Era of financial vulnerability

 The stock market crash in China and around the world shows how developing countries like Malaysia are increasingly vulnerable to financial shocks, including outflows of foreign funds


THE year 2016 started with a big bang, but the kind we would rather avoid. The Chinese stock market plunged for several days, causing panic around the world, with the markets also falling in many countries, East and West.

This is another wake-up call to alert us that finance has become inter-connected, indeed much too inter-connected, globally.

Many developing countries like Malaysia have been drawn into the web of the global financial system in manifold ways, and that has made them more vulnerable to adverse developments and shocks.

We are now in an era of financial vulnerability, which easily turns into vulnerability in the real economy of GDP growth, trade and jobs.

An immediate issue is whether the rout in China’s stock market will affect its real economy, in which case there will be serious effects.

One view is that it would contribute to a “hard landing” as the Chinese economy already has many problems.

Another view, more realistic in my view, is that the spillover to the real economy will not be significant. A paper by Brookings-Tsing­hua Centre shows that the inter-connection between the stock market and the economy is limited in China.

In the United States, half the population own stocks and corporations rely heavily on funds raised in the stock market, but in China less than 7% of urban Chinese invest in the stock market and corporations rely much less than American companies on the stock market to raise funds.

Nevertheless, China’s economy is expected to slow down this year. Other factors also add to a pessimistic outlook for developing countries.

These include continuing weak conditions in Europe and Japan, that may offset the US’ more steady recovery; the expected interest rate rises in the US, which will draw portfolio funds out from developing countries; and weakening of commodity prices.

Already many developing countries are suffering on the trade front. In Malaysia, exports in November 2015 grew only 6.3% from a year earlier. More worrisome, Malaysia’s industrial production, also in November, grew by only 1.8% from a year earlier.

Other Asian countries fared worse. Korea’s exports for the whole of 2015 fell 8%. Taiwan’s exports are also expected to have fallen 10% last year and Singapore’s manufacturing sector declined 6% in the most recent quarter.

China’s exports in December fell 1.4% from a year earlier but imports fell more, by 7.6%, which is bad news for other countries as China has less demand for their exports.

But of equal if not more concern is how, in the financial area, emerging economies like Malaysia have in new ways become more dependent and vulnerable in recent years.

Foreign presence in these countries’ domestic credit, bond, equity and property markets has reached unprecedented high levels, and thus new channels have emerged for the transmission of financial shocks from global boom-bust cycles, according to a South Centre paper by its chief economist Yilmaz Akyuz. (http://www.southcentre.int/research-paper-60-january-2015/)

During a boom, there is a rush by yield-seeing investors to place their global funds in emerging economies. But when perceptions or conditions change, the same funds can exit quickly, often leaving acute problems and crises in their wake.

Malaysia is among the vulnerable countries. Firstly, the fall in the prices of oil (on Jan 12 reaching below US$30 a barrel) and other commodities has affected export earnings.

The balance-of payments current account used to enjoy a huge surplus, but this has been shrinking.

In 2010–13 there were very high inflows of foreign funds into Malay­sia, averaging over 10% of GDP. But by 2015 there was a sharp reversal, with foreign funds flowing out from the equity and bond markets.

Malaysia is vulnerable to large outflows as foreigners in recent years have built up a strong presence in the domestic bond and equity markets. Foreign holdings of bonds (public and private) peaked at RM257bil in July 2014. And the share of foreign holdings in the stock market was 23.5% at the end of 2014, indicating a foreign-holding value then of around RM400bil.

Many billions of ringgit of foreign-owned bond and equity funds have been leaving the country in the past couple of years, especially 2015.

Due partly to this, Malaysia’s foreign reserves have fallen from US$130 bil in September 2014 to US$95.3bil at end-December 2015.

Although the present reserves are adequate to cover imports and short-term external debt, they are also vulnerable to further outflows of foreign-owned funds in equity and bonds.

Debt held by Malaysians is also high compared to other countries, according to another paper by Akyuz. Debt by households was estimated at 86% of GDP in first quarter 2015 by Merrill Lynch. Public debt is near to 55% of GDP (compared to an average 40% for developing countries covered in a McKinsey report). And corporate debt is estimated to be about 90–96% of GDP.

The overall local debt is thus very high, probably exceeding 200% of GDP, one of the highest ratios among developing countries. Thus, the country has financial vulnerabilities at both the external and domestic fronts.

What the country faces is part of a trend among emerging economies that is likely to last for some time. Many other countries are in far worse shape than Malaysia.

In an article last week, Martin Wolf of the Financial Times highlighted the important shift in perception by investors of the prospects for emerging economies, that has resulted in capital flowing out.

Global investors withdrew US$52bil from emerging market equity and bond funds in the third quarter of 2015, the largest quarterly outflow on record. The most important reason for this is the realisation of the deteriorating performance of the emerging economies, according to Wolf.

Thus, developing countries are in for a tough time this year. Of course the vulnerabilities may not translate into actual adverse effects, if global or local conditions improve. But it is better to prepare for the probable difficulties ahead.

By Martin Khor Global Trends

Martin Khor (director@southcen tre.org) is executive director of the South Centre. The views expressed here are entirely his own.

