Sunday, December 11, 2016

Economic forecasts for 2016-2018


Business World IntrospectiveIntrospective  Romeo L. Bernardo

Posted on December 12, 2016


I’m sharing with readers our macroeconomic forecast for the full 2016, 2017, 2018 with a short summary, below.

My co-author Christine Tang and I do this for GlobalSource Partners, a New York-based network of independent analysts (see globalsourcepartners.com). Its clients are mostly international banks and fund managers, thus the focus on macro and financial statistics.


   
Expect the unexpected.

That seems to be the key takeaway from President Rodrigo Duterte’s first four months in office.

After all, nobody would have expected in July that he would so dramatically upend the country’s foreign policy nor the extent he would go to attain his zero-tolerance drug policy. In fact, we now see and hear to word “uncertainty” used again and again to describe the business environment, referring to the unmeasurable unknown unknowns. And with the election of Donald Trump in the US, even more are wondering whether the times are changing and what that means for the local economy.

We think that a clinical analysis of the current state of affairs would continue to support our basic view of favorable short-term economic prospects.

We continue to think that: (a) the President has empowered his economic team and is unlikely to override its orthodox policies; (b) despite external risks, domestic demand drivers, particularly remittance and BPO-supported consumption, remain intact and will provide base support for growth, and; (c) government, backed by a strong balance sheet, has ample monetary and fiscal policy room to smooth out temporary shocks, particularly from an imminent US policy rate hike.

That said, our unease has grown after observing the President’s decision-making habits, which do not appear to benefit fully from consultations with his cabinet or wider stakeholders.

His capacity to create policy shocks on his own and his seemingly narrow focus on a handful of issues (mainly drugs, peace, security) translate into higher political risk that may adversely impact economic policy. The more immediate of which are the executive’s proposed tax reform package, still not yet filed in Congress, and the sought-for emergency powers for solving traffic congestion. It is also unclear whether and how the President’s own preferences would factor into resolving policy differences in areas where economics intersects with sector departments manned by crusaders, whose policy prescriptions may do more harm than good.

The perceived unpredictability of the policy environment is bound to affect business sentiments and keep investors in wait-and-see mode. This stance has already been observed among those desiring more clarity in labor contracting, land conversion, and mining policies that are presently under review, as well as westerners sensitive to human rights issues.

I have learned of cancellations in the industrial estate and BPO space. The BSP’s business confidence index numbers have dropped of late to the lowest level since 2011. The one concern cited was foreign policy. Uncertainties on the external front, related to a Trump presidency and their impact on the growing trend towards protectionism globally, will be an added concern.

For now, we expect the economy’s strong momentum to propel GDP growth to 7% in 2016 and solid economic fundamentals to keep it at an average 6.5% in 2017-2018. The forecasts are anchored mainly on improved public sector delivery of spending priorities, especially infrastructure, with over or under performance on this aspect forming the basis for any upside or downside in the growth rates.

Downside risks dominate, in our view, and will be magnified if long-term investors, fearing unmanageable internal and external risks, decided to scale down or abandon investment plans.

While this, by itself may not affect short-term growth much, effects can multiply over the medium term, including in the BPO industry, already facing challenges from evolving labor-saving technological options.

Upsides may be enhanced by improved trade and investment links with China.

However, given the tentativeness of the agreements and media scrutiny of the a) the checkered past of some of the Chinese companies and b) unhappy ending of two highly visible China ODA funded projects, the reported billions of Chinese investments will take time to materialize.

We are more optimistic on immediate benefits on tourism, coming from a low base vs. our neighbors. And from agricultural exports, starting with the recent lifting of “phyto-sanitary standards” on mango exports.





Romeo L. Bernardo is a board director of the Institute for Development and Econometric Analysis. He was Undersecretary of Finance during Corazon Aquino and Fidel Ramos administrations.

romeo.lopez.bernardo@gmail.com

Tuesday, November 1, 2016

Understanding President Rody


Business World Introspective Romeo L. Bernardo
Posted on October 31, 2016

We issued the post below to subscribers of GlobalSource Partners last Oct. 21, the day after the President declared “separation” from the United States. GlobalSource Partners (globalsourcepartners.com) is a New York-based network of independent economic and political analysts.

Last month, when President Rodrigo Duterte said he was canceling military exercises and other cooperation with the US, the general reaction even from inside government was, he couldn’t possibly have said that or even if he did, it couldn’t possibly be what it sounded like. But he did say it. And after the dutiful 72-hour news cycle for the President and his men to clarify what was said, it turned out that what he wanted was for the country to craft an independent foreign policy, a sensible posture considering what many political analysts deemed an overly pro-US stance adopted by the previous administration.

    
It could have ended there but the President kept on his anti-US litany.

While this “discombobulated talk,” as former President Fidel Ramos called it, has become the signature as far as presidential remarks go, he again managed to give everyone a jolt when he announced in a business forum in the middle of his state visit to China “my separation from the United States... both in military and economics,” adding that he is realigning with China and Russia and that “there are three of us against the world.”

Immediately, his economic managers went into damage control mode. His trade secretary told CNN that “The statement the President made maintains the relationship with the West. What we are saying is that there will be less dependence just on one side of the world.”

In a recently issued statement, his economic team sought to situate the President’s remarks in the broader context of expanding links with Asia rather than shutting out traditional partners. It said that: “We will maintain relations with the West, but we desire stronger integration with our neighbors” naming ASEAN, China, Japan and South Korea.

(N.B. The President’s pivot is in line with need to improve our relations with China that we have been advocating over the years. To read “Frozen,” published in April 2014, please visit the link https://goo.gl/16pmqG. To read “On the Philippines Joining the AIIB: What’s there to ‘WAIT AND SEE’? published in June 2014, please visit the link https://goo.gl/dyxGTM)

Given the President’s record in Davao as a pragmatic politician supportive of business, we firmly believe that what he said could not possibly have meant ending economic ties with the US which last year amounted to $25 billion in goods and services trade, with direct investments reportedly reaching $4.7 billion and remittances coming from US banks totaling $8.4 billion. It could hardly have meant a military divorce either, at least not immediately with the two countries having three official defense agreements in place, one of which, the Mutual Defense Treaty, was ratified by the countries’ respective Senates. (Although joint patrols with the US in the West Philippine Sea/South China Sea have been suspended.)

So what was he saying?

Based on his statements days earlier, he could possibly have meant official US aid that would require him to pay heed to the West’s concern for human rights, an issue that he is hyper-sensitive to and takes personally. But odds are, nobody really knows for sure at this time. At the confirmation hearing of the President’s defense secretary, the Senate panel was told that “the President has been issuing statements without consulting his cabinet.”

At the end of the day, it is this presidential style of policy-making, seemingly driven by impulse rather than study and full consultation with his Cabinet and stakeholders that causes much unease in the business community.

At a minimum, it puts his economic managers in perpetual damage control mode and diverts attention away from more productive endeavors.

Despite his economic managers’ repeated guidance for investors to look at the fundamentals rather than “political noise,” the President’s loose speech cannot but give investors pause and his anti-Americanism is fueling leftist militancy and empowerment that, if left unchecked, would have real business consequences (e.g., labor policies, land conversion, mining environmental activism).

