Fresh graduates not suitable and are ‘liabilities’, said employers

KUALA LUMPUR: Employers consider fresh graduates liabilities as many require additional training before they can perform.

Companies would rather hire experienced and skilled professionals who can bring instant returns, said Kelly Services marketing director for Singapore and Malaysia Jeannie Khoo.

She said employers felt many fresh graduates lacked communication skills and had poor English and needed to improve before they could add value to the business.

“This means additional costs for the company. Employers are looking for people who can hit the ground running,” she said after launching the Kelly Services Professional and Technical Salary Guide 2012 here yesterday.

Khoo said the 27 polytechnics in the country generated thousands of skilled workers every year but many of them needed to be retrained by their employers.

She advised fresh graduates to be less choosy and to have realistic expectations on salary and remuneration.

“You are unlikely to earn RM3,000 in your first job.

“Be willing to learn. If you are offered an internship, take it,” she said.

Kelly Services Asia Pacific head of professional and technical, Mark Sparrow, said demand was growing for professionals with experience and niche skills.

He said there was a global shortage of talent in specialised areas of engineering, accountancy, technology and financial services.

“There is high demand for engineers, especially in the Asia-Pacific region, such as Indonesia and Thailand which are rebuilding their cities following natural disasters,” he said.

He added the “hot jobs” in Malaysia included risk management specialists, construction and environment engineers, software development specialists and marketing and sales personnel who are fluent in English.

By P. ARUNA aruna@thestar.com.my

Related posts:
Malaysia's Minimum wage's benefits and effects 
Malaysia's minimum wage, and its implications

How will JPMorgan's $2 billion loss affect American banking rules? Senior executives to leave!

 
A JPMorgan office building is shown, Monday, May 14, 2012, in New York. JPMorgan Chase, the largest bank in the United States, said Thursday that it lost $2 billion in the past six weeks in a trading portfolio designed to hedge against risks the company takes with its own money. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)

   

WASHINGTON—The $2 billion trading loss at JPMorgan Chase has renewed calls for stricter oversight of Wall Street banks. Two years after Congress passed an overhaul of financial rules, many of those changes have yet to be finalized.

JPMorgan's misstep gives advocates of stronger regulation an opening to argue that regulators should toughen their approach.

The Obama administration has argued that it went as hard on banks as possible without further upsetting global finance. Now Democratic lawmakers and administration officials say JPMorgan case proves that more change is needed.

Still, many in the industry warn against reading too much into one trading loss. They say losing money is an inevitable part of taking risk, as banks must.

Some fear that after JPMorgan's announcement, regulators will greet industry concerns with more skepticism as they flesh out key parts of the overhaul law.

Here's a look at four key parts of the financial overhaul and how they might be affected by JPMorgan's losses:

THE VOLCKER RULE

This provision restricts banks' ability to trade for their own profit, a practice known as proprietary trading. It is named for former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker.

-- Battle lines: Banks say it disrupts two of their core functions: Creating markets for customers who want to buy financial products and managing their own risk to prevent major losses.

They say proprietary trading was not a cause of the 2008 financial crisis and the rule is a means of political revenge on an unpopular industry. Advocates of stronger regulation argue that the rule would have prevented JPMorgan's loss. They say the trades were made to boost bank profits, not to protect against market-wide risk.

-- State of play: A draft of the rule satisfied neither side. It includes exceptions for hedging against risk and for market-making, but banks say they the exceptions are too narrow and difficult to enforce. It's nearly impossible to tell whether a bank bought or sold something for itself or for customers.

-- JPMorgan effect: Attitudes about the Volcker rule are likely to shift as a result of JPMorgan's disclosure, experts say. Even if JPMorgan's trades truly were a failed attempt to protect against risk, the resulting loss strengthens the argument that regulators should err on the side of scrutinizing trades.

ENDING `TOO BIG TO FAIL'

During the 2008 financial crisis and the bailouts that followed, the government was unwilling to let the biggest banks fail, for fear of upending the financial system. As part of the overhaul, Congress created a process to shut down financial companies whose failure could threaten the system.

-- Battle lines: Most players agree that this is a good idea, despite some differences on the details.

-- State of play: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the agency responsible for closing smaller banks that falter, has taken the lead on writing rules to shut down big firms. Most observers believe that the FDIC, under acting chairman Martin Gruenberg, is on track toward creating a system that markets would trust to close a big bank.

