effectively broken down. But to realize this, it is necessary to look at the sequence of monthly data. Here they are, from the same source as the GDP numbers, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

By these figures, measuring spending and income growth from month to month, consumer spending in the US in the first quarter has increased 0.6%, or 2.4% annualized, less than half the 5.2% as reported in the GDP accounts. As we have stressed several times before, the big difference between the figures arises from the fact that the GDP measures changes in averages. The big increase in consumer spending happened in reality in November/December 2005, resulting in a large "overhang" for the following quarter. To detect a recent change in trend, it is necessary to focus on the changes from month to month, as above. For May, reported retail figures showed an increase by 0.1% before inflation. With a monthly inflation rate of 0.3%, total real spending should be at a minus.

This sudden weakness in US consumer spending has an obvious reason. The spending bubble on consumer durables - that is, on autos and housing durables - is going bust. It was largely spending borrowed from the future to be implicitly followed by payback time. For the US, this rapid, steep decline in the growth of consumer spending is the first decisive consideration to expect in the United States’ impending serious recession; and remarkably, this is happening with record credit growth and even before the housing bubble is truly bursting.

That this most important fact goes completely unnoticed says something about the depth of research. Moreover, this sharp slowdown in consumer spending strikingly conforms to the downward shift in the growth of real disposable personal incomes. In 2005, it was already down to 1.3%. So far in 2006, it is zero.

Under these miserable US income conditions, the strength of future consumer spending manifestly depends on the possibilities of ever-higher cash-out mortgage refinancing against rising house prices. It hardly requires any intelligence to have realized by now that this is flatly impossible.


Looking at the accelerating credit expansion, we are, as a matter of fact, more than doubtful that the slowdown in the US economy and the housing bubble has anything to do with the Fed’s rate hikes. What crucially matters for both is the current credit expansion, and that keeps accelerating. But the problem is that more and more credit creates less and less economic activity, as measured by GDP.

The unrecognized problem in the United States is that economic growth driven by a housing bubble is extremely credit and debt intensive. It needs, firstly, heavy borrowing to drive up the house prices and, secondly, further heavy borrowing to turn the resulting capital gains into cash. Put this together with minimal or now zero real disposable income growth and you have something like a credit Moloch devouring credit and leaving less and less for economic growth.

Yet we are sure that the US economy’s extraordinary debt addiction has other reasons unrelated to the housing bubble. One is the huge trade deficit, and the other is extensive and rapidly increasing Ponzi finance.

The American consensus view holds that the trade deficit, however large, does not matter because foreigners easily finance it. This view reveals the total absence of any serious analysis of related domestic income and debt effects. The obvious first major harmful economic effect is that domestic producers lose an equal amount of domestic spending and income creation to foreign producers, and that today in a staggering annual amount of more than $800 billion, equal to about 7% of nominal GDP.

Such persistently large and growing income losses from the trade deficit would have pulled the US economy into recession long ago. It has not happened because the Greenspan Fed, by way of loose and cheap money, provided for a compensating increase in domestic demand through additional credit creation. It succeeded, true, but the thing to see is the additional credit and debt creation. This was justified with low inflation rates. Ironically, the import boom in the trade deficit has been very helpful in suppressing US inflation.

Yet there is still a second major harmful effect to the trade deficit that American economists completely ignore. Implicitly, the alternative demand created by the looser US monetary policy is different from the demand that emigrates to foreign producers. The big loser is the export industries in manufacturing. The gains, via the surrogate demand, have been in consumer services and goods.


In essence, the trade deficit alters the US economy’s structure in a negative way. The losing manufacturing area is the sector with the highest rate of capital formation, and therefore also the highest rate of productivity growth. For good reasons, it also pays the highest wages. Consider that US manufacturing lost 3 million jobs in the past few years. To be sure, the trade deficit is not its only reason, but unquestionably a major one.

Pondering the US economy’s unusually high addiction to credit and debt growth in relation to GDP growth, we are sure of another evil factor - Ponzi finance. Principally, every increase in spending brings about an equivalent increase in incomes. But this is not true in three cases of spending first, spending on existing assets; second, spending on imports; and third, Ponzi finance.

