Monday, October 16, 2006

Paradox of Bumi Equity in GLCs

They argued that GLCs stakes belongs to the government, not just the Bumis.

But government statistics clearly defines the Bumis stake. Why not call it: Malaysians' stake; why differentiate it by race if they are not to be counted.

THis figures are non-exhaustive and published in 2004. By 2006, Khazanah had increase their stakes in more corporations.

It wasn't based on par value; it was market capitalisation. But now, they said it's par value. Why? Because ... justification of a wrong.


Helen said...

Yes, I hope the garmen will disclose the method and figures. I am no accountant but I do want to know how the garmen get their figures.

I sincerely hope this issue won't suffer the same fate as the Article 11.

Helen said...

I read this in Malaysiakini and it's food for thought. What do you think?

Maverick SM said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Maverick SM said...


That guy talks from his anus.

Quote: If we set aside the whole GLC argument, and use market value instead of par value, the figure for the bumiputera’s equity share is, in fact, lower than the government’s claim of 18.9%[unquote]. Look at the table I attached. It was from the govt. They had included the stakes from Khazanah and had in fact presented it to show the portion that is Bumi and non-Bumi.

[Quote:] If you revisit the context of NEP when it was formulated, you would realise that the main thrust is ownership, not wealth [unquote]. That's crab! Is he saying that if the chinese owns 1,000 shares in a listed company that is worth $0.50 (net worth is $500), it is equal to that of a Bumi that owns 1,000 Maybank share which is quoted at $15.00 (Net worth of $15,000?)

He is trying to suggest that ownership is not wealth; that the NEP is about ownership, not wealth. If that's the case, all the Bumis should buy up shares worth 0.10sen and sell their stakes in Maybank, Telekom, SimeDarby, etc which is quoted at $10-$15 each. That way, they would have owned hundreds of billions of shares with a net worth only 10%.

Asked yourself? Would you prefer to own 90% shares in a company worth $100,000 or owns 10% of a company whose net worth is $100 million? So, he said that the NEP objective is to have 30% ownership, but not 30% value of wealth. If that's the case, it's easy. Ask every Bumi to buy those shares that is worth 10sen a piece and they will be owner of 80% of the shares listed in the stock exchange.

Again I repeat, the practice of inequality requires that acts be intentionally discriminatory. All that is required is that the "status quo" be maintained. The government's strategy for maintaining social power, was, first, to structure reality unequally, then require that entitlement to alter it be grounded on a lack of distinction in situation, then structure perception so that different equals inferior, then require that discrimination be activated by political evil minds who know they are treating the more equals as the lessors. I am not sure you could digest this, Helen. If you do, you'll discover the profound knowledge.

Helen said...

Thanks for taking time to explain. Maybe the garmen would be better off showing both the ownership share and wealth share. (if they put a distinction between wealth and ownership.)

sheep55 said...

got this from another website....

Equity: Par Value vs. Market Value
The Umno ministers are still behaving like most blog commenters, who rant and whine, but fail to shoot straight at the question that matters.
And the question that matters is: Is race-based methodology to determine equity share of the nation'sstakeholders relevant for Malaysia? Is the methodology used by the Economic Planning Unit (EPU), an agency within the PM's Office, to caliberate Bumiputra equity in the corporate sector by basing it on the par value, and not market value of shares, defensible by international norm?
Look at the disputing methodologies used by the EPU and ASLI-CPPS in the illustration below:

SOURCE: Malaysiakini
Now I don't have to reinvent the wheel, but let's look at Parliamentary Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang has reasoned it out in his blog:

EPU’s Methodology is seriously flawed!
It’s very normal for a company to start with a paid up capital based on par value and remains so for a long time. It doesn’t need to increase the paid capital (as long as the company is not short of new capital injection) because the accounting and business fraternities value the shares on market value. Par value of shares have little significance except for a archaic company law disclosure requirement.
For example, a company starts with a paid up (par value) capital of $1 million in 2006, and is awarded a 10 years contract to build a bridge. Say, it makes a profit of $10 million for the duration of 10 years and keeps the profits intact. The market value of the company in 2016 is $11 million but its par value still remains intact at $1 million. The shareholders of the company can extract the profits through directors’ emoluments, dividends, management services, etc
EPU’s methodology of calculation of bumi equity is shrouded in secrecy. From what has been disclosed in the press, it is gathered that the methodology uses the par value of shares and exclusion of GLC companies.
Until things can be clarified, basing on generally accepted accounting principles and present accounting norms, EPU’s methodology is seriously flawed as demonstrated below.
Example 1 :
Ali owns 100 Tenaga shares. Par value $100 ($1 per share). Market value $1,000 ($10 per share).
Ah Chong owns 1,000 Farlim shares. Par value $1,000 ($1 per share). Market value $430 ($0.43 per share).
EPU Methodology :
Ah Chong is 10 times richer than Ali. Therefore, Ali needs help to be on par with Ah Chong.
Par value has no relation to the actual value of shares. In fact, Ali’s is richer than Ah Chong. If EPU does not take relative wealth into the equation, how does it know who to help to redress the equal distribution of wealth? Obviously, as this case shows, EPU may be helping the wrong guy!

Maverick SM said...

Sheep55, thanks and I had read it at Kit Siang's blog.