Anton Casey's apology and response/follow up.

Okay is this a hot topic or what? Time for a quick follow up - I'm in the middle of my working day but I could not resist posting this. Anton Casey has issued a public apology on Sgtalk.

Dear sir,
For your immediate publication on SgTalk:

I would like to extend a sincere apology to the people of Singapore. In the past 24 hours due to a recent chain of events, which include my misguided attempt at humour, a security breach of my personal Facebook page and the misuse of an old video by unknown sources, my family, especially, my five-year-old son has suffered extreme emotional and verbal abuse online. 

It must be made extremely clear that a YouTube video of me, with my son in the background was not posted in response to any recent events. This video was made weeks prior and has been misused to portray me as unrepentant. Police investigation into this matter, including receiving death threats, is ongoing. I have offended and disrespected the people of Singapore, my family - especially my five-year-old son. He is an innocent party to this unfortunate and extremely stressful situation. I wish for nothing more than to be forgiven for my poor judgement and given a second chance to rebuild the trust people had in me as a resident of this City – specifically for my family. 

Regards,
Anton S Casey

What do you guys think? Do you think that he is sincerely sorry or is he apologizing to try to protect his son and wife from further abuse and harassment? It can be pretty extreme - death threats, good grief. By all means criticize Anton Casey if you want and judge him by what he has said and done - but to drag his disabled son into the matter is simply too low. I have found too many cruel remarks by Singaporeans on social media mocking his disabled son and I'm like really? Is that how low you Singaporeans will stoop - will you attack and mock a disabled young child? That makes you guys far worse than Anton Casey.

Leave his son alone.

Personally, I feel sorry for him because I know what it is like to be the victim of a vicious hate campaign, where people you don't know suddenly lash out at you. In my case, this was when I gave an interview to the BBC last year about why I left Singapore for the UK and oooh boy, what followed was unreal. I would get thousands of hits on my Linkedin page from Singaporeans and even my sister received thousands of hits on her Linkedin page - now my Linkedin page is in the public domain, like my blog.  But there's an element of lr lang jiat pa boh tai tji chor si boh? ("are you guys really so bored?") to it, it takes the Hokkien concept of boh liao to whole new level. I would love it if these people just came to my blog and engaged me here - but they prefer to make up crazy shit about me. Where do I begin? How does one even begin to respond to people like that? 

Social media is double edged sword... it gives idiots the right to be heard as well.

That is why Anton Casey is in an impossible situation now - the people who hate him do not even know why they are hating him, who he is, what he does for a living, why he has a job in Singapore etc. They are just looking for a scapegoat to vent all their anti-foreigner xenophobic hatred on and Anton Casey became the perfect scapegoat. You see, these people are not just angry with this one man - no, this is an excuse for them to vent all of their anger and frustrated. Casey is but the last straw the broke the camel's back - hence his silly comments on social media have triggered such a disproportionately large hate campaign against him. I find the whole situation rather ludicrous because Singaporeans (well at least 60.14% of the electorate) have to accept responsibility for allowing this situation to happen in the first place when they voted for the PAP, knowing what the PAP's stance is on foreign talents.

So what are you Singaporeans going to do about this? Are you simply going to keep quiet about the situation until the next time a last straw break the camel's back again and you then vent all your hatred on the unfortunate scapegoat? Or can we at least try to channel this into a sensible, rational, dignified discussion overcrowding or about the place of FTs in Singapore and have a calm and mature debate about the issues that have made so many Singaporeans angry? Because all I hear right now is a cacophony of hysteria and a lot of people shouting, kao beh kao bu, buay song Angmoh, but very few people actually willing to be constructive about the situation. That's disappointing to say the least. A hysterical reaction can never lead to a constructive solution and achieves nothing more than venting one's anger but after you've shouted yourself hoarse, the problem is still not solved.

Can you resist the urge to be antagonistic and opt to be constructive instead?

What I hate about this ridiculous nature of these online hate campaigns is the way Singaporeans rarely verify the facts before they lash out. Good grief. If you are going to make a criticism, at least know what you're criticizing - don't just make shit up on the spot. But no, many Singaporeans simply jump to the wrong conclusions rather than verify their facts - they do not seem to care if they discredit themselves in the process when it is evident just how salah they are in jumping to the wrong conclusions.

