Author: Hafiz Noor Shams

For more about me, please read this.

Categories
Economics

[1169] Of market liberalization or government intervention?

There has been noticeable liberalization in the Malaysian economy. Statement by the Managing Director of Khazanah Nasional Berhad, Azman Mokhtar further affirms the trend of an increasingly liberal economy:

KUALA LUMPUR, March 28 (Bernama) — Khazanah Nasional Bhd is prepared to cut its stakes in government-linked companies (GLCs) in line with the government’s aspiration to reduce its stake in state-controlled companies.

Its managing director, Datuk Azman Mokhtar, said the government investment arm was committed to reducing its GLC stakes in a gradual and orderly manner. [Khazanah Ready To Cut Stakes In GLCs. Bernama. March 28 2007]

This is in line with sentiment expressed by the chairman of Khazanah, the Prime Minister himself:

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi recently announced that the government would reduce its stakes in GLCs that had high concentration of government linked ownership. [Khazanah Ready To Cut Stakes In GLCs. Bernama. March 28 2007]

However, there might more than market liberalization going on at the moment. I suspect so after reading several sources that seem to suggest that the government might be intervening with the market under the guise of liberalization.

At Bernama today:

KUALA LUMPUR, April 10 (Bernama) — The government will increasingly float the shares of government-linked companies (GLCs) to make the stock market more attractive and competitive, generating interest among foreign equity investors.

“The foreign investors are looking for liquidity and big companies in the market,” Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Dr Awang Adek Hussin said, Tuesday. [Govt To Increasingly Float Shares Of GLCs On Local Bourse. Bernama. April 10 2007]

How could the government intervene in the market through the floating of GLCs’ shares?

A short visit to how a central bank operates might shed some light on the matter.

The central bank to some extent could influence the prevailing interest rate. It does that by buying or selling money. Keep in mind that money comes in many forms and does not necessarily comes in cash.

In order to raise the interest rate, the central bank buys, or perhaps more precisely, hoards money in the market. Once that is done, the quantity of money in the market is reduced and hence, the interest rate goes up. If the central bank would like to decrease rate, it just floods the market with money by selling it. This is a rough explanation but for our discussion, it suffices.

If that is clear, let us consider the equity market. If the government wishes to increase activity, it increases liquidity by releasing its shares to the market. If it would like to curb activity in the market for whatsoever reasons, it buys shares. Instead of a central bank, we have Khanazah, the investment arm of the government.

If that is clear too, it is time to put all that to perspective.

Not too long ago, the Prime Minister said confidently the Kuala Lumpur Composite Index might hit the now famous and magical 1,350 mark. A few days after he shared his opinion, through sheer luck perhaps, the market plunged spectacularly. While the fall was temporary, that was all it took to make the Prime Minister looked bad.

Now, consider the Prime Minister’s expectation and the recent statement on floating GLC’s shares.

If I were the Prime Minister, it would be tempting to act towards the 1,350 goal. One easy way to achieve that goal is by increasing the market liquidity by selling GLC’s shares. Or, more eloquently, in Liar’s Poker:

One trader remembers that “Lewie would say he thought the market was going up, and buy a hundred million [dollar-worth of] bonds. The market would start to go down. So Lewie would buy two billion more bonds, and of course the market would then go up. After he had driven the market up, Lewie would turn to me and say, ‘See I told you it was going up’…” [Liar’s Poker. Michael Lewis]

Hence, the possibility of government interference in the market. Of course, it is not intervention if the reduction of government influence in GLCs is done genuinely for the sake of liberalization.

But the question remains: are we seeing real liberalization or is it just a convenient cover to self-fulfill a Notradamus-style prophecy (oops, I mean expectation…)?

Categories
Economics

[1168] Of what is up with Suria Capital Holdings?

In between writing papers, I scourged the internet today to look for good companies which I could reasonably park my idle cash in. It did not include deep research but rather, just casual reading. After awhile, I stumbled upon Suria Capital Holdings Berhad and it looks reasonably okay. The company operates ports in Sabah and, according to various reports, is cash rich. Further, future outlook for ports in Sabah is rather rosy especially with increased production of palm oil as well as discovery of new crude oil fields in Sabahan waters. The ports of Sabah is expected to be beaming with activities. I was all excited, looking for the final push to buy Suria Capital’s share until I saw Parti Bersatu Sabah alleges that Suria Capital might be sold to private sector group:

KOTA KINABALU: Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) today urged the State government to confirm reports that it was in the process of selling its controlling shares in Suria Capital Bhd. to private sector groups. [PBS : BN government planning to sell Suria Capital. Parti Bersatu Sabah. Januart 29 1999]

At the moment, Suria Capital Holdings is controlled by the state government of Sabah.

Upon seeing that, I immediately realize that some of the risk associated with buying the a piece of the Company. It is politics of protectionism and it could be problematic. Yet, it was way back in 1999.

While I have not heard a real controversy involving the company yet, in my mind, the probability of such thing happening increased tremendously after I read a report written as late as January 2007 that a possible buyer of Suria Capital might be Temasek Holdings, the investment arm of the Singaporean government:

PETALING JAYA: Suria Capital Holdings Bhd, which operates all of Sabah’s seven ports, has caught the eye of Singapore government-linked companies (GLCs).

