Friday, July 30, 2021

GOVERNMENT THINKS SINGAPOREANS ARE TOO STUPID FOR LOTS OF JOBS


Joseph Schooling failed to get into the finals of the 100m butterfly in Tokyo Olympics and will not be able to defend his world record won in 2016 Rio Olympics. We are disappointed as much as him, but remain proud and appreciative of the effort and sacrifice he put in representing Singapore. He is still a Son of Singapore, and Our boy. In earlier years, government had no trust in him, parents persevered, and he got his gold in Rio.

As ordinary parents, we send our children to school with high hopes. We certainly never expect an Einstein, but we never put failures in their path. As young adults going into the world, we wish them well and to take on challenges as to how far they can go, knowing full well it's unlikely we have a Steve Job or a Jack Ma in our midst.

When China was emerging from the shadows of the dark ages of Maoism, the crafty Deng Shiao Ping laid the path for modernisation on one simple foundation stone. Send one million Chinese out to foreign universities all over the world. For when they return, they will change the country. And indeed, they miraculously changed their motherland within one generation. When Singapore walked out of Malaysia in 1965, Lee Kuan Yew expounded the economic ideology that Singapore has only one resource, it's people. The First Generation leadership placed trust and faith on the people and education was national prime focus and societal leveller. In the 80s, with neighbouring countries catching up, the government pivoted to a high end economy. Once again, the trust was placed on Singaporeans to undertake a structural change that required refocus of education towards the STEM curriculum. And by jolly, we did it.

Today, under the Third Gen leadership, Singaporeans are told we are not good enough for the jobs required for the new smart city economy. If you have lost your jobs, go upskill yourself. Go use the various government subsidised retraining courses. If there were special skills required, what has the leadership been doing in the last 15 years? Is there an acknowledgement the Education Ministers have not identified the needs of a new economy and prepared the labour force? It's been 15 years in the making and the government is still singing the same song.

One can be forgiven to take the view the government seems intend on a normalisation of the inadequacy of Singaporeans to take on many jobs in the market. It has taken on psychological significance as children watch their graduate parents transit to taxi driving, food delivery and security jobs. Gosh the average Singaporeans must really be degenerating. Your dads and moms are reporting to foreign supervisors and middle managers.

Let me make this loud and clear to all Singaporeans. THE GOVERNMENT IS LYING ABOUT THE JOB SITUATION AND YOUR CAPABILITIES. It has never been like this. Let me share my personal experiences. Bear with my narration and I'll explain my point eventually..

I was in banking since late 1970s. The computer age was just beginning. An IBM personal computer costs about S$16,000 and we were using mainframes on punch card technology. IT was in its nascent stage and started taking off when IBM compatibles hit the market. For that, we really have to thank an idiot IBM executive who, in his ignorance, allowed Bill Gate's Microsoft ownership of DOS. I was directly involved in a lot of IT projects. I identified endogenous applications, initiated project development, and provided the specifications. I can't code, but my knowledge of how systems work.  the business, the accounting, tax, risk management, the laws, process flows, etc , basically my all-rounder background, was a tremendous help. I never used the top end names in the business like Arthur Anderson, but worked with a lone freelancer. Let's call him Hardeep.

Hardeep and I, just the 2 of us, developed a non-delivery foreign exchange system, and a frontend trading system for the dealing room. Both were sort of cutting edge at the time. It was on dBase platform, a client-server technology that supported 24x7 trading, and interfaced host banking system running on IBM midframes. We also developed a MAS reporting app that downloaded data from the mainframe to generate reports in 15 minutes that previously took 2 loan administrators one week to prepare. The same app was reconfigured and used in our London office for Bank of England reporting. The FX and front end trading systems were used in several banks in Indonesia that my offshore banking office had dealings with.

I moonshined a bit, working my full time job as operations manager in a bank, and tried to expand on systems development on the side, out of interest of IT work. We took on a Canadian banking client which used the FX and frontend system in its HK office. We developed a great app for Chartered Industries for their equipment calibration service. Its an app that allowed their equipment to transfer test data into a PC which generates calibration reports. I had to read up on statistics and learnt all about the x-bar charts and 3-sigmas. Hardeep was able to code that inverted bell shape that always approach but never touch the x-axis. Of course today, algorithms are one a dime. But back then, Hardeep had to manually code it. So we actually coded a statistical algorithm!

Long long before there was Facebook and technology with business models of free usage for subscribers and make money from advertising, I actually pre-dated that idea. That was in late 70s. Later, on my own, I sold an idea to someone who held the franchise for a popular Malaysian corporate brand card. Few people want to invest in tech at the time. So I offered free development, but the right to solicit their vendors.  My idea of providing his card holders free access to a branded platform to seek deals from accredited vendors, to exchange ideas, have a subscriber database the company can reach out to, etc, sounded positive to him. Only he did'nt dare commit a development fund. He was all for the free app. I delivered on the app within 6 months. My project did'nt pan out because the Malaysian holding company folded shortly.

As I recall this Malaysian card project, CECA seems like a dejavu of sorts. Long before we had CECA, I brought in 6 coders from India. They were housed in an apartment somewhere in Geylang (the cheapiest I could find).  Project-based, they worked under the radar on social visit passes. I resorted to use these coders from South Asia because we had full employment in the late 70s/80s and no Singaporean will work short term for me.

Today as I look back at those systems, I am kicking myself real hard. Those were envelope-pushing ideas at the time. I could have pushed the FX and frontend, the loan reporting, equipment calibration, and branded card systems to a big wide open virgin market. But I was young, my full-time job was too cosy a comfort zone, and I had poor business sense. The way my son put it, "dad you did'nt follow your dreams".

My academics is nothing to be proud of. I never go university. The same with Hardeep. He is not a graduate. He was a SAF diver. who went on to commercial diving with those oil rigs. He later studied coding on his own. By the way, he is a Singapore Indian. We both shared something similar. All that we ever knew were self-taught. And you have to appreciate it was not easy to teach yourself back then. There was no internet to click and learn stuff.

