1 South Korea 20.5 -11% -19%
5 Hong Kong 15.8 -6.9% -2.7%
7 Japan 15.0 -8.1% 0.2%
17 Singapore 12.5 -1.8% 2.4%
33 Taiwan 10.1 -4.9% 5.5%
42 New Zealand 8.7 2.4% 23%
43 Thailand 8.2 -4.1% 25%
46 Australia 7.8 0.6% 13%
71 Sri Lanka 5.1 -3.6% 50%
73 Malaysia 4.9 -3.2% 20%
91 Vietnam 3.4 3.1% 33%
104 Indonesia 3.0 24% -20%
108 Philippines 2.8 -10% 14%
116 India 2.5 5.3% 26%
Malaysian net too slow for video streaming
KUALA LUMPUR: A report on “State of the Internet” showed that the current connection speed may not be able to meet the demand for video streaming in Malaysia, where about 87% of Internet users would stream videos on a regular basis.
In comparison, the average connection speed in Malaysia is slower than Thailand and Sri Lanka. It is also barely ahead of Vietnam, said Akamai Technologies in its Q3 2015 “State of the Internet” report released yesterday.
At a speed which is almost two times slower than Thailand, Malaysia, at 4.9 Megabits per second (Mbps) was ranked No. 73 in a Global survey from July to September.
South Korea had the highest average connection speed in the Asia-Pacific region at 20.5 Mbps. India registered the lowest at 2.5 Mbps.
Singapore remained in the top spot with average peak connection speed at 135.4 Mbps while India had the lowest average peak connection speed at 18.7 Mbps.
However, the report also noted that broadband connectivity had increased steadily in the third quarter of 2015.
Based on data gathered from the Akamai Intelligent Platform, the report provides insight into key global statistics such as connection speed, broadband adoption metrics, notable Internet disruptions, IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 implementation.
According to the report, Malaysians may be one of the most globally-connected people but it was not necessarily at a speed they want.
Based on traffic data in recent reports from Ericsson, the worldwide volume of data traffic among mobile broadband consumers alone grew by 14% between the second and third quarters of 2015 and is expected to grow 10-fold by 2021.
The study also showed that almost 70% of current users are expected to be primary consumers of video consumption by 2021. — Bernama
Emerging economies in a dilemma on whether to follow suit or cut rates
“Specifically, we expect rate cuts in India, Indonesia, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand in 2016. We also project a further 75bps of rate cuts and a 200bps reduction in RRR in China'. - Credit Suisse
THE big question is what happens next?
The much anticipated hike in US interest rates on Thursday meant that for the first time in almost a decade, US interest rates are on the way up. The 25 basis point (bps) rise in US interest rates by The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) to between 0.25% and 0.5% was made as the US economy showed tangible signs of improvement.
Such gains in the US economy through lower unemployment and higher forecast inflation has meant that the target for interest rates by the end of 2016 has been pegged at 1.5%, meaning that rates are expected to rise by 25 basis points every quarter until the end of next year.
The implications of what the US FOMC does reverberates throughout the world. Conventional thinking of the past is that higher rates in the US does put pressure on central banks elsewhere to follow suit.
But times have changed. Countries today have their own domestic economies and issues to manage and that has taken precedence over what the US does with its monetary policy.
It is clear that the de-coupling has taken place a long time ago. The European Union and Japan are still engaged in quantitative easing and are keeping rates near zero or in the case of the EU, in negative territory.
For Malaysia, the thinking is that with the difference between domestic and US interest rates still having a nice cushion, the focus of Bank Negara will be on the Malaysian economy.
Rate pressure: Should the path of the US rate cycle starts to steepen, economists say it will put pressure on Bank Negara as the ringgit may be pressured by inaction. – Reuters
Countries such as China cut its interest rates in October to 4.35% as it grapples with a slowing economy. Different priorities call for different action.
But analysts feel the move by the US does create a bit of a dilemma for policy makers. Raising rates does cool an economy, which is already shifting to a lower gear given the tangible cooling of major economic indicators.
Trimming interest rates further, while will help the economy, will put more pressure on the flow of capital. Analysts feel that might not be what the central bank will want to do at the moment considering the weakness of the ringgit not only against the US dollar this year but also against the currencies of its major trading partners.
“Our rate is accommodative for economic growth and Bank Negara can raise rates when the economy is slowing down,” says an economist with a local brokerage.
To each its own
The United States has been the traditional locomotive of growth for the world for much of recent history. But the emergence of China has changed that equation. Trade of the emerging world increases with China as the second largest economy of the world grows, its influence on Malaysia and the rest of Asia has become more affixed.
It is for that reason that some are speculating that emerging economies, such as Malaysia, will keep its eyes focused on what the People’s Bank of China does while having the US action in its periphery vision.
