Paul Krugman of the NY Times writes that The European Policymakers are unlikely to make reforms necessary to save the European Union.
He cites that recent pronouncements- most likely made during the Sept.,2011 IMF/World Bank Annual Board of Governors meetings- are extremely bland and scary at the same time.
I am not sure how Krugam is thinking, but is obvious that two things are happening simultaneously: 1. Just like the set of bankers/actors that created the financial collapse of 2008, most of them hedged their bets and bet wide on other people's money and bet tight with their own money, often against what they bet on with other people's money; and 2., that there will be more action for political instability, more so from policy think tanks and multi-lateral agencies, companies and actors, even more than from political pressures from the ground in terms of labour unrest and social upheaval.
It's that time where I'm quite sure, certain gaggles of elites, not necessarily from the legislative branches of the leadership community in Europe, are actively considering if not planning the downfall of many of the current and aspiring politicians who have the mindset that keeps the current state of affairs constant.
Sounds like a war is going to break out. This time, cash will be their fuel, the casualties will be dispersed and seemingly inconsequential to the scheme of things, think tanks and social-meetings will be the battle room and the social media will be their primary weapon of choice!
The time to make these decisions whether folks like it or not is here. And, to be fair, it's not like Europe has not had political instability in it's history at all. This time it will be more sophisticated, and hopefully more humane than other shifts in politics in Europe.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Speeches from the World Bank/IMF Board of Governors Meetings, 2011
Here are the speeches from the 2011 Annual Meetings of the Boards of Governors of the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund.
See available links to Chairman of The WB/IMF Group, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham's speech:
Here.
President of The World Bank's speech, Robert Zoellick:
Here.
Managing Director of The International Monetary Fund Christine Lagarde's speech:
Here.
Just for your information!
Cheers!
See available links to Chairman of The WB/IMF Group, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham's speech:
Here.
President of The World Bank's speech, Robert Zoellick:
Here.
Managing Director of The International Monetary Fund Christine Lagarde's speech:
Here.
Just for your information!
Cheers!
Thursday, September 22, 2011
IMF posts its World Economic Outlook for Sept. 2011.
Have not read it yet but the title isn't very encouraging.
See here: IMF World Economic Outlook Sept. 2011
Will read it sometime today or tomorrow!
See here: IMF World Economic Outlook Sept. 2011
Will read it sometime today or tomorrow!
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Big Jobs Speech tonight from Pres. Obama!
Well the big job's speech is going to be tonight and delivered by President Obama. Jobs, jobs, jobs! I wonder what he has to say about it? I think the US is about 10% unemployment and up to 15% real unemployment! Staggering figures. What's even more staggering is that it's been like this for well over two and a half years or thereabouts!
The US has tried stimulus. That fell short and many have said that it has failed. They have tried quantitative easing. That fell way short as well as banks hoarded money and buffered their balance sheets. They tried nationalisation. That didn't work out either as the government held on more debt from once private companies, car companies and banks, which raised the debt level and still created no new jobs or new innovation in the economy. The toolkit is just about empty at this stage.
Mitt Romney- current Republican candidate and former Governor of Massachusetts- said he has a job plan that has over 40 action steps. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas who is also a Republican candidate for President, said that he has created more jobs than Mitt Romney in Texas than Romney did in Mass.. Whatever!
We need jobs now in American. Small states like The Bahamas depend on that tourism investment. We also use jobs indicators to sense where the foreign direct investment money is flowing from in order to plan FDI projects.
If America can't do it, and apparently the EU is in another dream world, then we need some place else to deliver!
The US has tried stimulus. That fell short and many have said that it has failed. They have tried quantitative easing. That fell way short as well as banks hoarded money and buffered their balance sheets. They tried nationalisation. That didn't work out either as the government held on more debt from once private companies, car companies and banks, which raised the debt level and still created no new jobs or new innovation in the economy. The toolkit is just about empty at this stage.
Mitt Romney- current Republican candidate and former Governor of Massachusetts- said he has a job plan that has over 40 action steps. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas who is also a Republican candidate for President, said that he has created more jobs than Mitt Romney in Texas than Romney did in Mass.. Whatever!
We need jobs now in American. Small states like The Bahamas depend on that tourism investment. We also use jobs indicators to sense where the foreign direct investment money is flowing from in order to plan FDI projects.
If America can't do it, and apparently the EU is in another dream world, then we need some place else to deliver!
