More Statistical Hocus Focus in EU, Emerging Asia and Japan?

Have governments been desperate enough to resort to statistical trickery to boost up economic growth or downplay risks? 

Europe’s data management from Wall Street Real Times Economic Blog: (bold mine)

Sometimes, the absence of data is a data point itself.

Take, for example, a paper published Friday on transparency trends in the International Monetary Fund’s surveillance.

The paper — see Table 4 — reveals that the European Union and its member countries deleted sensitive information about their financial sector in more than a quarter of the IMF’s reports on their economies last year.

Emerging Asia also previously engaged in the same data mining activities…

It also shows that emerging Asian countries are more confident about public scrutiny of their exchange-rate policies than they were in 2010, when they deleted sensitive references to their exchange rates in nearly one-fifth of the IMF’s country reports on the region’s emerging market economies.

The fund’s annual reports on member countries’ economic policies—called Article IVs in a reference to the specific IMF bylaw that created them–are a hallmark of the global lending institution’s analysis. The reports are designed to ensure both domestic and international economic stability.

IMF’s justification of statistical data "management"….

Member countries have the right, however, to delete material in the reports they deem too sensitive, delay publishing of reports, and even prevent the IMF from publishing reports altogether. The deletions are to help rid surveillance reports of market-sensitive and potentially market-damaging data and preserve the IMF’s role as a trusted adviser. (See Table 8 for publication lags.)

See, when statistical data doesn’t fit with the political agenda, then data management have been rationalized or justified as “market-sensitive and potentially market-damaging data”. This means hiding, censoring or editing or data mining by governments, similar to the Chinese government experience, so as to purportedly “ensure both domestic and international economic stability”

We achieve “stability” by misrepresenting data? 

The logical relations flows the other way around. Phony or inaccurate data, which most likely underpins politically induced imbalances, motivates more mismanagement by politicians. And despite censorship, a continued buildup of such misallocation of resources will eventually reach a tipping point or a critical mass that will then be vented on the marketplace. Economic reality will expose on such whitewashed data.

And it may not just be about EU, emerging Asia and China.

Has Japan been managing statistical data too?

From another Wall Street Real Times Economic Blog:

In recent months, the government has been proudly trumpeting rises in consumer prices, including energy, as proof of its success in ending deflation. Yet non-believers have said that’s cheating, as the yen’s 11% fall against the dollar this year has naturally pushed up prices of imported energy.

The following quote on statistics attributed to Prussian born Austrian surgeon and amateur musician Theodore Billroth says it best…

Statistics are like women; mirrors of purest virtue and truth, or like whores to use as one pleases.

To Fix the Culture of Secrecy, Reduce Government’s Role in Society

Internet sites as Wikileaks and Anonymous has gone on exposing much of government “secrets” through "leaks", thereby putting immense pressure on governments to become more “transparent”.

For some politicians and experts in the US, the way to deal with a “culture of leaks” translates to the management classification of information.

This from the CNN,

At the end of July, the Senate intelligence committee marked up legislation drafted in response to recent high-profile leaks of classified information. The committee's chairwoman, Dianne Feinstein, claims that the bill will address the "culture of leaks" in Washington. But the leaks are a symptom of the intelligence community's culture of secrecy -- and the bill would make that problem worse in a host of ways.

Any insider will tell you that the government classifies far too much information. Top military and national security officials estimate that between 50% and 90% of classified documents could safely be released. That adds up to a massive amount of unnecessary secrecy when one considers there were 92 million decisions to classify information in 2011 alone.

The WikiLeaks disclosures featured some vivid examples, such as a cable from an American diplomat who classified his description of a typical wedding in the province of Dagestan.

Put simply, officials who routinely see innocuous documents stamped "Secret" lose respect for the system, and that puts all secrets, the real ones as well as the purely nominal ones, at risk.

Excessive classification also means that even low-level or nonsensitive government positions often require clearances. One in every 50 American adults now has access to classified information, not a winning formula for keeping secrets.

The Senate bill, however, does nothing serious to address the problem of overclassification. Indeed, it perpetuates the fiction that all classified information poses a dire threat.