The purpose of my narration is this. WHEN THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THERE ARE LOTS OF JOBS THAT SINGAPOREANS CANNOT HANDLE, THEY ARE LYING. Hardeep and I are living testaments. We were able to think out and develop apps that achieved its objectives. No one taught us anything. There are surely thousands of Singapore graduates who are better than us, technical knowledge wise, and competent enough, to deliver if given the opportunity. Of that I am absolutely certain. SINGAPOREANS ARE NOT DUMB.

Years ago, Hardeep popped out of the blue to offer me the opportunity to partner him in banking application development based in Indonesia and funded by a bank.  We arranged a 2 week stay for me in Jakarta to get a feel before making up my mind. I spent time in IT, front and back offices of some banks.  Eventually I did'nt take up the offer. I am mentioning just to share this. I was taken by surprise to find so many Singaporeans working in the front offices and some at high levels in banks in Jakarta. A well-known Singapore statesman was an advisor in one of the banks. I never checked, but very sure Singaporean expertise in banking, and probably other areas, have been sought out by our neighbours. We were exporting talent back then. A friend of mine, for example, takes assignments from the World Bank to help establish procedural controls in central banks in less developed countries.

Our CECA policy will hollow out the Singapore talent base. Today, a lot of the C-suites are gone. The CEO, COO, CFO, CIO etc. Without its lieutenants, captains, sargeant majors and regimental majors, etc, an army cannot function. We have actually gone down the rabbit hole. Supervisory and middle line managers are also getting displaced.  If this situation is not reversed soon, irreparable damage will be done to the country.

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THERE ARE LOTS OF JOBS THAT SINGAPOREANS CANNOT HANDLE, THEY ARE LYING. I can't stress this enough. When a small country has only a few universities and which are high in world rankings, and the government set policies that favour graduates from a country whose universities are hardly ranked,  policy makers need to have their brains examined.

We should stop using the term FOREIGN TALENT. This is one of the government's methodology to normalise the policy. It drills into your brains. They are talents, you are idiots. Granted foreign companies that set up base here want to bring in a pool of their specialists. These are the expertise in their particular fields. And what we want to welcome are the deal makers, the visionaires, the risk takers, those with high networks in high places, the knowledge drivers in their field, such as those in the cutting edge technologies. We understand this, and support them as host country, we want them to succeed just as much.

Under CECA arrangement, we all know there has been an invasion of PMEs from India. The government's argument that these are FTs are blatant lies. A simple check at Linkedin is all it takes to call out the government.  Why do we need foreign admin managers, facility managers, HR managers, etc. I won't be surprised that companies here will be advised to ban their foreign Indian employees from registering with Linkedin. Information suppression is a new old-fashioned government control protocol.

If hollowing out Singapore talent is a dangerous path, why are'nt Singaporean elites calling this out? Where is the NTUC chief? Where are our industry leaders? Where are the Kweks, the Ongs, the Jumaboys? The business class are sleeping with the governing elites to enrich at the expense of a depressed wage market forced by the huge supply of foreign Indian PMEs. Not a single soul has stood up to say "Singaporeans are suffering. Singaporeans helped us to make our billions. It's time we stand up with Singaporeans, never mind that higher wages mean we make a little less."

Listening to Minister Ong say in parliament recently, that Singapore's success created it's own problem, made me puke. In his scholastic view, many companies locate here, we have high employment, but there is not enough Singaporeans. CECA helped alleviate the problem. The reality is the government policy helped companies lower cost on the backs of cheaper South Asians and at the expense of Singaporeans. Their message to attract FDIs is come here, we have a cheap labour force. 15 long ye.ars of the easy way out of building GDP on depressed wages have made it impossible for policy makers to realise that companies chose to base in Singapore not for the low wage advantage. For if that were so, there are a hundred much cheaper other countries they can relocate to.

!st gen leadership told us we Singaporeans are valuable and trusted. Rolled up your sleeves, get educated, we can make it together. 3rd gen leaders are telling us we are idiots, be good and either work under 3rd world supervisors, or go and be a graduate Grab driver.

See related blogs :

CECA : The Shocks Of Labour Mobility

CECA : The Dangers Of Labour Mobility

Wednesday, July 28, 2021

THE TRUTH ABOUT NATIONAL RESERVES OF SINGAPORE

"Three can keep a secret, only if two of them are dead" ... Benjamin Franklin 
I wonder how many Singaporeans are privy to the best kept secret on the island. When even the president has no idea, the vault is seriously sealed. Only a select few in the Ministry of Finance, Monetary Authority of Singapore, and the Prime Minister's Office, is in the know. It is a small circle, but definitely more than 3. To keep the numbers down, the same players must circulate in the inner echelon of the corridor of power. A fact not lost to the most observant.

Like all secrets, everybody tries to unravel it. Like all secrets, gossips are in abundance. I am of course referring to the quantum of national reserves of Singapore. All sorts of figures have been suggested by one and sundry. Economist Leong Tse Han, politician Kenneth Jeyaratnam and Prof Chris Balding, have one time or another, suggested trillions of dollars.

Back in 2012. Prof Chris Balding wrote several articles trying to outguess the reserves figure. It seemed baffling why an American academic, working in a communist university in HK, had such a keen interest in the subject. In 2015 he wrote a research paper.
"A Brief Research Note on the Government Investment Corporation of Singapore, Temasek Holdings, and Singapore Public Finances".... Prof Chris Balding
It is extremely difficulty to understand how he did his computation and what his end figures were. He seemed to indicate the actual reserves ought to be about S$1.6 trillion at the time and he could not reconcile about S$800 billion. On that basis he made bold suggestions the figures were (1) GIC and Temasek ROI were overstated, or (2) there is a secret entity holding the unreported assets, or (3) there were leakages.  (2) and (3) are preposterous because it is impossible to move such vast sums of money around, or invest and divest, without the world knowing about it.

