Categories
Economics

[2737] Tiered fuel subsidy regime won’t work. Cash transfer is better

I rarely agree with Rafizi Ramli on policy matters. His advocacy for free tertiary education is an example; I think there has to be cost to education and if help is required, it has to be selective based on needs, not through blanket means which can have disastrous effect on public finances. His suggestion for the auctioning of approved permits for imported vehicle is another; auctions it will make things more transparent but it will not cut car prices down. But I do agree with him on some other issues and his position on the tiered vehicle-fuel subsidy regime as proposed by the government is reasonable.

He does not think well of it and I think the proposed system is horrible.

As reported in the papers, low-income consumers will enjoy full subsidy, mid-income consumers will get a quota of subsidized fuel and those in the high-income brackets will have to pay the unsubsidized price.[1]

Rafizi argues those enjoying full subsidy can resell their fuel to other groups at a price higher than the subsidized level but below market price. I think so too. The government can make such transfers illegal but being illegal does not mean it will not happen. And I cannot imagine the authority spending considerable resources to hunt down on a whole lot of Malaysians trying to benefit from such loophole in the tiered system. Rafizi has explained it rather well and so, if you want more explanation I suggest you give his blog a read.[2]

Because of the major loophole, I am not so convinced there will be any savings from the restructuring at all. In an efficient market faced with such tiered regime, people will buy subsidized fuel through the low income group (the new middle man) only. So, the cost of the government maintaining the proposed much-more-complicated system can be as expensive as, if not more than, the current simplistic blanket subsidy system. It can be as expensive because the quantity of subsidized fuel purchased will not go down in an efficient market. It can be more because you have to keep a more complex control system for the system to really work. If you want to fight post-sale transactions, then you will have to consider enforcement cost, on top of the actual fuel subsidy cost itself.

We do not live in an efficient market but I can easily imagine a lot of people doing it, if not all. This is already happening for subsidized diesel that companies enjoy from the government. The smuggling of fuel to outside of Malaysia is another proof that it is already happening. These two examples are example of tiered markets.

And remember, the beneficiary of the proposed tiered system is the lower-income households. They need the money. They have a strong incentive to resell their subsidized fuel to others who do not have access to it. Others in the mid-income brackets can be as saving-driven as others. There is an uncaptured producer (or is it consumer?) surplus there and it makes sense to internalize that surplus. The only who will not care are the super-rich who cannot be bothered with the hassle (unless they organize a smuggling business themselves, eh?).

It helps the low-income households, but that is such an expensive and a complex way to do it.

I prefer the plain old subsidy cut to the tiered subsidy (though I think Rafizi disagrees with this). Plain old subsidy cuts guarantees savings.

And if we want to help the low-income households, I prefer cash transfer, like I have always for the longest time. We already have the BR1M program. Just improve on the infrastructure. Cash it directly into the bank accounts of these low-income households. If they do not have an account, create one for them. Address the abuse and corruption instead. No need to get overly creative on this matter.

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

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR: Only those with a monthly income of below RM5,000 and cars with an engine capacity below 2,000cc will be entitled to unrestricted purchase of subsidised petrol under the new petrol subsidy system, according to a report by Sin Chew Daily yesterday. The report said the target is to launch the new system in the third quarter of this year. Those who earn between RM5,000 and RM10,000 per month will only be able to purchase 300 litres of subsidised diesel and RON95 petrol per month, the Chinese daily said in the report. Those with a monthly income of RM10,000 and above will have to purchase RON97 petrol, which will be based on market prices and without any subsidy. [Fuel subsidies to be means tested, says Sin Chew. The Edge. June 3 2014]

[2] — Berdasarkan maklumat yang dilaporkan setakat ini, saya khuatir sistem subsidi baru petrol dan diesel ini akan mewujudkan pasaran gelap yang menjual petrol dan diesel seperti berikut:

1. Kumpulan yang dibenarkan membeli petrol dan diesel pada harga subsidi boleh membeli secara kerap dan menyimpan petrol dan diesel ini;

2. Mereka kemudian menjual kepada ejen pasaran gelap yang membeli petrol dan diesel ini pada harga yang lebih tinggi;

3. Ejen pasaran gelap kemudian menjual petrol dan diesel ini pada harga yang lebih rendah dari harga pasaran kepada syarikat, pengusaha atau pun orang persendirian yang mahu mendapatkan harga petrol dan diesel pada harga yang lebih rendah. [Sistem Subsidi Baru Petrol & Diesel: Risiko Penyelewengan Dan Kesan Berganda Kenaikan Harga Barang. Rafizi Ramli. June 3 2014]

Categories
Economics

[2736] House price growth is collapsing! Just kidding

If you have been following the Malaysian House Price Index published by the National Property Information Center (NAPIC) in the past few years, you would probably have seen some sharp drops in house price growth. You would think, all the government and the central bank’s initiatives were working well.

