All-time high: The Singapore dollar surged to a new high against the ringgit two days ago. - Thomas Yong/The Star
JOHOR BARU: Many Malaysians working across the Causeway are planning holidays and home renovations as the Singapore dollar surged to a new high against the ringgit.
Jason Wong, 27, said he felt that his decision to cross the border daily to work was the right one as he now has more cash in hand due to the strong currency exchange rate of S$1 to RM3.50.
“One by one, many of my peers and relatives had gone to Singapore for work, which led to my decision to do the same. I started working there in March after finding it difficult to get a stable job in Johor Baru.“I start my commute at around 6am and reach home after 8pm every day. It is tiring but the exchange rate makes it worthwhile. I can give more money to my elderly parents now that I have extra disposable income,” he told The Star.
Wong added that he was also saving to take his parents on a holiday for the first time next year.
The Singapore dollar shot to a new high of 3.5086 against the ringgit on Tuesday morning.
Ardy Zainuddin, 33, who works as a purchasing executive in Singapore, was happy to have extra money to renovate his new home here.
“My wife and I have just got the keys to our new house and with a second baby on the way, anything extra is welcome,” said Ardy, who has been commuting across the border for work for the past five years.
However, he hopes that the Malaysian government would come up with policies to strengthen the ringgit.
“The strong Singapore-Malaysia currency exchange is good for those working across the border, but I am concerned that the weakening ringgit will make things more expensive for other Malaysians.
“My relatives living in Johor and Melaka have been complaining that it is costly to eat out or even cook at home. They are also hesitant to travel overseas because of the weak ringgit,” he added.
Checks by The Star at several popular money changers in the city found that they were well-stocked with the ringgit to cater to the expected higher demand.
A money changer who only wanted to be known as Wan said, “This is the first time I have seen the ringgit dip so low against the Singapore dollar in my 10 years of being in the industry.
When the exchange rate was S$1 to RM3.41 in May, our business rose by about 30% as those working across the border as well as Singaporeans rushed to buy the ringgit in large quantities,” she said.
GOVERNMENT-backed coins and private cryptocurrencies will coexist for a while, despite rising regulatory walls set by the government to counter virtual coins, experts at a global webinar session said Thursday.
Noting that cryptocurrencies and digital currencies by governments are “two different animals,” they will coexist for now partly because current cryptocurrencies are not actually solving payment problems.
“How many of them (cryptocurrencies) are solving actual payment problem? Most of them are speculative and used as a means of storage,” said Nelson Chow, chief fintech officer of the Fintech Facilitation Office at the Hong Kong Monetary Authority.
Chow said that some central bank digital currency, or CBDC, projects such as Multiple CBDC Bridge have the potential to solve decades-old problems for cross-border transactions. Multiple CBDC Bridge is a wholesale CBDC co-creation project between the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, Bank of Thailand, the People‘s Bank of China and the Central Bank of the United Arab Emirates.
Under the current regulatory environment, John Kiffmeiste, a former senior financial sector expert at the International Monetary Fund, said that it is unlikely that the emergence of CBDC projects, now numbering nearly 60 according to Kiffmeiste’s data, would make crypto assets obsolete.
“CBDC has to operate within confines of tax regulations, anti-money laundering, KYC (know-your-customer) and so many other regulations whereas cryptocurrencies don’t operate in that environment,” the economist added.
Speakers at the webinar co-hosted by The Investor, a tech media outlet run by The Korea Herald, Malaysia’s The Star and the Asia News Network.
But, Kiffmeiste pointed out that as the regulatory and legislative walls are closing in on crypto assets, they will come under the same rules that other types of conventional currencies operate under. “In that case, that levels the playing field. Perhaps in that new world, CBDCs and cryptocurrencies coexist, but crypto assets become redundant as at least payment medium.”
Andrew Sheng, one of Asia’s top economists, stressed that authorities should understand the complex contextual backgrounds that have brought about the rising interest in CBDCs and cryptocurrencies.
Noting that the value of the cryptocurrency market has reached US$1.2tril – half the value of the official gold reserves – Sheng said cryptocurrencies had grown outside of the purview of public control. “This was the big lesson of the Covid-19, private cyber currencies will be with us whether you like it or not,” Sheng said.