For now, we are taking his fiery rhetoric as driven by (apart from personal history) needed rebalancing in foreign relations in light of the frozen state of relations with China under the Aquino administration.

After what looks like a far swing to the left, we expect the pendulum to, down the road, find its center. After all, a leader cannot stray too far away from the mind-set, sentiment, and aspirations of his people.

Postscript: The President has just returned from a state visit to Japan. He brings home an assistance package as impressive in amount as the one from China. The economic managers and the Philippine private sector have their work cut out in translating these into steel and mortar. The reality is that for a long time now, financing has not been the binding constraint to realizing investments in the Philippines, but “absorptive capacity” and “ease of doing business.” Or in the language of the times -- execution.

Romeo L. Bernardo is a board Director of the Institute for Development and Econometric Analysis. He was Undersecretary of Finance during Corazon Aquino and Fidel Ramos administrations.

romeo.lopez.bernardo@gmail.com


Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Remarks on the 20th Anniversary of the FEF, October 19, Manila Golf.



Ideas give birth  to a diners club,  then a CSO

I was with the DOF  in the early 90's. Francis Varela was chief of staff of Secretary Ramon del Rosario. Ernest was a fellow Usec, later our boss. As was Chil. Alan O was Usec/ head BOT now PPP Center. Dondon was NEDA Sec, and Dante Canlas and Popo Lotilla  Usecs.
Our big struggle,  the Estanislao later Leung levy ( P 1 per liter of gasoline) .   We in Finance, could not understand why such a sensible thing which was so needed to stabilize the country's finances was literally violently opposed by everyone. And when I say everyone I meant everyone-- the leftist militants, the FDC led by Leling Briones and Men Sta Ana,  grandstanding Congressmen, of course, but also the rightist  putschists, the Bishops, the Federation of Phl Industries, you name it.

The only support came from a few opinion leaders who were intellectually convinced on their own that oil taxes-- highly  progressive, green and administratively easy  to collect--made a lot of sense.

These were column writers/opinion leaders   and members of the academe who were writing and opining on the issues, pretty much on their own.   We thought to reach out  to thank and encourage them.
Among those were columnists Alex Magno who I had not seen since college days, Mahar Mangahas who I assiduously avoided in college as  a  “terror” who gave low grades,  and Toti Chikiamco who I did not even  know until then.  From the academe, foremost was Dean Philip Medalla and Dr Fabella. And from the private sector, Bong Montes, Simon Paterno.  We would get together KKB at restaurants and each other's homes to compare notes.

When I left government in July 1996,  some of us thought we should formally organize-  I volunteered to try and raise money from private donors. The  first P 1 M was raised by Francis V, a donation from our  boss Ramon del Rosario who saw the need for such an organization who can in a disinterested way help educate the public and decision makers on issues of national importance affecting the economy,  speak out for good economic governance and market friendly reforms, and support reformers in government.  Especially on "orphaned issues” .

Thanks to DOF technical people, particularly  then Director Lea de Leon and Usec  Chil,  and  with the blessings of Sec De Ocampo, we were able to get financial support from a couple of  development partners.

We incorporated in October  1997, at that time without a Corporate Secretary--  Tony Abad and Ferdi Tolentino would come  later. 
Our incorporators who would later serve as our first Board of Directors were: Toti Chikiamco, Ed Coronel, Alex Magno, Mahar Mangahas, Bong Montes, Lani Nanagas, Alan Ortiz, Dondon Paderanga, Simon Paterno , Francis Varela and me.
 Our Founding Chairman was Dondon Paderanga, Founding President Alex Magno.  Dondon would be succeeded by Mahar, Toti, Philip and now Bobby. Alex by Francis Varela and now Toti.



“Economic Freedom” what is that?

The name Foundation for Economic Freedom was suggested by Mahar Mangahas—perhaps a  true University of Chicago alumnus and Friedman disciple. There was immediate unanimous agreement. Indeed economic freedom, defined broadly, encompassed what we all thought the new foundation should be all about. ( Even if it sometimes got confused with Freedom from Debt Coalition!  The difference, I would tell the unsure,  is that they are better funded. Just like the NDF. )
I had to go back to my college books to fully appreciate the appropriateness of the name—to the writings of Adam Smith,   Hayek, Friedman—much tied to the liberal traditions of free market economics.  And to some extent defined by the economic paradigm  of those days driven by the resounding restructuring and  privatization successes of  Prime Minister Thatcher and some Latin American economies that were the first to bounce back from their debt crisis--- the unleashing of private sector energies for development.
These ideas actually go back here in our country to the advocacies within government of PM Virata and Dr. Sicat for greater economic openness and improved economic governance. Or the advocacies of  Gen Almonte, who was here earlier.  Incidentally, the publisher of JoeAl’s book “We Must Level the  Playing Field” 2007,  was FEF.
Over the years, I can’t recall whether  “economic freedom” was something we   tried to explicitly define, rather than something we gave meaning to in Philippine context in the course of our many advocacies.  It would seem to me that the  meaning we gave it has gone beyond the traditional indexes of economic freedom tracked by international economic freedom networks .
 For example, they would normally use low tax to GDP ratios as a positive indicator of economic freedom— but based on our advocacies we did not quite see it that way. Rather, that low revenue mobilization has become a limitation on government in providing  needed basic public services, including those  that make markets work well. This went hand in hand with our  stress on  developing institutions.
On this point, our  current Executive Director, Atty Grace Gamez recently  quoted for me the definition of Prof Schafer of “economic freedom", I thought a good one from a legal perspective.
“Economic freedom consists in the legal framework for markets and the absence of unnecessary regulatory burdens. The first cause of economic growth is legalizing economic freedom—that is, creating effective property, contract, and corporate law, and repealing unnecessary regulations.”


Raging Incrementalists

We have styled ourselves,  half in jest by Philip and me I think,  as  "raging incrementalists”.  Toti has elaborated on this—“ believing in pushing reform one step at a time.  Raging because we are passionate about the reforms we believe in; "incrementalists" because Rome wasn't built in a day.  While we are idealistic, we are realistic enough to know that reform takes small steps over a long period. However, that doesn't daunt us into shirking from what we believe is our civic duty:  to make the Philippines a better place.
While we espouse economic liberty, we aren't market fundamentalists.  We believe in institutions and good governance.  We believe markets work best when institutions function and a rule of law prevails. Moreover, our  advocacies are supported by research and evidence. We aren't ideologues.”


Advocacies over the years

 Over the course of our history we have adopted many issues, orphaned and otherwise--  sometimes by ourselves, often with others (a number where we led the way ).
  I would give us a passing grade in having contributed to the advancement of economic freedom in our country. Both  as an organization,  and in our own ways individually, whether in or out of government. 
 The notable successes have been in the areas of widening the  sphere for private, market based approaches in  solving efficiency and welfare problems. For example, privatization now called PPP--  much earlier a much resisted and poorly understood  notion, is  now accepted as part  of the nation’s tool kit for providing infra and other public services. (One close to my heart is water privatization where a number of us here have been involved either on the government side or the private side or as advisers or funders.  )
 Another area of success has been in speaking out to get government out of the business of administering oil prices-- which has historically been not only a fiscal drain but politically burdensome and distracting,  a source of macroeconomic and political risks for the country.