Kenneth Jeyaratnam, chair of the Reform Party, an economist and ex-hedge fund manager, had separately been pursuing the same research on missing national reserves long before Prof Balding. He too had made suggestions of huge reserves figures. The two actually met up in HK to go through their different figures. Jeyaratnam walked away from that meeting saying they both agreed reserves numbers are huge, but disagreed on the estimates and the way they computed.

At some point, I think Jeyaratnam arrived at S$3 trillion. Both worked on the basis of tracking budget surpluses from IMF reports and the Statistics office, estimated land sales, and imputing Temasek and GIC profits, compounded over the years. Jeyaratnam, in addition, assessed the Assets & Liabilities Statement (ALS) that the government publishes with each Budget. I understand accounting, but government accounting is fund-based, adjusted for cash basis and long term cashflows. An outsider looking at the ALS cannot make any sense of it, at least to me. I am curious what insight Jeyaratnam gleaned from the ALS.

If I were to offer an opinion on what the national reserves should be, I will say Prof Balding and Jeyaratnam, and any guy who has ever offered any estimate in social media, are way off the mark. Our national reserves are way way much higher. When the late President Ong Teng Cheong asked for the numbers and was told it will take a hundred years to list down the national assets, the government was not being sarcastic. It was a fact. However, national reserves, by definition, is the sum total of the equity in the balance sheets of all the ministries, statutory boards and Fifth Schedule companies. It is possible to compute easily. But don't try to take on this task, because some of the entities are very transparent, some are not, and GIC is off limits. Outsiders can't undertake this. However, it is not necessary because it would have served no purpose. What is the point of knowing what this figure is. Off hand, I'm certain the Ministry of Defence will have the biggest numbers. Factor in the bases, the F-15s, the battleships, submarines, aircraft carrier (I'm kidding, we don't have this). You get the picture. For all intents and purposes, the national reserves is just a huge number, for which we have no purpose in knowing.

What we really want to know is the money that the government has set aside and invested. This is the sum total of previous investments, operating surpluses and proceeds from land sales. In short, our eyes are on the investment portfolios managed by GIC and Temasek. These 2 Sovereign Wealth Funds generate the returns that help to fund the budget, and their assets technically provide Singaporeans the 后山 Hòu shān, or back mountain. It is our pillar of economic strength.

We focus then on investments. In this respect, almost everyone that gets into a conversation on this subject makes 2 similar mistakes. Apart from Temasek, they included GIC and forex reserves held by MAS.  I lay claim to be the first making these clarification here. I may stand corrected, but I have never seen anyone mention these before. In my exchanges with writer Critical Spectator recently, I highlighted to him my first point below, which he has since used it.

Point 1 is this : GIC invests the funds received from the government. The government transfers operating surpluses, proceeds of land sales and proceeds from government securities (SGS and SSGS). GIC investment portfolio is from co-mingled funds of national reserves (surpluses and land sales) CPF pension money (SSGS) and government obligations (SGS). Thus only a portion of GIC portfolio is considered national reserves, ie belonging to Singaporeans collectively.

Point 2 is this : The foreign exchange reserves managed by MAS has nothing to do with national reserves. It is MAS operating funds invested in liquid foreign exchange currencies for the purpose of maintaining stability of our exchange rate.

So what do we know about our national reserves now? Temasek portfolio was valued at S$381 billion as at 31 Mar 2021. GIC we have absolutely no idea, much less talk about what portion of it is national reserves.

Some time ago, Leong made the same 2 mistakes when he said the national reserves was about S$1.4 trillion, taking into consideration Temasek portfolio, MAS forex reserves and estimated GIC portfolio. Unfortunately, Leong, Jeyeratnam and Balding, with their S$ trillion estimates, are the stuff netizens jump on. The good news is, nobody will be hauled to the courts for any wild guesses. Have no fear of POFMA. And the reason is, the national reserves is a number the government does not want anyone to know, not the world, not even to many within the cabinet, nay not even the president. The more the obfuscation, the better.

The government's defence of opacity of national reserves is, like open poker, it does not want market participants to know how much reserves Singapore has and so avoid the possibility of an all out attack on the SGD. That said, there are many small economies with very low central bank forex reserves, let alone national reserves, and none has been speculated to death in world history. An all out speculative attack happens mostly with fixed rate regimes, or where a country has a serious structural currency mis-match.

A caveat, though. A wild claim of numbers is different from wild claims of misfeasance. Prof Balding has claimed fraud and leakages (siphoning out money), but he lives in America (The HK university released him in 2018). Jeyaratnam has written politely to MOF for clarification but received no replies. He too has implied fraud in government figures and asked where are the missing billions. But he has been left untouched, for reasons I personally believe is the late Lee Kuan Yew's instructions. LKY destroyed Kenneth's father the late JBJ, but he did not want to touch the children of his political enemy. In fact, Kenneth's brother attorney Phillip, works closely with the establishment. Leong opined his estimate of the reserves but never claimed wrong doing by anyone. Roy Ngerng, social activist, claimed wrong doing and was rightly sued.

I am not the fourth monkey banging away on the keyboard to provide the answer. There is no answer.

Tuesday, July 27, 2021

WHAT IS BITCOIN? IS IT A SCAM? WILL IT BE WORLD CURRENCY?

 I made 4 videos to explain Bitcoin.  It's a medium I know very little about. So it's just experimental and for fun.  Just displaying them here in case anyone wants to take a peek.








Monday, July 26, 2021

AGAIN, DID SINGAPORE GROW RICHER BY S$235B DURING THE PANDEMIC?

Background: 

Critical Spectator published 1st article that claimed Singapore grew richer by S$235b during the pandemic. I disagree and blogged about it. The Online Citizen covered it. CS responded with a 2nd post with entrenched views. This blog is my reply to the 2nd post of CS.