The tug-of-war between regulators and cryptocurrencies is most apparent in the US in the area of stablecoins like USD Coin, a digital equivalent of the US dollar.
The US-proposed Stable Act will bring USD stablecoin issuers into conventional regulatory perimeters.
Kevin Werbach, a professor of legal studies and business ethics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, said that the cryptocurrency industry does not have to be allergic to regulations.
“There is always a notion that we have to choose either innovation or regulation. And I think it’s a false dichotomy. For new technological markets to mature and develop, they need to be trusted. They need to get to the point where ordinary people around the world are willing to participate in these activities at scale, and regulations are an important part of that,” Werbach said.
As to the increasing public controls on crypto assets, speakers called for regulations compatible with the emerging cryptocurrency industry. They shared a similar view that cryptocurrency companies and regulators must work together on bringing the industry into the system.
“Since innovation is always ahead of regulation, it is inevitable for regulators to rely on us when drafting policies. It is crucial to reshape their ‘legacy mindset’ and make them understand the nature and dynamics of cryptocurrency,” said Marcus Lim, CEO and co-founder of Zipmex.
They were speaking at a webinar co-hosted by The Investor, a tech media outlet run by The Korea Herald, Malaysia’s The Star and the Asia News Network entitled “The rise of Govcoins & What’s next for crypto”. Speakers at the July 22 virtual seminar included a group of experts in the US, Europe and Asia who are navigating the current situation surrounding the development of central bank digital currencies and challenges posed by and to cryptocurrencies.
Experts said that central bank digital currencies have a huge potential to solve many issues, ranging from decades-old problems involving cross-border transactions to digital transformation.
Kiffmeiste noted that almost 60 jurisdictions are currently exploring retail CBDCs, with countries like the Bahamas and China at the forefront, but they are divided in their motivations for issuing the CBDCs. For instance, emerging economies consider CBDCs as a way to spur financial digitalisation, while advanced economics mull digital currency as part of financial stability and to improve monetary policies. — The Korea Herald/Asia News Network
Join our Telegram channel to get our Evening Alerts and breaking news highlights
Why the global financial landscape is undergoing a seismic shift
Regulators
are struggling to keep up with fintech’s rapid growth and the impact of
big data, even as intense geopolitical rivalries mean accidents could
easily escalate into crises
AUGUST 15, 2021 marks the 50th anniversary of United States President Richard Nixon delinking the US dollar from gold. Instead of a crisis, the ensuing half century marked the pre-eminence of the US financial system to global dominance.
In 2017, US Treasury Secretary Mnuchin commissioned four major studies on the US financial system that reviewed its efficiency, resilience, innovation and regulation. These surveys highlighted the US dominance in all four areas of banking, capital markets, asset management and financial technology.
To quote the reports proclaimed : “The US banking system is the strongest in the world”... “The US capital markets are the largest, deepest, and most vibrant in the world..(that) include the US$29 trillion (RM119 trillion) equity market, the US$14 trillion (RM57.5 trillion) market for US Treasury securities, the US$8.5 trillion (RM35 trillion) corporate bond market, and US$200 trillion (notional amount or RM820 trillion) derivatives market.”
According to the reports,“Nine of the top 10 largest global asset managers are headquartered in the United States.” In the area of financial technology, “US firms accounted for nearly half of the US$117bil (RM480bil) in cumulative global investments from 2010 to 2017.”
Under-pinning the US financial system’s success is of course the US dollar’s dominant currency pricing role. The dollar accounted for 88% in paired foreign exchange currency trading in 2019 and 59% of official foreign exchange holdings in 2020. It is widely used in trade invoicing in manufacturing but less so in services trade. As a major International Monetary Fund study has shown, this pricing role impacts on emerging market economy (EME) exchange rate policies, as their devaluation would have only limited positive impact on their exports, but amplifies their import contraction.
Furthermore, because EME debt is largely denominated in dollars, any dollar appreciation would have an overall contractionary impact on EME liquidity and growth. This is why US interest rate increases are feared not just by the US Treasury, but also almost all EME economies.
Several factors combined to create the recent seismic shift in the global financial landscape.
