Categories
Economics

[2789] What happened to second quarter consumption imports?

There is something quite weird going on in the imports data.

In the last quarter, we all know we had GST for the first time. It replaced an older consumption tax. After all have been said and done, the effective rate was higher than it was under the old regime. That means higher tax. You could also see it in the inflation figure that hit 2.4% YoY in May from almost 0.9%% in March when retail petrol prices took a dive.

There were concrete proofs of frontloaded purchases happening from the 2015 first quarter GDP statistics. From the 2014 fourth quarter even. Consumers did buy everything to avoid paying the new consumption tax. It happened on a scale grander than the ridiculous lines formed at the petrol station each time a price hike was announced. The GDP consumption component rose 8.8% from a year ago in 2Q15 at a time when credit growth was very weak. Bank loans used to increase more than 10% YoY each month. Now, it is about 9% YoY. All those lending requirement tightening are working.

201508GDPCvsLoanGrowthMalaysia

There is not much correlation from the chart above but the theory is, weak credit growth should affect spending growth negatively. Less money for everybody. The GDP consumption spike is jarring in that aspect, lending credence to the frontloading theory.

If the theory is right, we should see considerable weakness in private consumption growth in the second quarter. And there are quite widespread anecdotes of weaker consumer activities all around. Some statistics like car sales are extremely weak, providing more concrete proof to rely on.

On the surface, merchandise imports data suggests the same thing. In terms of value, it fell 5.2% YoY in the second quarter. In term of volume stripping off the price effect of depressed commodity prices like crude oil, gas, palm oil and rubber, it fell about 4.8% YoY in the same quarter.

So far, so good for the frontloaded purchase theory.

But there is a wrinkle.

Malaysia is a huge trading nation and it is an integral part of the global supply chain. We import not just end goods but also intermediate goods used for the production of other goods. Some are reexported.

Deep down beyond the import headlines, we can see some of these at work. The cause of import contraction however does not seem to be weak consumption growth. In fact, imports of consumption goods have been growing strongly despite the GST in the second quarter (and also despite the weakening ringgit).

201508consumptionImportsJune2015Malaysia

I cannot drill down the category too deeply. So, I do not know the exact reason behind the increase in consumption goods. I have heard explanation that goes like this: the imported stuff were really luxury goods and demand for it had not really let up, suggesting a tale of two classes in Malaysia. But I do not know for sure.

The second quarter GDP numbers will be out next week. Perhaps that would provide some answer to the puzzle.

Categories
Economics

[2774] TPP is not just about the US

Among those who oppose the TPP in Malaysia, the US is on their crosshair, always. The opposition is so US-centric that I wonder whether they are anti-TPP, or anti-US. Malaysia has signed several other FTAs in the past years and negotiating more but you do not hear any complaint against those. Among the pro-TPP too, whether it is about trade or involving some kind of geopolitical babble, more often than not, it is about the US and sometimes about Malaysia too.

Yet, Malaysia is negotiating the TPP with 10 other countries and there is hardly any question asked about what these countries want out of Malaysia and what Malaysia would get out in return. Judging from various reports, it is quite clear that what Japan wants is very different form what the US wants, never mind the exemptions requested by all countries to accommodate their domestic political reality. But there are not many questions asked on this front.

Granted, Malaysia has active FTAs with six other TPP countries — Australia, Brunei, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam — through the Asean trade system. There is even one between Malaysia and Chile. The TPP could very well replicate those existing FTAs. But the question I would love seeing asked and answered is how TPP would change the existing ties. Is there any new special request between these countries?

And we know, the TPP has more depth than any of the previous FTAs Malaysia has signed.

What about others that we do not have a treaty with, like, besides the US, Canada, Mexico and Peru? We would have to discuss with them from the ground up. No, there is no question asked here too.

During the Malaysia-Singapore Retreat earlier this week, Singaporean PM Lee Hsien Loong mentioned the TPP. In this video, he mentioned it at 1:11:

That was a chance to ask specific Malaysia-Singapore issues within the TPP. But nobody asked them there. I do not even see any analysis about the TPP coming from the annual retreat.

So, I think this is the area where the debate in Malaysia at least should spread out to.

Categories
Economics

[2700] It is not the end of the world, but that is a bad trade number

Malaysian exports continue to take a hit. This time, it contracted by close to 6% in May. Imports also decreased. Those domestic cylinders better get going.

Malaysian May 2013 Exports

Categories
Economics

[2622] A large open economy is pretty close to a closed economy

The United States Federal Reserve has come under criticism for its third round of quantitative easing – or QE3 – from many countries, especially emerging ones, who are concerned it will lead to the creation of asset bubbles that will cause problems within their economies.

What will be the effect of this QE3 on Singapore’s economy and how is it likely to affect its people in general?

In QE3, the buying of mortgage-backed securities by the Fed will increase the money supply in the US economy and, given the Fed’s policy of low interest rates, the additional money is intended to spur spending by individuals.