The initial claim was reserves grew as seen from Temasek's increase in portfolio value by S$75b and Official Foreign Reserves up by S$160b. I refuted this in that portfolio value increase is not the yardstick to determine gains in wealth and the OFR is not a national reserve. In our exchanges I had tried to explain the mechanics of foreign reserves in the MAS. In turn I was advised not to have a narrow-minded approach from the banking angle but to appreciate that MAS works within a wider impact of trade and capital flows.

In the 2nd post CS expanded on his explanation with an economic overview. The gist of his narrative is under good governance, Singapore is a good place for business. Capital flows to countries that are well managed. This flow of capital creates demand for S$ which causes upward pressure on exchange rates. High rates hurt exports so MAS intervenes to buy foreign currencies. That is how MAS accumulated so much OFR. MAS pays for the foreign currencies by printing money. Too much money supply causes inflation, so MAS sterilises it by issuing securities, thus absorbing the liquidity. As long as economy is good and foreign capital flows inwards, MAS will keep increasing wealth buying up the currencies for free. 

There are too many holes in the narrative. I was reluctant to write this blog because there is too much to cover. Finally I decided to belabour in the interest of sharing knowledge and demystifying all this trade and capital flows stuff. First, I need to lay out some background understanding of the intricacies of currency flows. I put it as basic as I can and in a way to facilitate explaining my arguments with points raised by CS. 

The articles: 

In economics data, one needs to interpret country and national in context. They are not the same. CS used the terms interchangeably. 'National' refers to the state, government, public, we the citizens of Singapore. National reserves belong to Singaporeans collectively. Country, on the other hand, includes every entity resident in Singapore. Thus not the entire wealth of the country belongs to Singapore citizens. Singapore billionaires like the Kweks, the Ngs, the Ongs etc, their private wealth are not ours. Singapore-based foreigners and foreign-owned companies, MNCs like Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc, their wealth booked here in Singapore do not belong to Singaporeans. CS and I had several exchanges and I had explained this difference. I note CS has now mentioned this distinction in the 2nd post. 

2. National reserves : 

National reserves, by definition, is the sum total of all unencumbered assets of the government. Imagine the balance sheets of all ministries, statutory boards and Fifth Schedule companies are consolidated, it will look something like this - 
The national reserves are represented by the net assets, which is total assets less all other liabilities. This is the same as Equity. The change from one year over another in Equity is the increase or decrease to our national reserves. In the absence of data, we cannot determine the national reserves, nor the changes each year. 

3. Intra-country investments (or International Investment Position) : 

Entities resident in Singapore invest in other countries, and foreign entities in turn invest in our country. Every country maintains 2 quarterly reports called the NIIP and OFR statements. Imagine we have a huge balance sheet of intra-country investments, it will look something like this -
3.1. The NIIP (net international investment position) 
The NIIP is the equivalence of Equity in a corporate balance sheet. The NIIP is the difference between what Singapore invested in the world, and what other countries invested in our country. A positive figure means Singapore is a net creditor country. Singapore-based entities own more foreign assets than foreign entities own assets in Singapore. An increase in NIIP indicates the country has increased the net investments outside. 

Points to note: 
3.1.1. The NIIP is a 'country' data that includes all entities of Singapore residency status. Somewhere in the NIIP are net assets of our government. In the context of national resources, we can say that only a portion of the NIIP belongs to the citizenry. 
3.1.2. An increase in NIIP alone does not necessarily mean an increase in national reserves 
3.1.3. An increase in NIIP creates an increase in demand for foreign currencies which are required for purchase of those foreign assets. 

3.2. The OFR (official foreign reserves)
The OFR comprises mainly of liquid foreign currency assets (bank deposits, securities) and smaller sums in gold, Special Drawing Rights, IMF reserves. Just like a company must hold some of its capital in bank balances to meet liquidity needs, a country also needs to hold currency assets to meet currency liquidity needs. The OFR is a country total. An overwhelming percentage of the OFR is held by the MAS in its 'Net Foreign Exchange Reserves'. Other resident entities hold a small percentage of it.

An increase in OFR simply means more of those asset class was acquired. It does not mean there was a profit. There were hefty increases in 2020 April (S$27.3b) and June (S$10.5b). This simply means some resident entities bought this currency asset, and obviously paid for it. It does not represent any increase in wealth. 

Points to note: 
3.2.1. OTR is country data. It includes all Singapore-based entities. 
3.2.2. An increase in OTR does not reflect increase in national reserves. 

4. MAS Foreign Exchange Reserve : 

MAS is tasked with maintaining S$ rate stability. To do this it must have adequate liquidity foreign currencies. Thus it maintains a pool of very liquid foreign assets commonly called the forex reserves.
In MAS books, all the OFR liquid currency asset types appear under Foreign Financial Assets, Gold has a separate line. Note that OFR figure is slightly bigger than MAS forex reserves. This is because OFR is country data, includes MAS and other resident entities. 

Where does MAS get the funds to invest in those assets? It's reflected on the liabilities side. From capital, undistributed profits (Gen reserve fund), notes and coins issued, reserve deposits of banks, debt (MAS bills/notes), deposits of the government, and reverse repos (under 'other liab line). An increases in assets always has a corresponding increase in liabilities. Basic accounting. 

For example, regarding the increases in the OFR 2020 April (S$27.3b) and June (S$10.5b) in (3.2). This was explained in MAS annual report : "A foreign exchange transaction was carried out between MAS and the Government in connection with fiscal expenditures. This involved a direct exchange of the Government's foreign currency holdings for S$, which resulted in an increase in the OFR and a corresponding increase in Government deposits with MAS." My guess is, govt sold some foreign assets to fund the pandemic aid package. MAS bought those currencies and sold S$ to govt. Thus in MAS books assets (forex reserves) and liabilities (Govt deposit a/c) increased accordingly. 

Points to note:
4.1. MAS forex reserves is not part of national reserve. 
4.2. The forex reserves is slightly less than the OFR. 
4.3. Ignoring valuation gains, an increase in forex reserves does not mean increase in profits. 