“We argue that Asian central banks’ monetary policy stance next year will be more influenced by economic and monetary policy cycles in China than in the past, and will diverge from the US. Unlike the previous US Fed hiking cycle when virtually all Asian central banks tightened their policies, we think this time Asian policy rates will stay lower for longer,” says Credit Suisse in a report.
“Specifically, we expect rate cuts in India, Indonesia, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand in 2016. We also project a further 75bps of rate cuts and a 200bps reduction in RRR in China.
“Given the challenging environment for exports, we expect growth in trade-dependent economies including Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand to surprise the consensus on the downside. Meanwhile, more domestic-oriented economies with policy catalysts, including Indonesia and the Philippines, could outperform expectations considerably,” it says.
For Malaysia, the FOMC decision was keenly watched. Any time US interest rates move, Bank Negara pays close attention to it.
Is it the key determinant for the direction of domestic interest rates?
No, say economists. “Local conditions override what the US does,” says an economist.
For Malaysia, economists believe that the current overnight policy rate of 3.25% is appropriate to support growth. But they do too acknowledge that Malaysia is in a dicey situation depending on what happens next.
The general view is that the US will continue to push rates upwards. Just how rapidly will be important and as US rates goes up, the differential with Malaysia will narrow.
“If the local economy does as it is predicted, then there is a possibility of a small hike next year but there is no urgency to do that,” says an economist.
The question is what happens after next year should the path of the US rate cycle starts to steepen?
Economists say that will put pressure on Bank Negara as the ringgit might be pressured by inaction. As it is, the drop in crude oil prices is the most pressing issue affecting the value of the ringgit.
The effect on emerging currencies
Emerging markets have had a series of bad press over the past year. With sentiment souring and the outlook in the US getting brighter, it was no coincidence that the US dollar surged, gaining about 40% on average against emerging market currencies since May 2013.
But is it time for things to change?
Schroders thinks that might happen.
“It is difficult to argue that the Fed has been the sole factor in emerging market debt weakness. China hard landing fears, plummeting commodity prices, Brazilian political disarray, Russian policy concerns and general weakening of growth across all regions created a near perfect-storm for emerging market debt investors.
“However, a more predictable and less fraught path going forward for the Fed should help steady investor nerves and risk appetite. If developed market bond yields remain very low – as seems likely with a very slow hiking path, set out with some confidence – emerging market dollar yields may remain one of the few places to look for meaningful income generation for years to come,” it says.
Schroders says the move by the US Federal Reserve comes at a time when emerging market dollar debt seems particularly attractive.
“Yields in the primary sovereign dollar index are at highs not seen since 2010, when Treasury yields were much higher than today. Yield spreads over Treasuries for investment grade sovereign debt are just under 300 basis points, and remain at elevated levels that were last seen consistently during the European crisis of 2011. High yield sovereign debt currently has a yield to maturity of 8.5%.
“The divergence between developed market monetary policies has driven the dollar nearly 20% higher on a trade-weighted basis since July 2014. Emerging market currencies have fallen in lock step.
“With the European Central Bank now charting a path towards a steady dose of quantitative easing as growth in Europe stabilises, Fed predictability should help curb that dollar appreciation. Emerging market currencies should then likely steady at attractive levels, boosting sentiment towards the asset class. Even a modest virtuous cycle led by these factors could make emerging markets one of the strongest global fixed income performers next year, given today’s generous yield levels.”
Scientists have finally figured out how the key gene tied to obesity makes people fat, a major discovery that could open the door to an entirely new approach to the problem beyond diet and exercise.
The work solves a big mystery: Since 2007, researchers have known that a gene called FTO was related to obesity, but they didn’t know how, and could not tie it to appetite or other known factors.
Now experiments reveal that a faulty version of the gene causes energy from food to be stored as fat rather than burned. Genetic tinkering in mice and on human cells in the lab suggests this can be reversed, giving hope that a drug or other treatment might be developed to do the same in people.
The work was led by scientists at MIT and Harvard University and published online Wednesday by the New England Journal of Medicine.
The discovery challenges the notion that “when people get obese it was basically their own choice because they choose to eat too much or not exercise,” said study leader Melina Claussnitzer, a genetics specialist at Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. “For the first time, genetics has revealed a mechanism in obesity that was not really suspected before” and gives a third explanation or factor that’s involved.
Independent experts praised the discovery.
“It’s a big deal,” said Dr. Clifford Rosen, a scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute and an associate editor at the medical journal.
“A lot of people think the obesity epidemic is all about eating too much,” but our fat cells play a role in how food gets used, he said. With this discovery, “you now have a pathway for drugs that can make those fat cells work differently.”
Several obesity drugs are already on the market, but they are generally used for short-term weight loss and are aimed at the brain and appetite; they don’t directly target metabolism.
Researchers can’t guess how long it might take before a drug based on the new findings becomes available. But it’s unlikely it would be a magic pill that would enable people to eat anything they want without packing on the pounds. And targeting this fat pathway could affect other things, so a treatment would need rigorous testing to prove safe and effective.
