Share This

Showing posts with label Debt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Debt. Show all posts

Sunday 3 October 2021

Should we be worried about debt?

 According to Bank Negara’s Financial Stability Review report for the first half of 2021, Malaysia’s household debt to GDP has declined to 89.6% from 93.2% as at end of last year. Although a small achievement,the household debt level remains elevated.

With a current debt-to-gdp of about 125%, the US is not the only country with a huge mountain of debts.

IN recent weeks, global markets were roiled by the mere mention of a four-letter word, debt. From China’s Evergrande Group’s near collapse, as it sat on a mountain of liabilities, to the United States government’s need to raise its debt ceiling.

In Malaysia’s case, we too have not much choice either but to raise our debt ceiling as we look at ways to re-generate the economy with a higher debt room of 65% of gross domestic product (GDP) from 60% currently.

It seems like debt has become one dirty word for investors for the time being, as we all know there is a price to pay when it comes to debt as there is no such thing as a free lunch.

For the US, there is no doubt that they have constantly raised their debt ceiling over the years to ensure they do not default on their obligations.

According to the US Treasury website, since 1960, Congress has acted 78 separate times to permanently raise, temporarily extend, or revise the definition of the nation’s debt limit.

Currently suspended, the US debt ceiling was reset on Aug 1, 2021, to US$28.4 trillion (RM118.9 trillion). For the US, failure is not an option as it will lead to a catastrophic chain reaction to not only the financial market but to the economy as a whole.

According to Treasury Secretary and the former Federal Reserve (Fed) chairperson, Janet Yellen, (pic) the US has never defaulted on its debt before and she was “confident” that the issue would be addressed, despite warning the Congress that the deadline for the debt ceiling is “around Oct 18”.According to Treasury Secretary and the former Federal Reserve (Fed) chairperson, Janet Yellen, (pic) the US has never defaulted on its debt before and she was “confident” that the issue would be addressed, despite warning the Congress that the deadline for the debt ceiling is “around Oct 18”.

According to Treasury Secretary and the former Federal Reserve (Fed) chairperson, Janet Yellen, the US has never defaulted on its debt before and she was “confident” that the issue would be addressed, despite warning the Congress that the deadline for the debt ceiling is “around Oct 18”.

For now, while a nine-week stopgap funding bill has been endorsed by the President on Thursday, which in all likelihood will avoid a government shutdown at least up to Dec 3, 2021, the threat of a US defaulting on its debts remains.

While the US is able to continue to print money by simply passing the law to keep borrowing, the US, just like any other country, cannot go on borrowing forever. With a greater supply of money, sooner or later, interest rates will have to rise as the increase in money supply will likely fuel inflation.

After all, the Fed too expects rates to start rising in 2022 and much more in 2023 onwards.

In the last Federal Open Market Committee just over a week ago, the 10-year and 30-year US benchmark rates have already moved 17 basis points (bps) and 21 bps to 1.50% and 2.06% respectively – as the market begins to price in expectations of the Fed’s tapering move as well as worries if there is going to be lengthy impasse between the Democrats and the Republican or grand old party (GOP) to raise the debt ceiling.

Having said that, as the US has been running budget deficits for the longest time, it would not be too far-fetched to assume that given time, the US will need to raise the debt ceiling yet again in the future.

Hence it was also of no surprise when Yellen commented on Thursday that the debt ceiling ought to be permanently abolished.

In any government’s financial management, it’s either shortfall or revenue, mainly due to inadequate tax collections or excessive spending, which are also a function of debt service charges, and to a certain extent, over-priced development spending or operating expenditures.

With a current debt-to-gdp of about 125%, the US is not the only country with a huge mountain of debts.

So is the rest of the world. In fact, according to the Institute of International Finance (IIF) in its Global Debt Monitor report published on Sept 14, 2021, global debt, which includes government, household and corporate, and bank debt increased by US$4.8 trillion (RM20 trillion) to reach a new alltime high of US$296 trillion (RM1.24 quadrillion).

In essence, over the past six quarters, as the pandemic has caused significant damage to the global economy and unprecedented response from governments, total global debt has expanded by US$36 trillion (RM150.7 trillion) or 13.6% from just about US$260 trillion (RM1.09 quadrillion) as at end of 2019.

Money has to go somewhere

When a debt is raised, be it by the government, a company, or a household, it has to go somewhere. For most governments, debts are mainly raised for development expenditure, and if it is allowed by the constitution, on operating expenditure too.

Debts raised due to the pandemic perhaps has become the norm globally as well, as the government has no choice but to raise the required funding to support the economy.

In the US, the Fed also buys US treasuries and agency mortgage-backed securities and this effectively makes its way into the financial markets.

So while the Fed has expanded its balance sheet by more than 100% since the pandemic, the liquidity it has provided has caused significant gain not only in traditional asset classes but into everything else. Home prices are rising, commodities have boomed and markets are buoyant and cryptos have soared.

In the case of Evergrande Group, many are left wondering if it was a case of a “too-big-to-fail” company. Evergrande became a property developer largely by borrowing.

As a group, they also ventured into other businesses, which among others include electric vehicles, Internet and media production, theme park, football club, and even into mineral water and food production.

Evergrande’s massive business empire, grown out of debt means, while it has substantial assets, it also had huge liabilities. As Beijing has been strong in putting its house in order in the form of new regulations and guidelines for many industries, Evergrande too was not spared.

As early as August last year, the Chinese government had introduced a “three red lines” test for developers to meet if they wanted to borrow more.

This was firstly, liability to asset ratio of not more than 70%; secondly, net debt to equity ratio of not more than 100%; and thirdly cash to short-term debt ratio of more than 1.0.

