After this is lowered,
would casino age be lowered the same to allow more to prosper?

haha. There is no saying how low restrictions will change. Lets hope that the younger population of Singapore learn the right values.

Aren’t the young vulnerable too?

The young cannot be compared to the elderly; as we can safely assume young people lack savings to participate in the stock market. Even if parents provide them with the funds, it would be quite reasonable to assume the parents would be educating or supervising them; or in extreme cases, the parents are too rich to care about a few thousand lost or won in the stock market.

The way I see it, it actually encourages young people who already have the resources – and willing to receive a financial education – to take part in stock trading. For those who are really brilliant, they can register companies in their own name sooner. It’s kind of encouraging risk-taking, entrepreneurship among youths, albeit a ’silent’ one.

The govt has no clue of what they are doing. Desperate time goes for worse measures. The so-called elites are all running like headless fly.

Funny, at 18 one is deemed not matured enough to watch R21 movies but one is deemed wise enough to gamble one’s money on investments. Ha ha ha!

What rubbish. Stop all this kind of protectionism for the sake of having a more streetsmart generation.

While I appreciate the concerns of the writer, it is a decision made by both parent and child. Would they be misled by anyone?
The minibond saga is different, as it is the result of misleading information. The uneducated and elderly would be vulnerable. For those who made an informed decision, they would have to take responsibility for themselves.

Its Time!

Dear Mr Leong

Relax lah…………the remisiers would know how to limit the 18 yr-old trades. ….too bad if the remisiers got drag down if the young chaps incur contra losses.

I believe the purpose is to allow these new shareholders to receive the shares bought for them by their parents.

Your article assumes that the government ought to be paternalistic and thus control who can or cannot start trading accounts.

However, as a principle, I believe most TOC readers are actually for less paternalism and more freedom for citizens to make their own decisions. Take, for instance, the CPF – I believe there will be those who actually wish for the CPF to be reduced and enjoy a higher take home salary.

In this sense, we seem to adopting different standards. So, tell me, are we for more government intervention, or are we willing to allow each person to make their own financial decisions, let our younger generation learn from their mistakes instead of hoping to have law dictate some of these decisions that, I feel, are rightfully personal?

Is this a precursor to the government going back on its words with regards to implementing social protection for the vulnerable to visit casinos in Singapore?

So if the kids screw up with stocks, parents will be forced to bail them out. This government really lost its mind.

You will see more bankruptcy, suicide, robbery etc in the news.

Stock trading by teens in their 17-18s have been going on since y 2000 or earlier. This rule is just for clarity sake, as a guideline, and there are a dozen ways around it.

What is going to contribute to a 21yo having more stock market acumen than an 18yo when they can’t participate in the stock market between the two ages?

There’s no need to shelter 18 year olds in this respect. You’ve no problem with them voting (for what it’s worth, no problem with them drinking, no problem with them driving, no problem with them having sex, but they are vulnerable on the stock market?

Most of the 18 year olds I knew overseas were perfectly capable of deciding how to invest their money on their own. Don’t dupe yourself – those who are no wise enough to make good decisions have plenty of ways to lose their money without considering the stock market.

By limiting the age of participation in the stock market to 21, you are restricting plenty of mature, intelligent people from taking responsibility for their own financial future. Young people need more responsibility for their own success, not less. Continuing to shelter people past when they should be responsible for themselves is only going to hurt them in the long run.

Most of your arguments also apply to many people over the age of 21 just as well – you can’t protect people from themselves. I think it’s great that 18 year olds now have the opportunity to plan for their own future in this way.

Why do I get the feeling that the author and the likes will hop on the bashing wagon at every given single opportunity? Trying to impose your views to others is not exactly the right thing to do either. It really epitomizes the shallowness of typical “well-living” Singaporean reactions.