  (We have not been as successful in other areas-- but we never surrender, say the three decade issues on the  NFA close to the hearts of  many of us here ( Arsi, Monching, Philip, and others) -- but we labor on like true "raging incrementalists".)
We have also been most active in contributing  to fixing our fiscal house-- historically a pain point.  It is a subject close to the hearts of many here—all the former Finance Secretaries—PM Virata, Secretaries Ernest, Gary.
 And did our share in lobbying for the passage of key legislations-- notably the reformed VAT in 2004  and the sin taxes reform a decade later. 

Later Fellow columnists Boo Chanco, Peter Wallace, Gerry Sicat,  and at an earlier period Gary Olivar,  have been valuable voices through their columns. Others working through partner organizations like Joint Chambers (notably John Forbes) , MAP ( Perry Pe) , MBC, ADRI ( Dindo Manhit).

(Many of us  have have  lobbied directly as resource persons in the executive and Congress.  I have a particularly vivid picture of one Senate hearing chaired by Senator Angara and co-chaired by Sen Serge Osmena right after the 2004 elections. Three of us individually and as FEF, none supporters of the just won  Presidential candidate, went to bat for the EVAT bill of the administration.    Philip, who was economic adviser of Presidential candidate Lacson,  Gary O, who was adviser to candidate Roco, and I who was then with FPJ.  I thought we were persuasive, not the least because we were not seen to be cheerleaders of the administration. )
 We have,  both as an organization and as individuals,   weighed in on important issues not always successfully, but always with reason and with passion. ( As we like to say, soft hearts but hard heads. )
 Eg. just top of mind issues like  opening up the country to foreign investments, a more competitive exchange rate,  the retail trade law, the Bangsa Moro bill, competition commission, EPIRA, setting up a centralized oil procurement by government, CARP extension, the setting up of a National Revenue Agency, land property rights, overly generous Feed in Tariffs for renewable energy, land and property rights, now at this forum educating the public about what ending “endo” means for inclusive growth.



Partners

In all of these, we have partners sometimes with formal agreements, often just finding ourselves in the same  trench.   Many of whom are with us tonight, again in no particular order, USAID, AusAid/DFAT, World Bank, Omidyar Network,  Philippine Council for Islam and Democracy, Philippine Constructors Association. Agencies in government we have worked with include the Department of Finance, DENR, PPP Center, UP Law Center, and many others. We have also been supported by private organizations and firms including the ones who supported this event today.


Working in government

Over the years, a  number of us have been in out of public services, doing our share directly.

I think this reached its apex in PGMA 1 where I could count  at least a dozen in cabinet or subcabinet posts:  the late  Emy Boncodin ( DBM Sec), Dante Canlas ( NEDA Sec), Ernest Leung ( DBP Chair), Gloria Tan Climaco ( Cabinet Secretary for Flagship projects ) ,  Rene Banez ( BIR Commissioner),  Lani Nanangas ( SSS Chair), Popo Lotilla ( PSALM Pres) , Alan Ortiz ( TransCo Pres), Tony Abad ( NFA Administrator ), Simon Paterno ( DBP President), Dondon Paderanga ( Monetary Board Member ), Alex Magno ( DBP Board), Me in PIDS Board.

  Right now, the ones in government include--  Arsi Balisacan ( PCC Chair),  Philip Medalla ( Monetary Board Member),  Gilbert Llanto ( PIDS President), Popo Lotilla ( PIDS Board Trustee), and some eagerly  outgoing ones--- Berti Lim, Bong Montes, Bern Sy. 
 Few of us are in government now,  a function of age or maybe we have have learned our lessons, or maybe Presidencies have learned theirs. 
 Allow me to turn over to our President who has injected new life into FEF since he took over as CEO five years ago, moving us from advocacy to ground level development work, partnering with DENR and Local Governments to facilitate the issuance of residential free patents.

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

Rude Language and Awakening


Posted on October 03, 2016


Business World Introspective Romeo L Bernardo

Judgment, it seems, came early for President Rodrigo Duterte.

Not yet 100 days in office, the local currency hit a seven-year low of P48.25:$1, depreciating 3.5% since the start of the month while the main stock index retreated 3.1% over the same period, both worse than most regional peers.






 





Critics are quick to blame the President’s drug war, with over 3000 body count to date, and his penchant to lash out willy-nilly at challenges to his authority, especially at perceived interference from foreigners, be they the international press, human rights activists, the United Nations, or the President of the United States. His expletive-laden rhetoric disturbs and confuses many -- most recently telling the credit rater S&P, which issued a warning about policy unpredictability, to “leave us” -- and his apparent partiality to China and even Russia unnerves free marketers.

Yet just like the President, his apologists remain unapologetic.

They disdain the critics’ judgment as either moralistic, narrow-minded obsession with extrajudicial killings, or ivory tower westerners ignorant of local conditions. They argue that the death toll is a necessary evil to disrupt the drug trade and root out corrupt public officials engaged in the drug business, which evidence supposedly points to elected and appointed officials -- from the lowly barangay to national level offices, from the executive to the legislative and judicial branches of government. They firmly believe that the President’s heart is in the right place and that he should be given the opportunity, a proper honeymoon period of not less than six months, to show results. Meanwhile, financial market losses have nothing to do with local politics but with global market conditions and relative valuation adjustments.

To be sure, some of the non-political reasons advanced for the local markets’ recent retreat are plausible. Externally, apart from recurring speculations of an impending US rate hike, the prospect of a Trump presidency has directed market attention to possible changes in US immigration and outsourcing policies that some fear, may affect the remittance and BPO-reliant Philippine economy. This concern comes at a time of ballooning trade gap that may see the country’s more than a decade-old current account surplus reversing into a deficit. This in turn, while by itself would not threaten the country’s external resilience, would probably deter speculative plays based on an appreciating local currency and thus, lead to hot money outflows, something that the BSP should in fact welcome.

Yet, the timing of the Philippine market sell-off (with disproportionately larger price impact vs. peers) coincides too closely with heightened foreign press coverage of the President and his drug war (as well as S&P’s commentary on the policy risk) for us to dismiss outright the role of political factors. The question in most analysts’ minds now is whether or not local support for the President remains intact.

While official survey results on presidential trust scores and voter support for his drug war are due in about two weeks’ time yet, anecdotally, we gather that there remains broad support still for the President on the ground and people in general are willing to give him room to do what he thinks needs to be done. Economic watchers on the other hand, seem less concerned with the rising body count and more with the uncertainty created by the President’s unpredictable off-the-cuff remarks that come across as unorthodox policy statements, including on foreign relations. The fear is that this uncertainty, arising as well from the President’s rebuff of well-meaning external advice about the futility of violent drug wars and his declaration of an indefinite state of national emergency that allows the military to assume police functions, may cost the economy valuable growth points if it ends up quelling investor appetites.

At this time, foreign investors who have spoken out against human rights violations (European and American chambers of commerce) can be expected to be watching; and waiting. Smaller local businesses appear optimistic enough but the conglomerates are seen to be much more cautious. After all, looking beyond the body count and the President’s coarse language would require less talk of action and more actionable business propositions, including clarity in labor contracting and mining permits, ease of doing business, removing infrastructure constraints, and more PPP auctions.

While we are getting initial positive reviews of administrative improvements in frontline agencies, including the tax bureau, we think that the President’s men would have to move even faster on their deliverables to win the perception game, currently dominated by images of drug-related killings and Venezuelan-style failed governance.