Hence, the writings were already on the wall on Chinese developers more than a year ago that the regulators were serious in addressing debt-driven growth pursued by these companies. In Evergrande’s case, the debt hit the ceiling.

Why do we go into debt?

Debts taken by individuals are rather straightforward. Of course, there are good debts and bad debts. For most of us, it is for the purchase of big-ticket items like a roof over the head, and for mobility purposes, where most of us own a car.

Of course, we also indulge ourselves with material stuff, either from our savings or credit cards that we will pay off when the time comes. Some of us, due to lack of income or due to financial mismanagement, take on bad debts and that’s where the trouble starts as we are unaware of the consequences of rising personal debts and high-interest cost.

Stories of debts owed to money lenders are common within our society while Bank Negara statistics also show that one of the fastest-growing debt profiles among individuals is personal loans.

This has remained relatively high and has increased by 87.4% over the last five years alone to about Rm73.7bil as at end of August 2021, while its share of the banking system loans outstanding has increased from 2.7% to as much as 4.0% now. 
 
According to Bank Negara’s Financial Stability Review report for the first half of 2021, Malaysia’s household debt to GDP has declined to 89.6% from 93.2% as at end of last year. Although a small achievement, the household debt level remains elevated. For a company, debts should be part of capital management as companies need to not only sustain their business operations but look at opportunities to grow and expand their market share, either via acquisition or via borrowings. However, similar to what we have seen in Evergrande’s case, companies too must observe their own “three-red-lines” to ensure they have the right mix and remain vigilant of its exposure.

Does Malaysia have the room to borrow more?

For Malaysia, with a higher debt ceiling of 65%, the government is effectively allowing itself to have some headway to borrow an additional Rm75bil to support the recovery momentum that most economists now expect will be much stronger in this fourth quarter period and 2022 and as we prepare ourselves for the post-pandemic period.

While we have created this room to enable us to borrow more, we must be mindful to borrow responsibly as debts that are taken today will be borne by future generations.

We also need to chart our way out of this debt-dependency black hole that we have been in since the Asian Financial Crisis of 1998 and get out of this conundrum.

While debt-to-gdp is just a denominator that is divided by a numerator that is steadily growing, we must find ways to manage our overall federal government debt and plan to reduce them post-pandemic.

That is a whole new topic altogether, and next week, this column will explore strategies that Malaysia can deploy to reduce its debt dependency.

  PANKAJ C. KUMAR Pankaj C Kumar is a long-time investment analyst. The views expressed here are his own.   Source link
 

 US federal debt crisis uglier than Evergrande trouble

 
 
 There is much buzz amongst global investors recently about two possible debt defaults, though they are of different proportions in their would-be impact on global equity markets. One is the US federal government's rivers of borrowed money running dry and in urgent need of replenishing. The other is a major Chinese property developer which has run into financial trouble, because the company veered off the road by squandering too much on making electric cars and sponsoring a football club.

As US federal debt default looms, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is facing her biggest test in her eight-month tenure to convince reluctant Republican lawmakers to agree to raise the US' national debt limit, which is currently set at $28.5 trillion. The stakes are high, because if Yellen's effort fails, the US financial system will collapse.

Yellen has called Republican leaders to convey the economic danger which lays ahead, bluntly warning that the Treasury Department's ability to stave off default is limited, and the failure to lift the debt cap by late October would be "catastrophic" for the country and the world.

Six former US treasury secretaries last week sent a letter to top US lawmakers, warning them a default would roil financial markets and blunt economic growth. According to US media reports, Yellen last week also warned the nation's largest banks and financial institutions about the very real risk of a default. She has spoken to chief executives of JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, BlackRock and Goldman Sachs, briefing them the likely disastrous impact a federal default will produce.

To make things worse, both Democrats and Republicans in the US are at each other's throats now over US President Joe Biden's new $3.5 trillion spending bill, which proposes heavy tax raises on rich families and corporations, and has met fierce opposition from Republican lawmakers. Whether they will compromise on the debt limit, by making a last-minute deal with the White House to reduce Biden's giant spending plan remains to be seen.

Market analysts say if the US government defaults on its colossal debt, a financial system crisis of a magnitude larger than the 2008-09 debacle could occur, which is estimated to lead to an evaporation of $15 trillion in wealth and loss of 6 million jobs in the US. The capital market is now on tenterhooks facing a potential financial time bomb.

Last week, the US' major media outlets also focused their reportage on a possible default of a leading real estate developer in South China, but by all metrics, it is a risk of much smaller scale. The case is being closely watched by China's financial authorities and will never be allowed to develop into a systemic risk.

With regard to the privately-run property developer Evergrande, many fear the knock-on effects of the company's imminent difficulty to pay back principals and interests of borrowed money, including corporate bonds and bank loans. But, even if the city of Shenzhen with its deep pockets, where the company is headquartered, refuses to bail out Evergrande, one bankrupt company can hardly impact the stability of China's financial system, and the risks linked to this possibility have been widely overblown by a hyperventilating media.

Executives at Evergrande are launching a last-ditch rescue effort, trying to sell the company's electric car subsidiary and other assets in China and abroad, including the Guangzhou Evergrande Football Club. It is also selling its housing projects scattered in dozens of Chinese cities at a discount to speed up its cash flow. Whether the company is able to stave off a debt default remains unknown.

Evergrande said on Wednesday that it would make an interest payment on an onshore bonds due Thursday, but the company didn't say whether it had plans to make a $83 million coupon payment due on its US dollar bonds within a month.