For crying out loud, so what if the age limit is being lowered? What makes people think that a younger person is inadequate of making sound decision? Are the so called adults and “qualified” professionals any better? If analysis really works, there will be no Financial Tsunami or stock market crashes repeating cycles. They are all but a sort of guide and perceived view by some. Market sentiments are mainly greed driven. In fact, the stock market is a legalized global gambling pool. “Investment Market” is but a better euphemism. Why deprive the hidden talent of these younger people (that) no one or no scientific community statistics dares to challenge the potential of a human brain capability. Age is never a barrier to human intelligence. Who can scientifically claim that a younger person at the age of 18 cannot make sound decision? Why setup such barricade to deny these youngsters’ rights? Who’s to decide what’s right and wrong? Can you? And please, spare me the “correct” parenting thingy. Decades of herding and spoon feeding is enough already. Look at most Singaporeans now. It is the results of this controlling, depriving attitude and thinking that brought us what we are today. No wonder Singaporeans by and large are apathetic about what human RIGHTS really are. If most parents and the likes have that perception and attitude that “kids” must always listen to them and that they are always right (because someone say so, or I heard from so and so, and most commonest used, you are still young, don’t talk back), you are literally depriving your kids from the experiencing the reality of the growing up process. They are also being denied to explore the real world at a younger age and will probably end up unable to think independently. Failure is not an evil thing or word. It is an experience that almost each and every one of us will encounter one way or the other in life. It is better to learn from it at a younger age (if there is a choice).

This nation is full of such cases and if this “parent always right” perception and the “protection” attitude continues for generations to come, don’t expect to see any real change of ruling power. It is exactly this mentality that continues to fuel the ruling incumbent and the status quo will remain for as long. Please, allow the young to start making their decision at a young age. Don’t deprive them their Rights.

Business interest come first.

Joshua Wong (#10),

The PAP Government disguises authoritarian as paternalism, thus we have to engage the PAP Government as if we are assuming the PAP Government is paternalistic.

wow, this is interesting. They should setup open house at all JCs and Polytechnics for those interested to sign up trading accounts. Then once those kids reaches their 18 birthday, an SMS or email will be triggered to them announcing that they are free to trade on the Stock Exchange. A free Netbook will be given on their 18th birthday as a gift to kick-start their trading skills.

Basically most of the retail investors nowadays have stop trading, having being slaughtered by those big sharks, so they have no choice but to entrice greenhorn to come in.

Predictably people like #10, 15 & 16 take the opportunity to put down those who criticise govt policies in general.

What is left unsaid is that the govt has lowered the age at which a person could enter into a contract to 18 yrs to encourage many young entrepreneurs esp. those who harness the Internet for low start up cost e-biz.

Mr Leong & co-author expressed genuine concern about youngsters who might be tempted to gamble in the SGX organised casino, which is what the stock market is being viewed and to a certain extent this is a valid held view.

In lowering the age for a person to HOLD shares, the govt/SGX should have in place STRICT rules for brokerages to discourage unwarranted SPECULATION/GAMBLING on the SGX by these young persons. Apparently this is NOT the case now.

This is NOT about govt paternalism; it is about RESPONSIBLE and duty bound govt. The current turmoil and paralysis in the financial markets worldwide as a result of IRRESPONSIBLE & govt lacking in exercising its PROPER function leading to DEPRESSION like economy worldwide with record unemployment and misery are abject lessons of the ramification of loose govt policies.

/// At the age of 18, surely the investor is not an experienced trader, much less a qualified fund manager. In this light, the young trader is dealing with unnecessary financial risks. ///

No. No. No.

If they are old enough to take up a rifle to defend their country with their lives, they are old enough to trade. Who is talking about being a qualified fund manager at 18? Even if they want to be a fund manager, what is to stop them? Is age a factor in financial intelligence? Bernard Madoff and Nick Leeson are certainly more than 18 and are eminently qualified as fund managers.

If they are old enough to be allowed to handle a guided missile (otherwise known as a car”, then they are old enough to be allowed to have a trading account.