Thursday, September 1, 2011
The Bahamian Economy: What, me worry?
No one in The Bahamas is in the mood for more bad news, especially after Hurricane Irene swept through leaving significant damage that some estimate to be well in the millions. But bad news is what we had with the recent downgrade from the ratings agency Moody's on The Bahamas Sovereign Bonds to A3 status.
I remember back in mid-May, 2007 The Bahamas put up a Sovereign Bond package for investors and immediately gobbled up. I'm not sure if the same type of exuberance for Bahamian Bonds will hold true today.
For general information, issuing Sovereign Bonds is a way in which a country can raise money from investors to fund public operations. Aside from direct public borrowing- which can also be buttressed by the application of bonds into the loan structure- it is a very effective way in which a government can obtain money to do things it needs to do.
The main problem with Bahamian bonds being downgraded A3 status- which is the start of the second tier on the Moody's ratings chart- is that investors may see Bahamian Bonds as unstable, with the possibility of the government defaulting on paying back Bond Investors that have already invested.
In 2009 Standard & Poor's - the somewhat disgraced ratings agency that has recently downgraded The United States Sovereign Bonds as well in an act that many call political in nature- also downgraded The Bahamas Sovereign Bond ratings to BBB+, the equivalent to the recent Moody's rating.
The Moody's statement on why they downgraded The Bahamas was based on three factors: "1. The significant run up in government debt levels in recent years; 2. The country's limited growth prospects; 3. The challenges the government is likely to face in raising revenues."
The way Sovereign Bonds work is that investors purchase these bonds, just like a regular investment that’s expected to make a return. What's important with this is that the yield, or in other words the interest paid on these bonds, is how investors make money on the returns from that investment.
The dynamic is that as a country's credit worthiness is put into question in a negative way- as it has been with the recent ratings downgrades- investors will look for higher yields in shorter time frames. For example, they may seek bonds that carry 5 percent yield on a 5 year to maturity dated bond over a 5 percent yield on a 10 year maturity dated bond, and even better if they can get a 7 percent yield on a 5 year maturity date and so on and so forth. As reported by The Central Bank, The Bahamas Government has issued over 2.5 billion dollars worth of Government Bonds with 35 of those issues to reach maturity by 2016, nearly 50 to reach maturity by 2021 and over 80 to reach maturity from 2021 and beyond as far as the year 2037.
The concern over the risk of default in this case is well founded in terms of the ratings downgrade. It’s highly unlikely that an investor would want to be locked into a debt security with an entity that has decreasing means on which to pay that debt.
To some it means nothing. But to others it sends off signals that point to other issues surrounding the Bahamian economy in addition to it all factors highlighting our extensive debt accumulation over the course of the last several years. For example, considering that The Bahamas depends on foreign direct investment, what message do these downgrades send to investors if they want to invest in other portions of the Bahamian economy? How would their investor appetite be affected if there is considerable weakness in the economy?
Other things come to mind as well in terms of addressing this problem in the short and long term. One issue for the short term is confronting the issue of boosting consumer spending. This means not only tackling the astronomical unemployment rate- and the under-employed with the discouraged workers as well- but also boosting real wages in and for the long term.
Another issue is tackling and controlling headline and core inflation for the short and long term respectively. One economist pointed out in January of this year that inflation should not be a main concern, but it rather highlights the signs of recovery in the economy as prices were appreciating. I'm thinking that the exuberance of that statement should be tamped down just a bit.
As we see now- even with lowering oil prices- if boosting consumer spending is to be addressed as a first major step, reducing prices is critical to spurring an appreciation in real wages and increasing employment, most particularly when inflation in The Bahamas is imported and unemployment has little or no effect on inflation domestically. Concentrating on these things are vitally needed in order to generate government revenue in order for the government to have the fiscal headroom to stave off risk of default and meet its other social and regulatory obligations at the same time.
But if investors, both foreign and domestic, would be put off from pumping new money into the Bahamian economy because of these factors aforementioned, then how do we create meaningful jobs, boost consumer spending, while also taking into consideration a softening in the tourism sector? In addition to an increasing dislocation of that tourism product from the main economy (with an increasing bulk of our arrivals choosing the half-day cruise ship stop over, rather than taking that three day trip), how do we assure real investor confidence when tourism is our main industry and is not performing the way it should?
On the other hand the financial services sector has lost jobs and also lost out on business opportunities to other jurisdictions, even though it is virtually un-taxed in comparison.