The city government of Shenzhen, or the central government in Beijing, has not rushed to bail out Evergande most likely in the belief that the company itself is to blame for the predicament - too much leverage and squandering of borrowed funds ploughed into auto making and other fringe businesses and budgeting largesse. Authorities probably want the case to serve notice to investors at home and abroad, that they need to do their due diligence and enforce accountability on debtors.

However, the central government is almost certain not to tolerate a possible bankruptcy of Evergrande to spill over to draw down the broader Chinese economy, as the central bank has done numerous pressure tests since the 2008 global financial crisis, which was caused by the sub-prime housing debts in the US. Last year, the central bank required property developers to bring down their debt levels below certain thresholds before they are able to borrow more money from financial institutions. And, many Chinese commercial banks have ascertained their exposure to Evergrande is restricted.

So, debt-beleaguered Evergrande is unlikely to produce a firestorm and disrupt China's financial system. In addition, both the government and the central bank have plenty of policy tools, including easing overall monetary policy, to tide over Evergande if it goes under. But of course, the last resort is to bail it out and restructure the company, as China has done with other troubled corporations like HNA, Huarong and Baoshang Bank.

The author is an editor with the Global Times. 
 
 
 
Related:
 
 

 

 Government to table motion on raising statutory debt limit to 65% of GDP 

 https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2021/09/30/government-to-table-motion-on-raising-statutory-debt-limit-to-65-of-gdp

 

Saturday 26 May 2018

Malaysia's RM1.09 trillion debt, 80.3% of GDP demystified

Analysts say new government needs to quickly introduce measures to reduce the country’s liabilities


ASSUMING the government repays its debt by RM1mil a day, it would take Malaysia 2,979 years to pay off its debts.

Malaysia’s new Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad revealed on May 21 that the country’s debt level has breached the RM1 trillion mark during his first address to civil servants.

The statement, which was nothing less than alarming, has since raised concerns among Malaysians on the country’s fiscal sustainability. Bursa Malaysia was hammered for four consecutive days, as investors frantically sold off their stakes.

The benchmark FBM KLCI saw the biggest year-to-date decline on May 23, tumbling by 40.78 points or 2.21% to 1,804.25 points.

Total gains made by the index this year were all wiped out in just four days following Dr Mahathir’s announcement.

The ringgit, which has weakened since early April, continues to decline as concerns on public debt loom.

Big impact: The benchmark FBM KLCI saw the biggest year-to-date decline on May 23, tumbling by 40.78 points or 2.21 to 1,804.25 points.


An economist tells StarBizWeek that Dr Mahathir’s public announcement on the high debt figure is “not helping”, as anxiety intensifies among Malaysians and in the market.

For context, Malaysia’s real gross domestic product (GDP), an indicator of the size of economy, was RM1.35 trillion as at end-2017 – close to the said RM1 trillion debt amount.

Meanwhile, the federal government’s revenue this year is projected at RM239.9bil as per Budget 2018.

Several critics, including Umno Youth deputy chief Khairul Azwan Harun, claim that Dr Mahathir’s statement on the federal government debt was exaggerated and far-fetched.

AmBank Group chief economist Anthony Dass says that although the current scenario shows some signs of similarities to the 1997/98 Asian Financial Crisis, he would not conclude that the current fiscal condition is somewhat similar to the downturn 20 years ago.

At a glance, the “RM1 trillion debt” remark stands in sharp contrast to Bank Negara’s debt tally of RM686.8bil as at end-2017, putting the federal government’s debt-to-GDP ratio at 50.8% – lower than the 55% self-imposed debt limit.

Dr Mahathir refutes this, saying that the national debt-to-GDP ratio has shot up to 65.4%. A day after his announcement, Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng put the ratio at 80.3% of GDP, or about RM1.09 trillion in debt as at end-2017.

Why is there such an obvious difference in the debt amount now that a new government is in place?

Here is where “creative accounting” comes into play.

The lower official debt figures released under the previous Barisan Nasional government had excluded the contingent liabilities and several other major “hidden” debts from the direct liabilities, which amounted to RM686.8bil as at end-2017.

Contingent liabilities, which were released separately prior to this, basically refer to government-guaranteed debt and do not appear on the country’s balance sheet. Examples of contingent liabilities are the loans under the National Higher Education Fund Corp (PTPTN) and certain debt of the controversial 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB).

As at end-2017, Malaysia’s contingent liabilities stood at RM238bil.

Funding for several government mega-projects such as the mass rapid transit (MRT) projects was also categorised as contingent liabilities. The MRT lines were funded by DanaInfra Nasional Bhd, the government’s special funding vehicle for infrastructure projects.

DanaInfra raises money from the market through sukuk, which are, in turn, guaranteed by the government. The guaranteed amount is classified as a contingent liability.

In the event of less-than-expected revenue collection from the MRT lines moving forward, the government will have to intervene to repay the sukuk holders.

The current ruling government believes that RM199.1bil out of the RM238bil contingent liabilities deserves attention to ensure proper debt repayment.

The 1MDB alone comes with an estimated contingent liability of RM38bil.

High figure: The 1MDB alone comes with an estimated contingent liability of RM38bil. — Reuters
High figure: The 1MDB alone comes with an estimated contingent liability of RM38bil. — Reuters 

On the remaining government guarantees, the Finance Ministry says they have been provided by “entities which are able to service their debts such as Khazanah Nasional Bhd, Tenaga Nasional Bhd and MIDF”.

Apart from contingent liabilities, there are several major “hidden” debts, which do not fall under both direct liabilities and contingent liabilities.

