Oil & Gas lead to wealth crunch, Malaysian Ringgit beaten and dropped!

PETALING JAYA: With the oil and gas (O&G) sector being the hardest hit in the current market rout, tycoons who own significant stakes in these companies have seen a huge loss in their net worth.

These tycoons had collectively had their shareholding in these companies valued at some RM15.89bil when O&G stocks were trading at their highest prices. The fall in global crude oil prices and the plunge in the value of O&G stocks on Bursa Malaysia saw the value of their shareholding cut by almost half to some RM7.86bil yesterday.

Accelerating the decline in share prices yesterday and the loss in their net worth was the decision by Petroliam Nasional Bhd (Petronas) to slash its capital expenditure (capex) by between 15% and 20% next year.

Petronas’ capex cut has spooked investors in the local O&G sector as many companies rely on the national oil company for work. Petronas’ huge capex, estimated at RM60bil a year prior to the planned cuts, was also a buffer for the domestic industry from the onslaught of crumbling crude oil prices and its effect elsewhere.

The largest of these companies, SapuraKencana Petroleum Bhd, has seen its share price dip by 48.78% year-to-date. At its peak, SapuraKencana was trading at RM4.81, translating to a wealth of RM4.85bil for Tan Sri Shahril Shamsuddin’s 16.84% stake in the integrated O&G concern.

SapuraKencana was the most actively traded counter yesterday, falling 10.36% to close at RM2.51. At yesterday’s market capitalisation of RM16.76bil, Shahril’s shareholding in the company was valued at RM2.53bil.

Another major shareholder of SapuraKencana is Tan Sri Mokhzani Mahathir, whose 10.25% interest has also seen a decline by almost half its value. At yesterday’s price, Mokhzani’s stake in SapuraKencana was valued at RM1.54bil compared to the RM2.95bil it was worth during its highest level.

Mokhzani had sold a block of 190.3 million shares in SapuraKencana earlier this year when the stock was trading at around RM4.30 per share, giving the entire sale a value of RM818.29mil. The shares were taken up by seven institutions.

Another stock in which Mokhzani has an interest in, Yinson Holdings Bhd, was also not spared from the bearish sentiment surrounding O&G stocks. Yinson’s share price has declined from its peak to close at RM2.45 on Dec 1. Based on yesterday’s price, Mokhzani’s stake in the company was worth RM235mil.

Billionaire Robert Kuok, T Ananda Krishnan, Tan Sri Ngau Boon Keat and Tan Sri Quek Leng Chan are also part of the list of value losers in this O&G stock meltdown.

Kuok owns 80% of PACC Offshore Services Holdings (POSH Semco), an offshore marine services provider that was listed on the Singapore Exchange in mid-2013 at a price of S$1.15 per share. POSH Semco closed yesterday at S$0.51, meaning that Kuok has lost more than half the value of his stake in that company.

Similarly, Ananda’s worth from his 42.3% shareholding in Bumi Armada Bhd has gone down by half the value it was during the peak of its share price. To be noted is that Bumi Armada had undertaken a rights issue in August this year that has seen the dilution of Ananda’s shareholding in the company.

Bumi Armada, Malaysia’s largest offshore support vessel firm, was relisted in 2011 at a price of RM3.03 per share. The stock dived into penny-stock territory yesterday, falling to a low of 98 sen before ending the day at RM1.01 per share. Based on yesterday’s price, Ananda’s stake in Bumi Armada was valued at RM2.06bil.

Dialog Group Bhd’s Ngau, meanwhile, has seen the value of Dialog’s stock fall. His stake was worth RM1.45bil based on yesterday’s closing price of RM1.26. This is about a one-third decline from the RM2.25bil his 23.2% stake was valued at when the stock had hit a high of RM1.96.

Stock investors such as Quek and his lieutenant Paul Poh are also edging into negative territory.

Quek had bought his 9% in TH Heavy Engineering Bhd (THHE) in 2013 at a price of 45 sen per share, enjoying gains for most of this year – the stock had hit a high of RM1.03 on Feb 19 this year. THHE closed yesterday’s trade at 40.5 sen a share, giving Quek a paper worth of RM38mil for his shareholding in the company as opposed to RM80mil as at the end of last year.

In April, Quek and Poh also took a block of 15.5% in Alam Maritim Resources Bhd at RM1.35 a share. They are sitting on a paper loss of some RM80mil today, or a decline of over 40%.

By: GURMEET KAUR The Star/Asia News Network

Ringgit Slides With Stocks as Oil Slump Poses Risk to Revenues



Malaysia’s ringgit posted the biggest two-day decline since the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis and stocks slumped on concern a protracted slide in crude will erode the oil-exporting nation’s revenue.

The currency weakened 1.5 percent to 3.4340 per dollar in Kuala Lumpur, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The ringgit has dropped 2.5 percent in two days, the steepest decline since June 1998. The benchmark FTSE Bursa Malaysia KLCI Index of shares fell 2.3 percent in the worst one-day performance in 22 months.

Brent slid to a five-year low after OPEC’s decision last week not to cut production to shore up prices, which have slumped 41 percent from a June high. The potential revenue loss may make it harder for Prime Minister Najib Razak to lower the fiscal deficit to 3 percent of gross domestic product next year from 3.5 percent.

“Malaysia is probably most affected by oil prices in the Asian space,” said Andy Ji, a Singapore-based strategist at Commonwealth Bank of Australia. “The ringgit could fall to 3.45 this week.”

A 1997 devaluation of the Thai baht triggered the Asia financial crisis and prompted Malaysia’s government to adopt a pegged exchange rate to the dollar in 1998. The ringgit was fixed at 3.8 until the policy was scrapped in 2005.

The currency dropped to 3.4392 earlier, the lowest level since February 2010, when it last traded at 3.45 and went on to reach 3.4545 on the 5th of that month, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

Stocks Fall

Oil-related industries account for a third of Malaysian state revenue and each 10 percent decline in crude will worsen the nation’s fiscal shortfall by 0.2 percent of GDP, Chua Hak Bin, a Bank of America Merrill Lynch economist in Singapore, wrote in an Oct. 22 report.

The FTSE Bursa Malaysia Index was dragged down by oil, gas and plantation stocks. The gauge has dropped 6 percent from its 2014 high in July.

SapuraKencana Petroleum Bhd., Malaysia’s biggest listed oil and gas services company by market value, fell 10 percent, the most on record. Dialog Group Bhd. (DLG), a contractor in the same industry, dropped 15 percent.

“We are watching the stocks closely,” said Gerald Ambrose, who oversees the equivalent of $3.6 billion as managing director at Aberdeen Asset Management Sdn. in Kuala Lumpur. “There are a lot of oil and gas companies that meet our quality and criteria but there was no upside previously. Now prices are falling.”

Bonds, Exports

Malaysia is already seeing a deterioration in its terms of trade. The current-account surplus narrowed to 7.6 billion ringgit ($2.2 billion) in the third quarter, the smallest gap since June 2013. A Dec. 5 report may show the nation’s exports declined 0.3 percent in October from a year earlier, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg survey. That would be the worst performance since June 2013.

The nation’s sovereign bonds fell. The yield on the 4.181 percent notes due 2024 rose three basis points, or 0.03 percentage point, to 3.89 percent, data compiled by Bloomberg show. That’s the highest since Nov. 24. The five-year bond yield advanced five basis points to 3.81 percent.

“Hopes for Malaysia have rested on the fiscal consolidation story,” said Tim Condon, head of Asian research at ING Groep NV in Singapore. “Markets need to be re-priced for diminished hopes on that front.”

Source: Bloomberg By Liau Y-Sing and Choong En Han

Beating for KLSE and ringgit



PETALING JAYA: The stock market and the ringgit have taken a beating from falling oil prices, which have sunk below the US$70 per barrel mark.

The benchmark FBM KLCI, which measures the key 30 stocks of Bursa Malaysia, was down 42 points or 2.34% at its close at 5pm, marking its worst performance since mid-October, while the ringgit declined to 3.4340 against the US dollar, a four-and-a-half-year low.

At 5pm, Brent crude oil was down 94 cents to a five-year low of US$69.21 while US light crude oil – better known as West Texas Intermediate (WTI) – fell US$1.09 to US$65.06 as markets continued to be spooked by the plunge in oil prices.

The plunge follows an Opec decision not to cut production despite a huge oversupply in global markets.

The technical indicators are all pointing to even lower oil prices.

Technical analysts said the WTI – the benchmark oil price used by Bank Negara to calculate the economic indicators – should find some support at US$64 per barrel.

If it goes below that level, it could plunge all the way to US$32.40 per barrel – the lowest recorded price in recent years when it hit US$32.40 per barrel on Dec 19, 2008, before rising to US$114.83 on May 2, 2011.

Taking the cue from the plunging oil prices and a chilling warning issued by Petronas on declining revenues, oil and gas stocks on Bursa Malaysia also faced a rout which affected market sentiment as a whole.

Yesterday, some 981 counters declined compared to 82 gainers while 150 were unchanged.

Petronas president and chief executive Tan Sri Shamsul Azhar Abbas had said on Friday that the national oil corporation was cutting its spending for next year by between 15% and 20% and asserted that its contribution to the Government’s coffer in the form of taxes, royalties and dividends could be down by 37% to RM43bil from RM68bil this year.

Analysts said the selling could be over-done and expected a relief rebound when oil prices settle.

Oil prices fell to their lowest in five years yesterday due to the production war between Opec and the American oil boom from shale oil producers.

In recent months, the United States has become a major producer of shale oil and gas – fuel that’s extracted from rock fragments – threatening the position of Saudi Arabia as the dominant oil-producing country.

In response to the threat, Opec, which is influenced by Saudi Arabia, has vowed to continue production of oil in a market where supply has outstripped demand.

This has led to a free fall in global oil prices that have declined by more than 40% since July this year.

Late last night after the opening of the US counters, oil price fell to below US$65 a barrel.

Saudi Arabia hopes to break the back of shale oil and gas producers by making their operations not financially viable.

It had been reported earlier that at prices below RM80 a barrel, shale oil producers would go bust.

However, Bloomberg reported that only about 4% of US shale oil output needs US$80 a barrel or more to be economically viable.

Among the top losers of the Bursa yesterday were SapuraKencana Petroleum Bhd, Bumi Armada, Dialog Group Bhd, UMW Oil and Gas Bhd and Petronas-related counters.

The paper wealth wiped out due to the rout on the oil and gas stocks was close to RM8bil.

The selling pressure also spread to plantation stocks, with crude palm oil for third month delivery down RM63 to RM2,109 per tonne. The fall in crude oil prices would make biodiesel less viable as an alternative at current prices.

However, low-cost carrier AirAsia Bhd bucked the trend as it stands to benefit from weaker oil prices. AirAsia rose 21 sen to RM2.79.

Investors were also worried about the impact Petronas’ reduced payout would have on the Government that counts on the national oil corporation as a key source of funding for its expenditure.

UOB Kay Hian Malaysia’s head of research Vincent Khoo said a much lower crude oil price scena­rio would bring negative implications on the ringgit and the Federal Government’s ability to spend its way to pump prime the economy.

The head of research, products and alternative investments at Etiqa, Chris Eng, said that based on the weakening of the ringgit, foreign funds could be behind the selling.

“However, today’s selling was over­­done and I believe there could be a relief rebound,” he said, based on improving US economic growth and ample liquidity from China and Japan.

Eng said according to reports, Bank of America believed Malaysia’s budget deficit could balloon to 3.8% from a planned 3% while Citi thought the 3% deficit could still be maintained.

“The outlook for investing in 2015 remains challenging but it also depends on what level the local bourse ends the year,” he said.

By JOSEPH CHIN The Star/Asia News Network

Related posts:

Oil enters a new era of low prices: Opec vs US shale, impacts, perils as Petronas cuts capex

Oil Enters New Era as OPEC Faces Off Against Shale; Who Blinks as Price Slides Toward $70? How Oil's Price Plunge Impacts Wall S...

Crude oil prices fall: subsidy needless, ringgit weaken, fiscal health affected

Malaysia's iconic Twin Towers are seen in the background of the Malaysian oil and gas company Petronas logo at a petrol station in Ku...

Malaysia's petrol price hike when global crude oil prices declined to 3 years low, a reflection of poor financial management!

Timing of latest fuel subsidy cut a surprise PETALING JAYA - The latest round of fuel subsidy rationalisation came as a surprise ...

Oil enters a new era of low prices: Opec vs US shale, impacts, perils as Petronas cuts capex

Oil Enters New Era as OPEC Faces Off Against Shale; Who Blinks as Price Slides Toward $70?

How Oil's Price Plunge Impacts Wall Street: Video Bloomberg News

OPEC’s decision to cede no ground to rival producers underscored the price war in the crude market and the challenge to U.S. shale drillers.

The 12-nation Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries kept its output target unchanged even after the steepest slump in oil prices since the global recession, prompting speculation it has abandoned its role as a swing producer. Yesterday’s decision in Vienna propelled futures to the lowest since 2010, a level that means some shale projects may lose money.

“We are entering a new era for oil prices, where the market itself will manage supply, no longer Saudi Arabia and OPEC,” said Mike Wittner, the head of oil research at Societe Generale SA in New York. “It’s huge. This is a signal that they’re throwing in the towel. The markets have changed for many years to come.”

The fracking boom has driven U.S. output to the highest in three decades, contributing to a global surplus that Venezuela yesterday estimated at 2 million barrels a day, more than the production of five OPEC members.

Demand for the group’s crude will fall every year until 2017 as U.S. supply expands, eroding its share of the global market to the lowest in more than a quarter century, according to the group’s own estimates.

Photographer: Eddie Seal/Bloomberg

Floor hands on the Orion Perseus drilling rig near Encinal in Webb County, Texas.

Benchmark Brent crude fell the most in more than three years after OPEC’s decision, sliding 6.7 percent to close at $72.58 a barrel. Futures for January settlement sank to $70.15 today, the lowest close since May 2010. Prices peaked this year at $115.71 in June.

Market Signals

“We will produce 30 million barrels a day for the next 6 months, and we will watch to see how the market behaves,” OPEC Secretary-General Abdalla El-Badri told reporters in Vienna after the meeting. “We are not sending any signals to anybody, we just try to have a fair price.”

OPEC pumped 30.56 million barrels a day in November and has exceeded its current output ceiling in all but four of the 34 months since it was implemented, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. OPEC’s own analysts estimate production was 30.25 million last month, according to a report Nov. 12. Members will abide by the 30 million barrel-a-day target, El-Badri said yesterday.

“OPEC has chosen to abdicate its role as a swing producer, leaving it to the market to decide what the oil price should be,” Harry Tchilinguirian, head of commodity markets at BNP Paribas SA in London, said yesterday by phone. “It wouldn’t be surprising if Brent starts testing $70.”

Conventional Producers

Conventional oil producers in OPEC can no longer dictate prices, United Arab Emirates Energy Minister Suhail Al-Mazrouei said in an interview in Vienna on Nov. 26. Newcomers to the market who have the highest costs and created the glut should be the ones to determine the price, he said.

“That is what OPEC is hoping for,” Carsten Fritsch, a commodity analyst at Commerzbank AG in Frankfurt, said in an e-mail. “It’s the question of who will blink first.”

OPEC may now be prepared to let prices fall to force some drillers with higher production costs to stop pumping, said Julian Lee, an oil strategist who writes for Bloomberg First Word and has worked in the industry for 25 years. That scenario would mark the start of a fourth oil-market era since the end of the 1970s, he said.

Fourth Era

Since the early 2000s, surging demand growth drove up prices allowing companies to apply new extraction techniques and develop deep-water and other costly oil. That ended an era that pervaded since the mid 1980s, which was characterized by low prices and OPEC regaining the market share that it had previously sacrificed in an attempt to preserve high prices, Lee said.

OPEC will face pressure too, with prices now below the level needed by nine member states to balance their budgets, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

“They haven’t taken collective action,” Richard Mallinson, an oil analyst at London-based Energy Aspects Ltd., said by phone. “That doesn’t mean they won’t do it in the next few months if prices stay low.”

U.S. Production

U.S. oil production has risen to 9.077 million barrels a day, the highest level in weekly data from the Energy Information Administration going back to 1983. Output will climb to 9.4 million next year, the most since 1972, it forecasts.

Middle Eastern exporters including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq can break even on a cost basis at about $30 a barrel, Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. They need more to balance their budgets. Some U.S. producers need more than $80, the consulting firm said in a report last month.

OPEC’s policy will spur a crash in the U.S. shale industry, Leonid Fedun, a vice president and board member at OAO Lukoil, Russia’s second-largest oil producer, said in an interview in London before the group’s decision.

“In 2016, when OPEC completes this objective of cleaning up the American marginal market, the oil price will start growing again,” said Fedun. “The shale boom is on a par with the dot-com boom. The strong players will remain, the weak ones will vanish.”

The share prices of U.S. oil producers including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. fell by at least 4 percent in New York trading today.

No Cut

Igor Sechin, the chief executive officer of OAO Rosneft, Russia’s largest oil producer, said after a meeting with Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Mexico that his nation wouldn’t need to cut output even if prices fell below $60.

“The question is, what price level will be low enough to slow U.S. production growth?” Torbjoern Kjus, an analyst at DNB ASA, Norway’s biggest bank, said by phone. “What price will get U.S. growth to slow to 500,000 barrels a day from this year’s rate of 1.4 million barrels?”

Only about 4 percent of U.S. shale production needs $80 or more to be profitable, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency. Most production in the Bakken formation, one of the main drivers of shale oil output, remains profitable at or below $42 a barrel, the IEA estimates. The agency expects U.S. supply to rise by almost 1 million barrels a day next year, with increasing flows to international markets.

OPEC has gone “cold turkey” on balancing the oil market, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said in a report yesterday. Prices may have further to fall until there is evidence of U.S. production slowing, according to the bank. It said last month that oil markets were entering a “new oil order,” with OPEC retreating from its role as a swing producer.

“OPEC’s decision means it is over to you America,” Miswin Mahesh, a London-based commodities analyst at Barclays Plc, said in an e-mail. “This opens the window for the U.S. to be the new swing producer.”

Source: Bloomberg


The perils of cheaper oil

COME Dec 1, Malaysia will enter a new era long desired by the advocates of free market.

The pump price of petrol and diesel at the kiosk will be based on a managed float system depending on global oil prices. This will replace the current system where the Government fixes the price at the pump, a process that involves a huge amount of subsidy.

For years, the Government adopted the fixed price mechanism because it brought about an element of stability.

Unlike most other countries where the price at the pump varies from day to day, Malaysians are used to planning their expenditure based on a fixed price.

Right from a typical consumer to large companies, they all depend on oil or some form of energy to carry out their daily lives or operations. The fixed price has helped in their planning.

But the biggest disadvantage of having a fixed price for oil is that it involves a huge amount of subsidy, especially in an environment where oil prices go beyond what is anticipated by the Government.

Malaysia’s tale of subsidy woes is a subject matter that is often spoken about.

The subsidy bill is estimated at about 14% of the Government’s total operating expenditure of RM271.94bil for next year. The bulk of the RM38bil that has been set aside for next year is to ensure that the fuel cost remains stable.

There is a sales tax of 58 sen per litre on petrol sold at the pump. But the mechanism to collect the tax has not kicked in because the subsidy per litre is much higher than the sales tax.

Beginning July this year, the oil and gas dynamics changed with the United States becoming a large producer, thanks to the shale oil and gas.

The implications of the shale oil and gas on the global economy are huge. It has gone beyond the oil and gas industry. Oil-dependent nations such as Iran, Iraq and Venezuela are in trouble because a low oil price means less revenue and less money to fund their development programmes and, more importantly, to pay off their debts.

Venezuela is high on the list of countries that could seek some reprieve from bondholders because it needs oil price to be more than US$160 per barrel to balance its budget.

The Russian rouble has depreciated by more than 45% against the dollar and state-owned Rosneft has seen its profit almost collapse due to the depreciating currency.

Russia’s problems have exacerbated the slowdown in Germany, the strongest economy in Europe and this has in turn affected the entire eurozone recovery.

As for Asia, the best thing that the low oil prices have brought about is an era of low inflation and allowed some governments to carry out their reforms of energy policies. It has allowed governments to dismantle the subsidy system that has for long artificially kept the cost of production low.

Indonesia removed subsidies last week, a move that was cheered by foreign investors, because the system apparently only benefited a handful of powerful businessmen.

For Malaysia, when global oil prices are less than US$80 per barrel, which is the case now, there is no more subsidy for petrol and diesel sold at the pump. What kicks in is the sales tax of 58 sen per litre.

Come April 1 next year, the sales tax will be replaced with a goods and services tax of 6%. What this means is prices at the pump will be substantially lower than what they are today – provided global oil prices remain at less than US$80 per barrel.

Theoretically, this should translate into Malaysia having a lower cost of production due to cheaper energy prices. When oil prices went up over the past years, wages and all other costs followed suit. When the reverse happens, shouldn’t the cost of production come down?

Unfortunately that is not the case. The US is benefiting from the low energy cost era, at the expense of Asia. In fact, Asia as a whole may be losing out as a result of the steep fall in global energy prices.

Since the 1980s, Asian countries have been the destination for foreign manufacturers from the Europe and the US to relocate their operations because of the cheap cost of labour.

But manufacturers increasingly are paying more attention to destinations with low energy cost. Cheaper cost of energy is seen as an adequate substitute for low wages.

European manufacturers have turned to the US, where the cost of natural gas is one-third that of South-East Asia, to relocate their operations.

BASF, the large German chemical company, is planning to build a US$1.4bil plant in the Gulf Coast, apart from increasing its annual capital expenditure of US$20bil into that country.

An Austrian steel company, Voestalpine, is building a US$500mil facility in Texas to export iron for its steel plants. It will use natural gas to blast the furnace instead of coking coal in Europe.

Previously, these companies would make Asia their destination because of its low cost of production.

The flow of new manufacturing investments to the US is also assisted by the low rise in wages there compared with Asia. According to a report, between 2006 and 2011, Asian wages rose by 5.7% compared with only 0.4% in developed countries.

For decades the big gap in the wage rate increases between Europe, the US and countries such as Malaysia determined the flow of foreign investments. But now that is no longer the case.

Malaysia has to raise productivity or it will lose out on attracting new investments. Low wages alone will not do, especially now when prices of oil and gas resources are in a tailspin.

By M.SHANMUGAM The Star/Asia News Network

Petronas cuts capex

PETROLIAM Nasional Bhd’s (Petronas) announcement of its third-quarter results comes at a delicate time, considering that it is being watched by all and sundry.

Petronas president and CEO Tan Sri Shamsul Azhar Abbas

Amidst a scenario of a free-fall of oil prices and the politically-charged Umno General Assembly, it comes as no surprise that Tan Sri Shamsul Azhar Abbas (pic), the oil major’s president and chief executive, says he has to be “politically correct” in delivering his key message.

At a press conference yesterday, Shamsul also explained that Petronas had waited for the all-important Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) meeting to conclude before addressing the media in Kuala Lumpur.

And rightly so

The 12-member Opec decided on Thursday not to lower its output target, leading to oil prices plunging by a further 8% on Friday, cumulating in an almost 40% dip since mid-June.

The Brent crude oil price is now at US$72.84 per barrel and some forecasters are predicting that oil prices could hit US$60 per barrel.

Petronas itself is now predicting that oil prices could settle at US$70-US$75 next year.

This is a far cry from the US$108 per barrel that Petronas had averaged last year and the US$106 per barrel, which is the average price of the Brent crude for the first nine months of this year.

Shamsul lays out the bare truth on what the falling oil prices would mean for Petronas, the oil and gas (O&G) services industry and the federal government’s coffers:

• Capital expenditure (capex) on the O&G industry will be cut by between 15% and 20%
  
• Petronas’ contribution to Government coffers in the form of dividends, taxes and oil royalty for next year will dive by 37% to RM43bil, assuming the Brent crude settles at US$75 per barrel;
  
• Petronas will not proceed with contracts to award new marginal oil fields unless oil settles at levels above US$80 per barrel
  
• Projects in Pengerang that have yet to receive the final investment decision (FID) will be affected by the cut-backs. Projects worth US$27bil that have received FID will not be affected, but Petronas does not have 100% equity in all the projects approved.

The capex crunch is expected to send chills down the spine of the already fragile O&G sector, with the stock prices of listed players already haemorrhaging in light of the free-fall of oil prices.

Apart from the 40-odd listed O&G companies, there are close to 4,000 other smaller companies that depend on Petronas for O&G service jobs.

“Nearly all depend on Petronas for jobs,” says an official in the O&G industry.

The capex cut by the national oil company is likely to have a negative impact on these companies and runs contrary to what research houses have been projecting.

Global slide

Several research houses have been stating that the Malaysian O&G industry is sheltered from the global slide in crude because Petronas will keep up with its spending of about RM60bil per year.

Taking a jibe at the forecasters, Shamsul says he has been warning of a shake-up in the industry in all his quarterly briefings.

“But nobody wants to listen to me. The worst part is, some of them have been listening to these so-called desk-top analysts who say this cannot happen because Petronas is always there to help them out … dream on.”

Shamsul says it is also reviewing the feasibility of some of its projects and could shelve projects that are no longer viable and for which Petronas has yet to make its FID.

“For the last nine months, we have been telling you guys about the likelihood that oil prices will drop. So the declining oil price is no surprise to us,” says Shamsul.

“But like every international oil company (IOC) out there, declining oil prices will impact us, and as such, we have to review our capex plans for next year onwards, which is also what the IOCs are doing. We have to assess the feasibility of projects,” Shamsul says.

He adds that at current oil price levels, marginal oil fields are no longer feasible for Petronas to get involved in, and warns that companies seeking to get involved in this business are “dreaming”.

When asked what was his message to the service providers seeking to do more work for Petronas, Shamsul said: “I’ve been singing this song for the last nine months, to watch out because things are not going to be that rosy.

“But not many seem to want to listen to me. So, I’ve stopped singing that song. But when they (service providers) get hurt, they will know,” he said.

Clearly, Shamsul is referring to how the sluggish oil price will force it to become more cost-effective in its projects, cancelling some, shelving others and negotiating down the terms of others.

Impact to federal government coffers

Meanwhile, Shamsul also explains that based on the assumption that oil prices average US$75 per barrel for 2015, the state oil firm would be paying the Government about RM43bil in dividends, royalty and taxes.

This would be 37% less than the RM68bil it plans to pay the Government this year.

“The lower dividend and other payout contributions is to ensure Petronas has enough money to replenish the reserves. If we are to maintain the payouts, it will have a significant impact on our growth plans,” says Shamsul.

As such, he says the Government should relook and rebalance its budget planning to adjust to the new level of oil prices.

He also reiterates that Petronas still needs to keep investing in new technology, in overseas projects and increasing its oil reserves in order to maintain its growth, considering that current production levels decline by some 10% every year, naturally.

At present, Petronas produces some two million barrels of oil equivalent per day.

“In five years, if we don’t replenish our production, our production will be down to half of what we have today,” he asserts.

By RISEN JAYASEELAN, NG BEI SHAN The Sunday Starbizweek Nov 29 2014  

Related stories:

Petronas Q3 net profit 12% down due to lower oil prices

It’s survival of the fittest, says Shamsul

No more marginal oil field awards for now

The biggest adjustment

 Invest in oil, Saddam's lost oil, others gain - Crisis and opportunity 危机与机遇:
The entire story is covered right here...

Related posts: 

Crude oil prices fall: subsidy needless, ringgit weaken, fiscal health affected

Malaysia's iconic Twin Towers are seen in the background of the Malaysian oil and gas company Petronas logo at a petrol station in Ku..

U.S. to Overtake Saudi Arabia ...

13 Nov 2012

Oil derricks like this one outside of Williston, North Dakota, are part of a shale oil boom that has helped put the United States on track to overtake Saudi Arabia as the world's leading oil producer. Photograph by Gregory Bull, ...

A strategic game-changer, the ...

02 Dec 2012

The US has benefited from large domestic production gains, particularly in shale oil. This has been made possible by technological innovation in oil drilling such as 'hydraulic fracturing' (or 'fracking') as well as the opening of ...

China has ways to tap shale gas ...

16 Feb 2013

But the US shale bonanza has been more than three decades in the making, and draws on the experience and infrastructure of a well-established oil and gas industry. North America has thousands of kilometres of gas ...

Malaysians should take heed of the highly priced IPO!

Malaysians should take heed that IPOs don’t always make money as the Facebook fiasco has amply demonstrated.

IF you think an initial public offering (IPO) is a sure way of making money, think again – things can go seriously wrong and companies can open a lot lower than their IPO price.

If anyone has delusions about an IPO automatically making money for those fortunate enough to have obtained the shares at that stage, the recent episode with Facebook should dispel any such notion.
Barely a week into trading, Facebook is trading at an 18% discount to its IPO price at the time of writing, hardly something that inspires confidence in IPOs in this current poor market.

Like me not: A Facebook Like Button logo is displayed on a window of a store in Palo Alto, California. Facebook and its underwriters came under legal attack as investors filed lawsuits over Facebook’s flop controversy-marred IPO and have accused the company of hiding material information from investors. If anyone has delusions about an IPO automatically making money, the recent episode with Facebook should dispel any such notion. — AFP

 

Facebook was offered at US$38 per share to raise US$16bil for the vendors that included founder Mark Zuckerberg, who became a cash billionaire after the deal and whose company was valued at US$104bil based on the IPO price.

And this for a company that had earnings of less than US$1bil and revenue of US$3.7bil, giving a historical price earnings ratio (market value divided by earnings) of over 100.

But still investment bankers felt they had a deal, secured the IPO investors and then listed the stock on May 17, only to see a steep fall from the very first day of trading, which eventually saw a cut in value of almost a fifth.

That’s amazing for a stock pushed by some of the top investment firms in the US including Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs and a company with such a strong brand recognition too.

Now disgruntled investors are crying foul and amidst reports of selective information given to some banks by Facebook, shareholders have started suing Facebook and Zuckerberg in an embarrassing development that threatens to overturn yet again how Wall Street does business.

The entire Facebook fiasco underlines one key important lesson – ignore fundamental valuation at your own risk. True, markets have their own madness and sometimes stocks trade way above what can be considered their intrinsic value.

But they don’t stay there for long if they ever do especially if the earnings stream does not start kicking in soon. And if there are any indications of problem, one can expect no less than a collapse in share prices if valuations were excessively high in the first place.

As the Facebook saga unfolds in the US, the applications closed yesterday for Gas Malaysia’s IPO here. Those who follow the situation here closely may realise that disclosure in IPOs, while it may seem better than before, need not necessarily be so.

Try as I might I could not find a forecast for earnings for Gas Malaysia in its prospectus, a company with a blue chip reputation owned by amongst others, an MMC Holdings-Shahpadu joint venture, Petronas Gas and Tokyo Gas-Mitsui. The Petronas name attached to it gives it a certain mystic and pedigree, no doubt.

But still I could not find forecast earnings per share or dividends for this year in the thick prospectus of over 300 pages. If it was in there – and I doubt that – should it not have been highlighted? And how does one value the company without such figures?

There was a time when every IPO had forecast earnings and dividends, sometimes for more than a year. That gave retail investors a good feel for the company they were buying but apparently that’s no more the requirement. In the light of the Facebook fiasco, that’s a retrograde step.

Whether it’s in the US or here, there is a clear need to tighten up IPO procedures and disclosures so that all investors have equal access to information and are not discriminated against. That helps in the creation of a fair, orderly and clean capital market, which people can generally rely upon.

In Gas Malaysia’s case, some analysts put the forward price earnings ratio at the issue price of RM2.20 a share at 18 times and the dividend yield at 4.4%. It is academic now since applications have closed but those don’t look particularly attractive.

At 18 times, the price earnings ratio is above that of many Malaysian blue chips. The dividend yield at 4.4% look respectable but is based on 100% of earnings being paid out as dividends, which makes it equivalent to the earnings yield and also implies very little or no future growth because nothing is being retained in the business for expansion.

In that context it looks less than attractive. But the Malaysian public, perceiving IPOs as a means to make money and attracted by Gas Malaysia’s affiliations, including that with national oil corporation Petronas, might think otherwise.

One hopes not, but if the valuations turn out to be expensive, then there could be nasty surprises. To reduce the possibility of that, regulatory authorities should probably revert to older, more stringent standards for IPOs which require profit and dividend forecasts to be clearly stated and verified, subject to the usual conditions, by the merchant bankers and accountants.

That will go some way to reassure investors, and especially retail investors who are the last to know things, that there is substance in the company that supports the issue price.

We certainly don’t want a Facebook-style fiasco in Malaysia.

A Question of Business  By P. GUNASEGARAM starbiz@thestar.com.my

·Independent consultant and writer P Gunasegaram (t.p.guna@gmail.com) is not a fan of Facebook, the service or Facebook, the company.

Related posts:
Make money from Facebook IPO!
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg "Likes" Chan and ...
CEO to keep iron grip after IPO; how to make money ...
The Biggest Cost of Facebook's Growth
Facebook Seeks Political Ad Dollars
The Facebook Fallacy
Facebook, Zuckerberg & banks sued over IPO
US market ahead: major signs say 'sell', the Facebook effect
Facebook price falls !
Facebook Tumble, blame game begin !
Facebook market makers' losses total at least $100m; Share price should trade for $13.80! 

PTPTN l student loans: stick to its guns, written off, learn to pay back ?

A promise that can be written off

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s latest plan – to abolish PTPTN study loans and provide free higher education – may seem attractive, but it just goes to show how desperate Pakatan Rakyat is politically.

BOTH Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat are announcing populist measures to influence voters and get their attention as the general election, that is expected to be keenly contested, draws near.

While Barisan has numerous popular projects from the 1Malaysia clinics to Bantuan Rakyat 1Malaysia, Pakatan leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, not to be outdone, has come up with his plan – to abolish PTPTN study loans and thereafter, provide free higher education.

He is proposing to use Petronas funds to write off the RM43bil in PTPTN loans taken since 1999 and provide free higher education for subsequent generations of students.

 Varsity cheer: Anwar’s proposal to write off outstanding PTPTN loans and provide free higher education is attractive but will he deliver on his promise should Pakatan Rakyat come to power?
 

At first hearing, his scheme is attractive, especially to the 1.9 million students who have received study loans under the PTPTN scheme up to 2011.

Who will not want their outstanding study loans written off and for future generations of students to study free using Petronas funds?

It’s simple - all the students and their parents need to do is vote and ensure that Pakatan captures Putrajaya in the general election and then wait for Anwar to deliver on his promise.

The vast majority of PTPTN loan takers have paid up or are paying their loans. About 144,000 borrowers have been blacklisted for not paying and they will have reason to rejoice with Anwar’s promise to write off the loans.

The cost of higher education has shot up since the mid-1990s and it now costs more to study and even more for the Government to subsidise higher education.

For instance, a year’s tuition for a medical course in a public university, before any subsidy, comes to RM166,000. But students only have to pay RM9,000, which means 94.6% of the fees are subsidised.

Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin, in clarifying the cost structure to reporters last week, explained that a first-year engineering course costs RM61,000 but students only pay RM6,800. He said 90% of the cost is subsidised by the Government.

Students in public and private institutions of higher learning need only pay between 5% and 10% of the cost of degrees that they are pursuing and even then, they are already subsidised in the form of PTPTN loans.
Students who take PTPTN loans pay a minimum of the course fees and take care of their living costs in the cities and major towns where they are located.

When students have completed their studies and are gainfullly employed, they start repaying their loans and many have done so.

Abolishing PTPTN loans sounds good but it is impractical because higher education is heavily subsidised, up to 90% or more, by the Government with students paying only under 10% of the course fees.

And even for that amount, they take PTPTN loans.

But because elections are near and Anwar feels pressured, he has come up with a grand scheme to write off the entire RM43bil PTPTN loans given out since 1996 and use Petronas funds to finance future generations of students for free.

Petronas is the national oil corporation and it deals with our own oil, which is beginning to deplete, and oil in other countries, which it explores, refines and markets for a percentage of the profits that it brings home.

Nearly half of Petronas’ payments to the Government — and the percentage is rising — is from dealing in oil in other countries.

Anwar should not use Petronas as a Santa Claus to promise parents free higher education for their children.

The oil corporation is footing a huge part of the national budget and it can’t be milked anymore to write off PTPTN loans and underwrite higher education.

Taxpayers, who are also subsidising higher education, should not be burdened with more taxes by a Pakatan policy of offering free higher education for all if it captures Putra-jaya.

PTPTN loans are very low-cost loans for students to pursue their dreams of getting a diploma or a degree or to arm themselves with a skill to face a challenging future at local colleges and universities.

It is reckless for Pakatan to promise that it will write off the outstanding loans and offer free higher education if elected to Putrajaya.

It is a big promise from a man whose penchant is to make ever bigger promises as the general election nears.

And he will make them in a dramatic and striking manner, which just goes to show his desperation that the political momentum is slipping away. 

Analysis By BARADAN KUPPUSAMY

Learning to pay for a better future

Doing away with PTPTN loans will not only burden taxpayers but also deprive many of a higher education.

THERE was much joy at the latest family gathering as my brother’s eldest son joined the ranks of medical doctors in the family – he graduated a month ago and is the sixth in the extended family to put the MBBS to the back of his name.

In a few more months, two more of his cousins will also be graduating as doctors from the same private medical college.

The total cost of educating the three of them is more than RM1mil.

The elder one managed by taking loans from the National Higher Education Fund Corporation or better known as PTPTN. Without such a loan, I doubt whether my nephew could have pursued his ambition to be a doctor.

PTPTN has disbursed loans to 1.95 million students, totalling RM43.60bil, from 1997 to February this year.

Now it seems some people want to can this and want the Government to provide total free education from “cradle to grave” – as stated by Solidariti Mahasiswa Malaysia (SMM) chairman Muhammad Safwan Anang.

SMM is a pro-opposition student movement.

His call was supported by Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, who again pointed to Petronas’ oil revenues as a means to pay for the higher education needs of all Malaysians.

This is obviously just a populist move meant to please a certain quarter – mostly the more than 100,000 defaulters of whom about 70,000 have not even paid up a single sen since completing their studies some 14 years ago.

Who would not like to have their loans cancelled? The almost two million borrowers are a very big electorate for any political party to woo.

For the record, PTPTN loans recovery has not been very good. Over the past 14 years, a total of RM5.6bil was to have been collected in loan repayments, but only RM2.7bil had been received.

The corporation has tried all means to get back its money including the rather unpopular blacklisting at all exit points that prevents defaulters from leaving the country.

This is what is unpopular with PTPTN.

Previously, the corporation was criticised for not making a serious attempt at ensuring loan repayments, but when it makes an effort to do so it is accused of being a bully.

Learning to pay for your own needs and wants, including debts, is as important as a formal education. This is called a lesson in responsibility. Cancelling the study loan is like an uncompleted course.

Despite the contentious blacklisting move, the PTPTN loan is the single largest enabler of education in this country. Without this loan scheme more than half of the some two million borrowers would not have been able to further their education.

I know of several students who only made it to a tertiary institution because they were able to get a loan.
An uncle of one of them said he was willing to provide support in terms of pocket money and even accommodation.

“Unless he makes it into a public university, tertiary education will be beyond us,” the uncle said. The nephew is already grateful because he knows his future is assured either way.

He is not alone.

A good friend, who lives and works in Hong Kong, is very proud of his daughter’s independence because of the PTPTN scheme.

“I do not have the money to send her overseas for a higher education and she couldn’t get into a public institution. But she managed to get a PTPTN loan, and with that she could study in a local private college.

“She did everything herself, and was even able to save some money to buy herself a car. She made sure she passed all her exams and is now working. She is also paying back the loan on her own,” this friend said, adding that he never expected her to be so independent.

When the Government first liberalised the education system in the early 1990s, the number of those aged below 24 who received tertiary education was less than 15% but this has risen to 45% currently and should reach 50% by 2020 – and all this is due directly to the PTPTN scheme.

PTPTN can also be credited with the growth of the number of higher education institutions in the country. As of October, there were 20 public universities, 26 private universities, 23 private university colleges, several branch campuses of foreign universities, 28 polytechnics, 74 community colleges and 434 private colleges.

Providing free higher education, ironically, will result in many of these institutions being beyond the reach of the middle class and the poor because they will have to go to Government funded colleges.

For a simple three-year business related degree from a local private university, the tuition fee will be between RM30,000 and RM40,000. A local medical degree will cost more than RM300,000.

Without a doubt many of these private colleges are decent institutions of higher education, and a viable alternative to the expensive foreign education that most Malaysians dream of.

Just like everyone cannot be a doctor or a prime minister, not everyone can afford a foreign education.
These almost-500 private institutions provide a channel for our young to pursue their education dreams.

PTPTN makes this possible.

Why Not? By WONG SAI WAN

> Executive editor Wong Sai Wan is glad he can afford to pay for his children’s education but realises many need financial help to educate theirs

PTPTN should stick to its guns

QUESTION TIME By P.GUNASEGARAM

The most efficient way to educate those who can’t afford it is through loans as it ensures that future generations will similarly benefit.

IT’S a bad part of human nature that the more you get the more you want, especially when you get something relatively easily.

And since according to common wisdom elections are supposedly around the corner, now’s the time to demand and hope that the Government will accede simply to please in the hope of getting more votes.

But there is a need to be more responsible than that. If goodies are handed out every time they are demanded, we are going to have problems, real problems.

We should not be going anywhere near forgiving other people’s debts as an election manoeuvre but that’s exactly what is being asked for.

There are many hundreds of thousands of people who have taken loans from the National Higher Education Fund (Perbadanan Tabung Pendidikan Tinggi Nasional or PTPTN) but now incredibly they want their loans to be waived – just like that. I wish my housing loan was waived too.

Not only should their requests be flatly turned down, the Government should review its entire system of scholarships on which it spends tens of billions of ringgit yearly in favour of a system of loans.

The PTPTN loans require repayment only after those who have taken them get jobs or six months after graduation whichever comes first and is to be paid through the Inland Revenue Department. They carry low rates.

We are talking about really big amounts – as at end of February, 1.9 million students had loans totalling RM43.6bil from the PTPTN. That’s a huge amount to be written off and the Government simply cannot afford to do so.

Based on the figures, the average loan per borrower works out to around RM22,000 and it should be possible for PTPTN to work out some arrangement with the borrower if it is not possible to repay the loan within the prescribed period due to unemployment or other reasons.

Eventually, most graduates do get employed and when they get jobs, they will stand to earn a lot more than non-graduates and they should be made to repay society for the help they received in getting a leg up.

Many others were unfortunate enough not to get a proper education because they could not afford to pay the fees or take time off from work to study. They often never earn graduate salaries in their entire lifetimes.

The attitude of borrowers who have taken money from PTPTN and now do not want to repay is selfish because they deprive other similarly disadvantaged students from financial assistance in the future.

The PTPTN was conceived as a fund that will be largely self-financing from repayments and that’s the way it should be operated so that the most number of people benefit from it.

Most of the loans are taken by borrowers in public universities to cover the cost of living as fees are already low in these universities. The timely repayment of such loans ensures that future students will continue to benefit from the programme.

The politicisation of this issue is terribly unfortunate not only because it puts pressure on a scheme, which if properly administered, will result in the emergence of a sustainable operation largely funded by repayments but because it inhibits consideration of loan schemes to replace scholarships.

The scheme can be made more attractive by making repayments completely interest-free and free of any maintenance fees as is the case in countries such as Australia for their own citizens.

The Government can then expand this scheme so that all qualified students are eligible for loans and even extend the scheme to those who want to study overseas.

Then it can reduce the amount of scholarships allocated and restrict these largely to a select list of merit scholarships and to fund those it wants to employ in future.

That way the Government will be able to help more people get access to higher studies without having to break its financial back by providing outright scholarships and grants.

However, that would require some courage because the rolling back of scholarships which were relatively freely made available earlier would meet with a considerable amount of opposition from all quarters.

You can sometimes give too much but try and take that away and you can get a lot of problems.

Governments all over the world are moving towards interest-free loans to help needy students. It’s the right way to go because only those serious about their education would take such loans and they will tend to limit their loans to what they need because it has to be repaid.

That’s a good way to allocate scarce resources by making people who can’t afford it take interest-free loans and defer payments until later. Instead, those who have taken loans are demanding they be turned into scholarships instead. That’s really too much.

Acceding to such demands would be populist, what move would not be when you give something valuable away for free, but it would be wrong simply because it is going to deprive future generations from access to education.

Resources are finite after all and we must find the best way to allocate them. Sometimes, you have to be cruel to be kind.

> Independent consultant and writer P. Gunasegaram believes that both lender and borrower have a joint responsibility to ensure that funds are properly used.