First, financial technology has eroded the dominant share of the banking system. The Financial Stability Board (FSB) 2020 report on non-bank financial institutions (NBFI) revealed that as of end-2019, they accounted for 49.5% of global financial assets of $404 trillion, compared with 38.5% for the banks. Indeed, total NBFI lending now exceed bank lending, partly because of tighter bank regulations and higher bank capital and liquidity costs.
`
Second, financial technology has enabled new arrivals in the financial sector comprising not new fintech startups, but also Big Tech platforms that are using Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, apps and their dominance of cloud computing to provide more convenient, speedy and customer-oriented finance for individuals and businesses. This month, a major BIS study on the implications of fintech and digitisation on financial market structure showed how Big Tech has muscled into traditional banking services, especially in payment services, lending and even asset management.
Taking the growth of NBFIs and Big Tech together, the traditional bank regulators and supervisors find that they regulate less and less of the financial system, but central banks are responsible for overall financial stability. Regulating the complex financial eco-system is like trying to tie down a huge elephant by a bunch of specialists each trapped in their own silos. And politically, no one wants to give a super-regulator power to rule them all.
Third, the financial landscape entered new minefields because of intense geopolitical rivalry. If global supply chains are going to be decoupled by different standards, and we arrive at a Splinternet of different technology standards, how should finance respond? As the US applies pressure on Chinese companies and individuals through new sanctions and legislation, financial institutions and companies struggle to deal with shifting goal posts and game changes.
A woman and a child walk past the People’s Bank of China building in
Beijing on March 4. China’s central bank, like others around the world,
is grappling with how to regulate the fintech industry. Photo: Bloomberg
The Ant Finance and Didi events are more a reflection of regulatory concerns whether large domestic Big Data platforms should be subject to foreign legislation with national security implications. Will India, for example, continue to allow foreign Big Tech to own all their client data?
Fourth, the regulatory trend towards “open financial data” in which banks would open up their client databases to allow new players to access customer accounts and data will provide new products and services. But this means also severe concerns on client privacy and data security. No country has yet figured out how to manage competition fairly in the fintech world when five firms (Amazon, Microsoft, Google, IBM, Oracle) dominate 70% of cloud-related infrastructure services.
Fifth, blockchain technology, cyber-currencies and central bank digital currencies are now increasingly coming on-stream, making possible payments and transactions that rely less on official currencies and also outside the purview of regulation. In short, the official regulators are responsible for system stability, but may not have access to what is really going on in blockchain space. That is an accident waiting to happen.
https://youtu.be/oukokqq1s_o
In addition to more than 600,000 COVID-19 deaths, growth in the US is based on a strong stimulus package of excessive money-printing. China's growth is more solid: Editor-in-Chief Hu Xijin
All these suggest that the global financial system has grown faster, more complex and entangled than any single nation to manage on its own. If the largest financial systems are caught in increasingly acrimonious geopolitical rivalry, what are the risks of financial accidents that can easily escalate to financial crises? In the 2008 global financial crisis, the G20 stood together to execute a whole range of responses. This time round, there is no unity as the US continues to apply financial sanctions against her enemies and rivals, amounting to 4,283 cases as of January 2021, of which 246 and eight respectively were against Chinese and Hong Kong entities.
The bubble in fintech valuation that has fueled rising stock markets and investments in technology is fundamentally driven by central bank loose monetary policy. Central bank assets have grown faster on an average of 8.4% per annum between 2013-2018, than banks (3.8%) or NBFIs (5.9%) to reach 7.5% of global financial assets. Does this mean that financial markets can assume that central banks will continue to underwrite their prosperity?
As inflation rears its head, central banks will have to reverse their loose monetary stance, thus putting the global financial system under stress. The global financial system has structural and regulatory cracks, but they can only be fixed by having some political understanding amongst the big players. Without this, expect a messy outcome.
Andrew Sheng comments on global affairs from an Asian perspective. The views expressed here are his own.
Don’t be surprised if by the end of the
current decade, the e-wallet on your smartphone resembles a
multicurrency account. But instead of dealing with commercial banks, you
may be a customer of central banks. Several of them, in fact
THE idea that much of today’s cash use will shift to digital tokens is neither faddish nor outlandish, as long as you don’t start equating the future of money with bitcoin.