Can Malaysia's household debt at 87.9% in 2014 be reduced to 54% ?

BEING a teenager, my granddaughter started to pick up interest on how the economy works, what are the real assets and liabilities in one’s financial planning. As the topic itself can be slightly “dry”, I made an attempt to discuss it in a way that was easier for her to digest.

“Our national household debt to GDP ratio edged up to 87.9% last year. Is the number alarming?” she asked one day.

“It depends. We have good debts and bad debts in life. For example, 10 years later, our new cars may have depreciated more than 80% and our new clothes would have been worn out. Those are liabilities. On the other hand, houses are assets as they will appreciate in the long run. Debts which are backed by appreciating assets are considered good debts,” I said.

As she nodded in agreement with my simple explanation of good debts and bad debts, her question has piqued my curiosity to look into the details of our household debt.

Overall, is our nation having more good debts or bad debts?

Bank Negara report shows that our household debt was at RM940.4bil or 87.9% of GDP as at end of 2014. Residential housing loans accounted for 45.7% (RM429.7bil) of total debts, hire purchase at 16.6%, personal financing stood at 15.7%, non-residential loans were 7.7%, securities at 6.5%, followed by credit cards and other items at 3.9% respectively.

At first glance, our residential housing loans were the highest among all types of household debts. However, a recent McKinsey Global Institute Report highlighted that in advanced countries, mortgages or housing loans comprise 74% of total household debt on average. As a country that aspires to be a developed nation by 2020, our housing loans that stand at 45.7% is considered low. In other words, we are spending too much on other depreciating items instead of appreciating assets like houses.

If advanced economies, which are usually consumer nations, have only 26% debts on non-housing loans, we shouldn’t have as high as 54% loans on items such as hire-purchase (which are mostly cars), personal loans, credit cards and others.

If we were to follow the household debt ratio of advanced economies, our housing loans of RM429.7bil should be at 74% of total household debts, and other loans should be reduced from 54% to 26%, i.e. from RM510.7bil to RM150.9bil. With such reduction, total household debt would be slashed significantly from RM940.4bil to RM580.6bil (existing housing loans plus reduced non-housing loans), the amount would be at 54.2% of GDP instead of 87.9%.

I am wondering why we can’t have a household debt to GDP ratio of 54.2% as illustrated above. Are we spending too much on depreciating items?

Non-housing loans comprise mainly borrowings for cars, personal loans and credit cards. Car value depreciates about 10% to 20% per year based on insurance calculation and accounting practice. Borrowings for personal loans and credit card are also likely to depreciate over time which can be dubbed as “bad debt”.

Perhaps it is time for the Government to introduce massive cooling off measures for non-housing loans in order to curb bad debt in our household debt.

According to our Deputy Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Minister, our homeownership rate currently stands at 50% and the Government strives to increase the number with more affordable homes. As a comparison, almost 85% of Singaporeans are homeowners.

We can expedite the above vision if more stringent measures are imposed on non-housing loans, it will free up more resources for household financial planning. The rakyat should be encouraged to secure a roof over their heads with effective execution of affordable housing policy by the Government.

It is time to re-look our debt categories and reallocate our resources appropriately. If we are willing to cut back on cars, clothes, shoes and other depreciating items, reducing a household debt to GDP ratio of 54.2% is not only an aspiration, but an achievable reality.

By ALAN TONG Food for Thought

And the more beneficial effect is, more rakyat will have the financial resources to own a house, which is both a shelter and an appreciating asset.

■ FIABCI Asia-Pacific regional secretariat chairman Datuk Alan Tong has over 50 years of experience in property development. He is also the group chairman of Bukit Kiara Properties. For feedback, please email feedback@fiabci-asiapacific.com.

 
Related posts:

Not all debts are bad 

Unfair housing loan agreement 

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

Related:

 True Economics: 13/7/2014: Household Debt Mountains

I know, I know... it doesn't matter, really, that households are being tasked with funding Government debt first, their own debt later. All is sustainable.

Fitch downgrades Malaysia due to high government debts and spending

PETALING JAYA: Fitch Ratings, after cutting Malaysia’s credit rating outlook to “negative”, sending the stock market and the ringgit reeling, has said it is more likely to downgrade the country’s rating within the next two years on doubts over the Government’s ability to rein in its debt and spending.

The Government, in response to Bloomberg News, rebutted such concerns and said it was committed to fiscal responsibility, stressing that it would rationalise subsidies and broaden the tax base.

It said the economy was fundamentally healthy, with strong growth and foreign currency reserves.

Standard & Poor’s had last week, however, reaffirmed its credit rating on Malaysia and said it might raise sovereign credit ratings if stronger growth and the Government’s effort to reduce spending resulted in lower-than-expected deficits. “With lower deficits, a significant reduction in Government debt is possible,” it said.

It might lower its rating for Malaysia if the Government fails to deliver reform measures to reduce its fiscal deficits and increase the country’s growth prospects.

“These reforms may include implementing the Goods and Services Tax or GST, reducing subsidies, boosting private investments and diversifying the economy,” said S&P.

The downgrade in Malaysia’s rating outlook by Fitch on Tuesday took a toll on the capital markets, and sent the ringgit to a three-year low against the US dollar.