An economist with a leading investment bank in Malaysia calls the debts “off-off-balance sheet” government debt.

These are the future commitments of the federal government to make lease payments for public-private partnership projects such as schools, roads and hospitals.

Examples of such debt would include the debt of Pembinaan PFI Sdn Bhd, a company owned by the Finance Ministry. Pembinaan PFI was established in 2006 under the previous Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi administration to source financing to undertake government construction projects.

According to its latest available financial statement for 2014, Pembinaan PFI held a total debt of RM28.75bil.

Interestingly, at end-2012, the company’s debt was the third highest among all government-owned entities, just behind Petronas (RM152bil) and Khazanah Nasional (RM69bil).

With no independently generated revenue, the interest payments on Pembinaan PFI’s debts would eventually come from the federal government’s coffers.

The Finance Ministry puts the debt under this third category at RM201.4bil.

All together, Malaysia’s debt and liabilities are said to amount to a total of RM1.09 trillion.

Actually, for those in the loop, the different debt categories and total liabilities are not something new.

Lawmakers from Pakatan Harapan, particularly current Bangi MP Ong Kian Ming, have alerted the authorities about the debt figures over that past few years.

Ong is also currently the special officer to the Finance Minister. The layman might ask, what was the former government’s relevance of classifying these debts into separate off-balance sheet items?

The motive is to make sure the national balance sheet looks healthy and lean.

Economists’ take

Many have questioned the new government’s move to lump contingent liabilities and debt obligations with the direct liabilities. It should be noted that as per the standard procedure of credit rating agencies, only the direct liabilities are taken into the calculation of the debt-to-GDP ratio.

In a StarBiz report this year, Moody’s Investors Service sovereign risk group assistant vice-president Anushka Shah said that by carving out certain expenditures off its budget, the government would be able to optimise its expenditure profile and minimise the associated impacts from its spending.

However, she pointed out that Malaysia’s federal government debt burden remains elevated at 51%, relatively higher than the median of other A-rated sovereign states at 41%.

On the country’s contingent liabilities, Anushka described them as “low-risk” at the current level, and added that the government has been prudent and careful in managing the guaranteed debts.

“We find that the government has adopted rigorous selection criteria when it grants the guarantees to the respective entities.

“The companies which have received guarantees from the government are relatively healthy and have strong balance sheet positions,” she said.

Ever since Dr Mahathir shocked the market with the “RM1 trillion debt” remark, the focus among Malaysians has largely centred on the nominal value of the debt.

A greater emphasis should instead be given on “debt sustainability”, which basically refers to the growth of debt against the growth of the economy.

Economists who spoke to StarBizWeek have mixed opinions on the level of seriousness of Malaysia’s public debt problem.

Suhaimi: Malaysia’s debt has risen faster than economic growth.
Suhaimi: Malaysia’s debt has risen faster
than economic growth. 
According to Maybank group chief economist Suhaimi Ilias, Malaysia’s debt has risen faster than economic growth over the last 10 years.


“In the past decade, officially published government debt and government-guaranteed debt have risen by 10% and 14.5% per annum, respectively, faster than the nominal GDP growth of 7% per annum, which raises valid sustainability risk.“On the government’s debt service costs relative to the operating expenditure, the ratio was 12.7% as at end-2017 and based on Budget 2018 is projected to rise to 13.2%. It has been rising steadily from 9.5% in 2012.

“There is a 15% cap on this under the administrative fiscal rule, while the 11th Malaysia Plan target is to lower the ratio to 9.8% in 2020. The government is looking at the debt issue from this sustainability perspective in our opinion,” he says.


Lee: Malaysia’s rising public debt level warrants close monitoring.
Lee: Malaysia’s rising public debt level
warrants close monitoring.  

Meanwhile, Socio-Economic Research Centre (SERC) executive director Lee Heng Guie says that various indicators of debt burden suggest that Malaysia’s rising public debt level warrants close monitoring to contain the long-term risks of fiscal and debt sustainability.

“High levels of government debt over a sustained period will have economic and financial ramifications over the longer term. Rising public debt could crowd out private capital formation and, therefore, productivity growth.

“This occurs through the competition for domestic liquidity, higher interest rates, a shifting of resources away from the private sector or investment in low-impact projects. This situation is made worse if the government wastes borrowed money on unnecessary projects,” he tells StarBizWeek.

In contrast to Suhaimi and Lee, Alliance Bank Malaysia Bhd chief economist Manokaran Mottain points out that Malaysia’s debt sustainability scenario is yet to be a cause for concern.


Manokaran: Debt sustainability scenario is yet to be a cause for concern.
Manokaran: Debt sustainability scenario is
yet to be a cause for concern.
This is because debt repayments are made on an annual basis as opposed to a colossal one-off payment of RM1 trillion.

“Malaysia’s economic growth of above 5% is sufficient to cover government debt. As long as the economy is growing while the government is able to service the debt charges, it is not really that alarming.

“Even in the United States, the government debt-to-GDP level exceeds 100% at US$21 trillion against the real GDP of US$18.57 trillion,” he says.

Manokaran adds that while total government debt has risen over the years, Malaysia’s annual debt growth rate has been growing slower in recent years.

Deleveraging Malaysia

The government must now move fast to introduce measures to reduce and manage the country’s debt levels. This is highly crucial in assuring creditors and investors that the country’s fiscal health remains uncompromised.

Given the fact that the world is currently at the tail-end of the 10-year economic cycle, it is timely for the government to focus on its ability to fulfil its debt obligations.

In the event of an economic turmoil, a heavily-indebted country would be adversely affected.

Lim has emphasised the federal government’s commitment to honour all of the country’s debts.