The GLCs are keen to acquire a substantial stake in Suria, sources told StarBiz yesterday. If a deal were struck, the Singapore GLCs would have equity exposure to the ports in Sabah, which is believed to be the world’s biggest exporter of palm oil. [Singapore GLCs eyeing Sabah ports. The Star. January 18 2007]

Whoa!

There is no other interesting news regarding Suria Capital except for this:

Suria Capital Holdings Bhd has proposed a two-into-one share capital reduction and the reduction of its share premium account to eliminate its accumulated losses, which stood at RM352.04 million as at Dec 31, 2006. [Suria proposes 2-into-1capital reduction. The Edge Daily. April 2 2007]

That led to this:

Suria Capital Holdings Bhd share price fell as much as 18.8% or 13.5 sen to a month’s low of 58 sen in early trade on April 3 after it proposed a two-into-one share capital reduction. [Suria down 18.8% to 1-month low on share capital reduction. The Edge Daily. April 3 2007]

In return:

Suria Capital Holdings Bhd’s capital restructuring plan will not have a negative impact on the value of its shares, its group managing director Datuk Abu Bakar Abas said.

He said on April 5 that the technical adjustment on the share price would reflect the same value immediately before and after the exercise. [Revamp no impact on Suria Capital share value, says MD. The Edge Daily. April 4 2007]

I will not pretend to understand why the price fell but it has since recovered some ground. For today in fact, the price has risen to approximately 75 sen from 68 sen.

So, should I buy or pass?

After making a killing at Dialog, I am feeling a little bit gung-ho. Hmm…

Nevertheless, with limited time for research and subsequently, information, the fundamentals seem to be there.

Categories
Economics

[1167] Of a fall of 0.2% or 7.2%?

An article by Bernama highlights that the Malaysian industrial production index falls 0.2%:

KUALA LUMPUR, April 9 (Bernama) — The Industrial Production Index (IPI) for February 2007 fell 0.2 per cent to 123.0 compared with 123.2 in February last year. [February Industrial Production Index Down 0.2 Pct. Bernama. April 9 2007]

While true, the magnitude of drop from the previous month is actually 7.2%:

Compared with the index of 132.5 in January 2007, the IPI for February 2007 dropped 7.2 per cent. [February Industrial Production Index Down 0.2 Pct. Bernama. April 9 2007]

Is this bad news?

Without more information, I cannot really say. From the look of it, through limited data, it seems like seasonal fluctuation and nothing more though. I however am tempted to link the decrease to the fall in demand for electronics in the US.

Regardless, this is how the index looks like at the Department of Statistics of Malaysia:

By the Department of Statistics of Malaysia. Public domain?

What do you think?

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s — okay. I forgot about seasonal adjustment. Now, I am embarrassed.

Categories
Economics Society

[1166] Of wanna work in the US?

Well, bad news:

On the day after it began receiving applications for H-1B work visas, the US Citizenship and Immigration Service reported yesterday it had already received more than double the number of applications it is permitted by law to grant for 2008. The same limit took two months to reach last year.

While H-1B grants are officially capped at 65,000, USCIS reported receiving over 150,000 applications as of Monday afternoon. [H-1B Visa Limits Hit After Only 1 Day. Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews. April 4 2007]

Hat tip to Jiinjoo.

Categories
Liberty Society

[1165] Of tale of two courts: common denominator

I am in the opinion that the trend of the strengthening role of religion in Malaysia reaches a new level after the civil court directed a Hindu to seek redress in the sharia court. For the past several months, the civil court has delegated many cases to the sharia court whereas the civil court should have deliberated on it instead. From a layperson’s point of view, this action increasingly widens the scope and the power of the sharia court over all Malaysians. This creates great controversies and indeed, it is another in a series of cases which test the boundary of the civil and sharia law.

This is a very worrying trend. Having the executive branch of the government enforcing religious rule in one thing, having the judiciary trading off civil liberties for religious conservative value is quite another. The judiciary is supposed to be the bulwark against the religious conservatives. When the bulwark starts to fail, the perfect analogy would be when the dykes of the Netherlands start to leak. The consequence of the leak needs no explanation.

In Malaysia right now, more than ever, we need a little boy to plug his little finger into a tiny hole, stopping the leak. This is because we as Malaysians have achieved so much since we last formed a federation in 1963. If the dyke fails, we have too much to lose.

As a libertarian, the legitimacy of the sharia court is only possible through the consent of individuals being judged by such court. I for instance only accept any sharia court ruling on me if I assent to be judged by the court — indeed by the sharia law — in the first place.

For certain reasons in this country, Muslims have two courts in this country; those courts are civil and sharia. While I have issues of being judged in the sharia court, the bigger issue is when there is an overlap between civil and sharia laws. In particular, this occurs when Muslims and non-Muslims’ interests collide.

When such event happens, in order to resolve the dispute as civil as possible, all sides will have to agree upon on whom should be the arbitrator. When there are more than one kind of courts and each side preferring one court or the other with such preference never coincides, there must be a common denominator that everybody could or must fall back to settle the original dispute. In the case of two courts, the common denominator is the civil court.

Why the civil court is the common denominator?

I like think the reason is the obvious. While the sharia law in Malaysia in theory governs certain aspects over Muslims (regardless of what I think), the civil law governs all. It is through this reasoning why the civil court is the common denominator. Again as a libertarian, this common denominator argument is valid to all, regardless of religious belief.

If we refuse to have a common denominator, to accept the civil law as the common denominator, perhaps it is better for us to quit trying to embrace each other, to live and let live, to live separately, peacefully.