5. The demand for S$: 

The demand for S$ reflects in the Debt market, FX market, and Money Market (MM) 

5.1. S$ Debt market : 
When economy heats up, demand for S$ increases. On the debt market, commercial banks extend S$ loans via fractional banking which has a multiplier effect and increases the supply of money. 

MAS does not lend commercial loans. It only lends to banks in its duty as lender of last resort. This takes the form of very short term lending, overnight or 48 hours and in the form of short term facilities or repos. When MAS lends, it prints digital currencies. It merely credits the borrowing bank's reserve account, and debits loans account. Being short term, these S$ created is extinguished when the short term lending is repaid. There is no threat to liquidity. 

Point to note: 
5.1.1. Liquidity for S$ is provided by fractional banking. It is market driven. More credit increases money supply, but this is extinguished when loans are repaid. Thus money supply expands or contracts with the economy. MAS does not interfere. 

5.2. FX market : 
What drives the FX markets -- trade, investment, hedging, money transfers, speculators. A huge portion of the trades are from speculation. In a Int'l Forum on Globalisation in 1997, Prof Bernard Lietaer said as high as 97.5% of FX trades were speculative. Iowa State University mentioned 90% in 2019. I mentioned this to CS but he pooh poohed the idea speculative trades had so much impact.

Singapore is an int'l financial centre and has a significant volume of FX trades. The USD/SGD is also a significant currency pair. MAS does not participate in commercial transactions in the FX market. 

Points to note: 
5.2.1. Singapore is a free market. There are no controls on capital moving in and out. 
5.2.2. FX market is predominantly speculative. Commercial-backed deals counted less. 

5.3. How MAS manages S$ exchange rate
A word on the Unholy Trinity of Capital mobility, Exchange Rate or Interest Rate. Central banks can only chose 2 to control, no one can do all 3 at the same time. Of course Singapore is a free market. A key point to understand is Singapore monetary policy is based on controlling the domestic exchange rate. Being mutually exclusive, MAS takes the view interest rates, and thus money supply, are endogenous. This means MAS surrenders control over interest rates and money supply to market forces. 

MAS monitors the spot rate to stay close within a band computed on undisclosed trade-weighted basis. It intervenes only when the S$ rate moves outside the band. When rate is under pressure (too much selling), MAS buys S$ and sells foreign currencies. When rates are rising (too much buying) MAS buys foreign currency and pays S$. Either side of the intervention presents problems.

To be able to buy back S$, MAS must keep a foreign reserve (a pool of foreign currencies or foreign liquid assets). The size of the foreign reserve must not only be sufficient for normal needs, but able to prevent speculators from shorting the S$. 

MAS buys and sells S$ with banks. Banks pay by having their reserve a/c debited and receive by their a/c credited. The effect in MAS books : 
When banks' account balances go up, it pushes S$ into the market. When the balances go down, it sucks S$ out of the market. In other words, MAS intervention in forex market impacts the liquidity or money supply, which in turn, will impact domestic interest rates. 

Since MAS monetary policy dictates no interference in the money supply and interest rates, there is a need to reverse the liquidity impact in the market arising from the intervention action. This is done in a way known as sterilisation. It requires a simultaneous open market operation and a forex deal.
An open market operation is when MAS sells or buys govt securities to manage liquidity. When it buys back their securities, Bills & notes go down, Banks balances go up. Money supply is increased. When it issues and sells securities, Bills & notes go up, Bank balances go down.  Money supply is decreased. 

When MAS intervenes in FX market and buys USD, sells SGD, money supply increases. MAS sterilise it by selling securities which decreases money supply. On the other hand, when the FX intervention is sell USD, buy SGD, money supply decreases. This is sterilised by buying securities which increases money supply.

Sterilisation cancels out the impact on domestic liquidity caused by forex intervention. But there is a cost depending on the interest rate differential between the 2 currencies. The forex reserve may be invested in foreign securities that earns an interest. MAS pays interest on the securities sold. 

Points to note: 
5.3.1. MAS controls only the exchange rate. Does not control interest rates and money supply. 
5.3.2. Forex reserves is for stabilising exchange rate. 
5.3.3. MAS only intervenes to stabilise the S$ rates. 
5.3.4. Forex intervention is sterilised. But sterilisation has a cost. 
5.3.5. An increase in foreign exchange reserves has a corresponding increase on the liabilities side. It is not an increase in wealth. 

5.4. Money market 
MAS does not control the liquidity in the market because Singapore is an exchange rate control regime. Unlike most other central banks like the Fed which controls interest rates, thus they control liquidity by Quantitative Easing or Tightening and the Fed rates. 

MAS is only concerned with the liquidity for the day to meet bank reserve requirements and interbank settlements. Each morning it decides the requirements and provides the liquidity via lending facilities, repos, reverse repos and MAS bills. 

6. Liquidity during financial crisis : 

During a financial crisis, liquidity in the market dries up due to increased risk. MAS has to step in to provide liquidity both for S$ and foreign currencies, primarily USD. During such times, monetary policies are temporarily ignored.

6.1. S$ liquidity in a crisis 
During Covid19 pandemic, the Temporary Bridging Loan and SME Working Capital Loan programmes were put up to assist SMEs. MAS does not extend loans. It creates a facility for banks to draw on at very low interest rates. When banks draw down on the facility to loan to their customers, MAS debit the Facility a/c and credit banks' reserve accounts. As at 31 Mar 2021 this facility balance stood at S$10.4b. 

By crediting banks' a/c, MAS increased money supply. But hey, there's a financial crisis going on. However, these funds are temporary. When the loans are repaid, the liquidity will be extinguished and money supply returns to equilibrium. 

Central banks' ability to print money easily has led to uncontrolled spending, resulting in too much money flowing in many parts of the world. Central banks' balance sheets are exploding as they take on assets. MAS, being an exchange rate regime, does not print money. This discipline has served the country well. The 2019 money printing for the pandemic aid package marks the very first time MAS has taken this route. So technically, money is for free. The government has no need to dip into the reserves. MAS can print unlimited amounts of S$ for everyone to tie over the pandemic. The damage is in the exchange rate and runaway inflation and the house of freebies will come tumbling down.  Restraint is a virtue.