The silver lining for this administration is that, notwithstanding the maverick image that President Duterte has projected of himself to the world, when it comes to economic matters, he will listen to his empowered economic team led by his close supporter and friend since primary school, Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez III. This is true of macroeconomic management, reforms in taxation, rice and labor policies, spending priorities especially the need to fast-track infrastructure buildup, and other items listed in the administration’s 10-point agenda. And the 10-point agenda is nothing but orthodox.

(This was excerpted from a GlobalSource market brief dated Sept 29, 2016 by Ms. Christine Tang (globalsourcepartners.com) and this columnist.)

Romeo L. Bernardo is a Board Director of the Institute for Development and Econometric Analysis. He was Undersecretary of Finance during Corazon Aquino and Fidel Ramos administrations.

Thursday, September 29, 2016

A tax policy reform program for truly inclusive growth


Posted on September 12, 2016
Business World Introspective
 Romeo L. Bernardo

Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez III and his team seized early the momentum of a new administration with record public support and a strong Congress majority to push for a comprehensive tax reform program. Early action is not just politically savvy, it also makes good economic sense.

Clarity in medium-term financing provides the confidence to pursue aggressive catch-up infra and needed social spending while ensuring stable macroeconomic conditions -- healthy fiscal position, low inflation and interest rates, and stable exchange rates. These are essential to achieve more investments, more jobs, and lower poverty -- and truly inclusive growth.




    
Much thought and study went into the reform program, not just on substance but also on strategy for securing public and legislative support. As I understand, the key elements of the reform program are:

1. The bottom-line goal of tax reform is to raise 3% of GDP (gross domestic product) by 2019 -- 2% of GDP from tax policy reform and 1% of GDP from tax administration reform. The bulk of this is intended for ramp up infrastructure spending from past level of 2%, to at least 5% of GDP.

2. Tax policy reform package also addresses equity, efficiency, and simplicity goals. These include the unfair tax burden on low salaried workers due to non-indexation of exemptions to inflation (bracket creep), the lack of competitiveness of our corporate income taxes vs. regional peers, leakages arising from the special treatment and exemptions provided in tax laws as well as the lack of information stemming, for instance, from a strict bank secrecy law.

3. The approach is to present a comprehensive package at the outset but pursue in stages several packages of tax policy measures combining revenue-eroding with revenue enhancing reforms that will yield the 2% of GDP estimate by 2019.

This is a sound and strategic approach.

It explains the full tax reform program as necessary to realize the development vision of the administration. At the same time, it bundles them into discrete bite size packages, each yielding a net gain. This makes for more focused discussion and debate, and forestalls Congress from passing lopsided revenue losing measures without compensatory enhancing ones. This also prevents needing to fight battles in multiple fronts and hostage taking of the entire package by a single interest lobby, a likely scenario with a single comprehensive proposal.

4. The key reform item in the area of tax administration is relaxing the country’s strict bank secrecy law for cases of fraud, proposed to be included under Package 1. Only two other countries aside from us have such tight bank secrecy laws, enabling not just tax evasion, but even more nefarious criminal activity like the recent Bangladesh central bank heist. (See table).




Allow me to talk about the revenue-raising components of Package 1 for passage by early next year.

Higher oil taxes. The case for this was made in my column last Feb. 29 entitled “Yes, New Taxes 2: Low Hanging Fruit.” [To read Mr. Bernardo’s Feb. 29 piece, please visit the link http://goo.gl/9xRBzI]

I noted then that the following argues for an increase in oil taxes: a) the erosion in real value of oil taxes from 1.1 % of GDP in 1997 to only 0.1% currently (see graph); b) the recent sharp decline in global oil prices provides the opportunity to capture some of it for fiscal needs; c) like tobacco and alcohol, it is soundly based on proven negative externalities (n.b. in contrast to the weak case for a proposed tax on sugary products); and d) a good short-term response to the “traffic crisis,” encouraging ride sharing and trip planning, while addressing the problem at its roots by earmarking revenues for mass transport and road systems.

Most importantly, as emphasized by Sec. Dominguez, contrary to popular impression, oil taxes are highly progressive. The richest 2 million households (top 10%) consume almost 60% of petroleum products and commuting costs. The richest 200,000 households (top 1%) consume 20%. To address the impact on the poor riding public, the DoF (Department of Finance) has readied mitigating measures such as targeted subsidy schemes.

The one concern I do have on raising oil taxes is the increased incentive to smuggling it will provide. According to studies by the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and others, at least 20% of Philippine oil imports are smuggled.

My February column pointed to an ADB paper dated October 2015 as providing the answer -- “(for) governments to institute sophisticated fuel marking programs as a proven way to increase government revenues, improve fuel quality and combat criminal activity.”A similar problem of increased rewards for cigarette tax evasion with the increase in sin taxes in 2013 was successfully addressed by the BIR (Bureau of Internal Revenue) then with an analogous solution -- highly secure tax stamps.

Expand the base for value added tax (VAT). There are just too many exemptions that lead to large leakages, with the result that our VAT collection efficiency is only a fraction of our peers. These include exemptions on cooperatives, low cost and socialized housing, renewable energy, persons with disability, etc. which are cumbersome, poorly monitored, and not consistent with global best practice.

The most egregious example of this is the VAT exemptions for senior citizens, one sees most used when dining out. I wrote against it vehemently in 2010, supporting the recommendation of the DoF for a presidential veto. [To read Mr. Bernardo’s blog entry entitled “The Good, The Bad, and The Somewhat Stupid, please visit the link http://goo.gl/NymY2b]

This is what I said:

“It is somewhat stupid. Why? Because there are so many ways of helping the elderly without reaping the unintended consequences of creating a loophole in the VAT system that creates a compliance and administration nightmare, or be vulnerable to abuse by crooked traders and BIR agents.” Instead of regressive VAT exemptions that subsidizes in direct proportion to one’s purchases and therefore income, I suggested a conditional transfer type program to help the elderly poor.

Incidentally, the “good” in the title of that old column referred to the Arroyo-initiated and Aquino-expanded conditional cash transfer program. The “bad”, referred to NFA (National Food Authority). My colleagues and I at the Foundation for Economic Freedom (fef.org.ph) applaud the resolute decision of the Duterte administration to wind down the NFA, and finally lift this onerous burden on taxpayers and consumers, especially the poor.

Romeo L. Bernardo is a Board Director of the Institute for Development and Econometric Analysis. He was Undersecretary of Finance during Corazon Aquino and Fidel Ramos administrations.

romeo.lopez.bernardo@gmail.com

Sunday, August 14, 2016

Great Expectations

Business World 
Introspective 
Romeo L. Bernardo
Posted on August 15, 2016


We just did our Quarterly Outlook GlobalSource Partners, entitled “Great Expectations” -- after Dickens’ tale of personal growth and development of poor orphan Pip. The public is just as bullish on the Philippines and on the Duterte administration, which holds the record for the highest start of term level of public trust (at 91% ). Expectations that “change is coming,” the President’s campaign slogan, is palpable in Manila’s congested streets as it is in the record-breaking stock market.

