Fiscal Irresponsibility 26: On the $1 B Philippine Loan to the IMF

Yesterday, I posted this in my facebook wall.

The $1B PH loan to the IMF for Eurozone reserve fund won't come from tax money but from BSP's international reserves. It is within BSP's mandate and resources to do so. Still, I don't support helping to bail out fiscally irresponsible governments with more loans when those governments have lots of state-owned enterprises, financial instns and assets that can be privatized to raise domestic revenues, instead of endless taxation and borrowings.

I was happy to see some serious exchanges and comments from some friends, below. I am posting these comments without asking the permission of these guys for two reasons. One, my fb wall is a public wall anyway, and  two, many of the points raised here are no-nonsense ideas and would greatly help educate the public on the merits and demerits of this recent move by the central bank/BSP.
--------

Malou Tiquia I just totally do not agree to it...

Butch Arroyo But if you were the BSP what else would you do with the $s? BSP evidently doesn't want to sell the $s to the local economy and make the PHP stronger. So it has to push out the $s. But everything else out there they could put it into is either risky (and wouldn't be allowed to count towards "international reserves"), or safe but very low-yielding. A loan to IMF might be the highest-yielding of the alternatives that are acceptable for designation as international reserves.

The European bailouts are painful and costly result of policy mistakes of the EU in not enforcing the fiscal and public debt requirements of the original Maastricht agreement. I agree that those governments (the borrower govts for sure, but also the Germans, who weakened fiscal discipline in the EU by themselves violating the fiscal pact) deserve the wrath of their constituents. But until they get voted out they are (unfortunately) still the democratically elected leaders of these countries. If the leaders of the center countries (FRA, GER) still favor a bail out of the problem governments rather than allowing an exodus from the monetary union, the IMF will probably have to go along, since the only other countries who could vote it down-- US, UK, and, Japan-- probably support preservation of the monetary union.
From PH perspective, as long as the bailout lenders retain seniority, $1B to IMF is probably a small portfolio risk for the BSP.

Nonoy Oplas Thanks Butch. If I were the BSP, I will use some of my $77 B gross international reserves (GIR) to buy and hoard more gold plus other precious metals. My beef is that by pooling rising amount of bail out money, it will create moral hazards problem for those indebted countries. They have many govt-owned corporations, financial institutions, national parks, military camps and other assets, things that can be privatized to raise local revenues to deal with their spending requirements and debt obligations. I have not encountered much literature that those governments are taking this measure. Rather, they made limited or bogus austerity then issue some warnings that their debt problem can "spiral to the global economy unless the world will send them more money."

By not participating in the creation of more moral hazards problem with that IMF bailout money, the PH government is sending a signal both to itself and the rest of the world, that it is time to really look inwards, there are several options and solutions that can be internally generated, aside from endless borrowings and issuing a blackmail of global fiscal crisis unless they are given more bailout money.

Jules Calagui It is high time that we create a Sovereign Wealth Fund. We can set aside $20 B to start one and still left with over 6 months of GIR to cover 7 months of imports.

Benson Te The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas is a creation of the Philippine Congress REPUBLIC ACT No. 7653 and hence every exposure it does exposes Philippine taxpayers.

To give you an example, the liabilities of the old central bank (central bank ng Pilipinas, according to Malcolm Cook valued at over 300 billion were shifted to the newly created, off-budget Central Bank Board of Liquidators. In short, the liabilities of the old central bank was passed on the taxpayers.

FYI

Giovanni Rodriguez Agree with you Noy, the financial crisis in Europe and the world is the culmination of a failed experiment - fiat money !

Todd Foster So a country who still has many scratching out subsistence levels of living is loaning to a country, so it's residents can better afford their new "right" of do-overs on their vacations, if they got the sniffles on vacation #1? That's just plain evil.

Malou Tiquia Butch Arroyo, I really do not agree with your "small portfolio risk for BSP line. Point of the matter is we need the money here and not to support a failed system worldwide. Bail outs have proven to be not the right thing to do and really the Phils as lender is just a stunt to project the "breakout nations" status. Why not use the $ locally? BSP has to be creative, instead of FER what Jules Calagui posted is something worth considering. With SWF, it maximizes long term return, with foreign exchange reserves serving short term currency stabilization and liquidity management. There is a way to go than serve the ends of IMF. The world is in search of a new economic order and IMF has been part and parcel of failure of nations to handle responsibly fiscal and monetary policies. I fully share Nonoy Oplas' position here. Its time to go back to the drawing boards and bailouts are not the way to go! That's IMHO.

Casey Phyle The only thing that could possibly justify the Phils lending $1B to save Europe is the hope of not losing an important export market. But that is a vain hope, as lending to people who owe more than they can ever pay back is not the smartest thing to do. Borrowing more only makes their hole deeper. Some say it was intended like that by the money power who, on the way to NWO or One World, wants to force its will on the nations. So far that appears successful. The Philippines should not tie its raft too tightly to a sinking ship that will probably go down this year. On the other hand, the Philippines have been the recipient of western aid for long enough and have improved their situation at least this far. Now that they have a little cash on the side they probably thought it was only right to reciprocate and show some solidarity. Difficult to judge. That 1B would have stayed with the CB anyway and never gone to the people. Now the Phils will have a marker from IMF/Europe for $1B, with gold at $1600/oz.