The key here is “allowed”. It is a choice. I am pro choice. If you think your children are incapable of handling finance, then by all means continue to treat them like the children that they are and stop them from opening the trading account. But why must you impose your view and belief on others? Why deprive others who are financially savvy to open their trading accounts.

There are some who are in their 60s who are still not financially savvy. Should we therefore raise the bar and allow the opening of trading accounts to those who are above 70 years old?

#21, “The key here is “allowed”. It is a choice. I am pro choice. ”

You make sense here. But I was thinking if this could open flood gates. Could it be better if the young investors are given preparation and some basic exposure before the age is lowered?

Alex

By lowering the age limit, more people would be able to trade in shares.
The Govt is more interested in generating business and returns for
the SES and the financial institutions (recently by loweringthe income limit
for bank loans) than for the concern of the individaul citizens
Money is still the overriding factor for everything this govt do.

T (#21),

If you are pro-choice, you might as well object against age limit for anything.

@Geez (#20) – you couldn’t be further from the truth. The Singaporean government makes so many ridiculous decisions, I’m actually surprised that they are announcing one I agree so whole-heartedly with. Don’t mistake debate on the points raised in the above article with cheerleading the policymakers.

I’ve got several problems with your idea of limiting the transactions allowed to people below a certain age.
1) You talk about irresponsible behaviour on the stock market leading to the world’s current economic problems. The behaviour that led to these problems was not only carried out by people far in excess of the age of 21, but the decisions that created the poor behaviour were made by respected financial minds, in some of the top positions within the world financial institutions. The best talent Singapore could recruit to manage the government investments lost, if I’m not wrong, 31% and 25% of their investment value through some risky and questionable decisions. I challenge the assertion that either age or experience is any buffer against ineptitude. On the contrary, I would think that a significant portion of young people with less to back up potential losses, and less experience, would be more cautious when testing the waters.
2) If you try to regulate the participation of people between 18 and 21 on the basis of them being less experienced, are you advocating a ‘P plate’ investor regulation? What if someone’s first experience in the stock market comes at the age of 30, with their family’s savings on the line? What about people with poor past performance in the stock market, who are much more likely to make poor decisions? Should they have their full rights revoked, to paddle in the shallow end of the stock market until they learn their lesson? Age is certainly no certificate of skill or judgement – you only have to look at the number of young people succeeding in this technology age to see that.

If you’re worried about how well young people will do in their financial efforts following this change, I would suggest a 1-week course on finance and the stock market be implemented at the end of high school or JC. Just like that, the youngsters immediately have far more financial knowledge than most people, regardless of age.

Young people are capable of so much more than most people expect if they are given the opportunity, and they have the drive to work for things. That’s probably another important point – how many 21 year olds dabble in the stock market now? I would imagine it’s a fairly low percentage. The 18 year olds who even try will be the most proactive of their year. They could surprise you.

/// 24) smallvice585 on March 18th, 2009 3.08 pm
If you are pro-choice, you might as well object against age limit for anything. ///

smallvice585 – if it make sense, why not? And not just by age limit. I am pro abortion. I am pro euthanasia.

Not a blank cheque though. I won’t advocate doing NS at age 9, simply because the youngster will not be big enough to carry the rifle or clear the obstacle course.

I would not advocate allowing drivers to renew their driving licence above 65 years old without having their eye-sight tested first.

I would not advocate the age of consent for marriage to be lowered to 9/10/11 years old, simply because the young girls would be put in danger.

And no, I think it is not sensible to allow 90 year-old grannies to be surrogate mothers.

For a start, I think we should lower the age of voting to 18. As I said before, if we can die for the country at 18 by serving NS, we should be mature enough to vote.

18 seems like a sensible cut-off point for many things, give or take a little.

The discussion is on the right track. How old is old enough?

This applies to NS, voting, trading, gambling, smoking and drinking. It deserves more attention.