The idea is that this increased spending will improve the housing market as well as other industries, which are then likely to employ more workers, thus reducing unemployment. Unfortunately, this scenario is likely to happen only when an economy is a closed one – that is, there are restrictions on trade and capital flow across countries. [Sundaram Janakiramanan. QE3 and the S’pore economy. Today. November 1 2012]

But, but, but… is it not that a large open economy that the US is is pretty much close to a closed economy, professor?

Categories
Conflict & disaster Politics & government

[2193] Of choosing between Iran and the US

The Nuclear Security Summit in Washington D.C. suggests that Malaysia is siding with the United States with respect to the issue of Iran and nuclear proliferation. Apparently, even before the meeting between Prime Minister Najib Razak and President Barack Obama, Petronas, the state petroleum enterprise of Malaysia, has ceased shipping of gasoline to Iran in early March, anticipating an international, or at least a US-led trade sanction on Iran.[1] I say apparent because the Prime Minister claims the report is incorrect, stating it is only a spot sale instead of a stop of some long term contract.[1a] I am unsure what is the truth at the moment.

Notwithstanding the accuracy of the report, I seriously doubt the effectiveness of economic sanctions. I am not a fan of wide-ranging sanction and it is easy for me to rationalize this position.

I am also not a fan of the Iranian government for far too many reasons but if the proposed sanction is as wide ranging as I think it will be — adding gasoline into the list is a big thing — it is likely to hurt ordinary Iranians in Iran more than hurting Ahmadinejad government.

While the possible hardship may provoke popular Iranian sentiment against the Iranian government, such tactic appears too pragmatic — too realpolitik? — for my liking. Furthermore, the large protest immediately after the election in Iran demonstrates how hard it is for such sentiment to prevail.

This thinking of mine is a product of observing both Myanmar and North Korea. What exactly has trade sanction achieved there? Both regimes are still in power. In fact, their policies have hardly changed.

Sanctioning Iran may potentially further isolate Iran like how Myanmar and North Korea have been isolated without any real success in achieving the expressed goal of the sanction.

This has not even considered the fact that for the sanction to work — work in the sense that Iran will not be able to get its supplies from alternative source — the whole world must work together. A sanction by only the US and its allies will benefit others who refuse to participate, at the expense of countries like Malaysia. China for instance is dragging its feet in joining such sanction. If it refuses, the US-led sanction will be worthless.[3]

Despite this, I do appreciate Malaysia’s position and the reality on the ground. Malaysia has a lot more to gain by cooperating with the US than with Iran. Total trade between Malaysia and the US far exceeds that between Malaysia and Iran. Thus, I personally rather have Malaysia be diplomatically closer to the US than with Iran. I for one support better relationship with the US although, I can agree with Tunku Aziz that it should not be done “at any cost”.[4]

Still, ideally, I would prefer to have Malaysia to work with both the US and Iran. To have to choose between the two is an unfortunate choice to have.

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

[1] — Petronas, the Malaysian state oil company, said on Thursday it had stopped selling petrol to Iran. The move follows growing pressure from the US to shut off Tehran’s access to refined oil products.

The company, which is a long-term supplier of Iran, said it had not shipped petrol to Iranian ports since the middle of March. Petronas refused to give any further details on its decision to put an end to sales. [Petronas halts petrol sale to Iran. Kevin Brown. Financial Times. April 15 2010]

[1a] — NEW YORK, April 17 — Foreign news reports quoting Datuk Seri Najib Razak as saying that Malaysia had cut off gasoline supplies to Iran are incorrect, the prime minister said.

The prime minister said Petronas was involved in a spot sale to Iran in mid-March under a third party deal but since then there had been no requests. [Report On Gasoline Cut To Iran Incorrect, Says Najib. Tham Choy Lin. Bernama. April 17 2010]

[2] — Petronas gave no reason for the pullout but an industry source in Dubai said the company wanted to safeguard its business exposure in the United States.

On Monday, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib and US President Barack Obama agreed on the importance of Iran strictly abiding by its obligation under international nuclear non-proliferation pacts. [Petronas halts fuel sales to Iran as sanctions loom. Reuters via The Malaysian Insider. April 15 2010]

[3] — Companies around the globe have been reducing ties with Iran ahead of possible new U.N. sanctions against Tehran’s controversial nuclear program. But a Chinese-owned company is taking a different approach on trade with Iran.

Traders from Singapore say China’s Sinopec oil company is sending more than 200,000 barrels of gasoline to Iran. The move comes as more and more Western nations have cut or reduced business with the Islamic Republic fearing international sanctions. [Chinese Companies Pursue ‘Talk Now, Invest Later’ With Iran. Carla Babb. Voice of America. April 16 2010]

[4] — [The cost of Malaysia-US relations. Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim. The Malaysian Insider. April 17 2010]