The FTSE Bursa Malaysia KL Composite Index closed 1.25% or 22.46 points lower at 1,772.62, and the ringgit fell to RM3.2425 against the greenback, its lowest since June 30, 2010.

The bond market, where foreign shareholding recently was at an all-time high, also saw yields climb dramatically. The yield for the 10-year tenure for Malaysian Government Securities rose seven basis points yesterday to 4.13%. The yield for the 10-year Government bond has climbed 77 basis points since April 30.

In a conference call yesterday afternoon, Fitch Ratings warned that a downgrade in Malaysia’s credit rating was “more likely than not” over the next 18 to 24 months. It highlighted Malaysia’s public finances as its key issue for the rating weakness.

Its head of Asia-Pacific sovereigns Andrew Colquhoun said over the phone that there was a concern over the Government’s commitment to fiscal consolidation after the May general election (GE).

“It is difficult to see the Government pressing forward with any fiscal reform steps or budget reforms,” he said, adding that the rating would reverse if any action was taken.

CIMB Research, in a note by its head of research Terence Wong and economics research head Lee Heng Guie, said Fitch’s revised outlook on the country was “bad news” for the stock market.

“While we believe there will be a knee-jerk selldown, the average lifespan for a rating outlook is about 18 to 24 months before a downgrade is enforced, giving Malaysia time to prevent that,” the report said.

They said the Fitch downgrade was a warning to Malaysia to improve its macroeconomic management, and was of the opinion that the Government had time to get its house in order.

“We believe the authorities will take the warning seriously and move to address any weaknesses,” they noted.

Both Wong and Lee, however, felt that any weakness in the stock market was an opportunity for investors to accumulate shares.

“The depreciation of the ringgit benefits exporters, such as plantation, rubber glove and semiconductor players, as well as those with foreign currency revenues,” they said.

Meanwhile, Areca Capital chief executive officer Danny Wong told StarBiz that foreign investors might use the downgrade as a reason to exit from Bursa Malaysia.

“There is a concern that the downgrading may affect foreigners to exit Malaysia in a big way. Hence, it created a ‘knee-jerk’ reaction to the market.

“However, I think the impact would be minimal on the equity market but the concern is on the bond market because of the 33% foreign ownership,” he said, adding that the outlook by Fitch was earlier than expected since the 2014 budget is set to be announced in two months’ time.

RAM Holdings Bhd chief economist Dr Yeah Kim Leng said the cut in the outlook by Fitch had rattled the market, but feels the country’s fundamentals such as gross domestic product (GDP) growth, high foreign reserves and current account surplus would soothe worries over any rating concerns.

“I believe the Government will pursue its target to reduce the budget deficit by 4% this year, or at least show a sign of reduction.

“However, Malaysia’s current account balance will narrow further by end-2013 due to a weakening in exports, although a deficit account is unlikely to happen,” he opined.

High debt levels have been a growing concern in recent years in Malaysia, as the Government debt-to-GDP ratio is among the highest in South-East Asia. At 53.5% as at the end of last year, it is higher than the 25% in Indonesia, 51% in the Philippines and 43% in Thailand, noted a report by Bloomberg.

The ratio for Malaysia is almost to the debt ceiling limit of 55%.

Fitch, it its notes accompanying its decision to downgrade Malaysia’s credit outlook, said the country’s budget deficit had widened to 4.7% of GDP in 2012 from 3.8% in 2011, led by a 19% rise in spending on public wages ahead of the May GE.

It believes that it will be difficult for the Government to achieve its 3% deficit target for 2015 without additional consolidation measures.

By INTAN FARHANA ZAINUL intanzainul@thestar.com.my

US fiscal deficit position is cheating American Children

So, about that fiscal crisis — the one that would, any day now, turn US into Greece. Greece, I tell you: Never mind.

Over the past few weeks, there has been a remarkable change of position among the deficit scolds who have dominated economic policy debate for more than three years. It’s as if someone sent out a memo saying that the Chicken Little act, with its repeated warnings of a U.S. debt crisis that keeps not happening, has outlived its usefulness. Suddenly, the argument has changed: It’s not about the crisis next month; it’s about the long run, about not cheating our children. The deficit, we’re told, is really a moral issue.

There’s just one problem: The new argument is as bad as the old one. Yes, we are cheating our children, but the deficit has nothing to do with it.

Before I get there, a few words about the sudden switch in arguments.

There has, of course, been no explicit announcement of a change in position. But the signs are everywhere. Pundits who spent years trying to foster a sense of panic over the deficit have begun writing pieces lamenting the likelihood that there won’t be a crisis, after all.

Maybe it wasn’t that significant when President Barack Obama declared that we don’t face any “immediate” debt crisis, but it did represent a change in tone from his previous deficit-hawk rhetoric. And it was startling, indeed, when John Boehner, the speaker of the House, said exactly the same thing a few days later.

What happened? Basically, the numbers refuse to cooperate: Interest rates remain stubbornly low, deficits are declining and even 10-year budget projections basically show a stable fiscal outlook rather than exploding debt.

