Friday, 18 March 2011
Musicals To See Before You Die
My Fair Lady
Les Miserables
Phantom of The Opera
La Cage aux Folles
West Side Story
Company
The Sound of Music
Wicked
Gypsy
The King & I
Sunday In The Park With George
Sweeney Todd
Oklahoma!
South Pacific
Oliver!
A Little Night Music
Funny Girl
Cabaret
The Lion King
Mamma Mia
The Jersey Boys
The Producers
Cats
Guys & Dolls
Porgy & Bess
Finian's Rainbow
Little Shop of Horrors
Fantasticks
Brigadoon
Camelot
Carousel
Fiddler on The Roof
Chicago
Into The Woods
Evita
A Chorus Line
Showboat
Young Frankenstein
Dreamgirls
The Music Man
How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying
Ragtime
Hair
Hello, Dolly!
Follies
Godspell
Musicals are know for their showstopper tunes. I have included a few that stuck:
The showstopper in Les Miserables, Do You Hear The People Sing?, was absolutely marvellous in the musical, it was grand, rousing ... makes me think maybe some people in a certain country could use it very well (don't mention names la). I can very well imagine the majority of the public singing this song, wouldn't that be loverly?
The showstopper in La Cage aux Folles, I Am What I Am, where the drag queen displays his bitterness at being sidelined by his son because of his being a drag queen. Its a powerful song which speaks for self actualisation, confidence in our own choices in life.
The brilliant showstopper, Defying Gravity, in Wicked (a genius prequel to The Wizard of Oz story, you will look at the Wizard and the Witch differently after the show). Have to click on link as they won't let me embed this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g4ekwTd6Ig
This next showstopper was at the end of the musical Carousel, a rousing number which later some silly football club stole it and regarded it as their birthright.
Finally, I had to feature this by Colm Wilkinson, whom I think has the best male voice on the musical stage now. He sings Bring Him Home from Les Mis, as he was praying for the life of his daughter's love. Its easily better than I Dreamed A Dream from the same musical.
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
Who The Heck Is Stephen Sondheim?
The first layer of musical 101 would be loving to bits The Sound of Music, The King & I , West Side Story (Bernstein / Laurents) and My Fair Lady. If you did not dig beyond that, you have a whole treasure trove to unearth. The ones behind some of the greatest musicals had to be
Rodgers & Hammerstein:
Oklahoma!
Carousel
The King & I
The Sound of Music
Flower Drum Song
South Pacific
Alan Jay Lerner & Frederick Loewe:
My Fair Lady
Camelot
Brigadoon
Stephen Sondheim basically was the musical force in the 1970s-2000s, though many would not have the chance to view all his works. His major works include:
A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum
Sunday In Park With George
Passions
Assassins
His more popular ones:
Sweeney Todd
Into The Woods
Company
A Little Night Music
Follies
His music and lyrics were made for the theatre, I don't think he could write a song on its own. He thrives in the story, the settings, the characters, the nuances ... and although his music compositions are sublime, its his lyrics that sets him apart from the humdrum. Musicals usually have a light hearted feel about everything, until he came along and broke the mould. Emotional, cynical, sarcasm, morbidity ... all enveloped with his brilliant comic timing and honing in on the underlying scarred feelings of his characters.
Here, I would like to feature just a few songs from his repertoire:
Send In The Clowns, plenty of people loved the song, but may have misconstrued the deeper meanings to the lyrics. Its not about circus clowns. The lyrics "up in midair" may have misled many thinking there is a trapeze artist about. This is easily Sondheim's best composition, more so for his lyrics. It was from the musical A Little Night Music, another under rated musical. I shall not bore you with the background of what the musical was about. The song is bitterly sad, sung by one who is middle aged, who has had her share of adventure and the good life, and a few relationships. It was unrequited love twice. Once when she was young and wanted to do her stuff, now she is older and knows what she wants, but he is not available anymore. The lyrics are heart wrenching and gut bursting.
Why then send in the clowns? When you are in an intimate conversation with your loved one and things got so awkward, not knowing what else to say and high-strung, you wanted something to fill the dead air, a tension breaker ... so send in the clowns. Which is all the more poignant when Sondheim ended one of the chorus with "don't bother they're here" meaning to mock themselves as the clowns are the two of them in fact. ... and the best versions would be by Bernedette Peters and believe it or not, Judi Dench.