Banks have been working with regulators to create "living wills" detailing how they would wind themselves down without disrupting markets. This exercise has forced them to look more deeply at their operations -- a defense against the accusation that banks have grown "too big to manage."

However, U.S. regulators can't do it alone. A big problem after the failure of Lehman Brothers investment bank in 2008 was what to do with its overseas operations. It wasn't clear which regulators were in charge, or whose bankruptcy court would control the disposal of Lehman's assets.

Regulators are negotiating with their European counterparts, but it could take years before they agree on rules that would allow a global company to dismantle itself without spreading confusion through the financial markets.

-- JPMorgan effect: Like other banks, JPMorgan supports giving the government the power to dismantle a failing bank. CEO Jamie Dimon said so clearly in an appearance on "Meet the Press" on Sunday.

JPMorgan's loss probably doesn't affect the likelihood that regulators will break up a bank in the future. The loss wasn't nearly big enough to threaten JPMorgan with failure.

REGULATING DERIVATIVES

JPMorgan's bets involved complex investments known as derivatives whose value is based on the value of another investment. Before 2008, many derivatives were traded as individual contracts between banks and hedge funds, without any transparency for regulators. The financial overhaul sought to bring more derivatives onto regulated exchanges and force derivatives traders to put up more cash in case their bets turned against them.

-- Battle lines: Overhauling the rules governing this market, estimated at $650 trillion, has proved as complex as the investments themselves. Banks support many parts of the overhaul but generally argue that forcing too much transparency would make it harder and more expensive for companies to use derivatives as a hedge against risk. They say it is an unnecessary cost that would be spread across all types of companies.

The agency most responsible for implementing these rules, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, faces the threat of a much smaller budget than it says it needs to write the rules and increase its oversight of the derivatives market.

Advocates for stronger regulation argue that the new rules apply to the sorts of derivatives believed to have magnified the financial crisis -- and JPMorgan's losses -- but do not threaten investments like energy futures, for example, which airlines use to control fuel costs. They say banks are just trying to protect a lucrative business that other companies can't compete in today.

-- State of play: About half the rules are done, but many crucial questions have yet to be decided. The rules will be phased in this fall through next spring. Banks are lobbying hard to protect their hold on this profitable business. Banks support pending legislation that would limit U.S. regulators' control over derivatives trades by their overseas affiliates.

-- JPMorgan effect: Fairly or not, JPMorgan's big loss on derivatives trades is likely to revive scrutiny of that market. That could give advocates of tighter rules some juice in ongoing negotiations with regulators. It also could empower those who believe the budgets of the CFTC and Securities and Exchange Commission should be increased to reflect the need for broader oversight.

BANK OVERSIGHT

The overhaul calls on the Federal Reserve to oversee the biggest and most important financial companies and apply a stricter set of standards for financial fitness. For example, the companies must hold more capital as a buffer against future losses. Before, the biggest banks were overseen by a patchwork of regulations.

-- Battle lines: Industry officials say they're working with regulators to fine-tune how big companies will be overseen. They are concerned, for example, about the extra costs imposed on the big companies to offset the extra risk they create in the financial system.

-- State of play: Industry officials say many of these changes were happening behind the scenes even before the financial overhaul was passed in 2010. They say banks already are better capitalized and meet other standards laid out by regulators.

It's still not known exactly which financial companies will fall into this category. The biggest banks are included automatically. Regulators have more discretion when it comes what are known as non-bank financial companies, such as huge insurance companies. Companies on the margin reportedly are lobbying hard to avoid this designation.

-- JPMorgan effect: As the nation's biggest bank, JPMorgan automatically will face stricter oversight. The trading loss there is unlikely to affect detailed negotiations about how exactly such companies will be overseen.

By Daniel Wagner AP Business Writer

US student Loan Crisis, an Education Bubble?

I started following the student loan crisis when I noted that student loans seemed to be neck and neck with health care as the primary grievances on the We Are The 99% site.  I was very lucky to get two pretty regular guest posters Alan Collinge and Tim Smith, who have written on the issue from different angles.  I was astonished to get a call from Sallie Mae asking me how they could get their side of the story onto Forbes.com.  At the risk of being prosecuted for impersonating a journalist, I did a brief interview with John Remondi, President and COO of Sallie Mae.  I’m still hoping for some guest posts from Sallie Mae, but nothing has come through yet.  Sunday, I heard from Tim Smith, who let me know that the New York Times was picking up on the issue with this piece.  I invited him to share his reaction.  Here it is.