Ponzi finance means that lenders simply capitalize unpaid interest rates. Ponzi finance creates credit, but it is bare of any demand and spending effects in the economy. In the conventional American view, balance sheets of private households are in their very best shape because increases in asset values have vastly outpaced the sharp increases in debts. So Americans see no problem.

With such great optimism about the US economy still prevailing, it is a safe assumption that lenders have been more than happy to capitalize unpaid interest rates as new loans, at least until recently. As widely reported, lending standards have been extremely lax for years. Nevertheless, there is bound to come a point where Ponzi lending stops.

The crucial difference is in the ghastly difference between runaway debt growth and nonexistent real disposable income growth as the income component from which debt service has to be paid. In 2000, consumer debt growth of 8.6% compared with real disposable income growth of 4.8%. During the first quarter of 2006, private household debt growth of 11.6%, annualized, compared with zero real disposable income growth.

These numbers suggest that, in the aggregate, all debt service occurs through Ponzi finance. Essentially, borrowing against existing assets is required to service debt. Another striking evidence of extensive Ponzi finance is the unusually large difference between rampant credit growth and much slower money growth. Capitalizing unpaid interest rates adds to outstanding credit and debt while adding nothing to bank deposits (money supply).

To get an idea of the actual extent of Ponzi finance, we make a simple calculation. Total outstanding debts in the United States amount to $41.8 trillion. Assuming an average interest rate of 5%, this implies an annual debt service of about $2 trillion. This compares with an increase in national income before taxes of $616 billion in 2005. Consumer incomes are even stagnant.

Under these conditions, the only question is the severity of the impending US recession. In this respect, we are a great believer in the axiom of Austrian theory that every crisis is broadly proportionate to the size of the excesses and imbalances that have accumulated during the prior boom. Our basic assumption is that the American consumer is bankrupt when house prices fall 20 - 30%.

The most important thing to realize is that the spending and debt excesses that have accumulated in the US economy and its financial system on the part of the consumer during the past 10 years are altogether of a size that vastly exceeds the potential for debt service from current income.


With stagnant real disposable income and double-digit debt growth, the American consumer is caught in a vicious debt trap. What, then, makes most people so optimistic of further economic growth? Apparently, there is a widespread view that households have sufficient equity cushions in their balance sheets to not only weather any storm ahead, but also to continue higher spending.

In our view, the most important thing to see is the fact that the US consumer has accumulated debts at a level vastly exceeding his abilities of debt service from current income. Probably many never had any intention of such kind of debt service. The general idea, certainly, has been to settle debt and debt service problems simply by selling later to the highly appreciated greater fool. That is what most economists take for granted.

What all these people overlook is, first of all, the vicious dynamics of Ponzi finance through compound interest on unproductive indebtedness. During 2000, total financial and nonfinancial credit and debt growth in the US amounted to $1,605.6 billion. In 2005, it had accelerated to $3,335.9 billion; and in the first quarter of 2006, it has run at an annual rate of $4,392.8 billion, and this now with zero income growth. Note that this debt explosion has happened with little change in GDP growth.

Given this precarious income situation on the one hand and the debt explosion on the other, it should be clear that at some point in the foreseeable future, there will be heavy selling of houses, with prices crashing for lack of buyers.

As to the level of asset prices in the United States, an additional comment is probably needed. Normally, the money for asset purchases comes from the savings out of current income. In the US economy, with savings in negative territory, all asset purchases essentially depend on available domestic credit and capital inflows. Buying assets on credit used to be the exception. In America today, it is the rule. For good reasons, the Fed is fearful to make money truly tight; it would crush the markets.

A study by the International Monetary Fund published in 2003 under the title "When Bubbles Burst" examined the differences in economic effects between bursting equity bubbles and bursting housing bubbles. It left no doubt that the latter are the far more dangerous specimen


Housing price crashes differ from equity price busts also in three other important dimensions. First, the price corrections during house price busts averaged 30%, reflecting the lower volatility of housing prices and the lower liquidity in housing markets. Second, housing price crashes lasted about four years, about 1 1/2 years longer than equity price busts. Third, the association between booms and busts was stronger for housing than for equity prices.