So talk of a fiscal crisis has subsided. Yet the deficit scolds haven’t given up on their determination to bully the nation into slashing Social Security and Medicare. So they have a new line: We must bring down the deficit right away because it’s “generational warfare,” imposing a crippling burden on the next generation.

What’s wrong with this argument? For one thing, it involves a fundamental misunderstanding of what debt does to the economy.

Contrary to almost everything you read in the papers or see on TV, debt doesn’t directly make our nation poorer; it’s essentially money we owe to ourselves. Deficits would indirectly be making us poorer if they were either leading to big trade deficits, increasing our overseas borrowing, or crowding out investment, reducing future productive capacity. But they aren’t: Trade deficits are down, not up, while business investment has actually recovered fairly strongly from the slump.

And the main reason businesses aren’t investing more is inadequate demand. They’re sitting on lots of cash, despite soaring profits, because there’s no reason to expand capacity when you aren’t selling enough to use the capacity you have. In fact, you can think of deficits mainly as a way to put some of that idle cash to use.

Yet there is, as I said, a lot of truth to the charge that we’re cheating our children. How? By neglecting public investment and failing to provide jobs.

You don’t have to be a civil engineer to realize that America needs more and better infrastructure, but the latest “report card” from the American Society of Civil Engineers — with its tally of deficient dams, bridges, and more, and its overall grade of D+ — still makes startling and depressing reading. And right now, with vast numbers of unemployed construction workers and vast amounts of cash sitting idle, would be a great time to rebuild our infrastructure.

Yet public investment has actually plunged since the slump began.

Or what about investing in our young? We’re cutting back there, too, having laid off hundreds of thousands of schoolteachers and slashed the aid that used to make college affordable for children of less-affluent families.

Last but not least, think of the waste of human potential caused by high unemployment among younger Americans — for example, among recent college graduates who can’t start their careers and will probably never make up the lost ground.

And why are we shortchanging the future so dramatically and inexcusably?

Blame the deficit scolds, who weep crocodile tears over the supposed burden of debt on the next generation, but whose constant inveighing against the risks of government borrowing, by undercutting political support for public investment and job creation, has done far more to cheat our children than deficits ever did.

Fiscal policy is, indeed, a moral issue, and we should be ashamed of what we’re doing to the next generation’s economic prospects. But our sin involves investing too little, not borrowing too much — and the deficit scolds, for all their claims to have our children’s interests at heart, are actually the bad guys in this story.

By Paul Krugman

Related posts:
 Hit by US automatic spending cuts, tax hikes, budget cuts
 US Fiscal Cliff poses threat to economy worldwide!
Cliff' worries may drive tax selling on Wall Street
Dim global growth prospects in 2013
The rotten heart of capitalism: interest rate-fixing 
The US Pacific free trade deal that's anything but free? 

How to save when you’re broke?

Saving money is not impossible when you're in financial dire straits

SAVING money can be a tall order for a lot of people but it becomes near impossible when you're broke or financially challenged. Still, it's not a position you can't come out of.

Here are some simple steps to follow to help you save despite being broke.

Set up a budget plan

If you're broke and trying to save money, than it's best to come up with a budget plan, says Standard Financial Planner Sdn Bhd's Jeremy Tan.

“If you're broke, then you need to evaluate what you're doing wrong.

“Have a budget plan. Look at what assets you have? “Perhaps you could try liquidating some.

“But even before you're broke, you should have contingency or emergency funds,” he tells StarBizWeek.

Keep working

MyFP Services Sdn Bhd managing director Robert Foo believes that if a person is broke, it's imperative for one to continue working or seek a new form of employment - as soon as possible.

“If you have a job, then you should continue working.The experience that you already have would be invaluable.

And what happens if you've lost your job or unemployed? All is not lost, says Foo.

“Don't feel hopeless. You've got skills and should be able to have contacts that can help you find a new job.

“If you have a job and you feel it's unstable or that you might lose it, then you should ensure that your resume is with headhunters, to ensure your income position remains as stable as possible.”

Tan also points out that age can be a factor. “Of course if you're young, you'll be able to take on multi-tasking jobs. If you're old, then you might need to go easy on the job load,” he says.

Compare prices

Self-confessed shopaholic PS Tan says that when she's “a little bit behind on her credit card payments” and needs to cut down on her spending, she decides to be a little bit more “choosy” with her shopping.

“When I know I need to cut down on my spending, I go several hypermarts or supermarkets and compare prices first before eventually purchasing.

“Also, if I have been using items that were expensive, I just choose to buy ones that are cheaper.
Be open to new brands and products,” she says.

Eliminate costs

While trying to save, also try to rid yourself of whatever debts you have.

“If you're broke, ask yourself if you have debts or not? Find out how you can restructure them,” says Tan.

Tan meanwhile says now would also be a good time to evaluate and consider eliminating the unnecessary financial obligations that one can do without.

“If you have a gym membership for a gym that you've not been going to for a long time, or perhaps a year's subscription for a book or magazine you've been hardly reading, just cut it off.”

Live within your means

If you're broke, than you're going to need to need to change your lifestyle - immediately!

“If you're broke, then you're not going to be able to sustain the lifestyle you've been living.