For economy watchers like us, the key question is: Can the President translate this political capital into concrete programs that will shift the economy to a higher growth path? To be sure, this government is starting from a position of strength as far as macro-economic fundamentals are concerned: ample fiscal space, low borrowing costs, robust external accounts. It also has a number of infrastructure and PPP projects, deemed “low hanging fruits” that it can kick-start to quickly establish a track record of execution capability that will attract investor interest, especially if alongside streamlined bureaucratic processes that reduce the cost of doing business. With the President’s decisiveness and control of a super majority in Congress, as well as his economic managers’ level of technical expertise and drive to prove that a cabinet that looks like a “council of elders” is superior to the last administration’s, tagged as a “student council,” we think real economic transformation that would yield this government’s investment led 7%-8% growth target plausible over the medium term.

But attaining that goal will take time.

Our revised growth forecast, already much higher than the consensus, reflect catch up infrastructure that will allow the economy to keep to a 6%-7% growth rate. Efforts to pursue and fast-track more construction projects will likely be impeded by absorptive capacity problems in key infrastructure agencies that will not be easy to fix in the short term.

In the meantime, growth will continue to be dominated by consumption, driven by continued expansion in BPO services and some resilience in remittances, while goods exports will remain hobbled by weak global demand.

Upside surprises to our forecast may stem from speedier ramp up of government’s infrastructure program from less than 2.5% of GDP currently to the 5% target, while the opposite poses major downside risk. Notwithstanding ample fiscal headroom at this time, a dramatic decline in tax effort, including from revenue-eroding tax reform package, could give rise to jitters in financial markets, especially if accompanied by rapid increases in unproductive public spending.

External developments to watch include opportunities opened up by friendlier relations with China (upside), the OFW situation in oil exporting countries (downside) as well as political events in developed economies, including “Brexit” and the upcoming US election (unknown). A further downside could come from dampener in investment climate, especially from countries sensitive to human rights issues, if the war on drugs get out of hand. The President has also kept the public guessing on what his full play is on a number of surprise broadsides that may impact on investments, e.g. against a high profile business man (“an oligarch”) active in online gaming, mining companies in the cross hairs of his activist environment secretary, and against so-called “labor contractualization,” an ill-defined term.

(This is exerpted from the executive summary of our quarterly report to GlobalSource Partners. GSP is a New York-based global network of independent senior analysts who provide international subscribers macro, financial and political risk analysis. Our counterparts in other emerging markets include such recognizable names as Domingo Cavallo [former Economy Minister and Central Bank President of Argentina], Alfonso Pastore [former Central Bank President of Brazil], Fan Gang [Board Member of the People’s Bank of China] and Michael Pettis [Professor of Finance in the Peking University]. Lazaro Bernardo Tiu and Associates colleague Christine Tang and I are their Philippine partners. (See globalsourcepartners.com).

Romeo L. Bernardo is a Board Director of the Institute for Development and Econometric Analysis. He was Undersecretary of Finance during Corazon Aquino and Fidel Ramos administrations.

romeo.lopez.bernardo@gmail.com

Sunday, July 3, 2016

Does the recent re-assignment of SMC frequency benefit consumers? Part 2

Introspective Romeo L. Bernardo
Posted on July 03, 2016 11:19:00 PM

(This column continues the answer to that core question started in the first installment last week.)

What are the realities behind “slow internet” in the Philippines? The following factors, positive and negative, affect broadband speed:

 
1) Government Participation. This factor is mostly negative, with unclear and no comprehensive national broadband strategies, no substantial investment in a national broadband network, inefficient allocation of limited spectrum resource, decentralized LGU regulation of taxes and permitting.

2) Geography. The country’s smaller land area, compared to neighbors, can lead to more efficient infrastructure. However, multiple islands require more cables/fibers, including underwater ones.

3) Urbanized demographics. High population density enables economies of scale and faster deployment. On the other hand, infrastructure deployment in rural areas is challenging due to economic and market factors.

4) Economy. Higher gross national income per capita indicates ability and proven willingness of consumers to pay. Broadband affordability is correlated with income. Mix of low speeds vs high speeds affects perceived average speeds. In the Philippines on the downside with more people in a lower income bracket.

THE CHALLENGES
1) On Fixed Line Internet, the key challenges in accelerating investments are long duration returns (high cost of capex per line) and various bureaucracy elements (permits, right of way, and site acquisitions).

Historically, there has been underinvestment in this sector. Other countries had a better landline infrastructure from the starting line. In 1992, the late Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew noted that “98% of Filipinos do not have telephones,” Globe and other telcos leapfrogged using mobile technology, the quickest and most economic way to provide telephone service coverage.

2) On Mobile Internet -- By its nature, mobile requires an interplay between size of spectrum and site/tower density. Greater tower density allows mobile service providers to offer the same quality of service with smaller sizes or allocations of spectrum. Conversely, large slices of spectrum are necessary given low site density.

The Philippines does not have enough towers to support better speeds and affordability, and future growth. As can be seen in the first graph, the Philippines has less than 13,000 towers, while Vietnam has 55,000, Malaysia 22,000, Pakistan 28,000, US 300,000. (Source: TowerXchange, CTIA for US number)

The key challenge in towers and sites are permits, right of way, site acquisition, and broad discretion levels of permitting agencies like LGUs, local entities, and would-be tower neighbors driven by Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) mentality.

I recall a while back, our Globe Board of Directors approved financial resources to accelerate expansion of towers and sites -- we have an accumulated backlog of 3,000 sites. But despite pressure from management and the Board, and utmost effort from our team, Globe can only do 350-450 a year.

The hurdles are real and understandable.

Just to illustrate, our team has had to get 25 permits per cell site, and to deal with at least 120 primary level LGUs individually to build infrastructure. This is one area where the central government can play an enabling role, perhaps under the newly established Department of Information and Telecommunication.

EXPLOSIVE GROWTH
At the same time, there has been explosive growth in mobile internet use. We Filipinos have graduated from being the number one SMS users in the world to being the top users of social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) and consumers of movies and music. For Globe alone, in the span of a little over two years, subscribers of mobile Internet have more than doubled from 9 million at the end of 2013 to 24 million. Within that same period, traffic went up from five thousand to 50 thousand terrabytes, tenfold, even as revenue growth from this was controlled at just at three and a half times from P2 billion to P7 billion. Philippine telcos simply cannot sustain mobile Internet delivery service demand growing at 50-70% annually without more frequency and more sites.

THE SMC TRANSACTION ETC.
Against this back drop, San Miguel Corporation has sold all of its telecom assets to Globe and PLDT which has split these 50-50, and returned some frequencies to the NTC. This covers all frequencies, all sites and equipment, three holding companies, and 20 plus companies that has all of their telecom assets. Critical for improving mobile service delivery is the 4G/LTE frequencies in the 700 MHz band which provides longer range, broader reach.

It bears noting that SMC has underutilized this and other frequencies, and with the collapse of its negotiations with Telstra, has poor to nil prospects of utilizing it any time soon. Even for a giant conglomerate like SMC, it has proven most difficult to find a foreign partner who will risk several billions of dollars to invest in a Philippine telco play. For reference, it took Digitel more than five years before it could be profitable, and even then it only had ten% of the market before it decided to sell/merge with PLDT.