The situation today in the United States reminds us strongly of late December 2000. At its previous meeting in November, the Federal Open Market Committee directive had called future inflation the economy’s greatest risk. But then, all of a sudden, the bottom fell out of the economy. At its next meeting, on December 19, the FOMC changed the bias, declaring that the risk of economic weakness was outweighing the risk of inflation. Two weeks later, Jan. 3, 2001, shocked by worsening economic news, the Fed dropped its funds rate, through a conference call, by 0.5% - twice the usual rate.

As we have stressed many times, the US economy today is incomparably more vulnerable than in 2000. All the growth-impairing imbalances in the economy - the trade deficit, the savings and incomes shortage and the debt levels - have dramatically worsened.

Very rapid interest rate cuts and prompt massive government deficit spending succeeded in containing the recession. The phoney "wealth effects" derived from the escalating housing bubble became the key source of demand creation in the United States. But the unpleasant longer-term result of the new policies was an unusually weak and lopsided economic recovery, particularly seeing drastic shortfalls in employment and income growth.


Dr Kurt Richebächer


This article was published in the Daily "Reckoning". Link is given below



03-20-2009, 01:17 AM,
Thanks Kamran for such a great post, many things mentioned by Dr. Kurt are the ones I could not explain in previous post in pure economic terms. TORONTOBOY like always you ve been great with your fundamental approach to things.
I want to comment in detail about TORONTOBOY's post but have very limited time. For Kamran TOROTOBOY and all the others I ve posted this link below which will explain everything about credit crisis in a very light, informative and simple way. I wanted to explain in words but it will take more space here and more eye strain and since the explanation is visual it will be more beneficial for other members too.
It also answers TORONTOBOY's comments on unwise lending, as to why money was lent to people with less than perfect credit despite knowing they had bad or less than average credit.
We ll discuss Kamran's post about Dr Kurt and summarize it to make is easier for other members to understand.
Please visit this link below
Thanks and be CREDIT CRISIS SAFE.[)]
03-20-2009, 01:00 PM,
Dear CFANerd

I am simply smiling here. Without going into much detail, I just wanna mention few things. I was specifically responding to your post about current US situation. Please note, it were you who started discussing US situation on this thread, but when I tried to clear few concepts which were mixed-up, people raised objection that probably I was dragging away. Interestingly, right after the objection, we see a copy pasted article on US situation. So, if I reply something then it is dragging off, if you write something in first place about US situation then same people clap after your post. Then the same person who objected, posted article on US situation. Amazing eh...

Further, please feel no offence but I wanna ask you something. What was your response in MBA class group discussions. Did you ever simply copy/pasted and forwarded whole of someone else’s article or did you come up with your own similar ideas though based on relevant reference material and articles. You could provide reference or links of those base articles though. By the way, it is funny to see UNPARALLEL expertise in copycat job from whole of IFRS to pure economic literature by some professionals in Pakistan. Just to remind, it is illegal act of plagiarism, un-ethical, and non-professional approach to copy/paste whole article from someone else’s original copyrighted material without consent of the writer/ publishing organization of the work. I would much appreciate if forum members come-up with same ideas in their own words, though to substantiate they can refer to the original source upon which they are constructing their reason. Otherwise, simply copy/pasting may be a source of amusement for readers just like this instance. One of the possible source of Dr. Kurt's article is;


So, dear CFANerd, what you expect from me now? Discussion on Dr. Kurt’s article. It would seem like I am discussing with Dr. Kurt, and not with you or someone else. Still, I can do it, if you say so, but at-least someone should come-up with similar ideas in his/her own words that what he/she deduces and I should not be blamed for dragging off when I would reply. Moreover, I am really learning new amazing techniques of discussion on this forum i.e. rather than presenting ideas in own words just copy/paste the whole article. It is really hard to hold my laughter here.