The bill strips intelligence community employees of their pensions if the Director of National Intelligence decides they leaked classified information, even if the information reveals only that Dagestani weddings last three days. It revokes the clearances of officials who disclose the existence of classified covert operations -- even if the operations, like the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound, are in the past and could not possibly be jeopardized by disclosure.

Worse, the Senate bill extends the shroud of secrecy to encompass even unclassified information. Intelligence officials already must submit any publications that discuss their work to their agencies for pre-publication review and approval; under the bill, they must submit "anticipated oral remarks" as well. On its face, the provision could require pre-publication review for dinner party conversations.

This is an example of how politics addresses symptoms rather than the disease.

In reality, the political institution called the government operates on the principle of mandated organized violence.

And much of these acts of violence and repression have been deliberately concealed from the public for reasons which works to the interests or benefits of the political authorities.

It is only when violence has been seen as popular or politically expedient, when these are made public, or when they are uncovered or exposed by media.

In short, the political nature of governments has been one of advancing the culture of secrecy or of scapegoatism. Transparency, thus, is nothing but a political jingoistic charade.

SM Oliva, formerly of the Mises Institute, has this highly relevant quote

“Transparency” is a buzzword associated with all sorts of good-government movements. But it’s something of a libertarian Trojan horse. No government can ever be transparent, for that would rob of it of its very substance. All monopoly government is predicated on the ability to actively mislead and misdirect the majority — the public — away from the truth, whether it’s political truth, economic truth, or personal truth. Even government attempts at transparency are themselves usually little more than misdirection by another name. One can be transparent in such a way as to satisfy most inquisitors while revealing nothing that compromises the basic pillars of the state.

Bottom line: Managing information classifications will hardly solve on the issue of the “culture of secrecy” the latter of which signifies on the essence of government. To attain government “transparency” extrapolates to the vast reduction or retrenchment of government’s role in society.

And another thing; the pressure by Wikileaks and by other social media outfits on governments reveals of the process of the slomo ungluing of centralized political structure. Centralized institutions have been feeling the heat from, and or have been fervently fighting against, the forces of decentralization.

ECB’s Stealth Mechanism to Bailout Banks: Emergency Liquidity Assistance (ELA)

The European Central Bank (ECB) through national central banks have been engaged in stealth inflationism via a program called the ELA

The Bloomberg explains, (bold emphasis added)

The first rule of ELA is you don’t talk about ELA.

The European Central Bank is trying to limit the flow of information about so-called Emergency Liquidity Assistance, which is increasingly being tapped by distressed euro-region financial institutions as the debt crisis worsens. Focus on the program intensified last week after it emerged that the ECB moved some Greek banks out of its regular refinancing operations and onto ELA until they are sufficiently capitalized….

Under ELA, the 17 national central banks in the euro area are able to provide emergency liquidity to banks that can’t put up collateral acceptable to the ECB. The risk is borne by the central bank in question, ensuring any losses stay within the country concerned and aren’t shared across all euro members, known as the euro system.

ECB Approval

Each ELA loan requires the assent of the ECB’s 23-member Governing Council and carries a penalty interest rate, though the terms are never made public. Owen estimates that euro-area central banks are currently on the hook for about 150 billion euros ($189 billion) of ELA loans.

The program has been deployed in countries including Germany, Belgium, Ireland and now Greece. An ECB spokesman declined to comment on matters relating to ELA for this article.

The ECB buries information about ELA in its weekly financial statement. While it announced on April 24 that it was harmonizing the disclosure of ELA on the euro system’s balance sheet under “other claims on euro-area credit institutions,” this item contains more than just ELA. It stood at 212.5 billion euros this week, up from 184.7 billion euros three weeks ago.

The ECB has declined to divulge how much of the amount is accounted for by ELA.

Ireland’s Case

Further clues can be found in individual central banks’ balance sheets. In Ireland, home to Europe’s worst banking crisis, the central bank’s claims on euro-area credit institutions, where it now accounts for ELA, stood at 41.3 billion euros on April 27.

Greek banks tapped their central bank for 54 billion euros in January, according to its most recently published figures. That has since risen to about 100 billion euros, the Financial Times reported on May 22, without citing anyone.