Isn't it rich?
Are we a pair?
Me here at last on the ground,
You in mid-air.
Send in the clowns.
Isn't it bliss?
Don't you approve?
One who keeps tearing around,
One who can't move.
Where are the clowns?
Send in the clowns.
Just when I'd stopped opening doors,
Finally knowing the one that I wanted was yours,
Making my entrance again with my usual flair,
Sure of my lines,
No one is there.
Don't you love farce?
My fault I fear.
I thought that you'd want what I want.
Sorry, my dear.
But where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.
Don't bother, they're here.
Isn't it rich?
Isn't it queer,
Losing my timing this late
In my career?
And where are the clowns?
There ought to be clowns.
Well, maybe next year.
We have all heard the song Somewhere, a very beautiful soaring heartfelt tune, but the lyrics completes the masterpiece. On its own its a feel good song, but in the context of West Side Story it was the yearning for all the down trodden for a place and time where equality and fairness are for everyone. Guess what, the music was by Leonard Bernstein and the lyrics by Sondheim, that was before he embarked on writing full musicals on his own. ... and nobody sings that song better than Barbra Striesand.
There's a place for us,
Somewhere a place for us.
Peace and quiet and open air
Wait for us
Somewhere.
There's a time for us,
Some day a time for us,
Time together with time to spare,
Time to look, time to care,
Someday!
Somewhere.
We'll find a new way of living,
We'll find a way of forgiving
Somewhere.
There's a place for us,
A time and place for us.
Hold my hand and we're half way there.
Hold my hand and I'll take you there
Somehow,
Someday,
Somewhere!
This following song was from the morbid Sweeney Todd, yes most would know that movie musical starring Johnny Depp, but it was a huge musical success for Stephen Sondheim. In the musical, the song is sung amidst a lot of killings and cannabalism, Sondheim fleshed out the motivations of two deluded souls who can still be around each other despite them being crazed killers. ... again its Barbra that does it justice.
Nothing's gonna harm you, not while I'm around.
Nothing's gonna harm you, no sir, not while I'm around.
Demons are prowling everywhere, nowadays,
I'll send 'em howling,
I don't care, I got ways.
No one's gonna hurt you,
No one's gonna dare.
Others can desert you,
Not to worry, whistle, I'll be there.
Demons'll charm you with a smile, for a while,
But in time...
Nothing can harm you
Not while I'm around...
Being close and being clever
Ain't like being true
I don't need to,
I would never hide a thing from you,
Like some...
No one's gonna hurt you, no one's gonna dare
Others can desert you,
Not to worry, whistle, I'll be there!
Demons'll charm you with a smile, for a while
But in time...
Nothing can harm you
Not while I'm around...
Lastly, another song from Sweeney Todd, Pretty Women ... combined with The Ladies Who Lunch from the musical Company. Putting the two songs together was a great idea, sung by Barbra again. About pretty women who have too much time on their hands. You get an idea of how brilliant Sondheim is as a lyricist, and the music is spectacular of course. On their own, the songs are very good but they are even more textured when viewed and listened as part of a musical.
Pretty women
Fascinating...
Sipping coffee,
Dancing... pretty women
Pretty women
Are a wonder.
Pretty women!
Sitting in the window or
Standing on the stair
Something in them cheers the air.
Pretty women
Silhouetted...
Stay within you,
Glancing... stay forever,
Breathing lightly...
Pretty women,
Pretty women!
Blowing out their candles or
Combing out their hair,
Even when they leave
They still are there.
They're there
Ah! Pretty women, at their mirrors,
In their gardens,
Letter-writing,
Flower-picking,
Weather-watching.
How they make a man sing!
Proof of heaven as you're living,
Pretty women! Yes, pretty women!
Here's to pretty women,
Pretty women,
Pretty women,
Pretty women
Here's to the ladies who lunch--
Everybody laugh.
Lounging in their caftans
And planning a brunch
On their own behalf.
Off to the gym,
Then to a fitting,
Claiming they're fat.
And looking grim,
'Cause they've been sitting
Choosing a hat.
I'll drink to that.
And here's to the girls who just watch--
Aren't they the best?
When they get depressed
Its a bottle of scotch,
Plus a little jest.