“This new government puts the interest of the people first, and hence, it is necessary to bite the bullet now, work hard to solve our problems, rather than let it explode in our faces at a later date,” he said in a statement earlier.

Economists believe that the government must strictly embark on reforming the national expenditure in carrying out debt consolidation.

This includes cutting down on unnecessary expenditure, plugging leakages in the federal government’s finances and containing public-sector wage bills.

Lee has recommended an overhaul the current pension system, considering the unsustainable current trend.

“On revenue reform, the design of tax policy should be fair and equitable in order to be sustainable.

“The push for a wide and investment-friendly reform to boost potential growth should be expedited, as strong investment and economic growth has a huge effect on enhancing revenue growth and reducing public debt.

“On budget planning and development, an oversight body needs to be set up to ensure better fiscal rules, budgetary processes and closer fiscal monitoring to ensure fiscal discipline,” says Lee.

Manokaran says the new government should consider expenditure cuts through the privatisation and reformation of the numerous government-linked corporations, as well as the reduction in size and budget allocation of the Prime Minister’s Office.

On the national mega-infrastructure projects, Manokaran and Suhaimi say that the renegotiation and review of such projects will be vital in managing future debt growth.

Time will tell whether the government can live up to its promise of reducing the public debt dilemma. Pakatan must now balance its “populist” electoral promises and stellar fiscal management policies.

As for now, the government deserves to be complimented for calling a spade a spade, acknowledging the problem at hand.

By ganeshwaran kana The Star

Saturday 6 August 2016

Debt problems remain in oil & gas industry, cast a large shadow on its Malaysian peers, Alam Maritim

Some oil companies that piled on too much debt won't make it in today's world of $40-$50 oil.

THE near-demise of Singapore-listed oilfield services company Swiber Holdings Ltd has cast a large shadow on its Malaysian peers who are facing similar mounting debts, a lack of new tenders and a depleting cash pile.

With oil prices still in a bear market for the second year running, smaller offshore services firms may continue to underperform as high debt obligations will continue to eat up existing cash reserves, say analysts.

Swiber had initially filed for liquidation on July 29 but had subsequently sought judicial management in an attempt to restructure the company’s existing businesses. The firm, which has 51 vessels in its fleet, has a prominent presence in Southeast Asian waters in a variety of jobs.

The effects of the two-year slump in oil prices were clearly seen in Swiber. Its capitalisation had fallen by 90% from its 2013 peak prior to the stock’s suspension last week.

Over the same period, its cash pile has been depleted by a series of debt repayments, which is a recurring theme for companies in the industry that tend to be highly leveraged.

The company’s predicament has put the spotlight on its Malaysian peers. Alam Maritim Resources Bhd, which has two joint ventures with Swiber, will now have to proceed without its partner.

As the joint ventures are vital cash generators for Alam, it is unlikely that the firm will dissolve them following Swiber’s exit. But it is now faced with the choice of buying out Swiber’s stake or finding a new partner, said Maybank IB Research in a note.

“The two JVs, which comprise a pipelay barge and a ship operator, are doing fine. The ventures could generate a combined net profit of RM8-RM10mil, of which Alam’s share is RM4-5mil,” said the research house, which nonetheless remained bearish on Alam with a ‘sell’ call and a target price of just 11 sen.

At the moment, the need to preserve cash flow continuity is of utmost importance in order to service existing debts. According to AllianceDBS Research, domestic contract flow in the oil and gas industry hit its lowest point in nearly four years during the second half of this year (2Q16).

“With utilisation rates at and charter rates at multi-year lows, there are few immediate bullish catalysts in the industry at present. To give just one example, talks of the possible mergers or consolidation in the oil and gas industry have largely fizzled out as there is no extra cash to be spent.” explains one oil and gas sector analyst.

To illustrate the debt load situation, a check on Bloomberg data reveals at least seven companies listed on Bursa Malaysia whose net debts currently exceed their entire market capitalisations.

The companies include SapuraKencana Petroleum Bhd (SapKen), Bumi Armada Bhd, Wah Seong Corp Bhd, and Icon Offshore Bhd, among others.

Meanwhile, at least twelve oil and gas companies have net debt-to-earnings ratios of at least three times, which far exceeds the benchmark FBM KLCI’s ratio of 1.17 times currently.

This financial metric is typically used to measure a company’s ability to service existing debts relative to its earnings performance.

UMW Oil and Gas Corp and Barakah Offshore Petroleum Bhd are among the highest with ratios of 13.71 times and 12.52 times respectively, according to Bloomberg data.

While large cap companies such as SapKen has successfully refinanced a large part of their debt load, the oil and gas industry as a whole remains highly leveraged even now.

Some 20% of Bursa Malaysia listed corporates showed below average debt coverage levels while another 8% were aggressively leveraged, said RAM Ratings in a commentary on Aug 2.

Oil and gas companies are among those with weaker credit indicators and will be most vulnerable to economic stress, it added.

The current abundance of crude oil supply and inventory means that the occasional rallies in the market were short-lived this year.

After hitting a year-to-date high of US$52 per barrel in early June, Brent crude prices have declined by 15% in a month to US$44 on Aug 4.

Supply from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) also rose to a record high of 33.41 million barrels per Aday (bps) in July, which could further dampen any upside potential in the commodity’s price, Reuters reported. - by Afiq Isa The Star/Asian News Network

Alam Maritim on Swiber impact



Azmi says contribution from JV with company not substantial

PETALING JAYA: Alam Maritim Resources Bhd will not feel the heat from financial troubles of its partner, the Singapore-listed Swiber Holdings Ltd.