“The fastest way to solve this is to cut down on your expenses,” says Foo.

He reiterates that one could find a part time job or even a second one to curb debts quickly.

Eric Lee (not his real name), a marketing executive who was laid off for six months, says he was forced to cut down on his lavish lifestyle when he had difficulty finding a job.

“I had to do a lot of things differently.

“My car got repossessed and I had to move out from where I was staying because I couldn't afford the rent.

“I moved in with my parents and also had to rely on public transport to go where ever I needed to, especially for job interviews.

“If I was lucky, sometimes I could drive my parents' cars.

“When I did get a job, I initially still had to live within my means as I was still unable to stand on my own feet. This meant taking home-cooked meals to work.

“Initially, I also had to use t-shirts from friends as I couldn't afford new ones.”

By EUGENE MAHALINGAM
eugenicz@thestar.com.

Related post:

Hubby and wife laying low — no thanks to debtor son

Hubby and wife laying low — no thanks to debtor son

< Hapless situation: Lee relating Chan and Yong’s story during the press conference.

IPOH: Chan Kwai Woh and Yong Yin Yoke, both in their 70s, have been moving from one budget hotel to another since Dec 17.

The elderly couple is trying to avoid being hounded and threatened by loan sharks from whom their 48-year-old son Voon Jiun had borrowed huge sums of money.

“I want to cut ties with my son for causing us so much trouble, and I request the loan sharks to find him instead of harassing us,” said Chan.

The 73-year-old part-time technician said their home in Taman Cempaka here was splashed with red paint on Dec 15 and Dec 23.

“We lodged a police report after the first incident and moved out without taking much clothes or even our high-blood pressure medicine,” he told a press conference at the office of Perak MCA Public Services and Complaints Bureau chief Datuk Lee Kon Yin here yesterday.

“After the first incident of paint being splashed in our porch we questioned our son about the matter and the next day he disappeared.”

Missing borrower: Voon Jiun has gone into hiding.

Chan and Yong, 70, have four other children but are afraid to stay with them as the loan sharks might also harass their families.

“It is stressful dealing with the loan sharks and we decided it was best to stay outside,” said Chan.

He believes Voon Jiun had fled after borrowing money from the loan sharks. His whereabouts are not known.

Showing photographs of his son, Chan said their relationship had been strained for some time.

“He had been staying for over 20 years in Australia, where he got married and has a 10-year-old daughter.

“However, he returned to Malaysia alone in June,” said Chan, adding that the family does not know what the son does for a living.

Meanwhile, Lee said he would write to the police to speed up the investigation on Chan’s report.

“I will follow them back to their house so that they can take their medication and other items.

“But I have advised them to stay put in their house. If there is any problem they can always contact the police, instead of staying in budget hotels,” he added.

By MANJIT KAUR
manjit@thestar.com.my 

New tax rules create a quandary for lending to family members

CHARGING below market interest gets you in trouble with the taxman or the law against money-lending.

“Neither a borrower nor a lender be”.

This advice by Polonius, the King's adviser to his son in Shakespeare's Hamlet remains good advice today.

But good advice, it is said, is least heeded when most needed.

Lending money gives rise to risk of default, a stark reminder of today's global phenomenon.

At a personal level, it can lead to the loss of a friend, a relative remaining one only by virtue of blood ties.

The term “relative” is defined in our tax law to include a wide network of family members including a nephew, a niece, a cousin and somewhat incredibly “an ancestor or lineal descendant.”

How the latter is to be determined, the law has not made clear, leaving the conundrum perhaps to the wisdom of the courts.

In many cases, loans between family members are below-market loans.

By this is meant that the lender charges either no interest or a rate that is less than the “market rate” also known as the “arm's length” rate.

This is in breach of the tax law, which requires a loan to a related party including a relative to be at the market rate of interest.

This requirement has been made clear by a recent Government Gazette setting out rules on transfer pricing as the rules do not state that such loans must be in the context of carrying on a business or must be used in a business.

Thus when you make a below market loan to a relative, driven entirely by altruistic reasons and devoid of any business considerations, the tax law treats you as having derived imputed' income from your borrower and would proceed to levy tax on that imputed income.

This phantom income on which tax is levied equals the market rate you should have charged less the interest you actually charged.

This means that you must report the imputed interest as taxable income in your tax return failing which you will be in default of the tax law.

If you were to consider avoiding this unfavourable tax outcome by being somewhat hard-hearted and charged interest to your relative, then you are in breach of the Moneylenders Act.

The law here precludes the charging of any interest since you are not a licensed moneylender.

A moneylender under this law is any person who “lends a sum of money to a borrower in consideration of a larger sum being repaid to him”.

So this puts you, the lender, setting out to help a financially distressed relative, on the proverbial “horns of a dilemma”.

You are in the untenable position of breaking one or the other law.

This state of affairs seems to run counter to any coherent tax policy objective.

In the United States, the lending of money below market rate historically occurred without tax consequences.

Through a series of court cases over several years culminating in a case in 1984, the court held that the lender's right to receive interest is a “valuable property right” and where such a right is transferred by way of an interest-free loan, it is in the nature of a gift subject to “gift tax”.

But the point here is that the taxing of the interest-free loan is because of the existence of a gift tax.