Another concern is that at the same time with there being no new forms of economic production being presented other than the threat of oil exploration, agriculture is not being given a chance to have a fair start for production for domestic consumption or for export. With that, mostly all other forms of industrial activity and extraction of the natural resources in The Bahamas are being underutilized or under-explored.
Even more concerning- and we have seen this play out in The United States and the debt ceiling debate- is that as politics is becoming more competitive and everyone wants to be credited for the best ideas and the most successful administration, attaining bi-partisan decisions is becoming less and less attainable, which is something that is factored into the determinations on bond ratings most definitely.
Concerns on the long and short term prospects for The Bahamas, even as it is discussed by Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s, should be held by all Bahamians as we begin to see our economic outlook dwindle, and also especially concerning as we see the global economic recovery stall.
One thing is for certain, doing the same things we have been doing and not being more creative and flexible on what can be done in The Bahamas is probably going to create new problems.
I remember back in mid-May, 2007 The Bahamas put up a Sovereign Bond package for investors and immediately gobbled up. I'm not sure if the same type of exuberance for Bahamian Bonds will hold true today.
For general information, issuing Sovereign Bonds is a way in which a country can raise money from investors to fund public operations. Aside from direct public borrowing- which can also be buttressed by the application of bonds into the loan structure- it is a very effective way in which a government can obtain money to do things it needs to do.
The main problem with Bahamian bonds being downgraded A3 status- which is the start of the second tier on the Moody's ratings chart- is that investors may see Bahamian Bonds as unstable, with the possibility of the government defaulting on paying back Bond Investors that have already invested.
In 2009 Standard & Poor's - the somewhat disgraced ratings agency that has recently downgraded The United States Sovereign Bonds as well in an act that many call political in nature- also downgraded The Bahamas Sovereign Bond ratings to BBB+, the equivalent to the recent Moody's rating.
The Moody's statement on why they downgraded The Bahamas was based on three factors: "1. The significant run up in government debt levels in recent years; 2. The country's limited growth prospects; 3. The challenges the government is likely to face in raising revenues."
The way Sovereign Bonds work is that investors purchase these bonds, just like a regular investment that’s expected to make a return. What's important with this is that the yield, or in other words the interest paid on these bonds, is how investors make money on the returns from that investment.
The dynamic is that as a country's credit worthiness is put into question in a negative way- as it has been with the recent ratings downgrades- investors will look for higher yields in shorter time frames. For example, they may seek bonds that carry 5 percent yield on a 5 year to maturity dated bond over a 5 percent yield on a 10 year maturity dated bond, and even better if they can get a 7 percent yield on a 5 year maturity date and so on and so forth. As reported by The Central Bank, The Bahamas Government has issued over 2.5 billion dollars worth of Government Bonds with 35 of those issues to reach maturity by 2016, nearly 50 to reach maturity by 2021 and over 80 to reach maturity from 2021 and beyond as far as the year 2037.
The concern over the risk of default in this case is well founded in terms of the ratings downgrade. It’s highly unlikely that an investor would want to be locked into a debt security with an entity that has decreasing means on which to pay that debt.
To some it means nothing. But to others it sends off signals that point to other issues surrounding the Bahamian economy in addition to it all factors highlighting our extensive debt accumulation over the course of the last several years. For example, considering that The Bahamas depends on foreign direct investment, what message do these downgrades send to investors if they want to invest in other portions of the Bahamian economy? How would their investor appetite be affected if there is considerable weakness in the economy?
Other things come to mind as well in terms of addressing this problem in the short and long term. One issue for the short term is confronting the issue of boosting consumer spending. This means not only tackling the astronomical unemployment rate- and the under-employed with the discouraged workers as well- but also boosting real wages in and for the long term.
Another issue is tackling and controlling headline and core inflation for the short and long term respectively. One economist pointed out in January of this year that inflation should not be a main concern, but it rather highlights the signs of recovery in the economy as prices were appreciating. I'm thinking that the exuberance of that statement should be tamped down just a bit.
As we see now- even with lowering oil prices- if boosting consumer spending is to be addressed as a first major step, reducing prices is critical to spurring an appreciation in real wages and increasing employment, most particularly when inflation in The Bahamas is imported and unemployment has little or no effect on inflation domestically. Concentrating on these things are vitally needed in order to generate government revenue in order for the government to have the fiscal headroom to stave off risk of default and meet its other social and regulatory obligations at the same time.