By the way, Dr. Kurt’s reasoning and explanation of credit crises provided in presentation in above referred website by you are on the same wave length as provided in my above post, if you keep in view some concepts like economy working at less than potential optimum or at potential optimum, the difference between necessary credit and excessive credit, and prime rate lending and sub-prime rate lending etc. I may discuss it further if you ask.

03-20-2009, 01:31 PM,
Dear CFANerd

As you said you have limited time. I would suggest to spend your time on your studies or whatever priorities you have rather than replying to my or someone else's posts. Your own priorities are more important than these posts.

This is simply a brotherly suggestion. I hope you would not feel any wrong.

Best Wishes and Regards
03-20-2009, 05:40 PM,

In fact this thread was to discuss UAE market situation and when I said that this thread has been dragged away, I also mentioned that it is, as per "sweet will of members"; and I cannot divert the path it has been directed to.

Here an illogical line was being drawn between current economic situation and the effects of credit on which people have been used to base everything they posses or claim to own (which we saw is the biggest issue of non-residents of Dubai currently). It was also mentioned that the personal savings cannot create jobs. Everything is said to be based on the concept of spending (which of course is very important) but all other stimulants of GDP growth, the effects of credit expansion, fictitiously increased real estate prices (as a result of speculative business), the over utilization of consumer based debt at micro level (which is resulting in Nil savings), and other related things have been ignored.

Some people tried to defuse the situation by providing explanations in their "own words" but this left no impact. Most of us also confirm we are not economists and we can only say what words we are able to use. That's why this so-called "copycat" effort has been made with a hope that the clarity may be seen in views, which alas has not been witnessed. I know the people who take such articles, change some words and then reproduce them. It may be more confusing and un-ethical.

I agree that pasting some one's article may attract some consequences and when I did so, I was aware that some body would be speaking like this. However, I feel people normally don't bother to open the links and go for a time consuming effort. The article published in newspaper, with no disclaimer and instructions about its reproduction could be used by the ones who can access such newspaper. However, this should cause pain only to the writer, if by any means it has to. The things happening other way and causing so called laughter depict something else on which I don't want to go at length simply to keep the things calm.

I wish to say that professional issues are not a question of personal ego. If some one is wrong or could not convey his ideas effectively, he should openly accept it. Saying, that "the readers can see the article states the same thing which I said", is only an effort to alleviate the impact on personal ego. This is reflected in all the contents of one of above posts.

CFANerd, yes, we can discuss it whenever you like.


03-21-2009, 12:18 AM,

It would lack generosity if I don't say the words that I do appreciate efforts for calmness, though use of words like "economic tank dragging" negatively effects such peace building measures.

Time and again I have mentioned that I am only a student of financial fields, as in my view learning process continues in whole span of life. Therefore, to a student (like me) it is not personal ego, but a matter of reasoning substantiated by other sources. However, it is upto reader's perception how does he/she view.

It is not my intention to deliver a lecture on economics fundamentals here on this forum, but just to explain simple concepts that participants are mixing-up here, I wanna write few lines. Please note the situations/ example I am presenting here are very simplified version just to understand in light manner.

MODEL 1 I never said SAVINGS does not create jobs. Yes, it DOES. Savings transforms (through banking and non-banking channels)into investments which create jobs. Disposable income converts into consumption and savings, i.e. whatever is not consumed out of disposable income is saved, which later on is invested again in the economy. What I am saying is, out of personal income (i.e. before tax salary) government deducts income taxes (i.e. a form of mandatory savings) and gives remaining income to the person, which is disposable income to him. Now, he does consumption and savings both out of this take home disposable income.

