Share This

Sunday 5 September 2021

The fund flow conundrum

 

THE FBM KLCI closed above 1,600 points this week for the first time in five months since March 23, 2021.

It has been six consecutive days that our index continued to scale impressively. The index was single-handedly lifted due to the foreign funds flowing back into Bursa Malaysia with limited support by local institutions and retail investors, who have been net sellers.

Interestingly, this coincided with the resolution of the political impasse in our country with the eventual appointment of Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri as the new Prime Minister, the third in three years.

As of end-July 2021, foreign participation in terms of market capitalisation in our local equity market was at a record low of 20.2%.

After 25 months of a consecutive selloff by foreign funds of Malaysian equities, is this the inflection point that stock market investors have been fervently looking forward to?

There are many layers of questions to this overarching theme, but in my view, the most important would be the need to understand what investors want.

Investors ultimately want returns. So if they were to invest in our local stock market, they hope to be able to get the returns, as otherwise, they might as well invest elsewhere.

Malaysia’s weightage on global indexes has shrunk since its peak pre-1997/98 Asian Financial Crisis.

A simple gauge would be the MSCI Emerging Markets Index, where the FBM KLCI’s weightage has been declining from 19.94% in 1994 to 1.36% as at Aug 30, 2021 as shown in the pie chart (see chart).

https://cdn.thestar.com.my/Content/Images/MCSI_Emerging_Market_Index_market_value.jpg

This simply means how insignificant the Malaysian stock market has become in the eyes of global investors.

There is also a direct correlation to the performance of the companies in our local index.

Could it be that our listed companies are either undervalued or underperforming to regional peers, especially in the context of emerging markets?

There is no absolute answer to this as it is at times, a chicken-and-egg issue. Which one actually comes first?

Without foreign fund flows, the valuation of listed companies will remain low, as the market participants would be limited, resulting in a constrained money supply in the local bourse.

Conversely, it is true as well. Why should foreign funds invest in our local stock market and listed companies if the valuation versus their growth trajectory or earnings is not in tandem?

A good example would be Singapore. The Singapore Exchange (SGX) for the past 10 years has suffered a wave of delistings.

In 2010, there were 783 listed companies on the SGX. As at end-2020, there were only 715 listed companies remaining.

The peak of the Straits Times Index (STI) was 3,575 points and it has been on a downtrend ever since. Due to the country’s Covid-19 resilience, the STI started picking up ahead of regional peers towards the end of 2020 and reached 3,087 points as of Wednesday.

The predicament that Singapore went through is rather perplexing as any investor who has scoured the SGX would realise the companies are mostly undervalued not only in terms of valuation but also yields.

If we were to compare Singapore’s listed companies today, they are still undervalued comparatively to our local companies.

The blue-chip tech, banking and utilities companies in terms of valuation are on average more attractive than those listed on Bursa.

In the midst of this earnings season, looking at the reports, apart from the commodities sector, blue chips and select consumer/FMCG companies which were exemplary, others showed improvement but it is still far from recovery.

On face value, many did well if we take into consideration that the same quarter last year was the worst quarter for most companies as they had felt the full impact of MCO 1.0.

Bigger pull: The bull and bear fronting the Bursa Malaysia building. The local bourse needs more companies which can command a dominating position in the global market.

Bigger pull: The bull and bear fronting the Bursa Malaysia building. The local bourse needs more companies which can command a dominating position in the global market.

Whether our local stock market can remain competitive and capture the interest of foreign funds rely on many factors, among which are:

> the ease of entry and exit (access),

> low barriers of entry (cost),

> economic growth prospects (potential),

> political stability (certainty),

> unique value proposition (world-class companies only available in Malaysia), and

> favourable tax regimes (policies).

With all these factors in play and every market in the world vying for the same pool of funds, there must be a unique proposition for our local stock market.

Of course, the vibrancy of the local stock market would also require emphasis placed on local retail investors apart from our local institutions (mostly the sovereign, pension and government linked funds) which act as the anchor.

Only with that, Malaysia can break away from the usual stigma of “small population, limited growth trajectory”.

A good place to start would be the reform on market policies to be more investor-friendly.

However, the game changer would be favourable policies which can nurture, support and grow industries or SMEs such that they would be able to become world-class companies someday yet continue to list on Bursa.