The NTC approved the transaction and co-use/ re-assignment of SMC frequencies, considering this is the best and quickest way of improving the service to the public. The approval came with the following conditions:

a) The surrender of frequencies across the spectrum by the two telcos. These frequencies are more than sufficient for a third player to come in and compete head to head with the incumbents.

b) A plan to cover at least 90% of cities and municipalities within 3 years, and to improve Internet speeds significantly within a year.

QUESTIONS
The Internet Society posed probing questions to determine if the two telcos really need the 700 MHz to improve service. The full technical answers to their questions are provided in the letter to them by Gil Genio, Globe Telecom’s Chief Strategy and Technology Officer.

[To read Mr. Genio’s letter posted on Mr. Bernardo’s blog, please visit http://goo.gl/bXKJu7.]

Another frequently asked query is whether the telcos are reinvesting enough or yielding shareholders too much. I mentioned in Part 1 that Globe invests 28-33% of revenues for CAPEX, higher than most telcos elsewhere. Moreover dividend yield averages 3.5% per year are healthy, but far from excessive.

CONCLUDING NOTE
Since 1997, we have gone a long way from a nation where there were only 1.8 million landlines and 0.5 million mobiles to one where there are 120 million mobile SIMs in circulation, about 40 million smart phones, 50 million plus internet users, 40 million plus FB and other social media users. We often forget that there are tens of millions who are now able to use Internet because of the investments of private sector, many times over versus the days of dial up. Even compared to three years ago the number has tripled.

That must count for something. We can always be better, speed could be faster, networks more pervasive, but to be constructive about it means having coherent suggestions and practical solutions, for the larger population. Filipinos do deserve faster and more affordable Internet, mobile or fixed. I do believe that the telcos are doing their part, and will continue to do so. Others need to play their roles.

Romeo L. Bernardo is GlobalSource Partners Philippine advisor. He served as Finance undersecretary during the Aquino-1 and Ramos administrations.       

Friday, July 1, 2016

Response of Gil Genio, Chief Technology and Strategy Officer of Globe Telecom to Internet Society


Internet Society- Philippines Chapter
Sunset View towers
2230 Roxas Blvd. Pasay City
Manila, Philippines
June 28, 2016


Attention:           Mr. Winthrop Yu  
Chairman

Mr. Aris Ignacio
President

Dear Messrs. Yu and Ignacio,
This is in response to your letter intended for the PCC which was used as reference for press stories published by the PDInquirer on June 21st and Malaya on June 24th.  For purposes of thoughtful discussion, especially given recent forums, we are sending you additional information that may be helpful in forming your postion regarding issues currently facing the industry.   
ISOP:  700 MHz is not necessary for good Internet service:
The narrative regarding the 700 MHz frequency band has been changing since news of a possible joint venture between SMC and Telstra emerged last year. Starting with “spectrum is a scarce resource”, descriptions of 700 MHz have more recently evolved from “faster” or “stronger” to “better coverage”. First, because its capacity to carry information is less than that of higher frequencies, the 700 MHz is actually “slower”, in this sense, than higher frequencies. Secondly, while 700 MHz may be said to have better “coverage” than higher frequencies, it does so at the expense of other desirable properties such as capacity, mentioned above.
What is clear is that though the properties of various frequency bands may differ, 700 MHz has no special or magical properties as against other frequency bands, particularly adjoining frequencies (e.g. 850 and 900 MHz) which would have properties similar to 700 MHz.
GLOBE:
Speed being provided to a user is a function of several variables: how far the user is from a cellsite, how many other users are being served by the same cellsite, the aggregate bandwidth from the cellsite to a mobile service provider (MSP) core network and internet backbone, and as important, the size of the frequency spectrum and its position that dictates how much information can be carried. Assuming all other factors being equal, a user can enjoy higher speeds if there is a larger slice of frequency spectrum, the slice being more at low frequency bands and smaller at higher frequency bands (without forgetting the distance to the cellsite).
When delivering ever faster mobile internet, MSPs normally favor higher bands (such as 2300 or 2600) because they can carry more information for the same MHz slice versus low frequency bands (such as 700/900). Technology developments and later generations of air interfaces have led to faster speeds using the same slices, but the principle remains the same.
As more high speed internet users use the same cellsite, MSPs use a variety of methods to support more users. One method is the split up the cellsites, effectively increasing site density and lowering the number of users using the same cellsite. Other techniques include re-using spectrum at various sectors, or even layering and aggregating frequency bands to support more users. Unfortunately, most people do not recognize that increasing site density simply means adding more cellsites, which is a huge barrier to telecom infrastructure construction in the Philippines.  We have pointed to Vietnam’s 55,000 sites for example, more than double Philippines 17-21,000. In the most extreme bandwidth use such as the US, the same site density would mean 94,000 sites in the Philippines (US has 300K towers for 318.9M population).
It is because of the inability to add sites that more frequency slices are necessary in order to support more high speed users per cellsite. Aside of course from its ability to carry information, the use of the 700 MHz band provides better coverage versus higher frequency bands (suc as 2300 or 2600), and therefore MSPs can support more high speed users using the same tower or cellsite footprint that currently exists today.
It would be unsolvable puzzle if MSPs like Globe were asked to support more high speed internet users, or to support ever higher speeds, yet hamstrung by an inability to increase site density or hamstrung by lack of frequency resources. 

ISOP:  Empirically, while many countries have (differing) spectrum plans for the 700 MHz band, most countries do not even use 700 MHz, yet all if not most of these countries provide much faster average Internet speeds than the Philippines. Clearly, the 700 MHz band is neither necessary nor sufficient for providing good Internet connectivity.
GLOBE:
There are three ways to increase capacity:
1.       Build New Sites
Globe has been aggressive in the past few years in implementing new sites but the current bureaucracy in securing permits hamper us in building new sites as fast as we want. It takes about 8 months before one cell site can be constructed because of the number of permits to be secured from barangay level up to national level.
2.       Add more spectrum
Regardless of frequency band, additional spectrum is still an additional layer for capacity. Having an additional spectrum in the low frequency band is just a bonus because it can propagate farther and deeper. This solution is the most difficult because one cannot use additional spectrum other than those assigned by the regulatory body.
3.       Increase Spectrum Efficiency through 2G to 3G to 4G migration
This is essentially how much bits per Hertz can you get from a given spectrum. Obvious solution is to shift the available spectrum into higher wireless generations like 3G and 4G/LTE. This is what Globe has been doing over the years, by reallocating our spectrum previously used for 2G to 3G and 4G/LTE. But we cannot completely devote all of our traditional spectrum assets to next generation wireless technologies since smartphone penetration is only about 40-50% and there are still lots of 2G users. One example is Mindanao where smartphone penetration is less compared to the rest of the country and where 2G service revenues continue to have healthy takeup. But Globe through its offerings of affordable postpaid plans bundled with smartphones is pushing as hard as it can for subscribers to adopt 3G/4G. It is worth noting that the Philippines is unique in that mobile operators support all existing technologies today: 2G, 3G, 4G/LTE, because majority of consumers in provincial areas have yet to adopt fully to smartphones.  Unlike other countries that make them use spectrum more efficiently, once they migrate customers to 3G, all 2G spectrum can be reallocated to a newer technology like 4G.   In the same vein, many developing countries have yet to adopt to 4G/LTE because their spectrum resources are only limited to 2G and 3G. Historically, in most of the world, the 700 band was used for analog broadcast. As broadcast migrates to digital technologies, the 700 bands are freed up for mobile internet.   To date, GSMA counts about 64 countries that have deployed or started to use the 700 MHz band.
ISOP:  Spectrum is not “scarce” in the Philippines:
When asked a direct question as to whether the telco conglomerate he was representing suffered from spectrum scarcity or was otherwise spectrum-constrained, a telco lawyer declined to answer. Obviously, highly dense concentrations (such as countries and operators in Central Europe) would be much more constrained in this respect, compared to the Philippines - spread-out over 7000 islands, sitting-out in the West Philippine Sea. Yet these countries do very well and provide better service with what they have.