I wonder if Andrew can do a “How old is old enough” week.

so 18 is old enough to trade, to take rifle but not old enough to vote…….

guys, our government not aiming for 18 year-old Singaporeans la..

Re: 25) unsheltered on March 18th, 2009 3.38 pm

I’m afraid you don’t seem to understand where I stand and neither have you gt what I said correctly.

“Cheerleading the policy makers” for its own sake is the last thing I would do or had done.

What I’ve said in my 2nd post was to point out that allowing 18 yr old to hold shares either bought for them by their parents which is most likely given the general reality that at such age few earn their own keep let alone have extra to invest, is CONSISTENT with recent change in the law allowing 18 yr old to enter into CONTRACT.

You obviously misunderstood my call for the need for tighter rules and regulations to protect the VULNERABLES – which is main concern of the writers of this story – when I talked about the global financial meltdown.

It is agreed by govts of major economies that LAX regulations of the financial markets had caused the global malfunctioning of world financial system which requires massive and complex govt interventions.

People here seem to forget so quickly about 10,000 or so investors in Singapore who have been MIS-SOLD Lehman Brothers structured financial products and the MAS has finally woken up to the need to impose more regulations on Financial Institutions selling such products. (Tens of thousands of other ordinary folks in other countries are also affected, chiefly in HK)

While I support freedom to do as one wishes, the FACT remains that there are VULNERABLE people and I suggest that these people should be protected from unscrupulous people like the FIs who mis-sold the Lehman Brothers related structured financial products and I certainly believe that 18 yr olds are extremely vulnerable.

/// 30) geez on March 19th, 2009 1.58 am

People here seem to forget so quickly about 10,000 or so investors in Singapore who have been MIS-SOLD Lehman Brothers structured financial products and the MAS has finally woken up to the need to impose more regulations on Financial Institutions selling such products. (Tens of thousands of other ordinary folks in other countries are also affected, chiefly in HK)

While I support freedom to do as one wishes, the FACT remains that there are VULNERABLE people and I suggest that these people should be protected from unscrupulous people like the FIs who mis-sold the Lehman Brothers related structured financial products and I certainly believe that 18 yr olds are extremely vulnerable. ///

geez, I don’t think we should go overboard and go for overkill in our zeal to protect the so-called “vulnerable”

You seem to forget that those 10,000 investors are all over 18 years old. In fact, most of them are problem over 50 years old. Does that make them non-vulnerable because they are more than 18 years old? Does that make them more financially savvy?

Yes, the MAS is finally doing something about mis-selling. Can we not formulate new rules to incorporate the young and the old, the so-called “vulnerable” group? Say, make the FIs do more DDs and make those 18-21, and those above 62 and make these two groups sign forms that they are fully aware of the risks.

How can you generalize “I certainly believe that 18 yr olds are extremely “vulnerable”? Maybe you should petition the government to exempt them from NS as I don’t want vulnerable people to have handle weapons or to defend me. Why are we allowing these vulnerable people to handle such dangerous machinery as a car – what I call a guided missile – which when mishandled can caused many deaths and destruction, instead of just some financial loss.

I know many 18 year olds who are very mature and more savvy than many adults.

Allow those who want to and are capable to open accounts. The parents can always stop, for example your own children, from opening the trading accounts. Or, better still, send them for relevant courses to equip themselves.

How long are you going to protect your 18 year olds. Isn’t Singapore a nanny state already? You want more restrictions?

and not whether one is under or over eighteen years old.

Investments and casino bear little differences if any, to a large extend they are some forms of gambling. When investments get good returns from increased businesses and hence profits, I would accept it as befitting the Word Investment. However, today the performances of companies(commercial houses) are not actually based on the viabilities and revenues once the companies get listed, some shareholders are able ‘to play’ and manipulate the stock prices independent of the actual performances and business situations, current and foreseeable future.