Another chance to disapprove,
Another brilliant zinger,
Another reason not to move
Another vodka stinger
I'll drink to that.
And here's to the girls who play wife--
Aren't they too much?
Keeping house but clutching
A copy of LIFE,
Just to keep in touch.
The ones who follow the rules,
And meet themselves at the schools,
Too busy to know that they're fools.
Aren't they a gem?
I'll drink to them!
Let's all drink to them!
So here's to the girls on the go--
Everybody tries.
Look into their eyes,
And you'll see what they know:
Everybody dies.
A toast to that invincible bunch,
The dinosaurs surviving the crunch.
Let's hear it for the ladies who lunch--
Everybody rise!
Rise!
Rise! Rise! Rise! Rise! Rise! Rise! Rise!
Rise!
Monday, 14 March 2011
Five Millionth Readership
Something to celebrate I think. Considering its just Malaysia mainly. Sigh ... if it was an American blog, I guess I could be multiplying that 10x, then maybe can really monetise it.
So, anyone wants to buy this site for RM5m???
Saturday, 12 March 2011
Facebook, Groupon and now Zynga
Farmville ... where you buy a little piece of make believe.
Sydney Morning Herald:
Mark Pincus has amassed a $US1 billion fortune selling bits and bytes that have no intrinsic value to an army of virtual farmers and city planners. Every month, 275 million people sign on to one of Pincus's addictive games, paying real money to buy virtual seeds and crops in Farmville, to construct fake buildings in CityVille or to expand their criminal empires in Mafia Wars.
Pioneers of the "virtual goods" market, Pincus's company Zynga - just three years old - earned $850 million in revenue last year and is now valued at between $US7 billion and $US9 billion, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Mark Pincus, founder of San Francisco-based Zynga, creator of FarmVille
It's not a new phenomenon. For years people have been spending real money to buy their own virtual islands and toys in the online world Second Life , while others have spent thousands on rare items in online games such as World of Warcraft. Last year, a virtual space station in Entropia Universe sold for $US330,000.
But with Zynga, virtual goods have hit the mainstream, with everyone from stay-at-home mums to university students shelling out big for intangible items. The immense success of his virtual empire has seen Pincus join the Forbes Billionaires List this year with a net worth of $US1 billion.
'Who would pay for non-existent things?'
If you can't understand why anyone would pay real money for fake goods, you're not alone. Even Gigi Wang, chair emeritus of MIT/Stanford Venture Lab (VLAB) - which connects high-tech entrepreneurs with investors, technologists and venture capitalists - initially dismissed the idea.
"When I heard about virtual goods several years ago, I just thought it was stupid. Who would pay for non-existent things?" Wang told Fairfax Media's Digital Directions conference last week.
But then Wang discovered that Farmville players were spending $US100 million a year on virtual tractors, seeds and animals. She cited research estimating that in the US alone the virtual goods market overall will reach $US2.1 billion this year. Now Wang herself is a virtual goods convert, having recently spent $US30 on boosts in the game Bejeweled Blitz.
It's an enviable business model, as the marginal cost of producing an additional virtual tractor or sword costs the virtual goods companies virtually nothing, allowing for huge margins. It's become such a lucrative market that some buy virtual real estate as investments, while others hire armies of people working in sweatshop conditions to farm for virtual gold, which can then be traded for real money.
Facebook is further fuelling the growth of virtual goods with its currency called "Facebook Credits", which can be bought using credit cards and are spent within Facebook apps.
The legal issues thrown up by virtual goods have been far from intangible. Last year four virtual property owners sued Second Life developer Linden Lab for giving them the false impression that they actually owned their online holdings. In 2009, Taser International sued Linden Lab for allowing players to sell virtual tasers. But the case was dismissed after changes were made to remove Taser's trademarks.
Hundreds of millions of players
The AppData.com website reveals that city-building simulation CityVille and Farmville - available through Facebook or mobile apps - have 93 million and just under 50 million monthly users, respectively, making them the top two apps worldwide.
A spin off of Farmville set in the US old west rather than on a farm, FrontierVille, has just under 19 million users and Mafia Wars has a little less than 13 million.
A Sydneysider, who wished to be known only as Kim, 49, said she used to spend hours every day on Farmville and Cityville but recently was forced to cut down. She has so far avoided spending real money on the game but has invested countless hours of her time.