Historically, it has been a practice that out of this disposable income (or take home salary) a person consumes some and saves leftover. This savings, through banking/ non-banking channels, become investment which eventually becomes disposable income of others. This circle goes on and on. In this case, people are used to SAVE part of their income FIRST and later on purchase non-depreciable items like houses and also buy investment instruments like bonds, securities, future educational plans for kids (which accumulates interest), retirement plans, investment in pensions etc. etc. So, basically this savings turns later into buying non-depreciable assets like houses and investments. All three components in income i.e. consumption spending, SAVINGS, and investments through next rotation becomes personal (i.e. before tax income) and disposable income (i.e. after tax income). This circle keeps rotating. So, this is the general model, SAVE FIRST and then use it on consumption (or say purchase) of long-term non-depreciable assets (i.e. houses) and investment instruments.

MODEL 2 Now, their is 2nd model specifically speaking in credit based economies. Here what happens. The consumption part of disposable income is same as in above paragraph. BUT SAVING part is little different. Part of savings directly converts into long-term investment in investment instruments like Bonds, Securities, retirement plans etc. etc just like model 1. The other part of savings which was to buy long-term non-depreciable assets like buying houses is little different than 1st model. Here buyer saves initially for lets say 5% downpayment in cash and gets 95% loan or credit from bank and buys the home. Then later pays installments as repayment of principal and interest. So, rather than save first and then buy, people buy first and then save to repay each month . This is the phenomena which I mentioned in my previous post when I wrote the following paragraph, which I repeat here again for convenience.

I wrote, "Similarly, phenomena of “Savings” in highly industrialized consumption based economies where credit is available to public is different than low income third world economies where credit in not easily available to general public. At nation's level, taxes are mandatory form of savings in economies of first group, while at individual level, investments in non-depreciable assets like houses are form of savings which becomes easy through availability of credit."

Example I give an example to explain it further. Lets say a person has $1000 monthly salary. It is personal income. Lets say govt. deducts $100 income tax on it. This $100 is a mandatory form of SAVINGS at nation's level. Then remaining take home salary of $900 is disposable income. Some portion of this $900 would be consumed and remaining would be savings. Lets say out of this $900, that person consumes $600 and saves $300. Out of $300, $200 are saved for future purchase of house and $100 is for investment instruments (bonds and securities etc.). Total saving of $300 through banking system becomes investment and later disposable income of many others. This is model one which is credit free example.

Now, come to 2nd model in credit available economies. Here, rather than saving $200 for long time till the whole purchase price is saved, people save only for initial downpayment of house, lets say 5%, and then at this 5% equity buy a house with 95% of credit from bank. Now, people SAVE each month to payback to bank. SAVING here has changed its normal course, i.e. people do consumption spending on purchase of house first and then later save to payback.

Dears; my above post was not ALL INCLUSIVE RESEARCH PAPER ON CAUSES OF US RECESSION but was ONLY a response to “CREDIT and CONSUMPTION BASED ECONOMY”. Because CFANerd found reasons of current US situation in “credit and consumption based economy”, I simply presented reasons FOR credit and consumption spending. It DOES NOT mean that I am “ignoring other stimulants of GDP growth”. Similarly YES, “not everything is based on concept of spending”, but simply I was clarifying the IMPORTANCE of consumption spending, it DOES NOT mean I “ignored” other factors.

Still, participants are completely free to develop their detailed reasons for “fictitiously increased real estate prices (as a result of speculative business), the over utilization of consumer based debt at micro level (which is resulting in nil savings)”. After seeing their reasons, I can reply though, either in favour or against those reasons. But it depends on their reasons of such factors. If I would disagree THEN I would provide my reasons why do I disagree. It DOES NOT mean that I should spill all the beans in one post and start writing an all-inclusive research thesis here for their critical analysis. By the way, does someone expect this?