Sure, governments will borrow some elements of the distributed ledger technology behind private cryptocurrencies, but they will very much want to retain control of what circulates as money in their economies. Some will succeed.
Don’t be surprised if by the end of the current decade, the e-wallet on your smartphone resembles a multicurrency account. But instead of dealing with commercial banks, you may be a customer of central banks. Several of them, in fact.
Sound far-fetched? Apart from the Bahamian Sand Dollar, there’s no official online currency in mass circulation yet.
Still, digital yuan pilots are gathering pace as Beijing aims for a possible rollout coinciding with the 2022 Winter Olympics.
Sweden may be the next major nation to follow suit. The Bank of Japan has no immediate plans, but it acknowledges the possibility “of a surge in public demand” for official digital cash going forward.
Even in the US, which is only toying with the concept, digital payment vehicles that don’t rely on traditional bank accounts can increase financial inclusion among cash users, according to a September 2020 paper by Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta president Raphael Bostic and others. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen says a digital dollar is “absolutely worth looking at”.
Once China and the US are both in the fray, virtual money is bound to become a tool for wielding global influence by carving up the world into new currency blocs. That’s because any token will have dual uses outsidethe issuing nation’s borders.
The dollar or yuan that pops up in a phone wallet in Indonesia or India – backed by a solemn promise of taxpayers in the US or China – could be used for buying goods, services or assets internationally.
Just as easily, this new money can end up replacing domestic currency in people’s daily lives. Although this is no different from traditional dollarisation that occurs in countries plagued by inflation and exchange rate volatility, the convenience and accessibility of central bank-issued digital cash could enable “substitution at a faster pace and larger scale,” according to Tao Zhang, a deputy managing director at the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
To stay in control of monetary policy, authorities in smaller economies will need their tokens to be attractive in domestic situations.
The goal for bigger nations may be different: China and the US may want to offer add-ons that make the E-CNY or the Fedcoin the preferred choice for foreigners in settling international claims.
An efficient future will be one in which all central banks’ digital currencies are interoperable. In other words, they’ll interact with one another – and with private-sector alternatives including bitcoin, says Sky Guo, the chief executive of Cypherium.
The US enterprise blockchain startup is a member of the Fed’s Faster Payments Council and of the digital monetary institute of the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum, or OMFIF, a central banking think tank.
Guo is working on the challenges that will arise when sovereign money gets digitised:
How to process high volumes of transactions quickly, cheaply, and with a strong consensus among registries updated automatically across a network? How to give people a sense of privacy in everyday payments, even after the anonymity of cash is lost?
Central banks will have to make choices. Not all smartphones can run advanced virtual machines, effortlessly executing the software code for automated contracts.
Choose the wrong technology, and the unbanked population might once again get excluded. Ditto for overseas remittances, a US$124 trillion-a-year opportunity for tokens to replace an expensive network of correspondent banks moving money by exchanging SWIFT messages.
But it won’t work for small transfers if the computing power to verify transactions in a decentralised network costs too much. The ideal technology doesn’t necessarily have to be a blockchain, but it should be something “lightweight, flexible and capable of working with legacy systems,” Guo says. Above all, the distributed ledger must be transparent.
There will be other obstacles. “A driving force for lobbying against central bank digital currencies has been established among payment processing giants like Paypal, Venmo and Stripe,” Guo tells me. “Fedcoin won’t need these intermediaries to send funds.
As these companies fall victim to innovation, it’ll be interesting to see how they try to protect themselves from disruption.”
Paypal Holdings Inc, which owns the person-to-person service Venmo, contests Guo’s assertion as false. Supporting and distributing central bank digital currencies is part of Paypal’s vision of an inclusive future, CEO Dan Schulman told investors last month.
Former Bank of England governor Mike Carney, who has proposed an alternative to the dollar through a network of central bank digital currencies, recently joined the board of Stripe Inc.
One way to resolve the tension may be to co-opt the private sector. As IMF economists Tobias Adrian and Tommaso ManciniGriffoli have argued, an official virtual currency could be like Apple’s IOS operating system, with commercial banks and e-money providers running apps on top of it.
The Apple Health app may be fine for a lay user; an athlete will want something more sophisticated. Money could go the same way.