"At the moment I've had to cut down because I ended up actually getting myself tendonitis in my arm," she said in a phone interview.
Sign of a dotcom bubble?
Some have suggested that Zynga's huge multi-billion-dollar valuation is evidence of a new dotcom bubble that is almost certain to burst. Adding further fuel to this view is skyrocketing valuations of Facebook and Twitter, which are pegged at $US65 billion and $US10 billion ,respectively.
But Sydney-based Niki Scevak, an entrepreneur who created real-estate site Homethinking.com, has been following industry developments for some time and is convinced this is not the case.
The last dotcom boom and bust just over a decade ago saw very young companies going public early, with little revenues to show for their huge valuations. This time around, finance is coming from private means and the valuations are justified by giant revenue streams.
"Facebook and Zynga generate large amounts of cash, while growing at huge growth rates at scale," said Scevak, who is also the driving force behind Sydney tech entrepreneur mentorship program Startmate.
"There isn't a lot of cash being burnt (Groupon, Facebook and Zynga aren't even using [investors'] money to fund normal operations, it's for existing shareholders to sell out or for acquiring other companies), companies are staying private longer than they did and traditional internet firms are trading a bargain prices. If you want a bubble then take a look at Australian housing!"
Tuesday, 8 March 2011
Reassessing The Investing Paradigm
![[socolata-scha1+(16).jpg]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_hlm2iFz_SzE/SZwv8ys-CJI/AAAAAAAARLk/CA8n0yxXxNQ/s1600/socolata-scha1%2B%2816%29.jpg)
Obama and other leaders are careful and cautious in not wanting to send in the military (once again), but its oil we are talking of, and many of the global democracies would like to see Gadaffi out of Libya, its their chance. Obama would not like to be trigger happy, something if Dick Cheney was in power, he would have sent troops to Libya already. Maybe he is waiting for more countries to "support him in a military operation" because he certainly won't want the US to take the lead again. If much of Europe agrees to do so, we could see a "coalition of armies" which will make any infiltration more a "collective like effort" than a US one. EU faces a massive problem as there will be plenty of displaced people rushing to all of Europe as refugees, which will take a toll on their feeble recover with the additional social cost to their systems.
Key members of OPEC, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Nigeria, are lifting oil output to push back oil prices, which have soared during the unrest in the Arab states, Tuesday media reports said. The move would address global concerns that the unrest in the Arab nations might interrupt global oil supplies, as well as worries that higher oil prices might send inflation soaring or depress economic growth, reports said. In particular, a production increase at the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries would about make up the shortfall in supplies out of Libya, which is currently wracked by a civil war, reports said. Kuwaiti Oil Minister Sheikh Ahmad al-Abdullah al-Sabah told reporters Tuesday that OPEC was in talks about increasing production but hadn't yet decided to do so.
The bulk of the OPEC members are also in the same pattern of domestic unrest, and its in their interest to NOT let oil price surge because further climbs will derail the recovery in the US and Europe, making the latter group more prone to military action - something the majority of OPEC big boys do not want to see happening. If it happens to Libya, it would encourage the dissidents in their own countries even more. So, we have OPEC there looking out for ways to ensure oil does not get too high. Expect OPEC to increase production release soon if Libyan crisis continues.
Britain and France said they were seeking U.N. authority for a no-fly zone over Libya, as Muammar Gaddafi's warplanes counter-attacked against rebels and aid officials said a million people were in need. Rebels swiftly rejected an olive branch offered by an associate of Gaddafi, and fighting escalated around a key oil port. The aging autocrat warned that if he fell thousands of refugees would "invade Europe." With civilians surrounded by forces loyal to Gaddafi in two western towns, Misrata and Zawiyah, fears grew of a rising humanitarian crisis if the fighting continued. U.N. aid coordinator Valerie Amos said more than a million people fleeing or inside the country needed humanitarian aid.
The United States and its NATO allies edged closer Monday to formulating a military response to the escalating violence in Libya as the alliance boosted surveillance flights over the country and the Obama administration signaled it might be willing to help arm Gadhafi's opponents. Europe, meanwhile, kick-started international efforts to impose a no-fly zone. What this all means is that OPEC will have to act soon to buy time.