Instead of scarcity, our two dominant telcos (but particularly PLDT group) actually have mor than sufficient spectrum. Most telecom operators around the world deliver much faster and better quality Internet by making efficient use of spectrum allocations that are less than those held by PLDT and Globe, even before their take-over of the SMC frequencies.
GLOBE:  The reasons why these countries do well are:
1.       They have high smartphone penetration that allow them to support mobile internegt customers using 3G/4G, and some countries are beginning or planning to turn off 2G.
2.       They have different user behavior. First world countries tend to use only wireless communication as data connection when they are outdoor or truly mobile or in transit. Citizens of these countries have had the benefit of many decades of wired (DSL or fiber or cable) internet infrastructure, which are the main internet access technologies when at home, at work, or at meeting places such as coffee shops or hotels. By contrast, citizens of the Philippines have not had meaningful wired infrastructure and now use mobile as the primary method of accessing internet.
4.       They have no issues on the number of cell sites (e.g. US at 300,000 towers). These countries are fully supported by their governments in building the infrastructure needed for their cell sites. Their government recognized the importance of reliable and fast communication in their economic development. The existing red tape right now in the country in securing permits needed in building a cell site hamper our eagerness to build as much and as fast as we want. Without enough cell sites telcos will need more spectrum in order to deliver the high speeds to cope with the rapidly growing usage of wireless mobile services. It’s as simple as that. Problem is all the red tape is hampering the fast deployment of cell sites needed to provide enough capacity layers needed to deliver faster broadband services.
ISOP:  Spectrum Efficiency:
Spectrum should not be allocated based on the current number of subscribers. Following the incumbents’ logic that those with more subscribers should be allocated more spectrum would only exacerbate and perpetuate incumbent’s dominance of the market, lock-out new players, and reward the incumbents’ inefficient spectrum usage or other shortcomings.

Instead, global best practice is to reserve (and keep unused) spectrum for potential market entrants. A good example of which is Singapore (already with one of the fastest Internet speeds in the world), which still reserves spectrum for new players, even providing spectrum to new players at a discount vis-a-vis incumbent.

GLOBE:   We generally agree that spectrum should be assigned based on the high speed users and total mobile internet traffic of an MSP, not just in terms of absolute subscriber numbers. For example, as of the first quarter 2016, Globe had about 70% of mobile internet traffic, supported by a set of frequency resources that is smaller than the other MSP and even smaller than SMC’s. This is the reason why Globe has been requesting the NTC for the past decade to re-allocate the 700 MHz band, especially when it was reclassified from analog broadcast to mobile, and be given its share. Clearly, citizens should have been enjoying the benefits of 700MHz band much earlier.

ISOP: Spectrum Lock-out:

It is possible to deliver excellent wireline (i.e. wired, e.g. DSL, FTTH ) Internet connectivity without any spectrum assets at all. Given their already solid foothold in the mobile market, expanding and improving wireline service is what incumbents PLDT and Globe should have been doing, instead both failed the NTC fixed broadband tests last year.

For new entrants, the story is different. New entrants will need sufficient and properly allocated mobile spectrum for fast roll-out and launch of their services. As the two dominant incumbents already had much more spectrum than many other operators worldwide even before taking-over the SMC frequencies, the 700 MHz spectrum grab not only restrains competition but effectively forecloses it (reduces contestability to zero). Notice should also be taken of the highly anomalous practice of incumbents deciding which fractured bits of spectrum to “return”, purportedly for use by a new entrant.

GLOBE:  For fixed broadband solution, wireline (via DSL, fiber, even cable) is still the most reliable so Globe has recently committed to a major fiber build program nationally. This is the result of an admitted priority serving mobile, which is now the main method of accessing internet. But we agree that overall, internet will be healthier with a more balanced mix of technologies. While there are also challenges in permits and rights of way, these are fewer and easier to overcome than cellsite permit issues.

We have worked with the NTC to surrender useful slices of frequency. Anyone who will implement a network compliant with global 3GPP standards, across 2G/3G/4G and even 5G, can easily use the frequencies that have been returned to the NTC and is now in their possession for disposition.
It is worth noting that the average amount of spectrum bandwidth assigned to wireless operators in the Asia Pacific Region is 401 MHZ. In Europe, spectrum holdings average 460 MHz, while in Latin America only 295 MHz. For the record Globe prior to the SMC deal only had 210 MHz of spectrum, after the deal it now has 340 MHz of spectrum, still way below the average in the Asia Pacific Region.  So to state the Philippine telcos have the most assigned spectrum relative to many other operators is definitely erroneous and incorrect.


We hope the additional information will allow for more positive exchange of views regarding the industry with the joint objective of serving the Filipino consumers.

Sincerely,




Gil B. Genio
Chief Technology and Information Officer
Chief Strategy Officer
Globe Telecom

cc: Arsenio Balisacan
       Chairman, Philippine Competition Commission




Sunday, June 26, 2016

Does the recent re-assignment of SMC frequency benefit the consumers?

Posted on June 26, 2016 09:57:00 PM
Introspective Business world
Romeo L. Bernardo

This is the core question that the public and governmental authorities who oversee the sector need to ask and be assured on.

As a member of the Board of Directors of Globe Telecom with responsibility for corporate governance, accountable not just to shareholders but to all stakeholders, including customers and government authorities, I am fully satisfied that the answer is an unequivocal “Yes.”

Some history: Former Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew famously said in 1992 -- “The Philippines is a country where 98% of the residents are waiting for a telephone and the other 2% are waiting for a dial tone.” (Check out my Sept. 9, 2011 blog entry entitled “De-monopolizing telecom” by visiting the link -- http://goo.gl/aY1rUr.)

Twenty-five years later, there are as many mobile phones, pocket computers really, than there are people, offering a dizzying array of services fitting any lifestyle and business need. Our progress in telecom has made possible our global leadership in BPO, the key growth driver of the economy. How did we get here?

The long and winding road.

With the reforms introduced by President Ramos during 1992/1993, there was a burst of new entrants, and optimism -- five mobile carriers started, also several landline carriers. The issue was lack of landlines so it was roll-out obligation imposed on those who wanted mobile or international licenses.

The Asian crisis came in the late ’90s. Carriers who were competitively weak found themselves struggling under debt burdens too, and a period of consolidation started. Five mobile carriers became two -- Globe bought Islacom, Smart took over Piltel, and Extelcom went into into financial distress. And those who bet on landline or international went into distress -- PLDT had debt issues, then Smart bought PLDT (but PLDT became the parent), Piltel’s landline went to PLDT, Bayantel was in receivership, PT&T likewise. By 1998-2000, only PLDT/Smart and Globe, with good business models, strong shareholders and scale, were surviving. That was also the strongest growth period in the era of voice/SMS.