Countries will also have to cooperate with one another. Take M-CBDC Bridge. The project for 24/7 cross-border remittances using central bank digital currencies was begun by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and the Bank of Thailand, but has now been joined by the central bank of the United Arab Emirates and the People’s Bank of China. ─ Bloomberg
Harking after a home: Officials have
acknowledged that the lack of affordable housing is one of the issues
that sparked the unrest in Hong Kong, which has been going on for
months. — AFP
Owning a house is the standard ambition of any individual, however, getting there is increasingly becoming not only a local, but global struggle.
THERE’S a lesson to be learnt from the protests in Hong Kong – politics is about selling hope. So if the young people living in a depressing environment feel they have no future, then the alarm bells should ring loudly.
In the case of Hong Kong, the leaders – mostly technocrats and government officials – didn’t see it coming, or maybe they were just indifferent.
Many young people in Hong Kong feel they stand no chance of becoming a homeowner in their lifetime, and officials have acknow-ledged that the issue is one of the causes that sparked off the unrest.
The controversial Extradition Bill, which allows a Hong Kong resident to be sent to mainland China to face trial, was merely a catalyst. Those protesters couldn’t all possibly believe they’d fall on the wrong side of the law and face the consequences, could they?
Last week, former Hong Kong chief executive Leong Chun-ying was in Kuala Lumpur for appointments with businessmen, opinion leaders and officials, to update them on developments on the island.
I was among the lucky Malaysians picked to hear his thoughts and views on Hong Kong, while he, too, listened to our concerns during the two-hour closed-door meeting.
My co-host and meeting organiser, Datuk Seri Azman Ujang, and I both feel that of all the problems faced by any country in nation- building, none deserves greater priority than housing the people.
What expectation could be more basic than having a roof over our heads, and with it being a decent and affordable one at that? And when we talk about affordable, it should be truly attainable by the low-income people who form the bulk of the population in most countries.
Azman, the Bernama chairman, rightly outlined the consequences of the failure that stems from a lack of will in resolving the housing problem of the masses. And as he said, this could easily lead to people pouring into the streets protesting issues not even directly related to housing.
It’s a fact that many poor Hong Kong people live in a room less than 75sq ft, and millions live in deplorable conditions.
More recently, “nano” flats – tiny apartments less than 200sq ft – have fast become the norm in overcrowded Hong Kong.
According to a South China Morning Post report, the cost began at HK$2.85mil (RM1.52mil) for an apartment no bigger than an average Hong Kong car park space, but the lack of interest forced a rethink by the developer.
But what’s mind-boggling is that while there are plenty of poor people in Hong Kong, or many who feel poor, Hong Kong’s fiscal reserves stood at HK$1.16tril (RM620bil) as at the end of January.
In a report, Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau said there was a surplus of HK$86.8bil (RM46.2bil), bringing the cumulative year-to-date surplus up to HK$59bil (RM31bil).
All this wealth belongs to Hong Kong and not mainland China, so a lot can be done with that money for a population of just seven million people, especially low-cost housing!
In comparison, Malaysia’s official reserve assets amounted to US$102.03bil (RM425bil) as at end November 2018, while other foreign currency assets stood at US$51.6mil (RM215mil) for the same period, Bank Negara said. Malaysia has a population of 32 million.
It can’t be denied that Singapore has done well in housing its population, with over 90% of the seven million population reportedly living in homes of their own, and the home-ownership ratio is said to be the world’s highest.
The Singapore Housing Development Board (HDB) deserves global recognition for its feat in solving the housing problem of the people, especially the poor.
The middle-class and poor must be able to have a roof over their heads. That’s an essential human need. No country can have peace and stability if the poor are not able to own a home in their lifetime.
A prosperous and satisfied middle-class will lead to political stability. A huge middle class will also mean greater purchasing power, and this will lead to a better economy with spillover effects for everyone.
When there are angry citizens protesting everything from the escalating food prices to housing, then even the elite (including politicians and businessmen) will not feel safe. In South Africa, the rich live in houses with high walls and electric fences to protect themselves, but that’s not the best way to live. It’s living dangerously.
Malaysian politicians who still wield the race and religion card will realise that at some point, these will be “dead issues”.