But if you were really paying attention to it, you would notice that the series has been suffering from drastic revisions since 2010. You would realize the revised drops were shallower than before, or it was not really a drop at all. Which makes me unsure about the effectiveness of all those tightening by the authority.

I have noticed this for quite some time now but it was only recently that I decided to look into it. And true enough, the latest data point from the index usually underestimates the rise in prices. Or more accurately, the preliminary reading underestimates the final data.

You can see the difference between the revised data and the preliminary data below (red is the revised/actual  index and blue is the series if there is no revision at all):

20140602 MHPI

The revised series is just the latest series available from NAPIC, which is reproduced by Bank Negara Malaysia in its Monthly Statistics Bulletin. For the unrevised data series, I had to go through old databases maintained NAPIC and the central bank and collate all preliminary readings for each quarter.

You can see how drastic the revisions can be from the chart above. If you like numbers, the root mean square deviation for 2003-2009 is 0.9% while the average RMS for 2010-2013 is 3.3%. I chose 2003-2009 and not earlier because earlier unrevised figures are somewhat unreliable because they were not published every quarter.

The drastic revisions give a very wrong impression of reality (assuming the revised series gives the right version). That may sound obvious but if you know nothing of the revisions, the series may scare you. In 1Q13 for instance, you would see a sharp collapse price growth, which would probably push homeowners into panic mode (see the blue series below):

20140602 MHPI comparing indexes

If pre-revised data is to be believed, house price growth slowed to 6.0% YoY in 1Q13 vs 12.2% YoY in the previous quarter. The end is near, one would say. Finally, BNM tightening were working, you would say. But after revision, growth was at 10.7% YoY (the short red line in the second chart), much higher than the preliminary release.

From the look of the revised index, house prices growth are decelerating, but only slowly.

More importantly, since the preliminary data is subject to large revisions, there is essentially a 6- or 7-month recognition lag. It is only after 6-7 months that you can say something about house prices with great confidence from reading this index. If you do not have the patience, then the only thing reliable from the preliminary data is the direction of change.

Categories
Economics

[2735] How has the deficit cut drive affected the GDP?

The Malaysian federal government appears committed to cutting its fiscal deficit down to 3.0% of NGDP by 2015 (from 3.9% in 2013) and then balancing it by 2020. I think the 2015 target is achievable, especially with the GST coming in next year. As for the 2020 goal, that is far into the future to matter right now (in any case, I am a bit skeptical).

The deficit is slowly coming down. Sure, the expanding NGDP has helped a lot in bringing the ratio down but yearly government expenditure in 2013 did grow only 0.4% YoY, in contrast to the double-digit yearly growth seen recently. You could see it from the annual deficit in absolute terms. It was MYR43.8 billion in 2010 and in 2013, it was MYR39.5 billion.  There is seriousness in the deficit cutting exercise, even if it is a recent phenomenon.

The seriousness however may bring another problem.

The combined government spending and government investment (public GFCF) figure has been growing pretty slowly. I would not call it austerity like some have. That is just loose talk. But still:

growth public sector

We do not really see the effect of slower public spending-investment growth on the RGDP headline in 1Q14, which grew 6.2% YoY, partly due to a low base effect (I think if you somewhat control the base effect, real growth might come out to 5.3% YoY, which is okay). Exports have been recovering strongly and that hides the weakness in government-related GDP components. Government-related components, make about 20%-30% of the total GDP.

Not that I am advocating more government spending. But if you are worried about just the headline growth regardless of its components, then this should probably bug you.

The strong export recovery also hides a weakening private consumption expansion caused by the subsidy rationalization exercise, which is a bigger issue. Private consumption makes up 60%-70% of the GDP. It grew slower from 7.4 YoY in 4Q13 to to 7.1% YoY in 1Q14. The 7.1% YoY is not a bad growth but it would likely decelerate further, with more subsidy cuts seem to be on the way as well as that expected benchmark rate hike. Also, the 2H13 private consumption growth rates were pretty high: it would be hard to maintain the same rates unless the consumers and the private sector get some big break. A break would mean no more subsidy cut for the year.