![[socolata-scha1+(2).jpg]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_hlm2iFz_SzE/SZwvG3jLQrI/AAAAAAAARJ0/c2PFWniz-Jk/s1600/socolata-scha1%2B%282%29.jpg)
These are the options:
a) Gadaffi admits defeat, everything is well again, markets rise
b) Gadaffi hangs on by killing more Libyans daily, the human casualty will prompt the US and NATO allies to act with strong global support, once they move in, we can expect a swift demise for Gadaffi, markets rise
c) OPEC acts to lower price of oil which may delay the US and NATO from military action, but the morality of not acting when civilians are being massacred will force the hand of the US and NATO. How soon? I say, Gadaffi has less than 1 week to surrender, either way, markets should rise soon
![[socolata-scha1.jpg]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hlm2iFz_SzE/SZwvG2ms_jI/AAAAAAAARJs/vNNJPhaMLgU/s1600/socolata-scha1.jpg)
I think the global markets have over reacted on the downside because we are really talking of oil in the $105-110 range. Yes, it will hurt some industries more but its not debilitating so. Remember we were there at $125-135 sometime back, how bad was it then? The above picture would point to a speedy resolution one way or another. I would side towards the optimistic bunch of investors willing to go long now.
Saturday, 5 March 2011
No More Hajime, So Hanare It is
For reasons that were not made known, Hajime seems to have stopped their operations, either for renovation or change of owners or ....??? because it certainly isn't for a lack of clientele. Anyways, heard some good stuff about a place that has been opened for just a few weeks a couple of hundred meters away called Hanare.
Its not cheap, but they get their supplies freshly flown from Tsukiji, I think 2 or 3 times a week, so cannot go wrong.
Its pricey, but not excessively so. Since its fresh, get all the raw stuff man. The oysters were good 8/10. Their Japanese chilli dipping sauce was surprisingly good, even thought of discarding my Tabasco sauce.
You would see this usual moriwase platter in any Japanese restaurant but I tell you, they are very fresh and delectable. Sushi 9/10, the rice had the right mix of sake and tinge of salt, even the cucumber ones tasted lovely.
The clams soup was very good, had a lovely smokiness to it, but @ RM28 a bowl, its waaay too expensive 9/10 though.
Pity their sake list is limited but at least they have one Daiginjyo, very aromatic. Served in this wonderfully designed mini glass flask, with a shrewd opening for you to put in ice, so that it keeps the sake cold and does not dilute the sake at the same time.
Cold soba imported, better than decent, I have had better though, 7/10. Btw, there is something about their nori, be it the ones they use for soba dip or for sushi, there is that special crunchiness and textured taste of soy, its different.
Well, sushi was good, so sashimi cannot be far off, 9/10.
My one annoyance, if its going to cost about RM250pp, I think they should at least use better quality disposable chopsticks or real ones.
Ground Floor, The Intermark
182 Jalan Tun Razak, KL
Tel: 03-2164 2133/2164 2633
For a more intimate review and better photos, check out the link below by A Whiff of Lemongrass:
http://www.awhiffoflemongrass.com/?p=1604
Thursday, 3 March 2011
Over-Valued Housing Prices: Australia, HK, France
Australian house prices remain the most overvalued in the world, according to the latest quarterly ranking of global house prices by The Economist magazine.
Based on a historical gauge of home prices to rents between 1975-2010, the magazine estimates that Australian residences are 56 per cent over-valued, exceeding the 54 per cent over-priced rate in Hong Kong and 48 per cent in France.
"There may be good reasons for Australian prices to have risen so far, but people made similar, and ultimately incorrect, arguments for the run-up in prices in the West," The Economist said in a statement accompanying the survey's release.
The report may stoke debate on whether Australia's property market is a bubble waiting to pop.
The Economist's survey of 20 countries follows recent house price data released this week, which shows capital city value fell nationally by 1.6 per cent in January, a result of higher interest rates and floods in Queensland and Victoria deterring buyers.
Australia's city home values fell 1.6 per cent, seasonally adjusted, to $465,000 after rising 0.2 per cent in December, according to RP Data-Rismark figures. Outside the major cities, they fell by 1.2 per cent in the month.