In fact, Alam Maritim is considering taking over the stake of the troubled-oil and gas (O&G) firm in a project that the companies are working on.

“There is only one project directly contracted with Swiber which is almost fully-completed namely engineering, procurement, construction, installation, commissioning of SK316 development job worth US$76mil,” Alam Maritim group managing director and group chief executive officer Datuk Azmi Ahmad told StarBiz.

The SK316 project is the development of a huge gas field located offshore Sarawak.

The other option for Alam Maritim is to find a new partner to take over Swiber’s role.

He said Alam Maritim had two JV companies with Swiber,

The first is Alam Swiber Offshore (M) Sdn Bhd which is equally owned by Alam Maritim (M) Sdn Bhd and Swiber Offshore Construction.

The second is Alam Swiber DLB 1 (L) Inc, which is 51% owned by Alam Maritim (L) Inc and 49% by Swiber Engineering Ltd.

“The impact is minimal to us as the contribution from the Alam-Swiber JV is not substantial to the Alam Maritim group,” he said.

Swiber, the Singapore-based oilfield services firm was reported to be in talks with its creditors for a possible debt restructuring exercise.

The stock had slumped by nearly 90% since mid-2014, taking its market value to just S$50mil, while the company had flagged delays in orders, raising concerns and sparking demands for cash.

From just 10 vessels in 2006 when it was listed, Swiber had expanded to own and operate a fleet of 51 vessels with more than 2,700 employees across South-East Asia and other countries, according to its website.

Its shares surged after listing, pushing its valuation to S$1.5bil in late-2007, but the stock fell sharply in recent years.

Smaller firm Technics Oil & Gas Ltd was placed under judicial management this month, and analysts said other firms could face difficulties.

Energy and offshore marine companies in Singapore have bonds totalling nearly S$1.2bil due to mature over the next year-and-a-half, with S$615mil due over the next five months, according to IFR, a Thomson Reuters publication.

Alam Maritim, too is facing a challenging period.

On the O&G support services industry, Azmi said the impact of Brexit on the fragile global economy might slow down the recovery of the crude oil prices affecting overall demand and pushing out the rebalancing of the oil market.

“During this challenging period, we are aggressively and continuously embarking on various cost and asset optimisation initiatives to weather the storm,” he said.

Azmi added that Alam Maritim’s vessel utilisation rate was 56%.

“As at June, our order book stood at RM470mil, tender book at RM2.6bil,” he said.

Alam Maritim fell into the red with a net loss of RM19.2mil in the first quarter ended March 31 compared with a net profit of RM8.6mil a year ago.

Its revenue for the quarter shrank to RM48.6mil from RM73.7mil in the corresponding quarter last year.

According to Maybank Kim Eng, the low oil price has resulted in a swift response to cost reduction or renegotiating of contracts, cash conservation due to delayed projects and debts refinancing as well as strategic collaboration exercises.

“It also opened a window of opportunities to exploring mergers and acquisition options.

“About 69 North American exploration and production companies were declared bankrupt between January 2015 and April this year. “Uncertainties and differences in valuation expectations between buyers and sellers are the greatest hurdles. There is currently a buyer-seller mismatch in terms of expectations,” said Maybank Kim Eng in a June report on the sector.

Related posts:

Swiber Holdings SINGAPORE - Singapore oil field services firm Swiber Holdings Ltd filed an application to wind up the company and said a... 

DBS, OCBC and UOB exposed to downturn in energy sector The plunge in oil prices is catching up with Singapore’s three largest banks... 

      Some think it will be years before oil returns to $90 or $100 a barrel, a price that was pretty much the norm over the last decade....

Saturday 28 May 2016

How do we get out of the debt trap without printing more money?

The policy options open to major economies, including China, to reduce debt, before another global crisis hits


ALL of us are worried about growing global debt as a precursor to another round of crises. After the last global financial crisis, 2007-2009, global debt rose to more than US$200 trillion or US$27,000 for each person in the world.

Since 2.8 billion or nearly 40% live on US$2 per day, there is no way that the debt can ever be repaid. The bulk of debt owed by governments, banks and companies will be repaid by creating more debt.

If we are happy to create money, we should be happy to create more debt. Right?

Wrong. The right question is not the size of the debt or liability, but where is the net asset? Individually, we can always repay the debt if we spend less than what we earn, or invested in an asset that generates sufficient income to pay the interest.

Collectively, the government can always borrow to repay, because it can always tax to repay, if not principal, at least on the interest. Countries only get into trouble when they owe foreigners and cannot raise enough foreign exchange to repay their debt.


Charles Goodhart, Emeritus Professor at London School of Economics and one of the foremost thinkers on money and banking has written a series of important articles for Morgan Stanley, analysing the current debt crisis.

Emerging markets

The reason we ended up with more debt than ever is due to three factors since 1970 – the willingness of the financial sector to lend, the increase in global savings relative to investment and the demand for safe assets. Professor Goodhart attributed the structural increase in savings to favourable demographics in the last forty years – particularly as emerging markets like China increased their savings from growth in their labour force that engaged in international trade.

The increase in savings relative to investments created a global savings glut, which meant lower real interest rates.

The willingness of emerging markets to park their excess savings in advanced countries in the form of official reserves and the banks willing to extend credit at lower interest rates created the boom in financialisation. Lower interest rates encouraged speculative activity (funded by debt) rather than investments in long-term productive projects.

When the bust occurred, the advanced central banks wanted to avoid a debt implosion and added to the bubble by lowering interest rates and flooded the markets with short-term liquidity.