The government actually gave Digitel, a small landline company, a mobile license, as they felt the need to have a third mobile player. It took them five years to get to a scale to be a serious third player with more than 10% share.

When 3G arrived, the frequency standards allowed the government to grant 5 licenses: three to the existing players, plus a new one (Cure), and a fifth that Bayan says should have gone to them. Given efficiencies of scale, Cure was bought by Smart, and eventually Bayan got bought by Globe. Digitel by PLDT. So back to two main telco groups. (Thank you to Gil Genio, EVP of Globe for refreshing my recall of all of this.)

So as you can see, there are many reasons why the Philippines ended up with two major telcos -- scale, continuing high capex requirement that can only be funded from overseas or by ploughing back profits into the business, infra difficulties that give incumbents advantage, and in mobile, limits on how frequency are sliced up.

Is this resulting two player structure inimical to public interest?

I think only if they behave in a non-competitive way.

From everything I have seen as a Board Director for over a decade, there is not only competition, but fierce competition.

Globe as the challenger has played its role to the hilt. It has been gaining market share through innovation and improvement in services. For the public, evidence of this abound -- look at the billboards and TV ads, or the daily SKU battle in prepaid, or how for P15 one can get unlimited calling and texting for a day, and how mobile Internet prices have come down -- these are the indicia of competition.

Moreover, more players do not mean better service. Europe is a good example. They had a lot of players competing that led to price competition lowering of EBITDA margins (aside from an aggressive regulator). This has taken away the ability of these telcos to spend for needed rollouts. Eventually, the markets began to consolidate leaving a small number of players. Incidentally in the case of Globe (and I believe likewise for PLDT) it is reinvesting 28%-33% of revenues for capex, significantly more than telcos in most other countries.

Ultimately, it is not concentration per se but harmful behavior that indicates lack of competition that the Competition Law (RA 10667) is concerned about. Even before the passage of that law, Globe has always placed the interest of consumers at the center of its business, the sine qua non for long-term profitability and sustainability of Globe, and the industry. (See “Demonopolizing Telecommunications”).

(The next installment of this column will address observations on poor or costly broad band service of local telcos vs peers, why this is true for fixed line infrastructure but not for mobile, factors that explain these, and what government can do to improve service. Also why the re-assignment of the 700 mhz frequency band from SMC will help majorly advance the interest of consumers vs alternative courses.)

Romeo L. Bernardo is GlobalSource Partners Philippine advisor. He served as Finance undersecretary during the Aquino-1 and Ramos administrations.



Sunday, June 19, 2016

PERA, not pension increase


Business World
Posted on June 19, 2016 11:33:00 PM

Our Foundation for Economic Freedom (fef.org.ph), an advocacy group for good governance and market friendly reforms, came out last week with this statement.

Quote:

Not just increase SSS pension but fix the Philippine pension system

In response to incoming President Rodrigo Duterte’s vow to increase the Social Security System (SSS) pension benefits, we, the Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEF), caution the Duterte administration on fiscal prudence. It is likewise imperative for the administration to specify the source of funds for this measure.

It is important to recall that President Benigno S. C. Aquino III previously vetoed such measure on the recommendation of the Finance Secretary and the President and Board of the SSS, taking into account the following:

1. It is estimated that it will cost SSS P56 billion annually, compared to annual investment income of P30 billion to P40 billion only. Such total payment will therefore yield a deficit of P16 billion to P26 billion annually.

2. It will hasten the depletion of SSS fund life by 13 years to as early as 2029 when many of the current contributors will be retiring.

3. The increase in pension benefits will deplete SSS funds because most of the people who will benefit from the large increase in pension payments will receive much more from SSS than they have contributed before they retired. It is therefore prudent that how the large increase in retirement benefits will be paid for be decided now (e.g. via new taxes or higher SSS contributions from currently working SSS members) and not many years from now, as the advocates of the increased benefits have irresponsibly proposed. Procrastination on this decision will create fiscal risks that would have implications on the credit ratings of our country down the road (e.g. higher interest rates on bonds issued by the national government).

We recommend that any major increase in pension should only be considered in the context of a thorough review of the entire Philippine pension system to improve its structure and governance for a more adequate, affordable, sustainable, and robust system. The Philippine pension system includes the SSS, the Government Services Insurance System, Home Development Mutual Fund or Pag-IBIG, military pensions paid from the budget, private tax-exempt retirement accounts, and the still to be implemented Personal Equity and Retirement Account (PERA) under Republic Act No. 9505, which was passed in 2008.

We are in agreement with independent observations on the issues affecting the solvency of the Philippine pension system.

According to a study on Structural and Governance Reform of the Philippine Pension System commissioned by the Department of Finance in 2006, persistent weaknesses of the Philippine pension system that need to be addressed include: 1) investments decisions need to be protected from political processes; 2) pension assets need to be sufficiently diversified and well matched to risk/return needs; 3) supervision, regulation, and auditing need to be holistic and adequate; 4) mandatory system needs to be sustainable and equitable; 5) benefit formulas need to be harmonized; 6) the defined-contribution, fully-funded element of the pension system needs to be bigger; 7) taxation needs to be harmonized and consistent; 8) administration of the system needs improvement; and 9) the system needs to expand its coverage and sufficiently reach the poor elderly.


End of Quote

I was privileged to have been part of the international consultant team that did that study in 2006. It consisted of known experts in the field of pension reform, including noted author Estelle James (“Averting the Old Age Crisis”). On the local side, I was joined by veteran actuary Ernesto Reyes, former Insurance Commissioner Adelita Vergel de Dios, and colleague economist and CFA, Christine Tang.

The full report is over 250 pages, but for those with an interest, I am posting the twelve-page summary recommendations in my blog spot (which can be accessed by visiting the link http://goo.gl/TD9ZKE.)

Widely followed business journalist and fellow FEF Fellow Boo Chanco wrote compellingly on this subject last week (The Philippine Star, Reforming social security, June 15, 2016). He urged incoming Finance Secretary Dominguez to jump start pension reform by implementing the PERA Act of 2008.

As Chair then of the Financial Executives Institute Capital Market Development Committee, a strong advocate of the bill since 2000, I jubilantly wrote a column on it entitled “PERA -- here at last” (which can be accessed by visiting the link http://goo.gl/JDbd5v.)

“These tax exempt savings for retirement scheme patterned after the similar successful ones in many countries including the IRA in the United States... promises to encourage a higher level of savings, and a redirection of such toward longer term instruments which can aid improving the currency and maturity profile of public debt and increase the pool of resources available for projects with long recovery period such as infrastructure. It will also prompt the development of savings for retirement, especially needed for OFWs, not now mandatorily covered by traditional government sponsored institutions like the SSS and Pag-ibig.”

It is a source of deep frustration for us who labored on this, including the legislators who sponsored and husbanded this through the mill -- notably Senator Edgardo Angara, then Congressman Sonny Angara, and Senator Serge Osmeña, to see this delayed for so long.

Hopes are high that an administration which campaigned on the promise of quick and effective execution will finally get this done.

Romeo L. Bernardo is vice-chairman of the Foundation of Economic Freedom. He was formerly undersecretary of Finance during the Aquino and Ramos administrations.