Let me give you an example in the Anton Casey case. Some Singaporeans have accused him of coming to Singapore to 'steal' a job that a local Singaporean can do and that if he left Singapore, a Singaporean could do his job at Crossinvest. That is simply NOT true. I have already explained that Anton Casey works in a very niche market area of wealth management for expatriates - he would be serving the wealth management needs of British expatriates in Singapore rather than the locals. A rich British expatriate in Singapore would not hand their money over to a Singaporean wealth manager - no, they will only deal with someone from their own country (sounds very un-PC but that's just the way this industry is.) Even if you do force him out of Singapore through sheer violence and death threats, guess who will take his job? Another British expat - not a local.

Can just about anyone do Anton Casey's job? Asian, white or alien?

I am beginning to see a convergence - there is at least a few wealth management company in Singapore who have a more international approach. Let's look at one in the Telok Ayer area for example: they have a very international team and I am so impressed with their approach. They have a British director to deal with British expats, a French director to deal with French expats, an Indian director to deal with Indian expats and a local Singaporean-Chinese director to deal with local Singaporean-Chinese clients etc -you get the idea. So in the boardroom, the directors all share their investment strategies but at the customer-facing front, the client is always talking to someone of the same nationality (yup, that seems crucial in this industry, rich people tend to only trust a private banker from their own country). This is a new trend in Singapore, not many companies are like that. Most of the others are fairly specific: they usually only deal with either only expats or only locals but rarely both. Anyway, I digress. That's the Singaporean wealth management market for you, one that I know rather well given my experience in it with my previous job.

So that is why hounding Anton Casey out of Singapore will not create a new job for a local Singaporean given the nature of this industry. This is simply because a rich white British expat will never choose a local Chinese Singaporean wealth manager and a rich Singaporean towkay will never trust a foreign wealth manager like Anton Casey to handle his money - regardless of how advanced banking has become in 2014, some of the clients' old habits die hard and some attitudes will take a long time to change.

Not all aspects of wealth management are high tech!

The fact is Anton Casey has apologized and has shown remorse - it is time to put the case in perspective. When someone says something stupid on social media, it can be embarrassing, inappropriate or even offensive, the key thing is that it is not criminal. Here's a concept that you guys have to get your head around: the freedom of speech. Anton Casey has the right to say whatever he wants and you have the right to respond. However, for the person who wants him banished from Singapore as a result of this, like get freaking real you people: what law has he broken by offending you with his brash words? Grow a set of balls and deal with it you wuss, you don't like what the Angmoh says, you reply and give as good as you get. You don't go running to the primary school teacher and ask the teacher to do something about it. What a totally pathetic response. Alamak.

Whilst I am on the warpath, allow me to respond to a few of the threads on EDMW - I am just embarrassed at the average level of IQ displayed by the people there. Like seriously, I am from Singapore and I thought Singaporeans were a bit smarter than that. So if you're ready, let's deal with some of the more ridiculous issues raised.

The supposed "CSI" of Crossinvest's CEO Christophe Audergon: Big deal, that's information that's in the public domain anyway. In any case, he doesn't give a damn what you ordinary Singaporeans think, not unless you are either a client or are in a position to influence his super-rich clients. Crossinvest provides wealth management services for HNWIs - thus by definition, they are dealing with such a niche market that excludes 99% of the population of Singapore. They don't need to bother with what ordinary people like you think - they only have to serve their clients well. Tough shit if you're not rich, such is life. It ain't fair. You can email the CEO till the cows come home, it won't make the slightest bit of difference.

Q: Why would a millionaire go to a small firm like CrossInvest rather than a big private bank like UBS or Credit Suisse? (Asked by many people in different threads.)

A: Simple. It is the quality of the relationship at the end of the day - they provide the same kind of service. Let me give you an analogy. When you go on holiday, you can choose to stay in a hotel that is as huge as Marina Bay Sands or Atlantis The Palm in Dubai, or you can go for a very small boutique hotel. The boutique hotel is very exclusive and very small - but the service is usually extremely personal, the suites are catered specifically to the requests of the guest and at the end of the day, you only need to one hotel room/suite. Whether there are another 8000 or 8 rooms in the hotel is quite irrelevant to the quality of your experience because as a guest, you are only occupying one room at a time. By the same token, whether your bank has 10 million customers or 10 customers makes little difference to the kind of banking experience you have. Indeed, when dealing with a smaller operation, it can feel a lot more personal and some people prefer that experience. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better in this world.