But if investors, both foreign and domestic, would be put off from pumping new money into the Bahamian economy because of these factors aforementioned, then how do we create meaningful jobs, boost consumer spending, while also taking into consideration a softening in the tourism sector? In addition to an increasing dislocation of that tourism product from the main economy (with an increasing bulk of our arrivals choosing the half-day cruise ship stop over, rather than taking that three day trip), how do we assure real investor confidence when tourism is our main industry and is not performing the way it should?
On the other hand the financial services sector has lost jobs and also lost out on business opportunities to other jurisdictions, even though it is virtually un-taxed in comparison.
Another concern is that at the same time with there being no new forms of economic production being presented other than the threat of oil exploration, agriculture is not being given a chance to have a fair start for production for domestic consumption or for export. With that, mostly all other forms of industrial activity and extraction of the natural resources in The Bahamas are being underutilized or under-explored.
Even more concerning- and we have seen this play out in The United States and the debt ceiling debate- is that as politics is becoming more competitive and everyone wants to be credited for the best ideas and the most successful administration, attaining bi-partisan decisions is becoming less and less attainable, which is something that is factored into the determinations on bond ratings most definitely.
Concerns on the long and short term prospects for The Bahamas, even as it is discussed by Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s, should be held by all Bahamians as we begin to see our economic outlook dwindle, and also especially concerning as we see the global economic recovery stall.
One thing is for certain, doing the same things we have been doing and not being more creative and flexible on what can be done in The Bahamas is probably going to create new problems.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
The BCA's growth in a changing environment!
The Bahamian Contractors Association (BCA) has come a long way in its development as an organization in The Bahamas. Within one short year, great work has been done with regard to growing the organization's revenue; winning a pioneering Grant Project aimed at strengthening The BCA's Training Programmes; developing its lobbying mechanisms to be more effective; and growing the BCA's revenue and membership all in one swoop. It is progress well noted and something that other non-profit organization's and for profit organizations can take sharp example from.
When I first met the then President of the BCA Stephen Wrinkle and his Executive Director, at the time during a stint I had as a Consultant with The Inter-American Development Bank for their Multi-lateral Investment Fund, both men were at their wits end with regard to the amount of opportunities for advancement for Bahamian Contractors. The BCA, having been an organization since 1952 and since Mr. Wrinkle's leadership within the past two and a half years since we had first met, not much had changed over those last 50 plus years with regard to the overall participation from Contractors; the level of administrative and economic impact the BCA had as an organization; the tools, systems and programmes that the BCA used as an organization; and the support from the broader public with addressing issues such as corrupt contractors; and assistance with regard to legislation and regulations that would work to boost the industry as a whole.
What’s even worse as an organization like the BCA, it was branded as being an elitist organization catering only to the big contractors, leaving the small and medium sized contractors out of the process. While sentiments to this effect may be little misplaced, much has been done to instil confidence in other quarters of the construction industry that felt that they have been left out.
When writing a project that would correct these deficiencies within the BCA and work with regard to making the necessary adjustments in the private sector, we focused on three key areas; the commercial relevance and viability of the BCA by increasing membership and participation, which meant that smaller contractors and medium sized contractors would have to be more involved in the process; creating a training programme for the trainer of trainer’s and Contractor’s alike so that smaller contractors did in fact have a chance to participate in large projects, once the proper training and skills assessment and market requirements were assessed; and increasing the lobbying power of the BCA by formalizing the international partnerships of the BCA and strengthening national partnerships in a concentrated manner.
After those first meetings with the BCA, the IADB and myself, and after having left a template for a project for strengthening the BCA on the table ready to be approved, I had disengaged from the IADB and then after such the BCA and I started a working partnership in a number of areas. The first of which was that one of the major stumbling blocks in the way of the BCA was the issue of developing a credible business-relay to the public and vested stakeholders that it was in fact ready to make the move into becoming a more effective association for all members.
The second major stumbling block was that the BCA’s revenue points were weak, and the prospects of raising revenue relative to what was doable on the ground was also weak as to what was envisioned by their governing board.
The third major issue was that the BCA had not the technical expertise on the ground to pave the way for them obtaining the Grant from the IADB, or for that matter obtaining and securing funding from the Baha Mar Development Team for more funding for training for contractors to be able to get better contracts from the works being done at Baha Mar and elsewhere.