The United States and Hong Kong markets are able to attract global investors’ interest primarily due to the unique companies which are listed on their bourse such as Amazon, Netflix, Tencent, JD.com, Google among many others.

Our own stock market need such companies to attract foreign funds and sustain their interest.

Bursa does have some good names which are not readily available elsewhere in the world such as those in the technology semiconductor space, glove sector, palm oil sector and plastics packaging sector.

We need more companies that either command dominating position in the global market share within their sector or trailblazers that move the country towards the preferred sectors.

This would be more sustainable to ensure foreign funds investing in our markets is not solely because our listed companies are undervalued but rather for the companies’ unique position itself.

In my humble view, a two pronged approach of encouraging good companies and getting them to list locally can address this predicament.

As an example, the precursor would be favourable policies accorded to foreign direct investment entities should also be given to local home-grown companies which meets the criteria, be it tax incentives or cheap land and so on.

Once the companies grows to a healthy size, to encourage them to list on Bursa, lower listing fees, ease of listing requirements or tax breaks for cornerstone investors or funds investing in home-grown companies listing on Bursa would go a long way.

That way, investors around the world who want a piece of these companies would have little alternative but to invest in our local stock market.

The fund flow conundrum of our local stock market will then eventually see some light at the end of the tunnel.

Ng Zhu Hann 

Ng Zhu Hann

 
Hann, is the author of Once Upon A Time In Bursa. He is a lawyer & former Chief Strategist of a Fortune 500 Corporation.

Source link

 

Related News

 

Related posts:

 

  THE Sengoku period (also known as the “Warring States period”) of Japan from 1467 to 1615 is a period of great turbulence and unrest due...
 

 

Learn to invest in stocks properly

Washington cannot define China-US climate cooperation: Global Times editorial

https://youtu.be/e0bXOp3OgXk 

China calls for cooperation in fight against climate change


Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi meets with the US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry via video link on Wednesday. Photo: AFP

Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi meets with the US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry via video link on Wednesday. Photo: AFP

 

US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry is on his second visit to China this year, hoping to promote China-US cooperation on the climate issue. As the climate issue is a common concern of all mankind, Beijing and Washington jointly promoting the full implementation of the Paris Agreement benefits not only the two countries, but also the entire world.

However, US expectations - separating the cooperation on climate issue from the entire China-US ties, giving such joint work a special hype in disregard of the overwhelming complexity of other aspects of the bilateral relationship, making the Joe Biden administration look righteous and reasonable through the lens of climate cooperation, helping the administration win more points politically - seem quite absurd.

The overall US policy toward China has been so wicked. It has imposed a whole-of-government and wide-scale crackdown on China. Then the US suddenly put on a friendly face on the climate issue, inviting China to cooperate with it as if nothing has ever happened. The US wishes to ask China to make new concessions that go beyond the latter's own promises to coordinate US leadership. As Chinese people often ask, "What on earth are you talking about?"

The US strategic containment against China has severely divided the world and threatened China's long-term security. Objectively speaking, the US has destroyed the foundation for the world to do something great together. The COVID-19 pandemic is surging across the world but countries are acting in their own ways. This is the result of political antagonism in today's world.

The US is, on the one hand, making the utmost effort to divide the world, while on the other, building a drawbridge over the huge gap among the major powers. The rope of the drawbridge is held in Washington's hand. The US lowers the drawbridge when it needs it, and raises it up when it doesn't need it any more. It shows Washington's unscrupulous desire to control the world. Is there any reason for China to let the US get whatever it wants?

China and the US can work together on the climate issue and carry out necessary cooperation. But it is obviously hard for the entire Chinese society to accept placing such cooperation in the arrogant logic of the US' China policy of "competition, cooperation, and confrontation," or letting the US arbitrarily define the political implications of China-US cooperation on the climate issue. The US lacks both morality and justice to do so, and it lacks a compelling force to ask China to offer what the US wants.

Cooperation must be mutually beneficial. This is both the principle of sticking to the facts and a strategic morality. If the US continues its comprehensive containment of China, and keeps pushing the hostility between the two countries, it will create constant pollution in the space for bilateral cooperation. This is common sense and conventional wisdom. Many of the US policies toward China are zero-sum, leaving the world a strong impression that the US would not be satisfied until it suffocates China's development. Under such circumstances, Chinese society's willingness to cooperate with the US can hardly be immune to the impact of vigilance against the US.

