What is trading?

Trading is war. Trading is a war between buyers and sellers. In order to win the war (profit), as a trader, you must be able to determine who is winning or in control at any time. Trading is a combination of buying, holding, selling and waiting.

Holding is waiting while being long or short. It only takes a few seconds or minutes to buy/sell a currency. Most of your time trading is spent WAITING.
Learn to WAIT for the opportunity to appear. Sometimes the wait is short, sometimes long. LEARN TO WAIT. BE PATIENT.

If you miss your entry, learn to trust that you will get another chance. If you miss your exit, just take what you can and be happy.

To paraphrase the principles of Sun Tzu: “What you do determines whether you lose. What the market does determines whether you profit.”

Master the simple. Stay focused. That's all you need to profit in the market.

MAY ALL YOUR TRADES BE PROFITABLE.

7 Exercises That Will Transform Your Body

Looking for some effective ways to transform your body? There are a few great exercises that will help you to reach your fitness goal. These exercises are easy but effective in strengthening your body along with burning unwanted calories. However, sticking to these exercises is not enough to transform your body, you should also eat healthy and get enough sleep regularly. Don’t waste your precious time doing other workouts, here are seven exercises that will help you transform your body in no time.

1. Jumping rope

A cheap and easily portable exercise that you can do anywhere is jumping rope. This workout burns more calories per minute than any other workout. Get jumping for a perfect exercise and plenty of fun. One of the best things about jumping rope is that you can do it with your kids.

2. Squats

This powerful exercise helps tone your glutes, strengthen your body and burn a lot of calories. To boost your calorie expenditure and raise your heart rate, you can try to do jump squats. Or stay in a squat hold with dumbbells in the hands to increase the resistance as well as feel the burn. Doing squats regularly is one of the best ways to transform your body.

3. Pushups

Unfortunately, many people avoid doing pushups since this exercise is a bit harder to perform, but it can do wonders for your body. There are plenty of different pushups that work the different muscles in the shoulders and arms. Try to vary your pushup style to lower your risk of becoming bored with exercise. Not only do pushups work the upper body, but also work the core. Do pushups a few days a week to help sculpt the arms and overall transform the body.

4. Lunges

To tone the muscles in your legs try doing lunges. Lunges give you such amazing results because they isolate every leg individually, helping transform your body. To add some cardio and boost the intensity, do some jump lunges. I suggest you to do 3 sets of 10 lunges a day for the best results.

5. Swimming

The great news for all lovers of swimming and for those who are trying to transform their bodies – swimming is a super effective workout that will bring you astonishing results. Swimming helps strengthen your core and work different muscle groups.

6. Running

There are many benefits of running. It helps to relieve stress, reduce the risk of depression, burn mega calories and improve your overall health. I enjoy running, especially early in the morning, and I think it’s one of the best exercises to do every day. I always feel a great sense of accomplishment after my run.

7. Cycling

A cycling workout is a foolproof way to get a great sweat and work your legs. Cycling is a wonderful exercise since you can push yourself at a higher intensity. Bring along your significant other or friend, or cycle solo, and ensure you get the most out of your workout.
So there you have it! The list of the most effective exercises that will definitely help you transform your body. Just make sure you do them on a regular basis to see the best results. What’s your favorite exercise?

Will the concept of the market or platform for unlisted securities work?

Thursday May 30, 2013

DETAILS of the workings of the market or platform for unlisted securities are finally out, but will such a concept work?

Critics are quick to point out that there are a few reasons why it won't: firstly, the unlisted market, or ULM in short, will likely have limited amount of trades, considering that it involves the trading of equity in smaller and early stage companies. For example, how many trades will a venture capitalist make in a company it is investing in? Probably once a year, and that too after a thorough due diligence.

(Only high net-worth individuals and institutions such as venture capitalists (VCs) are supposed to trade in the ULM.)

With the limited liquidity, how can the operator of the exchange earn sufficient trading fees, the argument goes.

Secondly, there's the concern that these early stage companies and their funders will prefer to continue life doing their deals in the way they had been doing them, which is in an offline, face-to-face way.

After all, funders like VCs will prefer to keep their investments private.

In addition, there are a number of parties who already play this so-called matching role, bringing companies to meet with VCs and angel investors. So, why the need for a new electronic platform for that?

To be noted is the fact that the Securities Commission (SC) is merely going to regulate this platform while it will be owned and run by a third party. The request for the proposal to build and run the platform has gone out. Hence, the party running the exchange will be left to figure out how to make it a profitable venture, and one of the first things they are likely to look at is whether the market will generate sufficient trading fees.

These points about the challenges are indeed valid. It is likely that these are part of the reasons why some unlisted markets have failed in other countries.

However, the plan presented by the SC is cognizant of these challenges. What the SC is proposing, though, entails a much bigger picture, the creation of an eco-system, or a “social corporate network” if you like.

The ULM presentation by the SC on its website says that the idea is to create an eco-system of players in the space of small and medium-sized companies, the service providers linked to them and all the various funding sources that seek to fund this type of ventures.