What happened since mid-2010 to mid-2011 was nothing short of phenomenal. Not only did membership increase by over 450%, we also increased revenue by nearly 1200%, without taking into account the Grant Funding from the IADB, by applying basic marketing and follow through fundamentals, even in the face of a newly started, competing organization in the New Providence Contractors Association (NPCA) that has gained much traction within the industry and have also garnered public sympathy for their plight.
As simple as it sounds, contractors knew of the BCA, some even took part in BCA events in the past, but many of them were unaware that the BCA was an organization that they could have joined and let alone make more effective. Through my tracking, more than 3 of the 5 contractors contacted over the course of the 12 months I was surprised that none of them knew that they could become legitimate members of the BCA and 4 of the 5 contractors didn’t know exactly what the BCA did, even though they had heard of it or in fact participated in BCA events in the past. This indicated to me that even though they had heard about the BCA before in the past, they were unaware or have never been contacted fully on the benefits of joining the BCA.
What’s even more exciting about the recent developments with the BCA is that the IADB project will increase membership exponentially through one of its components, as well as put in place the framework for The BCA Institute- a full scaled, market sensitive training programme for anyone who is interested, not just contractors or persons in the construction industry.
Another critical achievement that has given value for members of the BCA is the creation of an interactive website, which allows BCA members to post their own work to their profile spaces, allow for consumers to rate the contractor of their choice and send reviews, as well as allows the regular news and updates on the construction industry in The Bahamas. Some contractors have already notified the BCA that they have been contacted for job offers through the website and have in fact won contracts.
Apart from the lobbying in the media, the BCA was able to capitalize on major developments in The Bahamas and it is part result to the credibility the office gave to support the lobbying efforts and being able to demonstrate that the BCA was not all about talk, but it was about doing.
While I personally had no hand in the training initiative or the planning of training initiatives with the Baha Mar Development Team as I moved on to other projects that required my direct attention and having completed 80% of my plan, the initiatives on the ground at the BCA, tripled by the inputs from the IADB Grant, are more than exportable and can be used as a template for partnering organizations to invest in.
The turn-around was a fantastic experience and one that should be an example for other organizations looking to grow, take advantage of their opportunities and develop as an entity that serves the public good!
When I first met the then President of the BCA Stephen Wrinkle and his Executive Director, at the time during a stint I had as a Consultant with The Inter-American Development Bank for their Multi-lateral Investment Fund, both men were at their wits end with regard to the amount of opportunities for advancement for Bahamian Contractors. The BCA, having been an organization since 1952 and since Mr. Wrinkle's leadership within the past two and a half years since we had first met, not much had changed over those last 50 plus years with regard to the overall participation from Contractors; the level of administrative and economic impact the BCA had as an organization; the tools, systems and programmes that the BCA used as an organization; and the support from the broader public with addressing issues such as corrupt contractors; and assistance with regard to legislation and regulations that would work to boost the industry as a whole.
What’s even worse as an organization like the BCA, it was branded as being an elitist organization catering only to the big contractors, leaving the small and medium sized contractors out of the process. While sentiments to this effect may be little misplaced, much has been done to instil confidence in other quarters of the construction industry that felt that they have been left out.
When writing a project that would correct these deficiencies within the BCA and work with regard to making the necessary adjustments in the private sector, we focused on three key areas; the commercial relevance and viability of the BCA by increasing membership and participation, which meant that smaller contractors and medium sized contractors would have to be more involved in the process; creating a training programme for the trainer of trainer’s and Contractor’s alike so that smaller contractors did in fact have a chance to participate in large projects, once the proper training and skills assessment and market requirements were assessed; and increasing the lobbying power of the BCA by formalizing the international partnerships of the BCA and strengthening national partnerships in a concentrated manner.
After those first meetings with the BCA, the IADB and myself, and after having left a template for a project for strengthening the BCA on the table ready to be approved, I had disengaged from the IADB and then after such the BCA and I started a working partnership in a number of areas. The first of which was that one of the major stumbling blocks in the way of the BCA was the issue of developing a credible business-relay to the public and vested stakeholders that it was in fact ready to make the move into becoming a more effective association for all members.
The second major stumbling block was that the BCA’s revenue points were weak, and the prospects of raising revenue relative to what was doable on the ground was also weak as to what was envisioned by their governing board.
The third major issue was that the BCA had not the technical expertise on the ground to pave the way for them obtaining the Grant from the IADB, or for that matter obtaining and securing funding from the Baha Mar Development Team for more funding for training for contractors to be able to get better contracts from the works being done at Baha Mar and elsewhere.