In short, the strong export recovery would probably hide the slower expansion experienced by the domestic GDP components in 1Q14.

Exports would like continue to grow for the rest of the year, but I am unsure how it well it would carry the whole economy when the other pistons are having issues (and one purposely being suppressed).

Categories
Politics & government

[2734] Obama in Kuala Lumpur, a disappointing townhall session

I was lucky enough to get invited to a townhall meeting where Obama talked about the US involvement in Asia. The President gave a speech and I thought he touched on many issues which are close to Malaysia, from equality, rule of law, how democracy is not just about elections, to security in Asia. The audience loved it when he talked about equality, clapping immediately forcing him to pause. A particularly touching story was about an American teacher from Boston in Malaysia, who after the bombing, encouraged her Malaysian students to write letters to the victims, highlighting the people-to-people relations that exist between the US and Malaysia.

The audience also clapped almost every time he said a Malay word. Yea, cheap thrill. Every time he shouted “Go Blue!” at my university (he gave a speech at Michigan a week or two back), a tiny part of me would vote for the Democrats even though I am a libertarian.

I thought he set the tone for the townhall session. A good, critical tone. But it was not to be.

This was the chance of a lifetime to ask the President of the United States of America important questions at the time when the Trans-Pacific Partnership is under negotiation and the temperature in the South and East China Seas is rising, becoming the ground for the next Great Game. But it was wasted by ridiculously fluffy questions about his regrets, about his values, about “share with us how Malaysia can become a rich country”, about… what on earth is going on, ask real questions you sheep!

I was so frustrated that I raised my own hands, hoping that Obama would pick me. I wanted to show these people what a critical question would sound like. I had two questions in mind:

  1. How confident are you that the TPP would be closed given that you do not appear to have the Congress’ full support?
  2. What the US is doing to ensure resolution in the South China Sea will come through peaceful means?

But with about 300 people, the chances of me being chosen by the US President himself was less than half a percentage point.

There are other questions one could ask, from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to Iran, climate change, North Korea to… oh god, the Pivot to Asia, to MH370, to the US position towards the sharia laws, to… plenty of real issues. This is the leader of the United States, the world’s superpower. Not Justin Bieber goddammit.

It was quite unbelievable the quality of questions asked. These guys cannot possibly have a university degree.

Obama tried to relate his answers to the bigger relevant picture, probably trying to make the questions respectable. I do not remember all the details. I think he made a statement about how a country could not possibly succeed if the minority in the population were discriminated against. Right there, a direct rebuke of Malaysia’s racial policies. There were between-the-lines messages in it. He tried to raise the standards I think. But there is only so much one can do with a terrible question. I meant, terrible questions.

So, here is how I feel. He gave a respectable speech but the actual townhall session itself was an utter, horrible disappointment.

Still, I am glad that I was there.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved
p/s — The White House just released the transcript from the townhall session. Judge the questions for yourself.

Categories
Humor Society WDYT

[2733] Today’s Friday sermon will be about…

It is that part of the week again when government-sanctioned mosques deliver government-prepared sermons to all Muslims beforeFriday prayer. Here, I give you a chance to guess what will the topic be today. Hurry. The sermon will be due in an hour. You can choose up to two options.

What will the topic of today's Friday sermon be?

  • Goods and services tax is good for us all (7%, 1 Votes)
  • Hudud is good (13%, 2 Votes)
  • Supporting the government is an obligation (0%, 0 Votes)
  • Income tax deadline is coming up. Remember to file your tax and fulfill your obligation (0%, 0 Votes)
  • Jews are the scourges of the world (0%, 0 Votes)
  • Other non-Muslims are the scourges of the world (13%, 2 Votes)
  • Christians are trying to confuse Muslims (20%, 3 Votes)
  • Liberalism is the scourge of the world (0%, 0 Votes)
  • Communism is the scourge of the world (0%, 0 Votes)
  • The Great Satan is visiting Malaysia. Be careful! (13%, 2 Votes)
  • LGBTs are sinful people (0%, 0 Votes)
  • Illegal gatherings are illegal! (20%, 3 Votes)
  • Free speech is bad (0%, 0 Votes)
  • There is no such thing as absolute freedom (7%, 1 Votes)
  • Others (7%, 1 Votes)

Total Voters: 9

Loading ... Loading ...