The quality of your hotel experience doesn't depend on the size of the hotel.

Q: Why doesn't Bernice divorce Anton over this?

A: LMFAO. None of your business, but the bottom line is that they are married with a kid. When you choose to marry someone, you stick with them through thick and thin, through good times and bad. When your spouse makes a mistake, you stand by them and help them get through that difficult patch, rather than desert them the moment there is any hint of trouble. Let's put it this way: what if you made a silly mistake today and all your friends react by deserting, pretending they don't know you or condemning you. Would such a scenario actually happen? Or would you close friends be there for you and help you deal with whatever problems you may have or whatever trouble you may face? Duh. Some of these Singaporeans don't understand the most basic nature of human relationships - that just makes me think they will never ever help anyone of their friends or family members who may get into trouble.

Q: How much does Anton earn to afford his lifestyle (Porsche, Condo etc)?

A: I can't comment on how much he earns personally - I have no idea, I can only talk more generally about how IFAs/brokers/wealth managers in general make money. It is very lucrative and you can earn a lot of money once you are successful. They are the middlemen between the rich people and the fund managers - let me give you an example.

We have three characters here: Mr Rich (the rich millionaire) , Mr Wealth (someone who manages the wealth of rich people) and Mr Fund (who represents the fund management companies, looking for investor). Mr Fund goes to Mr Wealth and says, "hey Mr Wealth, please invest your clients' money with me, I have great rates of return for my fund!" Mr Wealth turns around and says, "there are so many good funds out there, why should I pick yours over everyone else?" So Mr Fund offers Mr Wealth a very good deal, if Mr Wealth hands over $100,000 of Mr Fund's money from his portfolio, then $95,000 goes into the fund and Mr Wealth pockets $5,000 instantly the moment he signs on the dotted line. As the fund is expected to make in access of 5% a year, Mr Fund doesn't mind the initial hit it takes when Mr Wealth takes his cut, knowing that the long term return on the fund would guarantee that Mr Rich will see a positive return on his initial investment of $100,000 after a few years.

On top of taking a 5% cut the moment the investment is made, Mr Wealth probably charges Mr Rich a standard fee for his wealth management services (which won't be cheap) and that's not the end of it. To prevent Mr Wealth from withdrawing the fund and repeating the exercise with Mr Fund's closest rival (and taking another big cut), Mr Fund offers Mr Rich a retainer's fee of 0.5% of the total amount that remains invested with the fund for each calender year the money stays invested in the fund.

In short, Mr Wealth earns most of his money from Mr Rich but is also constantly paid by Mr Fund as well to keep the money invested. What a lucrative position to be in - the middlemen is being paid by both parties he is liaising with. So Mr Wealth is in such a good position to make money because he is being paid huge amounts of money to make investment decisions on behalf of his clients and he always gets a cut. Now the figures of 5% cut and 0.5% retainer's fee are typical of what some IFAs do - the actual size of the cut and the retainer's fee do vary. At the end of the day, Mr Wealth must make sure that his cut is not so big that Mr Rich sees his initial capital dwindling down after Mr Wealth takes his cut - it's not just a pot of gold that Mr Wealth can help himself to. There is still an element of skill involved - he still has to pick the right funds to deal with in order to make sure he grows Mr Rich's capital enough to allow himself a generous cut whilst still keeping Mr Rich very satisfied with the state of his portfolio. As long as he can do that, the potential to make an obscene amount of money is there. The best wealth managers have rich clients with portfolios that have seven or eight figures. So imagine if Mr Wealth makes an investment for Mr Rich that is worth 1 million dollars, his 5% cut is $50,000 - just like that. Now imagine if he makes a few of those decisions a month and you do the maths.

And that's why people like Anton Casey can buy a Porsche. He doesn't need to borrow the money at all - he is in a very lucrative job. Now even I wish I had a job like Anton Casey's - instead, I am but a humble marketing strategist who doesn't earn as much even though I work in finance too. Speaking of which, I'd better get back to work. Leave a comment below if you have any more questions, okay? Ciao, thanks for reading.

Update, part 4: http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/lmfao-singaporean-petitions-anton.html
Part 5: http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-sedition-act-and-anton-casey.html
Part 6: http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-british-reaction-to-anton-casey.html
Part 7: http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/a-very-hollow-victory-for-singaporeans.html