Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Sites | Writers | Advertise | My Orble | Login
Singapore is undoubtedly one of the best-run economies in the South East Asian region. Through heavy government intervention resulting in a period of sustained growth lasting for decades. Not bad considering it is basically governed by a (basically) one party, semi-authoritarian system. Even more impressive is how, despite having virtually no opposition and being in rule since the country was formed, the government has been able to fend off the insidious threat of corruption that plagues other nations in the region.

Now, the Singapore government has traditionally displayed very conservative fiscal policy, and as a result has generated consistent budget surpluses. The government has always had a very strong presence in the economy. However in recent years we have seen a rising degree of market liberalization in Singapore, especially in the wake of the East Asian financial crisis. The collapses of 97-98 showed the Singaporean government the dangers of too much intervention, and subsequently they have been moving towards a more liberal approach. Indicative of this rethink is the reduced level of taxes, which are among the lowest in the both the region and the world, except for the GST (which has been increasing over the last few years).


In terms of monetary policy, the main concern is the exchange rate. The value of merchandise imports/exports in 2007 stood at 344% of GDP, so any fluctuations in the price of the Singaporean dollar are a major concern. The government has allowed the dollar to appreciate by 8-9% against the US$ to counteract the inflation that comes along with sustained economic expansion.

Which leads me to my question: how will the global recession (which now seems inevitable) affect an economy as exposed as Singapore's? In a word: badly. The dependence of the Singaporean economy on foreign trade will result in some tough times ahead. Singapore, with their well governed banks, should avoid the majority of the fallout from the sub-prime crisis, even though the government recently guaranteed all bank deposits for the next couple of years. This could indicate that their economy will not fare as badly as others, at least not in the short term. However, a global recession will cut into that trade that is so vital to the health of the Singaporean economy, which will be a worry to the government.


I am in two minds about where the Singaporean dollar is heading though. I can see two major factors contributing to any shifts.

1. The Future - Singapore, like I said, does not have smooth sailing ahead, given that a global slowdown will hurt them more than basically anyone else. This is not, however, hard to see, and people will want to get their cash out of Singaporean dollars before it begins to depreciate.

On the other hand:

2. Economic and Political Stability: The last time an economic crisis rocked this region, it resulted in the fall of the ruling regime and the near-destruction of the regions largest economy. The fallout from our current crisis is anyone's guess. Singapore, however, is a safe haven in the region, a center of stability both in their economy and government. People in the region will want somewhere safe to put their money until things quieten down, and Singapore is probably it.

So we have one force that could potentially drive the currency down, and one that could see it appreciate... In my opinion, we will see the Singaporean dollar strengthen until the outcomes of this crisis are more apparent, at which point we will see investors regain some of their appetite for risk and return to the more volatile south east asian economies.

However, is a long-term downward trend really what the government there wants? No. Above all, the Singaporean government associates predictability and sustainability with a good environment for businesses, and therefore will not want to see any unpredictable fluctuations in the economy. This is why, in my opinion, we are going to see a reversal of the current trend of market liberalization in Singapore, and see the government adopt a more interventionist approach as they try to maintain the economic stability that has served Singapore so well to date. Whether or not they will be able to achieve these goals is another matter though.
46
Vote
   


Economic Stability in Indonesia

October 20th 2008 07:44
Since I have focused all of my uni assignments on the financial crisis, I figure, why stop now.


Just how safe is Indonesia?


Now, after 1997 we all know that Indonesia isn't the most financially stable place in the world. I was there when the currency crash, and subsequently when Suharto got kicked out in 97 & 98 respectively. Now, it appears, the specter of widespread financial chaos is haunting Indonesia once again. But will this time be any different?

In a nutshell, the answer is yes. In 97, Indonesia was a much different place to what it is now. Under Suharto's Orde Baru (New Order), the country had seen substantial economic growth, but at the cost of an oppressive political regime. I'm not going to go too much into the causes of the 97 crash, that's a story for another time, but in a nutshell it was caused (at least in Indonesia) by a huge lack of confidence, resulting in currency flight, etc.

Anyhoo, some researchers (namely Chowdhury and Sugema, 2005) have called into question Indonesia's ability to cope with a financial crisis, and their hypothesis goes a little something like this. Indonesia has been a recipient of a fair (read: large) amount of foreign aid, and as a result this has resulted in the govt becoming lazy, at least in terms of domestic resource mobilization. Now, they have a point. Indonesia is not exactly world famous for it's domestic taxes. As a developing country, most of Indonesia's economic activity occurs at the 'cottage' level, and this stuff is tax-free (source). Because they got bailouts from foreign aid when the times got tough (post 97, post tsunami aceh, to name a couple), they didn't need to straighten out domestic taxation to the greatest theoretically possible degree. Well, according to the researchers, as soon as another economic crisis comes along, Indonesia would once again be reliant on foreign aid to get through it.

Is this the case? No. Like I said, Indonesia today is a lot different to the Indonesia of 97. Hell, it's a different Indonesia to the Indo of 2005, when the article was written. The country is flourishing under a (pretty fair) democratic system, corruption is having its ass kicked left right and centre by the KPK, there has been sustained economic growth.

Now, how will the crisis affect Indonesia? First up, they saw a huge drop in the share market, and suspended trading after losing over 20% in 3 days. However, this drop is mainly due to wories over the Bakrie group, which accounts for over 1/3 of daily trading. The head of it is (not officially, but everyone knows it) corrupt as hell, and has held a couple of (interest conflicting) government positions. His family seems magically immune from corruption investigations, surprise surprise. Their group took on $1.25 billion in debt due to the crisis, which is what triggered the share market collapse. However, they are selling off a number of shares in a number of their businesses, already including a Rp 1 Trillion share sale to Avenue Capital group from their real estate wing.