03-21-2009, 06:19 AM,
Dear Angry members,
There is a difference of opinion here turning into mud slinging. I will try to keep my post as short as possible.
Kamran, there is absolutely nothing wrong with your post about Dr. Kurt, just in case anyone thinks there is. You tried to clarify the issue in discussion, market situation in UAE, by an article from Dr. Kurt. I myself shared this video link to clarify the point why unwise lending was done despite knowing people had bad credit.
TORONTOBOY, thanks for your advice about allocating more time to studies. Maybe you don't realize but it gives me an impression of something like "STAY OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE THIS IS NOT YOUR CUP OF TEA". This may not exactly be your intention but this is how I felt it when I read it the very first time.
I feel sorry if you felt that you were unnecessarily objected for steering the discussion away from main topic i.e. UAE Market Condition. I simply brought the issue of US economics due to similarities I found between US and UAE spending pattern, I might have diverged from main topic a bit but it was nothing more than drawing parallels between two economic structures.
Also, I am still not sure whom your comments about copying, plagiarism are directed at. Did you find me pasting something that was copied or are you talking about what KAMRAN's post? Do you want to say I did plagiarism by using someone else's ideas? Please excuse my French if am unable to understand any of your comments.
In a forum like this your lecture about copycat, plagiarism are irrelevant. We all are bunch of ordinary people trying to discuss current economic situation and nothing else. Few days later no one wouldn't even remember what we talked about. So stressing on things like plagiarism just to prove that we all are bunch of ignorants who dont know about copyright laws is just overreacting. Infact if I tell you straight on your face, your posts are copied straight from ECONOMICS 101 books, you would mind my comments right? But I didnt cuz we all are in a friendly discussion and trying to learn from every post. Just for instance, I read something about economics in a newspaper which arouses curiosity in mind and want to know more about it, I post my query here and someone like you or Kamran or sumaira clarifies that point. Thats exactly the purpose of these forums.
Lastly, there is absolutely no complusion of discussing anyone's post. You can respond to it if you like or disagree with it but no one is holding gun at my head or anyones head to forcibly discuss anything.
Sorry if I am a bit bitter.

03-21-2009, 07:44 AM,
Dear CFANerd

You wrote, "TORONTOBOY, thanks for your advice about allocating more time to studies. Maybe you don't realize but it gives me an impression of something like "STAY OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE THIS IS NOT YOUR CUP OF TEA". This may not exactly be your intention but this is how I felt it when I read it the very first time." I am sorry if you got this wrong impression from my words, which I wrote just in response when you said you have time shortage. I thought may be responses of my posts would distract you from your much priority work. The impression you got was not anywhere in any corner of my mind. Still if you feel so, as I said above, I am sorry for that.

I was just asking for your opinion when I talked about copy/pasting whole of Kurt's article. Personally, I think you did nothing wrong because you only shared the link of video presentation. Now, if you think copy/pasting Kurt's whole article is not wrong, then you are completely free to say so.

I have the same opinion as yours that UAE market situation cannot be seen in isolation from world's economic situation and specifically speaking USA.

By the way you are smart to recognize stuff from Economics 101. Yes, you are correct. One can find these concepts there but I assure you no material is copied. Now, what should I do when even the fundamentals (of economics 101) are mixed-up during discussion/ comparative analysis of world's biggest free market capitalist economy.

Yes, everyone has right to reply or not to reply.

Best Wishes
03-21-2009, 08:40 AM,
Dear Respected Members,

We all respect each others and educated enough to understand the feeling of others. Cheers CFANnerd!

All my views and posts are only to provide some info in order to understand the economic situation of UAE in more realistic manner.


Some more info about current happenings in UAE.

-Dubai launches second Airline after Emirates . Dubai Air is the low cost carrier will start operation in mid 2009.

After declining in passengers of USA sector, Thailand Sector and Canada sector show growth . Thai sector has almost doubled during this period.

-Port operation for China increases drastically , ( it means consumption is increasing).

-Still the wait & see policy is ruling in Govt level.

-Ent. with weak financial position are out of the market or will be out in next two to three months, Survival are only for those who have good liquidity or play wisely.

- Salaries are adjusting especially in Dubai/ Sharjah, but no. of cancellation of visas are dropped, increase in change of visa position ( means workers are switching jobs and they are able to find jobs in the market)

I will try to arrange some economic results for first two months of 2009 with comparison of 2008.