6.2. Foreign currency liquidity in a crisis 
In times of financial crisis, such as the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997, foreign currency supply dries up due to higher risks. During such times, businesses continue to require foreign currencies. Loans need to be serviced, projects need cashflows, mortgage payments continues, currency contracts that mature needs settlement, etc. 

The forex reserves of MAS are not meant to provide liquidity to the foreign currency. It is beyond even the likes of MAS. But what MAS can, and has done, is to provide the means for banks to access foreign currencies. This is done by central bank swap arrangements. MAS has such swap arrangements with important trading partners such as US, Japan, China, etc. 

How does this work? An FX swap has 2 contracts, one spot and a reverse deal in the forward. Example, MAS has a USD/SGD swap arrangement with the Fed. During a crisis MAS draws down on this arrangement. On the spot leg, MAS buys USD and sells SGD. On the forward leg MAS sells USD and buys SGD.

For the spot deal, Fed credits or puts currency into the MAS account with them. In the books of MAS, Forex reserve goes up, and Feds deposit at MAS goes up. So now MAS has USD to provide liquidity to the money market. It looks like MAS has printed SGD to buy the USD. Similarly the Fed has printed USD for MAS.

When the forward leg matures, the entries are reversed.

These type of swap arrangements are huge wholesale transactions, so a massive sum of SGD is printed. But it has no impact on SGD money supply. The genius of this swap is that the SGD in the Fed's deposit account at MAS is just a matter of bookkeeping. The Fed has no need for the SGD and do not touch it. Thus the SGD is not released into the economy and has zero impact on money supply. Fed earns a few basis points for the facility. 

Point to note: 
6.2.1. MAS has no role in liquidity of foreign currencies under normal circumstances. 
6,2,2. In financial crisis, MAS draws on swap arrangements to provide foreign currency liquidity to local needs without impacting the SGD money supply.

ADDRESSING POINTS RAISED IN 2ND ARTICLE OF CS


 (A). CS : "...... - has Singapore really gotten richer by over S$200 billion during the pandemic??? Yes. In fact, the entire country (private and public sector combined) has gotten wealthier by around S$350 billion."

In our discussion, I highlighted NIIP is country data which includes Singapore based foreign entities. I note CS has now included this for mention. 

CS was referring to the S$350b in NIIP. This increase simply shows on a net basis, during the period, Singapore resident entities invested more in foreign assets than foreign entities invested in Singapore assets. It does not mean more wealth was created. Simple example to make this crystal clear. Suppose a Singapore based entity borrowed S$350b in the domestic market and bought a huge piece of land in US. His US asset of S$350b will be added to the other assets line in the intra-company 'balance sheet' (see 3 above). His loan is domestic and so does not appear in the imaginary balance sheet. Result -- the NIIP increased by S$350b. Where is the gain in wealth? 

(B). CS: "... the portfolio managed by Temasek increased in value by S$75 billion, GIC is sure to put in very good figures too AND the Official Foreign Reserves have grown by S$160 billion. ...... Singapore is easily over S$200 billion better off than before...." 

Temasek portfolio increased by S$75b does not mean wealth increased by that sum. How does one know if expenses had increased tremendously, for example, CEO compensation. How would you know whether fresh capital was injected? To review increase in the book value of a company, look at the change in equity. (see 2 above).

The increase in OFR of S$160b is derived from Dec 2019 to Jun 2021. It has nothing to do with wealth increases. OFR is simply an asset category in the illustrated intra-country investment 'balance sheet'. (see 3 above). It simply says Singapore-based entities holdings in liquid foreign currency assets increased by so much. It does'nt tell you how much those entities borrowed to own those assets.

(C) CS: "Money tends to flow to countries which are more trustworthy, safer and have a lot of value to offer. This phenomenon is typically amplified by economic crises, when funds actually leave weaker economies and moves to safe havens like Switzerland or... Singapore. With an influx of foreign money there's a growing demand for local currency - here the Singapore Dollar." 

Some capital flows to Singapore are driven by instability in investors' home country. These are merely foreign currency deposits transferred to a Singapore bank. They are deposited in the Asian Currency Unit.  No change in currency, no pressure on S$.

Singapore is a big source for money market funds. Much of the foreign currency flows into Singapore actually gets placed overseas.

In (A) above, the increase of S$350b in the NIIP means during the year Singapore invested more overseas than foreigners invested in Singapore. Means a huge outflow of capital, not inflow. It contradicts the narrative of CS.

(D) CS : "With lots of money coming in, MAS intervened last year, accumulating foreign currencies to the tune of US$100 billion. The unfortunate side effect to that is that there's a lot more SGD in the market (MAS buys USD et al for SGD) - and that would be affecting liquidity of the domestic banking system. Ca. $160 billion SGD sloshing around is not something MAS wants either. ? So, what it does (like all central banks) is it issues its own bills that local banks invest in, absorbing the excess currency from the market, taking it on as a liability onto its own balance sheet. This is called "sterilization" - which is basically a policy of counteracting unwanted side effects of other decisions.? In the end, then, MAS has acquired S$160 billion worth of foreign assetsb, while absorbing excess Singapore Dollars through issuance of its domestic bills." 

He seems to say some much foreign currency comes in, MAS has to mop it up. Actually MAS does not bother how much comes in. It only intervenes when the exchange rate moves either way outside the controlled band. When it intervenes it does not mean the quantum has to be matched. If USD1b comes in, but an intervention of just USD100m brought the rates back to equilibrium, then that's all it takes. It's about taking care of the exchange rate, not how much foreign currencies flowing in.