What happened since mid-2010 to mid-2011 was nothing short of phenomenal. Not only did membership increase by over 450%, we also increased revenue by nearly 1200%, without taking into account the Grant Funding from the IADB, by applying basic marketing and follow through fundamentals, even in the face of a newly started, competing organization in the New Providence Contractors Association (NPCA) that has gained much traction within the industry and have also garnered public sympathy for their plight.
As simple as it sounds, contractors knew of the BCA, some even took part in BCA events in the past, but many of them were unaware that the BCA was an organization that they could have joined and let alone make more effective. Through my tracking, more than 3 of the 5 contractors contacted over the course of the 12 months I was surprised that none of them knew that they could become legitimate members of the BCA and 4 of the 5 contractors didn’t know exactly what the BCA did, even though they had heard of it or in fact participated in BCA events in the past. This indicated to me that even though they had heard about the BCA before in the past, they were unaware or have never been contacted fully on the benefits of joining the BCA.
What’s even more exciting about the recent developments with the BCA is that the IADB project will increase membership exponentially through one of its components, as well as put in place the framework for The BCA Institute- a full scaled, market sensitive training programme for anyone who is interested, not just contractors or persons in the construction industry.
Another critical achievement that has given value for members of the BCA is the creation of an interactive website, which allows BCA members to post their own work to their profile spaces, allow for consumers to rate the contractor of their choice and send reviews, as well as allows the regular news and updates on the construction industry in The Bahamas. Some contractors have already notified the BCA that they have been contacted for job offers through the website and have in fact won contracts.
Apart from the lobbying in the media, the BCA was able to capitalize on major developments in The Bahamas and it is part result to the credibility the office gave to support the lobbying efforts and being able to demonstrate that the BCA was not all about talk, but it was about doing.
While I personally had no hand in the training initiative or the planning of training initiatives with the Baha Mar Development Team as I moved on to other projects that required my direct attention and having completed 80% of my plan, the initiatives on the ground at the BCA, tripled by the inputs from the IADB Grant, are more than exportable and can be used as a template for partnering organizations to invest in.
The turn-around was a fantastic experience and one that should be an example for other organizations looking to grow, take advantage of their opportunities and develop as an entity that serves the public good!
Can the BP oil disaster prove fruitful for The Bahamas?
The oil exploration debate in The Bahamas is starting to take shape in a very open way. The Minister for The Environment, who is responsible for the country's natural resources, has stated clearly that more analysis is needed before oil exploration is to be taken seriously in The Bahamas.
During the last administration of The Progressive Liberal Party, 2002 to 2007, the Natural Gas/LNG (not exactly crude oil, but a natural resource for energy) was an issue of great contention, the main point being protecting the environment. The second issue has been a national security concern, garnering cooperation from abroad and finding a way to secure the investments from natural or manmade occurrences, which could be disastrous to the environment in addition to it destabilizing a country.
The Bahamas Petroleum Company PLC's company profile page states that it has a license to explore for oil in The Bahamas and wishes to start as early as 2012. Their profile also states that the company has, between the years 1947 and 1986, drilled for oil in onshore and shallow water areas in The Bahamas and that their license has provided them the ability to do so, even though they have not drilled for oil in the last 20 years.
British Petroleum (BP) on the other hand has been in the business of oil exploration for a number of years. A good part of BP's business model has been oil exploration and refining with oil retail second. Comparing them with the other oil company, also known as the "Big 6", they have a smaller market share than all but four out of that group.
This makes the case for BP’s “Deepwater Oil Spill” in 2010 interesting, when looking into BP’s operations model and financial performance compared to that of other oil companies.
BP's average Return on Assets (ROA) when compared to Chevron and Exxon Mobil is nestled at the midpoint between the other companies during the years 2008 to 2010.
There's nothing startling about BP's Return on Equity (ROE) ratios for the same period either, as the numbers appear too vague if we wish to make a case that BP was paying out more money to equity than it was putting back into assets over the same period of time compared to the other companies on a pound for pound basis, with it being un-assessed by duration and intangible variables that can skew ratios through virtue of the net income and expenses payable at any point and time that may affect assets.
What's interesting with this however, is when we subtract ROA over ROE for the same period it tells a different story. BP's ROA over ROE gives us a better insight into how BP was spending its money on assets compared to equity.