The gene glitch doesn’t explain all obesity. It was found in 44 percent of Europeans but only 5 percent of blacks, so other genes clearly are at work, and food and exercise still matter.
Having the glitch doesn’t destine you to become obese but may predispose you to it. People with two faulty copies of the gene (one from Mom and one from Dad) weighed an average of 7 pounds more than those without them. But some were obviously a lot heavier than that, and even 7 pounds can be the difference between a healthy and an unhealthy weight, said Manolis Kellis, a professor at MIT.
He and Claussnitzer are seeking a patent related to the work. It was done on people in Europe, Sweden and Norway, and funded by the German Research Center for Environmental Health and others, including the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
Researchers can’t guess how long it might take before a drug based on the new findings becomes available. But it’s unlikely it would be a magic pill that would enable people to eat anything they want without packing on the pounds. And targeting this fat pathway could affect other things, so a treatment would need rigorous testing to prove safe and effective.
The gene glitch doesn’t explain all obesity. It was found in 44 percent of Europeans but only 5 percent of blacks, so other genes clearly are at work, and food and exercise still matter.
Having the glitch doesn’t destine you to become obese but may predispose you to it. People with two faulty copies of the gene (one from Mom and one from Dad) weighed an average of 7 pounds more than those without them. But some were obviously a lot heavier than that, and even 7 pounds can be the difference between a healthy and an unhealthy weight, said Manolis Kellis, a professor at MIT.
He and Claussnitzer are seeking a patent related to the work. It was done on people in Europe, Sweden and Norway, and funded by the German Research Center for Environmental Health and others, including the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
“It’s a potential target” for drug development, said Dr. Sam Klein, an obesity researcher at Washington University in St. Louis. He called the work “an amazing study” and “a scientific tour de force.”
Dr. Rudolph Leibel, an obesity expert at Columbia University in New York, used the same term — “tour de force.” Still, some earlier research suggests the FTO gene may influence other aspects of obesity such as behavior and appetite.
“It’s possible there are several mechanisms being affected,” and that fat-burning is not the whole story, he said.
A couple of years ago the New York Times wrote about a game changing workout that would get you fit in only seven minutes. Yes, rather than endure 30-60 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity most if not all days of the week, seven minutes every now and then was suddenly enough to cure that heart disease of yours. The strange thing was that the New York Times, a relatively reliable source, had claimed that the workout was scientific.
This contradicted everything I learnt during my seven years at university. Therefore, today I ask in an outraged, yet concerned voice: is the scientific seven minute workout actually scientific?
Why it might be scientific:
Well the seven minute workout was first brought to the light in an article in a scientific, scholarly journal in 2013. For those of you who don’t know, this is basically a book full of studies and scientific articles that nerds who like exercise read – I am one of these nerds. The article did a review of the scientific studies to date on high intensity interval workouts. At the end it outlined an extremely high intensity, bodyweight exercise regime that could potentially lead to results equivalent to hours of endurance and resistance training combined, based on said studies. This is all good, well and even awesome, but there are a couple of barriers before we can call the seven minute workout truly scientific.
The first is that the studies referenced in this article utilised high intensity training of longer durations. Essentially meaning there is no evidence from this article that seven minutes is long enough for a workout.
The second is that the authors of the article advocate performing the article two to three times, suggesting even they’re not sure whether seven minutes is enough.
The third and perhaps the final, is that they did not directly test the effects of their seven minute workout and workouts that only used a bodyweight circuit. That was until now……
Is it actually scientific?
Yes, the year of 2015 brought the first, and as far as I’m aware, only study directly assessing the effects of the seven minute workout. Nervous? I am.
The study had 96 university students, for eight weeks, perform either: 1. Their normal exercise regime; 2. Seven minute circuit workouts; 3. Four weeks of seven and four weeks of 14 minute workouts.
Improved muscular endurance (number of push-ups) in both the seven and 14 minute group was observed compared to the normal exercise group. The same was true for strength, but only in male participants. Finally, aerobic fitness was also assessed, but only found to have been increased in women in the 14 minute circuit training group.
Is it healthful?
The scientific seven minute workout is slightly healthful. Well, it’s probably better than doing nothing. It will likely improve your muscular endurance and perhaps strength – depending on what sex you are; however, it may not be enough to enhance cardiorespiratory endurance. Further, there are many other variables that exercise alters, that have not been assessed.
Based on the the paper I brought up initially, high intensity workouts of longer duration appear very effective, but to date there is no proof seven minutes is enough.
I hold a Doctor of Physiotherapy, Bachelor of Exercise Science and am a qualified personal trainer. I have extensive clinical and research experience and a strong passion for all things health. This has driven me to write the blog: Is it healthful, in order to analyse sound scientific research to determine if a product, service or intervention is healthful, or simply a waste of money or time.