What this also means is that it is not solely about the trading of shares. For example, an idea or product could have been developed by a bunch of university students and their professor. But they've no idea how to market it. However, a marketing expert who has built successful brands in that space could be part of this ULM system. The two could find each other and a deal could be struck. That could be considered as a transaction as well.

And aside from the trading of shares, the ULM is also envisaged to be a trading platform for other company-related products and services such as intellectual property rights, junk bonds and interest schemes. It could also be the platform for socially responsible investments.

The plan also talks about making this platform robust and successful so that players from around the world would become members, either selling their services and ideas or bringing their funds to it.

The ideas sound great on paper, but lest we forget, another idea in the same vein had been conceptualised and executed in the past, but ran out of money and had to be rescued. I'm talking about Mesdaq or the Malaysian Exchange of Securities Dealing and Automated Quotation, which was eventually consumed by Bursa Malaysia.

Then again, when Mesdaq was launched, the world was a different place. Social media was at its nascent stage. There wasn't President Barack Obama and his Jumpstart Our Business Startups initiative. And the concept of crowdfunding didn't exist. Sceptics of the ULM should read up about these developments. They both point to this fact that the ULM is hitting the market at the right time.

News editor Risen Jayaseelan is happy to note that another advantage of the ULM is that it should increase the transparency of Government funding mechanisms in the country for SMEs and start-ups.

Find Quality Investments With ROIC

January 05 2011| by Ben McClure

 

Return on invested capital, or ROIC, is arguably one of the most reliable performance metrics for spotting quality investments. But in spite of its importance, the metric doesn't get the same level of interest and exposure as indicators like the P/E or ROE ratios. Admittedly, investors can't just pull ROIC straight off a financial document like they can with better known performance ratios; calculating ROIC requires a bit more work. But for those eager to learn just how much profit and, hence, true value a company is producing, calculating the ROIC is well worth the effort.

TUTORIAL: Fundamental Analysis
Important mainly for assessing companies in industries that invest a large amount of capital - such as oil and gas players, semiconductor chip companies and even food giants - ROIC is a telling gauge for comparing the relative profitability levels of companies. For many industrial sectors, ROIC is the preferred benchmark for comparing performance. In fact, if investors were forced to rely on a sole ratio (which we do not recommend), they would be best off choosing ROIC. (There are many indicators for ranking a corporation's success. Learn more in Measuring Company Efficiency.)

The Calculations
Defined as the cash rate of return on capital that a company has invested, ROIC shows how much cash is going out of a business in relation to how much is coming in. In an nutshell, ROIC is the measure of cash-on-cash yield and the effectiveness of the company's employment of capital. The formula looks like this:

ROIC = Net Operating Profits After Tax (NOPAT) / Invested Capital

At first glance, the formula looks simple. But in the complex financial statements published by companies, generating an accurate number from the formula can be trickier than it appears. To keep things simple, start with invested capital, the formula's denominator. Representing all the cash that investors have put into the company, invested capital is derived from the assets and liabilities portions of the balance sheet as follows:

Invested Capital = Total Assets less Cash - Short-Term Investments - Long-Term Investments - Non-Interest Bearing Current Liabilities

Now, investors turn to the income statement to determine the numerator, which is after-tax operating profits, or NOPAT. Sometimes NOPAT is the same as net income. For many companies, especially bigger ones, some net income comes from outside investments, in which case net income does not reflect the profitability of operating activities. Reported net income needs to be adjusted to represent operations more accurately. At the same time, the published net income figure also may include non-cash items that need to be added and subtracted from NOPAT to reflect true cash yield. For the purpose of showing all of a company's cash profits from the capital it invests, NOPAT is calculated as the following:

NOPAT = Reported Net Income - Investment and Interest Income - Tax Shield from Interest Expenses (effective tax rate x interest expense) + Goodwill Amortization + Non-Recurring Costs plus Interest Expenses + Tax Paid on Investments and Interest Income (effective tax rate x investment income)

Interpreting ROIC
If the final ROIC figure, which is expressed as a percentage, is greater than the company's working asset cost of capital, or WACC, the company is creating value for investors. The WACC represents the minimum rate of return (risk adjusted) at which a company produces value for its investors. Let's say a company produces a ROIC of 20% and has a cost of capital of 11%. That means the company has created nine cents of value for every dollar that it invests in capital. By contrast, if ROIC is less than WACC, the company is eroding value, and investors should be putting their money elsewhere. (To fully utilize any stock metric, you must know how to read an income statement. Learn what figures to consider when performing a profitability analysis, read Find Investment Quality In The Income Statement.)

The extent to which ROIC exceeds WACC provides an extremely powerful tool for choosing investments. The P/E ratio, on the other hand, does not tell investors whether the company is producing value or how much capital the company consumes to produce its earnings. ROIC, by contrast, provides all this valuable information and more.

Moreover, ROIC helps explain why companies trade at different P/E ratios. The market demonstrates this well. From 1999 to 2003, the S&P 500 average P/E ratio fell roughly from 25 to 15, so the S&P 500 was trading at a discount to its historical multiple - does that mean the S&P 500 was oversold? Some market watchers thought so, but ROIC-based analysis suggested otherwise. Although the P/E ratio diminished, there was also a proportional reduction in the market's ROIC. This makes a lot of sense: since 1999 companies had had a much harder time allocating capital to worthwhile projects.