Ireland’s central bank said last year it received “formal comfort” from the country’s finance minister that it wouldn’t sustain losses on collateral received from banks in return for ELA.

“If the collateral underpinning the ELA falls short, the government steps in,” said Philip Lane, head of economics at Trinity College Dublin. “Essentially, ELA represents the ECB passing the risk back to the sovereign. That could be the trigger for potential default or, in Greece’s case, potential exit.”

So the current political impasse which has deterred the ECB from conducting a holistic bailout approach has been prompting for domestic based rescue programs via the ELA from EU's national central banks.

This also means the current distress exhibited through increased market volatility represents manifestations of accelerating intra-region bank runs which has so far eclipsed the inflation risks from ECB’s covert actions.

Meanwhile, surging balance sheets of ECB’s national central banks will put more downside pressure on the euro, and consequently builds up the case for higher gold prices overtime, perhaps once the current strains from risks of bank runs abates or when the risk of price inflation becomes amplified relative to risks of bank runs from the sheer weight of applied inflationism by the ECB and perhaps along with other major central banks.

Finally as I have been repeatedly saying, the abstruse nature of central banking will be used to shield activities of incumbent political agents

And for as long as the public remains unaware of the abstruse nature of central banking in manipulating and gaming the system to the benefit of the cronies and the welfare-warfare state, and importantly for as long as the effects or impacts on the markets by such policies remain mild and nonthreatening, central bankers will continue to resort to such measures.

Yet these represent signs of desperation by Europe's political authorities which will hardly solve the current crisis and will even exacerbate them (potentially enhancing the risks of the EU's disintegration).

Importantly, this provides us with further clues of the path of preferred policy recourse once these problems get out of hand, e.g Greek exit.

Gold prices may be headed down for now (which should serve as buying opportunities), but eventually, the trend reversal will likely be powerful once policymakers from developed nations steps on the monetary inflation gas.

Has the US Federal Reserve been Transparent?

The short and direct answer is NO.

The US Federal Reserve has even opted to defy their self-imposed policy.

Reports the Wall Street Journal

The Federal Reserve has pledged to be more transparent, but it is only willing to go so far.

The central bank normally releases comprehensive transcripts of its policy-making meetings five years after the sessions. But when news organizations requested transcripts of the meetings around the 2008 financial crisis, the Fed released redacted documents that revealed only pleasantries from the sessions and no substantive discussions.

In early March, the central bank published on its website 513 of about 7,000 pages of transcripts of the Federal Open Market Committee meetings from 2007 through 2010, according to a March 7 letter from FOMC Secretary William English that also was posted online.

The heavily redacted transcripts reflect who attended the meetings, reveal comments at the start and finish of the sessions, and transcribe some banter in between, but no talk about economics or policy. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is quoted calling the meetings to order, introducing staff presentations, honoring departing colleagues and adjourning the sessions for lunch.

The Fed isn't required under law to release details of its policy deliberations, but decided in 1993 to begin releasing nearly full transcripts of FOMC meetings after a five-year lag. That was in response to pressure from Congress on the central bank to be more open about its deliberations. Few major central banks release transcripts of their policy meetings.

When government engages in the picking of winners and losers or of the political or unilateral redistribution of scarce resources, contending interest groups who vie for these resources—and who don’t become the anointed—would always question the selection process. Thus, government choices would always be subjected to political controversies and conflicts that spawn social stress.

In addition, political agents do not want to be held accountable for the risks or unintended consequences from the decisions they make, or of the policies they impose. So opacity would be their default behavior.

SM Oliva formerly of the Mises Institute captures the essence of the innate non-transparency of governments.

“Transparency” is a buzzword associated with all sorts of good-government movements. But it’s something of a libertarian Trojan horse. No government can ever be transparent, for that would rob of it of its very substance. All monopoly government is predicated on the ability to actively mislead and misdirect the majority — the public — away from the truth, whether it’s political truth, economic truth, or personal truth. Even government attempts at transparency are themselves usually little more than misdirection by another name. One can be transparent in such a way as to satisfy most inquisitors while revealing nothing that compromises the basic pillars of the state.