No argument with this sterilisation thingy to neutralise the SGD liquidity from purchase of USD, although he did'nt explain how. (see how it's explained 5.3 above). But he said MAS acquired S$160b of foreign assets and the excess liquidity SGD absorbed through issuance of bills. To be bitchy, the S$160 is derived from the OFR data which includes other resident entities. The MAS figure should be smaller. Sterilisation is neutralising excess liquidity by debt (MAS borrows S$ back from the market) which he fails to see. In our exchanges he indicated " Ultimately, Singapore is getting something for nothing (or for little) due to high demand for SGD." What sterilisation means is the increase of the S$160b foreign currency is funded by debt, the investors of the MAS bills. Thus sterilisation has a cost that CS ignores.

(E) CS: "MAS didn't *have to* intervene if it didn't want to - it could just let the market set however high exchange rates it wants." 

MAS monetary policy is based on controlling the exchange rate. It has to intervene whenever the rate moves outside the controlled band.

(F) CS : "You see, foreign reserves are really just accumulated excess demand for domestic currency".

Does it mean there is a limit to how much S$ can be sold and the excess if bought up by MAS? Singapore is a free economy. There is no restriction on capital mobility. The foreign reserves is an accumulation of foreign currencies purchased by MAS when they intervene in the market to stabilise the exchange rate.

(G) CS : "..... as MAS occasionally transfers large sums of money to GIC for management (like it did in 2019, when it moved S$45 billion there)." 

Somewhere in our exchanges, both Chris Kuan and I mentioned that an addition on the asset side must have an addition on the liabilities side. This is elementary, Watson. So the foreign reserves are funded by liabilities. It's all co-mingled and can't be itemised. Certainly some part of Capital and the General Reserve Fund, that is, Equity went into paying for the currencies. CS pooh poohed the idea that Equity builds the reserve fund. Of course not to the full extent, but certainly is partly there. Now this point of his makes it excellent to explain what I meant.

The forex reserves are invested in liquid assets which offer very low returns. MAS reviews the adequacy of the reserve funds. If it gets beyond their requirement, MAS can get it out of liquid assets to seek better yields. But MAS job is monetary policy management, not fund management. So MAS transfers this to GIC to invest.

CS told me I need to get out of the banking (accounting?) mindset and look at the macro trade environment to understand the way things work. But it is in the trenches that one sees things clearly. This is one good example.

How did MAS move S$45b of forex reserves out? Assets go down, liabilities should go down. But which account? Well MAS returned this excess reserves to the state, so it debited the Government's deposit with MAS. It was a huge sum that depleted the government's coffer. How are civil servants going to get paid. The government's budget spending are paid out of funds from this a/c.

Well, MAS returned some Equity back to the government. Net profit for 2019 was S$23.1b, of which the usual 17% was transferred to Consolidated Funds of the govt, The balance S$19.2 billion and another S$16.0 billion from the General Reserve Fund were returned to the govt by credit to their account. The net result is the govt coffers got reduced by only S$9.8m. These transactions were passed in 2020.

There is no sleigh of hands. As MAS reduces its assets, somebody has to pay for it. Reducing the assets means selling it. Somebody buys and pays for it. Transferring the excess forex reserves means selling to the govt, arms length accounting. The same happened in 1981 when excess forex reserves were transferred to kickstart GIC. This diluted MAS Equity the same way as 2020.

(H) CS : "So, does accumulation of foreign currency reserves make the country richer? Yes, but not in a way you might think. Since the money cannot be spent - because it's there to protect the currency - you just can't use it how you please. That said, a lot of it can still be profitably invested, on par with all other reserves at the government's disposal." 

Forex reserves accumulated from market intervention are sterilised by MAS bills. These forex reserves are funded by debt, depositors money, and equity. An increase in forex reserves do not make us richer. More assets, more liabilities, is all.

(I) CS : "This figure <NIIP> has grown for Singapore during the last year by a whopping S$350 billion, to very nearly S$1.4 trillion ..... Why aren't domestic liabilities counted in this? ....." 

Precisely, he ignored liabilities. It's like we see a guy living in a posh bungalow, but we never know he is many months in arrears on his installments.

(J) CS : This is a comment in our exchanges - "And no, during crisis foreign currency liquidity does'nt 'shut down' - the money simply flocks to whereif feels safest. Singapore is one of those locations." 

Should we then assume the meaning credit drying up is not liquidity shutting down? Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia know better. They took on too much foreign currency debts and the local currency came under attack. Foreign currency liquidity dried up during the crisis. These 3 countries certainly are not junk credit risks by any means. And no, foreign currencies did'nt flock to Singapore during that crisis. 

Conclusion : 

The claim was the increase of S$160b in the OFR is gains in foreign reserves by MAS. As explained, the purchase of foreign currencies by MAS when it intervenes in the market, are all sterilised and thus funded by debt in the form of MAS bills & notes. Singapore did'nt grow richer from this.

The claim that Singapore grew richer by S$75b due to increase in Temasek's portfolio is also wrong. Increase in wealth is seen in the profits of Temasek or increase in net worth. Profits in 2021 was S$56.5b. Of course, this is a massive profit, even though 83% of it came from mark-to-market gains of sub-20% holdings. 

So now in 2nd post, the idea of NIIP increasing by S$350b is brought in to suggest that the whole country gained by a huge amount. Again this is wrong because domestic liabilities of resident entities are not known. At least, CS recognises now this is country data, not national.  There are about 37,400 international companies in Singapore, and 1 million foreigners resident here, taking these out of the equation, I wonder how much of the S$350b left is for Singaporeans. Out of these, take out those that belong to local companies and private individuals, how much is left for the state, or nation, or the public , aka you and I?

Finally, with all these capital inflows and MAS managing to keep rate and price stability, is'nt that great? Capital inflows are like the monsoon rains, it has to go somewhere. Or a flood, and in this case, a bubble, forms. Substantial part of this capital inflows are re-deployed overseas. Remember, Singapore is a significant international money market centre and a source of funds. This is also reflected in the increase in the NIIP. But there is without doubt substantial capital inflows stay in the domestic market.  Were does it go. Your HDB apartments for one. It's hitting a S$ million. 