It is common to see share price of a company went up when the company was actually performing badly and vice-versa, due to manipulations and speculations. As the acts of manipulations and speculations on share(stock) prices are rampant, most guides/criterias to determine a companys’ performance become based on its’ share prices rather than its’ real performances(viabilities) . This makes investments in listed stocks a guessing game akin to games of chance, in another word, gambling.

Gambling, legalized or otherwise, is a vice in the definition of most cultures and religions, so, i think it is not a question of age, legality, intelligence. It is about morality. And since the World is so contaminated, corrupted and sick, who is wrong about anything ?

Lastly, whoever thinks that Laws and Rules are made to benefit and protect all mankind and otherwise, may like to look at how many rogue, despotic, corrupted and downright evil regimes have existed and exist in history.

“Common sense, despite it’s name, is actually very rare.”–Commisar Ciaphas Cain of Warhammer40k. Similarly, stupidity has no boundaries, much less age. If people want to do stupid things with their lives and money, they will do it eventually, when they turn 21.

I believe in driving in the middle lane. (Unless we’re talking about the PIE at rush hour lol) Yes, while we do need some form of minimal regulation for opening trading accounts at that age, probably some parental awareness (think consent forms, if you will) wouldnt hurt.

At the same time, I really would like some control in my life. I would like to drink, drive, shoot, vote and gamble, thank you very much. But not all at the same time, not to worry. However, I am not advocating choice to the extent of removing all boundaries.

Idea. We have certain “responsibility” tests for some of the things we already do. We cant drive until you pass your TP, you cant shoot until you pass your FFI, so why not “you cant set up an SGX account until you figure out that DJIA aka Diamonds isnt a mining company”.

Comments? =P

G – what you say make sense. Rather than blanket prohibition.
I think a lot of people here are talking as if the government is forcing all 18 year olds to open trading account. No – they are only lowering the age requirement from 21 to 18. You can choose not to open if you don’t want to. In fact, I think most of the 18 years old would probably be not aware of this issue, or are busy serving NS, or mugging for school exams. But, for those who are up to it, why deprive them of the chance?

Re: 31) T on March 19th, 2009 8.43 am

Rather than prolong this dialogue, perhaps you might like to recall – surely not that difficult, considering that it is still current – that GIC and Temasek, both with double 1st/ from Cambridge U no less/President Scholar & Masters from Stanford have PRACTICALLY LOST the entire amount of US$6.88 BILLION & US$5.9 billion respectively on Citi & Merrill Lynch.

How could the 18 yr old compare with such distinguish and illustrious duo together with their scores of ELITES.

Remisiers are not prone to doing due diligence, as the Lehman Brothers tied structural finance products have shown, despite SFA and Financial Advisers Act.

Rules and regulations should be in place to ensure that there is no over-trading/speculation as their losses would become social problems.

I just wonder how much experience you have in financial industry to know the pitfalls, gullibility, scheming practices amongst those in the industry which is not much different from those who are housing agents exemplified by the ERA divisional head who conspired with his agent to fraudulently – the Judge used the term FRAUD – deprived of the house owner of around S$280,000.

If the SGX – and not SES, according to someone – adopts what I’ve suggested, take it as a feather in the cap for TOC….LOL

So long, until another topic.

Re: 31) T on March 19th, 2009 8.43 am

Rather than prolong this dialogue, perhaps you might like to recall – surely not that difficult, considering that it is still current – that GIC and Temasek, both with double 1st/ from Cambridge U no less/President Scholar & Masters from Stanford have PRACTICALLY LOST the entire amount of US$6.88 BILLION & US$5.9 billion respectively on Citi & Merrill Lynch.

How could the 18 yr old compare with such distinguish and illustrious duo together with their scores of ELITES?

Remisiers are not prone to doing due diligence, as the Lehman Brothers tied structural finance products have shown, despite SFA and Financial Advisers Act.

Rules and regulations should be in place to ensure that there is no over-trading/speculation as their losses would become social problems.