The quantitative easing (QE) stopped the widening of the crisis, but its initial success enabled politicians to avoid taking tough action in structural reforms. The result was further slower growth from declining productivity, even as companies and governments continued to borrow, affordable only at near zero interest rates. In short, we are in a debt trap – more debt, little growth.




Negative interest rates as a policy tool was invented by small countries like Sweden and Switzerland to discourage large capital inflows that created excessive currency appreciation.

But for the eurozone and Japan to try that would actually destroy their banks’ profitability, which is why bank shares dropped after these were introduced. If banks think they will lose money, they will cut back lending to the real sector further, negating the objective of QE to stimulate growth. Banks receiving QE funds faced the double prospect of being punished for taking credit risks and also the need to increase both capital and liquidity due to the tighter bank regulations.

Helicopter money

Helicopter money is not about central bankers jumping out of helicopters to atone for their mistakes, but about central bank financing a massive increase in fiscal expenditure – truly monetary creation on a large scale. If this happens, watch out for a rise in gold prices.

Prof Goodhart has carefully analysed the three options for deleverging or getting out of the debt trap. The first is to deleverge by swapping debt for equity, being tried by China.

This is feasible when the country is a net lender and both borrowers and lenders are state-owned entities. The second option is to use inflation to reduce the real value of debt. As the recent experience showed, getting inflation even up to target was tough to achieve.

The third option is to address collateral by inducing lenders and borrowers to renegotiate their debt or make the debt permanent. This is both painful and difficult and is unlikely to be adopted unless other options are tried.

In my view, the true result of the Bank of Japan’s negative interest rates is a tax on the older generation, because they are the ones not spending.

Japan tried Keynesian fiscal spending, which failed to sustain growth but created a huge debt overhang.

The Japanese older generation and the corporate sector keeps on saving because they are worried about the future, not surprising given an aging population and sluggish demand for exports.

So if you can’t increase the inflation tax, or corporate taxation to reduce the fiscal debt, use negative interest rates to reduce the value of savings of retirees and the corporate sector. Only Japanese savers would not revolt under such inequity.

For countries that have net savings and large public assets, like China, there is a fourth option to get out of the debt trap, and that is to re-write the national balance sheet. Most foreign analysts who worry about China’s debt overhang forget that after three decades of growth, the Chinese state has also accummulated net assets (net of all liabilities) equivalent to 166% of GDP.

That can be injected as equity into the overleveraged enterprises and banks if and only if the governance and return on assets can be improved under better management.

In the short-run, a clean-up of the over-leveraged enterprise sector and local government debt, embedded in the official and shadow banking system, will help sustain long-run stable growth. How to do this technically will be explained in the next article.

By Tan Sri Andrew Sheng who writes on global affairs from an Asian perspective.

Related posts:

Mar 19, 2016 ... Increasingly, they use quantitative easing (QE) or unconventional monetary policy to try and expand aggregate demand. The trouble is that QE ...
 
Mar 5, 2016 ... Under globalisation, the smaller reserve-currency countries like the euro zone and Japan can engage in quantitative easing, because instead...

Dec 19, 2015 ... The European Union and Japan are still engaged in quantitative easing and are keeping rates near zero or in the case of the EU, in negative .

Jan 24, 2016 ... ... the recovery has been driven by asset market bubbles, blown up by the injection of cash into the financial market through quantitative

Saturday 4 April 2015

Not all debts are bad

Rising household indebtedness could be a signal of robust consumption pattern that is the driver of domestic economic growth.

Construction workers at work in Kuala Lumpur. About 46 of household debt is for the purpose of financing purchase of residential properties.

Rising household indebtedness could be a signal of robust consumption pattern that is the driver of domestic economic growth.

FEDERAL government debt, external debt, household debt, non-financial corporate debt – these debts amount to billions of ringgit each and there should be proper context and understanding of the different classifications of debts to be fully informed of the economic issues at stake.

At face value, debt is money owed that has to be repaid in principal and interest. To look at debt from a more constructive point of view, debt is also future consumption brought forward. Furthermore, the benefit derived from consuming at the expense of expected future income should equal or even outweigh its associated costs of financing.

The point is, there are good debts and there are bad debts. Debts raking in billions or outstanding loans growing at an increasing rate could potentially be alarming. However, it would be misleading to label huge debts as unsustainable and destabilising before making sense of the origins and the purposes of the money borrowed.

Debts continue to pile up

A recent research on global debt and leverage by the McKinsey Global Institute in February highlighted that global debt continues to grow post-global financial crisis. These debts – the sum of money owed by governments, households, corporates and financial sectors in the 47 countries under the research – have grown to US$57 trillion since 2007 and a significant portion of the growth came from the public sector.

Overall, the research pointed out that only five developing economies showed signs of deleveraging while most of other countries saw increased debt to GDP ratio during the period.

With hindsight, global growth recovery post-global financial crisis has been rather slow and a handful of governments had pursued expansionary fiscal programmes funded through debts.

Unfortunately, as the global pace of growth is still relatively tentative, high level of government indebtedness would take longer time to deleverage.

Meanwhile, the increase in household and corporate sector debts could signal deeper financial system penetration and also recovery in household and corporate balance sheets for private sector expenditure to grow again.

As of end-2014, Malaysia’s federal government debt amounted to RM583bil (54.5% of GDP); external debt totalled RM744.7bil (69.6% of GDP); household debt increased to RM940.4bil (87.9 % of GDP).

In the past four years, the compounded annual growth rate for government debt was 9.4%; 14.4% for external debt and 12.2% for household debt.

While these numbers seem alarming, the major concern over debts arises when they are unsustainable.