We do not have such a tax in Malaysia and taxing imputed interest, as this measure is generally known, between related individuals not conducting business transactions, is a retrograde step.

We had long repealed a similar imputed income provision, which treated a person owning an unoccupied house as having an income source, even where no income exist.

Business related loans follow similar concepts, but here the law is entirely understandable and justified where the intent is to avoid tax.

If company A makes an interest-free loan to its subsidiary which is a tax exempt pioneer company, then this leads to tax results which are not reflective of transactions between commercial parties.

Not charging interest inflates the subsidiary's tax exempt profits enhancing its capacity to pay tax exempt dividends, without a corresponding tax liability on the lending parent had interest been charged.

Here the existence of a “tax shelter” where one entity has either tax exempt status or a tax loss position, can lead to tax leakage, the reason for the arm's length rule.

Interest-free business lending between related companies can also lead to anomalous results.

This is a consequence of the divergence between the tax treatment and the new accounting standards for public listed companies.

The taxman will require tax to be imposed on the lender on the imputed market rate interest.

Whereas if such a company lends RM100,000 to its subsidiary interest - free to be repaid in equal instalment over five years and the market interest rate is 10%, the accounts will reflect the lender as having a debt of RM75,816, which is the discounted amount at the inception of the loan.

Over the period of the loan, the borrower will be shown as having paid interest of RM 24,184 which will equal the discount.

Thus the books of both companies will be recorded as if interest had been paid as shown in the table.

Since these are book entries and there are no costs incurred or income earned, they have no tax consequence.

This reflects the economic substance of the loan transaction as distinct from the strict legal substance, the mainstay for tax.

This fundamental difference in concept tends to make attempts at convergence between the accounting and tax treatments particularly problematic.

The more pressing issue is doing away with the taxing of imputed interest on non-business lending between relatives, a measure which seems unjustified.

Kang Beng Hoe is an executive director of TAXAND MALAYSIA Sdn Bhd, a member firm of TAXAND, the first global organisation of independent tax firms. The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the firm. Readers should seek specific professional advice before acting on the views. Beng Hoe can be contacted at kbh@taxand.com.my

US student Loan Crisis, an Education Bubble?

I started following the student loan crisis when I noted that student loans seemed to be neck and neck with health care as the primary grievances on the We Are The 99% site.  I was very lucky to get two pretty regular guest posters Alan Collinge and Tim Smith, who have written on the issue from different angles.  I was astonished to get a call from Sallie Mae asking me how they could get their side of the story onto Forbes.com.  At the risk of being prosecuted for impersonating a journalist, I did a brief interview with John Remondi, President and COO of Sallie Mae.  I’m still hoping for some guest posts from Sallie Mae, but nothing has come through yet.  Sunday, I heard from Tim Smith, who let me know that the New York Times was picking up on the issue with this piece.  I invited him to share his reaction.  Here it is.

The Education Bubble Won’t Create A Disaster, Right?

“Looking back, anyone could have predicted the housing bubble.”  This sentiment has been echoed many times, and graphs of the past housing bubble almost make it seem obvious before the bubble burst.  The education bubble?  While many acknowledge the soaring cost – especially those in the education fields – fewer agree that we’re about to see the education bubble pop and create a bigger mess than the housing bubble.  Education may have its critics, but it also has major defenders.

Student Loan Defaulter Calls For Solidarity Peter J Reilly Contributor

Why Does Congress Love Houses More Than Students? Kelly Phillips Erb Contributor

New College Grads: Just Say No to More Debt! Sheryl Nance-Nash Contributor

Cheap Stafford Loans: A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing CCAP Contributor

However, the chorus seems to be changing.  Even the New York Times recently joined with an article that compared the education bubble to the housing bubble (this analogy has been used multiple times, but like the above graph shows, under predicts the mess that the education bubble will cause).  Even while other media players have finally seen this bubble, the warning signs were spelled out on this blog :

These warning signs would be favorable laws toward discharging student loans in bankruptcy (making it more challenging for students to receive money for education); a societal zeitgeist toward education changing (for instance, businesses preferring certification or a degree from something similar to the Khan Academy over traditional colleges); a major recession coming back to the United States, taking away more employment (making it more difficult for student with loans to pay back their loans); students becoming discouraged by negative news toward education (causing many to drop out or to avoid college).
Of course, some readers might wonder if all four signs must appear for the education bubble to pop, and the answer is “No”.

Even though the education bubble has received attention, few expect the consequences to be bad.  In fact, the Times’ article mentions that economists don’t see the consequences being similar to the housing bubble – in other words, the education bubble pops, and everything is fine.  Consider the potential reality:

1.      High student loan balances discourage future and current demand for other products and services (consider the attitude, for instance, of Natalia Antonova, who faced a debt crisis with her student loans).  This subtracts money flow from the economy to provide jobs in other areas.  Even without the bubble popping, this is the current situation.
2.      If the demand for education drops, the consequences will affect those in the education system – schools will need fewer professors, advisors and others in the education field.  This will create a terrible job hunting situation, where graduates will be placed against high-credentialed people (some of whom may have been their professors).  Remember that in order to keep these people employed, the demand for education must remain the same or rise.
3.      If the demand for education declines, the demand for educational products will decline also – textbooks, construction, and many of the expenditures that some colleges think are necessary to provide a good education.  This drop in demand will cause business, which sell products and services to educational institutions, to cut back on their staff to offset their losses.
There is one way in which economists might be right – if wages began to soar.  Like the housing bubble, Americans felt the mess because the decline in housing prices meant that debt was owed on something that had little value.  If education continues to rise, while wages stagnate or slowly rise, a college degree will be like a home, which has lost its value.  If wages soar, however, a college degree will still mean the path to prosperity.