Bottom line: Centralized political structures are inherently non-transparent.

And buzzwords of “transparency” or “independence” account for as political doublespeak or part of the communications campaign to sanitize reality.

Transparency Issues on the US Federal Reserve

Former IMF chief Economist Simon Johnson takes the US Federal Reserve to task for their lack of transparency,

The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday that during the 1980s the Fed’s board held 20 to 30 public meetings a year, but these dwindled during the Greenspan years to fewer than five a year in the 2000s and “only two public meetings since July 2010.” At the same time, “the Fed has taken on a much larger regulatory role than at any time in history” — including “47 separate votes on financial regulations” since July 2010, The Journal said.

This high level of secrecy is a concern. It is particularly alarming when combined with the disproportionate access afforded to industry participants in the arguments about what constitutes sensible financial reform.

Just on the Volcker Rule — the provision in Dodd-Frank to limit proprietary trading and other high-risk activities by megabanks — Fed board members and staff members apparently met with JPMorgan Chase 16 times, Bank of America 10 times, Goldman Sachs nine times, Barclays seven times and Morgan Stanley seven times (as depicted in a chart that accompanies the Wall Street Journal article).

How many meetings does a single company need on one specific issue? How many would you get?

For example, Americans for Financial Reform, an organization that describes itself as “fighting for a banking and financial system based on accountability, fairness and security,” met with senior Federal Reserve officials only three times on the Volcker Rule. (Disclosure: I have appeared at public events organized by Americans for Financial Reform, but they have never paid me any money. I agree with many of its policy positions, but I have not been involved in any of their meetings with regulators.)

Americans for Financial Reform works hard for its cause, and it produced a strong letter on the Volcker Rule — as did others, including Better Markets and Anat Admati’s group based at Stanford University.

Based on what is in the public domain on the Fed’s Web site, my assessment is that people opposed to sensible financial reform — including but not limited to the Volcker Rule — have had much more access to top Federal Reserve officials than people who support such reforms. More generally, it looks to me as though, even by the most generous (to the Fed) account, meetings with opponents of reform outnumber meetings with supporters of reform about 10 to 1.

According to those records, for example, the Admati group has not yet managed to obtain a single meeting with top Fed officials on any issue, despite the fact that the group’s members are top experts whose input is welcomed at other leading central banks. To my definite knowledge, they have tried hard to engage with people throughout the Federal Reserve System; some regional Feds are receptive, but the board has not been – either at the governor or staff level…

I do not understand the Fed’s attitude and policies — if it is serious about pushing for financial reform. No doubt they are all busy people, but how is it possible they have time to meet with JPMorgan Chase 16 times (just on the Volcker Rule) and no time to meet Anat Admati – not even for a single substantive exchange of views?

People’s actions are driven by incentives or purpose behavior. So are the actions of those running government bureaucracies. The fundamental difference is that the incentives of bureaucrats are prompted for by political exigencies against market participants who are guided by profits and losses.

Researcher Jane Shaw expounds on the public choice theory

Their incentives explain why many regulatory agencies appear to be "captured" by special interests. (The "capture" theory was introduced by the late George Stigler, a Nobel Laureate who did not work mainly in the public choice field.) Capture occurs because bureaucrats do not have a profit goal to guide their behavior. Instead, they usually are in government because they have a goal or mission. They rely on Congress for their budgets, and often the people who will benefit from their mission can influence Congress to provide more funds. Thus interest groups—who may be as diverse as lobbyists for regulated industries or leaders of environmental groups—become important to them. Such interrelationships can lead to bureaucrats being captured by interest groups.

The political relationship between the regulator and the regulated always impels for a feedback mechanism, such as lobbying, as the regulated will always find ways to circumvent or to relax on the rules which restricts or inhibits their actions. And the typical outgrowth to such relationship has always been the lack of transparency, revolving door relationships (Wikipedia: movement of personnel between roles as legislators and regulators and the industries affected by the legislation and regulation and on within lobbying companies), logrolling and corruption. Such "conflict of interests" relationships frequently make regulatory agencies “captured” by special interest groups.