PhilHealth Watch 11: Is PHIC an Insurance Company?

The Philippine Health Insurance Corporation, PHIC or simply PhilHealth, is a government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC) created mainly to provide "universal healthcare" for the Filipinos. But the healthcare that it provides and subsidizes since its creation in 1995 is only for "inpatient" or hospital confinement for at least 24 hours. Thus, if a Philhealth member-patient goes to a hospital emergency room (ER) to have a check up say of fever or minor wound, then goes home after, the patient will not get any Philhealth subsidy or ER bill deduction.

Philhealth intends to provide outpatient benefits to all members by around 2016. In some areas I think, Philhealth subsidizes outpatient services but only for a very limited number of patients, sort of an experimental phase.

A fellow free market writer, Benson Te, posted this yesterday in his blog:
----------

Does your Philhealth Contribution Help the Poor?
June 11, 2012.

There has been this politically correct idea which attempts to rationalize private sector contribution to the Philippine national health universal coverage as having a charity effect of helping the underprivileged or the needy.

Let us examine if this claim is valid.

First what is PhilHealth?

From Wikipedia.org, (bold original)

The Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) was created in 1995 with the aim of placing a renewed emphasis on achieving universal coverage. It is categorized as a tax-exempt, government-owned and government-controlled corporation (GOCC) of the Philippines, and is attached to the Department of Health. It states its goal as insuring a sustainable national health insurance program for all.

So the essence of Philhealth’s function is supposedly a “national health insurance program”

But does Philhealth’s concept of insurance match with the real definition of insurance?....

Is Philhealth an insurance company?

No it isn’t. There is NO equal sharing of risk and thus is NOT qualified as an insurance company in the conventional terms.

Instead, Philhealth is a health coverage WELFARE program (verbally embellished by the term "insurance") funded mainly by taxpayers and complimented by an employment MANDATE (or as a form of tax on BOTH the employer and the employee).

Transport Econ 3: Brand Competition Among Jeepneys and Buses

A friend, Benson Te, posted a good article today, Can Government Prevent Disasters? It's about his reaction to new government moves to further regulate buslines and bus drivers in order to "prevent future accidents."

Benson observed that

regulators are obsessed with rules and NOT with pleasing the consumers. Yet rules don’t and won’t incorporate everything that is known for the benefit of society. The fundamental premise of which anew is the Knowledge problem and of the interest of diverse groups involved in shaping the laws.


So instead of looking for the welfare of their clients or the consumers, industry providers will be forced to pay attention FIRST to comply with the web of laws.

And he made this concluding statement,

you don’t need more government intervention, what you need is more competition and judicious facilitation of tort laws.

I agree with many points that Benson wrote, especially on the role of allowing more competition among more industry players. But I will suggest that we specify and qualify the term competition: that there will be brand competition.

Jeepneys, tens of thousands of them in the Philippines, compete with each other on various routes, but they have no corporate brand, they compete as individual units. Thus, they can be reckless and discourteous (like stopping in the middle of the road) and they risk not losing any credibility or brand reputation.

Bus lines compete on brand: Victory, Five Star, Philtranco, Penafrancia, Dagupan, Ceres, Jam, other local bus lines. When just one bus of any of those bus lines meet an accident, especially involving death to many passengers, the whole brand or the entire bus company is affected. Passengers would shy away from that busline, thinking that drivers of that bus company maybe over-worked and over-fatigued, or underpaid and have low morale, or the company hires undertrained and underqualified drivers, and so on.

With competition among buslines that keep their brand reputation, internal control among bus companies become strict. The pressure to bus drivers not to be involved in any accident -- zero accident goal -- is high. And this protects passengers.

Zero government regulation will be needed there as self-regulation is strict and efficient.

Back to jeepneys. I think either we abolish the Land Transport Franchising Regulatory Board (LTFRB), or we change its mandate to promotional, not regulatory, of transpo franchises. All jeepneys should belong to a jeepney corporation or cooperative, they should belong to a particular jeepney brand. A jeepney brand, say brand A, will have a distinct corporate or coop entity, will have one design, and can field jeepneys in various routes. Operators and owners of individual jeepney units will pay to the jeepney corporation or cooperative, the brand, and the brand will provide various services to the jeepney operators. Like continuing driver education and training, good maintenance of units, advertising the brand to attract more passenger loyalty, etc.

Passengers will remember the brand -- more courteous drivers, they don't over-charge, they follow traffic rules, they don't stop in the middle of the road, more comfortable units, drivers don't overload their jeepneys, etc. Those brands that have ugly record and have no reputation will go bankrupt. Or they will be forced to improve their services to regain passenger loyalty.

There is practically zero government role to improve the services of jeepneys. Government comes in only in disputes like accidents and there are casualties. Government enforces the rule of law -- laws to protect passengers' right to life, right to safe travel.
-------

* See also:

Transport Econ 1: Public Transpo Regulation, December 19, 2007

Transport Econ 2: Small-Scale Monopolies, April 22, 2010