The Education Bubble Won’t Create A Disaster, Right?

“Looking back, anyone could have predicted the housing bubble.”  This sentiment has been echoed many times, and graphs of the past housing bubble almost make it seem obvious before the bubble burst.  The education bubble?  While many acknowledge the soaring cost – especially those in the education fields – fewer agree that we’re about to see the education bubble pop and create a bigger mess than the housing bubble.  Education may have its critics, but it also has major defenders.

Student Loan Defaulter Calls For Solidarity Peter J Reilly Contributor

Why Does Congress Love Houses More Than Students? Kelly Phillips Erb Contributor

New College Grads: Just Say No to More Debt! Sheryl Nance-Nash Contributor

Cheap Stafford Loans: A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing CCAP Contributor

However, the chorus seems to be changing.  Even the New York Times recently joined with an article that compared the education bubble to the housing bubble (this analogy has been used multiple times, but like the above graph shows, under predicts the mess that the education bubble will cause).  Even while other media players have finally seen this bubble, the warning signs were spelled out on this blog :

These warning signs would be favorable laws toward discharging student loans in bankruptcy (making it more challenging for students to receive money for education); a societal zeitgeist toward education changing (for instance, businesses preferring certification or a degree from something similar to the Khan Academy over traditional colleges); a major recession coming back to the United States, taking away more employment (making it more difficult for student with loans to pay back their loans); students becoming discouraged by negative news toward education (causing many to drop out or to avoid college).
Of course, some readers might wonder if all four signs must appear for the education bubble to pop, and the answer is “No”.

Even though the education bubble has received attention, few expect the consequences to be bad.  In fact, the Times’ article mentions that economists don’t see the consequences being similar to the housing bubble – in other words, the education bubble pops, and everything is fine.  Consider the potential reality:

1.      High student loan balances discourage future and current demand for other products and services (consider the attitude, for instance, of Natalia Antonova, who faced a debt crisis with her student loans).  This subtracts money flow from the economy to provide jobs in other areas.  Even without the bubble popping, this is the current situation.
2.      If the demand for education drops, the consequences will affect those in the education system – schools will need fewer professors, advisors and others in the education field.  This will create a terrible job hunting situation, where graduates will be placed against high-credentialed people (some of whom may have been their professors).  Remember that in order to keep these people employed, the demand for education must remain the same or rise.
3.      If the demand for education declines, the demand for educational products will decline also – textbooks, construction, and many of the expenditures that some colleges think are necessary to provide a good education.  This drop in demand will cause business, which sell products and services to educational institutions, to cut back on their staff to offset their losses.
There is one way in which economists might be right – if wages began to soar.  Like the housing bubble, Americans felt the mess because the decline in housing prices meant that debt was owed on something that had little value.  If education continues to rise, while wages stagnate or slowly rise, a college degree will be like a home, which has lost its value.  If wages soar, however, a college degree will still mean the path to prosperity.

Tim Smith blogs on the “Echo Boom”, also known as Generation Y (Americans born between 1980 – 1995). Tim has previously appeared here discussing his generation’s attitude towards homeownership and education.

I’m beginning to think that the “bubble” metaphor may not work that well for education.  In the case of the stock market and real estate people own assets that they think they can sell at any time for some minimum price.  Then something happens and everybody heads for the door at once.  At that point the seeds of the next bubble are sown, because the assets have some level of intrinsic value and somebody will buy them for something and may get rich on the next turn of the wheel.  Educational credentials, on the other hand, are not at all fungible.  They can only be cash flowed, not liquidated.  If they are not used when fairly fresh, their value erodes rather quickly.  The actual economic value of the credential will often be quickly replaced by the experience which the credential enables.  

By Peter J Reilly, Forbes Contributor Newscribe : get free news in real time

Related posts:
American mounting student loans a 'debt bomb' waiting to explode! Inside America’s Student Loan Bubble!
American Student Loan Debt: $1 Trillion and Counting
America, a "Generation of Sissies"
A "great haircut" for U.S. growth