While BP's ROA over ROE was less than Exxon and slightly more than Chevron, BP is larger than Chevron in market capitalization and global reach. In addition with Exxon having a negative ROA over ROE and was pumping more money into equity over assets between 2008 to 2010, both Exxon and BP had negative ROA over ROE figures.
All of this matters because ROA shows you how much money a company puts back into its company’s operations at the very first glance. When you subtract ROA from ROE, you have more of an idea of not how much a company puts back into assets, but more importantly how much money a company puts back into assets pound for pound compared to other companies in the same industry, as it eliminates the size and capitalization issue as we have with the oil behemoth Exxon. ROA also matters if a company’s business model is more capital intensive than other companies in the same industry per dollar value compared to other business operations, for example oil retail vs. oil exploration; oil transportation vs. oil refining, and so on and so forth.
It must be noted that while all oil companies mentioned had recent oil spills from mid 2010 up to 2011, BP’s oil spill was much larger by tonnage, which can be attributed to their business model as well as their size, scope and capitalization, relative to the spill’s geographical location- which may have been dictated by all of the factors of their industry and what they were allowed to endeavour in the oil market.
The numbers suggest, among other things, that the larger size tonnage spill is correlated to the company’s size and capitalization and then the ratio of ROA over ROE for each company respectively. While Exxon had more individual oil spills than all of the other companies mentioned, but because of their size, scope and extreme market capitalization, they were able to contain these spills in addition to having the capacity to minimize the fall out more so than BP.
Let’s take for another example the Talmadge Oil Spill that Enbridge Energy was responsible for in 2010, which produced a tonnage spill of nearly 3,500 tonnes, we have to not only look into company financials to see if a disaster could be averted by alerting the public to the company’s performance, but also to the issue of timely mandatory reporting of financials, to assist analysts and persons who have vested interest in these matters with regard to dealing with issues before they become disasters. In fact, aside from BP, the ratio of tonnage spill to revenue for Enbridge is significant and speaks to their business model, size scope and market capitalization in addition to their ROA and ROE performance indicators.
As with Enbridge, their reporting structure is not as strict as BP or the American-International oil companies. But from what we have examined, Enbridge has a negative ROA over ROE over the period of the last several years up until their last open financial report of record, produced in 2005 as reported by Hoovers. Digging a little deeper into the Enbridge financial information on their company website, they have up very basic reports for 2009 and 2010, which states that they have spent more money on company assets and operational equipment over those last two years, but when we calculate the ratios, they have the lowest ROA and also display negative ROA’s over ROE’s over the course of all the years recorded.
Enbridge, by far, is considerably smaller company by capitalization than any of the other Big 6 Oil companies mentioned. They are not intensively involved in the retail side of the oil and natural gas business- as is BP to some extent compared to Exxon and Chevron- with Enbridge being more focused on the exploration and wholesale distribution of crude oil, oil bi-products and natural gas.
This leads me to believe that as The Bahamas moves forward with oil and natural gas exploration, four key things must be essential to protecting the environment and preventing a major disaster:
1. The security of investments from man-made or natural disasters;
2. The business model, size, scope and market capitalization of any oil company in The Bahamas must be adequately categorized in relation to its financial performance and its projections on the possible returns on assets and equity;
3. Accurate and timely reporting of any oil company’s financial and investment information; and
4. Necessary legislation and regulations that curb the overcompensation of equity.
What happened to the Gulf Coast by virtue of this disaster and also what happened to BP's reputation by the Deepwater Oil Spill of 2010 is something that can be avoided in The Bahamas if we look carefully into the factors outlined in this article and then some.
During the last administration of The Progressive Liberal Party, 2002 to 2007, the Natural Gas/LNG (not exactly crude oil, but a natural resource for energy) was an issue of great contention, the main point being protecting the environment. The second issue has been a national security concern, garnering cooperation from abroad and finding a way to secure the investments from natural or manmade occurrences, which could be disastrous to the environment in addition to it destabilizing a country.
The Bahamas Petroleum Company PLC's company profile page states that it has a license to explore for oil in The Bahamas and wishes to start as early as 2012. Their profile also states that the company has, between the years 1947 and 1986, drilled for oil in onshore and shallow water areas in The Bahamas and that their license has provided them the ability to do so, even though they have not drilled for oil in the last 20 years.
British Petroleum (BP) on the other hand has been in the business of oil exploration for a number of years. A good part of BP's business model has been oil exploration and refining with oil retail second. Comparing them with the other oil company, also known as the "Big 6", they have a smaller market share than all but four out of that group.