Washington should not have thought that showing a little willingness toward cooperation in its comprehensive containment of Beijing is "mercy" to China. If they really think that way, they will find no grateful Chinese.

When it comes to climate, China believes that cooperation is necessary, as stated earlier. But if the cooperation has other extended meanings aimed at boosting Washington's political gains, such cooperation must be considered in the big picture of China-US ties. As China is a powerful major country, it has unique influence in many international affairs around the globe. No matter in which field the US hopes to cooperate with China and at the same time promote the US benefits, such joint work must be linked with the entire China-US relationship.

China wants to improve its ties with the US, but China will not do everything to please the US. The major power relationship between China and the US should be on an equal footing and follow the basic principle of mutual respect. If the US ever attempts to treat China forcefully in this logic - asking China to keep putting up good shows, ones that are thought good enough to satisfy the US, then the US returns the favor by relaxing tensions - it is totally wrong. This is not the way the Chinese people like to deal with other countries, and we do not want such "improvement" in China-US relations at all.

Source link

 

ELATED ARTICLES

 

 Related:

 

  ` ` MAN and nature are running out of time. That’s the core message of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change ...
 
 
` A recent US CDC report found COVID-19 antibodies in blood samples as early as Dec 13, 2019. With more & more evidence surfacing a...
 
 
Fort Detrick, UNC labs at center of virus origins controversy A member of the Frederick Police Department Special Response Team peers out .
 
 
‘Use science, not politics’   China is concerned that the so-called US intelligence report on the origins of the coronavirus will contain p...
 
 
Suaram adviser questions Pakatan Harapan's funding from the National Endowment for Democracy https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/202...
 
 
  Botched Afghan retreat reveals an America struggling to contain China ` Unable to better China in positive competition and with mil..

Thursday 2 September 2021

Pakatan’s dependency on dubious NED funding, Suaram

Suaram adviser questions Pakatan Harapan's funding from the National Endowment for Democracy

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2021/08/30/suaram-adviser-questions-pakatan-harapan039s-funding-from-the-national-endowment-for-democracy


MALAYSIAN CIVIL SOCIETY MUST SEVER NED FUNDING TO BE CREDIBLE ( by Kua Kia Soong, SUARAM Adviser, 30.8.2021)

It is painful to watch Malaysian NGOs squirming their way out of justifying NED funding for their activities. The NGO I belong to, SUARAM used to receive funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) until the organisation was exposed as a CIA “soft power” front for the US government several years ago. Knowing the blood-drenched “regime changing” record of th...

Lihat Lagi  https://www.facebook.com/kiasoong.kua/posts/3761531817280035

  

https://youtu.be/DPt-zXn05ac 

'We lied, we cheated, we stole', ‘the Glory of American experiment’ by US former Secretary of State/Ex-CIA director Mike Pompeo 

 


PETALING JAYA: Pakatan Harapan should explain its dependence on funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), says Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram) adviser Kua Kia Soong.Inside America's Meddling Machine: NED, the US-Funded Org Interfering in Elections Across the Globe “It is up to Pakatan Harapan to explain their dependence on NED funding if they can,” he said in a statement on Facebook yesterday.

Daniel Twining, the president of the International Republican Institute (IRI) revealed three years ago that they – through NED – had been funding the Opposition in Malaysia since 2002.

NED is a non-governmental organisation in the United States that was founded in 1983 for promoting democracy in other countries by developing political groups, trade unions, deregulated markets and business associations.

Twining allegedly told a forum in 2018 that the IRI, with funds from the NED, had worked to strengthen Malaysian opposition parties and its efforts paid off when Pakatan Harapan won the 14th General Election.

Kua also urged all NGOs in the country to stop accepting funds from NED to remain credible.

Kua said Suaram used to receive funding from the NED until the organisation was exposed as a CIA “soft power” front for the US government several years ago.

“Knowing the blood-drenched ‘regime changing’ record of the CIA in so many third world countries since 1947, we could not continue receiving funds from such a dubious source for our own credibility.

Source link

 

Related:

 

Suaram adviser questions Pakatan Harapan's funding from ...

 

Suaram adviser questions Pakatan Harapan's funding from ...

 

Related posts:

 

  Botched Afghan retreat reveals an America struggling to contain China ` Unable to better China in positive 
 
‘Use science, not politics’   China is concerned that the so-called US intelligence report on the origins of the coronavirus will contain p...