Expectant mothers will now be able to insure their unborn babies against pregnancy complications, birth defects and even death. This type of insurance, possibly the first of its kind, is being offered by ING Australia. It is aimed at the growing number of older mothers (who have a greater risk of pregnancy complications and birth defects) and if successful it will only be a matter of time before it comes to America and Europe. The following are the reported coverages:

Mothers whose children have disabilities such as blindness and deafness or other congenital malformations, including spina bifida, Down syndrome.....will receive $50,000 from an insurance policy launched this week. Women suffering dangerous complications such as ectopic pregnancy or eclampsia will also get a $50,000 lump sum, while stillbirths qualify for a $10,000 payout.

Personally I think this is a bit extreme and morally questionable. Having a 2 year old myself it would have been rather strange to take out insurance for my wife's pregnancy. The local Midwives Association secretary Dr Hannah Dahlen said: "It is making women think about the terrible things that can happen when the reality is there are very few mothers who suffer from complications during pregnancy". The other argument against this is that insurance companies are exploiting the fear and uncertainty of expecting couples during a vulnerable period to make a buck wherever they can. This is the most likely reason I think.

This is a controversial topic, even here at home, and some pro-life groups would support it because the payout would almost encourage carrying a child with birth defects to full term as opposed to current practices. Anyway, what are your thoughts on this topic?

Read More...

There is a popular theory going around that the U.S. had become "decoupled" from the rest of the world due to the emergence of new powerhouse economies like China and India. The theory goes onto say that a downturn in the U.S. would not slow the global economy since the new growth economies on the block had matured to a point where they weren't as dependent on U.S. demand for growth. How wrong this was shown to be!

This theory is clearly flawed (for now anyway) as evidenced by the sub prime fiasco and associated fallout which wiped away trillions of dollars in real and paper wealth both in the US and globally. Most share markets around the world are down significantly and growth economies like India were down 30% this year. So when the US sneezes the rest of the world does indeed still catch a cold. Without US demand, leadership and financial capital a lot of these emerging countries would not have enjoyed the super charged growth they had over the last decade.

There is no denying though that countries and their economies are becoming much more interlinked. Financial markets now operate globally and the spread of multinationals has created globally focused organizations. Despite the credit crisis growth is still progressing (albeit at a slower pace), and that is in large part due the rise of a truly global economy that has emerged which is able to better buffer the effects of economic crisis in one region or country. I would in fact say that the world has become even more "coupled".

With its strong economic, political and social systems the US will always be relevant and not become decoupled as some say. What are your thoughts?

Read More...

The Economist had an article today comparing the average work week across a number of OECD countries. Not surprisingly an Asian country led the pack, with America in the middle and Europeans at the end. The graphic (from the article) summarizes the comparison quite nicely. This got me to thinking as to what are "working hours". Having worked in Asia and America I think a key distinction is that in Asia work is rarely bought home. Workers will stay in the office till late and work on weekends, but generally do not take work home - so the official "working" hours are longer. In the states, I have noticed and I do this myself, that I tend to come home at reasonable hour (6pm or so) and tend to get back on the laptop after the rest of the family has gone to bed at 10pm to catch up on work emails etc. Also, the widespread use and coverage of Blackberry devices has created a lot more mobile workers that tend to work at all hours of the day. Technically this would not be included in the "average working hours", which are classified as time spent in the office. Anyway, I don't have all the statistical samples and assumptions used to come up with the numbers in this study, so can't confirm this hypothesis.

An another interesting inference from the figures would be to look at the immigrant workers in America, from the countries heading the list. From what I have seen in my local area, the South Korean community who own a lot of small businesses, are extremely hard workers. So perhaps long work weeks are as much a function of the workplace as that of the culture where someone is from.

Read More...

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal talked about the crackdown by federal and local authorities on illegal immigrants. A number of these illegal immigrants have been in the country for years and are now part of communities with young (legal) children. They are doing well economically and tend to run their own small businesses, hiring locals (90%+ of business in America are "small' business which have less than 10 employees). So my question is - are these the illegal immigrants, who have become productive members of society, who pay taxes, own homes and contribute to the economy, the ones we want to target?

Being a legal immigrant myself, I have mixed views about this. On one hand I have seen how long the immigration process can be and I know a number of people who have tried to come or stay here legally and have failed. So is it fair that illegal immigrants come here and get to reap the economic benefits and eventually get legal status this way? However, I also realize a number of people come here illegally to flee persecution at the hands of governments and dictators in their own countries and no other option but to find freedom in this great country. They have worked as hard as anyone else to get to where they are financially.

Please feel free to share your thoughts. Please note - this is not a Political blog - I am looking at things from a financial and economic perspective.

******************************************************************
Liked this article? Then consider subscribing by clicking here to receive regular updates
******************************************************************

Read More...

Here a funny (I think) investment joke I received recently. I don't know if the numbers are entirely accurate and the figures look a bit dated, but you get the point.

- If you had purchased $1000 of Nortel stock one year ago, it would now be worth $49.00
- With Enron, you would have had $16.50 left of the original $1000
- With WorldCom, you would have had less than $5 left
- If you had purchased $1000 of Delta Airlines stock, you would have $49 left

But, if you had purchased $1,000 worth of beer one year ago, drank all the beer, then turned in the cans for the aluminum recycling REFUND, you would have had $214. Based on the above, the best current investment advice is to drink heavily and recycle. It's called the 401-KegPlan. Check to see your company matching policy.

******************************************************************
Liked this article? Then consider subscribing by clicking here to receive regular updates
******************************************************************

Read More...

You can contact me - Andy, by clicking here

Feel free to contact me or leave a comment on this post for :

- Exchange blog/site links if we have similar content. Always looking to discover new sources of information.
- Advertising on this blog
- General questions related to personal finance and investing

If the above link doesn't work, my email is andy @ savingtoinvest.com

Return to home page

Read More...

I moved to America about one year ago after living and traveling all over the world and thought I would be pretty competent around personal finance and investing activities. However I soon realized that I had a lot to learn and was already behind the curve for my age group. So I started this blog as a way to track, record and share ideas along the way.

Most of the topics on which I write about, you could find on the thousands of personal finance and investing sites currently out there. What I bring to it is a personal touch and unique perspective based on my own direct and indirect experiences. So what I write is what I live. I am married with a young kid, have a decent household income, growing share/funds portfolio and hope to retire before I am 50. These dimensions/goals provide a lot of topics to write about so I hope you enjoy what I write and get some useful ideas and information from the site. As always, I would love to hear your thoughts and feedback.

So why the title - Saving to Invest?

I chose the title because, in my humble opinion, it reflects the secret to financial freedom for most people. Here it is : Wealth = Savings + Investments.

Simple, and it is the basic premise of this blog and my financial philosophy. Unless you are bestowed with family money or win the lottery, the only way to reach financial freedom is to save effectively (i.e. don't spend more than you earn) and to then invest that money effectively over the medium to long term in a diversified portfolio and retirement accounts. Easy? No, and it takes a lot of work, discipline and desire to get there. This blog reflects that journey.

Read More...