I just wonder how much experience you have in financial industry to know the pitfalls, gullibility, scheming practices amongst those in the industry which is not much different from those who are housing agents exemplified by the ERA divisional head who conspired with his agent to fraudulently – the Judge used the term FRAUD – deprived of the house owner of around S$280,000.

By the way, to compare plonking money on stock markets with being inducted into NS is rather facile. Being in NS requires no independent thought or critical thinking skills; in fact, NSmen are required to by robotic – just follow orders.

So long, until another topic.

Pardon the grammatical errors……

/// 35) Geez on March 19th, 2009 8.07 pm

Re: 31) T on March 19th, 2009 8.43 am

Rather than prolong this dialogue, perhaps you might like to recall – surely not that difficult, considering that it is still current – that GIC and Temasek, both with double 1st/ from Cambridge U no less/President Scholar & Masters from Stanford have PRACTICALLY LOST the entire amount of US$6.88 BILLION & US$5.9 billion respectively on Citi & Merrill Lynch.

How could the 18 yr old compare with such distinguish and illustrious duo together with their scores of ELITES. ///

Geez, you just shoot yourself in both feet. That is exactly my point. Age has no bearings on financial acumen. I think I can find many 18 year olds who can outperform some 85 year old and most of the elites. IQ is not the same as FQ (Financial Quotient – I just invented this term).

Geez – I think you will also not lose that much money.

#38 reply.

I think that is dangerous talk. The amount of money lost on GIC and Temasek has nothing to do with young investors. It doesn’t mitigate the fact that most 18 year olds are likely not to understand what they are buying into.

Alex – I don’t get you. Where is the magic wand that suddenly make a 21 year old understand what they are buying into. What is happening between the age of 18 and 21? Am I missing something this is happening in Singapore? Has the government introduce a compulsory 3-year course on financial management that all 18 year old must take? Have they made the CFA a compulsory qualification. Or did the boys learn how to pick stocks in the army instead of learning how to shoot?

reply 40)T
I agree with you on the fact that there is only a small difference between the financial abilities of an 18 yr old vs a 21 yr old. And for that matter, a 21 year old vs a 24 year old. In fact, barring IQ, course studied, parental guidance, personal interests or sheer dumb luck, there is a GENERAL curve where the older you are, the more mature you should be when handling these matters. (up to a certain limit of course)

Bearing this in mind, our policy-makers HAVE to draw a line somewhere, be it 18, 21 or 24. So perhaps it is their opinion that A FEW bright 18 yr olds want to try out their hand at the stock market. But lowering the age limit isnt tantamount to ENCOURAGING youngsters to dive headfirst into equities and the like.

At the end of the day, like it or not, we will be given this option to trade (in options! hahaha) sooner or later. So whilst I am not against the lowering of the age limit, I certainly advocate parents, schools and the remisiers to educate, caution, guide and perhaps limit the extent to which these youngsters are involved in such trades.

To Alex
Yes I agree, most 18 year olds are not likely to understand the workings of the stock market. And for that matter, neither do 21 year olds (although the percentage will look slightly better for the 21 year olds)

However, I quote “what they are buying into”. In my opinion, someone will have to be incredibly spoilt, rich, stupid, or a nice interesting mixture of the 3, to NOT know the value of money. It is unlikely that whosoever buys into the stock market will buy in blindly, without doing a fair bit of homework first. As such, they will most probably have an inkling of what they are doing.

I reiterate my point mentioned in my previous post, that our policy makers will have to draw the line SOMEWHERE. In my humble opinion, 18 is perfectly fine. I would respect your opinion if you feel that perhaps they would be better prepared at 21. But i would disagree with your stand (you didnt mention, but i felt it implied) that we should wait until the “cohort” is ready before we allow all those in a particular age to trade.

Do note that due to the 3 factors listed above (spoilt, rich, stupid), there will definitely be a few people out there who will take unnecessary risks, hence my refusal to use absolutes in my pointers. Well, if these people dont value money, there’re plenty of other avenues to throw money, not just the stock market.