With well-documented shrinking numbers, the Chinese and Indian population will no longer be the proverbial bogeymen in the future. Instead, it is class stratification that will be a matter of concern.
Last year, it was reported that the gap in income between the rich, middle class and poor in Malaysia had widened since 2008, according to a study by Khazanah Research Institute (KRI).
In its “The State of Households 2018” report, the research outfit of sovereign wealth fund Khazanah Nasional Bhd noted that the gap in the real average income between the top 20% households (T20) and the middle 40% (M40) and bottom 40% (B40) households had almost doubled, compared to two decades ago.
The report, titled Different Realities, pointed out that while previous economic crises, in 1987 and the 1997/98 Asian Financial Crisis, saw a reduction in the income gap between the T20 and B40/M40, post-2008/09 Global Financial Crisis (GFC), those disparities had not reduced.
But the Gini coefficient, which measures income inequality in the country, had declined from 0.513 in 1970 to 0.399 in 2016, denoting improvement in income inequality in Malaysia over the past 46 years.
Explaining the phenomenon, Allen Ng, who is the lead author of the KRI report, said income of the T20 households had continued to grow, albeit at a slower pace than that of the M40 and B40 since 2010.
“However, because they (the T20) started at a higher base, the income gap between the T20 and M40/B40 had continued to grow despite the fact that the relative (income growth) is actually narrowing post-GFC, ” Ng explained at a press conference after the launch of the report yesterday.
In his bestselling book The Colour Of Inequality: Ethnicity, Class, Income And Wealth In Malaysia (2014), economist Dr Muhammed Abdul Khalid wrote that “the future does not look rosy for Malaysia; the current policies are encouraging wealth disparity between rich and poor, and between ethnicities.
“Unless bold and drastic actions are taken urgently, a harmonious future for Malaysia is uncertain. There must be an urgency to give every Malaysian economic security, a better and sustainable future.”
Muhammed, the managing director of the research and consulting firm DM Analytics Malaysia, said last year that contrary to popular belief, most Chinese (70%) are wage-earners, as are most Malays (72%). In fact, the poverty gap between races has dropped compared to 40 years ago, though the disparity remains.
And what about Malaysia? We have a disastrous, if not scandalous, record, particularly the pathetic business activities, dealings and performance of the 1Malaysia People’s Housing Programme’s (PR1MA) set up to build affordable homes.
More than RM8bil has gone up in smoke because PR1MA’s management failed to meet its targets, despite all the assistance and facilities accorded to their projects by the previous federal government and most state governments.
PR1MA reportedly built only 11,000 homes, compared with its target of half a million residential units to be delivered by the end of 2018. That’s less than 5% of the original plan.
PR1MA Malaysia was set up to plan, develop, construct and maintain high-quality housing with lifestyle concepts for middle-income households in key urban centres. Its homes are priced between RM100,000 and RM400,000.
PR1MA is open to all Malaysians with a monthly household income of RM2,500 to RM15,000.
A total of 1.42 million people registered for PR1MA, a promise of one million homes by 2020, but only 16,682 units, or 1.6%, of the target, were completed between 2013 and 2018, costing the government billions in public funds.
Poor management, exorbitant land acquisition costs and unsuitable sites have turned the people’s housing project into a major financial flop. PR1MA’s failure, which could cost the new government billions, is apparently already saddled with ballooning debts, rendering the loss-making company untenable.
It’s the responsibility of the government to build affordable homes – not the private developers. Private developers, especially those who helm public listed companies, have profits and dividends to answer for to shareholders. They are in the business of making money, and with the expensive land bank they have acquired, they need to build expensive homes, too.
Even if there are requirements with the obligated mixed homes for social housing needs, it still won’t resolve the problems.
Our politicians shouldn’t pass their responsibilities to them. They just need to have qualified and competent professionals with integrity to run a set-up like HDB. Obviously, the people who ran PR1MA didn’t do their jobs. We can help Malaysians own homes, or at least rent them at affordable rates, if we’re truly committed. The question is, are we?
As for Hong Kong, there is another lesson the young protesters need to learn: a full democracy doesn’t guarantee you a home and a decent job. Just ask the homeless in the United States and Britain.
