Let us cheer, not fear, the arrival of foreign banks

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 Vincent Lingga, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

The dilution of the deposit insurance scheme to a maximum of Rp 100 million (US$10,500) per account next month will unleash stronger market forces to screen banks, as depositors will have to be more careful about choosing the financial institutions they deal with.

Depositors with savings of up to Rp 2 billion have often been influenced more by the level of interest rates or the location of the bank than the soundness of the financial institution. They can rest assured that whatever may happen to the bank, all their savings will be reimbursed by the government.

This narrower deposit-guarantee program and the higher capital standards -- minimum capital of Rp 80 billion this year and Rp 100 billion by 2010 -- as well as the tougher risk management imposed by Bank Indonesia will certainly speed up the consolidation of the banking industry.

Obviously, the consolidation process will reduce the number of banks, now around 130, either through mergers or acquisitions. If last year is any guide, more local banks will be acquired by foreign investors. Last year foreign investors bought seven small banks.

This trend will undoubtedly heighten the concerns about increasing foreign domination of the banking industry, whipping up nationalist sentiments against what is seen as outside control of a vital service industry.

However, there is nothing much to worry about, because the foreign banks must still operate by the rules of the central bank, Bank Indonesia.

Higher foreign investor interest in the financial services industry should instead be welcomed as a vote of confidence in the long-term outlook of Indonesia's economy. Foreign investors would not be willing to stake out more capital in the financial sector if the economic outlook were poor. The financial services industry can grow soundly only in an expanding economy.

Even more important, the experiences of most other countries have proven the great benefits of the entry of major international banks to the development of a sound domestic financial industry. Banks are the heart that pumps oxygen and lifeblood throughout the economy.

Strategic investors with good reputations will accelerate the operational restructuring of banks as they bring in expertise, technology, credibility and better risk management.

Look at how all the big nationalized banks -- Bank BCA, Bank Niaga, Bank Danamon, Bank International Indonesia, Bank Lippo and Bank Permata -- which were acquired by investors from the U.S., Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea, Germany and Britain, have improved by strengthening their governance. On the other side, state banks such as Bank Mandiri and Bank BNI are still struggling with large amounts of non-performing loans and remain vulnerable to interference from politicians and senior officials.

A bank is not just a business entity in the ordinary sense, given its fiduciary responsibility, the multiplicity of transactions it does and its key function within the economy.

That is why the principles for good corporate governance for banks are much more comprehensive than those for other commercial entities. Good governance and corporate responsibility are prerequisites for the integrity and credibility of market institutions.

For that reason, not everybody who has tons of money can have controlling ownership of a bank. Those who want to become majority owners and commissioners have to pass the central bank's fit-and-proper test to assess their technical competence and integrity.

Because of their special role, banks are put under a multi-layer supervisory mechanism. Banks are an institution of trust, and the domestic banking industry, which collapsed in 1998 under bad governance practices, badly needs to regain the public's full trust.

Foreign banks, which together now control almost 50 percent of the banking industry's assets, can help accelerate reforms in risk management, corporate governance and competitiveness. In return, these foreign players can tap the attractive growth opportunities the country offers.

Regardless of ownership issues, however, the most important step of all is for the Finance Ministry and Bank Indonesia to focus on further strengthening the systems that supervise and regulate the financial services industry.

MEET THE READERS: Fauzi Ichsan (center), a senior economist with Standard Chartered Bank, speaks Wednesday at a readers' gathering of The Jakarta Post, as BCA commissioner Cyrillius Herinowo (right) looks on. The event, moderated by the Post's senior editor Vincent Lingga and titled "An Evening with the Post: Fear of Foreign Banks Domination: Justified or Misguided?" was held at Blow Fish Cafe in Mulia Tower, Jakarta. (JP/J. Adiguna)

Read full post »

State minister dreams of cutting the number of SOEs

Monday, February 26, 2007 Vincent Lingga, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Judging by the government's privatization record over the past three years, the plan revealed by State Minister for State Enterprises Sugiharto last week to slash the number of state companies from almost 140 to 69 within three years is something of a pipe dream.

Sugiharto has never been able to meet the privatization target set in the annual state budget, let alone coming plans that have yet to be consulted with various ministries, the House and other stakeholders, including trade unions at state companies.

It was almost two years ago that Sugiharto launched a blueprint on the reform of state enterprises through mergers, divestments or outright liquidations, but nothing seems to have come of it.

Until last week, that is, when he suddenly came out with an ambitious target for government divestments -- plans to reduce the number of state companies by 37 this year, by 15 in 2008 and by 18 in 2009, while only one state company (PT Perusahaan Gas Negara) had been privatized over the past two years.

Even this gas company's initial public offering last year was fraught with allegations of insider trading and inadequate disclosure regarding income projection.

No one disagrees with the rationale behind the reform program. There are simply too many state companies. The government really does not have any reason to involve itself in so many different businesses that could be run efficiently by private firms.

The blunt fact is that most state companies have been grossly inefficient, with lax internal controls, poor accounting standards and practices and are highly vulnerable to arbitrary government interference. No wonder, as latest financial reports have shown, most state companies are less profitable than their private-sector competitors, and more than one-fifth of them are losing money.

However, not a single one of the successive governments over the past ten years has demonstrated any sense of urgency to reform state companies -- through privatization, mergers or liquidation -- not even during the height of the economic crisis from 1998 to 2002, when the government was having a severe liquidity crisis.

Every time a new government comes to power, it claims the reform of state companies is one of its top priorities, fully aware of the great benefits of privatization. But the promise is soon forgotten, and it is back to business as usual for officials and politicians -- retaining state enterprises as their cash cows.

The target set by Sugiharto is even more unfeasible because as, the minister himself said, the privatization, merger or liquidation plan will have to go through a complex process of consultations with the various technical ministries and the House of Representatives, as well as other stakeholders, such as employees.

True, privatization is fundamentally a political transformation and an uphill task for that matter, as it exacts a major change in the government's role in the economy and in society as a whole.However, there is no reason why every government divestment plan should be approved by all stakeholders, as long as its process is transparent and accountable according to the step-by-step procedures already agreed on by the inter-ministerial Privatization Committee and the House of Representatives.

Requiring the approval or support of so many different ministries and trade unions will only make the program vulnerable to sabotage by vested-interest groups bent on maintain state enterprises for their own financial benefit.

What is urgently needed is a broad legal and political framework for the reform program and clear-cut guidelines on which companies would be best privatized through the stock market, which through strategic sales (private placement) and which ones should be merged or liquidated.

This framework should be supplemented with standard operational procedures to secure transparency and accountability and to close any loopholes that may still be exploited by corrupt officials.

Admittedly, privatization, like other reform measures, may initially cause destabilizing impacts as redundant employees and complacent managers in inefficient companies are afraid of losing jobs, and many senior officials with political power over state enterprises are worried about losing their money trees.

This is where the executive leadership is needed to enlighten all the stakeholders of the benefits of the reform of state companies to the national economy. This is also the reason why we are pessimistic about Sugiharto's ambitious program, as the present government rarely demonstrates its leadership when it is needed to generate optimism and market confidence

Read full post »