Malaysia to curb capital inflows?

Due to weakening USD and record low-interest rate in the US, Europe and Japan, emerging markets have been a popular spot for excessive liquidity to park their money. Main reasons being:
  1. Emerging markets are the fastest growing economies currently
  2. Emerging countries are having higher interest rate
  3. Banking system of emerging countries are stronger (safer)
While develop countries are facing a currency downfalls, emerging countries are experiencing continuous inflow of hot money. This in turn causing a chaotic in currency exchange market, where emerging countries' currencies are hitting years high against developed nations. The imbalance forex market prompt central banks around the world to act or to curb any excessive flows of money which could jeopardised a particular countries, like 1997 Asian financial crisis.


In the latest developments on this hot topic, Thailand announced a 15% withholding tax on interests and capital gains on Thai bonds. In the meantime, South Korea, Taiwan, and Indonesia has been using "quasi-capital" control, in which encouraging outflows of hot money.

The billion dollar question... Will Malaysia follow?

Ringgit is the 2nd BEST performing currency in Asia, behind Thai Bath. I think when Bank Negara started its "triple" hike in overnight policy rate (OPR) this year, they already foresee the side effect of capital inflows. Due to large chunk of it went to Malaysia Government Securities (MGS), coupled with strong and effective domestic financial systems, Malaysia can safely mitigate the effect currently. However, we must act soon because I expect more hot money would pour in from countries which had imposed capital controls moving forward. We can expect a much stronger Ringgit soon.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"You Can Keep Your Existing Health Insurance"

I wondered about this statement at the time Obama made it.  Clearly, by changing all the rules of health care insurance and mandating conformity, it was unlikely that the vast majority of Americans would not find themselves forced by 'The Affordable Care Act' to have to deal with a completely different health insurance plan and completely different set of health care providers. I now understand what Obama meant.   He was speaking to his immediate family and (politician) friends.  They are exempt from the "Affordable Care Act."  Clearly what he meant to say was: "if you are exempt from Obamacare, like me and my family, you can keep your existing health insurance."  He never meant to mislead.
Read more

Work Ethic of 70s, 80s, 90s

Image
Different generations have their own view on working. You like it or not, working is part of our live. No work = No life. However, this equation has since changed to " Working = No life ". Do you agree? Generally, those born in 70s were perceived to be loving their job. They work hard mainly because of 3 meals/day. For them, a secured life means having a stable job with stable income. They believe that with every efforts you put in, that will reward you back later. As such, over time (OT) is nothing for them. As a responsible 70s, losing their job is a serious matter they tend to avoid. That's why they usually found another job first, before resigning. How about 80s? Other than chasing for stable income, those 80s working adults will also look into the job scope , opportunity for promotion , or working environment . They will take initiative to find for better job. Hence, job hopping is very common for them. Notably, 80s are reluctant to sacrifice their quality of life b
Read more

Things We Now Know

The poor are losing ground in the new Obama world.  The facts are showing up even in the halls of collectivist extremes like the New York Times.  The rich are getting richer and poor are being locked in place.  Big government is throttling the economy and the hopes and dreams of lower and middle class Americans. Today's Wall Street Journal's article by Simon Constable lays out some of the simple and obvious facts of the Obama era: "The richest 20% of households account for 38% of spending, according to government data for 2011, the latest available.  Compare that with 2003 when the top earners spent 26% of the total."  The article goes on to say..."it could get even worse."  It will. Who really benefits when the regulators strangle the banks?  Do banks really need to get much more conservative in their lending practices?  Why does the government know best?  How far can you stretch the FDIC guarantees before American banking is simply a subsidiary of the US g
Read more