And what is the ultimate cause for this?

To quote Milton Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom

Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men that mistakes – excusable or not – can have such far-reaching effects is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic – this is the key political argument against an "independent" central bank. But it is a bad system even to those who set security higher than freedom. Mistakes, excusable or not, cannot be avoided in a system which disperses responsibility yet gives a few men great power, and which thereby makes important policy actions highly dependent on accidents of personality. This is the key technical argument against an "independent" bank. To paraphrase Clemenceau, money is much too serious a matter to be left to the Central Bankers.

In short, the kernel of the transparency issues surrounding the US Federal Reserve has been about the negative ramifications from the centralization of power. Conflicts of interests and regulatory capture signifies as issues which won’t go away for as long political power (in relation to money, but applies elsewhere) remain concentrated to a few men. The more the power assumed by central bankers, the greater the risks of political indiscretions and secrecy.

Thus, the transparency issue can be resolved by the abolishment of central banks.

This means, yes, End the Fed.

Leaked Secret Memos Reveal That The Iraq War Has Been Mostly About Oil

The Iraq War has NOT been about oil?

Well, highly confidential memos leaked to the public appear to expose on such duplicity.

From The Independent (hat tip Bob Wenzel) [bold emphasis mine]

Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.

The papers, revealed here for the first time, raise new questions over Britain's involvement in the war, which had divided Tony Blair's cabinet and was voted through only after his claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

The minutes of a series of meetings between ministers and senior oil executives are at odds with the public denials of self-interest from oil companies and Western governments at the time.

The documents were not offered as evidence in the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the UK's involvement in the Iraq war. In March 2003, just before Britain went to war, Shell denounced reports that it had held talks with Downing Street about Iraqi oil as "highly inaccurate". BP denied that it had any "strategic interest" in Iraq, while Tony Blair described "the oil conspiracy theory" as "the most absurd".

But documents from October and November the previous year paint a very different picture.

Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair's military commitment to US plans for regime change.

Read the rest here

Comments:

What government says in public and what government does are almost always different.

Here is an example of the public choice theory at work where well-entrenched and powerful vested interest groups shape government policies.

Also, corporatism or crony capitalist agendas extrapolate into imperial (foreign) policies advertised in the name of national security, but covertly operates for the benefit of the politically favored groups. In short, “national interests” equals corporate interests.

Lastly, the beauty of the internet is to act as a neutralizing agent against clandestine operations by governments. Either the internet will reduce the incidences of government’s secret operations or governments will wage a war of control against the free flowing information provided by the internet via censorship. We see more signs of the latter than the former.

Bubble Thoughts Over Meralco’s Bubble

``The lies the government and media tell are amplifications of the lies we tell ourselves. To stop being conned, stop conning yourself.”-James Wolcott, American Journalist

Meralco is in the spotlight anew.

The country’s premier utility firm, which holds the exclusive franchise for the electricity distribution for the National Capital Region (NCR), caught the public’s attention following a spectacular record romp by its share prices.

And last week’s parabolic vertiginous ride appears to have been playing out the blowoff phase of a conventional bubble cycle. (see Figure 1)

Figure 1: Bubble cycle (left) and Meralco (black candle right)

Importantly, like typical bubbles, the culmination of which can be identified by delusional rationalizations aided by experts exacerbated by media- Meralco’s skyrocketing price has been attributed to speculations on a prospective ‘tender offer’ (Bloomberg)!

Allegedly one of the titans involved [see King Kong Versus Godzilla at the PSE; Where Politics Trumps Markets] in the drama of the recent corporate joust has acquiesced to a purchase price of Php 300 per share which would require a mandated offering to minority stockholders!

Yet rising prices and some special trades (block sales and cross trades) have been used as signs to confirm on such myths.

Why do we think all these rationalizations seem ridiculous?

Simply said, because logical reasoning has been totally thrown out of the window!

As financial writer and investment speaker Joe Granville warned, ``the media is the biggest enemy of the small investor, mostly headlining the wrong news at the wrong times, playing on his misguided reliance on fundamentals and his normal fears and greeds.”