Tim Smith blogs on the “Echo Boom”, also known as Generation Y (Americans born between 1980 – 1995). Tim has previously appeared here discussing his generation’s attitude towards homeownership and education.

I’m beginning to think that the “bubble” metaphor may not work that well for education.  In the case of the stock market and real estate people own assets that they think they can sell at any time for some minimum price.  Then something happens and everybody heads for the door at once.  At that point the seeds of the next bubble are sown, because the assets have some level of intrinsic value and somebody will buy them for something and may get rich on the next turn of the wheel.  Educational credentials, on the other hand, are not at all fungible.  They can only be cash flowed, not liquidated.  If they are not used when fairly fresh, their value erodes rather quickly.  The actual economic value of the credential will often be quickly replaced by the experience which the credential enables.  

By Peter J Reilly, Forbes Contributor Newscribe : get free news in real time

Related posts:
American mounting student loans a 'debt bomb' waiting to explode! Inside America’s Student Loan Bubble!
American Student Loan Debt: $1 Trillion and Counting
America, a "Generation of Sissies"
A "great haircut" for U.S. growth  

American Student Loan Debt: $1 Trillion and Counting

Day 3 of the protest Occupy Wall Street in Manhattan's Zuccotti Park. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Whatever happened to the American dream of going to college, landing a great job and living happily ever after? College is supposed to be about getting off to a great start, but it’s a financial noose that threatens to kill our young and everybody else too. The U.S. has the dubious distinction of now having more than $1 trillion in outstanding student loan debt.

 The crisis has the full attention of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which in a recent blog , presented its sobering findings. “Unlike other consumer credit products, student debt keeps growing at a steady clip. Students borrowed $117 billion in just federal student loans last year. And students continue to borrow private student loans, which lack the income-based repayment and deferment options of federal student loans. If current trends continue, there will be consequences not just for young people, but for all of us,” wrote CFPB’s student loan ombudsman Rohit Chophra.

Worse still, he writes, according to data from the Department of Education, federal student loan debt isn’t growing just with new originations — with so many borrowers unable to keep up with interest payments, debt is growing even for many who have left school. Too much debt means too much risk for a generation of young people, many of whom are struggling in today’s economy.

What’s the impact? Excessive student debt slows a recovery still trying to find its sea legs. Study after study has shown that young people are delaying the traditional rite of passage of launching out on their own and starting families. With so much debt, on average about $26,000 for undergrads, and many unemployed or underemployed, they are running back home, instead of looking for their first apartment or home.

 A decidedly grim picture could get worse. In July, if Congress doesn’t get its act together and takes some of the momentum of a crisis with explosive potential, a 2007 law that kept federally subsidized Stafford loan interest rates low will expire this summer, meaning the rates will double from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. This is more bad news on top of the real possibility that proposals to financial aid may become reality – the Pell Grants could move from mandatory to discretionary spending, meaning who knows what will happen, but likely none too good. There is also a bill to repeal the expanded Income-Based Repayment program, that lessens the sting of college students by letting them pay back what they own in proportion to their salaries.

The CFPB is working with the Department of Education, and launched a Know Before You Owe project , to solicit input on a “financial aid shopping sheet”. The sheet is designed to help students understand the debt implications of their college choice. CFPB is supervising private student loan providers to ensure they comply with Federal consumer financial protection laws and CFPB is providing tools for borrowers to help them navigate their student loan repayment options. A newly established student loan complaint system will help ensure that private student lenders and servicers are responsive to potential mistakes and problems that borrowers encounter. This summer, the CFPB will release the full results of its private student loan market.

Where is the outrage over the continue increase in tuition at a time when some colleges are raising salaries for their presidents?

 Just this week a plan was approved to give pay raises to two university presidents in California. This comes at a time when the California State University system is grappling with a $750 million budget shortfall and is considering limiting enrollment for the spring semester.

There’s something so wrong with this picture. Students will pay the price, families will pay the price, society will feel the ramifications for some time to come.

By Sheryl Nance-Nash, Forbes Contributor Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Lloyds, Britain’s biggest mortgage lender plunges to £3.5bn loss for 2011

Rising Funding Costs Imperil Profit in 2011

Part-nationalised Lloyds Banking Group said today that it is "in a significantly stronger position than it was 12 months ago" despite unveiling total losses of £3.5 billion for last year.The losses, which compare with a £281 million profit the previous year and are driven by a £3.5 billion hit to tackle the payment protection insurance scandal, are nearly twice the size of those at fellow state-backed bank Royal Bank of Scotland.

 http://www.independent.ie/video/video-world-news/lloyds-makes-35bn-loss-3030959.html
By  Gavin Finch in London at gfinch@bloomberg.net

Lloyds chief executive António Horta-Osório is cutting 15,000 jobs, on top of the 30,000 already axed. Photograph: Reuters

Former Chief Executive Officer Eric Daniels said, “We achieved a step change in our financial performance despite modest economic growth.” Photographer: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg

Lloyds Banking Group Plc, Britain’s biggest mortgage lender, tumbled in London trading as the bank said rising funding costs will squeeze profit margins in 2011.