Investors should look not only at the level of ROIC but also the trend. A falling ROIC can provide an early warning sign of a company's difficulty in choosing investment opportunities or coping with competitors. ROIC that is going up, meanwhile, strongly indicates that a company is pulling ahead of competitors or that its managers are more effectively allocating capital investments. (The return on capital employed (ROCE) is an often-overlooked financial ratio, but it's one that can accurately calculate corporate efficiency and profitability. Learn more in Spotting Profitability With ROCE.)

The Bottom LineROIC is a highly reliable instrument for measuring investment quality. It takes a bit of work, but, once investors start figuring out ROIC, they can begin to track company results annually and be better armed to spot quality companies before everyone else does. (Analyzing the profitability of companies is a fundamental investment skill, but it also pays to play the trends. Learn more on how to actively manage your portfolio with The Volatility Index: Reading Market Sentiment.)

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental/03/050603.asp#ixzz2BE63AI3i

賣公寓‧律師費和稅務如何算？

讀者來信提問關於律師費、印花稅、產業盈利稅的問題。

他2010年6月30日，購買了一個公寓單位，價格是26萬令吉，2012年8月1日，以34萬5千令吉賣出。

1.請問賣方的律師費如何計算？假如雙方共用同一個律師，請問賣方的律師費用包括甚麼？

費用會比自己另外聘請律師便宜嗎？

2.請問產業盈利稅是如何計算？是根據買賣合約的日期或印花稅的日期？請問賣方要付的產業盈利稅是：RM85,000Ⅹ5%＝RM4,250嗎？是由賣方直接開支票給律師去還，還是賣方自己去報稅、需要填寫甚麼表格？

3.請問甚麼是Retention Sum？是由賣方支付還是由買方支付？如何計算？

4.請問假如公寓還未有分層地契，需要尋求發展商的批准嗎？賣方需要支付甚麼費用？

5.請問銀行是否有新條例規定公寓超過10年、還沒有分層地契，就不接受貸款者提出的申請？

答：在產業買賣的過程中，買方需要支付律師費、印花稅，賣方需要支付律師費及產業盈利稅（如果是在購買產業5年內，計算之後證明賣方有可觀賺利才會被徵稅）。

假如賣方自己聘請律師，沒有和買方共用律師，所需要支付的買賣合約律師費，與買方需要支付的數目是相近的，就是根據律師公會制定的收費架構來計算，分別是：首15萬令吉1%、接下來的8萬5千令吉0.7%，以此類推。

買賣合約印花稅由買方支付

不過，買賣合約的印花稅是由買方支付，賣方不需要支付這筆數目，其計算法是這樣：首10萬令吉1%、接下來20萬至不超過50萬令吉2%。

當然，買方還需要支付土地搜查費、土地局割名的註冊費、抵押給銀行的手續費，以及其他雜項收費。

說到產業盈利稅的計算，以目前的產業盈利稅徵稅法令為准，任何人在購買產業的5年內出售，如果 計算後得出有賺利，需繳交產業盈利稅；在首兩年內脫售，被徵收的產業盈利稅是10%，在滿兩年之後至第5年內脫售，被徵收的稅率是5%。（*根據2013 年預算案，購屋者在購買房屋後的兩年內脫售，產業盈利稅將從原有的10%進一步調高至15%。購屋者在第3年至第5年之間脫售房屋，也要繳付10%的產業 盈利稅，比現有的5%增加一倍。）

假設浩然讀者的公寓是以34萬5千令吉出售，比買價26萬令吉多了8萬5千令吉，這並不表示凈賺8萬5千令吉，因為購買產業還包括需要支付律師費、印花稅、裝修費、貸款利息等開銷。

不過，如果是向發展商購買，可能不需要律師費與印花稅的支出，只能呈報裝修費、貸款利息等開銷。

律師在為客戶呈報產業買賣表格給稅務局，可以附帶這些費用的單據作為支出，以節省一些稅款，稅務局的官員會加以考量，假設這些費用加起來大約是3萬5千令吉，如果是過了2年、但在5年內脫售，徵稅率是5%。

以浩然的例子，如果賺利是5萬令吉，需被徵稅2千500令吉。

賣方須確保律師代繳稅款

在買賣的過程中，賣方不必急於開支票給律師樓，由律師繳付給稅務局，通常律師會從買方貸款銀行 釋給賣方律師樓最後一筆屋款時，保留一個數目，就是所謂的Retention Sum，譬如屋款的5%，等到稅務局來信通知律師樓，賣方賣屋被徵收的稅款，律師樓開出支票，代賣方繳付稅款後，剩餘的賣屋款將退回給賣方。