Putting A Perspective On Meralco’s Price And Corporate Disconnect

To put on some level headed perspective we will deal with some key issues.

First, on a year to date basis, despite the recent turbocharged upsurge, Meralco hasn’t been the only leader with 284.87% of gains (as of Friday’s close).

Other issues like Phisix component mining giant Lepanto Consolidate (+271.43%) and Business Process Outsourcing Paxys (+358.33%) have seen the similar or greater level of share price action as seen in the above chart represented by the green and red lines respectively.

As an aside, I wouldn’t suggest that the latter two would seem in a bubble considering the U-shaped recovery vis-à-vis Meralco’s actions which appear to have replicated the motions of a bubble paradigm as shown in the chart.

Although from a trough to peak basis, Meralco, hands down based from last year, does hold the tiara for market outperformance (700%).

Nonetheless, one must be reminded that past performances are not indicative of future outcomes.

Two, Meralco’s share in the Phisix has now jumped to 7.7% from less than 1%, as we similarly pointed out in Beware Of The Brewing Meralco Bubble!, and now holds the second spot after PLDT in terms of free floated market cap.

This for a company whose profits are constrained by political forces! (see below)

Meralco has effectively, leapfrogged over former heavyweights Ayala Corp, Bank of the Philippines, Globe Telecoms, Ayala Land and SM Investments.

With Meralco’s share of the Phisix gaining more weight, any ensuing volatility from its share prices will likely be reflective on the directions of the Philippine benchmark unless counterweighted by the lagging erstwhile behemoths.

Three, financial valuations, if any of these apply at all, have ENTIRELY been jettisoned for wanton speculations and nonsensical justifications.

As we discussed in Meralco’s Run Reflects On The Philippine Political Economy, the share price movements in the local markets hardly reflects on corporate fundamentals.

The first three factors cited above have clearly been validating our Livermore-Machlup model where Philippine equities move in tidal fashion underpinned by liquidity or loose monetary landscape.

This climate essentially begets a predominant horse racing outlook or mentality, where canards touted as facts mostly emanating from the foibles of cognitive biases.

In short, NO liquidity from loose monetary policies equals NO bubbles, and all the rest are simply footnotes.

As writer Peter McWilliams warned (bold highlights mine), ``The media tends to report rumors, speculations, and projections as facts... How does the media do this? By quoting some "expert"... you can always find some expert who will say something hopelessly hopeless about anything..” Indeed.

Fourth, common sense should dictate to us that perhaps none of these engaged (supposedly cunning and astute) Taipans, whom have built their wealth and “credibility” over the years, would likely pay for excessively or overpriced assets, unless they have other undeclared agenda in mind, which are exclusive of profits meant for the institutions which they represent.

Yet, any outrageous and reckless acquisitions, that would put at risk the interests of such institutions involved, could provoke a minority shareholder revolt. That’s assuming shareholder activism is alive here. Nevertheless, even in the absence of it, we should expect the minority foreign shareholders to vote with their feet.

In short, the supposed buyout, from the alleged stratospheric levels, signifies as tremendous costs to the interests of the company they represent from both the majority and minority stakeholders’ perspectives.

Needless to say, the present day hysteria from rising share prices is temporal in nature and subject to market cycles and does NOT represent the underlying fundamentals. Unless people think that these tycoons are dimwits, I would bet on the opposite…that the so called godfathers involved are cognizant of this!

Fifth, even if the so called buyout does occur, it is less likely that such deal would be consummated in transparency or reflective of market conditions.

These titans could have such transaction wrapped up much earlier than known by the public, or have done so with attendant compromises such as rebates et.al., and could use recent actions as a partial exit point to profit from today’s insanity.

Lastly, as we have been repeatedly arguing, the Meralco brouhaha is beyond the sphere of normal financial analysis because it is a POLITICAL SENSITIVE public listed company.

You can’t just attribute earnings without comprehending on the business model from which the company operates on.

Besides, here, the interests of the owners under the said platform are divergent from the interest of the minority shareholders.

Here is why.

Meralco’s Business Model: From RORB TO PBR

Lately, Meralco’s business model has shifted from Rate of Return Based (RORB) to Performance Based Rating (PBR).

According to GMANews.tv, ``The new PBR scheme also replaces the return on rate base (RORB) formula, which charges customers for using Meralco assets — including posts and cables — in bringing electricity to its end-users.

``Under the RORB, public utilities such as Meralco are disallowed from charging rates exceeding 12 percent of the worth of its total assets.”

So what’s PBR?

According to the same article, ``The new scheme provides “rewards and penalties for performance and non-performance respectively, Jose de Jesus, Meralco president said.

``Under the said mechanism, Meralco may be required to pay fines should its performance — such as failing to immediately respond to a blackout — fall below certain standards.”

And why PBR?

According to the “quasi independent” regulator of Meralco the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC),

``The ERC adopted the PBR for distribution utilities starting in 2005 pursuant to its authority under Section 43 (f) of Republic Act No. 9136 (EPIRA) to adopt internationally accepted rate making methodologies. PBR strives to achieve a balance between efficient price levels, allowing utilities efficient revenue to ensure their sustainability, and maintaining or improving network service performance levels. It provides strong incentives to improve operational efficiencies. International experience (Australia and United Kingdom) indicates that, over time, with its built-in mechanisms for incentives and fines depending on the utilities’ performance, PBR leads to reductions in the real price of electricity distribution while improving service levels.”

Aside, the ERC has required Meralco to implement a subsidized rates for the poor by the so-called “NEW LIFELINE program, where ``The ERC reiterated that customers consuming only 20 kWh and below shall continue to enjoy the 100% discount granted them and shall pay only the adjusted PhP5.30 per month metering charge, while the other lifeline customers shall enjoy a discount corresponding to the consumption level under the new lifeline program approved under the DTI case, including the PhP21.00/customer/month minimum charge.”

Implications Of The Business Model: Absolute Dependence On Political Discretion!

What ALL of these means:

1. Basically prices charged to the paying consumers of Meralco are solely determined by the ERC and NOT by the markets.

This means that Meralco’s profits are ultimately determined by fickle political winds.

As Ludwig von Mises described of Bureaucratic Management of Private Enterprises, ``But ours is an age of a general attack on the profit motive. Public opinion condemns it as highly immoral and extremely detrimental to the commonweal. Political parties and governments are anxious to remove it and to put in its place what they call the “service” point of view and what is in fact bureaucratic management.”

Think $100 oil. Rising energy prices are likely to stoke political discomfort among the society’s underprivileged from which would force politicians to focus on “windfall profits”.

Yet, in a world where profits will be deemed as inconsistent with political interests, the owners of Meralco will likely wring profits out through other mechanisms, e.g. off balance sheet transactions, loans or contracts to affiliated parties, transfer pricing and etc.

In short, where financial reports will unlikely be transparent, the interests of the owners of Meralco and the minority shareholders departs.

2. Meralco maintains a subsidy for the poor from which are tacitly charged to the account of the middle and high income consumers.

This exemplifies as a “private” company, functioning under stringent control of political interests, conducting the political redistribution aspect in behalf of the government. Hence Meralco acts as a subcontracted implementing agent under political behest.

This implies that economic rents or “profits” for Meralco’s owner managers will only be attained under the auspices of the political leadership for as long as the political interests are served.

3. Under the PBR, the ERC determines the “carrot and stick” for Meralco.

Basically, Meralco’s lifeline hangs on ERC’s dictate!

This implies that the ERC and Meralco will haggle over what comprises as sufficient or inadequate under the PBR guidelines and NOT the consumers.

And since rules are always technically subjective and subject to nonlinear or amorphous interpretations, they will be subject to compromises. Ask the lawyers.

Therefore this implies two things:

One absolute subservience to the political office, where to quote Ludwig von Mises in Bureaucracy, ``Under this system the government has unlimited power to ruin every enterprise or to lavish favors upon it. The success or failure of every business depends entirely upon the free discretion of those in office.” (bold highlights mine)

Second, instead of looking after the welfare of its clients (Metro Manila consumers), the unlimited dependence on the discretion of the government bureaucracy means conflict of interests from parties involved abound.

Principally, the owner’s priorities will mostly be directed into the realm of public relations; of wheedling or currying favor with that of ‘The Powers That Be’. Satisfying the public will requirements will be subordinate to this.

Again from Ludwig von Mises, ``In such an environment the entrepreneur must resort to two means: diplomacy and bribery. He must use these methods not only with regard to the ruling party, but no less with regard to the outlawed and persecuted opposition groups which one day may seize the reins. It is a dangerous kind of double-dealing; only men devoid of fear and inhibitions can last in this rotten milieu. Businessmen who have grown up under the conditions of a more liberal age have to leave and are replaced by adventurers.” (bold emphasis mine)

The sordid and unfortunate experience of the current managers in the besieged Lopez group (who appear to be outgoing****), having to oppose the PGMA administration politically, serves as fundamental and shining example of the consequences of political defiance.

So those nurturing the view that owner-managers of political enterprises will be looking for one dimensional financial bottom line growth are living in a world of fairy tales.

Thus, financial statements have little relevance to Meralco’s valuation as a financial security because economic rents accruing the owner-managers of Meralco may come in sundry forms, than simplistically “profits” as defined by textbooks.

Besides, as pointed out in Has Meralco’s Takeover Been A Good Sign?, the current managing owners of Meralco have to deal with socio-political, bureaucratic and political risks, which ultimately mean that they need to be in constant harmonious relations with the current and forthcoming political leaders.

These are things that are learned outside of traditional or mainstream school curriculums. And yet these signify as unorthodox or contrarian views that operate realistically.

4. The ERC’s leadership is appointed by the President of the Philippines.

This makes the agency hardly independent as purported to be, but instead beholden to the administration.

Again since political appointments are almost always based on political affiliates or interests and are hardly ever about virtues or meritocracy, the direction of regulatory implementation and compliance will likely be dependent on the caprices of the political leadership.

Conclusion/Additional Comments

All these imply that the rewards from the ownership of Meralco comes with the blessings of the ‘Powers That Be’ combined with a possible implied backstop (guarantee) in the case of failure or bankruptcy, provided that the interests of the company’s owner managers or political entrepreneurs operate along the lines of interests of the incumbent political leaders.

Therefore it would be foolhardy or naïve to believe that the tycoons that got engaged in Meralco with billions of pesos of investments, had been there to only leverage on the political misfortunes of the present owners and to speculate on share prices while at the same time ignoring the risks associated with the political aspects of having a stake in Meralco.

Also, this implies that the changing dynamics of the ownership structure of Meralco strongly alludes to the next president-the identity of which only the kingmakers or the chief Meralco proponents know.

****The prevailing notion is that there has been an ongoing power struggle in Meralco.

For me, this seems like an oversimplistic crock.

In my view, both protagonists appear like unheralded allies, only awaiting the appropriate opportunity for a graceful exit for the Lopezes, which I think should come after the elections.

As per Joe Studwell in Asian Godfathers, ``The reality is that tycoons are typically forced to invest together because of the environment in which they operate.” (emphasis mine)

Considering that Meralco’s destiny is fundamentally intertwined with the Presidency, this probably implies that both godfathers could be straddling in support of different candidates in the forthcoming Presidential elections where its outcome will decide who among the two groups will takeover.

Although it is most likely that a price agreement for the prospective exchange may have already been sealed but perhaps at prices much less than the rumors (my guess is anywhere Php 90-120).

Moreover, it has been my inclination to believe that the Meralco saga will unfold similar to the Philippine Airlines privatization, where former PLDT chair Antonio Cojuangco initially fronted for the bidding which ultimately landed in the laps of Taipan Lucio Tan, the current owner.

Finally, of course, both parties would want to see Meralco’s share prices remain elevated, hence through various associates or intermediaries, they might continue to float stories from which the public so eagerly yearns for, as appetizer for their innate speculative instincts operating under today’s loose monetary environs.

However, the idea is-once the political matters have been settled, excess shares could be sold through the markets or that if any contingency arises (such as a dark horse winner in the Presidential elections) both parties can avail of present lofty prices as an exit strategy.