While there are concerns over the sustainability of our fiscal deficit over the long term, the Government has embarked on a fiscal consolidation effort in recent years. Because of this, government debt should be under control in line with its commitment to achieve a balanced budget by 2020.

The Government operates on a few crucial self-imposed budgetary rules and it caps the maximum limit of government debt to GDP ratio at 55%.

On external debt, Bank Negara has adopted the new debt definition in early 2014, keeping in line with the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) new guidelines of widening its definition to better reflect the depth in financial markets and the real economy.

In essence, external debt refers to the debts owed by residents to non-residents, be it denominated in ringgit or foreign currencies.

Therefore, the public and private sector’s offshore borrowings, Malaysian Government Securities held by foreigners are included in the classification of the external debt.

Since the last quarter of 2013, the external debt growth has been on a downward trend, easing to 6.9% in the last quarter of 2014, down from the peak of 15.7% growth recorded in the last quarter of 2013.

Besides, the bulk of the growth in external debt since 2013 was primarily from offshore borrowings as it made up almost half of the total external debt.

Bank Negara, in its recent annual report, guided that private sector offshore borrowings are sound and sustainable, given that 70% of the corporate sector’s offshore loans were sourced from associated companies, parent companies and shareholders.

High household debts a concern

However, Malaysian household sector indebtedness undoubtedly tops the chart in the region.

According to McKinsey’s study, Malaysia’s household debt to income ratio is highest at 146% in 2014, way above the level of the United States (99%) and Indonesia (32%).

When we break down the household debt, 45.7% of it is for the purpose of financing purchase of residential properties. Hire purchase financing (16.6% of total household debt) and personal financing (15.7%) made up the remaining major components.

Even though Malaysia’s household financial asset to total household debt ratio is relatively high at 214% in 2014, the associated risks of high household indebtedness cannot be taken lightly.

The IMF, in its financial sector assessment on Malaysia in April 2014, cautioned that in the event of a sharp fall in housing property prices coupled with a recession in the economy, the burst of the housing asset bubble would have dire consequences on the real economy.

The Government and Bank Negara have in recent years attempted to rein in the growth in housing loans and also put a check on the property market through various macro-prudential tools.

For instance, the last Overnight Policy Rate hike in July 2014 by 25 basis points was primarily to mitigate the financial imbalances within the economy.

In January 2015, the growth of household outstanding loans from the banking institutions has slowed to 9.7%, down from the peak of 13.9% in November 2010.

Although it is a sign of improvement in domestic financial stability, a continued assessment of household loans would be a prudent measure.

Responsible use of leverage

Bad indebtedness is often described as how an overleveraged economy collapses on its own pile of toxic debts when triggered by an overlooked external event – the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States is a classic example.

On the other hand, good debts are those that are used to finance productive and sustainable purposes.

A government manoeuvering an economy out of recession could issue bonds to fund its fiscal stimulus programme while a company could maximise its true potential through the proper use of leverage.

In fact, given a youthful population and a stable work force in Malaysia, rising household indebtedness could be a signal of robust consumption pattern that is the driver of domestic economic growth.

Therefore, regulators and policy makers should not, in their fear of “indebtedness”, stifle the credit lines and the channels to expand present consumption for future capacity of growth.

Unfortunately, with a lack of hindsight, it can be difficult at times to ascertain if a debt is good or bad, A-tier quality or just a default waiting to happen.

In the end, it is not only the viability in repaying the loans but also the realised output and gains from entering a debt contract that should be examined to determine the sustainability in taking up debts.

In short, indebtedness is not necessarily bad. A responsible debtor should have a clear and comprehensive business or personal financial planning and ultimately transparency in dealing with all parties. After all, a good debt is a good customer for the other end.

My point By Mandkaran Mottain

Manokaran Mottain is the chief economist at Alliance Bank Malaysia Bhd.

Related post:

MOST if not all house buyers will require financing to buy their dream homes. While there appears to be stiff competition among banks for ...

Monday 20 October 2014

More Malaysians are being declared bankrupt!


JOHOR BARU: Young Malaysians are being declared bankrupt because they spend more than they earn, says Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nancy Shukri (pic).

This trend was worrying because most of them had just started working but already had debt problems, she added.

“This younger generation are supposed to be the next leaders. Instead, we have those who are already facing financial difficulties at a very young age,’’ she told a press conference after opening an information programme for young people at the Home Ministry complex at Setia Tropika here yesterday.

Quoting figures from the Insolvency Department, she said there was an increase in the number of young Malaysians being declared bankrupts in the past five years.

She said there were nearly 22,000 cases last year, an increase from about 13,200 in 2007.

Within the first six months of this year, more than 12,300 young Malaysians had been declared bankrupt. They include 3,680 women.

“On the average, 70.22% of the cases are men,” said Nancy, adding that most of them have outstanding debts of RM30,000 or more and could not afford to settle their dues.

She said the high bankruptcy rate among Malaysians at a young age mainly resulted from defaulting on instalment payments on car, housing and personal loans.

Nancy said there had been celebrities who were also declared bankrupt but most of them declined to seek assistance from the Insolvency Department.

She added that aside from the department, those who have problems managing their finances could seek advice from the Credit Counselling and Debt Management Agency.

The Star/Asia News Network

Related posts:


Lets not use Money as an all-powerful weapon to buy people ONE can safely assume that the subject of money would be of interest to almo...

File picture shows houses under construction in Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia has a ‘severely unaffordable’ residential homes market, according t...
 
PUTRAJAYA: A wide net has been cast on those barred from leaving the country by the Immigration Department. And it is not just tax of...