針對這點，賣方必須不時向律師樓跟進，確保律師樓繳付稅款，以免日後被追討稅款就麻煩了，還有要確保律師樓將剩餘的屋款退還給賣方。

律師樓一般可能會保留較寬鬆的數目，避免保留數目不足轉向賣方索取，誤了繳付稅款的有效期，通常稅務局給予的寬限時間是在通知信誌期的30天內繳付。

未有分層地契
需發展商批准交易

當公寓還未有分層地契，賣方或其律師需向發展商提出批准交易申請，賣方需繳付的手續費只是50令吉。

有些銀行可能比較保守，在獲知公寓已經10年，尚未有分層地契，以及產業所屬發展商已經收盤，不批准買方提出的貸款申請，另一個可能性是申請者的條件不符合貸款資格。

一般來說，當公寓還未有分層地契時，買方是以買賣合約向銀行申請貸款，除非情況特殊，多數申請者的申請都能獲批。

Mythbusting: Government Debt Edition Part II

by HishamH of Economics Malaysia

In a column yesterday at the Malaysian Insider, Azrul Mohd Khalib repeats all the same old myths about Malaysia’s government debt (excerpt; emphasis added):
Maxing out the national credit card
…Every national Budget over the past few years has had a deficit. When total national expenditure exceeds the revenue collected, a budget deficit then exists. The only way for the government to pay for this deficit is to borrow.
But like everything else in life and like you and me, contrary to what some people may believe, there is an actual limit as to how much debt that the Federal Government of Malaysia can accumulate…
…For Malaysia, the national legal limit is clearly stated under the 1983 Government Funding Act and the 1959 Loan (Local) Act and is 55 per cent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP). Under these two Acts, the government cannot legally have debt beyond this ceiling.
The 2011 economic report indicated that government debt had reached RM456 billion. This represented 54.3 per cent of the country’s GDP, which was also 0.7 per cent under the limit permitted under the law. That was in 2011…
…In 2011, the government received tax revenue of RM185.4 billion. But the original 2012 Budget was RM232.8 billion. So, the tax income alone is insufficient.
Therefore, the government has borrowed. But Malaysia prides itself on not borrowing from international sources such as the International Monetary Fund or from other countries. Therefore, 90 per cent of debt is domestically funded; it is borrowed from us, from the Employees Provident Fund (EPF).
Last year, the Ministry of Finance stated that the government had borrowed RM79.4 billion from the EPF. In fact, the government actually owes us more than RM240 billion. Yes, that is how those bonuses, numerous cash hand-outs and special projects are being paid for. With your EPF money…
…The same principle governs our debt ceiling of 55 per cent. The only way to increase it and legally allow the government to spend more than the limit is for Parliament to amend the two laws mentioned. As far as I know, we have not done so.
If the government is spending more than the debt ceiling, then the spending is not legal. Seeing how in 2011 government debt had already reached 54.3 per cent of the GDP and RM20.5 billion is needed each year to service the country’s debt commitments, the question must be asked and answered: where are we today? Do we even care?
Financial agencies are already warning of a possible downgrading of Malaysia’s credit rating if the government doesn’t rein in its debt.
Short of very optimistic economic growth rates, it is almost certain that the government’s current spending levels have breached the debt ceiling this year. This could be a historical year. For the wrong reasons…
…The government has been adamant that there is sufficient revenue. Yet, it’s borrowing like mad.
The Auditor-General’s report is bound to reveal yet again the extent of wastage and mismanagement that is endemic in the system which cost taxpayers millions of ringgit. We will moan, groan and complain. And things will stay the same…
…The people responsible for today’s debt will not be the ones paying for it. Instead it is our children and grandchildren who will be forced to pay.
They and we deserve better.
*SIGH*
My FAQ addresses all these issues and more and the original Mythbusting post adds further insights, but to save some time here are the key points in relation to the myths in this particular article:
1. The legal limit on debt
Neither the 1983 Government Funding Act nor the 1959 Loan (Local) Act actually mentions a limit, much less make a “clear statement” of it. The 1959 Act was amended in 2005, but the amendment does not mention a legal limit either. The limit is actually adjusted by government gazette with consent by the Agong. No parliamentary approval is required, nor is there any necessity to amend the acts themselves – the limits on debt are purely at the discretion of the Minister of Finance.
This is totally unlike the US, where the mandate for changing the debt ceiling is specifically under Congress. If you want to sight the Acts and the relevant gazettes, I’d encourage dropping by satD’s blog.
2. Calculating the 55% legal limit
I’ve only just come to understand this myself. The 2005 (Amended) Act governs issuance of MGS, while the 1983 Act governs issuance of GII and Islamic Treasury Bills. There are actually two other laws that regulate government borrowing – the External Loan Act 1963 and the Treasury Bills (Local) Act 1946. The total current gazetted limits (reproduced from a Treasury presentation) are set out below:

Legislation	Limit
External Loan Act 1963	RM35 billion
Treasury Bills (Local) Act 1946	RM10 billion
Government Funding Act 1983	Not more than 55% of GDP
Loan (Local) (Amended) Act 2005	Not more than 55% of GDP