Global house price survey
Countering the concerns over a bubble, however, is the weakness in housing construction. Figures out yesterday showed new building approvals slumped in January by the most in more than 8 years, although much of the drop may reflect disruption caused by widespread flooding in the month.
Setting the pace
The Economist also noted that, while Australia's economy had outperformed most in the developed world in recent years, the recent surge in house prices might be hard to justify.
"In the years before the financial crisis, Australia's economy set a hard, fast pace for the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world," the article in The Economist said.
"Its house prices rose faster than Britain's or America's (although Ireland's outstripped them all) and its current-account deficit gaped wider for longer. But its economy proved strong-livered."
"[Australian] house prices fell from March 2008 to March 2009 (as measured by the weighted average of the eight state capitals), then resumed their rise," the magazine said. "In the year to the first quarter of 2010, they jumped by 18.8 per cent!"
The Economist suggests the best way to limit the damage from a property bust is for regulators to exercise direct control over the amount of debt available to property owners and developers.
In the years before the financial crisis, Australia's economy set a hard, fast pace for the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world. Its house prices rose faster than Britain's or America's (although Ireland's outstripped them all) and its current-account deficit gaped wider for longer. But its economy proved strong-livered. House prices fell from March 2008 to March 2009 (as measured by the weighted average of the eight state capitals), then resumed their rise. In the year to the first quarter of 2010, they jumped by 18.8%!
This week in The Economist we will publish our quarterly index of house prices around the world. Australia's homes are the most overvalued in the index. The ratio of prices to rents in the country is fully 56% above its long-run average (see chart).
The question now is whether Australia's hair of the dog treatment will work, or whether the property market will suffer another bite. Yesterday the RP Data-Rismark index showed prices rising by just 1.2% in the year to January. Compared with the previous month, they fell by 1.6%.
Many economists in Australia argue that the country's lofty property prices are justfied by a variety of fundamentals. Immigration has swelled the population, and zoning regulations, infrastructure charges and the like have imposed artificial constraints on the availability of land. (I must confess that I smile when I read about land scarcity in Australia. I am writing this from the 60th floor of an office tower in one of the most crowded places in the world. If Australia were as densely populated as Hong Kong, it could accommodate all of the world's people seven times over.)
These fundamentals no doubt matter. But one of the virtues of a price-to-rent ratio is that it takes them into account. If immigration is putting upward pressure on house prices, it should put upward pressure on rents too. And if developers can't build homes, they can't build rental homes either. Those factors may justify high prices. They don't justify high price-to-rent ratios.
The difficulty in using these ratios (or any other) as a measure of overvaluation is knowing what the ratio should be—what counts as an equilibrium? In our house-price index we take a simple historical average from 1975 to 2010. But perhaps something has changed in Australia in that time that now warrants a higher ratio. The chart above is certainly suggestive of some kind of structural break after 2000*. If you compare today's price-to-rent ratio with its average over the past ten years, it is overvalued by 12%, not 56%. Compared with its five-year average, it is overvalued by just 3%.
If things are different now, why might that be? Low interest rates and financial liberalisation is one answer. But Ireland, Britain and America enjoyed those too. What marks Australia out of course is its extraordinary resource boom. The country's terms of trade (the price it can fetch for its exports, relative to the price it pays for its imports) is at its highest since the 1950s (see chart). So perhaps lucrative exports of iron and coal justify rich valuations for bricks and mortar?
In a recent paper, Patrizia Tumbarello and Shengzu Wang of the IMF show that a 10% improvement in the terms of trade tends to lift Australian property prices by about 5%. What they don't investigate is whether it raises the ratio of prices to rents. I think it's at least possible that a resource boom affects asset prices, like houses, differently from the price of a service, like rental accommodation. The bright prospects in mining and minerals will attract capital inflows into the resource sector, which might bid up the price of other assets in the economy. And in buying a house, the average Australian might see a way to crystallise the future income he expects will trickle down to him from the commodities boom.
Thanks to the improvement in the terms of trade, the average Australian's expected lifetime wealth has increased. In theory, he should be able to enjoy some of that windfall in the present, by borrowing against his future gains. But his bank might prefer it if he borrows to buy a concrete, collaterisable house instead. That way, he can either withdraw housing equity, if he wants to consume his future earnings, or accumulate it, if he wants to save them.
It's a bit like lining your stomach, before you go out drinking.