This makes the case for BP’s “Deepwater Oil Spill” in 2010 interesting, when looking into BP’s operations model and financial performance compared to that of other oil companies.
BP's average Return on Assets (ROA) when compared to Chevron and Exxon Mobil is nestled at the midpoint between the other companies during the years 2008 to 2010.
There's nothing startling about BP's Return on Equity (ROE) ratios for the same period either, as the numbers appear too vague if we wish to make a case that BP was paying out more money to equity than it was putting back into assets over the same period of time compared to the other companies on a pound for pound basis, with it being un-assessed by duration and intangible variables that can skew ratios through virtue of the net income and expenses payable at any point and time that may affect assets.
What's interesting with this however, is when we subtract ROA over ROE for the same period it tells a different story. BP's ROA over ROE gives us a better insight into how BP was spending its money on assets compared to equity.
While BP's ROA over ROE was less than Exxon and slightly more than Chevron, BP is larger than Chevron in market capitalization and global reach. In addition with Exxon having a negative ROA over ROE and was pumping more money into equity over assets between 2008 to 2010, both Exxon and BP had negative ROA over ROE figures.
All of this matters because ROA shows you how much money a company puts back into its company’s operations at the very first glance. When you subtract ROA from ROE, you have more of an idea of not how much a company puts back into assets, but more importantly how much money a company puts back into assets pound for pound compared to other companies in the same industry, as it eliminates the size and capitalization issue as we have with the oil behemoth Exxon. ROA also matters if a company’s business model is more capital intensive than other companies in the same industry per dollar value compared to other business operations, for example oil retail vs. oil exploration; oil transportation vs. oil refining, and so on and so forth.
It must be noted that while all oil companies mentioned had recent oil spills from mid 2010 up to 2011, BP’s oil spill was much larger by tonnage, which can be attributed to their business model as well as their size, scope and capitalization, relative to the spill’s geographical location- which may have been dictated by all of the factors of their industry and what they were allowed to endeavour in the oil market.
The numbers suggest, among other things, that the larger size tonnage spill is correlated to the company’s size and capitalization and then the ratio of ROA over ROE for each company respectively. While Exxon had more individual oil spills than all of the other companies mentioned, but because of their size, scope and extreme market capitalization, they were able to contain these spills in addition to having the capacity to minimize the fall out more so than BP.
Let’s take for another example the Talmadge Oil Spill that Enbridge Energy was responsible for in 2010, which produced a tonnage spill of nearly 3,500 tonnes, we have to not only look into company financials to see if a disaster could be averted by alerting the public to the company’s performance, but also to the issue of timely mandatory reporting of financials, to assist analysts and persons who have vested interest in these matters with regard to dealing with issues before they become disasters. In fact, aside from BP, the ratio of tonnage spill to revenue for Enbridge is significant and speaks to their business model, size scope and market capitalization in addition to their ROA and ROE performance indicators.
As with Enbridge, their reporting structure is not as strict as BP or the American-International oil companies. But from what we have examined, Enbridge has a negative ROA over ROE over the period of the last several years up until their last open financial report of record, produced in 2005 as reported by Hoovers. Digging a little deeper into the Enbridge financial information on their company website, they have up very basic reports for 2009 and 2010, which states that they have spent more money on company assets and operational equipment over those last two years, but when we calculate the ratios, they have the lowest ROA and also display negative ROA’s over ROE’s over the course of all the years recorded.
Enbridge, by far, is considerably smaller company by capitalization than any of the other Big 6 Oil companies mentioned. They are not intensively involved in the retail side of the oil and natural gas business- as is BP to some extent compared to Exxon and Chevron- with Enbridge being more focused on the exploration and wholesale distribution of crude oil, oil bi-products and natural gas.
This leads me to believe that as The Bahamas moves forward with oil and natural gas exploration, four key things must be essential to protecting the environment and preventing a major disaster:
1. The security of investments from man-made or natural disasters;
2. The business model, size, scope and market capitalization of any oil company in The Bahamas must be adequately categorized in relation to its financial performance and its projections on the possible returns on assets and equity;
3. Accurate and timely reporting of any oil company’s financial and investment information; and
4. Necessary legislation and regulations that curb the overcompensation of equity.
What happened to the Gulf Coast by virtue of this disaster and also what happened to BP's reputation by the Deepwater Oil Spill of 2010 is something that can be avoided in The Bahamas if we look carefully into the factors outlined in this article and then some.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