So really, Indonesia seems to be weathering this storm pretty well. The share market will rally when the Bakrie woes are eased, which shouldn't take too long. The govt increased bank deposit guarantees by 20 fold, in a move to ease confidence worries and prevent a run on the banks. They saw enough of bank stampedes in 97, they don't want them again.

But is it enough? Several other South East Asian nations have guaranteed all loans (such as Malaysia and Singapore, to name a couple). Will we see large bank deposits flood out of Indonesia and into these banking safehavens? Again, it's all about confidence. While $200k may be alot to average joe, it's peanuts to a big company, and as soon as confidence in that financial security is questioned then they are going to run for the hills (of singapore and malaysia).

Furthermore, the Indonesian government has eased accounting rules in order to stimulate business growth. Now, while I can see the logic for this in the short run, is this really such a wise move? If memory serves, it was lax accounting standards and a lack of regulation that got the world economy into such a state in the first place. Indonesia is going to have to be very careful to avoid similar consequences 10 or more years down the track.

Anyway, just a bit of food for thought. The stability of the entire SEA region hinges on their economies and how well they are going to weather this financial storm, but if their largest economy is any indication then the outlook might not be so bad.

44
Vote
   


Here's the lineup, I'll leave the judgment to you.

Suspect 1: Credit Default Swaps.

This is my prime suspect. Basically, CDS is insurance against a default on a loan. Company A pays company B an amount upfront and then premiums on top, and company B provides insurance against one of company A's loans defaulting. So basically, if company A lends out money and there is a loan default, company B reimburses company A.

So how does this simple sounding contract threaten the whole financial world? Well, for one it's called a swap instead of insurance (which it is), so frighteningly it isn't regulated by the government. Why is this frightening? The CDS market is worth an estimated $62 trillion US. Just to put that in context, the American GDP is roughly 14 Trillion. So in other words, if you take every single dollar generated by the US for the next 4 years, that is still less than the amount of unregulated money floating around in the form of CDS trading.

Furthermore, you don't have to own the underlying asset to take out a CDS contract. If you think company A will default, you can go ahead and make a CDS contract.... it's straight out gambling, with scores of trillions of dollars at stake. THAT is where this all went horribly wrong. Furthermore, CDS is subject to counterparty risk, so if one party goes bankrupt (such as Bear Stearns for example), then all the premiums you paid to them as well as your insurance, all gone.
That's why the US bailed out Bear Stearns, because it had trillions of CDS on its books, and had they gone under, these trillions = gone. Just like that, a large part of your GDP, up in smoke, and that's something Mr. Bush couldn't allow to happen.

That's it in a nutshell, but you can get a better understanding of the CDS angle here.

p.s. I'm not exaggerating this at all. Warren Buffet called financial derivatives 'financial weapons of mass destruction'... oh Warren, if only we'd listened.

Suspect 2: Lack of Regulation

Now, this sort of links in with the whole CDS issue, because they aren't governed by regulation. However, there's a bit more to it than that. Another widely-cited cause of the widespread economic pandemonium is the sub-prime mortgage crisis. What caused this?
Well, basically, the mortgage lenders were flush with money, and started pumping out sub-prime mortgages (mortgages with clients that had a history of bankruptcy, troubles with finance, etc). Anyway, these lenders fraudulently over-estimated property values and incomes, to push out more money. It was all about getting the fees off the loans, and no one cared about the ability of the borrower to repay the loan. Well, that came back to bite them when all of these borrowers started defaulting, but that's where the lack of regulation came into it. Had this market been better regulated, people would not have received mortgages far beyond their ability to repay, and that whole mess could have been avoided.

Source: here.

Suspect 3: The Housing Bubble and America's Hedonistic Society.

Living in the now. Instant gratification. Hedonism.

How does that link to our current predicament? Well, listen closely. Americans love spending. Americans spend $800 billion a year more than they earn, resulting in a debt ratio of 130%, up from 100% earlier in the decade (Source). What does this have to do with housing? Well, to quote the wiki page again, "ome homeowners used the increased property value experienced in the housing bubble to refinance their homes with lower interest rates and take out second mortgages against the added value to use the funds for consumer spending."

So what happened? As happens to all bubbles, the housing bubble burst. Suddenly, these second mortgages were on houses that weren't worth quite so much at all anymore. End result? Everyone loses. And because the extra cash had been spent on consumer spending instead of investment (see? Hedonism), these people were left floundering, and so was the financial system that enabled them.

There are other causes, but from what I can tell these are the big 3. I am, however, by no means an expert on this topic, so any input or debate over these points is welcome.
32
Vote
   


Islamic banking is a banking system based on the rules of Sharia, or Islamic law. The main differences between these banks and traditional banks is that Islamic banks cannot charge interest, and they must share in both the risk and rewards with the borrower. I won't go into it too much here, but for a better understanding, I would recommend visiting the wiki page, found here.

The way in which Islamic banks lend to businesses is what is of particular interest. The banks charges a floating interest rate, which is pegged to the borrower's rate of return, basically meaning that the bank's profit on the loan is equal to a percentage of the borrower's profits. This profit sharing continues until the principle amount of the loan is repaid


[ Click here to read more ]
48
Vote
   


Welcome

October 16th 2008 09:32
A Business Student's Spin on a the Business World
25
Vote
   


More Posts
5 Posts
5 Posts dating from October 2008
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:

Someone's Blogs

1725 Vote(s)
53 Comment(s)
35 Post(s)
3875 Vote(s)
412 Comment(s)
83 Post(s)
Moderated by Someone
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]