The latter two are calculated in conjunction i.e. the calculated level is the sum of MGS, GII and Islamic Treasury Bills. Note the critical distinction here – the 55% limit refers to MGS, GII and Islamic Treasury Bills alone, and not total government debt collectively.
Far from approaching the 55% limit, the current aggregate outstanding issuance of MGS, GII and Islamic Treasury Bills is under 45% of GDP. The idea that Malaysia’s government debt is approaching some kind of legal limit has no basis in fact.
3. Commitment to 55% total debt to GDP
While there’s no danger of Malaysia breaching its legal debt limits, the government has made a commitment to keeping total debt below the 55% ceiling. This however is an internal target and is not legally binding.
4. The government is borrowing from EPF
Yes it is, but Azrul is mischaracterising this relationship. The Employees Provident Fund is a defined contribution pension fund for the benefit of private sector employees. As a pension fund, its primary mission is capital preservation, and as any fund manager worth his or her salt can tell you, the basis of any such investment portfolio is government securities because from a market risk perspective they are safer than anything else. Any pension fund, here or elsewhere, will have the bulk of its portfolio in government securities i.e. “lending to the government”.
In fact, since we’re talking about legal limits, Section 26a. of the EPF Act (Amended) 1991 specifically states the following (emphasis added):
“Subject to any variation which the Minister may make under subsection (2), the Board shall invest or re-invest at least fifty per centum of the moneys belonging to the Fund and invested or reinvested during any one year, in securities issued by the Government of Malaysia, provided that the total amount of moneys so invested in such securities at any one time shall not be less than seventy per centum of the Fund’s total investments."
If Azrul’s numbers are correct, then the EPF is actually in breach of its own Act based on EPF’s 2011 portfolio size of RM442 billion, which gives a ratio of about 54% – well below the 70% minimum level. Instead of asking why EPF is lending to the government, perhaps the more pertinent question would be why is EPF taking on more risks with our money by not “lending” as much to the government as it is required to.
(Digression: in Singapore, they avoid questions like this by making it mandatory for the CPF to invest all member funds into government securities. EPF on the other hand is allowed considerably more discretion and leeway in where to invest member funds).
Another pertinent point here is that EPF’s portfolio at the end of 2011 was about 1.56 times greater than the value of member funds i.e. it’s not necessarily “our” money being lent to the government.
5. Where the money goes to
Another administrative (not legal) rule that the government tries to abide by is to fund all operational expenditure out of collected revenue, and only borrowing to fund development. In technical terms, what’s being aimed for is that the operational budget should always be either in balance or in surplus, a principle that has been kept to all but three times in the last forty years. Borrowing is only utilised for development purposes (again technically, using the Development Fund under the government accounts).
In other words, civil servant bonuses, handouts etc, actually come out of tax and non-tax revenue, not out of borrowing.
6. Semantic issues
My nitpicking for the day. The government revenue quoted (RM185 billion) is actually total revenue and not tax revenue. Tax revenue for 2011 only amounted to RM135 billion.
7. RM20 billion for debt service
As an absolute number, it sounds like a lot; in relative terms it isn’t. As a ratio to the operational budget – which remember, is supposed to be in balance – the government’s interest payments for 2011 are actually the third lowest on record. In fact, the debt service ratio to operational expenditure the past four years has been at an all time low, averaging below 10%.
In 1990s when we were running a budget surplus, debt service averaged 23% of the operational budget, with the lowest level at 14.4% (1997).
8. Our children and grandchildren will be forced to pay for our debt
This is actually a tale of two hats, and the statement above comes from wearing only one of them. There’s an important and vital reason why borrowing from domestic sources only is preferred because when you’re able to do that, there’s actually no inter-generational transfer of aggregate welfare. In Econo-english – the future burden on tax payers is offset by the future revenue stream from debt repayment.
Since debt liabilities are owed primarily to domestic institutions (such as EPF, insurance companies, banks and the like) who are in turn either tax payers or acting on behalf of taxpayers and citizens, debt repayment effectively goes back to the payers of tax. In other words, the monies aren’t going anywhere, although there might be some redistribution of the proceeds.
If I wearing my taxpayers hat am liable for debt repayment of maturing debt incurred by my forebears, I wearing my EPF member, insurance policy owner, and unit trust investor hat am also at the same time the beneficiary of the government’s current debt repayment. And this is true at any given point in time, irrespective of when the debt is incurred.
Given that there are less than 2 million individual taxpayers and over 12 million EPF members, there’s also possibly a (small) transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor in the process.
The idea that government borrowing now is thus a net aggregate tax burden on future generations of citizens is mostly bunk. It would only be true if the borrowing is external, hence the reason why we try to keep government borrowing domestic and why external debt limits are far more stringent than the domestic limits.
Summing up
I suppose I’ll be repeating these points again (and again) in the future, but I think its worth the effort to do so. There’s so much misunderstanding of the unique position of government in an economy, and how significantly different governments are in economic terms from households. Imperfect understanding leads to skewed public discourse, which in turn leads to bad policy.
And we have enough problems as it is without having to invent fictitious ones that don’t actually matter.

債台高築何時了？加強財務根基乘風破浪

2012-09-13 17:44

戰國時，出國的楚襄王昏庸無能，大夫莊辛進諫無用， 結果秦國發動進攻，並佔領大片土地，楚襄王逃亡到城陽，這才記起莊辛的話有先見之明，於是派人把莊辛請來徵求意見。莊辛說：“看見兔子，再回頭招呼獵犬， 還不算晚。跑掉了羊，再修補羊圈，還不算遲啊﹗＂後來楚襄王用了莊辛的計策，收復了淮北之地……“亡羊補牢＂

若大馬能夠像“楚王＂及時“亡羊補牢＂，顯然，為時未晚，政府究竟該如何為債務和赤字“雙高＂的窘境力挽狂瀾？且看大馬的“莊辛＂有何建議。

“政府極可能在2014年開始徵收消費稅（GST）！＂

此話一出，突顯政府要以行動來證明，大馬壓制國債和赤字的決心。

政府曾表示，要放眼通過增加稅收及有效管理開銷控制赤字，以在2015年減至3%目標。減赤方式，一是確保內陸稅收局與關稅局獲得更多的收入，二是根據物有所值的概念管理政府開銷，減少不必要的開銷。

顯然，大馬政府已意識到未來數年財務整合和轉型的必要性，在經濟學家的施壓聲浪下，政府也在預算案來臨前強調，將推行以“價值＂為上的預算案。

然而，無論最終出台的會否又是一個損及財政能力且大選氣味濃厚的預算案，“亡羊補牢＂無疑是大馬長期扭轉財力的主軸，當中少不了健全的稅務機制、良好的財務規劃、落實津貼合理化大計、推動私人投資計劃……總言之，大馬需要的，是一個方向明確、永續的財政整合計劃。

政府該如何未雨綢繆？

當經濟成長穩健，削減赤字可能非當務之急，但未雨綢繆依然是決策者應有的態度，而要減少赤字，就必須確保開銷和收入的步伐一致。

大馬目前的困頓是，收入佔國內生產總值（GDP）的24%，開銷卻佔GDP的29%，結果，導致高至5%的赤字。

因此，政府能作的，就是擴大收入或減少開銷，或雙管齊下。

大馬評估機構首席經濟學家姚金龍說，大馬其實仍有許多“機會之窗＂，若大馬擁有5至10年的時間來轉型，一定有時間改善今天的財政情況，只是重組收入和開銷結構是迫切的。

“政府放眼在2015年削減赤字至3%，若能夠儘快達成目標絕對是好事，因為若債務持續走高，只會引發信心危機，反之，大馬的主權展望會更亮麗。＂

赤字3至3.5%最理想

他直言，一個國家合理的赤字水平，胥視其經濟和就業等基本情況，以大馬當前的經濟情況來看，赤字若能介於3至3.5%，將是理想的目標。

“當政府順利減赤，伴隨而來的當然是經濟結構性的轉型，這必能令大馬經濟變得更具競爭力和有效率。＂

他也提到，以出口為導向的大馬來看，維持全面的就業情況非常重要，大馬目前的失業率為3%，政府應調降至3%以下，當就業情況穩定，政府就不必大事花費來促進國民的消費力。

聯昌研究首席經濟學家李興裕指出，政府應謹慎設計稅務政策、消費和津貼合理化計劃，以提高工作和節約的津貼，同時透過吸引人才來鼓勵人力資本的投資、刺激私人資本、最大化資源、提供必要和符合經濟效益的公共計劃。

他相信，一個方向明確、具公信力、永續的財政整合計劃，能夠確保利率長期適中且支持投資者信心，進而支撐經濟成長。

或許，就如經濟學人企業網絡東南亞經濟專家伍德所言，大馬政府從今天起，就要學習，將錢花在對的地方！減少貪污、撤銷津貼，專注提昇教育、技術、基建……

調整開銷：
增加發展
節約行政

若長期“入不敷出＂，節約往往是唯一出路，政府長期“好大喜功＂，計劃缺乏績效常惹人詬病，以致“亂花錢＂被視為赤字的頭號公敵，令經濟學家皆異口同聲——政府是時候開源節流！

李興裕指出，在整頓財務時，開銷政策應注重優先的計劃或削減開支，如降低公共領域龐大的薪水單。

應減公務員人數薪酬

大馬債券評估機構首席經濟學家諾查哈迪坦言，除控制供應和服務、公私合作計劃的開銷，政府也應善用盈餘來減赤。

姚金龍認為，政府可藉減少公務員的人數和薪酬來改善效率，或透過競爭性的投標來進行採購計劃，以降低直接開銷。

資深經濟學家白文春則提到，政府務必謹慎開銷，不應隨意上調公務員薪資，因公務員的人數太多，同時應減輕其他日常消費，如電腦經費。

不過，因為大選將至，政府向公務員薪資開刀的可能性不大，這也是為何MIDF研究經濟學家安東尼達斯認為，政府或無需減少公務員的薪資，但可以減少沒有必要的開銷，如旅遊開銷。

若取消津貼赤字有望減半

另外，隨津貼佔了赤字龐大比重，儘快重啟津貼合理化計劃，也是政府不應怠慢的方向。

姚金龍指出，津貼其實是政府開銷的最大問題，若取消津貼，大馬的赤字有望減半。

“當然，政府不能完全取消津貼，而是應在未來3年，逐步削減津貼，以免增添消費者的負擔。＂

經濟學家普遍認為，政府必須探討的減赤方向，包括調整津貼受惠者的架構，減少支援富人，將焦點轉向保障赤貧人士。

然而，安東尼達斯不認同，政府現削減津貼，因這可能引起許多連鎖效應，最終打擊消費力，尤其隨原油價受挫，削減津貼也非理想的減債管道。

政府為減輕人民負擔，推遲津貼合理化大計，促使今年各種必需品的津貼估計達221億令吉，光是燃油（RON95汽油、柴油和煤氣）的津貼就高達195億令吉。

首相署表現管理及傳遞單位的津貼合理化計劃原定，RON95汽油與柴油價每6個月，每公升調升10仙，同時在2014年前，按年上調液化石油氣（LPG）價格20%。同時，糖價原定在2012年前，每6個月調高20仙。

應設監督組織

無論如何，李興裕強調，政府在預算規劃和發展上應設立一個監督組織，以確保規劃符合財政條例、預算程序，同時加強財務監管並確保財務紀律。

“政府現階段應更謹慎消費，在發展開銷方面不應經常超支，因為今天的歐豬多國就是因為缺乏財務紀律，債務頻頻上升，生產力卻節節衰退。＂

調整稅收：
消費稅應循序漸進

山雨欲來風滿樓！最近，消費稅將出台的謠言四起，無論政府會否在大選後落實消費稅，國民應該作好心理準備迎接消費稅，因這因大選而被展延的消費稅，無疑是政府擴大收入的最佳管道。

姚金龍表示，消費稅能夠增添政府的預算彈性，也是政府無論經濟好壞，調整財務方向的最佳工具，令政府可隨時提高收入來平衡預算。

不過，李興裕認為，即使2014年推出消費稅，相信對赤字的影響中和，因初步落實幅度可能僅介於4到7%，僅會帶來約60億令吉的收益。

“無論如何，政府落實消費稅宜先教育民眾，消費稅落實的幅度也需循序漸進，不宜太繁瑣。＂

經濟學家普遍相信，政府極可能在大選後宣佈消費稅，而只要方向正面，目前是推行消費稅的合適時機。

白文春指出，政府應儘快落實消費稅，否則很可能面臨大行下調評級，但由於消費稅需在明年大選後才能再度提案，最早的落實時間只有在明年杪。

不過，安東尼認為，政府不應在短期內落實消費稅，因這雖提高政府營收並減少赤字，但卻同樣動搖消費者的購買力。

“消費稅的執行應在大馬人的收入已達到一定的水平時，即最低薪酬制穩定。＂

即使政府可能落實消費稅，初步估計以循序漸進方式落實，以確保中低收入家庭的可支配收入不受動搖，因若這群人士的收入受影響，將打擊私人消費，導致呆賬惡化。

應建立更健全稅務審查

另外，逃稅問題一直以來令大馬經濟損失慘重，因而，建立更健全稅務審查，相信也是政府加強收入的途徑。

李興裕認為，政府稅務政策需公平才能永續，政府也應加強審核稅務，以避免民眾逃稅。

“如果永遠只有少部份人繳稅，又怎能支撐大馬的財力？＂

他補充，政府去年加強審核稅務，即順利改善收入，讓額外230億令吉的入袋。

根據全球金融誠信機構，大馬在2000年至2010年期間，共有多達1.08兆令吉的資金外流以避稅，反映大馬平均每年外流的資金達近千億。

姚金龍也提到，政府必須加強稅務結構，如延伸徵稅的範圍至一些非正式的課稅領域，因為實在太多公司即使營業額很好從未呈報稅務。

白文春則認為，要擴大稅收稽查並杜絕更多逃稅問題，政府可以在進口方面把關以降低逃稅率。

助私人投資
成經濟火車頭

若讓私人領域扮演更舉足輕重的角色，政府就無需經常注資推動經濟發展，相對的，負債和赤字皆有望改善。

李興裕表示，一個廣泛和投資友好的改革助於強化國家的財力，因這些政策將帶動經濟，進而降低公債。

“當私人領域帶頭投資，政府就能夠減少投資開銷。＂

他直言，政府應清楚本身在經濟上扮演的角色是提供貨品和服務，而非過度干預經濟。

姚金龍也認同，若經濟持續成長，政府明年是時候退下，把“舞台＂交給私人投資。

他認為，政府應放眼更多有素質並能夠為國家增值的私人計劃來減赤，因若公司自這些計劃中受惠，就能夠承擔更多企業和營業額稅，而當生產力提高時，受惠者不僅是公司，個人收入也因此更上一層樓。

“因此，專注推動私人領域，應是政府未來3至4年目標。＂經濟轉型計劃在基本建設計劃陸續出台後，接下來的目標是吸引外國直接投資和推動私人投資，但目標能否達成卻是未知數。

私人投資近期恢復衝勁

白文春提到，目前經濟成長因政府扮演主要角色，需動用大筆經費，進而加重政府的負擔。

他說，在政府積極推動下，私人投資近期逐步恢復衝勁，這對經濟有利，也助提高政府稅收。

“不過，經濟轉型計劃如火如荼，卻未來見證到私人領域在帶動大馬經濟，這或歸咎於經濟結構上的問題，如人才短缺。＂

然而，在伍德眼中，大馬近期致力重組經濟，促使私人投資在經濟轉型計劃帶動下走高。

提高競爭力是長期目標

長期以來，政府投資一直保持10%的成長，但私人投資佔GDP比例，自亞洲金融風暴，由40%猛挫至20%後，卻一直處於低迷情況，所幸的是，該問題已逐漸改善。

伍德認為，提高競爭力也是大馬政府必須放眼的長期目標，以降低政府的投資角色，政府不妨藉教育和人力來帶動生產力，同時改善價值鏈，助大馬免受原產品價震盪威脅。

他認為，政府的國家關鍵經濟領域（NKEA）計劃提高棕油和油氣的價值鏈，就是最好的見證。

“大馬的經濟和政府轉型計劃已為大馬的經濟實力帶來驚人改變，吸引外資無疑也可以成為減赤的動力。＂

他以全球歐洲公司為例，這些國家可能因當地市場低迷，找不到出路，而將希望轉移到新興市場，大馬作為亞洲經濟市場的一分子，必然也是外資前進的目標，尤其目前轉型計劃力推的油氣業。

根據MIDF，大馬在2009至2010年期間，投資雖由政府主導，但已逐漸自公共轉向私人投資，而且專注“素質＂而非“數量＂的投資，助帶動生產力並提昇投資價值，這意味，外國直接投資可能重臨大馬。

應發掘新收入資源

隨天然資源的長期危機，致力發掘新收入渠道無疑是政府的必經之路，以待天然資源耗盡時，大馬還能靠著新投資生存。

姚金龍坦言，有人預言大馬在2015至2020年成為石油淨進口國，所以，發掘其他新收入來源尤其重要，政府可以開發一些以科技為主的領域，以提高製造和服務的附加價值。

天然資源現佔收入多達40%，目前大部份行業以資源為基礎，如棕油下游、橡膠、油氣，政府不應過度依賴天然資源，是時候減少對油氣領域的依賴。

白文春提到，政府現已逐步提昇投資素質，如發掘醫療旅遊和投資項目、提高電子和電器投資價值鏈，只是礙於當前全球經濟欠佳，令許多私人投資冷卻。

這也是為何以保健領域言，大馬已是新加坡後，區域第二舉足輕重的國家，而醫療和研發項目，都將帶動產業價值。

加強經濟改革效率

對於積極邁向高收入國的大馬，國債和赤字高掛往往和推動經濟息息相關，也可能因政府致力推動國家成為高收入國，然而，財政開銷的效率如何？

對國內經濟的影響如何？其實，也是政府應該檢討的。

首相署部長拿督斯里依德利斯曾表示，大馬要在2020年成為高收入國，必須先達到兩條件，即專注和競爭力，而舉債來投資以刺激經濟，債務將直接減低，這和希臘情況不同，因為他們債台高築，經濟卻持續衰退。

可是，根據聯昌分析，大馬2002至2011年的財政配套，確實對經濟創造了正面效益，但2005至2007年的效益似乎更顯著。

若以開銷來分析，公共消費和投資對GDP成長的貢獻低，反映財政方案因計劃執行的效率低而帶來落差。

確保錢花在對的地方

某程度言，計劃成本膨脹導致預算鴻溝龐大，進而無法對經濟帶來預期回報；公共計劃的管理不當和資金使用的失誤，也是禍首。

這證明了，若計劃的效率不好、效益低，政府開銷增加不一定改變產出和收入成長，所以，確保錢花在對的地方，是政府永遠應有的態度。

此外，大馬整體總產出的淨效益也微不足道，主要是稅務的負面效應可能抵銷了公共開銷的利好，這意味政府光靠提高稅收來支撐政府開銷非好事，因稅務走高意味淨可支配收入減少。

擔保債務
宜降低

政府經常為政府相關公司作擔保人也無形中加劇了的債務風險，因此，政府也是時候檢討“擔保人＂的角色。

李興裕表示，政府相關機構的擔保債務屢屢走高，其實，在逆市中，這些債務都是無明的風險。

此外，儘管政府私有化公共計劃助減少財務負擔，但政府往往在公司私有化後又國有化，導致處理資金的方向也經常回到了原點。

“一些企業因管理不當而蒙虧，轉頭就向政府伸手要錢，導致政府的擔保債務有增無減。＂

結語：

秦皇曾言：自足是靠自己雙足站穩根基，既然站穩就不易被跘倒！其實，不管是“外人＂多慮，還是“國人＂低估，為下一代奠定穩健的財政基礎，應該是大馬長期朝著的目標。

所以今天，無論大馬是否債台高築，古人“居安思危＂和“亡羊補牢＂的智慧，都帶來了一個重要啟示——只要財務基礎穩，那怕外面風大雨大，大馬依然能夠站穩住腳，乘風破浪。