Note CFANerd post March 18 2009 . ""Dubai has issued $10b to UAE to ease the liquidity crisis and the main reason behind it was "TO PAY OFF MULTI BILLION DEBT IT ACCUMULATED FOR EXPANSION PROJECTS". Interesting. ""

My comments Expansion Projects , Highway 611, Dubai Metro, Jabel Ali Airport , Green Dubai Project, Low Voltage Project and so on.....

Best Regards


03-21-2009, 09:45 AM,
Dear sumairalam

Though it does not really matter much, but at-least now your name at the end of above post clears that you are sumair and not sumaira. Now it would not confuse me anymore to use Dear or simply Miss while addressing to you.[)][)][)]

Best Regards
03-21-2009, 01:35 PM,
okay we all need to just cool down. I think in all this mess I seemed to be the culprit. TORONOTOBOY, I guess living in US we assume that Canada is responsible for everything that goes wrong in US. [})]
I didn't mind anything you said but I probably failed to comprehend the core of your comments about copying and stuff like that. Anyway we just nip it over here and move on. Do you mind introducing yourself as to what you are doing? No need to disclose your personal stuff ofcourse.
KamranACA....what about you dude? If you are an ACA, what is it? I am not very familiar with these accounting certifications.
Sumaira.....what about you? what is your background?
Sumaira....Dubai issued $10B of bonds to UAE which was to cover loss in expansion projects.

One last thing, I think there is some malfunction in forums website. For example, I get to see some posts from previous dates that are not there on those specific date. For instance TORONTOBOY's post on Mar 20 2009 71830 PM wasnt there when I wrote my most recent post.
03-21-2009, 01:39 PM,
Damn so it is SUMAIR not SUMAIRA. lol. Sorry man. We guys tend to roughen our style to make it more masculine. I couldnt even judge from your posts that you were a male. Apologies again.
03-21-2009, 02:42 PM,
Dear CFANerd

You wrote, "okay we all need to just cool down. I think in all this mess I seemed to be the culprit. TORONOTOBOY, I guess living in US we assume that Canada is responsible for everything that goes wrong in US. I didn't mind anything you said but I probably failed to comprehend the core of your comments about copying and stuff like that."

So, in the light of above para, you bursted in typical American government's style. [)][)][)]

I lookafter accounting side of a local brokerage house/ investment bank. Living here for some years, studied economics at masters level, also did CPA (AICPA). I think its enough.

Most likely, I was editing that post.

03-21-2009, 10:13 PM,

Sumair called some people as "think tanks" to which most of us would not be agreeing since this is a discussion forum instead of strategy building plateform. Most of us also don't possess the knowledge and abilities which may make any one the think tank. At least myself. We are only joining hands to improve the baseline of understanding.

It did not even call for an explanation which was given by some ones. Even to that extent it was not an issue since every one is free to post within moral boundries. However when one taunts the others by saying "your think tanks" and when one keeps on rubbing this nonsense, he should keep his ears and eyes ready for hearing and seeing non-sense in response. I know " economic tank" was a non-sense phrase. I don't praise myself for any wrong words I used and I place my apologies if some one is hurt. It was basically to make the other to realise something which we don't do normally. We only tend to understand what words the others have used and we always forget what have we been saying.

As I said earlier, if some one's material has been copied, it should affect him instead of some one at this forum. This is not a problem for the person who has objected even when we know ignorance of law is no excuse. Is it? How some one is certain that I have done something illegal. For instance, what will he say if I confirm that the article was copied with the permission of the writer? For instance, if I do so, will it bring a reason to feel shame? So, the purpose of this paragraph is, one should not poke his nose into the affairs that are not related to him.


I am a chartered accountant and member of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan. I am also a member of some other professional institutes of Pakistan. I am working as partner in a professional firm of chartered accountants.


03-21-2009, 11:16 PM,
Dear Kamran ,

I didnt say Think Tank to any of the members ( I apologize if it felt like that).

For info, I am working in company comes under Government of Ras Al Khaimah, UAE.

I am also involved in various NGO type projects in UAE.

On education side , I am doing ACCA ,and CA from Pakistan .

Best Regards


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | Accountancy | Return to Top | | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication