Sunday, November 11, 2018

October CPI Still at 6.7% as Core Inflation Jumps, Education CPI in Deflation! Will the BSP Hike Anew?


Prosperity, built on debt, inflation, and false government promises, is illusionary and can disappear quickly. It will be necessary that the people learn, or relearn, that debt is not wealth, paper is not money, free stuff is not justice, war is not peace, and government coercion is not liberty. Signs of social chaos are readily apparent and are a predictable consequence of the economic distortions created by the excesses of the QE bubble—Ron Paul

In this issue

October CPI Still at 6.7% as Core Inflation Jumps, Education CPI in Deflation! Will the BSP Hike Anew?
-Food CPI Stalls as Core Inflation Ramps Headline CPI to 6.7%
-As Prices Rage Elsewhere, Education CPI in Four Straight Months of Deflation! Why Price Indices Mislead
-Another Anomaly: Despite TRAIN, Alcoholic Beverage and Tobacco CPI Below 2013
-Why Does the Government Panic Over 6.7% CPI? Will the BSP Raise Rates Anew?


October CPI Still at 6.7% as Core Inflation Jumps, Education CPI in Deflation! Will the BSP Hike Anew?

Food CPI Stalls as Core Inflation Ramps Headline CPI to 6.7%

Last week, the National Government’s PSA and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas reported on October’s CPI as unchanged at 6.7% from a month ago.

The draconian measures undertaken by the National Government to suppress prices, particularly food prices, had done little contain the statistical inflation.

Food CPI did back off slightly to 9.43% in October from 9.72% a month ago. But its loss had been neutralized by increases in non-food and non-energy CPI. (figure 1 upper window)
Figure 1

International oil prices can't justify the stubborn October CPI. Measured from the US West Texas Intermediate benchmark, WTI prices have dropped to $65 per bbl level. It fell below $60 last Friday. (figure 1 lower window)

Core inflation jumped to 4.9% in October from 4.7% a month ago, a multi-year high.

Food accounts for 35.46% or the second largest share of the CPI basket while non-food which includes clothing, household utilities, health, transport, recreation, education, and restaurant, has the largest with a 60.08% share. And the residual 1.58% share consists of alcoholic beverages and tobacco

 
Figure 2

Two of the three significant components of the CPI continued to streak higher.

Housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels, which carried a 22.04% share weight, advanced to 4.76% but was down from its peak of 5.6% in June.

The second and third most significant component of the non-food CPI, the restaurant and miscellaneous goods and the transport, with a weighting share of 12.59% and 8.06% respectively, did most of the marginal lifting of the headline CPI. 

Both segments reached its highest level since at least 2013.  Restaurant CPI jumped 4.19% in October from 4.0% in September while Transport CPI vaulted 8.75% from 7.96% a month ago.

While restaurant CPI may lag the food and beverage CPI, transport CPI may reflect on the distortions from excise taxes and other mandated increases rather than from international oil prices.

The most recent mandated fare hikes on public transportation are likely to add these pressures. Power rates have also been slated rise.

As Prices Rage Elsewhere, Education CPI in Four Straight Months of Deflation! Why Price Indices Mislead

Of course, the statistical economy is different from the real economy.

Proof? 
 
Figure 3
Take a look at the education CPI. (figure 3 upper window)

Education CPI has been in “deflation” four straight months! How can that be? With prices raging almost everywhere, have spending on education been really down?  

The Department of Education approved a 7% increase in tuition fees of private school last July. That’s no sign of deflation. And that’s just tuition fees. How about spending on uniforms, books, notebooks, and pens? For children schooled in private institutions, parents would see such negative numbers as incredibly unrealistic!

And how about the spending for construction, repair, improvements, logistics and others on educational institutions? (I know CPI is for households/consumers)

Demand or the lack of it is unlikely a factor for such CPI deflation; education GDP was one of the sectoral outperformers in the 3Q!  Besides, bank lending to the sector has been robust since Mr. Duterte assumed office. (figure 3, lower window)

So is excess supply, given the current state of education. 

The likely explanation is increased public subsidies to the households on education. Or government absorbed the price increases through its deficit spending. And the consequent effects from such subsidies on prices have been dispersed unevenly to many parts of the economy.

Since there are more students in public school (84.5%) than in the private sector (14.9%), the deflation in education CPI probably means free lunches drowned the spending costs by students in the private sector.

And if private sector education costs would reflect on the CPI, the headline number should be materially higher. Thus, the education CPI misleads.

The statistical economy is hardly reflective of actual conditions. They are supposed to be estimates and not facts for people and policymakers to fixate on.

Aggregation of prices barely resonates with reality from the individual’s perspective. And the whole cannot be the some of its distinctive and atomistic parts.

In lambasting his peers about the dogmatic embrace of inflation targeting, former US Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker recently wrote,

No price index can capture, down to a tenth or a quarter of a percent, the real change in consumer prices. The variety of goods and services, the shifts in demand, the subtle changes in pricing and quality are too complex to calculate precisely from month to month or year to year. Moreover, as an economy grows or slows, there is a tendency for prices to change, a little more up in periods of economic expansion, maybe a little down as the economy slows or recedes, but not sideways year after year.

Another Anomaly: Despite TRAIN, Alcoholic Beverage and Tobacco CPI Below 2013

There’s another striking oddity in the CPI.
 

Figure 4

And that’s the “alcoholic beverages and tobacco” component.

Despite its recent surge partly due to the recently implemented excise taxes of TRAIN, its CPI remains lower fantastically compared to 2013. Aside from the Sin Tax Law, 2013’s alcoholic beverage and tobacco CPI surge reverberated with M3 growth of 30%+++. (figure 4 upper window)

With excise taxes from TRAIN 1.0 and the Sin Tax Reform Law of 2012 programmed for another round of increases in 2019, the segment's CPI should either see further upside moves or remain elevated in the face of an emergent slack in demand. 

Why Does the Government Panic Over 6.7% CPI? Will the BSP Raise Rates Anew?

It’s truly a complex and fascinating world.

A CPI of 6.7% remains significantly lower than the 60-year historical average of 8.4%, but why would the government succumb to popular demand and impose price controls (including prosecuting traders for alleged supply and price manipulations), andincreases in minimum wages?  

Of course, the CPI level then has been vastly different from today. Seen from the context of the USD php, sixty years back the USD php was 2, last Friday it was 52.97. But haven’t income been growing enough, as popularly held, to mitigate their impact?

And the government have been panicking over 6.7%?!

There have been more calls for the BSP to raise rates!! Will the BSP submit to such pressures in their coming meeting on the 15th?

It’s either this number has been severely understated or that the ballyhooed boom is a mirage masked by credit inflation.

Of course, the CPI is influenced by the supply of, and demand of money relative to goods and services.

While declining rate in bank lending and money supply may indicate a withdrawal in the means to finance spending, increases in the public’s time preference mean reduced demand to hold money relative to goods. Or when people expect a sustained pace of price increases, they chase prices.

October’s elevated CPI probably indicates the latter.

Also, it appears that on the demand side, the BSP’s record financing of the unparalleled deficit spending remains the more dominant force than the growing slack in private sector demand as expressed by declines in bank lending, and consequently, money supply growth. (figure 4, middle window)

However, yields of Philippine Treasuries may have been confirming my inflation expectations. With yields down in the mid- to the long-end, this may signal an easing of inflation. But the dilemma is on the yields of T-bills, which continue to ascend indicating deepening liquidity constraints! The result from this asymmetry is to flatten the curve. (figure 4 lower window)

Finally, because inflation is more than just about statistics, not only will its change affect business, economic and financial activities, but also impact the socio-political sphere as well.

A magnified political turmoil should accompany a bursting bubble.



Has the Choice for the Third Telco Player Been Rigged? Will a National Social Credit System be the Next Telecom Agenda?


Has the Choice for the Third Telco Player Been Rigged? Will a National Social Credit System be the Next Telecom Agenda?

Using the Telecom sector as an example of the fascist model of socialism, I recently wrote,

Furthermore, competition is amazingly seen on a different lens by the National Government (NG) and the mainstream. Instead of open competition to provide consumers with the best services at most affordable prices, the bidding process for the third telco participant represents a competition designed to GRATIFY the whims of the government!

The byzantine obstacles via the “highest committed level of service (HCLoS)” imposed ensures not only of high costs and elevated risks for the third player, but also the challenge to cut through the thicket of regulations!


The results of the National Government’s selection may have been MORE than a competition designed to GRATIFY the whims of the government; there may not have been any semblance competition at all!

The supposed bidding may have been predetermined. The selection process may have been a political charade to embellish legitimacy to it.

Proof? 

Please allow these articles to do the talking…

In 2017, President’s Duterte made a compact to the Xi Government…

From the Rappler (November 20, 2017): “Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte offered to China the chance for one of its firms to be the 3rd major telecommunications company in the Philippines, with the goal of ending the duopoly in the vital industry. This was announced by Presidential Spokesman Harry Roque on Monday, November 20, during a Malacañang press conference."During the bilateral talks between President Duterte and the Chinese Premier, the President offered to the People's Republic of China the privilege to operate the 3rd telecoms carrier in the country," said Roque, referring to the November 15 meeting of the two leaders in Malacañang. The Philippine government is now just waiting for Chinese telecom companies to submit their proposals. Roque said the government will only take "45 days" to determine if the offer will be taken.”

The telecom deal has been sealed with a kiss! …

From the South China Morning Post (December 11, 2017): The Chinese government selected China Telecom to invest in the Philippines upon invitation by President Duterte during the bilateral meeting last November 16,” said Eliseo Rio, secretary of the Department of Information and Communications Technology. Chinese companies, however, could not operate alone in the Philippines and would need to partner with a local company. The government is now looking at whowill partner with the state-run China Telecom on a 60-40 basis, Rio said.”

Is this the smoking gun?

But then the political vaudeville …

From the Inquirer (October 23, 2018): The Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) committed on Monday to wrap up a series of policies to further level the playing field in the telco sector as it seeks to choose a challenger to incumbents PLDT Inc. and Globe Telecom by next month.

…which ended up with the awarding of…

From ABS-CBN (November 7, 2018): “Filipino authorities on Wednesday selected a joint venture of China Telecom and Davao tycoon Dennis Uy as the country's provisional new major telecommunications player that would go against PLDT Inc. and Globe Telecom. The consortium, Mislatel, beat Tier1 backed by former Ilocos Sur Governor Luis "Chavit" Singson and Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corp. (PT&T). Mislatel includes China Telecom, Udenna Corp., and Chelsea Logistics. Only 3 of the 7 who bought bid papers participated. Singson's group and PT&T, however, were disqualified for failing to meet all the bidding requirements.”

…to fulfill the promise.

See? This selection mirage should be an example of how technical obstacles are created for the purpose of deliberately weeding out the competition.

With the labyrinth of requirements…  

Boom! All were disqualified except for the chosen.

But then the denial over manipulating the process …

From the Inquirer (November 8, 2018): “Malacañang on Thursday said the link between President Rodrigo Duterte and Davao-based businessman Dennis Uy does not play a role in the selection of the “provisional” third major telco player. Presidential Spokesperson Salvador Panelo stressed that the selection of Uy’s consortium underwent proper bidding process without the intervention of Duterte.  “As we all know, relationship, alliances, friendships do not matter with this President. What matters with him is ‘you follow the law, I’ll be with you. You don’t follow the law, I’m against you,’” Panelo said in a Palace briefing.

But then...

Once again…

…the SCMP’s publication last December 2017: The Chinese government selected China Telecom to invest in the Philippines upon invitation by President Duterte during the bilateral meeting last November 16,” said Eliseo Rio, secretary of the Department of Information and Communications Technology… The government is now looking at who will partner with the state-run China Telecom on a 60-40 basis, Rio said.”

Have such process not been deliberately gamed to accommodate the Chinese government?

But there are more important questions than the selection or bidding process itself.

Why opt for a state-owned telecommunication company? Because they are more efficient?

And why choose China? To curry favor with the Xi regime?

What comes in exchange for this?

What are the unstated costs?

Or, since China Telecom is a state-owned company, whose interests will be of its priority? Will it be the Filipino consumers? Will it be Mr. Duterte? Or will it be the geopolitical agenda of the Xi Jinping Government?

How is this related to the territorial disputes?

And as an international political agency not subject to profit and losses, will China Telecoms use its political position and local political connection to UNDERMINE domestic market competition through PREDATORY practices to snare a monopolistic hold on the industry?

The regime even initially hinted for a 100% ownership of the telcos. From the Inquirer (July 26, 2018): “Fully foreign-owned telcos can soon operate in the Philippines once President Duterte signs the proposed shorter 11th Foreign Investment Negative List (FINL), the country’s chief economist said Thursday.”

100% ownership doesn’t guarantee that the goal for a state-owned company would be to seek rewards with profits in service of the consumers. Instead, the caprices of the central authority determine its operating ambit. With that in mind, political firms like China Telecom can move goalpost smoothly.

That said, using the 3rd player as a means to feel the market, is the Duterte regime plotting for a nationalization of the telecom industry using China Telecom as the subcontracted operator?

Way back before this regime assumed power, I predicted (bold added)

the government will likely decrease participation of private sector in the economy through legislation. The government will likely resort to the substitution of private sector participation through nationalizations. Or that the government will increase regulations and mandates that will raise barriers to entry. So by picking on winners, the incoming administration may essentially endow the privilege of political protection from competition to select favored (rent seeking/crony) private entities or to state owned enterprises.


And here’s more.

The Chinese government has implemented a national “social credit system” where the citizenry is ranked and scored by a “reputation system” determined by the central authorities which it plans to expand usage nationwide by 2020. Or, the Chinese authorities use advanced and sophisticated technologies like AI, machine learning, big data and more to control the behavior of the citizenry.

And from here, the individual or the citizen is rewarded or punished accordingly through the incentives of extended social privileges or penalized by its deprival. By being out of favor, the government may impose punitive social measures such as: blacklisting by banning one from flying or getting the train, throttling internet speeds, banning children from going to the best schools,  preventing one from getting the best jobs, keeping one out of the best hotels, having one’s pet taken away, publicly shamed as a bad citizen and more.

The publishing outfit, the Economist, has branded this as the “world’s first digital totalitarian state”. Others call it a dystopian Sci-Fi scenario switched On (or transformed to reality)

A national ID system has been signed into “law” by the Philippine leadership in August 2018, with plans for its full 5-year implantation starting 2019.

Will the next agenda be the Chinese government’s export of its national social credit system to the Philippines? Has China Telecom been chosen for this purpose?