The net interest margin, the difference between what the bank pays for funds and what it charges for loans, will be unchanged in 2011, Lloyds said in a statement today. The lender is replacing government support with costlier wholesale funding.

“The numbers and outlook statement from Lloyds are a bit of a horror show,” said Ian Gordon, an analyst at Exane BNP Paribas SA in London with a “neutral” rating on the stock. “Lloyds’s second-half performance has been very weak.”

Analysts including Gordon and John-Paul Crutchley at UBS AG said they may cut estimates for 2011 pretax profit by more than 2 billion pounds ($3.2 billion), about a third. Chief Executive Officer Eric Daniels, who will be succeeded by Antonio Horta- Osorio next week, has been trying to wean Lloyds off state aid after the takeover of HBOS Plc in 2008 led to 13 billion pounds of losses and left the taxpayer owning 41 percent of the lender.

The shares tumbled 4.5 percent to 62.85 pence at the close in London, the biggest decline in more than three months.

“The knee-jerk reaction could be some disappointment,” said Cormac Leech, an analyst at Canaccord Genuity Ltd. in London who has a “buy” rating on the stock. “The biggest negative is that the margin will stay flat in 2011.”

Net Interest Margin

Lloyds posted a full-year net loss of 320 million pounds in 2010, compared with a 2.83 billion-pound profit in 2009, the bank said in the statement. Earnings the previous year were buoyed by an 11.1 billion-pound accounting gain on the HBOS purchase. Pretax profit slumped 62 percent to 609 million pounds in the second half of 2010 from the first half.

The net interest margin rose to 2.1 percent from 1.8 percent in 2009. Lloyds cut its reliance on government aid to 96.6 billion pounds in 2010 from 157.2 billion pounds in 2009.

The shares, the second-best performing of the U.K.’s five biggest lenders last year, may struggle to repeat that in 2011 as funding costs and Irish loan losses climb and a government commission weighs whether to break Lloyds up, analysts said. The Independent Banking Commission, which is reviewing competition in the financial services industry, will report in September. Lloyds said today it also expects a “slow recovery over the next couple of years” for the British economy.

“Another extremely challenging year lies ahead,” Gordon said. “There are still very significant bumps in the road.”

Halifax, Oil Losses

Lloyds posted its first full-year pretax profit since the credit crisis today. Profit was 2.2 billion pounds compared with a loss of 6.3 billion pounds in 2009. That beat the 2 billion- pound median profit estimated by 21 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. Provisions fell 45 percent to 13.2 billion pounds in 2010 from 24 billion pounds in 2009.

Profit was crimped by a 4.3 billion-pound charge for bad loans in Ireland and a 365 million-pound loss on the sale of two deepwater oil drilling rig businesses to Seadrill Ltd. The bank also made a 500 million-pound provision to cover payments it’s making to Halifax mortgage clients because the terms of their loans were unclear.

Lloyds follows Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc in posting an increase in losses from the implosion of Ireland’s decade- long real estate boom. Edinburgh-based RBS posted a full-year loss of 1.1 billion pounds yesterday, missing analyst estimates as Irish loan losses almost doubled.

“We expect to see further reductions in impairment losses in 2011 and beyond,” Lloyds said in the statement.

‘Radical’ Intervention

Pretax profit at Lloyds’s consumer banking unit rose to 4.7 billion pounds from 1.4 billion pounds. Profit was bolstered as customers reverted to standard variable rate mortgages, which generate more income than fixed-rate loans, Daniels, 59, said on a call to journalists today.

“The stand-out performance in the retail division will undoubtedly raise eyebrows, adding fuel to the fire of those that view the banking behemoth as an anti-competitive force,” said Paul Mumford, a fund manager at Cavendish Asset Management in London. “Increased profits will be met by increased enthusiasm for radical regulatory intervention.”

Daniels, who has overseen a 76 percent plunge in Lloyds share price since he took over as CEO in 2003, said he was “very pleased’ with his tenure at the bank. Daniels told the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme that he hasn’t decided whether to accept his 1.45 million-pound bonus for 2010 even though the board has made an award.

The bank’s core Tier 1 capital ratio, which measures financial strength, rose to 10.2 percent from 8.1 percent as risk-weighted assets declined by 18 percent to 406.4 billion pounds. Lloyds said it expects to meet its target to cut assets by about 100 billion pounds over the next three years.

“We achieved a step change in our financial performance despite modest economic growth,” Daniels said. “While the significant decrease in impairments was a key driver in our return to profitability, we also saw a good performance in the core business.”

Related posts:
What is a banker really worth?
RBS, biggest British stated-owned bank losses of £3.5bn !