Caveat: I'm not an economist. The only economic lessons I had was in high school where I missed out 1/3 of the term due to health reasons.

If you like this type of articles, just submit your email on the right and you will be notified of new postings. I have a blog coming up next on national reserves. I think it is of current interest to many.

-----------------------------------------------


 

Thursday, July 22, 2021

The vaccination dilemma - sticks and carrots and what else !


When vaccination plateaus and the numbers are not achieved, the debate always turns to sticks and carrots. After carrots, only sticks are left. Singapore is reaching the plateau level as about 50% of the population has been vaccinated against Covid19. At this point, we are fortunately not as politicised as the Americans or the Brits over vaccination. I trust the little people in this tiny island have bigger, saner minds and we can work our way through this sensibly.

Vaccination is a way to achieve herd immunity which is a state where a large number of the population has been immunised and a contagious disease can be managed as infection level decreases. What is the target vaccination % is very easy by the books. It simply depends on the Ro, or rate of infection, which roughly translates to the average number of persons an infected person can transmit to. In reality it is not really determinable. It depends on the efficacy of the vaccine, the virus, and a Ro that differs wildly for cities, suburbs, villages, countryside, etc. I believe WHO initially targetted 70% to achieve herd immunity. There is no magic number.

A policy on vaccination is always predicated on beneficence, which basically means core consideration must be the well being of everyone. It all boils down to risk-benefits analysis. The Covid19 situation is still evolving as the virus mutates, and data is lacking on the transmission rate, efficacy of the vaccines, and their long term effects. At this point, even a 1 sigma risk-benefits analysis is highly impossible.

Covid19 vaccination is being promulgated in a manner never seen before. The speed of the vaccine development and deployment as an emmergency measure is clouded in political FUD. This is the tactic of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt to overwhelm opposition. It's a tactic salesmen use to suppress the ability of prospects to think clearly. Today, the vaccine salesmen not only use FUD, but control the information to the public, thus monopolising the narrative.

No matter how much it is FUDed, vaccination is a very serious matter. It is natural to recoil from injecting unknown foreign substance into one's body. There will always be those who object. Mandatory vaccinations have accommodated religious and philosophical exemptions. Given the mRNA is a new form of untested vaccine, with publicised deaths and serious side effects, a higher level of resistance is not surprising. The recent decision not to publicise negative vaccination events is a big policy mistake as it fuels public anxiety. Suppressing information promotes the Streisand Effect as the public relies on anecdotes.

Certain segments of the population cannot vaccinate, such as those with some underlying health issues and the very young. It falls on those who can vaccinate to do so in order to reach heard immunity so as to protect the weak. Indeed it then becomes a duty to vaccinate. Those who do not wish to vaccinate will have to grapple with an ethical decision. All sensible person does their own risk-benefits analysis to make a decision. Unfortunately, behavioural economics dictate that people skew to internality. They view from selfish perspective of the risk and benefits to themselves. The externality, or the greater good of the community, is a non-factor.

A debate on vaccination invariably brings up the spectre of the 'tragedy of the commons'. It is an economic term where an individual reaps the benefits of the system and his action or ommission creates negative consequences for the greater community. Who has the benefits and who bears the costs or takes the risks? A person may avoid vaccination knowing well he benefits from the herd immunity created by those who bear the burden of getting the jab. A vaccination dodger is a free rider.

The government has a tough job balancing and managing the fine line between respecting the individual's right of refusal to vaccinate and maximising the greater good through herd immunity. It also has the ethical responsibility to ensure to its best ability, the safety of the vaccines. For Covid19, the burden is heavy given the vaccine is only for emergency use, its efficacy debatable, negative reactions threatening, and long term effects unknown.

What then can be done to get vac dodgers to get the jab when all carrots and persuasion have failed? Is it time to bring out the sticks, as the contributor to the Straits Time Forum suggested. The writer conveniently made no recommendations. Armchair talk is easy. The US, UK and some EU countries appear to be heading toward exclusionist policies. No vaccine -- no passport, no access to various services. Corporations that support goverrnment policies implement their own exclusionist rules.

Exclusionist policies are divisive. Imposition of fines are scorned. Either way, vaccination enforcement has a political cost to the government.  As regards enforcement, surely the doctrine of benificence is abandoned in making an unapproved vaccine mandatory. What then is the liability of the government for vaccine deaths and injuries? The government cannot be sued. That said, it is a non-issue in the context of Singapore where draconian regulations get by with little consequences for the ruling party.

Tort remedies appear the most equitable. Tort is a civil action where one's rights have been infringed. A person who has vaccinated gets infected with Covid19 from someone can sue for tort. To succeed, the plaintiff must show duty, infringement of the duty, and damage. He has to show the defendant has a duty not to infect others, he has infected plaintiff who has suffered in health and healthcare costs. Duty can be pinned on the defendant's refusal to get vaccinated. But in the case of a group, how can the plaintiff show proof the virus came from defendant. Since a vaccinated person ought not get infected, the defendant rightly should be the pharmaceutical companies. Cosy non-liability arrangement with governents cover them from legal suits arising from deaths or injuries from the un-tested vaccines. Big pharma have their rears covered way ahead of anybody.

The most equitable remedy of tort is apparently not available. Going forward, how are we as a nation, going to do deal with it. Calling those who refuse to vaccinate as Trumpean, conspiracy theorists, ignorant believers of pseudo-science, dogmatic, etc is'nt helpful. Public fear of the mRNA vaccination has to be respected given the returning data of deaths and serious injuries, unknown long term effects, and the low efficacy. As far as Singapore is concerned, the low death rates of Covid19, thanks to a super efficient healthcare infrastructure and dedicated, professional healthcare workers, the risk-benefits do not seem to favour vaccination.

I pray for wisdom on our leadership to guide us through these perilous times.


Related blogs: