Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) had been condemned
by the minority shareholders when it delisted Calata Corporation (CAL) due to
violations of the disclosure rules under the Securities Regulation Code (SRC). Disclosure
rules stated in SRC Rule 17.1 require a public company to file a current report
to make an accurate disclosure to the public of every material fact or event
that occurs which is expected to influence the investors decisions in relation
to those securities. In the event a news report appears in the media involving
an alleged material fact or event, a current report must be made within the prescribed
period in order to clarify the news report that can create public speculation
if not denied or clarified by the public company. PSE alleged that CAL had
committed 55 violations of the disclosure rules from 6 October 2016 to 20 June
2017. First violation of the disclosure rules carries a fine of P50,000, second
violation carries a fine of P75,000, third violation carries a one month
trading suspension, and fourth violation will be a ground for delisting. CAL
was fined a total of P300,000 and the PSE decided to start involuntary
delisting proceedings. The imposition of monetary penalties and trading
suspension are without prejudice to any regulatory action that can be
undertaken by the regulators in connection with the violations. Despite the
absolute violation of the disclosure rules, the minority shareholders are
against the decision of the PSE to delist CAL due to the absence of an exit
mechanism. To appease the minority shareholders, the PSE proposed voluntary
rather than involuntary delisting on the condition that a tender offer will be
conducted. CAL rejected the proposed voluntary delisting as it does not have
enough retained earnings to buy back outstanding shares at book value per share.
Although the tender offer price must be based on a fairness opinion valuation
of the business, there are no rules under the SRC that pegs the tender offer price
to the book value per share. PSE had bended the disclosure rules to accommodate
an exit mechanism but CAL had chosen the road most traveled to enrich
themselves at the expense of the minority shareholders. When corporate
governance breaks down, minority shareholders must sell and never forget. Those
who break the rules are scum but those who abandon those rules are worse than
scum.
30 June 2017
31 March 2017
Market Watch
Philippine stock market
performance as measured by the Philippine Stock Exchange Index (PSEi) has been
considered as one of the most turbulent among the emerging markets. The term
emerging market was coined by economists at the International Finance
Corporation when they were promoting the maiden mutual fund investments in
developing countries. An emerging market has the features but not the standards
of a developed market so it can be upgraded to a developed market or downgraded
to a frontier market at the discretion of the global index providers. The year that
was had shown us that buy-and-hold strategy does not work in emerging markets unless
we know the balance between the desire for the lowest possible risk and the
highest possible return. Low levels of risk are associated with low potential
returns while high levels of risk are associated with high potential returns. But
high potential losses must be reckoned because there are no guarantees. We must
not measure investment returns based on passive investment strategy where an
investor buys and holds stocks even with observable market threats. But we must
measure investment returns based on active investment strategy where an
investor buys and sells stocks anchored on favorable market sentiment. Although
the MSCI Emerging Markets Index opened at 794.14 points on 31 December 2015 and
closed at 862.27 points on 30 December 2016 or an investment return of +8.58%, the
PSEi opened at 6952.08 points on 29 December 2015 and closed at 6840.64 points
on 29 December 2016 or an investment return of -1.60%. MSCI Emerging Markets
Index is an index created by Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI)
designed to measure stock market performance in emerging markets. Beyond
reasonable doubt it was a bad year for passive investors but a good year for active
investors. From the year low of 6084.28 points on 21 January 2016 to the year high
of 8102.30 points on 21 July 2016, the PSEi made an investment return of +33.17%.
But from the peak of 8102.30 points on 21 July 2016 to the trough of 6563.67
points on 23 December 2016, the PSEi made an investment return of -18.99%. PSEi
had shown us that we must engage rather than evade market turbulence. But do not
enter into uncharted territories unless the potential reward outweighs the
potential risk. Before you jump on the bandwagon ponder that past performance
does not guarantee future results.
31 December 2016
Trade Wreck
Philippines is
fortunate to have an economic growth anchored on consumption but is unfortunate
to have an economic partner anchored on compulsion. Philippines and China had
been ensnared in territorial dispute after China underscored the territorial
claims in the West Philippine Sea that includes the shoals within the
Philippines exclusive economic zone. Based on the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) an exclusive economic zone refers to an area within
200 nautical miles from the territorial sea of the coastal state. UNCLOS
provides the regulatory framework for marine conservation, navigational rights,
maritime zones and sovereignty. Due to the exhausted diplomatic channels the Philippines
commenced arbitral proceedings to the Permanent Court of Arbitration but China
refused to partake. As a signatory China agreed to refer the interpretation and
application of the UNCLOS to the compulsory and binding dispute resolution procedure
of the convention. By prohibiting reservations and adopting provisions on the
basis of consensus it was the intention of the UNCLOS to eliminate the use of
force in territorial dispute resolution among member states. Why did China
refuse to partake? We do not know the answer but what we do know that prolonged
territorial dispute could lead to adverse trade relations between Philippines
and China. West Philippine Sea Coalition (WPSC) revealed that China warned the
Philippines of economic consequences once it starts arbitral proceedings
against them at the Permanent Court of Arbitration. WPSC was formed by the concerned
citizens to protest absolute violations and pursue peaceful resolution of
territorial disputes within the West Philippine Sea. Based on intelligence
analysis these economic consequences could range from sanctions to sabotage. WPSC
stated that parts of these economic consequences were the spontaneous import restrictions
and strenuous inspection protocols imposed on Philippine banana exports to
China. Based on the data compiled by Bloomberg the Philippine exports to China decreased
to $19.02 billion in 2015 from $21.05 billion in 2014. Economic coincidence or
economic consequence? Although the China economic growth as measured by the
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) decreased to 6.8% in 2015 from 7.2% in 2014 China
remains as the Philippines largest export market. Based on the data forecasted
by the Development Budget Coordination Committee from 2014 to 2016 the average
annual export growth is 8.0%. Perhaps the Philippines should manage export
growth, expand export products and penetrate export markets before the China
economic diplomacy agenda turns from bad to worst.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)